Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 11:18PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

it is because there is a new life, but there is a difference between life simply beginning and that life developing.

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

it's very different to 12 weeks because at 12 weeks the new life is developed to such a stage that it is recognisable as a human even though ultimately it will be human long before then.

robarmstrong wrote: »

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.

women already have a right to choose what they can and can't do with their own body. they don't have a right to choose what they can and can't do with the unborn's body in ireland however, unless extreme necessity requires otherwise.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 11:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

it is because there is a new life, but there is a difference between life simply beginning and that life developing.

it's very different to 12 weeks because at 12 weeks the new life is developed to such a stage that it is recognisable as a human even though ultimately it will be human long before then.

So you're more than happy to allow a 12 week fetus precedence over an actual fully developed human being is essentially what you're saying.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 11:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

it is because there is a new life, but there is a difference between life simply beginning and that life developing.

it's very different to 12 weeks because at 12 weeks the new life is developed to such a stage that it is recognisable as a human even though ultimately it will be human long before then.

women already have a right to choose what they can and can't do with their own body. they don't have a right to choose what they can and can't do with the unborn's body in ireland however, unless extreme necessity requires otherwise.

It's attached to the woman's body, it is an extension of her body. She gets to choose what to do with it, not you nor I.

What's your cut-off point so? When do you throw the towel in and say nope that's too far along for an abortion?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 11:26PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you're more than happy to allow a 12 week fetus precedence over an actual fully developed human being is essentially what you're saying.

in terms of the unborn's right to life being given precedence over a woman's wish not to be pregnant for non-medical reasons, yes . so what could be considered lifestyle/convenience reasons would be trumped by the unborn's right to life in my view. where it is a genuine extreme medical reason, such as FFA, the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then regretibly the pregnancy would need to be ended.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 11:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

in terms of the unborn's right to life being given precedence over a woman's wish not to be pregnant for non-medical reasons, yes . so what could be considered lifestyle/convenience reasons would be trumped by the unborn's right to life in my view. where it is a genuine extreme medical reason, such as FFA, the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then regretibly the pregnancy would need to be ended.

What a farce.

A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy she cannot contend with, full stop. The fact that you hold something that has no life viability at 12 weeks more valuable than a living breathing person is disturbing.

Also, your sig? Pretty high and mighty to say you're supporting women's rights by denying them the same rights every progressive and civilised country in the world has given already.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 11:42PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

It's attached to the woman's body, it is an extension of her body. She gets to choose what to do with it, not you nor I.

while it relies on the mother for a time, it's technically a separate being. it is not an extension of the woman's body, even though it is attached to her for a time. therefore in this country at least, unless absolutely necessary, she doesn't get to choose what to do with it, because it is a separate life and will be independant of her. it is the same stance held over all human beings in ireland.

robarmstrong wrote: »

What's your cut-off point so? When do you throw the towel in and say nope that's too far along for an abortion?

no abortions at any stage unless medically necessary is my view.

robarmstrong wrote: »

What a farce.

A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy she cannot contend with, full stop. The fact that you hold something that has no life viability at 12 weeks more valuable than a living breathing person is disturbing.

Also, your sig? Pretty high and mighty to say you're supporting women's rights by denying them the same rights every progressive and civilised country in the world has given already.

the unborn should not have their lives ended just because the woman doesn't want them. i'm not denying them any rights, abortion on demand is not a right. i would disagree that countries which allow abortion on demand are 100% progressive and civilised because they allow the killing of human beings when it isn't necessary. they may be mostly civilised and progressive but the unnecessary killing of human beings would down-rate them somewhat in my view. we have our own faults as well, but we have a chance to insure we are a step above other countries by saying no to the killing of human beings where unnecessary. that is what i and many others will try to do on referendum day, via our vote.
my sig is the truth as far as i see it. i believe that supporting women's rights means we should support their right to be born also. future women will not be born due to abortion and seeing as people are making this a woman's rights issue, then i believe it's important to hi-light this aspect.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 11:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

while it relies on the mother for a time, it's technically a separate being. it is not an extension of the woman's body, even though it is attached to her for a time. therefore in this country at least, unless absolutely necessary, she doesn't get to choose what to do with it, because it is a separate life and will be independant of her. it is the same stance held over all human beings in ireland.

no abortions at any stage unless medically necessary is my view.

the unborn should not have their lives ended just because the woman doesn't want them. i'm not denying them any rights, abortion on demand is not a right. i would disagree that countries which allow abortion on demand are 100% progressive and civilised because they allow the killing of human beings when it isn't necessary. they may be mostly civilised and progressive but the unnecessary killing of human beings would down-rate them somewhat in my view. we have our own faults as well, but we have a chance to insure we are a step above other countries by saying no to the killing of human beings where unnecessary. that is what i and many others will try to do on referendum day, via our vote.
my sig is the truth as far as i see it. i believe that supporting women's rights means we should support their right to be born also. future women will not be born due to abortion and seeing as people are making this a woman's rights issue, then i believe it's important to hi-light this aspect.

"for a time" is 22 weeks. That's more than half the length of the pregnancy. It is a part of the woman's body via extension, this is basic human biology.

There's no such thing as abortion on demand, the phrase you insist on using is ridiculously incorrect and despite you being proven wrong several times you keep insisting on using it to further how wrong you are.

Your sig isn't the truth, it's your opinion, so it doesn't make it truth.

How many times do you have to be told to understand that your opinion is not fact? Honestly, how many times? You've been booted from thread to thread over the abortion issue for constantly soapboxing and spouting the same nonsense over and over and over again. To be brutally honest I don't think you give a toss about the referendum, you just saw an opportunity to be in the minority again, which seems to be a thing for you.

What ya gonna do when the 8th is repealed? Am I gonna see you protesting non stop or will you sit and wait until something else pops up that you can dive onto as a minority?

end of the road · 29-03-2018 12:07AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

"for a time" is 22 weeks. That's more than half the length of the pregnancy. It is a part of the woman's body via extension, this is basic human biology.

i would disagree to an extent. it's attached to her yes, but would not really constitute an extension of her body, but more a being relying on her body.

robarmstrong wrote: »

There's no such thing as abortion on demand, the phrase you insist on using is ridiculously incorrect and despite you being proven wrong several times you keep insisting on using it to further how wrong you are.

abortion on demand is a correct phrase, i have not been proven wrong as to it's existence. it is widely used and as much as you may not like the phrase, it's use is perfectly legitimate.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Your sig isn't the truth, it's your opinion, so it doesn't make it truth.

to me and many others who believe that by supporting women's rights we have an obligation to support the most fundamental rights, to be born and to live, it is very much the truth.

robarmstrong · 29-03-2018 12:21AM

end of the road wrote: »

i would disagree to an extent. it's attached to her yes, but would not really constitute an extension of her body, but more a being relying on her body.

It is literally an extension of her body, her body provides it with nutrients, care and the space to grow and develop.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is a correct phrase, i have not been proven wrong as to it's existence. it is widely used and as much as you may not like the phrase, it's use is perfectly legitimate.

It's not a correct phrase, unrestricted and on request don't mean "on demand", a woman is not going to walk in plop herself down and demand an abortion to be carried out, it's the pro-life side spinning a hint of consumerism to scare people into thinking that it'll be a walk in the park decision, that sure anyone even aul Mary can toddle on and demand an abortion not a bother! Highly suggest you read this and educate yourself - http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-on-demand-2652781-Mar2016/

end of the road wrote: »

to me and many others who believe that by supporting women's rights we have an obligation to support the most fundamental rights, to be born and to live, it is very much the truth.

Nope, yet again, your opinion does not mean truth. Educate yourself, read, learn. http://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/about/aims-and-objectives/

When the UN decide that Ireland has violated a woman's rights by denying her access to abortion I'd consider them to have more of a clue about women's rights, nice try though.

Back on the ignore list for a bit until I get bored and in the mood for a nonsensical one-sided debate with you where you're wrong at every twist and turn.

Toodles.

end of the road · 29-03-2018 12:45AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

It is literally an extension of her body, her body provides it with nutrients, care and the space to grow and develop.

that would constitute reliance, more then being an extension, in my view.

robarmstrong wrote: »

It's not a correct phrase, unrestricted and on request don't mean "on demand", a woman is not going to walk in plop herself down and demand an abortion to be carried out, it's the pro-life side spinning a hint of consumerism to scare people into thinking that it'll be a walk in the park decision, that sure anyone even aul Mary can toddle on and demand an abortion not a bother! Highly suggest you read this and educate yourself - http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-on-demand-2652781-Mar2016/

it is a correct phrase, as it doesn't state a woman will go in and demand an abortion, but that she can have an abortion for any reason up until whichever time any restriction may kick in . some people would also have an issue with request as a term, because they believe it sounds as if the woman will get her abortion if she is a "good girl" . so, all 3 terms can equally be used even if some may have an issue with them, because the issue with them is opinion only. so, there is nothing to educate myself on, in that regard.

robarmstrong wrote: »

When the UN decide that Ireland has violated a woman's rights by denying her access to abortion I'd consider them to have more of a clue about women's rights, nice try though.

well, i'd beg to differ. just because the UN say something, it doesn't mean their word is gospel. also, there is the reality that technically, abortion is more a discretion decided by many individual countries rather then a "right" . many other countries however don't implement an allowence for it.

