Hoping to have a discussion with Pro-Lifers about the following:

None of these statistics change the issue, really. Abortion is murder. I am not concerned about women having a "safer environment" to extinguish human life. We don't compromise on morality.

Lionel20 said:

For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Click to expand...

I suspect that pro-life Republican politicians are often like pro-black Democrat politicians. They often don't do anything for the cause that they claim to support. It's just a way to garner votes.

Lionel20 said:

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

Click to expand...

The abortion industry has been around since the country's founding, whether legal or illegal. So have a lot of other travesties. That's why we had to make laws.

Lionel20 said:

The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Click to expand...

Providing a safer environment in which someone can commit murder? The irony is hideous.

Lionel20 said:

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

I want to say that it's the principle of the thing. If we abandon our humanity for any number of other worthy but lesser causes, we still lose our humanity.

Yes, it is probably futile. Humanity is selfish and cowardly, and no law can change that, but we become complicit if we have no law.

Not to mention all the baby parts used in cosmetics and other even worse stuff. Selling baby parts should be illegal plain and simple is completely wicked and will receive condemnation.

tbstor said:

None of these statistics change the issue, really. Abortion is murder. I am not concerned about women having a "safer environment" to extinguish human life. We don't compromise on morality.

Click to expand...

Agreed!
1. Add to that the fact that the birth rate is steadily dropping and is barely above the replacement rate in many countries.

2. Then add the early deaths from Covid-19 that have happened this year (along with social distancing) and

3. You have a pretty effective deterrent to curbing pregnancies already in place.

That makes repealing Roe vs. Wade the frosting on the cake, but it's still necessary.

If we make killing toddlers legal and less total toddlers are killed next year, does that mean it was a good law?

Lionel20 said:

I always found the "pro-life" movement within the evangelical community fascinating. For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade

Abortion rates were steadily rising pre- Roe v Wade as "baby boomers" came of age. The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Thirdly, abortion rates have reduced over the last few decades, most notably under Democratic Administrations like Pres. Obama's where more federal funding was allocated to preventative measures like counseling services.

But most importantly, the rise of insurance plans that cover contraceptive care and the broader commercialization of synthetic sex hormones over the years I argue has helped reduce abortions to a far greater degree than Conservative State Legislatures simply banning abortion Providers.

Abortion medication like misoprostol is of course on the black market. If we've learned anything as a country in the last 40 or 50 years, it's that the "War on Drugs" or criminalizing drug use has been a failure in policy in that it has not reduced drug trafficking. The crack epidemic was intercepted by the opioid epidemic as the cycle goes on. If Roe v Wade was eventually overturned it seems reasonable to believe that in this day in age we're turning over an enormous market to black market dealers already prepared to meet the demand.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

First off...
Where are your statistics coming from?
Planned Parenthood?

Yes, abortion and infanticide has been around for a long long time. Just like murder... doesn't mean that I agree with it or like it.

The war on drugs has been a failure... mostly because of the manner in which it was taught. The part that children cued in on was that "this is popular" and what wasn't taught was how drug use has destroyed people that otherwise would have been successful and happy whether they got caught or not.

And a similar message is coming from planned Parenthood to children with the message that having an abortion is about a woman being smart and in control of her life with good choices...but at the same time saying that if you spank a child you should be imprisoned for a very long time. (The logic eludes me on why)

Conservative Christians are in favor of life...every life is precious. (Even the criminals) Every life is a gift from God.

Where I understand that not everyone believes that...not everyone is a Christian.

And as far as Roe Vs Wade...
It's got a ton of problems as it is legislation from the court system that has no legitimate ability to create laws.
We have a legislative branch of Government...that's their job.
Judicial review is sorely needed to fix this.

We need the legislative branch to stop telling the judges how to do their job (sentencing guidelines) and we need the judges to stop creating laws.

Lionel20 said:

I always found the "pro-life" movement within the evangelical community fascinating. For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade

Abortion rates were steadily rising pre- Roe v Wade as "baby boomers" came of age. The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Thirdly, abortion rates have reduced over the last few decades, most notably under Democratic Administrations like Pres. Obama's where more federal funding was allocated to preventative measures like counseling services.

But most importantly, the rise of insurance plans that cover contraceptive care and the broader commercialization of synthetic sex hormones over the years I argue has helped reduce abortions to a far greater degree than Conservative State Legislatures simply banning abortion Providers.

Abortion medication like misoprostol is of course on the black market. If we've learned anything as a country in the last 40 or 50 years, it's that the "War on Drugs" or criminalizing drug use has been a failure in policy in that it has not reduced drug trafficking. The crack epidemic was intercepted by the opioid epidemic as the cycle goes on. If Roe v Wade was eventually overturned it seems reasonable to believe that in this day in age we're turning over an enormous market to black market dealers already prepared to meet the demand.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

Your statistics are irrelevant. Abortion is murder and should be prosecuted to the fullest. It doesn't matter one bit whether the number of abortions go up or down during any given period. Murder is murder and must be prosecuted.

The war on drugs is an entirely separate matter. Drugs aren't banned by God's law and therefore it was foolish for Christians to support such absurd and draconian laws. The end result of those laws is chaos in the streets in the form of drug gangs, which would not exist but for government banning drugs.

You cannot compare drugs meant to murder babies to drugs used recreationally. If a drug is used to murder someone, be it a baby or a person, the person using the drug should be prosecuted to the fullest. That is nowhere near the same as people who use recreational drugs and ruin their lives with it. There is a level of personal choice there that does not exist when outright murder is involved.

Lionel20 said:

I always found the "pro-life" movement within the evangelical community fascinating. For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade

Abortion rates were steadily rising pre- Roe v Wade as "baby boomers" came of age. The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Thirdly, abortion rates have reduced over the last few decades, most notably under Democratic Administrations like Pres. Obama's where more federal funding was allocated to preventative measures like counseling services.

But most importantly, the rise of insurance plans that cover contraceptive care and the broader commercialization of synthetic sex hormones over the years I argue has helped reduce abortions to a far greater degree than Conservative State Legislatures simply banning abortion Providers.

Abortion medication like misoprostol is of course on the black market. If we've learned anything as a country in the last 40 or 50 years, it's that the "War on Drugs" or criminalizing drug use has been a failure in policy in that it has not reduced drug trafficking. The crack epidemic was intercepted by the opioid epidemic as the cycle goes on. If Roe v Wade was eventually overturned it seems reasonable to believe that in this day in age we're turning over an enormous market to black market dealers already prepared to meet the demand.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

If you support the murdering of innocent children then you cannot be a true Christian, in fact I'm going to go even further and say your not in the body of Christ. How can any GOD fearing person who believes we are made in the image of GOD even consider this as okay, is beyond me. GOD tells us children are a blessing. What has an innocent child done to deserve murdering them. All because of SELF. Modern day sacrifice for SELF. All these children should be put in front of the so-called mother after with their little arms and legs literally ripped off their tiny bodies, heads crushed, burn't and poisoned along with all the other disgusting methods that are used for murdering them.

Governments to westerners for a great many years, you are not to have too many children for this reason and that reason and even policies from politicians put in place to make families have a difficult time and struggle. Then told, we do not have enough children and people to support our countries so we have to get them from other countries. Is it only me that thinks, What!

So, to put this in perspective we are told having too many children is a bad thing and will cause a strain on our country more and more and that we should be responsible.

We are now told it is okay if foreigners replace the children we didn't have and murdered through abortions because we need them for workers, even though our own children would have had all the values associated with our society, our ideologies, our identity, our culture, our heritage. Our countries are built off Christian values and slowly these same Christian values are disappearing and we see the effects all around us.

Scripture tells me GOD punishes nations that turn against HIM. Well by flushing out Christians from a country and replacing them with the ungodly and idol worshipers, what is this going to cause?

Some will say that's harsh, we as Christians should accept everyone. What, even at the cost of becoming an ungodly nation? GOD separated the nations for a reason.

Lionel20 said:

I always found the "pro-life" movement within the evangelical community fascinating. For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade

Abortion rates were steadily rising pre- Roe v Wade as "baby boomers" came of age. The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Thirdly, abortion rates have reduced over the last few decades, most notably under Democratic Administrations like Pres. Obama's where more federal funding was allocated to preventative measures like counseling services.

But most importantly, the rise of insurance plans that cover contraceptive care and the broader commercialization of synthetic sex hormones over the years I argue has helped reduce abortions to a far greater degree than Conservative State Legislatures simply banning abortion Providers.

