Pro-life vs. pro-birth

[Wayne Jr]

My interpretation of Christianity doesn't kill millions of people every year. Yours does.

Besides, I've already provided religious reasoning as to why abortion is wrong. It's plastered all over the Bible - from thou shall not kill, to fornication is wrong, and even to doing unto others what you would like done to yourself. There is no way to separate Christianity and the Bible from these fundamental tenets. Anyone who tries needs to consume less soy.

You need to realize that it is destructive, dangerous, and toxic thinking like this which has destroyed the faith throughout history. There were plenty of Christians who used to believe that burning people on the cross was justified if they practiced dark magic. There are plenty of Christians who believe abortion is justified. There will be plenty of Christians tomorrow who think ending life based on some other criteria is OK as well. There will always be those who think the 6th commandment doesn't matter or can be sneaked around. It can't. It's inalienable.

God sure orders a lot of killing for a guy who claims not to like killing.

 

[Wayne Jr]

So now you're trying to argue that stepping on bugs is anti-Christian and can send you to hell?

Like I said, you're just clinging to desperate arguments that make no sense now.



LOL... Abortion is only not murder by a legal standpoint. The Bible was written well before the US legal system or Constitution. The law doesn't change what the Bible means.

You could also stop calling gay sex 'homosexuality', it would still be wrong by Biblical morals.




Abortion is extended or retrospective contraception. And if you agree that contraception is wrong, like the Bible outlines,, how could you possibly think abortion is justified under the same framework? You're contradicting yourself.



LOL troll confirmed. "Jesus only told his disciples not to cheat on their wives or honor his flesh every Sunday. That means the rest of us don't have to do it!"

Don't even try anymore.

There is nothing in the bible against abortion.

Oh, btw did you ever figure out what alimony is? You don't seem to know much about the topics you chime in on.

 

[RooseveltTruman]

Being an atheist, a progressive, and an antinatalist, it would seem that I would be pro-choice. However, as of right now, I'm actually opposed to abortion (except when the mother's health is in danger or whatever). It might just be me, but I think that a candidate could win big on the national level if they promised to restrict abortion while greatly expanding the welfare state in a social democratic manner as a concession to the Democratic Party. This would be genuinely pro-life, since it stops abortion while actually making sure that lives are actually taken care of once they're born. Most Republicans want to protect fetuses, but support policies that seem to drive up infant mortality rates. The anti-abortion/pro-welfare-state-expansion compromise could be the winning ticket. Or not.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Being an atheist, a progressive, and an antinatalist, it would seem that I would be pro-choice. However, as of right now, I'm actually opposed to abortion (except when the mother's health is in danger or whatever). It might just be me, but I think that a candidate could win big on the national level if they promised to restrict abortion while greatly expanding the welfare state in a social democratic manner as a concession to the Democratic Party. This would be genuinely pro-life, since it stops abortion while actually making sure that lives are actually taken care of once they're born. Most Republicans want to protect fetuses, but support policies that seem to drive up infant mortality rates. The anti-abortion/pro-welfare-state-expansion compromise could be the winning ticket. Or not.

Once elected, candidates can't change the Supreme Court ruling protecting abortion. Candidates, of course, are free to have an opinion, but there's nothing they can actualy DO about it.

 

[RooseveltTruman]

Once elected, candidates can't change the Supreme Court ruling protecting abortion. Candidates, of course, are free to have an opinion, but there's nothing they can actualy DO about it.

Well, there are various ways of restricting abortion without overriding Roe v. Wade (more information here).

 

[Wayne Jr]

Well, there are various ways of restricting abortion without overriding Roe v. Wade (more information here).

I'm aware of several attempts, and they never work.

 

[trumpgirl]

I know of no conservatives who are against giving financial to aide to those who truly need it. What we oppose is giving financial aide to freeloaders; those people entirely capable of working, but who choose to live off of handouts. The fact that liberals are unable to make the distinction between these two groups of people goes a long way in explaining why their views on welfare are so bad.

 

[code1211]

Pro-life is a play on words, an emotional power play by theocrats and charlatans who want to force a woman to give birth in retribution for "poor behavior".

The entire movement is an abject fraud and a derelict throwback to monarchic rule.

The right to choose must be preserved. Women in this country will not stand for it, and, I, will stand with them, armed, against stately tyranny.

When the child who was born and put aside and kept comfortable is waiting to be pronounced either human or tissue mass, what rights does the woman have that are not also possessed by the infant?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Like I said, you're just clinging to desperate arguments that make no sense now.

Please do not project your failings onto me. Thanks.

LOL... Abortion is only not murder by a legal standpoint. The Bible was written well before the US legal system or Constitution. The law doesn't change what the Bible means.

Murder, by definition, is an illegal act.

Abortion is extended or retrospective contraception.

Evidently, you do not know what contraception is. Contraception PREVENTS CONCEPTION.

And if you agree that contraception is wrong

Where did I say anything of the sort?


BTW, the Bible is only relevant to it's adherents.

 

[Lursa]

When the child who was born and put aside and kept comfortable is waiting to be pronounced either human or tissue mass, what rights does the woman have that are not also possessed by the infant?

What is the difference between that infant and one born premature and terminally ill? In those cases, parents are allowed to choose only comfort/palliative care until the unborn passes.

Are you claiming that this new issue is designed to allow parents to choose for 'healthy' infants to die? If so, why are there assumptions that mothers/parents want to kill healthy infants that they chose to gestate to full term when no such assumption is made about the preemies?