- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,603
- Reaction score
- 2,543
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Do you not see the hypocrisy, even a little bit?
Can't see what isn't there. It's not "hypocrisy" to refuse to be distracted by red herrings.
Do you not see the hypocrisy, even a little bit?
But it’s not. Hypocrisy is probably the wrong word. But to drive by and give no credence to this argument is very interesting, to me.Can't see what isn't there. It's not "hypocrisy" to refuse to be distracted by red herrings.
I think you are one of the very few and my hat goes off to you.I don’t understand the reason for the back and forth on who is and who isn’t pro-life or pro-life enough. I am Pro-life. If it were up to me, I’d say no abortion at all with maybe an exception for the life of the Mother.
It's easy spitballing on a forum as to what you would or wouldn’t do but often real life is messy. Our church founded a Crisis Pregnancy Center in the 80’s and my wife and I have been personally involved in the lives of these young ladies. I not long ago performed a wedding for one of the ’babies we helped save’…but his life has been anything but easy. I point all that out to reiterate I am Pro-life.
I, like many here understand the world o politics. A Pro-life amendment is what is ultimately needed but that is a political process. I know God is sovereign but I live in the real world and use my common sense and reasoning abilities to make political decisions. If the Lord tarries His coming, maybe one day the process will lead to such an amendment but no time soon. I will continue to work on behalf of the unborn and also cast my vote on those who hold the most pro-life position.
Until, of course, Sub reveals to us the ultimate moral candidate or Ransom lectures us into having a perfect political system like he‘s accustomed to having in Canada.
If you don't hear anything about the other, maybe use your eyes. I personally know individual Christians and churches as an organization that work in, support, and run ministries for the poor and orphans. Lots is already being done in these areas. Sure, more can be done, but that can be said of any societal issue. To say that they are being ignored is false.But it’s not. Hypocrisy is probably the wrong word. But to drive by and give no credence to this argument is very interesting, to me.
I’m not accusing you of this, but speaking generally I jhear nothing of the other only abortion.
the william wilberforce approach worked well for england and for that time period.... but this is a very different country and a very different time...... and we are fighting against a group of degenerates a lot more determined to keep abortion legal than most britons were about keeping slavery......
No. I want the Republican Party to put on the brakes and stop moving leftward.
I did. It simply doesn't apply to me, because I'm not advocating for an "all-or-nothing" abolitionist (as that word is currently used) approach.
All-or-nothing is why there's no law against abortion at all in Canada. When Bill C-43 was voted on in Parliament in 1990-91, basically, the hardcore abolitionists said it didn't go far enough, while the feminists said it went too far, and between the two of them, the bill was defeated. No party has had the courage to try again in 25 years.
I would support any law that aims to reduce the number of abortions from the previous level. But I make no secret of my ultimate goal: the complete abolition of abortion on demand.
The oft-used analogy is of William Wilberforce and the fight to abolish slavery in the British Empire. He didn't do it all at once. (He tried, and was defeated every time.) Instead, he adopted a strategy of incremental changes. First he successfully introduced a bill to outlaw British involvement in the foreign slave trade. Then, to abolish the slave trade. Finally, to abolish slavery outright. But it was never a secret that emancipation was his goal all along.
What the Republican platform does isn't accept an incremental compromise on the way to the abolition of abortion. They could have done that: they could have said, for example, "We welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade and believe giving the states the right to legislate on abortion is a step in the right direction. We will continue to affirm the sanctity of life and the right of unborn children to life, and to support a human-life amendment to the Constitution," etc.
Instead, they moved the entire plank to the left. It's like if Wilberforce had said, sometime around 1806, "Well, actually, now all I want to do is get Brits out of the foreign slave trade."
Maybe the Repubs think they need to move this way to get votes. Who cares? If they can't distinguish themselves from the Democrats, then as I said earlier, they're just getting votes for the sake of getting votes--not because there's any difference between them.
i was right.... you really do run in the wrong circles.... or you are going through life with blinders on..... .. . .every church i have ever been a part of had a ministry to unwed mothers... and i know most of the churches represented on this forum do as well........ . one of the ministries i work in now works with homeless children and trafficked teenagers and goes to great lengths to help those who are.. or might be.. pregnant... .. it;s always geared to getting the girls out of the lifestyle they are in and teaching them how to be a parent to their child.... but if they can;t then adoption is the second pathway... ... but abortion is never an option.....I think you are one of the very few and my hat goes off to you.
The Constitution didnt/doesnt need to be amended. That would be an impossible and unnecessary road.Who started the process of amending the constitution in 2016 or 2020? The issue was part of Reagan’s platform too. The GOP controlled both US chambers several times in the intervening years as well as the majority of state governments.When did they ever actually pursue an amendment? Lip service to the religious right. Nothing more nothing less.
The very next year Michigan voters amended the state constitution to allow all abortions without any restrictions. Not the result that you or I wanted.The Constitution didnt/doesnt need to be amended. That would be an impossible and unnecessary road.
Trump victoriously gave us Supremes to overturn a horrible Supreme Court decision.
Now... fight this at the State level where it is FAAAAAAR more easily done and most effective.
How is it being hypocritical to say you don't get to kill your kids AND you have to raise them?It just seems hypocritical to me that ppl will make much about abortion but not make anything about the born. Before birth we care a lot and say a lot, after birth I will say and do nothing. Except scream about all these mothers on food stamps feeding these babies that are born.
No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.How is it being hypocritical to say you don't get to kill your kids AND you have to raise them?
Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.
Definitely not trying to spin.Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.
I read it exactly as he explained. No spin that I could see.Now you're spinnin'. That ain't what you were saying at all.
You keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.No no. Nothing wrong with either. What I’m saying is, we make much about abortion but after the kid is born that’s ur problem and don’t get government assistance you lazy bum, to feed the kid.
The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.You keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.
What are you talking about this is the realityYou keep saying this, but all you're doing is recycling pro-abort talking points without any reality behind them.
You’ve communicated this much better than I ever had. Thank you you are so accurate.The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.
speak for your own broken down church...cult... or whatever it was.. that obviously left you with this sour disposition - and also put a broad brush in your hand.... .... my church and the groups i work with do not resent or attempt to stop the government from assisting unwed - homeless - or at risk mothers..... and neither do i... ..in fact we even assist them on applying for it...... ..The charge that Christians don’t care about the child after birth is ridiculous. The charge that Christians are critical of mothers receiving government assistance for the same child is accurate.