Republicans: What About Children Outside the Womb?

Another accusation of Jesus not being pro-life.

 

You make the claim that anyone who does not support any program funded by taxes meant to help the poor is anti-life. Jesus was such a person. No cut and run here. You said it.

 

There is no evidence that Jesus supported taxing people to support the poor.

 

And yet liberals want to stop charitable contributions from being deducted from tax returns especially when it comes to the rich.

While scripture is clear that God cares for the poor it is also clear that He has no concern for the government doing it. Jesus had plenty of opportunity to make it clear if He did. And He did not.

 

You said the gist of your many arguments right here. You want legal theft of the resources of those who own or earn them to help those who don't so much that you think Jesus would support the same, but "there is no scripture to support or oppose this belief."

I would like to say simply 'shove it' right there, but your contention, which you admit does not have scriptural support, is used by you to accuse those who disagree of not being pro-life-- and of that even more so you cannot claim has support in scripture. We both know you are going to continue to be The Accuser on this board, but remember what you said and that you are not within scriptural limits in your accusations. This is my last post on this thread unless you introduce anything not yet debated.

 

Judas supported taking from one and giving to the poor. (John 12) Jesus soundly scolded that.

 

No where did Jesus tell the Roman government that it needed to collect taxes to give to the poor and neither did he tell that to the church.

 

What churches are not helping the poor, the elderly and children in need? Could you be specific? Is it every church? Some churches? Only churches that don't openly support Democrats? Northern churches? Southern churches?

I work two jobs and have for most of the last 25 years. It really sticks in my craw when somebody calls me selfish and a money worshiper because I hate to see able-bodied men sitting on their backsides all day refusing to support the children they have made. I had one feller telling me how much he loved his kids but he didn't love them enough to buy them food. He never went without. He believed it was the responsibility of the working stiff to pay more taxes so he could sit around smoking weed and arguing with his buddies about the NBA.

There is nothing compassionate about enabling sloth.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-12 NAS77

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you,
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you;
9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.
10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.
11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.
​

 

It all boils down to this: contrary to the accusation raised, EVERYONE on this board is in favor of helping the poor and needy. The difference is, hardly anyone is in favor of the government forcefully taking our money to do so. CTB, how would you feel if I held you at gunpoint, took your wallet, and gave it to a homeless man? That's what is happening. It is socialism at it's core. Spread the wealth.

Contrary to what you are saying, the church CAN handle it. If they don't they will be judged.

I am not going to post what I do for charity. I don't want to brag. But I give money, food and time.

And since it hasn't been brought up yet, if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. That's straight out of the Bible. You can't argue that.

Help those who need it. But not by stealing from others to do so.

 

You must mean selling out to the Democrat party that wants to take, by force, the hard earned money of people and decide for them how it is best spent. You are right he would not approve of that.

We also do not need to fall in love with the god of government. When we put all our faith in government and side step the church and God then we have no biblical ground to stand on.

 

But you did, didn't you?

Who should? The poor who mooch tax dollars?

 

Here's where your thesis falls apart. We don't get to designate where our tax dollars are spent. I cannot go to the payroll department at work and tell them how to divide the deduction: 10 % for defense spending; 17% for the 180 federally funded children welfare programs; etc, etc. Your default position is any opposition to increased taxes equals starving children. What if my opposition is multi-million dollar furniture expenditures at the SEC?

The Heritage Foundation reports the Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land. If I raise my voice in opposition your reply is "Why do you hate children?" It's impossible to have a rational conversation with a group who answer in predictable platitudes.

Like this one?

"For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.
Mark 14:7 NAS77

 

Then if the "poor" receive any benefits and there are any less fortunate than these beneficiaries-- and if these 'poor' are in the USA, unquestionably there are such in the world-- then the benefits are their gods if they don't give them away? "More unfortunate" is how you said it.

 

There is definitely a difference between the pro-life movement and those of the pro-birth agenda. The later are those who sponsor HR212. In majority males at that.

This is a bill that would, if passed into law God forbid, traumatize a woman who had a miscarriage. Because she would potentially be subject to a fetal homicide investigation.

Did she abort through her own efforts? Was this a case of involuntary manslaughter?

And what about tubal pregnancy? That has absolutely no chance of becoming a viable baby? Would a physician be able to save the woman's life by removing that tubal growth under this (bill)?

It's a real shame that the pro-birth movement agenda isn't compelled to respect women who are alive simply because they're fertile and sperm is deemed to take precedent.

Prayerfully HR212 dies in a drawer somewhere.raying: