More Scandal From the Pro-Life Movement's Perceived Lack of Concern For the Born

[billsannie]

In other words, very silly people have decided to believe the lies of very wicked people.

Meh, nothing new under the sun.

But be very clear on this—everybody will be held to account for the lies they chose to believe and spread, especially after they were told the truth.

But it does help a movement if it’s credible to the people they’re trying to reach, be they silly or not. And the pro-life movement’s credibility problems are no lie.

Irrelevant.
If you shot somebody in the back of the head, they wouldn’t be aware of it either, but you still committed a heinous murder.

Not a problem, as I was only addressing the question of whether or not such a young baby could feel pain, not the question of murder.

The baby has a unique genetic DNA code separate from the genetic DNA code of the mother.

If it was “part of her body” it would have her unique genetic DNA code but it doesn’t, per medical science

Granted, the baby is separate but that doesn’t convince anyone that it’s a fully human person.

None of those things. I was saying that they didn’t see the baby as a separate person, therefore the will to deliberately kill anything wasn’t involved.

It was the wish not to be pregnant that led to the abortion.

Who is our neighbor? It’s whoever we think the least about. For those such as the article’s author (and those who share their sentiments), the unborn child is your neighbor. According to Jesus, this neighbor of yours who is being killed deserves your sympathy and help- the killers don’t need your help “rationalizing” their attack.

Evidently I didn’t make myself clear. I’m pro-life myself. That’s what makes me so unhappy that the movement discredits itself and does such a piss-poor job reaching the people who need its message.

 

[Aquinas11]

At the same time, other life issues, which can cause grave suffering for a lifetime, are seen as issues on which Christians may legitimately differ. How is this right? or morally correct?

Define “life issue”

When you say “morally correct”, what moral scale are you referring to? One where baby murder is “morally correct”? If so then “morally correct” is objectively immoral

 

[upant]

It was the wish not to be pregnant that led to the abortion.

i get that, but does it let them off the hook for the death of their child

i will leave that to God

 

[blackforest]

What the what? I’m fiercely pro-life and won’t shut up about the injustice at the border! People like me are an inconvenience to the pigeonholers . . .

 

[EXdrinker]

Thank you for stating this so very well.

 

[billsannie]

Define “life issue”

When you say “morally correct”, what moral scale are you referring to? One where baby murder is “morally correct”? If so then “morally correct” is objectively immoral

A life issue is one which affects human life. And of course abortion isn’t morally correct. But neither is it morally correct to emphasize one life issue to the exclusion of all others.

 

[margaret42]

It’s said that unborn babies can start feeling pain at 12 weeks, so the baby reacts to some pain during an abortion. Feeling pain is suffering, even if the baby is only 12 weeks.

 

[Horton]

I wasn’t writing about individuals but about the movement as a whole. Unfortunately the disrepute of the pro-life movement among many persons of goodwill is a very obvious fact.

I guess when you can’t really defend the willful slaughter of babies you take the next leftist liberal stance which is to call the other side names.

Your argument is weak and truly has no basis. Did CNN tell you Pro Life folks don’t care about children at the border? Do the medical studies you reference come from what MSM tells you?

I will have to agree with @stpurl on his post #28. The kind of thinking you engage in shows a lack of ability to gather information, process that information, and reach a conclusion using logic and reason.

 

[Aquinas11]

Granted, the baby is separate

Now you’ve contradicted yourself

They simply didn’t want to be pregnant and this involved eliminating a being they perceived as part of their bodies, not a child. This is what abortion advocates actually believe, and with some medical justification, as medical science hasn’t figured out how to define personhood to anyone’s satisfaction.

 

[Aquinas11]

A life issue is one which affects human life

So practically everything is a life issue : war, abortion, economy, border security, poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, education

Why are you only focusing on one “life issue” beyond abortion ? Why not address all “life issues”? Why the focus on one of dozens beyond abortion?

And of course abortion isn’t morally correct.

No you’ve already defended it on basis of baby not feeling pain

that doesn’t convince anyone that it’s a fully human person.

What does that mean? As opposed to semi-fully human? What makes them “fully” human? Obviously not a unique DNA code since you acknowledge baby has that yet doesn’t seem to qualify

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

That’s what makes me so unhappy that the movement discredits itself and does such a piss-poor job reaching the people who need its message.

I think you’re looking at it all backwards.

What you need to be asking was how a very evil idea took such possession over peoples minds. How were their lies spread, what social structures enabled these lies.

And what are YOU going to do about it?

In the meantime, I’m going to continue my prayer and bible reading and charity work and let the dogs bark.
I’m here to serve Jesus in my fellow man.
Not to give credence to every silly lie of the enemy.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

OP, in your defense, one of the strategies of the devil is to make the people who follow Christ anxious and worried about how they “look” to the world.
To put them in a constant state of defensiveness (“No! You’ve got it all wrong! I’m really a good person!”) while all the while the people who have chosen against Jesus say and do WHATEVER THEY PLEASE.

It’s all a trick to keep you feeling insecure.

 

[Aquinas11]

Yes but the “pain” argument in support abortion is bogus since would mean it’s ok to stab someone after slipping drugs in their drink = they don’t feel pain either.

 

[1cthlctrth]

What are pro-lifers supposed to do? Exercise force to prevent the parents of the kids from entering illegally?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Why would the abortion industry, which murders children by the millions, show disingenuous concern about the lives of children or where prolifers direct their energies.
What hypocrisy to argue on the one hand that killing unborn babies is ok then weep crocodile tears over some other group of children.
#whataboutism
Will the pro-choicers agree to ban abortion if I meet their virtue signalling quota of social justice effort on children in detention?
No.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

This.

Very very much this.

The pro abortion activists deal in lies and deflection.

All the time.

 

[JonNC]

According to medical experts such a young baby would not be aware of anything.

The child doesn’t suffer because at the early stage at which most abortions are performed the brain is insufficiently developed for that to happen.

Suffers no pain and isn’t aware.
So, all we have to do to end someone’s life is make sure they’re unaware and feel no pain.
Anesthesia.

 

[Moose]

Nice troll-work.
Any grief, suffering, mayhem that “the children “ experience in the process of ILLEGALLY
Entering this country is the complete fault of their home countries, their parents, their mules…
No harm occurs at the southern US border to those who enter thru the correct pathways.

Those who consciously elect to enter thru illegal means have inflicted themselves.

Is it a shame? Absolutely. Their parents should make better decisions.

As far as those who claim “asylum”?
Fix your own country’s government - you have no right to ruin this one.

Now, SJW’s…have your whine party.

 

[tafan2]

So you deny the baby has an immortal soul? The baby is unaware because of its physical state if development?

 

[ZMystiCat]

I’ve known women who had abortions, and I can tell you they didn’t willfully or deliberately kill a child. They simply didn’t want to be pregnant and this involved eliminating a being they perceived as part of their bodies, not a child.

“I didn’t deliberately slaughter an innocent family. I just wanted to protect my country from Latin American invaders!”

^ By your logic, someone who killed an immigrant family could use that claim that they didn’t deliberately kill an immigrant family.

This is what abortion advocates actually believe, and with some medical justification, as medical science hasn’t figured out how to define personhood to anyone’s satisfaction.

If having distinct human DNA isn’t enough, then I don’t think there is a medical justification. At that point, medicine is clearly unqualified to make such distinctions, so appeals to it are pointless.

Trump

How did my comment go from a general statement to one about Trump? If I can track down a comment from a pro-choice ethicist who thinks parents should be allowed to kill their babies for some time out of the womb, does that mean I can use those comments to smear the whole pro-choice movement?

According to medical experts such a young baby would not be aware of anything.

So it is alright to kill people so long as they aren’t aware of what is going on and don’t feel pain?

Why would the abortion industry, which murders children by the millions, show disingenuous concern about the lives of children or where prolifers direct their energies.

So they’re engaging in whataboutism?