Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Here's an idea (abortion)

#31
Secular Sanity Offline
(May 20, 2019 09:30 PM)confused2 Wrote: From the story about giving the concubine to the mob...
Quote:30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
^^ is that a normal way to finish a story - like there's something hidden in it?
So .. taking advice...
The Levite takes a concubine (out of Bethlehemjudah). By 'takes' it seems they were married. She runs off home to her father in Bethlehemjudah. The Levite follows his wife to Bethlehemjudah. The wife's father welcomes his son in law and tries to stop him leaving (probably) because he loves his daughter/damsel  aka the Levite's wife/concubine.
The asses and the servant play no part in the plot.
How am I doing so far?
Eventually the Levite leaves with his wife, servant and asses.
With some attempt to blame the servant they stop in a town that isn't particularly hospitable to Levites. Probably some history there but this doesn't affect the real issue.
A random native takes in the Levite with his wife (aka concubine), servant and the asses with no obvious malicious intent.
A mob appear and ask for the Levite to be sent out so they can bugger him - probably some history behind this (present day view) rather unusual request.
Some compromise is reached and the men send the Levite's wife out to be gang raped.
I think we are asked to believe that the woman found her way back to the house from which she was handed over to the mob. In a strange town in an age before street lights and street signs - personally I don't think she could have got there on her own. So one way or another she ends up back on the doorstep - the story teller seems to want us to believe she was alive when she got there. Is this part being slipped past the censor? Did she not call out? Did not the person that put her there bang on the door to let them know she was back? Is the real story that the man left left his wife to die on the doorstep?
Advice please.
There's more - please fill in that too if you can.

The story again-
1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.
2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.
3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.
4 And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.
5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.
6 And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.
7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.
8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.
9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
10 But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.
11 And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.
12 And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah.
13 And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah.
14 And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.
15 And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging.
16 And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.
17 And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?
18 And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.
19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.
20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
Edit - in an oral telling you could make clear she was banging on the door - screaming - begging for help. A man might just choose not to write that bit down.
A twelth part of a woman would mean nothing without some written explanation. What would the note say?
"I have killed my wife."?
Something else?

"Interpreters generally agree that it is the Levite who throws her to the crowd."

It does say that they let her go. They did not kill her, but it’s not clear how she made it back, or if she was dead from the attack when he opened the door because she did not respond.

And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

And yes, it sounds like she was one of his wives, who was obviously rebellious throughout, which would lead me to believe that she just didn’t answer or obey him. Therefore, he forced her upon an ass and killed her in the privacy of his own home.  

Maybe the note would say "Obey your husband."

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/con...vite-bible
Reply
#32
confused2 Offline
Concubine=second wife (legal then) and/or wife with possibly no dowry exchanged.

An interpretation.. ( https://www.christianity.com/bible/comme...s&b=7&c=19 )
[26] Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

Fell down — Namely, dead; killed partly with grief of heart, and partly with excessive abuse. Thus the sin she formerly chose, verse 2, is now her destruction; and though her husband pardoned her, God would punish her, at least as to this life.

From another interpretation (translation) we have that her sin in verse 2 didn't exist - she went back to Daddy because she was angry with her husband.

My considered opinion is that God didn't punish (destroy) the woman for her sins - not only does the story (choose your version) suggest she had committed no (recorded) sin but it is sufficient that she was abandoned by her husband.

Dividing into 12 parts including bones - 12 graves - 12 memorials - the man takes the 12 opportunities to tell the story and explain why he is going to hell - if not already there. Wife. Love. Honour. Do not leave on doorstep to die.

Thanks SS. Looks like I was wrong about the memorial(s).

I have to go with:- [link corrected] https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/con...vite-bible

The text does not tell us exactly when or how the woman dies. The Levite, upon his arrival in Ephraim, cuts the woman’s body into twelve pieces and sends these pieces throughout the land. As a result of this action, the Israelites gather at Mizpah, a traditional site of tribal assembly, to listen to the Levite’s story and plan a response to the Benjaminites. A cycle of violence ensues, resulting in the slaughter of many Benjaminite men, women, and children (20:35–48), the slaughter of most of the inhabitants of the city of Jabesh-gilead (21:8–12), and the kidnapping of young women at Shiloh (21:15–24).

It unlikely that any of the characters in this troubling tale are meant to be understood in an entirely positive light....

I think we have to accept that as far as the bible (god) is concerned - it's OK to leave your wife on the doorstep to die. If I were to choose a god it wouldn't be that one.
Reply
#33
Syne Offline
(May 20, 2019 01:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(May 20, 2019 04:29 AM)Syne Wrote: Since women were property in those times, it was certainly more appropriate to offer them for heterosexual sex than for a host to offer his guest, who ostensibly was under his protection, for homosexual rape. And there was no indication that the abuse that led to her death was expected. But again, I get the sense that you are viewing it through your fallacious presentism.  Dodgy

Yeah, homosexual rape is more vile, isn't it?   Dodgy
Jewish law specifically addresses homosexual behavior...as well as obligations to house guests, if I remember correctly. Again, reading it in its own context, instead of insisting on injecting anachronistic presentism.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:So...you're just going to pretend you didn't get a bunch of other stuff wrong there, huh?  Rolleyes
What were you saying about "ignorant Christian apologist"? You obviously can't back that up, as you've spectacularly demonstrated.

Quote:Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Commentary on Hosea 13:9-16

Israel had destroyed himself by his rebellion; but he could not save himself, his help was from the Lord only. This may well be applied to the case of spiritual redemption, from that lost state into which all have fallen by willful sins. God often gives in displeasure what we sinfully desire. It is the happiness of the saints, that, whether God gives or takes away, all is in love. But it is the misery of the wicked, that, whether God gives or takes away, it is all in wrath, nothing is comfortable. Except sinners repent and believe the gospel, anguish will soon come upon them. The prophecy of the ruin of Israel as a nation, also showed there would be a merciful and powerful interposition of God, to save a remnant of them. Yet this was but a shadow of the ransom of the true Israel, by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He will destroy death and the grave. The Lord would not repent of his purpose and promise. Yet, in the meantime, Israel would be desolated for her sins. Without fruitfulness in good works, springing from the Holy Spirit, all other fruitfulness will be found as empty as the uncertain riches of the world. The wrath of God will wither its branches, its sprigs shall be dried up, it shall come to nothing. Woes, more terrible than any from the cruelest warfare, shall fall on those who rebel against God. From such miseries, and from sin, the cause of them, may the Lord deliver us.
"...from sin, the cause of them [miseries]..." Rolleyes
Apparently you don't even understand what you cite.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:I get the sense that you are viewing it through your fallacious presentism.

Presentism? WTF? Let’s not forgot what you threw down, little buddy. THUNK!

Syne Wrote:The Bible is pretty clear on protecting the innocent.

That's right...the bible, i.e., GOD!

I think that most Christians would reject presentism when it comes to their God’s unchanging nature and divine timelessness.
It's not clear you even understand what presentism is.

SMH, the contents of the whole Bible are not equivalent to god. And how many times do I have to say war is not murder?
Yes, most Christians do reject interpreting scripture through presentism....what you are repeatedly doing.

Quote:Man, your quivering cognitive dissonance and biases run deep, don’t they?

But don't let that stop your ignorant little fantasies.

Quit projecting.

(May 20, 2019 11:06 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: "Interpreters generally agree that it is the Levite who throws her to the crowd."

It does say that they let her go. They did not kill her, but it’s not clear how she made it back, or if she was dead from the attack when he opened the door because she did not respond.

And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

And yes, it sounds like she was one of his wives, who was obviously rebellious throughout, which would lead me to believe that she just didn’t answer or obey him. Therefore, he forced her upon an ass and killed her in the privacy of his own home.  

Maybe the note would say "Obey your husband."

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/con...vite-bible

Hilarious watching atheists try to explain the Bible to each other. Talk about blind leading the blind.
Reply
#34
Secular Sanity Offline
(May 21, 2019 01:15 AM)Syne Wrote: It's not clear you even understand what presentism is.

SMH, the contents of the whole Bible are not equivalent to god. And how many times do I have to say war is not murder?
Yes, most Christians do reject interpreting scripture through presentism....what you are repeatedly doing.

God himself clearly gave orders to murder women and children. They weren't just collateral damage.

Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament?

How do like this justification? Might help you out with your little apologist endeavor.

But didn’t God also command the Israelites to kill non-combatants? The biblical record is clear that He did. Here again, we must remember that, while it is true the Canaanite women did not fight, this in no way means they were innocent, as their seductive behavior in Numbers 25 indicates (Numbers 25:1–3). However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer, but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are.

Second, God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. While it is wrong for us to take a life, except in instances of capital punishment, war, and self-defense, this does not mean that it is wrong for God to do so. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as "playing God." God is under no obligation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.

Third, an argument could be made that it would have been cruel for God to take the lives of all the Canaanites except the infants and children. Without the protection and support of their parents, the infants and small children were likely to face death anyway due to starvation. The chances of survival for an orphan in the ancient Near East were not good.

Finally, the children of Canaan would have likely grown up as followers of the same evil religions their parents had practiced. It was time for the culture of idolatry and perversion to end in Canaan, and God wanted to use Israel to end it. Also, the orphaned children of Canaan would naturally have grown up resentful of the Israelites. Likely, some would have later sought to avenge the “unjust” treatment of their parents and return Canaan to paganism.

It’s also worth considering the eternal state of those infants killed in Canaan. If God took them before the age of moral accountability, then they went straight to heaven (as we believe). Those children are in a far better place than if they had lived into adulthood as Canaanites.

What? Is this the end of the unchanging timeless GOD? Is the word of God not enduring?

"Gods Behaving Badly"  Big Grin

♫ Oops, I made a mistake, that's all. Mistakes can happen to anyone.
Reply
#35
Syne Offline
You're such a dilettante.

I don't subscribe to notions of infallibility or inerrancy. Much of the Bible is just relayed history and it was written by men. But look at what happens when the Jews try to coexist with others. They end up surrounded by people who want to wage genocide against them. So, maybe there was some divine inspiration going on back then. Brutal times call for brutal measures. It's just the reality that you keep trying to deny with your presentism.

Why would anything I've said imply a changing god? Just because the Bible is not equivalent to god has nothing to do with the unchanging nature of either. Silly girl.
Reply
#36
Secular Sanity Offline
(May 21, 2019 04:21 AM)Syne Wrote: Much of the Bible is just relayed history and it was written by men.

That's right, Syne...men.

She had no name. She had no voice and no choice. 

(May 20, 2019 09:30 PM)confused2 Wrote: A twelth part of a woman would mean nothing without some written explanation. What would the note say?
"I have killed my wife."?
Something else?

There was no need for a written explanation. Her body was owned by the twelve tribes of Israel and each tribe received its fair share.
Reply
#37
stryder Offline
While I could sit on a fence and not make any statements at all, I'm going to state pro-choice.

The main reason for this is because there's a lot people don't take in, for instance a baby can be born but if it was cast into a woodland it would only be luck(?) if woodland creatures took it in and nurtured it as one of their own.  The reality is that newborns have a world stacked against them if they aren't wanted, the very nature of survivalism exists as without someone coveting them and protecting them, they will inevitably perish.

Coveting of course doesn't just mean a nurturing couple that protect their infant, admittedly the manipulation of state systems allows for some people to get out of doing a hard-days graft by cashing in on child welfare.   After all if they wander around in charity bin hand-me-downs and look scruffy, it's something that can be exploited for further charity.  The problem is that in such "foster" systems the children themselves can likely feel distanced and aloof.  That eventually can cause them to become sociopathic through the absence of true empathetic interaction (since after all they are there just for exploitation)  Which in turn means years down the road that child might wander into adulthood, ill equipped, angry, despairing and blame the world for putting them there.  (There the sorts that do the school shootings, bombings, terrorism etc)

So in essence sparing that one life, potentially causes twenty or more to be taken a few years down the road.  If you were to equate it as a Trolley Problem (wikipedia.org) between the difference in numbers, you'd throw the unborn or newlyborn baby under the bus. (figuratively!)

Incidentally Anti-Abortion lobbiests (pro-lifers) should put their money where their mouth is, if they think abortion is wrong... Fine, however they should be forced to adopt those children that come into being because of it and they should also be held accountable should any of those children be abused/misused or become a criminal/rapist or mass murder because they let them.

Why is abortion a topic... well it was stated previously it's about political tension.  If the left acts over bearing with it's emotional context, it proves to the Authoritarians that they can not handle making the hard decisions which keeps them from ever arising to having power in the sense of control (rather than the power of Zerg (wikipedia.org))

As for religions take on it (Since this can of worms erupted). To be honest I don't particularly care for religion. Religion is outdated, it's text (and verbal passage before that) were written centuries ago for people long dead and the only thing that comes from continuing it's "teachings" is continued warfare, hatred and abuse. (Yeah there might be the statement of love your neighbour, but has anyone tallied how many times something positive is suggest over how many negative things. I mean there is only so many sticks a human can bear, we all love carrots.)

Ideally they should of done what they did with the dead sea scrolls and buried all the religious texts, hopefully not to be found until the world thought with more historical nostalgia at buried finds rather than spouting a new coming with a relic.
Reply
#38
Leigha Offline
One of the problems with having intellectually honest conversations with pro-lifers (not on this site, but in the political arena) is that they tend to be pro death penalty, and turn a blind eye to the children at the border, for example, who are suffering. There is a lot of poverty in the US, with babies and children in the middle of it. If you're pro-life, that's your choice, but I'd encourage pro-lifers to broaden their definition of what this means, as it comes off hypocritical to care so much about unborn life, but to be indifferent about other stages of life. It also doesn't make sense why many pro-lifers are anti big government, yet want the government to be so intimately involved with a woman's reproductive choices.

So, they need to start reflecting on what it actually means to be ''pro life.'' It's easy to tell someone to not have an abortion, and feel like you're morally superior. But, in the next breath, that same pro-lifer turns a blind eye to the suffering of children happening at our border, for example. Not saying all, but this has been an observation of mine.

I'd say many people are merely pro-life when convenient.
Reply
#39
confused2 Offline
The US pro-lifers are an alien species to me. I do see that the local (UK) church-goers have fairly swanky cars. The local church-goers can raise large sums of money to repair their local church. In fairness it is clear that whatever they are doing works for them. In fairness they aren't 'exclusive' - anyone can turn up and be made welcome. Possibly they might not make me welcome but I can hardly blame them for that. My guess (for discussion) is that they live in a sort of bubble (as do we all) and pay most attention to whatever is inside their bubble and less or none to what is outside their bubble. I suspect it takes a charismatic leader to make and break bubbles. Obviously Jesus - I know his name after 2,000 years. Hitler - unfortunately - seems to have been a charismatic leader. I thought Nelson Mandela was one but his name is already almost lost in history. Martin Luther King - "I have a dream" - maybe because I was very young - in my lifetime he is the charismatic leader I acknowledge most.
Reply
#40
Syne Offline
(May 21, 2019 01:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(May 21, 2019 04:21 AM)Syne Wrote: Much of the Bible is just relayed history and it was written by men.

That's right, Syne...men.

She had no name. She had no voice and no choice. 
And? Quit looking at through your ignorant lens of presentism.

Quote:
(May 20, 2019 09:30 PM)confused2 Wrote: A twelth part of a woman would mean nothing without some written explanation. What would the note say?
"I have killed my wife."?
Something else?

There was no need for a written explanation. Her body was owned by the twelve tribes of Israel and each tribe received its fair share.
Wrong again. It was a sign of solidarity among all the Israelites.


(May 21, 2019 02:38 PM)stryder Wrote: While I could sit on a fence and not make any statements at all, I'm going to state pro-choice.

The main reason for this is because there's a lot people don't take in, for instance a baby can be born but if it was cast into a woodland it would only be luck(?) if woodland creatures took it in and nurtured it as one of their own.  The reality is that newborns have a world stacked against them if they aren't wanted, the very nature of survivalism exists as without someone coveting them and protecting them, they will inevitably perish.
The is such a market for adopting newborns that some Westerners go to other countries to adopt.

Quote:Coveting of course doesn't just mean a nurturing couple that protect their infant, admittedly the manipulation of state systems allows for some people to get out of doing a hard-days graft by cashing in on child welfare.   After all if they wander around in charity bin hand-me-downs and look scruffy, it's something that can be exploited for further charity.  The problem is that in such "foster" systems the children themselves can likely feel distanced and aloof.  That eventually can cause them to become sociopathic through the absence of true empathetic interaction (since after all they are there just for exploitation)  Which in turn means years down the road that child might wander into adulthood, ill equipped, angry, despairing and blame the world for putting them there.  (There the sorts that do the school shootings, bombings, terrorism etc)
The average age of a child entering foster care is 8 years old. That means many of the most formative years happen beforehand. But I agree that welfare very often perverts incentives. Broken homes, like absent fathers, are a much better predictor of things like school shootings.

Quote:So in essence sparing that one life, potentially causes twenty or more to be taken a few years down the road.  If you were to equate it as a Trolley Problem (wikipedia.org) between the difference in numbers, you'd throw the unborn or newlyborn baby under the bus. (figuratively!)
No, many children leave foster care to become successful adults all the time. Pretending you can predict which ones might not is playing god.
You seem to favor the sociopath's answer to the Trolley Problem...where it's just math, with no consideration of the moral implications of taking action.

Quote:Incidentally Anti-Abortion lobbiests (pro-lifers) should put their money where their mouth is, if they think abortion is wrong... Fine, however they should be forced to adopt those children that come into being because of it and they should also be held accountable should any of those children be abused/misused or become a criminal/rapist or mass murder because they let them.
The are Christian adoption agencies that the left is trying to shut down.

People making bad decisions, like having unprotected sex AND not taking the morning after pill AND deciding it's just easier to kill a baby, are they ones who lack accountability. Their decides are what leads to that child being conceived in the first place. Absolving them only to place the blame somewhere very far removed is intellectually dishonest.

And guess what, rapists and mass murderers (as well as orphans) existed before abortion was even a thing.

Quote:Why is abortion a topic... well it was stated previously it's about political tension.  If the left acts over bearing with it's emotional context, it proves to the Authoritarians that they can not handle making the hard decisions which keeps them from ever arising to having power in the sense of control (rather than the power of Zerg (wikipedia.org))
In the US, it's the left that is authoritarian.

Quote:As for religions take on it (Since this can of worms erupted).  To be honest I don't particularly care for religion. Religion is outdated, it's text (and verbal passage before that) were written centuries ago for people long dead and the only thing that comes from continuing it's "teachings" is continued warfare, hatred and abuse.  (Yeah there might be the statement of love your neighbour, but has anyone tallied how many times something positive is suggest over how many negative things.  I mean there is only so many sticks a human can bear, we all love carrots.)
What wars have Christians wages in modern times? What hatred, other than a small, extreme minority (the kind of which exist in any demographic)? What abuse, again, other than in a minority?

You don't hear the positive because A) you don't participate in a religious community and B) the news is largely oriented on negative events.

Quote: Ideally they should of done what they did with the dead sea scrolls and buried all the religious texts, hopefully not to be found until the world thought with more historical nostalgia at buried finds rather than spouting a new coming with a relic.
The Bible didn't disappear until the Dead Sea scrolls were found. Christianity has continually existed since its founding.



(May 21, 2019 02:45 PM)Leigha Wrote: One of the problems with having intellectually honest conversations with pro-lifers (not on this site, but in the political arena) is that they tend to be pro death penalty, and turn a blind eye to the children at the border, for example, who are suffering. There is a lot of poverty in the US, with babies and children in the middle of it. If you're pro-life, that's your choice, but I'd encourage pro-lifers to broaden their definition of what this means, as it comes off hypocritical to care so much about unborn life, but to be indifferent about other stages of life. It also doesn't make sense why many pro-lifers are anti big government, yet want the government to be so intimately involved with a woman's reproductive choices.

So, they need to start reflecting on what it actually means to be ''pro life.'' It's easy to tell someone to not have an abortion, and feel like you're morally superior. But, in the next breath, that same pro-lifer turns a blind eye to the suffering of children happening at our border, for example. Not saying all, but this has been an observation of mine.

I'd say many people are merely pro-life when convenient.
Conflating a lot of unrelated issues is not intellectually honest. A murderer is paying for his crime and does not deserve the same consideration as an innocent child. Children are only at the border because we've incentivized them to be there, with the promise of sneaking/getting in and living in the best country in the world. Adults use those children to take advantage of that incentive. As a practical matter, taking in the children will just further incentivize more children at the border, brought there by more exploiting adults...including sex traffickers, etc..

Poverty in the US is, again, a problem with the adults, who seek to game the welfare system by having/keeping children who would likely be better of put up for adoption. Trying to solve any of these problems without addressing the root causes only enables the behavior that produces those problems. It's trying to buy your way out of something that the money itself is exacerbating.

There's nothing hypocritical about telling a murderer that they had their chance at life and they ruined it by their own choices and actions. OTOH, there is a problem with killing babies on the off chance they might become a murderer. The left wants to preemptively kill the baby while pardoning the murderer. That is hypocrisy. There's no rationale for it.

Would you be in favor of allowing the government to take children away from poor parents? That's what it would take, as you can give irresponsible parents money all day long, that often ends up at the liquor store or casino, and not change the material well-being of a child. Taking those children would be the big government solution. Keeping humans from killing other humans is the most basic duty of even the smallest governments.


Leftists, and morons who fall for their bullshit, need to learn that "pro-life" isn't an absolute term, devoid of any other rational considerations...like if something can even work in the real world. Leftists are just incapable of squaring their dreamy idealism with reality. Like the fact that their open-borders/humanitarianism only makes the problem worse.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research Pregnancy: the more people know about it, the more likely to support abortion access C C 0 53 Jan 25, 2024 05:44 AM
Last Post: C C
  Study on lasting effects of abortion + On Netflix's turn against Woke speech policing C C 0 67 May 17, 2022 02:48 PM
Last Post: C C
  State attorneys vow not to prosecute abortion-related crimes C C 0 67 May 9, 2022 05:29 AM
Last Post: C C
  From horse's mouth: Russian Jews & absurd idea of sheep citizens overthrowing Putin C C 2 159 Mar 20, 2022 04:09 AM
Last Post: stryder
  Many opposed to abortion would still help friend or family member seeking one C C 0 66 Feb 22, 2022 12:02 AM
Last Post: C C
  The NYT finally learning to love GMOs? + TN goes race conspiracy on COVID, abortion C C 1 85 Sep 23, 2021 07:39 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Why do pro-choice advocates avoid engaging in the ethics of abortion? C C 1 215 Apr 26, 2021 04:52 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)