Is biblegod pro life?

According to the Bible, while God may allow and even need/want free will, he is not above punishing people for choosing something he doesn't like. As you say, he is willing to let us not believe in him, but he punishes us pretty severely if we choose thusly. So, arguing that God allows free will doesn't necessarily mean he condones the choices we make with it.

I disagree. The effects of snorting cocaine are a natural by product of human neuro-chemistry and the chemicals in the drug interracting. God's punishment is a choice on his part, making a statement of belief as to the "goodness" of the choice.Being pro-choice then punishing someone for making a choice is contradictory. It is possible to be pro-choice and then disagree with the choice made, but to actually punish someone for making the choice seems preclude being pro-choice. I understand that being pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I fall mostly into that category myself. However, think of this scenario:The police punish you for driving faster than the speed limit. They also do nothing to make it actually impossible to drive faster than the speed limit. Does that mean they are pro-choice of speeding? No, the punishment is supposed to sway your choice, thus making them pro one side or the other, not pro-choice.

God doesn't make it physically impossible to choose other than he wants, but again, that doesn't mean he's pro-choice. There are quite a few pro-lifers who aren't to the rabid level of bombing Planned Parenthood and killing doctors who perform abortions. They're not trying to make it impossible to make the choice, they'd just like to see a law that will punish you from doing it.Punishment, as an attempt to sway the choice, precludes sitting back and allowing the choice to be made either way. You can put governors on a car that will stop it from exceeding a maximum speed, but this doesn't stop you from speeding, it merely limits you as to where you can speed. It does so in a very assbackwards way, too. It stops you from speeding on roads where higher speeds aren't as big a threat, since everyone is going at a high rate of speed, and there aren't as many things that can jump in front of you, requiring fast reflexes to avoid.What they don't stop you from doing is driving 50 mph down a city street in front of a school.Laws are, in effect, an attempt to take choices away from you, without actually altering the physical properties that make the choice possible. Laws are essentially anti-choice.

But you're conflating natural consequences of doing something (anything) versus imposed consequences by a position of authority. If doing action A naturally results in consequence B, whether we know about that consequence or not, there's no conscious effort to influence our choice. Imposing a non-natural consequence onto a choice is an attempt to sway the choice to the preferred one, and is thus an exercise in removing choice from the equation. By speeding, he goes faster and thus arrives sooner. That's the natural consequnces of speeding. Other consequences are more distance covered during the time it takes to react to an unforeseen event, more force upon impact with another object, etc. These are the things that are natural consequences of pressing the gas pedal harder. Police (and society at large), however, see the potential negative consequences as too costly, and in an effort to make the choice of going faster less tempting, they impose a non-natural consequcne should you be caught speeding. It's an attempt to control the choice while maintaining the illusion of free choice.Edited by Perdition, : clarity

I'm just saying that someone deciding to impose consequences not inherent in the choice in order to sway that choice is not "pro-choice" as being pro-choice, regardless of whether you agree with the choice made or not, implies you will uphold that person's choice and protect their ability to make it rather than punishing them for exercising a faculty you claim to like.

Exactly, and that is what I would consider the pro-choice position.