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

[AZRWinger]

Manage them, control them so that you can examine the entire issue rationally instead of imagining "little baybees" inside women you dont even know being slaughtered...that kind of disturbing fantasy would take a toll on anyone....

Protecting unborn children from being reduced to subhuman status and then slaughtered isn't a disturbing fantasy to all but pro abortion fanatics.

It's the nature of laws and social convention that they apply to people we don't know. There are whole volumes of law protecting minor children from abuse by adults we don't know. Somehow protections for unborn children are supposed to be limited to women we know.

See above...managing your disturbing fantasies will then allow you to view the protections the Constitution has in place for women and why they matter. And how it would not be possible for the same protections to be extended to the unborn...they cant be treated equally. Managing your feelings will help you to see that society will not benefit from women being reduced to 2nd class citizens again.

Dobbs reversed the phony declaration of a Constitutional right to abortion returning regulation to the states. All other protections of women remain undisturbed.

The disturbing fantasy is that unborn child are disposable subhumans. It's a philosophy copied from ancient pagans and modern Eugenics.

And there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If you can list some, please do?

When unborn children are degraded to disposable sub humans, who is next? Newborns? Unadopted children? Elderly? Useless eaters of bread?

Did you support the Chinese policy of forced abortion? They claim it was for the good of society, so why not?

Your fantasies about other people are not debate. I dont really know of many that are pro-abortion but the majority of Americans are pro-choice, at least to some extent.

The refusal to debate is on pro abortion zealots who can't even admit what they support, insisting they are "pro choice" to make their position appear reasonable.

Defending the life of the unborn is no one's business but the woman carrying it. "Imagining" the unborn inside women you dont even know, being slaughtered, shows a grave deficit in knowledge of the procedure...and self-indulgence in wallowing in graphic death. It's a choice you make...but you can learn to control it. Being open to knowledge is the first step.

Please, pregnancy isn't imaginary.

Describing the procedure you endorse isn't self-indulgence. Being open to understanding the ramifications of policy you espose is the first step.

And when has that ever happened? Why are you making up more stuff? It's just as painful and dangerous to have that done as to have the kid. Why would a woman do that if, at that point, she can get $10,000 - $30,000 for it in a legal private adoption?

Abortion zealots have seen to their is virtually no reliable tracking of abortions performed. We do know that some children survive attempted abortions. They are typically left to die without support.

Pro abortion advocates insist the unborn child has no rights no matter the stage of development. Isn't that correct? Are you so emotional you deny a fully developed unborn child can be slaughtered 8.999 months into pregnancy?

If it doesnt happen, if you cant provide the data...it's not even debate...it's what you need to cling to to maintain your self-righteous outrage.

Right, we should rely on the restraint of abortionists to refuse to perform their grisly work on viable unborn children but mothers will always elect to sell their children.

 

[Gordy327]

Protecting unborn children from being reduced to subhuman status and then slaughtered isn't a disturbing fantasy to all but pro abortion fanatics.

It seems you're the one having fantasies about pro-choicers and fetuses.

It's the nature of laws and social convention that they apply to people we don't know. There are whole volumes of law protecting minor children from abuse by adults we don't know. Somehow protections for unborn children are supposed to be limited to women we know.

The unborn are not people and not eligible for rights or protections, unlike the woman gestating it who is a person with rights. Funny how anti-choicets always ignore the woman and her rights and autonomy. Regardless if it's somebody you know, how is it anyone else's business or concern?

Dobbs reversed the phony declaration of a Constitutional right to abortion returning regulation to the states. All other protections of women remain undisturbed.

And most states still allow abortion, with some even expanding it. So you can't have complaints about that, since it's now the states allowing it, right?

The disturbing fantasy is that unborn child are disposable subhumans. It's a philosophy copied from ancient pagans and modern Eugenics.

That sounds like your own fantasy.

When unborn children are degraded to disposable sub humans, who is next? Newborns? Unadopted children? Elderly? Useless eaters of bread?

Who's doing that exactly? Last I checked, no one declared the unborn as "subhuman." Must be more of your fantasies.

Did you support the Chinese policy of forced abortion? They claim it was for the good of society, so why not?

Is the government forcing anyone to have an abortion? What about forced gestation via abortion restrictions?

The refusal to debate is on pro abortion zealots who can't even admit what they support, insisting they are "pro choice" to make their position appear reasonable.

I noticed you still haven't explained what the"value" of the unborn is?

Please, pregnancy isn't imaginary.

No, it's an event with serious physical, psychological, social, and economic impacts on a woman's life and that of her family. But you're only concerned with a fetus and ignore everything else about the woman and her life.

Describing the procedure you endorse isn't self-indulgence. Being open to understanding the ramifications of policy you espose is the first step.

Abortion is a medical procedure, plain and simple. No doubt some are squeamish about it. But thats their problem.

Abortion zealots have seen to their is virtually no reliable tracking of abortions performed. We do know that some children survive attempted abortions. They are typically left to die without support.

thats nice. Prove it! Abortions are medically tracked and noted. The Guttmacher Institute provides numbers and statistics for review.

Pro abortion advocates insist the unborn child has no rights no matter the stage of development. Isn't that correct?

Actually, the Constitution and federal law deems the unborn do not have rights or personhood. Neither is there any wY to provide rights to the unborn without restricting the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman.

Are you so emotional you deny a fully developed unborn child can be slaughtered 8.999 months into pregnancy?

Oh the irony of that statement.

Right, we should rely on the restraint of abortionists to refuse to perform their grisly work on viable unborn children but mothers will always elect to sell their children.

Now who's being emotional here? The woman gets to decide to abort or not. Who are you to say otherwise for someone else?

 

[Revelation]

I question whether most of them are even Christians.... Far too many "leaders" of the evangelical movement hijacked the Bible, held Jesus hostage, while they turned the "church" into a political movement. They rallied their congregations around the abortion issue, turning them into their useful idiots, as most of whom do not know the Bible themselves, they are very malleable. The abortion issue became the evangelicals Trojan horse, a vehicle to wield political power while enriching themselves.

The Baptist church was pro-choice in the 1970's until these "leaders" learned how they could leverage this into their personal glory.

conservative baptists were never pro choice, are you talking about the fake liberal baptists?

It is actually all quite sick.

 

[Revelation]

Often, in debate over abortion, I often see the right side use the point that states have the right to determine abortion policies in their arguments.

But if you call yourself pro-life/pro-birth then you shouldn't be supporting that. You should be fighting tooth and nail for a federal policy that bans abortion outright. You should be upset at Trump for being ok for just letting individual states decide.

nope, cause fed law easy to change.

give it to the states and we have a better chance of bringing true hope and life to babies, children and adults. we also have Bible Believers in every state that will fight for Life and oppose the killing of babies.

good strategy.


blessings.

 

[upsideguy]

conservative baptists were never pro choice, are you talking about the fake liberal baptists?

not fast Kemo sah-bee, unless you think Southern Baptists are "fake liberal baptists"

How Southern Baptists became pro-life | Baptist Press

Over the final three decades of the 20th century, Southern Baptists went from being moderately pro-choice to strongly pro-life.

www.baptistpress.com

When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com

Before the rise of the religious right, Southern Baptists believed that "religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced" by Roe v. Wade.

billmoyers.com

The history of Southern Baptists shows they have not always opposed abortion

A scholar writes about how the Southern Baptist Convention’s views on abortion changed during the 1980s, when a more conservative wing seized control of the denomination.

theconversation.com

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

www.politico.com

Here is how abortion because an issue for "the church" which they leveraged to political power...

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

 

[Revelation]

not fast Kemo sah-bee, unless you think Southern Baptists are "fake liberal baptists"

How Southern Baptists became pro-life | Baptist Press

Over the final three decades of the 20th century, Southern Baptists went from being moderately pro-choice to strongly pro-life.

www.baptistpress.com

When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com

Before the rise of the religious right, Southern Baptists believed that "religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced" by Roe v. Wade.

billmoyers.com

The history of Southern Baptists shows they have not always opposed abortion

A scholar writes about how the Southern Baptist Convention’s views on abortion changed during the 1980s, when a more conservative wing seized control of the denomination.

theconversation.com

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

www.politico.com

Here is how abortion because an issue for "the church" which they leveraged to political power...

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

nope.

there were LOTS of fake baptists among southern baptists back in the day; the conservatives attempted to drive them out with a Conservative President of the SB Convention.

i went to hear him personally and he did a good job cleaning up the corruption in the schools, colleges, and Convention.

our local church considered joining the convention, which i thought was a very bad move and it failed. actually the baptists would be better off without a convention but that is another thread. all churches should be out of the Denominations and should drop the non profit status the gubment controls them with. again, another thread.

so there you go; hope i fixed that thought.

.

 

[upsideguy]

nope.

there were LOTS of fake baptists among southern baptists back in the day; the conservatives attempted to drive them out with a Conservative President of the SB Convention.

i went to hear him personally and he did a good job cleaning up the corruption in the schools, colleges, and Convention.

our local church considered joining the convention, which i thought was a very bad move and it failed. actually the baptists would be better off without a convention but that is another thread. all churches should be out of the Denominations and should drop the non profit status the gubment controls them with. again, another thread.

so there you go; hope i fixed that thought.

.

I just gave you five cites that say otherwise, including from the Baptist Press.... and you know I can give you much more.

So, you owe us the equivalent. Please back up you point with equivalent third party information as your personal anecdotes / witness is not a valid argument as to the character of an entire organization, especially of 50 years ago. You have to do better as you convince no one with the above. It reads closer to someone that just doesn't want to hear what is being said. What is your proof that you statement is correct?

 

[Revelation]

edit, here is the first clue from your article...

these choicers in the list are ALL fake christians and churches....


NASHVILLE (BP) — In 1979, Larry Lewis picked up a copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and saw a full-page ad listing the Southern Baptist Convention among denominations that affirmed the right to abortion.

“Right there beside the Unitarians and universalists was the Southern Baptist Convention,” Lewis, a St. Louis pastor who went on to become president of the Home Mission Board (now the North American Mission Board), told Baptist Press. “… That bothered me a lot.” https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life/


Unitarians and universalists are FAKE christians, more like our Fake atheists on this forum. i don't recognize a pro choice person as being a christian in any way.

they need to find the old Black Book: the King James bible and start there. read 'thou shalt not kill' in Exodus 20 and come back with some Pro Life thoughts.

I just gave you five cites that say otherwise.... please back up you point with equivalent third party information as your personal anecdotes / witness is not a valid argument as to the character of an entire organization, especially of 50 years ago. You have to do better as you convince no one with the above.

you fail to understand the Southern Baptist Convention and the issues involved.

Liberals and fake baptists were trying to take over the convention; that was in the past.

the cleaning crew went thru and fixed that; i am no longer involved, but assume they will not make that mistake again.

for most christians, form a home church and fellowship with other local congregations. Lead, follow or get out of the way; best to just leave the denominations and conventions because the snakes from the devil always wanna take over.

don't let them.

Love God with all you heart, soul and mind and then walk narrow way like Jesus said. good to go eternally, very very simple.

 

[Lursa]

Protecting unborn children from being reduced to subhuman status and then slaughtered isn't a disturbing fantasy to all but pro abortion fanatics.

It's the nature of laws and social convention that they apply to people we don't know. There are whole volumes of law protecting minor children from abuse by adults we don't know. Somehow protections for unborn children are supposed to be limited to women we know.

That's just a bitter "na huh" that you're trying to hide behind with another disturbing self-righteous fantasy. It's completely self-serving and untrue...just your feelings gushing onto the screen. Control yourself if you're going to participate in a discussion please. Stick with facts or opinion based on facts.

