Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…152153155157158…174

Comments

  • #4622
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    Anti, please cease with the needlessly provocative posting.

    It should be possible to make your argument without resorting to paraphrasing Nazi slogans.

    This is your second warning about such posts.

    Please raise your standard to avoid further moderator action.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #4623
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Several flaws.

    A 12 week foetus is not a person.
    .

    What is it then?


  • #4624
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    What is it then?

    It’s a 12 week old fetus. Duh!


  • #4625
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,395 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    What is it then?

    It's a fetus.

    In the process of becoming a person if you like, but at 12 weeks it's not yet a person. And I don't think the majority of the country think it's a person either, or they wouldn't have voted to allow women to go abroad for abortions, and they would have no hesitation in having women arrested if they use abortion pills in Ireland.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #4626
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    What is it then?
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106924315&postcount=1877


  • Advertisement
  • #4627
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Overheal wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106924315&postcount=1877


    Here we go again..the old 5 people in the sea and a boat that holds 4 nonsense.

    There's a difference between a human embryo in a test tube and a living human in the womb.
    If you cant tell the difference its a sad day!


  • #4628
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    Here we go again..the old 5 people in the sea and a boat that holds 4 nonsense.

    There's a difference between a human embryo in a test tube and a living human in the womb.
    If you cant tell the difference its a sad day!
    And there is a difference between a human fetus in the womb and a living, breathing child.


  • #4629
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Overheal wrote: »
    And there is a difference between a human fetus in the womb and a living, breathing child.


    If the house is on fire, the pregnant woman doesn't have to differentiate between who to save. She can save both :D


  • #4630
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    If the house is on fire, the pregnant woman doesn't have to differentiate between who to save. She can save both :D
    In the analogy she would only be able to save the child or the embryos.

    Thank you for exemplifying the observations of the individual who wrote the post: you refuse to give a straight answer because you know there is no biological, moral, or ethical equivalence between a fetus/embryo and a child.


  • #4631
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Overheal wrote: »
    In the analogy she would only be able to save the child or the embryos.

    Thank you for exemplifying the observations of the individual who wrote the post: you refuse to give a straight answer because you know there is no biological, moral, or ethical equivalence between a fetus/embryo and a child.

    Thanks for telling me what you think I know:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #4632
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    Thanks for telling me what you think I know:confused:
    Well respectfully I just assume you must know it, anything less would be condescending.

    Alternatively you can give the analogy a straight A or B answer: A) the child, or B) the embryos? Tick tock.


  • #4633
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    While I can't comment for people here. I have met pro life folk who said if you're ascribing life to the embyros and those embyros will definitely be developed into humans then they'd save the embyros.


  • #4634
    Gobble deGook
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10 ✭Gobble deGook


    You can take another persons life to save your own as in self defence
    But you cannot kill an innocent for no particular reason
    That's my understanding of Christianity
    So I don't think a Christian can vote for unlimited abortion


  • #4635
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,583 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Turtwig wrote: »
    While I can't comment for people here. I have met pro life folk who said if you're ascribing life to the embyros and those embyros will definitely be developed into humans then they'd save the embyros.

    Would they leave the child as described in the scenario to die?

    Specifically asking as I know some who personally have deep moral issues with IVF.


  • #4636
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Turtwig wrote: »
    While I can't comment for people here. I have met pro life folk who said if you're ascribing life to the embyros and those embyros will definitely be developed into humans then they'd save the embyros.
    But if not all of those embryos will attach to the uteran wall, will not misdevelop due to complications, choke on their own umbilical cords etc etc etc?


  • #4637
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Gobble deGook wrote: »
    You can take another persons life to save your own as in self defence
    But you cannot kill an innocent for no particular reason
    That's my understanding of Christianity
    So I don't think a Christian can vote for unlimited abortion
    And that's reasonable.

    For me it comes down to some basic truths: there are now 7.6 Billion people in the world. Every time I go look up the number it shocks me where it is at. Last year the Earth Overshoot Day occurred on August 2nd - meaning we are consuming resources on this planet at a rate considerably faster than they are replenished. Additionally, there just aren't the social resources (or the private ones) in most situations to support unwanted children. There is still poverty in developed countries like the US and Ireland. There are still orphaned children, in both countries, that are waiting for adoption, and many that will never be adopted, that will as studies show always be at higher risk for never completing 2nd level education, or entering 3rd level education, are at higher risk of suicide and teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse, and as we've seen in a few cases in Ireland, but let's not get into it, let's just say - Orphanages are not safe places. And they never have been. Finally, even with the best intentions and planning: contraceptives fail. The pill even when taken correctly can still fail about 9% of the time according to CDC compiled data, the male condom about 22% of the time, and implants and sterilization still >1% of the time, but still at risk of happening.

    Unless you can guarantee a world where there are resources abundant for all, when you can guarantee that all children are homed and clothed and fed and schooled, that all men and women have exacting control over when to choose to conceive, and you eliminate rape, incest, and medical complications, then, you're always going to need abortion available in the society. It's an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless. The alternative is in that a few more generations the human race will have exhausted itself a like a great plague of locusts, with most people simply dying off of starvation or diseases.

    I don't blame couples that choose not to bring up a child they know will live in misery.

    What's more, if you want to get ecumenical, I don't believe the Bible says when life begins, or that abortion specifically is wrong (or murder). God breathed life into someone (the breath of life, living, breathing) and knitted some people he knew in the womb, but God is eternal, and knits all things, and knows all things of the past and present and future. It is just as well to argue god knows the rocks before he makes them: this does not make those rocks alive.

    The bottom line is to protect life on Spaceship Earth you're going to have to accept abortion as a reality.


  • #4638
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Overheal wrote: »
    But if not all of those embryos will attach to the uteran wall, will not misdevelop due to complications, choke on their own umbilical cords etc etc etc?

    Then apparently you do not understand the analogy you referenced in the first place.

    The analogy of the burning embryos typically assumes ideal conditions. The purpose being to get the person to emotionally explore the status of what constitutes a person to them.

    It does not question whether the woman or child is terminally ill and will die within that same day. Or whether the embryos will have a successful life. To do so would weaken the purpose of thought experiment.


  • #4639
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Then apparently you do not understand the analogy you referenced in the first place.

    The analogy of the burning embryos typically assumes ideal conditions. The purpose being to get the person to emotionally explore the status of what constitutes a person to them.

    It does not question whether the woman or child is terminally ill and will die within that same day. Or whether the embryos will have a successful life. To do so would weaken the purpose of thought experiment.
    I disagree. I also include all real factors into my thinking. The child is already alive and breathing and has managed to survive all of the tribulations of pregnancy (from being conceived of the one sperm out of millions, and an egg, to attaching to the wall, to receiving proper pre-natal nourishment and care, and being born into the world). Otherwise the analogy may as well read "one thousand embryos that will definitely become babies"


  • #4640
    Gobble deGook
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10 ✭Gobble deGook


    Overheal wrote: »
    And that's reasonable.

    For me it comes down to some basic truths: there are now 7.6 Billion people in the world. Every time I go look up the number it shocks me where it is at. Last year the Earth Overshoot Day occurred on August 2nd - meaning we are consuming resources on this planet at a rate considerably faster than they are replenished. Additionally, there just aren't the social resources (or the private ones) in most situations to support unwanted children. There is still poverty in developed countries like the US and Ireland. There are still orphaned children, in both countries, that are waiting for adoption, and many that will never be adopted, that will as studies show always be at higher risk for never completing 2nd level education, or entering 3rd level education, are at higher risk of suicide and teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse, and as we've seen in a few cases in Ireland, but let's not get into it, let's just say - Orphanages are not safe places. And they never have been. Finally, even with the best intentions and planning: contraceptives fail. The pill even when taken correctly can still fail about 9% of the time according to CDC compiled data, the male condom about 22% of the time, and implants and sterilization still >1% of the time, but still at risk of happening.

