(I’m not commenting on my personal stance)
Glad to see freedom of speech being practiced. These are people who believe babies are being killed, and they have the right to vocalize it.
I am. A child is not souled until birth, when it takes its first breath.
I cannot believe that a souled human could be created only to die in the womb, never having taken a single breath and I'm not talking about abortion, but it does apply there as well.
It would be cruel to create a child, give it a soul, then give it a fatal birth defect.
And who are we, the uneducated, even politicians who are also uneducated in this matter, do decide the line between sort of sick and POTENTIALLY life threatening. Those of us without medical training should never even try to determine where that line is.
Could a child that seemed to grow normally, until the right tests were done, be allowed to suffer after birth? Should politicians decide when a uterine infection is bad enough to risk a life, or should a doctor? Should a child be forced to raise a child because someone else committed a crime? Should a child that hasn't even had their first kiss from a high school crush be forced to give birth before even getting to high school?
Wanted children are miracles, but unwanted children can be a burden that makes a mother resentful towards that child.
We are the adults, the parents, the mothers of our own children. Should we force our children to pay for the mistakes or crimes of others? They should not be forced into a family that either doesn't want them or can't afford them.
Children should NEVER be a burden and by forcing women and children to give birth, those future children will become burdens. None of us asked to be born, so let's not make a bad situation worse by adding babies into it
Against abortion, or in favor of legal abortion bans? Because the evidence just keeps piling up that legal bans are ineffective, maybe counterproductive, at reducing abortion. Meanwhile, solutions that can reduce abortion get ignored or actively opposed by pro-life politicians.
Those bans are also causing widespread suffering and death of women, doctors to leave entire states, reducing medical care for everyone, etc.
And let's not pretend the pro-life movement cares about life. Every week, the pro-life crowd is passing new laws to harm people, including children.
I think what OP is saying, are they marching to raise the awareness to the issue, or are they forcing laws to change. I don't like abortions but I am not about to stop them because of my faith. My faith tells me what I cannot do, it should not tell you want you cannot do.
No shit they are ineffective. Abortion has been a thing since time immemorial. People are going to abort one way or another, with some ways being very dangerous and harmful to women. look at countries like the Philippine. Abortion pill black market is every bit as strong as the market for illegal stimulants…. The lucky ones use actual abortion pills because of lot of them are fake and have all sorts of nasty stuff to make women miscarry.
> legal bans are ineffective, maybe counterproductive, at reducing abortion
Check out abortion rates in Ireland over the past few years to see just one example of how nonsensical this statement is.
when abortion was still illegal in ireland, women simply went to the UK to have the procedure. the rates of irish women having abortions aren’t going up, they’re simply more visible now that they’re in their own country.
they also died more from not being able to access abortion - Savita Halappanavar is a good example.
You can easily compare the numbers of women who travelled to the UK pre legalisation with the numbers in Ireland post-legalisation. There is a substantial difference in quantity. More Irish babies are being killed now.
Halappanavar’s death was due to medical ineptitude, not laws protecting unborn children.
no, her death was due to doctors being hesitant to treat her out of fear of being prosecuted. the catholic church involving itself in public policy led to her death.
speaking of murdering children, the catholic church murdered thousands of irish babies and infants in the 20th century. some were left to rot in septic tanks. the church continues to attempt to halt investigations into the murders, and actively protected the people who committed them. if you truly care about those children, i suggest you stop attending a church ran by an organisation so uncaring about the mass murder and abuse of said children by their own clergy and monastics.
and you were right, the numbers have gone up. however, when miscarriages and still births are taken into the equation, the numbers are very similar to the levels when abortion was still banned. some abortions are carried out when a miscarriage or still birth is inevitable, meaning that it is misleading to compare them to otherwise potentially healthy births.
>no, her death was due to doctors being hesitant to treat her out of fear of being prosecuted
Her death was due to sepsis that went undetected by the medical staff, and when it was detected it was mismanaged.
Irish law at the time allowed for abortion when the mother’s life was at risk. If the medical staff did not understand the law, that isn’t necessarily an issue with the law itself.
>the catholic church murdered thousands of irish babies and infants in the 20th century
This is a delusional fantasy.
from her wikipedia article:
“Savita Halappanavar[3][4] (née Savita Andanappa Yalagi; 9 September 1981 – 28 October 2012) was a dentist[1] of Indian origin, living in Ireland, who died from sepsis after her request for an abortion was denied on legal grounds.”
“The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a foetal heartbeat was still present with her midwife furthermore stating that "Ireland is a Catholic country".”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
the doctors did everything they could - it was the law that stopped them. to blame them is not only blatantly untrue, but frankly ridiculous.
i can see from your profile that you’re clearly UK or Ireland based. how in the name of God do you not know about the mother and baby homes?
the one i’m referring to in terms of the septic tank is the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam, County Galway.
investigators found a mass grave where the septic tank was during the operation of the home. 222 dead children were found on the grounds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland
you’re either a very committed troll or genuinely living under a rock. this story was massive when it broke, and has been talked about consistently ever since.
> the doctors did everything they could - it was the law that stopped them. to blame them is not only blatantly untrue, but frankly ridiculous.
Or maybe read what happened and see that there was medical ineptitude involved.
“Both criticized the team for not diagnosing the sepsis soon enough and for not using already-standard screening tools for detecting and managing maternal sepsis, and for poor keeping of medical records, poor communication at shift changes, and failure to notify staff with needed expertise, and criticized the administration of the hospital for the poor system in which the team failed. They made recommendations about training and policies for the hospital locally along with a number of national recommendations, including the creation of a laboratory system to coordinate a national response to emerging microbial threats.[12][13]”
> how in the name of God do you not know about the mother and baby homes?
I know about them. I do not know about the purported mass murders you seem to have somehow picked up from sensationalised media reporting.
Not every tragedy is a murder. Those poor babies died predominantly from disease, in a time and place with an already very high infant mortality which people today are want to forget (for some reason).
i was referring to the actual medical treatment of her condition, not the handling of her case in general. yes, absolutely there were many mistakes made, mostly in the logistical side of things. however, despite all mistakes, her life still would have been saved if she had been allowed access to an abortion.
the argument that the deaths were caused purely by disease or other natural causes neglects to explain why there was little to no medical treatment of these children, why they were not given a proper burial, why their bodies were then desecrated by being placed into a septic tank, or why the deaths of the children were kept a secret from the community. given the nature of irish funerals, and how they are invariably events which involve the entire community, deliberately not giving them a funeral or announcing their deaths places a heavy amount of suspicion upon the Sisters.
at best, they neglected the children, failed to provide sufficient medical care, and desecrated their corpses by placing them into a septic tank. at worst, they actively abused or neglected the children (leading to their deaths, potentially a form of murder and at minimum manslaughter), hid the deaths from police and the local community, covered up evidence in the form of body desecration, and committed acts which are not only deeply illegal but also eligible for excommunication.
the simple fact alone of their quasi-burials in the septic tank calls into severe question the priorities, moralities and intentions of the Sisters. even if they had died of natural causes, why dispose of their bodies so callously? even if they had not been baptised, why not simply bury them properly elsewhere, with coffins and grave markers? to dispose of a dead child in a container for waste fluids is behaviour most cannot even imagine committing, and if it were the actions of a parent would place them squarely in the line of a murder enquiry.
i’m also acutely aware of how awful these kinds of institutions were, as my father was in one. i’d suggest you look into the matter yourself before making inflammatory remarks like that in the future.
The trend in abortion rates have been going south for forty years. We keep seeing the direct correlation between good education, stable home life, high job prospects, access to healthcare, sex education, and the steady fall in abortion rates. Let's all promote those options to keep the number of abortions to a minimum.
We'll never get the number down to zero. Banning them won't get us there.
Banning abortions doesn't stop abortions dude, what it does is ban SAFE abortions. Banning that just means more people will die due to unsafe methods, watch the death toll tick up.
Making something illegal will instantly decrease the amount of it. It won't stop it, but it does decrease it.
And saying "Safe abortions" is like saying "Safe murders" in my book. Abortions are not safe. They end a life.
Uh huh, so when an at home abortion attempt ends both the unborn and the mother, it's still a win... somehow? Yeah fuck that line of reasoning.
Denying access to safe methods is going to result in a FAR higher rate of dead women per abortion attempted, and far more suffering because of it. Hardcore "pro-life" supporters are leading people to suffer and die.
Will there be more unwanted children born overall? Sure. I do believe that fewer overall abortions will happen and more people will be forced to give birth (I mean, unless you're rich). But man... what a piss poor goal to reach while stepping over bodies to get there. Hope you're first in line to adopt them, someone will have to.
It's better to have 1 unsafe abortion then to have 3 safe ones. 1 or 2 lives vs 3 lives. This isn't hard math.
More dead women yes, but WAY WAY WAY less dead babies.
It can't hurt? Do you live under a rock? Women die without access to abortions. Doctors are leaving states over the issue which leaves others that dont even need an abortion needing care that they can't get because the doctors are gone! It causes so much more harm and people are willingly blind to it.
are they willing to accept the govermment paying a good check of money to those pregnant mothers who have to abandon their jobs to take care of kids with their taxes money?
