You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It’s cruel by definition.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption.
Both ends of that “gap” involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients and explicitly states that human life begins at first breath.
Ooh, you don’t happen to know a verse for this, do you? I’ve heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.
It’s ok to kill a fully born baby as long as it hasn’t breathed yet
Both came from religion. I can see why some people pick the first one when given only these two options. You wouldn’t want to be a le enlightened centrist after all.
You can be pro life and still see that those policies are needlessly cruel.
There’s a big gap you can fall into while being pro life between forcing women to carry dead fetuses until they become horribly sick and suggesting that healthy fetuses be carried but maybe given up for adoption. Plus you can be against abortion privately without suggesting it be banned altogether.
Honestly his response there sounds like he’s not one of those insane people.
“pro-life” is those policies.
Not reallly, the whole notion of anti-abortion politics is that the rights of pregnant people are secondary to the rights of fetuses. It’s cruel by definition.
Both ends of that “gap” involve an eliminaton of the right to bodily autonomy for anyone that is or might become pregnant.
It sounds like he wants to distance himself from the slow-rolling clusterf&%k that is the state of abortion rights in this country without distancing himself from his anti-Christian belief that life begins at conception. The Bible itself has a recipe for herbal abortifacients and explicitly states that human life begins at first breath.
Ooh, you don’t happen to know a verse for this, do you? I’ve heard this before and tried to Google it, but my Google fu is lacking and I just end up finding right wing nut job websites.
Numbers 5:11-31
Thanks! That dust on the floor I’m guessing is basically poison, lye and the ashes from other offerings. That’s wild.
Is there a verse specific to when life begins? I’ve read that it’s upon drawing breath, but that’s the part I haven’t been able to find.
In America there are two acceptable views.
Both came from religion. I can see why some people pick the first one when given only these two options. You wouldn’t want to be a le enlightened centrist after all.