Pro-life vs. pro-birth

[Xelor]

A lot of people here in the abortion forum area professing to be avid pro-lifers, passing judgement on those who are pro-choice, and calling abortion ( a legal procedure per the laws of the land ) murder ( a fallacious claim often used for inflammatory purposes. ). More pro-lifers seem to be claiming to be conservatives as opposed to being liberals, yet conservatives are the very first to vote for politicians who cut funding for vital health care, food programs, subsidized housing, and other basic needs for the needy who need this assistance to properly feed, clothe, and house the babies once they are born. So, I have two questions for avid pro-lifers. 1) Other than voicing outrage against 'legal' abortions on a message board, what have you done, are doing, or will do in the future to help the unborns and after they are actually born, and 2), Is is just possible it is more appropriate to say you are more of a pro-birth supporter than a pro-life supporter ?

Plain and simple: pro-lifers care about whether others carry to term a pregnancy, but they are largely indifferent about what happens to the fetus after it becomes a child.

 

[Scrabaholic]

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?

We don't have the right to kill a baby.

I have a right to my income.

Where is that alleged right enumerated?

 

[DarkWizard12]

We don't have the right to kill a baby.

Where is that alleged right enumerated?

I imagine, in the same place the right to an abortion is enumerated. I earned my income, and if I want politicians to take a few dollars to take care of children, I'll vote for them!

 

[DarkWizard12]

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?

Ah! very good. Thank you for pointing that out. OK then. Scrabaholic, I give up my rights to kill the unborn, to answer your question!

What rights are YOU willing to give up?

 

[Crusader13]

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.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that abortion is anti-Christian therefore it should be illegal. I believe in separation of Church and State. I'm saying that abortion is anti-Christian and therefore it should not, and cannot, be practiced by anyone who calls themself a Christian like some in this thread.

There are endless unwritten standards on what is and isn't Christian behaviour - some Christians believe you don't have to go to church, or that masturbation is fine, or that you don't have to be baptized or go to confession. These are all perfectly justifiable and even moral opinions to argue. But ending a human life crosses every possible line set by Christianity. Contraception is clearly condemned in the Bible. Abortion is not only contraception, it is contraception that kills a human. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable under Christianity is just lying to themselves.

Tip-toeing past it on the technicality that the Bible doesn't specifically outlaw it by name is laughable. The Bible doesn't specifically say shooting someone in their sleep or hacking into the bank's database and stealing all their money is wrong. Guess that means it's OK then...or you could interpret "thou shall not steal" as an all-encompassing law that clearly prohibits any form of stealing, regardless of method, context or any other variable. In the same way, "thou shall not kill" prohibits all forms of murder, even for criminals, let alone innocent unborn.

It's a free country - do what you want. But if your faith is important to you please reconsider.

 

[minnie616]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that abortion is anti-Christian therefore it should be illegal. I believe in separation of Church and State. I'm saying that abortion is anti-Christian and therefore it should not, and cannot, be practiced by anyone who calls themself a Christian like some in this thread.

There are endless unwritten standards on what is and isn't Christian behaviour - some Christians believe you don't have to go to church, or that masturbation is fine, or that you don't have to be baptized or go to confession. These are all perfectly justifiable and even moral opinions to argue. But ending a human life crosses every possible line set by Christianity. Contraception is clearly condemned in the Bible. Abortion is not only contraception, it is contraception that kills a human. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable under Christianity is just lying to themselves.

Tip-toeing past it on the technicality that the Bible doesn't specifically outlaw it by name is laughable. The Bible doesn't specifically say shooting someone in their sleep or hacking into the bank's database and stealing all their money is wrong. Guess that means it's OK then...or you could interpret "thou shall not steal" as an all-encompassing law that clearly prohibits any form of stealing, regardless of method, context or any other variable. In the same way, "thou shall not kill" prohibits all forms of murder, even for criminals, let alone innocent unborn.

It's a free country - do what you want. But if your faith is important to you please reconsider.

Many Pro choice Christian churches and religious do not believe the unborn has soul.

Ensoulment comes with the Breath of Live.

When God formed Adam he breathed into Adams nose and mouth the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.

The Bible clearly teaches life comes with live birth.
The newly born infant breaths the breath of life.

Here is a snip from a 1968 Christianity Today article:

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary,explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Living soul.

The breath of life makes us living souls.

