Not trolling, a legit Anti-Abortion Thread.

On your other question, if it is known that the baby will have a serious genetic defect. The choice to abort would be a choice of convenience.

That's a matter of opinion. Some people might think that intentionally bringing a child into the world with a serious genetic defect is bad judgment.

Shouldn't you allow for that child to eventually decide on its own whether it wants to live or die?

So you think it's a good idea to bring someone into the world that lives such a miserable life that they want to die? The reality is that it's people who play God wrt children w/ serious birth defects. Many of these babies would never make out of the hospital except for the extreme medical care they receive just to keep them alive so they can go on to lead difficult and dependent lives.

What a sad story it would have been to take that life and opportunity away from him.

Actually it wouldn't have been a story at all.

On the logic of 'If you are to stupid to use a condom/the pill/etc and get pregnant' then yeah, it should be an option because its throwing off natural selection... they kid will with parents like that, the kid will dumb as a brick...

I'm thinking more along the lines of a woman who is in the clinic enough to have like a punch card... get 9 abortions the 10th is free... sort of deal.

Honestly if it was just open doors everywhere to get them, I would be willing to bet at least 1 out 10 women in there at one point would have said ABORTION IS MURDER...but this time its different.

Seems like this thread with all of its different viewpoints and opinions is a good reason why not to make something like abortion illegal. People may be against it, but you just can't make such a decision for someone else. It's an extremely difficult decision to make. With some restrictions like 1st trimester only and in cases of rape, life-threating to the mother, etc. it should be left up to the pregnant woman to decide if she will continue through her pregnancy.

So you think it's a good idea to bring someone into the world that lives such a miserable life that they want to die?

That's the error in your logic...using your own assumptions to take the life of another person. You would think that somebody born without arms and legs would be miserable right? Wrong. Nick is one of the most joyous people I've ever seen as are others born with similar circumstances. Sure, there are people born with physical defects that may cause them mental anguish at some point in their life...maybe even to the point of suicide. There are also kids born that experience mental anguish (and ultimately suicide) caused by a father that didn't love them and left while their mother was pregnant. Should we save them that misery and abort them as well?

Actually it wouldn't have been a story at all.


You're right and you just made my point. Thanks!

Eubanks, I can't really comment on Nick, but I'd guess that he was extremely lucky or his parents were ready to take on the responsibility to make help him help himself in fulfilling his life. A parent that get the news that their fetus has no arms or legs and decides to abort probably know what they are doing.

Not everyone has the same goals and motivations in their life. If the parents want to abort then it's clear that they do not believe that they can handle or desire to take on the responsibility of raising this child. How many sad stories to you want to inflict with mandatory births of defective babies so that you can get a Nick story on the rare occasion?

let's put religion aside and use our brains

I'll quote myself here and beat the religion haters to the punch. I threw a giant softball here and want to clarify that religion does not imply that you can not use your own brain!


Matthew 22:37 (New American Standard Bible)

And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

How many sad stories to you want to inflict with mandatory births of defective babies so that you can get a Nick story on the rare occasion?

You do have to admit, regardless of what side of the fence you are on, that guys stiry is the exception not the rule,

It says to love God with all your mind. It doesn't say anything about using your mind for other purposes, like thinking about difficult or complex issues.

How many sad stories to you want to inflict with mandatory births of defective babies so that you can get a Nick story on the rare occasion?

I hear of sad stories every day of broken lives of people that were born perfectly healthy and often times in perfectly caring, financially able, and loving homes. All babies should be aborted if our goal was to prevent any of them from experiencing misery at some point in their life. At some point it's not up to us to decide.

At some point it's not up to us to decide.

Which is why we allow people to choose. The fetus is considered to be the responsibility and decision of the parents, not yours or mine.

"And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven"

"Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge."

"I directed my mind to know, to investigate and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness."


There are tons of scriptures that talk about using your mind.

Which is why we allow people to choose. You don't though. You are picking the person you want to choose w/o regard to the choice of the other.

Like I said before you are putting the choice where the responsibility lies. Or perhaps you think that the responsibility of all children (and fetuses) should be with the state.

