Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?
Options
Comments
-
DubInMeath wrote: »Actually I was undecided in terms of what way I'd vote, but on reading a lot of the pro life posts on here and checking other threads/posts by the same people and seeing the negative attitude they have to women, I decided I'm going to vote for repeal.
i don't believe you that this is your reason. in my view the idea that someone would vote a certain way on the basis of posters on a random website is just not true. i can understand your below post being the reasoning and i'd certainly except that as the reason.DubInMeath wrote: »The reasoning for this is that someone very close to me was raped. Luckily they didn't become pregnant from the attack, but have spent years trying to come to terms with it and I don't think they ever will, I'm not sure anyone does come to terms with it. But if they had become pregnant from the attack and been forced to carry to term it would most likely have destroyed her completely.
it may not mean much but i'm genuinely sorry for her. what happened to her is unimaginable and i hope the piece of work responsible was caught and locked up as it should be. i cannot agree however that the unborn should be killed. neither the unborn or the mother did anything wrong.DubInMeath wrote: »Reading the posts here from the pro life side on here actually sickened me when I thought of what else she might have had to go through and made me realise that what ever my feelings are on abortion, I'm certainly not going to force anyone to not have the choice to have one.
the problem for your argument is that every other law that tries to prevent people causing harm to others, is ultimately forcing people not to have the choice to cary out acts that harm others. why should this be different because it's the unborn? i have saw no reasoning to make me think this should be different. i don't include extreme circumstances within that such as the mother's life needing to be saved, FFA or a threat of permanent injury or disability to the mother.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
DubInMeath wrote: »Actually I was undecided in terms of what way I'd vote, but on reading a lot of the pro life posts on here and checking other threads/posts by the same people and seeing the negative attitude they have to women, I decided I'm going to vote for repeal.
The reasoning for this is that someone very close to me was raped. Luckily they didn't become pregnant from the attack, but have spent years trying to come to terms with it and I don't think they ever will, I'm not sure anyone does come to terms with it. But if they had become pregnant from the attack and been forced to carry to term it would most likely have destroyed her completely. Reading the posts here from the pro life side on here actually sickened me when I thought of what else she might have had to go through and made me realise that what ever my feelings are on abortion, I'm certainly not going to force anyone to not have the choice to have one.
You hit the nail on the head - the very essence of being pro choice is that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish.
You summed it up brilliantly. I hope your loved one is recovering well from what happened to her.0 -
end of the road wrote: »i don't believe you that this is your reason. in my view the idea that someone would vote a certain way on the basis of posters on a random website is just not true. i can understand your below post being the reasoning and i'd certainly except that as the reason.
it may not mean much but i'm genuinely sorry for her. what happened to her is unimaginable and i hope the piece of work responsible was caught and locked up as it should be. i cannot agree however that the unborn should be killed. neither the unborn or the mother did anything wrong.
the problem for your argument is that every other law that tries to prevent people causing harm to others, is ultimately forcing people not to have the choice to cary out acts that harm others. why should this be different because it's the unborn? i have saw no reasoning to make me think this should be different. i don't include extreme circumstances within that such as the mother's life needing to be saved, FFA or a threat of permanent injury or disability to the mother.
Yes what I've posted is the case as to why, as the attitudes posted show a deeper problem in Irish society towards victims of rape and with some posters just women in general, and I'm not just talking about this thread as a single example. I know that your not going to change your opinion and it's your right to have it and I'm not about to try and change your mind as that's not my place to do so. I have my opinions and beliefs but regardless of how I feel about the subject personally, I'm not going to force them on someone else through the statute book.0 -
You hit the nail on the head - the very essence of being pro choice is that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish.
You summed it up brilliantly. I hope your loved one is recovering well from what happened to her.
presumably on that score then you believe that we should remove, lets say, the drink drive laws? after all, the essence of pro-choice is supposibly that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish. the drink drive law is preventing someone from making the choice to go to the pub, and drive home afterwords.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »presumably on that score then you believe that we should remove, lets say, the drink drive laws? after all, the essence of pro-choice is supposibly that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish. the drink drive law is preventing someone from making the choice to go to the pub, and drive home afterwords.
Drink driving potentially harms living citizens.
I care about living citizens (such as pregnant women) so I do not agree with or condone drink driving.
