Usually no. Rarely, yes.
What's your point Bartikus?
My point was to get people to answer the topic's question by posing the question in a different way.
Would the answer to the topics question then be....Usually yes. Rarely, no from your standpoint?
Yes, pretty much. I'm not in favour of abortion at all. I just want it to be freely and legally available to everyone.
And if is not made legally available to everyone it will go underground and a lot of young women will die because of the lack of proper and legal treatment.
Lots of girls die NOW due to abortion. Millions of unborn girls are exterminated in brutal, bloody and painful procedures.
If you were to put a dog down in the same manner (piercing the back of the skull and sucking out the brains with a vacuum, for instance) you would face jail time.
So it's a lesser of two wrongs to keep it legal?
Choices are A.) Keep it legal for all under any circumstance.
B.) Make it illegal or restrict and women will be left to back alley abortions?(So to speak)
I don't really mind the system that we have in Australia.
Theoretically, abortion is illegal. It is only legal if the mother thinks the pregnancy is a threat to her health (including her mental health.) Late-term abortions are very rare, few doctors here perform them at all, since early abortion is freely available. Australians are mostly aware of the reasons why, if you want an abortion, you must have it early.
Philosophically, I would prefer it was legal, but for me, the practical reality is more important.
Letter to Newsweek Magazine
Lisa Miller's excellent article "an Evangelical Identity Crisis" unwittingly perpetuates what I call the "abortion myth," the fiction that the religious right galvanized as a political movement in response to the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. As I demonstrate in "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America," the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution in 1971 that called for the legalization of abortion. The Roe decision met largely with silence from evangelical leaders; a few registered mild disagreement, but a significant number, including the redoubtable fundamentalist W. A. Criswell, actually applauded the decision for marking the appropriate distinction between public policy and personal morality.
Professor of American Religious History
Barnard College, Columbia University
New York, N.Y.
It's like I mentioned to flushd a while back; this is purely an emotional subject and no matter the physical evidence presented to pro-aborts - they (by god :wink: ) are not going to back down. You see it's really not about the reality of those photographs of unborn babies shown or even the medical substantiation, it's all about what they want
to see, believe and hang their hat on. It's emotional - and political; nothing more, nothing less.
The far-fetched analogies and comparisons are somewhat laughable; however more sad to me than anything else. I often wonder what they truly see when looking at the faces, arms, hands, fingers et al of those tiny humans in the photo's? With all my might - I hope it's more than a clump of cells - I truly do!!!
Many ask for proof and evidence in regards to the existence of God.
In light of your observations, what good do you think it would do for many if evidence of God were presented to them?
I ask you as well RL!
I believe there is scripture that addresses this.
You're quite right Bartikus - on all counts. And evidence and proof of God's existence is often presented - however one can be shown all the evidence in the world (by evidence such as photographs), yet still choose to deny existence of. I think I'll pass on presenting the scriptures. Not in the mood to chase that hound today! :wink:
Famed pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren on Wednesday defended his invitation to Sen. Barack Obama to speak at his church despite objections from some evangelicals who oppose the Democrat's support for abortion rights.
Conservative evangelical Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, e-mailed reporters Tuesday to protest the visit because of Obama's support of abortion rights. "Senator Obama's policies represent the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality, not to mention supreme American values," Schenck wrote.
My question is where in the Bible does God show ethics and morality when it come to destroying fetuses? If one were to take the Bible as literal truth than God is the greatest fetus killer known to mankind.
xingu, when does human life begin?
xingu, the bible is quite clear about the value of a foetus.
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
The foetus is worth whatever the husband (who is often the father) claims it to be. Certainly it is lesser than a "further injury" such as taking a life.
What about the foetuses in Sodom and Gommorah?
hmmm...There may have been some in Gommorah..........
Gimme a break Eorl - there must have been fag hags?
real life wrote:
xingu, when does human life begin?
I don't know.
How many fetsues were killed in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many babies? How many children?
They were all guilty, like the first born of Egypt, so they had to die. Killing people because of their religious belief, isn't that one of the great things your God has taught us in the Bible?