Pro-Choice IS NOT Pro-Abortion

[GillDouglas]

I understand your argument but I suspect your missing my point. God granted us the ability to choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, does that mean God was "pro" us disobeying Him?

That is a difficult question to navigate because in answering you run the risk of attributing sin to God. I will say that God is NOT for disobedience, only "pro" obedience. However, giving Adam the ability of choice allowed for the disobedience to take place, thus allowing for the rest of the story to unfold.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I didn't get to read all the responses but fact is it doesn't matter what you think or how you spin it with statistics or words. It doesn't even matter what I think. It only matters what God thinks. And aborting a baby is a sin. On a side note technically you don't own your body. God does. He gave us this body and we are to take care of it. A life that grows inside of a woman is a gift and blessing. It is also Gods baby (you know what I mean). It was created in the womb. So killing the baby is essentially a slap in the face of God saying "I don't care that you created this life, its my body!".

[Staff edit].

As for abortion under certain circumstances. Well if you referring to rape for example, its still not the womans choice to abort the baby. Abortion is abortion no matter how the baby came to be. And on top of it if a woman doesn't want the baby she can always give it up for adoption. Abortion is just another word for selfishness. Also lets not forget what about the baby choice? Its helpess and is stuck with whatever the decision the mother makes. Even the bible says to not mess with kids. A baby is a kid. So caution to those who stand before God and admit they aborted the baby.

I've always taken two things to be most precious to God. The Jewish people and babies/kids. I don't care to receive Gods wrath by messing with either. Not that I would mess with them anyways of course.

 

[GillDouglas]

God did not create robots..

Agreed, robots would need to know God's plan in order to follow them precisely.

 

[Tetra]

That is a difficult question to navigate because in answering you run the risk of attributing sin to God. I will say that God is NOT for disobedience, only "pro" obedience. However, giving Adam the ability of choice allowed for the disobedience to take place, thus allowing for the rest of the story to unfold.

This is my point, simply because we were granted the freedom to choose to disobey God, doesn't mean He is pro disobedience. To relate that to this thread, simply because someone is pro-choice, doesn't necessarily mean they are "pro" abortion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Life has a spark and it most certainly begins when it is clearly seen and is inevitable that a life process has commenced and God is calling into being a living person.

Once a process of life commences any interference with that God given life process from the source of life, is no different to the slaying of Able by Cain. In this case the Cains of the world are slaying life from springing into being. This would be no different to wiping out any process that permits life, once the life process commences, abortion would be a form of genocide that is being played out against the weak and defenceless.

So you have SEEN the spark of life, have you? What did it look like - how big was it?

Please notice that at conception NOTHING IS SEEN (with the naked eye), even if it were not obstructed by any of a woman's bodily parts (we'll be demur and not mention which parts).

 

[GillDouglas]

This is my point, simply because we were granted the freedom to choose to disobey God, doesn't mean He is pro disobedience. To relate that to this thread, simply because someone is pro-choice, doesn't necessarily mean they are "pro" abortion.

I understand your point, but we are not God and I don't feel that these situations are equal for comparison.

Are you not saying that if someone was placed into such a situation, that the belief in pro-choice would outweigh the belief in pro-life? In my opinion, if we allow (meaning we have the ability to interfere in some way) another person to choose to kill a person (unborn or otherwise) we are guilty by association. Putting on blinders, and making no attempts to prevent it, does not remove the guilt.

 

[tstor]

I very much did explain why, it doesn't logically follow. Just because I advocate for the freedom of something, does not mean I advocate for that something.

You advocate for the freedom to murder unborn children? Good to know.

My wife has the freedom to burn my dinner every night if she so wishes, does not mean I'm pro-burnt dinner.

You are right. Simply stating that your wife has the right or freedom to do something does not at all touch on your view of it. If you are opposed to your wife burning your food, as I assume you are, then that would mean you are "anti-burnt dinner."

My son has the right to quit his job, does not mean I'm pro-quitting.

Use my above statement about your wife's cooking and just replace "wife" with "son," "wife burning your food" with "sone quitting his job," and "anti-burnt dinner" with "anti-quitting."

You have the right to squander all your money away, does not mean I'm pro-poverty.

You have the right to eat as much food as you want... does not make me pro-gluttony.

I think you get the point.

This is why your position is silly. Again, just because I advocate for the freedom to do something, does not mean I'm "pro" that something.

No, YOUR examples are silly because they do not even match the scenario at all. You are simply stating that someone has the freedom to do X without actually giving your own position on the matter. Are you opposed to your wife burning your dinner? Are you opposed to your son quitting his job? Are you opposed to squandering money? Are you opposed to eating too much food? You have to give your position on these topics before you can try and relate them to our discussion. I am not sure why I have to explain this to you, as it should be quite obvious.

Now, you have stated that you "advocate for the freedom" to do the above things I listed. I will take this as meaning you are not personally opposed to any of them. So, therefore, you are complicit with the idea of any of the above things. As a result, you are not "anti" anything (in regard to the above statements). What does that make you?

So if a Christian has an abortion and then asks forgiveness, what did God do to stop the abortion, and how did He oppose it through the "spirit of natural law". Please explain this further.

Let me answer the second part first. Romans 2:15 states that "the work of the law" is written on our hearts. Obviously it is God that has done this. These natural laws were established by God and given to us by God. These natural laws are against murder. As a result, God opposes murder through the natural law.

Regarding the first part, God shows mercy on His elect. Even is one of his elect is a murderer, they are justified by God. Does that mean God is pro-murder? No. Christ's righteousness is imputed to the elect:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:21; ESV)​

 

[tstor]

Please go back and re-read the entire post without quote mining, cherry picking, or looking for arguing points because you all missed the point

I apologize that so many people were misunderstanding what I was saying. I was not saying that abortion is morally okay or that murder is okay, I was just presenting the most basic, fundamental pro-choice argument. I do not support abortion, I think it is wrong, and wish that it would nobody would ever have an abortion. The problem is that the goal to make it completely illegal is too entirely idealistic, if we overturn Roe v Wade, it's going to become a state's issue, and even if it did become illegal, it wouldn't end abortion. It will just become this sketchy, underground, and unsafe practice. A perfect metaphor for what will happen is what happened with the war on drugs or Prohibition in the 1920s, it did nothing to combat or get rid of the problem, but ultimately backfired and made it into a bigger problem.

So why not legalize all murder? Would not want it to be "sketchy, underground, and unsafe," immaright?

 

[The Times]

Perhaps a better word for "pro-life" would be "pro-birth" because a large number of these really do not care what happens after birth and in fact actively promote pro-death policies.

The use of the word pro-choice really has the opposite meaning, that is it is an Oxymoron that is used as a public relations propaganda stunt to promote a politically driven agenda or ideology.

What is pro choice?

advocating the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she will have an abortion.

Since legislating pro choice has statistically led to pro abortion, pro choice is therefore a play on word that actively promotes pro death policies.

Let me further explain, why there is no such thing as pro-choice and that pro-choice is really pro-abortion or at least playing into pro-abortion and pro-death.

Let us look at Oxy-Moron words like CIVIL WAR, Fight for Peace.

Notice both terms are an Oxymoron and they mean the opposite in terms of resulting works in action, as Jesus would say you will know them by their works in action, not by the deceptive terms that they use, that are politically driven.

Notice the Oxymoron Civil War uses the word civil, when in fact there is nothing civil about any war, that results in death.

Notice the Oxymoron Fight for Peace, when in fact there is nothing peaceful about fighting to silence or to dominate your opposition, in fact the opposite is true.

Pro-Choice is an Oxymoron play on word used by feminists who have a political agenda and provide absolutely no Choice for life, it is in fact a vehicle for tip toeing to take away Choice from human beings and hand them over to the state to administer what the Chinese call a one child policy. In the West the same spirit of death and not choice politically motivates politicians and the public to fall for the same lie and to embrace mass genocide, that is no Choice at all.

In fact the original poster even testified that she is pro-choice yet Anti-abortion yet this proves that she really has no choice in the matter and it is purely an Oxymoron term used that results in death 99.99999999%. The question that is begging is why would any woman who accepts pro-choice but rejects anti-abortion, is not being heard or taken into consideration, when the pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates far out number the pro-abortion advocates. So where is the pro-choice in this matter.

Notice that there is no pro-choice and the pro-choice play on term is never intended or purposed to provide a choice for women in the first place, but what I think it has politically achieved by deceptive means, is to conscript unsuspecting women who think that they have a choice and that was never the case, in fact the pro-abortion used these unsuspecting conscripties to further their pro-abortion agenda and this is fact.

So before everyone says that pro-choice is not pro-abortion needs to look at who invented the Oxymoron term in the first place.

Don't be fooled people.....

Pro-choice is po-abortion and there is no women's choice in this regard, rather it is a plot to use any means possible to further the agenda of depopulation, just like the communist Chinese one child policy.

 

[SnowyMacie]

So why not legalize all murder? Would not want it to be "sketchy, underground, and unsafe," immaright?

Again, that's not what I am saying. What I was saying is that if abortion is ever fully outlawed (or where it is fully outlawed) it will not only endanger the life of the child, but the mother as well.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Life=gift from God.

Abortion=taking life.

There is my in depth presentation.

So, taking the life of a mouse is "abortion."?

Though that may not be far from the truth, that they are much the same thing, I doubt many will agree that they are the same.

 

[Tetra]

You advocate for the freedom to murder unborn children? Good to know.

Did God grant us that freedom? My position will always be, I advocate for the freedoms God wishes us to have... if you see that as bad, I'm okay with that.

No, YOUR examples are silly because they do not even match the scenario at all. You are simply stating that someone has the freedom to do X without actually giving your own position on the matter. Are you opposed to your wife burning your dinner? Are you opposed to your son quitting his job? Are you opposed to squandering money? Are you opposed to eating too much food? You have to give your position on these topics before you can try and relate them to our discussion. I am not sure why I have to explain this to you, as it should be quite obvious.

Now, you have stated that you "advocate for the freedom" to do the above things I listed. I will take this as meaning you are not personally opposed to any of them. So, therefore, you are complicit with the idea of any of the above things. As a result, you are not "anti" anything (in regard to the above statements). What does that make you?

You didn't ask me if I was anti-something, you simply stated that being pro choice, meant pro murder. As I said earlier, just because God was pro choice in regards to the ability to disobey Him, does not mean He is pro disobedience. I would maintain my position, that I'm pro choice in the same way God is, that is, the ability to disobey Him or not. If you don't like that, no problem.

The reason I don't say what I am anti, is because I'm a Christian Libertarian. However, I'd be more than happy to tell you what I am anti for my life... In a hypothetical situation where I was a female who had sex, and got pregnant, I would choose to not have an abortion.

Let me answer the second part first. Romans 2:15 states that "the work of the law" is written on our hearts. Obviously it is God that has done this. These natural laws were established by God and given to us by God. These natural laws are against murder. As a result, God opposes murder through the natural law.

If God has established this for everyone, why is there even a debate over whether or not abortion is right? People would just come to consensus it was wrong.

 

[tstor]

Again, that's not what I am saying. What I was saying is that if abortion is ever fully outlawed (or where it is fully outlawed) it will not only endanger the life of the child, but the mother as well.

It will only be a danger to those who are attempting to illegally murder their child. You are saying we should allow babies to be murdered because it will protect the lives/health of wicked mothers who desire to kill their babies?

 

[The Times]

So you have SEEN the spark of life, have you? What did it look like - how big was it?

Please notice that at conception NOTHING IS SEEN (with the naked eye), even if it were not obstructed by any of a woman's bodily parts (we'll be demur and not mention which parts).

If no one interfere with the process, does life result?

If yes, then the process has commenced and we should not kid ourself or delusion ourselves into meaningless waffle.

 

[The Times]

I suppose some think it is a virtue to be "pro-life." (OF GOD, even!)
Well, your "once a life process commences any interference with that process is an act of violence again God," is RIDICULOUS.
I am NOT transgressing the will of God if I kill a mouse or a mosquito (not to mention a fetus)!

What results from a human is not a mouse or a mosquito. But since you identify it as such, leds me to question how you value the miracle of life which results in a human being.

 

[tstor]

Did God grant us that freedom? My position will always be, I advocate for the freedoms God wishes us to have... if you see that as bad, I'm okay with that.

God grants us freedoms, yes. That does not mean God wants us to promote and endorse every free action that someone makes. Under your line of reasoning, you are literally an advocate for just about anything. You advocate for the freedom of robbery. The freedom for someone to be an adulterer. The freedom for a person to murder anyone of any age. The freedom for someone to rape another. I will give you a chance to correct yourself.

You didn't ask me if I was anti-something, you simply stated that being pro choice, meant pro murder. As I said earlier, just because God was pro choice in regards to the ability to disobey Him, does not mean He is pro disobedience. I would maintain my position, that I'm pro choice in the same way God is, that is, the ability to disobey Him or not. If you don't like that, no problem.

God is not "pro-choice" in regard to the ability to disobey Him. If you have the choice, then go ahead and live a perfect and sinless life! Every person sins because we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Only God can save us. God is not "pro-disobedience" because he puts His wrath against those who are disobedient. He judges them.

If God has established this for everyone, why is there even a debate over whether or not abortion is right? People would just come to consensus it was wrong.

Because people are in rebellion against God.

 

[Tetra]

God grants us freedoms, yes. That does not mean God wants us to promote and endorse every free action that someone makes. Under your line of reasoning, you are literally an advocate for just about anything. You advocate for the freedom of robbery. The freedom for someone to be an adulterer. The freedom for a person to murder anyone of any age. The freedom for someone to rape another. I will give you a chance to correct yourself.


God is not "pro-choice" in regard to the ability to disobey Him. If you have the choice, then go ahead and live a perfect and sinless life! Every person sins because we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Only God can save us. God is not "pro-disobedience" because he puts His wrath against those who are disobedient. He judges them.


Because people are in rebellion against God.

Maybe we misunderstand each other. I advocate for the same freedoms God has determined we should have.

I would never say I know better than God, and seek to remove the freedoms He has established. Is that what you seek to do?

 

[SnowyMacie]

It will only be a danger to those who are attempting to illegally murder their child. You are saying we should allow babies to be murdered because it will protect the lives/health of wicked mothers who desire to kill their babies?

They don't desire to kill their babies, they have abortion because they are desperate women backed into a corner with no other option. The vast majority of abortions are performed on impoverished women who already have children or young women who's future would be ruined if she had a child. So yes, I am saying, until we come up with a better plan, to protect the lives of these depserate women because otherwise we're not only condemning the life of the mother, but the life of her child(ren) to a life unimaginably difficult.

 

[tstor]

They don't desire to kill their babies, they have abortion because they are desperate women backed into a corner with no other option. The vast majority of abortions are performed on impoverished women who already have children or young women who's future would be ruined if she had a child. So yes, I am saying, until we come up with a better plan, to protect the lives of these depserate women because otherwise we're not only condemning the life of the mother, but the life of her child(ren) to a life so difficult that men aren't able to have a life that hard.

[Staff edit]. I have no sympathy for them. If they are financially troubled then here is an idea:
1) Abstain from sex.
2) In the case of lack of will power, put the child up for adoption if a pregnancy occurs.

Never, ever, should a regenerate Christian consider murdering unborn children.

 

[The Times]

A society can choose to legislate the death of God by banning Christianity.

A women does not own her body or the choice to stop a life process. This is not free will, but is deliberate and wilful violance against God.