ABORTION.......

Re: ABORTION.......

Implicator wrote:

Hmm ... totally innocent, absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense).

I would expect that those Christians who believe that original sin is *not* nonsense, would take issue with your attempt to remove one of their reasons for claiming that abortion is bad. IOW, if original sin is not nonsense, then there is at least *one* reason why they wouldn't want people performing abortions.

I

Hi Implicator,

The contention that's it's okay to kill as long as the person goes to heaven is nonsense. Would you agree?

0 Replies

Re: ABORTION.......

Implicator wrote:

Willing is good.

Are you stating you have a problem with such a god?

I

Only if thinking such a god would be a scumbag is a problem.

0 Replies

Re: ABORTION.......

real life wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Hmm ... totally innocent, absolutely without any sins (except the Original Sin nonsense).

I would expect that those Christians who believe that original sin is *not* nonsense, would take issue with your attempt to remove one of their reasons for claiming that abortion is bad. IOW, if original sin is not nonsense, then there is at least *one* reason why they wouldn't want people performing abortions.

I

Hi Implicator,

The contention that's it's okay to kill as long as the person goes to heaven is nonsense. Would you agree?

If that contention was made...it was made by you, Life...it certainly was not made by me.

I am not discussing whether or not it is okay to kill a person. I have been discussing whether or not a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses.

And since you folks were talking about the great harm caused to the fetus...I have brought this issue up as part of the question of whether or not "great harm" comes to the fetus....IF YOU PEOPLE ARE RIGHT ABOUT YOUR SUPERSTITIONS.

0 Replies

Re: ABORTION.......

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Willing is good.

Are you stating you have a problem with such a god?

I

Only if thinking such a god would be a scumbag is a problem.

I was hoping for a more definitive (less conditional) answer.

Since I can't be sure whether this response was sarcastic or not, please tell me - would you think of such a god as a scumbag?

I

0 Replies

Implicator,

Uh oh, you have asked for it now! Frank is very good at telling you exactly how he feels about the God of the bible and he does not mince words.

Just keep in mind, Frank is not a Christian, and if I am stating this correctly, he is an agnostic. He does not know whether God does or does not exist. Is that right, Frank? Don't want to put words in your mouth.

0 Replies

Re: ABORTION.......

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Willing is good.

Are you stating you have a problem with such a god?

I

Only if thinking such a god would be a scumbag is a problem.

I was hoping for a more definitive (less conditional) answer.

Since I can't be sure whether this response was sarcastic or not, please tell me - would you think of such a god as a scumbag?

I

I honestly didn't think my response was conditional at all...and I consider it to be entirely definitive.

But let me take you at your word...and allow me to flesh it out. It may provide a basis for a discsussion.

If..IF...a God exists...and IF that God would be willing to refuse to welcome a soul into heaven because the soul was stained by a "sin" commited by someone else thousands of years ago...and IF the God were unwilling to allow the fact that the soul had not been cleansed of that "sin" because it was aborted before being born and having Baptism available to it to mitigate against the refusal...

...then that god would, in my opinion, be a scumbag.

Keep in mind that we have a track record here on this issue.

St. Augustine, one of the earliest church fathers, asserted that unBaptized souls went to Hell...albeit to a part of Hell lacking the full punishments of the regular Hell. But as far as St. Augustine was concerned...the souls of unBaptized souls did go to Hell.

St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to ease that up a bit. He posited the existence of a place called the Limbo of Innocents...a place, he asserted, of happiness and contentment...but lacking one essential of Heaven...namely, the Beatific Vision...personal intimacy with God.

But since both St. Augustine and Aquinas agreed that the single most torturous aspect of Hell was the knowledge that the Beatific Vision would forever be denied condemned souls...the distinction Aquinas offered was one without significant difference.

I was taught back in the 40's and 50's...that souls of babies who died unBaptized would forever be denied Heaven...and it was instilled in us that the single most grevious sin parents could commit was to delay Baptism because of this danger.