We have laws protecting minor children so that they dont get abused, dont suffer...the unborn dont experience any of that. So that "point" doesnt work.

Dobbs reversed the phony declaration of a Constitutional right to abortion returning regulation to the states. All other protections of women remain undisturbed.

And it didnt concern itself with abortion at all, or the unborn. It returned it to the states, as you write, thereby enabling states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process. And nearly every single state does so to some extent.

Address this please: the states almost all allow it. It's the will of the people, every non-religious poll shows Americans support elective (non-medical) abortion up to some point. So why are you pretending you speak for the majority of Americans?

And if it's murder, f the unborn is equal to a born person, then abortion should be banned in all cases except the mother's imminent death, right? Yes or not? Is that what you are pushing for? Voting for?

Again, the majority of Americans dont support that, so stop acting like you are fighting for what's best for America. Your fellow Americans dont agree and there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, list some.

Put up or ...?

The disturbing fantasy is that unborn child are disposable subhumans. It's a philosophy copied from ancient pagans and modern Eugenics.

That's your self-serving, made up mischaracterization. You need to keep posting it because you have no actual argument to support denying women a medical procedure that they have out of need...theirs, their health, their ability to work and keep a roof over a family's heads, put food on the table, fulfill obligations to others, etc.

You wont even consider that factual information tho, will you? Because then you couldnt hold onto your self-righteous outrage.

When unborn children are degraded to disposable sub humans, who is next? Newborns? Unadopted children? Elderly? Useless eaters of bread?

When has that happened? in the almost 50 yrs of RvW...no one started trying to take rights from kids, newborns, seniors, etc. Dont make crap up just to see "what sticks to the fridge."

Newborns, unadopted children, elderly, are not "inside other people" endangering their lives, health, futures, etc. So your facile hypothetical fails. Anyone can care for or protect those people without destroying the consent of a pregnant woman, or her health or even her life.

Did you support the Chinese policy of forced abortion? They claim it was for the good of society, so why not?

Because I support "choice." Is there some part of that position that you dont understand? Pro-choice? Do you need a dictionary?

Are you this out of touch on this issue? Holy shit

 

[Lursa]

The refusal to debate is on pro abortion zealots who can't even admit what they support, insisting they are "pro choice" to make their position appear reasonable.

Pro-choice is about supporting women and our lives, every day, not just during the risks and sickness and pain of pregnancy and childbirth. Pregnancy/childbirth can have lifelong consequences, affecting the entire rest of a woman and her family's lives. It's about respect for those lives and what they contribute to society and to those they love and to those they have commitments and obligations to. Respect for making a choice not to add another kid to an adoption pool of ~100,000 kids, to avoid taking taxpayer $ in social services, not adding another kid that cannot be supported emotionally, physically, financially.

It's a 100% reasonable and respectful position.

Please, pregnancy isn't imaginary.

Describing the procedure you endorse isn't self-indulgence. Being open to understanding the ramifications of policy you espose is the first step.

Your self-indulgent and inflammatory descriptions are disturbing and reveal you imagining actual babies inside women suffering terrible, false things. That's up to you...it obviously drives you in very concerning ways based on your posts. The direction it drives you is not towards reality.

Abortion zealots have seen to their is virtually no reliable tracking of abortions performed. We do know that some children survive attempted abortions. They are typically left to die without support.

More facile BS. Find some citations that prove anything in the last 20 yrs or so. You have fallen for all the common "talking points" and then find you cant come up with anything that supports them...they get you all ginned up and triggered...and then the high of that outrage leaks out and you still cling to their lies. But...you loyally carry their water for them.

Pro abortion advocates insist the unborn child has no rights no matter the stage of development. Isn't that correct? Are you so emotional you deny a fully developed unborn child can be slaughtered 8.999 months into pregnancy?

