glassjester
Well-known member
Don't non-Christians already bury their dead?
"Texas will require aborted fetuses to be buried or cremated"
- Thread starter Nihilo
- Start date
Don't non-Christians already bury their dead?
Yep, so much for that.
But you want the fetus baptized in the name of your particular deity. What gives you the right to do that?
And does Texas require a burial or cremation of the remains of a miscarriage that might happen at home? If not, why not?
There's only one kind of baptism; Christian baptism. And no other religion even practices any kind of ritual or rite that'd be legitimately valid if performed on a fetus; only the Church. There's no "opportunity cost" to baptizing the doomed baby; no other religion loses out here. It's between Christian baptism and atheistic non-baptism; why does atheism automatically win this one? The baby's going in the trash can after it's all done anyway; what's the big deal.
Who cares? Who cares if a bunch of superstitious people want the abortionist to perform a little voodoo on the fetus before dismembering, vacuuming it out and throwing the thing in the garbage? Is it really too much of an inconvenience? Is it going to raise the cycle-time for an abortion too much to be financially viable? What's the real complaint? The freedom of religion for the mother remains intact since as I said her baby is going in the biohazard garbage bag later on anyway. She doesn't have to be baptized. We just want the baby baptized before slicing her into pieces and disposing of her body. To resist this desire is to channel the type of psychopathic mentality that prevailed during the darkest times in history.
glassjester
Well-known member
Was John the Baptist performing Christian baptism?
Was Jesus' baptism valid?
Off topic, just wondering.
glassjester
Well-known member
They should demand the same treatment for miscarried babies. It doesn't make sense for Texas to try and do this only for aborted babies, and no others.
But even if they do require burial or cremation of babies that die before birth - I don't see how it's a violation of religious freedom.
So you believe that there are a hundred million unborn children in Heaven
lain:I believe that many things were not considered on the matter- rather, the Church had simply declared the unborn living souls on straight arbitrary conviction and Christianity has since then tried to rationalize it.
It's a stupid argument, lavished in an appeal to pity, for an imagined notion that a fetus should have eternal life in having been murdered.
You all will damn the actual living to perpetuate that- the entire presidential election hinged, for many, on who will try and fail to get rid of abortion.
Get a grip, seriously. Don't leave everything else to the birds to try and destroy a boulder with a toothpick, it's not going to go away because you all's own moral conundrum of 'female autonomy' will not allow it.
Fe3tuses are not "ripped to shred " in abortions. The vast majority happen early in a pregnancy ,
and at this point, the fetus has no brain, the nervous system has not formed to the point where it has consciousness and can feel pain .
"Ripped to shreds" is an emotion laden and misleading term . Unfortunately, many conservatives in America haven't developed a brain either by the time they're born .
and at this point, the fetus has no brain, the nervous system has not formed to the point where it has consciousness and can feel pain .
"Ripped to shreds" is an emotion laden and misleading term . Unfortunately, many conservatives in America haven't developed a brain either by the time they're born .
Acts 19:4 (KJV)
glassjester
Well-known member
So John's baptisms were valid Christian baptisms?
Did he baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
John's baptisms were one of a kind and only for a time, as the Apostle Paul explained and then demonstrated in Acts 19:4-5 (KJV).
When the Lord was baptized by John, the voice of the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove were also there with Him. Matthew 3:16-17 (KJV)