Graces7 · 29-03-2018 05:34AM

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.

Hmmm... WWJD ? Easy answer...And the thread is being used /abused for reasons th have nothing to do with any ideas re Christianity.

Graces7 · 29-03-2018 05:39AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you're more than happy to allow a 12 week fetus precedence over an actual fully developed human being is essentially what you're saying.

Absolutely right. Well put. Thank you

But nothing to do with the thread .

Vulnerabiility seeks mercy . In Christian terms it has that need and needs that response and that is affirmed time after time in the teachings of Jesus Christ..

Graces7 · 29-03-2018 05:50AM

This being a holy season...

And this being a thread purportedly about the Christian attitude to abortion?

Abortion has always been banned from the very start, before there were any splits, or differing traditions etc

See the Didache
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden
And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft,

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness, Exodus 20:16 you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

full version
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Sums up the teachings of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

Words to live by

Wishing all here a safe and blessed Easter tide..

Will be in Prayer here for all here and for all begotten babies ...

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-03-2018 06:31AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

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

What's your interpretation of

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

But seeing as you wish to play that game can you Send a screenshot of your Bible page with the word abortion on it please.

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-03-2018 06:33AM

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

Exactly! But the poster quoted Deuteronomy sonindidnthe same, or are we only using the parts that suit the pro life agenda now?

robarmstrong · 29-03-2018 07:11AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Absolutely right. Well put. Thank you

But nothing to do with the thread .

Vulnerabiility seeks mercy . In Christian terms it has that need and needs that response and that is affirmed time after time in the teachings of Jesus Christ..

Fallacy.

Vulnerable pregnant women seeking mercy too, who are you to ignore their call?

Everything to do with the thread, considering the thread title is actually false and misleading. It's okay to be Christian and vote for abortion, the same way it's okay to be Christian and homosexual.

Delirium · 29-03-2018 07:13AM

end of the road wrote: »

in terms of the unborn's right to life being given precedence over a woman's wish not to be pregnant for non-medical reasons, yes . so what could be considered lifestyle/convenience reasons would be trumped by the unborn's right to life in my view. where it is a genuine extreme medical reason, such as FFA, the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then regretibly the pregnancy would need to be ended.

You said yesterday that you wouldn't allow abortion in a case where the injury or disability wasn't permanent.

Not being able to walk for six months wasn't enough suffering to warrant the option of an abortion.

So even some medical reasons aren't good enough for you.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 29-03-2018 09:06AM

Graces7 wrote: »

This being a holy season...

And this being a thread purportedly about the Christian attitude to abortion?

Abortion has always been banned from the very start, before there were any splits, or differing traditions etc

See the Didache
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden
And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft,

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness, Exodus 20:16 you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

full version
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Sums up the teachings of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour

Words to live by

Wishing all here a safe and blessed Easter tide..

Will be in Prayer here for all here and for all begotten babies ...

I know you won't answer, because you never do. But what book and verse has the word 'abortion' in it?

Delirium · 29-03-2018 09:07AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told to understand that your opinion is not fact? Honestly, how many times? You've been booted from thread to thread over the abortion issue for constantly soapboxing and spouting the same nonsense over and over and over again. To be brutally honest I don't think you give a toss about the referendum, you just saw an opportunity to be in the minority again, which seems to be a thing for you.

MOD NOTE

Carded for soapboxing comment.

@everyone

Any further accusations of soapboxing posted on thread will be deleted as well as cards being handed out.

Thanks for your attention.

volchitsa · 29-03-2018 09:25AM

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

I know you won't answer, because you never do. But what book and verse has the word 'abortion' in it?

Didache is an anonymous text of uncertain origin which is not included in any version of the bible afaik. There are literally dozens of other "noncanonical" texts, but curiously this is the one that comes up in discussion regularly these days.

It's almost as though it's being cherrypicked by the antis because it suits the case they want to make, rather than them basing their opinions on the accepted, ie canonical, religious texts which don't mention abortion at all.

smacl · 29-03-2018 09:28AM

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.

Interesting article here on the diversity of Christian belief. You seem to be falling foul of the No true Scotsman fallacy which seems common to more extreme Christians pushing their stance as the only stance.

splinter65 · 29-03-2018 10:59AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

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?

