Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A female attending the event suggested to Hawkins that abortion is justified because some “unwanted” children will end up in the foster care system and suffer.
“An unborn fetus, that cannot live outside the mother, what right do you have to tell me to carry it to term?” she asked. “If it’s an unplanned pregnancy, and odds are, that if it goes into the foster care system, it will face severe neglect and abuse.”
Hawkins framed the feminist’s question more succinctly: “So, you believe that we should have the right to eliminate the sufferer, not the suffering. Is that what you’re saying?”
“That’s not what I’m saying at all. And that’s not what my question is,” the feminist contended.
“You just said that, if you knew that for 100% certainty, that the child you’re birthing is going to have a lifetime of suffering, that it would be better for the child, for you to kill, to end the life of the child, than for the child to suffer. So, instead of attempting to try to solve the suffering of the child, you’ve just eliminated the potential sufferer. Right?” Hawkins again reiterated.
“My question was, how do we end that suffering to make bringing a child that is unwanted into this world justifiable,” the feminist said.
“As pro-lifers and as Americans, we care about the children in foster care, we care about children who are being neglected, who are living on the streets with their parents,” said Hawkins, adding, “I actually don’t believe anyone in this room, regardless if you’re pro-life or pro-choice, thinks that childcare should be suffering in foster care, or children should live through hunger and homelessness.”
“But what you’re advocating for, is you’re trying to justify legal abortion by saying some people are going to suffer, therefore we’re going to play God and we’re going to eliminate the sufferer,” she continued.
“I think that's absolutely wrong,” said Hawkins. “One, because people come out of adversity. People do suffer. And we will all suffer in our life. But I think it’s wrong for you to say, ‘you will suffer therefore I am going to kill you.’”
Apparently not understanding Hawkins’ point, the feminist repeated herself: “So coming back to my question, how do you propose we solve these problems for the children that are suffering?”
“Do you want to go through today all the world’s problems?” asked Hawkins, again underscoring that the woman’s question was mere obfuscation distracting from the issue of abortion.
The pro-life leader noted that she often hears the common pro-abortion talking point that pro-lifers “don’t care about people once they’re born.”
“Yet, are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?” asked Hawkins. “Are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?”
“No,” the feminist conceded.
“Why?” pressed Hawkins.
“Because they are the diabetes foundation,” the woman responded, seemingly aware she was begrudgingly wrapping a bow on Hawkins’ point.
“Exactly!” exclaimed Hawkins. “I am anti-abortion.”
Hawkins noted that real issues, like homelessness and foster care, need their own discussions and policy prescriptions. “But my organization, my mission, is very limited: it’s to abolish abortion; to make abortion illegal and unthinkable, because abortion is the greatest human rights tragedy our world faces. There’s no other act of violence that kills more people every single day in America and across the world than abortion.”
“There is nothing wrong with me fighting and spending 100% of my time doing it,” the pro-lifer continued. “Just like how there’s nothing wrong with the American Diabetes Association putting 100% of their money, their research, and time behind curing juvenile diabetes.”
"No one ever accuses the Diabetes Association or the American Cancer association of not trying to cure every life-ending disease,” she highlighted.
Hawkins ended her answer by noting that too often those accusing pro-lifers of not caring for children post-birth “don’t really care” that pro-lifers are often foster parents, leading adoption efforts, and giving to charity. “It’s just an argument to try to stop the actual discussion from happening, which is abortion is a moral wrong and it should be stopped,” she said.
Cant see the video on my network. Could you provide a little commentary on what it is about?Forever now I have pretty much avoided this section because no one is really here to have their mind changed per say. However I finally found a video I love and want to know what pro-choice people think:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=451789505647679
Our opinions on genocide don't matter unless we have the resources (and choose to use them) to provide for those we manage to save?The lady with black hair better actually be planning to start an adoption agency, a counseling facility, and a women's reproductive health clinic in every city with a high sex crime rate. As long as there are rapists, poor girls and women will need all of that for free for nine months.
Cant see the video on my network. Could you provide a little commentary on what it is about?
Our opinions on genocide don't matter unless we have the resources (and choose to use them) to provide for those we manage to save?
And what's your point? "She didn't bring up how to care for children while discussing why they shouldn't be murdered, so we can safely ignore her"?Therre is nothing wrong with having opinions. The lady with black hair acknowledged kids suffer when the biological moms give them up for adoption or they live on the street, etc. But she did not mention how to help pregnant women get the care they need to endure nine months carrying unwanted babies.
Cant see the video on my network. Could you provide a little commentary on what it is about?
A female attending the event suggested to Hawkins that abortion is justified because some “unwanted” children will end up in the foster care system and suffer.
“An unborn fetus, that cannot live outside the mother, what right do you have to tell me to carry it to term?” she asked. “If it’s an unplanned pregnancy, and odds are, that if it goes into the foster care system, it will face severe neglect and abuse.”
Hawkins framed the feminist’s question more succinctly: “So, you believe that we should have the right to eliminate the sufferer, not the suffering. Is that what you’re saying?”
“That’s not what I’m saying at all. And that’s not what my question is,” the feminist contended.
“You just said that, if you knew that for 100% certainty, that the child you’re birthing is going to have a lifetime of suffering, that it would be better for the child, for you to kill, to end the life of the child, than for the child to suffer. So, instead of attempting to try to solve the suffering of the child, you’ve just eliminated the potential sufferer. Right?” Hawkins again reiterated.
“My question was, how do we end that suffering to make bringing a child that is unwanted into this world justifiable,” the feminist said.
“As pro-lifers and as Americans, we care about the children in foster care, we care about children who are being neglected, who are living on the streets with their parents,” said Hawkins, adding, “I actually don’t believe anyone in this room, regardless if you’re pro-life or pro-choice, thinks that childcare should be suffering in foster care, or children should live through hunger and homelessness.”
“But what you’re advocating for, is you’re trying to justify legal abortion by saying some people are going to suffer, therefore we’re going to play God and we’re going to eliminate the sufferer,” she continued.
“I think that's absolutely wrong,” said Hawkins. “One, because people come out of adversity. People do suffer. And we will all suffer in our life. But I think it’s wrong for you to say, ‘you will suffer therefore I am going to kill you.’”
Apparently not understanding Hawkins’ point, the feminist repeated herself: “So coming back to my question, how do you propose we solve these problems for the children that are suffering?”
“Do you want to go through today all the world’s problems?” asked Hawkins, again underscoring that the woman’s question was mere obfuscation distracting from the issue of abortion.
The pro-life leader noted that she often hears the common pro-abortion talking point that pro-lifers “don’t care about people once they’re born.”
“Yet, are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?” asked Hawkins. “Are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?”
“No,” the feminist conceded.
“Why?” pressed Hawkins.
“Because they are the diabetes foundation,” the woman responded, seemingly aware she was begrudgingly wrapping a bow on Hawkins’ point.
“Exactly!” exclaimed Hawkins. “I am anti-abortion.”
Hawkins noted that real issues, like homelessness and foster care, need their own discussions and policy prescriptions. “But my organization, my mission, is very limited: it’s to abolish abortion; to make abortion illegal and unthinkable, because abortion is the greatest human rights tragedy our world faces. There’s no other act of violence that kills more people every single day in America and across the world than abortion.”
“There is nothing wrong with me fighting and spending 100% of my time doing it,” the pro-lifer continued. “Just like how there’s nothing wrong with the American Diabetes Association putting 100% of their money, their research, and time behind curing juvenile diabetes.”
"No one ever accuses the Diabetes Association or the American Cancer association of not trying to cure every life-ending disease,” she highlighted.
Hawkins ended her answer by noting that too often those accusing pro-lifers of not caring for children post-birth “don’t really care” that pro-lifers are often foster parents, leading adoption efforts, and giving to charity. “It’s just an argument to try to stop the actual discussion from happening, which is abortion is a moral wrong and it should be stopped,” she said.
And what's your point? "She didn't bring up how to care for children while discussing why they shouldn't be murdered, so we can safely ignore her"?
Are you even interested in ending abortion?My point is stopping abortion requires helping girls and women get what they need during nine months of carrying unwanted babies.
I think that was the point. Pro-choice people just ignore the topic at hand and switch it to something else. If the topic is about abortion being right or wrong, there should be no other questions in retaliation. I will say obviously it is true, what do we do with the women who are pregnant then. And the answer is there is no real answer.Therre is nothing wrong with having opinions. The lady with black hair acknowledged kids suffer when the biological moms give them up for adoption or they live on the street, etc. But she did not mention how to help pregnant women get the care they need to endure nine months carrying unwanted babies.
See above. As the lady said we all deal with that issue. And we all help how we can (no matter if you're pro-life/pro-choice). But just because it is an issue doesn't mean its a reasonable excuse to kill a baby. I mean I don't like Russia because it has to many nukes and is communist. But it doesn't mean I would be for nuking it to kingdom come (ignoring the fact they would do the same).My point is stopping abortion requires helping girls and women get what they need during nine months of carrying unwanted babies.
I had another account here about a decade ago. I think the abortion section was around then. Can't recall. I think they added it so other sections would stop being overloaded with these topics.No comment on the video, but I had no idea that there was an entire subforum for this until I saw this thread in the recently created threads list. How long has it been around?
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law- but He Himself said that He did not abolish it. No, not one tittle has been scrapped. He who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven- and that's assuming that such a person enters into Life to begin with.Wow. She's really good at debating.
It's one of those tough and interesting discussions that will never end because it's a debate about morality. Which is good to be aware of and you are responsible for your decisions in life.
However, one can dwell on it and it can suck the joy of of your life since people are never going to agree on morality in a world that is into moral relativism.
I think it's great to know the reasons etc but then leave it there and move on to helping people around you, accepting them as they are and helping them to Christ. Even if they are pro-choice or no-choice/pro-life.
You could argue that one doesn't have a choice if they choose not to have a baby and that infringes on the "freedom of choice is a fundamental right" in the constitution despite the argument that it's immoral.
We could debate about it being murder to the point to debating when life itself begins. Is it at conception or when the fetus has a heart beats? But then maybe one is not truly alive until they have consciousness or brain that can think.
Which brings me to the conclusion of why debate? Why debate about morality when Christ fulfilled the old law?
One could argue that murder is just as bad as divorce or coveting or one of those ten commandments but God gave man choice. He cannot force us to love him. We cannot force people to do the moral thing and keep the baby.
Obviously make them aware of the issues and just love them wherever they are at. Technically everyone is immoral if we focus on the old law. Murder is number 6 on the list which is interesting.
Are you even interested in ending abortion?
You could've fooled me. You say that you to want to reduce abortion, but you also seem pretty set on trying to justify it at every turn.I am interested in reducing abortion as much as possible through better mandatory sex education, female
reproductive health care with more public funding, counsleors who specialize in helping pregnant and new moms, and public adoption agencies with bigger foster home networks, as well as more research on ways to treat maternal issues (preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, etc.) which can result in abortions.
I'm pro-love. I offer I get your point, that it is not enough just to speak out against abortion. Yes, the Hawkins person made it clear how Hawkins is concentrating funds on fighting abortion . . . like how a diabetes association might stick with helping diabetics and not spend money on cancer research. I get this, too.The lady with black hair better actually be planning to start an adoption agency, a counseling facility, and a women's reproductive health clinic in every city with a high sex crime rate. As long as there are rapists, poor girls and women will need all of that for free for nine months.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?