You are picking the person you want to choose w/o regard to the choice of the other.


Well, then how about the parents vote, and the kid does too... 1 kick/silence abort, 2 kicks keep...majority wins


Saying you're not respecting the "childs" right to life is just nuts. I understand where people come from calling it a life, but also it is a tiny little dot of cells, it could be mistaken for an ameoba.

I honestly think not one of us should be allow to talk about it unless one of the following have occured concerning your wife/daughter/sister/girlfriend:

Pregnancy that would lead to the death of the mother
Rape/Incest baby
Pregnancy that would lead to a crazy mutant baby
Preganacy at a super young age/not ready to be a parent at all



in reguards to the last one I've known people who were sexually active and NOT safe about it, and bottom line if they got pregnant and kept it, it would ruin 3 lives not just 1 fetus.
The parents wouldn't be able to go on to school/be successful --> baby has a •••••• life because they cannot provide.... 3 •••••• lives because they didn't have the option to sacrifice a blob of cells.

If its just a blob of cells, why is it a "sacrifice"? If it is just worthless biological material, why is it a "hard decision"? Why is it a "complex issue"?

Its because dispite our desire for an easy guilt free alternative to accountability, there isnt one. We try to build one by referring to our offspring by their scientific process names. No matter how you slice it, as living creatures, procreation is paramount and it is sacred. It has considerably greater value than we want to admit.

^ it isn't I'm related to everyone though

"It's a fetus not a child"

"AGreed, if it was a child the word fetus wouldn't be around."

Mike & Nick, Sorry this doesn't fly with me. There are terms used through out are lives, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager, middle age, elderly, etc. The word fetus doesn't mean there is no life. In fact at week 3 the heart begins to beat. By week 5 brain waves can be detected and recorded. Week 6 the brain controls movement of muscles and organs. by week 8 the fetus has everything found in a fully developed adult. 40 muscles operate along with the nervous system and the fetus can respond to touch.
Some of these same things are what we use to determine if someone is alive or not when considering taking someone off life support. In particular the heart beat and the brain waves. These things are being developed before the mother even realizes she is pregnant in most cases.

John, you say that the fetus should be the responsibility and decision of the parents. but this argument doesn't even involve both parents. pro choicers say it is the women's right to choose. Leaving the male totally out of the equation. Yet, a fetus is formed by 23 chromosomes of both parents. Yes, the fetus is using the female body as a host. But how is it that the male has no say at all when that baby is half his?

"pro choicers say it is the women's right to choose. Leaving the male totally out of the equation. Yet, a fetus is formed by 23 chromosomes of both parents. Yes, the fetus is using the female body as a host. But how is it that the male has no say at all when that baby is half his?"

The 2nd part of that is that it's the female that has to actually go through the pregnancy. It's not just the fetus/baby that's involved. Because it's such a traumatic deal for a woman to go through a pregnancy is one of the main reasons for being pro-choice. It's not just the potential baby in question. Maybe it's not completely fair, but that's the way it is.

Becky, how is it that a man may be ordered into indentured servitude and have to pay lifetime alimony to a women that cheated on him and divorced him for another man, taking his children away at the same time? Under the law, this can happen. The answer is that the state can't provide an ideal solution to every problem. I'm not claiming that the law is perfect.

How do you know whether the male's motive is simply his ideological stance on abortion or he really is committed to fill a mother's role in caring for the baby? Babies require physical comfort and nurturing of the kind that a female is genetically programmed to give. Despite your anecdotal evidence to the contrary I doubt that males in general are as well equipped to care for small infants as well as mothers.

I could see giving some rights to the father regarding abortion, but I can also see how this would be very complex to handle. The actual issue of who the father is has to be settled first. The state doesn't like complexity when interfering with matters of family. Even more so if there is no marriage involved. It tends to simply order transferring money from the party that has the most to the party that has the least, then call it a day.

---

quote:

Its because dispite our desire for an easy guilt free alternative to accountability, there isnt one.