Someone’s opinion is different to yours so that person is wrong. That’s your level of debate.
This thread was supposed to be about wether or not a person who is pro abortion can consider themselves a Christian.
Because this is the Christianity forum.
None of your posts discuss this subject and all your doing is telling other posters how stupid they are.
Only the most patient people will entertain you, that’s why your not in any other forums discussing this.
So carry on pointlessly, the thread is so far off topic it’ll be closed and you’ll have to find somewhere else.

robarmstrong · 29-03-2018 11:15AM

splinter65 wrote: »

Someone’s opinion is different to yours so that person is wrong. That’s your level of debate.
This thread was supposed to be about wether or not a person who is pro abortion can consider themselves a Christian.
Because this is the Christianity forum.
None of your posts discuss this subject and all your doing is telling other posters how stupid they are.
Only the most patient people will entertain you, that’s why your not in any other forums discussing this.
So carry on pointlessly, the thread is so far off topic it’ll be closed and you’ll have to find somewhere else.

What's your level of debate?

I consider myself a Christian, I support abortion, so I'm in the right forum.

All my posts discuss abortion and some of them have referenced my Christianity.
No I'm just here for one particular poster because it's fun to watch him run rings around himself when he's consistently wrong. So no, not only the most patient people will entertain me, I'll find somewhere else though when this thread is closed so I'm all good.

splinter65 · 29-03-2018 11:33AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

What's your level of debate?

I consider myself a Christian, I support abortion, so I'm in the right forum.

All my posts discuss abortion and some of them have referenced my Christianity.
No I'm just here for one particular poster because it's fun to watch him run rings around himself when he's consistently wrong. So no, not only the most patient people will entertain me, I'll find somewhere else though when this thread is closed so I'm all good.

The poster you’ve just admitted to goading (against the Ts&Cs) is endlessly patient with you.
I see you’ve been warned and have a whining complaint in the dispute resolution forum about the warning so I’ll just let nature take its course here.

robarmstrong · 29-03-2018 11:55AM

splinter65 wrote: »

The poster you’ve just admitted to goading (against the Ts&Cs) is endlessly patient with you.
I see you’ve been warned and have a whining complaint in the dispute resolution forum about the warning so I’ll just let nature take its course here.

Nah they're not, they just never really have anything to contribute.

I've been unfairly warned whilst said poster gets away with their own actions without cards. Never admitted to goading him either, I just said it's fun to watch, kinda like how it's fun to insinuate.

Let nature take its course, I don't really care much for you and what you have to say, it's all pretty weak tbh.

Delirium · 29-03-2018 12:08PM

splinter65 wrote: »

The poster you’ve just admitted to goading (against the Ts&Cs) is endlessly patient with you.
I see you’ve been warned and have a whining complaint in the dispute resolution forum about the warning so I’ll just let nature take its course here.

MOD NOTE

Carded for discussing moderation / DRP.

Please keep to the topic.

end of the road · 29-03-2018 03:51PM

Delirium wrote: »

You said yesterday that you wouldn't allow abortion in a case where the injury or disability wasn't permanent.

Not being able to walk for six months wasn't enough suffering to warrant the option of an abortion.

So even some medical reasons aren't good enough for you.

yes, because some medical issues won't be permanent where as the ending of the life of the unborn is . it's about weighing up outcomes when it comes down to it and even in some medical cases ending the life of the unborn is a worse and unnecessary outcome in my view.

Achasanai · 30-03-2018 12:21PM

Graces7 wrote: »

See the Didache

Funny how you go to this and not the Bible. You know, the text generally taken by Christians to be the word of God.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 30-03-2018 02:35PM

Achasanai wrote: »

Funny how you go to this and not the Bible. You know, the text generally taken by Christians to be the word of God.

I'm taken aback at times at how some people are scouring texts for justification of their view when their usual port of call, the Bible, doesn't suit. Even when church teaching doesn't do it for them they then take the 'I follow Jesus, not the church' line. Web pages are poured through for anything they can use, irrespective of the credentials of the authors.

Personally I'm torn on the whole issue. I have seen family who suffered through lack of abortion but we 'offered it up'. I have seen children give so much despite their handicaps.

It's an ethical issue and, also, in the end we can't legislate from a point of religious belief. I'm swaying towards vote Yes and the uncaring, self righteous attempts by many pro life people have actually made me think that way.

SusieBlue · 30-03-2018 02:39PM

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

I'm taken aback at times at how some people are scouring texts for justification of their view when their usual port of call, the Bible, doesn't suit. Even when church teaching doesn't do it for them they then take the 'I follow Jesus, not the church' line. Web pages are poured through for anything they can use, irrespective of the credentials of the authors.

Personally I'm torn on the whole issue. I have seen family who suffered through lack of abortion but we 'offered it up'. I have seen children give so much despite their handicaps.

It's an ethical issue and, also, in the end we can't legislate from a point of religious belief. I'm swaying towards vote Yes and the uncaring, self righteous attempts by many pro life people have actually made me think that way.

I just wanted to say that regardless of what way you end up voting, I have always found your posts on the matter to be very well thought out, intelligent, and thought provoking.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments