It is totally illogical to be "pro-choice" in a civilized society

[republicanchick]

The reasoning goes like this:

a woman should have control over her body

well, if she had control over her body, maybe she wouldn't have "the problem"?

But anyway, where do one person's rights end and another's begins?

and when is it OK to kill an innocent person?

If there is ever a time when it is OK, then it will be OK in other scenarios

This is not civilized

so forget about it being unchristian.. Abortion is NOT a religious issue. Everyone knows that murder is against God's laws. If you don't want to raise a child, you can give the child to someone who does. There is absolutely NO reason to kill the child except your own selfish IWant2LiveLifeWithoutResponsibiltyOrConsequences attitude

society should do all it can to help a woman who is pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant.. I believe in welfare for such women, those who are giving their child up for adoption... Of course, we can't just have it for them, but for all pregnant women who are not thrilled about their plight, but anyway... yeh, society should bend over backwards to help these women... but murder is not an option

abortion is disastrous to women as well as children... Post Abortion Syndrome..


++

 

[Buzzword]

It is totally illogical for a legislative body consisting of 362 men and 76 women (the House), or 83 men and 17 women (the Senate) to be handing down laws which dictate what the female HALF of this country can and cannot do with their own bodies. No legislation without representation.

It is also totally illogical that the above male to female ratios still exist in the legislature of a country which used to pride itself on equality.

It is further totally illogical that in said country, women continue to be victimized in the workplace, whether in sexual harassment, sexual assault, arbitrarily lower pay, or arbitrary refusal of promotion to leadership positions.

It is additionally totally illogical that so much of the Christian community in this country continues to push the above and other unequal treatment of women as preferable and even "moral", and refuses to acknowledge the fact that upwards of 90% of the churches in this country would cease to function if the female membership actually followed the 2000 year-old guideline to "keep silent," to say nothing of following business' example in arbitrarily refusing to select qualified women for leadership roles.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Post Abortion Syndrome is unsupported by fact, but don't let that stop you it certainly hasn't so far. What do you propose victims of rape or incest should do? How do you propose to deal with foetuses that are not viable outside the womb? Do you feel it is moral to allow a short, painfilled life to occur?

 

[shagster01]

The reasoning goes like this:

a woman should have control over her body

Do you agree with this?

well, if she had control over her body, maybe she wouldn't have "the problem"?

That would be quite offensive to every rape victim who got pregnant. Way to blame the victim for getting raped. :hammer:

But anyway, where do one person's rights end and another's begins?

You forgot to ask "when is an egg and sperm combo a person?"

If you "gave birth" to an egg that was fertilized yesterday, would you view it as your child even if it never grew past that? Would you defend it with your life? Make it your number one priority?

and when is it OK to kill an innocent person?

If there is ever a time when it is OK, then it will be OK in other scenarios

A lot of people here want to drop nukes in the middle east. That would kill a lot of innocent people. They keep justifying it by saying essentially the end justifies the means. Collateral damage.

Do you believe collateral damage is ok in certain situaltions? If so, then I guess you have your answer as to whether there ever is a time or not.

This is not civilized

We cause collateral damage (innocent death) all the time. I guess you would say we aren't cilivized for that either then?

so forget about it being unchristian.. Abortion is NOT a religious issue. Everyone knows that murder is against God's laws. If you don't want to raise a child, you can give the child to someone who does. There is absolutely NO reason to kill the child except your own selfish IWant2LiveLifeWithoutResponsibiltyOrConsequences attitude

That is very simple-minded

society should do all it can to help a woman who is pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant.. I believe in welfare for such women, those who are giving their child up for adoption... Of course, we can't just have it for them, but for all pregnant women who are not thrilled about their plight, but anyway... yeh, society should bend over backwards to help these women... but murder is not an option

Great. Then step up to the plate and start adopting. Or by "WE" do you really mean, "someone else?"

 

[keypurr]

The reasoning goes like this:

a woman should have control over her body

well, if she had control over her body, maybe she wouldn't have "the problem"?

But anyway, where do one person's rights end and another's begins?

and when is it OK to kill an innocent person?

If there is ever a time when it is OK, then it will be OK in other scenarios

This is not civilized

so forget about it being unchristian.. Abortion is NOT a religious issue. Everyone knows that murder is against God's laws. If you don't want to raise a child, you can give the child to someone who does. There is absolutely NO reason to kill the child except your own selfish IWant2LiveLifeWithoutResponsibiltyOrConsequences attitude

society should do all it can to help a woman who is pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant.. I believe in welfare for such women, those who are giving their child up for adoption... Of course, we can't just have it for them, but for all pregnant women who are not thrilled about their plight, but anyway... yeh, society should bend over backwards to help these women... but murder is not an option

abortion is disastrous to women as well as children... Post Abortion Syndrome..


++

Define what is a person.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Stripe]

What do you propose victims of rape or incest should do?

Have the rapist charged. Endorse the death penalty for the rapist. :thumb:

 

[Gurucam]

The most verbal tradition against abortion also holds and teaches that when people die as children they go starlight to heaven.

However for those who live on beyond childhood, only a few ever make it to heaven. The very great majority are simply called but not chosen.

Going to heaven is the purpose of life on earth.

Therefore according to this tradition it must be very expedient and much kinder for people to die (what ever way) as children or even embryos.

Both the doer of that act (the abortionist) and the one who loose his life (the embryo-ed person) are both serving the highest will of God, (by killing and dying respectively), i.e. according to that tradition. The abortionist are delivering people to heaven and the aborted achieve heaven, guaranteed. Seems a win - win scenario under that tradition.

What is all the fuss about pro or anti choice among those in that tradition?

Must foolishness prevail among those people, unlimited?

Before you speak of pro-choice and/or anti-choice, please confirm whether or not you hold the belief that when people die as children or embryos, they go starlight to heaven.

If you do hold the belief that when people die as children or embryos, they go starlight to heaven, then in what way can abortions be 'bad'? Please explain.

 

[oatmeal]

The reasoning goes like this:

a woman should have control over her body

well, if she had control over her body, maybe she wouldn't have "the problem"?

But anyway, where do one person's rights end and another's begins?

and when is it OK to kill an innocent person?

If there is ever a time when it is OK, then it will be OK in other scenarios

This is not civilized

so forget about it being unchristian.. Abortion is NOT a religious issue. Everyone knows that murder is against God's laws. If you don't want to raise a child, you can give the child to someone who does. There is absolutely NO reason to kill the child except your own selfish IWant2LiveLifeWithoutResponsibiltyOrConsequences attitude

society should do all it can to help a woman who is pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant.. I believe in welfare for such women, those who are giving their child up for adoption... Of course, we can't just have it for them, but for all pregnant women who are not thrilled about their plight, but anyway... yeh, society should bend over backwards to help these women... but murder is not an option

abortion is disastrous to women as well as children... Post Abortion Syndrome..


++

Genesis 2:7

When did Adam become a living soul?

a. when God formed him of the dust of the ground

b. when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life

 

[newbirth]

The most verbal tradition against abortion also hold that when people die as children they go starlight to heaven.

However for those who live on beyond childhood, only a few ever make it to heaven. The very great majority are simply called but not chosen.

Going to heaven is the purpose of life on earth.

Therefore according to this tradition it must be very expedient and much kinder for people to die (what ever way) as children or even embryos.

Both the doer of that act (the abortionist) and the one who loose his life (the embryo-ed person) are both serving the highest will of God, (by killing and dying respectively), i.e. according to that tradition.

What is all the fuss about pro or anti choice among those in that tradition?

Must foolishness prevail among those people, unlimited?

Before you speak of pro-choice and/or anti-choice, please confirm whether or not you hold the belief that when people die as children or embryos, they go starlight to heaven.

If you do hold the belief that when people die as children or embryos, they go starlight to heaven, then in what way can abortions be 'bad'? Please explain.

next we kill all old/terminally ill/destitute/ people we deem useless to society especially if we believe they are going straight to heaven

 

[newbirth]

Define what is a person.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

and we are results of this original product even though we were not made in the same process like the original.....when you plant a seed you get a tree...the tree was in the seed.....even though you did not see it...
Eggs that are not fertilised go to waste from a woman on a monthly basis...fertilised eggs on the other hand has begun the process of life...that is a person even though you do not see them...

 

[newbirth]

Genesis 2:7

When did Adam become a living soul?

a. when God formed him of the dust of the ground

b. when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life

when did you become a living soul...

a) when the egg was fertilised....


b)when you exited the birth canal and took your first breath

 

[Gurucam]

next we kill all old/terminally ill/destitute/ people we deem useless to society especially if we believe they are going straight to heaven

If it is declared and upheld in your religion that killing all old/terminally ill/destitute/ people will deliver them directly to heaven, then what can be wrong with killing them, i.e. from that religious point of view? Clearly people in that religious sect cannot take a religious stand against killing all old/terminally ill/destitute/ people. Unless they delight in foolishness for their religious ideals.

