posted by jmogPlease explain this logic. I am curious.
I am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense
Thoughts and prayers.
posted by geeblockI am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense
There is a conflation of responsibilities here, although you do absolutely allude to some underlying issues that are often unduly neglected in the western Christian faith.
First, there is a delineation between positive and negative rights, which does land the two things you're comparing here in opposite places ... at least according to most Christians. The right to be free of someone trying to kill me isn't the same as the right to someone else's resources in order to keep myself alive.
The right to not be killed without just cause doesn't implicitly require any burden be placed on any third party.
The right to access something that costs money cannot pass that same litmus test, because it does, in fact, require a burden be placed on a third party.
Think about it this way:
I have the right to walk down the street without being assaulted. Does that mean I have the right to commandeer you and a friend to act as my free bodyguards as I walk down the street?
Of course, this sounds like an absurd example, but it checks the exact same boxes. I do, indeed, have the right to walk down the street without being assaulted. That doesn't, however, give me the right to your property (the sum total of your body, time, and assets) in order to ensure that I am able to do so, because my right to my own property (ie, my body) being unimpeded doesn't trump your right to your own.
Second, the programs you mention are not the same as giving of oneself. "Love your neighbor as yourself" ... a VERY important commandment in the Scriptures ... is not the same as, "Pass legislation to force everyone to help your neighbor, even against their will."
At that point, it is no longer generosity or charity. Giving at the end of a barrel of a proverbial gun is not giving. There is a pretty blatant distinction between loving your neighbor and forcing everyone to love your neighbor. The primary verb in the former imperative is 'love', but the primary verb in the latter is 'force'. This is all, of course, not even mentioning the fact that IF it were a religious imperative to vote any which way, then we'd be dealing with someone genuinely and intentionally voting in support of a theocracy, and I'm certain that's not what you'd advocate.
Make no mistake: The Bible is painfully clear that charity, generosity, and aiding those in need is one of the most important things in a life lived in accordance with the whole of the Scriptures. It's the second most repeated condemnation against the Israelite people in the Old Testament (behind idolatry, for whatever that's worth), and Jesus essentially stated that the second most important command within the entirety of the Law and Prophets ... one he alludes to being necessary as part of the first most important one ... is to love our neighbors (which he then goes on to explain as anybody in our sphere of influence who is in need). It's very important, and a LOT of Republicans seem to get so wrapped up in whether or not they should have to that they lose sight of whether or not they should anyway.
Still, it is perfectly possible to believe that it is one's moral duty to help his neighbor and community with the needs present as he is able while still opposing a law that would enforce such a moral duty with the threat of fines, imprisonment, and physical force.
/smarted
posted by ernest_t_bass/smarted
/tldr
posted by geeblockI am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense
If someone does not want to have a child and/or cannot care for a child, then they need to behave accordingly. If they do have a child and do not want it and/or cannot care for it, then they can easily give the child up for adoption, as millions of adoptive parents exist. Once someone is responsible for innocent life, they need to respect that life as much or more than their own, until their responsibility ceases.
posted by QuakerOats
If someone does not want to have a child and/or cannot care for a child, then they need to behave accordingly. If they do have a child and do not want it and/or cannot care for it, then they can easily give the child up for adoption, as millions of adoptive parents exist. Once someone is responsible for innocent life, they need to respect that life as much or more than their own, until their responsibility ceases.
what if they are informed that the baby has severe medial issues/deformities is that child getting adopted? people signing up to lose their life savings in medial bills to adopt a child that may or may not live? i doubt it. What if a person is raped? should they be forced to have the child?
posted by geeblockwhat if they are informed that the baby has severe medial issues/deformities is that child getting adopted? people signing up to lose their life savings in medial bills to adopt a child that may or may not live? i doubt it. What if a person is raped? should they be forced to have the child?
Or what if the family has children while they ARE both willing and able to take care of them, but then, they end up with a crisis that alters that ability?
I have an acquaintance whose husband I was very close with. They divided up the labor in traditional terms. He worked, and she took care of the kids and home (and worked a day a week, so they had some spending cash to do things as a family). Both were diligent and responsible.
He passed away a few years ago from pulmonary fibrosis, leaving her as an early-30s mom with four kids between about 12 and 1.
They weren't being irresponsible, and she wasn't about to adopt out her children, nor would I expect her to.
I'm not saying this to say I advocate for social programs, but it's naive to think there aren't circumstances in which "help," in the broad sense, is necessary.
probably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.
posted by vball10setprobably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.
Wow
posted by vball10setprobably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.
Meh. Private companies doing what they appear to believe is in their best interest. She was a singer.
I mean, it's worth mentioning, but I can't say this bothers me at all.
without hearing the songs or reading the lyrics my reaction is i couldn't care less if they kept using her rendition of the song and couldn't care less that they aren't using her renditions of the song either. i've never been a big proponent of feeling sorry for people who did racist stuff just because everyone was doing racist stuff, because in fact everyone wasn't doing it. there were actually people in those times who recognized that it wasn't right. I also dont think people should be offended by it either. If it were my business i would make a change. I will comment again if i run across the lyrics and it changes my opinion i guess
posted by geeblockI am trying to say that if your beliefs based on the Bible make you feel like someone else should have a Child that they don’t want and can’t care for, them those same Christian beliefs would say you would support social programs/wic/Heathcare because helping your neighbor is also a tenet of Christian belief. It is very hypocritical to base a pro life belief on the Bible but al a cart pick other beliefs if that makes sense
1. One way or another the pregnancy is the fault of the mother/father. Why does everyone else have to pay for the child (logically, take feelings out of it).
2. Christians are for helping your neighbor. Christians are not for the government stealing from me and giving to the neighbor. If you look statistically as a percent of income Christians donate more to charities than other demographics. Christian churches also tend to have far more programs to help feed/clothe/etc those not as fortunate.
3. The mother/father are not forced to raise the child and therefore are not forced to pay for raising the child. Nearly every state has laws allowing them to drop their baby off at police/fire/hospitals and even plan on giving the baby up for adoption before that point. The argument saying that Christians that are pro-life are forcing mothers to pay for the child is a ridiculous argument and not based in facts.
posted by geeblockwhat if they are informed that the baby has severe medial issues/deformities is that child getting adopted? people signing up to lose their life savings in medial bills to adopt a child that may or may not live? i doubt it. What if a person is raped? should they be forced to have the child?
You just moved the goalposts as neither of these cases were the original argument. You asked about a woman not being ready financially for a child so Christians should be all for social welfare programs to pay for it.
Let’s leave the child health/rape/etc cases out for now since they make up less than 4% of all abortion cases. Let’s go back to the case you were talking about before. OTrap lawyer spoke you the similar/same answer that I did just above.
what response do you have to that?
posted by jmog1. One way or another the pregnancy is the fault of the mother/father. Why does everyone else have to pay for the child (logically, take feelings out of it).
2. Christians are for helping your neighbor. Christians are not for the government stealing from me and giving to the neighbor. If you look statistically as a percent of income Christians donate more to charities than other demographics. Christian churches also tend to have far more programs to help feed/clothe/etc those not as fortunate.
3. The mother/father are not forced to raise the child and therefore are not forced to pay for raising the child. Nearly every state has laws allowing them to drop their baby off at police/fire/hospitals and even plan on giving the baby up for adoption before that point. The argument saying that Christians that are pro-life are forcing mothers to pay for the child is a ridiculous argument and not based in facts.
No i said they should have the choice to abort the baby. Others say that no they should be forced to have the baby and give it up for adoption so I gave reasons why that solution is not feasible
posted by jmogYou just moved the goalposts as neither of these cases were the original argument. You asked about a woman not being ready financially for a child so Christians should be all for social welfare programs to pay for it.
Let’s leave the child health/rape/etc cases out for now since they make up less than 4% of all abortion cases. Let’s go back to the case you were talking about before. OTrap lawyer spoke you the similar/same answer that I did just above.
what response do you have to that?
I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say. just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.
posted by vball10setprobably already been hashed and rehashed, but this makes my blood boil---these SJW, PC ass wipes need (as S&L so eloquently puts it) to die in a fire....now.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-ed-op-0428-thomas-smith-20190425-story.html
Perspective matters
posted by geeblockI’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say. just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.
There is a very easy and inexpensive way to solve this issue......keep it in your pants and don't procreate!
Don't forget that part of this problem here is that social programs pay by the kid....the more kids you have the more welfare you get. Revamp some of these programs and....viola!...there is more money to go around if we aren't expanding the base with more children.
Before you go off.....I am a proponent of welfare for those that need it. However, it should be a temporary helping hand and not be a lifestyle.
Also birth control isn’t 100% even when used properly. And while we are on that subject isn’t birth control against the Bible teachings?
As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying
