Pro-Life or Whole-Life? - Good Faith Debates

[@lpz7864]

As always, Scott’s argument is solid.

[@jeffmarkus]

As debates go, there was no contest. One side clearly dominated. There are hundreds of organizations devoted to addressing quality of life issues from womb to tomb - some praiseworthy, some ineffectual, some unscrupulous. If, as a socially-conscious Christian, I wanted to take on a holistic approach to my advocacy I would be well-advised to support one or more of the many existing principled organizations, in addition to my pro-life involvement. I don’t see the reasoning - moral or logical - behind saddling pro-life organizations with unduly expansive mandates when other organizations already exist for that end. I fear that many so-called “whole-life” advocates are attenuating the gravity and efficacy of the bigger cause: the prevention of murder against unborn human beings.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@elijahofmalachi45-68 not sure where you copy and pasted your false understandings from, but you need to repent.

[@jaredlowry3547]

Not to mention, “womb to tomb” is a thinly-veiled misdirection tactic. It’s conflating two separate things - the right to life and quality of life issues. Most “womb to tomb” advocates are essentially making the argument that we need to live in a socialist utopia in order to start talking about outlawing abortion. But let’s be honest, it’s just a way to kick the can down the road and take the conversation away from outlawing abortion. They have no intention to stop killing babies regardless of living conditions.

[@JesseStevenPollom]

Man, Scott Klusendorf is soooo solid!! I love his point #4 how he applied the atoning blood of Jesus to mother’s who have aborted. I appreciated a lot of what KSP had to say, but was disappointed to see her essentially equate an alleged individual sexual abuser with the murder of children (in terms of voting). Lastly, while I appreciate TGC modeling charity in disagreement, there’s a point at which you are avoiding disagreement so much that it’s not a debate anymore. I think that’s a problem with this “unity at all costs” approach that TGC pushes.

[@robstubbs1176]

Speaking very practically, giving up the moniker of “Pro-life” in exchange for “Whole-life” would be akin to Apple changing its name to Comprehensive Computer Corporation. The idea could only come from one of their competitors.

[@heartofalegend]

I'm tempted to guess who TGC sides with in this discussion, but I don't want to know.

[@scottklusendorf5756]

To be fair, while the moderator appeared to hold Karen's position (not saying he was unfair), TGC asked me to write an article promoting my view. So lets give credit where it is due.

[@heartofalegend]

@@scottklusendorf5756 Yes, that is good to know.

[@johnbeale4164]

These debates are hilarious. By the end the debaters are agreeing with each other. Why bother listening.

[@HearGodsWord]

So both positions are right, or just one of them?

[@johnbeale4164]

@@HearGodsWord he had the stronger position but made it sound like KSP was mostly the same in their discussion. A debate should have clear positions which strongly oppose one another. We can't expect TGC to bring anything but this. Unhelpful.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@johnbeale4164 I found it helpful rather than unhelpful.

[@karabeaner2145]

Debates aren’t about the debaters. They are about you, trying to determine out what arguments make sense to you. Not telling you what to believe.

[@johnbeale4164]

@@karabeaner2145 we don't need this debate. Pro Life is about whether we should kill unborn babies or not. Psalm 139:13 answers that question. Distorting the discussion by including quality of life issues is not good.

[@cameronwitmer]

Karen swallowed prior to having to engage with her opponent’s opening statement.

[@heartofalegend]

This debate should be required viewing for the church, today. Pro-life advocates don't realize that many of the people they're up against are wearing their own jerseys while playing for the other team. I'm surprised TGC hosted this.

[@2serve4Christ]

SPEAKING AGAINST ABORTION, someone has said, "No one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for children born to people who don't want them or can't afford them or are one way or another incapable of taking care of them and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning them. And yet, and yet. Who knows what treasure life may hold for even such children as those, or what treasures even such children as those may grow up to become? To bear a child even under the best of circumstances, or to abort a child even under the worst-the risks are hair-raising either way and the results incalculable. How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of Life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear, but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way only the world into which they are born can kill unloved, unwanted children (Matthew 10:28)? There is perhaps no better illustration of the truth that in an imperfect world there are no perfect solutions. All we can do, as Luther said, is sin bravely, which is to say, (a) know that neither to have the child nor not to have the child is without the possibility of tragic consequences for everybody, yet (b) be brave in knowing also that not even that can put us beyond the forgiving love of God. - Originally published in "Whistling in the Dark" (Frederick Buechner)

[@jvlp2046]

I am a Christians... but where do we "DRAW the LINE" between the "Gift of FREEWILL" given by God Almighty to Mankind and Sons of God (Angels including the Fallen angels) to choose between Good or Evil... and the PRO-LIFE movement?... Do you think the rising abortion cases most especially among the Atheist (non-believers) due to the FAILURE of Evangelism (spreading the Gospel) for we focus more on the "Prosperity Gospel?

[@billybob-wx2re]

where was the debate? what'd they even argue about? did they even differ from each other on anything??

[@augustine.c8204]

yeah, they were differing on whether the pro-life movement as a whole has to give their attention to other issues in order to be authentically pro-life

[@davids2551]

It is completely ridiculous to promote the idea that if you're not actively fighting every single form of evil, that you don't have the right to say you're fighting any evil at all.

[@MH-uh3hw]

Neither one really answered the last question.

[@JT-yo]

Scott won

[@dv9360]

I like how Karen pointed out how someone who is pro-life but believes abortion should be allowed in cases of rape could be pro-life because they see pregnancy as punishment for poor decisions around sex and not because they consistently value the life of the child. I hadn't really thought of it that way before. Usually rape/incest exceptions are presented as something "merciful". Learned to think about that in a new way. I support "womb-to-tomb", but I also wouldn't support making other social programs into prerequisites that must be satisfied before abortion can be made illegal. I also don't think every pro-life organization acting against abortion has to expand their scope to cover all other social programs as well.

[@augustine.c8204]

damn, both sides did really well

[@noblerare]

I think this was an okay topic but when it comes to abortion, I was expecting to see a debate between a Christian who is pro-choice versus one who is pro-life. The Christian who is pro-choice could be against abortion personally but argues that from a legislative perspective, pro-choice will/may reduce the occurrences of abortion and protect the life and health of women. I would have much preferred to see that debate rather than this one here.

[@dv9360]

I don't think a pro-choice stance alone would reduce abortion any more than a pro-life one. Usually the argument is that a pro-choice stance could be coupled with support for other social policies that would reduce abortion. Those social policies could also be coupled with a pro-life stance though.

[@noblerare]

@@dv9360 I'm always curious as to what the pro-life response is to pro-choice Christians who argue that though they are against abortion personally they don't want to legislatively take away rights from women and allow them to choose.

[@josevelarde4525]

@@noblerare No such thing as a pro-choice Christian anymore than a pro-gay Christian The only exception is one who got recently saved who does not know better but will change their stance after they are taught better.

[@noblerare]

@@josevelarde4525 Really? I know quite a few strong Christians who are personally against abortion but lean pro-choice from a legislation standpoint. And the same as far as LGBT goes: strong Christians who know the homosexuality is a sin but when it comes to legislation, wants LGBT folks to have their rights.

[@josevelarde4525]

@@noblerare I appreciate you responding to my comment. The issue is that abortion is murder. God hates murder. How can we say that we do not want to legislate against murder but hope that it would be rare? How can I be okay with others murdering even though I am not personally into it? How can I say that I believe homosexuality is a sin but want gay "marriage" to continue. I am, like any other Christian who understands what the Word says, for every person to be treated with dignity and respect, as God's image bearers, meaning that people who practice homosexuality are still to be given the rights that we all have--they should have the right to marry legitimately--one person of the opposite sex--as this is God's design. I implore you to consider how being okay with others murdering their children is in line with God's ways. And how is legitimizing homosexuality as acceptable behavior or even orientation (yes, a Christian can struggle with same-sex attraction like one can struggle with anger, but it is important that the individual mortify the flesh in both cases and calling each of them sinful thought processes) be God's will. We need to make sure that we do not fall into emotional arguments or are influenced by postmodern thinking. We must continually ask the Lord to help us discern between His way and the world's way; as James says, to keep us from being polluted by the world.

[@rogueprincess89]

Like all of these "debates" I don't struggle to figure out which side I'm on but this man just really ticked me off. maybe it was his delivery, or how his opening just didn't fit his argument, but his approach was just off putting. Karen was pretty good though.

[@JesseStevenPollom]

How did he tick you off??? I thought he was completely solid but also incredibly gracious, especially with his point #4 about applying the grace of Jesus to women who have aborted

[@HearGodsWord]

He was the better of the two.

[@heartofalegend]

@@JesseStevenPollom You are correct, my friend. That objection has about as much to do with Scott as an unbeliever rejecting the Gospel has to do with insufficient evidence for it.

[@MH-uh3hw]

So disappointed that Scott did not point out the sin of voting for those who promote the murder of babies.

[@5Lukedavis]

because it isnt one

[@MH-uh3hw]

@@5Lukedavis supporting murder isn’t sin?? Ok I’ll write that one down.

[@5Lukedavis]

That’s not what you said and therefore obviously not what I said

[@scottklusendorf5756]

@@5Lukedavis That wasn't the question of the debate. But to address your claim, one should always vote "pro-life," and at the legislative level that means voting for the party that will limit evil and promote the good compared to real world alternatives. Thus, given a Senate or House choice between a "pro-life" Democrat and a pro-abort Republican, I am voting for the latter because if Dems control the chamber, any bill limiting the evil of abortion is dead on arrival. The only way a pro-life Dem will ever get a chance to vote against abortion is if his party is NOT in power! Meanwhile, given 90 percent of GOP reps will support pro-life bills, the pro-abort Republican I voted for to keep control of the chamber is neutralized. At the same time, that so-called pro-life Dem always vote for a pro-abortion Speaker of the House, and that one vote ruins any chance of pro=life bills seeing the light of day.

[@andyvisuals]

Ah, you must be referrring to the hypocrite party that claims to be pro-life but does everything it can to favor only the richest among us and in blatent Darwinist, survival-of-the-fittest ideology, makes everyone else scratch & claw or die for lack of an equitable social safety net, easily affordable healthcare (especially prenatal care!), healthy food, affordable housing/shelter, safe roads/transportation, freedom from gun violence/accident/suicide and on and on... ah, yes the party of 'life'... The horrible! 'sin' of not voting for them!

[@Gary_G]

Removed TGC as a favorite bookmark. There have been no POC in these debates.

[@salpiccolo9089]

Why does that matter? Are you racist?

[@HearGodsWord]

What are you expecting then? Seem like a weak complaint.

[@cliffordluebben2322]

There are in the next debate

[@mazza8408]

You should watch the argument about being woke the guy is Latino.

[@mazza8408]

@@salpiccolo9089 asking for people of colour is the opposite of racist. Saying there shouldn't be or it dont matter if there was none of is slightly dodge.