Texas Abortion Law Leaves Planned Parenthood in Tears

[kaylagrl]

Well, that does it! No more likes for you.


Why would Leviticus 24:17, the law of God, apply now? When do many Christians will argue against the Sabbath, claiming we're not Jews, and we're not under the law. Now there's an exception?

Nope, never saw anywhere that said that changed with the NT. Not everything said in the OT is null and void in the NT. Still an eye for an eye.

And lastly, what of those pregnancies that threaten the woman's life? If abortion is never to be allowed, the woman dies because her baby, the pregnancy killed her. As did the law that outlawed abortion no matter what.

Is that pro-life?

Very few cases does that ever happen. The issue is that pro- choicers justify the majority of abortions based on 4% of cases. So I always say to them "ok, we can make exceptions for the 4% of cases which are rape/incest/medical, and all other abortions will be stopped." None of them agree to that. Because it's not about the 4% it's about people who want the right to live how they like and then get rid of the consequences.

 

[mindfulzen]

The Christian way to go is 490 except that "love does not keep account", so the alternate interpretation is that by loving one another then others will know that we are the Lord's disciples.

Not doing it, and I disagree. I do not know what you mean by "loving one another" means. We have a few words for love in my neck of the woods, where we differentiate between them, not a blanket word for all. So unless you mean "void of hate" as love, I do not agree. Somehow I think you mean a little more than that, since few agree with that definition of love here. I even love my enemy if that is the definition we go by. Does not mean we should turn off our brains and be eternally "pranked" in naivity. So perhaps 450 chances, but not 490

 

[ZNP]

Not doing it, and I disagree. I do not know what you mean by "loving one another" means. We have a few words for love in my neck of the woods, where we differentiate between them, not a blanket word for all. So unless you mean "void of hate" as love, I do not agree. Somehow I think you mean a little more than that, since few agree with that definition of love here. I even love my enemy if that is the definition we go by. Does not mean we should turn off our brains and be eternally "pranked" in naivity. So perhaps 450 chances, but not 490

Sorry, I thought everyone knew this.

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until [m]seventy times seven.

This is what I mean by love

4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 [b]beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Here is the biggest superpower because it gives you power with God at the judgement seat

James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.

 

[mindfulzen]

Sorry, I thought everyone knew this.

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until [m]seventy times seven.

This is what I mean by love

4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 [b]beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Here is the biggest superpower because it gives you power with God at the judgement seat

James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.

Pointless to paste replies. You angaged me, and I told you that you had to define the words, which you want an answer to. Make the premiss with your own words. Will not reply to cherrypicked verses out of context. I do the books, context is king, do not cherrypick comfort. Do not need it. And you have to find verses that points back to the old testament and God, to clue you in on that, if you want to paste to me in the future. Instead of just using your own voice.

So, if love is absence of hate, I only have love for people. I could have rightuous anger and conflict, but that is mirky territory, so I just cut toxic people, and end up with love. It may seem hard, but is easier once your faith is strong, and you decide to put your faith and God on top. I would do a serious biblestudy if I were you, and take the verses in context, and find what they point at in the old testament. You are missing important bits. You are told to endure for the truth and God, not endure and join liars, for the liars sake. If you think that, you got it all wrong. God did not tell you to be weak. Courage and conviction, and you cannot join in blaspheming, and should not even tolerate it. Do as you wish, I am not participating in fake ceremonies mocking God anymore.

 

[Gideon300]

I haven't seen anyone talking about this here at ChristianChat. Texas has passed a law that abortions can't be performed after baby is 6 weeks old and "allows private citizens to sue anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion." (Can't sue the mother, but the doctor, for example, can be sued.)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-clinic-worker-says-70-063145043.html

Dixon said she's upset with the new law: "I'm actually angry because this is an attack on people's constitutional rights to seek these services. And it's between them and their doctors," she told the outlet.

1. I'd like to see the "constitutional right" that makes it okay to kill another human being. They keep using this as an argument but it's a lie. And if it was a constitutional right, why are they so concerned that that "right" is upheld but not our right to keep and bear arms without infringement, which is a REAL constitutional right?

2. "It's between them and their doctors". HA! If that were true they wouldn't be constantly "asking" taxpayers to front the bill for their "reproductive health".



My husband and I had a friend, yeeeears ago, who's girlfriend aborted their baby. He was devastated. HE wanted the baby. If this had been a law in Oregon, he would have had the ability to sue the doctor for the loss of his child (10K really, in my opinion, doesn't cover the loss but at least it's a start).

I've also wondered if a mother who is "forced" into aborting her baby (by a pushy boyfriend or parent) could sue her parent or boyfriend? Seems that loophole would be there. Which could be a good or bad thing, depending on how honest the woman is about what is going on...

It's incredibly sad that women are crying over the fact that they can't kill their baby. I know it's overly simplistic but...you don't want to have kids? Don't do the thing that creates them!!

Christians should not be trying to impose their values on the world. No one is going to be born again because they gave birth to a child instead of having an abortion. If the church was not so pathetically weak and self absorbed, the world would be convicted of sin, would turn to Christ and quit behaviours that lead them to have abortions (and drugs/gambling/alcohol abuse etc.)

 

[Icedaisey]

Nope, never saw anywhere that said that changed with the NT. Not everything said in the OT is null and void in the NT. Still an eye for an eye.

You should know the NT better than that.

Matthew 5:38You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

Very few cases does that ever happen. The issue is that pro- choicers justify the majority of abortions based on 4% of cases. So I always say to them "ok, we can make exceptions for the 4% of cases which are rape/incest/medical, and all other abortions will be stopped." None of them agree to that. Because it's not about the 4% it's about people who want the right to live how they like and then get rid of the consequences.

Strong anti-choice arguments like that defeat the cause of being proactive for life. Because besides the fact there's no evidence posted to sustain the claim, implying 4% of women's lives seemingly being expendable just so long as abortion is outlawed entirely, entirely revokes any claim that such a position is assumed because life is sacred.

 

[kaylagrl]

You should know the NT better than that.

Matthew 5:38You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

That is speaking of a personal reaction. That doesn't change capital punishment.

"for (the State) is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

More fully from Paul ...

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Again, if you take a life, you lose your life. OT, NT it doesn't change. And the Bible is what our laws are based on.

Strong anti-choice arguments like that defeat the cause of being proactive for life.

No it doesn't, at all. I can be totally pro- life and pro- capital punishment. The two are not the same in any manner. Apples and oranges.

Because besides the fact there's no evidence posted to sustain the claim, implying 4% of women's lives seemingly being expendable just so long as abortion is outlawed entirely, entirely revokes any claim that such a position is assumed because life is sacred.

I didn't say that, I said when I use their "pro-choice" reasoning against them they still insist abortion should be legal. Look abortionists always argue the most extreme cases to justify the murder of 60 million unborn children. If you say "these cases medical/rape/incest" are extreme and abortions should be allowed in those cases that is one thing. There are people who believe that. But 98% of abortions are had by healthy mothers with healthy babies, Guttmacher. For me, the cases of rape and incest, give the child up for adoption. That child did not ask to come into the world. There are studies that many women who go through these situations actually end up keeping the child or giving the child up for adoption. They have been through such trauma and violence that they don't want to go through it again. Life is sacred and you do not have the right to take an innocent life. Which has nothing to do with capital punishment.

 

[ZNP]

If I were wrongfully convicted of a capital crime where the death penalty was an option I would ask the judge to give me the death penalty. To me that is the NT test, am I doing unto others as I would do unto myself.

So then, why? It can take 25 years for them to execute people on death row. During that time you get many appeals and you get free legal help, not just by lawyers but most people are motivated when they learn that this person will be executed if they don't help.

I would have my best opportunity to prove my innocence if I were on death row, that would be my motivation.