Abortion medication like misoprostol is of course on the black market. If we've learned anything as a country in the last 40 or 50 years, it's that the "War on Drugs" or criminalizing drug use has been a failure in policy in that it has not reduced drug trafficking. The crack epidemic was intercepted by the opioid epidemic as the cycle goes on. If Roe v Wade was eventually overturned it seems reasonable to believe that in this day in age we're turning over an enormous market to black market dealers already prepared to meet the demand.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

I think the main reason abortions fell a lot under Obama was the moral influence of Obama on teens, who became young adults over those 8 years.

For example, Obama showed a stable marriage (without leaving one wife and then picking up another).

Since Trump took office, abortions appear to be rising, in 2018, though you have to look at numbers state by state, and abortions rose in 2018 in 6 of the 7 states I looked at.

To me, for someone to actually be pro life, they have to do pro life, not simply preach it.

Just saying one is pro life isn't pro life.

One has to actually do things help people live, such as aid to unwed pregnant women, actual aid. (And be against the death penalty, God will see ultimate Justice and Mercy done correctly).

Giving. Helping. Doing.

Otherwise do not claim you are, people. Don't claim without doing.

Ergo, one has to actually love their neighbors (all they encounter or affect) instead of only a select few.

Lionel20 said:

I always found the "pro-life" movement within the evangelical community fascinating. For one, it doesn't seem like the "pro-life" candidates the movement helps to elect are particularly interested in banning Roe v Wade.

Click to expand...

I'm not evangelical so I can't speak to that. I am Catholic, which is different, so I can muddle through a Catholic response. I do not speak for evangelicals. Not even trying to.

As far as politicians go, they have an interest in getting re-elected. So if they 'solve' the abortion issue then they have one less appeal for people to vote for them. If they do just a tiny bit they can come back in the next election cycle and ask people to vote for them. I think the Republicans have manipulated pro-life people to vote Republican by talking pro-life but doing almost nothing. A little, but not much. Of course in some states it is more, and some politicians have done more. It's just that some politicians that say they are pro-life are in the early stages of Bidenism. He was pro-life, then not so much, then pro-abortion, and now nobody holds a candle to him in his abortion credentials. I've seen this in other politicians too. There are a few really solid pro-life politicians like Dan Lipinski. Many just use your vote to get re-elected.

Secondly, and more interestingly, I don't think most "pro-life"/single issue voters are aware that the scholarly estimates show pre- Roe v Wade 1/4 pregnancies ended in abortion compared to CDC estimates of 18% today.

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade

Abortion rates were steadily rising pre- Roe v Wade as "baby boomers" came of age. The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Click to expand...

Roe is legalized barbarism. Is legalized barbarism better than illegal barbarism? Some would say 'no'.

Thirdly, abortion rates have reduced over the last few decades, most notably under Democratic Administrations like Pres. Obama's where more federal funding was allocated to preventative measures like counseling services.

Click to expand...

Rates of abortion have reduced because many states have passed laws regulating the practice. This has happened while Democrats have held the presidency but not because Democrats have held the presidency.

But most importantly, the rise of insurance plans that cover contraceptive care and the broader commercialization of synthetic sex hormones over the years I argue has helped reduce abortions to a far greater degree than Conservative State Legislatures simply banning abortion Providers.

Click to expand...

I think the rise of abortion can be correlated with the rise in birth control. And this because the use of contraception creates an expectation of consequence free sex. When the contraceptives fail, as they can, one is left with an 'unexpected' pregnancy. Thus the rise in contraceptives creates more 'unexpected' pregnancies and more abortions to 'solve' the problems. One could 'expect' the possibility of pregnancy before contraceptives. That shift in thinking is why more contraception means more abortion.

Contraceptives are not expensive. Pretty much anyone can afford them and get them. The supply of contraceptives has been pretty much ubiquitous since the 1960's. And so have been unexpected pregnancies and STDs. We have been liberated from the idea that sex is connected to reproduction. We have not been liberated from the consequences of failures of contraception.

Abortion medication like misoprostol is of course on the black market. If we've learned anything as a country in the last 40 or 50 years, it's that the "War on Drugs" or criminalizing drug use has been a failure in policy in that it has not reduced drug trafficking. The crack epidemic was intercepted by the opioid epidemic as the cycle goes on. If Roe v Wade was eventually overturned it seems reasonable to believe that in this day in age we're turning over an enormous market to black market dealers already prepared to meet the demand.