    Unless you can guarantee a world where there are resources abundant for all, when you can guarantee that all children are homed and clothed and fed and schooled, that all men and women have exacting control over when to choose to conceive, and you eliminate rape, incest, and medical complications, then, you're always going to need abortion available in the society. It's an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless. The alternative is in that a few more generations the human race will have exhausted itself a like a great plague of locusts, with most people simply dying off of starvation or diseases.

    I don't blame couples that choose not to bring up a child they know will live in misery.

    What's more, if you want to get ecumenical, I don't believe the Bible says when life begins, or that abortion specifically is wrong (or murder). God breathed life into someone (the breath of life, living, breathing) and knitted some people he knew in the womb, but God is eternal, and knits all things, and knows all things of the past and present and future. It is just as well to argue god knows the rocks before he makes them: this does not make those rocks alive.

    The bottom line is to protect life on Spaceship Earth you're going to have to accept abortion as a reality.


    But wasn't that the justification for crucifying Jesus?
    Some vague threats against the future of Judaism - ultimately unfounded


  • #4641
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,583 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Gobble deGook wrote: »
    But wasn't that the justification for crucifying Jesus?
    Some vague threats against the future of Judaism - ultimately unfounded

    No just the power of one man Caiaphas and his supporters according to some, others that he acted to save the Jewish faith against Rome, other arguements regarding why tend to be just anti semitic retroic.


  • Advertisement
  • #4642
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Gobble deGook wrote: »
    But wasn't that the justification for crucifying Jesus?
    Some vague threats against the future of Judaism - ultimately unfounded

    Idk about all that. Out of my scope.

    The overexploitation of Earth as a finite resource is a little less vague. As are the conflicts we see that result directly from issues of poverty and inequality.


  • #4643
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Overheal wrote: »
    Idk about all that. Out of my scope.

    The overexploitation of Earth as a finite resource is a little less vague. As are the conflicts we see that result directly from issues of poverty and inequality.

    If that's a reason for abortion, then the sooner life on this planet comes to an end the better!


  • #4644
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Overheal wrote: »
    Idk about all that. Out of my scope.

    The overexploitation of Earth as a finite resource is a little less vague. As are the conflicts we see that result directly from issues of poverty and inequality.

    Abortion isn't going to make finite resources increase. It will merely distribute what's there to less people. War's mostly aren't motivated by a need for sustenance. Greed (more than you need) is the usual motivation.


  • #4645
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    The decision to campaign on a platform of pro-choice belongs to the realm of tragic irony.

    For choice doesn’t involve coercian, manipulation or fear. In the measure that a person’s decision is influenced by these things, is their ability to genuinely choose diminished. One doesn’t choose to leap from a burning building. Rather, one is pushed out at the 20th floor by the force of advancing flames and choking smoke.

    Women don’t choose abortion lightly. Rather, they are herded into abortions by a sense of crisis. This crisis is brought about by the burning flames and choking smoke of financial ruin, destruction of health, lack of support, legalistic religion and more. Irish society provides no room at the inn for a woman in crisis.

    In the measure a society eliminates the elements that contribute to crisis, it provides women with true choice. The Dutch understand that. The Germans understand that. The British don’t understand that. These countries respective abortion rates demonstrate that fact in the starkest possible way.

    A vote No need not be read as a vote to retain an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. A vote No ought to be a clarion call leading to a society which is committed to, as others have shown themselves committed to, eradicating the components of crisis.

    A vote Yes is a vote for an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. It merely relocates the rug under which women in crisis are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

    To offer a woman true choice is to value her, and potentially her baby, as they ought to be valued.


  • #4646
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,583 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The decision to campaign on a platform of pro-choice belongs to the realm of tragic irony.

    For choice doesn’t involve coercian, manipulation or fear. In the measure that a person’s decision is influenced by these things, is their ability to genuinely choose diminished. One doesn’t choose to leap from a burning building. Rather, one is pushed out at the 20th floor by the force of advancing flames and choking smoke.

    Women don’t choose abortion lightly. Rather, they are herded into abortions by a sense of crisis. This crisis is brought about by the burning flames and choking smoke of financial ruin, destruction of health, lack of support, legalistic religion and more. Irish society provides no room at the inn for a woman in crisis.

    In the measure a society eliminates the elements that contribute to crisis, it provides women with true choice. The Dutch understand that. The Germans understand that. The British don’t understand that. These countries respective abortion rates demonstrate that fact in the starkest possible way.

    A vote No need not be read as a vote to retain an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. A vote No ought to be a clarion call leading to a society which is committed to, as others have shown themselves committed to, eradicating the components of crisis.

    A vote Yes is a vote for an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. It merely relocates the rug under which women in crisis are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

    To offer a woman true choice is to value her, and potentially her baby, as they ought to be valued.

    To do any of this you need to get rid of the 8th and change some people's attitudes to women.


  • #4647
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    To do any of this you need to get rid of the 8th and change some people's attitudes to women.

    Getting rid of the 8th in itself provides no impetus for dealing with the crisis element of a pregnancy. Indeed, by continuing to allow the sweeping of crisis under the rug of abortion on demand, you can guarantee there will be no change.


  • #4648
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,583 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Getting rid of the 8th in itself provides no impetus for dealing with the crisis element of a pregnancy. Indeed, by continuing to allow the sweeping of crisis under the rug of abortion on demand, you can guarantee there will be no change.

    Can't be like the countries you quoted with the 8th and repealing it will help as its one of the final articles brought in by religious mob rule that stigmatise women. It will allow for women who have been raped make a choice for them without being further stigmatised as well as cases of FFA.


  • #4649
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortion isn't going to make finite resources increase. It will merely distribute what's there to less people. War's mostly aren't motivated by a need for sustenance. Greed (more than you need) is the usual motivation.

    Idk about that. Studies predicted the Syrian Civil War years before it happened because of climate change: drought leading to food shortages created the tinderbox.

    Also need to look no further than countries like China who had their one-child policy for decades, had they not had this policy what would have really become of them? The smog issue alone is fascinating.

    Thing is, abortion is always going to be available for those with some measure of wealth. Banning it only keeps it out of the reach of the poor, whom are already not in the best positions to raise children.


  • #4650
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    If that's a reason for abortion, then the sooner life on this planet comes to an end the better!

    That’s flippant and ridiculous isn’t it? To hell with the entire human race for the personal choices some of us make?


  • Advertisement
  • #4651
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The decision to campaign on a platform of pro-choice belongs to the realm of tragic irony.

    For choice doesn’t involve coercian, manipulation or fear. In the measure that a person’s decision is influenced by these things, is their ability to genuinely choose diminished. One doesn’t choose to leap from a burning building. Rather, one is pushed out at the 20th floor by the force of advancing flames and choking smoke.

    Women don’t choose abortion lightly. Rather, they are herded into abortions by a sense of crisis. This crisis is brought about by the burning flames and choking smoke of financial ruin, destruction of health, lack of support, legalistic religion and more. Irish society provides no room at the inn for a woman in crisis.

    In the measure a society eliminates the elements that contribute to crisis, it provides women with true choice. The Dutch understand that. The Germans understand that. The British don’t understand that. These countries respective abortion rates demonstrate that fact in the starkest possible way.

    A vote No need not be read as a vote to retain an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. A vote No ought to be a clarion call leading to a society which is committed to, as others have shown themselves committed to, eradicating the components of crisis.

    A vote Yes is a vote for an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. It merely relocates the rug under which women in crisis are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

    To offer a woman true choice is to value her, and potentially her baby, as they ought to be valued.
    Speaking of Crises, there’s also trying to force women to make a difficult choice in a difficult timespan. 12 weeks is about the minimum length of time that seems reasonable. Some women don’t even conform they are pregnant until 6 weeks. Then you need time for counseling, insight around your friends, your family, time alone to your own thoughts. Getting it to a tighter window would just force women and families into even more panic feeling that their options are that more severely limited.


Advertisement