The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

Bruce Leiter · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:

Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).

There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.

Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.

I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.

Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.

So what do you want, fewer unwanted pregnancies or a lot of sick women occupying jail cells?

There's no hypocrisy because contraception that happens before the egg and sperm unite doesn't take a life that's already begun, but anything that stops that life after it starts is what pro-lifers oppose.

Kaon · Feb 15, 2020

JacksBratt said:
What is "cis" man and "cis" woman?

I think the LGBTQ+ community borrowed from some chemistry terms dealing with stereochemistry. A CIS isomer is a molecule that has not rotated in space, and a trans isomer is the same molecule that has rotated in space.

CIS genders, therefore, are genders that have been the same since birth, as trans means you have "rotated" or changed your gender from its original orientation.

Only a CIS man and CIS woman can conceive a child together - by intercourse.

GodLovesCats · Feb 15, 2020

Silmarien said:
Of the placenta, perhaps, but not of the developing baby. I think you can only use the "bodily autonomy" argument to defend forms of abortion that do not cause direct harm, where death is the aftermath of thinning the lining of the uterus and expelling the embryo rather than being directly caused by the procedure. Otherwise the bodily autonomy of the baby is being violated.

The placenta can only be removed last. If it is directly causing harm, the fetus must also be expelled. And yes, like any other organ it can be damaged. (One problem it causes is preeclampsia, which can be fatal.)

The uterus still is all hers; only the human growing inside it is not.

That said, I'm close to being a fullblown socialist, so I'm somewhat jaded on the "complete bodily autonomy" argument in general. It reminds me too much of the "complete economic liberty" rhetoric popular in right-wing circles, with similarly screwed up consequences for how we view those who are dependent.

Since economic liberty is a totally different issue, I never thought they were comparable.

coffee4u · Feb 15, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
It's been looked at but at present just isn't possible. It probably will be possible within a few years as more research is done.

All life is precious for some people. For others not so much.

But are they researching it? Perhaps they can use the IVF research and learn it by default, but as far as I know, they are not looking into ways to save ectopic pregnancies and they should. It's rare, but heartbreaking for a woman who wants a baby and to find out its ectopic. People glibly say 'Oh well try again" they have no idea the impact and heartbreak that an ectopic ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage causes.
Let's hope it becomes a real alternative.

Silmarien · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
The placenta can only be removed last. If it is directly causing harm, the fetus must also be expelled. And yes, like any other organ it can be damaged. (One problem it causes is preeclampsia, which can be fatal.)

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. I don't think there's any universe in which "Pregnant women should be denied abortions and left to die" is a defensible position.

ChristianForCats said:
Since economic liberty is a totally different issue, I never thought they were comparable.

Why wouldn't they be? "I don't want to give to anyone else except of my own free will" is the basic underlying argument in both situations. They're only different issues because most pro-lifers hate socialism, and most socialists hate pro-lifers.

redleghunter · Feb 15, 2020

Jamdoc said:
That's why I'm torn about it. I would like for a way to have the child live but the woman not have to bear the child, if it were possible.

I guess the logical and compassionate compromise is adoption.

redleghunter · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
If he has no interest in being a dsd, why would he choose having sex instead of some other crime?

GodLovesCats · Feb 15, 2020

redleghunter said:
I guess the logical and compassionate compromise is adoption.

You obvuiosly have no compassion for the mom if you think only the baby's life matters, not her life while she is pregnant. Compassion is doing what Jesus would do and saying what he would say. It is not saying abortion is murder and she can give up the baby for adoption.

What happened to the phrases, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and, "Love your neighbor as yourself" that come straight from Scripture? Do they not apply to pregnant women and girls who can't take care of kids?

GodLovesCats · Feb 15, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
Most biologists would think the defining moment of the new life of a human being, or any mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian or fish for that matter, would be when the DNA from mother and father combine immediately after the sperm enters the egg. That is not 'implantation' but conception. Implantation is needed for the new life to continue to grow and live, but conception is when the baby gets it's actual start.

I said pregnancy actually starts at implantation. This fact is taught in health classes as part of mandatory sex education. That is not the same as saying when life begins. It does mean embryos are not miscarried if they fail to implant.

chevyontheriver · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
You are talking about ONE method of abortion. Not all abortions require cutting the fetus apart.

No, of course not. Do they still do saline abortions?

The crudeness of the techniques are not as important as the essential barbarity of killing defenseless human beings.

chevyontheriver · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
More like the rest of her life. A rapist can be locked up for 50 years, but that does not change the fact she is or almost was a mom.

Two things pro-lifers do not understand are:

If all zygotes were made in the image of God, none of them would die naturally.

Because the placenta has the mom's DNA, she owns complete bodily autonomy.

Study up on the biology of placentas before you make claims like that.

chevyontheriver · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
A red herring is a fish. Nothing else. Always has been and always will be.

Medically, implantation tis when the woman gets pregnant. She is not pregnant at conception. That is the official, scientific definition - not something pro-choicers made upl.

