• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My right to life rant.

YeshuaRedeemed

Revelation 3:10
I am a centrist politically. Conservatives and liberals both annoy me on right to life issues. Liberals say it is okay to kill an unborn person, and conservatives deny healthcare to born people. I am not okay with either, and unless Democrats produce a prolife centrist candidate, I really do want to vot for Jesus as the indepent candidate. I don't believe in dehuminizing born or unborn people, and yes, centrist Democrats can be prolife. I support the right of free speech to prochoice people, but reserve the right to live, liberals and conservatives time and again have abysmal right to life records. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. Peace and Shalom.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
What if the mother is 12 and was raped? Pregnancy could kill them both.
What if the fetus has a dibilatating condition that practically ensures it will die a horrible death mere moments after birth?
What if it has only half a brain?
What if it's an ectopic pregnancy?
What if the woman is in an abusive relationship?
What if the woman is mentally disabled and unable to fully comprehend pregnancy?

Despite my fervent arguments for the pro choice side I do sympathise with both sides.
I just don't like the overtly simplistic take the pro life side seems to put forward. One side seems callous towards the woman, the other towards the fetus.
The only reason I am pro choice is because they seem the most flexible and pragmatic. And I see supporting both choices (within reason) accounts for the more complicated lives people tend to live.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness.
Do you realize that the author of these words was a slaver? Who facilitated the genocide of the indigenous peoples of most of the USA?
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know this is a journal, but I'm offering some advice....
Because you describe the other side with a change from
their language to your own, thereby changing the meaning
somewhat, I recommend more effort understanding their
perspective. This doesn't mean agreeing...just grokking.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What if the mother is 12 and was raped? Pregnancy could kill them both.
But, presumably, abortion is a crime against the foetus. If the foetus has a right to life, what difference does it make how it came to be?

How is it that so many ostensibly "pro life" people are so nationalistic; so tribal, and so supportive of the military? The Bible speaks against both.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Do you realize that the author of these words was a slaver? Who facilitated the genocide of the indigenous peoples of most of the USA?
Tom

That was Andrew Jackson not Jefferson. Jackson was the POTUS that started the Trail of Tears via the Indian Removal Act, told SCOTUS F off (era context telling them off) and got rich from land purchases.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
But, presumably, abortion is a crime against the foetus. If the foetus has a right to life, what difference does it make how it came to be?

How is it that so many ostensibly "pro life" people are so nationalistic; so tribal, and so supportive of the military? The Bible speaks against both.
observation re the Bible is wrong. Nationalism is great, the USA military is great, tribal ? Not hardly
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
observation re the Bible is wrong. Nationalism is great, the USA military is great, tribal ? Not hardly
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." -- Colossians 3:11

All men are brothers, all of one tribe, one nation. Nationalism, patriotism -- all tribal divisiveness is unchristian.

The military pretty much embodies everything Christ spoke against in the sermons on the mount and plain, does it not?

How is dividing humanity into different, competing groups, with differing claims to moral consideration, not tribalism?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
But, presumably, abortion is a crime against the foetus. If the foetus has a right to life, what difference does it make how it came to be?

How is it that so many ostensibly "pro life" people are so nationalistic; so tribal, and so supportive of the military? The Bible speaks against both.
The fetus is owed nothing. Potential is snuffed out all the time. Tis the natural order of things.
So I don't consider a fetus to have any right to anything. Why should it? It's a potential baby not an actual baby.
Is that harsh? Yes. But being pro choice allows the mother to choose to risk her own life for her fetus. It just has to be her choice.

Not sure about why pro lifers are so pro military, though.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Not sure about why pro lifers are so pro military, though.
I can answer that: it's because they are not pro-LIFE, they are pro-CONTROL. What they want is to be in control of the behavior of others. And for that, they need to be able to punish others for not following their dictates. Hence, their affinity with military might, and with an oppressive and draconian legal system, and with the desire to withdraw social aid going to anyone who dares to defy their moral dictates, and their desire to use the power of government for their own ends at the expense of the rights of other people.
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
But, presumably, abortion is a crime against the foetus. If the foetus has a right to life, what difference does it make how it came to be?

How is it that so many ostensibly "pro life" people are so nationalistic; so tribal, and so supportive of the military? The Bible speaks against both.

If you look at the science definition of life, the unborn is alive, even if the mythology of liberal indoctrination and propaganda says otherwise.

The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.

The atheists who say they believe in science, instead of religion, should be pro-lifers since the unborn pass the scientific life test. The unborn sort of undergoes all the stages of evolution, in a time lapse photography form of way. It starts as a living single cell and ends up a full fledge human, satisfying the conditions of life at each stage.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I am a centrist politically. Conservatives and liberals both annoy me on right to life issues. Liberals say it is okay to kill an unborn person, and conservatives deny healthcare to born people. I am not okay with either, and unless Democrats produce a prolife centrist candidate, I really do want to vot for Jesus as the indepent candidate. I don't believe in dehuminizing born or unborn people, and yes, centrist Democrats can be prolife. I support the right of free speech to prochoice people, but reserve the right to live, liberals and conservatives time and again have abysmal right to life records. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. Peace and Shalom.

A fetus is not a person
Ultimately it is the woman's choice, not anyone elses.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." -- Colossians 3:11

All men are brothers, all of one tribe, one nation. Nationalism, patriotism -- all tribal divisiveness is unchristian.

The military pretty much embodies everything Christ spoke against in the sermons on the mount and plain, does it not?

How is dividing humanity into different, competing groups, with differing claims to moral consideration, not tribalism?
You are trying to take a moral precept that Paul intended for the individual and the Church, and twist it into some sort of civil law.

In Romans 13 Paul clearly identifies the government, any government, as an entity to be supported and respected by the Christian. Obviously he wasn't speaking of a world government, but rather national governments. National governments exist because people are divided by language, race, religion,language, and ideas of government. Ideally, a national government is best at providing what it's particular people need based upon their characteristics.

Again, in Romans 13 Paul, declares that the Christian should show respect for the military. Christ himself lauded two Roman military Officers, and one of them He declared as having the greatest faith that he found in Israel.Christ firmly grounded the right of self defense when he ordered the Disciples to buy and carry swords. The military is just an extension of that concept.

Christ made it clear that until the end times, His kingdom would exist only in the church, no theocracy would exist until the world made new. The sermon on the mount wasn't for civil governments, it was for believers and the Church. He wasn't instructing Pilate or Caesar, or the Roman senate, He was instructing individual believers who compose the Church as to how THEY should relate to others.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you look at the science definition of life, the unborn is alive, even if the mythology of liberal indoctrination and propaganda says otherwise.
Exactly. But I wasn't aware that liberals said otherwise.
The atheists who say they believe in science, instead of religion, should be pro-lifers since the unborn pass the scientific life test. The unborn sort of undergoes all the stages of evolution, in a time lapse photography form of way. It starts as a living single cell and ends up a full fledge human, satisfying the conditions of life at each stage.
I agree. A foetus is not a person, and does not have the claims to moral consideration a person has.
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The atheists who say they believe in science, instead of religion, should be pro-lifers since the unborn pass the scientific life test. The unborn sort of undergoes all the stages of evolution, in a time lapse photography form of way. It starts as a living single cell and ends up a full fledge human, satisfying the conditions of life at each stage.
No one says a foetus isn't alive, but mere life isn't the point. The issue is personhood.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are trying to take a moral precept that Paul intended for the individual and the Church, and twist it into some sort of civil law.
What's the difference? Isn't the law based on moral precepts and their consequences? Isn't "the church" the people; the community of the faithful?
Isn't what's right and moral for the individual right and moral for the community -- and for mankind in general?
In Romans 13 Paul clearly identifies the government, any government, as an entity to be supported and respected by the Christian. Obviously he wasn't speaking of a world government, but rather national governments.
And here I disagree with him. This obviates Christ's teachings. This disallows freedom of conscience. It requires people to violate christian moral principles when they clash with the current whims of The Leader or the government.
Paul says "follow orders", be a moral automaton. Jesus, on the other hand, preaches peace, love, fairness and harmlessness. He preaches universal, individual moral principles, to be followed, irrespective of local laws to the contrary.

People are individual moral agents, not amoral creatures of the state, duty bound to blindly support current social norms or the interests of the aristocracy; to "just follow orders."
National governments exist because people are divided by language, race, religion,language, and ideas of government. Ideally, a national government is best at providing what it's particular people need based upon their characteristics.
Practically, governments are rarely "of, by and for" the people. More often, they exist to serve the interests of an aristocracy or oligarch. Language, race, religion &c are tools used to manipulate the people, to unite them into tribes and use them to fight for the interests of others -- and usually against their own interests.

Jesus blesses the peacemakers, He says love your neighbor, return good for evil and pray for -- not kill -- those who despitefully use you. Paul, apparently, says just follow orders.
Are Christians moral agents or not? What good are Christ's words if we're to ignore them when told to?
Again, in Romans 13 Paul, declares that the Christian should show respect for the military. Christ himself lauded two Roman military Officers, and one of them He declared as having the greatest faith that he found in Israel.Christ firmly grounded the right of self defense when he ordered the Disciples to buy and carry swords. The military is just an extension of that concept.
I find this problematic, as well. This Christ you describe seems a mass of contradictions, and, if we're to blindly follow our leaders, what's the need for Him? Are we moral agents, or tools?

Q: Do all Nazis go to Heaven?
Christ made it clear that until the end times, His kingdom would exist only in the church, no theocracy would exist until the world made new. The sermon on the mount wasn't for civil governments, it was for believers and the Church. He wasn't instructing Pilate or Caesar, or the Roman senate, He was instructing individual believers who compose the Church as to how THEY should relate to others.
I thought the church was the people.
So Christ's message wasn't for today, but for the "end times?"
So why all the religious brouhaha, if it doesn't apply; if we can ignore it till He comes back and establishes His kingdom?
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
In Romans 13 Paul clearly identifies the government, any government, as an entity to be supported and respected by the Christian. Obviously he wasn't speaking of a world government, but rather national governments.
This is not obvious. It doesn't even appear to be true.
In "the world" according to Jesus, the Apostles, the Gospel authors, and Paul, Rome was a world government.
Which none of them overtly opposed. Likely because they didn't want to get accused of treason and crucified like Jesus did.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
No one says a foetus isn't alive,
Yeah, people do say that. I've heard exactly that, right here on RF, from otherwise scientifically literate people. And frankly, fetuses being alive isn't Scripturally supported. Primitive folks confused breathing with life and so wouldn't have considered a fetus alive, because they obviously don't breathe.

The issue is personhood.
I avoid that word, because it's too vague.
I consider an organism with the potential for sapience to be a person. You may not. You may not consider non-white people to be persons. It's been done.
I stick to the rather more precise "human being".
Tom
 
Top