Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

c_man · 14-01-2018 8:51pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Similar to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans.

I'd put good money on you not having read the Bible. Come on, be honest.

Bubbaclaus wrote:

But how does that tie in with the very basis of this thread. How can a Christian vote for marriage equality?

Equality?

I guess you mean gay marriage. I suppose by ticking the box on the ballot? I could imagine Mormon derivates (who consider themselves Christians) laugh at the idea of someone using "equality" there given that polygamy is banned by the State.

J C · 14-01-2018 8:52pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interestingly, In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cited scientific research to the effect that, when stripped of local factors such as education, religion, societal norms and the like, human morality the world over is the same. It didn't matter if the human was a member of a primitive tribe, or a member of a sophisticated society.

Richard's point, obviously, was to point to a common ancestor for this unity of morality. The Christian wouldn't disagree about that, we'd only differ on who the common ancestor was.

Seems God has given us a clear list of do's and don't. But that man is capable of bending them to his own ends.

All quite correct ... everyone has an instinctive (God-given) conscience that allows them to determine what is right and what is wrong ... and this is independent of religion (or lack thereof).

100% in agreement with Prof Dawkins on this fact.;):)

J C · 14-01-2018 8:56pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

But how does that tie in with the very basis of this thread. How can a Christian vote for marriage equality?

All that was at issue was marriage equality in the eyes of the State ... why would a Christian have a problem with that ... live and let live ... and all that.

The removal of the 8th will not be a situation of live and let live ... it will be as situation of live and let die.

Bubbaclaus · 14-01-2018 8:58pm

c_man wrote: »

Equality? I guess you mean gay marriage. I suppose by ticking the box on the ballot? I could imagine Mormon derivates (who consider themselves Christians) laugh at the idea of someone using "equality" there given that polygamy is banned by the State.

Come off it with the 'confused' face. It was a marriage equality referendum and was repeatedly referred to as such. I was proud we voted yes to equality that day, but a bit dismayed that 30% of this nation are against equality.

J C · 14-01-2018 8:58pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Similar to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans.

I think that we may have read a different Bible, allright.:)

... or if we didn't ... we certainly must have read it differently.:D

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 14-01-2018 9:05pm

Bubbaclaus wrote:

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

J C · 14-01-2018 9:05pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Come off it with the 'confused' face. It was a marriage equality referendum and was repeatedly referred to as such. I was proud we voted yes to equality that day, but a bit dismayed that 30% of this nation are against equality.

... all very laudable.
... now where do you stand on the next issue of equality facing the Nation ... equality for unborn children?

54and56 · 14-01-2018 9:21pm

J C wrote: »

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Three things:

1. It's very simple all right and very clear until you start to add qualifications to suit your own viewpoint. If it was read as simply as it's written no christian would ever kill any living thing and I've yet to meet a christian who hasn't killed something.

2. Christians are as free to vote for abortion as they did for divorce.

3. Defining a foetus incapable of independent life as a living or human being is just religiously motivated nonsense.

NuMarvel · 14-01-2018 9:28pm

J C wrote: »

... and the unborn's right to life is also secondary to a woman's life, when it is threatened by the unborn child.
The 8th doesn't give absolute protection to the life of the unborn ... nor indeed should it.

Equally, it shouldn't be removed, thereby totally stripping the right to life from all unborn children.

... so what is your point exactly?

My point is that if the unborn's right to life is supposedly fundamental, it's odd that our Constitution puts it below being able to get on a plane or a boat or looking up information about abortion clinics abroad.

If we can put those above the unborn's rights, I see no reason why we can't do the same with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, or her right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment.

uck51js9zml2yt · 14-01-2018 9:28pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Three things:

1. It's very simple all right and very clear until you start to add qualifications to suit your own viewpoint. If it was read as simply as it's written no christian would ever kill any living thing and I've yet to meet a christian who hasn't killed something.