As I have told you about 2908918642 times now on about 6 different threads, I care more about the pregnant living woman than I do about the potential human she is carrying.
Her needs, wants and rights will always supercede that of a pre 12 week old fetus and nothing on this earth will convince me otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
DubInMeath wrote: »Yes what I've posted is the case as to why, as the attitudes posted show a deeper problem in Irish society towards victims of rape and with some posters just women in general, and I'm not just talking about this thread as a single example. I know that your not going to change your opinion and it's your right to have it and I'm not about to try and change your mind as that's not my place to do so. I have my opinions and beliefs but regardless of how I feel about the subject personally, I'm not going to force them on someone else through the statute book.
but again, we are effectively forcing our beliefs on others via the statute book, in the form of every single law in the book. there will be people who will disagree with those laws and will unfortunately break them. i'm sure you agree, as i do, that those laws are implamented for the greater good and smoother functioning of society. it's the same with banning abortions outside extreme circumstances in ireland, it was implamented to try and protect as much as is practical, the unborn from being harmed, and uphold as much as is practical their right to life. yes people go abroad to kill them, but the reality is people do try and get around legislation, yet we don't simply abolish it because people break the law or try and get around the legislation.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Drink driving potentially harms living citizens.
bingo. abortion harms living citizens also, who are unborn.I care about living citizens (such as pregnant women) so I do not agree with or condone drink driving.
again, bingo. the unborn are living citizens as well. sadly, they can and have been the victims of drink driving.As I have told you about 2908918642 times now on about 6 different threads, I care more about the pregnant living woman than I do about the potential human she is carrying.
Her needs, wants and rights will always supervise that of a pre 12 week old fetus and nothing on this earth will convince me otherwise.
it's not a potential human, it's an actual human that is developing. personhood is the argument you are trying to have there.
if the mother's needs wants and rights come before the fetus before 12 weeks, then why not after 12 weeks, or even up to birth?
the reality is when we put the pro-choice arguments to the test, they fall down on the fact they can be stretched into issues you won't want to be changed, yet if they do get enough support to be, they could be changed whether you want it or not. the argument from most pro-life posters on the other hand have a consistent message, the unborn are humans and have a right to life. apart from extreme cases where it is absolutely necessary for their right to life not to be upheld.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »bingo. abortion harms living citizens also, who are unborn.
again, bingo. the unborn are living citizens as well. sadly, they can and have been the victims of drink driving.
it's not a potential human, it's an actual human that is developing. personhood is the argument you are trying to have there.
if the mother's needs wants and rights come before the fetus before 12 weeks, then why not after 12 weeks, or even up to birth?
the reality is when we put the pro-choice arguments to the test, they fall down on the fact they can be stretched into issues you won't want to be changed, yet if they do get enough support to be, they could be changed whether you want it or not. the argument from most pro-life posters on the other hand have a consistent message, the unborn are humans and have a right to life. apart from extreme cases where it is absolutely necessary for their right to life not to be upheld.
Please provide evidence that the unborn is regarded as a citizen under Irish law.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
end of the road wrote: »but again, we are effectively forcing our beliefs on others via the statute book, in the form of every single law in the book. there will be people who will disagree with those laws and will unfortunately break them. i'm sure you agree, as i do, that those laws are implamented for the greater good and smoother functioning of society. it's the same with banning abortions outside extreme circumstances in ireland, it was implamented to try and protect as much as is practical, the unborn from being harmed, and uphold as much as is practical their right to life. yes people go abroad to kill them, but the reality is people do try and get around legislation, yet we don't simply abolish it because people break the law or try and get around the legislation.
Women who decide not to have an abortion aren't going to be forced to have them.
Your comments regarding drink driving laws are just a deflection from the subject. It's like saying that we should go back to imprisoning unmarried mothers in church laundries.0 -
end of the road wrote: »bingo. abortion harms living citizens also, who are unborn.
again, bingo. the unborn are living citizens as well. sadly, they can and have been the victims of drink driving.
it's not a potential human, it's an actual human that is developing. personhood is the argument you are trying to have there.
if the mother's needs wants and rights come before the fetus before 12 weeks, then why not after 12 weeks, or even up to birth?
the reality is when we put the pro-choice arguments to the test, they fall down on the fact they can be stretched into issues you won't want to be changed, yet if they do get enough support to be, they could be changed whether you want it or not. the argument from most pro-life posters on the other hand have a consistent message, the unborn are humans and have a right to life. apart from extreme cases where it is absolutely necessary for their right to life not to be upheld.