Yes, it indeed IS something pro-choicers made up. I explained to you earlier that the original formulations of the pill stopped ovulation. But they had WAY too much hormones to be safe. Newer formulations use less hormones and thus ovulation often happens. So a conception may occur. The newer pills prevent implantation. Usually anyhow. This would be plainly rejected as abortion by normal people so the drug companies try to change the definition of the beginning of life from conception (the real biological point) to implantation (the fake pro-choicer point). A woman is pregnant from conception. Biologically anyhow.

Hazelelponi · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
You obvuiosly have no compassion for the mom if you think only the baby's life matters, not her life while she is pregnant. Compassion is doing what Jesus would do and saying what he would say. It is not saying abortion is murder and she can give up the baby for adoption.

What happened to the phrases, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and, "Love your neighbor as yourself" that come straight from Scripture? Do they not apply to pregnant women and girls who can't take care of kids?

You can have compassion for someone's situation without condoning and supporting the murder of a woman's unborn child.

Certainly we can give hope while encouraging life.....

The Jesus I know wouldn't have given a woman money to give to the abortionist and praised her "choice" to kill - He is the God of Life.. not the god of death and hopelessness..

chevyontheriver · Feb 15, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
I said pregnancy actually starts at implantation. This fact is taught in health classes as part of mandatory sex education. That is not the same as saying when life begins. It does mean embryos are not miscarried if they fail to implant.

Good grief.

GodLovesCats · Feb 15, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
Yes, it indeed IS something pro-choicers made up. I explained to you earlier that the original formulations of the pill stopped ovulation. But they had WAY too much hormones to be safe. Newer formulations use less hormones and thus ovulation often happens. So a conception may occur. The newer pills prevent implantation. Usually anyhow. This would be plainly rejected as abortion by normal people so the drug companies try to change the definition of the beginning of life from conception (the real biological point) to implantation (the fake pro-choicer point). A woman is pregnant from conception. Biologically anyhow.

I don't know anybody who says implantation is the beginning of life. It is just the beginning of pregnancy. Although I am partially pro-choice, I do not dispute the fact that life begins at fertilization.

In high school I was taught the reason "morning after piills" don't always work is "human error."

Who are you calling "normal people"?

GodLovesCats · Feb 15, 2020

coffee4u said:
But are they researching it? Perhaps they can use the IVF research and learn it by default, but as far as I know, they are not looking into ways to save ectopic pregnancies and they should. It's rare, but heartbreaking for a woman who wants a baby and to find out it's ectopic. People glibly say 'Oh well try again" they have no idea the impact and heartbreak that an ectopic ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage causes. Let's hope it becomes a real alternative.

Ectopic pregnancies can't be treated because the technology to save the embryo does not exist. Since the problem is a rare life-threatening emergency, I don't know how it can be studied.

Awareness needs to be raised about this so pro-lifers can understand there is no way to save the embryo. It boggles my mind that people think EP is not a legitimate reason to get an abortion.

GaveMeJoy · Feb 15, 2020

GaveMeJoy said:
It’s definitely a terrible situation. But fortunately in our society We don’t kill children because of the actions of their parents, or because their life is inconvenient for the parents. That’s why the pro life/choice discussion should always focus on whether or not the unborn are children. There is room for disagreement there, but anyone who acknowledges they are children and says the parent can still kill them is a monster

@Hazelelponi snd @JacksBratt i am the farthest thing from political humanly possible and won’t discuss politics and only care about this one issue, but I heard interview with Biden and he falls into this group: he is catholic so he believers the unborn are human but his stance is pro choice

PaulCyp1 · Feb 15, 2020

The original contraceptive products that came on the market were truly contraceptive, preventing pregnancy. The problem was, they failed in 1-2% of cases, resulting in many lawsuits against the manufacturers. They responded by including "backup" ingredients in their products, which caused early abortions whenever the actual contraceptive failed. All such products on the market today still contain such ingredients. There are very reliable natural methods of contraception available, which are just as reliable as drugs, and do not run the risk of killing your child in the first weeks of his/her life.

Jamdoc · Feb 15, 2020

Kaon said:
I think the LGBTQ+ community borrowed from some chemistry terms dealing with stereochemistry. A CIS isomer is a molecule that has not rotated in space, and a trans isomer is the same molecule that has rotated in space.

CIS genders, therefore, are genders that have been the same since birth, as trans means you have "rotated" or changed your gender from its original orientation.

Only a CIS man and CIS woman can conceive a child together - by intercourse.

they've also made it an acronym for "comfortable in skin"
which is a bit audacious. There's a lot of disabled people I'm sure that are uncomfortable in their current body.

Jamdoc · Feb 15, 2020

redleghunter said:
I guess the logical and compassionate compromise is adoption.

as said before, that does nothing for the unwanted and often times long lasting changes to a woman's body, that is counted as a temporary disability, and many women never get back to the way their body was before having a child.

The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

:sighing:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Watching and Praying Always

Similar threads