Who is Really Pro-Life?

[Richard Aberdeen]

Did you ever notice that folks who carry pro-life signs never carry anti-war signs, never carry anti-homelessness signs, never carry anti-mass pollution signs, never carry universal healthcare signs? This is because they aren't really pro-life. A real pro-life person would carry all of these signs.

A real pro-life person would never vote for a Republican, ever. What has the GOP done to help end homelessness, help clean up mass pollution, help put an end to war, help poor people obtain health care or enough quality food after they are born? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the GOP has increased the problem in every category.

Did you know that according to the World Health Organization, pollution is the number one killer on earth? Apparently, the GOP believes giving corporate welfare to the wealthy is more important than worrying about the health of our heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain and other things that pollution destroys, such as the animals we consume, the soil we grow our food in, the water we drink and the air we try our best to breathe in.

And Apparently, "pro-life" means we pretend to care about you until you emerge from the womb and, after that you're on your own. But not really, the GOP doesn't even care if a mother has healthcare, good nutrition or a roof over her head while she is carrying a child. And, if her baby has life-long health issues because she doesn't earn enough to afford even the bare basics, well, perhaps her baby can just suck it up and learn to live with the consequences.

After all, the GOP opposes the government helping disabled people, because that is somehow socialism. But somehow, it's not socialism if the government helps big oil companies and the already super wealthy. But according to the GOP, the government helping anyone who really needs it is either socialism, Marxism or worse.

Meanwhile, the GOP is doing their best to rig the vote in every state where they possibly can. After all, they don't want anyone with half a brain being able to vote, especially if their skin isn't lily-white. And they've already rigged the Supreme Court.

Mother Teresa was strongly against abortion. I never said a negative word about that. Guess why.

[Clownboat]

Did you ever notice that folks who carry pro-life signs never carry anti-war signs, never carry anti-homelessness signs, never carry anti-mass pollution signs, never carry universal healthcare signs? This is because they aren't really pro-life. A real pro-life person would carry all of these signs.

Perhaps they mean anti abortion by claiming to be pro-life. This would explain why you are not seeing them with anti-homelessness signs. Perhaps it is your perspective that needs adjusting?

A real pro-life person would never vote for a Republican, ever.

They do, all the time. You are mistaken. I understand that you 'feel' like they shouldn't vote Republican, but they do.

What has the GOP done to help end homelessness, help clean up mass pollution, help put an end to war, help poor people obtain health care or enough quality food after they are born? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the GOP has increased the problem in every category.

Quite the broad brush you use.

Did you know that according to the World Health Organization, pollution is the number one killer on earth?

Nope. I understood it to be heart disease.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... s-of-death
The top global causes of death, in order of total number of lives lost, are associated with two broad topics: cardiovascular (ischaemic heart disease, stroke) and respiratory disease.

Apparently, the GOP believes giving corporate welfare to the wealthy is more important than worrying about the health of our heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain

Please provide the source for this claim.

And Apparently, "pro-life" means we pretend to care about you until you emerge from the womb and, after that you're on your own.

Weird! I always thought that it was a term used to describe political and personal views that oppose abortion and support legal restrictions on access to it.
You're not arguing from emotion are you?

But not really, the GOP doesn't even care if a mother has healthcare, good nutrition or a roof over her head while she is carrying a child. And, if her baby has life-long health issues because she doesn't earn enough to afford even the bare basics, well, perhaps her baby can just suck it up and learn to live with the consequences.

What do you argue that we should do with these people that you describe as being terribly uncaring people?

After all, the GOP opposes the government helping disabled people, because that is somehow socialism.

"Socialism is an economic and political system where the community or the government owns and controls the major means of production, such as factories, tools, and raw materials, instead of private individuals."
My definitions must be way off.

But somehow, it's not socialism if the government helps big oil companies and the already super wealthy.

Correct, if this were to happen, it would not be socialism.

But according to the GOP, the government helping anyone who really needs it is either socialism, Marxism or worse.

What should we do with these people in your opinion?

Meanwhile, the GOP is doing their best to rig the vote in every state where they possibly can.

Perhaps you are not aware that there are two sides doing what they can to try to stay in power. Do you actually think that both sides don't do their best to 'rig' the vote?

After all, they don't want anyone with half a brain being able to vote, especially if their skin isn't lily-white.

This is an odd claim and seemingly a bit racist.
I'm not sure how we could do this, but don't you think that it would be best if people with full brains did do the voting? How many people with a minimal level of intelligence or common sense is the best amount of voters to have voting? Wouldn't it be best in practice if intelligent people elected our officials over those with minimal common sense?
(I'm not arguing for this to be the way by the way).

And they've already rigged the Supreme Court.

Rigged the Supreme Court you say. What should we do to the people that identify with the GOP over the Democratic party?

Mother Teresa was strongly against abortion. I never said a negative word about that. Guess why.

It seems that your main goal was to throw shade at the GOP party. Therefore, why would you say a negative word about Mother Teresa being strongly against abortion? No guess needed.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #2]

Trump and his worthless sycophants in Congress have done more to destroy America than if they had purposefully set out to destroy America. They have done nothing to help anyone except the already filthy rich. . . and I do mean "filthy".

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #2]

Trump and his worthless sycophants in Congress have done more to destroy America than if they had purposefully set out to destroy America. They have done nothing to help anyone except the already filthy rich. . . and I do mean "filthy".

Oh... ok.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #4]

Jesus fed thousands of hungry people twice. He did not call it 'socialism' or blame 'liberals' and, neither should you.

[Clownboat]

Jesus fed thousands of hungry people twice.

That's super neat.

He did not call it 'socialism' or blame 'liberals' and, neither should you.

That because he had ownership of the fish and bread. That's capitalism.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #6]

God owns everything. This doesn't make him a capitalist, it makes him God Almighty. Do capitalist believe in sharing "all things in common" and distributing to each according to need? Jesus is the opposite of a capitalist, being so destitute that he had to borrow a coin in order to make a point. Capitalists do not believe in sharing the wealth, they believe in hording and compounding wealth at the expense of other people, in particular slaves and the poor. It is the most wicked system imaginable, based on the love of wealth, which "is the root of all evil."

[Clownboat]

God owns everything. This doesn't make him a capitalist

Well... it kinda does. Is this god concept an individual or is this god concept the public? This distinction would matter.

Do capitalist believe in sharing "all things in common" and distributing to each according to need?

Capitalism is not a belief. Capitalism is an economic system. Specifically one where private individuals own the means of production. You know, like when Jesus fed the masses by conjuring up fish and bread x2.

Jesus is the opposite of a capitalist,

Do he did not own the means of production for the fishes and loaves? Asking as you brought up these claimed events after all.

being so destitute that he had to borrow a coin in order to make a point.

Being destitute does not make an individual a capitalist nor a socialist.

Capitalists do not believe in sharing the wealth

Again, capitalism is not a belief system. However, many traditional capitalist corporations operate corporate foundations or giving programs that donate millions of dollars annually to charitable causes. No specific belief is required. Your claims in false or needs correction.

they believe in hording and compounding wealth at the expense of other people, in particular slaves and the poor.

They also eat babies and swim in urine, because the belief system that is capitalism tells them to do so in the capitalist Bible that informs capitalists what to believe.

It is the most wicked system imaginable, based on the love of wealth, which "is the root of all evil."

If you seriously couldn't imagine a worse system, then that is on you! Your lack of imagination doesn't make your words true though.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #8]

There is zero capitalism in the New Testament. Capitalism is based on the love of wealth, which the NT says is the root of all evil. Indeed, wars are invariably about taking and/or, protecting wealth.

You don't understand the difference between Marxism and true communism, which indicates to me that you just accept what liars say about these and haven't really studied them for yourself.

True communism is clearly defined in the last part of Acts 2. This is not the same as Marxism, which is not true communism.

[Clownboat]

There is zero capitalism in the New Testament.

Outside of what was already presented to you of course.

More examples for your reading pleasure.
Copy/paste:
Exodus 20:17 The Tenth Commandment ("You shall not covet your neighbor’s house... or anything that belongs to your neighbor") assumes and protects the right to individual, private ownership of property.
Acts 5:4: During the early church period, Peter affirms private ownership when questioning Ananias, noting that property before being sold "remained your own" and the proceeds were "at your disposal," showing that communal sharing was voluntary rather than state-mandated.
Matthew 20:1–15 (The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard): A landowner negotiates a voluntary wage (a denarius) with laborers for a day's work. When he pays the same amount to those who worked fewer hours, he defends the fairness of the contract, asking, "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?"
1 Timothy 5:18: Paul reiterates the principle of compensation for labor, stating that "the worker deserves his wages", supporting the concept of an agreed-upon exchange for services.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: Paul emphasizes personal economic responsibility, writing, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat", tying sustenance directly to individual productivity.
Matthew 25:14–30 (The Parable of the Talents): A master entrusts money to his servants to invest and manage. He praises and rewards the servants who take initiative to trade, invest, and double their money, while rebuking the passive servant who hoarded the money out of fear without seeking a return.

My claims is that the Bible does not endorse any specific economic policy. However, I do acknowledge the examples of capitalism in it that you claim are not there.

Capitalism is based on the love of wealth,

No, capitalism is not based on the love of wealth. You know not that which you argue against. Your claim is un-true.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Indeed, wars are invariably about taking and/or, protecting wealth.

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Sometime Biblical wars were about committing genocide. I suppose you could try to argue that the virgin girls were the wealth. According to the Bible, they were the spoils of war though.

You don't understand the difference between Marxism and true communism,

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

which indicates to me that you just accept what liars say about these and haven't really studied them for yourself.

Now you are just dodging an argument that you know you can't win by accusing me of having an emotional reaction to it instead of a rational criticism of it.

True communism is clearly defined in the last part of Acts 2. This is not the same as Marxism, which is not true communism.

Ok. I have not mentioned communism in this thread. Perhaps you are confusing communism and socialism?

Do you still think that capitalism is a belief system?
Are you still unable to imagine a worse economic system than capitalism?
Do you now acknowledge that corporations donate to charities?
Did Jesus not own the means of production for the fishes and loaves that you mentioned?
Is your preferred god concept an individual or is this god concept the public? This distinction would matter in our discussion.