Here are some facts:
| Quote: |
When does the unborn baby's heart begin to beat?
The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day.
When does the brain begin to function?
Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.
How early can a baby survive outside the mother's womb?
Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.
What about cases of rape and incest?
Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion. But we must approach the victim of rape or incest with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. more information
But what about the child with disease who will die a slow death or live his life as a burden to his family?
Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.
What about the population boom? We can hardly feed the people of the world now!
True, the population of the world is growing, but population is not much of a problem in the United States. With a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 11 seconds, the U.S. population is growing at less than one percent per year. (www.census.gov)
Population growth or decline compares replacement of the current number of reproductive age individuals with the number of babies being born. By this measure, the United States is now in a sharp population decline.
How can a girl give up her own baby for adoption and go through life never knowing what is happening to her child?
Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?" |
Now, in the US there are about 1.3 million abortions each year. What do you think of abortions?
Last edited by thpn on Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:41 am; edited 1 time in total care to share where you got that stat?
Well, I just searched Google for a quick answer until I got the real statistics.
By the way, curiousity is not a sin but you are being a bit too nosy.
I am not for abortion at all, very against it, because we are taking away an inalienable right to life of that baby. But it is not my place to tell a woman what to do or what not to do.
What she does with her body is between her and God. Hopefully she is well aware of the grave consequences of abortion. I'm not really one for playing God and pretending we're in control, when we aren't.
| Quote: |
Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.
|
Shouldn't it be increased as technology continues to improve? There are other flaws but I was wondering if maybe that was just my confusion. Suspicioussss. I'd like to know the source of the quote too.
I agree that it is the decision of the mother, and God if you are religious. This is one of those situations where you can't really make an informed decision, especially since a lot of us will never be in a pregnant woman's position. I don't think I could call someone who has a "murderer" unless I've been in the situation myself. | Garnet wrote: |
| Shouldn't it be increased as technology continues to improve? There are other flaws but I was wondering if maybe that was just my confusion. Suspicioussss. I'd like to know the source of the quote too. |
It's an FAQ-like thing on http://www.abortionfacts.com/ - site owned by HeritageHouse 76, a "pro-life" organization, hardly "neutral" (and not necessarily factual either). The URL of the source is:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp
But no, the logical claim would be "reduced". As technology improves, hypothetically a fetus should be able to survive outside the womb earlier. Hence, the number of weeks of necessary development inside the womb would be reduced. Just read the question and answer again 
What this article fails to explain (whether that's beside the point or not):
"The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day."
That is obviously not "between the 18th and 25th day" of pregnancy (maybe of some unmentioned start of actual embryo/fetus development?) - the heartbeat begins around the 6th week of pregnancy. Brain function, a matter of definition.
A few things I take issue with (more than most of this piece of semi-propaganda):
| Quote: |
| Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? |
Ask her to? Normally, you wouldn't need to ask her to do anything at all. You'd just guide her in her own decision.
| Quote: |
| Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. |
Exactly, which is why you should support her in her decision, not force your own on her. She's been the victim of a sick person's lust for power over body and mind. She's in no need of being subjected to the conservative church's quest for power over the body and mind too.Let’s look at this logically.
Society only comes from fetuses.
Fetuses only become society.
If society is made up of this thing that abortion destroy it certainly has the right and obligation to regulate it.
Disallowing or limiting abortion is not telling a woman what to do or not do with her body. It is, however, holding her accountable for earlier actions.
Abortion in fact eliminates a member of our society.
Limiting abortion is not limiting woman’s rights. An action usually under the woman’s control creates pregnancy. Abortion is an action that eliminates the pregnancy.
Abortion can also be used for constructive purposes where a woman’s life is being threatened by the pregnancy for reasons out of her control. For these reasons abortion should be aloud. It would not make cense to not make use of a procedure that could save one of our society members in a situation where both would be lost or when the mother would be lost for the child.
I think it should be free-choice for a woman to choose. I do not know what it is like to have children, nor am I a woman. However, I know that it is wrong to take the life from living creatures. The problem is tht every situation is different. Some cases are very extreme and may have abortion as a last recourse. For example, rape. What do you do when you get raped and you are only 12 years of age?
Well, to respond to the question above, it is a very mixed issue in that situation. It has also caused some pro-life people to create a sub-belief, that abortion is right if the pregnancy is from a rape.
Also also, if I were a rapist (which I am not), I would want to use something to keep my sperm away from her so that I won't get caught. You try getting pregnant without that.
Last edited by thpn on Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
It has led some people to believe that it is okay, because maybe it is. Who has the right to say what is right or wrong?
Pregnancy depends on when a female has her menstrual cycle. There is no set age, it is different for all women. Some women never have there period, thus can never get pregnant.
Most rapists do not think like you. That is why they feel that raping is okay. Think about it. Also, protection is probably the last thing on their mind when they are engaging in sexual activites. Last, but not least, how many young teenagers can have an STD?
| fotanez wrote: |
| It has led some people to believe that it is okay, because maybe it is. Who has the right to say what is right or wrong? |
Society, government
| Quote: |
Pregnancy depends on when a female has her menstrual cycle. There is no set age, it is different for all women. Some women never have there period, thus can never get pregnant.
|
No no on.
Pregnancy depends on sex.I'm sorry, society and the government do not have the right to tell me what is right or wrong. Conforming with the norm and having blind faith in the government is not acceptable to me and it should not be to everyone. People should have the right to choose their own opinions.
No, I was responding to the post previous of mine, which questioned whether a 12 year old girl can get pregnant. Yes, she can, if she has had her period. Thank you for pointing out that sex leads to pregnancy, smarty pants.
| fotanez wrote: |
I'm sorry, society and the government do not have the right to tell me what is right or wrong. Conforming with the norm and having blind faith in the government is not acceptable to me and it should not be to everyone. People should have the right to choose their own opinions.
No, I was responding to the post previous of mine, which questioned whether a 12 year old girl can get pregnant. Yes, she can, if she has had her period. Thank you for pointing out that sex leads to pregnancy, smarty pants. |
You hired the government, smarty pants, unless you live under an oppressive dictator. It’s not blind faith. Out officials don’t make over $100,000 to smite use. There are supposed to be professionals held accountable by the “people”. Give the Constitution a good quick read.
People are depraved fools that require government. If this makes you feel sad I am sorry but the proof is blatant. The only economic and government systems that actually work use selfishness as a mechanism.
In the case of abortion our government has fallen short in one area. They can’t seem to write a dam law that has a medical exception written in medical terms. Our society needs abortion to be further regulated, i.e. not as berth control.I did not hire the government. My vote is not always heard. The majority of the people's vote is heard. Not everyone is necesseraily happy with current government officials. Even if the person that I voted for made it into office, that does not mean that he or she is representing me. Politicians are supposed to be professionals that listen to their people, but not all people think the same. You are totally excluding the minority.
People do require a government, but very limited amounts. We do not need the governement to get extremely involved in our lives. People can be self-reliant. People are not fools, they are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, that is what I call true freedom.
Hmm...I actually like your idea for a medically regulated abortion law. Something to that effect is what we need.
There will always be people for and against abortion. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years.
The Christian church has often behaved in an Un-Christian way towards single mothers which has hardened the attitudes of many.
While abortions are requested by some married women, the majority are requested by unmarried women. I think it's more than safe to say that in most of these cases the women have not been raped, nor is her life in danger. Also, in most cases the child is not sick, retarded, etc. In fact, most abortions are requested by women who have had carefree sex and then got pregnant as a result. Then because they are unwilling to deal with the consequences of their actions, they request an abortion.
