33
   

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 09:08 am
neo, You are projecting again. What I have said thus far is that we already have children who do not get enough food to eat nor medical care to look after their health. Your position to deny abortion to a woman you do not even know is beyond the legal and ehtical boundaries of concern when there are children you do not care about. It's called hypocrosy. What I have pointed out is the fact that human population growth is dramatic on a planet with finite natural resources. How humans decide to meet this challenge is a matter of time. I don't know how humans will meet this challenge; I'm 70 years old - and will be long gone.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 09:54 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
neo, You are projecting again. What I have said thus far is that we already have children who do not get enough food to eat nor medical care to look after their health. Your position to deny abortion to a woman you do not even know is beyond the legal and ehtical boundaries of concern when there are children you do not care about. It's called hypocrosy. What I have pointed out is the fact that human population growth is dramatic on a planet with finite natural resources. How humans decide to meet this challenge is a matter of time. I don't know how humans will meet this challenge; I'm 70 years old - and will be long gone.
CI; you just don't read my posts. I am not in favor of any legislation in this arena and have never advocated it.

I have deep concerns over those now living who have difficulty caring for the children they have and have addressed those concerns with my wallet.

That being said, I am appalled that an embryo can be equated to a tumor, that a mother can be referred to as a host, and that abortion is simply another medical procedure.

How can this attitude not contribute toward an increase of sexual promiscuity which, in turn, creates a new crop of unwanted pregnancies?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 10:10 am
Just how do you propose to control sexual promiscuity? Good luck!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 10:36 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Just how do you propose to control sexual promiscuity? Good luck!
In the final analysis, we are all free moral agents. I can't control anything.

I teach my children and grandchildren the value of chastity and hope I am doing a good job. Now, part of my job is to point out the flaws in the pro choice position on abortion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 10:39 am
Aha, you finally understand; we can't control anything! Finally, a logical conclusion.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 10:47 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Aha, you finally understand; we can't control anything! Finally, a logical conclusion.
Aha, you finally realize what I have been trying to tell you all along. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 10:59 am
neologist wrote:
That being said, I am appalled that an embryo can be equated to a tumor, that a mother can be referred to as a host, and that abortion is simply another medical procedure.


Just as I am appalled that someone can attempt to pass of the kind of narrow-minded thinking you spew regularly...and intelligent discourse.


Quote:
How can this attitude not contribute toward an increase of sexual promiscuity which, in turn, creates a new crop of unwanted pregnancies?


How can a supposedly intelligent person suppose that comparing two different bits of tissue..referring to a host as a host....and considering a medical procedure to be a medical procedure.....

...in some way increases sexual promiscuity?

Egad. I cannot fathom how the theistic element posting has deteriorated to the depths you bring to this forum, Neo.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:02 am
Frank, Neo thinks that training his children and grandchildren is the world's solution! LOL
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:09 am
I pity the poor children learning hypocrisy and denial from him/her.
0 Replies
 
Jazzy3113
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:19 am
Zoroastrianism
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 12:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Frank, Neo thinks that training his children and grandchildren is the world's solution! LOL
Not at all. It's my solution for my family. You do what works well for yours.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 12:25 pm
Jazzy3113 wrote:
Zoroastrianism
Way to go Jazzy! Stick to your guns! Now tell Frank why he should believe. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 12:32 pm
neologist wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Frank, Neo thinks that training his children and grandchildren is the world's solution! LOL
Not at all. It's my solution for my family. You do what works well for yours.



As I said, I pity the poor kids learning hypocrisy and denial from you, Neo.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 12:40 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
That being said, I am appalled that an embryo can be equated to a tumor, that a mother can be referred to as a host, and that abortion is simply another medical procedure.


Just as I am appalled that someone can attempt to pass of the kind of narrow-minded thinking you spew regularly...and intelligent discourse.


Quote:
How can this attitude not contribute toward an increase of sexual promiscuity which, in turn, creates a new crop of unwanted pregnancies?


How can a supposedly intelligent person suppose that comparing two different bits of tissue..referring to a host as a host....and considering a medical procedure to be a medical procedure.....

...in some way increases sexual promiscuity?

Egad. I cannot fathom how the theistic element posting has deteriorated to the depths you bring to this forum, Neo.
So promiscuity has no moral consequences? OK, hammer away!

Frankly Frank, I've given up trying to convince you. It's more fun to see what degree of apoplexy I can provoke in your sagacious responses.

I hope you and CI live forever.
And you too, Jazzy.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 12:45 pm
neologist wrote:
So promiscuity has no moral consequences? OK, hammer away!

Frankly Frank, I've given up trying to convince you.


Frankly, Neo...it doesn't sound as though you are trying to convince me. I sounds more as though you are trying to convince you.


I guess it is to your credit that you see your own arguments for the vacuous bits of fluff they are.


Quote:
It's more fun to see what degree of apoplexy I can provoke in your sagacious responses.

I hope you and CI live forever.


Ah, you're just saying that 'cause I said it to you first.

But....I'm gonna die soon. So are you.

Stop being so afraid of that. It is a very natural thing.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 01:25 pm
You actually are very funny, Frank
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 01:48 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Get real, do you understand anything about world population growth and how it threatens all life on earth? We now have six billion humans on this planet, and it's anticipated that by 2050, there will be ten billion humans. There are only a finite supply of natural resources on this planet. Do you understand anything about logistics? It's only a matter of time when more humans will starve to death. Are you willing to sacrifice your family?


So which is it Imposter?

You support abortion because it is a fundamental right? Or you support abortion because you think there is a population crisis?

You should go back to the writings of the founders of Planned Parenthood and read their writings regarding the "population crisis" as they perceived it (we're talking the first quarter of the 20th century), also their fears regarding "under cared for" children and "uneducated" offspring and the dire consequences that awaited in just a generation or so. Well, really they sound just like you.

But then, go ahead and read them to the punchline. Find out just how and where they proposed to solve this problem and then come back and tell me if you still agree.

Hint: When reading these "intellectual lights" be sure to read the unedited versions. Pass on by if it says "The Selected Writings of ...." Be sure you get to read it all.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 01:56 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
real life wrote:
To answer your other question directly: Obviously, I do not approve of abortion prior to heartbeat. I am for protecting the child throughout the duration. Many pro-abortionists (not all) on the other hand are pro abortion for the entire 9 months. So if we are looking for an area of mutual compromise, a complete prohibition on abortion post-heartbeat would be a good step in the right direction.


If you would use the "brain waves" you have, Life, you'd eventually see that the problem we are dealing with is not whether or not to "prohibit abortion" at any stage of the embryo's development...

...BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ABORTIONS ARE GOING TO BE LEGAL AND SAFE.

Why can't you get that through your thick skull?????

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Abortionist is the second oldest profession on this planet...occasioned by the oldest.

GET IT???????

Women are going to get abortions.

The choice is whether they are going to do so in a sanitary clinic or hospital...or in a goddam back alley with a coat hanger.

Listening to your arguments makes me wonder whether "brain waves" ever start!


Legal abortions are not safe, Frank. Someone dies every time one is performed. Ditto your 3rd paragraph.

Compare the number of women who died in illegal abortions for any year you want to pick and it will not come close to equal the number of children who die every year due to legalized abortion. Get it?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 02:42 pm
real life wrote:
[
Legal abortions are not safe, Frank. Someone dies every time one is performed. Ditto your 3rd paragraph.


Only in the sick minds of folks like you, Life.

There is no "someone" dying. It is an embryo...or a fetus.

It doesn't become a "someone" until it is born.



Quote:
Compare the number of women who died in illegal abortions for any year you want to pick and it will not come close to equal the number of children who die every year due to legalized abortion. Get it?


There are no "children" dying in an abortion.

Get it?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 02:44 pm
If your notion of REALITY is correct, Life...the argument against abortion grows even weaker IF THERE WERE A CHILD dying in the abortion process, Life.

You do realize that, don't you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 09:25:12