Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

 Before we begin this conversation, we have to be open to the facts. The argument of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is based on religious beliefs. Many religious people are trying to rationalize teh argument as if nature gave some clear indication either way. Nature does not care, nature has eliminated 98% of the species on this planet, and we might be next. Having said that, No one has a red phone that connects directly to God.  I have been going through my life living as a Catholic trying to follow Christian principles. None of which are based on DEMANDING that others live the way I believe.I have read the gospels from beginning to end. I also read the Old Testament but not as diligently as I have read the Gospels. Lately one of the arguments that has divided Christians so much is the question of whether abortion is or is not a sin. I have seen in the Old Testament a paragraph which I shall put here as a point to ponder.

— Numbers 5:19–24

“And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man has lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

For those who did not understand the wording, essentially, if the woman, had been unfaithful, this water should make her sick and caused her to abort.

In this paragraph, We have to either accept that the Bible is God-inspired or not. if we accept that the Bible is God-inspired then we see that God does not really care about the child in the womb, he seems to be more interested in satisfying the jealousy of a man. and I will recommend reading the whole number five chapters, not just 19 through 14. it seems to me that if God made abortion rules, then abortion must not be a sin, or there are conditions under which abortion is acceptable to God.  If you consider that abortion is a sin, we then can conclude that God provided rules for a sin based on jealousy from a husband. 

If you read the Bible carefully, you will find a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. It is not because God has “mysterious ways”, but because the Bible after all was written by men and it is flawed by its limitations. When we read the Bible as if it were the direct word of God without the limitation of the authors we miss these flaws, and we twist whatever God may have been trying to say, and make up rules and regulations that do not come from God.  Rather these regulations come from our human sense of insecurity, and an attempt to bring order to things we do not understand. Once this is accepted by a certain number of people, influential people most of the time, we declare it a rule of God. which in itself is using God's name in vain is it not?

My next question is from the time of Moses when he was sent by God to liberate Egypt, God sent many plagues upon Egypt the last one was one of which was, where all firstborns of Egypt were going to die. This did not exclude children, and this did not exclude innocent people, it only excluded those who placed lambs' blood on their door.

 I am sure there were some Egyptians who were not happy with the slavery of the Jewish people, just like right now there are a lot of Americans who are not happy with how immigrants are treated. It seems that God himself would need a physical sign, but we shall not argue that point.  However, at that time it is said that God went ahead and killed every firstborn of Egypt. Now does that sound like a God who has a pro-life attitude? Who would promote forcing the woman to have a child in all cases?  It sounds to me rather like a convenient God that in some cases decides that life is expendable whether you are in the womb or 100 years old.  If anyone around you disobeys, they will be punished with death, guilty or not.

To him it does not matter, as long as you abide by his rules, you earn the right to live. Once you upset him or go against his rules then your life is no longer important, this sounds more like a political entity than a God who created all Humanity and whose children we all are “precious to him”. Which mother or father would sacrifice and or kill one or more of their children because they are disobedient? is that an acceptable right-to-life attitude?  It is more like a fascist communist Tyrant ideology that should not survive today. All of our Nations have grown and expanded with the diversity of philosophical moral and religious ideas, As well as cultural differences. All of these things are what have helped us to grow as large countries.

 It seems to me that the right to life, in every religious Circle has moments, this moment does not ever depend upon God, but rather on how those particularly religious people feel about a certain item at the time. These religious people then search in the Bible for the proper verses pulled out of context and time, then claim that this is God's will. 

Not too long ago it was the church that promoted the idea that children were a parent's property and the parent had the right to punish the child as they so fit, cruelty did not matter. If the child died because he did not obey, well so be it, it was God’s will. 

I truly see, that it is not God but men and their political preferences that are pushing forward this pseudo right-to-life agenda. We have another example, of God's willingness to change his mind on a dime, in the example of the massacre of the Innocents. The Massacre (or Slaughter) of the Innocents is an incident in the Nativity narrative of the Gospel of Matthew (2:16–18) in which Herod the Great, king of Judea, orders the execution of all male children who are two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. It seems to me that God determined that Jesus was more important than any other child and knowing what Herod would do decided that sacrificing children under 2 years old was not really a big deal.

 This is typical of authoritative leaders to put forth the idea, that sacrificing many for the benefit of one is an acceptable solution. in this case, sacrificing children under 2 years old was acceptable to God. or was it? I know that many will say: “Well listen Uncle Joe that was not done but by God but by Caesar”.  I would counter with this thought, well I'm a leader I usually plan for the benefit of a majority, to sacrifice the many to benefit the few or the one is unjust. Could not God have done at least minimally the same? There are times when I don't do this,  and I understand, and honestly must accept it is because I'm a coward, not because “it was the will of God”.

 I understand that in the case of God, we want to make all sorts of exceptions and the reason we use is “ who knows God's mysterious ways”,  which in the end just means that we really don't understand God,  and if we don't understand God why are we making laws for others to follow by threat of punishment, claiming that we know what God wants? That attitude turns the hierarchy of all Christian churches into cheap henchmen, unaware of God's true will

 This is completely irrational and again it is using the name of God in vain. How many times in history have we as Christians committed horrible horrible crimes against men, nature, children women, and the Unborn and we have claimed that it was all in the name of God?  How many unborn did we kill in the name of USA expansion?  Some will say "Well Uncle Joe: we didn't know"; If it is true that abortion it is a religious argument, why didn't we know? Because it was not politically convenient, and as such not pushed by religious leaders. 

If we are to be consistent with ourselves, first,  we claim to follow Christ am I not right?  Christ essentially seems to have promoted the idea that, the most important was to have one God above all. This was closely followed in second place by “love your neighbor as yourself”,  according to Jesus these were supposed to be the two greatest Commandments.  However we as a society of Christians seem to replace this with all sorts of excuses, we can kill somebody if he breaks into our house, we can kill somebody if he threatens somebody with love, we can kill somebody if we are scared, and we are not responsible for people who are living across the other side of the world, we are not responsible for people who do not agree with our way of thinking about God, and so on we continuously step on and tarnish the second commandment which Christ himself said was more important than all the other ones except for thou shall have only one God, and then dare to call ourselves Christian, and promote laws to regulate others, based on a religion and a moral, we ourselves do not live by.

 The right to life for Jesus was so important,  that he did not permit Peter to hurt one of the servants of the people that were going to take him to his death.  Jesus did not call War upon Caesar nor did he call War upon Rome.  however, if he was the son of God and he knew what was coming he knew that a lot of people were going to die at the hands of the Romans yet he kept silent. Because true Christians are supposed to be SELF_SACRIFICING, not sacrificing others, for their differences. These are the things that Christians avoid, yet they claim to follow Jesus but they only want to follow what's convenient. True Christians gave their life for their faith, they did not force others to live according to their beliefs. If you can't sway others by your example of life, then your action is NOT CHRIST-LIKE.

 This is my strongest argument against pro-life, the only one entity who might know where a soul is abides or when it is here or when it is there would be God himself, yet Christians act as if THEY KNOW.  Humans have no right no responsibility for making laws, that Force other people to have or not have a child. This is a covenant between God and the woman, and whatever direction that Covenant takes is not up to men to decide what a woman should do, to do so is to place man in place of God which is one of the biggest sins against God. 

I know I have made a statement and I will now bring the proof, of why men have no right to regulate pregnancies.We need to look at the gospel in Lucas or 

Luke chapter 1 verse 26 to 38th 

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”[a] 29 But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”[b] 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[c] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.”

In the reading of Luke, which I prefer to the one in Matthew which is the first one where they speak about the Annunciation Matthew is not very thorough in his description, Luke instills a lot of detail, it's a lot more thorough and you will notice, that at some point the angel tells Mary; and listen carefully it says “the holy spirit will come upon you “  he didn't say the Holy Spirit already came upon you.  this is very important because the angel of the lord requires, nay!!! He requests permission from Mary, for her to get pregnant and to carry the pregnancy because it is not until she says “Here I am the servant of the Lord let it be with me according to your word”, it is only at that time that the angel departed from her.

 This is a clear contract between a woman and God as you can see. Now, can a contract be broken?  Can a contract be invalid when not all parties are in agreement? Absolutely!  The woman does not come into a contract if she has not agreed with full knowledge of what's coming upon her, so you cannot place responsibilities or obligation upon a woman if she has been raped if there is incest, or if she's too young to understand what her responsibilities and rights are.

 Christians all over the world have touted that they know more about Justice love and divine contracts than God himself. This is what it seems like to me again, Christians have placed themselves in the place of God. This is inconceivable it is offensive and it is hypocritical coming from people who are used to avoiding their basic responsibility to follow in Jesus's footsteps. Because it is Jesus who says and places these conditions, “Go sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and then come follow me”. Based on these conditions for being a Christian, the only Christians I see, are homeless people on the street, and they don't dictate laws to anybody. They're just hoping to live in peace and dignity without bothering anybody else.  Maybe Christians should take an example from them instead of wasting all their money on trips for protests and lobbying to create laws that make them feel more significant. Because at the end of the day, it is just about Priests and preachers, exerting Christian power over others, so they will feel important, (an old type of influencer, if you will, but without the sacrifice of being a Christian) Jesus would throw up at this sight. 

I hope this was helpful to some of you like and follow if you want to hear more about this in the future. This all has to do with the reality of being Christian and not the comic book presentation that we have been believing because our pastors and our priests tell us that it's okay, whatever we do,  as long as we leave some donation in the Box, for them and their buildings.  Then they focus on whatever commandments are politically advantageous to them. Remember Jesus preached in the open air he generally avoided the temples.

Does the hierarchy want to go back to following old traditions? They should preach on the street, and live right by the side of half a million homeless people in USA, or 150 million homeless people in the world. Lead by example, do not force your version of Christ upon others, by cheat nor treat. 
You can watch my video on this at 

copy and taste on your browser 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cp-IsVL1J8&t=18s

or look for 

UncleJoesplace pro-life pro-choice in Youtube

Anyway, this is all for today my friends