Abortion viewed from the pro-life perspective

[Skreeper]

Hi all,

I came across this very well made video that explores the topic of abortion by following the pro-life side of things. I kindly ask you to take the time to watch the entire video before commenting.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the maker of this video stayed logically consistent when it came to the pro-life position? Did the video make you reconsider your position or was nothing about it convincing to you?

 

[Paulos23]

That did go the way I thought it would. Did make me think.

And still thinking.

 

[com7fy8]

It starts with "MASTER VIOLINIST MISSING!" in a news headline.

I see the point that could be made with this. If a famous beloved violinist were kidnapped or killed and made to disappear, there could be a major pro-choice uproar.

But would they care if the violinist had been killed during an abortion????

 

[Paulos23]

It starts with "MASTER VIOLINIST MISSING!" in a news headline.

I see the point that could be made with this. If a famous beloved violinist were kidnapped or killed and made to disappear, there could be a major pro-choice uproar.

But would they care if the violinist had been killed during an abortion????

I suggest watching more. It is more complicated than that.

 

[RaymondG]

Very interesting video... I agree that using a religious approach or emotional approach to this subject is not a wise idea.

 

[DaisyDay]

It starts with "MASTER VIOLINIST MISSING!" in a news headline.

I see the point that could be made with this. If a famous beloved violinist were kidnapped or killed and made to disappear, there could be a major pro-choice uproar.

But would they care if the violinist had been killed during an abortion????

No, because no violinist would have been killed during an abortion. At most, a potential one was which would also have been a potential mass murderer.

 

[com7fy8]

I suggest watching more.

I did. That was just my first impression, Paulos.

I got the point which possibly he means, about how ones can use abortion control to favor the birth of ones the controllers consider to be more desirable. And meanwhile, the controllers can just keep on letting kids in certain neighborhoods get killed, without bringing enough control to stop that. Have control of abortions, forced legally, but do not have control of killing neighborhoods. Of course, the ones right in the neighborhoods might not want that control; they might say the controllers will send in police who will kill their kids. But if ones don't come in, then neighbors' kids are possibly more free to do the killing.

So, yeah, I would say things are complicated.

There can be motives of the ones controlling, plus of the ones killing their own unborn, plus there might be profit motive . . . of the abortion industry.

 

[com7fy8]

No, because no violinist would have been killed during an abortion. At most, a potential one was which would also have been a potential mass murderer.

I offer I understand your point.

 

[DaisyDay]

I offer I understand your point.

Okay?

 

[RaymondG]

There can be motives of the ones controlling, plus of the ones killing their own unborn, plus there might be profit motive . . . of the abortion industry.

This is another emotional argument which claim abortion is murder and the mother/dr are murderers....And the listener is accomplice to murder if they dont agree with you.

Not a good way to promote open reasonable, productive conversation.

Lets assume the fertilized egg, once removed, is killed just as a 3 year old would be...... What about the many discarded as fertility clinics or spontaneous(the most prevalent type) abortions? Are you as outraged with those??? do you feel that these are millions of people being killed?

 

[com7fy8]

There can be motives of the ones controlling, plus of the ones killing their own unborn, plus there might be profit motive . . . of the abortion industry.

This is another emotional argument which claim abortion is murder and the mother/dr are murderers....And the listener is accomplice to murder if they dont agree with you.

For one thing, I mean that ones claiming to be against abortion can have wrong motives. This is what certain people bring up, and I agree.

But, also, ones killing their unborn can have motives which need evaluation. I mean this for evaluation, not an argument.

But I would say someone else could write the same thing and mean it as an emotional argument.

I need to pray about what I myself am doing. Am I just trying to judge and control other people, or am I ready to be there for ones who keep their children in order to help to make it good for them? I am pro-love, not only pro-life. And I am finding that I have major issues, about if I am becoming a really loving person or not; and God cares about if we are truly loving people or not. People can be alive but love-dead.

 

[Paulos23]

So, yeah, I would say things are complicated.

Yes, it is.

There can be motives of the ones controlling, plus of the ones killing their own unborn, plus there might be profit motive . . . of the abortion industry.

And there you just lost me. That doesn't explain the need for abortion through history.

 

[com7fy8]

That doesn't explain the need for abortion through history.

You can tell me what you mean by a "need" in history, if you want. But I am mainly thinking about motive when an unborn can live and the mother does have a choice.

By the way, I am thinking now of how ones did coat hanger abortions . . . if I have been told correctly . . . and ones could die doing that. That took some motivation, when they could have been loving their unborn.

 

[Paulos23]

You can tell me what you mean by a "need" in history, if you want. But I am mainly thinking about motive when an unborn can live and the mother does have a choice.

By the way, I am thinking now of how ones did coat hanger abortions . . . if I have been told correctly . . . and ones could die doing that. That took some motivation, when they could have been loving their unborn.

I suggest you think about that motivation, because it doesn't go away just because you tell a woman to love their unborn. This isn't a black and white issue, there is a lot that goes into the decision to abort. And it would be better to address those issues than to continue to force the pregnancy on women.

 

[com7fy8]

I suggest you think about that motivation, because it doesn't go away just because you tell a woman to love their unborn. This isn't a black and white issue, there is a lot that goes into the decision to abort. And it would be better to address those issues than to continue to force the pregnancy on women.

I care more about the people, than I care about controlling them.

And yes, in case this has to do with what you mean > each person is different.

But right laws can help us to evaluate what we are doing. But no law can make a person love.

 

[Tanj]

I care more about the people

Well, the unborn ones anyway.

 

[com7fy8]

I care more about the people

Well, the unborn ones anyway.

So, may be you feel I do not care about women who feel they have to or need to get an abortion.

I care that a number of them have been just used and left pregnant. They possibly could not tell the difference between a man who really loves, versus someone who is merely a user. I care about this, when this is the case. And this means I need to not try to ever just use anyone. So, this means, also, how I myself need to become for real in love, and care about myself, then, so I find out how to really love, and care about any women and not use anyone.

And I care about the men who only use women and are fools for pleasure because they do not know how to love. They are missing out on so much.

And I care about the parents who were in just copy-cat church culture. Their children got wise to how religious blending-in wasn't really satisfying anyone; so they went off with peers to get some sort of nice feeling stuff, instead of finding out how to love. And then the copy-cat parents could make a project of criticizing pregnant children and shaming ones who got caught, so ones of them were able to become killers. In such cases, stopping an abortion is not solving the problem at the source. Jesus cares about the self-righteous parents in such cases, as well as everyone else.

 

[Tanj]

So, may be you feel I do not care about women who feel they have to or need to get an abortion.

I only have what you have posted on the subject to go by. Your comments following this about some relationships, some aspect of churches or something and your firm opinion of what Jesus thinks doesn't really influence that one way or the other.

ETA:
It's not just the mothers, I can find no evidence you care at all about the children once they exit the uterus either.

Someone that was truly pro-life would have something to say about the fact a child dies every 6 seconds from preventable disease and malnutrition. At least once on this board. Or you know, one post about this for every 100 about abortion. Something, anything, to indicate it's not just probirthism

 

[Paulos23]

I care more about the people, than I care about controlling them.

What do you think laws do?

But right laws can help us to evaluate what we are doing. But no law can make a person love.

My point is, making a law against the symptoms of a disease is not going to eliminate the disease. Finding ways to treat it or prevent it will reduce it.

And to me, that is what abortion is, a symptom of a much larger problem that needs to be acknowledged and addressed, and many other countries have done that. We just have groups that focus on the end result and not the path that gets there.

So make the laws, it will not stop women wanting abortion until you address the reasons they want it.

 

[com7fy8]

First, Paulos, I offer I agree how a law is not enough. But the rightful purpose is to keep something from happening, even if there were some punishment for it. But I agree with what

My point is, making a law against the symptoms of a disease is not going to eliminate the disease. Finding ways to treat it or prevent it will reduce it.

And . . . then . . . while we are at it >

Someone that was truly pro-life would have something to say about the fact a child dies every 6 seconds from preventable disease and malnutrition.

Children dying of malnutrition and diseases, too, is a symptom, I would say, of what needs to be prevented.

And to me, that is what abortion is, a symptom of a much larger problem that needs to be acknowledged and addressed, and many other countries have done that.

So, what do you consider abortion to be a symptom of, and what have countries done, that you mean, by this?