What has been your experience with sidewalk preachers? Have you ever responded to them? Are any of them effective? Have you ever questioned your own belief system? Do you think such questions help or hurt religious belief?
Someone with the username: john Eddy commented on my video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwK4Vkve1o
After some comments back and forth, he asked me three questions. I have a general idea of how I want to answer them, but I am sure that my pro-life friends from many different backgrounds have much more knowledge and experience with laws than I do. Therefore I would like some input.
Here are quotes from this user and my responses.
“Are you willing force woman to have children? If your answer is anything other than “Yes”, then there is no debate.”
No, that’s one reason why I am a virgin.
“Fair enough, but I didn’t mean you. With that in mind, same question.
“Are you willing force woman to have children? If your answer is anything other than “Yes”, then there is no debate.””
Maybe I don’t really understand what is behind your question. Men who rape women and get them pregnant are forcing them to have children, but I am not.
“Let’s forget about some of the details for a second, I just want to talk about the core of the issue. Let’s remove ourselves from the argument so that we can focus on the interests of others for now/ everyone else. So…
“Are you willing to force someone (women) to have kids?”
Although it’s an extreme example, let’s use what you said about rape. If a woman was raped then would you force her to have the child?”
She already has a child if she is pregnant. So I suppose you are asking if I would force her to let it live rather than kill it. Am I correct?
“Sure, let’s go with that. So is that a Yes or a No?”
“and would you make it legislation/ law?”
If that is what is required to end abortion, then yes. Still, my activism in no way will stop even if it becomes illegal. But I am not a politician anyhow nor would I become one. But I will vote for those who will outlaw it.
“Assuming that an Anti-abortion bill had passed, I’d like to ask a few hypothetical questions…
1. Who will enforce this legislature, and how?
2. Who will raise and sponsor unwanted children?
3. Will there be contraceptive methods/ programs available? What are they and who will pay for them?”
“Do your federal taxes fund abortions? Of course they do.
It’s true that the Hyde Amendment prohibits the Federal State from DIRECTLY paying for specific abortions, but that’s an arbitrary line, established because someone declared it exists. We maintain that your federal taxes really do pay for abortions because the supposed line between direct and indirect funding doesn’t really exist.
There is one word that explains the truth about abortion funding, and four other words that explain our position on this issue. Consider each of these words, and then draw your own conclusions. Let’s start with the most important word first . . .
Money is fungible. A dollar used for one thing is exactly the same as a dollar used for another thing. The individual dollars are perfectly interchangeable. So . . .
What if federal politicians gave your tax money to a church, but with the limitation that the money could only be used for the soup kitchen, not for preaching?
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would surely challenge this, arguing that it represents a partial “establishment of religion,” because tax funding for the soup kitchen would free-up other church resources that could then be used for proselytizing. In other words, tax money would be used to subsidize views that some may oppose.
In precisely the same way, if groups like Planned Parenthood get money to use for one part of their operations, they free up funds from other sources to be used for abortions. It really is that simple.
So you see, the Hyde Amendment really doesn’t stop tax funding of abortions. Your tax money is still subsidizing abortions, whether you like it or not. Which brings us to our next important word . . .
Those who advocate a right to abortion claim to be “pro-choice.”
But don’t those who oppose abortion have a right to NOT be forced to fund it?
We assert that they do. To truly be pro-choice, abortion providers must embrace voluntary funding as their sole means of support.
The Tenth Amendment makes clear that the powers of the Federal State are so limited that we can actually count them.
Can you find, in the Constitution, the power that authorizes Congress to fund abortion providers, or even “family planning?” We can’t.
It doesn’t exist.
The decision, by Republicans, to divert the issue of spending cuts in the 2011 budget back to old, partisan hangups from the bygone culture war days, deserves criticism. It’s an attempt to . . .
* divert us from the enormity of the budgetary crisis.
* divide us — to scare people into supporting Republicans as the lesser of two evils, even if they don’t keep their Pledge to cut spending.
I signed a Downsizer-Dispatch, on April 13, 2001, that attacked this kind of manipulation.
Instead, we should all be CONSISTENT defenders of the Constitution, and more importantly, of the PRINCIPLES that underly it. For this reason we here at Downsize DC are CONSISTENTLY ANTI-PARTISAN. We are disinterested in partisan cheer-leading or supporting “the lesser of two evils.” That’s why we have CONSISTENTLY called for cuts to fan favorites of both the Left and the Right.
