Hi Joshua-
John Osburn

  1. That is not pro-life. That is pro-choice. No matter how badly you treat me, I shouldn’t be allowed to murder another person. Yes, women should be treated better; men and women should take responsibility, etc., etc. But people dying is still people dying. Waiting until “we fix all of the other issues” is putting the cart before the horse. It’s also wildly optimistic. We can and should help a woman in a bad situation, either all-together, in degrees, and/or over time. But we can’t resurrect the baby from the dead. We have to act for the life of the baby first, while not neglecting the need and responsibility of the parents.
  2. “but it was because” — how do you know that? Also, yes, it is a good parallel. That was why I brought it up. Both weren’t as bad in the time of the Romans. Both are worse now. Both should be illegal and fought against at every other level. Why is abortion different? That was my point. But did you say that getting out of slavery is not like the baby being allowed to live? And do you not believe that people who murder children should be stopped?
  3. Why “more penal than moral”? Where did you get that and how would you even draw a line between the two? Would something be penal but be immoral? It seems the penal just implies the underlying morality. We don’t pass laws just to punish people but because we think something wrong was done and therefore needs to be punished. This reminds me of your affirmation that we have laws against murder in order to punish people, not to keep people from murdering. I think we have them for both reasons. Traffic signs would be an illustration of this. Why put signs up about what should and should not be done? If the law was only to punish then why make sure people know the traffic laws? People need to know the laws so they know what they should and should not do. For Ephesians, yes, false teachers, what would you call the people standing around you advocating anti-Biblical views? Jesus was falsely accused of being a glutton and a drunkard. He was a friend of tax collectors and sinners because He helped those people. He rebuked where rebuke was needed. He gave grace where grace was needed. He did not join those advocating against the things He came to do. Jesus was not “okay” with them. He was gracious but wanted to show them their sinfulness so they might repent, and He could receive them into eternal life.

You expanded the argument to things like jail time, The Hyde Amendment, making hate illegal, and others. I’m sorry I don’t have time to expand the debate.

Like what you read? Give Joshua Cottrell a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.