Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

smacl · 13-04-2018 02:51PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

But you said adulteress? You asked whether this was the adulteress god warned about. What did god warn about a woman who commits adultery that makes it relevant to abortion?

This typifies a misogynistic attitude that seems common among more extreme religious conservatism that belong to the past (and possibly bible belt America). The 'sin' associated with sex is placed squarely at the foot of the evil woman who tempted the otherwise good man away from the straight and narrow. Like so much of the pro-life PR, my feeling is that this is entirely irrelevant and unrepresentative of most Irish people today.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 02:56PM

end of the road wrote: »

it may stop some yes . how many would be unknown, but i believe some would be deterred from importing and taking the pills because of the jail sentence, and would be deterred from going to england because of the expence and time involved..

What are you basing this belief on? Because it's clear that women are already either travelling or importing the pills despite the barriers you've outlined and that will continue in the event of a No vote.

Hannibal_Smith · 13-04-2018 04:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

again, i don't know.

it wouldn't no . some groups of people throught history have been treated differently to others unfortunately.

What kind of an answer is that :pac: if you demand rights for the unborn and view them as equal to a living person, then surely you have thought about why the death of a fetus in the first trimester is not marked by society in Anyway?

Fact is you don't care about the the fetus at all, except for when you think you have the right to poke your nose in to other people's business. If the death of a fetus before 12 weeks in any other circumstance is none of your interest or concern then why does it become your concern when the mother decides to end it?

end of the road · 13-04-2018 06:47PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What kind of an answer is that if you demand rights for the unborn and view them as equal to a living person, then surely you have thought about why the death of a fetus in the first trimester is not marked by society in Anyway?

Fact is you don't care about the the fetus at all, except for when you think you have the right to poke your nose in to other people's business. If the death of a fetus before 12 weeks in any other circumstance is none of your interest or concern then why does it become your concern when the mother decides to end it?

the same reason as the ending of any other life. because one does not have the right to take another's life. unless absolutely in a life or death situation or other extreme circumstance.

end of the road · 13-04-2018 06:55PM

Delirium wrote: »

but it is with what you've posted. You've said as much on this thread minutes ago, i.e. "if some abortions are being stopped then to me that is a good thing. of course it is."

i think you can equally value 2 different issues but in a situation where you have to choose between 1 issue to solve, you can go with the issue that has a slightly greater need.

Delirium wrote: »

How so? you have no assurances other than the pregnant person must suffer more than is necessary to have an abortion. You certainly have no assurance that any foetus will not be aborted.

well yes, i have no assurance that any foetus will not be aborted, but i have an assurance that they can't be aborted legally in ireland. it's some consolation in my view.

Hannibal_Smith · 13-04-2018 07:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

the same reason as the ending of any other life. because one does not have the right to take another's life. unless absolutely in a life or death situation or other extreme circumstance.

No, it's not like the ending of any other life. If any other life ends, it is investigated and it is marked by society. This is not the case in miscarriage in the first trimester. The death of a baby, or person is not equivalent to the death of a first trimester feotus. They are treated completely differently by medics and by society.

If the unborn child had equal value to a living child, why does medical care not start until 12 weeks? Why is its health and well being not monitored by medics from day 1 but the medical care of a born baby begins from day 1?

Nobody cares about the death of a foetus in any other circumstance, why?

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-04-2018 10:16PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No, it's not like the ending of any other life. If any other life ends, it is investigated and it is marked by society. This is not the case in miscarriage in the first trimester. The death of a baby, or person is not equivalent to the death of a first trimester feotus. They are treated completely differently by medics and by society.

If the unborn child had equal value to a living child, why does medical care not start until 12 weeks? Why is its health and well being not monitored by medics from day 1 but the medical care of a born baby begins from day 1?

Nobody cares about the death of a foetus in any other circumstance, why?

The death of a foetus through miscarriage due to its inability to sustain its life is very different to setting out to kill that life.

Hannibal_Smith · 14-04-2018 01:55PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

The death of a foetus through miscarriage due to its inability to sustain its life is very different to setting out to kill that life.

I didn't ask for an explanation on the difference between miscarriage and abortion. I asked if the fetus in the first trimester has equal value to to a born baby, why are they treated differently in death?

volchitsa · 14-04-2018 02:11PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No, it's not like the ending of any other life. If any other life ends, it is investigated and it is marked by society. This is not the case in miscarriage in the first trimester. The death of a baby, or person is not equivalent to the death of a first trimester feotus. They are treated completely differently by medics and by society.

If the unborn child had equal value to a living child, why does medical care not start until 12 weeks? Why is its health and well being not monitored by medics from day 1 but the medical care of a born baby begins from day 1?

Nobody cares about the death of a foetus in any other circumstance, why?

The death of a foetus through miscarriage due to its inability to sustain its life is very different to setting out to kill that life.

What if the woman has been careless, a fall while horseriding can cause a miscarriage, or drug taking?
There is no legal equivalent to causing death through negligence (can't remember the legal term just now) the way there would be if a child died through its parent putting it in danger.

Achasanai · 15-04-2018 01:54PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Abortion is death. That was enough to bar it. Dd not need explaining although in OT times there were penalties for causing a woman to abort. Children were so precious no one would think of killing them/ They were a truly civilised people

You'll have to do better than that, Graces7. The OT tells us nothing with regards to how they view abortion. That they didn't have a specific law against it might indicate that (a) it was something that was widely practiced and was not against the law or (b) that it was so abhorrent that they took it as given that everyone realised this. That the OT saw fit to regulate human conduct with a general set of laws, as well as incredibly detailed laws regulating very specific conduct would suggest that it was the former.

Graces7 wrote: »

Also see the Didache, 1st century AD. Which specifically bars abortion. I already ;ready posted that. Did you miss it? Ah well Google will help you.

For the umpteenth time, the Didache is not a Biblical text. You've been asked to give biblical examples against abortion.

Graces7 wrote: »

Wrong! It does.

Off you go so. Biblical text that rules against abortion.

Graces7 wrote: »

Telling what? The valueof life was deeply enshrined in Mosaic Law . and see this reference
"The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed."

The OT lists many things as property. Was a foetus the same as a cow?

Graces7 wrote: »

So you do not see abortion as killing? That is the crux of this.
You advocate the barbaric killing of an unborn child. Which is the lowest form of murder.. DO NOT KILL is one line you will not face up to. DO NOT KILL

That commandment was and is at the very heart of Christianity. To disobey it is the ultimate sin. Same as killing a grown up ..

You're right on the whole 'do not kill' thing. Not (necessarily) applicable to an unborn child/teenager/adult/geriatric.

Cabaal · 15-04-2018 05:15PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Absolutely. And for that very reason we should be voting against the act of violence that is abortion which is perpetrated against women and destroys the life within them.

So a woman who decides to have an abortion because its the best decision for her situation.. You think she's attacking herself?

Tell me, do you get headaches from the mental gymnastics you keep doing to justify your believe that women should just lay down and give birth regardless the situation or how she may have already been violated through rape or incest.

robarmstrong · 15-04-2018 05:18PM

Cabaal wrote: »

So a woman who decides to have an abortion because its the best decision for her situation.. You think she's attacking herself?

Tell me, do you get headaches from the mental gymnastics you keep doing to justify your believe that women should just lay down and give birth regardless the situation or how she may have already been violated through rape or incest.

I think that opinions such as the one you quoted are amongst the worst, but I think those who share those opinions should really discuss them out loud and hopefully someone points out how disgustingly wrong it is to think/say such things.

uck51js9zml2yt · 15-04-2018 05:38PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think that opinions such as the one you quoted are amongst the worst, but I think those who share those opinions should really discuss them out loud and hopefully someone points out how disgustingly wrong it is to think/say such things.

Just so I have it right.
Anti abortion voters should have no right to a view which differs from pro abortionists.
We should do as the likes of Simon Coveny has done and "having reflected on the issues, come to a mature decision " or in other words suppress our conscience and vote for abortion.

15-04-2018 05:55PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Just so I have it right.
Anti abortion voters should have no right to a view which differs from pro abortionists.
We should do as the likes of Simon Coveny has done and "having reflected on the issues, come to a mature decision " or in other words suppress our conscience and vote for abortion.

No having a conscience means not pushing your beliefs on other people, and coming out with crap like this

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/victims-of-rape-and-incest-should-carry-babies-to-full-term-say-campaigners-1.3444429?mode=amp

robarmstrong · 15-04-2018 05:55PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Just so I have it right.
Anti abortion voters should have no right to a view which differs from pro abortionists.
We should do as the likes of Simon Coveny has done and "having reflected on the issues, come to a mature decision " or in other words suppress our conscience and vote for abortion.

They have every right to a view which differs from pro choice voters.

They don't have every right to lie, misrepresent statistics and carry on the way they have so far. (Not saying you're part of this, but a lot of pro-life individuals are)

end of the road · 15-04-2018 06:35PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

No having a conscience means not pushing your beliefs on other people,

it will depend on what those beliefs are, would you not think? the law of the land is effectively forcing beliefs on people who may not agree with them. sometimes it's a necessary thing to do.

DubInMeath wrote: »

and coming out with crap like this

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/victims-of-rape-and-incest-should-carry-babies-to-full-term-say-campaigners-1.3444429?mode=amp

it's a valid opinion. grant it it's not shared by everyone who would be against unrestricted abortion/abortion on request/on demand but it is still a valid viewpoint, as some will believe that the unborn should not lose their lives because of the circumstances of how they were conceived. by all means you don't have to agree with it but it's hardly "crap" as you discribe it.

Hannibal_Smith · 15-04-2018 06:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's a valid opinion. grant it it's not shared by everyone who would be against unrestricted abortion/abortion on request/on demand but it is still a valid viewpoint, as some will believe that the unborn should not lose their lives because of the circumstances of how they were conceived. by all means you don't have to agree with it but it's hardly "crap" as you discribe it.

Why should the woman be forced to share her body with something, given the circumstances in which it was conceived? She's as less to blame as the feotus. Why does the feotus get priority?

uck51js9zml2yt · 15-04-2018 06:56PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why should the woman be forced to share her body with something, given the circumstances in which it was conceived? She's as less to blame as the feotus. Why does the feotus get priority?

It being human might have something to do with it!

end of the road · 15-04-2018 06:57PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why should the woman be forced to share her body with something, given the circumstances in which it was conceived?

because it has a right to life. why should it lose it's life because of the circumstances in how it was conceived? neither the unborn or the mother are to blame in any way for what happened.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She's as less to blame as the feotus. Why does the feotus get priority?

it doesn't get priority because the only right it has is a right to life, and even then it's only as much as is practical to uphold it's right to life. the mother has more rights recognised in law.
both mother and unborn baby are victims as far as i'm concerned and anyone guilty of rape or incest should serve a full life sentence.

Hannibal_Smith · 15-04-2018 07:07PM

end of the road wrote: »

because it has a right to life. why should it lose it's life because of the circumstances in how it was conceived?

Because the person obliged to carry it, doesn't want to carry it. Simple as that. The trauma they already endured in how conception occurred, was enough for one person to face, with being forced to continue the pregnancy and suffer the childbirth. If the mother doesn't want to face That, why should she have to?

it doesn't get priority because the only right it has is a right to life, and even then it's only as much as is practical to uphold it's right to life. the mother has more rights recognised in law.
both mother and unborn baby are victims as far as i'm concerned and anyone guilty of rape or incest should serve a full life sentence.

If the woman is pregnant and doesn't wish to be, but is forced to remain so, the right to life of the unborn overrides her wishes.

I find it so callous that anyone would think it acceptable that a woman must remain pregnant in those cases. It's crazy to think Ireland still holds women in such little regard. All for a feotus, that in all other circumstances no one would give a hoot about (as per my miscarriage example which no one has responded to convincingly).

15-04-2018 07:15PM

end of the road wrote: »

it will depend on what those beliefs are, would you not think? the law of the land is effectively forcing beliefs on people who may not agree with them. sometimes it's a necessary thing to do.

it's a valid opinion. grant it it's not shared by everyone who would be against unrestricted abortion/abortion on request/on demand but it is still a valid viewpoint, as some will believe that the unborn should not lose their lives because of the circumstances of how they were conceived. by all means you don't have to agree with it but it's hardly "crap" as you discribe it.

I'd certainly call their statement crap, but it could be also called, ignorant, uncaring, offensive to women forced to carry their rapists baby, or just laying the blame at the woman herself for being raped as is quite common with some sections of Irish society.

robarmstrong · 15-04-2018 07:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

#nobody has the right to do what they want to another's body - like forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want/can't contend with so she has to leave the country to have an abortion
#nobody has the right to do what they want with another's body - like forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want/can't contend with so she has to leave the country to have an abortion

Your signature is gas hahaha I've edited it to show the hypocrisy though. Maybe edit it so it doesn't come across so blatantly hypocritical?

Say "nobody has the right to do what they want with another's body" followed by "I'm voting no so that women should not be able to have abortions on request" and try to connect the dots.

I'll wait.

end of the road · 15-04-2018 07:24PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Because the person obliged to carry it, doesn't want to carry it. Simple as that.

except it's not that simple is it given another life is involved. that's ultimately the issue. not wanting to cary a child is not a valid reason that the unborn should lose it's life.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The trauma they already endured in how conception occurred, was enough for one person to face, with being forced to continue the pregnancy and suffer the childbirth.

i have no doubt it is traumatic. but another being who is also a victim should not pay with their lives.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If the mother doesn't want to face That, why should she have to?

as i said, because there is another life and human involved.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If the woman is pregnant and doesn't wish to be, but is forced to remain so, the right to life of the unborn overrides her wishes.

agreed. however a right to life will for the vast majority of us over-ride one's wishes. i have no personal issue with that.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I find it so callous that anyone would think it acceptable that a woman must remain pregnant in those cases.

and many of us find it callous that someone would believe the unborn should pay with their lives because they aren't wanted. so surely then we can sort of understand how each other feels.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's crazy to think Ireland still holds women in such little regard. All for a feotus, that in all other circumstances no one would give a hoot about (as per my miscarriage example which no one has responded to convincingly).

having a stance that the unborn have an equal right to life as much as is practical, given many of the unborn will in fact be women, would suggest to me that we actually have huge regard for women, seeing as we attempt to uphold their right to exist in the first place. are we perfect, no . do we get things wrong, absolutely. but preventing abortions outside medical necessity isn't something we are getting wrong. miscarriage is a natural occurrence so isn't relevant to the abortion debate. plenty of people care about the fetus in all circumstances, the parents who wanted and want them for a start.

end of the road · 15-04-2018 07:27PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'd certainly call their statement crap, but it could be also called, ignorant, uncaring, offensive to women forced to carry their rapists baby, or just laying the blame at the woman herself for being raped as is quite common with some sections of Irish society.

how would it be laying the blame at the woman herself? i would certainly agree that anyone blaming a woman who was raped for that rape is the lowest of the low but i'm not seeing it in that article.

Hannibal_Smith · 15-04-2018 07:44PM

end of the road wrote: »

except it's not that simple is it given another life is involved. that's ultimately the issue. not wanting to cary a child is not a valid reason that the unborn should lose it's life.

i have no doubt it is traumatic. but another being who is also a victim should not pay with their lives.

as i said, because there is another life and human involved.

agreed. however a right to life will for the vast majority of us over-ride one's wishes. i have no personal issue with that.

and many of us find it callous that someone would believe the unborn should pay with their lives because they aren't wanted. so surely then we can sort of understand how each other feels.

having a stance that the unborn have an equal right to life as much as is practical, given many of the unborn will in fact be women, would suggest to me that we actually have huge regard for women, seeing as we attempt to uphold their right to exist in the first place. are we perfect, no . do we get things wrong, absolutely. but preventing abortions outside medical necessity isn't something we are getting wrong. miscarriage is a natural occurrence so isn't relevant to the abortion debate. plenty of people care about the fetus in all circumstances, the parents who wanted and want them for a start.

It's exactly this kind of misogyny that makes me more emphatic about repeal. I never thought this type of view still existed...But there you go. I'm glad you've posted it and shown the depth of disregard for women in this debate.

The point about miscarriage is hugely relevant. It shows exactly how the unborn first trimester feotus is not regarded as equal to a living person.

I'll leave you Christians to your beliefs, because I will never understand them.

15-04-2018 07:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

how would it be laying the blame at the woman herself? i would certainly agree that anyone blaming a woman who was raped for that rape is the lowest of the low but i'm not seeing it in that article.

Given that John McGuirk has publicly supported people who blame rape victims, such as his support for George Hook and calls for boycotts of businesses who pull his sponsorship it would be true to say he probally thinks this way would it not, and believes it the right thing morally to stop them accessing abortion despite any suffering they might endure.

https://mobile.twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/906993218558062593

https://mobile.twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/948996090761826305

Similar to the priest who said wife's and mothers were to also be blamed in covering up child abuse by priests, very Christian indeed.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-mothers-and-wives-carry-blame-too-catholic-priest-228875-Sep2011/

15-04-2018 07:55PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's exactly this kind of misogyny that makes me more emphatic about repeal. I never thought this type of view still existed...But there you go. I'm glad you've posted it and shown the depth of disregard for women in this debate.

The point about miscarriage is hugely relevant. It shows exactly how the unborn first trimester feotus is not regarded as equal to a living person.

I'll leave you Christians to your beliefs, because I will never understand them.

Not all Christians, just 'Catholics' and other god bothers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/church-of-ireland-bishop-says-he-will-vote-to-repeal-eighth-amendment-1.3445725

Turtwig · 15-04-2018 08:36PM

Mod:

Folks are free to make criticisms of an ideology. Please refrain from broad sweeping generalisations of subscribers to those ideologies that members here will already disagree with anyway.
Refrain also from languages like God botherers

end of the road · 15-04-2018 09:35PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's exactly this kind of misogyny that makes me more emphatic about repeal. I never thought this type of view still existed...But there you go. I'm glad you've posted it and shown the depth of disregard for women in this debate.

there is certainly no misogyny or disregard for women on my part given i believe they have a right to be born in the first place. a right to be born, a right to life, a right to grow up, a right to equality.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The point about miscarriage is hugely relevant. It shows exactly how the unborn first trimester feotus is not regarded as equal to a living person.

fair enough, i get that, but it's a natural occurrence and it's tragic for all involved. i don't believe it can be compared to abortion where the life is deliberately ended when it could continue in most cases.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Given that John McGuirk has publicly supported people who blame rape victims, such as his support for George Hook and calls for boycotts of businesses who pull his sponsorship it would be true to say he probally thinks this way would it not, and believes it the right thing morally to stop them accessing abortion despite any suffering they might endure.

https://mobile.twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/906993218558062593

https://mobile.twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/948996090761826305

Similar to the priest who said wife's and mothers were to also be blamed in covering up child abuse by priests, very Christian indeed.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-mothers-and-wives-carry-blame-too-catholic-priest-228875-Sep2011/

to be fair, i don't believe george hook's intention was to blame rape victims for being raped. his point was about why someone would put themselves in danger by going somewhere with a complete stranger. i can see his point, ideally anyone would be able to go wherever with who they want and they would not be in any danger but unfortunately we don't live in that type of world. he could certainly have phrased his point a hell of a lot better and made it absolutely clear that rape victims are not to blame for being raped but i don't believe his intention was to blame rape victims for being raped but to hi-light the dangers of going somewhere with a complete stranger. i can certainly see why people would be against what he said but i do think there was an agenda behind the reaction to him when people could have simply said he was wrong and challenged him accordingly.

15-04-2018 09:55PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is certainly no misogyny or disregard for women on my part given i believe they have a right to be born in the first place. a right to be born, a right to life, a right to grow up, a right to equality.

fair enough, i get that, but it's a natural occurrence and it's tragic for all involved. i don't believe it can be compared to abortion where the life is deliberately ended when it could continue in most cases.

to be fair, i don't believe george hook's intention was to blame rape victims for being raped. his point was about why someone would put themselves in danger by going somewhere with a complete stranger. i can see his point, ideally anyone would be able to go wherever with who they want and they would not be in any danger but unfortunately we don't live in that type of world. he could certainly have phrased his point a hell of a lot better and made it absolutely clear that rape victims are not to blame for being raped but i don't believe his intention was to blame rape victims for being raped but to hi-light the dangers of going somewhere with a complete stranger. i can certainly see why people would be against what he said but i do think there was an agenda behind the reaction to him when people could have simply said he was wrong and challenged him accordingly.

You have got to be kidding me.
Edit: About the George part.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments