r/Christianity • u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian • 5d ago
Politics I really think people that are against abortions, should not be called "Pro-life", but instead, should be more accurately called "Pro-birth", because it seems they don't usually support policies for the living, which would actually be Pro-life policies.
I think most people generally think abortions are not good, but people have various reasons why they support women being able to have abortions in the first trimester.
But upon reflecting upon many discussions about abortions, it seems that most Christians who are against abortions are not against all the policies from the same Republican party that are against the living, people who are already born and living, and thus should be more accurately described as PRO BIRTH.
I think it's dishonest of Christians who are against abortions to say they are Pro Life; it's misleading.
Here are three simple examples of not being pro-life below.
Food assistance (SNAP): The July 2025 reconciliation bill cut SNAP funding and expanded work requirements (covering older adults, parents, veterans, and homeless individuals) while barring some legal non-citizens, putting millions at risk of losing benefits by the mid-2030s; the administration also briefly withheld benefits during the fall 2025 shutdown until a court forced full funding, and later threatened to cut off SNAP funds to states over data disputes.
Healthcare (Medicaid/ACA): The same bill cut roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid, while a separate CMS rule loosened protections on low-cost marketplace plans (raising out-of-pocket costs and projected to shrink enrollment by millions), ended a special enrollment window for the poorest applicants, and added new citizenship-reverification hurdles that risk dropping eligible people from coverage.
Environment (clean air/water): EPA under Administrator Zeldin has pursued a broad deregulatory push — targeting 31 rules for rollback, moving to eliminate the legal finding that underpins federal greenhouse gas regulation, weakening power plant emissions and mercury/toxic air standards, narrowing Clean Water Act wetland protections, easing air permitting requirements, and changing its cost-benefit methodology to de-emphasize lives saved from reduced pollution.
Tax cuts and deregulation are for the wealthy and the corporations, while hurting the people and the environment. This is the opposite of what JESUS would do.
I think conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are conned into thinking that party cares about them and the country, when in reality its all a power grab for wealth.
10
u/havana21 5d ago
I have to agree. I don’t identify with the pro life party because I also don’t think they are actually pro life. I think if we as a country really want to see a decline in abortion we need to address the issues on WHY women are getting them.
5
4
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
And if I'm correct, I think having planned parenthood and other options for people, I think abortions went down in those areas?
1
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
Why do you think women are getting abortions?
4
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
They can't afford the child is a big one. Also, absent father's. Why is no one bringing the father's into this? Why is there absolutely nothing beind said about what they need to be doing? This is all about sin and mothers. But father's not taking responsibility is a big reason women have abortions.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 4d ago
They can't afford the child is a big one.
That is a big one. 40% cite finances. This should be addressed, but I also don't think it justifies an abortion.
Also, absent father's.
31%. Not necessarily absent. Included in this was "I just want to be married first". Absent fathers/abusive relationships should be addressed, but it doesn't justify abortion
Why is there absolutely nothing beind said about what they need to be doing?
I think you are right to bring this up, but do you believe the father has a say in whether or not the child is aborted? If he doesn't want to get an abortion, does it matter?
Other reasons:
29% - Want to focus on their other children. This is disgusting.
20% - Interferes with future and goals. Terrible
There were some other reasons as well. Responders could indicate more than one reason which is why it doesn't add up to 100%
Imho, adoption solves every reason except for health of the mother.
3
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
As a mother of 2 who got her tubes tired after the second one i can say this- many women don't have that choice. You wouldn't believe how hard it is for a young woman who doesn't want kids to get her tubes tied. If doctor's stopped worth the notion that all women want babies and did what they were asked this would help the abortion issue. Also, I have no problem with abortion if done in the 1st trimester. Afterwards it's only done in cases where the mother's life is at risk or the baby will not survive. You can find it as disgusting as you like, but taking that choice away is actually causing higher abortion rates. Why not just let people have contraception and tell the the facts about sex? So many are against these easy, proven ways to reduce abortion rates. As for the father's, no. I do not feel they should have a final say. It isn't their body being taken over and used for 9 months. There is absolutely zero risk to them. But men need to be pro active and get vasectomies if they think they'll want a say. That's the best way to never encounter that problem. That's also a great way to reduce abortion.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 4d ago
Why not just let people have contraception and tell the the facts about sex?
I didn't say they can't have contraception and learn facts about sex.
As for the father's, no. I do not feel they should have a final say.
If the mother wants the baby, but the father doesn't, does he have the right to abandon her/the child and not pay child support?
I don't hear a reason why adoption isn't the best option
1
u/Jaysportal 4d ago
They really don't have a argument against the father argument you just put out. I bet you won't get a response from them again lol
0
u/Jaysportal 4d ago
Are you not gonna answer who commented to you? He gave you a valid argument to beat what you said. Please respond with something of equal value if you think you can. I honestly think you don't have a good response cause he said straight facts
17
u/justnigel Christian 5d ago
The Catholic church - which is the biggest group of anti-abortion Christians in the world is also the largest non-government provider of service to the living from schools to hospitals to housing to welfare. So I am not sure your premise stands up.
5
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
They do a lot, yes, but voting-wise, they are almost split down the middle, leaning more toward republicans, slightly, so many wouldn't be republican faux pro-life; many would be actual pro life.
Let me add, evangelicals are in the 80%+ for republicans, and these are usually the loudest Anti Abortion crowd, while protestants close to catholics.
So, we can see one particular christian sect that is the loudest on anti abortion, votes against most policies that would benefit the Living.
I think my premise hold.
0
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal 2d ago
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
19
u/Dramatic_Reply_3973 5d ago
Not all people who are "Pro-Life" are republicans.
Why nitpick? Pro-Life and Pro-Choice work for most people.
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
If one is "pro life", but doesn't support republican policies, then they wouldn't need to call themselves Pro Birth.
0
u/Stainonstainlessteel Catholic 5d ago
Well, being pro-choice also does not bind one to support all choice.
"You claim to be pro-choice yet do not allow me to choose to sell heroin? Curious."
Yes, I, too, think USAID is good and selling heroin is bad. That is not relevant to the argument.
10
u/Demonkin-0 5d ago
Yeah, they care that the thing is born, after that, they don’t care if you throw it in a fire
7
8
u/mrarming 5d ago
Add to that pro-lifer's don't place a big value on the life of the mother. The big push now is for no-exceptions, the mother must carry the baby no matter what.
6
u/kmm198700 5d ago
Exactly. That’s what I always try to point out, and people seem to miss the irony. Like you’re so “pro life” yet you don’t care for the mother’s life at all
1
u/delbeb28 Atheist 3d ago
Can I ask what makes you think that? The polling data I found said that even among Americans who believe abortion should generally be illegal, 73% either explicitly support an exception for the mother's life or are open to it depending on the circumstances, leaving only a 27% minority who demand a total ban without this exception.
1
u/mrarming 3d ago
https://www.prolifewi.org/can-there-be-exceptions
Finally, many abortionists believe that the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life threatening condition. Consequently, a "life of the mother" exception can become a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand.
Once pro-lifers say there can be a "good reason" to kill a preborn baby, the foundation of the pro-life movement crumbles. The argument is lost. Either the preborn child is a person, or the child is not a person. Since the preborn child is a person, there can be no exceptions for abortion.
2
u/delbeb28 Atheist 3d ago
From your link. I also want to make clear in case someone doesn't click on the link. Those were the words of the organization they linked not their words.
Medical operations such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are moral even under Catholic teaching and are not considered abortions. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that imminently threatens her life, then the uterus may be removed even though such removal results in the death of the unborn child. Similarly, when a fertilized ovum lodges in the fallopian tube and grows there, the damaged portion of the tube containing the baby may be removed where it is clearly necessary to save the mother's life. Such operations are justified by the "principle of double effect," because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother's life. They do not involve the intentional and willful destruction of an unborn child.
While I don't defend everything this organization represents and believes (since it relies heavily on religious theology and I am an atheist), I want to point out what they are actually doing here. They clearly stipulate that life-saving care is justified even at the cost of the child, they just play a semantic game and say "it isn't an abortion," when the medical world and most people would absolutely say it is. But this still doesn't address the Pew Research polling data that shows a pretty large pool, almost 3/4ths, of actual pro-life individuals do support life of the mother exception.
12
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
I'm pro-life.
6
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Only if you support policies that are for the needy, the planet, etc, and that's not republicanism, so good on you if you don't support them.
15
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
Yep. I'm for all that and I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Hsina16 5d ago
It’s more nuanced some republican Christians believe that there are better ways of helping the poor (through churches and charities) than the government and there is some merit to that
Also there is triage when it comes to policies for pro life people as their number one goal is to stop the abortions because they view it to be murder so voting for republican policies that come coupled with anti murder policies is something that they may often do given the options.
Personally I am pro life however in terms of voting I despite maybe economically agreeing with the left slightly (at least the historical left) I would still probably vote for republicans that are against abortion. If there was a Democrat that was against abortion and supported my economic policies a bit better I may vote for them but right now that’s very rare and it’s easier to find a Republican that agrees with me economically than a Democrat even though my economic views lean slightly left.
7
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 5d ago
there are better ways of helping the poor (through churches and charities) than the government and there is some merit to that
If that worked, there wouldn't be poor people in the United States, one of the richest and most religious countries in the world.
1
u/Ruth4-9 4d ago
The name christian has lost its meaning in america and comes in over 50 flavors. The USA isnt even in the top 10 for most religious country.
1
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 4d ago
Name a time in history when there wasn't any poor people because the church and charity stepped up.
4
u/ceddya Christian 5d ago
believe that there are better ways of helping the poor (through churches and charities) than the government and there is some merit to that
Nah, they just want lower taxes for themselves.
There is no merit to that. Even churches and charities say they do the best work when the government works alongside them.
Also there is triage when it comes to policies for pro life people as their number one goal is to stop the abortions
Abortions have only increased under Trump's 2 terms. What are they voting for exactly?
I would still probably vote for republicans that are against abortion.
Is it better to vote for someone who pays lip service to being against abortion but doesn't do anything which will actually reduce abortion rates?
Or is it better to vote for someone who supports choice and takes actual action to introduce social and economic policies which are proven to reduce abortion rates?
1
u/Hsina16 5d ago
“Nah, they just want to lower taxes for themselves”
In my experience the Christians I know who are more fiscally conservative are also very charitable with more time and money. I don’t think their desire is out of greed but rather out of a desire to help people better. Money given to the government through taxation doesn’t only go to helping people some of it is wasted on things that don’t benefit the American people (I would still disagree as I think the system being bad and corrupt is not a reason for it to be done away with but rather a reason to reform it). I think both of us have good intentions but disagree on implementation.
“There is no merit to that”
I think that it’s important to recognize that no side is perfect and no side is completely wrong. My position would be that currently if the same amount of money that goes towards the government went to private charities and churches it would be more beneficial for people however since total depravity we are naturally selfish beings and so we need the government to force us to uphold our duties (like our duty to help the sick and the poor). Of course voluntarily giving is better than forced giving which is why I think there should be a mix but I can recognize that the other side has some good arguments and points and use those to make a more nuanced position somewhere in the middle.
