Food for Thought

[DaisyDay]

You must first answer the question as to what a woman is before you can even tell me anything about their "bodily integrity".

No, I don't. If you object to the word "woman" feel free to substitute "pregnant person".

Your repeating that lame argument doesn't make it less ridiculous or more valid upon each repetition.

Second, you responded with the assumption that only women (whatever that is) can get pregnant. You need to either catch up to the latest liberal spin or be consistent with the liberal arguments. I believe the term is now " birthing person". Again, not my problem to figure out.

I don't need to do anything of the sort in response to your goading and baiting. If you refuse to address the substance of an argument because you're hung up on the semantics, that is solely you.

 

[DaisyDay]

Over 800,000 child deaths from abortion every year is my definition of genocide.

It may be your definition, but it is not the definition that is generally accepted. These abortions are not the killing off of a people or a culture. You might equally, wrongly, accuse car manufacturers of "genocide" or the Sackler family.

If you would prefer mass infanticide, I could use that term as well.

Two objections; 1) abortions are not performed en masse; 2) feticide is the correct term for the killing of an unborn fetus.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Did you ever hear the proverb 'you can't get blood from a stone?'
You are not talking about adults shouldering the consequences of their actions. You are talking about infants, toddlers, and young children shouldering the consequences of their parents' actions.
If we can break the cycle of generational poverty through education and adequate nutrition and health care shouldn't we do so?

AFAIK toddlers, infants and young children are not being asked to take responsibility. I certainly don't ask them to do so. I ask only those adults that are responsible for their conditions to take responsibility not the victims of their irresponsible behavior . I don't think it is just or fair or moral to ask a stranger to take responsibility for my actions when I am perfectly capable of acting responsibly rather than acting irresponsibly and expecting someone to come to my rescue when those actions result in hardship. The solution to generational poverty is responsible adults refusing to continue to be part of the cycle by making wise decisions rather than irresponsible ones.

IMO if the solution to the cycle of generational poverty was enriching bureaucrats by spending extreme amounts of money to fund government programs that claim to be attempting to better educate, feed and care for the health of infants toddlers and young children that cycle would long ago have disappeared or at the very least enough positive gains would have been seen that we would be arguing that the positive results made it obvious that we should redouble our efforts to make even more progress. Instead the argument seems to be that we see things getting worse so let's double down on that which has proven to not work as we predicted it would.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like taking responsibility for their sexual actions by caring for the life they produce?

Why not start with making responsible choices about one's sexual actions so that any pregnancy one has initiated is a wanted one for all involved?

 

[public hermit]

I don't think it is just or fair or moral to ask a stranger to take responsibility for my actions when I am perfectly capable of acting responsibly rather than acting irresponsibly and expecting someone to come to my rescue when those actions result in hardship

You don't think it's just, fair, or moral to help? That is such a strange position for a Christian since we all rely on divine grace. If God were just and fair with us we would simply be left with the consequences of our actions with no divine help. But that is not how God treats us. God is gracious and helps us. You don't think we should do the same?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yep, and in this case the group largely responsible for electing people who removed a health care choice for women are being asked to be responsible for that outcome. Yet for some reason them and the people they elected seem to want to talk about anything but.

Abortion is not health care. It is the killing of a living being not a treatment or cure for a disease or injury . Calling it health care just because it is a physician is doing the killing is dishonest. Both women and men involved in creating a new life ought to be asked to be responsible for having made that happen. Why is that not obvious? The people in those states that voted to make restrictions on the killing of what Joe Biden referred to as a child are not the parties that bear responsibility for the existence of the child. That responsibility lies with only two people in each case. I believe Kamala Harris was correct when she pointed out that the solution to a problem is to address the root causes of that problem. If people would make wise decisions about their sexual behavior there would be no need for abortion to be regulated in any way as there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Since people are not universally wise decision makers there is a need to regulate what they are allowed to kill or cause to be killed.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You don't think it's just, fair, or moral to help? That is such a strange position for a Christian since we all rely on divine grace. If God were just and fair with us we would simply be left with the consequences of our actions with no divine help. But that is not how God treats us. God is gracious and helps us. You don't think we should do the same?

I agree 100% with you that that strawman is off base not wanting to help people. I don't think it is just, moral or fair to use the power of government to force people to take responsibility for the irresponsible actions of others. The subject of helping others is quite a different one than that. As far as helping others is concerned I am always for it. I do doubt that there is universal agreement on what is actually helpful though.

 

[public hermit]

I agree 100% with you that that strawman is off base not wanting to help people. I don't think it is just, moral or fair to use the power of government to force people to take responsibility for the irresponsible actions of others. The subject of helping others is quite a different one than that. As far as helping others is concerned I am always for it. I do doubt that there is universal agreement on what is actually helpful though.

I'm thinking Christians should organize and step up. There would be no need for government help if we would unite to address the consequences of abandoning the precedent of Roe.

The reality is, our disunity and lack of concern for those in dire circumstances (too young to care for a child, victims of incest or rape, women who are stuck in abusive relationships and don't want another child that ties them to abuse) is appalling. Christians have been clamoring for decades to have Roe overturned. How did it never occur to anyone that overturning would bring responsibility?

Maybe this is unexpected, even among pro-life Christians. I can understand that. I didn't think it would ever be overturned. But if it is vacated, then the responsibility immediately falls not on the government but on all those who used their voting power to enable the change.

I would think Christians would be overjoyed to step up and help. I think abandoning Roe without federal legislation in place is a mistake. Whatever, I'm all for Christians working together to address the fallout. I'm not getting that impression from these threads. I guess we'll see. But the quip that pro-life proponents aren't really concerned about all life, only unborn life, is looking like it was accurate.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, you're not "all ears." You brought that up when you and I were discussing at the start of this thread. I pointed out the fact you are avoiding the topic, then. I am not jumping in; I'm simply continuing where we left off. You have not said one thing in relation to the point of this thread the whole time you've been talking. Not only are you not listening, but what you're saying is off topic.

Any day now, you may address the topic. I'm all ears.

The OP question is concerning women in the workforce. But nobody has yet told me what a "woman" is. So what are we talking about? Some abstract idea called "woman" that is incomprehensible? Are we having a hypothetical philosophical discussion about a thing called "woman" that only exists in theory?

 

[KCfromNC]

Abortion is not health care.

Weird that doctors would be the ones doing abortions, then. I wonder if reality is wrong or this post is.

 

[ottawak]

The OP question is concerning women in the workforce. But nobody has yet told me what a "woman" is. So what are we talking about? Some abstract idea called "woman" that is incomprehensible? Are we having a hypothetical philosophical discussion about a thing called "woman" that only exists in theory?

No, the rest of us know what a woman is within the context of this discussion. Nobody cares if you want to pretend you don't.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It may be your definition, but it is not the definition that is generally accepted.

Like the definition of woman?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, the rest of us know what a woman is within the context of this discussion. Nobody cares if you want to pretend you don't.

The "the rest of us" can provide a definition within the context of this discussion. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

[DaisyDay]

Like the definition of woman?

Hardly, there are many varied definitions of "woman" which depend on context, as I'm sure you already know, some of which you may not be aware of (e.g. woman vs miss). That was asked, not for information, but as an obvious "gotcha". As games go, it is puerile.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, the rest of us know what a woman is within the context of this discussion. Nobody cares if you want to pretend you don't.

The game is to change the context once any one definition is given.

 

[ottawak]

The "the rest of us" can provide a definition within the context of this discussion. It shouldn't be that hard.

If it's not that hard, why don't you do it?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

What a ridiculous OP. But not surprising.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hardly, there are many varied definitions of "woman" which depend on context,

And by context you mean whether or not we are talking about abortion and not transgenders. So because we are talking about abortion we are now using the definition we are not allowed to say but deep down we all known is true.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Is part of your cure for that aborting them?

Yes...a child cannot suffer generational poverty if they are dead before they are born. Call it a mercy killing...so I am told.

 

[DaisyDay]

And by context you mean whether or not we are talking about abortion and not transgenders.

That is one context, but depending on what you mean by "transgenders" we could also be referring to them. Some "transgenders" do have abortions.

So because we are talking about abortion we are now using the definition we are not allowed to say but deep down we all known is true.

I don't know what you are on about. Who is not allowing whom to say what? And who is playing the victim card?