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

[Fearandloathing]

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.

I'm just anti-god.

I do not believe anyone has any right of demand on anyone else. Period. No book of suspicious origin is EVER going to change that.

Religion exists as a social tool to keep the tribe out of trouble. The little guys invented this invisible power who controlled nature to run the tribe. The pattern is the same across 4 centuries and every continent from Africa to North America.

There is no god, only fear the the godly can use to manipulate. Fear IS the greatest human motivation.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So if a woman is sexually assaulted and impregnated against her will, does the fetus override the woman's rights in that case?

Not in my book.

In my world the choice is the woman's and the cost is to be borne by the father....regardless!

 

[Lursa]

So if a woman is sexually assaulted and impregnated against her will, does the fetus override the woman's rights in that case?

Some pro-life people and posters definitely believe it does. For some, the unborn, with the potential for loving and being loved, creating, joining, contributing, failing, building, supporting others, interacting, etc. should supersede the woman who is actually doing those things and could lose many or all of them during gestation/childbirth.

 

[Ganondagan]

It's not about life. It's about control.

Once you realize that, all the screamingly obvious contradictions magically resolve themselves.

Every time an abortion is performed someone dies. How is that not about life?

When Human Life Begins​

You are being redirected...

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

 

[Gordy327]

Every time an abortion is performed someone dies.

Whom? Abortion no more causes "someone" to die than antibiotics cause something to die. Abortion is much safer than gestation and birth.

How is that not about life?

It is It's about the woman's life. Perhaps the better question is, how is it anyone else's business or concern?

When Human Life Begins​

You are being redirected...

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

The ACP is a socially conservative group well known for their antiabortion stance. Hardly non-biased or credible. Besides, who here is arguing when "human life begins?" That is neither the issue or relevant.

 

[Lursa]

Every time an abortion is performed someone dies. How is that not about life?

When Human Life Begins​

You are being redirected...

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

Yes, science is very clear on when human life begins...taught in every grammar school. A new, individual Homo sapiens with unique DNA is created at fertilization/implantation. Science is objective and science recognizes no value or rights for any species, including humans.

Rights, value, legal status are man-made concepts and subjective. The Const. and federal law recognize no rights for unborn human life. Dobbs confirmed this by enabling states to allow women/their doctors to have/perform abortions, no due process required. And many, even most states do.

There is no societal consensus that abortion is wrong. No one "likes" it, but like divorce or surgery, these are things that are sometimes necessary for life, health, security for a family, food on the table, etc. The federal govt has not ruled that it is wrong or illegal. Is there some other authority that American women are compelled to obey?

 

[cpwill]

Didnt say they dont.

Ah. So when you said:

People make lots of unfounded or careless or irrational or indoctrinated arguments or opinions. That doesnt mean they should be forced on others, harming others, taking the consent of others.

People have belief systems. They have a right to those. They dont necessarily have the right to impose those beliefs on those that dont believe the same.

What did you think Law was?

 

[Lursa]

Ah. So when you said:



What did you think Law was?

I said "necessarily." For examples, we dont base our laws solely on religious belief. We dont base our laws solely on those that wish to exploit natural resources without restrictions.

We base our laws on what's allowed under the Constitution. Within that, we base our laws on the good of national security. On public health. On the good of society. To respect individual consent and liberty. Things like that. And if it's not enumerated in the Const, most things are allowed unless they are found to be detrimental to things like those I just listed.

 

[Ganondagan]

Whom? Abortion no more causes "someone" to die than antibiotics cause something to die. Abortion is much safer than gestation and birth.

It is It's about the woman's life. Perhaps the better question is, how is it anyone else's business or concern?

The ACP is a socially conservative group well known for their antiabortion stance. Hardly non-biased or credible. Besides, who here is arguing when "human life begins?" That is neither the issue or relevant.

For a moral person it's both.

 

[Ganondagan]

Yes, science is very clear on when human life begins...taught in every grammar school. A new, individual Homo sapiens with unique DNA is created at fertilization/implantation. Science is objective and science recognizes no value or rights for any species, including humans.

Rights, value, legal status are man-made concepts and subjective. The Const. and federal law recognize no rights for unborn human life. Dobbs confirmed this by enabling states to allow women/their doctors to have/perform abortions, no due process required. And many, even most states do.

There is no societal consensus that abortion is wrong. No one "likes" it, but like divorce or surgery, these are things that are sometimes necessary for life, health, security for a family, food on the table, etc. The federal govt has not ruled that it is wrong or illegal. Is there some other authority that American women are compelled to obey?

Their conscience, their sense of morality.

 

[weaver2]

What gives a blastocyst “a life” when you have no such concerns about discarding sperm and egg?
Why does a zygote’s existence give someone else the right to exert control over a woman’s body?
Why would the government have that same control?
It is not rational to extend the same rights that citizens have to a clump of cells contained within one of those citizens.

It makes no sense to confer rights on a a zygote as a potential human being but ignore the the potential of an egg and sperm. Potential is not an actual. A zygote is no more a human being than shortening, sugar eggs, milk, flour flavoring and soda sitting on the counter are cookies. And the idea that specific religious organizations can petition the government to control cookie and baby making is insane, especially since cookies can be as surreptitiously made as can babies be aborted by a woman determined to abort.

No, it actually is about religion and/or controlling women - assuming the pro-brith person is being honest. For the religious, it comes down to the existence of a “soul”. One second before fertilization and one second after, there is no discernible change in the makeup of that clump of cells. Nothing magical happened UNLESS you believe in a “soul”.

Again, agree, although you generously give them credit for considering a soul. From the posts I've seem most of their consideration is preventing women from making their own decisions about life, sex and reproduction and making them follow church dogma.

Should we grant those same protections to sperm and egg?

Of course, the claim is that the DNA is what makes the zygote a human being. The only place that genetic material could have come from are the egg and the sperm. If the zygote is a human life then sperm and egg are human life also.

 

[Lursa]

Their conscience, their sense of morality.

I've posted why valuing women over the unborn is a very moral position. Your 'statement' doenst have much behind it.

My sense of morality definitely goes with who will suffer the most and where the most pain and suffering can be prevented. That is valuing women and our lives, our value and meaning to those that love us and that we love, what our loss would mean to those that love or depend on us, respecting the risks to women's obligations to others, demanding that women not be minimized in a society where the unborn's lives would take priority over ours, etc.

None of these even apply to or affect the unborn and the unborn suffers nothing. The latter's not the only reason but it certainly factors in to the overall balance of harm and respect.

 

[Gordy327]

For a moral person it's both.

Morality is subjective. Where's the "morality" in forcing someone to have their body & bodily resources used against their will to support another? Where's the "morality" in denying a woman a safer medical procedure? Where's the "morality" in potentially or actually making a woman suffer, especially if taking other circumstances in her life into account? Its funny how those who want to invoke "morality" are in actuality displaying their own sanctimony!

Their conscience, their sense of morality.

"Their?" So you do agree morality is subjective to the individual? If one's morality or conscience tells them abortion is fine, then that is sufficient "authority," namely their own, to allow and/or have an abortion, right?

 

[Lursa]

Whom? Abortion no more causes "someone" to die than antibiotics cause something to die. Abortion is much safer than gestation and birth.

It is It's about the woman's life. Perhaps the better question is, how is it anyone else's business or concern?

The ACP is a socially conservative group well known for their antiabortion stance. Hardly non-biased or credible. Besides, who here is arguing when "human life begins?" That is neither the issue or relevant.

Sometimes I wonder if even the pro-life people realize that their stated goal is very base and amounts to "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." No consideration for the damage incurred, lives that might be spent on a ventilator, no matter how long or short, extreme defects or stroke, etc with little or no quality of life, the harm to others that must now somehow maintain those lives, and at what emotional and financial costs to them, etc?

"As long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat," reduced to a physiological function. It dehumanizes both. I value quality of life over quantity, I dont get why that's so maligned.

 

[Gordy327]

Sometimes I wonder if even the pro-life people realize that their stated goal is very base and amounts to "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." No consideration for the damage incurred, lives that might be spent on a ventilator, no matter how long or short, extreme defects or stroke, etc with little or no quality of life, the harm to others that must now somehow maintain those lives, and at what emotional and financial costs to them, etc?

"As long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat," reduced to a physiological function. It dehumanizes both. I value quality of life over quantity, I dont get why that's so maligned.

I have often said such pro-life views are very tunneled vision. It only focuses on an embryo/fetus and ignores everything else.

 

[BabaVoss]

Every time an abortion is performed someone dies. How is that not about life?

Nonsensical.
Who dies? Name them.
Every time a fertilized egg fails to implant someone dies? No, I don’t think so.
The normal, biological process that is human reproduction includes a percentage of failed fertilized eggs. Does someone die every time that happens?
The forced birth crowd is clearly unconcerned about THOSE lives.
They have no credibility for that reason.

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.

What is different a moment BEFORE conception?

At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

At the moment of fertilization, the egg is fertilized. There is quite a bit that has to happen before a whole human being emerges.

 

[Ganondagan]

Nonsensical.
Who dies? Name them.
Every time a fertilized egg fails to implant someone dies? No, I don’t think so.
The normal, biological process that is human reproduction includes a percentage of failed fertilized eggs. Does someone die every time that happens?

No, those are natural deaths. No one has deliberately killed that life.

The forced birth crowd is clearly unconcerned about THOSE lives.
They have no credibility for that reason.


What is different a moment BEFORE conception?

No new human life has yet been created.

At the moment of fertilization, the egg is fertilized. There is quite a bit that has to happen before a whole human being emerges.

The fertilized egg is a new human life, being exactly what a human being is supposed to be at that stage of development.

 

[Gordy327]

No, those are natural deaths. No one has deliberately killed that life.

No new human life has yet been created.



The fertilized egg is a new human life, being exactly what a human being is supposed to be at that stage of development.

So what? What difference does it make?

 

[weaver2]

The fertilized egg is a new human life, being exactly what a human being is supposed to be at that stage of development.

That is absolutely scientifically not true. The growth to the point of birth of a human being is more dependent on the maternal hormones in triggering the stages of growth in a very precise order as they are on the genetic material within the zygote, embryo and fetus. The process of development is actually more dependent on the maternal DNA, health, environment, emotional state and diet than it is on the DNA of the developing zygote.

This is the kind ignorance about real life and real events that happens when you value only the life of the fertilized egg and it leads to the kind of stupidity the anti-abortion advocates like to promote.

 

[Lursa]

There is no societal consensus that abortion is wrong. No one "likes" it, but like divorce or surgery, these are things that are sometimes necessary for life, health, security for a family, food on the table, etc. The federal govt has not ruled that it is wrong or illegal. Is there some other authority that American women are compelled to obey?

Their conscience, their sense of morality.

So then you do not support restrictions that prevent women from having abortions, correct? If not...what legal basis do you have for laws? Because that would be a legal conversation, not one about people assuming they hold some moral High Ground and morality.

 

[Ganondagan]

That is absolutely scientifically not true. The growth to the point of birth of a human being is more dependent on the maternal hormones in triggering the stages of growth in a very precise order as they are on the genetic material within the zygote, embryo and fetus. The process of development is actually more dependent on the maternal DNA, health, environment, emotional state and diet than it is on the DNA of the developing zygote.

This is the kind ignorance about real life and real events that happens when you value only the life of the fertilized egg and it leads to the kind of stupidity the anti-abortion advocates like to promote.

Sorry weaver, you're wrong...human life begins at conception. Don't take it too hard.

You are being redirected...

 

[weaver2]

Their conscience, their sense of morality.

When women make the decision that they and their family cannot provide the security and stability or care for a child and abort they have made a decision conscious moral decision that protect the already born and the child that would be born into an environment that could not sustain them into a whole and contributing adult. How much more ethical and kind to both the living and the potential life can you get.

What the anti-abortion movement will not provide is the answer to; what is ethical or kind or even logical about ignoring the statistics of what happens to children born into unstable, unsafe, or un-supported family situations to cause extensive damage harm to the family and itself? This refusal to acknowledge that women know what is needed to raise kids and impose your religious bigotry on abortion and contraception laws is not just ignorant it is far more immoral that abortion.

 

[Ganondagan]

When women make the decision that they and their family cannot provide the security and stability or care for a child and abort they have made a decision conscious moral decision that protect the already born and the child that would be born into an environment that could not sustain them into a whole and contributing adult. How much more ethical and kind to both the living and the potential life can you get.

What the anti-abortion movement will not provide is the answer to; what is ethical or kind or even logical about ignoring the statistics of what happens to children born into unstable, unsafe, or un-supported family situations to cause extensive damage harm to the family and itself? This refusal to acknowledge that women know what is needed to raise kids and impose your religious bigotry on abortion and contraception laws is not just ignorant it is far more immoral that abortion.

Millions of people have survived such environments and have gone on to live very productive, even genius level, lives. Morality should be foremost in making such decisions. I am not advocating mandates nor legislation to prevent abortions. I just advocate for a higher level of individual moral awareness.

 

[weaver2]

Sorry weaver, you're wrong...human life begins at conception. Don't take it too hard.

You are being redirected...

The American College of Pediatricians is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States, founded in 2002. Wikipedia
• Headquarters: Gainesville, Florida
• Founder(s): Gerry Boccarossa and Joseph Zanga


The group advocates in favor of abstinence-only sex education and conversion therapy, and advocates against vaccine mandates, abortion rights and rights for LGBT people.[3][1][4] As of 2022, its membership has been reported at about 700 physicians.[5][6][1]
ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for pushing "anti-LGBTQ junk science".[3] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance their own political agenda.[7][8] ACPeds has also been criticized for their professional sounding name which some have said is intended to mislead people into thinking they are a professional medical organization or mistake them for the similar sounding American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).[9]

American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The AC of Pediatrics is nothing but a rabid anti gay, anti women, anti vaccine bunch of conservative religious fanatics. They are not scientific or honest or professional. They are rabid, religious, hateful and bigoted.

 

[Gordy327]

Millions of people have survived such environments and have gone on to live very productive, even genius level, lives.

And many have not.

Morality should be foremost in making such decisions.

Why? Especially given that morality is subjective.

I am not advocating mandates nor legislation to prevent abortions. I just advocate for a higher level of individual moral awareness.

Not your business or concern what others choose, including personal moral codes.

Sorry weaver, you're wrong...human life begins at conception. Don't take it too hard.

You have yet to explain what difference it makes?