Justify women without health insurance staying pregnant

ChristianForCats said:

The MW definition is limited to just the word safe, not "safe for the mother." There is safe for the embryo and fetus, and there is safe for the mother. I am talking about the latter.

Click to expand...

OK, well the abortion process involves two human lives where one life is attempted to be killed or is killed. So the process cannot be safe. Maybe the process can be safe for the mother, but the process itself still is not safe. I suppose anyone trying to kill another human wants the process to be as safe for themselves as possible, which is why killers carry weapons capable of bringing overwhelming force, protective gear capable of protecting themselves, and employ procedures capable of minimizing risk to themselves. But killing another human is never a "safe" process.

ChristianForCats said:

The most important thing to me regarding abortiom will always be making sure tne mother is not treated like a second-class citizen,

Click to expand...

The most important should be protecting human life and dignity to include both mother and baby and not one at the expense of the other. We don't have to practice child sacrifice here.

that carrying an unwanted baby suddenly makes her less important to society, when in reality she is already more important than ever as someone carrying a new innocent life.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And there is no reason that the innocent life has to be extinguished in any solution to the societal problems of the mother. We should move beyond child sacrifice.

After all girls and women who have unwanted pregnancies get what they need and are respected for who they are throughout their pregnancies, there will no longer be any need for elective abortions.

Click to expand...

I want to think this is an accurate claim. One way to facilitate your vision here is to come down hard on rapists who create unwanted pregnancies. come down hard on fathers who abandon unborn babies and the mothers that carry them, and create an environment where mothers are cared for.

It is sad that pro-lifers do not care about these things and think only the existence of one more life matters, not also showing love for the mother.

Click to expand...

The choice and comparison you're making is asymmetric. In the case of abortion you're killing a human life. And you seem to indicate that the "existence of one more life" doesn't matter and that such a life is expendable so that the child's mother can do away with an unwanted pregnancy in order to re-gain respect and make her more important to society (using your choice of words). Yet on the flip side, nobody is suggesting that the baby's life be saved at the expense of the existence of the mother's life. Nobody is suggesting people "abort" the mother and keep the baby! So the comparison you're making is not symmetrical. Pro lifers are not for aborting mothers, yet you're ok with aborting babies.

I think most pro-lifers (at least speaking for myself) would of course agree that the dignity, respect, and care for mother's bearing unborn babies should be treated with the highest regard. But in the case that someone isn't treating a mother with dignity, respect and the care they warrant, then the appropriate response is not to kill a baby! A more appropriate response would be to punish an actual wrong doer or support mothers with policies and attitudes that give them their deserved respect, dignity and care. The response to a wrong is not to kill someone who is innocent and defenseless!

ChristianForCats said:

My issue with pro-lifers is when they talk about preserving the baby, they act like only the baby matters

Click to expand...

Except they don't. This is one of your typical talking points which isn't actually true. At least, I've never seen you demonstrate this as true.

ChristianForCats said:

I don't choose one or the other in their moral value; what happens is I get mad at others pretending only the little one does.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you do choose one (the mother), because you believe an acceptable course of action is to kill the unborn child. So you're sort of making yourself into a hypocrite.

ChristianForCats said:

Yet the same people who agree with me on this oppose the government helping women with no access to charities and churches that have the resources they need.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone completely oppose governmental programs to help support single, poor, pregnant women. Have you? Can you quote anyone who has held this position?

ChristianForCats said:

The Bible says in Exodus if a man kills or injures a fetus, he must pay a fine. I want to go further: Make a rapist pay all child care bills for the next 18 years. And of course lock him up so he can't rape anyone else before the child is an adult.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Bible says in Exodus that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies, that he is to pay life for life.

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.

Click to expand...

Oh my...

There are millions of mothers who do not have health insurance and take stellar care of their children. And, there are ways to make sure your baby never has to go to a doctor.

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.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day you can say don't kill the unborn baby full stop. No justification allows the killing of people now because of economic reasons. We don't go and round up poor kids on the street who may be a burden of society and exterminate them. No one has come up with any plan or action to stop these kids and their families falling into the poverty cycle. Therefore we should kill them. That is the same logic.

stevevw said:

At the end of the day you can say don't kill the unborn baby full stop. No justification allows the killing of people now because of economic reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed we choose end of life decisions based on how much we are willing to spend to keep people alive. The same with problems at birth. People with good insurance get more care for babies.

stevevw said:

No one has come up with any plan or action to stop these kids and their families falling into the poverty cycle. Therefore we should kill them. That is the same logic.

Click to expand...

With the same logic we all refuse to adopt any and all children, because adopting them is too costly. Their lives are not worth our trouble raising them. So we don't adopt or even offer.

Kaon said:

Oh my...

There are millions of mothers who do not have health insurance and take stellar care of their children. And, there are ways to make sure your baby never has to go to a doctor.

Click to expand...

But 10 million who don't. You can watch some push the baby carriage into traffic to stop cars so they can cross. The mentality is that an injured child will get them insurance money. Why else would a poor woman push the stroller out in front of her into traffic?

SkyWriting said:

Yes indeed we choose end of life decisions based on how much we are willing to spend to keep people alive. The same with problems at birth. People with good insurance get more care for babies.

Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

SkyWriting said:

With the same logic we all refuse to adopt any and all children, because adopting them is too costly. Their lives are not worth our trouble raising them. So we don't adopt or even offer.

Click to expand...

