Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

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.

Yeah, I agree. The fact that there is no explicit commandment against abortion should at least mean that there is can be a debate on the issue, but there are a fair few posters here who see it as completely black and white. But in actuality, it all depends on a person's own personal beliefs. Just like in real life.

smacl

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

I'm swaying towards vote Yes and the uncaring, self righteous attempts by many pro life people have actually made me think that way.

My wife's cousin, who is very religious, was saying the same thing the other day. Being press-ganged by pamphlet wielding pro-lifers outside the church gate has actually pushed her towards being pro-choice. I suspect there are a lot of people on both sides of the fence who are suspicious of the PR campaigns receiving serious fund from rather dubious foreign groups. One wonders how much of what is being said is representative of mainstream local sentiment.

Achasanai wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. The fact that there is no explicit commandment against abortion should at least mean that there is can be a debate on the issue, but there are a fair few posters here who see it as completely black and white. But in actuality, it all depends on a person's own personal beliefs. Just like in real life.

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?

It's not a religious issue/belief for me. You don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to respect human life at any age. Some confused people seem to think they are getting one over on the Church and religion by advocating the terminating unborn children and human lives . . while innocent lives are the ones paying for the blind hatred.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

It's not a religious issue/belief for me. You don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to respect human life at any age. Some confused people seem to think they are getting one over on the Church and religion by advocating the terminating unborn children and human lives . . while innocent lives are the ones paying for the blind hatred.

That's fair enough, but conversely, you can be a Christian and vote for abortion too.

I don't think there are many people who are 'getting one over on the Church' by advocating for abortion. Women's rights to bodily autonomy are far too important to be reduced to something like that.

Achasanai wrote: »

Women's rights to bodily autonomy are far too important to be reduced to something like that.

Indeed they are, but, again, and nothing to do with religion, there are two bodies and two human lives involved not one, and the child could also be a female as well as the mother.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Bob_Marley wrote: »

It's not a religious issue/belief for me. You don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to respect human life at any age. Some confused people seem to think they are getting one over on the Church and religion by advocating the terminating unborn children and human lives . . while innocent lives are the ones paying for the blind hatred.

I agree. The point was that somebody kept referencing church teaching and the bible but then could not, or would not, back up their statements.
I abhor blindly using the bible when it suits, or misrepresenting what it contains. Of course it's not a religious issue in the end but those who try to make it one should be able to stand over their claims.

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

I agree. The point was that somebody kept referencing church teaching and the bible but then could not, or would not, back up their statements.
I abhor blindly using the bible when it suits, or misrepresenting what it contains. Of course it's not a religious issue in the end but those who try to make it one should be able to stand over their claims.

Well it's easy enough of they want to, the taking of another human life is wrong in religious terms just as much as secular ones, but as it's secular law we are dealing with there are plenty of secular reasons why the taking of another human life is wrong and there is no particular need for any religious argument.

[Deleted User]

Christian's live by their conscience so in answer to the OP's question, yes, Christians can vote for abortion if that's what their conscience is saying to them.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Well it's easy enough of they want to, the taking of another human life is wrong in religious terms just as much as secular ones, but as it's secular law we are dealing with there are plenty of secular reasons why the taking of another human life is wrong and there is no particular need for any religious argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

Christian's live by their conscience so in answer to the OP's question, yes, Christians can vote for abortion if that's what their conscience is saying to them.

Exactly (to both). It would primarily depend on 1) when a person thinks a human life begins and 2) the importance of a women's bodily autonomy over an embryo/foetus/unborn child/unborn teenager.

The issue for Christians regarding the upcoming referendum is the same as it is for atheists/agnostics/Muslims/pagans. Vote according to your conscience.

keano_afc

Deleted User wrote: »

Christian's live by their conscience so in answer to the OP's question, yes, Christians can vote for abortion if that's what their conscience is saying to them.

And the conscience of a Christian is guided by the word of God. There is no way a Christian can vote for the deliberate killing of God's creation.

keano_afc wrote: »

And the conscience of a Christian is guided by the word of God. There is no way a Christian can vote for the deliberate killing of God's creation.

An almighty God is responsible for the creation of an ectopic pregnancy too.

Is it wrong to interfere with God's action by deliberately killing the embryo which he created
and placed in the Fallopian Tube then too?

keano_afc wrote: »

And the conscience of a Christian is guided by the word of God. There is no way a Christian can vote for the deliberate killing of God's creation.

Yes, a Christian can. It depends on when a Christian views life as having begun as well as a Christian's feelings on the rights of a woman to bodily autonomy.

Wanderer78

I wish no disrespect to people of faith, but I actually find some of the comments in here regarding abortion as somewhat disturbing, this is a highly complex subject matter, but I'd class some of the comments as just ignorance

Achasanai wrote: »

Yes, a Christian can. It depends on when a Christian views life as having begun as well as a Christian's feelings on the rights of a woman to bodily autonomy.

Well scientifically there is no debate as to when a human life begins :

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

It's more case of when you think it's ok to take another human life.

As for a female's right to body autonomy, it should be born on mind that as well as the mother, the unborn child could also be a female.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Well scientifically there is no debate as to when a human life begins :

It's more case of when you think it's ok to take another human life.

As for a female's right to body autonomy, it should be born on mind that as well as the mother, the unborn child could also be a female.

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote

So in your opinion the morning after pill should be banned as it is an abortion according to that description?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So in your opinion the morning after pill should be banned as it is an abortion according to that description?

The morning after pill is an emergency contraception, not an abortion pill, it's primary purpose is to stop ovulation or fertilization of an egg. Medical research and legal judgment are quite clear that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and is not abortion, so try again.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The morning after pill is an emergency contraception, not an abortion pill, it's primary purpose is to stop ovulation or fertilization of an egg. Medical research and legal judgment are quite clear that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and is not abortion, so try again.

The link you quoted states life begins at fertilization, if this is what you believe then logic dictates that when the MAP prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus it is by all means being aborted!

The morning after pill

http://planb.ca/how-it-works.html

Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

So should the MAP be banned?

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The morning after pill is an emergency contraception, not an abortion pill, it's primary purpose is to stop ovulation or fertilization of an egg. Medical research and legal judgment are quite clear that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and is not abortion, so try again.

Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.

Wanderer78

volchitsa wrote:

Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.

You will find conservatism has a very controling element to it's etos

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.

pro-life aren't redefining anything. if our motivation for being against abortion on demand is about controling women then surely preventing women from killing their newborn child is just as much control?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You will find conservatism has a very controling element to it's etos

agreeed but it's not really relevant to this specific issue given there are people with many different ideals and political views who would be against abortion on demand.

Wanderer78

end of the road wrote:

agreeed but it's not really relevant to this specific issue given there are people with many different ideals and political views who would be against abortion on demand.

Both agree and disagree, religious ideologies tend to have a conservative nature, this is particularly evident in our most predominant religious order, i.e. the Catholic church

end of the road wrote: »

pro-life aren't redefining anything. if our motivation for being against abortion on demand is about controling women then surely preventing women from killing their newborn child is just as much control?

Eh? No idea where you're going with that.

The point is that the ban on abortion isn't based on life beginning at fertilization, or else the MAP and the coil (IUD)would have to be banned and they arent.
Same thing with IVF embryos, which have no legal protection under the 8th.

The ban only applies to pregnant women, which says it all really.
It's another version of the old male fear of women's reproductive capacities that led to women not being educated or even being burned as witches for stepping out of line, or covered in a burka to ensure they don't get a chance in the first place.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh? No idea where you're going with that.

The point is that the ban on abortion isn't based on life beginning at fertilization, or else the MAP and the coil (IUD)would have to be banned and they arent.
Same thing with IVF embryos, which have no legal protection under the 8th.

The ban only applies to pregnant women, which says it all really.
It's another version of the old male fear of women's reproductive capacities that led to women not being educated or even being burned as witches for stepping out of line, or covered in a burka to ensure they don't get a chance in the first place.

the ban on abortion on demand is simply to prevent a woman unnecessarily taking the life of her unborn child. it's nothing to do with a supposed mail fear of a woman's reproductive capacities as not only are most men not in fear of a woman's reproductive capacities, but many women are pro-life and against abortion on demand.

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing of the sort and it says nothing. the ban on abortion on demand is simply to prevent a woman unnecessarily taking the life of her unborn child.

But it doesn't do that, thanks to the 13th amendment.

What it does do is remove a woman's right to withhold consent for procedures like ARM or c-sections, which are not even best practice.

And since it doesn't include unimplanted embryos, it is clearly based on control of women's pregnancies, not on protection of the human embryo in general. Only the ones inside a woman.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The link you quoted states life begins at fertilization, if this is what you believe

This isn't a believe, or and opinion, it's a fact. Any biological reference will tell you when the human life cycle begins.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

then logic dictates that when the MAP prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus it is by all means being aborted!

The morning after pill

http://planb.ca/how-it-works.html

So should the MAP be banned?

For the second time, the Morning After Pill is not an abortion pill, it's an emergency contraceptive. This is not a belief, or an opinion, again, it's a medical and legal fact. Morning After Pills are legal Abortion Pills are not.

You've now resorted to straw manning twice.

volchitsa wrote: »

Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.

There are two human lives involved not one, and both of them could be female, can you explain why ending a human life is not controlling it ?

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

But it doesn't do that, thanks to the 13th amendment.

What it does do is remove a woman's right to withhold consent for procedures like ARM or c-sections, which are not even best practice.

And since it doesn't include unimplanted embryos, it is clearly based on control of women's pregnancies, not on protection of the human embryo in general. Only the ones inside a woman.

it's based on protecting the unborn's right to life. protecting the unborn within their mother's womb. it's nothing to do with controling women or her pregnancy. the 13th doesn't stop the bann on abortion on demand being some bit successful.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

This isn't a believe, or and opinion, it's a fact. Any biological reference will tell you when the human life cycle begins.

For the second time, the Morning After Pill is not an abortion pill, it's an emergency contraceptive. This is not a belief, or an opinion, again, it's a medical and legal fact. Morning After Pills are legal Abortion Pills are not.

You've now resorted to straw manning twice.

It's not 'strawmanning'. We understand how the morning after pill is defined, but does it not also impact against fertilized eggs?