Justify women without health insurance staying pregnant

redleghunter · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It is always the government's responsibility to prevent women from needing to have abortions because of financial crises.

An assertion again.

Already showed Churches provide ministries and government programs to support families in crisis.

Tropical Wilds · Nov 14, 2019

Daniel Martinovich said:
I had my six kids with midwives. I studied up on it too before I made that decision. It isn’t even a contest between midwives and obgyn’s. Midwifes win hands down in all area’s other than medical emergencies that require surgeries. Thing is. Their care prevents the vast majority of medical emergencies from happening in the first place. Whereas medical doctors cause a lot of those medical emergencies.,

And I am glad you and your husband were allowed to research and carry out what worked best for your situation. However, the midwife route is not a universal solution for all, nor is it a universally cheaper or more affordable, or even more accessible option, which is why it’s very key to make sure everybody had the benefit of being able to educate themselves on their care needs and the ability to reasonably access it.

redleghunter · Nov 14, 2019

Tropical Wilds said:
We don’t punish women who are pro-choice or have had an abortion, if that is the question. I am very vocal on having had a D&C, the excommunication squad has yet to burn me at the stake or had me wear a scarlet “A.”

No not my point. Is your church pro choice?

GodLovesCats · Nov 14, 2019

Daniel Martinovich said:
If by “personal rights” and “informed opinion of doctors” you mean government not restricting abortions. Sorry, no one has a personal right to take the life of another human being for just any reason. In fact the administration of justice for doing so is in fact by its very nature the main role of government.

There are times when the woman absolutely DOES need an abortion - no way around it.

Tropical Wilds · Nov 14, 2019

redleghunter said:
No not my point. Is your church pro choice?

Quite a few are, yes. Quite a few aren’t. Like an overwhelming number of churches, I suspect.

Daniel Martinovich · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
There are times when the woman absolutely DOES need an abortion - no way around it.

Life of the mother? Yes. Health of the mother? A bogus excuse to commit murder. Most pro life people. Heck, most Americans want reasonable restrictions on abortion. Rape and incest with a police report. Not because it’s not taking the life of an innocent human being for the convenience of another. But because in the case of rape and incest. Bringing the child to birth will absolutely destroy, say, 10% of the women forced to do that. And there is no way for government to determine who those 10% are. So there has to be that exception.

redleghunter · Nov 14, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Redleg, do you think everything I complained about is hypothetical, that there are no real problems when a young woman gets pregnant? Are you assuming I support fetocide just because I understand why some women need to make that choice?

You can shape what I actually wrote as much as you want.

What I have pointed out and what you admitted is what I responded to.

For everything you said government should be doing there are already government programs for people without the means. I also pointed out there are 10s of thousands of Church ministries and Christian ministries which also minister to the very women and families you mention in crisis.

Yet all this talk about government being responsible for every live birth or abortion, the most important post on this thread was never addressed head on by you.

SPF said:
It's immoral to have the abortion for the same reason it would be immoral for the mother of a 2 week old in the same financial despair to kill her 2 week old.

Abortion does one thing and one thing only - it kills a human being. It kills our nation's most innocent and defenseless children.

The morality of abortion stands or falls based upon the moral worth and value of the unborn child. Not upon the social-economic situation of the mother.

If you argue that the killing of another human being is acceptable because of a person's responsibility towards another human being, then why couldn't the mother of a 2 year old who just lost her job and is about to be foreclosed upon and become homeless wrong to kill her 2 year old? The principal you're establishing is the same.

Anguspure · Nov 15, 2019

redleghunter said:
I would recommend reading the thread. The OP has presented a pseudo narrative to justify abortion based on an assumption.

The OP admits they do not know what churches and Christian charities are doing to help those who are in need. And also demonstrated that they do not know what government actually provides in such situations.

We are responding to someone who makes a bold statement without doing any research and is preaching to fellow Christians that they are not pro-life but “pro birth.” All based on assumptions which puts absolutely no responsibility on the individual, family of the individual or community. We are to believe government will make all things well.

There were people on this thread who explained they have adopted and in foster care.

Many others probably not mentioning what I know of 10s of thousands of church and Christian ministries who run such services the OP mentions.

I did recognize this by writing: (and a great many do at great loss), and I know this also happens in my own country, Open Home Foundation https://www.ohf.org.nz/ being one very good ministry that I support.

NW82 · Nov 15, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It seems to me every time pro-lifers say you can just adopt out your baby they always ignore the fact that during pregnancy there is a lot of expensive health care to pay for. Without health insurance, she cannot take care of herself and her baby. Why should having an abortion be a crime in America for economically challenged women without comprehensive health insurance, which is still a problem today? If you want to vote for someone because he is pro-life, your preferred candidate needs to be one who will fix the problem at all angles. It can't be just "The fetus is a human being, so don't kill it" without proaction.

Because it's murder....ever read the sixth commandment?

redleghunter · Nov 15, 2019

NW82 said:
Because it's murder....ever read the sixth commandment?

The pro choice movement has come a long way over the past 30 years.

It used to be “abortions need to be safe and rare” That was a lie.

