What is the best way to counter Abortion? [Archive]

captusa

February 27th, 2009, 10:24 pm

How do they become aware of their choice?
Is it the Dr who tells the 15 year old to ly still and don't worry, he won't tell her parents?
Is it the boyfriend who eggs her on? Is he the one telling her it will stick with her for the rest of her life?
Why do sooooooo many women who have abortions regret it from then on?
You are being obtuse if you think that women who have abortions are told the truth before having one.

What about the mother of 3 that suffered from a contaceptive malfunction that fully understands the consequence of raising another child.
Is she aware of her choice.
And I know of women who have had abortions even before Roe v Wade who are successful professionals and parents that do not regret an abortion they had in their youth.
BTW I knew many nurses that had abortions because of accidental pregnancies.
I would wager that they knew more about the truth about abortions than most men that would deny chyoice.
As I write I recall a doctor I knew that had an abortion.
Do you assume she did not know the truth about abortion.

I do regret that abortion is becoming the contraception of choice for the irresponsible.

ellis

February 27th, 2009, 10:45 pm

Exodus 21
22 "If people are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Values

February 27th, 2009, 10:47 pm

Hadassah

February 27th, 2009, 10:49 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

Love. Let them know that they are loved no matter what and that they can carry the baby to term despite their fear.

Hadassah

February 27th, 2009, 10:49 pm

First...anecdotal evidence and second...how sure are you that all those women have not regreted their decisions?

I'm sure many of them are in denial.

baysidetrey

February 27th, 2009, 11:16 pm

What about the mother of 3 that suffered from a contaceptive malfunction that fully understands the consequence of raising another child.
Is she aware of her choice.
And I know of women who have had abortions even before Roe v Wade who are successful professionals and parents that do not regret an abortion they had in their youth.
BTW I knew many nurses that had abortions because of accidental pregnancies.
I would wager that they knew more about the truth about abortions than most men that would deny chyoice.
As I write I recall a doctor I knew that had an abortion.
Do you assume she did not know the truth about abortion.

I do regret that abortion is becoming the contraception of choice for the irresponsible.

I'll weigh in on this one. Did not the mothers have a choice in the first place? Did they have sex and not know what might happen? Or did they do as they wished and then killed the evidence? Another example I would like to throw in. What about the single mother of 6 who can't afford to even feed her children. Her father becomes severly ill and she can not afford his care. Can she terminate his life as he would only be a burden to her? BTW, I do not agree with prenatal abortions but I do agree with postnatal abortions up to the age of 25. :))

Values

February 27th, 2009, 11:23 pm

Love. Let them know that they are loved no matter what and that they can carry the baby to term despite their fear.

I totally agree, but how do we reach them?
How many millions of children are lost because those with gendas reach them first?

lwdc

February 27th, 2009, 11:25 pm

BTW I knew many nurses that had abortions because of accidental pregnancies.Captain, allow me just to preface my post by letting you know I enjoy reading you. I find your posts to be, by and large, clever and often witty.

Now, here's my question: what the heck do you mean by "nurses that had abortions because of accidental pregnancies"? I mean, that sounds like they mishandled the specimen vials when transporting them from the patient's quarters to the doctor's laboratory.

baysidetrey

February 27th, 2009, 11:28 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

My opinion is that we merely tell them that what we believe they are doing is an error. In the OT, many of the kings caused their sons to be "passed through the fire" which was a pagan ritual. Nothing stopped them then and nothing will stop them now.

chris13

February 27th, 2009, 11:38 pm

Mobulis

February 27th, 2009, 11:41 pm

First...anecdotal evidence and second...how sure are you that all those women have not regreted their decisions?

They may regret their choice BUT IT IS THEIR CHOICE.

captusa

February 27th, 2009, 11:42 pm

Captain, allow me just to preface my post by letting you know I enjoy reading you. I find your posts to be, by and large, clever and often witty.

Now, here's my question: what the heck do you mean by "nurses that had abortions because of accidental pregnancies"? I mean, that sounds like they mishandled the specimen vials when transporting them from the patient's quarters to the doctor's laboratory.

No form of contraception is more than 99% effective.
For some women those odds are not good enough.

lwdc

February 27th, 2009, 11:45 pm

No form of contraception is more than 99% effective.
For some women those odds are not good enough.Is that a fact? To what women do you refer when you say "some women"?

Nevermind.

Mobulis

February 27th, 2009, 11:45 pm

This is one issue I find myself torn between what is morally right and the rights of the individual.
I support keeping abortions a legal option (they'll happen anyway), but I do NOT support using abortion to get by an "unwanted" pregnancy. If you're freely having sex and do not want a child to result, there are too many ways to prevent it. The only cases I see abortion as a true option are rape, incest, and serious danger to the life of the mother.
God has already said "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). But He has given us free will, so we must choose wether or not to obey His word.

And then she says this.
Exodus 31:15 (New American Standard Bible)

15'(A)For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a (B)sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; (C)whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

captusa

February 27th, 2009, 11:58 pm

I'll weigh in on this one. Did not the mothers have a choice in the first place? Did they have sex and not know what might happen? Or did they do as they wished and then killed the evidence? Another example I would like to throw in. What about the single mother of 6 who can't afford to even feed her children. Her father becomes severly ill and she can not afford his care. Can she terminate his life as he would only be a burden to her? BTW, I do not agree with prenatal abortions but I do agree with postnatal abortions up to the age of 25. :))

Are you saying that every time a woman has sex (protected or not) she has to accept a pregnancy ?
The abortion question will always be a problem.
There are some that believe contraception is equivalent to abortion.
I believe abortion is the woman's choice.
Those that consider a zygote to be a complete human being cannot accept that.
At what point does the government have the right to decide?

As a former high school teacher I refuse to comment on your last statement on the grounds that it might incriminate me.

Values

February 28th, 2009, 12:05 am

captusa

February 28th, 2009, 12:06 am

Is that a fact? To what women do you refer when you say "some women"?

Nevermind.

Woman for whom a less than 1 percent failure rate of contraception would have a signifigant effect on population growth.

chris13

February 28th, 2009, 12:11 am

And then she says this.
Exodus 31:15 (New American Standard Bible)

15'(A)For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a (B)sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; (C)whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

The Old Testament is chock full of inconsistencies and contradictions. But do remember that Hebrews used to stone to death anyone working on Saturday, at least in the O.T. days.

And yes, I said Saturday. Look at a calendar. Sunday is the first day of the week, not the 7th day. Most Christian religions have chosen to worship on Sunday, so we're not actually breaking that commandment. I guess that means that Rabbis ARE breaking the commandment because Jews go to synagogue on Saturday, and that would be a work day for the Rabbi.
But you can turn around and justify that by delving into the Gospels of Jesus Christ, noting that He healed on the Sabbath, which that tended to tick off the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Lima India Bravo

February 28th, 2009, 12:37 am

First...anecdotal evidence and second...how sure are you that all those women have not regreted their decisions?

How sure are you that all those women have regretted their decisions?

Values

February 28th, 2009, 12:55 am

How sure are you that all those women have regretted their decisions?

Never said the ALL did, but the odds are in my favor and you know it.
Abortion has even become something you libs have said you want less of, pray tell, why is that?????

Values

February 28th, 2009, 12:56 am

The Old Testament is chock full of inconsistencies and contradictions. But do remember that Hebrews used to stone to death anyone working on Saturday, at least in the O.T. days.

And yes, I said Saturday. Look at a calendar. Sunday is the first day of the week, not the 7th day. Most Christian religions have chosen to worship on Sunday, so we're not actually breaking that commandment. I guess that means that Rabbis ARE breaking the commandment because Jews go to synagogue on Saturday, and that would be a work day for the Rabbi.
But you can turn around and justify that by delving into the Gospels of Jesus Christ, noting that He healed on the Sabbath, which that tended to tick off the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Please point out these "inconsistencies and contradictions".

Wake-Up

February 28th, 2009, 1:00 am

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

I suggest you find employment at an OB-GYN office, Planned Parenthood office or some Pro-Life office to help educate those ill informed women so you can share your truth with them.

I won't say every women is given all options as I won't say every women is talked into every abortion. There are ethical agencies and professionals and ones that have their own agenda but just as your truth is based on your belief system, some choose abortion based on what their belief systems are.

This is a choice for 51% of the population and they need to reconcile that decision for themselves.

Personally when there are no unwanted children left in any adoption agencies or in foster care we can talk about ending abortions. Other posters are correct, legal or not, they will occur so our efforts should be at education, prevention, options, personal accountability, and proper pre and post natal care.

Values

February 28th, 2009, 1:03 am

I suggest you find employment at an OB-GYN office, Planned Parenthood office or some Pro-Life office to help educate those ill informed women so you can share your truth with them.

I won't say every women is given all options as I won't say every women is talked into every abortion. There are ethical agencies and professionals and ones that have their own agenda but just as your truth is based on your belief system, some choose abortion based on what their belief systems are.

This is a choice for 51% of the population and they need to reconcile that decision for themselves.

Personally when there are no unwanted children left in any adoption agencies or in foster care we can talk about ending abortions. Other posters are correct, legal or not, they will occur so our efforts should be at education, prevention, options, personal accountability, and proper pre and post natal care.

Interesting stance.
would you say the opposite if it were once again illegal?
As in 51% the other way?

Thank you Troops

February 28th, 2009, 1:22 am

With Jesus I see the value of human life. Every life is precious. That's the only way to fight abortion. If we are just evolved animals, well we know what animals do to each other.

BROEDERBOND

February 28th, 2009, 8:51 am

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

By giving real tangible appropriate help to those who feel abortion is the only choice they have.

Mobulis

February 28th, 2009, 9:13 am

With Jesus I see the value of human life. Every life is precious. That's the only way to fight abortion. If we are just evolved animals, well we know what animals do to each other.

Animals don't go to war, they don't kill each other over skin color, religious beliefs, and they don't torture each other for pleasure. What makes us better than them?

Lie Sniper

February 28th, 2009, 9:43 am

Went googling and among many things, found this, which relates to the OP.

People who think there are no negative effects to women receiving abortions, or find the need to minimize these effects, have a look, or do your own research. :rolleyes:
http://www.afterabortion.org/complic.html

Thank you Troops

February 28th, 2009, 10:15 am

Animals don't go to war, they don't kill each other over skin color, religious beliefs, and they don't torture each other for pleasure. What makes us better than them?

That's why I said with Jesus...

Lima India Bravo

February 28th, 2009, 10:44 am

Never said the ALL did, but the odds are in my favor and you know it.
Abortion has even become something you libs have said you want less of, pray tell, why is that?????

How do you know what I know?

baysidetrey

February 28th, 2009, 10:45 am

Are you saying that every time a woman has sex (protected or not) she has to accept a pregnancy ?
The abortion question will always be a problem.
There are some that believe contraception is equivalent to abortion.
I believe abortion is the woman's choice.
Those that consider a zygote to be a complete human being cannot accept that.
At what point does the government have the right to decide?

As a former high school teacher I refuse to comment on your last statement on the grounds that it might incriminate me.

First, I believe that yes, everytime someone has sex they must accept the responsibilities which include pregnancy. Why is it so hard for people to accept personal responsibility? As to it being a womans "choice", what about the man? He has no choice? I do agree that it is a complicated subject but I do not think my tax dollars should go to pay for someone elses "religion" and promote their "beliefs" also with said tax dollars (seperation of church and state swings both ways).

Values

February 28th, 2009, 11:01 am

Animals don't go to war, they don't kill each other over skin color, religious beliefs, and they don't torture each other for pleasure. What makes us better than them?

I am confused here, don't people who believe in evolution believe that we are animals?
How can we be animals but not animals?
I know this sounds like a trap but it really makes no sense and I find that most evolutionists don't answer these questions.
Anyone?

baysidetrey

February 28th, 2009, 11:04 am

Animals don't go to war, they don't kill each other over skin color, religious beliefs, and they don't torture each other for pleasure. What makes us better than them?

Animals don't get abortions either. One more point for animals!!!
(Wait, I've thought of more. They do kill each other over their urine scent, tribe affiliation, weakness, eat their young, etc. Don't you wach the Animal Planet?)

Wake-Up

February 28th, 2009, 1:29 pm

Interesting stance.
would you say the opposite if it were once again illegal?
As in 51% the other way?

The 51% I refer to is not a simple majority statement of those supporting choice. I was referring to the approximate % of women in the country versus men.

While it takes two to conceive in the traditional sense, not counting IVF, it is women obviously, who must carry a fetus to term. It may sound like a cop out but as a male, I can preach to a woman the pro's or con's of either issue on abortion rights but can not dictate my opinions on them since I can not become pregnant.

Lima India Bravo

February 28th, 2009, 3:29 pm

I am confused here, don't people who believe in evolution believe that we are animals?
How can we be animals but not animals?
I know this sounds like a trap but it really makes no sense and I find that most evolutionists don't answer these questions.Anyone?

You're right, your statement makes no sense. They don't answer the questions because they're stupid questions.

Values

February 28th, 2009, 4:32 pm

You're right, your statement makes no sense. They don't answer the questions because they're stupid questions.

A non-answer yet again.

Pollyanna

February 28th, 2009, 8:38 pm

This is one issue I find myself torn between what is morally right and the rights of the individual.
I support keeping abortions a legal option (they'll happen anyway), but I do NOT support using abortion to get by an "unwanted" pregnancy. If you're freely having sex and do not want a child to result, there are too many ways to prevent it. The only cases I see abortion as a true option are rape, incest, and serious danger to the life of the mother.
God has already said "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). But He has given us free will, so we must choose wether or not to obey His word.

I agree with you to a point. There have been stories of women conceiving babies through rape and carrying the babe to full term. This is an innocent life and should be able to thrive. There are other options out there for the "unwanted" baby.

Mikko

February 28th, 2009, 8:50 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?
Learn the art of persuasive writing.:)

Mobulis

February 28th, 2009, 8:54 pm

Animals don't get abortions either. One more point for animals!!!
(Wait, I've thought of more. They do kill each other over their urine scent, tribe affiliation, weakness, eat their young, etc. Don't you wach the Animal Planet?)

But for them its instinct they're not sentient so they don't consciously choose.

Mobulis

February 28th, 2009, 9:06 pm

I am confused here, don't people who believe in evolution believe that we are animals?
How can we be animals but not animals?
I know this sounds like a trap but it really makes no sense and I find that most evolutionists don't answer these questions.
Anyone?

As matter of scientific classification we are part of the category of great apes this includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.In fact we share 98% of our dna with chimpanzees.

baysidetrey

February 28th, 2009, 9:58 pm

But for them its instinct they're not sentient so they don't consciously choose.

So, you answered your own question. Humans have a choice to be good or bad while animals have instinct. That is how we are better.

baysidetrey

February 28th, 2009, 9:59 pm

As matter of scientific classification we are part of the category of great apes this includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.In fact we share 98% of our dna with chimpanzees.

Now to be fair in your statement, please explain how important the 2% difference is.

LeroyBrown

February 28th, 2009, 10:29 pm

Now to be fair in your statement, please explain how important the 2% difference is.

To their credit they have yet to come up the simian version of the Jonas Brothers.:whistle:

Lima India Bravo

February 28th, 2009, 10:35 pm

A non-answer yet again.

That's right. A non-answer for a stupid question.

Fig Tree

February 28th, 2009, 10:35 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

Unfortunately, we as a society have embraced the procedure that has led to the death of over 40 million gifts from God. We have even allowed our government through appropriation funds finance this option through organizations such as planned parenthood. I think we should show all children the "Silent Scream" video, which clearly shows the baby and its actions throughout the entire abortion procedure. We have failed to be good stewards of the children that God has tried to bless us with. Perhaps we killed the baby who would have come up with a cure to cancer, or the one that would develop the fussion reactor to free us from our dependance on foreign oil. But they are gone, we cannot bring them back. There are Care Resource Pregnancy Centers that are christian based. They are a good resource for women and girls who are struggling with the decision of abortion and have a high success rate in helping women and girls making a decision to have the baby.

chris13

February 28th, 2009, 11:29 pm

I agree with you to a point. There have been stories of women conceiving babies through rape and carrying the babe to full term. This is an innocent life and should be able to thrive. There are other options out there for the "unwanted" baby.

I'm not condoning abortion in the case of rape, but I can understand it. Carrying a baby for nine months normally creates a bond (there are some exceptions out there, and those people scare me). I can understand a woman not wanting that to happen because it would be a constant reminder. I also know there are women out there that are rape victims and get pregnant as a result, and then go on and carry the baby to term and even keep it. Those people are amazing and so filled with God's love that it goes beyond my mere mortal understanding.

Mobulis

February 28th, 2009, 11:55 pm

Now to be fair in your statement, please explain how important the 2% difference is.

That 2% makes us self-aware and sentient, from that all human civilization springs.

Mobulis

March 1st, 2009, 12:02 am

So, you answered your own question. Humans have a choice to be good or bad while animals have instinct. That is how we are better.

A better answer is that we have the capacity to be better OR worse than animals depending on the choices we make.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 12:06 am

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 12:20 am

That 2% makes us self-aware and sentient, from that all human civilization springs.

For one, even if it were 2% it would be something like 60 million base points, correct? Also, here is a link I found interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
Of course, this is really off of the subject of abortion. I am merely trying to refute your "animal/man" theory. However, you brought up animals being better than humans in some instances which I agreed seeing as animals don't have abortions for unwanted offspring.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 12:27 am

Mind your own business. Theologically, if "God(s)" care(s), it's between it/them and the aborting party. If it/they don't care, you're meddling for nothing. If it/they do care, and want for you to stop the practice of abortion, what's the point of its/their existence, that it/they cannot do the work of ending abortion it/themselves.

It may be called "free will". I will agree with you as this practice has been going on since pagans passed thier sons through the fire and offered their children for sacrifice to their gods. However, theologically speaking, murder has been going on forever (Cain and Able) so by your theory, there should be no law against murder as if "God" wanted it stopped He would end it. Could we not use this argument for all laws?

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 12:33 am

It may be called "free will". I will agree with you as this practice has been going on since pagans passed thier sons through the fire and offered their children for sacrifice to their gods. However, theologically speaking, murder has been going on forever (Cain and Able) so by your theory, there should be no law against murder as if "God" wanted it stopped He would end it. Could we not use this argument for all laws?

Of course you could. But, that's not my point. If your opposition to abortion is theological, you negate the potency of your divine(s) by depriving it/them of agency - which principle applies to all claims to religious and faith motivated legislative coercion.

If you're opposing abortion "in the world," by using human structures of control and domination, your theological justifications are invalidated by trusting to human agency to enforce "God's Will."

In other words, you may oppose abortion on your terms, using human systems of control and punishment, thus invalidating claims to faith or divine potency - or you may leave it to your divine(s) and validate your faith.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 12:51 am

Of course you could. But, that's not my point. If your opposition to abortion is theological, you negate the potency of your divine(s) by depriving it/them of agency - which principle applies to all claims to religious and faith motivated legislative coercion.

If you're opposing abortion "in the world," by using human structures of control and domination, your theological justifications are invalidated by trusting to human agency to enforce "God's Will."

In other words, you may oppose abortion on your terms, using human systems of control and punishment, thus invalidating claims to faith or divine potency - or you may leave it to your divine(s) and validate your faith.

You err in your assumptions. First, if you read the bible you will see where God has worked through men to accomplish His will. That is the theological side. Next, let us go to the "common sense" side. I oppose abortion as I also oppose murder. I will not however force my views on anyone. If you want to murder, that is your choice. I can tell you why it is wrong etc. but I will not try and force you to believe my opinion. Now, on another note. Let's take out the outlawing of the practice. Do you believe that my tax dollars should support what I believe to be murder? Your belief is that it is just a procedure, mine is that it is murder. If you want to support it with your money, fine. But should I not have the right of choice?

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 1:00 am

You err in your assumptions.

Nope. I'm not assuming. I'm arguing a point.

First, if you read the bible you will see where God has worked through men to accomplish His will. The claims about faith apply to the text of the "Bible," and the stories within its pages, as well. The Bible is not the action of a deity. The Bible is a series of claims and stories, about that deity and its actions. Since the Bible is just a set of accounts, with no objective demonstration of the validity of its claims, its existence attests only to its existence. If I show you a book about Thor, assert that such and such a loop of "prophecy" and series of stories within the Thor Book itself validates that Thor Book, all that I've done is use a narrative, or set of narratives, to explain themselves as I prefer them to be explained. I have not established the validity of the Book's claims.

So, your Bookly claims about God remain just that: assertions, not demonstrable, material facts. That the Book asserts that God used men does not mean that the Book asserts correctly.

You only have your faith that it the Book is correct. Since all that you have is your faith - which cannot have proof, or it is not faith - you really have no option to use that Book to make claims about the object of that Book.

In other words, you can and do have faith in your Book, but that in itself is not and cannot be proof of its validity, since your faith, to be faith, cannot be knowledge.

Since your Book, then, is simply assertions of faith, its claims about God are not factually established, and do not serve as evidence that God or Gods use men, in the world.

That is the theological side.You didn't actually address the ideological, moral and philosophical consequences of your theological assertions.

Next, let us go to the "common sense" side. "Common sense" is also merely an assertion.

I oppose abortion as I also oppose murder. I will not however force my views on anyone. If you want to murder, that is your choice. I can tell you why it is wrong etc. but I will not try and force you to believe my opinion. Now, on another note. Let's take out the outlawing of the practice. Do you believe that my tax dollars should support what I believe to be murder? Your belief is that it is just a procedure, mine is that it is murder. If you want to support it with your money, fine. But should I not have the right of choice?Changing the terms of discussion, mid discourse, is bad form. You have previously asserted an overlap between "divine will" and human agency. If you no longer hold this assertion, you have no claim to meddle in the medical decision of someone seeking an abortion. If you do insist on holding this assertion, you cannot do so on faith without also declaring, by your actions, that your God lacks agency, will and effect in the world, and that your faith is not in fact faith.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 1:34 am

Nope. I'm not assuming. I'm arguing a point.

The claims about faith apply to the text of the "Bible," and the stories within its pages, as well. The Bible is not the action of a deity. The Bible is a series of claims and stories, about that deity and its actions. Since the Bible is just a set of accounts, with no objective demonstration of the validity of its claims, its existence attests only to its existence. If I show you a book about Thor, assert that such and such a loop of "prophecy" and series of stories within the Thor Book itself validates that Thor Book, all that I've done is use a narrative, or set of narratives, to explain themselves as I prefer them to be explained. I have not established the validity of the Book's claims.

So, your Bookly claims about God remain just that: assertions, not demonstrable, material facts. That the Book asserts that God used men does not mean that the Book asserts correctly.

You only have your faith that it the Book is correct. Since all that you have is your faith - which cannot have proof, or it is not faith - you really have no option to use that Book to make claims about the object of that Book.

In other words, you can and do have faith in your Book, but that in itself is not and cannot be proof of its validity, since your faith, to be faith, cannot be knowledge.

Since your Book, then, is simply assertions of faith, its claims about God are not factually established, and do not serve as evidence that God or Gods use men, in the world.

You didn't actually address the ideological, moral and philosophical consequences of your theological assertions.
"Common sense" is also merely an assertion.

Changing the terms of discussion, mid discourse, is bad form. You have previously asserted an overlap between "divine will" and human agency. If you no longer hold this assertion, you have no claim to meddle in the medical decision of someone seeking an abortion. If you do insist on holding this assertion, you cannot do so on faith without also declaring, by your actions, that your God lacks agency, will and effect in the world, and that your faith is not in fact faith.

I see a lot of dust in the air but no solid argument. First, I think that when you refer to God in the U.S. sense and in the use of U.S. laws, you refer to the God of the bible. If you are not, please specify. Next, I did not change terms in our discussion. I will allways assert that the God I serve will allow people to believe a lie. Now, I notice you avoided the question about my tax dollars. Should my tax dollars go to pay for your "religious beliefs"? If so, why can they not pay for mine?

Values

March 1st, 2009, 1:37 am

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 1:40 am

I see a lot of dust in the air but no solid argument.

I have constructed a real argument. I am not responsible for anyone's inability to address it.

First, I think that when you refer to God in the U.S. sense and in the use of U.S. laws, you refer to the God of the bible. You are now begging the terms. Why is that?

If you are not, please specify. I have used the word "God" to mean "God."

Next, I did not change terms in our discussion.You did, though. We were discussing the invalidation of faith, by choosing to use human means to enact the "will of God," specifically the prohibition of abortion. First, you have not established that this is "the will of God." You have only shown that you believe it to be so. Second, when confronted with a discussion of faith's inefficacy as a proof, you changed the discussion to tax policy.

I will allways assert that the God I serve will allow people to believe a lie. Your assertion has no bearing on the discussion we were having, except that you used it as a red herring.

Now, I notice you avoided the question about my tax dollars. I am not inclined to be distracted by a red herring. When we successfully end the portion of our discussion dealing with the aforementioned problems, I'll gladly discuss tax policy, as an unrelated component.

Should my tax dollars go to pay for your "religious beliefs"? If so, why can they not pay for mine?I don't have religious beliefs. There is no point to this red herring, except to serve as a red herring.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 1:41 am

Your limiting views do not hold water.

Ipse dixit. Which is no case at all.

I favor helping the innocent child over enabling the irresponsible woman.

You have not established that a fetus is a child, that is innocent, what you mean by the word "innocent," how a woman is "irresponsible" by obtaining the services of an abortion provider, nor what you mean by "irresponsible."

Values

March 1st, 2009, 1:49 am

Ipse dixit. Which is no case at all.

You have not established that a fetus is a child, that is innocent, what you mean by the word "innocent," how a woman is "irresponsible" by obtaining the services of an abortion provider, nor what you mean by "irresponsible."

What you may or may not believe does not matter to me.
Nor does your desire to question all aspects of a post.
Does this particular line of lunacy usually get conversations going?

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 1:51 am

What you may or may not believe does not matter to me. It mattered quite enough for you to hit the "submit" button.

Nor does your desire to question all aspects of a post.Are you suggesting that you have the authority to make assertions, but not have them examined, questioned or challenged? That your right to assert overrules the capacity or right of others to question them?

Does this particular line of lunacy usually get conversations going?Are you attempting to avoid the consequences of your assertions, that someone might question them? What is the point of discussion or debate when, if challenged, you accuse your opponent of lunacy, to avoid addressing the question?

Values

March 1st, 2009, 2:03 am

It mattered quite enough for you to hit the "submit" button.
Are you suggesting that you have the authority to make assertions, but not have them examined, questioned or challenged? That your right to assert overrules the capacity or right of others to question them?

Are you attempting to avoid the consequences of your assertions, that someone might question them? What is the point of discussion or debate when, if challenged, you accuse your opponent of lunacy, to avoid addressing the question?

Why do you suggest that I am suggesting anything when I am only pointing out truth that all can see? Your perceived right to question others only shows your own lack of authority.
Do you assert that there are consequences to questions by others?
what is the point of discussion if all you do is re-state a point with questions and false directions?
Really???? Is this where you go with all your posts?

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 2:04 am

I have constructed a real argument. I am not responsible for anyone's inability to address it.

You are not begging the terms. Why is that?

I have used the word "God" to mean "God."

You did, though. We were discussing the invalidation of faith, by choosing to use human means to enact the "will of God," specifically the prohibition of abortion. First, you have not established that this is "the will of God." You have only shown that you believe it to be so. Second, when confronted with a discussion of faith's inefficacy as a proof, you changed the discussion to tax policy.

Your assertion has no bearing on the discussion we were having, except that you used it as a red herring.

I am not inclined to be distracted by a red herring. When we successfully end the portion of our discussion dealing with the aforementioned problems, I'll gladly discuss tax policy, as an unrelated component.

I don't have religious beliefs. There is no point to this red herring, except to serve as a red herring.

I love self proclaimed victories and long winded answers that talk in circles. Next you will say that I have not the intellect to continue this discussion with you and claim for yourself another victory.
Now, back to the subject. I maintain that abortion is like murder in that you are taking the life from something. This is not a view from God, it is common sense. You maintain that there is no life in the cells before birth, but I am sure that you believe that we all came from that single cell way in the depths of the ocean which must have contained life or else there would be no human race. Let's look at it from a secular view. If I believe that we are killing something, should I have to pay for it? I am not saying that you do not have the right under the current laws, I am asking why I should pay for your religious belief?

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 2:18 am

I love self proclaimed victories and long winded answers that talk in circles.

I have in no way declared any victory. This is your invention, undistilled and without contribution from myself. It saddens me that you prefer to invent a claim I obviously did not make - as the post in question is accessible to any reader of this thread- in the stead of addressing my actual argument.

Nor have I engaged in a tautological argument, addressing as I was the tautological claims of Biblical validity.

Next you will say that I have not the intellect to continue this discussion with you and claim for yourself another victory. No, I will not. If you must insist on inventing imaginary positions, falsely attributed to me, with which you can argue, I can see no reason to continue this discussion.

It is the worst of bad form for you to do so.

Now, back to the subject.I have remained on subject. I am not the one engaging in red herrings.

I maintain that abortion is like murder in that you are taking the life from something.You maintain. You assert. But, you have not shown, such that your view should be enforced upon another, by the punitive power of human government.

This is not a view from God, it is common sense. You assert that it is common sense. But you havenot defined or properly established what you mean by either term of that assertion. What is "common" about your sense? How is it in fact a confirmed "sense"?

Asserting that something is "common sense" is an ersatz substitute for an actual argument. If abortion is murder, establish this as such, by careful, graded argument. Make your points with devotion to sound argumentation. Don't simply assert "common sense."

You maintain that there is no life in the cells before birth,...I have made no such claim. You are again inventing a position which I have not taken.

...but I am sure that you believe that we all came from that single cell way in the depths of the ocean which must have contained life or else there would be no human race. You are "sure" only at the expense of sound argument and reasonable discourse. You are, again, asserting positions I have not argued. I am simply inviting you to make a cogent, considered case - not merely to assert that your worldview is correct, and as such should be enforced upon others.

If your view of life is correct, a solid, reasonable, point-by-point case can be made for it. Show this case, don't just suggest or declare it.

Let's look at it from a secular view. If I believe that we are killing something, should I have to pay for it? I am not saying that you do not have the right under the current laws, I am asking why I should pay for your religious belief?This isn't a secular view. And this is you attempting to red herring towards tax policy again. I will await, kindly, your return to our mutual discussion, not the one you insist we have.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 2:20 am

Why do you suggest that I am suggesting anything when I am only pointing out truth that all can see?

This is a logical fallacy. You are appealing to an imaginary universal authority, "all."

Your perceived right to question others only shows your own lack of authority.

This is nonsensical. Please explain better.

Do you assert that there are consequences to questions by others?
what is the point of discussion if all you do is re-state a point with questions and false directions?
Really???? Is this where you go with all your posts?

This is also nonsensical. These appear to be disjointed phrases, with random punctuation marks. Please, kindly, explain yourself with better clarity.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 2:39 am

I have in no way declared any victory. This is your invention, undistilled and without contribution from myself. It saddens me that you prefer to invent a claim I obviously did not make - as the post in question is accessible to any reader of this thread- in the stead of addressing my actual argument.

Nor have I engaged in a tautological argument, addressing as I was the tautological claims of Biblical validity.

No, I will not. If you must insist on inventing imaginary positions, falsely attributed to me, with which you can argue, I can see no reason to continue this discussion.

It is the worst of bad form for you to do so.

I have remained on subject. I am not the one engaging in red herrings.

You maintain. You assert. But, you have not shown, such that your view should be enforced upon another, by the punitive power of human government.
You assert that it is common sense. But you havenot defined or properly established what you mean by either term of that assertion. What is "common" about your sense? How is it in fact a confirmed "sense"?

Asserting that something is "common sense" is an ersatz substitute for an actual argument. If abortion is murder, establish this as such, by careful, graded argument. Make your points with devotion to sound argumentation. Don't simply assert "common sense."

I have made no such claim. You are again inventing a position which I have not taken.

You are "sure" only at the expense of sound argument and reasonable discourse. You are, again, asserting positions I have not argued. I am simply inviting you to make a cogent, considered case - not merely to assert that your worldview is correct, and as such should be enforced upon others.

If your view of life is correct, a solid, reasonable, point-by-point case can be made for it. Show this case, don't just suggest or declare it.

This isn't a secular view. And this is you attempting to red herring towards tax policy again. I will await, kindly, your return to our mutual discussion, not the one you insist we have.

I forget what postion you take on the issue. With much words and much dust, you have clouded the argument. Would you please pick one point that we may discuss so as I can stay on point and not get so lost as you seem to assert as I am merely mortal and not as versed in all the refinement of argumentation as you appear. If I still feel the inferior to your debate and wisdom, I will gladly end our discussion.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 2:48 am

I forget what postion you take on the issue.

You have only to read. I, at least, use no red herrings.

With much words and much dust, you have clouded the argument.There is no dust on my screen, nor in my argument. Words, yes. Words are fairly vital, when speaking or typing in the English language.

But, I have not clouded the argument. I have addressed directly your assertions about faith, Biblical validity, and your claims of "common sense." It is not my responsibility to formulate your replies for you, also.

Would you please pick one point that we may discuss so as I can stay on point and not get so lost as you seem to assert as I am merely mortal and not as versed in all the refinement of argumentation as you appear. If I still feel the inferior to your debate and wisdom, I will gladly end our discussion.I am not responsible for how you do or do not follow. I have repeatedly returned nonetheless to your undemonstrated declarations about the "common sense" view of fetal childhood, as well as your unsubstantiated and unprovable assertions as to Biblical veracity, regarding what God does or does not want.

Plainly, the Biblical claims about Biblical truth are circular. These are no proof. Since you claim that the Bible shows what God wants, and that He uses men to get what he wants, it is beholden upon you to demonstrate the truth of these claims.

Which thing you cannot do, since all you have to "prove" the Bible is the Bible, and your faith. If your faith is "proof," it ceases to be faith. Since you cannot establish that the Bible is a valid source of human law, you can only insist that it should be one, which is the same as saying others must be punished by human government, for not believing as you do.

As such is unpalatable to large numbers of Americans, you might fall back on claims that it is just "common sense" that abortion is murder, which case you may also declare, but which you have not shown.

Show me.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 3:01 am

What you may or may not believe does not matter to me.
Nor does your desire to question all aspects of a post.
Does this particular line of lunacy usually get conversations going?

Catagorizing another poster's posts with a pejorative like "Lunacy" is not respectful.
See rules for RF.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 3:03 am

Catagorizing another poster's posts with a pejorative like "Lunacy" is not respectful.
See rules for RF.

Those rules of respect do not apply to admitted atheists, this repeatedly reaffirmed.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 3:16 am

Why do you suggest that I am suggesting anything when I am only pointing out truth that all can see? Your perceived right to question others only shows your own lack of authority.
Do you assert that there are consequences to questions by others?
what is the point of discussion if all you do is re-state a point with questions and false directions?
Really???? Is this where you go with all your posts?

You claim to be pointing out truths that "All can see".
Obviously Chuangtzu does not recognize what you post as "Truth" just because you believe it to be truth.

This is an open discussion forum NOT A CHURCH WERE YOU ARE THE PREACHER!

When you assert something, you enter that statement into the discussion.
You should expect that every one might not agree with you.

Also you are guity of repeatedly re-stating a point with questions and false directions.
At least that is my opinion of your repetition in our discussion of developement of societal definitions of right and wrong.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 3:29 am

Interesting stance.
would you say the opposite if it were once again illegal?
As in 51% the other way?

I think you missed his point.
The 51% of the population that had to make the choice he was referring to were WOMEN.
If 49% of the population were women then it would be 49% of the populatin that would have to make that choice.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 3:30 am

You have only to read. I, at least, use no red herrings.
There is no dust on my screen, nor in my argument. Words, yes. Words are fairly vital, when speaking or typing in the English language.

But, I have not clouded the argument. I have addressed directly your assertions about faith, Biblical validity, and your claims of "common sense." It is not my responsibility to formulate your replies for you, also.

I am not responsible for how you do or do not follow. I have repeatedly returned nonetheless to your undemonstrated declarations about the "common sense" view of fetal childhood, as well as your unsubstantiated and unprovable assertions as to Biblical veracity, regarding what God does or does not want.

Plainly, the Biblical claims about Biblical truth are circular. These are no proof. Since you claim that the Bible shows what God wants, and that He uses men to get what he wants, it is beholden upon you to demonstrate the truth of these claims.

Which thing you cannot do, since all you have to "prove" the Bible is the Bible, and your faith. If your faith is "proof," it ceases to be faith. Since you cannot establish that the Bible is a valid source of human law, you can only insist that it should be one, which is the same as saying others must be punished by human government, for not believing as you do.

As such is unpalatable to large numbers of Americans, you might fall back on claims that it is just "common sense" that abortion is murder, which case you may also declare, but which you have not shown.

Show me.

You know, the first thing I see when someone can not fomulate a sensible argument, they say things like "red herring". When they can not answer a point they say they will deal with it later. You asked questions of the God of the bible. If in fact we use the bible to determine what said God of the bible does, then that would be evidence which I have answered. If you do not accept that, please show me in the bible where I am wrong. If you would like to talk of another god outside of the bible, then I can not argue as I have not the knowledge. You seem to want to argue using you definitions and rules. I will debate your points if you will explain each proposition you make. Example: When I use the word "bible" I mean it is the common bible of the christians as in the King James Version. Then, I can't change in mid stream and declare you as not understanding. Try it and see if it helps our discussion.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 3:38 am

You know, the first thing I see when someone can not fomulate a sensible argument, they say things like "red herring".

I referred to your tax policy dodge as a red herring because it was in fact a red herring.

When they can not answer a point they say they will deal with it later.

Which thing I have not done.

You asked questions of the God of the bible.

Referring you back to the original comment: I questioned your declaration that the Bible proves God's use of men, to enact his will. You have only the Bible to support this claim. But, you have no proof or valid demonstration of the veracity of the Bible's claims or stories. You invite us to use your tome to know such and such, but you do not show that your tome is of any use, merit or validity.

If in fact we use the bible to determine what said God of the bible does, then that would be evidence which I have answered.

It's not evidence. It's text. If text alone is sufficient to serve as evidence, then I submit this "evidence":

"There is no God. Because this is written, it is true. None may question it. Because none may question it, it can never not be true. Therefore there is no God."

If you do not accept that, please show me in the bible where I am wrong.

Appeals to the circularity of Biblical claims are not demonstrations of the truth of those claims, or the usefulness of the text in which they are written.

You have not established that the Bible is true, to use it as proof.

If you would like to talk of another god outside of the bible, then I can not argue as I have not the knowledge.

I am simply discussing the concept, "deity" and claims about any deity.

You seem to want to argue using you definitions and rules.

Of course. Grammar, language and argumentation depend upon rules of information exchange. Without these accepted conventions, we can discuss nothing.

I will debate your points if you will explain each proposition you make.

I have been direct and clear.

Example: When I use the word "bible" I mean it is the common bible of the christians as in the King James Version. Then, I can't change in mid stream and declare you as not understanding. Try it and see if it helps our discussion.

What would help our discussion is you providing some demonstrations.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 3:46 am

Animals don't go to war, they don't kill each other over skin color, religious beliefs, and they don't torture each other for pleasure. What makes us better than them?

Animals (walt whitman)

I think i could turn and live with animals ,
they are so placid and self-contained
I stand and look at them long and long .

They do not sweat and whine about their condition ,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins ,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God ,
Not one is dissatisfied ,
not one is demented with the mania of owning things ,
Not one kneels to another ,
nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago ,
Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth .

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 3:51 am

I would not use animals as a model. Chimpanzees deface, literally. Dolphins murder, with cruelty. Dolphin males appear to force abortions on females which do not carry their own offspring. Lions kill the cubs of competitors, and their own get. Ants wage actual warfare, as do colonies of bees. Meerkats conduct raids on meerkat competitors, killing and raping breeding age females. Humboldt squid eat each other.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 3:53 am

I referred to your tax policy dodge as a red herring because it was in fact a red herring.
Which thing I have not done.
Referring you back to the original comment: I questioned your declaration that the Bible proves God's use of men, to enact his will. You have only the Bible to support this claim. But, you have no proof or valid demonstration of the veracity of the Bible's claims or stories. You invite us to use your tome to know such and such, but you do not show that your tome is of any use, merit or validity.
It's not evidence. It's text. If text alone is sufficient to serve as evidence, then I submit this "evidence":
"There is no God. Because this is written, it is true. None may question it. Because none may question it, it can never not be true. Therefore there is no God."
Appeals to the circularity of Biblical claims are not demonstrations of the truth of those claims, or the usefulness of the text in which they are written.
You have not established that the Bible is true, to use it as proof.
I am simply discussing the concept, "deity" and claims about any deity.
Of course. Grammar, language and argumentation depend upon rules of information exchange. Without these accepted conventions, we can discuss nothing.
I have been direct and clear.
What would help our discussion is you providing some demonstrations.

O.K. So it seems that you want to argue and not try to see anothers point of view. You have indeed avoided direct questions that were intended to clear up any misunderstandings. You say that you have been direct and clear. You say you have done this or that. By whose standards do you judge yourself? Who are you to judge? If someone ask for help in understanding you, that is usually a sign that you are not being clear although that is subjective also. Then again, I may have you confused with someone you are not or maybe you are. It would depend on what I think at the time. Now, if you would like, we can start over with only one point so you can help me in my attempts to meet your standards.

Chuangtzu

March 1st, 2009, 3:58 am

O.K. So it seems that you want to argue and not try to see anothers point of view. You have indeed avoided direct questions that were intended to clear up any misunderstandings. You say that you have been direct and clear. You say you have done this or that. By whose standards do you judge yourself? Who are you to judge? If someone ask for help in understanding you, that is usually a sign that you are not being clear although that is subjective also. Then again, I may have you confused with someone you are not or maybe you are. It would depend on what I think at the time. Now, if you would like, we can start over with only one point so you can help me in my attempts to meet your standards.

Huh?

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 10:33 am

Huh?

Exactly.

Springboard

March 1st, 2009, 12:12 pm

Exactly.
Hi this is springboard, would you two care if I get involved in this discussion?

Springboard

March 1st, 2009, 12:18 pm

There is foundation you must have that the Bible is the Word of God. If that is not the foudation than there can not be any conclutions.

terri910

March 1st, 2009, 12:19 pm

Springboard....how thoughtful of you to ask such a thing! I don't care if we agree or disagree on any specific issue, I like your style!

It is the nature of these forums....as long as you adhere to the Terms of Service, you may respond to any post or any discussion whether it is directed to you, specifically, or not!

Please, let us know your thoughts!

Values

March 1st, 2009, 12:43 pm

You claim to be pointing out truths that "All can see".
Obviously Chuangtzu does not recognize what you post as "Truth" just because you believe it to be truth.

This is an open discussion forum NOT A CHURCH WERE YOU ARE THE PREACHER!

When you assert something, you enter that statement into the discussion.
You should expect that every one might not agree with you.

Also you are guity of repeatedly re-stating a point with questions and false directions.
At least that is my opinion of your repetition in our discussion of developement of societal definitions of right and wrong.

I was pointing out his lunacy with asking questions in his ungainly format.
Btw, I started this thread on abortion, you hijacked it with your discussion of evolutionary societal fictional premises.

Tim

March 1st, 2009, 12:47 pm

It seems to me that the best way to counter abortion is to not get one.

Additionally, petition your representatives so that they know your opinions and vote according to your conscience. Currently, the law of the land permits abortions and that is unlikely to change in my lifetime given the current political climate. Both parties like having the issue... it's a great fund raiser issue and helps to deflect many voter's attention away from other issues.

terri910

March 1st, 2009, 12:49 pm

Both parties like having the issue... it's a great fund raiser issue and helps to deflect many voter's attention away from other issues.
It is, strangely, true that matters of life and death tend to deflect some voters' attentions away from issues such as tax cuts vs. tax increases.

Some are just weird that way!

Tim

March 1st, 2009, 12:56 pm

It is, strangely, true that matters of life and death tend to deflect some voters' attentions away from issues such as tax cuts vs. tax increases.

Some are just weird that way!

I didn't mean to suggest that the issue is unimportant. Only that politicians USE it much as an illusionist uses slight of hand. While voters (on both sides of the issue) are focused on the abortion issue, politicians manage to slide other issues right by them that those voters might otherwise object to vehemently.

My "criticism" rests with the less than honest politicians who may not really care to solve the abortion issue but love having it as a tool.

baysidetrey

March 1st, 2009, 2:45 pm

There is foundation you must have that the Bible is the Word of God. If that is not the foudation than there can not be any conclutions.

That is what I was asking for but you put it in a much better way. You really can't debate unless you have ground rules.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 3:28 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

In the quest to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, 'bringing the truth about abortions to those who would choose it' is the least effective method.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 4:04 pm

I was pointing out his lunacy with asking questions in his ungainly format.
Btw, I started this thread on abortion, you hijacked it with your discussion of evolutionary societal fictional premises.

I think our discussion on evolution was on a different thread.
I was just pointing out that you often use the technique you accuse in others.

And the debating falacy of "poisoning the well" is noted and does not lend anything to your believability.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 4:09 pm

There is foundation you must have that the Bible is the Word of God. If that is not the foudation than there can not be any conclutions.

Then most of the people in the world have never made a conclution (sic) .

Values

March 1st, 2009, 5:03 pm

In the quest to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, 'bringing the truth about abortions to those who would choose it' is the least effective method.

Why?
Btw, nice Corsair in your avatar.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 5:08 pm

Why?

Anti-abortionists have been trying to 'get the truth out' since microseconds after the Roe V Wade decision. If that tactic hasn't worked to your satisfaction in 30 years, what makes you think your efforts will get results that are any different than those who have gone before you?

Someone once said, the definition of insanity is performing the same actions over and over while expecting the results to be different.

Besides, seems that the focus is too late in the cycle. Why not attack the problem before conception?

Btw, nice Corsair in your avatar.

Danke. I like it.

Dipperdap

March 1st, 2009, 5:15 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

I'll take a stab at this.
Your first question has an obvious answer. The best way to counter abortion is to not get pregnant in the first place.

The second question is a bit tougher. As most of these women have suffered the influences of the degraded and anti-religious school system in the US, the "truth" has to be redefined to them. When you're taught that a zygote, fetus, or whatever you want to call it is nothing but an unviable tissue mass, its very easy to not connect it to a baby. They make their decision based on a set of "truths" that in themselves are not true. If the unviable tissue mass is left alone it will develop into a complete and viable human. That fact seems to escape the pro-death crowd. The other fact that seems to escape all these women that have killed their offspring is that they will indeed answer for their actions. When these women are judged, it will be on their actions alone, not negotiable, and final.

Values

March 1st, 2009, 5:17 pm

Anti-abortionists have been trying to 'get the truth out' since microseconds after the Roe V Wade decision. If that tactic hasn't worked to your satisfaction in 30 years, what makes you think your efforts will get results that are any different than those who have gone before you?

Someone once said, the definition of insanity is performing the same actions over and over while expecting the results to be different.

Besides, seems that the focus is too late in the cycle. Why not attack the problem before conception?

Danke. I like it.

I think that the "truth" that I am talking about is exactly, in part, just that.
I think that the problem should be attacked on many fronts with all the tools at our disposal.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 6:44 pm

....
Someone once said, the definition of insanity is performing the same actions over and over while expecting the results to be different.

.......

I believe the saying is creditted to Albert Einstein.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 6:46 pm

I believe the saying is creditted to Albert Einstein.

I believe you are correct.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 6:48 pm

Why not try something new?

Outlaw recreational sex.

Values

March 1st, 2009, 7:45 pm

Why not try something new?

Outlaw recreational sex.

How about just letting people take their own responsibility and let them deal with their consequences of their actions?
I know, just as realistic, but it would make the world a much better place.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 7:52 pm

How about just letting people take their own responsibility and let them deal with their consequences of their actions?

They are. You just don't like how they have decided to deal with it.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 8:58 pm

I'll take a stab at this.
Your first question has an obvious answer. The best way to counter abortion is to not get pregnant in the first place.

The second question is a bit tougher. As most of these women have suffered the influences of the degraded and anti-religious school system in the US, the "truth" has to be redefined to them. When you're taught that a zygote, fetus, or whatever you want to call it is nothing but an unviable tissue mass, its very easy to not connect it to a baby. They make their decision based on a set of "truths" that in themselves are not true. If the unviable tissue mass is left alone it will develop into a complete and viable human. That fact seems to escape the pro-death crowd. The other fact that seems to escape all these women that have killed their offspring is that they will indeed answer for their actions. When these women are judged, it will be on their actions alone, not negotiable, and final.

And of course no Christian has ever gotten an abortion before Roe v Wade and when will some Theists get tired of the threat, that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief.
When these women are judged, it will be on their actions alone, not negotiable, and final.

Dipperdap

March 1st, 2009, 9:46 pm

And of course no Christian has ever gotten an abortion before Roe v Wade and when will some Theists get tired of the threat, that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief.

They will be judged just as you and I will be judged, according to our deeds and lives we have lead. Remember, it is a personal one-to-one meeting with God, and his ruling is immediate, final and forever.....

Values

March 1st, 2009, 9:55 pm

They are. You just don't like how they have decided to deal with it.

I guess if you think that is actually being responsible.
Do you think that running off on your family is a way of "dealing with it" when times get tough too?
killing your child is not taking responsibility for your actions, and you don't seem to like that.

Koushi Shinigami

March 1st, 2009, 10:04 pm

Do you think that running off on your family is a way of "dealing with it" when times get tough too?

If I did, I'd have been 'un-married' years ago.

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 10:10 pm

They will be judged just as you and I will be judged, according to our deeds and lives we have lead. Remember, it is a personal one-to-one meeting with God, and his ruling is immediate, final and forever.....

When will some Theists get tired of the threat that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief ?

Values

March 1st, 2009, 10:31 pm

If I did, I'd have been 'un-married' years ago.

Then why hold others to a different standard.
You are willing to face the fire for your family because why???
You have responsibilities you are unwilling to forgot...hold others to the same standard. They will be better for it!

captusa

March 1st, 2009, 10:51 pm

How about just letting people take their own responsibility and let them deal with their consequences of their actions?
I know, just as realistic, but it would make the world a much better place.

For many women having an abortion is taking responsiblity and properly dealing with the consequence of their actions.

You seem to object to letting those people take their own responsibilty and allowing them to deal with the consequences of their actions?

Values

March 1st, 2009, 11:24 pm

For many women having an abortion is taking responsiblity and properly dealing with the consequence of their actions.

You seem to object to letting those people take their own responsibilty and allowing them to deal with the consequences of their actions?

I object to killing their offspring because they can.
you want to act as though it were not a baby, but it is.

terri910

March 1st, 2009, 11:26 pm

When will some Theists get tired of the threat that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief ?
Perhaps the day it is no longer a part of their religious belief?

Just a thought that you ought not to hold your breath, captusa.

Values

March 1st, 2009, 11:29 pm

When will some Theists get tired of the threat that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief ?

Why does it even concern you if you don't believe anyway?

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 12:06 am

When will some Theists get tired of the threat that their Deity will get anyone that does not share their religous belief ?

Interesting reaction. Are you worried?? If so feel free to change your ways.

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 12:31 am

Why does it even concern you if you don't believe anyway?

In a discussion where people are using specific religious beliefs to justify the employment of state punishment, it is of paramount concern to anyone who does not obey that belief system.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 12:35 am

In a discussion where people are using specific religious beliefs to justify the employment of state punishment, it is of paramount concern to anyone who does not obey that belief system.

Then let's just use science.
It has been proven that at conception a human begins to form.
How do we stop people from snuffing out this life?

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 12:39 am

In a discussion where people are using specific religious beliefs to justify the employment of state punishment, it is of paramount concern to anyone who does not obey that belief system.

Another specific religious belief is not killing each other, do you obey that one? Why if it is a religious belief?

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 12:41 am

Then let's just use science.

Science is a method, not a declaration of absolutes.

It has been proven that at conception a human begins to form.

Where? When? How? What do you mean "proven"? "Human"? You have not established what you mean by these terms.

How do we stop people from snuffing out this life?

You leapt from the assertion of a problem to a seeking for solutions. You made no case that the asserted problem was indeed one, such that it must be solved.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 12:51 am

Science is a method, not a declaration of absolutes.

Where? When? How? What do you mean "proven"? "Human"? You have not established what you mean by these terms.

You leapt from the assertion of a problem to a seeking for solutions. You made no case that the asserted problem was indeed one, such that it must be solved.

Where do you suggest that human life begins to form?

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 12:54 am

In a discussion where people are using specific religious beliefs to justify the employment of state punishment, it is of paramount concern to anyone who does not obey that belief system.

Interesting point of view. However no one has mentioned the "employment of state punishment" whatever that is.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 1:49 am

Interesting reaction. Are you worried?? If so feel free to change your ways.

If I were worried would I continue blaspheming ?

Seeing certain Theists resort to the childish "My God will eventually get you" i.e."Turn or Burn" when they get frustrated would be amusing if it didn't happen so often.

I can end a discussion where there remains a difference of opinion without the need to denograte or be condescending to those with whom I disagree.

BTW You are worshipping the wrong Deity and when you stand before the throne of the REAL GODS you will be judged on your actions alone including your snubbing of the REAL GODS, not negotiable, and final.
You may end up freezing forever in the Eternal Lake of Liquid Hydrogen.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 2:00 am

Then let's just use science.
It has been proven that at conception a human begins to form.
How do we stop people from snuffing out this life?

Beginning to form is not the same as having been formed.
A zygote is not a baby anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.

BTW As far as terminating a pregnancy is concerned, why is your opinion different from the Bible criteria of "quickening"?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 2:01 am

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 2:07 am

If I were worried would I continue blaspheming ?

Seeing certain Theists resort to the childish "My God will eventually get you" i.e."Turn or Burn" when they get frustrated would be amusing if it didn't happen so often.

I can end a discussion where there remains a difference of opinion without the need to denograte or be condescending to those with whom I disagree.

BTW You are worshipping the wrong Deity and when you stand before the throne of the REAL GODS you will be judged on your actions alone including your snubbing of the REAL GODS, not negotiable, and final.
You may end up freezing forever in the Eternal Lake of Liquid Hydrogen.

I'm not frustrated in the least. If you want to make fun of me and my beliefs, have at it. Its not for me to judge and I don't judge. I was just pointing out that we will all be judged. Your torment and angst about this subject is for you to solve between you and God not you and I.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 2:21 am

I'm not frustrated in the least. If you want to make fun of me and my beliefs, have at it. Its not for me to judge and I don't judge. I was just pointing out that we will all be judged. Your torment and angst about this subject is for you to solve between you and God not you and I.

You are pointing out that it is your religious belief that we will all be judged.
I do not share your religious belief and you stating that I will face the judgement of your Deity is disrespecting my reliegious beliefs.
Either you or Values proposed Pascal's wager. (If you don't choose God and there isn't one you've lost nothing but if there is a God you will suffer for eternity therefore the logical bet is to choose God)
I was simply pointing out the consequence of the Corollary of Pascal's wager.
Why do you consider my statement implying you will be judged harshly for not worshipping the correct Deity to be different from your statement implying I will be judged harshly for not worshipping the correct Deity ?

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 2:33 am

You are pointing out that it is your religious belief that we will all be judged.
I do not share your religious belief and you stating that I will face the judgement of your Deity is disrespecting my reliegious beliefs.
Either you or Values proposed Pascal's wager. (If you don't choose God and there isn't one you've lost nothing but if there is a God you will suffer for eternity therefore the logical bet is to choose God)
I was simply pointing out the consequence of the Corollary of Pascal's wager.
Why do you consider my statement implying you will be judged harshly for not worshipping the correct Deity to be different from your statement implying I will be judged harshly for not worshipping the correct Deity ?

I never said that you had to follow my beliefs. However most religions of the world have a form of atonement in the hereafter. I refer to God as your "Deity" I just prefer to call it God. If the God(s) of your worship do not have this "atonement" and accounting of your life at the end of it then you're in the clear. Do what you want. The God I worship and whose profits I follow teaches of such an atonement and I believe. So according to the practice of my religion you will be judged. If that is not your belief then so be it. Why do you feel the need to prove me wrong? You will not be successful. My religion also teaches of the sanctity of life from the very moment of conception, and since I am a believer, it follows that I would think this way also.

So you will be judged as will we all....

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:44 am

Interesting reaction. Are you worried?? If so feel free to change your ways.

I doubt he's worried. The stance that he's referring to reduces God to nothing more than 'The Boogie Man'. Personally, I try to show God more respect than that.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:50 am

Then why hold others to a different standard.
You are willing to face the fire for your family because why???

You continue to jump to the wrong conclusions about me. It's humorous.

You have responsibilities you are unwilling to forgot...hold others to the same standard. They will be better for it!

If responsibilities are forced upon someone, they will find loopholes or other means to continue to shirk those responsibilities. If one takes up their cross willingly, it will be borne properly.

graatz

March 2nd, 2009, 10:08 am

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

Do you honestly believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she doesn't realize that she's killing the unborn child inside of her? :eh:

If there are women who don't know this when they get pregnant, the best thing I can say is to hit them with sex ed before pregnancy: "No, this isn't actually a loaf of bread baking inside of you when you get knocked up... that's just a turn of phrase."

I think the ignorance that most people have about how a woman makes the choice to have an abortion is the biggest obstacle in the debate...

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 10:27 am

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 11:21 am

Do you honestly believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she doesn't realize that she's killing the unborn child inside of her? :eh:

If there are women who don't know this when they get pregnant, the best thing I can say is to hit them with sex ed before pregnancy: "No, this isn't actually a loaf of bread baking inside of you when you get knocked up... that's just a turn of phrase."

I think the ignorance that most people have about how a woman makes the choice to have an abortion is the biggest obstacle in the debate...

We are behind the 8 ball when we act as though women will think rationally in their "crisis" as they see it.
Why do you think that planned parenthood sets up counseling for the happless woman?
They know that they sometimes have to push hard to get her to kill her child, they use lies and half truths to cover the truth and "help" the woman make her decision.
We must get much more aggressive in educating with love and truth from the get go with kids move on through with informing everyone what abortion actually is and how often and in wheich circumstances it happens. Most people think that late term abortions don't even happen anymore. We have to fight culture and the media to win this one.

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 11:27 am

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

Explain to them that murdering the innocent children is a sin, and sin leads to eternal damnation in a place called Hell.

You can also let them know that Jesus said whatever we do to the children, we do to them. And ask if they want to stand before Him and be found guilty of poisoning him.

graatz

March 2nd, 2009, 11:34 am

We are behind the 8 ball when we act as though women will think rationally in their "crisis" as they see it.

"As they see it?" Yeah, I'm sure they do see it as a crisis. The choice to abort isn't one that's taken lightly. And I generally don't expect anyone to act rationally. They know they are killing their unborn child, and they may be more or less educated about the actual procedure and it's risks, as well as what other options might or might not be on the table. I can't say they'll act rationally based on the facts as they have them, but who does? :eh:

Why do you think that planned parenthood sets up counseling for the happless woman?

Because women in crisis deserve counseling?

They know that they sometimes have to push hard to get her to kill her child

Planned Parenthood isn't conspiring to commit murder. This conspiracy-theory mentality of yours is why we'll end this conversation here.

fredeasy

March 2nd, 2009, 11:43 am

Wrong forum, sorry.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 12:36 pm

"As they see it?" Yeah, I'm sure they do see it as a crisis. The choice to abort isn't one that's taken lightly. And I generally don't expect anyone to act rationally. They know they are killing their unborn child, and they may be more or less educated about the actual procedure and it's risks, as well as what other options might or might not be on the table. I can't say they'll act rationally based on the facts as they have them, but who does? :eh:

Because women in crisis deserve counseling?

Planned Parenthood isn't conspiring to commit murder. This conspiracy-theory mentality of yours is why we'll end this conversation here.

How many women does planned parenthood turn away from abortion? Is that really an option they even present?
The "counseling" is in how to deal with your desicion not anything else.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 12:46 pm

We are behind the 8 ball when we act as though women will think rationally in their "crisis" as they see it.

A post disparaging all women.....

I like it. :clap:

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 12:47 pm

Explain to them that murdering the innocent children is a sin, and sin leads to eternal damnation in a place called Hell.

You can also let them know that Jesus said whatever we do to the children, we do to them. And ask if they want to stand before Him and be found guilty of poisoning him.

What's the success rate with that method?

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 12:53 pm

What's the success rate with that method?

I don't really need to be concered on how you would gauge the success of speaking God's Word.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 12:59 pm

I don't really need to be concered on how you would gauge the success of speaking God's Word.

:shrug: If you don't want to answer, I understand.

But I was wondering how you would guage the success of speaking God's word.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 1:05 pm

I never said that you had to follow my beliefs. However most religions of the world have a form of atonement in the hereafter. I refer to God as your "Deity" I just prefer to call it God. If the God(s) of your worship do not have this "atonement" and accounting of your life at the end of it then you're in the clear. Do what you want. The God I worship and whose profits I follow teaches of such an atonement and I believe. So according to the practice of my religion you will be judged. If that is not your belief then so be it. Why do you feel the need to prove me wrong? You will not be successful. My religion also teaches of the sanctity of life from the very moment of conception, and since I am a believer, it follows that I would think this way also.

So you will be judged as will we all....

"So according to the practice of my religion you will be judged. If that is not ..."

I can not object to the honest and respectful statement above.

I presented points that countered some of your assumptions and conclusions.
I have never tried to prove you wrong.

It took prodding for me to assert that I had to be right .
I usually present my points as strong opinions backed with evidence.
Rarely as absolute fact.

The courtesy of identifying you conclusion as your religious point of view (of which you have certainty) is appreciated.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 1:10 pm

A post disparaging all women.....

I like it. :clap:

Are you campaigning to be the official resident misogynist ?

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 1:11 pm

But I was wondering how you would guage the success of speaking God's word.

It never fails.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 1:12 pm

A post disparaging all women.....

I like it. :clap:

Here is a wake up call to you...WOMEN are the only ones aborting their children!

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 1:14 pm

Here is a wake up call to you...WOMEN are the only ones aborting their children!

Allow me to return the favor.

Men are the only ones making them pregnant.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 1:14 pm

Are you campaigning to be the official resident misogynist ?

I thought I already had that one sewn up. :cool:

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 1:16 pm

It never fails.

If that was the case, then why does this thread exist?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 1:16 pm

It never fails.

The question was "What is the best way to counter abortion?"

You suggestion was:
Originally Posted by An American Patriot
Explain to them that murdering the innocent children is a sin, and sin leads to eternal damnation in a place called Hell.

You can also let them know that Jesus said whatever we do to the children, we do to them. And ask if they want to stand before Him and be found guilty of poisoning him.

Do you maintain that it never fails ?

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 1:20 pm

The question was "What is the best way to counter abortion?"

You suggestion was:

Do you maintain that it never fails ?

I maintain that the Word never fails.

If people commit abortions and never repent, they will be in hell. Those who vote and support it, will be in Hell someday if they don't repent.

You can bet your farm on that one. God's Word will always be truth.

dmaddy1

March 2nd, 2009, 1:24 pm

abortion is never good and always wrong........its sad how many babies have died and with obama, this is never going to change

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 1:25 pm

I maintain that the Word never fails.

If people commit abortions and never repent, they will be in hell. Those who vote and support it, will be in Hell someday if they don't repent.

You can bet your farm on that one. God's Word will always be truth.

:clap:

I didn't realize your occupation was Mobile Goalpost Engineer.

The actual question to you was how successful is SPEAKING God's word to those who would choose abortion in getting them to change their minds. You're talking about whether or not God's word will ever fail to be the truth. Different subject.

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 1:47 pm

:clap:

I didn't realize your occupation was Mobile Goalpost Engineer.

The actual question to you was how successful is SPEAKING God's word to those who would choose abortion in getting them to change their minds. You're talking about whether or not God's word will ever fail to be the truth. Different subject.

There will always be those who don't believe in the Truth.

I wasn't saying that telling them what God says will never fail, I was saying that His Word will never fail.

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 1:47 pm

abortion is never good and always wrong........its sad how many babies have died and with obama, this is never going to change

And its a shame that there are even those 'christians' who will stand before God and have the blood of millions of children on them.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 2:10 pm

Allow me to return the favor.

Men are the only ones making them pregnant.

Women have no say in the matter?
If you are a woman here is a word you need to know.......no!
Ends the abortion debate before it gets started.

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 2:15 pm

Women have no say in the matter?
If you are a woman here is a word you need to know.......no!
Ends the abortion debate before it gets started.

Abstinence. Works every time its used.....

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 2:24 pm

Abstinence. Works every time its used.....

If you are a believer, you'd have to admit it didn't work for Mary.

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 2:29 pm

If you are a believer, you'd have to admit it didn't work for Mary.

LOL good point.....I guess divine intervention is the exception to every rule....

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 2:54 pm

LOL good point.....I guess divine intervention is the exception to every rule....

Glad that you have a sense of humor.

To be serious for a moment, do you recommend abstinence for married couples who feel they have enough children ?
BTW I know of a relative who fathered a son after a vasectomy(confirmed by DNA)

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 3:03 pm

Originally Posted by Values
We are behind the 8 ball when we act as though women will think rationally in their "crisis" as they see it.

We are much further behind the 8 ball when and if you have the power to decide who and who is not thinking rationally.
Also you are pointing out your inability to be empathetic with the women faced with their "crisis".

IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION THEN DON'T GET ONE.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 3:07 pm

Women have no say in the matter?
If you are a woman here is a word you need to know.......no!
Ends the abortion debate before it gets started.

Am I to believe you wish all women to say no ?
Wouldn't that be equivalent to believing all men should be celibate ?

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 4:20 pm

There will always be those who don't believe in the Truth.
.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo240/koushishinigami/wookievictory.jpg

Dipperdap

March 2nd, 2009, 4:21 pm

Glad that you have a sense of humor.

To be serious for a moment, do you recommend abstinence for married couples who feel they have enough children ?
BTW I know of a relative who fathered a son after a vasectomy(confirmed by DNA)

That happened to my brother-in-law. Their son is now serving in Iraq. You know as far as Married couples go, I think that other forms of birth control are usable. Abortion is never choice though.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 4:21 pm

Women have no say in the matter?
If you are a woman here is a word you need to know.......no!
Ends the abortion debate before it gets started.

Actually, that doesn't work all the time.

And I suggest caution on your next reply.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 4:23 pm

abortion is never good

Yes.

and always wrong.

No.

.......its sad how many babies have died

Yes.

and with obama, this is never going to change

If you are depending on a politician to change this for you, you've misplaced your faith.

BillyBobUSA

March 2nd, 2009, 4:26 pm

How do we bring the truth about abortions to those who would choose it?

You are assuming that they dont know the truth.

I think they know and freely decide to murder their own children on order to 'improve the quality of their own lives'.

The basic recipe for any murderer.

What is the best way to counter Abortion?

This I think the better question and the answer is: let anyone whose values accept the murder of unborn babies to freely choose to do so.

Eventually they will make themselves extinct and the rest of us can go about the business of restoring Gods Creation without them.

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 4:32 pm

IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION THEN DON'T GET ONE.

If you are against pedophilia don't molest a child!

If you are against murder, don't kill anyone!

Let's not worry about keeping from people harming others, lets just use the lame excuse of 'if you don't agree don't do it but let others murder babies if it makes them happy'

Nonsense.

People who support abortions are compassionless.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 4:33 pm

Actually, that doesn't work all the time.

And I suggest caution on your next reply.

Using a small percentage of a large issue to disprove a fact does not win the arguement.
As much as I would be willing to string up a rapist by his balls and let people throw rocks at him does not take away the notion that killing your baby is wrong.
Btw..threats don't work on me.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Am I to believe you wish all women to say no ?
Wouldn't that be equivalent to believing all men should be celibate ?

How about those women who can't handle or do not want a child right now say "no", If you want to have sex go right on ahead but be willing to take care of the child if something happens.

as far as the dude goes, keep your pecker in your pants until you are sure you can handle child support in the very least. If the woman gets pregnant and has your child you are liable for 18 years even if you had no idea. Most guys do not even think obout this but it is true.

graatz

March 2nd, 2009, 5:45 pm

People who support abortions are compassionless.

Wouldn't it be more passionate to invest time and energy into things that work, such as good sex education, availability of birth control, better medical care for mother and child, research into curing congenital disease, fixing our broken adoption process? :eh:

Also, isn't it compassionate to think of a mother as a human being rather than a baby machine?

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 5:55 pm

This I think the better question and the answer is: let anyone whose values accept the murder of unborn babies to freely choose to do so.

Eventually they will make themselves extinct and the rest of us can go about the business of restoring Gods Creation without them.

There is a basic flaw to your reasoning.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 5:58 pm

Using a small percentage of a large issue to disprove a fact does not win the arguement.

It does against your sweeping, general statment that all any woman has to do is just say 'no'.

As much as I would be willing to string up a rapist by his balls and let people throw rocks at him does not take away the notion that killing your baby is wrong.

Agreed.

Btw..threats don't work on me.

Wasn't a threat. It was a kind warning out of deference and respect for some of the fine ladies on this forum about whos situations I am generally aware. It was an act of kindness to them from me in hopes I could prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.

BTW, it worked.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 5:59 pm

People who support abortions are compassionless.

Another sweeping generalization that is not completely true.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 6:05 pm

It does against your sweeping, general statment that all any woman has to do is just say 'no'.

Agreed.

Wasn't a threat. It was a kind warning out of deference and respect for some of the fine ladies on this forum about whos situations I am generally aware. It was an act of kindness to them from me in hopes I could prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.

BTW, it worked.

You assumed wrong that I would have said something untoward.
You take me for a cad and I actually am a very nice fellow.

Now, back to your insistance that rape and incest is more prevelant in the abortion minded women, what percentage of women having abortions do you say are coming from these actions? Some evidence would be nice but not neccessary.
The REST of the women only need say "no" if they do not want to become pregnant.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 6:08 pm

You assumed wrong that I would have said something untoward.
You take me for a cad and I actually am a very nice fellow.

Then I appologize.

Now, back to your insistance that rape and incest is more prevelant in the abortion minded women,

Show me where I said that. Post number or quote please.

Thor

March 2nd, 2009, 6:13 pm

YThe REST of the women only need say "no" if they do not want to become pregnant.

So a woman should only have sex if she wants to become pregnant? If this were the case, there would be an awful lot of sexless marriages.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 6:14 pm

How about those women who can't handle or do not want a child right now say "no", If you want to have sex go right on ahead but be willing to take care of the child if something happens.

as far as the dude goes, keep your pecker in your pants until you are sure you can handle child support in the very least. If the woman gets pregnant and has your child you are liable for 18 years even if you had no idea. Most guys do not even think obout this but it is true.

So a married couple that believes they shouldn't have another child should never have sex again.
Many would find that solution unacceptable.

Dreamy

March 2nd, 2009, 6:17 pm

I am a believer that people choose their own moral path and I for the most part only mind my own. But why abortion is so more complex is that another life is involved apart from the temporary host we call the mother. How can we change a world that considers innocent life expendable? I honestly do not know and all I can do is pray and counsel when asked for my viewpoint.

My greatest prayers are that one day the world will be one where all life is celebrated and valued,pre or post birth. I must trust in God in all matters but sometimes more so on matters such as these.

BillyBobUSA

March 2nd, 2009, 6:17 pm

There is a basic flaw to your reasoning.

Which would be.....?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 6:22 pm

That happened to my brother-in-law. Their son is now serving in Iraq. You know as far as Married couples go, I think that other forms of birth control are usable. Abortion is never choice though.

Your opinion.
I believe that the matter is private until birth.
The morality of the situation is often a religious tenet.
The O.T. does not forbid abortion until quickening.
Well after conception.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 6:30 pm

If you are against pedophilia don't molest a child!

If you are against murder, don't kill anyone!

Let's not worry about keeping from people harming others, lets just use the lame excuse of 'if you don't agree don't do it but let others murder babies if it makes them happy'

Nonsense.

People who support abortions are compassionless.

I can cite a popular Conservative talk show host that claims allowing abortions in the cases of rape and incest is an example of compassion.
His name escapes me.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 7:21 pm

So a married couple that believes they shouldn't have another child should never have sex again.
Many would find that solution unacceptable.

Not saying that at all, if you have sex just be aware that it may mean you get another crumb cruncher. Take the pill, get a vascectomy use precaution.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 7:22 pm

So a married couple that believes they shouldn't have another child should never have sex again.
Many would find that solution unacceptable.

So, a married couple who gets pregnant should have an abortion?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 7:33 pm

Not saying that at all, if you have sex just be aware that it may mean you get another crumb cruncher. Take the pill, get a vascectomy use precaution.

As pointed out no form of contraception is 100% effective.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 7:35 pm

So, a married couple who gets pregnant should have an abortion?

The decision is theirs not yours nor mine.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 7:56 pm

So a woman should only have sex if she wants to become pregnant? If this were the case, there would be an awful lot of sexless marriages.

How is that any different than the present day norm?

What is the most effective form of birth control?

Wedding cake.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 7:59 pm

Which would be.....?

This statement:

Originally Posted by BillyBobUSA
This I think the better question and the answer is: let anyone whose values accept the murder of unborn babies to freely choose to do so.

Eventually they will make themselves extinct and the rest of us can go about the business of restoring Gods Creation without them.

Indicates that there is a genetic predisposition to choosing either to have an abortion or to follow Christianity (which would prohibit abortions) and that such a genetic trait could die out if the offspring of people who choose abortions are allowed to be killed off.

The reality is that the daughter of a minister is just as likely to choose to have an abortion as the daughter of an athiest. Perhaps more so given the social pressures she is under in her position.

An American Patriot

March 2nd, 2009, 8:03 pm

So a woman should only have sex if she wants to become pregnant? If this were the case, there would be an awful lot of sexless marriages.

So you think that if a woman decided she no longer wanted to be married, even though she went through the process that creates the marriage, she should be able to kill the husband off?

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 8:03 pm

The decision is theirs not yours nor mine.

I bet you don't give a damn about the child then.

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 8:10 pm

I bet you don't give a damn about the child then.

A person can accept on principle that abortion ends human life at some stage of development, even if that life is not functionally or realistically a person, and still believe that the legal and moral rights of the woman supersede the theoretical rights of the fetus.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:14 pm

So you think that if a woman decided she no longer wanted to be married, even though she went through the process that creates the marriage, she should be able to kill the husband off?

Seems to be coming from left field. But I'll offer this:

New York state does not have 'no fault divorce'. Thre must be grounds for divorce for one to be granted. One of the grounds for divorce is:

2. The abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of one or more years.

Actual abandonment consists of the unjustified leaving of the marital home by one of the parties. If one of the parties leaves the marital home with the consent of the other party, there is no abandonment. Another form of abandonment is constructive abandonment, which is the unjustified refusal to engage in sexual relations with the other party. Again, if both parties consent to not engage in sexual relations, there is no constructive abandonment by either party. At the time of the commencement of the action, the abandonment must be one full year.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 8:16 pm

A person can accept on principle that abortion ends human life at some stage of development, even if that life is not functionally or realistically a person, and still believe that the legal and moral rights of the woman supersede the theoretical rights of the fetus.

you play word games with life, fetus and person as though they are interchangeable and then not.
Once you decide that thing is a human life they should get all rights.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:17 pm

I bet you don't give a damn about the child then.

Not a very constructive accusation.

Did you find a post where I insisted that rape and incest is more prevelant in the abortion minded women?

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:18 pm

you play word games with life, fetus and person as though they are interchangeable and then not.
Once you decide that thing is a human life they should get all rights.

Should is for an 'ideal' world. Reality is that sometimes they don't.

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 8:20 pm

Should is for an 'ideal' world. Reality is that sometimes they don't.

reality is that at conception the cycle of human life begins.
Why not use reality there?

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:23 pm

Why not, indeed.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 8:32 pm

reality is that at conception the cycle of human life begins.
Why not use reality there?

The Bible disagrees.
You pick when to believe the Bible and when to define reality differently.

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 8:35 pm

you play word games with life, fetus and person as though they are interchangeable and then not.
Once you decide that thing is a human life they should get all rights.

Differentiating between value, between stages of development, between personhood and genetic relationship to the human genome - not word games.

I accept, on principle, that a fetus is a life, of some form or variety. But life is no workable litmus test - cockroaches and bacteria are life, and we have no moral qualms with ending that life. Nor do most people fritter away much think time before cutting into the flesh of any number of food animals, or scarfing down plant matter.

"Life" is not a criterion which actually applies to this discussion, unless you take a Jainist view of all life. Humans take all manner of life, each and every day.Which means we must and rather often and obviously do differentiate in value, when addressing which life is inviolable, and which is not.

So, then, we are in fact discussing human life only - which is a necessary distinction, even if you'd prefer to dismiss it as "word games."

Once we agree that distinction is needful, if we are to approach the alleged problem of ending fetal life, we are agreeing that the method itself is useful, and have earned for ourselves the liberty to apply it in general.

And so we come to apply it to the fetus - and to a workable definition of "human." I know this course is fraught with invitation to crime and error. For as long as we've been scribbling in clay, scraping ink unto vellum, or pulping reeds and trees into paper, on which to record our deeds - we've recorded the human stain itself: murder. Humans take human life. This is a fact. It is a fact that human persons use a grade of valuation, in treating with other human persons. Some "merit" death. Some do not.

And so on, and so on. In one era, a pickpocket dies at the end of noose tied rope, for his minor peccadillo. In the next, he is sent to reform school. In another, perhaps, nothing is done at all. In one epoch, the horse thief is killed with impunity. In another, the killer of the horse thief does more time.

Human life does not have a constant value, like this fact or not. We are continuously judging. The serial rapist is rightfully valued as next to nothing, even when we compassionately consider all the horrors which helped to make him one. A patient, loving mother who begets just and noble sons on the world: can you think of any more celebrated kind of person?

To which of these do we grant more value? To whom do we afford greater right?

So too with a fetus, compared to the existing rights of the woman who carries it. At some point, we are forced to judge. This I grant. A woman who bashes her midsection with a hammer, three days before she is due - this woman most would condemn. But a scared child, soon after discovering her pregnancy, excluded by parents who refuse to hear her fears, replying to her condition with only condemnation and dogma? Do you weigh her life in the balance, and demand that she make the choice that perhaps condemns her to a life of abuse and petty tyranny?

***

I do not accept that a fetus is at once and immediately upon conception a person; at least for some portion of the fetal development, there is no human personhood, even if the organism is genetically human. I'm perfectly willing to concede that at some point in the last trimester, genetic membership in the human race (along with viability) develops into actual personhood.

I do what we all do: a value with distinction, with grades of worth. On the scales of justice, it is better that a woman births her young when she knows that she is ready to mother them. I trust, in the end, that a woman who knows she cannot mother a child, knows better than I.

Pollyanna

March 2nd, 2009, 8:43 pm

How is that any different than the present day norm?

What is the most effective form of birth control?

Wedding cake.

:clap:

You're right. It's a shame couples forget their spouse's needs. Lots of marriages suffer from emotional abandonment. A few simple changes could spice up marriages once again.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:44 pm

That is a well thought out and carefully considered post, Changtzu. :clap:

Bet you get slammed for it. ;)

outdamyboat

March 2nd, 2009, 8:45 pm

The Bible disagrees.

There is no confusion about when life begins in the Bible.

Ps 139
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

(K.S. I like NY State divorce laws :mrgreen: )

Dreamy

March 2nd, 2009, 8:45 pm

you play word games with life, fetus and person as though they are interchangeable and then not.
Once you decide that thing is a human life they should get all rights.

Defining the unborn child has become a battle of semantics for many. If the child was not a human life there would no life to end. And if viability is the measure then newborns best be careful because there are not a viable life form on their own. They need support from others to survive.

Hadassah

March 2nd, 2009, 8:48 pm

The Bible disagrees.

Where?

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 8:52 pm

There is no confusion about when life begins in the Bible.

Ps 139
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

(K.S. I like NY State divorce laws :mrgreen: )

If the Bible is to apply, you must apply it fairly.

"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."

Psalm 137: 8-9

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16

***

The Bible appears to confirm that life begins in utero. It also seems to determine strong gradations of value, with regard to that life.

***

Life is not a useful criterion, anyway.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 8:53 pm

(K.S. I like NY State divorce laws :mrgreen: )

I don't. It forces people to stay together who shouldn't and makes them feel trapped in their marraiges. I'd like to find out if it causes a higher homicide rate in married couples in NY.

However, there is a loophole, as with any other law. It's called a conversion divorce. The couple gets a seperation agreement and lives seperated for a year or more. Then they get a divorce with none of the other faults since the divorce is based on the year of being seperated.

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 8:53 pm

That is a well thought out and carefully considered post, Changtzu. :clap:

Bet you get slammed for it. ;)

Thank you. Perhaps, I will be slammed for it. Perhaps some will take the time to consider that even the Bible, from which many draw inspiration for belief in conceptual ensoulment, is fairly unclear as to universal value for pregnant women and unborn infants.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 8:55 pm

outdamyboat

March 2nd, 2009, 9:00 pm

Differentiating between value, between stages of development, between personhood and genetic relationship to the human genome - not word games.

I accept, on principle, that a fetus is a life, of some form or variety. But life is no workable litmus test - cockroaches and bacteria are life, and we have no moral qualms with ending that life. Nor do most people fritter away much think time before cutting into the flesh of any number of food animals, or scarfing down plant matter.

"Life" is not a criterion which actually applies to this discussion, unless you take a Jainist view of all life. Humans take all manner of life, each and every day.Which means we must and rather often and obviously do differentiate in value, when addressing which life is inviolable, and which is not.

So, then, we are in fact discussing human life only - which is a necessary distinction, even if you'd prefer to dismiss it as "word games."

Once we agree that distinction is needful, if we are to approach the alleged problem of ending fetal life, we are agreeing that the method itself is useful, and have earned for ourselves the liberty to apply it in general.

And so we come to apply it to the fetus - and to a workable definition of "human." I know this course is fraught with invitation to crime and error. For as long as we've been scribbling in clay, scraping ink unto vellum, or pulping reeds and trees into paper, on which to record our deeds - we've recorded the human stain itself: murder. Humans take human life. This is a fact. It is a fact that human persons use a grade of valuation, in treating with other human persons. Some "merit" death. Some do not.

And so on, and so on. In one era, a pickpocket dies at the end of noose tied rope, for his minor peccadillo. In the next, he is sent to reform school. In another, perhaps, nothing is done at all. In one epoch, the horse thief is killed with impunity. In another, the killer of the horse thief does more time.

Human life does not have a constant value, like this fact or not. We are continuously judging. The serial rapist is rightfully valued as next to nothing, even when we compassionately consider all the horrors which helped to make him one. A patient, loving mother who begets just and noble sons on the world: can you think of any more celebrated kind of person?

To which of these do we grant more value? To whom do we afford greater right?

So too with a fetus, compared to the existing rights of the woman who carries it. At some point, we are forced to judge. This I grant. A woman who bashes her midsection with a hammer, three days before she is due - this woman most would condemn. But a scared child, soon after discovering her pregnancy, excluded by parents who refuse to hear her fears, replying to her condition with only condemnation and dogma? Do you weigh her life in the balance, and demand that she make the choice that perhaps condemns her to a life of abuse and petty tyranny?

***

I do not accept that a fetus is at once and immediately upon conception a person; at least for some portion of the fetal development, there is no human personhood, even if the organism is genetically human. I'm perfectly willing to concede that at some point in the last trimester, genetic membership in the human race (along with viability) develops into actual personhood.

I do what we all do: a value with distinction, with grades of worth. On the scales of justice, it is better that a woman births her young when she knows that she is ready to mother them. I trust, in the end, that a woman who knows she cannot mother a child, knows better than I.

Long and well written post. But, there are those of us who just simply believe the Word of God and all the long, well written post are just foolishness acccording the His Word.

1Cor 1:
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:01 pm

Changtzu, Told ya so. :razz:

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 9:01 pm

Long and well written post. But, there are those of us who just simply believe the Word of God and all the long, well written post are just foolishness acccording the His Word.

1Cor 1:
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d

Namecalling with Bible passages is still namecalling. You, at least, are protected in that act, since you defame an atheist, who has no merit of respect in this forum. Were I to quote the imaginal Book of Thor, to call you a fool, I'm sure it would count as "disrespect."

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:02 pm

Namecalling with Bible passages is still namecalling. You, at least, are protected in that act, since you defame an atheist, who has no merit of respect in these forums.

Is 'namecalling' a Christian act? :think:

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 9:04 pm

Is 'namecalling' a Christian act? :think:

I don't believe so, at all. I was just pointing out that Out was specifically protected in the act of defaming me, because I have no right to respect, in this forum.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:05 pm

I don't believe so, at all. I was just pointing out that Out was specifically protected in the act of defaming me, because I have no right to respect, in this forum.

Dats sad. :(

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:06 pm

:clap:

You're right. It's a shame couples forget their spouse's needs. Lots of marriages suffer from emotional abandonment. A few simple changes could spice up marriages once again.

Hello Polly.

Hadassah

March 2nd, 2009, 9:08 pm

I don't believe so, at all. I was just pointing out that Out was specifically protected in the act of defaming me, because I have no right to respect, in this forum.

Chuang, ya know I luv ya, but I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't see any name-calling by Out.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 9:09 pm

Long and well written post. But, there are those of us who just simply believe the Word of God and all the long, well written post are just foolishness acccording the His Word.

1Cor 1:
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
I hadn't noticed this before.
I've never seen God as ever being foolish or weak.

Dreamy

March 2nd, 2009, 9:11 pm

Thank you. Perhaps, I will be slammed for it. Perhaps some will take the time to consider that even the Bible, from which many draw inspiration for belief in conceptual ensoulment, is fairly unclear as to universal value for pregnant women and unborn infants.

Human life does not have a constant value, like this fact or not. We are continuously judging.

