What examples do you have when Christians stand by a terrible position?

@@bullyboy131 Trent gave some good ones. People aren’t responsive to the “well, there’s always adoption” or “why don’t you just not have sex?” Tell that to people, and they will shut you out. The left argues that we are not pro life, but that we are trying to force women to give birth. Even tho it’s correct to say that women (and men!) ought to be responsible for themselves and they ought to be chaste and not go sleeping around all over the place, you’re not going to win peoples hearts and minds.

@@bullyboy131 This is a similar situation I've encountered countless times in group settings where the child abuse scandal gets brought up. The most fiery Catholics I know get somber and quiet and don't know how to respond to perhaps the most common objection to the faith this century. The framing of this situation is as follows: you're Catholic but there were priests and bishops who acted badly, how can you think the Church has legitimacy? And then their response is to pivot to another topic, deflect and say it's bad but every institution has bad people, etc. Meanwhile that doesn't answer the core problem with the argument, which is that it rests on a foundation of poor logic. The legitimacy of an institution has nothing to do with individual members being sinful. The fact of legitimacy comes from its origins and pedigree, of which the Church is immaculate in both regards. The question of pro-life vs pro-choice does not rest on the circumstances of one's conception; it rests on the question of "what are the unborn?" and nothing else. When you play into their structuring of the problem, you weaken your inherent position strength as being on the side of the truth.

@@j.johnson2190 When people bring up bad clergy of even bad Popes. My response is usually one of sarcasm. I tell them that they're right. That God would only put moral paragons in positions of power and never choose someone who would go on to commit adultery and then basically give their friend the death sentence in order to cover it up. And even if such a one did exist it would certainly not be said that they're a man after God's own heart, right?

@@ntmn8444 You are not trying to win hearts and minds; you are trying to force a minority opinion on the majority. Less and less people believe the nonsense you believe and forcing this will reduce your numbers dramatically. Religion is OK if you don't think much about it. Now you have forced people to think. You are the dog that caught the car.

Nazis aborted the mentally disabled people

As someone born with a disability, I find it terrifying and insulting. If my mother had not been Christian - I could have been aborted. I'm lucky that God protected me.....I only mourn how many lives have been lost due to such cruel people.

@@councilofflorence4896 Nazism has not been defeated in 1945, it simply has changed names. Today they're called liberals

CNN real news with hosted all democrat

Eugenics. We're about to experience WWII Germany if we don't stop this

I would just ask... "and you believe this???" "If that's what you believe, then you can't impose youe beliefs onto others" Its a quick judo flip when they try it.

But she did impose her belief that the experimental covid vaccines should be imposed on people without concent through coercive means AND she did impose her beliefs that any other sort of remedy should be disallowed. Yes selective. When people say I shouldn't impose my beliefs on other then just say back "that's your belief you are trying to impose on me"

Unfortunately the Bible does not teach to be a social justice warrior. It’s actually quite the opposite. We are commanded to feed the poor, care for orphans and widows, visit the prisoners. The are all acts of compassion. Never did Jesus teach to go change a government. In fact he said that governments are man’s laws but we come from a different government. It’s called the Kingdom of heaven. We will not lead a single soul to God if we do so by coercion.

There’s obvi a lot of hypocrisy involved with all these common phrases we’ve heard our whole lives. “Live and let live”, “you can’t tell people what to do”….clearly that’s just not true.

Thou shall not kill

Now you see how this is so demonic, non-practicing catholics, which means they were practicing at some point are literally crying because they think they had a constitution right to kill their offspring which was taken away. It's in one of the commandments "Do not kill". As someone's child if you hear your parents say they support abortion and go ape shit crazy when they are inconvinienced, you have to think how lucky you are to have slipped through.

I was an atheist for many years, and while I was getting my biology degree I became pro-life because I wanted to be a scientist and from a purely scientific position it was clear to me that a fetus is a unique human life, and there is no denying on any scientific grounds that life begins at conception. So it's funny I was pro-life for years before I became a Catholic

Why should we assume any of that actually happened and how does that change the fact you’re removing liberty and bodily autonomy from women? Pro choice is exclusively a religious position and there’s no good reason abortion and that option should be banned. A clump of parasitic cells, lacking brain activity is not a human being, nor should they get special rights over the pregnant woman in question.