In the past, the Downsize DC team has earned the ire of conservatives who support war as a means of re-engineering the world, and who favor drug prohibition and other unconstitutional invasions of civil liberties. We also oppose the Left on such hypocrisies as denying choice to those who oppose abortion.
At Downsize DC we stand against expanding the power of the State and advocate serious cuts on EVERYTHING in the present budget. We urge you to join us in a consistent call to do the right thing. This is far more virtuous than cheering for the right team. We sincerely doubt that there is such a “right team,” but we can be sure that there are right principles.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.”
I recently found out that some people on Facebook seem to think that there is nothing wrong with prostitution or pornography. Because of this, I posted the following:
“After seeing a comment on one of my Facebook posts, I have been thinking carefully about part of what was said.
The part that shocked me was: “I also don’t have a problem with Prostitution or Pornography as long as it’s done by consenting adults & no Children are involved or come into contact with it.”
There are several things wrong with this reasoning. First of all, there are extreme problems with pornography and prostitution that most people are not seeing.
First of all, pornography is really an attempt to sell the human body for money. This seems to be no different that slaughtering a cow and selling the meat. Whether a person consents to such an action has very little to do with the harm that results in this belief. For example: A person may consent to giving a thief money if the thief is pointing a gun at them, but it is not something they would ordinarily do. Therefore such immoral actions are an enemy to both life and choice.
What I said above also applies to prostitution as well. The risks that would come with having sex with strangers are the same no matter how much money is paid. Aside from that, such a thing also can result in pregnancy. Therefore, it seems quite possible that children will come into contact with prostitution!
However, it seems that anyone who pays or accepts money for prostitution or pornography would most likely not see anything wrong with aborting any children conceived. If the standard of morality is money, then anything goes.
And this is why I could not let such a comment go unchallenged. It is wrong in so many ways. I hope that others learn not to accept such pro-death thinking.”
The comments I got were rather interesting. One person is arguing that prostitution should be legal.
She says: “I see that, with informed consent of all parties, sex is a service. It’s something you can give and receive and the exchange of currency can be a part of that.
With legalized prostitution, prostitutes are independent businesspeople. The industry is regulated, with health standards. Sex workers would be licensed, and have to have monthly tests. No longer would the industry be limited to people exploited by a pimp.
As for pornography, I see nothing wrong with consensually viewing other people having sex. We do all sorts of things to evoke emotions from other people. We dance, we create art, we make music. We give massages, we create candles to delight our senses. Why is sexual excitement so different?”
There were other comments by other people which I highly agreed with such as:
“In fact, prostitution and pornography seem to be pro-life issues because two of the main industries that want abortion legal are the prostitution and pornography industries.”
This is why I tend to think that prostitution and pornography need to end because they actually promote abortion. Of course they are also wrong for other reasons. The person who best explained this was Clinton Wilcox in his comment:
“Here’s the problem, though. Treating sex as if it’s simply a commodity instead of a procreative act is exactly how pro-choice people view sex — sex is a pleasurable act and pregnancy is an unintended consequence of having sex. We can’t reasonably divorce sex from its procreative function. I understand you’ve had bad experience with it, but we can’t allow our bad experiences to cloud our better judgement.
Legalizing prostitution may increase safety and well-being, but not being prostitutes would also increase their safety. This is a similar argument to wanting to legalize abortion to make it “safer.” It’s debatable whether or not making abortion legal will make it safer, but it’s not debatable that what would be even safer would be *not* having the abortion. Just like it’s debatable whether or not making it legal would make it safer, but not being a prostitute at all would be the safest thing of all.
The question is, is prostitution a moral, amoral, or immoral act. If there’s nothing wrong with prostitution or pornography, then there would be no problem in making it legal. If it’s immoral, is it the kind of immoral act that we should make illegal (since not everything that is immoral, like adultery, is illegal). I think that sex is the kind of act that is so personal and intimate that it should not be exploited, nor should it be sold for public consumption. When a man has sex with a woman, they become “one flesh” as the saying goes; this is why we’re only supposed to be with one sexual partner in our life.”
I happen to think that sex must be more than just a “commodity” or “service”. Being pro-life, I could never approve of anything that corrupts sex, the very thing that creates new life. This is why I find this to be extremely relevant to everything else I write about.