We receive the living soul at birth.[/B%]

This Wiki link helps explain about a living soul.

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally 'soul', although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] A view is that nephesh relates to 'sentient being' without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh. In Genesis 2:7 the text is that Adam was not given a nephesh but "became a living nephesh." [/B%]Nephesh then is better understood as 'person', seeing that Leviticus 21:11 and Numbers 6:6 speak of a 'dead body', which in Hebrew is a nép̄eš mêṯ, a dead nephesh. [4] Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach "spirit" it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality and conscience, as in Job 7:11. [5][6]

Nephesh - Wikipedia

 

[Obscurity]

Many Pro choice Christian churches and religious do not believe the unborn has soul.

Ensoulment comes with the Breath of Live.

When God formed Adam he breathed into Adams nose and mouth the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.

The Bible clearly teaches life comes with live birth.
The newly born infant breaths the breath of life.

Here is a snip from a 1968 Christianity Today article:


My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Living soul.

The breath of life makes us living souls.

We receive the living soul at birth.[/B%]

This Wiki link helps explain about a living soul.


Nephesh - Wikipedia

The biblical dotards don't understand the passage the Catholics are insisting drives them to be anti-abortion.

They are irreverent demagogues, extremists, and charlatans.

 

[Lursa]

Ah! very good. Thank you for pointing that out. OK then. Scrabaholic, I give up my rights to kill the unborn, to answer your question!

Which rights have you been asked to give up?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I imagine, in the same place the right to an abortion is enumerated. I earned my income, and if I want politicians to take a few dollars to take care of children, I'll vote for them!

So, you can't tell me where it's enumerated. Got it. I understand and accept your concession.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Ah! very good. Thank you for pointing that out. OK then. Scrabaholic, I give up my rights to kill the unborn, to answer your question!

You don't have the right to kill the unborn, since you will never be pregnant.

 

[Lursa]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that abortion is anti-Christian therefore it should be illegal. I believe in separation of Church and State. I'm saying that abortion is anti-Christian and therefore it should not, and cannot, be practiced by anyone who calls themself a Christian like some in this thread.

There are endless unwritten standards on what is and isn't Christian behaviour - some Christians believe you don't have to go to church, or that masturbation is fine, or that you don't have to be baptized or go to confession. These are all perfectly justifiable and even moral opinions to argue. But ending a human life crosses every possible line set by Christianity. Contraception is clearly condemned in the Bible. Abortion is not only contraception, it is contraception that kills a human. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable under Christianity is just lying to themselves.

Tip-toeing past it on the technicality that the Bible doesn't specifically outlaw it by name is laughable. The Bible doesn't specifically say shooting someone in their sleep or hacking into the bank's database and stealing all their money is wrong. Guess that means it's OK then...or you could interpret "thou shall not steal" as an all-encompassing law that clearly prohibits any form of stealing, regardless of method, context or any other variable. In the same way, "thou shall not kill" prohibits all forms of murder, even for criminals, let alone innocent unborn.

It's a free country - do what you want. But if your faith is important to you please reconsider.

I dont misunderstand. (And Minnie also proved you wrong)

And my faith is important to me and you dont get to interpret God's Word for me. I will never believe that the Lord places the unborn's survival ahead of the entirety of the life and self-determination of women...most of whom already have families and obligations in life.

Just because many so-called Christians refuse to recognize the sacrifices, the loss of life and health for women, and the disrespect of women as lesser than the unborn as great harm to women doesnt make it true. All those things are anathema to God. There is nothing "Christian" about that viewpoint...and what's worse, most of the pro-life people here refuse to even acknowledge the significance of those things on women and society. Because it clearly demonstrates they dont hold the moral High Ground here or are following God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, and forgiveness.

Many times here on this sub-forum, so-called Christians have stated that if women die or are harmed in back alley abortions or during the procedure, period...they deserve the pain and suffering and death. Yeah...I'm not aligning myself with such people...ever. They only bring shame to my religion.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So, you can't tell me where it's enumerated. Got it. I understand and accept your concession.

where is abortion enumerated?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Which rights have you been asked to give up?

Scrab was asking what rights would I give up. I just told him, my right to kill the unborn. According to you

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?

 

[Lursa]

Scrab was asking what rights would I give up. I just told him, my right to kill the unborn. According to you

Ah. Then it's your choice to exercise that right or not when you get pregnant.

Thanks for the added context.

 

[Logician Man]

Maybe but, again, I think people approve of taking care of children when they're born. Maybe some of the resistance you see from conservatives may have something to do with distrust in government rather any personal thing against poor children. Even then, someone who cuts benefits may be seen as morally superior to another who supports killing babies, in the mind of a pro-lifer. It's why I always say democrats have a chance to win in the south, if only they would be willing to compromise on abortion, but they don't. What choice, then, do you leave pro-life voters? A republican who cuts benefits against a democrat who supports killing babies. For a pro-life vote, it's an easy calculation.

Anyone that supports 'killing babies' supports 'murder'. You really need to stop with the disingenuous rhetoric if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Willful intellectual dishonesty isn't helping your 'argument' at all.

 

[Lursa]

Anyone that supports 'killing babies' supports 'murder'. You really need to stop with the disingenuous rhetoric if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Willful intellectual dishonesty isn't helping your 'argument' at all.

In this sub-forum it is recognized for what it is, emotionally manipulative language. The sign of a weak argument.

And thanks...we often call it out when we see it but it gets tiresome...it's not really effective here so we dont always bother.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Anyone that supports 'killing babies' supports 'murder'. You really need to stop with the disingenuous rhetoric if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Willful intellectual dishonesty isn't helping your 'argument' at all.

But that's what people believe though. You may not agree, but when so many people believe it, and choose to believe, based on their definition of human life, then legality takes a back seat. Sorry but, a lot of people in the south sincerely believe democrats are baby killers. So why vote for them? That's not a very high moral bar for republicans to win against. Roy Moore lost because people would normally vote for him to win, thought the contest was between a democrat baby killer, and a republican pedophile.

 

[Logician Man]

But that's what people believe though. You may not agree, but when so many people believe it, and choose to believe, based on their definition of human life, then legality takes a back seat. Sorry but, a lot of people in the south sincerely believe democrats are baby killers. So why vote for them? That's not a very high moral bar for republicans to win against. Roy Moore lost because people would normally vote for him to win, thought the contest was between a democrat baby killer, and a republican pedophile.

It doesn't matter what people 'think' or 'believe'. What matters is reality, and the reality is abortion is not 'murder.' If it was, cops would be storming into clinics where abortions are performed and arresting a hell of a lot of women and providers. The Roy Moore thing is irrelevant as to whether or not abortion is 'killing babies" and I challenge you to produce any evidence that the democratic participant is a 'baby killer.' ( good luck with that one )

 

[Lursa]

But that's what people believe though. You may not agree, but when so many people believe it, and choose to believe, based on their definition of human life, then legality takes a back seat. Sorry but, a lot of people in the south sincerely believe democrats are baby killers. So why vote for them? That's not a very high moral bar for republicans to win against. Roy Moore lost because people would normally vote for him to win, thought the contest was between a democrat baby killer, and a republican pedophile.

Hence we have Constitutional protections that prevent 'the tyranny of the majority over the minority.'

And willful ignorance should never be tolerated, it's in no way a benefit to a society.

 

[Atheist 2020]

I am pro abortion.

Abortions need to be free and every abortion you get $5,000 to have the medical procedure

 

[DarkWizard12]

Hence we have Constitutional protections that prevent 'the tyranny of the majority over the minority.'

And willful ignorance should never be tolerated, it's in no way a benefit to a society.

Great, but don't expect to win then. Which is sad, because i think when you say that you want children clothed and fed, you're sincere. I think it's entirely reasonable that, from all the added children that have to live in underprivileged homes, without abortion, i should pay a few more tax dollars to make sure they're clothed in fed, and get good education, and become productive citizens. How is that an evil thing? How am I somehow against feeding and clothing children?

 

[DarkWizard12]

It doesn't matter what people 'think' or 'believe'. What matters is reality, and the reality is abortion is not 'murder.' If it was, cops would be storming into clinics where abortions are performed and arresting a hell of a lot of women and providers. The Roy Moore thing is irrelevant as to whether or not abortion is 'killing babies" and I challenge you to produce any evidence that the democratic participant is a 'baby killer.' ( good luck with that one )

hmmm tell voters that one.

Also, as we discussed in other threads, that logic doesn't follow. There is are a lot of assisted suicide cases, in places where it is considered murder, and again, cops aren't storming around looking to prosecuted such things.

Well, if you believe that abortion is murder, and millions of people do, then those democrats that support abortion are killing babies. They're promoting it and are...well...just dandy with it. Sorry but, that's just how it is. Now, these democrats may not believe that abortion is murder, but it's a separation without a difference, as I've explained in other threads.

 

[Lursa]

Great, but don't expect to win then. Which is sad, because i think when you say that you want children clothed and fed, you're sincere. I think it's entirely reasonable that, from all the added children that have to live in underprivileged homes, without abortion, i should pay a few more tax dollars to make sure they're clothed in fed, and get good education, and become productive citizens. How is that an evil thing? How am I somehow against feeding and clothing children?

Win what?

And how many tax dollars is 'a few more?' There are over 800,000 abortions/yr in the US.

Foster care, public assistance, subsidized daycare and housing, public school attendance, etc.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Win what?

elections in the south. As I said, there are many evangelicals who agree with the overall democrat platform. But with this one issue you DO NOT BUDGE on, they get no voice, and turn to the republicans.

And how many taxdollars is 'a few more?' There are over 800,000 abortions/yr in the US.

Depends on the state, as in change in those policies will change on the state level. Some states have a worse child problem than others, and it's not all uniform.

Foster care, public assistance, subsidized daycare and housing, public school attendance, etc.

All of those thing are already paid for, or subsidized, so yea. I don't see a problem.

 

[Lursa]

elections in the south. As I said, there are many evangelicals who agree with the overall democrat platform. But with this one issue you DO NOT BUDGE on, they get no voice, and turn to the republicans.

Depends on the state, as in change in those policies will change on the state level. Some states have a worse child problem than others, and it's not all uniform.

All of those thing are already paid for, or subsidized, so yea. I don't see a problem.

THey are not already paid for...they come out of our tax dollars...it means they take more $$ from tax payers.

I didnt see any estimate for your 'a few dollar's more'. When I do the math for 800,000 more unaffordable/unwanted kids, the $$ is not 'a few dollars.'

Here is just one example (of many we see just in this sub-forum alone, not any of those that more regularly deal with taxation and welfare) of how someone else feels about paying more for these "extra mouths":

Do you think you have a right to expect your fellow patrons pay for that steak after having eaten it if you don't have the means by which to do it yourself?

It's not a different matter when the choice not to do something is on the same level as the choice to do it. This thread is about choice and abortion. Those results are part of a choice not to have one.

It's also not the responsibility for those unrelated to the situation to pay for the sins of those parents.

It's poor public policy to force those that were told to butt out of a choice, whatever that choice may be, to pay for it when the one telling them to butt out doesn't like the result. Taxpayers are the ATM for people making bad choices.

No one should be given public assistance. If you want to help someone, reach into your own pocket. There are plenty of bleeding hearts that claim to care yet there only answer to help is to get the government to force someone else they think has too much money to fund it. It's not the public's responsibility to pay for your private situation.

To have an abortion or NOT have an abortion are equal choices for a pregnant woman. If a woman in poverty that already had kids she can't afford gets pregnant and chooses to have the child because she chose not to have an abortion, it's not anyone else's place to pay for HER choice.

You're not confused. You've gone into troll mode because you can't defend forcing those that didn't make the choice or aren't part of how the child was produced to pay for it.

Are you saying that the woman choosing not to have an abortion isn't part of what you claim is her right to decide? Since the woman demanding someone else be forced to support the kid(s) SHE chose to have as part of what you claim is a right, it's as much a part of the discussion because it couldn't take place without her choice.

I'm not using the future at all. There are plenty of situations where the mother choosing to have a child already has children she can't support and is relying on those very people she told to butt out of her body choices to support them. Does she think having more will make the situation better?

This is just one example: YouTube

At the :50 mark, she says someone needs to pay for all her children. While only one baby daddy was identified and for 10 of her children, that means at least one or more baby daddies helped produce the other 5. Don't know how many and don't care. I can say two things with no uncertainty. One, those that produced the children with her need to pay and two, I'm not one of them, therefore, I'm not one that should be paying.

I've heard the argument that the children shouldn't pay for the sins of parent(s). You claim to be a Libertarian yet you have no problem with the government forcing those of us that didn't "sin" to pay for sins we didn't commit.

This is not an uncommon sentiment among many posters here...so imagine that number across the country?