The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

Jamdoc said:

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.

Click to expand...

And what of the “lasting changes” to the human being the woman carries?

Is the child in the womb a lesser moral life?

redleghunter said:

And what of the “lasting changes” to the human being the woman carries?

Is the child in the womb a lesser moral life?

Click to expand...

as I keep saying, I'm not happy with either outcome. The only one I would be sort of okay with under current technology is morning after pills that prevent fertilization or implantation.
and that is hard to go with if God really does have a soul being present on fertilization, but at the same time, God lets a substantial amount of fertilized eggs never implant on their own so in that case, you're having deaths due to nobody's fault under the same conditions.
Making the woman carry it to term violates the woman
Aborting after implantation violates the child.

ChristianForCats said:

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

Click to expand...

That would be a strawman. Better...

2. There is no reason to have an abortion because there is the option of adoption.

ChristianForCats said:

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

1. Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
   
2. 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?

Click to expand...

You're conflating the arguments. if a pro-lifer considers the pill to be a form of abortion then they're not going to endorse the pill as a means of contraceptive and they are going to be consistent with this. If they do consider it an effective and moral method for contraceptive then they are going to recommend it and this may or may not include the morning after pill and it may or may not have conditions with it. pro-lifers are not united on all issues (probably the same for pro-choicers) and you can't lump them all together, dissect the views, then join them back together so that they contradict each other that no one actually holds. Doing this is called a strawman's argument.

Some don't even accept the rhythm method and feel all sex must be for the explicit purpose of procreation. That group doesn't represent the opinions of all pro-lifers, and you'll find this is common and can't assume that because one pro-lifer says it they all believe it. So let's be responsible with how we are representing these issues.

ChristianForCats said:

It is not a sin to cut down your own tree for safety reasons.

Jesus answered someone's prayer by telling a fig tree to die.

Click to expand...

Your right.. but, you totally missed my point...

Jamdoc said:

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.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think the "changes" to a woman's body really count. I mean, women are designed to bear children and the small changes pregnancy makes to the body happens at any point a woman bears children, so unless you make your living off having slightly smaller hips and a body devoid of stretch marks then bodily changes are truly insignificant because those changes will happen at some point in a woman's life, if they haven't happened already.

Most women can work up til birth with a first child and only really need about two weeks to heal afterwards.. but even if we cushion this and say a month prior to birth and a month after, that's two months that will be truly difficult, and most adoption agencies do help provide care for the pregnant mother which can allow for this time as well.

Birth Mother Living Expenses | Binti

I think the most drastic change for any woman to deal with during pregnancy are the hormonal changes, and to be frank even without pregnancy the mental health issues that surround any rape are tremendous, and require a great deal of counseling.... so we will assume the woman is already getting counseling in some form, which will also help her cope with the physical hormonal changes as well...

I just thought I'd throw this out..

SkyWriting said:

Public VS Private is roughly 50/50. Public agencies are low cost and 5 years wait time.
Private is faster and more expensive.

Click to expand...

It is the solution... adoption..need to cut the red tape... as with many things.

ChristianForCats said:

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

Click to expand...

Please. Do tell how to best kill an infant, in utero.

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.

Click to expand...

Ok, so .... It is a term for those who have gender dysphoria..to give nomenclature to their unrealistic concept..

RaymondG said:

Do you deem yourself better than the human race because of your beliefs? Are you less messed up than everyone else because of your view on this one topic....or how well you see and follow the words of the bible, as you see them?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Don't accuse me of saying things that I never said..

RaymondG said:

I see no good in owning guns.....yet I do not wish to restrict you from buying one, if you so choose. I feel it is against God, yet I will allow for you to live by them, if you so desire. Can you see how this is possible? Should I condemn you for Guns just because I think they are bad? Should i desire to force you to not have them, before you believe that I am against them?

Click to expand...

Guns are useful for hunting. You may not appreciate that, but it is true. There are people who condemn gun owners in general for the violence done to humans by guns and want all guns banned. They are loud and numerous. I am glad you are not one of those who would take away the rights of my friends to own guns for hunting. But the analogy is not really apt. Abortion, when it does what it is supposed to do, kills a human being every time it is done. Guns do not. Only some times. Sometimes in wars which may or not be justified. Sometimes in the committing of felonious acts, sometimes in murder, sometimes in self defense. It's a mixed bag. Abortion is not a mixed bag. An innocent human being dies in every successful abortion.

What I see good in, is free will. I do not wish to hinder your ability to choose, based on my beliefs, because I dont want mine taken away because of another's beliefs. Is this hard to understand?

Click to expand...

That is easy to understand. But do you have the right to kill any innocent person ever in support of your right to choose? That IS what happens in an abortion. Somebody dies, an innocent person, whose rights are ALL terminated because someone else chose.

You believe what you do because it is in line with your religious beliefs.... But what if one, in power, was not a christian....would you be ok with their beliefs being forced on you?

Some believe women should not show their face.....would you like for their belief to be forced on you?

This will happen one day....your choices and books and churches will be taken away because of the beliefs of others...... You will call it fulfilment of prophecy, and righteous persecution.......You will totally forget that, this day, you desired to take away the choices and options of others because if your own personal convictions.........you will have forgotten the seeds you threw in the ground.....and the law that you can only reap what you have sown.

I choose to sow seeds of liberty...... I can tell you that you are sowing the wrong seeds, yet I will not condemn you for not listening to me........And this does not mean I believe you are doing the right thing just because I do not condemn you for it.

Click to expand...

Let's suppose I want the liberty to murder my neighbor. I am not permitted to do that. My liberty is restricted. My convictions are that we need an 'ordered liberty' and not just 'liberty'. An ordered liberty gives everyone the right to life, not just the big people. Your preference lays the seeds for the big people to take away the liberty of the small people. Which is what happens when a big person decides that a small person, or an old person, or a handicapped person, is inconvenient and has to go.

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 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.

Click to expand...

OK. Which hospitals are going to bother with researching this? It comes down to large research hospitals that are Catholic sponsored and maybe some other rare research hospitals here and there. It's not the kind of thing one can go implanting IVF babies in the fallopian tubes until a problem develops and then doing exploratory surgery on a schedule. It's the kind of thing where someone comes into the emergency room with this problem and they have to have a team ready to go. I think this may be solvable, but it's technically challenging. If it happens, it will be at someplace like Creighton University Hospitals. I suggest them because they are leaders in a natural non-chemical non-IVF fertility program that has a high success fate. They have the background already for working with medically challenging pregnancies.

ChristianForCats said:

What is a strawman?

Click to expand...

When you figure out 'red herring' then maybe the same place you find the explanation for that will show you what a 'straw man' is. Both terms are useful in understanding the logic of argumentation.

Hazelelponi said:

Honestly, I don't think the "changes" to a woman's body really count. I mean, women are designed to bear children and the small changes pregnancy makes to the body happens at any point a woman bears children, so unless you make your living off having slightly smaller hips and a body devoid of stretch marks then bodily changes are truly insignificant because those changes will happen at some point in a woman's life, if they haven't happened already.

Most women can work up til birth with a first child and only really need about two weeks to heal afterwards.. but even if we cushion this and say a month prior to birth and a month after, that's two months that will be truly difficult, and most adoption agencies do help provide care for the pregnant mother which can allow for this time as well.

Birth Mother Living Expenses | Binti

I think the most drastic change for any woman to deal with during pregnancy are the hormonal changes, and to be frank even without pregnancy the mental health issues that surround any rape are tremendous, and require a great deal of counseling.... so we will assume the woman is already getting counseling in some form, which will also help her cope with the physical hormonal changes as well...

I just thought I'd throw this out..

Click to expand...

There's a lot more to it than that, episiotomy, incompetent cervix, nerve damage (my mother has had nerve damage that runs down her leg ever since she had me), weakened uterine wall if they had to have a C section to deliver (you don't want to deliver vaginally if you've had a C section, can rupture the uterus and cause a woman to bleed to death internally), and a lot of women can never get back down to their pre pregnancy weights because of the hormonal changes. They also often times get sick, have what's called gestational diabetes, trigeminal neuralgia, etc.
It's nothing to scoff at, it's not a haircut.
That said if you, knowing your body could change as a result, willingly had sex, then you made your bed you lie in it.
But if it's forced on you? I can't fault a woman for not wanting to have these changes.
It comes down to a question I'd have to ask God directly. When does the soul become a thing, before or after implantation, if before.. are there just trillions of people in heaven that never got a chance due to not implanting? Most of those times the woman never knows a fertilization ever took place, she was never actually pregnant, she wouldn't have "conceived in her womb".

JacksBratt said:

Please. Do tell how to best kill an infant, in utero.

Click to expand...

It was you who tried to make is think that there were better ways to" kill babies", by describing a bad way to do so.... why try to turn it around on someone else now?

JacksBratt said:

Ok, so .... It is a term for those who have gender dysphoria..to give nomenclature to their unrealistic concept..

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

It is unfortunate, overall, for the LGBTQ+ community because they do not realize their pain and confusion are being exploited for other purposes - of which none are to actually help.

ChristianForCats said:

Simple: take a pill. The fetus will then come out vaginally with no injuries.

Is that better?

Click to expand...

That's sick.