Rep Joe Walsh and abortion

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C

celestemekent

Banned
#1
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
#1
Another MAN speaks out on abortion, this time it was Joe Walsh (the one who refused to pay court ordered child support.)

More Junk Science: GOP Congressman Says Abortion Is Never Necessary To Save A Woman’s Life

By Aviva Shen on Oct 19, 2012 at 9:00 am
On Thursday, after his debate against Demcorat Tammy Duckworth, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) told reporters that an abortion exception is never necessary to save a woman’s life, explaining, “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” of a woman dying from childbirth. Walsh claimed pro-choice advocates simply used the prospect of maternal death “to make us look unreasonable.”
Walsh went on to assert that women whose health would be jeopardized if they carry their fetus to term are simply using the exception as a “tool” to get an abortion for “any reason.”
With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance…There’s no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason.

I think that until men start carrying fetuses and giving birth I dont want to see one other male politician speaking out on this issue They cannot know what it is like and their judgement is flawed on such issues.
​
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#2
#2
What's amazingly sad is that pro-choicers are more offended over his words, than they are over the millions of abortions that have NOTHING to do with saving the life of a mother. That shows the direction of their moral compass on this issue.

Indirectly pro-choicers exploit rape victims/incest victims/mothers who have lives in danger, just so they can justify the majority of abortions.
Rape and incest victims, along with mothers who are in serious danger of losing their life, should not be exploited just so this hideous practice can be justified in the minds of pro-choicers.
 
C

celestemekent

Banned
#3
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
#3
h Goody another MAN talking about abortion.

1st off I was very offended that this congressman refused to pay court ordered child support for over a year
2nd he doesn't understand that the US is not even the lowest country when it comes to women dying during child birth (we're 20th.) IF in fact the US was the best in this rate of death then I might not argue over it but we have a long way to go before we can claim that title. Greece and Grenada have a better maternal death rate than the USA.
3rd there is little purpose in any MAN speaking out on this whole subject until women are in control over and responsible for the whole process of birthing.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#4
#4
celestemekent said:
h Goody another MAN talking about abortion.

1st off I was very offended that this congressman refused to pay court ordered child support for over a year
2nd he doesn't understand that the US is not even the lowest country when it comes to women dying during child birth (we're 20th.) IF in fact the US was the best in this rate of death then I might not argue over it but we have a long way to go before we can claim that title. Greece and Grenada have a better maternal death rate than the USA.
3rd there is little purpose in any MAN speaking out on this whole subject until women are in control over and responsible for the whole process of birthing.
Click to expand...
So can a man choose NOT to support the kid, seeing it's HIS body he's using to work and earn money with?

I'm doing a consistency test here to see how consistent you are in your reasoning.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#5
#5
celestemekent said:
h Goody another MAN talking about abortion.

1st off I was very offended that this congressman refused to pay court ordered child support for over a year
Click to expand...
But it's HIS money!
It's HIS body working for that money.
Doesn't a man have the right to do what he wants with his body?

How come a woman, in the name of "controlling her body", can not take responsibility for her choice to have sex by having an abortion? Yet you won't give this man the same option? Why do you demand this man use his body to earn money to support these kids?

Do you see the absolute hypocrisy in your view?

Of course you may say, "If Wilson didn't want to accept the responsibility for having kids, he shouldn't have had sex in the first place!"

If you made such a point, I'd say that applies to the women who chose to have sex and now want to have an abortion, just so she can not deal with the responsibility that came from her choice to have sex.

(BTW, he should pay child support. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of pro-choice women)
 
Last edited:
1

1still_waters

Guest
#6
#6
Here's the hypocrisy of the pro-choice women argument in a nutshell.

A woman can CHOOSE to have sex, and then get away from the result of that CHOICE, by having an abortion, all in the name of "controlling her body".

A man can CHOOSE to have sex, but he can't get away from the result of that CHOICE, instead he has to work with HIS BODY to support the child. The man can't walk away from the result of his CHOICE to have sex, all in the name of "controlling his body".

A pro-choice woman will tell a man he shouldn't have had sex in the first place, if he didn't want to support a kid. Yet she won't apply the same reasoning to herself.

Although if a pro-choice woman would come forward and say the man should be allowed not to pay child support, I would at least commend her for her intellectual consistency.

And again for the record, I'm pro-life, and I think men should support a child.
The point of all this is to show the hypocrisy of pro-choice women.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#7
#7
I'm sorry, but this just drives me nuts....

Another MAN speaks out on abortion, this time it was Joe Walsh (the one who refused to pay court ordered child support.)
Click to expand...
1st off I was very offended that this congressman refused to pay court ordered child support for over a year
Click to expand...
Pro-choice women say a woman should have a choice for abortion, because she carries the baby for nine months, and because of the pain of child birth. Yet they turn right around and demand a man work for 18 years, with his body, to support said child!

Nine months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth, gives her the right to terminate the result of her choice to have sex. Yet the man can't walk away and must WORK WITH HIS BODY for 18 years to support the child!
 

Attachments

Last edited:
C

celestemekent

Banned
#8
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
#8
OK but if they stay happily married then he will support them. I just don't get this at all, men pay child support one way or the other. The only difference is where the children live: either with him or not with him. OH but of course if the mother makes more income than he does then the money goes the other way.

In the case of Joe Walsh he defied the court until just recently making him into an outlaw. Even if he was a congressman.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#9
#9
celestemekent said:
OK but if they stay happily married then he will support them. I just don't get this at all, men pay child support one way or the other. The only difference is where the children live: either with him or not with him. OH but of course if the mother makes more income than he does then the money goes the other way.

In the case of Joe Walsh he defied the court until just recently making him into an outlaw. Even if he was a congressman.
Click to expand...
His body, his money.
What right does a woman have to comment on what a man does with his body and his money?

If the kids are dependent on him, are they really human anyways?
(Yes I believe they are human and deserve the right to live. I'm simply using pro-choice reasoning to make a point.)
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#10
#10
Ephesians 4

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.

Pro-choice arguments interestingly line up very well with scriptural descriptions of the unregenerate mind.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
#11
#11
1still_waters said:
Here's the hypocrisy of the pro-choice women argument in a nutshell.

A woman can CHOOSE to have sex, and then get away from the result of that CHOICE, by having an abortion, all in the name of "controlling her body".

A man can CHOOSE to have sex, but he can't get away from the result of that CHOICE, instead he has to work with HIS BODY to support the child. The man can't walk away from the result of his CHOICE to have sex, all in the name of "controlling his body".

A pro-choice woman will tell a man he shouldn't have had sex in the first place, if he didn't want to support a kid. Yet she won't apply the same reasoning to herself.

Although if a pro-choice woman would come forward and say the man should be allowed not to pay child support, I would at least commend her for her intellectual consistency.

And again for the record, I'm pro-life, and I think men should support a child.
The point of all this is to show the hypocrisy of pro-choice women.
Click to expand...
FWIW:

I have always been pro-choice.

Back in my younger days, when I was single and dating, if I reached the point in a relationship where it seemed that sex might be on the table (I do not think all sex outside of marriage is a sin ... and don't side-track this discussion to tell me I'm wrong ... we can have that debate somewhere else), I told the man up-front where I stood. With my current husband, I made it clear that I wanted a child, and therefore I would not get an abortion. I told him before we had sex he had to make a decision about what we would do if I got pregnant. I made it clear I would be keeping the child, since it would probably be my only chance to have a child, and that I understood if he didn't want to have anything to do with that, but I needed to know before we took our clothes off.

In other words, I am pro-choice.

The happy ending of this story is that we are now a happy family, my son is almost 3, and all is well.

The sad truth is that most women and men aren't smart enough to ask men where they stand before they reach that point. Sex education shouldn't be about contraceptives, or about "just say no." Sex education should simply be: Look, people, IF you get pregnant, what are you going to do? If you're not prepared for the consequences, don't go there.

Not that that will solve all the problems, but it's a start.
 
C

celestemekent

Banned
#12
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
#12
Sadly there are whole states now that do not allow sex education, they only teach abstinence and it fails most of the time. Knowledge in this area of human life is vital, instead those states prefer rumors or fiction and that is how we get congressmen who think like Akin.

If Joe Walsh had obeyed the law (about the child support) we would not be having this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.