Pro-life vs. pro-birth

[Lursa]

1) It's been reasonably established that religious/conservative people are more charitable than liberal/non-religious people. If not on an individual level, definitely on a systematic one. Christian churches are among the most charitable organizations in the world. So yeah, I'd say the pro-lifers are doing their part in supporting life after birth for the needy.

Sources please.

Not to mention that many of us Democrats/liberals are practicing Christians.

And yet, many of us are pro-choice.

And the (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation has an endowment of $40 billion...the grants it donates supersedes the donations of all other charitable organizations period. Even the Catholic Church, which has vast vast riches stored in Vatican City.

2) I don't think the pro-choice side is in any position to accuse pro-lifers of hiding behind euphemisms. The entire abortion movement is full of strategic wording which abortion clinics have admitted to using in order to ease the mental grief of mothers wanting an abortion. Calling the dismemberment of a child and then sucking out the puss 'pro-choice' is way more inaccurate.

Er...you have been a victim of pro-life rhetoric apparently. :roll:

97.5% of all abortions consist of a pea-sized or smaller unborn being flushed painlessly from the womb. No 'dismemberment.'

The rest of the very uncommon later term abortions are due to medical necessity (mother or unborn) and by law (and normal medical ethics) an anesthetic/lethal injection is used before removal. There is no pain or awareness. Re: dismemberment....since the unborn feels nothing, why does that matter? If it were intact it would damage the mother more. Is that your desire, just to see the mother punished?

 

[iguanaman]

I'm currently raising one of my great grand sons my wife and I adopted after talking one of our grand daughters out of aborting.......next

That was your choice. Not everybody is given that choice though. So you are pro-choice I have to assume.

 

[Logician Man]

That was your choice. Not everybody is given that choice though. So you are pro-choice I have to assume.

yep..pro-choice.

 

[Crusader13]

Sources please.

Not to mention that many of us Democrats/liberals are practicing Christians.

And yet, many of us are pro-choice.

And the (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation has an endowment of $40 billion...the grants it donates supersedes the donations of all other charitable organizations period. Even the Catholic Church, which has vast vast riches stored in Vatican City.

Although there have been few definitive studies on this, it has been found in some pools that, even adjusting for economic differences, conservatives tend to be more generous than liberals.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study — RT USA News

Also, the most notoriously pro-life organization in the world is by far the most charitable. Even though you can't even come remotely close to measuring all the undocumented charity work done by the Catholic Church worldwide, it's still a favourite. You can waste your time challenging this today with some stroke of dignity, but throughout history, over the last 2000 years, no single entity can even compete with the pro-life work done by the Vatican.

Earthly concerns - The Catholic church in America

The world’s biggest charity | Catholic Herald

Kind of irrelevant for reporting sake, but I got a decent chuckle out of the suggestion that pro-abortion people are practising Christians. There's no unanimous criteria on what constitutes a Christian since everyone claiming to be one offends God in one way or another, but I think honouring the value of human life and not setting imaginary lines on when you can kill it is pretty good standard to use.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Good for you. That didn't address what I asked. Why can't you compromise with them? 80% of america, at the very least, want babies taken care of when they're born. Why not run pro-life democrats in the south then, beef up child benefit programs, and let them illegalize abortion? It seems everyone gets what they want then, in your argument.

No, everyone doesn't. You are forgetting the pregnant woman. Why should women give up rights to appease you? What rights are YOU willing to give up?

 

[Lursa]

Sources please.

Not to mention that many of us Democrats/liberals are practicing Christians.

And yet, many of us are pro-choice.

And the (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation has an endowment of $40 billion...the grants it donates supersedes the donations of all other charitable organizations period. Even the Catholic Church, which has vast vast riches stored in Vatican City.

Although there have been few definitive studies on this, it has been found in some pools that, even adjusting for economic differences, conservatives tend to be more generous than liberals.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study — RT USA News

Also, the most notoriously pro-life organization in the world is by far the most charitable. Even though you can't even come remotely close to measuring all the undocumented charity work done by the Catholic Church worldwide, it's still a favourite. You can waste your time challenging this today with some stroke of dignity, but throughout history, over the last 2000 years, no single entity can even compete with the pro-life work done by the Vatican.

Earthly concerns - The Catholic church in America

The world’s biggest charity | Catholic Herald

Kind of irrelevant for reporting sake, but I got a decent chuckle out of the suggestion that pro-abortion people are practising Christians. There's no unanimous criteria on what constitutes a Christian since everyone claiming to be one offends God in one way or another, but I think honouring the value of human life and not setting imaginary lines on when you can kill it is pretty good standard to use.

While I will give you that the Catholic Church has been performing charitable donations for a much longer period than the Gates foundation and thus, more $, I'm not accepting anything from this website:

RT creates news with an edge for viewers who want to Question More. RT covers stories overlooked by the mainstream media, provides alternative perspectives on current affairs, and acquaints international audiences with a Russian viewpoint on major global events.

Please find a more legitimate and unbiased source.

 

[Scrabaholic]

And here we have another one without a uterus wanting to dictate by force force of law to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with ours and it's contents....

Kind of irrelevant for reporting sake, but I got a decent chuckle out of the suggestion that pro-abortion people are practising Christians. There's no unanimous criteria on what constitutes a Christian since everyone claiming to be one offends God in one way or another, but I think honouring the value of human life and not setting imaginary lines on when you can kill it is pretty good standard to use.

The claim was made about pro CHOICE, not pro abortion. And yes, there are very many pro CHOICE Christians.

There is NOWHERE in the Bible forbidding a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

 

[Lursa]

Kind of irrelevant for reporting sake, but I got a decent chuckle out of the suggestion that pro-abortion people are practising Christians. There's no unanimous criteria on what constitutes a Christian since everyone claiming to be one offends God in one way or another, but I think honouring the value of human life and not setting imaginary lines on when you can kill it is pretty good standard to use.

By the way, there is no political position called 'pro-abortion.'

And there are many many practicing Christians, like myself, that are pro-choice. If you think there is some moral High Ground in the belief that women should be forced to remain pregnant against their will...you're wrong. And God doesnt believe that either.

 

[Crusader13]

Please find a more legitimate and unbiased source.

That's subjective. I bet you use New York Times and CNN everyday to cite your political claims. They're about as biased reporting can get.

And here we have another one without a uterus wanting to dictate by force force of law to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with ours and it's contents....

Don't have a vagina? You don't get a say on abortion.
Don't have a gun? You don't get a say on gun control.
Don't have a health issue? You don't get a say on healthcare policies.
Don't have a penis? You don't get a say on laws forcing men to pay child support.
Don't have $10 million in wealth? You don't get a say on how we should tax the rich
Don't have white privilege? You don't get a say on what it is and how to deal with it.

Glad we cleared that up.

There is NOWHERE in the Bible forbidding a woman from terminating her pregnancy.

Well the Bible doesn't say explicitly say anything about driving a car, eating breakfast, or committing suicide either. It's called interpretation.

What the Bible does say is life is sacred and only God's to decide on. Anything else is a direct violation of the fundamental principles of Christianity.

If you think there is some moral High Ground in the belief that women should be forced to remain pregnant against their will...you're wrong. And God doesnt believe that either.

Sorry, but the overwhelming majority of Christian sects, theologists, scholars and academics disagree with you. You can slide through the law without classifying abortion as murder but God doesn't distinguish life between age, handicap, convenience, race, ethnicity, location, or any other factor. It's not yours to end. The Bible is quite clearly against sex for any reason other than procreation, so no - a woman is not permitted to commit the biggest sin in Christianity just so she can ease the grief of committing an earlier sin.

Whatever the mother goes through during a pregnancy, save for extremely rare life-threatening complications, cannot match the severity of ending a human life. Everyone knows what happens when you have sex, especially women. They're not pregnant against their will. They're pregnant against their convenience.

 

[Lursa]

That's subjective. I bet you use New York Times and CNN everyday to cite your political claims. They're about as biased reporting can get.

LOL, your site doesnt even hide the fact that it's biased.

Don't have a vagina? You don't get a say on abortion.
Don't have a gun? You don't get a say on gun control.
Don't have a health issue? You don't get a say on healthcare policies.
Don't have a penis? You don't get a say on laws forcing men to pay child support.
Don't have $10 million in wealth? You don't get a say on how we should tax the rich
Don't have white privilege? You don't get a say on what it is and how to deal with it.

Glad we cleared that up.

Never been my position, nor have I ever written or implied that.

Well the Bible doesn't say explicitly say anything about driving a car, eating breakfast, or committing suicide either. It's called interpretation.

What the Bible does say is life is sacred and only God's to decide on. Anything else is a direct violation of the fundamental principles of Christianity.

Yes but in the long run, our laws are not base on religious beliefs and no one's religious beliefs can be forced on others...such as women who dont believe.

Sorry, but the overwhelming majority of Christian sects, theologists, scholars and academics disagree with you. You can slide through the law without classifying abortion as murder but God doesn't distinguish life between age, handicap, convenience, race, ethnicity, location, or any other factor. It's not yours to end. The Bible is quite clearly against sex for any reason other than procreation, so no - a woman is not permitted to commit the biggest sin in Christianity just so she can ease the grief of committing an earlier sin.

No they dont. Please show me any scriptures that even imply it's ok to force women to remain pregnant against their will. To not honor women and respect us period.

Whatever the mother goes through during a pregnancy, save for extremely rare life-threatening complications, cannot match the severity of ending a human life. Everyone knows what happens when you have sex, especially women. They're not pregnant against their will. They're pregnant against their convenience.

It is only your opinion that the sacrifices that a woman makes, up to and including her life, during pregnancy and childbirth are less valued than the life of the unborn. 86,700 women in the US die or nearly die (aneurysm, kidney failure, stroke, pre-eclampsia, etc) every year. Every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life and this risk cannot be predicted (obviously or all these women wouldnt die.)

Many people value quality of life over quantity.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Kind of irrelevant for reporting sake, but I got a decent chuckle out of the suggestion that pro-abortion people are practicing Christians. There are no unanimous criteria on what constitutes a Christian since everyone claiming to be one offends God in one way or another, but I think honouring the value of human life and not setting imaginary lines on when you can kill it is pretty good standard to use.

There's nothing in the bible against abortion.

 

[Crusader13]

Yes but in the long run, our laws are not base on religious beliefs and no one's religious beliefs can be forced on others...such as women who dont believe.

That's true. But if we're talking about Christianity and Christians, then the position is pretty clear. A woman who chooses her own convenience and sexual freedom over the sanctity of life is as much of a Christian as convicted murderers. A life lost to God is the same whether it's the Pope, Adolf Hitler, or an unborn fetus. It's a sacred creation that nobody has a right to destroy. You do so at the peril of your soul (if you're religious).

No they dont. Please show me any scriptures that even imply it's ok to force women to remain pregnant against their will. To not honor women and respect us period.

Even ignoring the countless passages about sanctity of life, murder etc - the Bible is blatantly clear that any form of sexual activity without the intention of procreation is sinful. It would stand to reason then that an activity designed to intentionally stop a birth as a result of casual sex is sinful. Period.

Show me a scripture that implies it's OK to pluck an unborn child from the womb, or take any measure against conception as a result of sex. I'll wait.

Many people value quality of life over quantity.

Many people do. Jesus doesn't. Take up your cross and follow me, do unto others as you would to yourself, seek first the righteousness of God before health, food, clothing etc etc.

You have a terrible misconception about what Christianity is if you think it's a system designed around living life comfortably and happily. It's not. It's a system of rules and insights to gain spiritual enlightenment and purification so you can walk with God for eternity after you die. Your time on earth is a stepping stone to prove how much you value God and His creations, and you're doing a terrific job at showing it if you think ending a life he planned is OK.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, everyone doesn't. You are forgetting the pregnant woman. Why should women give up rights to appease you?

because what do you gain by losing to pro-life republicans who are conservative on everything?

What rights are YOU willing to give up?

My tax dollars to save babies, keep good families, and help them go to good schools What would you do for babies in the womb?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Don't have a vagina? You don't get a say on abortion.
Don't have a gun? You don't get a say on gun control.
Don't have a health issue? You don't get a say on healthcare policies.
Don't have a penis? You don't get a say on laws forcing men to pay child support.
Don't have $10 million in wealth? You don't get a say on how we should tax the rich
Don't have white privilege? You don't get a say on what it is and how to deal with it.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A valid comparison would be to say don't have a penis? Then you don't get a say on circumcision. Which would be fair. Or prostate removal. I would never tell a man he has to get circumcised or that he can't have his prostate removed or that he can't or has to have a vasectomy.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Show me a scripture that implies it's OK to pluck an unborn child from the womb, or take any measure against conception as a result of sex. I'll wait.

There are none forbidding it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

because what do you gain by losing to pro-life republicans who are conservative on everything?

That isn't an answer to my question. I'll ask again. Why should women give up rights to appease you?

My tax dollars to save babies, keep good families, and help them go to good schools What would you do for babies in the womb?

That's not giving up any rights.

I let women make their own choices about their bodies and the contents thereof.

 

[Lursa]

That's true. But if we're talking about Christianity and Christians, then the position is pretty clear. A woman who chooses her own convenience and sexual freedom over the sanctity of life is as much of a Christian as convicted murderers. A life lost to God is the same whether it's the Pope, Adolf Hitler, or an unborn fetus. It's a sacred creation that nobody has a right to destroy. You do so at the peril of your soul (if you're religious).



Even ignoring the countless passages about sanctity of life, murder etc - the Bible is blatantly clear that any form of sexual activity without the intention of procreation is sinful. It would stand to reason then that an activity designed to intentionally stop a birth as a result of casual sex is sinful. Period.

Show me a scripture that implies it's OK to pluck an unborn child from the womb, or take any measure against conception as a result of sex. I'll wait.



Many people do. Jesus doesn't. Take up your cross and follow me, do unto others as you would to yourself, seek first the righteousness of God before health, food, clothing etc etc.

You have a terrible misconception about what Christianity is if you think it's a system designed around living life comfortably and happily. It's not. It's a system of rules and insights to gain spiritual enlightenment and purification so you can walk with God for eternity after you die. Your time on earth is a stepping stone to prove how much you value God and His creations, and you're doing a terrific job at showing it if you think ending a life he planned is OK.

I'm not interested in discussing the religious aspects of abortion beyond the fact that in America, religious beliefs are not forced on anyone else and therefore not a valid reason to change the legal status of abortion in America.

The religious aspect is handled perfectly now: with pro-choice every woman can act according to her beliefs.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That isn't an answer to my question. I'll ask again. Why should women give up rights to appease you?

Just like I don't have a right to kill a baby, neither should women. Why should woman have a right to kill a baby?

That's not giving up any rights.

I have a right to my income. But fine. I give up my right to kill babies in the womb. Fair?

I let women make their own choices about their bodies and the contents thereof.

I agree. They should be able to make their own choices about their bodies. 100%. A woman has a right to her body, I have a right to my body, and a baby has a right to its body. I agree, 100%.

 

[Lursa]

Just like I don't have a right to kill a baby, neither should women. Why should woman have a right to kill a baby?
.

Women cannot kill babies. Women can terminate their pregnancy, killing their unborn (see, I am honest and dont candy-coat it).

Men have the same right.

See: all Americans have the right to bear arms, even if they choose not to. (Unless personally prohibited by law). Americans have the right to vote, even if they choose not to. (And btw, some men have indeed chosen to gestate their own children)

Now, why shouldn't women or men have the right to do so?

 

[minnie616]

1) It's been reasonably established that religious/conservative people are more charitable than liberal/non-religious people. If not on an individual level, definitely on a systematic one. Christian churches are among the most charitable organizations in the world. So yeah, I'd say the pro-lifers are doing their part in supporting life after birth for the needy.

2) I don't think the pro-choice side is in any position to accuse pro-lifers of hiding behind euphemisms. The entire abortion movement is full of strategic wording which abortion clinics have admitted to using in order to ease the mental grief of mothers wanting an abortion. Calling the dismemberment of a child and then sucking out the puss 'pro-choice' is way more inaccurate.

Please do group all Christian Churches and religions as pro life. There are many main line Protestant Christian Churches and Religions that are pro choice.
There is a list of over 30 church groups and religions groups who are a part of the Religious Coaliation of Reproductive Choice who are pro choice.

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - Wikipedia

 

[minnie616]

There's an extreme irony in accusing others of forcing their beliefs while simultaneously forcing a fetus to die for what you believe to be a woman's right. Don't force your belief onto a helpless fetus please.

.....

Forcing one’s religious beliefs onto another religion is intolerant and is a violation our religious liberty in the United States.

From the RCRC

Religious Liberty

Our religious principles: We are attuned to the important role of our diverse faiths in personal and public life. We treasure the religious freedom guaranteed Americans since our nation’s founding.

Our advocacy position: Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

 

[minnie616]

Let's not compare rodents or insects to people please.

Choosing to end a human life because you believe it will make things easier for you is the paragon of forcing your beliefs onto others. You are forcing something to die in order to create a situation which benefits you. It's no different to radical Christians ending human lives in the 1600s in the name of what they believed. I condemn both.

From the RCRC:

The decisions to become a parent, when and under what circumstances are deeply personal. These matters are best left to a woman to discern for herself in consultation with her family, her faith and others she may bring into the conversation.

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

 

[Lursa]

Please do group all Christian Churches and religions as pro life. There are many main line Protestant Christian Churches and Religions that are pro choice.
There is a list of over 30 church groups and religions groups who are a part of the Religious Coaliation of Reproductive Choice who are pro choice.

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - Wikipedia

You mean 'dont,' correct?

 

[minnie616]

Sources please.

Not to mention that many of us Democrats/liberals are practicing Christians.

And yet, many of us are pro-choice.

And the (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation has an endowment of $40 billion...the grants it donates supersedes the donations of all other charitable organizations period. Even the Catholic Church, which has vast vast riches stored in Vatican City.

Also, the most notoriously pro-life organization in the world is by far the most charitable. ...

Earthly concerns - The Catholic church in America

The world’s biggest charity | Catholic Herald

I disagree. You are including worldwide church donations not just US donations.

Liberals are more likely to donate directly to charities that help social programs.


What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

 

[minnie616]

You mean 'dont,' correct?

Yes I mean don’t.
Thanks for catching my typo.