"...I will harden their hearts..."

4,668 Views | 62 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by kurt vonnegut
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One of the things that biblical prophets note when revealing God's punishment or his anger is that he will "harden their hearts".

It appears that it was precisely this "hardening of hearts" of the pro-abortion/pro-choice side in the US that directly led to the overturning of the Roe -v- Wade decision.

If the pro-choice crowd was willing to compromise and allow restrictions at 15 weeks of gestation, the Dobb's case never would have been brought to the Supreme Court to result in the overturning of Roe -V- Wade.

The hardening of hearts truly is a punishment.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I disagree with the fundamental premise here that the pro-life crowd will accept the continued existence of legalized abortion with restrictions. That is clearly not the case and even now these groups are pushing not just for more restrictions where abortion is still legal but for federal level bans.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My premise was that the pro-abortion side would not compromise.

Had they "settled" for accepting the 15 week limit, then Roe would not have been overturned. (Yet)

Yes, the pro-life side would have kept working for more restrictions, but they would still have Roe to contend with.

Unrestricted abortion until even after a live birth is what the most vocal pro abortionists were fighting for. Their hearts were hardened to any compromise for life.

I admit that many pro-lifers will not be satisfied until all abortions other than to save the life of the mother are outlawed, but the truth is that popular opinion is currently against that level of restriction.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So you won't settle. But the pro-choice side should settle until the next time you attack reproductive rights? What kind of compromise is that?

Quote:

Unrestricted abortion until even after a live birth is what the most vocal pro abortionists were fighting for.


No they weren't.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

So you won't settle. But the pro-choice side should settle until the next time you attack reproductive rights? What kind of compromise is that?

Quote:

Unrestricted abortion until even after a live birth is what the most vocal pro abortionists were fighting for.


No they weren't.


There was a standing ovation in New York legislature when they did just that.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why criticize one side for not compromising while admitting that the other side was just as unwilling to compromise?

Can we know in any sense what the political landscape would look like if pro-choice politicians had adopted your suggested "compromise" route that basically translates to giving pro-life politicians whatever they wanted? No, I don't think we can. Even if we can say that one specific case wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court under that scenario there would certainly be another with the same end goal in mind.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.


Remember, pro-choice people should have compromised. Pro-life can distort and lie to their heart's content.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Why criticize one side for not compromising while admitting that the other side was just as unwilling to compromise?
Because one is righteous and one is evil. God wouldn't harden believers hearts to further abortions. He would unbelievers to prevent abortions.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hilarious reference to use in this context given that the end result of a hardened heart in this story was God killing every firstborn child.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This ret-coning of the pro-life stance is Simply mind-blowing.

At no point, since they decided that abortion wasn't a fringe Catholic issue, did the pro life side entertain a motion of "we are cool with murdering babies at 15 weeks". Once the decision was made to rally the troops around the abortion the call has always been to make it illegal from conception.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duncan Idaho said:

This ret-coning of the pro-life stance is Simply mind-blowing.

At no point, since they decided that abortion wasn't a fringe Catholic issue, did the pro life side entertain a motion of "we are cool with murdering babies at 15 weeks". Once the decision was made to rally the troops around the abortion the call has always been to make it illegal from conception.
I never said or implied that.

I only noted that if the pro-abortion side had not started pushing "shout your abortion", and free abortions up to and including the day of birth, then there would not have been the swing over the last few years to more people recognizing the need for more restrictions on abortion. Had there been actual compromise from the pro-abortion crowd then those who are 100% against any abortion at any time for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, would have remained a "fringe" minority.

Most western nations have abortion restrictions at 12 weeks. The US was right up there with China and North Korea with our abortion laws.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dad-O-Lot said:

Duncan Idaho said:

This ret-coning of the pro-life stance is Simply mind-blowing.

At no point, since they decided that abortion wasn't a fringe Catholic issue, did the pro life side entertain a motion of "we are cool with murdering babies at 15 weeks". Once the decision was made to rally the troops around the abortion the call has always been to make it illegal from conception.
I never said or implied that.

I only noted that if the pro-abortion side had not started pushing "shout your abortion", and free abortions up to and including the day of birth, then there would not have been the swing over the last few years to more people recognizing the need for more restrictions on abortion. [ Had there been actual compromise from the pro-abortion crowd then those who are 100% against any abortion at any time for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, would have remained a "fringe" minority.

Most western nations have abortion restrictions at 12 weeks. The US was right up there with China and North Korea with our abortion laws.


This position is simply not based in reality and completely contrary to actual history
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Why criticize one side for not compromising while admitting that the other side was just as unwilling to compromise?
Because one is righteous and one is evil. God wouldn't harden believers hearts to further abortions. He would unbelievers to prevent abortions.

The justification you offer is that one side "knows" that God is on their side. If this isn't self righteousness, I don't know what is.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
On the subject of compromise, the landscape is going to look different moving forward. For 50 years pro abortion folks have defended the absolutist position. Now this flips.

The reality is that most Americans are ok with limited legal abortion. Neither side has been willing to compromise to get to the place most of the country agrees with though. Now anti abortion advocates are the ones who will be refusing to move to the middle.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Most western nations have abortion restrictions at 12 weeks. The US was right up there with China and North Korea with our abortion laws.


You should do some more research. European laws allow abortion up to 24 weeks for essentially any potential risk, including any potential mental health harms, to the woman.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I imagine if your heart is hardened, you're also pretty likely to be certain that God is on your side and that there is no way that you're wrong.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
amercer said:

On the subject of compromise, the landscape is going to look different moving forward. For 50 years pro abortion folks have defended the absolutist position. Now this flips.

The reality is that most Americans are ok with limited legal abortion. Neither side has been willing to compromise to get to the place most of the country agrees with though. Now anti abortion advocates are the ones who will be refusing to move to the middle.


Good post, except now we'll probably get a state-by-state all-or-nothing, at least in the near future.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
1. No human with or without deformities or illnesses will ultimately survive as all eventually die.
2. Should we end the life of all humans with deformities?
3. Should we end the life of all humans with illnesses like cancers that will eventually end up killing them?
4. Why doesn't a baby get such opportunities to potentially be loved prior to their time on earth ending? (youtube 99 balloons)
5 Is the abortion process more humane than the illness and deformities? Look at pictures of aborted babies and let the process sink in.

I think every time we use the word abortion we should be use the exact language of what it means...

"She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy."
"She should have the choice to let someone murder/execute their living unborn child"
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DirtDiver said:

I think every time we use the word abortion we should be use the exact language of what it means...

"She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy."
"She should have the choice to let someone murder/execute their living unborn child"

I love those Christians that get angry when atheists intentionally misrepresent what they believe, but have no problems intentionally disregarding what pro-choice persons believe.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OP is wrong. The second ACB was sworn in, there was always going to be a direct challenge to Roe in the next SCOTUS term because they knew they had the votes.

Compromise? The anti-abortion side was never about that and the only goal to them is a complete, nationwide ban. We dont need a lecture on how we "just need to compromise" with a side that wont settle for anything less than all-out defeat.

If this is God's punishment, then consider myself punished. A lot of people are rightfully angry about this decision and the fallout it is going to cause.
Bird Poo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
larry culpepper said:

OP is wrong. The second ACB was sworn in, there was always going to be a direct challenge to Roe in the next SCOTUS term because they knew they had the votes.

Compromise? The anti-abortion side was never about that and the only goal to them is a complete, nationwide ban. We dont need a lecture on how we "just need to compromise" with a side that wont settle for anything less than all-out defeat.

If this is God's punishment, then consider myself punished. A lot of people are rightfully angry about this decision and the fallout it is going to cause.


What fall out? We have been printing money for decades to support a welfare state, encouraged and cheered on by the left. If you haven't noticed we have been running on credit card debt for years. So the whole notion that we cannot afford to raise kids as a welfare state is bull crap because it's exactly what we have been doing this entire time, have we not?

It's just funny that the left is all worried about this nations budget when it comes to killing babies. But have no issue when it comes to Social Security, healthcare, welfare, etc. The weight of our debt is going to collapse this financial system whether we like it or not. So to act like The reduction to access to abortions is some major cause of welfare spending is absurd.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I love those Christians that get angry when atheists intentionally misrepresent what they believe, but have no problems intentionally disregarding what pro-choice persons believe.

Wheres the intentional disregard what pro-choice person believes? The execution of their living unborn child is simply a consequence of that choice, no? Or are you arguing on the specific case about severe deformity?

Both sides have this argument down pat so we never move anywhere: intentionally make it about the 100% the child or the mother and you don't really have address it properly.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think you could misrepresent my stance on abortion if you tried.

Given the following
1)life begins at conception
2) those that die before the age of accountability go to heaven

3) there is no greater outcome than heaven and no worse than hell


I want as many souls as possible to go to heaven

The only moral stance is to fully support and even encourage abortion.

It seems like a strange but who are we to question Gods plan?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, let me see if I can.

I'm curious why you're not on a "search and destroy" mission for all children under the age of accountibility...as that would be the only moral under your paradigm.

As you've rightly mentioned, who are you to limit it only to abortion candidates.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

I love those Christians that get angry when atheists intentionally misrepresent what they believe, but have no problems intentionally disregarding what pro-choice persons believe.

Wheres the intentional disregard what pro-choice person believes? The execution of their living unborn child is simply a consequence of that choice, no? Or are you arguing on the specific case about severe deformity?

Both sides have this argument down pat so we never move anywhere: intentionally make it about the 100% the child or the mother and you don't really have address it properly.

Generally, pro choice persons do not see abortion (particularly before viability) as an execution of a living unborn child. You can object to that position all you want and you can even suggest that their difference in definitions is willful ignorance. The fact remains that it is not a shared definition.

I recognize that this is how you view abortion. When discussing abortion with you, I should keep that in mind and be willing to see the argument from your perspective. If I am unwilling to do that, then as you say, the argument will never move anywhere.

NoahAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will never understand how so many people can be this infatuated with infanticide. I'll pray for you all.

Btw, I'd guess 70-80% of pro life people (not me) would compromise and be okay with abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the mother's safety. But even that is a non starter for the majority of pro abortion advocates.
Let's go, Brandon!
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very true. Keep in mind Dodds only happened because one strident late term provider sued to make sure they could perform more abortions without restrictions after 16 weeks in Mississippi.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Why criticize one side for not compromising while admitting that the other side was just as unwilling to compromise?
Because one is righteous and one is evil. God wouldn't harden believers hearts to further abortions. He would unbelievers to prevent abortions.

The justification you offer is that one side "knows" that God is on their side. If this isn't self righteousness, I don't know what is.
Something about not murdering is a decent bet.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

diehard03 said:

Quote:

I love those Christians that get angry when atheists intentionally misrepresent what they believe, but have no problems intentionally disregarding what pro-choice persons believe.

Wheres the intentional disregard what pro-choice person believes? The execution of their living unborn child is simply a consequence of that choice, no? Or are you arguing on the specific case about severe deformity?

Both sides have this argument down pat so we never move anywhere: intentionally make it about the 100% the child or the mother and you don't really have address it properly.

Generally, pro choice persons do not see abortion (particularly before viability) as an execution of a living unborn child. You can object to that position all you want and you can even suggest that their difference in definitions is willful ignorance. The fact remains that it is not a shared definition.

I recognize that this is how you view abortion. When discussing abortion with you, I should keep that in mind and be willing to see the argument from your perspective. If I am unwilling to do that, then as you say, the argument will never move anywhere.


Correct and your worldview is arbitrary anyways so there is no point of an argument since you hold no foundation to argue given that none of it actually matters.
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

I disagree with the fundamental premise here that the pro-life crowd will accept the continued existence of legalized abortion with restrictions. That is clearly not the case and even now these groups are pushing not just for more restrictions where abortion is still legal but for federal level bans.


Much like with the gun grabbing crowd, we will settle for nothing less than the complete outlaw of abortion. We will gladly take any restriction as another beachhead to consolidate and then attack from.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Generally, pro choice persons do not see abortion (particularly before viability) as an execution of a living unborn child. You can object to that position all you want and you can even suggest that their difference in definitions is willful ignorance. The fact remains that it is not a shared definition.
I agree that it's not a shared definition. it's not even shared among pro-choice advocates, as they would put limits on abortion at different places. I was just seeking clarity on the "intentional disregard". I don't know that I agree that calling a fetus a living human is misrepresenting the position though. It's disagreeing with the premise. Thanks for clarifying though.

Quote:

I recognize that this is how you view abortion. When discussing abortion with you, I should keep that in mind and be willing to see the argument from your perspective. If I am unwilling to do that, then as you say, the argument will never move anywhere.

With your definition though, I am not sure how we move forward. if you don't consider them a living unborn child, then on what grounds would you accept any limits on abortion?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Orthodox Texan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

diehard03 said:

Quote:

I love those Christians that get angry when atheists intentionally misrepresent what they believe, but have no problems intentionally disregarding what pro-choice persons believe.

Wheres the intentional disregard what pro-choice person believes? The execution of their living unborn child is simply a consequence of that choice, no? Or are you arguing on the specific case about severe deformity?

Both sides have this argument down pat so we never move anywhere: intentionally make it about the 100% the child or the mother and you don't really have address it properly.

Generally, pro choice persons do not see abortion (particularly before viability) as an execution of a living unborn child. You can object to that position all you want and you can even suggest that their difference in definitions is willful ignorance. The fact remains that it is not a shared definition.

I recognize that this is how you view abortion. When discussing abortion with you, I should keep that in mind and be willing to see the argument from your perspective. If I am unwilling to do that, then as you say, the argument will never move anywhere.


Correct and your worldview is arbitrary anyways so there is no point of an argument since you hold no foundation to argue given that none of it actually matters.
Yup, and yours is based on the unfalsifiable commandments of the particular sky daddy you were accidently indoctrinated to believe in, yet held as indisputable. There is equally no point in arguing with you.
jonb02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The genesis of the pro-choice movement was founded on racism and genocide. Only the narrative has changed but the outcome and goals remains the same. This is indefensible. Number 12 is especially eye opening.

Sanger's heart was definitely hardened.


https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/



Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve "population problems" by appointing a "Parliament of Population."
"Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals." "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, "defending the unborn against their own disabilities." "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
3) Sanger believed that the United States should "keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to "farm lands and homesteads" where "they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives." "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the "American Baby Code."
"The results desired are obviously selective births," she wrote.
According to Sanger, the code would "protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit." "America Needs a Code for Babies," March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only "a common household" but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:
Quote:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

"All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice," Sanger wrote.
She added: "What is social planning without a quota?" "America Needs a Code for Babies," March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.
"The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children," she wrote.
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it," she continued. "Woman and the New Race," 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be "efficient."
"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives," Sanger wrote. "Woman and the New Race," 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the "materials of a new race."
"If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy," Sanger wrote. "Woman and the New Race," 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.
"War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap," she wrote.
Mothers, "at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility." "Woman and the New Race," 1920, Chapter 1: Woman's Error and Her Debt

12) "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," Sanger wrote. Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically."
"Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sinthat people cancan commit," she said
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams

“It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled” - Mark Twain
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again with the selective quotations. Number 12 is especially insulting to the intelligence of anyone who is even slightly familiar with the material. It's impressive how Sanger has become the embodiment of evil for some folks. Never mind the abysmal poverty and treatment of women that she was fighting against.

Yep, Sanger was a eugenicist. So was almost every other educated person in the US and Europe during the first 3 decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was quite popular amongst Christian leadership, as well.

https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/05/12/the-eugenics-roots-of-evangelical-family-values/

Shout out to the leadership of the Catholic Church in this one area for largely opposing "negative" eugenics, though individual Catholics were not always on board with the leadership and the church did offer some support to "positive" eugenics efforts.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.