Click to expand...

The abortion causing pesticides are on the open market. A prescription for them is easy to obtain. Whether to allow such harmful pesticides on the market is a prudential decision. When DDT was banned, the supply didn't just dry up. And other pesticides replaced it. Some of them are quite dangerous as well. Of those some have also been banned or are seriously regulated. It's a prudential decision what to do about pesticides. I think the bad ones should all be banned, even if that creates a black market. Likewise, it will be a prudential decision to ban misoprostol. You can argue that methamphetamines should be legal, just as many states have legalized pot. It's a prudential decision.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

I for one, am not a single issue voter. But when I consider who to vote for any pro-abortion candidate is just not going to get my vote. I can choose among those who are pro-life, and figure out the best of those candidates.

In the upcoming presidential election, everyone frames it as Biden vs Trump. And the overwhelming likelihood is we get one of those two. For me, Biden is simply unacceptable because of his abortion position. He says he is a Catholic too, which is very odd. So I'm left with the alternatives. Trump is one of those alternatives, but not the only one. I'm looking at voting for Brian Carroll for president. I think he may be broadly pro-life and rational in many areas of concern. I don't have to vote for Trump. Thinking he is the only option is a failure of imagination. I won't vote for Biden. He is morally unfit for the job.

Lionel20 said:

The biggest impact of Roe v. Wade seems to be that it provided a safer environment for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

What makes you think that some pro-life voters holding this to be a singular issue doesn't mean that some pro-choice voters aren't single issue voters? You point the finger at one group and not the other for whom the same finger applies.

I KNOW some pro-choice voters for whom the right to kill babies is their ONLY consideration.

Look at the first sentence I've quoted from you. Do you not understand the inane hypocrisy and irony?

"SAFER ENVIRONMENT" - Safer for whom? Certainly not the baby - and calling a baby an "unwanted pregnancy" doesn't negate that a fetus - a life - hangs in the balance.

I have voted for mainly Republicans in my life, but also a few Democrats - such as my state governor and a handful of others. But I have always chosen a pro-life candidate that I thought could do a better job.

Your OP reeks soundly of a Planned Parenthood pamphlet.

Halbhh said:

I think the main reason abortions fell a lot under Obama was the moral influence of Obama on teens, who became young adults over those 8 years.

For example, Obama showed a stable marriage (without leaving one wife and then picking up another).

Since Trump took office, abortions appear to be rising, in 2018, though you have to look at numbers state by state, and abortions rose in 2018 in 6 of the 7 states I looked at.

To me, for someone to actually be pro life, they have to do pro life, not simply preach it.

Just saying one is pro life isn't pro life.

One has to actually do things help people live, such as aid to unwed pregnant women, actual aid. (And be against the death penalty, God will see ultimate Justice and Mercy done correctly).

Giving. Helping. Doing.

Otherwise do not claim you are, people. Don't claim without doing.

Ergo, one has to actually love their neighbors (all they encounter or affect) instead of only a select few.

Click to expand...

People who literally blame everything on the president befuddle me. Seriously? What happened to personal responsibility?

Yes we should have ministries to help unwed pregnant women, which my church does, BTW.

plain jayne said:

calling a baby an "unwanted pregnancy"

Click to expand...

If a baby was left at your doorstep, this would be unwanted, but would you kill the child? If a situation is unwanted, you do not kill the people involved, but you take care of the situation . . . and the people!!

There are people who have grown up to cherish an unborn child. They have been brought up to nurture the unborn and the unborn's mother.

But now we see there are people who do not have basic nurturing and cherishing for unborn people and pregnant mothers. And pregnant women have developed in such a way, that they can fear people who do not know how to love them; and so they actually can kill their own unborn, in order to stay accepted with ones who do not know how to love them.

And so . . . so many things have come out the wrong way, because of unsure love. Unsure love is possibly America's real number-one national security problem.

But laws cannot create love, and no law can make people love.

We need to be pro-love, then, not only pro-life.

But laws against abortion can help make an issue, I would say, so people don't assume it is ok.

Halbhh said:

I think the main reason abortions fell a lot under Obama was the moral influence of Obama on teens, who became young adults over those 8 years.

For example, Obama showed a stable marriage (without leaving one wife and then picking up another).

