Those of us living in the real world have to deal with the failings of ideals. So when people don’t abstain from sex, pregnancies result from time to time.
I’m really not sure what the argument is for saving sex until marriage other than lower likelihood of an STD.
How’s your utilitarian lens thing solving the drinking and driving problem? I hope you agree with me that it is absolutely wrong and may I dare say, at risk of offense, it’s not only legally wrong, but MORALLY wrong too. A big difference between Christians and liberals is you don’t believe in absolutes. Morals evolve as society becomes more enlightened. Sex outside of marriage isn’t wrong, homosexuality isn’t wrong, drug use isn’t wrong, yet the damage done by our foolish choices is still there. Since your “utilitarian lens” doesn’t actually change behavior, and the damage continues, you have to convince yourselves that the behaviour can’t possibly be the problem, and if you aren’t doing anything wrong, there should be little or no consequences. Yet, more people die every year despite all the money and concern you throw at a problem.
Problem solving starts with us as individuals being taught right from wrong. Sometimes we have to learn the hard way. Wise people are able not only to learn from their mistakes, but the mistakes of others. Government does not teach right from wrong, that is the job of parents and if more were doing their job, a lot of problems could be avoided.
Christians don’t view pregnancy as a punishment but a wonderful gift from God to be cherished. To be discarded like a snotty tissue is the liberal view, please stop confusing the two.
How do you possibly even pretend to know the quality of life a child will have? For crying out loud, are you now admitting that all those wonderful programs you liberals have to " help" people and improve their life actually do squat? A child born in poverty, probably born out of wedlock, given all the heartfelt, “utilitarian assistance” will STILL have such a miserable life that terminating it is a viable solution?? The contradictions in your positions just keep coming…
@Optrader you believe it is the government’s job to protect life, yes? If government assistance for children’s health care and food saved lives and drastically reduced abortion, would you endorse it? Or is the government only allowed to drop bombs and shoot guns to save lives?
Um, no we are saying those programs are needed as a safety net. You dont want them. What are you talking about? They absolutely help keep people off the streets. I’m sorry man but you have no idea what you are arguing about.
No, I didn’t. I said sex outside of marriage has consequences. The goodness or badness of those consequences is from the perspective of the mother. If SHE views it as punishment, she should abstain from the act that brought that punishment upon herself. That I recognize that having a child is a major responsibility and can have a detrimental effect on whatever plans they may wish to pursue in their life instead is not the same as considering an unwanted pregnancy a punishment.
Killing the child because the mother wants a do-over?? The only punishment is to the innocent child.
You are applying the same misconception to " judge not" as most people do. I’m betting if you have a teenage daughter, you judge every single guy that knocks on the door wanting to date her. Christians are absolutely to judge everything according to Biblical standards, discerning right from wrong and not holding back truth for fear of offense. That’s one of the biggest things I have against most Christians and churches today- they go along to get along. After all, Jesus loves you, even in your sin! This nonsense has done more to hurt society than liberals ever could. At least you guys don’t professional to follow Christ.
Jesus came to free us from the bondage of sin, not leave us remaining stuck in it. This is the only way we can overcome our inability to resist those “natural” urges BTW…
I’m all for programs that save lives. How about we start by outlawing a procedure that has taken over 60 million in the last 45 years? Please don’t give me any nonsense about how that just would have produced 60 million unsafe “back alley” abortion. Yes, I’ll grant a percentage of women would have sought and received an illegal abortion, but millions would have delivered healthy babies if abortions weren’t so readily available to them.
I’ll ask again ( for the third time): what benefit is abortion to a secular society? The second time I asked this question, the response was to ask me if I would double the cost of schools and something else related to cost or quality of life.
Someone has used the tag line " thoughts and prayers" at the end of their posts multiple times as a scornful way to demonstrate the ineffective silliness of prayers (i.e. appealing to God, or teaching morals) as opposed to all those compassionate, effective and utilitarian programs that liberals use to help give people hope and lift them out of poverty.
I see a teensy bit of disconnect, and a lot of contradiction then, when you also use the “poor quality of life argument” to justify a woman’s decision. If the perceived future quality of life of a child ( and you claim this perception is backed up by government agencies) is justification, then you are admitting that government programs are not very effective. If they were effective, then the hope and better quality of life that these programs bring would reduce the number of abortions deemed necessary, wouldn’t they?
Is poverty then a justification to terminate a life? I ended one of my posts with reference to “superfluous eaters” It would be an eye opener for you to research where that term came from, I didn’t make it up. But you probably won’t…
Yes. Early term abortion, which I am ok with, drastically lightens the strain society’s social programs, and limits the growth of poverty. That’s simply a fact. You want to argue morals then argue morals and quit bouncing around.
Not in the absolute. That’s where you consistently run to. Absolutism. Poverty, to me, is a reason to terminate fetuses less than 3 months old. Not beyond that. Now, if you now want to talk about the morality of abortion in the absolute, or in less than 3 months, ok. We already had a huge thread about it. Can I recommend that you try to focus a bit more with what you want to talk about. You bounce around subject to subject to subject to subject, then revert to absolutist comments, ignoring the context of the discussion we were having. What exactly are you wanting to debate? The morality of ALL abortion? The benefits to society? The rapture? Christians who are wrong? DUIs? What “life” means? Post term abortion? Social programs? Taxation as theft? What exactly are you talking about?
True. An interesting datum is that that some 20 years after Roe v Wade we saw a drop in crime. To think that there is no relation is being willfully blind.