My opinion is that if a woman is not ready to have a baby, she's not ready to have sex. The same applies to men. If a man is not ready to be a father, he should not have sex.
I do not believe that sex is bad, quite the opposite - it is a very normal and healthy thing to do. What I am saying is that people must be responsible for their actions and the consequences that follow!
Sadly, for many women, abortion is the quick and easy way out of a problem they'd rather not deal with - even though they are part of the cause (their partner being the second part).
Murder is a term used for killing people that are already out of the womb so it can't be murder (at least where I come from). Abortion may sound cruel but it isn't really. It is a relatively quick and painless way of disposing of an unwanted foetus. What would you rather see? An abortion or a child growing up without the love and support of their parents?
| Tiger wrote: |
| The Christian church has often behaved in an Un-Christian way towards single mothers which has hardened the attitudes of many. |
We do not! There is no real Christian Church (it is in fact a number of different churches that fall under the Christian catagory based on their beliefs. ex. Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Protestant, etc.), but the real Christians would never turn away a helpless mother no matter how young she is or if she is married or not. We are all God's people and, even though we sometimes make mistakes, He will always forgive us and love us. | Code of Ruin wrote: |
| Murder is a term used for killing people that are already out of the womb so it can't be murder (at least where I come from). Abortion may sound cruel but it isn't really. It is a relatively quick and painless way of disposing of an unwanted foetus. What would you rather see? An abortion or a child growing up without the love and support of their parents? |
I would give anything to ensure that a baby is never killed inside or outside of the womb. And yes, it is cruel. There are some seemingly simple ways of killing the child but there are even more popular ways that involve large metal objects and beating the child.
Also, a child never has to grow without the love of a parent or parents. That's what adoption is for. Would you want a child to be loved by a couple who have always wanted children and can take care of him/her and give him/her a good education or just let him die before he could even begin to live?TOTAL support of aboritions... Know why? It's not part of my morals... It saves the family money... We don't need that much new life anyway.
abortion equals murderer. it can be compared to a man whos stab a knife at the back of other man, unarmed, which did nothing to him. it's a coward act. the baby is inocent. he do not deserves death, he has the same rights everybody else has. he's a human being whose sole protection is that given by his mother, so abortion then is the worst case of betraying someone. the baby conceived when a woman was raped (an extremly rare case anyway) has no blame for that. and he's being killed for it. murdered, to be more precise.
i personally concider abortists as hitlers: there's a new type of hollocaust. billions of inocent babies killed by mean people without any kind of reason to do it (rape is not an excuse: the baby did nothing). people who abort are unoubtely (and i'm not sory if some girl who aborted is reading this) murderers.
| OnlyOneLife wrote: |
| TOTAL support of aboritions... Know why? It's not part of my morals... It saves the family money... We don't need that much new life anyway. |
It cost around $600 to have an abortion so you are still saving money, but the more of the matter is that an abortion is very expensive. Know how much it costs? ONE HUMAN LIFE!
P.S. For all you nosy people out there, http://www.fwhc.org/qa/ab-cost2.htm. | thpn wrote: |
| Tiger wrote: | | The Christian church has often behaved in an Un-Christian way towards single mothers which has hardened the attitudes of many. |
We do not! There is no real Christian Church (it is in fact a number of different churches that fall under the Christian catagory based on their beliefs. ex. Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Protestant, etc.), but the real Christians would never turn away a helpless mother no matter how young she is or if she is married or not. We are all God's people and, even though we sometimes make mistakes, He will always forgive us and love us. |
Haha. Who cares? There is no god.
Logically speaking, abortion should be allowed in certain situations. | elincinerador wrote: |
abortion equals murderer. it can be compared to a man whos stab a knife at the back of other man, unarmed, which did nothing to him. it's a coward act. the baby is inocent. he do not deserves death, he has the same rights everybody else has. he's a human being whose sole protection is that given by his mother, so abortion then is the worst case of betraying someone. the baby conceived when a woman was raped (an extremly rare case anyway) has no blame for that. and he's being killed for it. murdered, to be more precise.
i personally concider abortists as hitlers: there's a new type of hollocaust. billions of inocent babies killed by mean people without any kind of reason to do it (rape is not an excuse: the baby did nothing). people who abort are unoubtely (and i'm not sory if some girl who aborted is reading this) murderers. |
Sure, the baby did nothing wrong, but neither did the girl...
Is the baby's innocence more important than a young girl's innocence?The Catholic Churches view on this, as far as I know, is it should not be allowed, but is penance is done, then it can be forgiven.
But I am no Roman Catholic, I just thought I would bring that up, my view is, it should be allowed if it is justified
| thpn wrote: |
| We do not! There is no real Christian Church (it is in fact a number of different churches that fall under the Christian catagory based on their beliefs. ex. Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Protestant, etc.), but the real Christians would never turn away a helpless mother no matter how young she is or if she is married or not. We are all God's people and, even though we sometimes make mistakes, He will always forgive us and love us. |
God and "Christians" are two different things entirely. A few hundred years ago, a woman pregnant outside of wedlock was hauled before the entire congregation, stripped naked and thrown out of the church/village.
There were also special homes for unwed mothers until recently. Why? Why couldn't they stay at home with their parents, or be accepted by society?
You are right about there not being a real Christian church - it ended when Constantine created the "Universal" (Catholic) church. You are also right about the real Church not turning away a young unmarried mother - but there are few such people or groups left in the world today! One has to seek very long and hard to find a true, honest, caring, non-judgemental group today. | fotanez wrote: |
Sure, the baby did nothing wrong, but neither did the girl...
Is the baby's innocence more important than a young girl's innocence? |
Uh - yeah! A baby has no choice and is completely helpless - a young girl is not. Sure, rape is a terrible thing to happen to someone, and to get pregnant after a rape is a heavy burden for most to bear. The point is that the child didn't ask to be conceived and cannot speak for itself.
A rape victim should receive all the care, love and support possible. And should a pregnancy result, it is possible to give the child up for adpotion. The strange thing is that a lot of people regret actions made in haste - even decades later. There have been women who aborted, then wanted children years later, only to find they cannot have them.
However, as much as I feel that an abortion is traumatic and tragic, I cannot judge a woman who has an abortion after a rape.Frankly, the unborn child is a parasite feeding off of the mother until she gives birth. Therefore, the woman has every right to decide whether or not the parasite should be removed.
As far as I'm concerned, the anti-abortion crowd should quit trying to dictate policy for other people's lives and instead focus efforts on seeking alternatives. Perhaps instead of just plucking the fetus out and tossing it in the trash, it could be transferred to a surrogate mother. Or maybe some kind of artificial womb, provided there was an adoptive family lined up. These technologies may not exist now, but the money that anti-abortion groups are throwing at propaganda could be better spent on researching those options.
Spending funds on bumper stickers instead of searching for real solutions suggests to me that the lives of the babies really aren't of that much importance to the anti-abortion crowd. Instead, their focus is more on enforcing their own moral framework on others. If they really cared about the babies, they could fund research into abortion alternatives. And until those alternatives are a practical reality, they could institute a program and fund to pay the medical bills and provide housing or whatever is necessary to pregnant women that do not want their children until birth, then find an adoptive parent for the child.
Let's face it, there are only two reasons you could be against abortion. Either you care about the babies, or you believe abortion itself is immoral. If you care about the babies, you should be focussing your efforts on abortion alternatives. If you believe abortion is immoral, you should campaign against abortion. Since so far the only action I've seen is campaigning against abortion, that indicates to me that the majority of the anti-abortion movement is pushing a moral agenda, not a humanitarian or ethical one.
And I don't want to be subject to the whims of your moral framework.
If you really care about the babies, then I'm willing to hear you out. We can surely find a middle ground and compromise. I'm all for funding research into abortion alternatives. I'll even chip in. We can work find a solution that benefits all. But to the morally superior posse, I say get bent.
No, check that. To the morally superior posse, I say Hosea 13:16: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
If God does it, it must be ok.
my personal belief is if its a means of birth control, its wrong. Echoing what someone else said, if your not ready to be a mother/father, your not ready to have sex.
When it comes to the rape issue, I'd rather see the child be adopted. Although I've also seen kids waste away in an orphange just hoping to be adopted, and only get shuffled through the system until the are 18. In the long run, thats probably better than not being alive though.
And how is it nosy to ask for a source?
| Indi wrote: |
| Frankly, the unborn child is a parasite feeding off of the mother until she gives birth. Therefore, the woman has every right to decide whether or not the parasite should be removed. |
This parasite is a member of our society.
| Quote: |
| nd I don't want to be subject to the whims of your moral framework. |
Then you must leave society. It is a societies duty and obligation do decide a set of morals (laws) and "push" them on the rest. I'm not saying that the society force everyone to feel in their little hearts all the same. I am saying that you are not aloud to have your own little set.
If you for example steel something because you feel it is not immoral then we will catch you and put you in prison. If the society decides that when you have an abortion it is immoral then you will suffer then as well.
As for your ideas about alternatives, you can say that of the pro-abortion crowd as well.
| Quote: |
| If God does it, it must be ok. |
You may want to read the Bible a bit more carefully before you quote or draw any more conclusions. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Frankly, the unborn child is a parasite feeding off of the mother until she gives birth. Therefore, the woman has every right to decide whether or not the parasite should be removed. |
This parasite is a member of our society. |
No, it's a potential member. Just like a human being is potential fertilizer. Would you like to be treated like fertilizer? Obviously not. Things should be judged on what they are. Not on what they might be.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Quote: | | nd I don't want to be subject to the whims of your moral framework. |
Then you must leave society. It is a societies duty and obligation do decide a set of morals (laws) and "push" them on the rest. I'm not saying that the society force everyone to feel in their little hearts all the same. I am saying that you are not aloud to have your own little set.
If you for example steel something because you feel it is not immoral then we will catch you and put you in prison. If the society decides that when you have an abortion it is immoral then you will suffer then as well. |
The laws of society are based on a concensus by the members of that society. They are not "your moral framework". "Your moral framework" is your moral framework. Maybe it agrees with society's, maybe it doesn't. Regardless, it is of no relevance to me either way. I have my moral framework, and I have society's laws. I have no desire to force you to conform to my moral framework. And I refuse to conform to yours.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| As for your ideas about alternatives, you can say that of the pro-abortion crowd as well. |
You could say it. But you would be making absolutely no sense if you did.
The pro-abortion people have their alternative. They don't want to have babies, and they're ok with abortion. Problem solved.
The anti-abortion people don't have an alternative yet. They don't want to have babies, but they don't want to have abortions. Therefore, they need an alternative.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| You may want to read the Bible a bit more carefully before you quote or draw any more conclusions. |
Empty words. Why don't you read the bible and show me how I have misinterpreted that passage, and that God disapproves of abortion.
For the record, I know the bible a whole lot better than you might think. I also know that ancient Jewish law says a person is not considered human until they breathe, and they are absolutely worthless to society until they are older than one year old. Nothing in the bible contradicts this. In fact, most of it supports it. | Indi wrote: |
| Empty words. Why don't you read the bible and show me how I have misinterpreted that passage, and that God disapproves of abortion. |
Well, I know the bible too. So, as an answer to your question, I will show you the exact verse where it says that abortion is wrong. And, if you do know the bible well as you say you do then this passage will be quite familiar to you.
| Exodus 20:2-17 wrote: |
"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
You shall not have other gods besides me.
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
"Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.
Six days you may labor and do all your work,
but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you.
In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him." |
Why doesn't everyone shut up about the bible? It was written thousands of years ago, and is hardly applicable to everyday life anymore.
| Marston wrote: |
| Why doesn't everyone shut up about the bible? It was written thousands of years ago, and is hardly applicable to everyday life anymore. |
I would say that the old testament laws aren't really applicable to everyday life anymore. But would have to say that when we truely dig into the new testament and get to the heart of what jesus was saying about the best possible way to relate to the world around us and enter into life as it was intended. I would say its very applicable to life today.Of course to fully understand the new testament we have to understand the old testament.
I'm assuming we will have to agree to disagree on that point. | thpn wrote: |
Well, I know the bible too. So, as an answer to your question, I will show you the exact verse where it says that abortion is wrong. And, if you do know the bible well as you say you do then this passage will be quite familiar to you.
| Exodus 20:13 wrote: | | You shall not kill. |
|
Incorrect. The correct translation is "you shall not murder". The definition of murder is "to kill another human being unlawfully". Since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
Also, since a fetus is only a potential human being and not an actual one, even if abortion was illegal, it would still not be murder. Traditional Jewish law says that a human is only human when he draws his first breath, and God never said otherwise.
If that commandment actually said "thou shalt not kill", then thou wouldst not eat. You kill animals and plants to eat them. Also, it would prohibit executing criminals and war - both of which God himself commanded and did in some cases - so he's obviously cool with it. The original Hebrew word is "murder". In most translations it is rendered as "murder" with the notable exception of the KJV version. I don't know which version you're using because you didn't say and I don't recognize it. Most of the others - NIV, CEV, etc. - all say "murder".
So, try again.
And, still, explain to me how God is opposed to abortion when he ordered it done in the most brutal way possible himself.
(Oh, and regarding the comment that the old testament laws don't appy to christians: fair enough, but the same god in the new testament is in the old one, right? So if the god of the old testament is ok with something, and he never says otherwise in the new testament, he's ok with it, right?) | Indi wrote: |
| Incorrect. The correct translation is "you shall not murder". The definition of murder is "to kill another human being unlawfully". Since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder. |
you are talking about the laws made by human. there is a law which is more important than any law made by any human which is the law of nature. the congress could pass a law which makes killing legal but it still would be wrong. so sory, but murder is unlawfuly according to the natural law. | elincinerador wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Incorrect. The correct translation is "you shall not murder". The definition of murder is "to kill another human being unlawfully". Since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder. |
you are talking about the laws made by human. there is a law which is more important than any law made by any human which is the law of nature. the congress could pass a law which makes killing legal but it still would be wrong. so sory, but murder is unlawfuly according to the natural law. |
I have no idea what natural law you're talking about. I was talking about the law of the bible, which says that you shouldn't murder people. If congress passed a law that made killing legal on Tuesdays, then killing people on Tuesdays wouldn't be murder, and thus not in violation of that commandment (other biblical guidelines would apply, though).
There are already laws that make killing legal under certain circumstances. For example, executing dangerous criminals. The people that pull the switch on the electric chair aren't violating that commandment, because they are not murdering. Same with killing during war. The crusaders who murdered millions in the name of God weren't breaking any of his laws to do that, because the killing was all legal. Same with killing for self-defence. That's not murder either, so it's not prohibited by that commandment. That commandment only prohibits killing other humans against the law.
It's not the only commandment that takes the country's laws into account. "Thou shalt not steal" also requires you to take human laws into account. Sure, taking someone's wallet is stealing, but is tapping into satellite illegally stealing? What about copyright violations? Not according to "natural" laws of what stealing is, but they are theft according to our society.
Abortion is legal, so abortion is not murder, by definition of the word murder. (And even if it wasn't legal, it still wouldn't be murder, by definition of the word murder.) So that commandment doesn't apply.
And still no one has explained to me how God could be opposed to abortion when he did it himself (and, on another occasion, let it happen without comment).Indi, you should give up. Your sounding like a total fool with poor reading comprehension. You obviously have little idea what your talking about.
To restate my (complicated I guess) point, I am no say “my morals should be pushed on you” or “your don’t get to have your own little moral opinion”.
I am stating a fact. The first thing a group must do to create a society is to create a certain level of safety. Part of this is having a set of rules (or as we have been referring, morals). Not a separate set for each member as they choose for them selves, just one for all (preferably, however there have been many successful societies that have had several sets for different “types” or “classes” of people).
An additional example for you: Billy-Bob feels that 1. Abortions are good for woman, healthy. 2. That it is OK for him to have sex with his 8 year old daughter ( he has managed to have her believe so also). 3. It is OK for him to take his frustrations by beating his dog.
As for 2. and 3., our society have all gotten together, elected some representative and told them to decide our rules. We decided to make these rules based on the majorities’ opinion with regard to the minorities’ rights. This group (legislature) got together and said, “we believe that if an adult has sex with a minor it will be considered a type of rape, and the adult will be punished” also “animals as fellow creatures should not be tormented at their owners whim, anyone found abusing an animal will be punished”.
You in particular, like Billy-Bob may believe something and that’s fine. If however you act on it and it is against your societies established beliefs, you will be punished.
ABORTION EXPLOITES WOMAN
Understand that there are two types of abortions. One done by an OBGYN in situations where it has been determined that the pregnancy would be unhealthy or dangerous. In these situations the decision is made with regard to the woman’s over all health. She is offered psychological counsel and the OBGYN follows up with her.
In the second type the woman finds herself in an “unwanted” situation. She seeks help from an ABORTION CLINIC. Her a “Dr.” performs the abortion. These clinics are very shady and think about who these “Dr.” are. Often times the patient doesn’t even know who the “Dr.” is. More often there are later complication such as infection. Does this girl go back to the abortionist? No, she sees a REAL doctor. The real doctor then must treat her. As for psychological treatment…….
The only reason these “elective” abortions and clinics are opened is because or legislators can’t seem to understand that any law concerning abortion needs to be written in medical language in order to allow doctors to properly treat their patients but still shut down these unprofessional hacks that are exploiting our society.
personally i think abortion is up to the woman who would have the baby. society and the government should not be the ones who decide. if the woman thinks she is able to take care of the baby, then obviously she would not have an abortion. if they are incapable of having a child then what gives you the right to tell her to have it. what's the point of having a child and not being able to care for it, to provide for it? as for foster homes, foster homes? come on, yes i have done the right thing and not have an abortion, but i can't take care of my child so now i have to give them to a place where all children deprived of their birth parents go to. i rather just put the kid out of their misery before they knew they were alive to feel the painful thoughts of themselves being tossed away by their parents.
exploitation of women? what part of "we will let YOU, the WOMAN, decide whether or not to have YOUR baby" would be exloiting women?
as for the bible people, you should not be concerned for if other people should follow the bible and it's commandments, but rather yourself. the bible is ment to enrich the people's lives who FOLLOW it's teachings. as for people who don't follow it, i don't think the bible should be of any of their concerns. i'm not saying anything bad about the bible, but i don't think it was written for every person in the book, otherwise there probably wouldn't be the crusades, the witch burnings, and all the other countless murders of innocent lives throughout history.
then there are people who say the fetus has a right of it's own, a mind of it's own, it has feelings, it's a person it should have a right to determine if it should die or not. first off, in order to have a right, you should be born and have intellegence (aka ability to think and make [understandable] decisions for itself) "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." i'm sure many people have read and used this as an argument against abortion. but when jefferson was writing this i'm sure he was picturing actual poeple who walk, talk and poop even, not a fetus. as for the people who say that these are endowed by the "Creator," who is the creator of the fetus? it's parents, mommy and daddy. as for those who are saying the "Creator" is god, as said before, only for those who are actually using that part of the religion.
but seriously, leave it up to the woman to decide weather she wants her child or not. the government seriously doesn't give a rat's ass about the fetus. obviously they are only making a say in it because they want the popular vote. society as well should not have a say, because if you listen to society you would basically end up like MTV, which is seriuosly would not a pretty place.
| Indi wrote: |
| If congress passed a law that made killing legal on Tuesdays, then killing people on Tuesdays wouldn't be murder |
you're not getting the point... that's exactly what i'm talking about: if congress passed a law that allows killing on tuesday, it would still be murder, because the life of the man killed is far more important than anything written by some freak guys. therefore there is a natural law: the law that gives the importance of the life and rights of every single human being. if you were right, then why was sclavitude abolished? weren't the human rights more important than the laws which allowed the people to use another people?
| Indi wrote: |
| And still no one has explained to me how God could be opposed to abortion when he did it himself |
i'm sorry... can you expand a little bit on that? | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Indi, you should give up. Your sounding like a total fool with poor reading comprehension. You obviously have little idea what your talking about. |
Oh? At least I can spell "exploits". And I know when to use "your" and "you're". Are you sure it's my reading comprehension that's the problem?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
To restate my (complicated I guess) point, I am no say “my morals should be pushed on you” or “your don’t get to have your own little moral opinion”.
I am stating a fact. The first thing a group must do to create a society is to create a certain level of safety. Part of this is having a set of rules (or as we have been referring, morals). Not a separate set for each member as they choose for them selves, just one for all (preferably, however there have been many successful societies that have had several sets for different “types” or “classes” of people). |
And when people get together as a society and do that, they aren't making "morals" they are making laws. Rules are not morals. Laws are not morals. Both can be based on morals. Or they can be based on many other things, such as necessity, practicality, and simply what's best for the greater good.
Our laws are based largely on what's best for the greater good, not "morals". If they happen to match, so be it. But if our laws were based on "morals" then why isn't it illegal to have sex out of wedlock, or to lie and tell someone you love them to get laid, or to drink or to do a whole lot of other "immoral" things? The reason: because those things aren't bad for the society, they're just immoral.
Murder is obviously bad for the society. Thus, it's illegal. It's as simple as that. The fact that it also happens to be "immoral" in most moral frameworks is a coincidence.
Abortion is not bad for society. Rather, scads of unwanted babies being dumped in orphanages supported by the state is bad for society. Mothers who are unable to care for their children and thus have to go on welfare for child support are bad for society. Thus abortion is legal.
Thus abortion is not murder, and the verse you quoted is meaningless in this context.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| An additional example for you: Billy-Bob feels that 1. Abortions are good for woman, healthy. 2. That it is OK for him to have sex with his 8 year old daughter ( he has managed to have her believe so also). 3. It is OK for him to take his frustrations by beating his dog. |
If Billy-Bob felt that, it would be his own moral framework, and I would not be bound by it. Nor would you, nor would anyone else.