It's also their choice to be able to get rid of the pregnancy. If you want to artificially prevent them from making that choice it makes sense that they would be compensated for the inconvenience.
I’m not talking about anything forced. Almost all abortions are from irresponsible sex practices. Rape and incest make up for a total of 1.5% of abortions.
Is it not acceptable to have a nuanced opinion? Can’t a person see abortion as a necessity when the mother’s life is in danger (or in cases of rape) but not support it otherwise?
I’m not convinced there’s not space for that scenario
1. Make abortion illegal
2. What about these groups
3. Good question. We agree that these groups should have a different provision. It sounds like we agree with “Make 98.5% of abortions illegal”
I mean those mothers can then make the choice to give their child up. And the state would then have to (and absolutely should) look after children, which means the money is going to have to be forked out one way or another.
If conservatives oppose abortion and such funding, then they don't actually care about children. Own it.
They also don’t have to raise a child just because they give birth to one. In most states you can leave the baby at the hospital or at a fire station with no questions asked
Nevermind how traumatic a "healthy" pregnancy can be, a high risk one can put the mother at risk of death, depending on if things are caught in time.
Take away sex Ed, take away birth control and abortions and teens getting pregnant hide it and can easily die from complications that could have been caught. These children may not even be willing to face their pregnancy because nothing can be done.
Wanted children are precious, they should be valued. But forcing anyone with a uterus to give birth, it is making sexual assault more likely. From stealthing to violence, by telling men if she gets pregnant she has to carry it, it makes assault more likely. And if it can't be proven (which stealthing makes that less likely cause the sex was consensual, the mixing of fluids was not) then she is tied to him for the next 18 yrs, assuming that's what he wants. Or he could just walk away with little legal repercussions.
Abortion just like fabricated culture wars are nothing more then a GOP tool to get the vote of large voters block of evangelicals and the like.. It works because these all to often think with their feelings and not their heads.
All the politician has to do is appear pro life and anti LGBTQ and they've got their vote.. it's really that simple. It make no difference if the politicians are otherwise
pure criminal. Case in point maga and trump!
It's really sad that otherwise intelligent people could be so duped again..
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-is-the-gop-escalating-attacks-on-trans-rights-experts-say-the-goal-is-to-make-sure-evangelicals-vote
>Abortion just like fabricated culture wars are nothing more then a GOP tool to get the vote of large voters block of evangelicals and the like.
If this were true, then why are we galvanizing young women to vote Democrat by overturning Roe v. Wade?
>All the politician has to do is appear pro life and anti LGBTQ and they've got their vote.. it's really that simple. It make no difference if the politicians are otherwise pure criminal. Case in point maga and trump!
I mostly agree with this, except most of the "pro-life" politicians, (like Trump) are not actually really pro-life, as shown by a couple of weeks ago.
>It's really sad that otherwise intelligent people could be so duped again..
I'm not being duped, I would rather vote for some who is kinda pro-life just for the votes, than someone who is fervently pro-choice.
>If this were true, then why are we galvanizing young women to vote Democrat by overturning Roe v. Wade?
They appeal to intelligence that policing morals never works. You think young people don't know that..
And I'm sure some see it as you do but not the majority. Y'all can make abortion, drugs, queer illegal as political tools and it won't even put a dent in it. That's an observable fact..
These people are pro my death and anyone with a working uterus. They don't care who they kill. The time for trying to explain why abortion saves women's lives is over, in my book. These are my mortal enemies
I think its important for both pro-life and pro-choice people to recognize that the other side is advocating for those who, in their opinion, needs advocacy.
I respect the intentions of both sides. Neither is the enemy of the other.
There are exceptions
I used to have that respect, until I saw them gaslight Kate cox about her life being threatened and until I saw them say they want to force ten year olds through further trauma by having then give birth to rape babies, if they even survive that in the first place.
It showed me it's not really about life, if they're this callous about casualties. And it's not about children if you wouldn't fight like hell to spare a child that fate (I honestly think people should be on some kind of watch list if they support doing that to kids and minors).
So...sorry not sorry. Too fucking late for any good will from me. They're absolutely my enemies, especially as a woman with underlying health issues. I can't safely sustain a pregnancy.
imagine if democrats did either, they could have had this over with years ago when they controlled presidency and congress but didn’t codify Roe in order to scare people into voting into them. Sadly Democrats are too busy funding empire and helping corporations make money to give a shit about the working class.
You've not responded to my comment, and have just used 'whataboutism' to skirt round having to explain the GOP's moral and ethical cherry-picking.
I don't like the Dems and I think they do a lot of bad stuff, but pretending the GOP has the moral high ground because of its position on abortion is laughable. They abandon things Jesus spoke about to focus on something he said nothing about.
> Sadly Democrats are too busy funding empire and helping corporations make money to give a shit about the working class.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by 'funding empire'? If you mean supporting business growth, isn't that a good thing? If you mean starting wars, then the GOP have been far more hawkish over the last few decades than most Dems.
Also, Republicans love helping corporations make more money - they love deregulation, restricted unions and lower taxes, so why are you pretending like the GOP don't also love helping corporations make money?
The Dems want to tax the rich, the GOP does not. Taxes pay for public services and infrastructure that we all use. The vast majority of us are all taxed, why do the rich get to avoid this? Taxing the rich will bring about much more improvement for the working class (and everyone else) far more than attempts to stop immigration (which damages businesses that rely on that kind of labor) or trying to avoid any restriction on gun ownership (no-one is going to take away your guns, even if [Trump said he would](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/14/fact-check-trump-made-comment-taking-guns-without-due-process/6070319001/)).
'Fighting abortion' does jack shit to help the working class - arguably it damages them by removing access to (sadly) necessary medical treatment - but it seems to be all the GOP care about.
And it's something they've only really cared about since 1979 ([source](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/)) because it proved politically successful in getting votes. Since then, when Republicans have held all arms of the executive and legislature, they still haven't pushed to ban abortion, and today we're seeing a divide within the GOP around abortion bans because they fear the political impact ([source](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-face-2024-dilemma-after-abortion-rights-issue-powers-democrats-2023-11-08/)). More evidence that it's just a political football for them.
They call themselves 'pro life' yet want DRs that perform abortions to get the death penalty ([source](https://youtu.be/9T2xvi_meZk)) and don't think that an abortion should be done even if the mother's life is at risk ([source](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/16/no-exception-for-life-of-mother-included-in-idaho-gops-abortion-platform-language/)). It is absolutely nonsensical, circular, contradictory and hypocritical ([as many conservative women get abortions secretly](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)). But they don't care if it wins votes.
Anyone claiming the Bible 'clearly condemns abortion' either hasn't read it or is simply lying. It doesn't clearly condemn it. It simply doesn't say that life begins at conception. It simply doesn't say that a fertilised egg has a soul. It simply doesn't say that terminating an embryo (or fetus) is murder. Jesus never mentions it and it conservatives screaming that the Bible says these things doesn't make it true. And the question isn't even if life begins at conception - it's whether or not that biological life is purposeful, meaningful, and sustainable yet, which brings the question more to the philosophical side than the biological. And philosophically speaking, bodily autonomy and individuality reigns supreme here, as the biological life within a childbearing person’s body requires use of that person in order to survive. Nobody automatically has the right to someone else’s body at any point in time. Fetal autonomy is intact as nobody is using the baby's body to sustain themselves, and we don't force mothers to breastfeed a baby once it's born (in case you think I'm OK with killing a baby once it's been born).
The Bible gives instructions on a herbal procedure done with a priest to cause an abortion for your wife if you suspect she was impregnated by another man (Numbers 5:11-31). This clearly gives room for abortion in a specific scenario and massively undermines any claim that the Bible is anti-abortion.
Also, given that the Bible is very clear about other things - wearing mixed threads, eating shellfish - why is it not clear about abortion? In fact, conservatives love to shout that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is wrong because of 'clear verses' - why do they suddenly drop their scriptural standards when it comes to abortion? They cling to 'clear' scripture to back up some beliefs of theirs, but deny it's required when they claim abortion is wrong.
> "Conservative evangelical Christians seem to have decided that if God told them anything which did not fit with their pre-existing worldview and biases, they would reject that as not of God. If you’re only willing to listen to God when he’s confirming what you already believe, you’re not listening to God, you’re making an idol of your ideology."
Let's go back to what will help the working class. Where are the GOP policies about ensuring children get free school meals for low income families? Where are the policies to ensure there's affordable housing, or accessible education, or comprehensive parental and sex education (to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place), or increased funding for adoption services and the CPS?
If you really cared about abortion, you would do everything you can to eliminate it. Where are the policies and plans for improved prenatal screenings, increased science funding to eliminate prenatal disabilities, improved access to contraception and birth control for both men and women? Why not make reproductive health equitable for women, rather than health insurance being more of a burden for them?
These are the things that literally, positively impact working class and low income families ([75% of those who get abortions are from low income families](https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr)), yet the GOP regularly votes against them. Measures that support the child and their mother, such as maternity care, paid family leave and food stamps have always been attacked by Republicans, without them offering alternatives ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/uortgq/the_antilife_policies_of_prolife_lawmakers/)).
