How do abortion supporters respond to this? I don't think there is a way to.

[GodLovesCats]

What you’re suggesting is that until the government funds programs to support one of the victims that the right thing to do is to allow one of the victims to be killed.

Your thinking is flawed.

Loving God over government is a separate issue altogether so I would rather discuss it in another thread, but you have to keep this in mind: government protects citizens and legally unborn babies don't count. In my view, I am talking about the govenrment betraying its own constituents, saying embryos and fetuses, which cannot be citizens because they are unborn, are more important than the people politicans actually represent. Do you see the problem with this? My logic in this matter aligns with God: He never betrays an already-born girl who is going through challenging times, so the government should not either.

 

[SPF]

but you have to keep this in mind: government protects citizens and legally unborn babies don't count

Then you should support abortion up until birth.

My logic in this matter aligns with God

Your logic is inconsistent at best.

The how in which a new human being comes into existence has no bearing upon their moral worth and value.

An unborn baby, no matter how it was conceived is equally created in the image of God and equally morally valuable across the board. It is never morally permissible to kill a healthy and innocent human being created in the image of God. Period.

You’re attempting to assert that the HOW in which a human comes into existence has a bearing upon how God views their worth and value.

In the case of a rape that results in an unwanted pregnancy their are two victims. The moral answer will never be to kill one of the victims.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It is never moral to save one victim by abandoning the other. We need to show compassion for the mom. Just calling her a murderer and saying she should have used contraception (which often fails anyway) is a mistake. Save the baby's life and help the mom. The way states are outlawing abortion with no programs in place to help the moms, we are seeing them take an either/or approach, which is not acceptable.

 

[SPF]

Save the baby's life and help the mom

But until there’s a perfectly designed, government, tax payer funded system in place you’re ok with killing one of the victims.

That’s immoral. Either abortion is immoral or it is not. The how in which a human being comes into existence has no bearing upon their moral worth and value.

You’re inconsistent in that you’re attempting to justify abortion as morally neutral based upon the how in which an unborn baby comes into existence.

God certainly sees all unborn babies as equally morally valuable. It’s a shame you don’t.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If red states included clauses about expanding and reinforcing sex education in public and private schools to reduce the number of people wanting abortions (and hopefully also girls being raped) in legislation that bans abortions with no exceptions for rape victims, it would be much easier for me to accept the morality of a so-claled "heartbeat law." Women need to be more educated about what abortion is and does so that they will not want to do it. Can't lawmakers bundle abortion bans and prevention methods in one bill?

 

[SPF]

If red states included clauses about expanding and reinforcing sex education in public and private schools to reduce the number of people wanting abortions (and hopefully also girls being raped) in legislation that bans abortions with no exceptions for rape victims, it would be much easier for me to accept the morality of a so-claled "heartbeat law." Women need to be more educated about what abortion is and does so that they will not want to do it. Can't lawmakers bundle abortion bans and prevention methods in one bill?

Honestly, you and the woman asking the question in the OP are like two peas in a pod.

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.

The point is that aborting healthy, innocent unborn babies is always, always immoral and wrong. It doesn’t matter one iota how the unborn child came into existence. Killing them is never moral. Never.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Hawkins is correct. You can't bundle issues together into a single bill. So how do you intend to make sure a woman who needs to forcefully end her pregnancy (or thinks she needs to) gets care that helps her too and not just the baby? There must be a way for this to happen because "with God all things are possible." I would be in favor of a do-it-all organization if there was no other way to collaborate with Hawkins

 

[SPF]

Hawkins is correct. You can't bundle issues together into a single bill.

So are you willing to acknowledge that aborting a healthy and innocent unborn baby is always immoral, no matter how they came into existence?

 

[GodLovesCats]

So are you willing to acknowledge that aborting a healthy and innocent unborn baby is always immoral, no matter how they came into existence?

I never said how a baby comes into fertilization determines its value. Ever. I always said the mother is as important as the baby and that fact must be respected during her pregnancy because it's not an either/or situation. In God's eyes, there is never and either/or - help both the baby and mother. So if states do not allow abortions of pregnancies caused by rape, they need to be proactive in also showing the mother that equal moral value on her end as well.

 

[SPF]

I never said how a baby comes into fertilization determines its value. Ever. I always said the mother is as important as the baby and that fact must be respected during her pregnancy because it's not an either/or situation. In God's eyes, there is never and either/or - help both the baby and mother. So if states do not allow abortions of pregnancies caused by rape, they need to be proactive in also showing the mother that equal moral value on her end as well.

Except this isn't actually what you're saying.

You've said that in the case of a pregnancy due to rape that it is morally permissible for the mother to kill the unborn child. If you think it is immoral, then now is your chance to plainly say so.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Except this isn't actually what you're saying.

You've said that in the case of a pregnancy due to rape that it is morally permissible for the mother to kill the unborn child. If you think it is immoral, then now is your chance to plainly say so.

I said because the unborn baby can't live on its own, up to viability the mother is more important as she's carrying another person inside. During this time, she is living to keep another person alive while the baby is getting ready to live on its own. If the mother has a miscarriage or the baby is stillborn, how is that life as valuable as the mother's? For if it was, I don't know why God would not let it die naturally.

 

[SPF]

I always said the mother is as important as the baby and that fact must be respected during her pregnancy because it's not an either/or situation

I said because the unborn baby can't live on its own, up to viability the mother is more important as she's carrying another person inside.

Ok, so are you changing your position now and asserting that abortion for any reason up until viability is morally permissible?

If the mother has a miscarriage or the baby is stillborn, how is that life as valuable as the mother's? For if it was, I don't know why God would not let it die naturally.

Probably the same way in that the 3 year old who dies of leukemia is just as morally valuable as the 90 year old who dies naturally.

This is why you get into arguments with people. You aren't clear. You contradict yourself. You aren't consistent.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Probably the same way in that the 3 year old who dies of leukemia is just as morally valuable as the 90 year old who dies naturally.

Those people already did some things in their lives that had value to the world and God. A fetus has done nothing yet but suck its thumb and kick mommy. Big difference.

 

[SPF]

Those people already did some things in their lives that had value to the world and God. A fetus has done nothing yet but suck its thumb and kick mommy. Big difference.

So are you saying that God doesn't consider all humans as equally morally valuable, only those that have lived for X amount of time outside the womb?

I mean come on now, either human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value or we don't.

What about people that live and don't do things with their life that add value to the world? Are they not morally valuable to God? Is our moral worth 0 until we do something that God would consider morally valuable? That sucks for us because all of us are born sinners.

Do you not get how outrageous half the stuff you say is? Do you think about what you say before you say it?

Let's try this again.

You said:

I always said the mother is as important as the baby and that fact must be respected during her pregnancy because it's not an either/or situation

Then you contradicted it and said:

I said because the unborn baby can't live on its own, up to viability the mother is more important as she's carrying another person inside.

You're very difficult to talk to because you're always contradicting yourself and then saying things that make no sense and that you never support.

For me it's a very simple position:

1. All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

Conclusion: It is immoral and wrong to kill a healthy, unborn human being.

Which of my points do you think is wrong? Or, if you think the points are right, do you think they point to a different conclusion?

 

[GodLovesCats]

I mean when a fetus dies in the uterus naturally, it never had a chance to do something of value. There is no potential to do anything morally valuable until the baby is born. The potential is there until the baby is dead . . . but if the baby is never born, why did it ever live inside the mother? I will change my mind if an abortion opponent shows me how/why an unborn baby has value when it is destined to die in the mother.

 

[SPF]

I mean when a fetus dies in the uterus naturally, it never had a chance to do something of value. There is no potential to do anything morally valuable until the baby is born. The potential is there until the baby is dead . . . but if the baby is never born, why did it ever live inside the mother? I will change my mind if an abortion opponent shows me how/why an unborn baby has value when it is destined to die in the mother.

So what does this mean? Do you think that unborn babies are NOT created in the image of God? Do you think that a person's moral worth and value us based upon their ability to perform some moral action? Can you support that with Scripture?

Can you please spell out clearly whether or not you think human beings possess inherent moral worth and value or not? Because what you're saying is that we DON'T have inherent moral worth and value, and that we somehow earn moral worth and value at some later stage of development. You think that's what Scripture teaches? Can you show it? Can you demonstrate it?

What sort of actions do you consider "morally valuable"? Can a newborn baby perform a morally valuable action? I don't see how. You need to define valuable action.

Are you saying that so long as a human being cannot perform a valuable action that they don't have any moral worth and value and that we can therefore kill them?

Can you speak plainly and actually outline what you think about abortion and when it is morally acceptable and when it is immoral? You're so scattered and contradictory that you're essentially incoherent.

 

[GodLovesCats]

OK, let's see if this makes more sense . . .

Every human being has the potential to serve God if he or she is destined to be born. But if an embryo or fetus is destined to die naturally in the uterus or be stillborn, he or she has no chance of doing what God, who created the body, to use it for His purposes. If a baby is destined to be miscarried or stillborn, why is it valuable in the eyes of God to live up to that time? Why should a baby exist if it has no chance to be an important person apart from the mother's body? What purpose does it serve for a woman to carry a baby she knows will never be born anyway?

 

[SPF]

OK, let's see if this makes more sense . . .

Every human being has the potential to serve God if he or she is destined to be born. But if an embryo or fetus is destined to die naturally in the uterus or be stillborn, he or she has no chance of doing what God, who created the body, to use it for His purposes. If a baby is destined to be miscarried or stillborn, why is it valuable in the eyes of God to live up to that time? Why should a baby exist if it has no chance to be an important person apart from the mother's body? What purpose does it serve for a woman to carry a baby she knows will never be born anyway?

How in the world does this have ANYTHING to do with the morality of abortion? Who are you even talking to!?

Here are some questions you should try to answer for yourself...

1. What does it mean to be made in the image of God?

2. Are all human beings made in the image of God?

3. When does a human being come into existence?

4. Are human beings morally inherently morally valuable?

The answers to those questions should build the foundation of whether or not you believe abortion is moral or immoral.

Why? Well that’s because the morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the human inside the womb. It has nothing to do with what the secular law says or what the government offers in the form of public funding to women.

 

[GodLovesCats]

1. Made perfect
2. No
3. Fertilization
4. Yes

 

[SPF]

How is it that you believe all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value but you don’t think that all human beings are made in the image of God?

Do you know what “inherent” means? Why do you think all human beings possess inherent moral worth and value if you then say that not all human beings are made in the image of God?

What does a human have to do to be made in the image of God?