Pro-life

[ValleyGal]

But God considers it a baby so as Christians we listen to what God says, not atheist scientists or politicians:

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, WE listen to God's choice. Let me be clear: I am not pro-abortion. But in saying that, I must be clear that I am not anti-abortion. This is why discussion on language is so necessary. Because as believers, WE place ourselves under God's authority. But we cannot judge the world by Christian standards. They will answer to God when it is their time. But I am responsible for me, and what I do with Jesus. I will support abortion for those who choose it. I am not one. And even then, only to a point.

My colleague works specifically with young parents, age 12-22. She helps them to make decisions that are right for them, and will take them to the city for abortion if that is their choice. I would never even apply for her job because I could not take them there and have a clear conscience. But if a client of mine states they've had one, I will never condemn them or judge their choice.

So I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. What am I then? I am a harm reductionist. Women are going to do it anyway, so let's help them to do it in a safe, sterile manner so as not to put their own lives at risk.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, WE listen to God's choice. Let me be clear: I am not pro-abortion. But in saying that, I must be clear that I am not anti-abortion. This is why discussion on language is so necessary. Because as believers, WE place ourselves under God's authority. But we cannot judge the world by Christian standards. They will answer to God when it is their time. But I am responsible for me, and what I do with Jesus. I will support abortion for those who choose it. I am not one. And even then, only to a point.

My colleague works specifically with young parents, age 12-22. She helps them to make decisions that are right for them, and will take them to the city for abortion if that is their choice. I would never even apply for her job because I could not take them there and have a clear conscience. But if a client of mine states they've had one, I will never condemn them or judge their choice.

So I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. What am I then? I am a harm reductionist. Women are going to do it anyway, so let's help them to do it in a safe, sterile manner so as not to put their own lives at risk.

I don't understand how you can support something that goes against what YOUR LORD wishes? I'm not telling you to strike out against those who have had abortions because they've been misled by Satan to think it's okay, just the same as those who commit suicide. Satan says "It's okay" even though God says that the unborn is a baby and thou shalt not kill. That's why we should be supportive of laws that protect the unborn instead of supporting laws that allow crimes against them. Don't you stand behind the laws that protect child abuse?

 

[ValleyGal]

Then I'm right:

Did I say you were wrong? No. I'm not arguing here. I am trying to have a respectful discourse, not be confrontational.

"Pro-choice" is simply insisting that choice be withheld,

Hence why discourse is important. Pro-choice is limited to the mother's choice only. Is there a term that might be more inclusive of those who do not have a voice in the matter?

If there's "choice" when TWO must have the choice

Why do two need to have the choice? When there are power differentials, only one has to make the choice, as with the examples you give.

Anymore that the Jews of Nazi Germany.

Speaking of the examples you give, you have made multiple references to Jews of Nazi Germany. I wonder if there are any personal connections that are making you feel particularly connected and defensive on their behalf?

But the whole "pro-choice" argument is that the child AND THE FATHER are totally deprived of any choice. So much for "pro-choice"

Again, power differential. This is the one area - ONE - that women actually have power over men and children. And it is a shame, when men should have an equal choice as it's his child too.

 

[Lamb]

So I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. What am I then? I am a harm reductionist. Women are going to do it anyway, so let's help them to do it in a safe, sterile manner so as not to put their own lives at risk.

I had to post in regards to the last part of what you said...since they're going to do it anyway, help them... No. Educate them. Show them that it's a baby that is going to die. They're being taught that they aren't even babies yet in the womb which is not true.

 

[RichWh1]

It's when we re-label things that the original meanings get lost in translation.



Pro Life means exactly what it is...it was labeled as such to mean life for all in the womb, no abortions.

Pro Choice means turning a blind eye to the killing of those in the womb. So those who are pro-choice are okay with the deaths.



Exactly so. It's contemplated murder, not accidental.

We strive so hard to protect those who are already born but so many applaud the death of the unborn. Then then there are those who would easily call the police on the attempted murder of a child already born...but turn a blind eye when he or she still remains inside the mother because then it's the mother's choice to kill? And that's what it is...it's killing their child.

Pro life is respect and preservation of all life, not just the unborn.
A person who is truly pro life would be against the death penalty, since that would be taking a life So if one is for the death penalty and against abortion they are anti abortion not pro life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ValleyGal]

Are you seriously saying that reality is nothing more than what someone else believes it to be? If I consider my annoying neighbor to be "not human" can I just go ahead and kill him? It won't be murder, right?

