Zone1 The issue of abortion for the Christian regarding politics

[Woodznutz]

So...................you don't think Christians should ever bring up the subject of abortion.

Just ignore it, just because.

Ok then.

Having an opinion doesn't require one to get sucked into a political fight over it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I guess it all depends upon what one is after. Justice or reducing the number of abortions.

It is not possible to establish justice by compromising on justice.

 

[Chuz Life]

Child implies they have been born.
Im not sure where you are going with this though?

So, the human has parents but is not the child of those parents.

Do explain how that is possible.

 

[TNHarley]

So, the human has parents but is not the child of those parents.

Do explain how that is possible.

Calling it a child implies it has been birthed.

 

[ding]

It is not possible to establish justice by compromising on justice.

Do you know why the founding fathers didn’t resolve slavery before ratifying the constitution even though they believed it was against nature’s law?

It’s because they couldn’t do both. So they took the approach to found the union and put plans in place that would make slavery eventually perish.

Because if they didn’t do it that way, there was no path to ending slavery.

Like I said before… ending abortion won’t happen unless society accepts it is wrong. And that won’t happen if the punishment is restrictive or too severe.

I’m not trying to change your mind. Don’t try to change mine.

 

[ding]

Calling it a child implies it has been birthed.

Would you say it’s as emotional as some of the language you used?

 

[Chuz Life]

Calling it a child implies it has been birthed.

So you are now only arguing semantics...

Ok, I'll play.

What does "with CHILD" mean?

 

[TNHarley]

So you are now only arguing semantics...

Ok, I'll play.

What does "with CHILD" mean?

Calling a fetus a child, is leaning on emotion for argument sake. It isnt a child.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you know why the founding fathers didn’t resolve slavery before ratifying the constitution even though they believed it was against nature’s law?

It’s because they couldn’t do both. So they took the approach to found the union and put plans in place that would make slavery eventually perish.

Because if they didn’t do it that way, there was no path to ending slavery.

Like I said before… ending abortion won’t happen unless society accepts it is wrong. And that won’t happen if the punishment is restrictive or too severe.

I’m not trying to change your mind. Don’t try to change mine.

Right.

We already have fetal HOMICIDE laws, don't we?

Those laws, for now, have a clause to forbid the fetal homicide laws from being used to prosecute abortions.

Remove the (obviously unconstitutional) clause, and what do we have left?

 

[Chuz Life]

Calling a fetus a child, is leaning on emotion for argument sake. It isnt a child.

Semantics.

You already acknowledge the biological facts.

I don't need you to agree on the semantics.

 

[ding]

Right.

We already have fetal HOMICIDE laws, don't we?

Those laws, for now, have a clause to forbid the fetal homicide laws from being used to prosecute abortions.

Remove the (obviously unconstitutional) clause, and what do we have left?

That’s more than I have looked into it. I’m suggesting a federal law that supersedes state laws based on the commerce clause. Women are crossing state lines for abortions. What I am suggesting is quite doable.

 

[Chuz Life]

That’s more than I have looked into it. I’m suggesting a federal law that supersedes state laws based on the commerce clause. Women are crossing state lines for abortions. What I am suggesting is quite doable.

Again, we already have laws (including a federal law) that establish that killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act is a crime of "murder."

Correct?

So, to use your earlier Constitution and Slavery example. . . How much closer does that put things towards criminalizing abortions?

 

[ding]

Again, we already have laws (including a federal law) that establish that killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act is a crime of "murder."

Correct?

So, to use your earlier Constitution and Slavery example. . . How much closer does that put things towards criminalizing abortions?

If I had my way it would be criminalized but with a small punishment. It’s not virtuous to be forced to be virtuous.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I had my way it would be criminalized but with a small punishment. It’s not virtuous to be forced to be virtuous.

I understand your clarification of your view. Do you already understand mine? Or, should I send it again?

 

[ding]

I understand your clarification of your view. Do you already understand mine? Or, should I send it again?

No. I got it. An eye for an eye.

 

[Chuz Life]

No. I got it. An eye for an eye.

No.

My view is in keeping with the Constitution's basic principle that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Eye for an eye is more about punishment. I'm seeking equal protections.

 

[Foxfyre]

I recently started a thread about how Christians could support the DNC since the DNC, not only supports abortion, but wants taxpayers to pay for it.

However, it was shut down because it was a call out thread which is not allowed in the religious forums.

So, here is the alternative, it is about the topic of abortion regarding the voting habits of the average Christian.

As a Christian, how does one come to terms with voting for what the church equates as infanticide, or does your church teach differently?

Are there any people here that consider themselves to be a Christian and vote democrat? If so, how do you sidestep the issue of abortion?

There are many Christians who are Democrats. I imagine they deal with the topic of abortion by pushing anything inconvenient out of 'sight' in their minds so they can parrot the left's assigned talking points re abortion, i.e. Republican want to rule your bedroom and womb, yadda yadda.

And they make themselves believe that the developing human being in the womb is not really important until it is naturally born.

The dichotomies like whether murdering a pregnant woman is a double murder or whether that baby five minutes before birth is any less viable than the one five minutes after birth are just pushed aside and trying to get them to actually take a position on when abortion is no longer ethical is pretty impossible.

 

[ding]

No.

My view is in keeping with the Constitution's basic principle that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Eye for an eye is more about punishment. I'm seeking equal protections.

That’s what we are disagreeing on. Punishment.

 

[Votto]

Calling a fetus a child, is leaning on emotion for argument sake. It isnt a child.

That's like saying it is not an adult human being because it is a child

They are just in a different stage of development is all.

 

[Votto]

There are many Christians who are Democrats. I imagine they deal with the topic of abortion by pushing anything inconvenient out of 'sight' in their minds so they can parrot the left's assigned talking points re abortion, i.e. Republican want to rule your bedroom and womb, yadda yadda.

And they make themselves believe that the developing human being in the womb is not really important until it is naturally born.

The dichotomies like whether murdering a pregnant woman is a double murder or whether that baby five minutes before birth is any less viable than the one five minutes after birth are just pushed aside and trying to get them to actually take a position on when abortion is no longer ethical is pretty impossible.

I think that many think they are Christians, but in reality, they are democrats before they are Christians.

They simply believe the democrat party more than they do the Bible or the church, but never surrender their "get into heaven free" card by staying a member of their church in which they probably never attend.

But we will see what God has to say about all that.