Oh for goodness sake. Do you even read back on your posts before posting them?
How can something be both unborn and a living citizen? Please provide evidence for same.
I’d also like to point out that I previously told you I don’t wish to engage with you any more. I was simply commending someone else on their position and you took it as an opportunity to start soapboxing about the unborn.
I think we’ve long established we’re never going to see eye to eye on this so there was no reason for you to derail the thread by jumping on what I said to someone else with more of your nonsensical drivel.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh for goodness sake. Do you even read back on your posts before posting them?
How can something be both unborn and a living citizen? Please provide evidence for same.
I’d also like to point out that I previously told you I don’t wish to engage with you any more. I was simply commending someone else on their position and you took it as an opportunity to start soapboxing about the unborn.
I think we’ve long established we’re never going to see eye to eye on this so there was no reason for you to derail the thread by jumping on what I said to someone else with more of your nonsensical drivel.
Bingo0 -
Please provide evidence that the unborn is regarded as a citizen under Irish law.
currently i can't find anything that provides clarity either way on the issue. and i have looked.DubInMeath wrote: »Women who decide not to have an abortion aren't going to be forced to have them.
Your comments regarding drink driving laws are just a deflection from the subject. It's like saying that we should go back to imprisoning unmarried mothers in church laundries.
if we were to remove the drink driving laws, someone who would decide not to drink and drive wouldn't be forced to drink and drive. stating how someone wouldn't be forced to have an abortion, is just not an argument, given that if we were to remove other laws which try to prevent people causing harm to society, we would not be forced to commit those acts, but the removal of such laws are highly likely to allow for more harm to be caused to society. just like removing the 8th, which currently is likely protecting some unborn, via the mother deciding not to travel to the uk due to expence.
my comments are not deflection, but showing the logic of the pro-choice arguments to not stack up, given they can ultimately be used to change the laws in relation to other acts, which i would suspect the pro-choice side would also not want changed, but could be if there was enough support. bringing in the laundries, and unmarried mother's imprisonment, while a crime against humanity as far as i'm concerned, does nothing for the debate.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »currently i can't find anything that provides clarity either way on the issue. and i have looked.
if we were to remove the drink driving laws, someone who would decide not to drink and drive wouldn't be forced to drink and drive. stating how someone wouldn't be forced to have an abortion, is just not an argument, given that if we were to remove other laws which try to prevent people causing harm to society, we would not be forced to commit those acts, but the removal of such laws are highly likely to allow for more harm to be caused to society. just like removing the 8th, which currently is likely protecting some unborn, via the mother deciding not to travel to the uk due to expence.
my comments are not deflection, but showing the logic of the pro-choice arguments to not stack up, given they can ultimately be used to change the laws in relation to other acts, which i would suspect the pro-choice side would also not want changed, but could be if there was enough support. bringing in the laundries, and unmarried mother's imprisonment, while a crime against humanity as far as i'm concerned, does nothing for the debate.
So you made it up then. No proof. Colour me surprised.0 -
end of the road wrote: »currently i can't find anything that provides clarity either way on the issue. and i have looked.
if we were to remove the drink driving laws, someone who would decide not to drink and drive wouldn't be forced to drink and drive. stating how someone wouldn't be forced to have an abortion, is just not an argument, given that if we were to remove other laws which try to prevent people causing harm to society, we would not be forced to commit those acts, but the removal of such laws are highly likely to allow for more harm to be caused to society. just like removing the 8th, which currently is likely protecting some unborn, via the mother deciding not to travel to the uk due to expence.
my comments are not deflection, but showing the logic of the pro-choice arguments to not stack up, given they can ultimately be used to change the laws in relation to other acts, which i would suspect the pro-choice side would also not want changed, but could be if there was enough support. bringing in the laundries, and unmarried mother's imprisonment, while a crime against humanity as far as i'm concerned, does nothing for the debate.
