I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[weaver2]

Do you have an example of ethical standards applied by evangelicals about abortion that are not applied to their own daily lives?

Official statement from the National Association of Evangelicals 5/11/11
...abortion on demand for reasons of personal convenience, social adjustment or economic advantage is morally wrong, and [the NEA] expresses its firm opposition to any legislation designed to make abortion possible for these reasons." Also evangelicals are adamant that sex outside of marriage is against God's wishes.

Demographic statistics on abortion and religion from Guttmacher
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

So, how is it possible that every year 104,000 evangelical women get abortions. Are none of those women getting abortions because timing is bad, family finances are unstable, they are in school, or have a job, or maybe they are having sex outside of marriage? Are evangelical ethics so abysmal that they are all victims of rape and incest?

 

[Lursa]

Official statement from the National Association of Evangelicals 5/11/11
...abortion on demand for reasons of personal convenience, social adjustment or economic advantage is morally wrong, and [the NEA] expresses its firm opposition to any legislation designed to make abortion possible for these reasons." Also evangelicals are adamant that sex outside of marriage is against God's wishes.

What is 'social adjustment?'

 

[Scrabaholic]

So, how is it possible that every year 104,000 evangelical women get abortions. Are none of those women getting abortions because timing is bad, family finances are unstable, they are in school, or have a job, or maybe they are having sex outside of marriage? Are evangelical ethics so abysmal that they are all victims of rape and incest?

Many years ago, but bestie (now deceased) had an affair with a married minister (Free Methodist). When she got pregnant, he coerced her into aborting illegally. She almost died.

To further illustrate the hypocrisy, she told me that if they were getting it on on a Sat. night and the clock struck midnight, he would stop because he couldn't do that on the Lord's day.

 

[southwest88]

I'm sure that Leftists will support and endorse your position on this even with the reasoning you provide.

Margaret Sanger probably had no idea how successfully her goals would be met.

Evidence you can use

www.guttmacher.org

Sanger was opposed to abortion. She preferred that if the pregnant woman did not want the pregnancy, that she bear the child & give it up for adoption. Planned Parenthood had to wait for her to leave the Board of Directors before they added abortion to the services PP provided, or provided referrals to.

 

[code1211]

I feel we have been here before.

It is not your position I question. It is how you got there that I would.

Your last sentence is the problem I and others have had with you. There is no reason and certainly none has been given by the pro choice crowd that the unborn are alive, dead, in some sort of Limbo or merely conceptual potentials. Your actually referring to Schrödinger's cat rather than what grows in the womb.


Value, is a very strange concept, and as I have pointed out you appear to value life but be dismissive of living it.

Are you among those that dismiss the relative value of the lives of the unborn to rationalize the procedure of abortion?

Do you assert that the unborn are not persons and therefore have no rights?

OR

Do you assert that the the unborn are not human and can therefore be discarded capriciously?

 

[code1211]

I think you missed the point here. Evangelic morality is set to such a high bar that it creates a self fulfilling prophecy of the idea that we are all sinners, ie. Do not lie. Yet no one could possibly go through their whole life and not tell a lie.

You have already said that you side with an empirical universal set of fixed ethics. But this is incompatible with your other statement that a woman should have the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Either the morality of though shall not kill is a fixed moral in any circumstance or morality is flexible and subjective. She is capable of weighing the morality of do not kill against the reality of her life and her needs.

As I understand Christian religious salvation "theory", there seem to be three ways to be "saved"

1. You are a member of "the elect". Nobody is worthy and God elects those that are saved because he is merciful.
2. You do enough good works and you achieve some kind of a credit and gain entry to heaven as a result.
3. You accept Christ as your personal Savior and the way is open.

I suppose there could be more.

Your understanding of my view of ethics is mistaken.

Just as physics changes as the scales of consideration changes, so does my view of ethics.

So the view of a death and respect for human life changes between whatever the scales might be to equate to the Quantum, the Terrestrial or the Interstellar.

Face to face, on a very personal level, each human life is sacred. Even that can change. Jack the Ripper is not Sister Teresa.

In a society, requirements for the health of the society is the overriding consideration. As such, the unwanted, born persons demanded by Society to be cared for by those that detest them is a problem.

Logistically, the care of the detested, unwanted is neglected by Society. I don't want to step up to care for all of the unwanted born folks myself so my only other option is to support the availability of abortion.

Also, from a simple view of logistics, a mad dog killer or other danger to society needs to be removed from society for the safety and security of the society.

Face to face, perhaps he's a fine fellow, but the requirements of society make him a danger to others.

Ethics must be based on what works and what can be reasonably expected. A new employee is not as valuable as one with experience. A new born is not as capable as an adult.

Similar, but different and separate sets of ethics must exist to fit the scale of the consideration.

I feel that it's entirely consistent to acknowledge the value and the definition of Human Life on the individual scale while also acknowledging the need to avoid horrible problems on the societal level(s).

 

[code1211]

Official statement from the National Association of Evangelicals 5/11/11
...abortion on demand for reasons of personal convenience, social adjustment or economic advantage is morally wrong, and [the NEA] expresses its firm opposition to any legislation designed to make abortion possible for these reasons." Also evangelicals are adamant that sex outside of marriage is against God's wishes.

Demographic statistics on abortion and religion from Guttmacher
The majority of abortion patients indicated a religious affiliation: Seventeen percent identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Roman Catholic, while 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients did not identify with any religion. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

So, how is it possible that every year 104,000 evangelical women get abortions. Are none of those women getting abortions because timing is bad, family finances are unstable, they are in school, or have a job, or maybe they are having sex outside of marriage? Are evangelical ethics so abysmal that they are all victims of rape and incest?

"Evangelical" is a particular, identifiable and definable variety of religious Christians.

The run of the mill Catholic, as an example, is hardly even a Catholic and nowhere near an "Evangelical" in terms of devotion or worship. Their children are likely not as inclined to the levels prescribed as the parents.

That aside though, I take your point. I was seeking to know that exact occasion(s) the poster was seeking to compare to substantiate the idea in the post.

In your first paragraph, the ethical standards that preclude sex outside of marriage seem to also preclude child birth, or abortion, outside of marriage.

There could be notable exceptions to this general rule, but they seem to be quite rare.

 

[southwest88]

What makes us human is our DNA.

& society - a single human raised in the wild, is only going to look human. Without language, writing, clothes, tools, education & on & on - it would just be a naked ape.

 

[soylentgreen]

Are you among those that dismiss the relative value of the lives of the unborn to rationalize the procedure of abortion?

Do you assert that the unborn are not persons and therefore have no rights?

OR

Do you assert that the the unborn are not human and can therefore be discarded capriciously?

Morality is relative not fixed. If you take out the word unborn and replace it with the word woman then the same questions can be asked of those who put the life of the unborn before the living of a woman.

 

[southwest88]

Biological - every human on the face of the planet is in the process of their human life cycle. Abortion stops the human life cycle of another person. Philosophical - having a reverence for our own life cycle as well as the life cycle of others would take mankind forward exponentially in the realm of being truly civilized.

Person means something specific in law, especially in Roe v. Wade - which is the topic here - abortion in the US. Roe does not recognize a fetus as a person - in the legal sense, someone who is born & alive in the US is a person. Otherwise, not.

 

[weaver2]

I point that out and the abortion supporters seem to disregard it. Cells are dividing. That's life. Those cells contain Human DNA. That's HUMAN life.

They claim that their's is the party of science, but they seem to like to pick and choose which fragments of "science" they select, present and/or accept to support their world view.

The saliva on your tooth brush contains human DNA. There is nothing sacred about DNA. It's pretty much just an identifier.
Don't try to guilt the pro-choice people with "anti-science". The group that accepts the least amount of science and the most idiotic conspiracy nonsense are the anti-abortion conservative Christians who count among their demographic the idiots of Qanon, the anti-history land reform jerks of the west, the anti-Holocaust-ers, the anti-maskers, the list goes on and on.

Look to your own group if you want to start criticizing behavior, theory, politics, biology, attitude and divisiveness.

 

[Moi621]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have, so the question is when does life begin? if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question. Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life. I'm interested in hearing other people's opposing positions.

How about alternatives.

Change adoption laws. Get creative. Not one size fits all.
Like pre-birth adoption contracts.
Everyone willing, allow contact with biological parents.

Bring back expectant mother's homes.

Pro Lifers need to do more than just rah-rah Pro-Life
Sell the alternative choice.



Moi

Abort Canada!​

 

[weaver2]

How about alternatives.
Change adoption laws. Get creative. Not one size fits all.
Like pre-birth adoption contracts.
Everyone willing, allow contact with biological parents.
Bring back expectant mother's homes.
Pro Lifers need to do more than just rah-rah Pro-Life
Sell the alternative choice.

Agreed, pro-life advocates need to do more than just promote birth. But, changing the adoption laws is not a viable alternative because it won't change the fact that the child in demand for adoption is Caucasian and just born. There is no market for older children, minority children and emotionally handicapped children. And those make up 90% of the children available for adoption in the US. Pre-birth adoption contracts do not guarantee tat new born baby will be handed over to the adoptive parents . The mother has the right of refusal even at birth and it is often invoked because it's difficult to give up a baby after going through pregnancy, birth, lactation and the hormonal bonding that happens at birth.

Insurance that covers women's most effective contraceptives, honest sex education, family counseling, and access to effective contraceptives that women control, clinics for women's reproductive health; those are the actions that prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Anti-Abortion advocates have never fought for those things. They have advocated denying women the right to make a decision about abortion by restricting clinics and saying most women's contraceptives were abortafacients. They have advocated for punishing women and providers. They have advocated for shaming. None of these things work to reduce abortion. There are very few good alternative choices to abortion after a pregnancy occurs.

 

[trixare4kids]

Agreed, pro-life advocates need to do more than just promote birth. But, changing the adoption laws is not a viable alternative because it won't change the fact that the child in demand for adoption is Caucasian and just born. There is no market for older children, minority children and emotionally handicapped children. And those make up 90% of the children available for adoption in the US. Pre-birth adoption contracts do not guarantee tat new born baby will be handed over to the adoptive parents . The mother has the right of refusal even at birth and it is often invoked because it's difficult to give up a baby after going through pregnancy, birth, lactation and the hormonal bonding that happens at birth.

Insurance that covers women's most effective contraceptives, honest sex education, family counseling, and access to effective contraceptives that women control, clinics for women's reproductive health; those are the actions that prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Anti-Abortion advocates have never fought for those things. They have advocated denying women the right to make a decision about abortion by restricting clinics and saying most women's contraceptives were abortafacients. They have advocated for punishing women and providers. They have advocated for shaming. None of these things work to reduce abortion. There are very few good alternative choices to abortion after a pregnancy occurs.

I will add one thing to the above. Pre-birth relinquishment contracts should never ever become the norm for the reasons that you stated. The pregnant woman has not only an hormonal bonding at birth but likely a deep emotional bond during the time she is carrying her unborn.

 

[weaver2]

I will add one thing to the above. Pre-birth relinquishment contracts should never ever become the norm for the reasons that you stated. The pregnant woman has not only an hormonal bonding at birth but likely a deep emotional bond during the time she is carrying her unborn.

It's kinda nice to agree instead of jousting on opposing sides.

 

[soylentgreen]

As I understand Christian religious salvation "theory", there seem to be three ways to be "saved"

1. You are a member of "the elect". Nobody is worthy and God elects those that are saved because he is merciful.
2. You do enough good works and you achieve some kind of a credit and gain entry to heaven as a result.
3. You accept Christ as your personal Savior and the way is open.

I suppose there could be more.

Your understanding of my view of ethics is mistaken.

Just as physics changes as the scales of consideration changes, so does my view of ethics.

So the view of a death and respect for human life changes between whatever the scales might be to equate to the Quantum, the Terrestrial or the Interstellar.

Face to face, on a very personal level, each human life is sacred. Even that can change. Jack the Ripper is not Sister Teresa.

In a society, requirements for the health of the society is the overriding consideration. As such, the unwanted, born persons demanded by Society to be cared for by those that detest them is a problem.

Logistically, the care of the detested, unwanted is neglected by Society. I don't want to step up to care for all of the unwanted born folks myself so my only other option is to support the availability of abortion.

Also, from a simple view of logistics, a mad dog killer or other danger to society needs to be removed from society for the safety and security of the society.

Face to face, perhaps he's a fine fellow, but the requirements of society make him a danger to others.

Ethics must be based on what works and what can be reasonably expected. A new employee is not as valuable as one with experience. A new born is not as capable as an adult.

Similar, but different and separate sets of ethics must exist to fit the scale of the consideration.

I feel that it's entirely consistent to acknowledge the value and the definition of Human Life on the individual scale while also acknowledging the need to avoid horrible problems on the societal level(s).

I am amused that the statement you just made should be completely discarded because of one small mistake in your words.

You used jack the ripper and mother theresa as comparisons. In reality jack only murdered a half dozen women where as theresa is responsible for the deaths and pain and suffering of thousands of people . She deliberately withheld pain medication and other cures from the sick in the belief that god meant the poor to literally suffer. Mother theresa waswa person of very bad morality that meant thousands lived and died in pain because of her belief in a god. Where as we will never know what morality drove jack.

As I sad morality is not fixed. It is subjective and depends on the situation faced. What you see as good another sees as bad.

How about alternatives.

Change adoption laws. Get creative. Not one size fits all.
Like pre-birth adoption contracts.
Everyone willing, allow contact with biological parents.

Bring back expectant mother's homes.

Pro Lifers need to do more than just rah-rah Pro-Life
Sell the alternative choice.



Moi

Abort Canada!​

That is not an alternative. That is forcing women to go through a pregnancy and them stealing their babies from them.

 

[Lursa]

I will add one thing to the above. Pre-birth relinquishment contracts should never ever become the norm for the reasons that you stated. The pregnant woman has not only an hormonal bonding at birth but likely a deep emotional bond during the time she is carrying her unborn.

And because no matter what the 'contract,' she can always change her mind. The courts still seem to always find in favor for the bio mother changing her mind. So people paying all that $$ to adopt that baby have no guarantees at all.

 

[code1211]

& society - a single human raised in the wild, is only going to look human. Without language, writing, clothes, tools, education & on & on - it would just be a naked ape.

Chicken and egg?

Without humans, human society does not exist.

 

[code1211]

Morality is relative not fixed. If you take out the word unborn and replace it with the word woman then the same questions can be asked of those who put the life of the unborn before the living of a woman.

Are there people who do this? I suppose there are. There are various ideas that are proposed by various folks that are proposed and accepted by a slim minority.

Most of the proponents who claim the title of "Pro-Life" seem to measure the value of the two lives, mother and unborn, as being equal. At least, that's how I understand them to speak.

Neither life is preeminent and both are valuable.

 

[soylentgreen]

Are there people who do this? I suppose there are. There are various ideas that are proposed by various folks that are proposed and accepted by a slim minority.

Most of the proponents who claim the title of "Pro-Life" seem to measure the value of the two lives, mother and unborn, as being equal. At least, that's how I understand them to speak.

Neither life is preeminent and both are valuable.

Again I believe we have been here before. Your understanding of the word "value" needs some work. While on the one hand the ideal of, " Neither life is preeminent and both are valuable," is a nice sentiment to cling to when things go well. It does not work that way in real life. A woman deciding to have an abortion has put her own right to live her life against an embryo having a right to life. Life can not be preeminent and valuable when one life decides over another.

When you say, "Neither life is preeminent and both are valuable." The hidden premise there is that the life a woman lives is no more valuable than potential life a fetus might live.

 

[code1211]

The saliva on your tooth brush contains human DNA. There is nothing sacred about DNA. It's pretty much just an identifier.
Don't try to guilt the pro-choice people with "anti-science". The group that accepts the least amount of science and the most idiotic conspiracy nonsense are the anti-abortion conservative Christians who count among their demographic the idiots of Qanon, the anti-history land reform jerks of the west, the anti-Holocaust-ers, the anti-maskers, the list goes on and on.

Look to your own group if you want to start criticizing behavior, theory, politics, biology, attitude and divisiveness.

In your post arguing that the folks on your side of the argument don't do what I asserted, that is: selecting only the parts of science that please them, you selected only the parts of science that please you.

I noted that cells that are dividing and contain human DNA demonstrate human life. Do the cells containing human DNA in the saliva on my teeth divide to create a saliva-man? We might need Stan Lee to go forward.

Why not attack the specific thought presented instead of some imagined group to which you wish to attach some ideas and condemn a different and distorted cartoon of the specific thought presented?

 

[code1211]

I am amused that the statement you just made should be completely discarded because of one small mistake in your words.

You used jack the ripper and mother theresa as comparisons. In reality jack only murdered a half dozen women where as theresa is responsible for the deaths and pain and suffering of thousands of people . She deliberately withheld pain medication and other cures from the sick in the belief that god meant the poor to literally suffer. Mother theresa waswa person of very bad morality that meant thousands lived and died in pain because of her belief in a god. Where as we will never know what morality drove jack.

As I sad morality is not fixed. It is subjective and depends on the situation faced. What you see as good another sees as bad.

That is not an alternative. That is forcing women to go through a pregnancy and them stealing their babies from them.

So Mother Teresa was a War Criminal?

You're funny.

 

[trixare4kids]

And because no matter what the 'contract,' she can always change her mind. The courts still seem to always find in favor for the bio mother changing her mind. So people paying all that $$ to adopt that baby have no guarantees at all.

Yes. The important thing is that women with crisis pregnancies explore their options. One of those options may be an adoption plan but that plan need never be etched in granite prior to giving birth. Many women have been coerced by desperate prospective adoptive parents and other invested parties to continue with that plan. Giving birth is a powerful drug as Weaver mentioned above. No prebirth contracts ever!

 

[southwest88]

Chicken and egg?

Without humans, human society does not exist.

Chicken and egg - is fairly mechanical, with all due respect to poultry. Under normal circumstances, an egg will hatch out into a chick, which will know most of what it needs to know as instinct.

human society - creates humans, strange as that sounds. Without a matrix of roles & expectations, learned behaviors, a human baby wouldn't get very far on its own. & so we all owe a tremendous debt to the first families or tribes - or whatever unit it was that started the ascent of man. The plasticity of human cognition explains why it takes so long to prepare a baby for adulthood, plus there's a lot to learn by now.

 

[weaver2]

In your post arguing that the folks on your side of the argument don't do what I asserted, that is: selecting only the parts of science that please them, you selected only the parts of science that please you.

I noted that cells that are dividing and contain human DNA demonstrate human life. Do the cells containing human DNA in the saliva on my teeth divide to create a saliva-man? We might need Stan Lee to go forward.

Why not attack the specific thought presented instead of some imagined group to which you wish to attach some ideas and condemn a different and distorted cartoon of the specific thought presented?

When you present a specific thought I'll be glad to attack it. Meanwhile brush your teeth and go back to contemplating your navel.