/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>585415

>>585415

What was the penalty for manslaughter again?

>>585419

Banishment iirc.

>>585417

Thanks.

There is no debating it. They won't budge & neither will we. Just shut it all down whether they like it or not.

>>585415

Humour and mockery. Point it out for what it is. Be a chad to lead fence sitters to your POV through sheer confidence and charisma.

>>585415

>Christian but are pro-abortion

if I were able to survive hearing their argument without having a brain aneurysm I would point out that John the Baptist recognized Christ when both of them were in their mothers' wombs. Clearly Christ was still Christ when he was in the womb, not a "bundle of tissue" that was to become Christ after an arbitrary amount of time.

>>585474

That is an argument I have not heard before, thanks Anon.

>>585415

>Especially with people who say they are Christian but are pro-abortion?

Who does this

>>585417

> reproductive rights

Learn to spot new-speak, brothers. Calling abortion a "reproductive right" is a way to emotionally manipulate the audience. Of course everyone believes that people should have a choice about when to reproduce, we would not want to force people into breeding farms. However, once conception occurs the reproduction has already happened: a new life has been formed. A zygote does not magically become alive after X amount of time, so abortion has nothing to do with someone's freedom to choose whether they want to have a child. You already have a child. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't fuck.

Another case of new-speak is "birth control". It's a muddy term to confuse contraception (prevents conception of life through sex) with abortion (killing of an already conceived life).

When someone comes to you with new-speak lead them onto a slippery floor with dumb questions:

> Who is opposing reproductive rights? Who is trying to create human breeding farms to force people to have children against their will?

> Birth control? How do you control the birth process? Can you slow it down? Can you suspend a birth?

Show the absurdity of new-speak unfold.

>>585504

Priestesses were a mistake.>>585417

>>585613

They should not be doing that.

>>585415

In rebuttal to the claim that a fetus is 'just a clump of cells' :

From the moment of conception that 'clump of cells' has a complete human genome. Left to the natural order of things that 'clump of cells' will develop into a human being. A common argument is that until the cells develop into something resembling a human it can be claimed that the cells aren't alive / sentient. What pro-choicers always seem to leave out is that the genome / blueprint DNA of the human that will become of the cells is present FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. Everything is already there as soon as the egg is fertilized.

A further argument from pro-choicers down this line of thought will be bringing up that 'eggs and sperm have human DNA as well, so why don't you class ejaculation / women releasing an egg during her period as murder'!

To this it should be pointed out that neither the egg nor the sperm have a complete set of chromosomes. The genome is not complete and so neither, left to the natural order of things, will EVER become a human. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg all chromosomes are present and you have yourself a human being.

>>585504

>Pro-faith

>Pro-family

>Pro-choice

Vid related

You cannot, because ultimately they are only looking for a way to dispose of the byproduct of their fornication. They know the answer before they formulate the argument.

>>586117

That first quote is really powerful

>>585624

Thank you for the information.

>>585504

Women pretending to be priests & encouraging other women to kill their children. What a bunch of deluded creeps.

>>585575

New-speak never makes any sense & is often an abject contradiction. I find agreeing with the nonsensical babble but showing it for what it really is.

"I think it's cool that women just kill their kids nowadays instead of using condoms."

Make them argue your point for you.

Also, don't call them "unborn children" or any other soft terms, it induces cognitive dissidence.

>>586305

>Also, don't call them "unborn children" or any other soft terms, it induces cognitive dissidence.

what do you mean by this?

>>586355

Like, abortions rights, unborn child, fetus even. Don't dehumanize the act for them. It's taking a child's life by the mothers hand, no need to say 'unborn child' just child is enough, & when they demand you say a soft term because their feels are hurting dig into that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ7_n2JfC2c