---

This statement can only be made with the presumption that all abortions are out of convenience, which is clearly not the case 100% of the time. Also, guilt should be considered when deciding to bring a child into the world that may have a life of misery, never be able to live off of life support machines, etc.

This discussion just makes it more obvious why it should remain a choice. There is not one right answer.

---

quote:

The answer is that the state can't provide an ideal solution to every problem.

---

Well said. I almost put a statement almost exactly like this in my last post.

"The fetus is considered to be the responsibility and decision of the parents"

Wrong John. Only one parent has the ultimate say, we as a society have seen to that. However, that one person can also make the alternate decision, and FORCE the other parent to half the financial and parental burden. Where is the justice in that? One person in the equation has all of the power to make the decision, and had only half of the responsibility of conception (assuming mutual agreement). Yet this person claims "its my body, its my choice"....and expects the other party to accept and be happy with whatever choice is made?

Your position of mothers being much better equipped to care for infants is physiologically indisputable...but if the woman is, as you say, "genetically programmed" to provide physical comfort and nurturing....what is the male "genetically programmed" to offer? Nothing? Hardly. The male is the role model for both male and female offspring. Strength, courage and the devotion to family, guidance and security is the primary responsibility. We condense that down to an Alimony payment. How pathetic.

Just food for thought, and we agree on more than I figured.

Trace, your argument is the same as the one that says seatbelts are bad by referencing the slim percentage of people who died from the seatbelt holding them in instead of allowing them to be thrown to safety like their passenger who survived.

Our countries biggest social problem is the inability to thwart the abuse of our policies. It keeps everyone polarized. If libs admit that abortion should be reserved for extreme cases, or welfare should be only for those who use it as it was intended, or some criminals deserve to die, then the cons will use that concession as "see they know abortion is wrong, welfare hurts the country, and the death penalty is just!" If cons admit that abortion needs to be allowed in extreme cases, welfare can help people, and the death penalty is a bad policy to be imperfect at inforcing, then the libs will use that concession as "see, they know abortion needs to be legal, welfare is good, and the death penalty can be immoral!!"

So, seriously, what are the percentages of "necessary" versus "convenience" procedures? Although, I know what they are for my family, and that's all I really care about.

I,m going to look at the puppy pictures, have fun with this thread

I have been looking at the puppy threads too. but I see that John had asked a question of me.

Becky, how is it that a man may be ordered into indentured servitude and have to pay lifetime alimony to a women that cheated on him and divorced him for another man, taking his children away at the same time?

John, I feel that this is also wrong. in my opinion this is another situation that the male gets the raw end of the deal. Not to mention the poor children. They suffer do to the selfishness of a parent. As long as the man is a good father and was not a abusive husband. The deciding factor on who gets the kids should not be based on gender. If the mother is the one that broke the family bond (which should be the strongest bond) then she does't deserve the kids. I know you say that under the law this could happen. Just because it is law does't mean it is right.
Just my opinion.

As with any abortion or religion debate, the arguments are paint-by-numbers predictable. No exception here, but I would like to express my disappointment that Eubanks' contribution on 1/26 at 9:38 a.m. is allowed to remain.

It is just a foot. It is the human body. What is wrong with that? Many on this site are for lopping off the head of a baby and then sucking it out and then scraping the remains and call it "choice" but a picture of a foot is disappointing? Really?

Not as disappointing as comparing the birth of one's children to assuming that I would be willing to sit and a clinic and have their heads cut off and body sucked out...but like you said swass a thread like this is predictable, as are the respondents and I should not be surprised, but should just refrain from posting.

How far are you prepared to take that logic, delta? Would you be offended if I posted a picture of an American soldier's boot...with a foot still in it? It's just a foot, right?

The picture clearly does not fit within the posting guidelines...yet it remains.

(Message edited by swass on January 28, 2010)

"would like to express my disappointment that Eubanks' contribution on 1/26 at 9:38 a.m. is allowed to remain."

I agree, facts and truth are unfair tools in hot-button political debates. It is next to impossible to make an argument for this practice with a childs foot staring you in the face. Its prejudicial, and Im offended.

Becky, the deciding factor on who gets the kids is based on who primarily took care of them. Of course it's predictable that normally the mother was taking care of the children while the husband was earning a paycheck. So in these cases earning a paycheck for your family is like digging your own grave.

I know because I went through a divorce 8 years ago and heard all the arguments. In my case the ex made a great mother while the kids were very young. Without going into details my case bucked the norm and I kept the house and the kids and she did financially well without sending me into court ordered slavery.

But the point is that if the courts are so ill-equipped to handle divorce I doubt that they could do any better protecting the male's parental rights to a fetus. I also question how many men are really wanting to care for an infant on their own. My suspicion is that most men who would assert their parental right would be doing it for either ideological reasons or to force an unwanted relationship with the mother.

I never said YOU would sit in a clinic. You obviously want to take everything said and turn it into something about you. At the end of the day, it does not matter how you "feel" to justify it. If you lend support to the practice then you have zero problems with doing it. You or no one else can seperate the current "choice" from exactly what has been described. They are one in the same. I know people love to try and seperated it as allowing the woman to make her choices and are fine with that but then throw a fit when someone posts a picture of what an abortion looks like. Hate to tell you, as currently written, the choice you support is the story the pictures tell. You can not have one without the other. They are the same. If you don't like the pictures then you need to change your stance. The reason those pictures are troubling to you guys is it represents your "choice" and you can live with your "choice".

All others who don't like the pictures are labeled as "anti-choice" or "anti-women". The truth in the pictures do not lie. The "anti-choice" people understand there are some situations that require drastic means, but, to casually have a law that allows to cut the head off a baby and suck it out because someone does not want to raise it is crap. Sure the guys are for "choice", they will be hit in the pocket book or have to stop trying to bang every chick that walks. Oh well.

The fact of the matter is that is what is acceptable to those who are "pro-choice". That is the law and that is what happens. That is what the procedure is and that is what happens in what was the stats above? 90 some percent of the time? I don't know how to sugar coat it for you.

Back in the Vietnam era the majority of Americans were gladly allowing the murder of their own children for no good reason. Yet they were offended when pictures of the mutilated bodies were posted in the press.

If there was an analogy to be drawn then it would suggest that anti-abortionists are right to post pictures of the gore. And perhaps there should be more pictures and videos posted of animal slaughter houses. We should also include hacked up bodies of women and children in Darfor.

So I don't take offense when these pictures are posted. Intellectually speaking we know what we base our opinions on, so pictures shouldn't make a difference. If I see a dead soldiers body, it doesn't change the facts as to whether or not we are at war for the right reasons.

Swass, I understand your logic. I think we all agree that war is horrible and understand what we are asking our hero's to do and what happens in war. At the end of the day, both sides of the isle (though one side likes to think that their side does not vote for war) ask our hero's to go to war.

In this case, one side does not seem to understand what their "choice" really means. Even with that, You will find a childs foot in any text book in school and I have even seen bottled up child progressions in a childrens musem. The foot is not out of the ordinary. I think what bothers you is the context it is associated with. The picture by itself is just a babies foot. If you posted the picture with the context of this was my child right after it was born and "look how tiny she is"; everyone would be going "awe how precious".

ust like the arguments that the people of your political following would argue that you could have sat their in the delivery room hours from having your child, but, you (because it is a womans right) could have the doctors cut your babies head off and suck out the rest of the parts. Right there and that easy.

actually you did refer to me in this statement!

If you lend support to the practice then you have zero problems with doing it.

False.

Remember John, that picture is not of a baby. It is just a lump of tissue with no similarities to a living person. That is the argument. No one denies war is horrible or other things in the world are horrible. Why did the world show the camps in WWII with the Jews? It is bacause you had people denying it happened. Well, we have people on this thread alone saying it is a argument about a lump of tissue and it clearly is not. If we get past that, then pictures for proof of one's argument do not need to be posted.

Uh melissa, I clearly said "people of your political following would argue". How is that you? The argue that you can do that. How is that in any way shape or form arguing that you would do that? Again, please read for actual content.

(Message edited by deltahoosier on January 28, 2010)

Becky, the deciding factor on who gets the kids is based on who primarily took care of them. Of course it's predictable that normally the mother was taking care of the children while the husband was earning a paycheck.

If that were true then I should have a lot more than two kids. In todays day and age it is more likely than not to have both parents earning that paycheck. I was the one taking care of their kids. I ran a day care for 21 years. I was the one adult that the kids spent more time with

Becky, you might have more kids if you got involved in your client's divorces.

I'd love to see a few daycare owners expectantly show up in a divorce court to challenge that point and claim the kids.

John. I agree with you there. I was contacted by a lawyer in one case. But was never called to court. That was more than I wanted to get involved. Another time a father whom I had never met showed up asking questions he thought might be helpful in regaining custody of his son.
Another situation that went no where with my involvement. (Thank goodness.) I did not answer his questions and never heard from him again. At the same time, I did feel that the mother was a very disappointing mother. But, the step father was wonderful. So sad to see families so screwed up.

As for the picture above, as I stated before it is actually pretty tame compared to what abortion really looks like. It is a tiny foot being held between two gloved fingers. Sure there is some blood, but I have seen more on here in pictures of a good wakeboard crash.

Perhaps I obfuscated my objection. I don't have any problem with the image itself. It is what it is. I used the soldier's boot comparison to point out that the image does not bolster the argument, nor does it sway anyone's opinion.

I'm more bothered by the disparity with which the rules are applied.

Perhaps I obfuscated my objection. I don't have any problem with the image itself. It is what it is. I used the soldier's boot comparison to point out that the image does not bolster the argument, nor does it sway anyone's opinion.

Fair enough Swass.

"Back in the Vietnam era the majority of Americans were gladly allowing the murder of their own children for no good reason"

So......we are at war with our kids? The future? Whats your point? You can peruse the internet and see all of the gore you desire...Darfur, Vietnam, Iraq...pick your poison. I get the idea you just dont like it shoved in your face. If thats the case, dont let the dirt get in your eyes while your head is buried.

So let me see if I understand this correctly,a picture of a babies leg obviously severed from it's body in a brutal murder, excuse me, abortion, doesn't sway you in any way shape or form? That image should horrify and discust anyone who looks upon it. Thats baby had arms, legs fingers a heart a brain and could feel the pain from this detestable practice. In escence one minute the baby was alive, the next it was torn to shreds.

Dan, you're right - killing innocent babies is just horrifying and disgusting. And no one does it better than God.

Moses said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘About amidnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt, and aall the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

"So let me see if I understand this correctly,a picture of a babies leg obviously severed from it's body in a brutal murder, excuse me, abortion, doesn't sway you in any way shape or form?"

You understand perfectly.

Whats your point? You can peruse the internet and see all of the gore you desire

Wickedwake, The analogy was to say that American's who murdered their children in a war were hypocrites for not wanting to see the pictures. Therefore being pro-choice and not wanting to see the pictures of abortion would also be hypocritical. The same goes for all things that are visually disturbing that we accept. I.E. eating bacon but not wanting to see the images of a slaughter house.

So if you got the idea that I don't like it shoved in my face, then you misunderstood the basic message in my post.

Wes I want to make one thing clear, I am only responding because of everyone else on this thread, not to you directly. Obviously you are only here to do everything you can to miss represent Gods character. Egypt had enslaved Israel under harsh rule for 400 years. God sent Moses to Pharaoh to release his people so they could go back to the land that was promised to them. Pharaoh refused, and in fact made it even worse for the Israelites. When you have an evil leader over your country it is a terrible thing for the people.

If Pharaoh would have let the people go, none of the plagues would have fallen upon them. Although Pharaoh would refuse to let them go, God (Big G Wes) already new what he would do. The scripture even says God caused Pharaohs heart to be hardened even more. What most people fail to understand is this. This story was the pre-curser to the coming of Christ. Before the Death Angel was sent, God gave them a way out, anyone who put the blood of the lamb on their door post (Pass over) would be spared. So this was a prophecy for the coming King who would eventually die on the cross for all of us, as long as we put on the blood sacrifice over our own lives, we would escape death, an eternal death in hell. Where are all those first born who passed away? My guess would be in heaven with him. God is a holy God and a righteous judge. There is a reason behind everything he does, this story fulfilled prophecy of the greatest event in history.

When God murders children only a convoluted explanation is sufficient to tidy up the mess.

Egypt had enslaved Israel under harsh rule for 400 years. God sent Moses to Pharaoh to release his people so they could go back to the land that was promised to them. Pharaoh refused, and in fact made it even worse for the Israelites.

Hmm, sems to me an omnipotent god could have figured a way around that without slaughtering tens of thousands of babies. But that's just not Yahweh's style.


When you have an evil leader over your country it is a terrible thing for the people.

When you have a petty vengeful god killing babies it's a pretty terrible thing too.


If Pharaoh would have let the people go, none of the plagues would have fallen upon them. Although Pharaoh would refuse to let them go, God (Big G Wes) already new what he would do. The scripture even says God caused Pharaohs heart to be hardened even more.

All Pharaoah had to do was relent! But Yahweh hardened his heart to make sure he wouldn't. Haha what a sadistic deity.


Before the Death Angel was sent, God gave them a way out, anyone who put the blood of the lamb on their door post (Pass over) would be spared.

This was for the Israelites, dude - the deal was not extended to Egyptians. It does nicely illustrate Yahweh's unhealthy obsession with blood and pointless killing though.


Where are all those first born who passed away? My guess would be in heaven with him.

If this is truly how you look at it then you need not be concerned about abortion at all.

your analogy is ridiculous. War, Vietnam in particular, was staffed by draftees, who had no choice but to enlist and serve. They could also run to Canada, refuse enlistment...etc. Unborn children have no choice or say in the matter. Your comparison is not valid.
By the way, God doesnt "murder" children. Humans do. Just get that point correct, and we can have a decent conversation. If not, then you have obviously taken the "Fox News" approach and bastardized any intelligible explanation on the subject. Natural disasters are not "murder". If it were, then the opposite might be true. Meaning, Darwinism by elimination of the weaker subject is fully acceptable, and should be encouraged.....sounds stupid, right?

By the way, God doesnt "murder" children. Humans do. Just get that point correct, and we can have a decent conversation.

The biblical record seems to disagree.

When you can point out in any version of the bible, where it quotes "God Murders Children"....I will stand corrected. In the meantime, I like this quote: "You may beg God for mercy, and when He shows up to help you, I will stop whipping you". It is the will of men who warp the words and deeds of Jesus, and the will of God. It works the other way too.

Nice coloring of the quote by the way.

Coloring? You mean turning it blue? I'm not following your objection - you would prefer god kills babies to god murders babies?

Having lived with the Israelites for over 400 years, the Egyptians would have heard about God and what he had done. They would also have heard about the signs Moses and Aaron performed (e.g. Ex 7:8-12) and seen firsthand the previous nine plagues, noting they affected Egypt but not Israel. This should have been a clear enough sign for anyone that the Israelites' God was powerful and should be listened to. Indeed, some of the Egyptians were able to escape the effects of the plagues when they heeded God's warnings and acted accordingly. Those who took shelter when God warned them of the plague of hail survived (Ex 9:19-21). Additionally, the plagues demonstrated the impotence of various Egyptian gods.

As with the other plagues, the Egyptians were warned in advance of the plague on the firstborn. Had an Egyptian family gone to ask the Israelites how to serve their God and avoid the plague, they could have received the instructions for the Passover and thus spared their family. Their failure to do so indicated they still didn't believe God's word and were still rejecting him, hence the plague.

You shouldn't have a problem with this since you don't believe in the God of the Bible Wes, only crazy uneducated people who need something to cling to because of their weakness do. It's funny how you and others can look at a babies body ripped a part and think nothing of it, but are quick to judge a God who gave a people ample warning before each plague even in their idol worship yet still gave them a chance to escape each plague that he sent on them. Even the devil can quote the scripture Wes, usually he uses it to twist and turn things out of context but still some how makes it sound reasonable. As the Bible says, we now see through a glass darkly, one day all things will be revealed. One thing I perceive in you Wes, is a divisive spirit, you seem to find great pleasure in trying to poke fun at the greatest book ever written. I would be very thankful that God is slow to anger and full of mercy, but even he has his limits. I guess you can just ask Pharaoh about that.

Wes is fantastic at trying to change the subject when he is obviously conflicted. Sure you don't want to critique the spelling?

If you can look at the factual evidence of what we allow for abortion then I do not know what to say about you.

Wes......Here is the quote from me...please read it again, and if you still dont understand, then I cant help you.

"When you can point out in any version of the bible, where it quotes "God Murders Children"....I will stand corrected".

One more...just for you.

"It is the will of men who warp the words and deeds of Jesus, and the will of God".


Clear enough? Or are you going to attempt to muddy the water some more?

your analogy is ridiculous.

As is your understanding.

Just get that point correct, and we can have a decent conversation.

LOL, that's a good one. So we can gave a decent conversation as long as I agree with you.

...any version of the bible, where it quotes "God Murders Children"

Who is claiming that quote is in the bible? The Bible describes God's agent murdering children. Of course the will of man will attempt to warp that into something else.

(Message edited by fly135 on January 29, 2010)

I understand just fine.. You tried to tie War into abortion. Plain and simply, they are not similar in the least.

My point is a passage in the Bible, not a personal point of view (please do a better job of reading comprehension). And when you physically see the hand of god, holding a sword and lopping off the heads of kids, I will stand corrected. Clear enough for you?

Ah...I see the comparison now...its all so clear! Why didnt I see it before!! Abortion Doctors are agents of God! All bow to the abortion Doctors!!

Like I said...ridiculous.

My point is a passage in the Bible, not a personal point of view (please do a better job of reading comprehension).

Oh, the irony.

No kidding. God the omnipotent and all-powerful can only kill with a sword? Weird.

Nice subject change. Is the baby with the foot, the hands, the head, and so on; a baby or is it just a lump of flesh?

You wonder where people get their morals from? You say it is not the bible and that all people have the ability to get good morals without God and the bible, but, if you look at it the people who do not believe in God are the ones advocating killing what is clearly a baby child. In the name of what? This is clearly a case of different developed morals. Now take people away from a civilization of people who do not find this acceptable mixed in with those who do and you will find people who think it is perfectly fine to do horrible things and find it morally acceptable. You wonder how people come up with the arguments? Well it is pretty clear where.

Well, I am trying to share the same opinions of "proof" that most of you seem to. You use the argument "prove that God exists", but you like to have both sides of an issue your way. I think an ethereal hand, holding a sword would be "proof"...dont you?

Wicked, we have a group of people here saying "I get my morals from a book." Just pointing out what the book actually says. The book says god killed all the firstborn. If the book says it was done with a sword, that makes the book more believable? Lol.

That's right - I'm a veritable cesspool of amoral behavior.

C'mon over. I have cookies.

Wicked, I'm perfectly comfortable with not taking literally tales of God in the Bible. Are you? The discussion here of what God did as described in the Bible is based on the premise that it's true. It's called "hypothetically speaking".

The point is that while I don't believe that God killed all the firstborn in Egypt, those people who claim that God is a loving God do believe it. And they concoct outrageous excuses as to how he is still a loving God,and when God murders children it's different.

So to come in here and say that people who don't believe that God exists are also claiming that he murders children is a good example of not understanding the point. The point is that what God did in the tale is irrelevant. What is relevant is what believers choose to believe about God wrt the tales of what God did.

And finally, I agree that there is little or no analogy between the Vietnam War and Abortion. The analogy is this...

- Americans send their kids to war to die, but don't want to look at the pictures of the results.
- Pro-choice support the right to abortion, but don't want to look at pictures of the results.

Very simple. And if I read you correctly it should be in the favor of your position on abortion. So why such strong objections?

Wes, is that a kid or not? Do you agree with killing it? Book or no book.

What do you call it if not amoral? Why do you agree that it is ok to kill what is clearly a baby? Is it ok for the chinese to kill a daughter because they can only have so many children and need farm equipement? Is that moral? It is moral to them.

I don't have a issue with looking at war casualties. I think people should understand what war is about and what the reality is. I don't want people to show private citizens of our country to try and make political points. I mean we all agree that a soldier is a person and though some people in this room don't agree, both sides of the political isle agreed to send the troops so I don't think pictures of our soldiers should be used as political points.

Abortion on the other hand has one group that does not believe that the abortions are of anything that looks/ is a human at that point. In this case it is a educational tool so you can have a logical debate.

"unhealthy obsession with blood and pointless killing though."

Wes - I honestly feel that you have an unhealthy obsession with the bible and the things of God. I find it almost unbelievable that somebody who is seemingly intelligent would spend so much time focusing on something he does not believe in.
Christians to you, appear to be contradictory stupid people, who believe in a God whom they cannot see. But through choice and faith, they believe in that God.
You neither know Him,understand Him, nor believe in Him. Yet you spend so much of your time talking about Him and trying to disprove Him.You probably spend more time focusing on it than most christians.Why? It seems to be such a ridiculous waste of your time. I just don't get it.

Delta, you are over thinking my analogy.

Also I agree with you that abortion is immoral. I'm not advocating abortion as a solution to pregnancy problems. But I'm also not advocating laws against something solely because it's immoral. You have to consider that imposing your will and morality on others is sometimes draconian and unwarranted. The lessor of two evils is a choice we frequently have to make.

I also think that sending a drone in to kill a terrorist while knowing there is a high probability of killing innocent people is immoral. Where is your outrage over that? God didn't spell it out well enough in the Bible? Or is there simply too many tales of God supporting the killing of innocent people at the hands of warriors to feel that killing innocents in war is immoral.

BTW, it's just as much an educational tool for people to look at pictures of the dead from an unnecessary war. And being against an unnecessary war is not a political issue. It's a moral issue.

I think you guys should start writing GOD, HIM, HIS, BIBLE, GOOD BOOK, FAIRY TALES, etc in all-caps, just to make it that much more important.

I find it almost unbelievable that somebody who is seemingly intelligent would spend so much time focusing on something he does not believe in.

Religion is an influential and ubiquitous force in human society. Paying attention to it is a sign of intelligence. Belief is irrelevant.

I see what you are saying in your first part John, but, moral war is an opinion. The bible states that it's followers are to obey the laws of the land. War unfortunately a man made affair and even with that, we as generally moral country do not go to war without giving the other guy more than one chance to comply. It is not like we sucker punch people. We let them know that they are in the wrong and we try to give them chances. We also do not keep going after people after they stop. After Iraq, we did not choose to fight anyone, we mainly defended ourselves and fought back. We could have just did a Sherman in Atlanta and been done with it. On the drone approach, I think it is very civilized and you would have the same issue if it were a F16 in the sky. It is still a pilot through a camera with a chain of command. It is as moral of choice considering the circumstances as you can get in a war. The bible does not tell you to check your common senses.

On abortion, if it is amoral you should do as much as you can to not let it become a complete abomination. Sure their are circumstances that warrant common sense, but, the right thing to do is to limit the abomination part of it as a policy but still allow for the real circumstances. It is pretty easy to document if a abortion should be done for medical reasons or use a morning after pill before a baby is clearly a baby.

John, man made systems are influential and uniquitous force in human society. Communism/ any other system that actually tries to eliminate religion is equally if not more deadly. The common factor is MAN.

Should an abortion be a means for a ectopic pregnancy? I had no idea that 2% of all pregnancy's are ectopic. But there are some other intresting facts . There was a french study done in the 1980's to the 90's that detirmined that if youhave an abortion you are 50% more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. 22% of the women that had ectopic pregnancy's had 2 or more abortions prior and 16% had one abortion. Another intresting fact is there have been twins carried to full term with ectopic pregnancy and one baby that was born where they were attached to the large bowel. Women have known to have vacumn abortions when in reality the tiny feotus is still lodged in the tube. In some cases the tube ruptures and kills the women.