Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?

[Lursa]

You don't know what position I hold, and I don't share that position because that is what I wish to do.

And I just nailed it, didnt I? Look at your response , all I did was forget you accepted it in cases of rape. Otherwise, 100% ban on abortions.

Do you ever get anything right?

I have, on this site, gone as far to say that I support abortion when the life of the mother is clearly at risk and in cases of rape. But don't worry, you'll forget I said this and ask this rote question in a few month's time, again.

I nailed it! So your post is pretty silly. Obviously, I do know "what position you hold"

Why can we kill a person that's the result of rape? Can we kill a toddler that was created from rape? (Sorry, cant resist. It's that common pro-life inconsistency that keeps rearing it's head.)

 

[weaver2]

Several points:

• I never said pro-choice beliefs are a lie.

You don't have to say it. It just sits there like big lump .

• I never said I agree human life begins at conception.

Again you don't have to.

• US law no longer supports the classic "pro-choice" position. Dobbs put the issue beyond the scope of federal law.

That's true. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice advocates are required to change their basic philosophy that abortion should be legal, safe, accessible, private and that women know when is the right time to add a child to the family.

• For me, the Bible is irrelevant in this discussion.

Well, almost all your arguments against women and abortion seem to mirror the Church's philosophy on women, reproduction, abortion, sex and family.

• Embryology has its place in this discussion to help form a fact base, but it provides no moral guidance to assess what is right (or what does the least harm).

You really don't believe in least harm or that women and families living at or below the poverty line ( that's the 75% of all women who get abortions) know what they are doing when they abort an unplanned pregnancy when the family conditions would be devastated by adding a child or another child to an unstable, emotionally fragile family that knows it cannot care for a child at this time.

• Lastly, the US Constitution and the MA Constitution both grant me the right to vote, so if I choose to vote for politicians that support abortion laws I agree with, then that is my right. Anything else I can clear up for you?

Vote for your morality; it trumps the common sense, statistics and poverty of the women and families you vote against and vote for the non-sentient fetuses that will almost certainly face deep poverty and the difficulties, damage, and bad outcomes that come with it. Wrap your sanctimony in the certain knowledge that a few,very few, escape that future and thus validate your vote against legal safe accessible and private abortion. The only explanation for your vote is your statement you "feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you". You should also add or vote for laws that cost you nothing but help women and families needing, respect, clinics, health insurance, counseling and access to abortion when needed.

 

[choiceone]

It does seem the left will argue any facet of the abortion debate other than the actual point.

For example, I don't know you. I also think it would be wrong for someone to end your life, yet that concern is in no way less credible because I feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you.

The abortion debate is not about privacy. It's not about social welfare programs. It's not about religion. It's about coming to agreement on what is and what is not a working defintion of human life (with basic human rights). Anything else is noise.

You are assuming that an embryo or fetus has its own life. My view is: if that's what you think and the woman consents, get it out of the woman's body immediately and prove that its life doesn't depend biologically on hers. If you can't do that, you can't make that claim.

You do not have the right to argue that the life belongs to the embryo or fetus unless you can prove it objectively, and you can't. Stop pretending that this is about anything but the woman's right to her own life, her own liberty, and her own property. The embryo or fetus doesn't have a right to use a woman's body without her consent even to live any more than you or I have such a right.

 

[choiceone]

In my opinion, they aren't even pro birth, they are pro fetus which takes nothing more than them opening their collective mouths and complaining.

Actually, I remember reading about a case in Texas that really proved this. A woman was happily pregnant with twins until she learned that one twin was fatally deformed and threatening the life of the other, healthy twin and would eventually cause its death and then threaten her own life. But she was way passed the point at which she could get an abortion before six weeks and it wasn't yet seriously threatening her life, so she couldn't get an abortion for that reason. The law had completely ignored the possibility of one twin threatening another, and in order to save the healthy twin fetus, she had to go to Colorado to abort the fatally deformed twin.

 

[choiceone]

So what? When two people's rights are in conflict at least one of them will have their right violated. It happens in law all the time.

The fetus doesn't have rights as a person at the federal level for that reason, and the same reason governs the laws of almost every state. Alabama is an abominable anomaly.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Mostly they're not Jesus Christ Christians at all. They just go to churches to hang out with people of their own race and use Christianity to hate people not like themselves.

And they're all going to go to hell. They just pretend they're not.

 

[Gordy327]

The fetus doesn't have rights as a person at the federal level for that reason, and the same reason governs the laws of almost every state. Alabama is an abominable anomaly.

Even Alabama doesn't go full in on fetal personhood. Only as far in enough to restrict abortion but not far enough to establish full personhood & rights.

 

[choiceone]

We've had this debate before, as you well know. There are states that have established legal personhood for the fetus. In those states, fetal life trumps the woman's right to privacy. If you want to be reminded of those discussions, search for posts with "Human Life Protection Act" authored by me. I won't be repeating those arguments here.

No, in those states, it is assumed that an embryo or fetus has its own biological life independent of the woman's and it has a right to use her body against her will and without her consent for its own purpose even though it may irreparably injure and disable her.

In such a case, a woman doesn't have a right to life, because she has no right to defend her right against the risk of death in childbirth unless medical professionals say her life is in immediate serious danger. But if she dies in childbirth of medically unforeseeable complications, the doctors are not liable to prosecution. You can say she consented to the risk because she had sex, but what if she was raped?

The state is proving that it has no respect for the right to life of the girl or woman, because she's not allowed in law to protect herself from the embryo or fetus raping her body.

 

[Gordy327]

No, in those states, it is assumed that an embryo or fetus has its own biological life independent of the woman's and it has a right to use her body against her will and without her consent for its own purpose even though it may irreparably injure and disable her. In such a case, a woman doesn't have a right to life, because she has no right to defend her right against the risk of death in childbirth unless medical professionals say her life is in immediate serious danger. But if she dies in childbirth of medically unforeseeable complications, the doctors are not liable to prosecution. You can say she consented to the risk because she had sex, but what if she was raped? The state is proving that it has no respect for the right to life of the girl or woman, because she's not allowed in law to protect herself from the embryo or fetus raping her body.

The states cannot even provide an explanation why they have interest in a woman's gestation or why abortion should be restricted at all. For that matter, neither can anti-abortionists.

 

[choiceone]

You have to understand that in Christian thought, the gift of life is God's gift. Without God, there is no Life. Based on that logic, if you abort your child, you are essentially rejecting God's gift, and by extension rejecting God.

This is not Christian thought. It is a particular brand of Christian thought. In Luke, the Holy Spirit doesn't make Mary pregnant until she clearly objectively consents to a particular pregnancy, and throughout the OT and elsewhere in the Gospels, God never takes credit for any other pregnancy where the woman is unmarried and has not prayed to have a child.

There is also a place somewhat early in the OT where God speaks to certain complainers, saying, "Why are you coming and complaining to me? I am not your father. I am not your mother's husband. Go to her and tell her to stop her adulteries."

You have no right to claim that all apparent life is the gift of God. There is nowhere I know of in the OT or the Gospels where God is stupid enough to make a girl or woman pregnant if she is a rape victim, an unmarried girl, or indeed a woman who didn't want it.

But what about after the child is born, you ask? Well, according to Christian thought, life is also God's trial, and so whatever misfortunes that child goes through after birth is also as God wills it.

Just from that reasoning alone, you can see where the anti-abortion stance comes from. It's less to do with the philosophical debate about when life begins and more about them burning in Hell for rejecting their God.

If God were responsible for all the trials in life, He'd have to take responsibility for committing acts of permanent injury, rape, theft, and more instead of telling people not to commit them. If He did that, he'd be self-contradictory and thus self-defeating and not eternal. You are simply imposing a faulty human interpretation of the Bible and God on what is higher than your own understanding.

 

[choiceone]

The states cannot even provide an explanation why they have interest in a woman's gestation or why abortion should be restricted at all. For that matter, neither can anti-abortionists.

They're spending all their time thinking about controlling somebody else's sex organs. I don't think that sounds very Christian.

 

[Gordy327]

They're spending all their time thinking about controlling somebody else's sex organs. I don't think that sounds very Christian.

I don't think it sounds very rational. It just sounds weird.

 

[bongsaway]

Actually, I remember reading about a case in Texas that really proved this. A woman was happily pregnant with twins until she learned that one twin was fatally deformed and threatening the life of the other, healthy twin and would eventually cause its death and then threaten her own life. But she was way passed the point at which she could get an abortion before six weeks and it wasn't yet seriously threatening her life, so she couldn't get an abortion for that reason. The law had completely ignored the possibility of one twin threatening another, and in order to save the healthy twin fetus, she had to go to Colorado to abort the fatally deformed twin.

That wasn't all that long ago if I remember correctly?

 

[NatMorton]

And I just nailed it, didnt I? Look at your response , all I did was forget you accepted it in cases of rape. Otherwise, 100% ban on abortions.

No, that is simply not true.

 

[NatMorton]

You don't have to say it. It just sits there like big lump .

Again you don't have to.

That's true. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that the pro-choice advocates are required to change their basic philosophy that abortion should be legal, safe, accessible, private and that women know when is the right time to add a child to the family.

Well, almost all your arguments against women and abortion seem to mirror the Church's philosophy on women, reproduction, abortion, sex and family.

You really don't believe in least harm or that women and families living at or below the poverty line ( that's the 75% of all women who get abortions) know what they are doing when they abort an unplanned pregnancy when the family conditions would be devastated by adding a child or another child to an unstable, emotionally fragile family that knows it cannot care for a child at this time.

