Related Posts
Additional Posts in Christian consultants
Anyone going to church every week in NYC?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Anyone going to church every week in NYC?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

Not to cause a major debate, but to me, being pro-life entails not just in the womb. So my question is what is she doing to help fully formed children not only survive, but have lives conducive to them becoming functional and healthy citizens?
We aren’t providing services to provide childcare. We aren’t helping with healthcare. We aren’t helping with food insecurity.
So my thing has always been why force women to have kids they aren’t ready for, then force the kid to suffer as a result - creating a resentful, unadjusted adult.
So I personally can’t support a pro-life candidate that doesn’t have a gameplan of how we support these mothers that are now forced to carry a child to term.
I agree that we, as a society, owe more to the welfare of young families. The Bible is overflowing with Christ's clear teaching for how we should treat the needy. But I don't think that should be a prereq for supporting pro life. They are tangential but separate battlefields.
Tbh I used to believe in a viability standard, but the more I studied the scriptures on this topic I was convinced there's no biblical way around pro life. God created us, knew us from the beginning, values all of our lives, and abhors violence against his creations.
Actually studying this even made me question my support for things like the military, but that is, again, really a separate topic.
Sooooo…. What you’re really saying, C1, is that it is better for an unborn child to be dead than poor, suffering, and unadjusted?
Recognize the conclusions of this argument. It’s one step way from saying that people, children or adults, would be better off dead than poor. You’re not making the argument you think you’re making.
Sorry C1, love to you but that argument is really very very dangerous.
Nowhere in society do we accept it - Eg, given crime stats, we would be much better off killing a whole swathe of the population (low socioeconomic, even demographics Eg POCs) to lower crime.
A1 is right - it’s “AND” not “OR”.
The issue is, there’s genuine policy debates about how best to support the lives of people. Not really a policy debate about whether killing people is better for their life or not.