@@jd3jefferson556 Then you should know that absolutely nothing within science agrees with your religion. Life began about 4 billion years ago and a fetus is no more a person than the cheek cells I scrub out every time I brush my teeth. I strongly believe you’re lying right now.

Then you judo flip the atheist into defining why killing human beings is wrong and.... now you have an objective truth/morality argument and can bring them into the church. A twofer

@@2l84me8 well you just proved you dont understand basic 6th grade level biology.

Exactly.

"I am pro-life" has about as much meaning as saying "I am a good person" or "I support virtue." (that is to say, no meaning at all).

Well pro life also means. Anti assisted suicide. And for the most part anti death penalty

You are correct. Pro-choice is euphemistic Newspeak. I'll go one further: I'm perfectly happy to be called "Anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" because it helps prevent sneaky mischief like, "If you were REALLY pro-life, you'd support [insert Leftist nonsense like open borders, socialist welfare states, "you must adopt", etc].

I think Trent's position is that it derails the debate. How they call themselves is not the issue and they might think you're arguing in bad faith, which won't help you to convince anyone. If that's how they want to be called that's ok, we don't care, let's move on.

In what way is saying that people can choose to carry to term or abort the same as encouraging abortion? The truth is that it is not the same. Pro-choice is the neutral position, in which religious people can choose to carry to term and encourage their members to do the same and even excommunicate members who have abortions. It would be funny, were it not so grotesque, that Christians don't even follow their own religion and have sex outside of marriage and have abortions all the time and then criticize Jews and atheists for doing the same. Why don't you people follow your faith and remove the beam from your own eye? If you did that more people might be inclined to follow you and willingly make the choice to carry all pregnancies to term in committed marriages.

@@zz-bq1yw Abortion is the deliberate and direct killing of an innocent human being. No different than gunning someone down in the street in broad daylight. Killing innocent humans is universally recognized by Christians, atheists, hottentots, Eskimos, and the world over as murder. The West however has been afflicted with a poisonous ideology that is a mashup of Nazi eugenics, communist sexual-revolution agitprop, all underpinned by incoherent and self-refuting moral relativism. I urge you to stop letting your anti-Christian bigotry fog your brain, look up "pro-life atheists" and get on the right side of this issue.

More like. Baby murder supporters

There is also the fact that in European countries with often generous welfare benefits for single mothers (and even better rights/benefits if one had a decent job before giving birth) abortions are lower than in the US but by no means non-existent, e.g. Germany still has around 100k abortions per year despite generous welfare state (and much stricter abortion laws than the US until the recent abolishment of Roe vs. Wade). Of course it is also a disingenous argument from "the left" today because they usually don't argue for killing poor, homeless etc. people just because they don't have a comfortable life... How horrid is the argument that a difficult life with times of poverty is worse than not living at all!

If there truly is a right to live, everyone should be able to eat, sleep, be clothed and healthy without working for one minute or paying a single penny.

I think that more people should listen to Trent's videos because they contain some really well formulated arguements and evidences.

Most of not all pro infantacide aeguments are aeguments from comfort and convenience.

