Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

NuMarvel · 28-03-2018 03:27PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How is this even a thread. Like really.

How can someone call themselves Christian and support abortion??. How?.

Its like a Vegetarian eating meat. You arent a Vegetarian.
Ditto Christian and abortion.

It is that simple.

You can be a Christian who is opposed to abortion and still vote Yes in this referendum though. Because this is first and foremost about deciding whether the constitution is the right place to deal with abortion. That's been the thinking of the Church of Ireland ever since the 8th was first proposed. They are opposed to abortion, except in such instances where the woman's life is at risk, but they still believe the 8th should go.

Their statement in February 2018 said: "We favour a modification of the Article 40.3.3 in such a way that allows for the Oireachtas to have legislative responsibility to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant woman within clearly defined boundaries and parameters."

This is pretty much what's being proposed in the referendum bill, and they made this statement in full knowledge that the government was proposing an on-request model of up to 12 weeks in the event of a Yes win.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 04:05PM

Delirium wrote: »

So it's a question of what the foetus will hopefully become, i.e. a person?

essentially it's about protecting their right to develop and to life.

Delirium wrote: »

Yet you're not overly concerned about the effect of forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.

in terms of non-medical issues no . i believe the unborn's right to life is more important then someone's want not to be pregnant.

Delirium wrote: »

Based on the results, it's more a punitive law on those that are too poor/disabled to travel or legally can't travel. You've even suggested as much in that you're okay with them having abortions if they can travel.

i have never stated i'm okay with anyone having abortions outside medical necessity. what i have stated, is that as much as i wouldn't agree with anyone having an abortion outside medical necessity, i couldn't support measures to stop them from traveling to procure it because it's highly likely those measures would effect all pregnant women, and i don't believe all pregnant women should suffer for those traveling for an abortion. i have no issue with the law being a tad punitive in terms of non-medical abortions.

Delirium wrote: »

In what way?

people wanting to repeal the 8th on it's own merrits, people wanting abortion on demand across a number of different time frames among probably a number of other possibilities.

Delirium wrote: »

please explain how a 1 day foetus passes the test that is used to determine a person is dead when turning off the life support.

it doesn't because as i said, both are very different issues.

Delirium wrote: »

what about short-term injury or disability?

i don't believe it would be enough for me to support abortion.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 04:09PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it's not okay for pregnant women to smoke while pregnant. i have already stated this.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no, it's not okay, but it's a question of practicality in terms of stopping it. nothing inconsistent about what i have stated.

....... · 28-03-2018 04:11PM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 04:16PM

end of the road wrote: »

essentially it's about protecting their right to develop and to life.

in terms of non-medical issues no . i believe the unborn's right to life is more important then someone's want not to be pregnant.

And the womans health and well being it would seem (see below).

i have never stated i'm okay with anyone having abortions outside medical necessity. what i have stated, is that as much as i wouldn't agree with anyone having an abortion outside medical necessity, i couldn't support measures to stop them from traveling to procure it because it's highly likely those measures would effect all pregnant women, and i don't believe all pregnant women should suffer for those traveling for an abortion. i have no issue with the law being a tad punitive in terms of non-medical abortions.

You accept women travel for abortion but won't do anything to stop them. The status quo means that you support a situation where women who have illegal abortions here either serve 14 years in prison or forgo any medical help if complications arise from the abortion.

it doesn't because as i said, both are very different issues.

How? In both scenarios, a person doesn't exist. Why is one acceptable but the other not?

i don't believe it would be enough for me to support abortion.

So you don't think temporary/ short-term (which could be months or years) injury or disability isn't a medical reason for an abortion? E.g. a woman unable to walk for six months?

Seems extraordinarily cruel from here.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 04:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not okay for pregnant women to smoke while pregnant. i have already stated this.

no, it's not okay, but it's a question of practicality in terms of stopping it. nothing inconsistent about what i have stated.

If the unborn dies as a result of the smoking, should she serve 14 years in prison?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 04:30PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i'm not bating you. i'm also not reporting your posts nor have i reported any of your posts.

Delirium wrote: »

If the unborn dies as a result of the smoking, should she serve 14 years in prison?

if it can be proven the smoke caused the baby's death, then to be honest, yes . she knew the risks it would bring upon her baby.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 04:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

if it can be proven the smoke caused the baby's death, then to be honest, yes . she knew the risks it would bring upon her baby.

Thanks for the clarification.

To follow on from that, should all miscarriages be investigated to determine that it wasn't an abortion (or smoking related etc.)?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 04:34PM

Delirium wrote: »

How? In both scenarios, a person doesn't exist. Why is one acceptable but the other not?

because in the case of abortion, the fetus is developing and will be a person. in the case where a life support is being switched off, the person is dead.

Delirium wrote: »

So you don't think temporary/ short-term (which could be months or years) injury or disability isn't a medical reason for an abortion? E.g. a woman unable to walk for six months?

no . as unfortunate as it would be for her i cannot agree to the life of the unborn being taken in such circumstances.

Delirium wrote: »

Seems extraordinarily cruel from here.

i don't necessarily disagree, but taking the life of the unborn is a whole lot crueler in my view.

Delirium wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

To follow on from that, should all miscarriages be investigated to determine that it wasn't an abortion (or smoking related etc.)?

no .

knipex · 28-03-2018 04:35PM

J C wrote: »

That is just a convenient legal fiction to allow abortion.
It is a scientifically verifiable fact that at the moment of fertilisation, a new Human life is formed.

As its a scientific fact I assume you have scientific evidence to support it ??

knipex · 28-03-2018 04:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

essentially it's about protecting their right to develop and to life.

So contraception is bad ???

end of the road · 28-03-2018 04:40PM

knipex wrote: »

So contraception is bad ???

of course it isn't.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 04:44PM

So a fetus WILL be a person, so would it not make sense that the ACTUAL person take precedence over them, no?

Delirium · 28-03-2018 04:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

because in the case of abortion, the fetus is developing and will be a person. in the case where a life support is being switched off, the person is dead.

Okay, so why do the right to life of a potential person outweigh the rights of an actual person?

no . as unfortunate as it would be for her i cannot agree to the life of the unborn being taken in such circumstances.

thanks for the honesty. I didn't actually expect that as an answer. It blows my mind that someone would impose the physical cost of not being able to walk for months on another person.

i don't necessarily disagree, but taking the life of the unborn is a whole lot crueler in my view.

I don't see how actions on a potential person could be crueler to actions on an actual person.

no .

Why not? you just said that a woman who causes the death of the unborn due to smoking during pregnancy should serve the same as a person who had an abortion.

Why would you not support a system that investigates all miscarriages for evidence of abortion (or smoking etc.)?

knipex · 28-03-2018 04:51PM

end of the road wrote: »

of course it isn't.

So until the point of fertilization its all OK but from that point on ??

I am not trying to stir here. I personally do not think its a clear cut as many posters here seem to so I am genuinely interested in your view..

Stonedpilot · 28-03-2018 06:15PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Christianity encompasses a broad range of philosophies and theologies. The purpose of this thread is to accommodate this range and let people, both Christian and non Christian alike, discuss and explore the ethics of abortion within that context. Christians, don't necessarily have to subscribe to your interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be Christian.

Who said anything about my interpretation?. Completely Changing subject matter.

Bible is very clear on life being sacred. Outside the obvious thou shall not kill here's two good phrases.

Deuteronomy 27:25 ‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.

Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

You simply cannot state you are Christian and be pro abortion. It has nothing to do with my interpretation. It's in the Bible!.

david75 · 28-03-2018 06:24PM

Popcorn time

end of the road · 28-03-2018 06:54PM

Delirium wrote: »

Okay, so why do the right to life of a potential person outweigh the rights of an actual person?

as things currently stand they mostly don't. yes there are some situations where they do, in terms of medically necessary abortions, and the 8th is restrictive in that regard. but the proposals the government have put forward are not the way to address those in my view. they go way to far.

Delirium wrote: »

thanks for the honesty. I didn't actually expect that as an answer. It blows my mind that someone would impose the physical cost of not being able to walk for months on another person.

it may blow your mind but the way i see it is that the unborn being kiled is permanent.

Delirium wrote: »

I don't see how actions on a potential person could be crueler to actions on an actual person.

to me in such a situation ending the life of the unborn will always be a worse option then something that would be temporary.

Delirium wrote: »

Why not? you just said that a woman who causes the death of the unborn due to smoking during pregnancy should serve the same as a person who had an abortion.

Why would you not support a system that investigates all miscarriages for evidence of abortion (or smoking etc.)?

how would it be implemented. it ultimately doesn't sound practical to do it from what i can see.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 06:58PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So a fetus WILL be a person, so would it not make sense that the ACTUAL person take precedence over them, no?

where medically necessary, of course. where not, then no, they are both equal in my book.

knipex wrote: »

So until the point of fertilization its all OK but from that point on ??

I am not trying to stir here. I personally do not think its a clear cut as many posters here seem to so I am genuinely interested in your view..

implantation would be the cut off for me.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-03-2018 07:12PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Who said anything about my interpretation?. Completely Changing subject matter.

Bible is very clear on life being sacred. Outside the obvious thou shall not kill here's two good phrases.

Deuteronomy 27:25 ‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.

Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

You simply cannot state you are Christian and be pro abortion. It has nothing to do with my interpretation. It's in the Bible!.

Yeah

It also states

If Raped, an Unmarried Woman Must Marry Her Rapist (Deut. 22:28-29).

Do you think women should be forced to marry thier rapist?

splinter65 · 28-03-2018 10:14PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah

It also states

If Raped, an Unmarried Woman Must Marry Her Rapist (Deut. 22:28-29).

Do you think women should be forced to marry thier rapist?

Yeah absolutely I do. Obviously we see every day of the week Catholics dragging raped women into the church to be married and we see people being stoned to death for stuff.
Obviously timber all the rules of the Catholic Church in 2018 are based on the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.
There’s no such thing as the New Testament.
Jews do it too. You see it all the time down the synagogue.
Stoning, crucifixitions it’s all there.

Stonedpilot · 28-03-2018 10:34PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah

It also states

If Raped, an Unmarried Woman Must Marry Her Rapist (Deut. 22:28-29).

Do you think women should be forced to marry thier rapist?

But as you know ans I know it doesnt state rape. Send screenshot of your Bible page with the word rape please.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 10:38PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

But as you know ans I know it doesnt state rape. Send screenshot of your Bible page with the word rape please.

https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%2022.28-29

Define "seizing" someone and "laying" with them for me.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 10:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

where medically necessary, of course. where not, then no, they are both equal in my book.

Clueless.

end of the road wrote: »

implantation would be the cut off for me.

And again, clueless. Do you even know when implantation occurs? 10 days at MOST after ovulation. So uneducated it's absolutely ridiculous, most women wouldn't even REALISE they're pregnant until long after. 12 weeks is plenty enough time, suggesting "implantation" shows how uneducated you are regarding the process of a pregnancy.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 10:57PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

12 weeks is plenty enough time

i disagree. 12 weeks unrestricted is to much for me and many others hence our no vote.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 10:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree. 12 weeks unrestricted is to much for me and many others hence our no vote.

So you would much prefer a woman to have an abortion at the implantation stage, where she might not even know she's pregnant?

Do you read what you type sometimes or does it just come out?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 11:07PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you would much prefer a woman to have an abortion at the implantation stage, where she might not even know she's pregnant?

Do you read what you type sometimes or does it just come out?

it was very obvious what i was talking about given the post i responded to. implantation being the cut off between life simply beginning and the developmental stage really ramping up. nothing to do specifically with abortion but answering the question asked.

splinter65 · 28-03-2018 11:10PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you would much prefer a woman to have an abortion at the implantation stage, where she might not even know she's pregnant?

Do you read what you type sometimes or does it just come out?

Poor you so very confused by the notion that lots of people don’t agree with abortion.
Not just Christians but lots of non Christians and non faith people.
It seems to leave you perturbed.
Is it just the abortion thing or do you struggle with any opinion that doesn’t match your own?

volchitsa · 28-03-2018 11:12PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was very obvious what i was talking about given the post i responded to. implantation being the cut off between life simply beginning and the developmental stage really ramping up. nothing to do specifically with abortion but answering the question asked.

So your objection to abortion is not because there is a "new life" but because this new life has then developed to a certain, rather arbitrary, point?

How is that fundamentally different to 12 weeks then? Once you allow the embryo to be destroyed at all, the stage at which you are no longer ok with that is just personal opinion isnt it?

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 11:15PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Poor you so very confused by the notion that lots of people don’t agree with abortion.
Not just Christians but lots of non Christians and non faith people.
It seems to leave you perturbed.
Is it just the abortion thing or do you struggle with any opinion that doesn’t match your own?

Oh I'm grand with opinions, especially when they're wrong in denying women a right to choose what they can and can't do with their own body.

Poor you, so very very desperate for an argument. Is it just the abortion thing or do you struggle with trying to contribute constructively to any debate or discussion?

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments