Does immorality force one to reject Christianity?

Does immorality force one to reject Christianity? That the logic of the mind by one's lack of morality in "losing" one's soul by deep sins against humanity/nature causes one to reject God/Christianity...

Rejecting God can be the equivalent of embracing non-belief, Atheism, Satanism etc.

So, clearly when one has chosen a path of life outside ethics that qualify for God's grace and Heaven then all on the "outside" must be promising, also thrust a "scientific attack" against Christians for a "magical" thinking as well as displaying a "disbelief" of these propositions of religious belief, i.e., Heaven, God, stories of the Bible, the message of the Bible and so on...

So I see these alternatives for those outside faith:
1. To go on "crusade" against the faithful, the righteous... To wage arguments of chaos and hopelessness ("come, join me in immorality as there's no other way...").
2. To be silent and let life go on.
3. To oppose all life by all one's life and resources by hidden war against the goodness!
4. To enter Christianity in order to subvert/undermine Church and activities and goodness everywhere, to be a hypocrite!

What say you? Any logical soundness to this? Is this credible? A realistic description? Serious as it is!

A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Notes:

This argument is generic in the sense that it can also be used for similar ethical positions such as euthanasia/assisted suicide/willful suicide and legalising cannabis and possibly others!

In my text, I want to limit the pro-abortion position by saying that abortion is, in this context, limited to within 20 first weeks and that it does not include "emergency medicine" where "extreme" measures are used in order to save either, the mother or the fetus. If they intend to kill either the fetus or the mother then, ethically, why not overdose them by sedatives or similar that must be better than "other extremes". I guess this should be part of standard procedure for these cases either way! So as to reduce the dread/brutalities of medicine (by standard procedure)!

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)

The 630 Degrees Riemann Triangle - Much wider than the 270 degrees triangle...

So there on the right is the 630 degrees Riemann triangle. I've been thinking I should add for the fun of it! Thank you!