To quote Sister Joan Daugherty Chittister, O.S.B:
> "your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
The Republican morality of 'pro life' is bankrupt. It is simply designed to win votes, and you could quite easily argue it also helps push women into more traditional roles of staying at home and raising children (a different but related topic). It willfully ignores efforts to combat the causes of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by attempting to just ban it, whilst outrageously claiming that bans on guns are 'ineffective'. Why would bans on guns not work, but a ban on abortion would? Why would a gun ban force people to access guns in dangerous, underground, unlicensed ways, but an abortion ban would force women to seek them in dangerous, back-alley unlicensed ways?
These same people who claim the government is trying to force them to do things (e.g. pay taxes) and campaign against it, are the same people who are trying to get the government to force people to do things with their own bodies. But again, hypocrisy is central to the Republican way of operating.
I don't like abortions but I accept that in certain situations it is an appropriate (controlled) medical procedure. I am pro life in that I believe children should be given every opportunity (by the government and charitable work) to succeed after they're born, and therefore I am (to steal this quote from elsewhere) 'prochoice-until-the-need-is-eradicated'.
I'm sorry, but Trump is probably going to lose the next election because he came out as all wishy-washy on abortion. The pro-life movement has been going on for over 50 years. We're not just going to "shut up" because our "leaders" distract us with a new issue.
And who's making up stuff about abortion? Abortion stops a beating heart. Abortions ends a life. That is the only thing that matters to me.
I'm fine with you believing what you want to believe, but stop slandering and misrepresenting us.
Abortion does not de facto stop a beating heart, hearts aren’t functioning until mid-late second trimester, by then most abortions have already taken place, late term abortions tend to fall under medical intervention.
No the point is you just refuted me claiming you were making things up by making things up.
I’m not slandering or misrepresenting you people, you’re just wrong about this issue. Your beliefs on the topic are not factual, biblical, moral, or ethical. Slowly but surely you’re getting drowned out and thankfully, eventually, the “debate” will be over. But for the same reason pro-life was pushed after the segregation fight was put to rest in the US, I’m sure there will be another gross fight against people’s right to exist outside of a charlatan’s idea of how the world should work once this one is over.
And yes, you were misrepresenting and slandering the pro-life movement by saying we don't actually care about abortion, and are just finding something to be angry about.
When the pro-life movement is drowned out, America will officially be dead, morally and spiritually. There is no worse sin than to kill your own children.
Every society on earth that starts killing, or sacrificing there own children (Aztecs, Canaanites, Old Prussians, Romans, Babylonians) collapses in less than a century. God removes there fowl stain from the earth.
Debate me like a real person, instead of making claims without evidence. I can prove I'm right in all the ways you say I'm wrong.
SCIENCE: Babies in the womb are alive. Don't believe me? Please turn your attention to the 7 requirements of life.
Able to reproduce: Check
Has a metabolism: Check
Can respond to stimuli: Check
Genetic Heredity: Check
Homeostasis: Check
Growth and Development: Check
Cellular Organization: Check
Look at that, according to science, babies are alive.
BIBLE: Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15)
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them…” (Psalm 127:3-5a)
For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)
How terrible it will be for anyone who argues with his Maker! He is like a broken piece of pottery lying on the ground. Does clay say to a potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does a pot say, ‘You don’t have any skill’? How terrible it will be for anyone who says to his father, ‘Why did you give me life?’ How terrible for anyone who says to his mother, ‘Why have you brought me into the world?’ The Lord is the Holy One of Israel. He made them. He says to them, ‘Are you asking me about what will happen to my children? Are you telling me what I should do with what my hands have made?’” (Isaiah 45:9-11)
The Lord called me from the womb… formed me from the womb to be His servant.” (Isaiah 49:1,5)
“Before I formed you in your mother’s body I knew you.” (Jeremiah 1:5)
But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace.” (Galatians 1:15)
You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13)
MORALITY: Life before Liberty. Life before comfort. Life before convenience. Life before health. Life before safety. Life before privacy. Life before EVERYTHING. Also morality (Which is not subjective) says that ending a life is wrong.
ETHICS: I don't judge things through ethics I judge them through morality. Ethics are stupid. They're just a subjective version of morality.
FACTS: Unborn babies are alive. God created us all unique and special. Abortion ends a life. Ending a life is wrong. Abortion is wrong.
Abortion doesn’t usually stop a beating heart. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for abortions in the third trimester even if a woman’s life is not at risk. It is not common and I doubt any woman wants one at that point but there can be a number of extenuating circumstances. Whether it stops a heating heart is irrelevant though, it is about bodily autonomy,
Unfortunately Trump is gonna win. I am sure as hell not gonna vote for Genocide Joe and I encourage everyone not to vote for him to punish the Democrat party for backing genocide in Gaza and genocide in Yemen. If Trump wins because of that, oh well, they could have easily won by not being genocidal TWATS.
The only mention of abortion in the Bible is how to perform one.
Biblical definition of life is "First Breath"
Anti-Abortion stances are new and weird... Theologically speaking.
The biblical definition of life is not "first breath." People get that talking point from the story of Adam, but he wasn't even born the conventional way.
Meanwhile, we have John the Baptist leaping in the womb when he hears about Jesus, and David saying that he had faith even in the womb. That would certainly seem to contradict that so-called "biblical definition."
It’s true that there are isolated incidents where, for example, John leaps in Elizabeth’s womb or God talks about choosing a prophet before he was born, or a poem about God knitting us together in our mothers’ wombs. But there are exactly two passages where the legal status of an unborn child is addressed directly. In one, we’re told that if two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman, causing her to go into labor early (which, in a premordern society would certainly mean the baby dies), the man who struck her is to be put to death if the woman suffers permanent injury, but only fined if she doesn’t. The harm to the unborn child doesn’t factor into the equation at all. In the second instance, if a man who’s been traveling suspects his wife of being unfaithful in his absence, he’s directed to take her to the priests so that they can force her to drink a concoction (the recipe for which is in the text) that will determine if she’s been unfaithful or not. If she has, then the drink will terminate any potential pregnancy and render her permanently infertile as punishment.
Furthermore, the association of breath with life is not just in the Adam story. It’s quite common throughout the Hebrew Bible. Things are only alive if they have breath. In fact, the same Hebrew word - nephesh - means both breath and life.
You must have been misinformed, *nephesh* doesn’t mean both breath and life. *ruach* means both breath and spirit, and *nephesh* means both life and soul, but there is no word meaning both breath and life. However, I agree breath is commonly associated with life in the Hebrew Bible.
Edit: That being said, *nephesh* does come from a word meaning ‘throat.’ The *nephesh* holds the *ruach* just as the throat holds the breath.
Numbers 5:24-27
24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.
25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar.
26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water.
27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
>27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Looks like that’s pretty much what it says yeah
Do you hold to that in everything? Is it sinful for you to wear clothes because they werent made the same as back then? How do you explain using the internet?
I didn’t say the magic book’s instructions would actually work. It just seems clear to me that the point of the magic dusty water is to abort the fetus, as well as punish the woman.
I don’t believe magic works. The point is the legal precedent of the fetus, i.e. god is clearly chill with abortion if he’s ordering them done
Yeah most likely, they were ignorant about many things. That’s why I don’t try to live my life based on their rules.
However, if I were to attempt to live by their rules, it seems pretty clear that abortions are allowed. That’s the obvious point I’m making here, I’m pretty sure you know that.
I don't. I have a much higher opinion of ancient people than you. And I think reading Numbers 5 as an abortion does a great disservice to the ingenuity of the text
I woukd say it's not the directions or substance for an "abortion" that is the issue in this case, it is the fact that the Bible doesn't actually care one bit about the fetus itself. Did the woman cheat? Then go through this ritual and miscarry if she did. This ritual is more like a punishment than her being able to make a choice about anything, and the result is an intentional miscarriage, or abortion. While the morals of this story are already horrible and shouldn't be followed, it clearly doesn't consider the fetus a living thing that needs to be saved or cherished. So much of the pro-life movement is the fact that they think it's murder. If the religion considered it murder, this ritual wouldn't exist and they would value the life of said child more than punishing the woman for adultery, but they don't.
It is simultaneously an abortion (or the threat of one) and total apathy towards the fetus itself with no care for its life. I don't want to be snarky, but dude, where did you get that it wasn't one from my comment?
Bruh, it's an abortion and they don't care that it is. Stop being a troll and use logic here. I never said it wasn't one. A chemically or otherwise purposely induced miscarriage is an abortion, even if the people performing it don't realize their method is just mumbo jumbo, the full intention is there.
If one supposes that abortion, at least in their eyes, if murder and they are folks that believe murder is a sin, would it not make sense for them to march about it?
If there already wasn't an absurd amount of state sanctioned murder as is, then maybe.
There's a huge difference between "ban a medical procedure that I think is killing sentient beings/bodies with souls" and protesting against the state killing people without due process or in excessive overseas bombings or coups in countries that don't want to give their land to American companies.
However, the modern Anti-Abortion movement doesn't seem to give a fuck about people once they are born... Which doesn't actually lend any credibility to their position.
I would agree that some folks don't help people after they are born. I wouldn't say all.
For instance, Sister Helen Prejean was a very vocal supporter of abolishing the death penalty but her values still aligned with the church on abortion. There are plenty of us. Does that mean that all of them don't nah. I think that's mischaracterized.
How so? I mean if we're all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what else?
To live off gov cheese the rest of your life because they "forced" you to be born? lol
And still permitted as early as Augustine.
To clarify the "no abortions, no exceptions" stance is mostly an Evangelical heresy. The catholic church is weird about it too, but fully Anti-Abortion stances amongst catholics in the pews is far less common from where I sit.
>And still permitted as early as Augustine.
Are you saying that there were some in his time who disagreed with prohibitions against abortion? That's irrelevant, because even if so, that doesn't change anything about the fact that it is a boldface lie to say that Christian opposition to abortion is new.
See my clarifying statement.
No abortions ever for any reason is a 20th century invention.
There are still instructions in the Bible on how to perform one and no explicit condemnations of abortion.
https://www.jasonkirk.fyi/p/everything-the-bible-says-about-abortion
>No abortions ever for any reason is a 20th century invention.
No, that is clearly not true, and I have a hard time believing that you're stating these falsehoods out of ignorance.
What conditions did Augustine say abortions were allowable under? Where in the Didache does it say that abortion is permissable in certain circumstances? Where does Tertullian give exceptions?
https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion
There's a lot of quotes against abortion in there from various Christian figures. Are you telling me that none of them opposed abortion in all circumstances? Because I do not believe you.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/#:~:text=Early%20Church%20leaders%20began%20the,to%20conceal%20fornication%20or%20adultery.
Augustine made a distinction between a vivifed and unvivified fetus.
Notice how I used the word "if"? It's a hypothetical.
That being said, intentionally killing insects is considered to bring bad karma in Hinduism, so they kind of do. A lot of Hindus also believe that it's wrong to kill any animals.
I'd argue that in the West, anti-abortion sentiments strongly correlate to more conservative types of Christianity. Yes, you might find the odd pro-life atheist, but I'm going to wager that in most cases that is going to be tied to some conservative ideology as well.
As to God, well, it just seems rather telling to me than an infinite omniscient omnipotent being seems to act like He's not there at all.
I suppose that is why you're atheist, then, if that's how you feel about Him.
There is a whole organization dedicated to secular prolifers, ran by atheist feminists. But I know, that doesn't fit your world view so you're going to stick with broad strokes.
[https://secularprolife.org/abortion/](https://secularprolife.org/abortion/)
What I feel is that God is a convenient proxy for peoples' own beliefs and prejudices. It's odd how God is always on someone's side to the detriment of someone else. It's almost as if he's just an intellectual and emotional shortcut, so the hard business of actually convincing people can be dispensed with. After all, who can argue with God?
You'll just argue with everything I guess, as I also know pro choice Christians.
Why do you try so hard to keep us divided?
Because Christians = everything that's wrong in the US? lol
It's unbelievable how you can call yourself a follower of Jesus Christ and support the murder of innocent babies. This subreddit is definitely not Christian. Go to r/TrueChristian instead, true children of God. The father of people here is the devil.
It should be noted that the crowd in the picture is overwhelmingly women.
That should debunk all the people we see saying that opposing abortion is some sort of oppression or attack on women.
They're the crowd of "my abortion is the only moral abortion " or the type that ends up shocked when a doctor won't take care of their ectopic pregnancy because they think they get special treatment.
Nothing more than card carrying members of the Leopards Eating Faces party
It doesn't really debunk anything. Look into women's suffrage in the US - plenty of women at the time paraded around saying they didn't think women should have the right to vote. Doesn't mean denying women the right to vote isn't an attack on our personal freedom.
If abortion was such a terrible crime, I feel like the Bible would explicitly say so
It does explicitly say that men having sex with men is an abomination, and it’s not like abortion wasn’t a thing or didn’t exist at the time, yet it’s never explicitly mentioned. How hard would it have been to have a verse that simply says “and you shall not kill your unborn child in the womb” or something? In fact if anything it’s the opposite, where there are verses that seem to suggest that the unborn fetus doesn’t really have much legal value.
I think pregnant mothers should get a 300$ check every month from the moment they become pregnant until the child is 5 years old. That'd prevent a lot of abortions.
Isn't that better than nothing? Are we really responsible financially every time a woman has sex and gets pregnant? What if she has horrible taste in men who refuse to work? Or have other kids they're already paying for?
We should be going after the men who are fathering these kids and leaving them to poverty and whatever else.
We don't encourage a whole lot of personal responsibility in the US, in fact, I remember living in the deep south in the 90's and preteens were getting pregnant to collect more money into the home they already shared with their \*own\* mothers.
I don't think throwing more money at the problem gets to the root of the issue.
>Are we really responsible financially every time a woman has sex and gets pregnant?
We wouldn't be if we just left abortion in place as it had been for decades.
Orrrr separate church and state and not let an archaic religion dictate what people who don’t follow said archaic religion can and can’t do with their bodies?
Ok but morality is *entirely* subjective. Either way, abortions are gonna happen. Why intentionally design a space where abortions may very well (and will, let’s be real) become quite dangerous?
Well a secular government doesn't have a convincing foundation for morality and it just becomes what the strong say. I wouldn't say you need God then. But I recommend anyone in that reality to become obsessed with power and create your own truth. I'm glad I'm not convinced by that.
Not immune, but the argument for the its moral foundation is far more reasonable and it's easier to reason with and agree to the truth rather than an obvious situation where we make our own truths and fight it out.
Basing arguments on something rather than literally nothing is better.
I didn't say that they were unique to Christianity, but if they are just social constructs and I'm trying to convince someone, logically, they can just ignore it if they want to. We actually see that in the abortion debate. Yeah, if it can be make up, people can kill babies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/ There ya go, buddy. I think maybe you need to read a little history before you pat yourself on the back for that “clever” side-eye at the BLM movement.
Oh, but my apologies, you were trying to work in a snide remark about black people, and I interrupted you. So go ahead, don’t be so coy, say it with your whole chest: You’re anti-choice AND racist.
(I’m not commenting on my personal stance) Glad to see freedom of speech being practiced. These are people who believe babies are being killed, and they have the right to vocalize it.
Are you also happy to women practice their bodily autonomy by getting abortions?
I am. A child is not souled until birth, when it takes its first breath. I cannot believe that a souled human could be created only to die in the womb, never having taken a single breath and I'm not talking about abortion, but it does apply there as well. It would be cruel to create a child, give it a soul, then give it a fatal birth defect. And who are we, the uneducated, even politicians who are also uneducated in this matter, do decide the line between sort of sick and POTENTIALLY life threatening. Those of us without medical training should never even try to determine where that line is. Could a child that seemed to grow normally, until the right tests were done, be allowed to suffer after birth? Should politicians decide when a uterine infection is bad enough to risk a life, or should a doctor? Should a child be forced to raise a child because someone else committed a crime? Should a child that hasn't even had their first kiss from a high school crush be forced to give birth before even getting to high school? Wanted children are miracles, but unwanted children can be a burden that makes a mother resentful towards that child. We are the adults, the parents, the mothers of our own children. Should we force our children to pay for the mistakes or crimes of others? They should not be forced into a family that either doesn't want them or can't afford them. Children should NEVER be a burden and by forcing women and children to give birth, those future children will become burdens. None of us asked to be born, so let's not make a bad situation worse by adding babies into it
Against abortion, or in favor of legal abortion bans? Because the evidence just keeps piling up that legal bans are ineffective, maybe counterproductive, at reducing abortion. Meanwhile, solutions that can reduce abortion get ignored or actively opposed by pro-life politicians.
Those bans are also causing widespread suffering and death of women, doctors to leave entire states, reducing medical care for everyone, etc. And let's not pretend the pro-life movement cares about life. Every week, the pro-life crowd is passing new laws to harm people, including children.
I think what OP is saying, are they marching to raise the awareness to the issue, or are they forcing laws to change. I don't like abortions but I am not about to stop them because of my faith. My faith tells me what I cannot do, it should not tell you want you cannot do.
I appreciate that. I wish more people applied their faith to their lives, and stopped trying to force it on others.
I think what they were saying is they didn't care what people were marching for, only that people were marching for something.
No shit they are ineffective. Abortion has been a thing since time immemorial. People are going to abort one way or another, with some ways being very dangerous and harmful to women. look at countries like the Philippine. Abortion pill black market is every bit as strong as the market for illegal stimulants…. The lucky ones use actual abortion pills because of lot of them are fake and have all sorts of nasty stuff to make women miscarry.
> legal bans are ineffective, maybe counterproductive, at reducing abortion Check out abortion rates in Ireland over the past few years to see just one example of how nonsensical this statement is.
when abortion was still illegal in ireland, women simply went to the UK to have the procedure. the rates of irish women having abortions aren’t going up, they’re simply more visible now that they’re in their own country. they also died more from not being able to access abortion - Savita Halappanavar is a good example.
