Can a religious Christian believe that abortion should be legal? (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

because I disagree doesn't mean its a waste

I 100% agree MORE needs done for social nets, MORE needs done for children/babies/youth who have worthless parents. I'm on board with that, I can think of nobody who wouldn't be. 

killing 850,000 unborn's a year isn't the answer and completely ignores the core problem - the unwanted pregnancies

do you not agree ?

I don't know if you agree or not.  You started talking about all kinds of other things and making comparisons to guns or some nonsense that have nothing to do with the subject.  THAT is why it's a waste.

To the bold, good....get out there and help.  Actions speak louder than words and the inaction on most in this country is deafening, so it appears PLENTY aren't on board, or they'd be doing something to contribute to the solution.

 

[The Commish]

what ??

Access to birth control --> fewer unplanned pregnancies --> fewer abortions.

(At least I assume that's @Sweet J's argument.  He's right IMO).

Backed by data and everything....no need for "IMO" here...it's a fact.

 

[sho nuff]

Sure, but I think you solve that problem by regulating the crap out of it. I'd rather have a heavily-regulated prostitution (with rules in place to protect the vulnerable men and women) than prohibition, which leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. 

It sounds good in theory...til the inevitable push to deragulate and we can't then recriminalize because you never can put the cap back on the bottle.

I am torn on it for sure...as I have seen studies both ways on it...just have found the studies against legalizing to be a bit more compelling at the moment where I lean towards no.

 

[sho nuff]

Also, apropos of nothing - but when organizations like Planned Parenthood get funded appropriately, abortions go down.

And when abortion is made illegal...abortions go up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/abortion-rates-don-t-drop-when-procedure-outlawed-it-does-ncna1235174

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

Its an odd statistic...but it has played out that way all over the place.

 

[FairWarning]

oddly enough, prostitution isn't legal

why? 

if its a woman's body, hers to do with what she chooses .... why isn't prostitution legal in every state? 

States don't want the stigma of it I guess.  

 

[renesauz]

why isn't it easy ?

if a woman is pregnant, there is a living unborn human in the womb .... if there isn't a pregnancy, there isn't a living unborn human in there

isn't it that easy ? 

No...no it isn't. A collection of a few hundred cells with no self awareness is a human?

We hold ourselves special and apart from the animal kingdom because of self awareness. Over one third of pregnancies an "self abort" within the first 60 days or so. While I understand why some would want to place that "collection of cells to human" transition at conception, or at implanting in the uterus, it's pretty easy to see why many others would consider that far too early.

On one thing we can agree though....late term abortion....well after the fetus is moving in the womb and long after a detectable heartbeat, is disgusting.

 

[Manster]

 1 Corinthians 6:16 strongly suggests that marriage and sex should be seen as one and the same.

Huh?  That's what I said

 

[Stealthycat]

Access to birth control --> fewer unplanned pregnancies --> fewer abortions.

(At least I assume that's @Sweet J's argument.  He's right IMO).

USING birth control = fewer unplanned pregnancies and if you can't afford condoms from Walgreen's, you probably shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

There is no shortage of birth control - making it sound like without the abortion providers nobody could get birth control is very misleading

 

[Stealthycat]

To the bold, good....get out there and help.  Actions speak louder than words and the inaction on most in this country is deafening, so it appears PLENTY aren't on board, or they'd be doing something to contribute to the solution.

what did I do last month The Commish - please tell me my activism since you know me so well

 

[Stealthycat]

No...no it isn't. A collection of a few hundred cells with no self awareness is a human?

why is "self aware" added ?  is a person in a coma self aware? is a person who was put under anesthesia self aware? some people in nursing homes are not self aware. Is that how you want to define a living human being?

We hold ourselves special and apart from the animal kingdom because of self awareness. Over one third of pregnancies an "self abort" within the first 60 days or so. While I understand why some would want to place that "collection of cells to human" transition at conception, or at implanting in the uterus, it's pretty easy to see why many others would consider that far too early.

oddly enough, a not self aware living unborn eagle in its egg is protected more so than a living unborn human 

what is "self abort" - what does that mean? an unborn never self aborts - meaning it kills itself. It really means that there was a pregnancy, and the living unborn for any number of reasons died. It ceased to be alive - ending the pregnancy

do you agree that's what a miscarriage is? 

On one thing we can agree though....late term abortion....well after the fetus is moving in the womb and long after a detectable heartbeat, is disgusting.

almost everyone would agree on the above but the question remains - right before the heart beat, what was it? 

follow me here - if you're saying an unborn in a pregnancy with a heartbeat is a living human .... then 5 seconds before the heartbeat what was it ? it couldn't have been something not alive - living things do not magically appear from non-living things do they ? no, it had to have been alive of (A) there would have been no pregnancy and (B) a heartbeat couldn't have formed from something not already human and alive. A different stage of human life - but alive/living none the less, right ?

 

[Rich Conway]

Access to birth control --> fewer unplanned pregnancies --> fewer abortions.

(At least I assume that's @Sweet J's argument.  He's right IMO).

