I have proven on my web page http://www.prolifeismurder.com that when the pro life movement "saves" a fetus, it causes the death of 12 loved and wanted children. This is a fact that is not debateable.
What if 100 million pro lifers gave a tithe to the church to support the pro life movement, how many children would die per second?
100 million times 50k avg income times 10% tithe equals 500 billion dollars. 500 billion divided by 360 days divided by 24 hrs day divided by 60 min per hour divided by 60 seconds equals a death rate of 15,854 per second. So if you are pro life, you cause the death of almost 16 thousand children that are loved and wanted every second of the day.
Perhaps you should change the name of your movement to the "Pro Fetus, let the children die" movement.
2007-05-10 00:23:32 · 18 answers · asked by Give me Liberty 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
little b
You have to read and understand the web page http://www.prolifeismurder.com. If you cannot understand the page, then you are prime pro life materials. Only someone that is unable to understand math and logic could be pro life. It is a proven and undeniable fact that if you choose to spend your resouces to save fetuses, the you cannot save loved and wanted children as outlined on the page.
2007-05-10 01:03:45 · update #1
greed_2
One is a fetus, the other 12 are loved and living children, many who have been blessed, confirmed, baptised and accepted. Do you really think it is ok to save a fetus and kill the 12?
2007-05-10 02:09:11 · update #2
jesus m
Now that you know the truth, each fetus that you "save" will be the knowing killing by you of 12 children. If you can live with that, you are not a Christian.
2007-05-10 02:11:53 · update #3
Chekier
Now that you are aware, each fetus you "save" will make you guilty of killing 12 children. Hiding your head in the sand will not save your soul.
2007-05-10 02:13:45 · update #4
prwslm23
If you really believe that life is precious, then how do you feel about the 15 thousand children that you kill every second being pro life. I believe that what you do is worship the fetus and allow the children to die. Is that not correct?
2007-05-10 02:16:22 · update #5
greed 2
I see your point clearly. Yet I see no problem with abortion. God himself uses abortion and therefore there is most likely no death of a human soul. On the other hand the death of the children, when we are specifically charged to care for children, is morally repulsive. It is a shame you are blinded by the pro life dogma.
2007-05-13 17:04:18 · update #6
whatisthetruthhuh
I am a Christian, I follow Christ. Christ performed abortions as does God today in the form of miscarriage. You on the other hand are a follower of the antichirst. You make fun of the fact that God does abortion and call those who follow him murderer. And you play games with the lives of millions of kids by making light of the fact that you cause their death from starvation. You may think you are cute, I think you are simply a follower of the antichrist that is attempting to lead millions of sheep and have them murder God's children. You have no proof that God murders children in abortion. You have no proof that a soul dies in abortion. You have no proof that the Bible says what you say, yet you call people to starve children in Christ's name. What does that make you?
2007-05-18 00:04:30 · update #7
if only i knew what you were talking about. how does it cause death in born children. you just gave a bunch of numbers but no reasoning behind it.
2007-05-10 00:27:48 · answer #1 · answered by little bobby 2 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Your statistics are sensationalistic to say the least! I'm sure that fertilized eggs after the first couple of months are much less likely to naturally abort than your 50% claim! You've obviously spent a great deal of time formulating your little theory. That time could have been spent making money to send to the starving kids in Africa. Maybe instead of driving a car, you could have chosen to just have a bicycle and sent the extra money to save the kids. You could've sent your table scraps as well to those starving kids and saved a life. By the way....who is it that you always see on TV with all the kids surrounding them in Africa asking for help to feed the starving kids. OH YEA it's those darn Christians...the same folks who support pro-life. Maybe they don't have a one sided agenda after all. Maybe they spend their money in both places. Your deception is doing nothing to help anyone! The only debate that exists concerning abortion is when does life begin! Prove to me that life doesn't begin until a baby is fully developed and I'll change my stance to pro-choice. Consider that a brain isn't fully developed until a human is several years old. Maybe then we should make a new law for anyone under 18 to be terminated at the mother's choice. Lives would be saved as I'm sure some crazy teenager kills their mother every year as a result of their brain not being fully developed yet and their lack of ability to discern right from wrong. Enough ranting! Thanks for reading my answer.....Pro-Life because my mom was pro-life and I'm glad to be alive!!!
2007-05-17 20:44:58 · answer #2 · answered by whatisthetruthhuh? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
-Abortion!- I don't have any quandary with abortion IF it's for wellness causes. -can we agree that you simply is not going to call your self pro life in case you motive extra demise than lifestyles?- perhaps, might be now not. The professional abortion supporters were straight in charge for over 50 million unborn youngsters being killed. That's 50 million lives that could have had viable solutions to world warming, peace in the middle east, and a bunch of different problems this world faces. -There are extra folks on the planet than there are assets, institution and transportation to keep people alive. Does this imply you possibly can advocate killing men and women to lower the over populace? How about the requirement of abortions like china does? Wars kill lots of people do you need a good battle to scale back the populace? -10 million children will die from lack of hospital therapy this 12 months. And your solution is? Abortion? How about simply kill them quick and hinder the affliction and suffering. Earlier than the womb or after what is the difference? -100 million have to be adopted, and might not be adopted. Funny, i do not recollect the pro abortion individuals going out and adopting these youngsters wholesale. As it is extra adoptions are finished by pro-life than pro-abortion people. What is your resolution? If they are orphans kill them? -the pro life motion might retailer these men and women quite simply by using redirecting their huge resources to these established desires. All of the at the same time your aspect spends their 'large' assets advocating dying? The assets aren't that enormous. Would you might have the professional-life humans carry a hundred million orphans into this nation and lift them on the governments cost? -yet they choose to center of attention on saving a fetus. It is a undeniable fact that at any time when they use resources to avoid wasting an unwanted fetus, they motive the demise of a wanted fetus or little one. I disagree. If you do not want a fetus, use defense from concept. -there is not any web reap in lives saved. Actually it's tested that each "saved" fetus causes the demise of 12 adored and wanted youngsters. Now that is a stretch is not it. However you then stretch the whole lot else so why no longer. -therefore i'm repossessing the identify "pro life" and reissuing a extra right title "anti existence". Now how are you going to do this? Do you have a regulation suit pending? -people who are now "pro lifestyles" should refrain from making use of that time period and now use the identify i have issued you. :-) Who died and left YOU in charge? -it might even be nice if "prolifers" would quit taking donations under false pretenses. They will just as quickly as your aspect begins pushing responsibility in your movements. You are going to pardon me if I suppose you might be one of the most hypocritical male offspring of a feminine canine I've had the pleasure of poking holes of their points.
2016-08-11 11:34:07 · answer #3 · answered by petitto 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been Pro-Choice for as long as I can remember, but I never thought about what being Pro-Life could mean, in the terms you propose.
I believe that you are on to something. Most Pro-Lifers don't want doctors to teach about birth control in third world countries, where the starvation and death rates of children and adults are astounding.
I think it might be time for some of you Pro-Lifers to reconsider your position.
And why is it that is always seems to be those who are Pro-Life when it comes to fetuses, are pro-death penalty. I thought you all believed that all life was sacred. Riddle me that.
2007-05-10 04:17:35 · answer #4 · answered by meg3f 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Looking at a "fact that is not debatable", you lead me to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about. You might think you have a grasp on reality, but the holes in your theory are big enough to drive a bus and fly a jet through, at the same time.
The Bible teaches us that life is precious. Life begins the moment an egg is fertilized. This is not disputed by any medical professional in the world. Pro Life is about saving life, not saving money.
What ever your purpose, the answer to the question you posed is obvious. You are wrong.
Dead wrong.
2007-05-10 01:12:45 · answer #5 · answered by pwrslm23 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
professional lifers have self assurance that each and all of us, born or unborn, youthful or previous, ought to have the possibility to stay. allowing the killing of thousands of unborn babies portrays life as being disposable and unimportant and finally ends up in greater toddler abuse. Saving unborn babies does not reason the deaths of born babies; the shortcoming of materials reasons that. What we ought to continuously be specializing in is improving corporation and transportation and putting money into studying option materials and scientific care to permit each and every conceived toddler to have a much better high quality of life, extremely of blindly accepting that materials are understanding and that some human beings ought to die to reserve to save others. you could call your self regardless of you like, yet i visit consult with myself as professional life :-)
2017-01-09 14:14:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The baby in the womb is a complete separate living human being, it is not the mother's body that is being killed,it is a separate person.And no one has a right to kill an innocent human being.
2007-05-12 05:23:05 · answer #7 · answered by wordoflifeb216 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That man has no understandg wioth the word abortion. Abortion is the killing of fetus from the womb of the woman, married or not married. It is the intentional killing..
Is that considered saving life according to that man?
jtm
2007-05-10 00:30:34 · answer #8 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Numbers cannot resolve the dilemma between two equally distasteful ethical judgments...
update: No, Only people with brain damage cannot tell the difference between utilitarian ethics and emotional based morality.
Such cognitive biases will prevent one from understanding this answer... Oh well, ignorance is bliss kid...
2007-05-10 00:29:50 · answer #9 · answered by ★Greed★ 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Better to Love the Living, then hate over the Dead.
2007-05-10 00:35:24 · answer #10 · answered by THE NEXT LEVEL 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Don't call it "pro-life!" Pro-choice proponents are not anti-life, therefore "pro-life" is a poor choice of words. I prefer those people to be called "anti-abortion."
I hate the anti-abortion movement. It's a bunch of American Christians meddling with the affairs of others. It is no one else's business what I do with my body, and if a Christian wants to get between me and a doctor, I'll punch him in the face myself.
2007-05-10 01:00:08 · answer #11 · answered by nomadic 5 · 6⤊ 4⤋