Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, I've inserted a couple of words to more accurately reflect where both you and I are coming fron. You have beliefs about what it is that constitutes humanity. There are philosophical roots to your belief (materialism, empiricism and the like) which in themselves cannot be proven to be the case.

You believe

I believe in God. I believe we are made in the image and likeness of God and as such we have immense value. I believe our being made thus commences at conception and has immense value from that point.

I believe.

Why dont you stop endlessly repeating yourself and actually state why you think a 12 week fetus is of equal or higher value than the bodily automony of the woman carrying it - rather than all this absurd talk of bets on conception?

I would have thought it obvious where I was coming from. Apologies for not stating what I thought would have been obvious.

Curiously, you don't have to believe in God to believe what I believe. I had an interesting discussion with an atheist who was going to vote No. He just felt that there was a mystery to life which he wasn't prepared to interfere with. He felt that life in the womb was holy ground and that he wasn't going to trample on it.

It's not unusual for people who don't believe to yet be awestruck such as to suppose themselves on holy ground: be it from a limitless night sky, the might of the sea to life in the womb.


-

Anyway, what was you answer re: the right to do as you please for whatever reason and obtain an abortion?

Conor Faint Frank wrote: »

I know some very involved and active Christians in other countries who absolutely support access to abortion. It seems to be the norm outside of Ireland. Countries like USA and Italy are largely Christian and religious but allow access to abortion. I think the idea of it being unchristian is fairly unique to Ireland.

I'd say a lot of those countries are like Ireland: nominally / culturally Christian.

Ireland is coming to the fag end of formerly dominant cultural Christianity. As a result of that past, it is running at fast pace to embrace "modernity".

Even if the the 8th isn't repealed this time round, I fully expect Ireland to fall into secular line in the not too distant future, as the older Catholics die off.

It's only a question of time.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was attempting to find out what worth the life in the womb had for you - understanding that it was less than equal.

By posing the construct I did, I sought to establish insight into that value (seeing as a 0-10 scale doesn't tell us much)

I think all could agree that the value attaching to life in the womb under the construct presented you is about as low as the persons involved could consider it as having.

The question, which you appear to want to avoid, is whether you support abortion in those circumstances. If so, then you would appear to attach similar value, even if you wouldn't engage in such activity yourself.

All of the language you use throughout this thread had been used to belittle women, to slut shame, to presuppose that abortion is a bad thing.

I do suppose abortion a bad thing - for the reasons already given.

I make no apology for highlighting the fact that abortions will be carried out for ignoble reasons. That is predicated on the life in the womb having value of course. If it does have value, then some reasons are ignoble - it can't be helped.

Perhaps you could answer the construct given you and we can find out something of the level of the value you place on life in the womb.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Can I ask what kind of women you associate with in real life that you are of the opinion women will play Russian roulette with their fertility and abort for sport?
I assume you must know women who would behave like that, to say you are worried?

I can hand on heart say I don't know a single woman who would behave in such a manner.

Neither do I.

The point of the exercise is to establish what value YES people attach to life in the womb (understanding already that they don't consider it of equal value).

If zero value, then they would support abortion availability to such a person, even if not condoning the activity that resulted in the pregnancy.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It stemmed from this:

Youll need to ask a more precise question if you want a reasonable answer.

But on what youve asked, irrelevant.

All that is important is that it is not equal in value or more valuable than the bodily autonomy of the body in which is resides.

Not equal didn't really say much about what value you attached to it. So I sought an answer in the way I did.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You support unrestricted abortion including circumstances of the construct. The construct isn't invalid - people have done far "worse" that anything in that construct.

Since you support abortion in even those (unlikely) circumstances, you automatically consider autonomy utilized for even those ends, as superior in value to the life in the womb.

Given your objection, you too appear to consider those ends as pretty ignoble. But the ignobility doesn't come into for you. Autonomy uber alles. Unrestricted.

But if the most ignoble of uses of bodily autonomy are sufficiently weighty to cause the scale to plummet in favor of your supporting abortion, then the weight on the opposite side must be correspondingly insignificant. That weight being the value of the life in the womb.

Ergo zero, or as near to zero as the level of ignobility on the other side of the scale can make it

SusieBlue wrote: »

You also claim not to know anyone who would carry on like that. So what's your point?

The point is the establish what value YES-ers attach to life in the womb. Let's say, life in the womb at 12 weeks for clarity.

You don't have to know anyone who would do this. The fact that people do worse than this means people can do this. You have to deal with what can, not what you think might or might not.

What say you to it? Read the post a couple above and tell me why, if you support abortion unrestricted, why I ought conclude you attach a value other than zero to life in the womb

(perhaps you don't already, in which case you can just state that)

I hold babies at such a high value that I think its selfish, nasty and vindictive to force women who don't even want to be pregnant, to have a baby.
Babies should be wanted and loved and cherished and when a woman says she cannot offer that we should BELIEVE HER, because insisting otherwise is of benefit to no one and not in the best interests of the potential child.

I'm afraid I don't agree with your kill them to spare them thinking. If the life in the womb is intrinsically valuable and recognised at such, then things can be done to ensure that life is given to people who would love and cherish it.

I reject the idea that adoption services can't be improved upon. I reject the idea that we can't prevent many crisis pregnancies arising in the first place. To suppose otherwise is a cop out.



If the life is considered equal, then having to bear a pregnancy you instigated is the price to be paid in order that the greater value be upheld (the life (high value) vs. having to bear the child (lower value)

If the life is considered of zero value, then you are fine in your view regarding abortion for whatever reason.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I actually don't have to justify myself to you, at all.

I would have thought you'd be able to justify conflicts for yourself. And be willing to share them.

Okay if you're not.

Especially when your underhanded way of figuring out my thoughts is through warped scenarios that do not happen in real life.

How do you know they or similarly ignoble scenarios don't happen in life. If you support unrestricted abortion you support, per definition, any and all scenarios.

I was just examining one potential one.

The world is overpopulated with abused, neglecting children as it is and I see no logic in adding more to that number.

Ireland isn't, demand from loving, childless people here and in European countries could be filled. Yet your solution to that is to kill them. You are unable to set your sights on, or campaign for something other than killing them.

You don't seem to realise how ridiculous this sounds.

A pre >12 week gestated fetus is not of equal value or importance to the woman carrying it, unless she chooses otherwise.

And if she chooses, by virtue of the most ignoble of circumstances in which the pregnancy comes about, that it has no value, then you support her in that. You think the baby has value, she doesn't, therefore it doesn't

Value means intrinsic value you think the baby has, quite aside from what anyone else thinks about it. If that's the value you apply, you apply it across the board - irrespective of what anyone thinks.


You haven't said what intrinsic (i.e. not dependent on the view of the mother) the 12 week old baby has.

None? Some value short of equal? Perhaps you could state what you think?

It is reckless and dangerous to have the constitution state same, because it ties doctors hands during emergencies and denies women choice, even in their maternity care during wanted pregnancies.

Yet some doctors say that their hands aren't tied. Why not find out whether they are or not? Or clarify the existing rules?

Any reason she deems necessary to terminate in the first 12 weeks is ok with me.

So long as she is acting in a way you suppose all good women would? Or in any and all circumstances, no matter how ignoble.

You seem to want to hide behind some idealised notion of people: that they can't be ultra-selfish and inconsiderate. That they aren't capable of the worst abominations? Under which rock are you living?

Stand up and be straight: face the fact that you will not only be supporting difficult case and cases with at least some merit. You will also be supporting the inconsiderate, selfish, and irresponsible.

Yes to the lot of it.

You are oversimplifying the matter by saying it can only be one way or the other. The problem with this amendment is that there are too many grey areas which is what is causing all these issues.

So sort them out without the oversimplication of abortion on demand.

Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time, in Ireland.
They are happening today, even with the 8th.
They will continue to happen even if its retained. As long as women are conceiving, there WILL be women seeking to terminate.
This is a fact.

Not a reason to provide abortions if you consider the life equal of course.

You are dithering on the value you place on life in the womb. Perhaps you can clarify things here.

The question is whether we want to regulate and supervise this, or if we want to pretend it isn't happening and look the other way.

Ditto above. What the woman wants isn't the only thing that matters, if life considered equal.