IF there is a god that would add to the indignity of abortion by further insulting the soul by considering it unfit for the divine presence...that god would, in my opinion, be a scumbag.

And since most of the Christians I have debated over the years see things relatively that same way (they do so by denying the possibility that their god would do such a thing)...I exclude it from consideration.

You questioned that exclusion.

This is my response.

0 Replies

Hi Momma Angel,

Good to see you on board. Hope everything is doing better in your area.

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,

Well, things are settling down a bit. Lots of evacuees up here and we are all doing our best to help them.

Good to see you!

0 Replies

Quote:
The only difference I see, is that one baby is dependent on the conditions of the mother's insides, and the other can make it outside.

Open your eyes and look again.

O.k.......I did, and it's still just a developing human. For a second I thought it was a fish, but that is ridiculous.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
The only difference I see, is that one baby is dependent on the conditions of the mother's insides, and the other can make it outside.

Open your eyes and look again.

O.k.......I did, and it's still just a developing human. For a second I thought it was a fish, but that is ridiculous.

I agree. It is a developing human. And an acorn is a developing oak tree...as an egg (fertilized) is a developing chicken.

But an acorn is not an oak tree...an egg is not a chicken...and a zygote or fetus is not a living human being.

I really do not understand why you folks have so much trouble with that!

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

O.k.......I did, and it's still just a developing human. For a second I thought it was a fish, but that is ridiculous.

There ya go TR. If ya wanna push that Recapitulation theory there's still some folks over in the Evolution thread that would agree with you. But not many anymore. Even most of them figured out it was ridiculous. It's definitely a human being from day 1.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

O.k.......I did, and it's still just a developing human. For a second I thought it was a fish, but that is ridiculous.

There ya go TR. If ya wanna push that Recapitulation theory there's still some folks over in the Evolution thread that would agree with you. But not many anymore. Even most of them figured out it was ridiculous. It's definitely a human being from day 1.

Yeah...like an acorn is an oak tree.

Amazing!

0 Replies

Frank Said, I agree. It is a developing human. And an acorn is a developing oak tree...as an egg (fertilized) is a developing chicken.

But an acorn is not an oak tree...an egg is not a chicken...and a zygote or fetus is not a living human being.

I really do not understand why you folks have so much trouble with that!

Can you define something as living soley by how big it is? Or if it breathes on its own? Maybe we have trouble with it, because people like you decide who is human, and who isn't....Frank, tell me, do you think that retarded people, or people with disabilities are humans?

0 Replies

Yes, thunder. Maybe some of us have trouble with it because late-term fetuses have measurable brain activity, facial expressions, the ability to feel pain, and far more similarities than differences with newborns. Maybe more folks ought to have that kind of "trouble".

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Frank Said, I agree. It is a developing human. And an acorn is a developing oak tree...as an egg (fertilized) is a developing chicken.

But an acorn is not an oak tree...an egg is not a chicken...and a zygote or fetus is not a living human being.

I really do not understand why you folks have so much trouble with that!

Can you define something as living soley by how big it is? Or if it breathes on its own?

No. A flea is living despite its small size.

But the question that I have been dealing with is not whether or not a thing is living.

The question is: Is an embryo or a fetus a living human being?

And the answer to that is....NO! No more than an acorn is an oak tree or an egg a chicken.

Quote:

Maybe we have trouble with it, because people like you decide who is human, and who isn't...

I don't think so.

I think the problem here is that folks like you are not willing to see the unique situation involved in a pregnancy...with a "developing human being" doing its developing inside a living human being's body.

You folks seem to think it is okay to simply strip away rights from a pregnant woman simply because you want to invest the zygote, embryo, or fetus growing within her with rights that you say supercede her rights.

I disagree...and I am delighted that the courts of this country and most other countries...disagree also.

Quote:

....Frank, tell me, do you think that retarded people, or people with disabilities are humans?

Yes I do.

In fact, I debate some of them here on A2K.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yes, thunder. Maybe some of us have trouble with it because late-term fetuses have measurable brain activity, facial expressions, the ability to feel pain, and far more similarities than differences with newborns. Maybe more folks ought to have that kind of "trouble".

You keep bringing up late term abortions...why. You are against ALL abortion, even 1 week abortions. Argue that point.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

snood wrote:
Yes, thunder. Maybe some of us have trouble with it because late-term fetuses have measurable brain activity, facial expressions, the ability to feel pain, and far more similarities than differences with newborns. Maybe more folks ought to have that kind of "trouble".

You keep bringing up late term abortions...why. You are against ALL abortion, even 1 week abortions. Argue that point.

Why do you say I'm against ALL abortions? Do you have some fact, something I've said, to back that up? Or is it just because you have trouble thinking in anything but 2 dimensional black-and-white ? I don't believe any decent, reasonable person is ALL of anything - conservative, liberal, ANYTHING. I generally agree that a woman has the rights over her own body when it comes down to it. I have simply expressed my struggle with certain aspects of the abortion question. I struggle with the right and wrong of some things - is that alien to you?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

maporsche wrote:
snood wrote:
Yes, thunder. Maybe some of us have trouble with it because late-term fetuses have measurable brain activity, facial expressions, the ability to feel pain, and far more similarities than differences with newborns. Maybe more folks ought to have that kind of "trouble".

You keep bringing up late term abortions...why. You are against ALL abortion, even 1 week abortions. Argue that point.

Why do you say I'm against ALL abortions? Do you have some fact, something I've said, to back that up? Or is it just because you have trouble thinking in anything but 2 dimensional black-and-white ? I don't believe any decent, reasonable person is ALL of anything - conservative, liberal, ANYTHING. I generally agree that a woman has the rights over her own body when it comes down to it. I have simply expressed my struggle with certain aspects of the abortion question. I struggle with the right and wrong of some things - is that alien to you?

I have a hard time understand your VIEW ON ANYTHING. You ask questions, then I respond *thinking* that your question represented a point of view, then I get challenged that you were "just asking for the sake of asking". I'm not only referencing the most recent post but posts in the past.

What is your view on abortion. Please post it plainly so we can all understand where you're coming from.

You are BY FAR the most difficult person to understand on this board when it comes to your viewpoints.

0 Replies

Quote:

You folks seem to think it is okay to simply strip away rights from a pregnant woman simply because you want to invest the zygote, embryo, or fetus growing within her with rights that you say supercede her rights.

If you follow this logic all the way through the fetuses years, then the parents of the child have every right to murder them at any time...

A fetus is a developing human
A baby is a developing human
A child is a developing human
A teen....etc.

It is never anything but, a developing human. anyone want to contend that?

Oh, and here's a question Frank, if it isn't alive, why do they have to kill it?

Quote:

I disagree...and I am delighted that the courts of this country and most other countries...disagree also.

And I, sickened...

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

If you follow this logic all the way through the fetuses years, then the parents of the child have every right to murder them at any time...

A fetus is a developing human
A baby is a developing human
A child is a developing human
A teen....etc.

It is never anything but, a developing human. anyone want to contend that?

Very good point, Runner. There is a continual process of development which the pro-abortion fans wish to ignore.

Of course, developing humans aren't the only ones in danger. Non-developing ones, such as the disabled, have a red bull's eye painted on them by folks like Peter Singer.

World renowed 'ethicist' and 'animal rights' advocate, Singer apparently isn't so interested in the rights of humans. And with a professor's perch at Princeton from which to preside over the bloodshed, he promotes the 'moral correctness of killing infants who have the misfortune to be less perfect than their parents had wished.

When abortion was 'legalized' , many predicted the slippery slope which the devaluing of human life created, would lead the killing the elderly, the handicapped , etc. There was scoffing among the intelligentsia who assured everyone that this could never happen. Of course now it has.

The Dred Scott decision, which defined blacks as non-persons in the eyes of the law, was legal but wrong. So is abortion.

Pro-abortion fans who are taking refuge is legal definitions and semantic pussyfooting are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know