|
Post by bryan2 on Aug 5, 2004 17:03:02 GMT -5
Of course not and I never insinuated I did..
Irrelevant to the conversation.
Irrelevant to the conversation.
By promoting abortions and allowing them to take place? Your logic does not add up… The pro-abortion crowd strongly promotes abortion as a “choice” and it is not the goal of the pro-murder originations to eliminate the need for abortions… that’s just flat out propaganda.
Yes, her choice was to kill me or let me live…
Absolutely Not! It's not about choice it's about murder. Abortion is murdering the unborn child. Do you know how many Americans alone would be alive today if a women’s “freedom of choice” was not still the law? How can you justify the millions of people who are not alive today because of pro-abortion/murder choices?
Yes… the choice to kill their unborn child or to let them live… it’s really quite simple…
So they should never have lived because they suffer? It is better that we KILLED them before they were born? Do you even realize what you are saying?
So it might have been better if she was going to hate and resent me that she have an abortion and that I never lived?
How can you justify the MURDER of millions of people on the basis of their childhood suffering? What I get from your post is if someone is going to have a less then perfect childhood it would be more appropriate to KILL them before they even get out of the womb. Do you not see how SICK, TWISTED, and SELFISH this is?
I truly pity you…
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Aug 5, 2004 17:35:04 GMT -5
From God's standpoint or Man's standpoint? Man's It's not "crap", it's a fact unless you were once a woman faced with such a decision. Please calm down, Bryan. You are assuming a lot about me and likely others by your response. Neither I or many others who believe it is a woman's right to make such a choice would have counseled your mother to get an abortion. Oh, and yes, you would still be alive if I had been your mother.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 6, 2004 0:26:27 GMT -5
Of course not and I never insinuated I did.. I just asked the question. I think you are in error about this. You will never have to decide whether to get an abortion or not. It is a very simple fact. Since we are discussing abortion I think that fact is relevant to the discussion. Why would any group try to push abortion? Planned Parenthood offers much more than abortion as solutions to women. Abortion is one of the choices women have. Exactly. Or she could choose to raise you or put you up for adoption. For it to be murder it would have to be illegal. Abortion is not illegal. Killing in war is not murder for the same reason. Only if you choose to redefine murder. This leads back to the discussion that was started with Robb. When did the individual come into being? It is that simple if you do not know what the counseling involves. It appears to be clear that you do not know if you think that is all there is to it. Yes I do. You were saying it was a good thing that your mother decided that you should live. I was suggesting that it might have been a good thing if Hitler's mother had made a different decision. That is what I am saying. Can you honestly say it is better to carry a child to term and then drop it into a trash can to die because the mother really doesn't want the child? Is it better to deliver a child and then abuse it and have it die from shaken child syndrom at 2 years old? Do you think it is really better to suffer and die than to have never been? First of all I do not have to justify murder because abortion does not fall into that catagory. Can you justify child death, which would indeed be murder, because the mother could not choose to prevent the birth? Well, that is a bit of a twist you have applied. I believe I said that abortion and never have existed was a better choice than a life of misery and early death. Pregnancies should be something a woman wants. Children should be something that a woman, and hopefully the father as well, also wants. Forcing a child on people who do not want them because of your values seems to be as selfish. You are responsible for your feelings. The topic of birth control and abortion raises the question of when an individual comes into being. Pretty much everyone agrees that killing a child is wrong. Late term abortion (post 20 months) is illegal in several states. Most people do not consider gametes to be individuals. So it is the in between time that is the questionable time. When does a zygote or embryo or fetus become an individual?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 6, 2004 10:58:37 GMT -5
From my pov -- to push for wider acceptance of the practice, thus helping to ensure that it will always remain legal to exterminate the life of a baby within the womb. Not really. Planned Parenthood is in the practice of promoting abortion more aggressively. This has been known for a long time. www.nrlc.org/abortion/ppprov.html1993-1994 stats And the numbers of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are even higher today: The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) report for 2002-2003 shows that it performed 227,385 abortions in 2002, an increase of 6.7 percent over the number of abortions it performed during 2001Additionally: More Emphasis on Abortion than Parenthood
Though Planned Parenthood identifies itself as a "pro-choice" organization, statistics from its latest annual report show a decided tilt toward the abortion "option." Prenatal care clients (16,065) were outnumbered by abortion clients by a more than 10 to 1 margin. That over four times as many (67,052) prenatal patients had to be referred out as received prenatal care shows how ill prepared or unmotivated PPFA clinics are to offer women this option. Put another way, 80% of abortion patients receive their services on site, while 80% of prenatal patients have to be referred elsewhere.
The case is even worse with regard to adoption. Despite the mention of "adoption counseling" as one of the health services offered by affiliates, no in-house adoption services are listed in the "service summary." The service summary does mention "adoption referrals to other agencies," but these total only a paltry 4,892 for the whole year. Put in perspective, abortions outnumbered adoption referrals by a 34-1 margin at Planned Parenthood clinics in 1998.
Given the inordinate emphasis Planned Parenthood gives to abortion over prenatal care and adoption, it should be clearer than ever that Planned Parenthood's plans typically don't involve parenthood.www.abortiontv.com/planned_parenthood.htmPlanned Parenthood is also in the practice of promoting increased sexual activity in young people. Without such activity prevalent among young individuals, Planned Parenthood would lose $$.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Aug 6, 2004 13:35:21 GMT -5
I just asked the question. I think you are in error about this. You will never have to decide whether to get an abortion or not. It is a very simple fact. Since we are discussing abortion I think that fact is relevant to the discussion. Why would any group try to push abortion? Planned Parenthood offers much more than abortion as solutions to women. Abortion is one of the choices women have. Exactly. Or she could choose to raise you or put you up for adoption. For it to be murder it would have to be illegal. Abortion is not illegal. Killing in war is not murder for the same reason. Only if you choose to redefine murder. This leads back to the discussion that was started with Robb. When did the individual come into being? It is that simple if you do not know what the counseling involves. It appears to be clear that you do not know if you think that is all there is to it. Yes I do. You were saying it was a good thing that your mother decided that you should live. I was suggesting that it might have been a good thing if Hitler's mother had made a different decision. That is what I am saying. Can you honestly say it is better to carry a child to term and then drop it into a trash can to die because the mother really doesn't want the child? Is it better to deliver a child and then abuse it and have it die from shaken child syndrom at 2 years old? Do you think it is really better to suffer and die than to have never been? First of all I do not have to justify murder because abortion does not fall into that catagory. Can you justify child death, which would indeed be murder, because the mother could not choose to prevent the birth? Well, that is a bit of a twist you have applied. I believe I said that abortion and never have existed was a better choice than a life of misery and early death. Pregnancies should be something a woman wants. Children should be something that a woman, and hopefully the father as well, also wants. Forcing a child on people who do not want them because of your values seems to be as selfish. You are responsible for your feelings. The topic of birth control and abortion raises the question of when an individual comes into being. Pretty much everyone agrees that killing a child is wrong. Late term abortion (post 20 months) is illegal in several states. Most people do not consider gametes to be individuals. So it is the in between time that is the questionable time. When does a zygote or embryo or fetus become an individual? What can I say to this? You're sick... flat out sick... You mask killing children as a woman's choice... What else is there to day?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 6, 2004 13:53:30 GMT -5
Not really. Planned Parenthood is in the practice of promoting abortion more aggressively. This has been known for a long time. Planned Parenthood does offer additional services: Contraception, Women Contraception, Men Emergency Contraception Kits Male Sterilizations Female Sterilizations Infertility Colposcopy Procedures Cryotherapy Procedures HIV Testing, Women HIV Testing, Men Primary care Midlife clients Breast Exams/Breast Care Pregnancy tests Prenatal clients LOOP/LEEP Procedures STI Procedures, Women & Men Statistics regarding the services provided by Planned Parenthood will be distorted. While they do offer adoption counseling the people who go to PP have usually decided what they are going to do. In all fairness, PP is not regarded as an adoption clinic. Women who have decided to seek an abortion do not go to a right to life organization just as patients seeking homeopathic treatment to not flock to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. You use the facility that will provide you with the service you are seeking. It is not surprising that the number of adoption referrals is so low. What is surprising is that so many women have been counseled by the PP staff and have changed their minds regarding an abortion. Providing health care is a business. PP is, as are most facilities, a non-profit organization. I do not see how PP encourages sexual activity. Perhaps it is because they provide services to prevent pregnancies and STDs. I wonder how this can be a fault since the use of birth control would reduce the number of pregnancies and abortions. Abstinence is the best method but realistically it is not a solution that works in many areas of the US. Humans have sex. It is a biological imperative that, under the right conditions, will trump any and all teachings to the contrary. I do not think we should give up but I think denying the possibility will cause much, much more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Aug 7, 2004 22:18:19 GMT -5
Nice try, but the comment of yours that I responded to was: Planned Parenthood offers much more than abortion as solutions [i.e. solutions to an unexpected pregnancy] to women.
You made this statement regarding PP and the subject of abortion. Abortion is indeed the primary "solution" that PP promotes to women -- they do not aggressively promote other "solutions".
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 7, 2004 23:14:59 GMT -5
Bryan,
I appreciate your passion and bluntness.
I love it when people say things like "settle down". It only shows that they are totally in denial that we are talking about murder.
Keep up the fight, bro and please don't "settle down".
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 7, 2004 23:31:45 GMT -5
Yes.
Yes.
If you are talking about this life: The same punishment prescibed for any murderer according to God's law... death.
If you are talking about spiritual life: The same pushment that we all deserve being sinners...eternal death. Of couse, for those who are willing to repent of sin, there is forgivness and cleansing through the blood of Jesus. This is my hope for us all and why it is necessary for us to recognise the difference between sin and "a womans choice" and come to repentance.
It has nothing to do with feelings or being a man or woman. It has to do with right and wrong.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 9:33:21 GMT -5
Nice try, but the comment of yours that I responded to was: Planned Parenthood offers much more than abortion as solutions [i.e. solutions to an unexpected pregnancy] to women. You made this statement regarding PP and the subject of abortion. Abortion is indeed the primary "solution" that PP promotes to women -- they do not aggressively promote other "solutions". Planned Parenthood does offer other solutions. You are basing your understanding on the fact that they provide more abortions than other solutions. As I pointed out, women go to Planned Parenthood for abortions. If PP did not promote other solutions there would be no adoptions at all. Planned Parenthood is viewed as an organization that provides abortions. Although there other solutions presented, if a woman wants counseling about being pregnant and has not decided to choose abortion PP would not be a good choice. I don't think anyone is arguing over the fact that PP does abortions. I pointed out that they also offer other services. I should have placed the list at the bottom of the post. As I said: I am not sure if PP is aggressivly promoting abortion as the "solution" or if the people who go to PP have already decided to have an abortion. It is not known if it is the first place they have turned or if they have sought counseling elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 9:57:41 GMT -5
If you are talking about this life: The same punishment prescibed for any murderer according to God's law... death. If you are going to talk about life and individuals it seems to me to be important to define the terms before you condemn someone to death. I agree. But I still feel it is prudent to determine what we are talking about prior to condemning people.
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Aug 8, 2004 17:44:04 GMT -5
If you are talking about this life: The same punishment prescibed for any murderer according to God's law... death. Amazing. Without hesitation you call women who have had abortions and those who perform them murderers then turn around and advocate murdering them. That is hypocritical. Before abortion was legal, as far as I know, women who had one were not charged with murder and sent to prison. Do you support the death penalty as well? As you see it. I support a woman's right to make the traumatic decision to have an abortion only in the most extreme cases. An example would be when it's definitely a matter of saving the woman's life. I strongly disagree with it being done, for example, because it's not a convenient time to have a baby or because having the baby would bring shame to the woman and/or her family.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 8, 2004 18:12:22 GMT -5
I am simply applying my understanding of God's law which calls for capital punishment for those who commit capital crimes. Killing an innocent, unborn baby qualifies as a capital crime as I understand it.
But let's see if I can follow your logic... killing an innocent unborn baby is a choice, while punishment according to God's law is murder. Hmmm.
Btw, I am curious, curious, what is your standard by which you judge me as hypocritical?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 18:41:52 GMT -5
Amazing. Without hesitation you call women who have had abortions and those who perform them murderers then turn around and advocate murdering them. That is hypocritical. Before abortion was legal, as far as I know, women who had one were not charged with murder and sent to prison. Do you support the death penalty as well? The crime was not the abortion of the fetus but the preformance of the procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 19:01:22 GMT -5
But let's see if I can follow your logic... killing an innocent unborn baby is a choice, while punishment according to God's law is murder. Hmmm. I think the question of when an individual is created is still at the root of your question. If the developing zygote or embryo is expelled before there is an individual, regardless of the reason for the expulsion, I would think there would be a different judgement.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 8, 2004 19:01:30 GMT -5
The crime was not the abortion of the fetus but the preformance of the procedure. How can you separate them? inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 19:33:34 GMT -5
How can you separate them? inatent The law does. In Nebraska for example, a physician would have faced felony charges, including up to 20 years in prison, a $25,000 fine, or both, and lose his or her license. The crime was for doing the procedure. The death of the fetus did not enter into it. Defining exactly when a fertilized egg becomes an individual is a difficult task.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 8, 2004 20:59:31 GMT -5
Ok Present,
You have badgered me long enough so I'll bite:
When exactly do you consider that unborn baby (my term) or fetus (your term) in the womb to be a person?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Aug 8, 2004 21:41:27 GMT -5
I am simply applying my understanding of God's law which calls for capital punishment for those who commit capital crimes. Killing an innocent, unborn baby qualifies as a capital crime as I understand it. But let's see if I can follow your logic... killing an innocent unborn baby is a choice, while punishment according to God's law is murder. Hmmm. Btw, I am curious, curious, what is your standard by which you judge me as hypocritical? Did Jesus teach in the NT that ending a pregnancy early on to, for example, save a pregnant woman's life was considered murder? Did Jesus teach that the consequence for those involved in ending a pregnancy early on should be to kill them? Did Jesus teach that it was okay to kill anyone who was following the law of the land simply because some people didn't believe certain laws were right according to their beliefs? Did Jesus teach that it was okay to kill people who have been convicted of breaking certain laws of the land?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 0:33:32 GMT -5
Curious,
Jesus did not bring God's law to man. God had already given it to man through Moses. Jesus did however, quote from God's law.
I do not believe that Jesus came to do away with the law but to fulfill it. This means for example, that He fulfilled the ceremonial law which was a foreshadow of Himself. Murder however, was a capital crime punishable by death before Jesus as well as after him.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 0:42:22 GMT -5
Ok Present, When exactly do you consider that unborn baby (my term) or fetus (your term) in the womb to be a person? Robb As I have said, I think a fetus becomes an individual when it can survive outside of the mother. This is not a specific number of months because the development of fetuses is different. It is also a short term solution. We are not far from the day when the only contribution from the mother will be the ova. This brings up a whole other set of questions. With genetic manuplication the requirement of an ova will soon have gone by the boards as well. I believe we are rapidly approaching the day when the basic definitions of things like 'life' and 'individual' will need to be re-examined and redefined. Even today there are zygotes sitting in freezers that are viable but in their current state could hardly be defined as alive. Just for the record - fetus is not my term but rather the term for an organism developing within the parent. Using specific well defined terms makes non-face to face discussion much easier.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 0:56:56 GMT -5
Murder however, was a capital crime punishable by death before Jesus as well as after him. This brings up another question, one discussed elsewhere on these forums, regarding: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Do we keep some and disregard others?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 7:16:35 GMT -5
Will you at least join me in condeming the killing of those who you consider to be unborn individuals? Or will you still consider it a choice to kill one who "can survive out of the mother"?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 7:28:27 GMT -5
Yes. Jesus fulfilled part of the law with his coming. For example, since Jesus came the need for animal sacrifice is no longer in effect.
The sabbath question is a good one that is not easily answered (at least by me). I am unclear as to wheather it was part of the cerimonial law or not. I suspect the principles of a day of rest etc still apply today. I intend to study this issue more in the future.
While this question remains, I doubt most people would suggest that murder is somehow OK because of the sabbath question.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 11:03:39 GMT -5
Will you at least join me in condeming the killing of those who you consider to be unborn individuals? Or will you still consider it a choice to kill one who "can survive out of the mother"? Robb As I have stated, I am against killing of all kinds. I realize that there are times when killing is no murder and may be justified in a person's mind. If there was a way to detect when a fetus could survive on its own, short of a delivery and waiting to see if it dies, I would support a law to prevent late term abortions. I believe many states already have laws in place that prevent abortions after the 24 week. I am not so big on condemning. People go to war and people kill and die. I personally do not think killing on either side is the right thing to do but in the face of reality I am glad there are those who have somehow come to terms with that. In a society I believe people are respoisible for their own actions and must live within the constraints that society has set and according to their own values.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 11:06:16 GMT -5
While this question remains, I doubt most people would suggest that murder is somehow OK because of the sabbath question. Robb Murder, by definition, is unacceptable by society. When it is acceptable to kill, according to the rules of the society, it is not murder.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 14:46:18 GMT -5
So society is the standard? If a society says that killing Jews is not murder than it is not?
Present do you have any unchanging standard of right and wrong? Or do your standards change from day to day with society?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 9, 2004 15:29:14 GMT -5
Present wrote: Not murder? The mass graves of people killed by Sadaam Hussein? The genocide in the Sudan? Christians beaten to death by the Chinese police? These were all "legal" actions, and no repercussions to the governmental officials involved. Does society supercede God in defining sin? Ed
|
|