Same applies, two wrongs don't make it right.

stevevw said:

Same applies, two wrongs don't make it right.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that your right is wrong. Your failure to adopt kids results in them being aborted. And your success with no support for bad moms is not success.
I was saying that babies need attentive, willing, supported mothers.

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.

Click to expand...

So killing your baby is preferable to taking a risk? No hospital in this country is going to turn down a woman in labor. We had some of ours at home with very low costs. Midwives still exist.

SkyWriting said:

Your failure to adopt kids results in them being aborted

Click to expand...

I hope you're not actually being serious. That's absurd. People are responsible for their own actions.

And there are more people in America willing to adopt newborns than there are newborns available. So if we ignore the horrendously fallacious thinking, it's still not even true!

SPF said:

I hope you're not actually being serious. That's absurd. People are responsible for their own actions.

Click to expand...

Really, just blame the females?

Laura Marina Villanueva, from Santa Marta, Peru. Her older sister's 45-year-old companion, a former soldier and her neighbor, raped the girl (10yo) three times, just before her birthday on June 24. Her pregnancy was discovered in late September, at 19 weeks, by chance after she was admitted for a snake bite. The father, Gaudencio Castañeda Pulido, has been on the run when the discovery was reported in the media and continued threatening to kill the girl and her mother, Nidia Villanueva Tolentino. On January 24, 2012, she delivered a 2.21 kilograms (4.9 lb) boy by cesarean section, whom she named Justin, after singer Justin Bieber. Castañeda Pulido, who had previously impregnated the girl's then-15-year-old sister, was sentenced to 35 years in jail.[172][173]

1. "Girl, 10, Gives Birth To Baby". Warsaw Times. 29 November 1968. Retrieved 2011-12-12.
2. ^ "Child Born To Girl, 10". The Blade. 1 August 1969. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
3. ^ "10-year-old girl gives birth to boy". The Miami News. 16 August 1971. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
4. ^ "Mother at the Age of 10". The Tuscaloosa News. 16 August 1971. Retrieved 2011-12-12.
5. ^ "10-year-old gives birth to twins; doing 'just fine'". The Gazette. 1 June 1979. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
6. 1. "8 Pound Baby Born To Girl, 10". Lewiston Morning Tribune. 11 January 1944. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
   2. ^ "Youngest Mother: 10 Years Old". Mount Washington News. 21 January 1944. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
   3. ^ "10-Year-Old Gives Birth To Daughter". Lewiston Morning Tribune. 16 March 1949. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
   4. ^ "10-Years-Old Girl Gives Birth To Son Weighing 7 3⁄4 Pounds". Meridian Daily Journal. 21 May 1949. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
   5. ^ "10-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth to Baby in Mississippi Town". The Washington Afro American. 20 June 1950. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
   6. ^ "10-Year-Old Girl Has 6 1⁄2 Pound Son". Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. 23 June 1950. Retrieved 2011-11-17.
   7. ^ "10-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth to 7-Pound Child". Miami Sunday News. 25 July 1951. Retrieved 2011-12-19.

SPF said:

And there are more people in America willing to adopt newborns than there are newborns available. So if we ignore the horrendously fallacious thinking, it's still not even true!

Click to expand...

It's true. Babies are aborted because they are not wanted.

SkyWriting said:

It's true. Babies are aborted because they are not wanted.

Click to expand...

Babies are aborted because they're not wanted by their parents. Not because they're not wanted by people willing to adopt. There are more willing and available adoptive parents than there are available newborns.

Sky, just for the sake of conversation, if American law made abortions illegal under all circumstances, would you start to believe that it was immoral and wrong for women to have an abortion - no matter their age, financial situation, or health? And would you argue just as hard as you do now with people about how abortion is always immoral and wrong?

SkyWriting said:

It's true. Babies are aborted because they are not wanted.

Click to expand...

Only in those controlled/ deceived by the world and the false teachings.

Those who endure to the end, obeying Yahweh by faith and trust relying on Jesus,
will not do so.

SPF said:

Sky, just for the sake of conversation, if American law made abortions illegal under all circumstances, would you start to believe that it was immoral and wrong for women to have an abortion - no matter their age, financial situation, or health? And would you argue just as hard as you do now with people about how abortion is always immoral and wrong?

Click to expand...

Unless he changed, he said he believes anything is legal , or rather anything is okay to do, if someone believes it is not a sin. Legal or not. Moral or not. True or not.
i.e. Those of immoral character should not worry, as long as they believe it is okay.
God will still save them . (not, of course, in line with any of God's Word)

SPF said:

I hope you're not actually being serious. That's absurd. People are responsible for their own actions.

And there are more people in America willing to adopt newborns than there are newborns available. So if we ignore the horrendously fallacious thinking, it's still not even true!

Click to expand...

With (his own posted) presumptions that whatever a person thinks is okay, is okay, the odd and strange statements often make no sense, and the motive and purpose remains opposed to all Scripture and truth.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Unless he changed, he said he believes anything is legal , or rather anything is okay to do, if someone believes it is not a sin. Legal or not. Moral or not. True or not.
i.e. Those of immoral character should not worry, as long as they believe it is okay.
God will still save them . (not, of course, in line with any of God's Word)

Click to expand...

Actually, Sky has said that he believes the local law to be supreme and that morality is based upon the local laws under which one lives.

He therefore believes that people like Daniel sinned when he prayed because it was illegal.

That's why I asked if he would change his tune and all the arguing he's doing if the law of the land outlawed abortion.