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

Lionel20

Active Member
Jul 28, 2020
32
1
40
Baton Rouge
✟10,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So the answer is "no."

No, the answer is community-based family planning and counseling services... especially from the church's perspective -- "compassion" was Jesus' greatest weapon.

We already tried criminalizing abortion, the percentage of abortions did not change.

Jesus wouldn't get in the bed with Wall Street bankers as they summon up the next "Gilded Age" in exchange for promises to punish abortion participants -- never mind that the church has long been duped in this transaction -- ie unless there's an underlying agenda.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, the answer is community-based family planning and counseling services... especially from the church's perspective -- "compassion" was Jesus' greatest weapon.
Why not just ask the mothers and the abortionists not to do it anymore?

That would make as much sense as thinking that counseling and etc.--of which we already have plenty in the midst of this abortion-happy society of ours-- would be as effective at reducing abortions by prohibiting most of them legally.

But it makes me wonder. Do you also think that child molestation, shootings, theft, and other such social wrongs could just as easily be handled by counseling and etc. while doing away with all laws criminalizing those actions?
 
Upvote 0

Lionel20

Active Member
Jul 28, 2020
32
1
40
Baton Rouge
✟10,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why not just ask the mothers and the abortionists not to do it anymore?

That would make as much sense as thinking that counseling and etc.--of which we already have plenty in the midst of this abortion-happy society of ours-- would be as effective at reducing abortions by prohibiting most of them legally.

But it makes me wonder. Do you also think that child molestation, shootings, theft, and other such social wrongs could just as easily be handled by counseling and etc. while doing away with all laws criminalizing those actions?

Empathy.

Compassion.

We preach it, but have no idea how practice it.

In your list of criminal activities which one of those can be debated under reproductive rights? Which one of those instances inherently involve the 'health and welfare of the mother'?

Since the woman and child are biologically attached at conception, unlike the other cases you mentioned, don't you think it would be beneficial to have her engaged with a social worker or someone trained to help assist with reproductive decisions? She could maybe consult with a woman that went through this process, or someone that can inform her of adoption support services. I'm sure some women are just scared. Meanwhile loud voices in the church are beating the drums for a prison sentence.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Empathy.

Compassion.

We preach it, but have no idea how practice it.
Who's "we?" I know a lot of people who practice those virtues and I greatly admire them.

In your list of criminal activities which one of those can be debated under reproductive rights?
Let's avoid using artificial, loaded, 'politically correct,' terminology when discussing this. Doing that starts the discussion off with a biased POV, and that's obviously not helpful.

Since the woman and child are biologically attached at conception, unlike the other cases you mentioned, don't you think it would be beneficial to have her engaged with a social worker or someone trained to help assist with reproductive decisions? She could maybe consult with a woman that went through this process, or someone that can inform her of adoption support services.
Yes. I thought it made that clear earlier in the thread.

Meanwhile loud voices in the church are beating the drums for a prison sentence.
I don't buy your claim here. That's because the evidence is lacking. However, it might be that in your particular congregation of whatever denomination you belong to, it is true. I of course do not know what congregation or church that might be.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,917
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Empathy.

Compassion.

We preach it, but have no idea how practice it.

In your list of criminal activities which one of those can be debated under reproductive rights? Which one of those instances inherently involve the 'health and welfare of the mother'?

Since the woman and child are biologically attached at conception, unlike the other cases you mentioned, don't you think it would be beneficial to have her engaged with a social worker or someone trained to help assist with reproductive decisions? She could maybe consult with a woman that went through this process, or someone that can inform her of adoption support services. I'm sure some women are just scared. Meanwhile loud voices in the church are beating the drums for a prison sentence.

The reality is that counseling is effective or helpful only to a certain point and it depends on the counseling. It needs to be pointed out here, that none of these women would come forth to talk about it if it were considered murder. But that's not to say that they wouldn't come to the same decision of having the baby if it were against the law to begin with. Those who seek counseling are typically at a crossroads. The fact that they want to talk about it indicates more of a pre-disposition that subconsciously wants to go through with it. It's the ones that are in a fear that is overwhelming that are most likely to do it illegally. Someone would have to drag them in for counseling. Sadly and tragically some even kill their own babies after having them.

You mentioned compassion. Compassion can't be gauged according to a decision to make it illegal or keep it legal. Many of those who seek to make it illegal don't lack compassion any more than those who want to keep it legal. Unfortunately there are some on both sides of the issue that do lack an objective view to focus their compassion, and it's not surprising that those types feel the same about their counterparts on the other side as lacking compassion and they speak accordingly (I mean no disrespect to you). To finish the thought, it's more a difference in ideology that channels their compassion in two different directions. This is revealed by how they would answer the question of whether a woman should be forced or not. This question poses the rights of the Mother in opposition to the rights of the baby, when in fact they are one. This is where the semantics in our psycholinguistics work the ends against the middle.

When I look at the statistics, whether it's legal or illegal doesn't have any affect on the abortion rates. Which makes sense in a way since it's not because you'll go to prison if you don't have the baby, that makes a woman want to have the baby. We know that most of the countries that have the highest restrictions also have the highest rates of abortion, but to answer why is not clear since things like lack of access to birth control would factor in.

The abortion rate is lower now in the U.S. than before Roe vs Wade. I imagine some of that is better access to birth control and some of that is educating people about the life inside not being just a glob of cells. Those of us who support the right to life movement on the community level believe we've had an affect. My wife has counseled women and I've personally witnessed mothers and even the children of mothers show up and personally thank her. But the bottom line is putting forth restrictions doesn't actually change anything, so I don't see what purpose it serves other than to provide a political wedge to fight over who is the more righteous person. Sending people to prison serves no good purpose. I personally dislike the standing up for the unborn mantra, because it actually is accusatory in it's premise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,061
✟1,077,085.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

But in terms of who you vote for, is that the only moral issue you consider? Do you absolve yourself of pro-active voting on every other moral issue?

This has rarely been more critical than in this election because we are confronted with a candidate whose personal morality can charitably be termed "sociopathic," and whose extreme narcissism determines his every policy. On Howard Stern in the 1990's, he relates how he wanted Marla Maples to abort Tiffany, and while that is the only audio evidence we have on his true "beliefs?" I am sure that it indicates overall callousness towards the preborn.

His only priority is getting reelected and making as much money as he can for his businesses while he is president. At the moment he finds pro-lifers useful. Most are personally conservative. Many seem unconcerned about the immigrant children in cages ("it's their parents' fault") or the protesters killed by Kyle Rittenhouse ("they were violating curfew") or the single moms ("immoral") or the currently unemployed ("they need jobs, not unemployment insurance.") Many are unconcerned about environmental devastation ("4% of climatologists say mankind is not responsible---if climate change is even real.") They are his dream supporters---so undemanding. All he has to do is nominate judges who, while mostly concerned with prioritizing big business over human rights, will secondarily reliably vote against Roe v. Wade.
 
Upvote 0

tbstor

Sifting through the unknowable.
May 23, 2020
235
104
Baltimore
✟28,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
But in terms of who you vote for, is that the only moral issue you consider? Do you absolve yourself of pro-active voting on every other moral issue?

This has rarely been more critical than in this election because we are confronted with a candidate whose personal morality can charitably be termed "sociopathic," and whose extreme narcissism determines his every policy. On Howard Stern in the 1990's, he relates how he wanted Marla Maples to abort Tiffany, and while that is the only audio evidence we have on his true "beliefs?" I am sure that it indicates overall callousness towards the preborn.

His only priority is getting reelected and making as much money as he can for his businesses while he is president. At the moment he finds pro-lifers useful. Most are personally conservative. Many seem unconcerned about the immigrant children in cages ("it's their parents' fault") or the protesters killed by Kyle Rittenhouse ("they were violating curfew") or the single moms ("immoral") or the currently unemployed ("they need jobs, not unemployment insurance.") Many are unconcerned about environmental devastation ("4% of climatologists say mankind is not responsible---if climate change is even real.") They are his dream supporters---so undemanding. All he has to do is nominate judges who, while mostly concerned with prioritizing big business over human rights, will secondarily reliably vote against Roe v. Wade.
If you're voting for either Donald Trump or Joe Biden, then you've already lost sight of the ball.
 
Upvote 0