Pro life hypocrisy?

[dontsnitch]

I've only seen ridiculous extremists argue that point. "Life begins at conception" is an argument made by almost every pro-lifer there is.

While I grant you that it may be silly to argue that abortion is always wrong by citing that life begins at conception, it's equally silly to say that abortion is never wrong by citing that life begins at birth. A one day old fetus may arguably not be a person, but a 9 month old baby sure as hell is, even if he's in a womb.

 

[helltoupee]

Practically everything you bring up has logical answers including the fallen nature of mankind in this case. And sin having consequence.

Serious question as to the bolded above.

What does this even mean? What is "the fallen nature of man"?

Why was man punished for simply seeking knowledge? What secret is it that God doesn't want us to know?

I can tell you the original answer, where the Garden of E.DIN story actually comes from, but I doubt you're interested, so I'd like to know what the Bible actually says about this.

As to "sin having consequence" - this was your reply to someone stating that God kills babies with stillborns, miscarriages, etc. What sin did this fetus commit, or are you implying that the fetus is being punished for the mother's sins?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So the Vietnamese wanted us dead? They asked for our help in expelling the pillaging French for Christ's sakes.

To right wingers, if the US invades a sovereign nation unprovoked, and the citizens of that nation use force against US troops in an effort to defend their country, the citizens of that nation automatically become guilty of "wanting us dead".

We are at that point fully justified in killing them.

And it doesn't matter how many innocent men, women or children also get killed along the way. As long as the intent was to specifically target "the guilty" anyone murdered by extension of the military action is just an unfortunate piece of collateral damage.

 

[splendica]

Serious question as to the bolded above.

What does this even mean? What is "the fallen nature of man"?

That mankind is born with a fallen/sin nature. From birth, humanity has an genetic inclination to act selfishly, to cheat, to steal, to lie, to do whatever other wrong due to a genetic disposition.

Romans 5:12
"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

This does NOT negate the consequence of sin/fallen nature. Killing harms, obviously,

Why was man punished for simply seeking knowledge? What secret is it that God doesn't want us to know?

"Man" was punished for disobeying God.

 

[BEER]

While I grant you that it may be silly to argue that abortion is always wrong by citing that life begins at conception, it's equally silly to say that abortion is never wrong by citing that life begins at birth. A one day old fetus may arguably not be a person, but a 9 month old baby sure as hell is, even if he's in a womb.

Both extremes of the argument as really fucking dumb, if you ask me.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

One side wants to allow women to stop a baby from coming into the world. The other murders babies who were born. The later is justified because it is a just war and they are Christians. Lol.

If there is a good reason, then war is justified and all the babies killed is justifed too. But a woman choosing not to allow a baby from coming into existence is wrong. Lol.

I never said I am against war or pro choice. You built a number of strawmen there.

I never said you were pro choice or pro war. I said that this

Isn't it paradoxical or even contradictory to be pro life and yet support wars and interventions which result in loss of life? Stopping a child from being born is wrong but going to war/military intervention that results in many deaths is not wrong? Or can they both be justified thus not always wrong?

I think that to be pro life one has to be against war, death penalty and military interventions wich will result in deaths etc.

Or am I a potato?

is wrong. not sure you know what a strawman is.

I said abortion and war are two different things.

Lets keep this simple;

The objective of abortion: to kill an innocent baby in its mother's belly
The objective of war: A variety of reasons from land grab to retaliation and protection and etc. It does not have a SINGULAR purpose to kill innocent life/lives but it is a side-effect


I just thought your whole argument was very naive and YOU are the one setting up a strawman.

 

[dontsnitch]

Both extremes of the argument as really fucking dumb, if you ask me.

Carl Sagan does a pretty good job at critiquing both extreme positions in his essay on abortion. It's worth a read.

 

[deltapapha]

It's all relative. You can't expect the average man to act peacefully when God himself murdered every single living human on the planet, save Ziusudra.

God didn't kill the people in Australia in that flood.

 

[BEER]

Carl Sagan does a pretty good job at critiquing both extreme positions in his essay on abortion. It's worth a read.

I'll look into it. That man could predict the future.

 

[meauneau]

Lets keep this simple;

The objective of abortion: to stop a baby from coming into being in a woman's belly

The objective of war: A variety of reasons from land grab to retaliation and protection and etc. It does not have a SINGULAR purpose to kill innocent life/lives but it is a side-effect thus the death of babies and innocent people is justified

Fixed it for you.

 

[meauneau]

God didn't kill the people in Australia in that flood.

But he allowed it. He had the power to do something but didn't.