They dont. According to federal law, that is a fact...no rights are recognized for the unborn at an stage. It's not up to me to decide.

And I asked you to cite where any abortions have taken place at "8.999 months" into pregnancy. Where is it? Why would I worry about things that dont happen? Your pro-life masters fed you this? OK...ask them to provide the facts supporting it. Should I also worry about people hunting unicorns?

Right, we should rely on the restraint of abortionists to refuse to perform their grisly work on viable unborn children but mothers will always elect to sell their children.

More feelings leaking all over the screen...but no facts. You seem to enjoy your self-righteous outrage at the expense of women and their unborn. Ick.

 

[weaver2]

Gee, what a surprise, pro abortion groups find abortion increases.

So you think the statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the American College of Cardiologists the are just putting out bullshit propaganda, but proven liars like Fox News and Trump's Internet posts are the truth.

In the immortal words of of Paulie in the Pope of Greenwich Village; "What we got here is a thinking disability."

 

[Fearandloathing]

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.


What is different a moment BEFORE conception?


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

I once read it was about seven times the number of eggs that come to term

 

[Gordy327]

More feelings leaking all over the screen...but no facts. You seem to enjoy your self-righteous outrage at the expense of women and their unborn. Ick.

Isn't that what it always comes down to from some in these abortion discussions? All feelings and hyperbole. No rationality or reason.

 

[weaver2]

Protecting unborn, innocent children from the Eugenics inspired slaughter by abortionists is a recognition of human rights. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger held that abortion of babies from inferior races was the best thing for them. Modern abortion radicals expand this thought to all the unborn as progress.

You couldn't have presented us with a better example of believing lies. The above is a common conservative lie. No anti-abortion conservative has ever given a source for that lie. The fact is, Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion. She promoted contraception not abortion.

“The only weapon that women have and the most uncivilized weapon that they have to use if they will not submit to having children every year or every year and a half, the weapon they use is abortion. . . "Margaret Sanger

 

[weaver2]

You couldn't have presented us with a better example of believing lies. The above is a common conservative lie. No anti-abortion conservative has ever given a source for that lie. The fact is, Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion. She promoted contraception not abortion.

“The only weapon that women have and the most uncivilized weapon that they have to use if they will not submit to having children every year or every year and a half, the weapon they use is abortion. . . "Margaret Sanger

In Sanger's book"Women and the New Race" published in 1920 there is an entire chapter devoted to explaining why education and contraceptives are superior to what she considered the abomination of abortion. I will start a new thread of a summary and excerpted quotes from her chapter "Contraceptives or Abortion?". It is my, probably vain, hope that ill informed conservatives and anti-abortion advocates will stop perpatrating the lie that Sanger set up PP clinics to promote abortion.

 

[choiceone]

Neither of the links work. Just like the claim slaughtering the unborn is healthcare.

So it's okay to force victims of violent rape to continue pregnancies, it's okay to force women to continue pregnancies even if it will result in permanent serious disabilities, it's okay force 10 year old incest victims to continue pregnancies? If you think this, we actually need to know.

 

[choiceone]

nope.

there were LOTS of fake baptists among southern baptists back in the day; the conservatives attempted to drive them out with a Conservative President of the SB Convention.

i went to hear him personally and he did a good job cleaning up the corruption in the schools, colleges, and Convention.

our local church considered joining the convention, which i thought was a very bad move and it failed. actually the baptists would be better off without a convention but that is another thread. all churches should be out of the Denominations and should drop the non profit status the gubment controls them with. again, another thread.

so there you go; hope i fixed that thought.

.

Read the Bible. There is no passage where God takes responsibility for rape-impregnating any woman, and there are passages where God says he isn't the father of some people. Mary chose to accept the offer of a specific pregnancy in which God was the father, and the Holy Spirit didn't make her pregnant until she openly consented to the pregnancy.

If a so-called Christian would force a woman to be or continue to be pregnant without her consent and against her will, that person is not a Christian, but a vicious bully.