USING birth control = fewer unplanned pregnancies and if you can't afford condoms from Walgreen's, you probably shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

There is no shortage of birth control - making it sound like without the abortion providers nobody could get birth control is very misleading

You're missing the point.

Fact: Increased funding to PP correlates with decreases in abortions.

Conjecture: The reason increased funding leads to decreases is because the increase in funding leads to greater awareness of and access to birth control such as the pill, condoms, etc.

While the conjecture isn't proven, it does make some logical sense.  Obviously, you may have an alternate theory as to the cause of the correlation.  However, just because you reject the initial conjecture regarding the cause of the correlation does NOT mean the correlation doesn't exist.

 

[Stealthycat]

Fact: Increased funding to PP correlates with decreases in abortions.

Conjecture: The reason increased funding leads to decreases is because the increase in funding leads to greater awareness of and access to birth control such as the pill, condoms, etc.

PP can exist without killing unborn's .... and divert all the $$ to abortions towards adoptions and supporting the lives of living people vs just allowing them to be killed

PP do provide contraceptives' - of course so does every Walgreen's and Walmart and gas station, so using that as a great point to keep PP around isn't really a good one IMO. There isn't a person in the USA who doesn't have awareness of condoms and how pregnancies occur. 

There should be a personal responsibility in this world for all our actions - and we've lost that in the USA. Nobody want's accountability for what they choose to do. Yuge problem IMO

 

[The Commish]

No...no it isn't. A collection of a few hundred cells with no self awareness is a human?

careful here.....this will most certainly open the door for killing grown human beings...shocking how non existing this trait is in many.  

You're missing the point.

He's not missing it...he's ignoring it.

 

[Rich Conway]

PP can exist without killing unborn's .... and divert all the $$ to abortions towards adoptions and supporting the lives of living people vs just allowing them to be killed

PP do provide contraceptives' - of course so does every Walgreen's and Walmart and gas station, so using that as a great point to keep PP around isn't really a good one IMO. There isn't a person in the USA who doesn't have awareness of condoms and how pregnancies occur. 

There should be a personal responsibility in this world for all our actions - and we've lost that in the USA. Nobody want's accountability for what they choose to do. Yuge problem IMO

Literally none of this has anything to do with the conversation.

Increased funding to PP correlates with decreased abortions.  Why do you think that is?

 

[Stealthycat]

Increased funding to PP correlates with decreased abortions.  Why do you think that is?

so decreased funding = more abortions? 

PP has lot funding over the past few years, and abortions have slowly went down

agreed? 

 

[Stealthycat]

careful here.....this will most certainly open the door for killing grown human beings...shocking how non existing this trait is in many.  

a direct question - can a woman be pregnant without a living unborn in her womb ? serious question 

 

[KarmaPolice]

  made the mistake of opening one.  

Yes - a woman can be still showing the signs of pregnancy if the fetus is not alive and the main sticking point for you and others is the "living" part of your favorite phrase "living unborn".   Many don't view it as living until we start seeing signs of life - brainwaves, heartbeat, etc..  

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes - a woman can be still showing the signs of pregnancy if the fetus is not alive and the main sticking point for you and others is the "living" part of your favorite phrase "living unborn".   Many don't view it as living until we start seeing signs of life - brainwaves, heartbeat, etc..  

again ... if there is a pregnancy, there is a living unborn in the womb

without a living unborn, there is no pregnancy

if the living unborn died, the woman's body goes through a lot, its not easy losing a baby 

I don't care if people see it as a puppy, a kitten or an unborn baby ..... a pregnancy is what it is and using different words don't change what it is. 

my point in all this is to say nobody can logically or reasonably debate that a pregnant woman doesn't have a living unborn in her womb. Every law we have says she does, its why she takes prenatal vitamins, its what hospitals and insurance companies recognize that life, its what you are charged with murder if you cause that woman to lose that unborn child (its alive) ......... 

if a Christian wants to support abortion, they are supporting the deaths of innocent life

I don't think that's Biblical and thus, I do not think a real Christian can support abortion

 

[KarmaPolice]

Being not religious, my issue and debate was reconciling why we have 2 different definitions of life for the start of life and the end of it.  If we consider somebody dead after brain waves stop, heart stops, etc..  Why in the world would we consider life to start before these things happen?   

Yes, there is potential for life - but until these things occur, I have a very hard time defining what is in the woman's body as "living".    If I remember right, that is the 5-8 week window there.    Again, that much of a window since most won't know they are pregnant until around there, but it really makes it hard for me to converse with people pushing for 0 birth control because they think life starts at conception.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Being not religious, my issue and debate was reconciling why we have 2 different definitions of life for the start of life and the end of it.  If we consider somebody dead after brain waves stop, heart stops, etc..  Why in the world would we consider life to start before these things happen? 

I think that's an eminently fair point of view.  I'm in the life-begins-at-conception camp, but a reasonable person could easily land where you are as well.

In practice it doesn't matter much since both of us are pro-life, just in slightly different flavors.

 

[renesauz]

  made the mistake of opening one.  

Yes - a woman can be still showing the signs of pregnancy if the fetus is not alive and the main sticking point for you and others is the "living" part of your favorite phrase "living unborn".   Many don't view it as living until we start seeing signs of life - brainwaves, heartbeat, etc..  

Bacteria are living too. Mold, fungus, etc. "Alive" is a poor criteria

 

[KarmaPolice]

Bacteria are living too. Mold, fungus, etc. "Alive" is a poor criteria

I would say using mold as a benchmark is too.  I see your point though.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes, there is potential for life - but until these things occur, I have a very hard time defining what is in the woman's body as "living".    If I remember right, that is the 5-8 week window there.    Again, that much of a window since most won't know they are pregnant until around there, but it really makes it hard for me to converse with people pushing for 0 birth control because they think life starts at conception.  

can you explain to me what a pregnancy is ?  biologically speaking what happens ?

 

[Jayrod]

Which argument?  That the government (and people in general) pretty much abandon parentless children?  Point me to the data that says otherwise please.  When was the last time you interacted with an orphanage in any meaningful way?  Genuine question.  I started working with these groups when I lived in Ohio 15 years ago and have continued to do that in the states of NC, SC and Florida since.  All four of those states have the same story.  It disgusts me that we turn our backs on these kids.  Pretending that we don't doesn't make them go away no matter how much we want that to be true.

How about we take a second and pause when one's initial argument is some sort of gross extrapolation to nonsense instead of actually discussing what the person they are replying to said.

Again....I'm good with the pro-life concept...the key part of the term being "life"...it's not just "birth".  Actions speak louder than words.  When was the last time you saw a thread here about orphanages and parentless child support programs or any politicians using those kinds of programs as a central tenant to their platforms like they do "pro-choice" or "pro-life"?

This argument is what I was talking about:  "A pretty good argument can be made in favor of abortion given the immoral ways we treat those forced to be brought into this world by restricting abortions."  That is saying since we don't good enough take care of them as a society, we should have them killed instead.  It is a horrible, non-starter argument and it keeps getting regurgitated time and time again.  If you are going for shock and awe, well it worked, so don't get all worked up when people react strongly to that kind of statement.

I get that you are trying to push for more help with orphans.

And as for your question about when is the last time I've interacted with an orphanage, it has been several years, but I've done work both at and for the Missouri Boys Home.  At this point the church I attend and support has made a massive push in the fostering and adoption world and has made an actual difference in the parentless rates of kids in our area.  I have also supported in the past a friend who started an orphan ministry.  As for me personally, I am focused more on helping men get their lives together so they are better husbands and fathers and we see fewer orphans.  I lead a men's group and do some one on one mentoring of guys who are struggling to keep it together.  My wife and I have talked about fostering several times, but with two younger kids and both of us working and taking classes (and me refereeing football and basketball), there isn't room to do it at this time.  We will very likely get involved with fostering in 2-3 years.

All of this makes me frustrated when the "but you don't support Democratic social programs, so you don't care" lines come out.  Maybe that wasn't what you were saying, but that's how it came across to me.

 

[The Commish]

This argument is what I was talking about:  "A pretty good argument can be made in favor of abortion given the immoral ways we treat those forced to be brought into this world by restricting abortions."  That is saying since we don't good enough take care of them as a society, we should have them killed instead.  It is a horrible, non-starter argument and it keeps getting regurgitated time and time again.  If you are going for shock and awe, well it worked, so don't get all worked up when people react strongly to that kind of statement.

I get that you are trying to push for more help with orphans.

And as for your question about when is the last time I've interacted with an orphanage, it has been several years, but I've done work both at and for the Missouri Boys Home.  At this point the church I attend and support has made a massive push in the fostering and adoption world and has made an actual difference in the parentless rates of kids in our area.  I have also supported in the past a friend who started an orphan ministry.  As for me personally, I am focused more on helping men get their lives together so they are better husbands and fathers and we see fewer orphans.  I lead a men's group and do some one on one mentoring of guys who are struggling to keep it together.  My wife and I have talked about fostering several times, but with two younger kids and both of us working and taking classes (and me refereeing football and basketball), there isn't room to do it at this time.  We will very likely get involved with fostering in 2-3 years.

All of this makes me frustrated when the "but you don't support Democratic social programs, so you don't care" lines come out.  Maybe that wasn't what you were saying, but that's how it came across to me.

Thanks for the info....and I need to be crystal clear here.  My comments are completely apolitical.  Neither group is doing what is necessary and my comments apply to both groups.  BOTH are incomplete in their thinking IMO.  The GOP is only concerned with what happens pre birth IMO and while the Democrats claim to care, their actions in lack of attention, funding etc say otherwise.  You have to see this too working withh these organizations, yes?  If you disagree, I'd like to hear your perspective.

And I'm NOT saying that we "should have them killed".  I'm saying the entire life span (up to let's say college grad age?  21ish?) to determine whether we're doing a moral/noble thing.  I don't think I've ever had a conversation on this topic that includes that sort of scope.  People are focused on the birth part, then not much after that.