When someone has the power to do good and doesn't we don't call this person a good person, we call him a shitty person. Why doesn't this apply to god too? Even if god is a fictitious character like superman we can still judge his character as portrayed in the fantastic book called bible.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

if you negate religion (hard, I know) you'd imagine right leaners would be FOR as much abortion as possible, as I am.....

less kids born into bad situations, mean less mooches on the social welfare system. And less single parents that have scapegoats for not working or actually contributing to society. Abortion should be like their GO TO

 

[helltoupee]

That mankind is born with a fallen/sin nature. From birth, humanity has an genetic inclination to act selfishly, to cheat, to steal, to lie, to do whatever other wrong due to a genetic disposition.

Romans 5:12
"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

This does NOT negate the consequence of sin/fallen nature. Killing harms, obviously,



"Man" was punished for disobeying God.

Thanks for the reply.

The Biblical explanations for these types of events seem a bit paradoxical.

If we are to assume that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, that everything happens according to his will, and that he is the creator of man, why would he create something that he already knew in advance would disobey (Fall of man)? It seems to be the futile exercise of a malevolent being who is just entertaining himself.

In essence, the suggestion that God is omniscient and omnipotent, only leads to the conclusion that "free will" in mankind is an illusion.

"He" already knows every choice we will make throughout our lives. "He" knows the tests He will give us. He knows our sinful choices beforehand. He knows that someone will be headed to hell before they are even born. So why did he create an imperfect being that would succumb to disobedience?

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Fixed it for you.

You didn't fix anything.

Once again you show your stupidity.

If you say that PRO LIFE are hypocrites for not wanting abortion while being ok with war and innocent people dying, then you are admitting that abortion is MURDER to a pro lifer.

So again, how is it hypocritical for a pro lifer to be fine with certain wars?

abortion to a PRO LIFER is a procedure whose singular purpose is to murder an unborn baby by its mother getting it.

war to a pro lifer could have multiple purposes, but its primary purpose is not to murder unborn babies and on top of that it is not a murder of an unborn baby via the mother getting the procedure.

You are going to have to prove how this is hypocritical. Or just say you don't agree with them.

 

[boomertx]

The hypocrisy is in Texas where they require abortion clinics to have the same standard of safety as an operating room thereby closing numerous abortion clinics. Supposedly to safeguard the life of the pregnant woman to avoid complications and death from an abortion.

The irony is that the intended result is to force more pregnant women to avoid abortions and give birth to the child. Yet childbirth results in more complications and death than abortion for women.

If they truly cared for the woman's life they would take steps to make abortion less difficult not more difficult.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

if you negate religion (hard, I know) you'd imagine right leaners would be FOR as much abortion as possible, as I am.....

less kids born into bad situations, mean less mooches on the social welfare system. And less single parents that have scapegoats for not working or actually contributing to society. Abortion should be like their GO TO

Meh. Save time, kill the poor..

 

[meauneau]

You didn't fix anything.

Once again you show your stupidity.

If you say that PRO LIFE are hypocrites for not wanting abortion while being ok with war and innocent people dying, then you are admitting that abortion is MURDER to a pro lifer.

So again, how is it hypocritical for a pro lifer to be fine with certain wars?

The hypocrisy is in saying that abortion is wrong because it is murder but killing, murdering innocent people in a war isn't wrong.

The hypocrisy, or contradiction, is not in what abortion actually is but in what you believe it is. Your belief about what abortion is (you believe it is murder or killing a person), is inconsistent with your belief that it is justified to kill innocent people in wars, whatever this justification might be (just war, results in greater good, etc).

I am not inconsistent if 1) I don't believe that killing the fetus is killing a person (not murder) and oppose wars. Or 2) I believe that killing a fetus is murder but think it is justified and I support wars which result in innocent people killed which is also justified.

So if you believe that 'abortion = murder' and it is the case that 'killing innocent civilians in a war = murder', then if you oppose the former but not the latter you are being hypocritical.

abortion to a PRO LIFER is a procedure whose singular purpose is to murder an unborn baby by its mother getting it.

This is what you believe it is. Let me ask you this: what makes a person, 1) a soul, 2) a physical body of a certain type or 3) a mind with mental properties? Does the fetus satisfy any of these?

This is actually irrelevant to the point of this thread which is to show that there is an inconsistency in your beliefs about what abortion is and what results in wars which is the same as what happens in abortions, viz, dead or murdered person. I oppose neither so there is no inconsistency or maybe I oppose both and still no inconsistency. To be consistent you must oppose both or oppose neither.

war to a pro lifer could have multiple purposes, but its primary purpose is not to murder unborn babies and on top of that it is not a murder of an unborn baby via the mother getting the procedure.

I know it isn't. It is different means which result in dead persons, innocent people killed or murdered. You say one is justified because of the purpose behind the killing while the other not because the purpose is to kill. So purpose justifies killing innocent people.

You are going to have to prove how this is hypocritical. Or just say you don't agree with them.

If you still don't see the hypocrisy then I can't help you.