Michaelangelo

Supwidit...

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Cute map. It shows charitable giving by geography. I’d prefer a map showing the percentage of Christians actually following the teachings of Christ.

And notice it includes donations to churches, which is not the same thing as feeding the hungry, housing the poor, welcoming the stranger, or showing mercy… as Jesus actually commanded.

Jesus walked the walk.

My point was never “Christians never give.” It was: if you’re going to hold up the Bible as absolute truth, don’t suddenly develop selective reading comprehension when its teachings become politically inconvenient.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Romans 13 says to respect governing authorities. Sure.

The Bible also says, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

So Christianity clearly does not teach “whatever the government says is automatically moral.” If it did, Jesus’ execution would have been morally justified simply because Rome authorized it.

Respect for authority isn’t the same thing as worshipping the law. That was my point.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Sure, scripture?

Matthew 6:1 warns against practicing your righteousness just to be seen by others.

Matthew 23 has Jesus repeatedly condemning religious hypocrites who perform morality outwardly while neglecting what actually matters.

So yes, I can cite scripture. My point remains the same: don’t use faith as a public badge while carving out exceptions to mercy, compassion, and care whenever they become inconvenient.

Jesus had a word for that too: hypocrisy.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Exactly… as they should. If your book tells you to give, serve, feed, welcome, forgive, and care for the poor, then following those teachings isn’t some shocking moral achievement. It’s the literal assignment.

My point was never “Christians don’t give.” It was: if you’re going to insist the Bible is true and authoritative, don’t cherry-pick the parts that flatter your politics and ignore the parts that actually demand something from you.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

“Be responsible for your actions” choosing whether to continue a pregnancy is taking responsibility. It may be an incredibly difficult choice, but it’s still a choice about the consequences of one’s own life.

You’re not arguing for responsibility. You’re arguing that everyone must make YOUR choice.

And yes, America does a lot of good. That still doesn’t answer the point: if you call yourself pro-life, then caring about life shouldn’t stop at birth.

Your morality is yours. You don’t get to turn it into someone else’s obligation.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

I’m cherry-picking? That’s rich.

It also doesn’t say “love only your family,” “feed only people with your passport,” or “show mercy only when they’ve passed your political purity test.”

You’re adding all those conditions yourself, then accusing me of taking Christianity out of context.

Funny how the parts about compassion suddenly need a thousand exceptions when they become inconvenient.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Invoking “the law” here is pretty funny considering Jesus himself was arrested, brought before Roman authority, condemned, and executed by the state.

So yes… maybe “the law says so” isn’t automatically the Christian moral trump card you think it is.

Rome had laws too. Crucifixion was legal.

Kind of awkward when your argument is supposed to be about following Jesus rather than worshipping government authority.🙄

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Exactly. “Some of them could have contributed to civilization” proves nothing.

Some could’ve cured cancer. Some could’ve been the next Hitler, Epstein, or the guy who starts World War III. Once you’re arguing from hypothetical future potential, you don’t get to count only the inspirational outcomes.

That’s why “but imagine who they could’ve become” is a weak argument. You have no idea.

My actual point is about reproductive choice and caring for the lives that do exist not fantasy biographies for people who never did.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

No. By my logic, we should help the poor after they’re born and throughout their lives. That has been my point the entire time.

You keep reducing “pro-life” to getting someone through birth. I’m talking about the whole life: food, housing, healthcare, education, safety, opportunity, dignity.

That’s the difference between being pro-birth and actually being pro-life.

Your moral grandstanding is very loud for someone who keeps skipping the “life” part.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Of course there are limits. “Care for people” is not the same thing as “the state must do literally everything.”

My point is simpler: if you invoke Christian morality, then mercy, feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and welcoming strangers don’t suddenly become optional when they’re inconvenient.

Yes, nations have borders, budgets, and security concerns. That still doesn’t turn compassion into a weakness or hypocrisy into virtue.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Sure… keep church and state separate. I agree.

But “not the state’s job” doesn’t erase the moral point. You can oppose a theocracy and still believe a decent society should value compassion, mercy, feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and welcoming people in need.

Those are good civic values whether you got them from Christianity, humanism, or basic empathy.

What’s odd is invoking Christian morality to police someone else’s choices, then suddenly outsourcing Christian compassion to the church when it requires actually helping people.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

No, my “angle” is reproductive choice and the difference between pro-life and merely pro-birth.

I’m not arguing we should “eliminate” anyone. I’m saying if you argue that 2.5 billion more people should have been born, then you also have to reckon with supporting those lives afterward.

Food. Housing. Healthcare. Education. Infrastructure. Opportunity.

We’re already failing to provide those things adequately for millions of people alive now. That’s the population point not “overcrowding means kill people.”

That’s a straw man, not an argument.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

Okay, then by your logic, birthing someone and denying them healthcare, food, housing, education, and basic opportunity is just murder on a slower clock.

So what’s the magical moral distinction… speed?

You were just arguing that an “inch of skin” or the length of the birth canal doesn’t change the value of a life. Fine. Then why does your concern suddenly collapse once that life is outside the womb?

If life is sacred, the whole life should matter, not just the nine months before birth.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

I’m honestly lost on your point now.

You’re “pro-life” when it’s a fetus, but once that child is born you’re calling people “worthless” and reducing them to race and intelligence?

So which is it… every life is precious, or only the lives you personally approve of?

Because if your morality lasts nine months and then disappears when the kid is poor, brown, disabled, struggling, or inconvenient, that’s not pro-life. That’s just pro-birth with conditions.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

A 21-week survival story is extraordinary, but it doesn’t turn every pregnancy, at every stage, into the same medical situation or erase every woman’s individual choice, circumstances, and reasoning. And it certainly doesn’t make abortion “genocide.”

Stop dodging the point: your entire moral concern seems concentrated on getting the pregnancy to birth.

I’d rather see that concern converted into care for those children once they’re born, throughout childhood and adulthood and for the people who are already here.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

You made your choice, and I respect it. You chose motherhood and raised your children through hardship. Good for you.

But apparently that’s also where your “pro-life” résumé ends: your own three kids. Nothing about foster children, struggling families, healthcare, housing, education, or helping the rest of society.

So why should your personal choice become every other woman’s obligation?

I’m not telling women to abort. I’m saying they should have the same freedom you had to choose what was right for their own life.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

No, my point isn’t “hardship means death is better.” My point is: if you’re going to morally grandstand about protecting life, what are you doing to reduce the hardship of the people already living it?

You keep fixating on the fetus or “infant,” apparently then skipping everything after birth.

What about the child who grows up poor? The adult who needs healthcare? Housing? Food? Education? Support?

Babies become adults. If your concern for “life” disappears once they’re born, then this isn’t pro-life. It’s pro-birth.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

And you are what? a beloved saint personally housing foster kids and funding families across the developing world or here at home?

Or are you just regurgitating your own moral bias and calling it virtue?

If your “pro-life” concern stops at birth, spare me the disgust. Caring about life means caring about people after they’re born too.

[Michaelangelo @mmalone228]

“Statistically unable to reproduce”? What are you talking about? Obviously humans can reproduce…. the claim of 2.5 billion aborted pregnancies proves reproduction isn’t the issue.

You’re confusing lower birth rates with biological inability to reproduce.

My position hasn’t changed: I’m pro-reproduction and pro-reproductive choice. Have children or don’t.

And if you do bring a child into the world, “pro-life” should mean caring about that person through the whole cycle of life, not just the gestational period.