Since Trump took office, abortions appear to be rising, in 2018, though you have to look at numbers state by state, and abortions rose in 2018 in 6 of the 7 states I looked at.

To me, for someone to actually be pro life, they have to do pro life, not simply preach it.

Just saying one is pro life isn't pro life.

One has to actually do things help people live, such as aid to unwed pregnant women, actual aid. (And be against the death penalty, God will see ultimate Justice and Mercy done correctly).

Giving. Helping. Doing.

Otherwise do not claim you are, people. Don't claim without doing.

Ergo, one has to actually love their neighbors (all they encounter or affect) instead of only a select few.

Click to expand...

Do you really think young people are looking to ghe President and saying aha! he lives a certain way I must do the same? I don't think anyone was making the stable marriage argument when George W. Bush was President, even though it's obvious to everyone he has a stable marriage.

As for declining abortion rates, these may have more to do with a decrease in teen pregnancy and in teen whoremongering. Both of these things have been declining steadily since the early 90s and have next to nothing to do with the occupant of the White House. Fewer teen pregnancies usually equal fewer abortions.

Halbhh said:

I think the main reason abortions fell a lot under Obama was the moral influence of Obama on teens, who became young adults over those 8 years. For example, Obama showed a stable marriage (without leaving one wife and then picking up another).

Since Trump took office, abortions appear to be rising, in 2018, though you have to look at numbers state by state, and abortions rose in 2018 in 6 of the 7 states I looked at.

Click to expand...

Obama CANNOT be credited with making people want to saved the unborn.
Trump CANNOT be credited with making people want to kill babies.

This is a leap of logic that it neither logical nor forward thinking.

One has to actually do things help people live, such as aid to unwed pregnant women, actual aid. (And be against the death penalty, God will see ultimate Justice and Mercy done correctly).

Click to expand...

Yes, God is the absolute Judge. The death penalty was instituted BY God early on in Genesis. It is not part of the Law, but a teaching by God before the Law.

The death penalty should be administered rarely and only after definitive proof that is objectively and concretely undeniable. But the death penalty for heinous and hideous violent crimes cannot be compared to the slaughter of the unborn by the tens of MILLIONS.

Giving. Helping. Doing.

Otherwise do not claim you are, people. Don't claim without doing.

Ergo, one has to actually love their neighbors (all they encounter or affect) instead of only a select few.

Click to expand...

You sure of a dim of pro-lifers. I think you would be shocked at what many churches and community organization are giving in term of money, time, and material supplies to young women in need.

We aren't pro-lifers in name only that you seem to think.

tbstor said:

None of these statistics change the issue, really. Abortion is murder. I am not concerned about women having a "safer environment" to extinguish human life. We don't compromise on morality.

Click to expand...

QFT.

plain jayne said:

The death penalty should be administered rarely and only after definitive proof that is objectively and concretely undeniable. But the death penalty for heinous and hideous violent crimes cannot be compared to the slaughter of the unborn by the tens of MILLIONS.

Click to expand...

Now we differ in some of this.
Death penalty is only truly needed in cases where leaving them alive can cause more deaths.
OSB....of course...he was the leader of a terrorist network.
Billy Bob....just because he was a "bad guy" and killed people over drugs or because he liked the sound of screaming isn't a great reason to go through the expense of a capital murder trial. Shove him in a deep hole and occasionally remember to feed him.

plain jayne said:

I think you would be shocked at what many churches and community organization are giving in term of money, time, and material supplies to young women in need.

Click to expand...

That's the real issue...
Some women use children solely for paternity paychecks.
Others use abortion as an exercise in eugenics. (Birth defects and etc)

None of which should be happening but with social services and Government funding our Government has a vested interest in not complying with the Christians.

And I really don't understand why some of these women don't offer up their children for adoption... other than a slight, temporary stigma of unwed motherhood that can be easily offset by the cash they would be offered for the baby by people unable to have one of their own.

You have no idea how much some people are willing to pay for a baby...$100K is a starting point for most Americans. (Including hospital and PNC)

Lionel20 said:

Do you think that if Christian "pro-lifers" were presented this information that they would realize the futility of remaining a single issue voter, or is there motivation to support "pro-life" candidates some other agenda?

Click to expand...

I don't know if this woman will answer or help to answer your question but she gives the view of one pro-life, one issue, Evangelical Christian voter.

This says it best: