TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Politics
Reload this Page "Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
Politics Current Events, Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, public schools, welfare, taxes, government etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#826) Old
mighty_duck mighty_duck is offline
Over 3000 post club
 mighty_duck's Avatar

 


Reputation:
mighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peersmighty_duck is well respected by his peers
July 14th, 2014, 05:11 PM

Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.h...ll/3711005.pdf





"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

"The best things in life aren't things"
   
Reply With Quote
  (#827) Old
CatholicCrusader CatholicCrusader is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
CatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputation
July 15th, 2014, 02:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.h...ll/3711005.pdf
I killed my baby because I spent too much money on shoes, makeup and McDonalds.

Has a nice ring to it.

I guess they never thought of giving the child to an adoption agency? That pretty much wipes out the "I couldn't afford a baby" defense.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#828) Old
CatholicCrusader CatholicCrusader is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
CatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputationCatholicCrusader has a large reputation
July 15th, 2014, 02:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post


Three Ways Christians Rationalize Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates

Stand Firm | Three Ways Christians Rationalize Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates

I’ve been engaged in a number of conversations lately with Christians—some of them well known orthodox Anglican thinkers and leaders—trying to justify their support for pro-abortion politicians and candidates. In almost every exchange I’ve run into slightly different forms of the same three arguments

The first goes something like this: “I agree that abortion is wrong but we cannot legislate moral choices. Instead, why don’t we simply focus on preaching the gospel. Only changed hearts will bring about a changed culture.”

The logic behind this rationalization is stunningly bad—so bad it’s hard to answer without a tinge of incredulity and exasperation. But here’s a paraphrased summary of my most common response: Right you are about changed hearts. But why the false dichotomy? One might as well say: “I agree that killing toddlers is wrong, but we cannot legislate moral choices.” Sure we can and we must. Not only do we proclaim the gospel and pray that God’s grace will change hearts and change the culture but we also put laws on the books that prevent people from killing their children.

Both/and not either/or.

The second rationalization employs logic every bit as bad if not worse than the first but a little more subtle. It goes something like this: “Yes, abortion is a great evil and yet it is merely one great evil alongside poverty, injustice, inadequate health-care and preemptive war. Why take this one great evil and elevate it above the others? I vote for the candidate who will, overall, do the most good. Every once in a while, that will mean voting for a pro-choice politician.”

The trick to this justification is to make abortion “just like” an ineffective economic policy or the failure of a particular party to resolve the health-care crisis or engaging in what some consider an unjust war. While all of these things do indeed result in destructive consequences for many people, the radical difference between abortion and any of them is that abortion is the purposeful killing of a human being. The others might result in death for many innocent people but such a result is accidental not purposeful. No free-world politician sets out purposefully to design an economic policy to kill people. Abortion has only that purpose and only that end. Comparing abortion to bad economic policy is like comparing the inept driver who accidentally swerves into oncoming traffic and kills another driver to the very good driver who purposefully drives into a crowd on the sidewalk at full speed.

In an article posted on the Christian Research Institute website Scott Klusendorf writes:
“Are pro-life advocates focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues, not just one.

Of course abortion isn’t the only issue-any more than the treatment of slaves wasn’t the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues.”
The truth is that the ongoing , purposeful, legalized killing of innumerable unborn infants in the United States is a moral crime of such depravity that genocide, slavery, and mass murder provide the only the only legitimate comparisons.

The third rationalization involves a kind of paradigm shift. “The question is not,” some will say, “whether abortion is right or wrong. It is manifestly wrong. The question is who gets to decide? Is it right to give such power to the national government. Shouldn’t these kinds of decisions be left to the mother, the one who carries the greatest burden in caring for the unborn child? A one month old ‘fetus’ can’t survive after all unless the mother sacrifices her body to care for it? Shouldn’t she be the one who ultimately decides whether she can “

On the one hand the argument is an attempt to piggy-back on the increasingly prominent libertarian sentiment among conservatives. “Hey, if you really support less government why would you want the state getting involved in a woman’s womb?” On the other hand the argument suggests that the right to live ought to be determined by the measure of a human being’s independence.

The “libertarian” justification betrays an implicit denial of the unborn baby’s humanity. If, in fact, the unborn baby is “a baby”, then whether or not to kill it cannot be a decision left to the mother or father or both. Not even Ron Paul, I hope, would want to allow parents to kill toddlers or infants or retarded children. All these rightly enjoy the protection of the national government and the law. It should not be different for an unborn baby since “baby” it is. To argue otherwise is to implicitly accept the secularist position that a newly conceived human is somehow less human than than we are—a position both genetically and biblically repugnant.

Likewise, if we are going to define the right to live using independence or autonomy as the measure, then we will be opening a very dangerous door. There are many people who cannot survive apart from the care of another. Do they have less right to live than the more autonomous among us? Such reasoning is not very far from the “useless eater” ethics employed by health professionals in early mid-twentieth century central Europe. We are all, in fact, on some level “dependent.” Where do we draw the line? A toddler is more autonomous than a one month old unborn baby but the toddler is far less autonomous than I am. So why draw the line at the unborn month old baby? Why not the toddler? Why not the homebound grandmother? Morally, it makes very little difference. Once you tie human life to autonomy, life becomes very cheap indeed.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#829) Old
Angel4Truth Angel4Truth is offline
~Peace if possible, but truth at any rate~
 Angel4Truth's Avatar

 





Reputation:
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
July 15th, 2014, 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.h...ll/3711005.pdf
"cant afford a baby" can be said to cover anything, i was talking about a claim made of "too many mouths to feed already" thats a bit more specific.





"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation" - BHO

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.


   
Reply With Quote
  (#830) Old
resurrected resurrected is online now
TOL Subscriber
 resurrected's Avatar

 



Reputation:
resurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peersresurrected is well respected by his peers
July 20th, 2014, 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
Here's another point of reference. When asked for the reason they had an abortion, 73% claimed that they couldn't afford a baby was a reason.



because it'd be too embarrassing to admit their selfishness





.
.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
a person vs a human, abortion, fetus, personhood, personhood fallacy, sanctity of life


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.