The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[stevil]

I shouldn’t have to persuade people to not kill babies.

no one is killing babies.

 

[Hammster]

no one is killing babies.

That’s what abortion is.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I am.

So the guy who you will vote for (and if I may I will use your terminology) has announced that in regard to IVF he will give his personal support of child killing for convenience. And he says that the government will do it for free.

Is it then valid for you to say that someone shouldn't vote for anyone else who supports doing the same?

 

[stevil]

That’s what abortion is.

a fertilised embrio isn't a baby.

 

[Hammster]

So the guy who you will vote for (and if I may I will use your terminology) has announced that in regard to IVF he will give his personal support of child killing for convenience. And he says that the government will do it for free.

Is it then valid for you to say that someone shouldn't vote for anyone else who supports doing the same?

I addressed one aspect earlier. I’ll give you another aspect. We will end up with either Trump or with Harris as president. Let’s pretend, for sake of argument, that both had the same view of abortion. So regardless of who wins, the exact same amount of babies will die.

Now who do you vote for? As a husband and father, I will vote for the one who has the best economic ideas. I still have to provide for my family first. That’s how God designed it. It doesn’t mean that the fight to abolish abortion is over. That fight will go on. But my vote won’t change it. So I must move on to the secondary issues since the primary issue will not be affected.

 

[Hammster]

a fertilised embrio isn't a baby.

Yes it is. Everyone intrinsically knows this. It’s how we speak about pregnancies. It takes a seared conscience to think otherwise.

 

[Bradskii]

I addressed one aspect earlier. I’ll give you another aspect. We will end up with either Trump or with Harris as president. Let’s pretend, for sake of argument, that both had the same view of abortion. So regardless of who wins, the exact same amount of babies will die.

Now who do you vote for? As a husband and father, I will vote for the one who has the best economic ideas. I still have to provide for my family first. That’s how God designed it. It doesn’t mean that the fight to abolish abortion is over. That fight will go on. But my vote won’t change it. So I must move on to the secondary issues since the primary issue will not be affected.

That's fine. But I presume you won't be suggesting that anyone change their vote just because of their candidate's position on abortion or IVF. Which is why there was a post earlier wondering why this thread was started on that very matter if both parties are equally blame worthy.

But I'm glad that we sorted that out. It's a lot clearer now.

 

[stevil]

Yes it is. Everyone intrinsically knows this. It’s how we speak about pregnancies. It takes a seared conscience to think otherwise.

Good luck with that argument. It's not going to convince any pro choice people to change their mind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK so far.

Never heard of that principle. To the extent the nightmarish prospect of eternal life is granted through grace, I recall no doctrine making any sin as unforgiveable except perhaps the unforgivable sin of "blasphemy of the holy spirt" (though on the that there seems to be some debate about if it is unforgivable and what it is and it is not relevant here) all others are forgivable. So I'm not sure what "Christians" this group is now after applying this criteria.

I would if I could, but I can't so I won't.

I'm not sure what these tensions would be. Personally I went from "abortion is a horrorible tragedy" traipsing past the White House in the "march for life" to "it is sometimes necessary" to the Joe-Biden-pro-Roe Catholic "rare but legal" and "not any of my business" mode while still a Christian. (Though I would not have recognized this" no murder can repent and be forgiven" restriction, so I might have failed *your* survey selection.) Can't say it had much psychological impact on me past the trauma of my childhood experiences in the movement and those didn't last once it was over. It just was. The church was wrong about a lot of things, why not abortion as well?

The church has gotten a number of things wrong, obviously, but it would be a fallacy to assume that Christians have been wrong about everything they preach or that their errors in thought permeate the abortion issue.

I wouldn't know. I am not familiar with the proper tools for digging into the social science literature. I have not used them.

Could be?

Are they any good at this kind of stuff?

Hans, for as much as I'd like to find some common ground with you on something, maybe anything, it seems that we're going to have a very rough time of it finding any. I wish that weren't the case. I'd try to defend my point of view here, but I don't think that anything I have to offer is going to either pique your interest or satisfy your particular evidential demands.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes it is. Everyone intrinsically knows this. It’s how we speak about pregnancies. It takes a seared conscience to think otherwise.

No, it really isn't. A fertilised egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree. Each has the potential to become the other.

Using emotive language like 'murdering babies' is doing nothing for your cause. Wanting a complete ban on abortion is doing nothing for your cause. Two thirds of the US is ignoring you. And the number has always been growing and always will, because the figure is much higher among younger people.

You really need to change tack and push for less abortions and support any and all means by which that will succeed. You'll get much more support. From both sides of politics. Even from me. And then one day we may get to a point where there will be none. We won't be here to see it, but if that is what you want then you need to understand that you ain't going to get it with your arguments as they are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it really isn't. A fertilised egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree. Each has the potential to become the other.

Using emotive language like 'murdering babies' is doing nothing for your cause. Wanting a complete ban on abortion is doing nothing for your cause. Two thirds of the US is ignoring you. And the number has always been growing and always will, because the figure is much higher among younger people.

You really need to change tack and push for less abortions and support any and all means by which that will succeed. You'll get much more support. From both sides of politics. Even from me. And then one day we may get to a point where there will be none. We won't be here to see it, but if that is what you want then you need to understand that you ain't going to get it with your arguments as they are.

As long as a wide number of folks see abortion simply as another form of birth control, I don't think there will ever be a drastic reduction in abortions. Our modern Western society, despite all of the inconsistent Human Rights hoopla it enjoins and promotes, just doesn't have it in itself to awaken to another, more Christian point of view like that.

 

[Bradskii]

As long as a wide number of folks see abortion simply as another form of birth control...

So to reduce abortions better education on contraception and easier access to it will help. But people will actually argue against that, therefore preventing a reduction in abortions.

Go figure...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So to reduce abortions better education on contraception and easier access to it will help. But people will actually argue against that, therefore preventing a reduction in abortions.

Go figure...

I'm fully aware that better education about contraception and better access to it could help to reduce abortions. And I wouldn't argue against all of that, nor have I.

However, a mere reduction in abortions isn't what Christians would like to see. It's not even the touchstone of what I'd personally like to see (but know will never happen). Rather, I'm averring for a complete paradigm shift in how we evaluate the value of, and the inherent responsibility that needs to go with, handling human genetic matter, beginning with men.

 

[Hammster]

That's fine. But I presume you won't be suggesting that anyone change their vote just because of their candidate's position on abortion or IVF. Which is why there was a post earlier wondering why this thread was started on that very matter if both parties are equally blame worthy.

But I'm glad that we sorted that out. It's a lot clearer now.

I’ve never stated anything about IVF.

 

[Hammster]

Good luck with that argument. It's not going to convince any pro choice people to change their mind.

Of course it won’t.

 

[Hammster]

No, it really isn't. A fertilised egg is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree. Each has the potential to become the other.

Using emotive language like 'murdering babies' is doing nothing for your cause. Wanting a complete ban on abortion is doing nothing for your cause. Two thirds of the US is ignoring you. And the number has always been growing and always will, because the figure is much higher among younger people.

You really need to change tack and push for less abortions and support any and all means by which that will succeed. You'll get much more support. From both sides of politics. Even from me. And then one day we may get to a point where there will be none. We won't be here to see it, but if that is what you want then you need to understand that you ain't going to get it with your arguments as they are.

Sorry, but it’s not emotive language. It’s the truth.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm fully aware that better education about contraception and better access to it could help to reduce abortions. And I wouldn't argue against all of that, nor have I.

However, a mere reduction in abortions isn't what Christians would like to see. It's not even the touchstone of what I'd personally like to see (but know will never happen). Rather, I'm averring for a complete paradigm shift in how we evaluate the value of, and the inherent responsibility that needs to go with, handling human genetic matter, beginning with men.

With a view to reducing abortions? Then while you're trying your ideas, you can push for better education and access.

 

[Bradskii]

I’ve never stated anything about IVF.

It was brought up because embryos are often destroyed. It's what Trump is supporting.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry, but it’s not emotive language. It’s the truth.

I can only explain how unconvincing your arguments are when you use language like that. I can do no more.

 

[NxNW]

I think every living breathing human being should not be executed without due process.

"Breathing" leaves out the unborn, but that's not the "right" I was talking about.