Killing all old/terminally ill/destitute/ people (according to your idea) might ease up a social, financial, civic and governmental burden. However is that right? What gives you the right to make that law and to do that on all people? Certainly you have that right among people who share your view. However you cannot implement that ideas for all people.

I am not saying that it is a good or bad idea. I am not participating in that. I am simply asking: What give you the right to make that law and to do that on all people?

Are you seeking to do that, as a particular denomination or sect of people?

Is that the next plan of this sect of people who claims that when people die as children (whether aborted or whatever) they go starlight to heaven?

Do you also hold the belief that people who die as children go straight to heaven?

Are you guy going to make up another law which says, when old/terminally ill/destitute/ people die they go straight to heaven? Is this the next idea 'in the works' among you people?

 

[Gurucam]

[size=+1]The fact is the anti-abortion stand is simply another cannon or laws which might be suited to Catholics and their likes but not at all for Christian and other spiritually aware people who are not under laws, letters and canons, etc but under Spirit and Grace. Christians have God given freedom, liberty and justification to practice abortions.[/size]

Fact is the idea of discouraging abortion might make sense among sects where people who dies as children do not go directly to heaven. (this might be the predicament of "the dead")

However how can abortion be a bad thing among the sect of people where people who die as children go directly to heaven?

Fact is when children of God are bough forth to earth (i.e. as natural born children of God), if they die as children, for any reason, they return in three day (like Jesus) to be like angels in heaven. These children of God are brought forth under total grace of God. They never have the risk of being aborted, unless it is the will of God. Therefore it is absolute foolishness to seek to protect them from abortions.

The great irony is that: the main people who are opposing abortion are the one's who hold the belief that people who die as children go directly to heaven. They seem bent on obstructing their own people from simple, direct and guaranteed entry into heaven. They are operating like lemon used car sales men.

That seems to be a cunning clandestine Satanic agenda to deny people entry to heaven and therefore derail them to Satan instead. (I am not saying that this is so. I am simply saying that it can seem so.) Seems that they are looking after "the (spiritually) dead' (and/or none-Christians) but simply pretending that they are looking after spiritually aware people who are Christians.

I am simply asking how can people on the one hand say that people who die as children go straight to heaven and then on the other hand oppose abortions? Isn't entering heaven the most God pleasing thing any human can enable for others and do themselves. Under that beliefs, isn't abortions serving the highest will of God, for both abortionists and the aborted?

Seems that those people do not actually believe that people who die as children go directly to heaven. They do not seem to believe that that is true for their own people. However they want to falsely hold and project that that idea applies to their people.

In straight language. Those who oppose abortions do not believe that when their people die as children, they do not go directly to heaven. They probably believe that they go to some other less desirable place. These people recognizes that their charges (their followers) are 'the dead'. And their antiabortion stand is to protect their spiritually dead following. However they seek to fool everyone into believing that their following are not the dead but spiritually aware people who are in Christ. 'The dead' are 'the dead' mentioned by Jesus in His statement, 'let the dead bury their dead'.

Seems very clear that these people who are actively promoting the antiabortion agenda are custodians of "the dead", in Jesus statement, 'let the dead bury their dead'. They seem to be the Catholics. And to deny and hide their own spiritual deadness (as a group of people) they are attempting to promote that their antiabortion agenda is suited to everyone in the world.

[size=+1]The fact is the anti-abortion stand is simply another cannon or laws which might be suited to Catholics and their likes but not at all for Christian and other spiritually aware people who are not under laws, letters and canons, etc but under Spirit and Grace. Christians have God given freedom, liberty and justification to practice abortions.[/size]

Those with the structured and organized anti-abortion agenda are the unawares (re. Galatians 2 verse: 4 KJV N.T.) seeking to return Christians to bondage under laws, letters canons etc. Christians have have God given freedom, liberty and justification to transgress all ideals and laws of society, morality and religiosity, including the law, letters and canons etc. and not get sin but instead be glorified by God. In other words Christian (are always led by the Spirit). This earned them God given freedom, liberty and justification to abort children and get no sin but be glorified by God. They do not need the Catholics putting them back under bondage to the law, the letters, canons and other anti-abortion ideas and laws.

Catholics can keep their anti-abortion stance for their own. It cannot be for the world at large.

Come on please cut across the nonsense and answer the above simple question. Please show the wisdom of the, 'as is', anti-abortion stance.

 

[Gurucam]

[size=+1]The fact is the anti-abortion stand is simply another cannon or law which might be suited to Catholics and their likes but not at all for Christian and other spiritually aware people who are not under laws, letters and canons, etc but under Spirit and Grace.

Christians are led by the Spirit and this earn them God given freedom, liberty and justification to practice abortions and get no sin but instead be glorified by God.

The anti-abortion stance is an agenda which is relevant only to Catholics and similar others. The anti-abortion agenda is simply another cannon or law for people who under the law, the letters, canons etc. and not for Christians and others who are not at all under the law, the letters canons and similar other laws etc. Christians are exclusively under Spirit and Grace.

The anti-abortion stance of Catholics and others cannot be the agenda of the world. People who do not have 'the eyes to see', 'the ears to hear' and 'the hearts to understand'. Such people usually deny, persecute and blaspheme Christians and deny them their God given things. People who do not have 'the eyes to see', 'the ears to hear' and 'the hearts to understand' are the unawares mentioned in Galatians: 2 verse: 4 KJV N.T.

Christians have God given freedom, liberty and justification to transgress all ideals and laws of society, morality and religiosity (including the law, the letters and the anti-abortion and other canons etc).

People who do not have 'the eyes to see', 'the ears to hear' and 'the hearts to understand' are the dead (the spiritually dead). They persecute Christian and seek to return them to bondage under the law, the letters, anti-abortion and other canons etc. This cause them to befall collective 'holocaust like events on themselves.

Retuning everyone to bondage under laws and canons continue to be the agenda of Catholics with respect to their anti-abortion effort. They continue to be 'the unawares' (re. Galatians: 2 verse: 4 KJV N.T.) seeking to bring Christians and every one else under their laws/canon based anti-abortion agenda. [/size]

 

[keypurr]

and we are results of this original product even though we were not made in the same process like the original.....when you plant a seed you get a tree...the tree was in the seed.....even though you did not see it...
Eggs that are not fertilised go to waste from a woman on a monthly basis...fertilised eggs on the other hand has begun the process of life...that is a person even though you do not see them...

The question was not about life, it was about personhood.
I would think that question need to be addressed before abortion could be judged as murder. An acorn is not a tree.

 

[republicanchick]

It is totally illogical for a legislative body consisting of 362 men and 76 women (the House), or 83 men and 17 women (the Senate) to be handing down laws which dictate what the female HALF of this country can and cannot do with their own bodies. roles.

right, b/c as we all know, it takes only a female to make a baby...

right

moron city


+

 

[republicanchick]

Post Abortion Syndrome is unsupported by fact, ?

how utterly INSANE

oh, right... A woman is going to have an act of violence done to her body and a mutilated CHILD, HER child is the result

and there won't be ANY ill effects whatsoever...

moron city



+++

 

[republicanchick]

Do you agree with this?

a woman does not have the right to use her body to harm another person, to let instruments of death invade said body so as to kill an innocent person (who did not ASK to be brought into existence)

That would be quite offensive to every rape victim who got pregnant. Way to blame the victim for getting raped. :hammer:

I wasn't talking about rape, but since u mentioned it, it is NOT the child's fault he was brought into existence. But you say: Death penalty for him/her...

 

[kiwimacahau]

how utterly INSANE

oh, right... A woman is going to have an act of violence done to her body and a mutilated CHILD, HER child is the result

and there won't be ANY ill effects whatsoever...

moron city



+++

a woman does not have the right to use her body to harm another person, to let instruments of death invade said body so as to kill an innocent person (who did not ASK to be brought into existence)

I wasn't talking about rape, but since u mentioned it, it is NOT the child's fault he was brought into existence. But you say: Death penalty for him/her...

There is no medical or psychological support for so-called 'post-abortion syndrome.' It is a lie (among many) made up by pro-lifers. Moreover why should a woman carry to term a permanent reminder of their rape or molestation?

 

[jgarden]

These same "pro-life" conservatives, who want to dictate to women as to how they should live their lives, are the very ones refusing to take responsibility for voting in an Administration that resulted in 4 425 dead and 32 223 wounded members of the American military killed in an unnecessary war - not to mention 100 000's of Iraquis.