If he acted on it, he would be breaking the law. Simple.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
As for 2. and 3., our society have all gotten together, elected some representative and told them to decide our rules. We decided to make these rules based on the majorities’ opinion with regard to the minorities’ rights. This group (legislature) got together and said, “we believe that if an adult has sex with a minor it will be considered a type of rape, and the adult will be punished” also “animals as fellow creatures should not be tormented at their owners whim, anyone found abusing an animal will be punished”.
You in particular, like Billy-Bob may believe something and that’s fine. If however you act on it and it is against your societies established beliefs, you will be punished. |
See, the problem here is that you are Billy-Bob, not me. I'm fine with the laws established by society. It's you who believes you are operating on some higher moral framework that should be used to dictate what the laws should be. Abortion is legal - with good reason - and I'm happy with that. You're the one who wants the laws changed to suit your moral framework.
To use your own words, paraphrased: "our society have all gotten together, elected some representative and told them to decide our rules. We decided to make these rules based on the majorities’ opinion with regard to the minorities’ rights. This group (legislature) got together and said, “we believe that abortion is up to the mother”". You just shot your own argument down.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
ABORTION EXPLOITES WOMAN
Understand that there are two types of abortions. One done by an OBGYN in situations where it has been determined that the pregnancy would be unhealthy or dangerous. In these situations the decision is made with regard to the woman’s over all health. She is offered psychological counsel and the OBGYN follows up with her.
In the second type the woman finds herself in an “unwanted” situation. She seeks help from an ABORTION CLINIC. Her a “Dr.” performs the abortion. These clinics are very shady and think about who these “Dr.” are. Often times the patient doesn’t even know who the “Dr.” is. More often there are later complication such as infection. Does this girl go back to the abortionist? No, she sees a REAL doctor. The real doctor then must treat her. As for psychological treatment…….
The only reason these “elective” abortions and clinics are opened is because or legislators can’t seem to understand that any law concerning abortion needs to be written in medical language in order to allow doctors to properly treat their patients but still shut down these unprofessional hacks that are exploiting our society. |
And what is your point? That abortion should be illegal because of this? That makes no sense.
First off, show your sources. Where are you getting this information from about these "shady" clinics? How often does this happen? Is the incidence of infection or other complications statistically higher for abortion clinic abortions vs. OBGYN abortions? Prove what you're saying, don't just make empty insinuations.
Second, the only thing your whole argument implies is that there should be more regulation of who can perform abortions. Nothing you said suggests they should be illegal.
I don't care how many types of abortions there are as long as a woman is free to choose among them.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| you're not getting the point... that's exactly what i'm talking about: if congress passed a law that allows killing on tuesday, it would still be murder, because the life of the man killed is far more important than anything written by some freak guys. therefore there is a natural law: the law that gives the importance of the life and rights of every single human being. if you were right, then why was sclavitude abolished? weren't the human rights more important than the laws which allowed the people to use another people? |
No, I'm afraid not. The definition of murder is quite clear. It's the unlawful killing of another person. If it was a legal killing it cannot be murder, regardless of how you "feel" about it.
Don't get me wrong, I believe killing another person is morally wrong no matter where, when or why it's done (although there are situations where the alternative is more morally wrong, such as self-defence). But there is no "natural law". Have you ever seen nature? Animals will eat their own kind, their own children - pretty much anything but themselves (usually) - if they're hungry. People are no different.
Inalienable rights? A fantasy. Even God himself butchered men, women, children - and yes, even unborn children - just for worshipping someone else. Where was their right to life, or their right to believe what they wanted? Apparently God didn't recognize it. Why not? Because it didn't exist then. We didn't create those rights until later.
Those "rights" you're talking about were made by us, not nature. Humanity (most of it at least) got together and said "this is what we believe every member of humanity should be entitled to, by virtue of their being human". It is not a product of nature or biblical morality. We humans - we "freak guys" - made those laws that say killing is wrong - not nature, and not God - and so we can decide when we want to break them. We do that during war, and when executing criminals.
I don't know what "sclavitude" is, but the same thing probably applies there. There are no "natural" laws or "inalienable" rights. We made all laws, and we chose which privileges are rights and which are not. And we can change our minds any time.
So when we humans decide that it's ok to kill, and make it our law, then any killing done under those circumstances is not murder.
State execution of criminals is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Killing the enemy during war is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Killing in self-defence is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Abortion is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
And of course, abortion isn't killing a human being, it's preventing a potential human being from coming into being. Therefore, that commandment really doesn't apply.
Face it, "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with abortion. Try again.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| i'm sorry... can you expand a little bit on that? |
I already did. Read up a little higher. | Indi wrote: |
| Even God himself butchered men, women, children - and yes, even unborn children - just for worshipping someone else. |
if you're speaking with religion terms, i'll answer you with religion terms. only God gave us life, therefore only God can take our lifes.
| Indi wrote: |
| Face it, "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with abortion. Try again. |
i think you must be the one who has to face that abortion IS killing. the unborn baby was alive. you do something and he dies. you're telling me that that's not killing? Try again.I won't go into details about my personal beliefs and etc. But my girlfriend recently had an abortion. I can tell you my story and you can take from it what u will.
First my girlfriend took a pregnancy test about 5 days after she missed her period, it was positive. She took another..positive again. Then she called me. We talked about it. We didnt know what we wanted to do. Have the child, abortion, adoption. We both looked at the positives and negatives. Both of us are emotional people and agreed that we would not be able to have an adoption, that if we were going to go through with the pregnancy we were going to find a way to raise the child. At that time I had lost my job and was living off of what savings I had left, and my tax returns for that year. I had no job opportunities, she was working 2 jobs and still in debt. We both were 2nd yr college students. We went to a local place call the life care pregnancy center. The lady there was very friendly and performed a free pregnancy test. The test results were positive. During the counseling session we discovered that this was a christian organization that did not recommend or refer abortion but would educate on abortion, pregnancy, and adoption. They also provide free supplies, toys, etc. Very helpful organization for pregnant christian women. The lady gave us a pamplet to read on abortion.
We went home and digested what we learned, read the pamplet which described grousome techniques, and expensive lab costs for abortion which we definitly would not want to put my girlfriend through. Out of curiosity we decided to talk to an abortion clinic to get a second opinion. The 2 methods they used at the clinic Vacuum aspiration, and RU486 were nor brutal nor expensive. The cost of Vacuum aspiration was $285. The procedure is described as follows:
"After lab work and counseling are completed, the patient will change into a gown and be escorted to the procedure room. A licensed physician will perform the abortion assisted by Registered and Licensed Practical Nurses. A mild sedation may be given to eliminate anxiety. The abortion method used is non-traumatic vacuum aspiration, the safest and most modern procedure for early abortion. It is 8-10 times safer than childbirth. The physician numbs the cervix (opening to the womb) with a local anesthetic, then gently empties the uterus by the mild suction of the vacuum aspirator. It is hard to say what the abortion will feel like since it's different for each person. Some women compare it to menstrual cramps. However, because we use the simplest procedure, discomfort is kept to a minimum. Some Centers offer IV Sedation or General Anesthesia so the patient is asleep during the entire abortion."
We decided that neither of us were old enough, financially stable enough, or mature enough to have a child and opted for the abortion. The clinic offered counseling for my girlfriend, me and her parents prior to making the actual decision, did a pelvic exam and sonogram to determine the age of the pregnancy (6 weeks and 2 days - at which time the child is not even visable to the naked eye). After the decision, they did the procedure. My girlfriend felt no pain or sickness afterwards, no complications, she started birth control since condoms obviously werent enough.
We both intend on having children in the future when we are stable and ready, the experience has taught us alot. The organization we first visited, although helpful for pregnant women, was bias and gave deceptive information. My girlfriend is a christian, she believes in asking for forgiveness and learning from mistakes. I am an ignostic but that doesnt mean that i do not believe in morality. Take from that what u will.
| Quote: |
| God gave us life, therefore only God can take our lifes*sp*. |
I assume you don't eat.I don’t think that people should take abortion, but people need to decide for them self.
I would not hate people for taking abort, think my sister did it once, and I can’t hate her for that.
I on the other hand would not take an abortion, I would rather have a child than thinking afterwards if it was the right choice.
I had a friend along time ago, we were about 15 and she took abortion. What I think was the most stupid with her was that she did not learn from it and used protection afterwards. It would not surprise me if she got something by now.
| Marston wrote: |
| Why doesn't everyone shut up about the bible? It was written thousands of years ago, and is hardly applicable to everyday life anymore. |
Your right there, it was written thousands of years ago, how ever it is true! 
God's word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow! 
The Bible is holy, so do not talk evil of the Bible!
| Quote: |
| John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that who ever may believe shall not perrish, but shall have everlasting life! |
Brothers, accept Jesus today as your saviour, it is not too late yet! So do it while you still can! 
to me the bible = history book
and like all history books, there is some truth and some lies.
evolution will eventually take it's toll on the ignorance of the past.
the bible was written thousands of years ago but it is very applicable to everyday life now. but then again, it's not really god's words in the bible, it's man's words. and it's not all completely true.
personally i don't think god should be used in these kind of controversial issues. especially because god is a very controversial issue all by itself. these decisions should be made by the person who is going to have the baby. if she wants to keep it ok, and if she doesn't, then it's her choice. her choice, maybe she'll regret what she did maybe she wouldn't, but however she will feel about this in the future it's her problem, not yours or god's.
A person's view on the bible or religion is irrelevant in this discussion. If we are to discuss the abortion issue from a political or moral point of view, we must consider the scientific evidence.
We would all agree that killing people is wrong. (In most cases.) We would (almost) all agree that a sperm is not a person. (Yes, I know it has the potential to be one.) So the real question we have to answer is - at what point does a sperm become a living person?
The answer to the question stems from what one considers to be a person. When babies are born, they are for the most part able to survive with nothing other than nourishment and protection provided by a parent (or another adult). The ability to survive on your own (provided you have food) is an ability of any living person (save for some disabled persons.) Thus, if you are of the human race and can survive on your own, you must be a person. Many Human babies can survive with the care of a parent/guardian a little into the third trimester. Thus once a human embryo has grown and developed into the third trimester, it can survive (sometimes) outside of its mother, and should be considered a person.
So - abortion would be killing a person if it were to be performed during the third trimester. Several forms of third trimester abortion are already illegal in the U.S..
But at the same time, any abortions performed in the first or second trimester would be killing something, but not a person. Thus it should remain legal.
Many people would argue that abortion at any stage of development is wrong for religious reasons. To these people - I say this: If it is against your religion to have an abortion, then don't have one. Your religious views are sacred to you, but they have no standing on the political stage.
Verdict on abortion: Just keep the laws the way they are.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| if you're speaking with religion terms, i'll answer you with religion terms. only God gave us life, therefore only God can take our lifes. |
Yeah? Well if God is really so all-powerful, why does he need you or the government to enact his will? Why not let him take care of things if he has a problem with abortion? Surely if it really offends him, he can send out a plague or something to everyone that has one or supports them.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Face it, "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with abortion. Try again. |
i think you must be the one who has to face that abortion IS killing. the unborn baby was alive. you do something and he dies. you're telling me that that's not killing? Try again. |
I didn't say abortion wasn't killing. I said it wasn't murder. Try again.For people who say.. abortion is a grave mistake.. I don't belive it.. and I don't think it is a big sin.. If you can kill.. innocent people and shed innocent blood.. and when you loose your self respect.. and do unmoral things.. hell no.. abortion is not a big deal..
if you are a person who never killed and ant.. or not even a fly got killed when you took a deep breath... then you got the right to say.. abortion is a sin... even though I don't consider it as a sin..
abortion didn't start yesterday.. it existed thousands and thousands of years ago.. and don't think.. you need then help of modern technologies to do abortion... I still know people.. who do it with.. some herbs..
| Quote: |
"IF LORD WANTS A CHILD DEAD, NO HUMAN CAN SAVE THAT CHILD,
IF HE WANTS THAT CHILD TO LIVE, IT WILL LIVE EVEN IF YOU THROW HIM IN A FOREST" |
| Whong wrote: |
| John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that who ever may believe shall not perrish, but shall have everlasting life! |
Hey whong.. you must look into a good dictionary.. the meaning of begotten... you better answer me.. I asked this same question on another.. post.. but I didn't see a reply... now I ask again... what is the meaning of begotten.. and then explain the above quote for me again... you better do it.... | swapnalokam wrote: |
| Hey whong.. you must look into a good dictionary.. the meaning of begotten... you better answer me.. I asked this same question on another.. post.. but I didn't see a reply... now I ask again... what is the meaning of begotten.. and then explain the above quote for me again... you better do it.... |
I'm not whong, but if your thinking of the thread of jesus was not crucified some muslims believe, I put up a quick answer.OK... since whong don't want to answer my question... I will answer my question...
begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child" biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"
So you guys understand where Iam really going to.. If you say you begot a child... surely you have to have sexual intercourse.. so what does that.. phrase from bible means.. about.. god seding his only begotten child...
and for a_dubDesign's posting..., Iam not a muslim..
PLease do replies...
| swapnalokam wrote: |
and for a_dubDesign's posting..., Iam not a muslim..
|
Nor am I, nor is the response I gave in it. It comes straight from the nicene creed. | Code of Ruin wrote: |
| Murder is a term used for killing people that are already out of the womb so it can't be murder (at least where I come from). Abortion may sound cruel but it isn't really. |
Murder-
# To kill another human.
# To kill brutally or inhumanly.
# To put an end to; destroy.
No, I think murder (wherever you go) is the killing brutally of another human. Yes, abortion is indeed very cruel (as I have stated before) and if you were to perform or watch an actual abortion process you would see it for yourself. Do you know what abortionists are? Doctors that have a death under their belt. They are a bad doctor and have gone to what they do best.Even if abortion was murder is it truly so wrong? You would prefer to bring a child into a world of neglect, poverty, and violence?
I'm not trying to change your opinion, just open your eyes a little. Not everyone is a fit parent, and if they get an abortion they don't want the child. They aren't looking forward to raising someone to become a healthy member of society. Now imagine if the option of abortion wasn't available.
| Indi wrote: |
So when we humans decide that it's ok to kill, and make it our law, then any killing done under those circumstances is not murder.
State execution of criminals is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Killing the enemy during war is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Killing in self-defence is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
Abortion is legal, so it cannot be murder. The commandment does not apply.
And of course, abortion isn't killing a human being, it's preventing a potential human being from coming into being. Therefore, that commandment really doesn't apply.
Face it, "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with abortion. Try again. |
?...No, 'thou shall not kill' says nothing about murder. It says 'thou shall not kill'.
kill-
1. To put to death.
2. To deprive of life
3. To put an end to; extinguish
Though it is legal, it is morally wrong, as you stated. But you must understand that the Bible (which is where the ten comandments are written ) is all about morals and how you should live your life. If one day the government, for whatever reason, decides to make manslaughter legal the fact that it was against the comandments when it was illegal still remains. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Sex before marriage is also legal in the US but it clearly defines it in the Bible as wrong. | AdamantMonk wrote: |
Even if abortion was murder is it truly so wrong? You would prefer to bring a child into a world of neglect, poverty, and violence?
I'm not trying to change your opinion, just open your eyes a little. Not everyone is a fit parent, and if they get an abortion they don't want the child. They aren't looking forward to raising someone to become a healthy member of society. Now imagine if the option of abortion wasn't available. |
Wow, a simple answer for once . It's called adoption. | Whong wrote: |
| John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that who ever may believe shall not perrish, but shall have everlasting life! |
Hey whong.. you must look into a good dictionary.. the meaning of begotten... you better answer me.. I asked this same question on another.. post.. but I didn't see a reply... now I ask again... what is the meaning of begotten.. and then explain the above quote for me again... you better do it.... [/quote]
It means...
begotten-
1. To father; sire
2. To cause to exist or occur; produce | swapnalokam wrote: |
OK... since whong don't want to answer my question... I will answer my question...
begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child" biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"
So you guys understand where Iam really going to.. If you say you begot a child... surely you have to have sexual intercourse.. so what does that.. phrase from bible means.. about.. god seding his only begotten child... |
Well, if you look into your definition, procreation means concepted. It has nothing to do with sexual intercorse. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit into Our Lady's womb. I did my research and checked 5 actual dictionaries and 22 online ones. Not one mentions biologicality, blood, or sexual intercouse. It means created or concepted; to be the Father of a child in every single dictionary. So I ask you, where did you get that definition?
Last edited by thpn on Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total | thpn wrote: |
| AdamantMonk wrote: | Even if abortion was murder is it truly so wrong? You would prefer to bring a child into a world of neglect, poverty, and violence?
I'm not trying to change your opinion, just open your eyes a little. Not everyone is a fit parent, and if they get an abortion they don't want the child. They aren't looking forward to raising someone to become a healthy member of society. Now imagine if the option of abortion wasn't available. |
Wow, a simple answer for once . It's called adoption. |
You know, because there aren't enough orphans already. | AdamantMonk wrote: |
You know, because there aren't enough orphans already. |
Hum...well, this all leads back to my other topic here where I discuss the cause of many unwanted children that leads to orphans and abortions. I will not get off topic but I will tell you this. No matter how many orphans there are, there will always be a loving family for each one to go into.
Last edited by thpn on Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:23 am; edited 1 time in total | Marston wrote: |
| Why doesn't everyone shut up about the bible? It was written thousands of years ago, and is hardly applicable to everyday life anymore. |
The world sets it's own standards of conduct, which are constantly changing as society dictates. For instance, people who lived in the 1800s had a very different view on life to what we do, as did those who lived in the 1950s. In fact, since the 1960s, the world had undergone a lot of social and moral changes that had left us with the question: is the Bible still releavent today? Should 'old fashioned' morals and standards still to be ahered to? After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago.
The real question being asked here is :should God's standards change with the times? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Is God for asking us not to have sex before marriage or not to get drunk or not to be greedy for money? Should these standards be lowered to keep up with the times? Of course not! What if tomorrow it became acceptable to steal, rape, and kill. Does the Bible continue to lower it's standards? NO!! There has to be a set moral code to live by, or the world would be in chaos.
The best person to set that code is the Almighty God who, after all, made us in the first place and hence knows how we should behave in order to function properly. God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:eight). His standards, therefore, also do not change.
There are good reasons for keeping high moral standards. If society as a whole was to practice what the Bible teaches there would be no wars, no crime, no sexually transmitted diseases, no suicides, and people would be a lot happier. Could you imagine life without any laws what so ever? It would be a disaster. Laws weren't meant to be a hindrance but rather the most practical way to keep harmony in society (in fact, originally our laws were patterned after the Bible. It was the Bible that first set laws for society).
The Bible is just as much important and relevant today as it was when it was written. It is we who need to change, not God. When the Bible tells us that something is sinful and should not be practiced, it is for our benefit, in a similar way that a father warns his child of danger (such as: "fire is hot and will burn, so do not put hands on fire"). God is warning us of the dnager of sin. The child might not heed the warning only to find later that the father was right, but the warning was made none the less.
Take, for example, God's stance on sexual sin. He created man and woman for each other. He also created pleasure in sex. But it was designed for a loving relationship within mariiage. Once you step out of those boundaries it becomes dangerous. No one needs to be reminded just how dangerous AIDs is! Yet by simply following God's guidelines, AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases could have been avoided. It is us who need to change our lives to pattern after the Bible, not shun it away because you don't want to obey.
The Bible is definitley still relevant today and will remain so forever. | thpn wrote: |
The real question being asked here is :should God's standards change with the times? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Is God for asking us not to have sex before marriage or not to get drunk or not to be greedy for money? Should these standards be lowered to keep up with the times? Of course not! What if tomorrow it became acceptable to steal, rape, and kill. Does the Bible continue to lower it's standards? NO!! There has to be a set moral code to live by, or the world would be in chaos.
The best person to set that code is the Almighty God who, after all, made us in the first place and hence knows how we should behave in order to function properly. God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:eight). His standards, therefore, also do not change. |
Would that include such timeless moral standards as:
- People can be bought and sold (Leviticus 25:44)
- Disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47)
- Kill your enemies in the name of Jesus (Luke 19:27)
- And many, many more gems, including stoning women who were not virgins when they married, stoning disobedient children and much, much more.
Remember, it was you who said that these are God's laws, they are timeless, and they are absolute. If God never changes, then he must still want you to stone disobedient children, no?
| thpn wrote: |
| (in fact, originally our laws were patterned after the Bible. It was the Bible that first set laws for society). |
Yeah? So all those societies that existed for thousands of years before the bible was written, or before they got a hold of it, those societies had no laws? Wow. Wonder how the Chinese got by all those millenia without the bible?
| thpn wrote: |
| No one needs to be reminded just how dangerous AIDs is! Yet by simply following God's guidelines, AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases could have been avoided. |
Yeah? God has instructions against blood transfusions?
| thpn wrote: |
| The Bible is definitley still relevant today and will remain so forever. |
Wonderful! In that case this discussion is over, and the result is that abortion is ok! After all, over the course of the bible, God caused abortions himself, ordered abortions to be done by others (often against the will of the person getting the abortion) and, last but not least, devised a test for adultery that would abort the child of a pregnant adulterer. Clearly God doesn't have a problem with abortions, and since his word is absolute and timeless, we're home-free.In reply to Indi, I tell you of these passages.
- People can be bought and sold (Leviticus 25:44)
Well, you must realize that back then slavery was legalized among the nations and most of them were sold because they owed the government for doing things that were against law.
- Disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47)
That is an anology to the fact that God (our Master) gives us his commands (His will) and we did not follow (did not make preperations...) so we shall be punished in Hell (beatewn severely)
- Kill your enemies in the name of Jesus (Luke 19:27)
Hmm...I'll have to ask Father about that one, I'm not sure what exactly it is trying to say.