This from your long post which I do very much appreciate you offering here. Very meaty read.

On the judgment aspect I agree. But does the judging truth therefore take us straight to understanding and supporting the termination of life and does the judging justify the termination of any innocent human life?

outdamyboat

March 2nd, 2009, 9:13 pm

Even though N.Y.S. is not a no-fault divorce state but it is an ERA state so no matter who has grounds there is only equitable distribution of marital assets. No penalty for whomever is found at fault.
I remember when the only grounds for divorce in N.Y.S. was adultery.

Yes, but equitable is good! And, if I would get divorced I would like to say to my hubby, "It's your fault". :whistle:

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:13 pm

This from your long post which I do very much appreciate you offering here. Very meaty read.

On the judgment aspect I agree. But does the judging truth therefore take us straight to understanding and supporting the termination of life and does the judging justify the termination of any innocent human life?

Depends on the circumstances.

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:14 pm

Yes, but equitable is good! And, if I would get divorced I would like to say to my hubby, "It's your fault". :whistle:

If I were to get a divorce, I would like to say to my wife "Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn."

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 9:15 pm

Chuang, ya know I luv ya, but I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't see any name-calling by Out.

Chapter of the Anvil, Book of Thor:

"And verily they are idiots and fools who disagree with Thor,
and they who cast down eyes in his presence,
thinking their own thoughts,
so shall these be broken as a poorly made sword
is broken on the rock of testing.

Revel now, should they, drinking long from the horn,
for Thor shall be as an Anvil to their souls.

And surely is he like unto the feces of a pig,
who questions the wisdom of Thor,
or speaks aloud against Him in the company of men,
or writes the lasting word of sacrilege..."

Koushi Shinigami

March 2nd, 2009, 9:17 pm

:eh: You looking for a ban?

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 9:20 pm

:eh: You looking for a ban?

Me?

Not at all. I'm only illustrating how scripture can be use to insult and defame an honored guest.

In this case, of course, the scripture in question was entirely imaginary, in that I whipped it up on the spot, to illustrate my point in reply to Hadassah.

The "Book of Thor" poetically "quoted" below does not exist, but such a scripture, as with any other, can be used to attack another.

Out used scripture to call me a fool. I used an imaginary text to illustrate how this could be done, since I thought it disrespectfully poor taste to use an actual religious text for my example.

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 9:21 pm

Yes, but equitable is good! And, if I would get divorced I would like to say to my hubby, "It's your fault". :whistle:

I agree. I was not complaining about equal rights.

When I filed for my divorce I had the grounds of constructive abandonment.
Claiming she refused to have sex with me.
When her lawyer submitted she listed my ex to be to have the grounds.
It made no difference in the distribution and as a woman, which looks better for me (or worse for her)
Whether she wouldn't have sex with me or that I wouldn't have sex with her?

outdamyboat

March 2nd, 2009, 9:24 pm

I personalize not. I do not name call, but I do quote Scripture. I love the Word. It cuts to the chase, for all of us.

Hebrews 4:
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Peace.

Hadassah

March 2nd, 2009, 9:26 pm

Chapter of the Anvil, Book of Thor:

"And verily they are idiots and fools who disagree with Thor,
and they who cast down eyes in his presence,
thinking their own thoughts,
so shall these be broken as a poorly made sword
is broken on the rock of testing.

Revel now, should they, drinking long from the horn,
for Thor shall be as an Anvil to their souls.

And surely is he like unto the feces of a pig,
who questions the wisdom of Thor,
or speaks aloud against Him in the company of men,
or writes the lasting word of sacrilege..."

That so does not exist! :razz::))

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Values

March 2nd, 2009, 10:34 pm

"...well written post are just foolishness..."

If I used scripture to call you a fool, or attack you as an honored guest, I would not be long for these forums. Enjoy your immunity.

And your quotes by Nietzsche?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 10:58 pm

And your quotes by Nietzsche?

What's wrong with Nietzche ?
I forgot to list him with my other favorites.
And how were you insulted by Chuangtzu's Nietzsche quote ?

BillyBobUSA

March 2nd, 2009, 11:03 pm

This statement:

Indicates that there is a genetic predisposition to choosing either to have an abortion or to follow Christianity (which would prohibit abortions) and that such a genetic trait could die out if the offspring of people who choose abortions are allowed to be killed off.

No, not genetic but a predisposition based on the values system of the person who agrees with abortion as a practice.

And it would be their values system that dies out. People can be converted but whatever genetic predispositions they have cant change unless we advance a whole lot more in genetic engineering.

The reality is that the daughter of a minister is just as likely to choose to have an abortion as the daughter of an athiest. Perhaps more so given the social pressures she is under in her position.

I guess it depends on the values taught by the minister to his daughter.

Values do matter, ya know?

captusa

March 2nd, 2009, 11:08 pm

"...well written post are just foolishness..."

If I used scripture to call you a fool, or attack you as an honored guest, I would not be long for these forums. Enjoy your immunity.

You're usually not this uptight.
A suggestion.

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.- 1 Timothy5:23

Chuangtzu

March 2nd, 2009, 11:58 pm

You're usually not this uptight.
A suggestion.

Oh, I'm not uptight, or even offended. I just wasn't inclined to let the slight pass unnoticed.

Koushi Shinigami

March 3rd, 2009, 9:11 am

And it would be their values system that dies out.

No, it wouldn't.

Tim

March 3rd, 2009, 9:13 am

Differentiating between value, between stages of development, between personhood and genetic relationship to the human genome - not word games.

I accept, on principle, that a fetus is a life, of some form or variety. But life is no workable litmus test - cockroaches and bacteria are life, and we have no moral qualms with ending that life. Nor do most people fritter away much think time before cutting into the flesh of any number of food animals, or scarfing down plant matter.

"Life" is not a criterion which actually applies to this discussion, unless you take a Jainist view of all life. Humans take all manner of life, each and every day.Which means we must and rather often and obviously do differentiate in value, when addressing which life is inviolable, and which is not.

So, then, we are in fact discussing human life only - which is a necessary distinction, even if you'd prefer to dismiss it as "word games."

Once we agree that distinction is needful, if we are to approach the alleged problem of ending fetal life, we are agreeing that the method itself is useful, and have earned for ourselves the liberty to apply it in general.

And so we come to apply it to the fetus - and to a workable definition of "human." I know this course is fraught with invitation to crime and error. For as long as we've been scribbling in clay, scraping ink unto vellum, or pulping reeds and trees into paper, on which to record our deeds - we've recorded the human stain itself: murder. Humans take human life. This is a fact. It is a fact that human persons use a grade of valuation, in treating with other human persons. Some "merit" death. Some do not.

And so on, and so on. In one era, a pickpocket dies at the end of noose tied rope, for his minor peccadillo. In the next, he is sent to reform school. In another, perhaps, nothing is done at all. In one epoch, the horse thief is killed with impunity. In another, the killer of the horse thief does more time.

Human life does not have a constant value, like this fact or not. We are continuously judging. The serial rapist is rightfully valued as next to nothing, even when we compassionately consider all the horrors which helped to make him one. A patient, loving mother who begets just and noble sons on the world: can you think of any more celebrated kind of person?

To which of these do we grant more value? To whom do we afford greater right?

So too with a fetus, compared to the existing rights of the woman who carries it. At some point, we are forced to judge. This I grant. A woman who bashes her midsection with a hammer, three days before she is due - this woman most would condemn. But a scared child, soon after discovering her pregnancy, excluded by parents who refuse to hear her fears, replying to her condition with only condemnation and dogma? Do you weigh her life in the balance, and demand that she make the choice that perhaps condemns her to a life of abuse and petty tyranny?

***

I do not accept that a fetus is at once and immediately upon conception a person; at least for some portion of the fetal development, there is no human personhood, even if the organism is genetically human. I'm perfectly willing to concede that at some point in the last trimester, genetic membership in the human race (along with viability) develops into actual personhood.

I do what we all do: a value with distinction, with grades of worth. On the scales of justice, it is better that a woman births her young when she knows that she is ready to mother them. I trust, in the end, that a woman who knows she cannot mother a child, knows better than I.

I just wanted to thank you for this well developed post. You've given me much to consider and have articulated well some thoughts that have been but a jumble of random ideas in my own mind.

Thanks!

An American Patriot

March 3rd, 2009, 9:34 am

Also, isn't it compassionate to think of a mother as a human being rather than a baby machine?

You think all abortions are performed after people find out that having sex can cause them to become pregnant?

An American Patriot

March 3rd, 2009, 9:35 am

I can cite a popular Conservative talk show host that claims allowing abortions in the cases of rape and incest is an example of compassion.
His name escapes me.

I can cite popular people who claim that blowing up your enemies is a good thing.

Does that make it right?

Do you always base your values on what someone else says?

An American Patriot

March 3rd, 2009, 9:36 am

The decision is theirs not yours nor mine.

So the decision to murder a husband that cheats on his wife is her decision as well... not yours?

graatz

March 3rd, 2009, 9:40 am

You think all abortions are performed after people find out that having sex can cause them to become pregnant?

:)) I love how ignore the first half of my post. I guess you don't have an answer as to whether it's more compassionate to pound your fists in the sand and demand that people stop getting abortions or to divert that energy into eliminating the real causes of abortion.

I'm not even sure how you draw the conclusion you did from what I said. According to you and your ilk, once a woman becomes pregnant, she is--or her only value is--the sack of cells inside of her womb until the day she gives birth (or spontaneously aborts... hey, speaking of which, if abortion is murder, is a spontaneous abortion criminal negligence? :eh:).

An American Patriot

March 3rd, 2009, 9:43 am

:)) I love how ignore the first half of my post. I guess you don't have an answer as to whether it's more compassionate to pound your fists in the sand and demand that people stop getting abortions or to divert that energy into eliminating the real causes of abortion.

I'm not even sure how you draw the conclusion you did from what I said. According to you and your ilk, once a woman becomes pregnant, she is--or her only value is--the sack of cells inside of her womb until the day she gives birth (or spontaneously aborts... hey, speaking of which, if abortion is murder, is a spontaneous abortion criminal negligence? :eh:).

And according to you and your ilk, a baby has no rights on its own, our country wasn't founded upon a God given right to life.

But its nice to see you start a post talking about aborting children with a big happy smiley face, really shows your true colors. Thank you for allowing me to see just what type of person I am dealing with.

I really don't think its to much to say that if you decide to create life, you shouldn't go around and murder it.

Even in the case of rape, lets help the woman get through the 9 months and put the child up for adoption. Unless you want to start murdering children for other crimes they themselves don't commit either.

Chuangtzu

March 3rd, 2009, 9:44 am

I just wanted to thank you for this well developed post. You've given me much to consider and have articulated well some thoughts that have been but a jumble of random ideas in my own mind.

Thanks!

You are graciously welcome.

graatz

March 3rd, 2009, 9:57 am

And according to you and your ilk, a baby has no rights on its own, our country wasn't founded upon a God given right to life.

I'm not specifically aware of many rights that an unborn has. If you want to bring the American government into this, a person isn't a citizen until they are born in this country. :rolleyes:

But its nice to see you start a post talking about aborting children with a big happy smiley face, really shows your true colors.

Yeah, my true colors are that I want to enact changes that will reduce or eliminate the amount of unplanned pregnancies, and will make it easier for a woman to choose to go ahead with a pregnancy rather than abort. Your true colors are calling unplanned pregnancies sins that a woman needs to atone for by proceeding with a pregnancy, even if she won't have good healthcare, even if she can't afford to raise the child, even if letting her family/the father know that she's pregnant will cause her harm or abuse, even if she's scared to death of having to put a child into our broken adoption process, even if the pregnancy will cause her undue physical or mental harm, and hell, even if that child will have a congenital disease where a woman thinks it would be much more merciful to abort whist the child isn't cognizant.

I really don't think its to much to say that if you decide to create life, you shouldn't go around and murder it.

I'd wager a guess that most abortions are from unplanned pregnancies, so this is really a straw man argument. Even still, I wouldn't deny a woman the possibility of an abortion even if she intended to get pregnant, but that debate is hardly worth it for how slim the population of abortions that fall into this category.

Even in the case of rape, lets help the woman get through the 9 months and put the child up for adoption.

Rape and incest are really more straw man arguments. What are your plans for helping her "get through the 9 months" (actually, carrying the child to term will probably have long-term emotional consequences, too, but I don't expect you to actually consider this or realize this)? And what are your plans for fixing our broken adoption system? :eh: