Is it Possible to be a Decent person and support Pro-Choice Candidates?

[FireDragon76]

This is my first day on this forum and I'm shocked by so many who don't see a problem with murdering babies and calling themselves Christian. Now I have firedragon telling me murder is political and that a woman's individual subjective morality is the overriding concern. Wow. I am at a loss for words. Firedragon also seems to be gifted with the ability to tell others why they think the way they do. Please tell me how you acquired this supernatural ability.

You are certainly entitled to a different perspective.

I don't actually think abortion is murder necessarily, because murder involves unlawful killing. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is constitutional in the US in some circumstances, so it's clearly not unlawful. And I believe interpreting the Bible is far from straightforward on this issue.

I believe women's autonomy is the overriding concern because autonomy over ones own body is fundamental to being a free person and not a slave

 

[eleos1954]

Just what the title asks. How can someone claim any level of decency and support candidates who support the murder of unborn babies. In todays politics, the line has been drawn as clearly as ever. One party is now even refusing to save the lives of children that survive an abortion. I am just wondering what liberal political issue is so important to support that the voter can overlook the sinister practice of killing the unborn. Honestly I would like to know because at this point I am inclined to believe there is no justification for supporting pro-choice candidates any longer and perhaps never has been since Roe v Wade. By the way, I'm not some rabid neocon ultra conservative either. The GOP spends too much themselves, is full of crooks as well, and are warmongers in general.

Problem is only the 2 (both worthless) party's get all the media coverage. There are other choices (candidates) but without coverage the masses don't go out and learn about them. o

 

[Literal Word]

You are certainly entitled to a different perspective.

I don't actually think abortion is murder necessarily, because murder involves unlawful killing. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is constitutional in the US in some circumstances, so it's clearly not unlawful. And I believe interpreting the Bible is far from straightforward on this issue.

I believe women's autonomy is the overriding concern because autonomy over ones own body is fundamental to being a free person and not a slave. For too long women have been abused by society and the Church by being told that they were less than men and did not deserve the same rights and considerations as men, that their bodies needed special regulations to be considered acceptable and decent. Therefore, I believe it is wise to recognize that any totalizing ideology imposed upon womens lives is often just a guise for misogyny.

You are confusing legality with morality I'm afraid and that is a very poor association my friend. Autonomy over one's own body huh? Name one part of your body that has a completely different and unique DNA signature. I'll help you out, you cannot. I would categorize your reason as severely flawed unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok, we're getting off base here. Let's everyone see if we can get back to common ground. Can we all agree that abortion is evil? If not, you simply cannot maintain a Christian worldview. I never thought I would see so many responses apologizing and justifying murder of unborns on a Christian forum.

I'm not trying to justify abortion, not at all. I'm merely saying as a man, it's not my choice.

You are confusing legality with morality I'm afraid and that is a very poor association my friend. Autonomy over one's own body huh? Name one part of your body that has a completely different and unique DNA signature. I'll help you out, you cannot. I would categorize your reason as severely flawed unless you can prove otherwise.

Having multiple sets of DNA in ones body is also known as chimerism, and is now believed to not be so rare as once thought. In chimerism, one zygote "murders" another in the womb. Yet the person is not legally considered a murderer, because the law does not recognize the unborn as persons, nor is a distinct set of DNA alone sufficient for personhood. Even Antonin Scalia admitted as much years ago when he was alive, that was not the basis to his constitutional objections to Roe vs. Wade, which were more philosophical and abstract in nature.

 

[Literal Word]

Problem is only the 2 (both worthless) party's get all the media coverage. There are other choices (candidates) but without coverage the masses don't go out and learn about them. o

Both parties are corrupt. I agree. One advocates the murder of unborns so I do admit, I have to exclude them for consideration at the voting booth or on the decency meter. Yes, I do agree on both parties being worthless although I'm being charged with being a right wing religious zealot on this thread.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are confusing legality with morality I'm afraid and that is a very poor association my friend. Autonomy over one's own body huh? Name one part of your body that has a completely different and unique DNA signature. I'll help you out, you cannot. I would categorize your reason as severely flawed unless you can prove otherwise.

Both parties are corrupt. I agree. One advocates the murder of unborns so I do admit, I have to exclude them for consideration at the voting booth or on the decency meter. Yes, I do agree on both parties being worthless although I'm being charged with being a right wing religious zealot on this thread.

I never said that, I just said that maybe you have bought into that rhetoric. But it does seems now the shoe fits, since you seem to be implying that we are not real Christians, but are in fact some kind of monster.

I am not particularly moved by that sort of rhetoric. I'm a sinner saved by grace. I don't pretend to be an angel. This world is not made of angels, as Luther said, in this world we are born to sin, but we must wait until another world where true righteousness dwells. Down here below we must deal with our fellow human beings realistically, and it's a messy business. Perfection waits for heaven. So I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Literal Word]

I'm not trying to justify abortion, not at all. I'm merely saying as a man, it's not my choice.



Having multiple sets of DNA in ones body is also known as chimerism, and is now believed to not be so rare as once thought. In chimerism, one zygote "murders" another in the womb. Yet the person is not legally considered a murderer, because the law does not recognize the unborn as persons, nor is a distinct set of DNA sufficient for personhood. Even Antonin Scalia admitted as much years ago when he was alive, that was not the basis to his constitutional objections to Roe vs. Wade, which were more philosophical and abstract in nature.

This is becoming tiresome. Please tell me how having multiple DNA instances inside a body is not a support of my argument? If there is one other DNA strand of one million other strands, the point is they are not yours. Do you understand that completely wrecks your autonomy argument? Goodness sakes. I also just absolutely adore your "I'm a man", doesn't concern me argument. Quit beating around the bush my friend. Be honest and say you support killing unborns but still consider yourself a Christian.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is becoming tiresome. Please tell me how having multiple DNA instances inside a body is not a support of my argument? If there is one other DNA strand of one million other strands, the point is they are not yours. Do you understand that completely wrecks your autonomy argument? Goodness sakes. I also just absolutely adore your "I'm a man", doesn't concern me argument. Quit beating around the bush my friend. Be honest and say you support killing unborns but still consider yourself a Christian.

I support laws that allow women to make reasonable choices to terminate their pregnancies. That does not mean I support any particular abortion.

 

[Literal Word]

I never said that, I just said that maybe you have bought into that rhetoric. But it does seems now the shoe fits, since you seem to be implying that we are not real Christians, but are in fact some kind of monster.

I am not particularly moved by that sort of rhetoric. I'm a sinner saved by grace. I don't pretend to be an angel. This world is not made of angels, as Luther said, in this world we are born to sin, but we must wait until another world where true righteousness dwells. Down here below we must deal with our fellow human beings realistically, and it's a messy business. Perfection waits for heaven. So I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Sure you did. You made a completely subjective judgement about my reasoning and then claim it is impossible to make a judgement about murder. Your reasoning seems flawed and what some may say is hypocritical.

 

[eleos1954]

Both parties are corrupt. I agree. One advocates the murder of unborns so I do admit, I have to exclude them for consideration at the voting booth or on the decency meter. Yes, I do agree on both parties being worthless although I'm being charged with being a right wing religious zealot on this thread.

Name-calling is one of the most common tactics people use to try and hurt others or
disparage them. It often occurs when someone has an emotional argument to make with little or no supporting logical argument.

Best just to ignore the name calling. ;o) If it gets chronic the moderators are pretty good about keeping it toned down. One of the reasons I like this site.

God Bless.

 

[Literal Word]

I support laws that allow women to make reasonable choices to terminate their pregnancies. That does not mean I support any particular abortion.

Ok, the old I do but I don't really. We'll leave it there then.

 

[Archivist]

Both parties are corrupt. I agree. One advocates the murder of unborns so I do admit, I have to exclude them for consideration at the voting booth or on the decency meter. Yes, I do agree on both parties being worthless although I'm being charged with being a right wing religious zealot on this thread.

The Roe opinion was written by a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court. Northeastern Pennsylvania is a majority Democratic area, yet it is also a strong pro-life area. Governor Bob Casey was from Scranton. He was a Democrat, yet he opposed abortion. To say that "one party advocates the murder of unborns" is incorrect. Attitudes towards abortion cross party lines.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure you did. You made a completely subjective judgement about my reasoning and then claim it is impossible to make a judgement about murder. Your reasoning seems flawed and what some may say is hypocritical.

Whether its subjective or not doesn't matter, it's my judgement, and my experiences shows to me that its usually the case. I have never found someone who calls abortion "murder" to have an open mind on the subject, or be willing to grant much consideration to opposing points of view. Not saying that they don't exist, but I've never found one.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, my Lutheran congregation supports expectant monthers through food and diaper drives, so I resent the idea that somehow I am a heartless, un-Christian person. When I was younger, and less informed, I was even explicitly "pro-life" in my politics. Now, I just see anti-abortion politics as rhetoric to manipulate the faithful. Real people of character put their lives and treasure on the line, they don't merely pontificate and punish women.

 

[Literal Word]

Whether its subjective or not doesn't matter, it's my judgement, and my experiences shows to me that its usually the case. I have never found someone who calls abortion "murder" to have an open mind on the subject, or be willing to grant much consideration to opposing points of view. Not saying that they don't exist, but I've never found one.

Correct, I do not have an open mind on calling murder open for debate on a moral assessment. There, we agree on something.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Just what the title asks.

Yes.

 

[Archivist]

Correct, I do not have an open mind on calling murder open for debate on a moral assessment. There, we agree on something.

Except you are using the term murder to describe something that is not, in fact, murder.

 

[Literal Word]

BTW, my Lutheran congregation supports expectant monthers through food and diaper drives, so I resent the idea that somehow I am a heartless, un-Christian person. When I was younger, and less informed, I was even explicitly "pro-life" in my politics. Now, I just see anti-abortion politics as rhetoric to manipulate the faithful. Real people of character put their lives and treasure on the line, they don't merely pontificate and punish women.

For the life of me I cannot understand how you have abortion relegated to a box of pure politics. That's so hard for me to understand even though you are thoroughly convinced and keep telling me that's what and why I think what I do. Try this. Take killing babies out the political box altogether. Then just look at it sitting all by it's lonesome as an issue of morality. Now ask yourself, is killing babies right or wrong? If you are not sure, then I suggest you repeat the process after thoughtful prayer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Prior to the late 70's and early 80's, abortion was simply not a major issue among Protestants in the US. Even many in the Southern Baptist Convention supported Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Kevin1985]

This is my first day on this forum and I'm shocked by so many who don't see a problem with murdering babies and calling themselves Christian. Now I have firedragon telling me murder is political and that a woman's individual subjective morality is the overriding concern. Wow. I am at a loss for words. Firedragon also seems to be gifted with the ability to tell others why they think the way they do. Please tell me how you acquired this supernatural ability.

It's my first day too and I share your sentiment, though I have a feeling that the majority of people here don't support abortion and there are just a vocal few who do. (I hope I'm right about that.) Abortion gets rid of a unique soul and therefore is murder; there can be no rational argument against that. The main issue is that people want to be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, so they try to find ways to justify baby murder.

I read an interesting book recently called "Democrats for Life" and I learned that the Democratic party has not always been so strongly pro-abortion. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, roughly half of Democrats in Congress were pro-life (and many Republicans were pro-choice). Unfortunately, abortion has become a primary dividing line between the parties. One would think that Democrats, who tend to support the poor and weak, would want to protect the weakest of us all--but sadly, most don't. There are still a few pro-life Democrats, but not many.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of either party. I tend to vote Republican or third party. I could never vote for anyone who supports abortion.