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

[Albion]

That's what I would hope the ultimate goal was, but apparently many pro-lifers seem divided on this.

What makes you think so?

For some, it seems the ultimate goal is to punish the mother and doctor regardless on what effect it has on the abortion rate.

If a writer says "for some" he cannot be criticized, I realize, so long as 1 out of 100 people might be in that category. "Some" is safe to say there.

But does 1 out of 100 prove anything?

However, to persist in saying such a thing as "it seems the ultimate goal is to punish the mother and doctor regardless...." looks like nothing but a face-saving tactic UNLESS you actually do believe it despite its falsity.

In that case, you are merely wrong.

 

[Lionel20]

Let's take those two separately.

The fact that the "vast majority" of abortions originated from unplanned pregnancies--even if that is true to say--makes no difference. As I said in my earlier post, murder for the sake of convenience is not going to be made agreeable to pro-life people, period. And why should it??

Second, the percentage of abortions performed because the mother's life is at stake are relatively few. It is not as you claimed.

Facts: The Truth About Rape/Incest Abortions That Every American Needs To Know

I really didn't mean "considerable" in the traditional sense. I meant that it's worth considering in the context of your analogy with Holocaust. Simply drawing conclusions about abortion by comparing it to Nazi's murdering Jews, fails to recognize the therapeutic abortions and rape/incest cases that make abortion different.

Again, why isn't the goal of the church to reduce abortions as opposed to being judge, jury, and executioners? We've tried the criminalization of abortion already.

 

[Lionel20]

I don't think that's an accurate reading of tbstor's post, but either way, your observation is quite incorrect. Is it just the proverbial "shot in the dark" kind of thing to say during a debate?

In truth, pro-life people almost never make much of an issue over punishing abortion doctors and even less over punishing the mothers. The concern is overwhelmingly about saving lives.

Then why aren't more Christians, especially in the South, more open to methods and policies from the other side of the isle that are actually "saving lives" of unborn children?

 

[Albion]

Again, why isn't the goal of the church to reduce abortions as opposed to being judge, jury, and executioners?

In fact, many churches and Christian counselors do wonderful work counselling women who have had abortions and now regret it or those who are, out of desperation, thinking of having abortions. There are Christian adoption agencies, too.

That "judge, jury, and executioner" line just doesn't fit.

 

[Lionel20]

What makes you think so?



If a writer says "for some" he cannot be criticized, I realize, so long as 1 out of 100 people might be in that category. "Some" is safe to say there.

But does 1 out of 100 prove anything?

However, to persist in saying such a thing as "it seems the ultimate goal is to punish the mother and doctor regardless...." looks like nothing but a face-saving tactic UNLESS you actually do believe it despite its falsity.

In that case, you are merely wrong.

I actually and seriously trying to understand this?

In your opinion, do pro-life voters want to just overturn Roe v Wade and leave it up to the States, or do they want the Federal Government to make abortion illegal in all 50 States?

 

[Lionel20]

In fact, many churches and Christian counselors do wonderful work counselling women who have had abortions and now regret it or those who are, out of desperation, thinking of having abortions. There are Christian adoption agencies, too.

That "judge, jury, and executioner" line just doesn't fit.

I am quite aware.

If a Democratic administration wants to double-down and fund community-based organizations dedicated to providing resources and counseling to the women contemplating abortion instead of allocating those tax dollars to an already inflated military, why wouldn't the church rally behind it?

 

[Albion]

I am quite aware.

If you are, how could you post something like this?--

Again, why isn't the goal of the church to reduce abortions as opposed to being judge, jury, and executioners? We've tried the criminalization of abortion already.

If a Democratic administration wants to double-down and fund community-based organizations dedicated to providing resources and counseling to the women contemplating abortion instead of allocating those tax dollars to an already inflated military, why wouldn't the church rally behind it?

You are speaking in very sweeping and non-specific terms there. What counselling and by whom are we speaking of?. Planned Parenthood has been the beneficiary of a lot of government grant money on the claim that PP counsels women, but in reality Planned Parenthood's main activity is arranging abortions and second is probably selling aborted body parts. So when someone says "counseling to the women" everybody needs to know just what is meant.

 

[JohnDB]

If you are, how could you post something like this?--




You are speaking in very sweeping and non-specific terms there. What counselling and by whom are we speaking of?. Planned Parenthood has been the beneficiary of a lot of government grant money on the claim that PP counsels women, but in reality Planned Parenthood's main activity is arranging abortions and second is probably selling aborted body parts. So when someone says "counseling to the women" everybody needs to know just what is meant.

I'm wondering what kind of counseling the women who died last year on the abortion table got....

 

[childeye 2]

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?

I've been reading this thread and would like to ask if what you are getting at may have something to do with the law being the strength of sin? While a person can be against abortion and yet feel that criminalizing it won't address the issue, it becomes a case against legalism when suggesting it makes things worse.

The semantics form between taking life and giving life. I'm a male but I imagine in most cases the woman seeking abortion is not thinking, "I want to 'take' the life of this child" in her psycholinguistics. I would think that she's dealing with internal personal fears that make her feel she's either inadequate or in some other way unprepared to "give" life.

 

[Lionel20]

If you are, how could you post something like this?--




You are speaking in very sweeping and non-specific terms there. What counselling and by whom are we speaking of?. Planned Parenthood has been the beneficiary of a lot of government grant money on the claim that PP counsels women, but in reality Planned Parenthood's main activity is arranging abortions and second is probably selling aborted body parts. So when someone says "counseling to the women" everybody needs to know just what is meant.

If you study the Obama administrations year-to-year budget proposals. President Obama retained the Hyde Amendment ie he wasn't interested in expanding access to abortion, he was more interested in granting hundreds of millions of resources to community-based family planning organizations--that plan included not only planned parenthood (don't believe the myths), but churches, and other 501(c)(3) organizations.

The Obama administration was focused on moving away from the Bush-era "abstinence-only" policy with regards to family planning--which obviously doesn't address women with unplanned pregnancies. President Obama supported common sense policies that focused on preventive care, and there's evidence that it was working.

Yet, the pro-life movement failed to circle around this.

President Obama professed to be Christian, married-once, never bragged about sexually assaulting women like Trump, never engaged in relationships with inappropriate content stars Trump, never misused Charitable funds like Trump, doesn't have multiple allegations of sexual misconduct like Trump.

And guess who the evangelical community supports? The secularism and immorality of Trump. The reason many I've asked give is because Trump unlike Obama claims pro-life.

Why wouldn't it register if I give information to pro-lifers explaining that by simply overturning Roe v Wade you will not be effective in reducing the abortion rate? Is the punishment of abortion providers the primary goal of the pro life movement or is the reductions of abortions? Or is there an underlying agenda that the movement is concerned with?

 

[Albion]

Yet, the pro-life movement failed to circle around this.

Of course it did not! What kind of sense does that dissertation on Obama policies make in the absence of him and his administration doing anything to change the laws regarding abortion on demand?

And guess who the evangelical community supports?

The only president in the lifetimes of most of us who actually did something to rein in abortion on demand? Why on Earth wouldn't they?

 

[Lionel20]

I've been reading this thread and would like to ask if what you are getting at may have something to do with the law being the strength of sin? While a person can be against abortion and yet feel that criminalizing it won't address the issue, it becomes a case against legalism when suggesting it makes things worse.

The semantics form between taking life and giving life. I'm a male but I imagine in most cases the woman seeking abortion is not thinking, "I want to 'take' the life of this child" in her psycholinguistics. I would think that she's dealing with internal personal fears that make her feel she's either inadequate or in some other way unprepared to "give" life.

No, but in a purely theological context I would absolutely agree.

 

[childeye 2]

No, but in a purely theological context I would absolutely agree.

In theology there's a reason why no flesh will be justified through the works of the law. I'm not pro-life because I harbor a contempt for murder. I'm pro-life because I believe a woman will someday be very glad that she didn't have an abortion. And I mean that in the sense that she will be glad that she brought forth Life in seeing herself in her child. It's not dissimilar to Eve being adored by Adam. My position should not be counted with those who seek justice for the unborn and vote accordingly.

 

[JulieB67]

And guess who the evangelical community supports?

You're comparing the men personally Obama and Trump, that's your problem.

I will say again, for some Christians such as myself, it's not just abortion that divides the parties.

Global Warming -drains our pockets with this fake agenda, anyone that supports this doesn't believe God when he speaks this,

Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

Al Gore started this nonsense and they even had to rebrand this nonsense into "climate change" and back peddle when everyone was starting to wake up to this political agenda.

Same sex marriage- the White House - celebrated during the Obama administration by cloaking it in rainbow colors. Do you think our Heavenly Father celebrated? We are free to do live with and marry whoever in this country no offense. But as Christians we have to right to not support something that goes against our biblical values. Some Christians have been treated harshly when it comes to this issue.

Transgenders in the restrooms, again, what would our Father say about this?

Constantly wanting to defund our military. Many have given their lives so we can have the freedoms we have today.

The gun issue -They continually want to weaken our country and for what purpose? That's a scary question.

Abortion goes without saying.

Socialism for the most part does not work in the long run. As Margaret Thatcher once said, you eventually run out of other people's money.

And finally -other than election year (because they want our votes) and national prayer day (although some wanted to change that too), you see the continued push to take God out of this country. Some are even offended when you bring up the name Jesus.

Christ say by their fruits you will know them. We have to look at "the fruits" of the administrations, not the man in this case.

Not to get off topic but since you veered that way yourself a couple of times I thought I would as well.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

In the past, I do believe that to be true. Republican candidates understood back then that they needed to pay lip service to the pro-life cause but there was never any real will to do something about it. If nothing else, the people who owned those candidates didn't really care either way about abortion and had no interest in fighting that battle.

Considering how well funded, how well organized and how vocal the pro-life movement has been since RVW was handed down, there's literally no reason for them to have not been successful in their efforts, except that the people they vote for simply did not want to take up that cause.

Having said all that, there's been a pretty big sea change in recent years. Republicans have taken serious steps toward banning abortion or, lacking that, restricting access to abortion as much as possible. Some efforts have been successful while others have not but at least now, there's actual debate happening about it in the places that matter.

When it comes to the pro-life cause at this stage, change is good. And indeed, change has been very good. For us anyway, not so much the pro-abortion movement.

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.

"Safe environment" or not, murder is murder.

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.

So alternatives to abortion do work? Interesting.

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?

I think the pro-abortion types out there miss the forest for the trees when they ask questions like this.

Personally, I'm fine with it. I'm not the one who will have to stand before God someday and explain my support and advocacy for murder. No regrets.

 

[childeye 2]

Personally, I'm fine with it. I'm not the one who will have to stand before God someday and explain my support and advocacy for murder. No regrets.

I'm not voting for Trump, so do you think I will have to explain to God why I supported and advocated for murder, or do you think God knows that would be a loaded question if presented as such?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I won't vote for Trump, so do you think I will have to answer to God for why I supported and advocated for murder?

I suppose it comes down to who you end up voting for. Choose wisely.

 

[childeye 2]

I suppose it comes down to who you end up voting for. Choose wisely.

Are you afraid to address the question? I'm not voting for Trump, so do you think I will have to explain to God why I supported and advocated for murder, or do you think God knows that would be a loaded question if presented as such?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are you afraid to address the question? I'm not voting for Trump, so do you think I will have to explain to God why I supported and advocated for murder, or do you think God knows that would be a loaded question if presented as such?

Respectfully, this is how your post looked when I clicked Reply.

I won't vote for Trump, so do you think I will have to answer to God for why I supported and advocated for murder?

As a side note, I have seen better attempts at gotcha questions.

 

[Sanoy]

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?

Pro-lifers like myself see it as murdering children. So it should be easy to see why it would make someone a single issue voter. I think the best inroads to our group is to differentiate between pro-life and pro-choice. The majority are in between. I actually hold identical beliefs with some who are pro-choice because they are against abortion except for certain circumstances like the physical health of the mother. So the two terms really do no one a service and really serve to separate people where even when they may actually agree. I would start there, toss out the terms and let people know what a candidate actually believes.