just so you know, it's not a zygote that's aborted. zygotes only exist for 1-2 hours after fertilization. fertilization creates a zygote, but it only exists as a zygote for the first hour or two while it moves toward the uterus. it doesn't become vulnerable to any abortifacient or surgical procedure until implantation at the very earliest. by that point gastrulation has already begun in earnest. the earliest feasible opportunity to kill the embryo without seriously harming the mother is by the use of an "emergency contraceptive" aka a "morning-after pill," which prevents the pre-implantation conceptus from implanting. it's already a many-celled conceptus (sometimes called a morula) at that stage, so we can't say that emergency contraceptives kill zygotes - they kill many-celled conceptuses. as for medical and surgical abortion, it's extremely unlikely to happen until a few weeks have passed since fertilization. so, after missing the opportunity to prevent implantation, the first available opportunity to kill the embryo without seriously harming the mother would be the soonest available appointment to see an abortionist. there's a lower limit to that delay but there's also the fact that most people don't schedule an appointment at planned parenthood the day after they have sex. people with unplanned pregnancies are usually having sex a lot, and are foolishly not expecting to become pregnant. so realistically, the earliest reasonable opportunity will probably be about 2 weeks after the last menstrual period. the best scientific term for the child during this period - from implantation until the foetal stage at 9 weeks - is embryo. however, that's not really the best medical term in my experience. aside from the ones who want to kill your child, most doctors will refer to it as "your child" or "your baby." abortionists will talk about it as if it doesn't even exist yet, as if the abortion procedure is designed to prevent it from coming into existence, rather than designed to snuff it out of present existence. but serious physicians, that is, those who follow the hippocratic oath and work in real medical disciplines, will generally avoid dehumanizing language when dealing with patients. so I think it's best to just call them "prenatal children" or "preborn children" or "unborn children." in that order. the reason I like "prenatal children" is because prenatal is a medical term, it comes across as scientific for the same reason fetus or embryo does, but it's not dehumanizing. it's an adjective _about_ the child, not a noun that redefines the child as a mere organic object. it guards against anyone claiming that you're ignorant or lacking technical knowledge in the subject, without ceding any ground on the _humanity_ of the child.

I have found that sticking to natural law discussions seems to be the most fruitful. People generally don’t disagree that minors are owed a duty of care, that we don’t kill people for being poor or inconvenient, that laws that to be clear and unambiguous, etc. These are all ways I’ve been able to slowly help those are pro-abortion start to see the the truth

A fetus isn't alive or a being until it takes a first breath, as it says in Genesis

@@zz-bq1yw confused here...1st breath where - in the womb our outside the womb?

God bless you

In the document that overturned Roe v Wade, he described the previously titled "Fetal Life" as an "unborn human life". If this language was to be codified into a constitutional law it would be a HUGE win.

The only way we are going to do that is to have a human life amendments similar to the abolishment of slavery

that will require a personhood amendment. unfortunately, the late justice scalia did some research on the matter and found that a minority as small as 2%, if distributed optimally between the states, could prevent an amendment from being ratified. so a voting block as huge as the abortion party, supported by a massive pro-child sacrifice lobby and industry, the largest mainstream political party in the nation, thousands of celebrities and several billionaires, will have little difficulty shutting down an amendment proposal. the reason we were able to get the anti-slavery amendments ratified, against the will of the southern states, was because the federal government basically crushed the southern states under its boot and conditioned their resumption of representation in Congress on their successful ratification of the amendments. I don't know how something analogous could really happen for prenatal persons, short of another civil war.

If the right challenge gets to SCOTUS, they could hold that the 14th Amendment already includes preborn persons. It would be a very winnable case, from my view. When I was in law school I was very pro-abortion, and I remember being extremely troubled by the simple brilliance of how solid of a win the pro-life lobby could land if they chose that strategy. Of course I comforted myself with thinking that it would only be an option they could pursue if Roe were overturned. Well. Today I am firmly pro-life, and see this argument on the horizon as imminent, and I rejoice in what had previously caused me the most terror back in my sinful, lost years.

Kinda think it is already: The inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - for all men “Created”.

And honestly, some countries have or are fighting for a “right” to Euthanasia for those with mental illness & disability, so the “born vs unborn” argument may be shaky with those people.

I had a kid with Down syndrome, and I’ve fallen away from “disability rights” groups because of their refusal to address this issue. The Jerome LeJeune Foundation is the only national organization I have found that stands for the rights of the unborn with disabilities.

*have a kid- still have him!

Look to Sweden where the number of children born with Down Syndrome is practically 0%, because the so-called parents abort them when the markers come back with DS. One of the drawbacks of all the genetic testing we can do nowadays. As soon as something looks out of place, it causes people to worry/panic.

@@jendoe9436 yep. I'm really not sure why people are so afraid of Downs. It can be hard, but most people with downs that I've met honestly seem happier than most people and are productive members of society. So sad that they're stigmatized like that.

I remember reading something about an educated slave as a dangerous slave or something like that. No there was the slave owner that actually treated their slaves with kindness but that was very very very very rare such as Phyllis Wheatley the famous poet. The people who “purchased “ her taught her to read and write (Latin and Greek especially) and encouraged her talent of writing poetry.