Then it went to “what’s in the womb is not human” Basic biology refuted that.

Then after losing that simple argument they said “it’s not a person.” When asked to define this philosophical question none of them can decide when we actually become persons so they base life on some subjective no one can agree on. Which means it’s not an argument.

Then the truth is revealed that it does not matter that the fetus is a human being or even a person, you have to be born to be safe from the abortionist.

Even worse development...Now it’s ok a human being in the womb can be killed for financial reasons. In some states that decision can be made at birth.

If some could get away with it we would have legal infanticide.

Anguspure · Nov 15, 2019

redleghunter said:
If some could get away with it we would have legal infanticide.

I remember the paper referred to in this article from a few years ago: https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/ph...l-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html
No doubt it has been ruminating in the minds of the movement since then.

fhansen · Nov 15, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It seems to me every time pro-lifers say you can just adopt out your baby they always ignore the fact that during pregnancy there is a lot of expensive health care to pay for. Without health insurance, she cannot take care of herself and her baby. Why should having an abortion be a crime in America for economically challenged women without comprehensive health insurance, which is still a problem today? If you want to vote for someone because he is pro-life, your preferred candidate needs to be one who will fix the problem at all angles. It can't be just "The fetus is a human being, so don't kill it" without proaction.

Of course, lets put a monetary value on human life now. Anyone who puts a strain on my finances should be executed.

Thir7ySev3n · Nov 15, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
It seems to me every time pro-lifers say you can just adopt out your baby they always ignore the fact that during pregnancy there is a lot of expensive health care to pay for. Without health insurance, she cannot take care of herself and her baby. Why should having an abortion be a crime in America for economically challenged women without comprehensive health insurance, which is still a problem today? If you want to vote for someone because he is pro-life, your preferred candidate needs to be one who will fix the problem at all angles. It can't be just "The fetus is a human being, so don't kill it" without proaction.

They spoke against God, saying, “Can God spread a table in the wilderness? He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed. Can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?” Therefore, when the LORD heard, he was full of wrath; a fire was kindled against Jacob; his anger rose against Israel, because they did not believe in God and did not trust his saving power." (Psalms 78:19-22)

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

Murdering your own children because of desperate times is a fate reserved for the unfaithful wicked (Deuteronomy 28:53-59). Unless you want to be such a person, or promote those who are, I suppose avoiding kindling the wrath of God in unbelief is persuasive enough.

SPF · Nov 15, 2019

The disturbing fact is that the underlying principle that the OP is attempting to establish is that financial hardships is a justifiable reason to kill another living human being.

If we agree that human beings possess equal inherent moral worth and value at all stages of their lives, regardless of their age (which Christians should), then if it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn human because of financial reasons, then it ought to be morally acceptable to kill a 1 year old for financial reasons.

And for those of you without children - once a child is born, they actually become more expensive.

section9+1 · Nov 15, 2019

Any woman who gets pregnant with no father in the picture and demands an abortion, should be supported if necessary by the government until she has her baby. Then give it up for adoption. And since she gives the government permission to be involved with her physical welfare part of that involvement should be mandatory permanent sterilization. That will solve a lot of problems. She can have all the sex she wants and the taxpayer will not be burdened by her choices.

PaulCyp1 · Nov 15, 2019

So, expensive health care is a justification for the brutal slaughter of an innocent child? If so, then why wouldn't expensive health care be justification for the brutal slaughter of a one year old? Or a three year old?

GodLovesCats · Nov 15, 2019

fhansen said:
Of course, lets put a monetary value on human life now. Anyone who puts a strain on my finances should be executed.

I never said that. What needs to be justified is the same lawmakers pushing to ban abortion not helping a lot of expecting moms in the process. If abortion is going to be illegal, the people who ban it have to help those who lack the means to stay pregnant.

St. Helens · Nov 15, 2019

ADMIN HAT ON
Thread cleaned up due to the misuse of ratings and smileys and other forms of goading.
NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad.
ADMIN HAT OFF

Anguspure · Nov 15, 2019

SPF said:
The disturbing fact is that the underlying principle that the OP is attempting to establish is that financial hardships is a justifiable reason to kill another living human being.

If we agree that human beings possess equal inherent moral worth and value at all stages of their lives, regardless of their age (which Christians should), then if it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn human because of financial reasons, then it ought to be morally acceptable to kill a 1 year old for financial reasons.

And for those of you without children - once a child is born, they actually become more expensive.

Why then should not teenagers not be put down? They tend to be horrendously expensive, very inconvenient and put a very large strain on their Mother's well being. Further to this, they, for the most part, are also not fully developed until the early twenties do they are only "potential" human beings until that time.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Nov 15, 2019

Why does pro-lifer have more responsibility according to the pro-abortionists than the reckless mother? We believe in consequences for actions and that the life of the unborn should be protected. You don't just slip on a penis and get pregnant and neither should your economic status justify forcing the state or other people to pay for your mistake.

Justify women without health insurance staying pregnant

Thank You Jesus!

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Friend

Thank You Jesus!

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Oldbie

Psalm 139

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I stand with Israel

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Dissident

Similar threads