Change My Mind

Octavia incoming 4 3 2 1...

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU CAN HEAR IT BECAUSE HE'S DROPPING TRUTH BOMBS UP IN HERE!!!

"PRO-LIFE" is just a term used to hide the fact that men want to control not only when a woman has sex but with who she is having sex with. They don't give a f**k about any baby but the one they put in her.

Then why are so many women pro-life? I don't know what men you've met, but I know plenty who genuinely care of the children being slaughtered because they are an "inconvenience"

Cut down on the 'roids, dude.

How does eliminating abortions give men such control? I mean, I am no engineer but doesn't she have the ability in a free country like America to go put her bajingo on any twig and berries she wants? I mean really, if this is a truth bomb, then hit me with all your truth bombs because they weak af.

Be that as it may, I think it is very comical how confident he is in not having logic on his side.

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then Success is sure."
-Mark Twain

that made no sense

So about the names of these movements...

Pro-Choice is about giving the woman in the situation the choice over what to do with her body, not the government. There is no stipulation about what the woman should choose, only that the choice belongs to her and not to the government.

Pro-Life is about giving a fetus the same rights as a person, and terminating a pregnancy constitutes murder. This means that, after conception, the woman does not have a choice in the matter - the government has made her choice for her by making it clear that murder is against the law, and abortion is murder.

Pro-Choice is NOT anti-life. Pro-Life IS anti-choice.

I have never, and would never, encourage a woman to abort a healthy fetus. I would work hard to help her to make the choice to bring the pregnancy to term and give birth.

But I firmly support that in the end, it is her choice, not mine or the government's. And if she chooses poorly, I still want her to have proper medical care.

First of all, it is not her body. It is the body of another person inside her body. To claim that the child inside her is her body is claiming that she has 2 different sets of DNA.

While the government should not have the right to make many of a person's choices, they should have the right the make laws against murder. A woman should not have the right to make the choice to have her own child killed any more than she should be legally allowed to kill anyone else.

Fetus is just a stage of life just like baby, adolescent, or adult. I know that people make words like fetus and embryo out to be something other than a stage of human life, but that's what they are. Science supports the argument that life begins at conception. Firstly because there are three types of matter: living, deceased, and inanimate. A fetus is obviously not inanimate because it is made of cells. And by definition it is not dead because its cells are actively growing and dividing, so it must be alive. Now some people claim that the fetus is living, but it is not human, but that doesn't make any logical sense. It has a set of unique human DNA, so how could it be anything but human? Some people say it's not human because it doesn't look human at certain early stages. They say it's but a cluster of cells. But it's a cluster of cells with human DNA that are alive and growing. We're all technically clusters of cells, but that doesn't make us not human. The problem with drawing the line of life anywhere except conception is that each example can be applied to someone of an older age who is already born. For example, if you say life begins when a heartbeat becomes present, then that is like saying a person in cardiac arrest is not human until they have CPR performed on them or are revived by a defibrillator. If you draw the line at where they can feel pain, that dehumanizes people who live with a medical condition where they cannot feel pain. If you draw the line at the point in pregnancy where the baby can survive outside the womb, then that is like saying anyone on life support is not human because they cannot survive on their own without someone operating their equipment. If you draw the line at birth, that doesn't make any sense because the baby undergoes no significant change between the moment before it is born and the moment after.

Unless you define human life by the ability to breathe air, that that doesn't really make any sense either because that goes back to dehumanizing people on life support or people on oxygen, people having an intense asthma attack, or people who are choking. That leaves the only line to draw at conception.

In my basic high school biology class, we did a project called "the first cell that is you." That cell is the zygote. And this was at a liberal public school with transgender bathrooms and everything.

In response to your statement "Pro-Life is anti-choice," well yes it is in this case, but I think we call all agree that murder is wrong, and no one should get the "choice" of whether or not to kill their own child.

I'm glad that you would never encourage anyone to get an abortion, and I certainly agree that all women should get proper medical care whether or not they have an abortion. Being truly Pro-Life means caring about the mother and child equally. We never want harm to befall the mothers of these children. All we can do is try to change their hearts and hope.

I do appreciate your respect with all of this, so thank you for that

Oh, I get it. I was pro-life until about 20 years ago, and I still recognize that the arguments against abortion are not invalid.

In practice, I am still pro-life for healthy pregnancies. However, in policy, I know that if Roe v. Wade is overturned then there will be no safe way for a woman to make that choice. It would make it required for a woman to wait until her unviable pregnancy dies to have it removed, a process that could take months or even result in stillbirth or even worse, live birth and immediate death after. It would require a woman to carry her rapist’s child, her father’s child, her grandfather’s child. It would forever bind a woman to an abusive man, dooming both mother and child to continued abuse.

And if a woman cannot bear this, she would not have proper medical care available for the procedure. She would have, at best, a medical professional who is willing to risk their livelihood and freedom for her, and at worst, a coat hanger or suicide as her only options.

It’s a very difficult issue, and one that requires compassion and compromise on both sides.

Characterizing pro-choice as pro-death is unfair, untrue, and counterproductive to actual positive change. I truly believe there is more common ground to be had than either side is willing to admit. I appreciate you owning the part of pro-life that is anti-choice at its core, and I don’t begrudge you that stance. If you believe abortion is murder, you SHOULD be anti-choice.

An abortion is never medically necessary, so that choice never needs to be made. And yes it would require a woman to carry her rapist's or family member's child, but I do not believe that a child should be killed simply because of the sins of the father. The answer to one terrible sin should not be another. This is horribly unfair to the child on the receiving end who has done nothing wrong and can't help what their father did.

On the topic of rape and incest, I find it misleading to elevate examples of abortion due to these causes to the forefront of conversations because they only account for 0.5% of abortions. I understand how terrible and difficult that choice is in these cases. But when I say pro-choice is anti-life, I am referring mostly to the other 99.5% that abort even though they had consensual sex. They abort because their birth control failed or because they didn't even consider what consequences their actions might have until it was too late. I believe this is wrong and that children should not be killed because their parents don't want them. If they really don't want children that badly, then why should they put themselves in a risky situation? In the end it all stems from sexual immorality and a desire to have unlimited sex without consequence.

There is always counselling for women who fell victim to rape or incest, and there are always parents who cannot have children of their own who are willing and happy to adopt. In the end, wouldn't it help the woman more to have the child? I imagine the rape or incest would be traumatic enough without having to deal with the immense guilt of knowing you've killed your own child on top of it all.

It is indeed a very difficult issue, and I certainly agree with the necessity for compassion. I don't hate people who have had abortions. Honestly I feel really bad for them that they put themselves through something so emotionally taxing. I don't think it is necessary to compromise human life though.

Some pro-choice people don't realize that abortion results in the end of a human life because they are told it is not human life, so I can cut them a bit of slack if they allow me to at least explain why a zygote, a fetus, and an embryo are all people. They certainly don't believe that they are pro-death, and if they understood the death that takes place at every abortion, I believe that they would change because I think deep down every person is searching for the truth and wants to do what it right.

I don't think they evil, just misguided.

I do believe abortion is murder, and I think the main obstacle preventing people from being pro-like is establishing that an unborn child is a human too and has value. I think we can all agree that murder is morally wrong, but so many people don't see it as murder. Most agree that it is killing, but somehow they deny that a person was killed. I mean all scientific evidence points to life beginning at conception.

I think these "it's not a person" arguments were invented because no one could say that a death wasn't taking place, so they shifted the argument from "whether or not killing is wrong" to "it's not a person so how can it be wrong to kill it?" They realized that they would lose any debate about whether or not killing was wrong because it's human nature to understand its evil. I feel kinda bad for these people because I think they only made up this argument because they were hurting inside and just didn't want to admit that they had done something wrong. I know how hard it can to to admit when you did something wrong. Our goal isn't to shame these people. Our goal is to change their hearts and show them the truth.