- And many, many more gems, including stoning women who were not virgins when they married, stoning disobedient children and much, much more.
If you do read carefully, it says that they must be punished so they were punished. But, Jesus did fight against stoning. There was one parable (I can't remember the exact passage but it was in John) where Jesus went to the place where a woman was about to be stoned and told them to only stone her if they are righteous.
As for your other statements, I need to advise Father and look up some Bible stories so I will get to it when I feel ready! Thpn, what about Samson?
He prayed for god to get enought strength (and got it) to kill himself and 3000 Philistines, men and women, in a suicide attack. (Judges 16:30)
If I'm not mistaken, it's the first documented suicide attack in human history.
Picture from http://www.yayacanada.com/r%E9gha%EF.html | thpn wrote: |
| What about him? |
His suicide attack is/was seen as heroic. Also, god gave him the strength to do it.
Is a suicide attack killing thousands of people a good moral standard? | Bondings wrote: |
| Is a suicide attack killing thousands of people a good moral standard? |
I'd actually appreciate a good answer to that one, too. The usual answer from Judaists is that the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" does not apply to killing in the name of God, by God's command, or with God's permission (which is the foundation of the new translations choice of "murder" rather than "kill" - the literal translation would be "No murder [period]").
"Rasah", the Hebrew word meaning "murder" or "slay" in that commandment is very rarely used in Hebrew - or even in the bible - in spite of all the death and mayhem in the old testament. If I remember correctly, other than Exodus, it's used in Deuteronomy only - when relisting the commandments from Exodus. Jewish scholars tend to explain the word as something like "killing another human being in rage or hatred, against God's command". It thus allows for capital punishment and the many "holy wars" described in the bible (and with this particular description of "rasah", it would also allow for abortion - noone is killing in rage or hatred).
This doesn't go to show the that Samson did a morally correct deed, just to show that the morals of the bible - and God - are so very twisted that basing your own morals on them is... questionable. Which is the whole point of this discussion.
| thpn wrote: |
| Well, you must realize that back then slavery was legalized among the nations and most of them were sold because they owed the government for doing things that were against law. [my emphasis] |
You forgot to take into account that... How should I put this... Oh, I know:
| thpn wrote: |
| God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:eight). His standards, therefore, also do not change. [my emphasis] |
| thpn wrote: |
- People can be bought and sold (Leviticus 25:44)
Well, you must realize that back then slavery was legalized among the nations and most of them were sold because they owed the government for doing things that were against law. |
Oh, I do realize that, but you're the one who claimed that the bible's moral guidelines are absolute and timeless. Thus, slavery is ok. Nothing in the bible contradicts that.
If you want to use the bible as a moral textbook, you can't cherry pick the parts of it that you like.
| thpn wrote: |
- Disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47)
That is an anology to the fact that God (our Master) gives us his commands (His will) and we did not follow (did not make preperations...) so we shall be punished in Hell (beatewn severely) |
I don't agree that this passage was meant to be interpreted as a parable and not a literal instruction on the proper way to treat slaves, but if that's the way you want to interpret it, that's fine. Because there are a host of other verses on the proper way to treat slaves in the bible and the guidelines for taking slaves and buying and selling people.
Exodus 21:7-11 gives instructions on the rules for selling your daughter into slavery to pay debts.
Exodus 21:20 seems to be nice, saying that if you beat a slave to death, you also get put to death... but then along comes verse 21 to ruin that illusion.
Deuteronomy 15:12-17 is another gem. Isrealites can keep other Isrealites as slaves for only up to six years (there is no such limit on keeping other people as slaves, and of course, this doesn't include women, who may be kept as slaves indefinitely, unless the women sold themselves into slavery). But if after the six years, when you go to let the slave go, the slave tells you that he loves you and wants to stay as your slave, you're supposed to drive a nail through his ear and pin him to the door. He is now yours forever.
Ephesians 6:5 leaves no bones about whether or not Christianity supports the idea of slavery. It tells slaves to be happy serving their earthly masters. Colossians 3:21 agrees, along with Titus 2:9. 1 Peter 2:18 takes it up a notch, saying you should be a good slave even if your master is cruel.
| thpn wrote: |
| If you do read carefully, it says that they must be punished so they were punished. But, Jesus did fight against stoning. There was one parable (I can't remember the exact passage but it was in John) where Jesus went to the place where a woman was about to be stoned and told them to only stone her if they are righteous. |
Ah yes, the stoning of the adulterous woman. That was not a parable, that was something that (allegedly) actually happened. That one opens up a whole new can of worms.
Let's recap what happened. A bunch of people - possibly Pharisees, I can't remember the details - brought a woman that had been caught in the act of adultery out to be stoned, according to God's own law. They stopped and asked Jesus what he thought about it, but Jesus (rather rudely) ignored them. (What if they had not bothered to ask again and gone ahead and stoned the poor girl?) They asked again and Jesus said that whoever among them was without sin, let them cast the first stone and went back to what he was doing - ignoring the preceedings. The men, starting with the oldest left without throwing a stone. Then Jesus looked up again and saw only the woman standing there and said, "What happened to the dudes that were going to stone you?" She said they left. And Jesus said, "Then I forgive you, too. Go in peace and keep your legs closed from now on."
Sounds like a really nice job done by Jesus, doesn't it? Only... hang on... there are problems to contend with there....
First, if you are required to be sin-free to punish someone for breaking the law, then no one can ever punish anyone. If that's the case, then you can't send someone to jail or execute them if you're a sinner - and we all are - so there is no way to enforce God's laws on Earth. Even if God said abortion was wrong - which he didn't - you can't do anything to stop it unless you're sin-free.
Second, if you are required to be sin free to enact punishment, and no-one can ever be sin-free, then there is no way to follow the laws God gave. God gave several specific instructions for punishments to be handed out for various sins. Some of them include stoning and burning. But if no one can carry out the sentence, then God's commands are worthless. He was just making pointless noise.
Third, Jesus himself said that he did not come to change the law. He said so rather explicitly in Matthew 5:17, and Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:18-19 and other verses make it even more clear. Therefore, the old testament law still stands and the woman should indeed have been stoned. There is nothing in the law that requires the stoners to be without sin. If Jesus was adding that, then he was changing the law.
And finally, the most amusing problem. If God commanded that adulterers should die, and only the sinless can throw the first stone... why didn't Jesus? There are only two reasons Jesus did not throw the first stone. The first is that he was defying the law, the second was that he could not because he was a sinner. Since he was quite explicit that he was not here to defy the law... doesn't that mean Jesus is a sinner?Well you can certainly take the Bible and look at the bad, completely ignoring the good. Nothing has been mentioned about the Ten Commandments? While the first couple not everyone follows (I do), the rest are "good" morals (I know, "good" is subjective).
1) I am the Lord, your God, you shall have no other gods before Me.
2) There shall be no graven image of Me
3) Do not take the Lord's name in vain
4) Keep holy the Sabbath day
Okay, so not everyone follows the above, but what about the "good" morals in the commandments below:
5) Honor your mother and father
6) Thou shalt not kill
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
8) Thou shalt not steal
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Thou shalt not lie)
10) Thou shalt not covet
Now, tell me those aren't "good" morals. And the Bible has changed around to today. The problem is that people look at the literal words