Do you intend to sound a little snarky here, or is it just my reading of this? Of course I'm not saying reality is nothing more than someone believes it to be. Seriously? You would assume I'm saying that? How sad.

Our reality as believers is that God gives life, it is sin to deprive someone of their life, and we would hope that non-believers would support life in the same way we do. But secular reality is that a fetus is not "alive" and one day they will face God to answer for their lack of faith.

I have an auntie who had an abortion as a young woman. It was long before abortion was legal, it was not a sterile environment, it was painful and put her life in danger from infection, tearing, etc, as it was not a doctor who performed it. She had no guilt as she did not believe this to be a human life. Thirty years later when she became a believer, the Spirit told her it was sin, she repented, and then she struggled with her conscience, guilt, self-condemnation - until the Lord convicted her of pride, that if God himself would forgive her of abortion, that she was not better than God to not forgive herself (something I also struggle with = perfectionism). The point is, for her, abortion was not "sin" until she placed herself under God's authority rather than man's, and he convicted her that it is indeed sin.

But "I don't really want a baby right now" isn't a good reason to kill the baby, nor is "it's really stressful thinking about this" or similar.

No argument there. But I know zero women who use (or have used) that as an excuse. Even those young women my colleague works with don't use it as an excuse. Their excuse is usually that the condom broke. So they were already employing harm reduction methods - yes, preventing pregnancy is a harm reduction method because bringing a baby into the world could cause that baby or other people harm - when they were faced with a pregnancy they tried to prevent to start with.

But this is not a discussion about abortion. It is a discussion about the language: pro-choice, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, harm reductionist, etc. If you are pro-abortion, does it make you pro-choice? Or if you are anti-choice, does it make you anti-abortion or pro-life? Let's stop focusing on abortion itself and focus on the language people use to discuss it, without judgement on those who have chosen or will choose abortion.

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't understand how you can support something that goes against what YOUR LORD wishes? I'm not telling you to strike out against those who have had abortions because they've been misled by Satan to think it's okay, just the same as those who commit suicide. Satan says "It's okay" even though God says that the unborn is a baby and thou shalt not kill. That's why we should be supportive of laws that protect the unborn instead of supporting laws that allow crimes against them. Don't you stand behind the laws that protect child abuse?

I don't support it for me. But for those who are going to choose it whether it's legal or not, they must have access to a sterile environment to reduce any harm that might come to them as a result. You're right - they have been misled by Satan, but what good is it if that person dies as a result of accessing unclean instruments and they have no chance for repentance? I support the law to legalize abortion so they have access to a sterile environment. That does not mean I believe it's right or moral to choose abortion - which is why discussion about the language is so important.

I do stand up for laws that prevent child abuse. I will never counsel anyone to have an abortion, and will excuse myself from any conversation that might show my Christian bias in my secular workplace. The laws do not protect unborn babies. Do I agree with this? No, of course not.

But this discussion is about the language we use. Not abortion itself.

 

[ValleyGal]

I had to post in regards to the last part of what you said...since they're going to do it anyway, help them... No. Educate them. Show them that it's a baby that is going to die. They're being taught that they aren't even babies yet in the womb which is not true.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, women are provided with impartial information on fetal development, the process and personal implications of abortion. They are assisted to make the choice, whether that is for or against. Personally, I could never do that job because of my strong bias against abortion. Interestingly, my colleague whose job it is to counsel, has been strongly pro-choice, though she has never counseled anyone one way or the other. She was much more able to be impartial because it's not that she is pro-abortion, but she is pro-choice. As she has escorted a few (3 or 4) young girls to the city for one, she is changing her mind and feeling differently about it. She sees the aftermath, and now warns the girls that there are psychological consequences such as post-abortion trauma, depression, unwanted intrusive thoughts, etc.

 

[Lamb]

I don't support it for me. But for those who are going to choose it whether it's legal or not, they must have access to a sterile environment to reduce any harm that might come to them as a result.

If it were a different type of crime would you still be so willing to provide someone with what they needed to commit it so they don't have to be affected by it in a bad way? Is it because the "language" of abortion has become so gentle and safe that the realization of what actually happens has been pushed aside? The language purposely attempts to soften what happens so that it becomes focused on what they deem to be helping the mother and even de-humanizing the baby so that it's not a baby. It's now just a clump of cells. Because removing a clump of blood and cells is far less horrendous of an act when the language makes it appear that way.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I don't understand how you can support something that goes against what YOUR LORD wishes?

And this comes back to the original point-the idea that being pro-life is anti_____. It's a subjective judgment. Pro-life advocates can still recognize, without condoning, the free choice granted to women to abort. And they can, AND SHOULD, support women, men, and families affected by any ensuing fallout.

I'm not telling you to strike out against those who have had abortions because they've been misled by Satan to think it's okay, just the same as those who commit suicide.

I know I'm being pendantic, but it's "died by suicide". Regardless, Satan gets undue credit so often for Sin that lives in us and in the world. And what is a greater Sin? Abortion? Drunkenness? Galatians 5:19-21 gives us quite the list to reference. But we have the Love of God living in us to give direction as we are able, and to offer His compassion for those that exercise free choice, whatever that choice might be

Satan says "It's okay" even though God says that the unborn is a baby and thou shalt not kill. That's why we should be supportive of laws that protect the unborn instead of supporting laws that allow crimes against them.

I believe we should support laws that protect the unborn, but I think we're under some false impression that this will wake people up to some 'wrong' that they may not perceive that way.

 

[Lamb]

And this comes back to the original point-the idea that being pro-life is anti_____. It's a subjective judgment. Pro-life advocates can still recognize, without condoning, the free choice granted to women to abort. And they can, AND SHOULD, support women, men, and families affected by any ensuing fallout.

I know I'm being pendantic, but it's "died by suicide". Regardless, Satan gets undue credit so often for Sin that lives in us and in the world. And what is a greater Sin? Abortion? Drunkenness? Galatians 5:19-21 gives us quite the list to reference. But we have the Love of God living in us to give direction as we are able, and to offer His compassion for those that exercise free choice, whatever that choice might be

I believe we should support laws that protect the unborn, but I think we're under some false impression that this will wake people up to some 'wrong' that they may not perceive that way.

Pro-life was a term coined for saving the unborn babies. It was not initially coined for any other reason from what I remember and when you say it's subjective, well, is that because the other side now wants to say that it is? Because when you discredit the terminology of your opponent, it makes it seem like the other side is weak and not worth rallying behind.

I don't think that supporting pro-choice, because it sounds so pleasant, is the way to go. It's not pleasant. It's the destruction of a human being incapable of saving himself in a traumatic way and do you know that it can even be painful for him/her? I refuse to recognize that pro-choice is something kind when it's an evil.

 

[Lamb]

When we look at language, the truth of "pro-choice" is

the right for a mother to have her child killed.

But people try to sweeten it up so it's not so crass and obvious...so horrendous that there is actually a life that gets snuffed out by that choice. And unless he/she hears God's Word in the womb, then what chance does that unborn have at getting to know the Lord and do His will?

 

[Joshua1Eight]

Er, no. The opposite of taking a life out of the world is not taking a life out of the world.

Think about the Devil’s Commandments.

If God commanded, “You shall not steal”
Then the Devil’s commandment would be “You shall not give.”

If God commanded, “You shall not lie”
Then the Devil’s commandment would be “You shall not tell the truth.”

If God commanded “You shall not kill.” Then what would the Devil’s commandment be?

Killing is taking a life out of the world. What’s the opposite of that? Refraining from killing? No. An equal yet opposite action would be bringing a life into the world.
The Devil’s commandment is “You shall not have children.”

 

[Joshua1Eight]

No, and no. The Catholic Church isn't against birth control (depending on which kind is used) and it doesn't say that a couple has to have as many children as they can.


P.S. This isnt a reply to Tango but I cannot seem to delete that part. Sorry.

The Catholic Church is against unnatural means of birth control. Obviously Jesus gave us the choice to stay single. But choosing marriage without children is choosing pleasure without responsibility, which is unnatural.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Pro-life was a term coined for saving the unborn babies. It was not initially coined for any other reason from what I remember and when you say it's subjective, well, is that because the other side now wants to say that it is? Because when you discredit the terminology of your opponent, it makes it seem like the other side is weak and not worth rallying behind.

What I don't agree with is a label of anti-abortion merely for my pro-life views. In saying that, what I'm asking for is the "nuanced conversation" that the other side says it wants. This is the exact quote used by a pro-choice advocate while previously referring to people like me as "anti-abortion". If a nuanced conversation is what's wanted, then why do we insist on sticking to the black and white? It's happened more than once.

I don't think that supporting pro-choice, because it sounds so pleasant, is the way to go.

I don't either, for the fact that it isn't pleasant. But the fact is that choice is a reality. So how do we as Christians respond to those that have made that free choice? I'm faced with it regularly in my work.

It's not pleasant. It's the destruction of a human being incapable of saving himself in a traumatic way and do you know that it can even be painful for him/her? I refuse to recognize that pro-choice is something kind when it's an evil.

Fair enough. But, again, how do we respond in the aftermath of it?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

When we look at language, the truth of "pro-choice" is

the right for a mother to have her child killed.

But people try to sweeten it up so it's not so crass and obvious...so horrendous that there is actually a life that gets snuffed out by that choice. And unless he/she hears God's Word in the womb, then what chance does that unborn have at getting to know the Lord and do His will?

Is God so powerless that He will not freely accept that child into His House? THAT is also horrendous

 

[Lamb]

What I don't agree with is a label of anti-abortion merely for my pro-life views. In saying that, what I'm asking for is the "nuanced conversation" that the other side says it wants. This is the exact quote used by a pro-choice advocate while previously referring to people like me as "anti-abortion". If a nuanced conversation is what's wanted, then why do we insist on sticking to the black and white? It's happened more than once.

I don't either, for the fact that it isn't pleasant. But the fact is that choice is a reality. So how do we as Christians respond to those that have made that free choice? I'm faced with it regularly in my work.

Fair enough. But, again, how do we respond in the aftermath of it?

How do you respond...you don't coddle them by telling them it's all okay. You listen to them talk and allow them to have their feelings. Don't tell them it was a small thing. Don't belittle their act. Don't pretend a life wasn't taken. They are traumatized by their own "choice" and now have to live with it and try to carry on with their life. You can't fix their mistake. But for the love of God, don't tell them it was okay. Hear their story, sense their feelings and let them work through it.

I have friends who have had abortions...one had 5 that I know of and probably has had more after. Her family all told her it was just a clump of cells and then it's gone. So it was easy for her to move on to the next abortion when it happened again. Other friends knew it was a baby but were talked into having that "choice" by others even though they felt deep in their hearts that it was wrong. But their situation proved too mighty at the time because the others around them convinced them that they couldn't get past that situation without the abortion. It's that exact type of rhetoric that makes it worse and not better. The lies that are being told...that the choice will be better for them in the long run...have an aftermath. So maybe those lies need to be stopped told in the first place so that there are less people with an aftermath to try to treat in therapy?

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church is against unnatural means of birth control. Obviously Jesus gave us the choice to stay single. But choosing marriage without children is choosing pleasure without responsibility, which is unnatural.

Which is another way of saying what I did when commenting that the Catholic Church is not against birth control (depending on which kind is used).

 

[Josiah]

So I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. What am I then? I am a harm reductionist. Women are going to do it anyway, so let's help them to do it in a safe, sterile manner so as not to put their own lives at risk.

So... since gross immorality will happen, your ethic is to help them in such acts... so that it's as safe as possible.

So... how do we make abortion safe for the baby? How exactly would you propose we do that?



.

 

[Josiah]

The Catholic Church is against unnatural means of birth control.

Perhaps...but your position is that birth control is anti-life. Now you admit that the Catholic Church is pro-birth control (and thus, anti-life).

You are correct. The Catholic Church is - by far - the world's largest proponent and teacher of birth control. It actually conducts classes in how to have sex (lots of good, fun sex) and not likely conceive. In my parish, it actually had more classes in how to do that than it had Bible studies. You could not be married in our parish without learning from the Church how to have sex but not likely conceive. Since you argued that birth control is anti-life, then by that it seems to me The Catholic Church must be the most anti-life organization in the world.

I disagree that the post-Sexual Revolution, Pope Approved Method of birth control is "natural." IF it were, there would be no need for those classes... there would be no need for thermometers, calendars, etc... It would likely be seen in all of nature (at least among all mammals). But there's nothing "natural" about it. Among humans, "natural" is to have sex when mutual desires so suggest, not to use calendars, etc;, to determine the when.

But choosing marriage without children is choosing pleasure without responsibility

Yet, Catholic Tradition is that Mary - the Chief of Saints - was married but had no children via sex.

And I think some would argue that having dozens of children is being irresponsible. And (at least my Catholic Church) DID accept that there can be valid reasons why a couple would not want children - perhaps even should not.



But again, this thread is not about birth control..... it's about abortion. My Catholic friend, you'll find MUCH more agreement if you keep the discussion on topic rather than derailing it to the issue of whether "NATURAL" birth control is birth control or not.




.