The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

[SPF]

People who follow the Bible do not fire workers or refuse to hire them because of their sexual orientation.

Of course that has nothing to do with abortion.

People who follow the Bible do not promote the killing of innocent and unborn children. And that has everything to do with abortion.

 

[Archivist]

will you please stop intentionally trying to twist everything I say to it’s worst possible context? I didn’t say they were married off that day my point was that at the age of 11-13 years old in biblical times girls were considered to be an adult and were able to be married. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they were often in a relationship by this time and married off soon afterwards. Even if they waited until the age of 16 to be married a woman is still capable of having more than one child every
2 years. I have two nephews that are 11 months apart. The Guinness book world record holder for the most children is 69 children. So my example of 30-40 is not a ridiculously impossible number for an average person to be capable of having. Most people simply choose not to have so many children.

Allowing for recovery time after giving birth, a woman can have around 15 pregnancies in a lifetime. Now, she could have more than 15 children since some of those pregnancies could result in multiple children.

Yes, there have been women who have exceeded this number, but it is very rare.

Here's how many children you can have in a lifetime

 

[BNR32FAN]

Allowing for recovery time after giving birth, a woman can have around 15 pregnancies in a lifetime. Now, she could have more than 15 children since some of those pregnancies could result in multiple children.

Yes, there have been women who have exceeded this number, but it is very rare.

Here's how many children you can have in a lifetime

Guinness book world record holder had 69 children. Recovery time can be anywhere from 6 weeks to 9 months.

 

[Archivist]

Guinness book world record holder had 69 children.

And if you read my post you know that I said that most women can give birth up to 15 times, but there were rare exceptions to that.

Recovery time can be anywhere from 6 weeks to 9 months.

Yes, and the evidence I provided said that most women can give birth up to about 15 times.

 

[Johan_1988]

I think the modern attitude towards sex is a problem, but I don't think it's the only problem, since marriage doesn't automatically cancel out any of the underlying concerns here: you can be married and still have severe relationship issues that leads to a woman not wanting the child. Poverty is still a serious issue, not just because families can feel like they have no option but abortion for economic reasons, but because it can lead to abuse.

To a certain extent, I think too strong a focus on the institution of marriage is part of the problem, since we're really just reinforcing the idea that if your relationship falls apart, you don't have anywhere else to turn. The reality is that there are people in unstable situations, some of which are avoidable, but others of which are not. If your solution is to tell people to get in stable situations, you're just going to be perpetuating the difficulties that single, abandoned, or abused women face in the first place.

I hear what you're saying that people have various situations that make having a child very difficult, but it's not our choice as human being's to choose who gets to live or die. That is God's prerogative and secondly a child is not a burden, but is a blessing from God.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Our Jewish brothers and sisters believe that life begins with the first breath.

Well, thus it has been proven I suppose. Q.E.D.

A couple of serious thoughts:

(1) So what; why is this even relevant? Does this belief mean that said belief is therefore right? Why think that? It looks like a classic genetic fallacy.
(2) All of them believe the same thing? Why think that Jewish people are some homogenous group who think and believe the exact same? Out-group homogeneity - Wikipedia, Association fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Archivist]

Well, thus it has been proven I suppose. Q.E.D.

One of the best brief writings on this is When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View by Rabbi Goldie Milgram. She noted that "Most often in Jewish sacred literature, a fetus in the womb is considered a human life “under construction.” The soul is usually described as arriving when the first breath of life is taken at birth." The full text is available at When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View | Reclaiming Judaism

So what; why is this even relevant?

The discussion in this thread is "The hypocrisy of being 'pro-life.'" It seems that the question of when life begins is relevant.

Does this belief mean that said belief is therefore right? Why think that? It looks like a classic genetic fallacy.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there is debate as to when life actually begins. Some say conception, some say quickening, some say first breath. We are not in agreement on the matter.

All of them believe the same thing? Why think that Jewish people are some homogenous group who think and believe the exact same?

I never said that they all believe the same thing, but it is the general view of Jews. Not all Christians agree on when life begins either.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The discussion in this thread is "The hypocrisy of being 'pro-life.'" It seems that the question of when life begins is relevant.

But I'm not sure why Jewish literature is relevant.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there is debate as to when life actually begins. Some say conception, some say quickening, some say first breath. We are not in agreement on the matter.

That's fair. I agree with you too in the sense that this is (or ought to be) the main issue.

but it is the general view of Jews.

Based on what? And why is this relevant?

Not all Christians agree on when life begins either.

Of course. Never said they did. I think arguments ought to be take on their own merits irregardless of what a particular group says and regardless of how many people believe any supposed conclusion. So whether or not some Jews or Christians believe this or that is mostly irrelevant without supporting reason.

 

[Macchiato]

There is nothing barbaric about a woman taking one pill and laboring a dead fetus. Abortion is just that, like a miscarriage, unless she has surgery.

Yes it is bc that fetus/baby was living.

Im prolife and i do agree with you on some of the hypocrisy that come with being prolife. First, I see no issue with contraceptives that prevent unwanted births. Second, I believe in childcare for the child after birth. ( clothes, diapers, whatever the baby needs) I wouldnt mind paying out of my own pocket since I was in this situation but decided to keep my baby. Hes been the biggest blessing and he's not a fussy baby at all. He was defintely meant for me.

So i get why some women do it. I dont shame them or thump them on the head bc I know we are our own worse critics but I wouldn't mind helping and providing for said baby.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is nothing barbaric about a woman taking one pill and laboring a dead fetus. Abortion is just that, like a miscarriage, unless she has surgery.

A miscarriage is a unplanned, uninitiated, unwanted and unavoidable event. It is very sad and devastating to the mother and father as it is a loss of a child.

I know.... because we suffered through one. I know some couples who have suffered through them repeatedly and sometimes it ends the marriage over the pain, stress and overwhelming sadness that it creates.

The pill is just poison for the child. You take a chemical and it kills a living being.

Abortion is taking surgical tools and dismembering a human, while it is alive and feels pain.

 

[SPF]

A miscarriage is a unplanned, uninitiated, unwanted and unavoidable event. It is very sad and devastating to the mother and father as it is a loss of a child.

I know.... because we suffered through one. I know some couples who have suffered through them repeatedly and sometimes it ends the marriage over the pain, stress and overwhelming sadness that it creates.

The pill is just poison for the child. You take a chemical and it kills a living being.

Abortion is taking surgical tools and dismembering a human, while it is alive and feels pain.

It's tough to give someone the benefit of the doubt and believe they're just entirely ignorant to reality when they try and place a miscarriage and an abortion by means of a pill on the same moral plane.

Let's at least be honest here.

 

[RaymondG]

It's tough to give someone the benefit of the doubt and believe they're just entirely ignorant to reality when they try and liken the murder of children on a playground with the termination of a 1-4 week pregnancy, claiming that the morality of one is identical to the morality of the other.

Yes we must be able to differentiate the two for further speech on the subject to be profitable.

Let's at least be honest here.

 

[SPF]

It's tough to give someone the benefit of the doubt and believe they're just entirely ignorant to reality when they try and liken the murder of children on a playground with the termination of a 1-4 week pregnancy, claiming that the morality of one is identical to the morality of the other.

I would suggest that the moral worth and value of all human beings is the same regardless of race, age, and gender. I personally do not discriminate from a moral perspective, and I don't see Scripture doing that either.

Thus, morally speaking. It is equally immoral to intentionally kill a 4 year old on a playground as it is to intentionally kill a 6 month old unborn child. Both are equally immoral.

If you think otherwise, I invite you to provide a coherent, logically, and Biblically sound argument to the counter.

 

[RaymondG]

I would suggest that the moral worth and value of all human beings is the same regardless of race, age, and gender. I personally do not discriminate from a moral perspective, and I don't see Scripture doing that either.

Thus, morally speaking. It is equally immoral to intentionally kill a 4 year old on a playground as it is to intentionally kill a 6 month old unborn child. Both are equally immoral.

If you think otherwise, I invite you to provide a coherent, logically, and Biblically sound argument to the counter.

If you feel that a mother who, reluctantly, has an abortion to save her own life ....to be there for her current children and family....is equally as immoral as a murderer who guns down a classroom full of 5 year olds.......It would be a waste of time to even attempt to render an opposing view.

 

[SPF]

If you feel that a mother who, reluctantly, has an abortion to save her own life ....to be there for her current children and family....is equally as immoral as a murderer who guns down a classroom full of 5 year olds.......It would be a waste of time to even attempt to render an opposing view.

I make a distinction between the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons and the 1.5% which are done for life saving reasons.

A doctor should view both the mother and the unborn child as his patients. The goal is to save both lives. However, due to sin in the world, this is not always a possible outcome. There are times in which a doctor is only able to save the life of one, and not both.

These rare instances are different and not comparable to the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons.

My arguments against abortion are usually aimed at the 98.5%.

And as an aside comment, for someone who really dislikes people using the term "murder" in the same sentence as abortion, you sure do use some colorful examples yourself.

 

[RaymondG]

I make a distinction between the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons and the 1.5% which are done for life saving reasons.

A doctor should view both the mother and the unborn child as his patients. The goal is to save both lives. However, due to sin in the world, this is not always a possible outcome. There are times in which a doctor is only able to save the life of one, and not both.

These rare instances are different and not comparable to the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons.

My arguments against abortion are usually aimed at the 98.5%.

So you believe that one is moral if they terminate a pregnancy for health reasons, but, they are equal to the murderer of a classroom of children if they do it for any other reason?

I find it unlikely to be able to reason with one who cannot differentiate the actors in these two events.

And as an aside comment, for someone who really dislikes people using the term "murder" in the same sentence as abortion, you sure do use some colorful examples yourself.

Almost a nice try. I only use the term murder as it is defined.....for the killing of humans who are outside of the womb.....I use abortion for the termination of a pregnancy. I've only had issue with your redefinition of words being applied to the ones you condemn. Never said anything against the use of words as they are currently defined in the dictionary or in law.

 

[SPF]

So you believe that one is moral if they terminate a pregnancy for health reasons, but, they are equal to the murderer of a classroom of children if they do it for any other reason?

I believe there are tragic circumstances in which a doctor is only capable of saving the life of one of his patients, and not both. In this circumstance, where the death of one of his patients is unavoidable is, sad and tragic.

It would be akin to a car crashing into a lake containing a mother and her child, and a good Samaritan diving in and only able to pull one of them up. He tried to save both, but was only able to save one. It's rare that this would happen, and tragic.

These situations are not analogous to the 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons, where the life of the mother and/or child are not in danger. These abortions are without question immoral and wrong.

It all comes down to how we view the life of a human being. You seem to be willing to discriminate against a human based upon their age and residence. I don't find a justification for this discrimination in Scripture.

All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. We don't grow into moral worth, nor does our moral worth change based upon where we reside.

Almost a nice try. I only use the term murder as it is defined.....for the killing of humans who are outside of the womb

Can you provide a reputable, working definition of murder that you find acceptable? Feel free to quote and cite your source. That might help clarify things for discussion sake.

 

[tturt]

God formed us:
-“For You formed my innermost parts; You knit me [together] in my mother’s womb” Psa 139:13
-"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; ..." Jer 1:5
" By thee have I been holden up from the womb..." Psa 71:6
-“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Mal 2;10

-John experienced joy in Elisabeth's womb "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:" Luke 1:41 ", lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." v44

God has plans including the time and place of our births:
-“And he made from one man every race of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted epochs and the fixed boundaries of the places where they would live;” (Acts 17:26)

 

[Gottservant]

Hypocrisy?

Don't fall in to the trap, of thinking those who defend God, want to be gods themselves.

I have mercy on you: be forgiven.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I make a distinction between the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons and the 1.5% which are done for life saving reasons.

A doctor should view both the mother and the unborn child as his patients. The goal is to save both lives. However, due to sin in the world, this is not always a possible outcome. There are times in which a doctor is only able to save the life of one, and not both.

These rare instances are different and not comparable to the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons.

My arguments against abortion are usually aimed at the 98.5%.

And as an aside comment, for someone who really dislikes people using the term "murder" in the same sentence as abortion, you sure do use some colorful examples yourself.

In this country, at least until it goes third world too, late term abortions are not life saving. Terminating a pregnancy may be, but that can be done without aborting the baby.