Actually the law as it stands in relation to abortion causes harm to society, hence the campaign for its repeal.0 -
Oh for goodness sake. Do you even read back on your posts before posting them?
How can something be both unborn and a living citizen? Please provide evidence for same.
so a baby before birth isn't living? dispite having a heartbeat and kicking around?I’d also like to point out that I previously told you I don’t wish to engage with you any more. I was simply commending someone else on their position and you took it as an opportunity to start soapboxing about the unborn.
nope, never happened. i just wanted to correct some of what you stated and show how your argument didn't stack up. the reason you don't want to engage with me is because i show up your arguments. fair enough, but if you are going to argue you have to except you will be challenged.I think we’ve long established we’re never going to see eye to eye on this so there was no reason for you to derail the thread by jumping on what I said to someone else with more of your nonsensical drivel.
nope, this never happened. i simply counteracted your argument.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
So you made it up then. No proof. Colour me surprised.
so, whatever about exact citizenship, are the unborn before birth living?DubInMeath wrote: »Actually the law as it stands in relation to abortion causes harm to society, hence the campaign for its repeal.
for the most part, it causes no harm to society. there are some cases where it does cause harm, but via the government's proposals the chance of them being able to be legislated for has been put at risk. the campaign is mostly about allowing abortion on demand rather then simply medical abortions.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Until you look at the concept of just war and look at the huge numbers the Christians slaughtered in defence of their faith over the years, and the fact that Christians still become soldiers and law enforcement agents that will be involved in killing as a matter of course. Outside of war, Christians have been also killing as a form of punishment for centuries and still continue to do so in some jurisdictions. While I've no figures, I wouldn't imagine those involved in lethal crime are exclusively non-Christian either, and would suggest that Christians are no more or less prone to killing people than anyone else.
Onward, Christian Soldiers.....
Not what that means and we do not all believe in war of any kind . Not a valid comparison with killing unborn babies.0 -
Please provide evidence that the unborn is regarded as a citizen under Irish law.
This was raised in a recent court case, re a deportation order. All children including the unborn are protected under the constitution in exact words. The 8th amendment was added because of denial
Th e judge confirmed that the unborn hava a right to life0 -
This was raised in a recent court case, re a deportation order. All children including the unborn are protected under the constitution in exact words. The 8th amendment was added because of denial
Th e judge confirmed that the unborn hava a right to life
And perhaps you missed it but last week the Supreme Court ruled that the unborn foetus rights do not supercede that of the mothers. Therefore it’s the mothers choice and this was settled before we have the referendum.0 -
end of the road wrote: »so a baby before birth isn't living? dispite having a heartbeat and kicking around?
nope, never happened. i just wanted to correct some of what you stated and show how your argument didn't stack up. the reason you don't want to engage with me is because i show up your arguments. fair enough, but if you are going to argue you have to except you will be challenged.
nope, this never happened. i simply counteracted your argument.
It’s not a living citizen. You have no proof to back up your claim. Shouting it over and over will not make it so.
Unless you can find me something that says an unborn baby is a living citizen (those exact words) you are telling lies.
I recall about 3/4 times off the top of my head where I have told you I don’t wish to engage with you, im on my phone at the moment but will have no problem quoting these later for your attention.
My arguments do stack up, and regardless, I am under no obligation to justify myself or them to you. I will not change my opinion whatsoever.
And as I said, I didn’t make any arguments. I commended another poster on their opinion and you jumped on me with nonsense about drink driving.0 -
Advertisement
-
And perhaps you missed it but last week the Supreme Court ruled that the unborn foetus rights do not supercede that of the mothers. Therefore it’s the mothers choice and this was settled before we have the referendum.
no, the judge said the unborn have no rights outside the 8th. that's a little different to what you are stating dav.It’s not a living citizen. You have no proof to back up your claim. Shouting it over and over will not make it so.
Unless you can find me something that says an unborn baby is a living citizen (those exact words) you are telling lies.
I recall about 3/4 times off the top of my head where I have told you I don’t wish to engage with you, im on my phone at the moment but will have no problem quoting these later for your attention.
My arguments do stack up, and regardless, I am under no obligation to justify myself or them to you. I will not change my opinion whatsoever.
