ABORTION.......

Intrepid wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Well, Intrepid seems to be suggesting that emotionally immature people should not be making important decisions like having abortions, and would rather they dealt with the HUGE responsibilty of having a baby to keep safe and happy and well provided for?

You are making incorrect assumptions..again. Momma Angel seems to have understood, why can't you? Oh, and if you think that the responsibility for a child ends at 16, you are wrong.

Maybe Momma saw your point and agreed, whereas I saw saw your point and thought you'd failed to see the obvious conclusion to be drawn...but you guys aren't really into facing consequences as long as your black and white morals are clear.

When I said 16 I was not being wrong, I was being conservative. To say it is longer is to further my point rather than refute it.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid, do you believe what it says in Matthew? Jesus clearly said that nothing will disappear from the Law, and that anyone who breaks any of them will be in the lowest caste in heaven. He did not say that he was the "end" of the Law. It amazes me how Christians can read a simple paragraph and come up with an interpretation diametrically opposed to what it actually says.

The fact that you seem not to understand what Jesus was saying does not make me wrong. You try to put everything into a literal sense as you know it and discount whatever anyone else has to say about it. Have you read past these verses? Have you read before these verses? Are you able to put the whole thing together?

It amazes me how someone who refutes the scripture can read a simple paragraph and come up with an interpretation without understanding it's meaning.

0 Replies

Terry,

I already gave you the verse for why I believe God does not allow abortion. Click on this link for your answer to that question about abortion.

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

It amazes me how someone who obviously does not share the Christian faith would be amazed at how someone of the Christian faith would interpret the Bible. Logically speaking, wouldn't we be more likely to at least get close seeing that we believe it is the Word of God?

I believe Jesus was and is the law. The message is Jesus. The message has never changed.

0 Replies

Momma:

Quote:

It amazes me how someone who obviously does not share the Christian faith would be amazed at how someone of the Christian faith would interpret the Bible. Logically speaking, wouldn't we be more likely to at least get close seeing that we believe it is the Word of God?

I know... It would be like you or I trying to talk Muslims out of Islam by referring to the Koran, and sharing our interpretations. The unmitigated gall astounds.

0 Replies

Snood,

Understood. However, the things that I asked about Islam were questions I did not feel needed interpretation, just as Terry feels this did not need interpretation. However, I did not tell him he was wrong or make any disparaging remark. I just said I disagreed.

I asked about historical facts. I asked about what I had heard come from a Muslim's own mouth. I did not criticize them. The worst thing I said was I do not believe a true prophet would marry a six year old girl and have sex with her at the age of nine. I said in our country that was against the law.

I also told them that I respected their right to believe what they believed but I did not agree with it and left it at that.

Seems you and I have veered off somewhere and I am not sure where or why.

0 Replies

One of the amazing things about the Bible... you can find support for most any argument.

Quote:

Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

Quote:

An even more astonishing pro-choice passage is Numbers 5, where the Lord appears to give a curse that causes abortions in unfaithful wives. According to this passage, the Lord instructed Moses that a husband who suspected his wife of sleeping with another man could take her to the priest for a test that would either confirm or deny his suspicions. The test involved his wife drinking a cup of "bitter water," which consisted of holy water mixed with the dust of the tabernacle floor. If the woman were innocent, then no harm would come to her by drinking it. But if she were guilty, then she would be cursed with "bitter suffering;" namely, "she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb." In this text, God himself appears to be endorsing the practice of abortion.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

0 Replies

I had to come back and readdress Snood's response.

Ok, I had to think about what Snood said. Yes, I am guilty of what I just accused Terry of. I didn't really think it was the same, but I can see how it is. Terry, I apologize for that remark. Please forgive me for it and I will not let it happen again.

0 Replies

MA,
That is precisely why I tried to get you to view some of the Islamic threads shortly after you joined A2K. I thought it might give you some perspective to see others arguing passionately about their belief in a different though similar book from the same part of the world.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I had to come back and readdress Snood's response.

Ok, I had to think about what Snood said. Yes, I am guilty of what I just accused Terry of. I didn't really think it was the same, but I can see how it is. Terry, I apologize for that remark. Please forgive me for it and I will not let it happen again.

Believe it or not, I was not reffering to anything that you did. I was simply saying it would be ridiculous in the hypothetical sense.

0 Replies

Snood,

Well, then I guess I know where my guilt came from. Right from me. I am glad that you posted it. It helped me to see what I had not seen before.

Mesquite,

I now have a better understanding.

0 Replies

MA, I am hoping also that your better understanding also translates into understanding as to how freedom of religion must encompass freedom from religion. To fully appreciate that relationship you have to imagine yourself as not belonging to the dominate assertive religion.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Well, here is where we will have a problem. There will never be complete freedom from religion without totally denying me of all my right to freedom of religion.

By the way, you never did tell me what you thought of that link? The one I am posting below:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Eorl, 16 years seems to be a rather short time frame for responsible parenthood, but your point is right on.

Was his point that if a person has made some mistakes or irresponsible choices prior to parenthood and therefore might make some mistakes or irresponsible choices as a parent, then it is better to kill the child so he won't be exposed to that?

Astounding logic to be sure.

0 Replies

just out of curiosity, where do the religious folks on this topic stand on the death penalty and euthanasia

just curious

for me i support both, the death penalty only if the evidence is solid, and euthanasia if the patient is of sound mind or has stipulated such in a power of attorney

0 Replies

actually anybody can comment

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

actually anybody can comment

I think that you all know that I am not on the religious end of the bell curve. Saying that, I believe in the death penalty only for the most heinous of crimes; rape murder, torture-murder, kidnap-murder. In each case, the evidence must be unequivocally clear.

I believe in euthanasia and assisted suicide. For me though, the problem is that there needs to be laws that would ensure that the this is really what the individual wants. I think that an amendment to a living will, signed, notarized, and witnessed by two disinterested parties, would deal with the issue of abuse nicely. There also needs to be legal protection for the physician who is involved in the case of assisted suicide.

0 Replies

Yes, I believe there are crimes so unconscionable that a person relinquishes all rights by committing them. There must be zero doubt of guilt--the death penalty should not be be given on circumstantial evidence however incriminating it is--but there are crimes in which the ultimate penalty is appropriate. Otherwise there is no incentive for not committing them.

I am torn on the issue of euthenasia. I would not want to continue living if there was no quality of life and would like the comfort of knowing I had that option, but the flip side is the cultural pressure or duty to die when somebody is made to believe that s/he is of 'no more use' to society. As a pro-lifer, I support a culture of and reverence for life, and thus I have a difficult time believing any life has no value.

0 Replies

Quote:

I support a culture of and reverence for life, and thus I have a difficult time believing any life has no value.

In order for there to be a value, there must be a question, which is, "of value to whom?" I think that it is up to each individual to decide what he wants to do with his life. I also think that, in the case of assisted suicide or euthanasia, is often may be not a question of whether a life has value. Of course it does, IMO.

The point is, that if a person has reached a juncture in his life where the negatives of his living outweighs the positives, if HE believes that his life is not worth living in its present state, (not that it has no value) he should have the opportunity to act upon his desires.

I think that each person has their own personal concept of when "enough is enough". I don't think that other people have the right to interfere in that decision.

The one exception that I would make is in the case of a depressed person contemplating suicide. Often the depression can be controlled, and there needs to be an intervention to prevent the person from committing a final act hastily. On the other hand, in the case of a person making multiple attempts, he is sending us a "message", and needs to be left alone to do as he desires.

0 Replies

I also have a difficult time believing any life has no value which is why I oppose the death penalty and struggle with euthanasia but I feel those with a terminal illness with no quality of life should be allowed to die with dignity if they choose.

I also consider myself to be anti-abortion. It is not a choice I wish was ever selected but just as I don't believe I have any business in determining whether the terminally ill should be allowed to end their lives, I also do not believe it is my place to choose whether someone else has an abortion. In both cases I think the decision should be an educated one but it belongs in the hands and heart of the individual making the choice.

The death penalty, on the other hand, is not a choice made by the individual. It is a choice made by society to take the life of someone whose life, to me, still has value. To murder a murderer puts the guilt on society (me) because it was supposedly done on my behalf.

edit: I also consider myself to be religious.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

The death penalty, on the other hand, is not a choice made by the individual. It is a choice made by society to take the life of someone whose life, to me, still has value. To murder a murderer puts the guilt on society (me) because it was supposedly done on my behalf.

I also struggle with the death penalty, but not for the same reasons. I firmly believe that if you willfully take the life of someone else, you deserve to suffer the same fate. I have absolutely no qualms about ending the life of a proven murderer.

Therein lies the rub. I have serious doubts about our judicial system, and it's capacity for error. The death penalty, as it stands now, is too easy to abuse. ( I say this from the state of Texas ) In cases where there aren't at least 3 eye witnesses of credible stature I get uneasy about the death penalty being applied.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know