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

[Heyo]

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.

I know. That's why I ask.
There are genuine pro lifers, anti war, anti death penalty, vegetarian, good hearted people. I can respect their stance to a degree. And then there are the hypocrites who don't care about life except the unborn. They are usually the ones who debate - and lose.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Do you make babies in the womb grow?

Yes, a woman's body makes babies in the womb grow, initially. Since a woman's body is part of herself, then yes, a female person can make babies in the womb grow, and then the baby itself takes over when it is ready. This is very, very simple scientific fact. This is grade-school level learning.

Can you make the bones form?

Yes, a human body (any human body without some condition preventing it) can make bones form. We only have the ability to do it initially, and then that set of bones only grows (or heals) from that point, but at some point, all of us have "made bones form." A human body has this ability at its very beginnings. We can't just voluntarily "make bones" whenever we want, but again, it is a very simple fact that each human body formed its own bones. Fact.

Or do you know how to make the spirit enter into the child?

First please demonstrate what it is you call "spirit", then we can talk about this in a more meaningful way. Until you can demonstrate the existence of spirit, or frame it up as something that we know exists (like the electrical impulses that drive inner-body communications), what you have said here means nothing.

 

[syo]

I can’t believe a woman would need her neighbor to step in to save her unborn child’s life. Most women have a natural instinct to protect their young.

I'm gonna stay speechless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know. That's why I ask.
There are genuine pro lifers, anti war, anti death penalty, vegetarian, good hearted people. I can respect their stance to a degree.

Those people tend to be pro-choice, IMO. They wouldn't choose an abortion for themselves, and they'll do things to help options besides abortion be more appealing, but they generally don't try to make abortion illegal.

 

[viole]

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.

Non sequitur. Democracies do not have a holy scriptures that says how democracies should behave. So, an evil democracy is not necessarily hypocrite. Which is what the op is about.

ciao

- viole

 

[Fool]

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.

so this is not speaking to abortion. it's speaking to the woman's right to be unharmed by another person, basically self-governing.


the bible does speak directly to the unborn not being counted in terms of what god recognizes as human. jesus, in fact, does speak directly to the idea that there are some that should have never been born.


bringing a child into a world where a person can't take care of themselves, let alone another person, isn't loving. it's saddling someone with something that is over burdening.

the bible clearly shows that a body is created first, and then the spirit takes possession at birth, or very near to it. exactly like the creation of adam. God created his form first and then gave him the breath of life. likewise with the temple. The spirit did not enter into it until the temple was finished. and as you well know, jesus said the flesh counts for nothing

 

[Ponder This]

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.

I fail to see your leap in logic from God destroying a corrupt people (whose thoughts were only evil all the time) to an endorsement for the abortion of (good) people. Can you reference any of the Bible verses you are referring to?

 

[Kenny]

the bible does speak directly to the unborn not being counted in terms of what god recognizes as human. jesus, in fact, does speak directly to the idea that there are some that should have never been born.

I disagree...

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

The angel and God never referred a pregnancy as an "it" or a "maybe" or a "fetus". He called them "child" - a human being created with a purpose.

 

[MikeF]

I fail to see your leap in logic from God destroying a corrupt people (whose thoughts were only evil all the time) to an endorsement for the abortion of (good) people. Can you reference any of the Bible verses you are referring to?

I find it interesting that you believe every single human being (outside of Noah's immediate family) was literally irredeemably evil, regardless of age (children and infants). I find that hard to stomach given what we know about human behaviour.

Is every citizen doomed to damnation simply by virtue of being born under the thumb of a cruel dictator, as a more modern example?

 

[Fool]

I disagree...

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

The angel and God never referred a pregnancy as an "it" or a "maybe" or a "fetus". He called them "child" - a human being created with a purpose.

a person loses their spirit, consciousness, when their oxygen levels fall and quit breathing. so the spirit is tied to the breath of life, is the spirit. two spirits can't inhabit one body. that is possession


you can disagree all you want but mary's circumstances was different to most women. it doesn't even speak to the idea of anti-abortion. she was actually prepared for this very thing. an unborn child wasn't taxed because it wasn't considered a living being having taken the breathe of life, having the spirit in it.

this is why the spirit moved upon mary and not in her. the spirit creates the body, just as it does in genesis 1:2-3. a fetus does not have a spirit. there is no breath of life in it. it is nothing but flesh and has a rudimentary autonomic consciousness.



two spirits can't inhabit one body and it not be possession.

 

[Ponder This]

I find it interesting that you believe every single human being (outside of Noah's immediate family) was literally irredeemably evil, regardless of age (children and infants). I find that hard to stomach given what we know about human behaviour.

Is every citizen doomed to damnation simply by virtue of being born under the thumb of a cruel dictator, as a more modern example?

...no reference to any Bible verse?
??

Hmm. If you believe the Bible, then don't you have to accept that they were corrupt and that God saved Noah? How does this extend to the people ruled by modern dictators? Doesn't the Bible also state that God won't destroy the entire Earth by water again?

And how is this relevant to abortion? In what way has the aborting of (good) people been endorsed by an account of the destruction of clearly corrupt people?

I don't quite understand your position. What is the claimed moral standard or belief to which people's behavior fails to conform when they use the Bible to justify being for or against abortion?

 

[MikeF]

...no reference to any Bible verse?
??

Hmm. If you believe the Bible, then don't you have to accept that they were corrupt and that God saved Noah? How does this extend to the people ruled by modern dictators? Doesn't the Bible also state that God won't destroy the entire Earth by water again?

And how is this relevant to abortion? In what way has the aborting of (good) people been endorsed by an account of the destruction of clearly corrupt people?

I don't quite understand your position. What is the claimed moral standard or belief to which people's behavior fails to conform when they use the Bible to justify being for or against abortion?

Your argument was that it is illogical to compare the killing of the entire worlds population to the termination of a fetus because the one group was corrupt and deserved it and the other, though not fully a human being, are presumably good.

I find it illogical that torturing and killing an entire world of sentient beings because one is not happy with the outcome of ones creation can be so cavalierly considered acceptable, or even righteous. And yes, drowning people over time in a flood is torture. I am also suggesting that if an unborn fetus is good, how can an infant or young child in Noah's time be so corrupt as to require termination. You have brought logic into the conversation and I do not find this logical.

I see the acts of the God of Noah as being worse than a modern abortion procedure.

 

[Firelight]

Do you believe in sex education for school children; free family planning advice; free contraceptives and free education for the unwanted children?
Will the mothers who have been forced to carry unwanted children get financial assistance and counselling?

I don’t know where you live, but in the United States, mothers already get financial assistance, healthcare, and counseling. There are also, couples and adoption agencies who offer financial assistance, counseling, and healthcare for a pregnant woman willing to carry her baby and give it up for adoption. Couples wanting to adopt a baby outnumber the babies available for adoption.

Sex education is the responsibility of parents. If parents don’t want that responsibility, then hospitals, social workers, churches, and/or other agencies in the community may feel free to hold a class for free or a small fee that parents can sign their kids up for. If the PTA or principal, along with parents decide to, then hold an after school class. The responsibility is not that of school boards or school teachers.

I don’t know what you mean by “free family planning.” Kids shouldn’t be into planning families at their young ages. If you are camouflaging birth control with such words, then communities are free to gather donations and provide whatever resources they please.

As far as education goes, all the millions of illegals who cross the border get a free education, so why not one’s own citizens? They’ve been getting educated for years, using it as a reason to support abortion is ridiculous.

I would support forced sterilization for both the mother and the father after two unwanted pregnancies, live births, or abortions, since they and their parents aren’t taking any responsibility on their own.

 

[Firelight]

Who invented the word sin?
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics

Sin, "good" vs "bad", implies duality

God create ALL, also human with the option to "create" duality

KEY here is not "original sin" BUT "original Creator". IF I keep that focus, I can only come to the conclusion "God is responsible for all, and only GOOD exist, all else is illusion, maya, duality"

I am neither Catholic or Gnostic. I have no idea what you mean by “duality.” I don’t know what you mean by “original sin.” At the time God pronounced “good”, there was no sin, bad or evil in the world.

 

[stvdv]

I have no idea what you mean by “duality.”

"Duality" is a concept used to understand the Advaita teaching in Indian Scriptures

I don’t know what you mean by “original sin.”

"Original sin" is a concept used by many Christians

 

[Firelight]

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?

“A woman’s right to bodily autonomy? “ Hahahaha. What a way to put it. If that right to autonomy permits abortion, then you are for abortion, that means Pro-abortion. Pro-life means ANTI-abortion and AGAINST abortion; it means a woman, a doctor, a nurse, etc. does NOT have the right to kill an unborn embryo, fetus, or baby, unless the mother’s life is in danger, plus a couple of other very rare reasons.
Every unborn baby has a father, the woman didn’t get pregnant on her own, where, in your mind, are the father’s rights?

How do you cut an incentive to have an abortion? Millions are performed every year. They are rarely for “medical reasons.” Pro-life allows for abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. But, those aren’t usually the women who want abortions, they are the heart-broken women who do it out of necessity in order to spare their own lives.

You would have to explain yourself before I’d think of agreeing with anything.

 

[Firelight]

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

Lots of us on the anti-abortion side don’t live in Ireland and we are not subject to such extreme laws. The Savita case would not be considered an elective abortion in the USA. This started out as a miscarriage or a spontaneous abortion and it would continue to be considered such. Many Doctors would know, at least from the point of the water breaking if not before, that the mother would develop infection, putting her life in danger, if the fetus didn’t deliver. Therefore, if the fetus failed to deliver, it would be forced out by a means the doctor deemed best for the patient and the situation. There are other countries that would follow a similar protocol. Don’t assume the entire world is like Ireland and would allow a mother to die due to an incomplete miscarriage. This isn’t what anti-abortionists stand for in the USA.

 

[Heyo]

How do you cut an incentive to have an abortion?

In your answer to @Altfish you said:

in the United States, mothers already get financial assistance, healthcare, and counseling. There are also, couples and adoption agencies who offer financial assistance, counseling, and healthcare for a pregnant woman willing to carry her baby and give it up for adoption. Couples wanting to adopt a baby outnumber the babies available for adoption.

That seems reasonable to me if true. Why do you think women don't make use of those offers?
Don't they know about them? Don't they trust those offers because too many women have been lied to? Are they still worse off with those offers than with an abortion?
Should the adoption agencies work together with a trustworthy organization like Planed Parenthood to get their information out and believed?

How do you reconcile your opinion that there is assistance for children with the statistics?
"Children remain the poorest age group in America. Nearly 1 in 6 lived in poverty in 2018—nearly 11.9 million children (see Table 2). The child poverty rate (16 percent) is nearly one-and-a-half times higher than that for adults ages 18-64 (11 percent) and two times higher than that for adults 65 and older (10 percent)." - The State of America's Children 2020 - Child Poverty — Children's Defense Fund

 

[Subduction Zone]

“A woman’s right to bodily autonomy? “ Hahahaha. What a way to put it. If that right to autonomy permits abortion, then you are for abortion, that means Pro-abortion. Pro-life means ANTI-abortion and AGAINST abortion; it means a woman, a doctor, a nurse, etc. does NOT have the right to kill an unborn embryo, fetus, or baby, unless the mother’s life is in danger, plus a couple of other very rare reasons.
Every unborn baby has a father, the woman didn’t get pregnant on her own, where, in your mind, are the father’s rights?

How do you cut an incentive to have an abortion? Millions are performed every year. They are rarely for “medical reasons.” Pro-life allows for abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. But, those aren’t usually the women who want abortions, they are the heart-broken women who do it out of necessity in order to spare their own lives.

You would have to explain yourself before I’d think of agreeing with anything.

No, prolife is much more than antiabortion. In fact the people that call themselves prolife tend to be more antilife than the prochoice people.

 

[Firelight]

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

What’s the difference between Pro-Choice and Freedom of Choice? And Pro-Choice and Pro-abortion?

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is about abortion. Pro-choice stands for women to choose an abortion at ANY time during pregnancy and for ANY reason. Pro-Life is against abortion, except during cases where the mother’s life is in danger, cases of incest, and very rarely (depends mostly on age) cases of rape. It’s called Pro-Life because it stands for anti-abortion, but don’t expect the mother to die if HER life is in danger during pregnancy; and pro-adoption when mother doesn’t want her child or cannot take care of her child.