Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 04:52PM

You aren't making any sense, you're sympathetic to women suffering in regards to seeking abortions on medical grounds and you want to help them, yet you're shooting down the proposal that could help them just because it doesn't suit your views.

You do realise how completely and utterly flawed that mentality is, right? You want to help those particular women, which is understandable and gallant, but then you go onto say you'll vote No to a proposal that would get them the help they need just because it doesn't suit your views.

SusieBlue · 26-04-2018 04:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

it will be very different. real criteria would rule out the economic/lifestyle/convenience abortions which are not required. the criteria proposed is just a sup to try and get the proposals passed.

The women who KNOW they require these abortions, who you know nothing about, would wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I’m still waiting on a reply to my query about the various options you envisage these women have besides abortion. We’ve already established working more hours and getting help from a charity are of no long term help to an unemployed new mother with no babysitter.
What are these options you keep speaking of?

eviltwin · 26-04-2018 05:15PM

end of the road wrote: »

it will be very different. real criteria would rule out the economic/lifestyle/convenience abortions which are not required. the criteria proposed is just a sup to try and get the proposals passed.

How about you stop telling women what they need and start listening to them instead?

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 05:27PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

So long story short, it's revealed.

Better keep those legs closed girls, regardless if you've contraception or not.

If you're responsible with contraception you won't (bar in vanishingly small numbers) belong in the cohort under discussion.

Youre merely arguing for cake and eat it.

NuMarvel · 26-04-2018 05:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

i do have bother with those going outside the country to kill their unborn but there is nothing i can do about it.

There's nothing you want to do about it. The 13th amendment is what's stopping us doing something about women who travel, but you've said you'd vote no in a referendum to overturn the 13th amendment. That is not the decision of someone who thinks he can't do anything about it.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 05:32PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

And you personally feel that children should be weaponised into punishments so that their careless parents have to face the consequences?
Is that what you're saying?
Can you please tell me how inflicting an unwilling mother on a child is in his best interests? Does that sound like the makings of a happy, stable, childhood, to you?
Or are you only interested in making the woman suffer for having sex?

The word used was consequences. That that be experienced as unpleasant is beside the point. Some conseqences in life are unpleasant. Surprised?

Options can be made available to relieve the mother from bearing those consequences life long - if facing them is beyond her ability to step up to the plate she (for the man isn't even permitted into this discussion, is he?) landed herself on.

We (society) have a child to consider. She isn't a prima donna here.

Consequences come with the territory of choice. And sex (in the cohort under discussion) is a choice.

This is about evading consequences. Its having the smooth without the rough. A neutered choice. Eat what you like then liposuction. Drink what you like then liver regens (when stem cell research gets that far) Shag how you like then down the std clinic.

Or, in a great leap forward, the abortion clinic.

Dodge consequences for your actions. Have the cake and eat it.

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 05:39PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word used was consequences. That that be deemed unpleasant is besides then point.

Options can be made available to relieve the mother from bearing those consequences life long - if facing them is beyond her ability to chose that direction.

But consequences come with the territory of choice. And sex (in the cohort under discussion) is a choice.

This is about evading consequences. Its having the smooth without the rough. A neutered choice. Eat what you like then liposuction. Drink what you like then liver regens (when stem cell research gets that far) Shag how you like then down the std clinic.

Dodge consequences for your actions. Have the cake and eat it.

The very fact that Savita, rape, foetal abnormalities keep getting wheeled out - as if those cases form but a fraction of the issue is proof positive of the reality at the heart of this.

Lifestyle maintenance by consequence evasion is where its at

antiskeptic · 26-04-2018 05:51PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word used was consequences. That that be deemed unpleasant is besides then point.

Options can be made available to relieve the mother from bearing those consequences life long - if facing them is beyond her ability to chose that direction.

But consequences come with the territory of choice. And sex (in the cohort under discussion) is a choice.

This is about evading consequences. Its having the smooth without the rough. A neutered choice. Eat what you like then liposuction. Drink what you like then liver regens (when stem cell research gets that far) Shag how you like then down the std clinic.

Dodge consequences for your actions. Have the cake and eat it.

Its a testimony to the value of human life and happiness that society considers it worthwhile to care for people when those consequences arrive on their doorstep.

I suppose one of the troubles here is that our own government are a vested interest. Far cheaper to amputate a limb than reconstructive surgery. The cost of a reconstructive approach to the issue of people who don't like bearing consequences are high. And there's elections to think of.

end of the road · 26-04-2018 06:32PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How about you stop telling women what they need and start listening to them instead?

i am listening to them. i'm not telling them what they need. i'm telling those in support of the killing of the unborn for lifestyle/convenience/economic reasons that they are wrong and need to re-evaluate their view.

