Pro Choice Opinions?

[LoudSilence]

As a Christian myself and as far as I'm reading, probably the only pro-life person here? let me respond to this, at least, to clarify a few misconceptions.

While I do agree that our actions is between us and God, from a Christian, biblical perspective, at least (can't speak for other religions), what you and any other non Christian do is between them and the God of the Bible as well. Anybody's actions whether "good" or "bad" God sees and judges all of us based on that regardless of who we are, whether we believe in Him or believe that He exists or not. If it is sin (ie. we see abortion as murder, and murder of the innocent at that), then there will be consequences, even eternal consequences if not dealt with. We, as the human race, whoever we are, are responsible for our own actions before a Holy God.

As Christians we are to hate sin according to the Word of God, The Bible. Not just our own sin, but any sin. If we are to wink away sin aka tolerate it, then it's disobeying God who commanded us to hate sin. And that is why so many of us are so adamant about issues like abortion.

Point is, abortion was never an exception. Hope that clarifies some things.

Thank you for your input, buddy.

Now not to make this a religious debate or a scrutiny of Christianity, but just to clarify: isn't the crux of your belief accepting Jesus as the Lord? If this basic tenet is not fulfilled, can obeying/disobeying other commands even be relevant? That is, why would the rules matter to someone who has not accepted Jesus and is currently hellbound anyway?

And moreover, as this is a secular nation, it just seems odd that pro-life/pro-choice is mentioned in debates as an actual political stance when one is entirely based on a religious belief.

And another question which I had asked earlier and Esper alluded to is the concept of selectively condemning actions. I do not see any strong movements against these much more common socially accepted ideas which the Bible directly forbids:

- Infidelity
- Ham/certain seafood consumption
- Masturbation
- Tattoos
- Gossip (ie. all celebrity story coverage and publications)
- Remarriage after divorce


Now again, really not trying to put Christianity under the spotlight (or you on the spot!). I just don't see why they there is some need to impose this one particular rule out of many on a sea of people who probably don't even believe in God to begin with.


P.S. So you know, I personally do believe in God and am not trying to be disrespectful at all. I just think we should approach this rationally.

 

[Rezilia]

Here's a stance on abortion, for all those that haven't been women in a situation where you had to make a choice:

1:20-2:30


Opens your eyes, doesn't it?

 

[Esper]

And moreover, as this is a secular nation, it just seems odd that pro-life/pro-choice is mentioned in debates as an actual political stance when one is entirely based on a religious belief.

People's views are influenced by many things and most of us have philosophies and ideas that guide us in our decisions so in that sense there's nothing wrong with having your view influenced by your religion. Much as I'd personally rather there was less religious influence in the world, you can't really separate religion from a person's views if they're a religious person.

However, I see things moving toward less religious influence here because it doesn't have scientific / objective backing. Like things such as homosexuality and race, people eventually come around to the view that there isn't any rational basis for hating/discriminating. Religious views (which in the past were one of the things used to justify things like slavery) gave way to secular/rational/etc. views on race, and sexuality is moving in that direction.

And another question which I had asked earlier and Esper alluded to is the concept of selectively condemning actions. I do not see any strong movements against these much more common socially accepted ideas which the Bible directly forbids:

- Infidelity
- Ham/certain seafood consumption
- Masturbation
- Tattoos
- Gossip (ie. all celebrity story coverage and publications)
- Remarriage after divorce


Now again, really not trying to put Christianity under the spotlight (or you on the spot!). I just don't see why they there is some need to impose this one particular rule out of many on a sea of people who probably don't even believe in God to begin with.

Human nature? We're not perfect and when we have a million (overestimating) rules to follow we'll naturally not be able to follow them all so we do what we can and maybe pick the ones that seem more important. Plus there is that pesky issue of there being lots of interpretations of religious texts since it's not exactly a guidebook in the sense of having clear-cut rules on the whole.

 

[twocows]

Personally, I consider myself pro-choice leaning. That said, I think child-rearing is vastly unfair to men right now. If a woman doesn't want to deal with the child, she can choose to the abort or adopt. The man doesn't have that option; he's forced to, at the minimum, pay child support. If the woman wants to raise the kid on her own, she can usually get a favorable child custody ruling in court. I think this is really unfair. But I do think women should have the right to abort if they think it is the best option.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Point is, abortion was never an exception. Hope that clarifies some things.

You realize there are women who die needlessly because of miscarriages? Their lives are not ended by a deity, though, rather by the fanatical "doctors" who refuse to allow an abortion that would save their life. They are the murderers.

 

[LoudSilence]

People's views are influenced by many things and most of us have philosophies and ideas that guide us in our decisions so in that sense there's nothing wrong with having your view influenced by your religion. Much as I'd personally rather there was less religious influence in the world, you can't really separate religion from a person's views if they're a religious person.

Granted, but what I meant was that regardless of your influences, only decisions which can be rationalised should be considered, no? "God said so" doesn't fly anywhere else in the political realm (as far as I can tell), so why with abortion?

Human nature? We're not perfect and when we have a million (overestimating) rules to follow we'll naturally not be able to follow them all so we do what we can and maybe pick the ones that seem more important. Plus there is that pesky issue of there being lots of interpretations of religious texts since it's not exactly a guidebook in the sense of having clear-cut rules on the whole.

Again no disagreement; this is perfectly fine on a personal level.

But none of this inconsistency should see any light in the public sphere, particularly where laws that restrict us come into play. I'm just posing this question: if this is for the sake of religion, all-or-nothing makes more sense than picking something in particular to fight and ignoring a lot of other things, doesn't it?

You could also argue there are different interpretations on abortion too, I'm sure, so it still doesn't make sense to me.