Exactly! Along those same lines… “schools shouldn’t have been de-segregated until we could ensure every teacher wasn’t racist anymore”. Terrible logic that could be applied to people who are upset about the Supreme Court decision.

Yeah I would like to see the response to that

It would be wrong, but it is not analagous to an abortion because a fetus is not a human being until at least 20 weeks and has the requisite structures to maybe achieve consciousness. Nor can you kill something that isn't even alive yet.

@@zz-bq1yw u have got to be kidding, where were u educated? U seem so ignoramus, just a juvenile and/or or just refusing to see the TRUTH.

@@zz-bq1yw Saying it's not a human being until 20 weeks is false. It is already a human before that, scientifically.

@@zz-bq1yw if it’s not alive, why do you need to abort it? Because you know if you didn’t, the child would continue to grow and develop and eventually be born. Abortion is an intentional end to the process of human development. You want to pick an arbitrary characteristic and decide that the human/not human line-when termination of development goes from okay to not okay-is based on it. One side of the line is like stepping on a bug, no big deal. The other side of the line is murder. And you picked the most ambiguous line possible. Extremely difficult to measure precisely, testing is invasive, and development of consciousness does not occur at universal times in each unborn child. Likewise the definition and specific components of consciousness are not agreed upon. But the not-murder/murder line should be pretty clear and immediately discernible, right? So that we don’t maybe…accidentally commit murder? Because that would be a pretty bad thing to mess up. The only clear lines are that the unborn child is either a human being with rights at conception, or else not until the moment the child’s body is out of the womb. Two defining, unmistakable events that leave no room for accidental misapplication. Which is it?

A possibility, but note that England's ban on slavery was nation-wide. As we keep pointing out to the shrieking harpies, overturning Wade doesn't ban abortion; it just kicks the issue back to the states. It would ludicrous to start yet another federal welfare program to compensate for lack of abortions when abortions were still legal in some parts of the country.

@@scottgun Yes, overturning Roe v Wade is not technically a pro life decision, it's simply a constitutional one. In the absence of federal legislation on the matter any such measures have to happen on the State level, such as the money certain States give to organisations helping new parents. A Federal program would accompany a federal ban, that's the point. If someone says, "but x welfare doesn't exist" I usually answer, if it did could we ban abortion? Morally, I agree with Trent Horn, I'm saying a political solution needs compromises. That's unlikely to happen, but it would be worth it.

And I would add that there’s a long line of people waiting to become foster parents and even adoptive parents. My husband shut that down for me, but if not for him, I would be the first one there. I would adopt 5 or 6 kids if I could. I love children so much, and my heart hurts for abandoned children.

If we gave the same subsidy to Foster Care that we do to Planned Parenthood , things would be lots better .

You’re missing the bigger picture here: women shouldn’t be forced to birth those children in the first place just because you subjectively think they’re ok. Both a woman’s career and life are jeopardized during pregnancy and she shouldn’t be forced to go through it just for you. You’re basically advocating for a government mandate that obligates and forces you to surrender your blood, spare kidney and liver portions immediately upon request to save a life. That is beyond unconstitutional and immoral. Stop acting like children are being sent to the firing wall. A bunch of unwanted, parasitic cells with no brain activity are being removed from a uterus, that’s it.

@@jackieann5494 How do? How does forcing people to risk their lives and violate their bodily autonomy fix things according to you?

@@2l84me8 Too dramatic . NOBODY , EVER proposed forcing a woman to give birth if it would risk her life . Please get real .

Walk humbly with the people, on a journey to Emmaus, but most humbly walk with God at the same time.

Because they watch too much CNN fear mongering. I recall also seeing people say that interracial marriage was on the chopping block.

Who cares lol

Good points made Z. It kind of dovetails my reasoning I haven't been an LP member, in spite I'm small "l" libertarian. Until the Porcupine Party has a platform promoting life, I can't really take it seriously, let alone support it. Without life, there is no liberty.

That is a question of prudence. Remember a couple biblical points: "don't throw pearls before swine" and make sure to give solid food to those able to consume it; otherwise give them the milk first so they can grow.

I think the main difference is that you can at least argue for abortion to be a violation of a basic human right of the unborn, something that does not necessarily need a religious faith to argue for. Contraception is a different issue altogether, and the same arguments against abortion do not hold against contraception.

Contraceptives can still be used for medical reasons. If we did push for that legally, we should rather have contraceptives require a Doctor's prescription.

@@samueljennings4809 That makes sense. I was wondering if Catholics ought to fight to outlaw anything that is gravely sinful, like using contraception. My instinct is telling me no, but I wonder what the Church would say about that. I imagine it has something to do with civil law aligning with the natural moral law, but I am not knowledgable about such things to articulate it.

@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Most do require a prescription. The Pill does, at least. It's just that the prescription is handed out like candy on Halloween.

​@@nickk4851 The general position is that it is not always prudent to ban a gravely sinful thing. As a famous example, Thomas Aquinas held that banning prostitution (a grave evil) would cause more harm than good in general society where the average man couldn't control his sexual appetite. I, personally, don't find this argument convincing, but it's a matter of prudence, not moral principles.

I can't recall the video, but he does cover all the various abnormal conditions. The short version is that edge cases do not disprove the rule. That is, the mere existence of intersex conditions does not justify an identity-politics free-for-all

I think I know what video you're talking about and I did think it was helpful, but I think what I'm wondering is how do they fit into the wonderful meaning of man and woman. I get that that's kind of vague, but some of those cases are not very cut and dry.

I think it’s much more effective to avoid any spiritual aspect when debating this issue. I always stump them by keeping it simple and scientific: 1.) is the fetus alive, or is it dead? After that I ask 2.) Is the fetus human, or is it some other species? (Alligator? Sparrow?etc.) Then 3.) Does it have a uniques set of human DNA, or does it have the same DNA as the mother? And finally 4.) Is there any possible, absolutely 100% successful way to avoid getting pregnant? - Of course, the answer is Women’s Bodily Autonomy: They must exercise Control over their bodies - which is what they claim to want. Ad for rape, incest etc., cases that they use, I simply ask: 5.) Would you agree the perpetrators of these crimes should be immediately put to death if found guilty? Because that, at least, is taking the life of an evil human being. Basically, until you agree these crimes are worthy of death, don’t try to defend death sentence on the baby who committed no crime.

@@sandra4065 Well said. Same here, I keep God and Bible out of my prolife discussions.

No they don't because god doesn't exist.

Trent mentioned he’s coming out with a new addition of that book soon

Paul. The preborn is exactly where he should be for his stage of development. The parents engaged in relations that brought this life into existence. And even if coerced, the strong should always care for the weak. It is heroic to care for those in need.

You are not pro-choice, because you eliminate the woman's right to choose whether she carries a growth to term. Certainly you can be pro-life and pro-choice, where you encourage people not to have abortions and don't have them yourself and you are entitled to that right. Where that ends is when you wield the state's power of violence to coerce women and prevent them from having abortions on threat of bodily seizure, imprisonment, or death. Remember, this nonsense was settled 50 years ago when the Supreme Court held that a life does begin at some point and balanced the viability of the fetus with the right of the woman to remove things from her body. States have been allowed to put restrictions on abortion, and always have restricted, mid to late term abortions.

You mean asking someone in favor of abortion? I'm having trouble following. For the anti-abortion argument, it presents no diffculty at all. In miscarriage, since no one is willfully directly killing the innocent human being in the womb (which is what abortion is), then no one is guilty of an immoral act.

@@scottgun I think, he is saying that since a miscarriage is the death of the unborn, that implies they are alive? He said it was to justify that life begins at conception

@@briandiehl9257 That makes sense. For a moment I thought it was a prelude to the "God is the biggest aborter of all!" non-argument.

@@scottgun The worst part about that logic is that God would be the biggest mass murderer by that definition since everyone dies... Not that I expect pro-choice 'religious' arguments to make any sense anyway.

What happens is that an unborn human dies of an illness. Sad but not unique to the unborn, people die from illnesses at all ages.

That’s one of the fear mongering things that they use on women who are scared about Roe versus Wade been overturned the fact that they think that they would be sent to prison if they have an abortion that is a complete lie and any pro-lifers said the woman should go to jail is not a true pro lifer. No person who is against abortion would send the woman had the abortion to jail because it’s the Doctor Who would go to jail because he is the one performing 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100+ a week the woman may come to regret her abortion to three weeks months years later. putting her in jail will not help her.

Now you are getting into the weeds. While it may be compassionate to absolve the mother of any guilt, in what other circumstance would we allow a woman to hire a hitman to kill her child or your child because the kid was an inconvenience or disabled? That is why it's up to individual states, in accordance with the US Constitution, although many would and should argue that murder is murder....there are, however, laws on the books right now that take into account extenuating circumstances...ie. homicide, manslaughter and accidental murder. Just like the child is not responsible for the sins of the father, this is a red herring, if a mother chooses to have an abortion she most certainly is culpable and the debate is now about crime and punishment. We must first acknowledge and support the human rights of the preborn humans. w/love

I agree, this is a huge issue that is going to come back to bite us if we don't get ahead of it. Women are already facing investigations, arrests, and even jail time for "suspicious" pregnancy losses. The pro-life movement has always said that abortion providers, not mothers, should be charged. To go back on that would make us look fundamentally dishonest.

@@exerciserelax8719 where is your proof of "jail time for 'suspicious' pregnancy losses''' ....pro life is not monolithic and the states can decide....

How about caring for the born children first?

Paul. Marc again. Yes. The developing life has full rights of a person. You establish a false dichotomy. The mother offers 9 months use of her body until birth. This is not an outrageous request.

Pigs are more concious than 4 year olds. Being concious is irrelevant to this debate unless you are talking to a vegetarian There is no absolute right to bodily autonomy; if you step on me you have the obligation to move, no autonomy to speak of. This is also true if I'm unconcious.

Yes I believe thats called parental obligation. Just like how a father is required to pay child support

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bZ2nZZaqudLOkaM.html Trent goes through the autonomy argument in this response video.

@Excuse me but I’m pretty sure a fetus is a human that hasn’t finished developing and coming out of the womb. Logically that sounds like a very young baby to me. What kind of religious beliefs are required to come to that conclusion? I figured that out with science back when I was still an atheist in law school who thought religion was stupid. People don’t have unlimited rights over their property, including their body. Parents have to do a lot of things with their bodies (and money, time, resources, and energy) that that they may not like or want to do. But minors have greater legal rights than their guardians, who have a duty to provide ordinary care for basic functions of living.

@Excuse me but are you seriously trying so hard to force religious concepts on me that you’re resorting to citing them yourself? 😂 I don’t know what I’m supposed to do here for you, return the favor and start citing doctrines of Moloch to help explain your own position to you? Lol What your said is so garbled I can barely make sense of it. I’ll give a try: Yeah, “baby” isn’t a scientific term, but you wrote that the word “baby” usually refers to “an expected or very young child.” Did you make a typo or something? Because you just admitted that an expected child is a baby. So…yes, I agree? But honestly I don’t care if you call a developing human in the womb a baby or a fetus. The word doesn’t change material reality, either way the human in question shouldn’t be killed. Of course a body is one’s property. If no one told you that you own your body, now you know. I won’t even charge you for the legal information. Human rights, what are you talking about? Whose human rights? The baby’s right to not be dead? I’m happy to talk about that. What does breastfeeding or organ donation have anything to do with abortion? Are you capable of sticking to the subject matter, or just to making false equivalences? Do you know consent isn’t an unlimited concept either? The government can do lots of things to you without your consent, including make you pay child support, control where you can go and at what times, garnish your wages if you won’t pay taxes, all kinds of stuff. That’s true in every legal system that’s ever existed. In the case of telling a woman she can’t kill a baby, sounds like a perfectly reasonable limit on consent.

I usually respond with: But it’s okay to force your Atheism on people?

Medical procedure that women have no idea what the side effects or potential harms that could come to them are? 10 years ago (back in February was exactly 10 years) I had major surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. The doctor Who performed the surgery explained to me at least a day in advance what would happen and the possibility In a worst case scenario that I may lose that ovary. Luckily that did not happen but my surgery took longer because they also found endometriosis. If abortion was a regular medical procedure and not a tool of murdering a child that is growing in the womb they would explain to the woman what exactly would happen and they would perhaps even show them the tools. Most of these women aren’t even allowed to see the ultrasound screen ESPECIALLY at planned parenthood!

So what would you consider murder?