The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

[chevyontheriver]

What if you avoided going into a terrible living situation and went straight into the arms of God? What that be a punishment?

Is it a punishment for someone wrongly to be convicted of a crime to be executed? By your logic, no.

What if you dont go to heaven, by waited and were, later, born into a family that wanted you and had a better life because of it.....would that be a punishment?

Are Christians into reincarnation?

And what if a church forced a drug addict to bear and raise you.....you had a terrible life around drugs and gangs and may or may not make it pass 20....would that be punishment?

Does a church force drug addicts to raise people? Is that a thing? Was it ever a thing?

 

[dms1972]

Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.

Some forms of contraception are abortifacients, while other forms are not, therefore a distinction has to be made. Not all 'Pro-lifers' are anti-contraception in a broad sense, some support the ABC approach to safe-sex = Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom. So your accusation of hypocrisy is far too sweeping to be valid.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

*** graphic description warning***
Actually that is not accurate. They put a stint in you the day before that grows inside of you while you sleep to open up the cervix. The next day they take it out, replace it with a tube and suck the baby out of the body in bits and pieces. This is what happened to me when I was 18 and very naive on the matter. I am now 60 and regret my decision every time this topic comes up. I know I am forgiven however He will not let me forget.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You do realize the Constitution does not give the unborn any right to life, correct?

Yup. We can kill 'em for any reason and it's entirely legal.

The 14th Amendment clearly specifies a citizen is someone who was "born" here, not conceived.

You do realize that slaves were not considered people by the constitution either? And that the Dred Scott decision was as wrong as the Roe decision? You could kill 'em and it was entirely legal.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You contradicted yourself.

No. I didn't.


"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" Matthew 18:6-7

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yup. We can kill 'em for any reason and it's entirely legal.

You do realize that slaves were not considered people by the Constitution either? And that the Dred Scott decision was as wrong as the Roe decision? You could kill them and it was entirely legal.

In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments—nullified the decision.

Dred Scott - Wikipedia

It is therefore ridiculous to bring up Dred Scott, whose loss in court led to the same amendment that Roe vs. Wade determined makes abortion legal in the United States.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, being raped and becoming pregnant as a result of rape is traumatic. How does killing a baby in her mother's womb make that better and not worse? And what did that unborn baby do to earn being killed?

Abortion doesn't put a rape victim in a better place than they would be if they hadn't gotten pregnant. It does mean not feeling like they are still being violated for up to nine months after the fact, though.

I find these abortion debates very frustrating, since pro-choicers don't seem to understand that their opponents actually think that this is a case of unjust killing, whereas pro-lifers don't seem to realize that feeling that one's bodily autonomy is being violated an issue at all. Neither of these two points is complicated, and I don't see how conversation is possible without acknowledging both of them.

 

[JacksBratt]

Which is why all Pro-Life agencies should be adoption agencies
for all their members......to save children's lives and end unwanted
children being aborted. But they have excuses why babies aren't
that important to them.

That would be a great idea.. but... I think that their are government agencies that do that and probably don't want any logic, love and efficiency to disrupt their typical red tape infested protocol... as with everything.

 

[JacksBratt]

I believe rape is evil, based in evil, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. And if a woman believes in any sense of right and wrong, then rape is not cause for the murdering of another innocent and helpless life.

She'd be no better than the rapist, if she used rape as an excuse to murder an innocent being who, like her, had no choice in the matter, and no ability to defend him/herself.

Great... no.. fabulously fantastic analogy to the concept of justification for killing the innocent unborn child of a rape.

Just how messed up is the human race to see that as an excuse... really?

 

[JacksBratt]

If he has no interest in being a dsd, why would he choose having sex instead of some other crime?

Sorry, don't understand this post.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is therefore ridiculous to bring up Dred Scott, whose loss in court led to the same amendment that Roe vs. Wade determined makes abortion legal in the United States.

It seems entirely fitting in that both Roe and Scott had as their basis the non-personhood of the baby and the slave. The Dred Scott decision was overturned finally. The Roe decision will be overturned. It was good that the Scott decision was overturned and we could recognize that Africans brought here against their will for servitude were people, humans were human, and that the constitution could be clarified to remove the barbarity of slavery. It will be good when Roe is overturned and we can recognize that people are people no matter how small, humans are human, and that the barbarity of abortion can be removed. The present situation is a mockery of the right to life in our constitution.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I find these abortion debates very frustrating, since pro-choicers don't seem to understand that their opponents actually think that this is a case of unjust killing, whereas pro-lifers don't seem to realize that feeling that one's bodily autonomy is being violated an issue at all. Neither of these two points is complicated, and I don't see how conversation is possible without acknowledging both of them.

Pro-choicers understand pregnancy begins at implantation, not conception, and many zygotes don't make the trip to the uterine wall. It is possible to carry what Republicans call an "unborn baby" for one day and never know it. Do you call that totally natural event a baby dying? Because this happens a lot with no one knowing it except God, it is wrong to say just because an ovum was fertilized a baby was made and must live in the mother's body for nine months. Do Republicans fail to accept this biological fact just to push an agenda or really not know it?

 

[GaveMeJoy]

doesn't solve the problem of the woman having a physical reminder every day bare minimum the pregnancy term of the violent act committed against her. I have to say, I'm glad I'm not a woman and have to worry about that. I don't think I could handle it. Birth is also very painful and can have complications that can last for life. That's a lot to ask of a woman who said "no" and had it all forced on her.

It’s definitely a terrible situation. But fortunately in our society We don’t kill children because of the actions of their parents, or because their life is inconvenient for the parents. That’s why the pro life/choice discussion should always focus on whether or not the unborn are children. There is room for disagreement there, but anyone who acknowledges they are children and says the parent can still kill them is a monster

 

[chevyontheriver]

Abortion doesn't put a rape victim in a better place than they would be if they hadn't gotten pregnant. It does mean not feeling like they are still being violated for up to nine months after the fact, though.

It trades being raped and having the child of the rapist with being raped and then killing someone else to make it feel better. Aborting your baby isn't an emotion free decision, and in fact further traumatizes many who have decided to do it. And the unborn baby eliminated is made out to be the enemy but is in fact innocent.

I find these abortion debates very frustrating, since pro-choicers don't seem to understand that their opponents actually think that this is a case of unjust killing, whereas pro-lifers don't seem to realize that feeling that one's bodily autonomy is being violated an issue at all. Neither of these two points is complicated, and I don't see how conversation is possible without acknowledging both of them.

I do get it that pregnancy after rape is an imposition, a huge one. But just as capital punishment does not fix it for the victims of serious crime, killing the unborn baby in an act of further violence is not a 'fix' either. It is a perpetuation of violence if anything.

 

[JacksBratt]

Pro-choicers understand pregnancy begins at implantation, not conception, and many zygotes don't make the trip to the uterine wall. It is possible to carry what Republicans call an "unborn baby" for one day and never know it. Do you call that totally natural event a baby dying? Because this happens a lot with no one knowing it except God, it is wrong to say just because an ovum was fertilized a baby was made and must live in the mother's body for nine months. Do Republicans fail to accept this biological fact just to push an agenda or really not know it?

It's totally natural for trees to fall down on a house... it's not right to cut one down on top of someones house... is it?

If things happen without human intervention... that is way way different than someone intentionally doing it.

If my heart stops due to a heart attack or some other natural cause.. it is different than someone stopping it on purpose.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It seems entirely fitting in that both Roe and Scott had as their basis the non-personhood of the baby and the slave. The Dred Scott decision was overturned finally. The Roe decision will be overturned. It was good that the Scott decision was overturned and we could recognize that Africans brought here against their will for servitude were people, humans were human, and that the Constitution could be clarified to remove the barbarity of slavery. It will be good when Roe is overturned and we can recognize that people are people no matter how small, humans are human, and that the barbarity of abortion can be removed. The present situation is a mockery of the right to life in our Constitution.

Wishful thinking. Because the Roe vs. Wade ruling was getting an abortion is a Constitutional right, it can only be overturned with a repeal of the 14th Amendment - which obviously can't happen (thank you Dred Scott).

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's totally natural for trees to fall down on a house... it's not right to cut one down on top of someones house... is it?

If things happen without human intervention... that is way way different than someone intentionally doing it.

If my heart stops due to a heart attack or some other natural cause.. it is different than someone stopping it on purpose.

It is not a sin to cut down your own tree for safety reasons.

Jesus answered someone's prayer by telling a fig tree to die.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It is not a sin to cut down your own tree for safety reasons.

Jesus answered someone's prayer by telling a fig tree to die.

Jesus cursed the fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit when it should have been..

Excellent analogy for the state of the modern christian church. Just another tree bearing no fruit, when it should be.

Many things can masquerade as the real thing but fail upon closer inspection.

 

[Silmarien]

In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments—nullified the decision.

Dred Scott - Wikipedia

It is therefore ridiculous to bring up Dred Scott, whose loss in court led to the same amendment that Roe vs. Wade determined makes abortion legal in the United States.

No, it's really not ridiculous to bring up Dred Scott. The whole underlying issue in this debate is who is and isn't entitled to legal protections in our society--in Dred Scott, we have the claim that automatic emancipation is unconstitutional, since it entails a violation of the slaveowner's property rights. In Roe, something fairly similar occurs: legal protections for one person are deemed an undue violation of the right to privacy of another.

In both situations, the Supreme Court sought to settle an issue, and instead ignited a firestorm. "They have no rights under the Constitution, so stop talking about it" is literally the worst, most hypocritical argument used by pro-choice advocates, specifically because of the issue being brought up with this comparison: the entire question is whether the law in question is just or a civil rights violation.

Pro-choicers understand pregnancy begins at implantation, not conception, and many zygotes don't make the trip to the uterine wall. It is possible to carry what Republicans call an "unborn baby" for one day and never know it. Do you call that totally natural event a baby dying? Because this happens a lot with no one knowing it except God, it is wrong to say just because an ovum was fertilized a baby was made and must live in the mother's body for nine months. Do Republicans fail to accept this biological fact just to push an agenda or really not know it?

The conception vs. implantation argument is a red herring, since no pro-choicer would draw the line at implantation and allow the morning after pill but not early abortion.

But yes, I would consider a zygote not implanting to be a form of early miscarriage. Defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation strikes me as a bit arbitrary--when pregnancy begins according to the definitions of medical authorities and when human life begins are really two different questions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Pro-choicers understand pregnancy begins at implantation, not conception, and many zygotes don't make the trip to the uterine wall. It is possible to carry what Republicans call an "unborn baby" for one day and never know it. Do you call that totally natural event a baby dying? Because this happens a lot with no one knowing it except God, it is wrong to say just because an ovum was fertilized a baby was made and must live in the mother's body for nine months. Do Republicans fail to accept this biological fact just to push an agenda or really not know it?

Is this about Republicans now.? Is this a Republican vs Democratic Party thing now? I was pro-life in my days as a Democrat until they essentially showed me the door. I was pro-life as a Republican after that. And now that I have moved on from being a Republican I am still pro-life.

Most biologists would think the defining moment of the new life of a human being, or any mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian or fish for that matter, would be when the DNA from mother and father combine immediately after the sperm enters the egg. That is not 'implantation' but conception. Implantation is needed for the new life to continue to grow and live, but conception is when the baby gets it's actual start.

Your view only became popular when contraceptives began to rely more heavily on producing an environment in the womb hostile to implantation. Back in the early days of the pill they used massive doses of hormones and the main effect was preventing ovulation. But those massive doses were very unhealthy. In more recent formulations the preventing of ovulation is a smaller part of the function. Some ovulation is expected to occur. But implantation is effected. And the third mode of operation if implantation does occur is to drop the whole pregnancy after implantation anyway. Modern birth control formularies are abortifacient in that they do kill an unborn baby by preventing implantation. So the tactic of the pill makers is to redefine when human life begins to implantation and not to even talk about the third action of the modern pill. But biologists knew for a long time that human life starts at conception.