2. Christians are as free to vote for abortion as they did for divorce.

3. Defining a foetus incapable of independent life as a living or human being is just religiously motivated nonsense.

You're absolutely right. Christians are free to vote as they want.

Since when has any pregnant lady called the child she was carrying a ""foetus" and not her baby?

It's only the pro abortionists that are calling the child a foetus and saying it's not a child.

If we say it long enough and loud enough, enough will believe it and vote to repeal

No different to the "equality" referendum which was really to give homosexuals the right to marry. Let's call it what it was. For the record, I voted against it as it redefined what God had called marriage. I went with His definition! A small group, shouting loudly enough and shouting down those who dared hold a different point of view, who in the end won.

J C · 14-01-2018 9:37pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Three things:

1. It's very simple all right and very clear until you start to add qualifications to suit your own viewpoint. If it was read as simply as it's written no christian would ever kill any living thing and I've yet to meet a christian who hasn't killed something.

The 10 Commandments were given to man to govern relationships between men ... and not with animals, So, it is clear that we are talking about not killing other Human Beings.
Logic and justice implies that we are entitled to defend ourselves and thus 'thou shall not kill' means you shall not kill other Human Beings unless in self defense or in the defense of another Human Being, where no other option is available.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

2. Christians are as free to vote for abortion as they did for divorce.

They are ... but nobody died, as a result of divorce ... this will not be the case, if the 8th is removed.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

3. Defining a foetus incapable of independent life as a living or human being is just religiously motivated nonsense.

... it is an objective scientifically verifiable fact that an unborn child is a Human Being ... a legal fiction will need to be created to remove the personhood from unborn children, if they are to be legally killed.
This is necessary, because the laws guaranteeing every person's right to life is grounded on their personhood ... and before an unborn child can be legally killed their personhood must be removed in law.
It is a legal fiction, because an unborn child is truthfully a person ... so the falsehood that it isn't a person has to be created to allow it to be killed.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 9:39pm

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Since when has any pregnant lady called the child she was carrying a ""foetus" and not her baby?

It's only the pro abortionists that are calling the child a foetus and saying it's not a child.

It's totally understandable for a pregnant woman to call her foetus a "baby" as she wants the outcome of the pregnancy to be a baby but that doesn't make calling a foetus a baby any more accurate than calling a tadpole a frog or a caterpillar a butterfly.

Wanting a foetus to be a baby doesn't make it a baby add you can name call and label those using the correct terms "pro abortionists" or whatever you want, it just highlights the vacuous nature of your argument.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 9:45pm

J C wrote: »

Logic and justice implies that we are entitled to defend ourselves and thus 'thou shall not kill' means you shall not kill other Human Beings unless in self defense or in the defense of another Human Being, where no other option is available.

Hilarious for someone taking a religious viewpoint to selectively use logic as a basis for argument here.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 9:47pm

J C wrote: »

They are ... but nobody died, as a result of divorce ... this will not be the case, if the 8th is removed.

Nobody will die if the 8th is removed either. A foetus isn't a person.

uck51js9zml2yt · 14-01-2018 9:48pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Hilarious for someone taking a religious viewpoint to selectively use logic as a basis for argument here.

You assume Christians arent logical! A grave mistake.

J C · 14-01-2018 9:51pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

My point is that if the unborn's right to life is supposedly fundamental, it's odd that our Constitution puts it below being able to get on a plane or a boat or looking up information about abortion clinics abroad.

We have been over the reasons for pregnant womens rights to travel werever they please ad nauseum at this stage ... its the same right everyone else enjoys ... and is a matter of both justice and equality that they enjoy these rights.
... and for the removal of any doubt, these rights are specifically enshrined in the Constitution ... and correctly so.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If we can put those above the unborn's rights, I see no reason why we can't do the same with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, or her right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment.

Being pregnant is a perfectly natural state of affairs, for a fertile woman and cannot be logically considered to be either cruel or degrading.
As for bodlily autonomy, this right is limited for everybody to the extent that they cannot use their bodily autonomy to harm anybody else.
I cannot use my bodily autonomy to hit you ... because this will harm you ... equally, a woman cannot use her bodily autonomy to harm her unborn child.

J C · 14-01-2018 9:59pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nobody will die if the 8th is removed either. A foetus isn't a person.

A foetus is truthfully and legally a person in Ireland at present ... we will need to create the legal fiction that it isn't a person, if we remove the 8th and want to kill it.

... and I note a strange reluctance to answer my question on where you all stand on the next issue of equality and childrens rights facing the Nation ... equality and the right to life for unborn children?

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:04pm

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You assume Christians arent logical! A grave mistake.

I assume nothing, to do so makes an ass of u and me.

All religious people without exception suspend logic because "faith" is the wilful suspension of reason and logic. Religion requires the suspension of reason and logic from the cradle to the grave.

Religious people may employ logic selectively. Not doing so exclusively is in fact a grave mistake for them but c'est la vie.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:11pm

J C wrote: »

... it is legally a person at present in Ireland ... we will need to create the legal fiction that it isn't a person, if we remove the 8th and want to kill it.

The fact is the constitution currently ascribes an incorrect status to fetuses which repealing the 8th will correct.

Whether the constitution says a foetus is a person or not has zero impact on the facts of the situation.

J C wrote: »

... and I note a strange reluctance to answer my question on where you all stand on the next issue of equality facing the Nation ... equality for unborn children?

That's the first I heard of such a issue facing the nation but nevertheless to answer your question directly, "No" I don't agree with equality for fetuses.

Bubbaclaus · 14-01-2018 10:24pm

Always found it odd that people referred to a clump of cells as an "unborn child".

I suppose the sperm in my testes is an unborn child too. Kicking me in the bollocks is attempted murder?

J C · 14-01-2018 10:29pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I assume nothing, to do so makes an ass of u and me.

You say that you assume nothing ... and then you go and make unfounded assumptions in the next sentence.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

All religious people without exception suspend logic because "faith" is the wilful suspension of reason and logic. Religion requires the suspension of reason and logic from the cradle to the grave.

The Christian Faith is supported by the logical application of observed phenomena ... and the 'fathers' of practically all modern science disciplines were Christians.
There is a thread running for over 12 years on this forum discussing (in part) this issue ... so lets agree to differ on this ... I'll not call you illogical ... if you do me the same courtesy.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Religious people may employ logic selectively. Not doing so exclusively is in fact a grave mistake for them but c'est la vie.

... and I'll not accuse you of the selective use of logic ... if you also don't engage in such unparliamentary language.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:30pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Always found it odd that people referred to a clump of cells as an "unborn child".

I suppose the sperm in my testes is an unborn child too. Kicking me in the bollocks is attempted murder?

That's just silly Bubbaclaus, the sperm in your testes are half an unborn child and, once J C has resolved the next great issue of equality facing the nation she will then apply her considerable powers of persuasion and logic to campaign for the ultimate equality issue facing the nation i.e. the equality of male sperm with female ovum and draft a new amendment to the constitution banning the release of any sperm from the male body unless it is for the direct fertilisation of an ovum and classing all w@nking as murder.

Water John · 14-01-2018 10:31pm

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:37pm

J C wrote: »

The Christian Faith is supported by the logical application of observed phenomena

Observed phenomena like people re-growing limbs by any chance?

I'll leave it here

J C · 14-01-2018 10:39pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

That's the first I heard of such a issue facing the nation but nevertheless to answer your question directly, "No" I don't agree with equality for fetuses.

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state names a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing selectivity !!:(

Anyway ... as I genuinely believe in the equality of all persons ... I will be voting to maintain the legal equality of all persons in this state when it comes to the serious matter of life and death.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 14-01-2018 10:42pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

Observed phenomena like people re-growing limbs by any chance?

What do you have to see to believe? I don't think it is possible for you, unfortunately.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:44pm

Water John wrote: »

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

I thought the OP's question was whether Christians could vote for unlimited abortion and that it has in fact been answered many times by many people i.e. yes they "can" vote for unlimited abortion just as the majority of christians (or if not the majority close to half) voted against their stated religions stance on divorce and gay marriage. Whether or not they "should" vote for unlimited abortion is a different question and equally easy to answer. No practising christian should vote for anything which contravenes the rules/commandments of their religion and it's pretty clear christians generally interpret the "thou shalt not kill" commandment as applying to fetuses so they "should not" vote in favour of unlimited abortion.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:45pm

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

What do you have to see to believe? I don't think it is possible for you, unfortunately.

Actual evidence maybe and then I don't have to "believe" anything because it would be factually established.

J C · 14-01-2018 10:46pm

Water John wrote: »

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

When all else fails you start strawmanning!!!
Quote:-
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

For example, I have not acccused any woman of commiting murder ... and specifically in relation to their right to travel, for whatever reason, including to procure abortion, I could not have been more clear that I fully supported that right.

... and as for the 'sacred sperm' ... that is a figment of your very fertile imagination (pun intended)!!!:D

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:47pm

J C wrote: »

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state calls a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing!!:(

That's because unborn fetuses are not people. What's hard to understand about that? No one I know is pretending otherwise. Human rights apply to actual humans, not fetuses.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 14-01-2018 10:48pm

Of course it's murder.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 10:52pm

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Of course it's murder.

It's as close to murder as blowing a load during anal sex is half a murder

Mmmmm, time for bed :eek:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-01-2018 10:56pm

J C wrote: »

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state names a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing!!:(

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is not my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

J C · 14-01-2018 11:10pm

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is no my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

Nobody is asking for a country ruled by Biblical Law.

There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity why we shouldn't countenance the intentional killing of unborn children except in very exceptional circumstances ... and all of these issues have been freely and civilly debated on this thread.
None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

If you look at the number of posters that seem to be 'yes' and 'no' I'd say they are pretty balanced in number and debating ability ... and the thread, despite being focussed on the Christian dimension to abortion (it is on a Christianity forum after all) has encompassed all views right across the spectrum including the legal and the philosophical and irreligious viewpoints, as well.

I am an ordinary Christian man, so I fully understand the issues that can arise, where abortion may seem the solution ... but for all of the reasons debated on this thread I don't think that it can be justified except in exceptional situations.

I fully agree that we must live in a civil state under civil laws ... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil process.

I regret that the thread hasn't lived up to your expectations ... but I would point out that I have made my points in a civil and respectful manner.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 11:12pm

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is no my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

Well said Lisa Billions Gum,

People should be free to practise their religion without interference but equally religion, regardless of which brand it is, should impose it's values on others of different religions or none.

The ban on abortion was inserted in to the constitution due to the overwhelming influence the catholic church had on the country at the time the constitution was drafted.

Thankfully we've moved on and bit by bit the influence of religion is being removed from our laws and being replaced by civil laws.

Removing the ban on abortion will have zero impact on christians who wish to practise their faith, they can simply choose not to have an abortion.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 11:18pm

J C wrote: »

Nobody is asking for a country ruled by Biblical Law.

There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity why we shouldn't countenance the intentional killing of unborn children fetuses except in very exceptional circumstances ... and all of these issues have been freely and civilly debated on this thread.
None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

... and an unborn child fetus that is killed, as a result of the removal of the 8th ... will be clinically and factually dead ... and religion has nothing to do with this stubborn fact.

There ya go again mislabelling fetuses as children.

No matter how often you say it it still won't make fetuses children anymore than caterpillars are butterflies or tadpoles are frogs and to advance your whole argument on such a factually incorrect basis highlights how subjective rather than objective your argument is.

Mrs OBumble · 14-01-2018 11:25pm

I'm finding this talk of unrestricted access to abortion hilarious.

We already have unrestricted access to hip-replacements and to cosmetic surgery.

That doesn't mean everyone who wants one will get one. In some cases, the doctor will say "sorry, there would be no clinical benefit for you in having a XYZ procedure". In others, the wait to see a consultant - yes even in the private sector - is so long that treatment availability is very limited, even though it's legal.

Even if the 8th is repealed, I predict that access to induced abortion will be far more limited than anyone expects.

FWIW, I will be voting for repeal, based on minimising harm and having no real effect on the rate of induced abortions being done to Irish women: all it will change is the place they happen in.

J C · 14-01-2018 11:30pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Well said Srameen,

People should be free to practise their religion without interference but equally religion, regardless of which brand it is, should impose it's values on others of different religions or none.

The ban on abortion was inserted in to the constitution due to the overwhelming influence the catholic church had on the country at the time the constitution was drafted.

Thankfully we've moved on and bit by bit the influence of religion is being removed from our laws and being replaced by civil laws.

Removing the ban on abortion will have zero impact on christians who wish to practise their faith, they can simply choose not to have an abortion.

Says the guy who posted this piece of wisdom ... presumably believing it to be some kind of contribution to the debate!!

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's as close to murder as blowing a load during anal sex is half a murder

Mmmmm, time for bed :eek:

54and56 · 14-01-2018 11:32pm

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

Which one?

J C · 14-01-2018 11:32pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

There ya go again mislabelling fetuses as children.

No matter how often you say it it still won't make fetuses children anymore than caterpillars are butterflies or tadpoles are frogs and to advance your whole argument on such a factually incorrect basis highlights how subjective rather than objective your argument is.

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.
... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 11:33pm

J C wrote: »

Says the guy who posted this piece of wisdom ... presumably believing it to be some kind of contribution to the debate!!

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

NuMarvel · 14-01-2018 11:35pm

J C wrote: »

A foetus is truthfully and legally a person in Ireland at present ...

The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about this next month, but I guess we can tell them not to bother, because Judge JC has already decided. :rolleyes:

A foetus is not legally a person. If it were, then every pregnant women would be able to claim child benefit. Every miscarriage would have to have a death certificate issued. The act of an illegal abortion would have to be regarded as a homicide and have penalties of up to life imprisonment. So, no, a foetus is not legally a person.

In future, please do some proper research before making wild claims about what the law says, because it's doing your argument absolutely no favours.

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.
... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.

See above.

54and56 · 14-01-2018 11:40pm

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw · 14-01-2018 11:45pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

I think what you are saying is completely wrong. But I can't change your mind, if the above is what you believe.

J C · 14-01-2018 11:46pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm finding this talk of unrestricted access to abortion hilarious.

We already have unrestricted access to hip-replacements and to cosmetic surgery.

That doesn't mean everyone who wants one will get one. In some cases, the doctor will say "sorry, there would be no clinical benefit for you in having a XYZ procedure". In others, the wait to see a consultant - yes even in the private sector - is so long that treatment availability is very limited, even though it's legal.

Even if the 8th is repealed, I predict that access to induced abortion will be far more limited than anyone expects.

FWIW, I will be voting for repeal, based on minimising harm and having no real effect on the rate of induced abortions being done to Irish women: all it will change is the place they happen in.

The difference is that you will be personally approving all abortions that occur following the repeal of the 8th.

At present, you bear no moral responsibility for what other people are doing.

If you are happy that abortions are morally correct, (for the reasons you cite) then you should have no issues with this.

J C · 14-01-2018 11:49pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

A child is a child of a parent, whatever age (or stage of development) the child may be.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-01-2018 11:51pm

J C wrote: »

...There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity ...

None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

... so I fully understand the issues that can arise...

... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil...

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

J C · 14-01-2018 11:53pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

I was attacking one of your posts, by contrasting it with another one of your posts.

Nothing personal in it at all.:)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-01-2018 11:55pm

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

And my God said "Love your enemies"

J C · 14-01-2018 11:56pm

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

I never shouted at you or anybody else.

Shouting is using CAPITAL LETTERS ... embolding text is used for clarity and emphasis.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments