englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:37 pm
Probably, I don't really care who it is. Why is the avatar I use so important to you, Snood? Aren't you a celebrity avatar - what's his name? I thought we were talking abortion, not Bullock or whatever her name is. I'm certainly not going to post my real person here! Just like the rest of you!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:39 pm
Englishmajor,

I don't know about Snood, but I made comments about your avatars because I liked them.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:48 pm
englishmajor wrote:
That is true, real life. At six weeks, tiny fingernails are beginning to form. Pro abortionists should be required to be at an abortion during the suction part. They'd really like that.

However, making a woman carry a child when that woman has been raped, or if the preg is due to incest, is something different. I have a hard time with that one. Pregnancy can be life threatening for some women. I would not expect a daughter of mine to carry a child due to rape.......would you, really?


Hi Englishmajor,

Yes, I have a difficult time with the rape and incest question also.

(If the pregnancy is an imminent threat to the woman's life, I think that abortion must be an option. This has been my consistent position.)

Pregnancy due to rape or incest is a very difficult situation and also an extremely rare one. However, the unborn is an innocent victim of this crime, just as the woman is.

Neither the woman, nor the unborn should die for the crime of the rapist. I think most women instinctively understand this and would not want to be the cause of death against one who is defenseless.

I would not expect her to want to raise the child who is born as a result of rape or incest, but you know, many do make this choice. Those who make this choice, I think, validate my view somewhat that women would instinctively move to protect these children who are also victims of the same crime.

However, my view is that we ought to ban the over 90% of abortions that are for convenience reasons (granting exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest) first. Then we can work further on the knottier problems of rape and incest.

Another aspect of the rape question is statutory rape. Currently abortionists openly violate laws that require they report statutory rape cases, and they incur no penalty for shielding rapists. Fixing this, I think, would go a long way toward putting rapists on notice when under-age girls finally start to get some protection from predatory males.

In the case of an under-age girl, if we made sure that the unborn underwent mandatory DNA testing in any abortion clinic and law enforcement aggressively pursued this for a match, and judges would join in with stiff penalties, I think the incidence of incest and statutory rape would plummet. For society to tolerate predatory behavior and victimization of these young girls is inexcusable.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:52 pm
http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/thumbup.gif Go Real Life!
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:53 pm
Well, I think I'll quit using them since they cause so much silly discussion! I have been told I look like Bullock (I don't think so) but people in Canada always think people from Calif. look like some movie star.

Sorry to hear you had a not good experience in your past life.

Abortion due to rape, as I said, is a tough one. How does that child feel about itself later on in life, knowing how he/she began life? I know people who know their birth parents, who have been adopted, and some of them are pretty messed up; angry. I just don't understand why this is even still an issue with THE PILL, which was supposed to solve this problem.....

I do think it is wrong for teachers to teach sex ed in school, without teaching responsibility that goes along with it. They show the kids how to 'do it', but not the consequences from having a human being completely dependent upon you for at least 18 yrs (longer now!)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:56 pm
englishmajor wrote:
Probably, I don't really care who it is. Why is the avatar I use so important to you, Snood? Aren't you a celebrity avatar - what's his name? I thought we were talking abortion, not Bullock or whatever her name is. I'm certainly not going to post my real person here! Just like the rest of you!

Unravel your underpants, girl. I asked about her and about Jennifer Lopez, because when you were directly asked if it depicted you, you gave a cutesy 'mysterious' reply. And yes, mine is Spike Lee. (I have no reason to play "for me to know and you to find out"). Other than the misleading pseudo-intrigue on your part, I would not have interest in, nor would I make comment on, such nonsubstantials.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 11:23 pm
Hi Englishmajor,

How would a person feel knowing that they were a victim of crime at an early age vs. not having the chance to live at all?

I think most folks would choose to get a chance to live rather than to have that chance taken away because their biological father was unfortunately a criminal.

I'm all for punishing the guilty, not the innocent. I think rapists deserve a several decades of hard time in the slam, at the very least. Maybe let them out when they are too old and weak to do it again (maybe 70 or so)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 11:24 pm
I like Englishmajor's avatars too.

But hey, maybe I don't use my actual pic, but I think my avatar is a very good likeness of me.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 11:29 pm
Yeah, I like how Jennifer Lopez and Sandra Bullock look, too.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 04:48 am
Eorl wrote:
real life,

If you insist on calling people pro-abortionists I'm going to start calling you pro-slavery (since you claim pregnant women are to obey your desires whatever the cost to their bodies and their lives.)


What, exactly, is that cost Eorl?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:28 pm
Intrepid,

Clearly the cost is different in every case both in reality and from various perspectives.

The point is you pro-slavery folk claim the right to control the woman because you claim a right to control the future of her foetus.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:38 pm
Eorl,

I am not trying to control the future of the child. I advocate the child's right to be born.

Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:49 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


Oh? Which ones?
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:54 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


Oh? Which ones?


The ones that don't fit in with modern societiy's desires, of course.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 05:56 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


Oh? Which ones?


All of them.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


Oh? Which ones?


All of them.


MA's inference was that the new covenant did away with slavery, and I do not think that was so. If you have a reference I would sure like to see it.

Edit: I think questioner nailed it.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:16 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Eorl,

I am not trying to control the future of the child. I advocate the child's right to be born.

Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


When you advocate the "child's right to be born" what makes you think you are not also insisting on the right to control the woman for the period of gestation?

It seems you want to be blissfully unaware of any consequences that follow from your only interest - the "unborn".

Slavery of the mother is the consequence of you taking control of her womb.

You can't demand beef for all and then not take responsibilty for the death of the cattle.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:20 pm
mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.


Oh? Which ones?


All of them.


MA's inference was that the new covenant did away with slavery, and I do not think that was so. If you have a reference I would sure like to see it.


I don't think that is what Ma said at all, but I will let her explain her intent. Slavery was a part of the culture of the Roman Empire and nobody, not even the slaves, challenged the system though there are historical notations of slaves withering away under the oppression of bad masters. What Christianity did do however is to acknowledge that in the eyes of God there was no distinction of status between male and female, Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, and in ancient Christian cemetaries, the Christian slaves were buried with the freemen with no notation that they were in any way of lesser status.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:23 pm
Mesquite,

Good to see you! Ok, check out this link for the slavery issue.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

I think that sums it up pretty well.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 06:26 pm
Eorl,

What makes me think I have the right to control the woman for the period of gestation? Well, since I believe abortion is equal to murder, I think that answers that question.

Blissfully unaware of the consequences? Surely, you don't mean that since I have, myself been in this situation and I fully know all the consequences.

Slavery of the mother.....? So now being pregnant and carrying a child is putting a woman into slavery? Surely that is not what you mean.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 122
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2024 at 08:28:55