I would also point out that the vast majority of major developments in forensic science including many breakthroughs on fingerprints and DNA were made because of the death penalty. If you do a cost/benefit analysis remember that, all those who were found innocent because of fingerprints and DNA can thank the death penalty.

 

[Icedaisey]

That is speaking of a personal reaction. That doesn't change capital punishment.

"for (the State) is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

More fully from Paul ...

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Again, if you take a life, you lose your life. OT, NT it doesn't change. And the Bible is what our laws are based on.






No it doesn't, at all. I can be totally pro- life and pro- capital punishment. The two are not the same in any manner. Apples and oranges.







I didn't say that, I said when I use their "pro-choice" reasoning against them they still insist abortion should be legal. Look abortionists always argue the most extreme cases to justify the murder of 60 million unborn children. If you say "these cases medical/rape/incest" are extreme and abortions should be allowed in those cases that is one thing. There are people who believe that. But 98% of abortions are had by healthy mothers with healthy babies, Guttmacher. For me, the cases of rape and incest, give the child up for adoption. That child did not ask to come into the world. There are studies that many women who go through these situations actually end up keeping the child or giving the child up for adoption. They have been through such trauma and violence that they don't want to go through it again. Life is sacred and you do not have the right to take an innocent life. Which has nothing to do with capital punishment.

I had a ridiculous protracted rebuttal set for all those points you hoped to make.
And then I realized the sobering reality of them and the only real answer. Why bother?
You live thinking that way about Jesus, women, and the law of God and man.

The irony? That's your choice.

 

[kaylagrl]

I had a ridiculous protracted rebuttal set for all those points you hoped to make.
And then I realized the sobering reality of them and the only real answer. Why bother?
You live thinking that way about Jesus, women, and the law of God and man.

The irony? That's your choice.

There is no rebuttal. You can insinuate whatever you wish. If you think Jesus didn't hold with capital punishment, that's your opinion. No where in the NT did He say it was abolished. If you take an innocent life, you lose yours. As far as how I think about women I expect women to make the "choice" before they get pregnant, before they have sex. That's being responsible. That's where choice comes when speaking of 98% of abortions. Abortions were suppose to be rare when they first passed Roe. Now women are having abortions for convenience, the majority of abortions. Those who didn't chose to get pregnant, 4 % still have the option for adoption if they don't wish to keep the baby. There is no way you can justify abortion and call yourself a Christian. Period. That is an innocent life. Whether you try to use the Bible or science as your argument you cannot justify the killing of 60 million babies. How do I feel about women? I feel they have the right to live. If you don't, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[GaryA]

Matthew 5 is not legalistic; rather, it is instruction concerning "how we should be" (our attitude and actions) toward God and others - and how to "walk the walk"...

Then there is such as this:

Revelation 13:

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

Everything in its proper context...

 

[mindfulzen]

If I were wrongfully convicted of a capital crime where the death penalty was an option I would ask the judge to give me the death penalty. To me that is the NT test, am I doing unto others as I would do unto myself.

So then, why? It can take 25 years for them to execute people on death row. During that time you get many appeals and you get free legal help, not just by lawyers but most people are motivated when they learn that this person will be executed if they don't help.

I would have my best opportunity to prove my innocence if I were on death row, that would be my motivation.

I would also point out that the vast majority of major developments in forensic science including many breakthroughs on fingerprints and DNA were made because of the death penalty. If you do a cost/benefit analysis remember that, all those who were found innocent because of fingerprints and DNA can thank the death penalty.

Is this a reply to me or the OP? If so, how does this relate to my reply?

 

[GaryA]

Matthew 5 is not legalistic; rather, it is instruction concerning "how we should be" (our attitude and actions) toward God and others - and how to "walk the walk"...

Then there is such as this:

Revelation 13:

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

Everything in its proper context...

If you are going to quote scripture to support for/against something - please make sure that the scripture you quote actually "speaks to" that something - in its context - directly, indirectly, or in some reasonable and relevant form or fashion...

 

[Icedaisey]

There is no rebuttal. You can insinuate whatever you wish. If you think Jesus didn't hold with capital punishment, that's your opinion. No where in the NT did He say it was abolished. If you take an innocent life, you lose yours. As far as how I think about women I expect women to make the "choice" before they get pregnant, before they have sex. That's being responsible. That's where choice comes when speaking of 98% of abortions. Abortions were suppose to be rare when they first passed Roe. Now women are having abortions for convenience, the majority of abortions. Those who didn't chose to get pregnant, 4 % still have the option for adoption if they don't wish to keep the baby. There is no way you can justify abortion and call yourself a Christian. Period. That is an innocent life. Whether you try to use the Bible or science as your argument you cannot justify the killing of 60 million babies. How do I feel about women? I feel they have the right to live. If you don't, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

How many newborn lives have you adopted or fostered?

 

[PrivateBadge45]

This law will undoubtedly bring on a new breed of bounty hunters.

 

[kaylagrl]

How many newborn lives have you adopted or fostered?

Yes, and this is the second dastardly argument abortionists use. Because there are children waiting to be adopted, the better choice is to murder them in the womb. If you don't or aren't able to adopt, you're a hypocrite. Back to the old " you only care till they're born" lie.
In his 2006 book Who Really Cares, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks said:

[Conservatives] gave more to every type of cause and charity: health charities, education organizations, international aid groups, and human welfare agencies. They even gave more to traditionally liberal causes, such as the environment and the arts.​

The most detailed recent study of giving in the United States was published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in November 2017. Please take note...


1.This study showed that 12 of the top 13 states in average individual giving were “red” states ― those states that tend to vote for Republicans. Romney’s home state Utah took the top spot, and the others were all from the much-maligned “Bible belt.”

2. The bottom seven and the bottom 11 of 12 states in average individual giving in 2012 were “blue” states ― those states that tend to vote for Democrats.

3.Not surprisingly, a Pew Forum study showed that the seventeen most religious states (where respondents said that religion was “very important in their lives”) all voted for Romney, and 21 of the 25 least religious states voted for Obama.3 In other words, people in more religious states are much more generous than people in less religious states.

4. People in 86 of the most generous 88 cities were in states that voted for Romney, and 88 of the 100 least generous cities were in states that voted for Obama in 2012.4 These numbers are even more remarkable when we take into account the fact that “blue” states are much more secular (so they do not contribute as much to churches) and have fewer children to spend money on.

5.In addition to being more charitable, pro-life people are much more generous in the service of life than pro-abortion people; the ten states with the highest fertility rates all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, and the ten states with the lowest fertility rates all voted for Barack Obama.

In summary, people who are more religious have more children and are more generous in helping others as well.

The Roman Catholic Church operates 26% of all of the health care facilities in the entire world, including 117,000 hospitals, clinics and orphanages, 18,000 pharmacies and 512 centers for the care of those with leprosy. This includes 911 hospitals and health care facilities and 418 orphanages in the United States.

The Lutheran Church, the Jewish faith and others have also founded hundreds of other hospitals in the United States, although many do not continue to operate under religious principles. But when was the last time you saw a hospital named something like the “Cincinnati Atheist and Agnostic Health Care System?”

All of these statistics makes perfect sense. Conservatives give to charities out of a desire to help people.

But when liberals give to charities, they are more likely to be giving in order to make a political statement, which is why pro-abortion and pro-homosexual groups have such huge bankrolls. If liberals give to the “correct” political groups, vote for the “correct” liberal political candidates, believe in the “correct” causes and pay their taxes, they think they’ve done their bit for social justice and will leave it to the government to take care of the rest of the needs of the poor.

In general, not only do liberals fail to contribute meaningfully to the solution of social problems, they generally support the very things that make people both sick and poor ― unlimited sex without commitment, the destruction of marriage through its redefinition, and single motherhood. They refuse to support the most effective weapon for fighting poverty among women and children, which is traditional marriage. In the case of abortion, they even stridently condemn the only non-governmental organizations that help women with material and practical needs after their babies are born ― crisis pregnancy centers.

I will say again, you cannot call yourself a Christian and be for abortion. 60 million abortions since Roe, the population of Canada. There is no justification for the death of those innocent little ones. None.

 

[Icedaisey]

Yes, and this is the second dastardly argument abortionists use. Because there are children waiting to be adopted, the better choice is to murder them in the womb. If you don't or aren't able to adopt, you're a hypocrite. Back to the old " you only care till they're born" lie.
In his 2006 book Who Really Cares, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks said:

[Conservatives] gave more to every type of cause and charity: health charities, education organizations, international aid groups, and human welfare agencies. They even gave more to traditionally liberal causes, such as the environment and the arts.​

The most detailed recent study of giving in the United States was published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in November 2017. Please take note...


1.This study showed that 12 of the top 13 states in average individual giving were “red” states ― those states that tend to vote for Republicans. Romney’s home state Utah took the top spot, and the others were all from the much-maligned “Bible belt.”

2. The bottom seven and the bottom 11 of 12 states in average individual giving in 2012 were “blue” states ― those states that tend to vote for Democrats.

3.Not surprisingly, a Pew Forum study showed that the seventeen most religious states (where respondents said that religion was “very important in their lives”) all voted for Romney, and 21 of the 25 least religious states voted for Obama.3 In other words, people in more religious states are much more generous than people in less religious states.

4. People in 86 of the most generous 88 cities were in states that voted for Romney, and 88 of the 100 least generous cities were in states that voted for Obama in 2012.4 These numbers are even more remarkable when we take into account the fact that “blue” states are much more secular (so they do not contribute as much to churches) and have fewer children to spend money on.

5.In addition to being more charitable, pro-life people are much more generous in the service of life than pro-abortion people; the ten states with the highest fertility rates all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, and the ten states with the lowest fertility rates all voted for Barack Obama.

In summary, people who are more religious have more children and are more generous in helping others as well.

The Roman Catholic Church operates 26% of all of the health care facilities in the entire world, including 117,000 hospitals, clinics and orphanages, 18,000 pharmacies and 512 centers for the care of those with leprosy. This includes 911 hospitals and health care facilities and 418 orphanages in the United States.

The Lutheran Church, the Jewish faith and others have also founded hundreds of other hospitals in the United States, although many do not continue to operate under religious principles. But when was the last time you saw a hospital named something like the “Cincinnati Atheist and Agnostic Health Care System?”

All of these statistics makes perfect sense. Conservatives give to charities out of a desire to help people.

But when liberals give to charities, they are more likely to be giving in order to make a political statement, which is why pro-abortion and pro-homosexual groups have such huge bankrolls. If liberals give to the “correct” political groups, vote for the “correct” liberal political candidates, believe in the “correct” causes and pay their taxes, they think they’ve done their bit for social justice and will leave it to the government to take care of the rest of the needs of the poor.

In general, not only do liberals fail to contribute meaningfully to the solution of social problems, they generally support the very things that make people both sick and poor ― unlimited sex without commitment, the destruction of marriage through its redefinition, and single motherhood. They refuse to support the most effective weapon for fighting poverty among women and children, which is traditional marriage. In the case of abortion, they even stridently condemn the only non-governmental organizations that help women with material and practical needs after their babies are born ― crisis pregnancy centers.

I will say again, you cannot call yourself a Christian and be for abortion. 60 million abortions since Roe, the population of Canada. There is no justification for the death of those innocent little ones. None.

That's quite a protracted excuse to answer simply, no. You haven't adopted not fostered newborns.



Their mom's were pro-choice by the way. That's what radicals don't realize. Pro-choice does not always mean pro-abortion. Surprise!

As for your repeated effort to play God and judge hearts you don't care to know, don't you dare presume!
God IS NOT pro-life.
If you don't know that, it is you who don't know the Bible.

When a anti-choice zealot implies women should have no right to save their own lives if carrying to term will kill them both, that zealot isn't in favor of life. Regardless of their unsubstantiated claims it's only a small number of women that face that diagnosis.
Those women should die? Any one life lost in pregnancy should be one too many if someone is proactively about sustaining life, and quality of life is negligible, they're a liar. As well as a zealot. And an incredibly ignorant one at that thinking God is on their side.

God killed the firstborn of Every Egyptian house. That, in those times, included babies in utero. Because ancient Egyptian culture considered a pregnant wife as carrying the husband's first born when pregnant for the first time.

Same with the Jews.

And it isn't as if the great flood isn't evidence in itself. God chose a family of adults to survive his drowning all life on earth but that which he chose to live!

And no one imagines there weren't newborns or pregnant women in Sodom and Gomorrah.

And lastly, there's the bitter water test in the OT you're so fond of biting when convenient. To test if a wife suspected of adultery were pregnant. That she'd miscarry drinking the concoction. Though many a zealot often insists that's not true. They're wrong. They won't believe that of course.

I don't care. What they don't know already fills a book.

 

[Icedaisey]

This law will undoubtedly bring on a new breed of bounty hunters.

As intended.

Operation Rescues terrorist faction at one time published the names, addresses of abortion doctors.
They tried, partly succeeded as I recall, also publishing on their website the name, address of women who visited women's health clinics if those clinics also offered abortion services.

Their intention was murder of those "guilty" persons who took innocent lives. Proving OR wasn't pro-Life. They were terrorists.

At least in Texas there's a right to carry law. How do you cure the world of domestic misogynist homicidal terrorists?

Texas law makers are going to learn a lesson. One whose precedent will save the women and clinics of the other 49 states. Or, 56, if you're Barry Obama.

 

[kaylagrl]

That's quite a protracted excuse to answer simply, no. You haven't adopted not fostered newborns.

No, my reply was you're using abortionists talking points. Why are claiming to be a Christian and using every talking point abortions pull out when I discuss with them? Keep going, but nothing you bring up will justify killing 60 million babies.

Their mom's were pro-choice by the way. That's what radicals don't realize. Pro-choice does not always mean pro-abortion. Surprise!.

I'd say you've got yourself turned around. The person who justifies this is the radical ...

As for your repeated effort to play God and judge hearts you don't care to know, don't you dare presume!
God IS NOT pro-life.
If you don't know that, it is you who don't know the Bible.

God is not pro-life?! Scripture and verse for that one!! NO ONE said a woman who had an abortion can't be forgiven. We're not talking about women who have been saved and forgiven. So don't try and change the subject.

When a anti-choice zealot implies women should have no right to save their own lives if carrying to term will kill them both, that zealot isn't in favor of life. Regardless of their unsubstantiated claims it's only a small number of women that face that diagnosis.

You're a liar, no one has said that. And the claims are not mine, they are from Guttmacher. Go look it up for yourself. That's not a conservative site in any manner.

God killed the firstborn of Every Egyptian house. That, in those times, included babies in utero. Because ancient Egyptian culture considered a pregnant wife as carrying the husband's first born when pregnant for the first time.

Same with the Jews.

And it isn't as if the great flood isn't evidence in itself. God chose a family of adults to survive his drowning all life on earth but that which he chose to live!

And no one imagines there weren't newborns or pregnant women in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Are you serious?! Now YOU want to argue the OT !! rofl It works when it works for your argument, ok. God created life and He can take it, if he chooses. YOU are not God!! God gave opportunities to repent in those situations btw. You don't have the right to take a life. That was before Christ, before the cross.

And lastly, there's the bitter water test in the OT you're so fond of biting when convenient. To test if a wife suspected of adultery were pregnant. That she'd miscarry drinking the concoction. Though many a zealot often insists that's not true. They're wrong. They won't believe that of course.

I don't care. What they don't know already fills a book.

Many abortionists and atheists use this lie, I'm trying to decide which you are and why you're really here. You may not care, but I care about you lying about the Word of God, twisting it to meet your beliefs. You have literally used every major abortion argument so far. God's judgment is not the same as you taking an innocent life. He is the creator of life, YOU are not!! I know what scripture you're talking about, whether you twist it to say what abortionists/ atheists say or don't, neither condones abortion, end of story!!

 

[kaylagrl]

Yes, and this is the second dastardly argument abortionists use. Because there are children waiting to be adopted, the better choice is to murder them in the womb. If you don't or aren't able to adopt, you're a hypocrite. Back to the old " you only care till they're born" lie.
In his 2006 book Who Really Cares, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks said:

[Conservatives] gave more to every type of cause and charity: health charities, education organizations, international aid groups, and human welfare agencies. They even gave more to traditionally liberal causes, such as the environment and the arts.​

The most detailed recent study of giving in the United States was published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in November 2017. Please take note...


1.This study showed that 12 of the top 13 states in average individual giving were “red” states ― those states that tend to vote for Republicans. Romney’s home state Utah took the top spot, and the others were all from the much-maligned “Bible belt.”

2. The bottom seven and the bottom 11 of 12 states in average individual giving in 2012 were “blue” states ― those states that tend to vote for Democrats.

3.Not surprisingly, a Pew Forum study showed that the seventeen most religious states (where respondents said that religion was “very important in their lives”) all voted for Romney, and 21 of the 25 least religious states voted for Obama.3 In other words, people in more religious states are much more generous than people in less religious states.

4. People in 86 of the most generous 88 cities were in states that voted for Romney, and 88 of the 100 least generous cities were in states that voted for Obama in 2012.4 These numbers are even more remarkable when we take into account the fact that “blue” states are much more secular (so they do not contribute as much to churches) and have fewer children to spend money on.

5.In addition to being more charitable, pro-life people are much more generous in the service of life than pro-abortion people; the ten states with the highest fertility rates all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, and the ten states with the lowest fertility rates all voted for Barack Obama.

In summary, people who are more religious have more children and are more generous in helping others as well.

The Roman Catholic Church operates 26% of all of the health care facilities in the entire world, including 117,000 hospitals, clinics and orphanages, 18,000 pharmacies and 512 centers for the care of those with leprosy. This includes 911 hospitals and health care facilities and 418 orphanages in the United States.

The Lutheran Church, the Jewish faith and others have also founded hundreds of other hospitals in the United States, although many do not continue to operate under religious principles. But when was the last time you saw a hospital named something like the “Cincinnati Atheist and Agnostic Health Care System?”

All of these statistics makes perfect sense. Conservatives give to charities out of a desire to help people.

But when liberals give to charities, they are more likely to be giving in order to make a political statement, which is why pro-abortion and pro-homosexual groups have such huge bankrolls. If liberals give to the “correct” political groups, vote for the “correct” liberal political candidates, believe in the “correct” causes and pay their taxes, they think they’ve done their bit for social justice and will leave it to the government to take care of the rest of the needs of the poor.

In general, not only do liberals fail to contribute meaningfully to the solution of social problems, they generally support the very things that make people both sick and poor ― unlimited sex without commitment, the destruction of marriage through its redefinition, and single motherhood. They refuse to support the most effective weapon for fighting poverty among women and children, which is traditional marriage. In the case of abortion, they even stridently condemn the only non-governmental organizations that help women with material and practical needs after their babies are born ― crisis pregnancy centers.

I will say again, you cannot call yourself a Christian and be for abortion. 60 million abortions since Roe, the population of Canada. There is no justification for the death of those innocent little ones. None.

Ice, you didn't go out and get these statistics. You have no right to red x these facts. It shows that you have a huge aversion to the truth and anything that you disagree with. You bash what others say but you have no facts to dispute it. You deny Guttmacher with no proof that they are wrong. smh I think you're the only one that believes your rhetoric, you don't even make sense.