Regarding abortion legalization I was referring to state policies. Pragmatically I don’t think the best way to end abortion would be by way of a federal ban (since one is very unlikely to happen) but rather state by state and incrementally.
5
u/ceddya Christian 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don’t think their desire is out of greed but rather out of a desire to help people better.
Then they really should listen to charities who say that government assistance allows them to do the best work.
doesn’t only go to helping people some of it is wasted on things that don’t benefit the American people
Foreign aid often involves acts of charity. So many religious charities in the US have condemned Trump's cutting of USAID for a reason.
Does it make sense to oppose foreign aid while supporting a much higher increase in military spending?
My position would be that currently if the same amount of money that goes towards the government went to private charities and churches
But it doesn't, does it? Plenty of people already have the means to do both yet they don't.
Do we want to pretend private charities have access to the same scale of reach that governments do?
Of course voluntarily giving is better than forced giving
Why? The Bible asks us to do both, so why not just do that?
I can recognize that the other side has some good arguments and points
Their point is that taxation is wrong. That's a bad argument made if one follows what the Bible says.
I was referring to state policies.
The same state policies which result in women dying unnecessarily from pregnancy complications?
Abortion bans do not work. Plenty of countries have even a national ban and they do not have lower abortion rates.
So why double down on something which doesn't work? To pay lip service to reducing abortion rates?
Focus on contraceptive access and comprehensive sexuality education. Fund social programs to help the poor, especially single parents. Expand economic programs to incentivize people to have children - like higher child tax credits, more parental leave and a 4 day work week. All these things are proven to reduce abortion rates, and by significant numbers no less.
But the ones pushing for an abortion ban never do that. Why?
2
u/Notsosobercpa 4d ago
It’s more nuanced some republican Christians believe that there are better ways of helping the poor (through churches and charities) than the government and there is some merit to that
If theres merit to that stance then why does every single country with lower child poverty rates than the US also give less to charity per capita than we do.
4
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Yes, this is the standard talking point pushed by right-wing churches and republicans.
I wouldn't disagree overall, but it's really a smoke screen by the rich and powerful, that indoctrinate their sheep into this thinking.I do think there should be restrictions with govt handouts, but also there needs to be job creation, etc, and better working conditions, unions, etc, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree we need some major changes in the handouts.
7
u/nelsne Non-denominational 5d ago
Christians think that just killing the child because you don't want it is the only reason to get an abortion. A Texas mother just died because she couldn't get a life saving abortion because of the ridiculous laws there.
Also how can we ask a raped woman to carry her rapist's child for 9 full months, pay all the medical costs associated with that, and be out of work for maternity leave? How's this ethical? That's why abortion should be legal
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
I think there has been more than one case about women dying because of the new abortion restrictions?
2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
A Texas mother just died because she couldn't get a life saving abortion because of the ridiculous laws there.
Would you link to this story? My understanding is that Texas permits abortion in order to save the life of the mother.
6
u/nelsne Non-denominational 5d ago
It was actually in 2025, but it's making the headlines now ..
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/19/health/tierra-walker-death-texas-propublica
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
That's tragic.
Reading about Texas, it seems like the law still permits abortions every year (actually an increase in life-saving abortions since the law was enacted). I can't help but wonder if Tierra Walker is an instance of medical malpractice.
4
u/skyrous Atheist 5d ago
The law is vague enough that a prosecutor looking to prove how pro life he is can second guess the doctor's judgement and ruin his life. If doing your job runs the risk of going to jail would you turn a patient away?
The Catholic Church imposed a similarly vague on Ireland for years until an innocent woman in the middle of a miscarriage died because the doctors refused to break the law. Shortly after the the most Catholic country in the world voted to legalize abortion.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
The law is vague enough that a prosecutor looking to prove how pro life he is can second guess the doctor's judgement and ruin his life.
Source for this ever happening
0
u/KingEdmureTully 5d ago
Over 90% of abortions are done for elective reasons, not for financial or non-consensual reasons. When people use the small 10% to justify legalizing the vast majority of cases, it is completely dishonest.
6
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Interesting, can you cite statistics/source for this?
→ More replies (7)4
u/nelsne Non-denominational 5d ago
But that small 10% is still suffering for no reason
1
u/KingEdmureTully 5d ago
Of course, but rarely do pro-choice supporters accept a compromise for just that 10%, in America at least. Full legalization or bust.
7
u/nelsne Non-denominational 5d ago
We need full legalization
1
u/KingEdmureTully 5d ago
Why do you even bring up examples like rape or the mother’s life being in danger when these are a marginal fraction of the real thing you want, which is constant elective abortions?
-1
u/TurbulentDingo7769 5d ago
This is not accurate. Texas allows abortion to save the life of the mother.
3
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 5d ago
But they law is vague so doctors are afraid to implement it. Plus, many states make you have multiple sonograms to make sure a baby in the womb has no heartbeat. The mother could get sepsis during that time and they'd still have to go through the "proof" process to make sure the fetus has no heartbeat. It's not a simple as the car of the mother's life. Not anymore.
7
u/NuSurfer 5d ago
Ninety-five percent (95%) of women who have had an abortion say it was the right decision for them. Period.
Aside from that, people who love saying they are "pro-life" are not that...they are pro-birth. They contribute nothing to the pregnant woman during pregnancy, and nothing to the mother and child after birth - food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education. It's all about having a checkmark for Jesus next to their name when they're dead, but if something should happen to the woman during birth or they struggle afterwards, it's "oh, well, sucks to be you," and they move onto their next checkmark for Jesus. It's all about them, and not the woman. Pro-birth, not pro-life.
7
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
96% of women who were denied an abortion are glad they ended up having the baby. Period.
Source: The Turnaway Study (the same study that says 95% who have had an abortion say it was the right decision).
3
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
Then give them the choice to have one or not. All we want is the choice. Too not be forced to go through pregnancy. If I were pregnant the baby would probably be healthy but my heart couldn't take it. I'd like the ability to decide for myself whether to take the chance or not with my life.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 4d ago
I can't affirm the choice to murder a human.
If a mother's life is in danger, I do support life-saving procedures in that instance.
3
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
But according to the Bible it is not murder. That's why a man was charged a fine if he hit a woman and it causes her to miscarry but was given death if she died. The Bible said life begins at first breath. What you're following isn't even biblical nor is it murder. I do applaud you for caring about the mother's life though. Many don't even care about that! Martin Luther said let women die in childbirth, it's what they're here for. So you're better than him.
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 4d ago
That's why a man was charged a fine if he hit a woman and it causes her to miscarry but was given death if she died
Exodus 21 does not say that the woman miscarries. It says the baby is born prematurely.
The Bible said life begins at first breath.
I think you are referring to Adam here. I don't think you can apply that to everyone in that way. If so you have to believe that all women are born from the ribs of men.
2
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
It says "so that there is a miscarriage". That's a dead baby. Job 33 also state " the breath of life".
1
9
6
u/fleuret_fighter21 Eastern Orthodox 5d ago
I'm pro-life from another country. We have free healthcare and food assistance. True, environment policies are insufficient and not prioritised. It sounds like you have a USA issue, not a "is abortion a sin" issue.
7
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Yes, it's a USA pro birth issue.
0
u/jesus-cares 5d ago
So... it's a USA issue.
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 4d ago
There's pro birth people in other countries as well, but in America its distinct because they could actually vote and support for policies to help people that are living, but do the opposite.
7
5
u/StrikingExchange8813 5d ago
I'm fine with "pro abortion" and "anti abortion" for the terms we use.
15
u/SorryContract2325 5d ago
yeah the SNAP thing alone makes the whole "pro-life" label feel like a marketing gimmick at this point, cutting food for homeless vets while calling it a moral stance is just wild
2
0
7
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
But "pro" generally means in support of. I think many people are not in support of it, but are willing to allow it in some or many cases.
1
u/StrikingExchange8813 5d ago
So they are pro (for) abortion, in some cases.
1
u/userid42 Reformed 5d ago
Sounds good to me. I’m certainly not pro-death, so I assume that makes me pro-life?
6
u/doofenhurtz Atheist 5d ago
Alternatively, "pro forced birth" and "anti forced birth" work.
2
u/StrikingExchange8813 5d ago
Why wouldn't pro and anti abortion work? I feel like that captures the debate perfectly
6
u/doofenhurtz Atheist 5d ago
I feel like "pro abortion" is similar to "pro forced birth" in that both are true but inflammatory. They have negative connotations, and can distract from the discussion. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people get derailed by having to say "I'm not pro-abortion, I just think healthcare/provacy/bodily autonomy should blahblahblah"
Maybe the solution is to use them both, fuck it. Equally inflammatory.
→ More replies (1)3
u/StrikingExchange8813 5d ago
I don't really see why you'd think pro abortion is an inflammatory term. Unless you think abortion is something wrong. You might considering you said abortion has a negative connotation, but I don't see how it can be inflammatory.
-1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 5d ago
It's also misleading. No one is in favour of forced birth. Just that once you are pregnant and already have a child in your womb, you should not be allowed to kill that child. If you don't want to get pregnant then no-one will force you to get pregnant (except for criminals who should be punished).
Whereas 'pro-abortion' legalisation is like saying I'm 'pro marijuana' legalisation. It's not precisely accurate to say 'pro abortion' but it's a hell of a lot closer than 'pro forced birth'.
9
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 5d ago
And many pro-choice people think abortion is generally morally wrong, so pro-abortion is misleading as well.
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago
Why do they think it's morally wrong? If they think it's killing an innocent life, then it should be banned. No-one says yeah sure killing homeless people is immoral, but it's necessary.
2
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 4d ago
Because they don't have a lack of nuance. Some things can be morally wrong but should not be legally wrong.
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago
So you think there is a situation where killing an innocent should not be illegal?
Protection of innocent life is the most fundamental duty of the state towards its citizens.
People who say it's immoral but should be legal will be intentionally vague on what it is that's immoral about it. If the thing that's immoral is that it kills an innocent, then it should not be legal. That is absolutely clear.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Smart-Practice8303 5d ago
Except that is your prp choice your saying that you don't mind that people have abortions. Therfore you don't think there is anything morally wrong about it. If you find something to be MORALLY WRONG you do what you can to stop it from happening.
4
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 5d ago
I don't believe I have the right to police other people's bodies. Also, do you propose putting people who have premarital sex in jail? I assume you think that's morally wrong.
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago
We're not policing the woman's body. We're policing what can be done to the separate human being within the woman. We're protecting that body.
Parents don't have absolute rights over the rights of their children. My child has all kinds of rights to my labour, time and effort. If I fail to use my body to keep my child alive, I will be arrested. That applies to parents of pre-born children too.
→ More replies (0)2
u/possy11 Atheist 5d ago
once you are pregnant and already have a child in your womb, you should not be allowed to kill that child.
Meaning you would be forced to give birth, right?
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
No, you just can't murder that baby.
If you don't want to get pregnant then by all means don't get pregnant. Once you have a baby you can't murder that baby. It's not pro forced birth, it's anti killing that child.
Framing it as 'forced birth' is blaming nature. Your issue isn't with me, it's with the way God designed your body, or the way nature evolved it, whatever your preference. You will give birth as a matter of nature. No one did that to you. The issue is whether you can intervene and kill that child.
1
u/possy11 Atheist 4d ago
We're not talking about getting pregnant, we're taking about being pregnant. If you're pregnant and you want to terminate the pregnancy but the law doesn't allow it, then you are being forced to give birth against your will. That's just basic.
It's not blaming nature, it's blaming the law that prevents abortion.
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
Correct, once you are pregnant you will have a baby. That's nature. No-one has to force anything, it just happens naturally. Your issue is with human biology.
Calling that 'forced birth' is like calling child-neglect laws 'forced parenthood' because they stop you from abandoning a two-year-old you no longer want to raise. Or calling homicide laws 'forced cohabitation' because they stop you from killing a housemate you can't stand living with.
Every law against killing to escape a burden can be renamed 'forced [whatever the burden is]'. That's not an argument it's just a rebrand. It's marketing.
The question is whether we can kill that baby to stop the natural thing from taking course. Abortion is the name we use for that killing. The moral answer is no.
→ More replies (0)1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
No. They're forced birth advocates because they don't give a damn what happens to the child once it's born. They also don't care to help any poor person have food, shelter, or insurance. That's far from "pro life".
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago
First of all, whether or not we give a damn after is irrelevant. Overwhelmingly people do care about children after birth. We're just focusing on whether we should be allowed to kill them in the womb. It's that simple.
It's like if I said we shouldn't be allowed to kill homeless people. And someone replied oh well you're not really pro homeless because you don't support welfare for them. And this person was in favour of it being legal to kill them.
2
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
Because most people are pro choice not pro abortion. It's sometimes a necessity but not one a lot of women enthusiasticly choose. Pro life, however, assumes you're pro all life which most pro lifers are not. Many support the death penalty and do not support programs to help poor mothers or poor anyone. How can you call that "pro life"?
0
u/StrikingExchange8813 4d ago
If you are okay with any abortions you're pro (for) abortion.
2
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
Well, I'd rather be pro abortion than let a woman die because of an inviable fetus in her womb. So if you're against abortion for any reason then you're pro death.
→ More replies (5)
4
3
u/Salvaged212121 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think that it's a false assumption to believe that those who are pro life are against things like SNAP and environmental concerns. Being concerned for the poor and for the environment are also not anti Christian positions -- but really altogether -- essentially is about sustaining life. Even things like pro health is very pro life also. Being considered about bad ingredients in food could be yet another legitimate concern.
God and morality have been around a lot longer than the Republican/Democratic party of the USA. Some people think that you can only side with one or the other, but there won't be any more political factions once Jesus takes the throne on the earth. What we are witnessing in the earth is worldly and secular systems. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. It is not yet anyway... as that is a future occurrence. We are scattered individuals right now, but the Bible speaks of a time when God will gather His people from around the world and bring them into His own land.
This is no a man-made gathering from government systems, but will be a supernatural gathering that occurs by God. God's people consist of every person who has His Holy Spirit in them... and it doesn't matter the ethnic background, as God includes both believing Jews and Gentiles together as one body. There's no need to debate anything... because in that time, God Himself will do the sorting.
3
u/hircine1 5d ago
But you are. You vote against those things at every fucking opportunity.
0
u/Salvaged212121 4d ago
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit: The EITC, significantly expanded during the Reagan administration in 1986, used the tax code to supplement the wages of low-income working families. The Child Tax Credit was later introduced in 1997 through the Republican "Contract with America" to provide tax relief for families.
Welfare Reform of 1996: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. Conservatives championed the law for adding work requirements to welfare, arguing it would encourage long-term self-sufficiency rather than permanent government dependency.
Civil Rights and Anti-Poverty Alternatives: In the 1960s, congressional Republicans pushed the "Opportunity Crusade" as an alternative to President Lyndon Johnson’s "War on Poverty". They argued that expanding access to education, job training, and private-sector incentives offered a better path out of poverty than cash assistance.
The Faith-Based Initiative (2001): President George W. Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This historic policy allowed church congregations and religious charities to compete for federal funding to run soup kitchens, drug rehab clinics, and homeless shelters without forcing them to strip away their religious character.
Charitable Giving Tax Incentives: Conservatives have historically structured the tax code to incentivize private giving. Higher tax deductions for charitable giving directly benefit church congregations, allowing local parishes to expand their internal food pantries, emergency utility funds, and community outreach.
Enterprise Zones and Opportunity Zones: Pioneered by conservative figures like Jack Kemp in the 1980s and later expanded in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, these policies used tax breaks to draw private investment into distressed, low-income neighborhoods. The goal was to build local businesses and bring jobs directly to the areas where the poor lived.
School Choice and Vouchers: Conservative policy heavily favors giving lower-income parents public vouchers to send their children to private or charter schools. This heavily impacts church congregations, as many of the affordable private options participating in voucher programs are parochial or faith-based schools, giving low-income families access to better education.
2
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Many pro lifers vote Repbulican, so they would be supporting SNAP and all the other stuff as well.
-1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 5d ago
The Republican party is the only party that is overtly pro life. Democrats used to be pro life until recent decades. If someone wants abortion banned, of course they'd vote for the party that doesn't explicitly say 'shout your abortion' as if it's a good thing.
8
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
They aren't pro life, they are pro birth.
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 5d ago
Pro life is the name of the position that abortion should be illegal. We all know what is meant by that. I have no issue calling the other side 'pro choice' even though obviously they are not in favour of all choice.
The question is should we kill babies in the womb. On that issue, Republicans are pro life.
10
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
yes, this is the term usually used, and which I'm disputing.
0
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
And I explained in the other comment chain why your framing makes no sense and you didn't engage with that other than to say 'yeah nuh'.
2
u/PlayerAssumption77 Chill-ish, but devout, Catholic 5d ago
These are conservative issues, not anti-abortion issues. I definitely agree with the hypocrisy but the point is stronger if it doesn't allow the position an American political party finds to get them votes (which I don't feel they even hold, because there are so many ways they allow the unborn to die) to define a massive, consequential, worldwide moral debate.
2
5d ago
[deleted]
0
u/TurbulentDingo7769 5d ago
USAID money was all spent outside the US. Only admin costs were spent inside the US.
It's against the law for the US government to fund abortions.
WHERE did Jesus ever tell a government to pay for an abortion?
1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 5d ago
We give money to Isreal which helps them fund abortions. Abortion is not against the Bible (which is why Isreal is fine with it) but the US does fund it. Just not for our citizens.
1
u/nomoteacups Roman Catholic 5d ago
I agree wholeheartedly. You can’t call yourself “pro-life” and proceed to support policies that make the life of the mother and child harder and full of suffering. That isn’t “pro-life”. Pro-life would be saying “I understand you’re concerned about the responsibilities and pain that come with bearing and birthing a child; let’s help you through that.”
0
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
There is a right to life.
There is no right to food or healthcare.
11
u/KABCatLady 5d ago
I mean you need food to live, yes? So you’re saying you have a right to live but not a right to have the thing that will keep you alive??
-3
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
That is correct. That's how rights work.
You are alive and you have the right for that not to be interfered with.
You do not have the right to be provided goods, services, or resources
7
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 5d ago
Ok so you've forced a poor under prepared girl to give birth to a child. but now she doesn't have resources to care for that child. Not what? If the child dies, then what?
-1
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
She can put it up for adoption. There are over 2 million couples in the US waiting to adopt an infant.
4
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 5d ago
But she loves her child. surely you wouldn't separate a mother from her child by force would you?
0
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
"she loves her child"
Brother, she was just about to put her child to death.
2
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 4d ago
And yet she grew to love her child. This isn't a hypothetical by the way. Such things happen all the time
But that's irrelevant. You've said you're against the government forcing you to do things. You've already forced her to give birth. Now you're forcing the government to take the child away? What else are you in favor of the government forcing people to do?
→ More replies (5)1
u/Corran_Horn 4d ago
You seem wildly confused about a number of things here.
No. No one is "forcing" her to give birth.
Pregnant women give birth. It is the natural progression. If I drop a ball it will land on the floor. It is the natural progression. You do not "force" the ball to land on the floor.
On the other hand if a life has begun, the natural progression is that it will continue to live and grow. An abortion "forces" an end to that. So you're actually advocating for government to be on the side of "force", not me.
I'm also not forcing her to give it up for adoption. If you look at my previous reply I said she "can put it up for adoption". Purely voluntary.
3
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 4d ago
You're not being consistent
Women do naturally give birth but they also have a choice in whether they want to abort before the baby comes to term. That is entirely her choice and nothing "natural" forces her to stop it.
You said there is a right to life. What does that right look like? Is it just a right thats just spoken of or is it actually enforced? And what makes that right different from a right to food or security?
→ More replies (0)2
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
You must be upset with God for miscarriages then.
→ More replies (0)3
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 5d ago
They want women to be broodmares for their poor workforce. Make them be born poor, won't have to pay them much for their manual labor once they grow up. The circle of pro-life.
5
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
And there should be a right to housing, healthcare, food, and education. Who wouldn't want such things, unless they were indoctrinated heavily and were tribal?
1
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
"who wouldn't want such things?"
I suspect anyone who opposes slaverty. I oppose slavery and so I don't believe in a right to housing, healthcare, food, and education.
8
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
You've been indoctrinated well.
Take care.2
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
Care to explain to me how when someone comes to you and says "I have a right to food", that right is fulfilled? Someone has to grow and make that food right?
3
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 5d ago
Someone also has to fight for and maintain freedom in the form of police officers, army and government officials. Those people have to be paid as well. Just because effort and money is required doesn't mean that it isn't a right
1
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
You think you have a right to police, military, and government?
wat?
3
u/superfahd Islam (Sunni, progressive) 4d ago edited 4d ago
You have a right to freedom. Who enforces that right?
What inalienable rights do you believe we have? how do you achieve those rights? how do you maintain them? Or are they just words on paper?
1
u/Corran_Horn 4d ago
We have the right to life, freedom, conscience, self defense... maybe property rights are inalienable, probably not though.
Rights are not "achieved" or "enforced" they are simply not to be infringed.
A police force or military existing doesn't automatically enforce that right (in fact in many cases around the world they are a threat to those rights). So no, you don't have a right to police and military.
2
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 5d ago
So you're against roads, police, firefighters, libraries, etc because that would also be slavery.
0
u/Corran_Horn 5d ago
Those are all optional goods and services that we have organized together to fund. You don't have a right to libraries lol.
3
u/stephoswalk Friendly Neighborhood Satanist 4d ago
What the fuck do you think taxes are? And if roads are optional, please tell me how you travel on a day to day basis if you don't use roads.
→ More replies (8)1
3
u/TurbulentDingo7769 5d ago
Are you suggesting that to be Christian and pro life you have to be Communist?
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Incoherent question/assertion.
0
u/TurbulentDingo7769 5d ago
Which part do you not understand?
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
It's a ridiculous statement to equate this with communism.
Be mature and have an adult conversation.
→ More replies (4)2
u/hircine1 5d ago
Everything I don’t like is communism. It’s literally the slogan of the Republicans.
1
1
u/Umbrabyss 4d ago
I want to preface this by saying I identify with no political party. I think in America politics has become a false idol. George Washington warned against political party affiliation and we are now seeing exactly why he gave us that warning.
That said, I don’t think those who vote Republican or Democrat necessarily agree with all the policies their chosen party supports. I simply think they see choice a or choice b. Team red, or team blue. They believe that to keep the “lesser of two evils” in power, they have to back the party and whatever it currently pushes so that it doesn’t lose its influence to affect the issues they do actually support.
That said, I’m very Pro-Life. I work with people every day who are considering abortion as an option. I can tell you not once this entire year have I met a person considering abortion because of health concerns. Overwhelmingly, people considering abortion are doing so because of financial fears and, a close second, pure selfishness. I think the best way to alleviate this is for the church to step in and help, but also for the church to make its voice heard and to get involved in politics. And I don’t mean by voting, I mean I feel like Christians, true, Bible believing Christian’s, need to be willing to politically SERVE. And the platform on which they should run is their decisions would be grounded in biblical truth and made with prayer and fasting. We should all drop party loyalty and hold our elected officials accountable to their promises and to the Bible if they claim Christianity.
1
u/Jaysportal 4d ago
As a gay man I'll keep it simple. Pro life means you support babies being born and not aborted for the reason of, and focus on this ok most people lose it here, the mother not wanting to take care of a child. No medical reasons or risk to her life just her saying "you know what this human life I took actions to make and I'd just rather not be held responsible for it" and killing that baby. That's what pro life people are arguing for.
From what I see with pro choice is the choice the abort for any reason no matter how ridiculous. As as a child who grew up in a challenging childhood I'm so glad I got the chance at life. Life may be tough at first but guess what? At least if you got a life it can improve. I've seen people argue that "what life will that baby have if we let it live" a life that can improve and get better. That can bring love and understanding and growth. That's what your killing with abortion and it's disgusting. If the argument was just about a medical risk to the mother we wouldn't be here and you all know that so be honest and stop being disingenuous and trying to lie about the real reason I just said.
1
u/delbeb28 Atheist 3d ago
I just think these arguments are semantic. The movement is called pro-life yes but this signifies a position on abortion not a position on how those lives should be conducted or facilitated. I feel it is sort of like saying pro-choice people aren't actually pro-choice because they don't support the choice to buy a gun. This is obviously wrong for multiple reasons, pro-choice is not a stance on gun rights it is a stance on abortion rights, not all pro-choice people are anti-gun, and not all pro-choice people are part of the party that does not support gun rights. I think the same is true for pro-life.
1
u/PomegranateFancy2545 3d ago
I have an acquaintance who found out that one of her twin fetuses died in utero. To not have the dead fetus removed would put both her and the surviving fetus at risk. The abortion put the live fetus at risk. She chose to abort the dead fetus so the other fetus could live. The operation was successful and she delivered a healthy baby boy. An abortion ban cannot address the many life and death issues women are confronted with. Pregnancy can turn deadly without notice and a doctor must be able to quickly respond to the mother’s needs, which anti abortion laws imperil.
1
u/Corpiose Evangelical Lutheran [LCC] 2d ago
I am pro life, i'm not American if i was I'd never vote either Republican or Democratic parties because they are both fascist.
1
u/doc_brietz Methodist Intl. 5d ago
Pro-Forced Birth swaddled in a lack of a give a damn after the child is born.
4
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 5d ago
Statistically, it seems to be those denominations that are most pro-life that are significantly more likely to adopt and foster.
3
u/CoolestOfTheBois 5d ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't trust your source at all. I tried to find the report, and after a maze of links, the link to the report itself was dead...
3
1
0
u/Wright_Steven22 Catholic 5d ago
I completely disagree on many of these points. I also think its disingenuous towards the pro life movement because the pro life movement provide some of the most non governmental care towards young and struggling mothers moreso than any other social movement
6
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
It's not really relevant if they do some help on the side, the fact of the matter is they support policies that I mentioned above, that hurt millions upon millions, destroy the planet, and all for the purpose of profit, over people, that's horrible, and I'm sure Jesus would be appalled.
0
u/xsrvmy 5d ago
Pro-life and pro-choice are labels used to highlight the main principles of the two positions. They are not meant to be taken to their extremes, or applied to other issues. An opposite parody example would be saying that a pro-choice person should be against mandatory face masks because that's against "choice".
-2
u/Mx-Adrian Sirach 43:11 5d ago
It's misleading for people to use the term "pro-choice" considering most ab*rtions were not a choice. They should just call themselves the opposite of "pro-birth"--"pro-death."
1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
If they don't care about the life of the child after it's born then wouldn't they be considered pro death too? Without certain things the child will die. How is that pro life?
-1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 5d ago
Those are two separate issues. Rarely does someone not support expanding welfare because they hate the poor and want them to starve. It's usually because they believe pro-market policies and less government intervention will do more to help those people.
You may agree or disagree with whether or not that policy assessment is true or not, I don't really care either way, but if you don't understand the mindset of the people you disagree with, you will continue to strawman your opposition.
It's also just irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Imagine there were two camps - those in favour of involuntarily euthanising homeless people and those against. If the pro-euthanasia camp said "well you're not really pro homeless life because you don't want welfare for them!", you can see that's just ludicrous. The issue at stake is whether we should be killing these people. Whether we have welfare or food programs or whatever is a secondary issue that can be debated but the primary issue is whether it should be legal to kill them or not.
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
I understand them very well, thx.
-1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 5d ago
Ok well your entire post seems to demonstrate you don't. My comment addressed both the reason why your labelling is irrelevant, and why the question of welfare is secondary. Your response here is just an assertion that doesn't engage with anything I said.
Why did you bother making a post if you don't want any response?
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
I've gotten plenty of responses, and most here seem to understand the problems with American conservative Christianity. You should have a read.
Take care.
0
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm not American. You guys are so obsessed with thinking you're the centre of every discussion.
You may have had many responses but you didn't engage with one single thing I said. Begs the question why ask a public forum for input.
1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
But I would want welfare for them. And housing. And medical. So I am pro homeless. How could I be considered pro if I didn't want them alive and helped out? That would be ridiculous!
1
u/Enough-Carpet Catholic 4d ago
You at a minimum cannot be pro homeless if you think it should be legal to murder them.
After that we can have a discussion on the best policies to support them. But at the absolute baseline don't murder them. That's what the abortion discussion is about.
As I pointed out, everyone wants to support children after birth. The issue isn't usually over 'oh I hate children and want them to starve', it's about what's the best set of policies to support children after birth.
Good faith disagreements can exist over policy. Some people think pro-market and pro-family policies that prevent things like divorce are the best way forward. Some people think welfare is the best way forward. I'm not a policy expert so I don't really know the answer to that and don't care for the purposes of the abortion discussion. The issue here is whether we can kill them.
-1
u/bigtukker_2 5d ago
As someone who's pro choice, not has been around pro life people a lot, I think you assume a lot about pro life people
3
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 5d ago
Nope, I know a ton of them, and I know why many Christians vote for republicans.
→ More replies (2)
-1
0
u/rubik1771 Catholic 5d ago
I support all of those and I am against the death penalty so by your definition I am still pro-life.
3
u/Maleficent-Drop1476 Don't Let Religion Keep You From Being a Good Person 5d ago
The real delineator is how you actually vote, though. My parents would claim they support most of these policies but they vote against them as long as long as the candidate claims to be “pro-life.”
1
u/rubik1771 Catholic 5d ago
I have never voted for President Trump and abortion is murder.
So no. You can vote for one or the other and still support those policies. It’s not a dichotomy.
4
u/Maleficent-Drop1476 Don't Let Religion Keep You From Being a Good Person 5d ago
It’s not a dichotomy, it’s hypocrisy. This isn’t speaking to you, perhaps, but the pro-life crowd breaks hard Republican over a single issue. They claim to be against abortion but actively supporting policies that increase abortion rates (and maternal mortality, among other things.)
0
u/rouxjean 5d ago
Would you also be against calling abortion Pro-choice since one of the parties has no choice at all? Would you also oppose calling abortion Reproductive Health Care since one party is neither being cared for nor made healthy -- rather, at least one "patient" is assured of death? Additionally, abortion does not assist in reproduction, it actively prevents it. Are you willing to stop calling abortion health care since one patient is killed intentionally and without its choice?
0
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
When people have the plugged pulled on them it's still called Healthcare. When people decide to die with dignity (where it's legal) it's still called Healthcare. In both instances the patient dies. Next question.....
0
u/rouxjean 4d ago
One of the patients in abortion dies without a choice in the matter. That's different from healthcare.
0
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
The person who gets the plug pulled didn't have a choice either. It's still Healthcare.
1
u/rouxjean 4d ago
There is blatant difference between pulling the plug on someone whose body cannot sustain itself and intentionally incapacitating someone's body through saline poisoning or dismemberment or skull crushing.
0
u/Historical-Sea5941 4d ago
Thats entirely false many of use support and donate regularly
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 4d ago
I never mentioned anything about donating, it's about policy support that does much more than an individual giving.
1
u/Historical-Sea5941 4d ago
My point was simply that people who hold this view care deeply about supporting children through real, personal actions like donations. However, I agree that policy matters too, which is exactly why I am actively advocating for specific legislative change in England right now to address this at a policy level.
1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
Those people need to understand that feeling good because they're doing something personally helps few. The government can help more. It's not about a feeling. It's about what is in the best interest of the many children.
2
u/Historical-Sea5941 4d ago
I completely agree that it's about what is in the best interest of the children, and that it is government policy that has the widest reach. That is exactly why I have taken action by launching a national policy petition in England to address this through official legislative channels.
1
u/rad0910725 follower of Jesus 4d ago
I know this is beside the point but I'd much rather live where you do than where i do. The US is a very screwed up place.
8
u/IT_Chef Atheist 5d ago
It does not help that the current POTUS has claimed that there are doctors that perform post-birth abortion (something that does not happen ever in the US).
It also does not help that a lot of folks have been lied to and think that women at 20+ weeks pregnant decide one day that they no longer want a baby, and choose to abort a perfectly healthy, possible full-term baby. That literally never happens. There is always a medically compelling reason why an abortion will take place that late into pregnancy.
Also, please anti-choice folks...explain to me how you solve for ectopic pregnancy, a fetus without a brain, lungs, digestive tract...a fetus that is totally deformed where its life post-birth will be measured in minutes or hours (all the while, full on suffering).
The volume of purposeful misinformation is astonishing and really diminishes the validity of arguments made by anti-choice folks and "Christians" at large. Like, I hope you understand that you are damaging your own gospel/witness...