2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
The arguments I hear against abortion are always rooted in the bible and "christianity". I want religion all the way out of my life. I want it to stop directing how I live my life. The world would be a much, MUCH better place if it was unequivocally proven that god doesn't exist (although you people would just find another excuse to hate, molest, murder, and persecute).
You know the best way to prevent abortion? SEX EDUCATION. Not praying to an invisible person in the sky, and certainly not abstinence.
Don't want abortion? Don't get one. But leave your religion our of other peoples lives, ffs.
You know the best way to prevent abortion? SEX EDUCATION. Not praying to an invisible person in the sky, and certainly not abstinence.
Don't want abortion? Don't get one. But leave your religion our of other peoples lives, ffs.
Whether you call it a baby, which my daughter did while she was pregnant, and she favors abortion being legal, or you use the clinically correct terms zygote/embryo/fetus is irrelevant to the discussion, because the question is ultimately about personhood. I am still a pro-life Christian, but in my studies in bioethics my understanding of the ethics of personhood is… evolving and all I can say is that right now I am not as entirely sure as I once was. I once was against abortion in all circumstances except rape and to save the life of the mother, but would also ask why an innocent would pay a penalty for a rape they didn’t commit. Now I at least understand the ethical argument from pro-lifers who believe that abortion should be legal at least early in pregnancy for safety reasons and no longer see this as ethically inconsistent, even if I haven’t quite accepted the position myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I 100% agree with you on this.
Not just miscarriage, the vast majority, somewhere around 80%, of conceptions never implant. Of those that implant about 50% miscarry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's stupid comments like this that do more harm than good to the pro life argument. It tells me you are more concerned about political arguments than what actually happens to an unborn child.
If you are going to treat "murdered children" as political fodder you should really be ashamed of yourself.
UrbanCowboy
New member
I haven't watched it. I'm not a doctor. I'm not going to sit here and pretend I know more than doctors after watching a 15 minute video. I don't like abortion, I don't want there to be any - but I want that choice to happen between women and their health care professionals, not me. I feel the exact same about euthanasia for the elderly or terminally ill or vaccines. I wish we didn't have to do any of those things. But I trust that the doctors who have studied for decades have my best interest at heart.
You know who I don't trust? The government. Particularly on matters of what people can and can't do.
It's stupid comments like "womens right to choose" without giving any consideration to the baby that make it a political argument at all.
So your critical of a video that you didn't even watch?
Emotive language is used all the time and that is normal. The problem is that it isn't meant to make policy. If I tell a co-worker who helped me out, "Hey, you're the best!" that doesn't mean that if we were both up for a promotion that I would expect the employer to say "We like you, but you called him 'the best' therefore he is the best, and we have to choose him."
Calling an embryo a baby in common speech is emotive and fine. I don't agree when using it to call people with a different opinion than you "baby murderers."
UrbanCowboy
New member
If you value all life but recognize you aren't the ultimate authority on how that is dictated, if we are being binary that makes you pro choice. I think that terminology is too simplistic for the issue though.
I believe abortion on demand is a moral evil but also understand that my morality isn't the same as everyone else's. I also understand that being truly pro life is more than just being anti abortion. A life is a life regardless of if it is in the womb or not. That includes lives that other segments of society may not deem as important, but they are still lives. It's what really bothers me about people who claim to be pro life (see my previous post in this thread) and those who see this as just another political topic. They will scream to the heavens about unborn children but have no problem turning their back on them once they are born. Abortion is a complex, grey issue and regardless of what you believe I feel there are instances of it that everyone can agree is wrong and everyone can agree is justifiable (ex-ectopic pregnancy). Everyone differs on what is and isnt though, so it doesn't make sense to draw a line and say if you are on one side you are a baby killer and if you are on the other you want to live in Gilead.
You are never going to see the point. If you want to change abortion in this country, you need to convince people your cause is just. Going out of your way to piss them off because actually starting a dialog is outside of your mental capacity doesn't help things.
Dialog means talking if you didn't understand the word.
To me abortion isn't a political issue.
The technology is out there and rich people will always be able to get them regardless of whatever silly laws.
I don't hate organized religion, but it's a woman's GD choice and if you don't like that, you don't understand science.
I'd love to get abortion out of the political narrative. It's a distraction, not a real issue.
The technology is out there and rich people will always be able to get them regardless of whatever silly laws.
I don't hate organized religion, but it's a woman's GD choice and if you don't like that, you don't understand science.
I'd love to get abortion out of the political narrative. It's a distraction, not a real issue.
UrbanCowboy
New member
I love this because they aren't even done counting.
mugatu
Ranger
Up through the 60s and 70s religious leaders in the US weren't opposed to abortion. Abortion wasn't a religious or ethical concern until the GOP made it one to get evangelicals on their side when they didn't think race would work. The evangelicals got played for political gain.Now people have grown up with it ingrained in them from childhood that it's never ok.
I grew up SBC and was VERY pro-life until I got out of OK and saw the rest of the world, opened my eyes to other people's conditions and circumstances where I realized I shouldn't be the one to prevent someone from making a decision that won't effect me for a minute but would effect them for decades. No one goes in at 30 or whatever weeks and has just suddenly decided to end the pregnancy for funsies. Any pregnancy going that long was wanted and will be mourned as a loss.
"The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society to discuss the morality of abortion. The gathering attracted 26 heavyweight theologians from throughout the evangelical world, who debated the matter over several days and then issued a statement acknowledging the ambiguities surrounding the issue, which, they said, allowed for many different approaches.
“Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”
Two successive editors of Christianity Today took equivocal stands on abortion. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,” and his successor, Harold Lindsell, allowed that, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”
Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
When Francis Schaeffer, the intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in his antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, Graham, the most famous evangelical of the 20th century, turned him down. Even James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged in 1973 that the Bible was silent on the matter and therefore it was plausible for an evangelical to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”
According to Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist and architect of the Religious Right, the movement started in the 1970s in response to attempts on the part of the Internal Revenue Service to rescind the tax-exempt status of whites-only segregation academies (many of them church sponsored) and Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies. Among those affected was Jerry Falwell, who referred to the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs” and who had opened his own segregation academy in 1967. The IRS actions against racially segregated institutions, not abortion, is what mobilized evangelical activists in the 1970s, and they directed their ire against a fellow evangelical, Jimmy Carter, in the run-up to the 1980 presidential election.
Weyrich’s genius, however, lay in his understanding that racism — the defense of racial segregation — was not likely to energize grassroots evangelical voters. So he, Falwell and others deftly flipped the script. Instead of the Religious Right mobilizing in defense of segregation, evangelical leaders in the late 1970s decried government intrusion into their affairs as an assault on religious freedom, thereby writing a page for the modern Republican Party playbook, used shamelessly in the Hobby Lobby and the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.
I grew up SBC and was VERY pro-life until I got out of OK and saw the rest of the world, opened my eyes to other people's conditions and circumstances where I realized I shouldn't be the one to prevent someone from making a decision that won't effect me for a minute but would effect them for decades. No one goes in at 30 or whatever weeks and has just suddenly decided to end the pregnancy for funsies. Any pregnancy going that long was wanted and will be mourned as a loss.
"The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society to discuss the morality of abortion. The gathering attracted 26 heavyweight theologians from throughout the evangelical world, who debated the matter over several days and then issued a statement acknowledging the ambiguities surrounding the issue, which, they said, allowed for many different approaches.
“Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”
Two successive editors of Christianity Today took equivocal stands on abortion. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,” and his successor, Harold Lindsell, allowed that, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”
Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
When Francis Schaeffer, the intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in his antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, Graham, the most famous evangelical of the 20th century, turned him down. Even James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged in 1973 that the Bible was silent on the matter and therefore it was plausible for an evangelical to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”
According to Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist and architect of the Religious Right, the movement started in the 1970s in response to attempts on the part of the Internal Revenue Service to rescind the tax-exempt status of whites-only segregation academies (many of them church sponsored) and Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies. Among those affected was Jerry Falwell, who referred to the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs” and who had opened his own segregation academy in 1967. The IRS actions against racially segregated institutions, not abortion, is what mobilized evangelical activists in the 1970s, and they directed their ire against a fellow evangelical, Jimmy Carter, in the run-up to the 1980 presidential election.
Weyrich’s genius, however, lay in his understanding that racism — the defense of racial segregation — was not likely to energize grassroots evangelical voters. So he, Falwell and others deftly flipped the script. Instead of the Religious Right mobilizing in defense of segregation, evangelical leaders in the late 1970s decried government intrusion into their affairs as an assault on religious freedom, thereby writing a page for the modern Republican Party playbook, used shamelessly in the Hobby Lobby and the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
What would Jesus say if He saw that video? That while on earth that He wishes that He declared all abortions should be banned and that if a woman is dying from her pregnancy, then it's due to God's will that she should never give birth. Anyway, if I was that baby, I would lovingly be wanted when born. I would not want to be born unwanted, unloved with possibly no father to be found.
Last edited:
Yeah I was giving Rob crap. But also just answering the meme I saw going around the MAGA crowd yesterday that they said proved 2020 was stolen.