So you’re anti-choice. Cool. I get it.

This all-or-nothing stance is how you get stagnancy in passing meaningful legislation that limits the circumstances in which abortion is allowable. Also, when was the last time you tried to adopt? It’s bonkers expensive and super difficult. Maybe support legislation that fixes that problem, and more women will choose adoption. Or perhaps support legislation that requires paid maternity and paternity leave for up to six months so couples don’t have to choose between keeping a pregnancy and being able to live themselves. Or even pushing state and local governments to fund the ability to strictly enforce child support owed single mothers would make it easier to make the right choice.

There are lots of ways to get where you want to go, and you have to take all of them to get there.

Quit being a part of the problem.

This is incredibly difficult, and you're making it even more so. Stop requiring others to agree with you 100% before you budge. They won't, and insisting that they do makes them more belligerently opposed to you.

If you want to end abortion in the US, you need to root out the causes of it and address them. If you don't, you won't end abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. You'll just make it more dangerous, and fill the prison system faster. Instead of overturning it, make it irrelevant.

Would you knowingly speak this way to a woman who'd had an abortion? To one who was considering one? To a man whose partner had had or was considering one? If your goal is to persuade, I would hope not.

I would just like to point out that you don't have to actually adopt a child to realize that adoption is good. You can have opinions about things without being in a position to do that exact thing. You just have to be willing to if you were in tt situation, and I think think any of us would adopt if we were not able to have kids and wanted them

I don't think anyone opposes adoption. It's pretty much universally viewed as a good idea.

However, the process of adopting a child is so tied up in red tape to determine if you qualify (there are so many able parents out there that have to work entirely too hard to be deemed as such, and it's even harder for gay and lesbian couples), and so ridiculously expensive (tens of thousands of dollars - a friend of mine ended up paying over $40k after all of the costs were tallied), and not at all guaranteed (they didn't get the child because the mother elected to keep her). It's not a process that inspires people to sign up.

The process is a result of a combination of overregulation and undersubsidization of the adoption industry. As a voter, you have the power to pressure your representatives at the state level to create immediate change to your state's adoption laws and regulations. You can also pressure your representatives on the national level to create simple nationwide requirements that states can add to, and to allocate federal funding to lower the outrageous cost of adoption.

I'm not saying adoption should be easy, but it shouldn't be this difficult.

Except Muslims. Adoption is not allowed in Islam because Muhammad was an idiot and lusted after his own adopted son's wife and instead of correcting his own sin, he banned adoption in Islam, but anyway...

Yeah I agree that it's too hard and the process should be made easier and cheaper. However, it makes sense that it's harder for gay and lesbian couples because I believe every child deserves the love of a father and a mother. One without the other isn't complete or natural. And most foster homes realize that.

I think we can mostly agree about the issues with adoption. The process definitely needs to be reformed

The bit about Muslims is new to me. Interesting.

Your belief concerning the viability of LGBT couples being capable of providing a sufficiently healthy, loving, and nurturing home for children doesn't hold up, in my personal experience. The specific case I listed above happened to a gay couple - they tried again (to the tune of another $40k), succeeded, and have one of the smartest and emotionally mature kids I know. Another LGBT couple I know have a few kids, and provide one of the most stable environments I've ever encountered for children. My experience isn't proof for all LGBT homes across the board (so take it for what it is), but it's valid. I'd be interested (and saddened) to hear personal experience or unbiased research you have to the contrary.

So we disagree re: LGBT adoption. That aside though, yeah, we're probably on the same page.

Lesbian couples raising kids have the highest rate of physical abuse, just sayin'

SydneyB - source? Cuz in 2010, that number was 0%.

I'll look for it. I doubt your # unless that was before they were allowed to adopt.

Yeah it's not super common knowledge.

I don't doubt that some LGBT couples provide sufficient care for their children. All I'm saying is that it's not natural and not the way we were designed. Without adoption, no LGBT couple could have children because their relationship isn't able to procreate. In a perfect world where all children were intentionally procreated and raised by their biological parents, there would be no need for adoption, and no LGBT couples would have any kids. That kind of relationship is unnatural, and adding kids to it makes it even more so.

To be Anti-life or pro-death means that one actively promotes abortion, in any and all circumstances.

I don’t know a single person who is like this. I don’t even know anyone who views abortion as anywhere close to a casual choice. It’s an awful decision to find yourself having to make.

I saw a feral leftist scream that she was a satanist and loved killing her fetuses. Anecdotal evidence and all but there are sick freaks out there.

Was that from a TFP Student Action video?

No I think a Hollywood actor. Maybe from the golden globes.

LOL

lol

No, I think it was a Jesse Lee Peterson report on some woman's march.

Okay. Here is the video I thought it was from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv6q5iYq8h0

Unavailable video.

I can't find it. If I see it again I'll post a link.

How odd. Maybe try searching 'Pro-Abortion Students Get Cozy With Satan' into YouTube.

It worked.

Cuck asks if you've been raped, while deepthroating a banana haha

No, what I saw was way more blatant.

It was a snippet from a 45 minute video. I can't find it without spending hours searching.

Every movement has its crazies. I don’t know any of ours, but they do exist. You’ve got yours too (Death penalty for anyone who’s performed an abortion, bomb threats to clinics, etc.), but I recognize that they’re not representative of the whole. I hope you extend the same courtesy.

Your perspective on how seriously women as a whole take the decision is as legitimate as either the number of women who have shared their stories with you or the amount of reliable data that’s been collected on the subject. So probably not very.

Except in cases of rape, the woman already made her choice. It was never taken away from her.
Having said that, I would never want that to be legislated as the only circumstance in which it is allowed. Rape is difficult to prove (and a trial is time consuming). If you lower the threshold to an accusation, you run the risk of encouraging false accusations.
What concerns me most is the moral conversation that surounds the topic of abortion. Some want the choice to be viewed as a simple medical decision, like getting the flu shot. Some even want the choice to be viewed as positive.
But abortion is always a negative choice. It may be the least negative choice of the choices a woman has, but it is negative. If a woman needs an abortion, something has already gone wrong. She may have been raped, her birth control failed, there is a medical reason, or she was just plain irresponsible.

It is not a positive choice. A woman who is unaffected by the choice is a woman in need of psychiatric care. But it is still a choice.

Until there are consistently enforced requirements laid upon men who also made that initial choice, I can’t accept the “she already made her choice” argument. Given the strain of pregnancy and parenthood, those requirements should be to provide, or pay half of the cost for the provision of:
- child care, including overnight help at home
- loss of income due to missed work for pregnancy complications, birth and at least four months after, sickness of the child, and the non-holidays school is out
- loss of income due to hampered career advancement (due to all that missed work)
- child care supplies
- any and all medical expenses related to pregnancy and parenthood
- activities that promote the mother’s mental health

Y’know, things he’s expected to physically provide if he is present and not an asshole. Since that legislation would never pass, you’ll need to use other arguments :)

Lol, I guess that’s why the pro-choice movement is led by men. And it’s totally true that men were champions of it in the beginning because it benefits them.

You have plenty of choices actually. 1. Don't have sex, or 2. have sex understanding a child could be conceived because news flash that's how babies are made. 3. Find support and carry the child to term and keep him/her 4. Carry the child to term and give him/her up for adoption.

(Before you scream "WHAT ABOUT RAPE????" Decide that you will not stoop down to your predator's level and punish another innocent human being just because others say " It'S a RaPiSt's ChIlD." Uh, so what. It's your child too. You can make their life whatever you choose, full of love despite the evil of others or you can choose not to.

"Before you scream "WHAT ABOUT **PE????"... "

eyyy way to absolutely piss on rape victims and guilt trip them. what if they're
a) too poor to have a child?
b) too young to have a child? that's a possibility (considering some younger than 17 can get raped)

i don't like abortion. if you've had loads of abortions and none of them were because of rape, there's something wrong with you. but if it's actual rape and you're not ready to have a child yet, you have a valid reason to have an abortion.

a) you can always give them up for adoption
b) contrary to popular belief, teenage girls actually usually have the easiest time giving birth. College educated woman have the hardest time because they prepare more for it on average and think they know what will happen, but obviously it ends up being way different than they expected

"So in addition to the trauma the poor girl just endured you should lie to her and tell her the child inside her ain't worth crap because the father is a criminal? Should we tell that to my nephew who's dad is in jail as a sex offender? Since he impregnated his mom at 17?"

what if said impregnated child wasn't 17, but 12? the baby could come out deformed, at the expense of the child being in serious pain

All valid points. Then again, it’s not my choice, is it? It’s the woman’s. You want to stop abortion? Make those choices easier to make.

We're trying dude. But libs are the ones screaming for abortion without limitations.

Try differently. Work to make adoption easier. Invest in sex ed. Provide resources to low-income single mothers. Enact universal healthcare.

" I have never, and would never, encourage a woman to abort a healthy fetus...but I firmly support that in the end it is her choice"

Sounds like "I'm personally opposed to it but I don't want to impose my morality on someone else" so it's actually a matter of preference, not morality. Its wrong for you but not for others? Something is either right or wrong, it doesn't change based on personal feelings or preferences. That's like saying, I'm personally opposed to running over pedestrians with my car and I would never do it but I can't impose my view on others.

That's a very good point. Morality is subjective, and there is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth." There is just truth. There is right and there is wrong, and it's the same for everyone.

Right and wrong does not always align with legal and illegal (see: the Trump Administration). Prohibition is a textbook case of why one shouldn’t legislate morality.

That's true. Hence the case of abortion, where something morally wrong is legal. Prohibition is little bit different though. It was more about people traumatized from WWI coming back and abusing alcohol, and the people who passed prohibition thought that these crazy people were crazy because of the alcohol. They didn't realize it was trauma from the war. And drinking isn't inherently immoral anyway if you don't abuse it

The push for Prohibition started well before WWI, as far back as the Civil War, but the basic premise (drinking to cope with PTSD being mistaken as simple intemperance) is the same. The people at the time viewed intemperance as immoral, rather than as a negative way to cope with a disorder such as PTSD or as a chemical dependence such as alcoholism (or both).

Morality is funny like that...it adjusts as we learn.

Well I would agree that abusing alcohol isn't moral, but the people who pushed prohibition didn't realize the PTSD aspect. If someone has a mental handicap like that, we are now able to realize that intemperance in those cases isn't an intentional violation of morality. Rather, a means to escape. But I think we're mostly on the same page here.

I would disagree with the statement that morality adjusts as we learn. Morality is not relative. It is truth, and while some people don't know it or discover it for themselves later than other people, it was always the same. Sometimes immoral things have been widely accepted, and many still are. When immoral that were widely accepted become condemned, that doesn't mean morality adjusted from before to after. It just means that people were immoral for a time either without realizing it or intentionally hiding it for their own gain

What is societally deemed moral or immoral is absolutely fluid. You can certainly believe there is absolute truth, but morality is a human construct intended to define it in practical terms. Humans can only define things as they understand them. With new knowledge comes adjusted moral codes.

Well yeah what society deems moral and immoral changes all the time, true. But what is actually moral doesn't change. There has to be absolute truth for things to exist. Even the statement "there are no absolute truths" would be an absolute if it were true.

"With new knowledge comes adjusted moral codes."

Yes moral codes change over time, but that doesn't mean the morality of the matter changed, just how people viewed it. For example, slavery was always immoral, but there was a time in parts of America where it wasn't viewed as immoral. When the laws changed, slavery didn't suddenly become immoral. It always was, and people just realized it

Ok, I’ll buy that line of reasoning. The problem is that there isn’t a single person who knows everything there is to know, so the setting of morality is left to the rest of us. Even if you believe in an all-knowing god, there is constant shift in the interpretation of your holy text that subsequently changes moral codes. Since your god is (probably) not clearly outlining his or her stance on every issue (like, say, how the rules of online communication differ from others and whether trolling is immoral), we’re back to square one. And that’s running on the assumption that you picked the right god in the first place.

To say “God is all-knowing, so x is true” is to make the assumption that, on x issue, you fully understand the mind of an all-knowing God. At the least, that’s a ridiculously lofty claim to make.

Okay that's fair. Not everything will make an eternal difference, but any souls saved because of being taught the truth are worth it. I only ask what denomination because I like learning about what other religions believe and why.

The reason they are unwilling to take baby steps is because abortion is not an issue to compromise on. When 3 children are being killed on average every 2 seconds around the world, we can't afford baby steps. It needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Reversing Roe v. Wade would very much so be "actual, meaningful progress," and we might be as close that right now as we have been since it was passed. I'm aware that one of the current Republican justices doesn't want to be the decided vote, but if Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies sometime while Trump is president, he could appoint another conservative justice, and legal abortion would be banned. It's closer than some people would like to admit. I can sense the wave of fear rippling through the Pro-Choice movement. They're started online petitions on YouTube to keep abortion legal. They know that the end could be near. I don't deny that a win without compromise on my side would indeed probably trigger more resistance on the Pro-Choice side. But even with that resistance, they're running out of arguments. More and more people are finally waking up to the horrible reality of what an abortion is. When I went to a public high school, we weren't allowed to talk about abortion and neither were are teachers. That's because the people who invent the liberal public curriculum realize that even high school Pro-Lifers could easily dismantle their arguments. The Pro-Choice movement relies on one key argument: that an unborn child is somehow not a child and just a worthless blob. But science says otherwise. All abortionists who see the blood on their hands know exactly what they are doing. Another thing is that Roe won her case without compromise, and like you said, the other side gained strength because of it. Funny thing about her: later in her life, she realized that what she had done was wrong, switched sides, and converted to Catholicism.

Of course I would like peace as well as victory. And that peace starts with the end of the largest ongoing genocide in the history of the world. I say genocide because a genocide is a mass extermination of a certain group of people. Now while these children don't have race or gender or religion in common, they do have the same age and status:

not wanted by at least one of their parents

Yes, of course the pro-choice movement is scared, but not that public opinion is changing. They are scared because with the current administration and its judicial appointments, legal precedent, scientific input, and public opinion are not significant factors in decision-making. These are what they rely on to keep their right to choose.

These are also what public policy in general relies on. There’s a whole slippery slope fear that’s pretty palpable on the left, and the right is ignoring for the most part. The problem for the right comes when the left gains power (and they will, sooner or later), because an “I do what I want” mentality precedent in the White House is dangerous AF. One can say that Obama had it to a certain extent, but nowhere near the level to which Trump has taken it.

Yes it's true that no one person knows everything there is to know. Yes I do believe in an all-knowing God, but there is not constant re-interpretation of my holy text because I'm not protestant. That is a good point to bring up though. Martin Luther founded Protestantism on 2 very contradictory ideas: 1) that the Bible is the ultimate authority, and 2) but not until I take out the books I want and change it to my liking. That created the problem of allowing everyone to interpret the Bible differently, and now here we are wirh over 40,000 protestant denominations. This is the same idea. There can't be your truth and my truth. There must be universal truth because things in contradiction to each other can't exist at the same time.

There's no commandment persay about the exact things you can say online, but they shouldn't be different than what you would say in person. Like I'm going to insult anyone I disagree with because where will that get me? I'll never be able to change people's minds if I take that route.

Yes I am running on the assumptiom that I picked the right God in the first place. But I'm confident in my decision for way more reasons than I have time to type right now. If you have any specific questions about that though I'd be happy to answer them.

I certainly would never make such a lofty claim. I would never put myself above God. While I don't fully understand Him, He has revealed Himself in many ways to help us understand. I would not simply say, "God is all-knowing, so x is true," but rather, "God is all-knowing and has revealed x to us, so it must be true."

*I'm NOT going to insult...

The "and has revealed x to us" part is where it gets hairy for me. You have to trust that a few things are true to make that statement:
1) you chose the right god,
2) the religious text used by your religion refers specifically to your particular interpretation of that god,
3) said text, though written by the hands of men, is fully inspired by your god,
4) your god has ensured that said text has not lost any meaning through the various translations required for you to be able to read it,
5) your god does not change, and EITHER
6a) the information in said text does not hold room for exception or nuance beyond what is explicitly outlined within it, OR
6b) your religious sect's particular interpretation of said text is the most accurate one.

*Since I can't get all the way through the first five*, both 6a and b sound insane to me (6a because I can't fathom an all-knowing god existing without millions of layers of nuance; and 6b because in order to believe this you have to either actually be the closest thing man has ever been to being intellectually equal to god, or actively blasphemous for believing yourself to be). I also accept that if you're able to trust the first five, you HAVE to choose one or the other, and that's cool; I'm happy for you. As long as you don't make other people miserable in the process, you do you.

At the end of the day (and this thread, apparently), I believe we both want the same end result - the end of biologically unnecessary abortions (we all agree that the incredibly and ever increasingly rare situation in which only one of the two will survive is not cause for debate, and that removing a fetus that does not have a heartbeat does not constitute abortion, yes?). I also believe we can work together towards that goal, but that just shutting down Roe v. Wade before heavily eroding the perceived need for it is **extremely** counterproductive.

Likewise. This has been fun. You've been extremely courteous and respectful to me this whole time, and I appreciate it especially because abortion is such a sensitive issue. Thank you

Yeah that's interesting. What denomination are they? Obviously there was a split in the Catholic Church when the great Schism occurred, but Protestants didn't appear until 1500 years after Christ lived, so yeah it's funny what some people say.

Yeah that's funny that they think their Bible is divinely inspired but others aren't because even though there are different interpretations, all Bibles contain mostly the same stuff as far as I know. Just bits changed here and there, as well as some books being removed.

Oh sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course persecution is wrong. We can certainly agree on that. The "no gays" policy is a little hairy for me. Being gay isn't a condition someone can be born with (there is no gay/straight gene in the human genome). Even if someone has gay feelings, which I don't believe is wrong unless acted on, I don't understand why they think they need to tell everyone. To me that's kind of like being a pedophile and telling everyone about it. Like gee ok we don't need to know that. I'd be happy to offer help, but I don't want you shoving it in my face and telling me to accept it because "that's how you are." Correction: that's what you choose to be. I wouldn't exactly want to hire someone who came to and interview and said, "I'm sexually attracted to children just so you know."

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes I don't think it's wrong to remove a miscarriage since the child has unfortunately already died.

Agreed. This will take effort on both sides. I wouldn't try to hide that there are many counterproductive people on my side. Trying to shame people who have had abortions is wrong. I prefer what people in my Church do, such as praying outside of Planned Parenthood buildings and electing representatives who respect life.

Since I don’t identify with either the religion of my youth or the one you espouse, I’ll leave the theological discussions be. Suffice to say, I think you’re all a little right and a little wrong, and the super minor differences between you that wars (of both words and blows) have been fought over are horrifyingly silly and certainly don’t make an eternal difference. But hey, I’m not God. I could be wrong.

Representatives who “respect life” are notoriously unwilling to take baby steps (if you’ll pardon the expression) toward actual, meaningful progress. They tend to be all or nothing, which always ends in either stalemate or temporary victory. Winning without compromise strengthens the resolve of those in resistance to you (see: WWI), and just delays a bigger, uglier conflict. I hope you choose your representatives with an eye towards peace, not just victory. I know I am. It’s not easy, but those folks are out there.

Sorry it took me so long to respond and that this is appearing out of order, but I had a few final things to say.

I do definitely believe in those first 5 things. When you mentioned the third one, it made me think, are/were you Catholic? Because that is precisely what we believe: that it was written by men but inspired by the Holy Spirit. 6a is a little hairy. My religion doesn't get it's teachings solely from the Bible, but also from tradition. Certainly there are many levels to any holy text. I think 6b is closer. There have indeed been many different interpretations, but I do believe that mine is the most intact. Obviously some things aren't perfectly translated because that's just how translation works, but something I really about my religion is that many priests discuss the roots and meanings of certain words openly to help us understand what certain passages mean when English doesn't translate perfectly. I don't think claiming 6b is claiming to be intellectually equal to God. It is simply claiming to not have tampered with writings that God has already inspired. An example of the opposite of this is when Protestants intentionally changed a phrase so say "saved by faith ALONE" instead of just "saved by faith." They intentionally added that word. It wasn't in the original text. That is what I believe is wrong.

"As long as you don't make other people miserable in the process, you do you."

If the truth makes people miserable, well I can't really do anything about that. If speaking the truth makes people upset, that's not really my problem. Should we speak the truth then? I would still think yes. Some people don't accept truth for any number of reasons, but I believe that the truth really does set people free in the end.

Yes we both want an end to biologically unnecessary abortions. The rare situation in which only one will survive is not part of this debate, true. However, I still believe that a fetus is human at all stages of life, including before it has a heartbeat. As I explained a while back, if you draw the line at the heartbeat, technically someone in cardiac arrest is not human.

"...just shutting down Roe v. Wade before heavily eroding the perceived need for it is **extremely** counterproductive."

Well this is where I would disagree. We've been trying to erode the perceived need for it for decades now, and it still hasn't worked. Since our words haven't worked, the only thing left to try is actions, and actions speak louder than words.

Banning abortion would SHOW these people that they don't need it as opposed to attempting to convince them through words, which we've already tried.

I wasn't Catholic, but the church I was raised in believes that the Bible is 100% purely the word of God, and has been kept 100% pure through the ages. Funny, that, considering that "alone" is in their Bible.

They also believe that their interpretation of the Bible is divinely inspired, and exclusively so vs. other denominations. This is all ludicrous to me now, but my opinion is just that: an opinion. You do you.

By making others miserable I mean actual persecution - denying a person access to justice, rights, or property because they don't agree with your religious beliefs. You are doing none of these things by sharing your faith and making someone uncomfortable. If you do it to the point of harassment (like, say, hounding someone regularly after being explicitly told that your message has been received and is unwelcome), or impact the physical or financial wellbeing of another (like, say, enact a "no gays" policy at your workplace that forces a gay coworker out or keeps a qualified applicant from consideration), or some other such nonsense, then that's something else.

Apologies, I was not clear. I meant a fetus that *no longer has* a heartbeat. That's removing a miscarriage, not having an abortion.

I'm glad we're on the same page about the most important part - that unnecessary abortions should end. I hope that, moving forward, our sides will actively seek mutually acceptable paths toward this end. I know they're there, and pray that we're wise enough to act on them.

Public opinion may not be changing rapidly right now, no, but the public is fairly evenly split on the issue. The only reason Roe v. Wade went the way it did was because of "the current administration and its judicial appointments." The Pro-Choice movement does not rely on scientific input to keep their right to choose, as the most basic science still points to life beginning at conception. Yes they do rely slightly on public opinion, but even so, had it not been for the supreme court justices at the time of Roe v. Wade, a majority would not have been enough to legalize abortion.

Yes I understand when one side is currently in power, the other side is afraid of what they might do. I don't see how whatever "dangerous" things Trump is doing is worse than the legalization of genocide though. I think it's safe to say that the horrific deaths of over 61 million American children is more of a loss on my side than a few policy changes that Trump makes is for yours. When the left takes back power, they can always reverse policies, but you can't reverse death.

And this point is where conversation tends to break down and people retreat to all-or-nothing stances. I’ll extricate myself here, with this:

It’s been illuminating and rather enjoyable discussing this with you. I’ll carry what I’ve learned into future conversations, with the goal of finding common ground and seeking paths forward that both sides are willing to commit to. You have been kind to me, and I appreciate it. Truly.