And as I said, I didn’t make any arguments. I commended another poster on their opinion and you jumped on me with nonsense about drink driving.
nope, i'm no longer claiming it's a citizen because i can't find clarity either way on it. i assumed understandibly that if they were of irish parentage they would still count as a citizen, but no actual clarity is availible via searches.
i am claiming however that an unborn baby is living, especially before birth. do you deny that a pre-birth baby is living?
you can quote whatever you want it won't make any difference to me. if you make an argument you have to except you will be challenged on it, it's a discussion forum. the reason the pro-choice argument's don't really stack up, is because they can be used to abolish every single law in the book if there was support for it. that could mean laws you agree with being abolished.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »no, the judge said the unborn have no rights outside the 8th. that's a little different to what you are stating dav.
nope, i'm no longer claiming it's a citizen because i can't find clarity either way on it. i assumed understandibly that if they were of irish parentage they would still count as a citizen, but no actual clarity is availible via searches.
i am claiming however that an unborn baby is living, especially before birth. do you deny that a pre-birth baby is living?
you can quote whatever you want it won't make any difference to me. if you make an argument you have to except you will be challenged on it, it's a discussion forum. the reason the pro-choice argument's don't really stack up, is because they can be used to abolish every single law in the book if there was support for it. that could mean laws you agree with being abolished.
It is not a citizen. If it was thexmorher could claim children’s allowance for it. She can’t. If she miscarried she could be under investigation for murder. She won’t. Cos the foetus *is not a citizen*0 -
And perhaps you missed it but last week the Supreme Court ruled that the unborn foetus rights do not supercede that of the mothers. Therefore it’s the mothers choice and this was settled before we have the referendum.
Please link to this as all I can find is that the only right of the unborn is the right to life? As in
http://www.newstalk.com/Supreme-Court-set-to-rule-on-the-rights-of-the-unborn
As opposed to citizenship?
Thank you0 -
Please link to this as all I can find is that the only right of the unborn is the right to life? As in
http://www.newstalk.com/Supreme-Court-set-to-rule-on-the-rights-of-the-unborn
As opposed to citizenship?
Thank you
A right to life EQUAL to that of the Mother.0 -
end of the road wrote: »currently i can't find anything that provides clarity either way on the issue. and i have looked.
I'll help you out.
When is a citizens PPS number usually assigned?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Not what that means and we do not all believe in war of any kind.
Simply not true, look up Just war, Holy War and Christian Violence. Christianity has had a very bloody history, including committing genocide, and even today is very far from universally pacifist.Not a valid comparison with killing unborn babies.
The point was made in response to your notion that that because there is a commandment stating thou shalt not kill, Christians don't kill people. This is a clearly nonsense.
While I personally don't consider abortion to be killing anyone, simple maths tells us that the majority of Irish women travelling to the UK to procure abortions are most probably Christian. Similarly, the majority of those who are pro-choice are definitely Christian.
I think you're making a mistake in confusing what's written in the bible, or what is recommended course of action advocated by the clergy, with how Christians in this country behave. Just because someone identifies as Christian does not mean there actions and morality are solely or even substantially informed by religious dogma.0 -
I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.
The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.
It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.
Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.
This is the current law in Ireland.
Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.
There is no caveat to the sixth commandment. In self defence or not. It is pretty finite.0 -
I said ALL in m y note.. We do not o ALL believe in war etc. ie in killing. I m not at war. I will not kill as the commandment of God forbids it.
Disagree with what I have bolded below.
As a Christian there is no way I could sanction abortion. if others choose to go against the Word of God, that is not what I will do .
There is no confusion in me on this . Abortion is a death to a human in utero.
The point was made in response to your notion that that because there is a commandment stating thou shalt not kill, Christians don't kill people. This is a clearly nonsense.
While I personally don't consider abortion to be killing anyone, simple maths tells us that the majority of Irish women travelling to the UK to procure abortions are most probably Christian. Similarly, the majority of those who are pro-choice are definitely Christian.
I think you're making a mistake in confusing what's written in the bible, or what is recommended course of action advocated by the clergy, with how Christians in this country behave. Just because someone identifies as Christian does not mean there actions and morality are solely or even substantially informed by religious dogma.[/QUOTE]0 -
MommySquish wrote: »There is no caveat to the sixth commandment. In self defence or not. It is pretty finite.
Amen to this.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement