It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[firedragon]

Japan merged with Hitler's Nazis. They sneak attacked during peace negiotiations, destroying much of the Pacific fleet bottlenecked in a Pearl Harbor. Kamekazis proved that they were a different kind of enemy, one that used propaganda to brainwash their soldiers into never surrendering for fear of torture. Japanese considered it a disgrace to not die for the war effort, and their entire family would be shamed for eternity at the cowardice. Prisoners in Japan were routinely tortured. Healthy young men, who had been thoroughly vetted by doctors were now dying in droves of malaria or pneumonia (having slogged through swamps in the Baaton march, etc). Toward the end of the war, the Japanese refused to feed their prisoners, since food was scarce and they had needs for their own troops. The war had to be ended soon to save the prisoners, and this was the justification for using the atomic bombs.

My mom was under a lifetime oath of silence, having worked in the Prisoner of War department of the War Department, headquarters, Washington, D.C. It was the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency, and many CIA agents came from this department. Later, my mom's role was to communicate with the French underground, because she could speak 7 languages fluently, including French. Even after the war, and for the rest of her life, she could not discuss prisoner's fate. She knew that many lies were told. POWs captured by the US almost invariably claimed to be Shinto priests, seeking favored treatment. Gifts (such as salamis) were routinely stolen, because the terms of the Geneva Convention were not followed.

The decision to build the atomic bomb was by necessity. Nazi Germany had already perfected theirs, but the plans were destroyed in allied bombings. Disdained as Jewish science, atomic research had proceeded in Nazi Germany anyway.

My dad was an atomic veteran, arriving 5 days after the USS Wichita (first US ship in Nagasaki), after rain doused nuclear dust. He was one of 44 who went ahead of the radiation team, without radiation protective garments or training, to make sure that the radiation team was safe from snipers. Then he was one of the first to step foot in ground zero of Hiroshima, as well. Most of the Wichita crew had died of radiation poisoning of the 45 crew members who went ashore. None received medals posthumously.

MacArthur arranged to have 10,000 POWs moved to Nagasaki for pick up by the Witchita and my dad's ship. They moved them to Australia, at first (a grateful son thanked us for saving his dad).

Though God tells us not to kill, many find that the US was justified in opposing Hitler and dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Absolutely irrelevant, as always.

 

[Heyo]

The “option” that Pro-choice supports is the option for abortion, otherwise one would be Pro-life/Anti-abortion. What other options and choices are there for Pro-choicers to give a woman? Adoption? That’s Pro-life. Childcare? Healthcare? Food? Support? Again, Pro-life. What options do you have to offer besides destroying a tiny little life? A woman either gets an abortion or she doesn’t, it’s completely straight-forward that those are the only two choices available. Pro-abortion and Anti-abortion or Anti-life and Pro-life are very fitting. Pro-choice and Anti-choice don’t fit, since Anti-abortion/Pro-life have 3x as many choices to offer.

I think that's a good basis for compromise. Aside from the quibbling about monikers, you have some good ideas. In your book I am pro life but support a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I'm not pro abortion, I wish society would be in state where abortion was only worth a thought for medical reasons. So, instead of cutting women's rights, it would be much better to cut women's incentive to have an abortion.
Do you agree?

 

[stvdv]

We can either redefine the word "bad" to be "good," or relabel God to be "sometimes" bad (rather than good).

I do understand why you reply this way
AND
This Seems to be a creative solution
BUT
It does not solve anything here

What we really need to "define" is "God"

The problem is, that God is beyond word
Hence, good and bad don't apply to God
This twin belongs in the realm of duality
Whereas God is not bound by duality
WHICH
Gives us, or points us, in the direction how to deal with "conversations about God"

To avoid misunderstanding I discovered I better don't speak about God, Religion or Spirituality, OR just accept that when I speak about God, I need to focus less on meaning of words and more tune in to feelings of the other and myself:
1) read between lines
2) consider the context
3) accept different views
AND
Remember that each speaks from his or her own perspective and definition of God

Which makes debate impossible when speaking about God. Sharing works fine, I read and contemplate what I don't get at once. If still beyond my grasp, I let it go or ask what the other means. Usually asking solves misunderstanding, often I observe similarities, sometimes disagreements
BUT
Remembering I talk about God stuff, I know that debate is "of the table", so, with all this, I easily can decide what to do next

Many words about something beyond words, I hope you understand what I mean

IF you understand and agree then it's easy. If you understand and disagree it's also easy. If you don't understand, well then I failed in my attempt to clarify my POV, and I need to work hard to improve my skills in "describing the indescribable"
@stvdvRF

 

[Altfish]

I just don't see it that way. You essentially delineated the difference when you say you are "pro-choice". I also am "pro-choice" and choose to be pro-life and some are "pro-choice" and choose to be pro-abortion.

Pro-life doesn't mean we don't take a woman's health into consideration. On the contrary, are are also Pro-health. If there is a complication and an abortion is necessary - we choose life even when a death needs to happen in the process. If both can be saved, all the better but there are situations that doesn't make it possible.

However, by and large, most people are just pro-abortion.

No, you misunderstand.
I do NOT want abortions but I don't want that option made illegal.
There are reasons that abortion may be the best option'
I keep harking back to this case ...
Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia
No one on the anti-abortion side has yet answered this issue and similar cases that WILL occur

 

[stvdv]

No, you misunderstand.
I do NOT want abortions but I don't want that option made illegal.
There are reasons that abortion may be the best option'
I keep harking back to this case ...
Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia
No one on the anti-abortion side has yet answered this issue and similar cases that WILL occur

Thanks for sharing, I never heard about it

One perfect example to prove that this Law to demand "never an abortion" is wrong, also from Bible POV

 

[stvdv]

The “option” that Pro-choice supports is the option for abortion, otherwise one would be Pro-life/Anti-abortion. What other options and choices are there for Pro-choicers to give a woman? Adoption? That’s Pro-life

I look at it from another angle and say

I am pro "Freedom of Choice"

This says it all, as it means:
I am pro choice for all
AND
This implies NOT that I am pro abortion

Of course others could misinterpret my precise wording to make it fit their agenda, but I don't think you are such a person. I am curious if @KenS and @Altfish can live with my way of phrasing it

 

[Sheldon]

God gave the wicked in Noah’s days a few hundred years to change their ways or be destroyed, but they did not. How many years does a pro-abortion/pro-killing mother-to-be give her innocent unborn baby to live before destroying it? Don’t even try to compare God and the flood to women who have abortions, it won’t work.

How does a foetus or a baby "change its ways" exactly, in the Noah flood myth, the biblical deity would have killed countless pregnant women indiscriminately aborting the pregnancies, and of course murdering countless babies and children as well. Luckily it is a myth, and no such global flood has ever occurred, but it still ironic that people who oppose abortion, cite the bible as a sound metric for morality.

YES

As per the Bible...God Created ALL...and looked, and "it was GOOD", so not only created he ALL, but He also decided it was good. God does not speak often, and if Truth is God then God is responsible for EVERTHING...all "good" and "bad" is His, and therefore must be GOOD

What a relieve, isn't it?

When are you claiming a deity did this? Only the universe is 13.8 billion years old, whereas our solar system is 4.571 billion years, and humans in their current form evolved a mere 200k years ago. Now perhaps you deny those facts, but I cannot ignore the objective facts in favour of unevidenced claims. So can you explain the disparity between your claim and the facts, with anything beyond subjective belief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I look at it from another angle and say

I am pro "Freedom of Choice"

This says it all, as it means:
I am pro choice for all
AND
This implies NOT that I am pro abortion

Of course others could misinterpret my precise wording to make it fit their agenda, but I don't think you are such a person. I am curious if @Altfish can live with my way of phrasing it

I am not a pro in one sense for all variants including Freedom of Choice. I am ones of those who believe in the "muddled" middle.

 

[stvdv]

When are you claiming a deity did this? Only the universe is 13.8 billion years old, whereas our solar system is 4.571 billion years, and humans in their current form evolved a mere 200k years ago. Now perhaps you deny those facts, but I cannot ignore the objective facts in favour of unevidenced claims. So can you explain the disparity between your claim and the facts, with anything beyond subjective belief?

YES
As per the Bible...God Created ALL...and looked, and "it was GOOD", so not only created he ALL, but He also decided it was good. God does not speak often, and if Truth is God then God is responsible for EVERTHING...all "good" and "bad" is His, and therefore must be GOOD

What a relieve, isn't it?

 

[stvdv]

I am not a pro in one sense for all variants including Freedom of Choice. I am ones of those who believe in the "muddled" middle.

I have no problem with that either

 

[1213]

There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.

It is said that we should not murder. I think that is pro-life.

God has given life, so He has right to decide how long it lasts. If people are evil and violent, I have no problem if God ends the life of the evil people, because I think He knows well enough to make right judgment.

 

[Colt]

There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.

Yes! The reckless disregard for life portrayed in the Old Testament scriptures is inconsistent with a pro-life stance!

Keep in mind that the Bible books of the Old Testament were written by holy men, some more holy than others. The Israelite authors vastly exaggerated their history in the redactions of the OT books during the Babylonian captivity. The Torah largely reflects a God created in the image of those who wrote the scripture. They have God speaking when really its "preacher speak", holy men speaking on behalf of their belief about God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is said that we should not murder. I think that is pro-life.

God has given life, so He has right to decide how long it lasts. If people are evil and violent, I have no problem if God ends the life of the evil people, because I think He knows well enough to make right judgment.

Abortion is not murder. The Bible does not think that it is. The law says that it is not murder.

Why make such easily reputable claims?

 

[MikeF]

With this logic, you should condemn democracy because a democratic country bombed and killed over two hundred thousand human beings were killed with two bombs. That would probably include pregnant ladies too. The day you condemn democracy using the same standard you had set, you will not be a hypocrite using your own title of this thread.

Hmmm ... was it condemnation expressed in the OP or an accusation of hypocrisy? Perhaps you should review the logic of your analogy.

 

[viole]

I guess, if that’s your truth. I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion, though. When He pronounced it “good,” sin had not yet entered the world.

Remembers me of a programmer I know. He claimed to have made a very good program, just to see it crash a few days later.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm ... was it condemnation expressed in the OP or an accusation of hypocrisy? Perhaps you should review the logic of your analogy.

Great thanks.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This sounds more like just a pro-abortion stance by cherry picking verses that support a position. (not to mention an overused statement that reminds when I use to say "everybody interprets the bible differently" to hid the fact that I hadn't read it.)

Of course there are times when abortion is necessary, like when you have a fallopian tube pregnancy that is placing both baby and mother in jeopardy of continued life.

It was also necessary to bomb cities in WWII to stop the war and we know there were probably pregnant people. (didn't like it, but it was a rock and a hard spot). God doesn't like it either

Ezekiel 18:23, “’As surely as I live,’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.’”

Exodus 21:22, 23
22 “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely*a but no fatality* results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges.b 23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,*

The principle here is that we choose life and not abortion... hardly hypocritical.

If the woman dies, it's the death penalty. If the fetus dies, a fine is paid to the husband. It's a property crime.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I guess, if that’s your truth. I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion, though. When He pronounced it “good,” sin had not yet entered the world.

But he knew it would, so why make a big deal about how good it is when it's really not since sin is allowed?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I am not a pro in one sense for all variants including Freedom of Choice. I am ones of those who believe in the "muddled" middle.

Yes. The hard and fast rules leave no room for thinking and caring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that's a good basis for compromise. Aside from the quibbling about monikers, you have some good ideas. In your book I am pro life but support a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I'm not pro abortion, I wish society would be in state where abortion was only worth a thought for medical reasons. So, instead of cutting women's rights, it would be much better to cut women's incentive to have an abortion.
Do you agree?

That would be against the anti-choice ethos.

Generally, they're only interested in anti-abortion programs that hurt the pregnant person in some way.

Show them a program that will reduce abortions by making it easier and more affordable to have and raise a baby or by lowering the risk that sex will result in unplanned pregnancy and they won't be interested. Often, they'll strongly oppose it.