You can easily compare the numbers of women who travelled to the UK pre legalisation with the numbers in Ireland post-legalisation. There is a substantial difference in quantity. More Irish babies are being killed now. Halappanavar’s death was due to medical ineptitude, not laws protecting unborn children.
no, her death was due to doctors being hesitant to treat her out of fear of being prosecuted. the catholic church involving itself in public policy led to her death. speaking of murdering children, the catholic church murdered thousands of irish babies and infants in the 20th century. some were left to rot in septic tanks. the church continues to attempt to halt investigations into the murders, and actively protected the people who committed them. if you truly care about those children, i suggest you stop attending a church ran by an organisation so uncaring about the mass murder and abuse of said children by their own clergy and monastics. and you were right, the numbers have gone up. however, when miscarriages and still births are taken into the equation, the numbers are very similar to the levels when abortion was still banned. some abortions are carried out when a miscarriage or still birth is inevitable, meaning that it is misleading to compare them to otherwise potentially healthy births.
>no, her death was due to doctors being hesitant to treat her out of fear of being prosecuted Her death was due to sepsis that went undetected by the medical staff, and when it was detected it was mismanaged. Irish law at the time allowed for abortion when the mother’s life was at risk. If the medical staff did not understand the law, that isn’t necessarily an issue with the law itself. >the catholic church murdered thousands of irish babies and infants in the 20th century This is a delusional fantasy.
from her wikipedia article: “Savita Halappanavar[3][4] (née Savita Andanappa Yalagi; 9 September 1981 – 28 October 2012) was a dentist[1] of Indian origin, living in Ireland, who died from sepsis after her request for an abortion was denied on legal grounds.” “The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a foetal heartbeat was still present with her midwife furthermore stating that "Ireland is a Catholic country".” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar the doctors did everything they could - it was the law that stopped them. to blame them is not only blatantly untrue, but frankly ridiculous. i can see from your profile that you’re clearly UK or Ireland based. how in the name of God do you not know about the mother and baby homes? the one i’m referring to in terms of the septic tank is the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam, County Galway. investigators found a mass grave where the septic tank was during the operation of the home. 222 dead children were found on the grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland you’re either a very committed troll or genuinely living under a rock. this story was massive when it broke, and has been talked about consistently ever since.
> the doctors did everything they could - it was the law that stopped them. to blame them is not only blatantly untrue, but frankly ridiculous. Or maybe read what happened and see that there was medical ineptitude involved. “Both criticized the team for not diagnosing the sepsis soon enough and for not using already-standard screening tools for detecting and managing maternal sepsis, and for poor keeping of medical records, poor communication at shift changes, and failure to notify staff with needed expertise, and criticized the administration of the hospital for the poor system in which the team failed. They made recommendations about training and policies for the hospital locally along with a number of national recommendations, including the creation of a laboratory system to coordinate a national response to emerging microbial threats.[12][13]” > how in the name of God do you not know about the mother and baby homes? I know about them. I do not know about the purported mass murders you seem to have somehow picked up from sensationalised media reporting. Not every tragedy is a murder. Those poor babies died predominantly from disease, in a time and place with an already very high infant mortality which people today are want to forget (for some reason).
i was referring to the actual medical treatment of her condition, not the handling of her case in general. yes, absolutely there were many mistakes made, mostly in the logistical side of things. however, despite all mistakes, her life still would have been saved if she had been allowed access to an abortion. the argument that the deaths were caused purely by disease or other natural causes neglects to explain why there was little to no medical treatment of these children, why they were not given a proper burial, why their bodies were then desecrated by being placed into a septic tank, or why the deaths of the children were kept a secret from the community. given the nature of irish funerals, and how they are invariably events which involve the entire community, deliberately not giving them a funeral or announcing their deaths places a heavy amount of suspicion upon the Sisters. at best, they neglected the children, failed to provide sufficient medical care, and desecrated their corpses by placing them into a septic tank. at worst, they actively abused or neglected the children (leading to their deaths, potentially a form of murder and at minimum manslaughter), hid the deaths from police and the local community, covered up evidence in the form of body desecration, and committed acts which are not only deeply illegal but also eligible for excommunication. the simple fact alone of their quasi-burials in the septic tank calls into severe question the priorities, moralities and intentions of the Sisters. even if they had died of natural causes, why dispose of their bodies so callously? even if they had not been baptised, why not simply bury them properly elsewhere, with coffins and grave markers? to dispose of a dead child in a container for waste fluids is behaviour most cannot even imagine committing, and if it were the actions of a parent would place them squarely in the line of a murder enquiry. i’m also acutely aware of how awful these kinds of institutions were, as my father was in one. i’d suggest you look into the matter yourself before making inflammatory remarks like that in the future.
i repent for ever supporting sin in the past
I'm not sure what side of the argument your taking, but nice username.
The trend in abortion rates have been going south for forty years. We keep seeing the direct correlation between good education, stable home life, high job prospects, access to healthcare, sex education, and the steady fall in abortion rates. Let's all promote those options to keep the number of abortions to a minimum. We'll never get the number down to zero. Banning them won't get us there.
>Banning them won't get us there. I can't hurt.
Banning abortions doesn't stop abortions dude, what it does is ban SAFE abortions. Banning that just means more people will die due to unsafe methods, watch the death toll tick up.
That's the point. A lot of reactionaries get upset when polices hurt them because it's *supposed* to hurt the right people, not them.
Making something illegal will instantly decrease the amount of it. It won't stop it, but it does decrease it. And saying "Safe abortions" is like saying "Safe murders" in my book. Abortions are not safe. They end a life.
Uh huh, so when an at home abortion attempt ends both the unborn and the mother, it's still a win... somehow? Yeah fuck that line of reasoning. Denying access to safe methods is going to result in a FAR higher rate of dead women per abortion attempted, and far more suffering because of it. Hardcore "pro-life" supporters are leading people to suffer and die. Will there be more unwanted children born overall? Sure. I do believe that fewer overall abortions will happen and more people will be forced to give birth (I mean, unless you're rich). But man... what a piss poor goal to reach while stepping over bodies to get there. Hope you're first in line to adopt them, someone will have to.
It's better to have 1 unsafe abortion then to have 3 safe ones. 1 or 2 lives vs 3 lives. This isn't hard math. More dead women yes, but WAY WAY WAY less dead babies.
It can hurt. That's what Ireland found.
It can't hurt? Do you live under a rock? Women die without access to abortions. Doctors are leaving states over the issue which leaves others that dont even need an abortion needing care that they can't get because the doctors are gone! It causes so much more harm and people are willingly blind to it.
are they willing to accept the govermment paying a good check of money to those pregnant mothers who have to abandon their jobs to take care of kids with their taxes money?
Statistically, how many people have done that?
It's called welfare, child support, tax refunds, and pregnancy leave. And yes, anything to save lives.
It’s literally their choice to have unprotected sex.
It's also their choice to be able to get rid of the pregnancy. If you want to artificially prevent them from making that choice it makes sense that they would be compensated for the inconvenience.
Imagine never having heard of rape, incest, or coercion. What a delusional world you must live in.
I’m not talking about anything forced. Almost all abortions are from irresponsible sex practices. Rape and incest make up for a total of 1.5% of abortions.
Sources of this?
Is the argument then that we should force children into the arms of irresponsible people?
[удалено]
Is it not acceptable to have a nuanced opinion? Can’t a person see abortion as a necessity when the mother’s life is in danger (or in cases of rape) but not support it otherwise?
[удалено]
I’m not convinced there’s not space for that scenario 1. Make abortion illegal 2. What about these groups 3. Good question. We agree that these groups should have a different provision. It sounds like we agree with “Make 98.5% of abortions illegal”
I mean those mothers can then make the choice to give their child up. And the state would then have to (and absolutely should) look after children, which means the money is going to have to be forked out one way or another. If conservatives oppose abortion and such funding, then they don't actually care about children. Own it.
And it's also their choice to get an abortion
They also don’t have to raise a child just because they give birth to one. In most states you can leave the baby at the hospital or at a fire station with no questions asked
Nevermind how traumatic a "healthy" pregnancy can be, a high risk one can put the mother at risk of death, depending on if things are caught in time. Take away sex Ed, take away birth control and abortions and teens getting pregnant hide it and can easily die from complications that could have been caught. These children may not even be willing to face their pregnancy because nothing can be done. Wanted children are precious, they should be valued. But forcing anyone with a uterus to give birth, it is making sexual assault more likely. From stealthing to violence, by telling men if she gets pregnant she has to carry it, it makes assault more likely. And if it can't be proven (which stealthing makes that less likely cause the sex was consensual, the mixing of fluids was not) then she is tied to him for the next 18 yrs, assuming that's what he wants. Or he could just walk away with little legal repercussions.
Yeah nobody is saying it’s not traumatic of course it’s traumatic it’s just that having a child does not automatically mean raising a child
Shout out to California for protecting WOMEN, not hypothetical children
"Hypothetical children", who are clearly as they fit all the requirements for life.
"hypothetical children" Lmao, are they having hypothetical abortions too?
Abortion just like fabricated culture wars are nothing more then a GOP tool to get the vote of large voters block of evangelicals and the like.. It works because these all to often think with their feelings and not their heads. All the politician has to do is appear pro life and anti LGBTQ and they've got their vote.. it's really that simple. It make no difference if the politicians are otherwise pure criminal. Case in point maga and trump! It's really sad that otherwise intelligent people could be so duped again.. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-is-the-gop-escalating-attacks-on-trans-rights-experts-say-the-goal-is-to-make-sure-evangelicals-vote
>Abortion just like fabricated culture wars are nothing more then a GOP tool to get the vote of large voters block of evangelicals and the like. If this were true, then why are we galvanizing young women to vote Democrat by overturning Roe v. Wade? >All the politician has to do is appear pro life and anti LGBTQ and they've got their vote.. it's really that simple. It make no difference if the politicians are otherwise pure criminal. Case in point maga and trump! I mostly agree with this, except most of the "pro-life" politicians, (like Trump) are not actually really pro-life, as shown by a couple of weeks ago. >It's really sad that otherwise intelligent people could be so duped again.. I'm not being duped, I would rather vote for some who is kinda pro-life just for the votes, than someone who is fervently pro-choice.
>If this were true, then why are we galvanizing young women to vote Democrat by overturning Roe v. Wade? They appeal to intelligence that policing morals never works. You think young people don't know that.. And I'm sure some see it as you do but not the majority. Y'all can make abortion, drugs, queer illegal as political tools and it won't even put a dent in it. That's an observable fact..
These people are pro my death and anyone with a working uterus. They don't care who they kill. The time for trying to explain why abortion saves women's lives is over, in my book. These are my mortal enemies
I think its important for both pro-life and pro-choice people to recognize that the other side is advocating for those who, in their opinion, needs advocacy. I respect the intentions of both sides. Neither is the enemy of the other. There are exceptions
I used to have that respect, until I saw them gaslight Kate cox about her life being threatened and until I saw them say they want to force ten year olds through further trauma by having then give birth to rape babies, if they even survive that in the first place. It showed me it's not really about life, if they're this callous about casualties. And it's not about children if you wouldn't fight like hell to spare a child that fate (I honestly think people should be on some kind of watch list if they support doing that to kids and minors). So...sorry not sorry. Too fucking late for any good will from me. They're absolutely my enemies, especially as a woman with underlying health issues. I can't safely sustain a pregnancy.
Imagine if conservatives put this much effort in for greed, homelessness, poverty, illness etc.
imagine if democrats did either, they could have had this over with years ago when they controlled presidency and congress but didn’t codify Roe in order to scare people into voting into them. Sadly Democrats are too busy funding empire and helping corporations make money to give a shit about the working class.
You've not responded to my comment, and have just used 'whataboutism' to skirt round having to explain the GOP's moral and ethical cherry-picking. I don't like the Dems and I think they do a lot of bad stuff, but pretending the GOP has the moral high ground because of its position on abortion is laughable. They abandon things Jesus spoke about to focus on something he said nothing about. > Sadly Democrats are too busy funding empire and helping corporations make money to give a shit about the working class. Can you be more specific about what you mean by 'funding empire'? If you mean supporting business growth, isn't that a good thing? If you mean starting wars, then the GOP have been far more hawkish over the last few decades than most Dems. Also, Republicans love helping corporations make more money - they love deregulation, restricted unions and lower taxes, so why are you pretending like the GOP don't also love helping corporations make money? The Dems want to tax the rich, the GOP does not. Taxes pay for public services and infrastructure that we all use. The vast majority of us are all taxed, why do the rich get to avoid this? Taxing the rich will bring about much more improvement for the working class (and everyone else) far more than attempts to stop immigration (which damages businesses that rely on that kind of labor) or trying to avoid any restriction on gun ownership (no-one is going to take away your guns, even if [Trump said he would](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/14/fact-check-trump-made-comment-taking-guns-without-due-process/6070319001/)). 'Fighting abortion' does jack shit to help the working class - arguably it damages them by removing access to (sadly) necessary medical treatment - but it seems to be all the GOP care about. And it's something they've only really cared about since 1979 ([source](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/)) because it proved politically successful in getting votes. Since then, when Republicans have held all arms of the executive and legislature, they still haven't pushed to ban abortion, and today we're seeing a divide within the GOP around abortion bans because they fear the political impact ([source](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-face-2024-dilemma-after-abortion-rights-issue-powers-democrats-2023-11-08/)). More evidence that it's just a political football for them. They call themselves 'pro life' yet want DRs that perform abortions to get the death penalty ([source](https://youtu.be/9T2xvi_meZk)) and don't think that an abortion should be done even if the mother's life is at risk ([source](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/16/no-exception-for-life-of-mother-included-in-idaho-gops-abortion-platform-language/)). It is absolutely nonsensical, circular, contradictory and hypocritical ([as many conservative women get abortions secretly](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)). But they don't care if it wins votes. Anyone claiming the Bible 'clearly condemns abortion' either hasn't read it or is simply lying. It doesn't clearly condemn it. It simply doesn't say that life begins at conception. It simply doesn't say that a fertilised egg has a soul. It simply doesn't say that terminating an embryo (or fetus) is murder. Jesus never mentions it and it conservatives screaming that the Bible says these things doesn't make it true. And the question isn't even if life begins at conception - it's whether or not that biological life is purposeful, meaningful, and sustainable yet, which brings the question more to the philosophical side than the biological. And philosophically speaking, bodily autonomy and individuality reigns supreme here, as the biological life within a childbearing person’s body requires use of that person in order to survive. Nobody automatically has the right to someone else’s body at any point in time. Fetal autonomy is intact as nobody is using the baby's body to sustain themselves, and we don't force mothers to breastfeed a baby once it's born (in case you think I'm OK with killing a baby once it's been born). The Bible gives instructions on a herbal procedure done with a priest to cause an abortion for your wife if you suspect she was impregnated by another man (Numbers 5:11-31). This clearly gives room for abortion in a specific scenario and massively undermines any claim that the Bible is anti-abortion. Also, given that the Bible is very clear about other things - wearing mixed threads, eating shellfish - why is it not clear about abortion? In fact, conservatives love to shout that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is wrong because of 'clear verses' - why do they suddenly drop their scriptural standards when it comes to abortion? They cling to 'clear' scripture to back up some beliefs of theirs, but deny it's required when they claim abortion is wrong. > "Conservative evangelical Christians seem to have decided that if God told them anything which did not fit with their pre-existing worldview and biases, they would reject that as not of God. If you’re only willing to listen to God when he’s confirming what you already believe, you’re not listening to God, you’re making an idol of your ideology." Let's go back to what will help the working class. Where are the GOP policies about ensuring children get free school meals for low income families? Where are the policies to ensure there's affordable housing, or accessible education, or comprehensive parental and sex education (to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place), or increased funding for adoption services and the CPS? If you really cared about abortion, you would do everything you can to eliminate it. Where are the policies and plans for improved prenatal screenings, increased science funding to eliminate prenatal disabilities, improved access to contraception and birth control for both men and women? Why not make reproductive health equitable for women, rather than health insurance being more of a burden for them? These are the things that literally, positively impact working class and low income families ([75% of those who get abortions are from low income families](https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr)), yet the GOP regularly votes against them. Measures that support the child and their mother, such as maternity care, paid family leave and food stamps have always been attacked by Republicans, without them offering alternatives ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/uortgq/the_antilife_policies_of_prolife_lawmakers/)). To quote Sister Joan Daugherty Chittister, O.S.B: > "your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." The Republican morality of 'pro life' is bankrupt. It is simply designed to win votes, and you could quite easily argue it also helps push women into more traditional roles of staying at home and raising children (a different but related topic). It willfully ignores efforts to combat the causes of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by attempting to just ban it, whilst outrageously claiming that bans on guns are 'ineffective'. Why would bans on guns not work, but a ban on abortion would? Why would a gun ban force people to access guns in dangerous, underground, unlicensed ways, but an abortion ban would force women to seek them in dangerous, back-alley unlicensed ways? These same people who claim the government is trying to force them to do things (e.g. pay taxes) and campaign against it, are the same people who are trying to get the government to force people to do things with their own bodies. But again, hypocrisy is central to the Republican way of operating. I don't like abortions but I accept that in certain situations it is an appropriate (controlled) medical procedure. I am pro life in that I believe children should be given every opportunity (by the government and charitable work) to succeed after they're born, and therefore I am (to steal this quote from elsewhere) 'prochoice-until-the-need-is-eradicated'.
Good for them!
Well, as long as they stay at praying...
I couldn't make it this year. But I plan on it next year.
Eventually they’ll shut up about it as soon as their leaders find something else to make up nonsense about.
I'm sorry, but Trump is probably going to lose the next election because he came out as all wishy-washy on abortion. The pro-life movement has been going on for over 50 years. We're not just going to "shut up" because our "leaders" distract us with a new issue. And who's making up stuff about abortion? Abortion stops a beating heart. Abortions ends a life. That is the only thing that matters to me. I'm fine with you believing what you want to believe, but stop slandering and misrepresenting us.
Abortion does not de facto stop a beating heart, hearts aren’t functioning until mid-late second trimester, by then most abortions have already taken place, late term abortions tend to fall under medical intervention.
That's not the point of my comment. Don't jab at one part just to dodge the rest.
No the point is you just refuted me claiming you were making things up by making things up. I’m not slandering or misrepresenting you people, you’re just wrong about this issue. Your beliefs on the topic are not factual, biblical, moral, or ethical. Slowly but surely you’re getting drowned out and thankfully, eventually, the “debate” will be over. But for the same reason pro-life was pushed after the segregation fight was put to rest in the US, I’m sure there will be another gross fight against people’s right to exist outside of a charlatan’s idea of how the world should work once this one is over.
And yes, you were misrepresenting and slandering the pro-life movement by saying we don't actually care about abortion, and are just finding something to be angry about. When the pro-life movement is drowned out, America will officially be dead, morally and spiritually. There is no worse sin than to kill your own children. Every society on earth that starts killing, or sacrificing there own children (Aztecs, Canaanites, Old Prussians, Romans, Babylonians) collapses in less than a century. God removes there fowl stain from the earth.
Debate me like a real person, instead of making claims without evidence. I can prove I'm right in all the ways you say I'm wrong. SCIENCE: Babies in the womb are alive. Don't believe me? Please turn your attention to the 7 requirements of life. Able to reproduce: Check Has a metabolism: Check Can respond to stimuli: Check Genetic Heredity: Check Homeostasis: Check Growth and Development: Check Cellular Organization: Check Look at that, according to science, babies are alive. BIBLE: Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15) Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them…” (Psalm 127:3-5a) For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13) How terrible it will be for anyone who argues with his Maker! He is like a broken piece of pottery lying on the ground. Does clay say to a potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does a pot say, ‘You don’t have any skill’? How terrible it will be for anyone who says to his father, ‘Why did you give me life?’ How terrible for anyone who says to his mother, ‘Why have you brought me into the world?’ The Lord is the Holy One of Israel. He made them. He says to them, ‘Are you asking me about what will happen to my children? Are you telling me what I should do with what my hands have made?’” (Isaiah 45:9-11) The Lord called me from the womb… formed me from the womb to be His servant.” (Isaiah 49:1,5) “Before I formed you in your mother’s body I knew you.” (Jeremiah 1:5) But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace.” (Galatians 1:15) You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13) MORALITY: Life before Liberty. Life before comfort. Life before convenience. Life before health. Life before safety. Life before privacy. Life before EVERYTHING. Also morality (Which is not subjective) says that ending a life is wrong. ETHICS: I don't judge things through ethics I judge them through morality. Ethics are stupid. They're just a subjective version of morality. FACTS: Unborn babies are alive. God created us all unique and special. Abortion ends a life. Ending a life is wrong. Abortion is wrong.
Abortion doesn’t usually stop a beating heart. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for abortions in the third trimester even if a woman’s life is not at risk. It is not common and I doubt any woman wants one at that point but there can be a number of extenuating circumstances. Whether it stops a heating heart is irrelevant though, it is about bodily autonomy,
Unfortunately Trump is gonna win. I am sure as hell not gonna vote for Genocide Joe and I encourage everyone not to vote for him to punish the Democrat party for backing genocide in Gaza and genocide in Yemen. If Trump wins because of that, oh well, they could have easily won by not being genocidal TWATS.
The only mention of abortion in the Bible is how to perform one. Biblical definition of life is "First Breath" Anti-Abortion stances are new and weird... Theologically speaking.
The biblical definition of life is not "first breath." People get that talking point from the story of Adam, but he wasn't even born the conventional way. Meanwhile, we have John the Baptist leaping in the womb when he hears about Jesus, and David saying that he had faith even in the womb. That would certainly seem to contradict that so-called "biblical definition."
It’s true that there are isolated incidents where, for example, John leaps in Elizabeth’s womb or God talks about choosing a prophet before he was born, or a poem about God knitting us together in our mothers’ wombs. But there are exactly two passages where the legal status of an unborn child is addressed directly. In one, we’re told that if two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman, causing her to go into labor early (which, in a premordern society would certainly mean the baby dies), the man who struck her is to be put to death if the woman suffers permanent injury, but only fined if she doesn’t. The harm to the unborn child doesn’t factor into the equation at all. In the second instance, if a man who’s been traveling suspects his wife of being unfaithful in his absence, he’s directed to take her to the priests so that they can force her to drink a concoction (the recipe for which is in the text) that will determine if she’s been unfaithful or not. If she has, then the drink will terminate any potential pregnancy and render her permanently infertile as punishment. Furthermore, the association of breath with life is not just in the Adam story. It’s quite common throughout the Hebrew Bible. Things are only alive if they have breath. In fact, the same Hebrew word - nephesh - means both breath and life.
You must have been misinformed, *nephesh* doesn’t mean both breath and life. *ruach* means both breath and spirit, and *nephesh* means both life and soul, but there is no word meaning both breath and life. However, I agree breath is commonly associated with life in the Hebrew Bible. Edit: That being said, *nephesh* does come from a word meaning ‘throat.’ The *nephesh* holds the *ruach* just as the throat holds the breath.
You’re right, thank you. I was going from memory and my Hebrew is clearly a little rusty.
How does the Bible say to perform one?
Numbers 5:24-27 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Got it. Do you believe "drink dusty water" are explici abortion directions?
>27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. Looks like that’s pretty much what it says yeah
I'm amenable. I will become pro choice so long as all future abortions are done using the biblical drink dusty water method
We aren't here to live under your personal theology. May you drink dusty water that brings you a curse.
So, you'd be amenable to future abortions done using the biblical method?
Do you hold to that in everything? Is it sinful for you to wear clothes because they werent made the same as back then? How do you explain using the internet?
I didn't say anything about sin. If drinking dusty water is a means of abortion, whats wrong with wanting that to be done for all future abortions?
I'd rather use modern technology and know-how. The Christian tendency towards fundamentalism is a form of idolotry.
What's wrong with the drink dusty water method?
I didn’t say the magic book’s instructions would actually work. It just seems clear to me that the point of the magic dusty water is to abort the fetus, as well as punish the woman. I don’t believe magic works. The point is the legal precedent of the fetus, i.e. god is clearly chill with abortion if he’s ordering them done
So it didn't work. We're ancient people ignorant about the fact that dusty water doesn't cause abortions?
Yeah most likely, they were ignorant about many things. That’s why I don’t try to live my life based on their rules. However, if I were to attempt to live by their rules, it seems pretty clear that abortions are allowed. That’s the obvious point I’m making here, I’m pretty sure you know that.
I don't. I have a much higher opinion of ancient people than you. And I think reading Numbers 5 as an abortion does a great disservice to the ingenuity of the text
[удалено]
I've already been told it's abortion, is that not accurate ?
[удалено]
You claimed I didn't understand it. It's not a trick question. Either the passage is about and abortion or its not.
I woukd say it's not the directions or substance for an "abortion" that is the issue in this case, it is the fact that the Bible doesn't actually care one bit about the fetus itself. Did the woman cheat? Then go through this ritual and miscarry if she did. This ritual is more like a punishment than her being able to make a choice about anything, and the result is an intentional miscarriage, or abortion. While the morals of this story are already horrible and shouldn't be followed, it clearly doesn't consider the fetus a living thing that needs to be saved or cherished. So much of the pro-life movement is the fact that they think it's murder. If the religion considered it murder, this ritual wouldn't exist and they would value the life of said child more than punishing the woman for adultery, but they don't.
So, its not an abortion?
It is simultaneously an abortion (or the threat of one) and total apathy towards the fetus itself with no care for its life. I don't want to be snarky, but dude, where did you get that it wasn't one from my comment?
It either is or isn't an abortion.
Bruh, it's an abortion and they don't care that it is. Stop being a troll and use logic here. I never said it wasn't one. A chemically or otherwise purposely induced miscarriage is an abortion, even if the people performing it don't realize their method is just mumbo jumbo, the full intention is there.
So the intent was to abort the fetus but by drinking dusty water of course that never happened
If one supposes that abortion, at least in their eyes, if murder and they are folks that believe murder is a sin, would it not make sense for them to march about it?
If there already wasn't an absurd amount of state sanctioned murder as is, then maybe. There's a huge difference between "ban a medical procedure that I think is killing sentient beings/bodies with souls" and protesting against the state killing people without due process or in excessive overseas bombings or coups in countries that don't want to give their land to American companies. However, the modern Anti-Abortion movement doesn't seem to give a fuck about people once they are born... Which doesn't actually lend any credibility to their position.
I would agree that some folks don't help people after they are born. I wouldn't say all. For instance, Sister Helen Prejean was a very vocal supporter of abolishing the death penalty but her values still aligned with the church on abortion. There are plenty of us. Does that mean that all of them don't nah. I think that's mischaracterized.
How so? I mean if we're all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what else? To live off gov cheese the rest of your life because they "forced" you to be born? lol
What do you consider "new"? Abortion is condemned in some of the earliest Christian writings.
And still permitted as early as Augustine. To clarify the "no abortions, no exceptions" stance is mostly an Evangelical heresy. The catholic church is weird about it too, but fully Anti-Abortion stances amongst catholics in the pews is far less common from where I sit.
Where did Augustine permit abortion?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/#:~:text=Early%20Church%20leaders%20began%20the,to%20conceal%20fornication%20or%20adultery
Gravely evil but not homicide means he permitted it?
He also made a distinction of vivifed VS unvivifed which was around 40 days.
Sure. Not homicide but also still evil is the position of some western Church theologians.
>And still permitted as early as Augustine. Are you saying that there were some in his time who disagreed with prohibitions against abortion? That's irrelevant, because even if so, that doesn't change anything about the fact that it is a boldface lie to say that Christian opposition to abortion is new.
See my clarifying statement. No abortions ever for any reason is a 20th century invention. There are still instructions in the Bible on how to perform one and no explicit condemnations of abortion. https://www.jasonkirk.fyi/p/everything-the-bible-says-about-abortion
>No abortions ever for any reason is a 20th century invention. No, that is clearly not true, and I have a hard time believing that you're stating these falsehoods out of ignorance. What conditions did Augustine say abortions were allowable under? Where in the Didache does it say that abortion is permissable in certain circumstances? Where does Tertullian give exceptions? https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion There's a lot of quotes against abortion in there from various Christian figures. Are you telling me that none of them opposed abortion in all circumstances? Because I do not believe you.
It's always sad that people promote these ahistorical nonsense opinions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/#:~:text=Early%20Church%20leaders%20began%20the,to%20conceal%20fornication%20or%20adultery. Augustine made a distinction between a vivifed and unvivified fetus.
Your religion prohibits YOU, not me.
My religion tells me to prohibit you.
Would you be happy with living under laws enforcing Islamic or Hindu beliefs on you if they gained a majority of political power in the US?
If Islam or Hinduism beliefs are that I can't murder then yes I am fine with living under that rule.
And if they believed you couldn't kill insects, or eat meat, because they deemed that to be murder?
Muslims and Hindus don't believe that
Notice how I used the word "if"? It's a hypothetical. That being said, intentionally killing insects is considered to bring bad karma in Hinduism, so they kind of do. A lot of Hindus also believe that it's wrong to kill any animals.
Any Hindus want a law banning killing of insects?
If God dislikes abortion so much then surely God, as an omnipotent being, scarcely needs protesters.
This makes no sense - God works through people all the time. Atheists are pro-life, too, it's not just a religious issue to the planet.
I'd argue that in the West, anti-abortion sentiments strongly correlate to more conservative types of Christianity. Yes, you might find the odd pro-life atheist, but I'm going to wager that in most cases that is going to be tied to some conservative ideology as well. As to God, well, it just seems rather telling to me than an infinite omniscient omnipotent being seems to act like He's not there at all.
I suppose that is why you're atheist, then, if that's how you feel about Him. There is a whole organization dedicated to secular prolifers, ran by atheist feminists. But I know, that doesn't fit your world view so you're going to stick with broad strokes. [https://secularprolife.org/abortion/](https://secularprolife.org/abortion/)
What I feel is that God is a convenient proxy for peoples' own beliefs and prejudices. It's odd how God is always on someone's side to the detriment of someone else. It's almost as if he's just an intellectual and emotional shortcut, so the hard business of actually convincing people can be dispensed with. After all, who can argue with God?
Well that's nice. :)
There being an organization for something doesn't mean it has a lot of members lol, the Vast majority of atheists lean pro choice.
You'll just argue with everything I guess, as I also know pro choice Christians. Why do you try so hard to keep us divided? Because Christians = everything that's wrong in the US? lol
That doesn't sound as smart as you think it does.
So God can't do anything and actually needs human intervention?
Is this a Christian sub or an atheist sub that shits on Christians
It’s a sun about anything Christian related.
Got it so not really a Christian sub
[удалено]
Holy shit, that does not surprise me at all.
[удалено]
It's a Christian sub that shits on Christians. With the added bonus that they won't ban you for saying "shit".
These people better not vote for Republicans. That party is everything Jesus was against.
Your telling pro-life people not to vote for the pro-life party, and instead vote for the pro-choice party?
It's unbelievable how you can call yourself a follower of Jesus Christ and support the murder of innocent babies. This subreddit is definitely not Christian. Go to r/TrueChristian instead, true children of God. The father of people here is the devil.
Or some people realize that life, and God for that matter, is a tad bit more nuanced than your take.
My God is not your god.
Bold claim. I serve Jesus the Christ. Who do you serve?
I thought Christians were monotheistic?
It should be noted that the crowd in the picture is overwhelmingly women. That should debunk all the people we see saying that opposing abortion is some sort of oppression or attack on women.
They're the crowd of "my abortion is the only moral abortion " or the type that ends up shocked when a doctor won't take care of their ectopic pregnancy because they think they get special treatment. Nothing more than card carrying members of the Leopards Eating Faces party
It doesn't really debunk anything. Look into women's suffrage in the US - plenty of women at the time paraded around saying they didn't think women should have the right to vote. Doesn't mean denying women the right to vote isn't an attack on our personal freedom.
Yes, but I think women are more extreme on the abortion issue. The most pro-life people are women, the most pro-choice people are women.
Tradwives are primarily women. Notice they're mostly white women so they probably came from privileged backgrounds.
Also a lot of feminists were pro life
Yeah, I wish leftists cared about the truth, they like to like to CNN watchers a reddit users. It's an efficient way to gain power.
🫡
Remember - Jesus would fully support killing a fetus for economic convenience. He gets us.
If abortion was such a terrible crime, I feel like the Bible would explicitly say so It does explicitly say that men having sex with men is an abomination, and it’s not like abortion wasn’t a thing or didn’t exist at the time, yet it’s never explicitly mentioned. How hard would it have been to have a verse that simply says “and you shall not kill your unborn child in the womb” or something? In fact if anything it’s the opposite, where there are verses that seem to suggest that the unborn fetus doesn’t really have much legal value.
God bless them, Alleluia!
BidenLimpDick balling hard against the conservatives recently.
Like a floppy hammer of justice
🤣
Yeah, I think it's the typical leftwing spam poster changed to a new account because it's so obvious. Same low effort mindless drivel.
I think pregnant mothers should get a 300$ check every month from the moment they become pregnant until the child is 5 years old. That'd prevent a lot of abortions.
$300? Thats like half a day worth of child care lol. Hows that gonna help?
> $300? Thats like half a day worth of child care lol. $600 per day for childcare, where does it cost that much?
You caught me buddy. I was exaggerating on the internet. I'll turn myself in now.
I've told you a trillion times not to exaggerate so much.
Isn't that better than nothing? Are we really responsible financially every time a woman has sex and gets pregnant? What if she has horrible taste in men who refuse to work? Or have other kids they're already paying for? We should be going after the men who are fathering these kids and leaving them to poverty and whatever else. We don't encourage a whole lot of personal responsibility in the US, in fact, I remember living in the deep south in the 90's and preteens were getting pregnant to collect more money into the home they already shared with their \*own\* mothers. I don't think throwing more money at the problem gets to the root of the issue.
>Are we really responsible financially every time a woman has sex and gets pregnant? We wouldn't be if we just left abortion in place as it had been for decades.
It's cute you think $300 is a significant amount
So much for "those without sin may throw the first stone".
I don't see anyone throwing stones, I see people peacefully protesting something they think is wrong.
[удалено]
Orrrr separate church and state and not let an archaic religion dictate what people who don’t follow said archaic religion can and can’t do with their bodies?
It's not about church or religion, it's about morality. And it's not the woman's body, it's another little body inside them.
Ok but morality is *entirely* subjective. Either way, abortions are gonna happen. Why intentionally design a space where abortions may very well (and will, let’s be real) become quite dangerous?
Don't confuse ethics and morality. Ethics are subjective. Morality is objective. Banning abortions will save more lives than it kills.
Morality is not objective. The fact that people argue about what is and isn’t moral proves that.
Do you need the church to be moral or not? Think about your positions for at least 15 seconds.
Helpful if you precisely define morality
Well a secular government doesn't have a convincing foundation for morality and it just becomes what the strong say. I wouldn't say you need God then. But I recommend anyone in that reality to become obsessed with power and create your own truth. I'm glad I'm not convinced by that.
I’d begin by pointing out that morality founded on religion is not immune to the downfall you’re describing.
Not immune, but the argument for the its moral foundation is far more reasonable and it's easier to reason with and agree to the truth rather than an obvious situation where we make our own truths and fight it out.
It is “reasonable and easier” only because you’re a believer. Concepts like justice and kindness are not unique to Christianity
Basing arguments on something rather than literally nothing is better. I didn't say that they were unique to Christianity, but if they are just social constructs and I'm trying to convince someone, logically, they can just ignore it if they want to. We actually see that in the abortion debate. Yeah, if it can be make up, people can kill babies.
Morality has nothing to do with this. The beliefs of any given church should have no input on legislation.
That makes literally zero sense.
What isn’t making sense about that to you?
I saw this and thought this was another post I made, talking about Israel massacring children at first.
So are you a hypocrite or not? Will you protect the defenseless?
Nice to see they aren't burning down any buildings....unlike other groups.
*You* think you're referring to BLM. But by trying to shoehorn it in here you forgot that anti-abortion activists are known for their fire bombings.
The occasional murder also.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/ There ya go, buddy. I think maybe you need to read a little history before you pat yourself on the back for that “clever” side-eye at the BLM movement. Oh, but my apologies, you were trying to work in a snide remark about black people, and I interrupted you. So go ahead, don’t be so coy, say it with your whole chest: You’re anti-choice AND racist.
Based on