Vote for your morality; it trumps the common sense, statistics and poverty of the women and families you vote against and vote for the non-sentient fetuses that will almost certainly face deep poverty and the difficulties, damage, and bad outcomes that come with it. Wrap your sanctimony in the certain knowledge that a few,very few, escape that future and thus validate your vote against legal safe accessible and private abortion. The only explanation for your vote is your statement you "feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you". You should also add or vote for laws that cost you nothing but help women and families needing, respect, clinics, health insurance, counseling and access to abortion when needed.

Do you not vote your morality?

 

[NatMorton]

You are assuming that an embryo or fetus has its own life. My view is: if that's what you think and the woman consents, get it out of the woman's body immediately and prove that its life doesn't depend biologically on hers. If you can't do that, you can't make that claim.

You do not have the right to argue that the life belongs to the embryo or fetus unless you can prove it objectively, and you can't. Stop pretending that this is about anything but the woman's right to her own life, her own liberty, and her own property. The embryo or fetus doesn't have a right to use a woman's body without her consent even to live any more than you or I have such a right.

Do you really believe people do not possess the right to disagree with you? That's remarkable.

 

[NatMorton]

The fetus doesn't have rights as a person at the federal level for that reason, and the same reason governs the laws of almost every state. Alabama is an abominable anomaly.

You are absolutely correct. A fetus posses no rights under federal law.

Depending on the state, however, they do possess rights there.

 

[NatMorton]

No, in those states, it is assumed that an embryo or fetus has its own biological life independent of the woman's and it has a right to use her body against her will and without her consent for its own purpose even though it may irreparably injure and disable her.

In such a case, a woman doesn't have a right to life, because she has no right to defend her right against the risk of death in childbirth unless medical professionals say her life is in immediate serious danger. But if she dies in childbirth of medically unforeseeable complications, the doctors are not liable to prosecution. You can say she consented to the risk because she had sex, but what if she was raped?

The state is proving that it has no respect for the right to life of the girl or woman, because she's not allowed in law to protect herself from the embryo or fetus raping her body.

I suggest you avoid those states.

 

[Lursa]

No, that is simply not true.

Sure it is. Rape is the only exception. You denial isnt debate of course...it looks lame if you cant actually debate your position.

I've not heard of any bans that dont include if the mother's life is in immediate danger. Have you? All pro-life people agree to that AFAIK.

So what other exceptions do you accept and why? Please explain why you accept rape?

 

[NatMorton]

Sure it is. Rape is the only exception. You denial isnt debate of course...it looks lame if you cant actually debate your position.

I've not heard of any bans that dont include if the mother's life is in immediate danger. Have you? All pro-life people agree to that AFAIK.

So what other exceptions do you accept and why? Please explain why you accept rape?

You do not know my position on abortion.

 

[Lursa]

You do not know my position on abortion.

You just said I got it right except for the rape exception. Why are you changing your mind now? See post 51.

 

[NatMorton]

You just said I got it right except for the rape exception. Why are you changing your mind now? See post 51.

That is not my full position on abortion.

 

[Lursa]

That is not my full position on abortion.

Well nobody's stopping you from posting it. So far, that was accurate According to you.

 

[cpwill]

Today it seems that many Christians who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-birth. It can be seen in how Michael Johnson, who calls himself a Christain, is leading the way in cutting programs that hurt the very people Jesus said we should help, the poor. He like most of the other so called Christian GOPers in our legislature are hell bent on cutting those programs so they can give tax cuts for the very wealthy who have no need of them. And those cuts will lead to hunger and homelessness among the very people Jesus walked with when here on earth. So, I see many Christians who call themselves pro-life as just being pro-birth and as soon as those children are out of the womb, they do not give a shit about them.

Are you truly unable to understand the difference between:

"I think a large welfare state is not beneficial or appropriate at the federal level"​

​

And

​

"I think we shouldn't let people kill children"​

​

I mean, because, we could try to explain it to you... but if you honestly can't understand the difference between those two statements, I'm not sure it would do much good, as they would mostly be self-evident, and require the giving up of assumptions such as "Everyone Secretly Agrees With Me On How Economics Works".

 

[Lursa]

Are you truly unable to understand the difference between:

"I think a large welfare state is not beneficial or appropriate at the federal level"​

​

​

And

​

"I think we shouldn't let people kill children"​

​

I mean, because, we could try to explain it to you... but if you honestly can't understand the difference between those two statements, I'm not sure I it would do much good, as they would mostly be self-evident, and require the giving up of assumptions such as "Everyone Secretly Agrees With Me On How Economics Works".

Better to enable women to not produce those children at all if that's what's best for their welfare and those they care for and are responsible to. Then you can both be right. Right?