Soldah · 26-04-2018 07:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

How about you stop telling women what they need and start listening to them instead?

i am listening to them. i'm not telling them what they need. i'm telling those in support of the killing of the unborn for lifestyle/convenience/economic reasons that they are wrong and need to re-evaluate their view.

I tells I am Protestant but also like Catholic Christian and them no abortion wanted but real Protestant rule are not against abortion or I have wrong its versa ??

eviltwin · 26-04-2018 08:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

i am listening to them. i'm not telling them what they need. i'm telling those in support of the killing of the unborn for lifestyle/convenience/economic reasons that they are wrong and need to re-evaluate their view.

Kinda proving my point there

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 08:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

i am listening to them. i'm not telling them what they need. i'm telling those in support of the killing of the unborn for lifestyle/convenience/economic reasons that they are wrong and need to re-evaluate their view.

You aren't listening to them, if you were listening to them you'd vote to repeal rather than stage some weird form of one man stand against the current proposal.

Imagine being one of those women you "support", and imagine hearing the absolute nonsense you've spouted out. Yes I support your case I think you should have access to abortion but I want it all on my terms first, sorry.

You didn't address my previous post challenging your logic, you tend to do that quite a lot.

end of the road · 26-04-2018 08:52PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Kinda proving my point there

nope.

robarmstrong wrote: »

You aren't listening to them, if you were listening to them you'd vote to repeal rather than stage some weird form of one man stand against the current proposal.

Imagine being one of those women you "support", and imagine hearing the absolute nonsense you've spouted out. Yes I support your case I think you should have access to abortion but I want it all on my terms first, sorry.

You didn't address my previous post challenging your logic, you tend to do that quite a lot.

i wouldn't vote to repeal, due to the proposals for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. so yes, listening to women as i do, wouldn't equate to a yes vote for repeal.

robarmstrong · 26-04-2018 09:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

nope.

i wouldn't vote to repeal, due to the proposals for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. so yes, listening to women as i do, wouldn't equate to a yes vote for repeal.

robarmstrong wrote: »

You aren't making any sense, you're sympathetic to women suffering in regards to seeking abortions on medical grounds and you want to help them, yet you're shooting down the proposal that could help them just because it doesn't suit your views.

You do realise how completely and utterly flawed that mentality is, right? You want to help those particular women, which is understandable and gallant, but then you go onto say you'll vote No to a proposal that would get them the help they need just because it doesn't suit your views.

All that needs to be said regarding your stance. Farcical, contradictory, hypocrisy and nimbyism. Defender of the unborn, offender/oppressor of the pregnant.

But it's okay because you support them, you listen to them, you just won't vote yes for them. Makes perfect sense, back on the ignore with you for a bit til you can come up with something more coherent.

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 08:10AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Better keep those legs closed girls, regardless if you've contraception or not.

My comments include men.

They are as willing and able to want to avoid unwelcome consequences as women are. It's a characteristic of being human.

And so men will encourage women to abort. Or run off into the sunset.

frag420 · 27-04-2018 08:15AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My comments include men.

They are as willing and able to want to avoid unwelcome consequences as women are. It's a characteristic of being human.

And so men will encourage women to abort. Or run off into the sunset.

So would you agree, as a fetus cannot understand free will nor the consequences of their actions that they lack specific characteristics that make them human!?

So if they are not fully human what are they?

SusieBlue · 27-04-2018 08:25AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word used was consequences. That that be experienced as unpleasant is beside the point. Some conseqences in life are unpleasant. Surprised?

Options can be made available to relieve the mother from bearing those consequences life long - if facing them is beyond her ability to step up to the plate she (for the man isn't even permitted into this discussion, is he?) landed herself on.

We (society) have a child to consider. She isn't a prima donna here.

Consequences come with the territory of choice. And sex (in the cohort under discussion) is a choice.

This is about evading consequences. Its having the smooth without the rough. A neutered choice. Eat what you like then liposuction. Drink what you like then liver regens (when stem cell research gets that far) Shag how you like then down the std clinic.

Or, in a great leap forward, the abortion clinic.

Dodge consequences for your actions. Have the cake and eat it.

So you are basically confirming there that you believe a child should be an unpleasant but necessary consequence to careless people. What a horrible situation you are encouraging.

What options are there? Please list them. I've asked EOTR about 5 times now and he's come up with nada.

Its not a child, we are considering here. Its a pre >12 week fetus with no consciousness or sentience. However, the living breathing citizen in which this fetus resides, where's our consideration for her?

This fetus is NOT of equal worth to her, unless she decides it to be. She should not lose out on her rights, needs, wants and bodily autonomy at the expense of the baby. She is a living born citizen, and we need to look after those people before we look after the unborn.

Referring to women who go through the trauma and distress of a crisis pregnancy as "prima donnas" is disgusting, it shows little understanding of the struggles of these women and shows zero empathy.

And regardless, until the fetus is viable outside the womb, it SHOULD be all about her. Her healthcare should not be substandard and she should not lose her rights just because she is pregnant.

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 08:35AM

frag420 wrote: »

So would you agree, as a fetus cannot understand free will nor the consequences of their actions that they lack specific characteristics that make them human!?

So if they are not fully human what are they?

Couldnt we say the same thing of a new born baby?

robarmstrong · 27-04-2018 08:37AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so men will encourage women to abort. Or run off into the sunset.

What a delusional statement to make, men will encourage women to abort.

How little do you think of women who seek abortions, really? Are the majority just sluts looking for a quick termination after a good one night stand? Is that how you see them?

....... · 27-04-2018 08:37AM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 27-04-2018 08:38AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 09:03AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

So you are basically confirming there that you believe a child should be an unpleasant but necessary consequence to careless people. What a horrible situation you are encouraging.

The child is a consequence.

Its necessity lies solely in the hands of creators having chosen to act in potentially creative fashion.

Its being considered unpleasant is in the hands of creators attitude to consequences of their actions.

I think they should bear consequence. That they consider it unpleasant is irrelevant.

What options are there? Please list them. I've asked EOTR about 5 times now and he's come up with nada.

Grin or grimace and bear it. Get over the fact that you'll be inconvenienced for a time.

Thank your stars that if you aren't up to it, you don't have to bear consequences forever - society will take your burden from you.

Remember: I'm talking about the lifestyle cohort. I'm not against abortion under any circumstances - but am faced with the wording given me for the referendum.

Its not a child, we are considering here. Its a pre >12 week fetus with no consciousness or sentience. However, the living breathing citizen in which this fetus resides, where's our consideration for her?

We'll have to beg to differ on definitions of humanity here.

This fetus is NOT of equal worth to her, unless she decides it to be.

She'll have to figure out who gives her that authority. A bit like the RC church telling us that it is God's representative on earth.

"Says who" we rightfully ask.

"Says we" it replies.

The self-designated authority is a bootstrap authority, it holds no weight with those who don't recognise it. Indeed, a la Catholic Church claim, it sounds faintly ridiculous.

She should not lose out on her rights, needs, wants and bodily autonomy at the expense of the baby. She is a living born citizen, and we need to look after those people before we look after the unborn.

I disagree. She was central in handing up her bodily autonomy. If you don't like the potential heat then stay out of the kitchen.

All this"care" and prioritising you speak of is shorthand for consequence evasion. You don't seem keen on the idea of facing consequences. Your objection seems based on the fact its unpleasant. To which I say "big deal".

The potential consequences for all kinds or irresponsible behaviour are unpleasant but so what? It is as it is.

Referring to women who go through the trauma and distress of a crisis pregnancy as "prima donnas" is disgusting

Again, you side step a key factor here: the person choosing to bring it upon themselves. The prima donna reference attaches to an attitude that wants to evade living with consequences.

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 09:19AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lets have a look using the pill as an example.

"But to be fully effective, birth control pills need to be taken correctly. Missing even a few doses greatly increases your chances of pregnancy: while only 0.1 percent of women get pregnant when using the pill properly,"

100,000 represents 0.1 % of all the women in the UK who are on contraceptives.

We would need a population of 100 million women between the ages of say 15 and 50 to accomplish that. Which puts the population of the UK at something like 400 million?

-

It depends on your attitude to risk. If you saw having a child as a real risk and considered that as significantly unwelcome, then you would take suitable action.

Do you think they send men into space with the same care and attention that folk engage in sex after the pub on a Saturday night? No they don't. The reason is that they know there are unwelcome consequences and take measures to ensure those consequences don't come about.

In the measure to eliminate the consequences, you reduce the effort to prevent the consequences. That's all that will be achieved with abortion on demand. It's like any process: ease the availability, lower the cost and the customers will come.

Do you really suppose that abortion on demand here will increase the care with which contraceptive measures are employed? Sure...

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 09:22AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As a matter of interest, what reasons did the other 100,000 have?

....... · 27-04-2018 09:36AM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 27-04-2018 09:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The child is a consequence.

Its necessity is in the hands of creators having chosen to act in potentually creative fashion

Its being considered unpleasant is in the hands of creators attitude to consequences of their actions.

I think they should bear consequence. That they consider it unpleasant is irrelevant.

Children shouldn't be a consequence. They should be wanted and treasured and cherished. Not brought into the world for the purpose of punishing the parents. For someone who is pro life you certainly don't have the best interests of the child at heart.

Grin or grimace and bear it. Get over the fact that you'll be inconvenienced for a time.

Thank your stars that if you arent up to it, you dont have to bear consequences forever.

Remember: Im talking about the lifestyle cohort.

I'm not against abortion under any circumstances - but am faced with the wording given me for the referendum.

Ah yes, grin and bear it. The makings of a wonderful parent/child relationship, and the foundations of a happy, stable childhood.

We'll have to beg to differ on definitions of humanity here.

That's the whole point of being Pro choice. We can differ on our thoughts and neither will be restricted by the other. We clearly have different views on it, but I shouldn't have to live my life and have my maternity care compromised, because of your views.

She'll have to figure out who gives her that authority. A bit like the RC church telling us that it is Gods representitive on earth. "Says who" we rightfully ask. "Says we" it replies.

That's a bootstrap authority - the self designated authority.

I don't recognise it.

I would think it would be common sense that a woman is more valuable than a pre >12 week old fetus. Actual citizens are more important than potential ones. If you don't recognise that, that's fine.
As before, I shouldn't be restricted by what you hold importance in. I personally think I am more important than a >12 week gestated embryo and I won't have anyone tell me otherwise.

I disagree. She was central in handing up her bodily autonomy. If you don't like the potential heat then stay out of the kitchen.

All this"care" and prioritising you speak of is shorthand for consequence evasion. You dont seem keen on the idea of facing consequences. Your objection seems based on the fact its unpleasant. To which I say "big deal".

If she used contraception, no she wasn't. She took precautionary measures.
Are you suggesting that a woman should never have sex with her partner unless getting pregnant is the goal? Really?

Well yes, duh? Children are valuable and precious and should not be used to inflict "unpleasantness" on their mother. What a bizarre attitude.
Children are actually kind of a "big deal".You sound like you have no respect for life, or indeed, for the massive sacrifice that pregnancy and parenting is.

Referring to women who go through the trauma and distress of a crisis pregnancy as "prima donnas" is disgusting, it shows

You actually appear to have no concern for life or babies, or the kind of lives these babies will be born into. You are neither pro life nor pro birth.
You just want to punish and shame women for having sex.

NuMarvel · 27-04-2018 09:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what reasons did the other 100,000 have?

This is the kind of question you should ask and research before you declare most abortions are for "lifestyle" reasons, not after.

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 11:10AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is the kind of question you should ask and research before you declare most abortions are for "lifestyle" reasons, not after.

I think its safe to say that the kinds of situations being promoted by the pro-choice side is a fractional amount.

I mean, you don't hear much mention of what constitutes 50% of the reasons given for abortion - contraception failure (or better said, a failure to use contraceptive correctly). Do you?

antiskeptic · 27-04-2018 11:17AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Children shouldn't be a consequence. They should be wanted and treasured and cherished. Not brought into the world for the purpose of punishing the parents. For someone who is pro life you certainly don't have the best interests of the child at heart.

Pregnancy is a consequence - there are no should's about it. Bear (literally) the consequences and let someone else love and cherish the child if you can't.

Ah yes, grin and bear it. The makings of a wonderful parent/child relationship, and the foundations of a happy, stable childhood.

I don't think there would be problems finding people who'd love to adopt. I mean, with abortion rampant in the countries around us, there's hardly a glut of babies to adopt, is there?

That's the whole point of being Pro choice. We can differ on our thoughts and neither will be restricted by the other. We clearly have different views on it, but I shouldn't have to live my life and have my maternity care compromised, because of your views.

My view is that you bear the consequences of your actions (up to a point) and that you don't get to escape the consequences of your actions at anothers expense.

My "choice" that its indeed another in the womb doesn't require your permission - even if it's in your womb.

NuMarvel · 27-04-2018 11:31AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think its safe to say that the kinds of situations being promoted by the pro-choice side is a fractional amount.

That you can only say that you think this, and that you can't say you know this, highlights my point. You're asking people to argue on the basis of your assumptions and beliefs, not facts and research.

If you want to argue that abortion shouldn't be allowed in certain circumstances, then inform yourself about the frequency of those circumstances in the first place. Only then will anyone be able to have a proper discussion with you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, you don't hear much mention of what constitutes 50% of the reasons given for abortion - contraception failure (or better said, a failure to use contraceptive correctly). Do you?

It's been mentioned numerous times in the threads on Boards. So yeah, we do.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments