|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I'm always amazed at how some men can talk about the morality of abortion but NEVER talk about their responsibility in making the baby.
I'm perfectly willing to talk about both... and I'll talk about it well beyond just making the baby... I'll talk about their responsibility for the next 20 years... and I'm sorry if it ticks some guys off, but that responsibility goes well beyond sending a check.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886 |
DCDAWGFAN,
Exactly.. its a responsibility for 20+ years. (depending on college..etc) and not just a check every month. Now of course I know that you are married with kids, so you KNOW about all the responsibilities that come with parenting. BUT most of these men who talk about the murder of abortion do not talk about the lack of responsibility from men when the baby was made NOR the responsibility afterwards!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Quote:
I think that your question has some scientific problems with it. Right now, any abortion done in the first Tri-mester(sp) would not be able to sustain a baby to term. ( or vary rarely). After that, the fetus might have a chance the longer it stays in the womb, getting closer to term or 32 weeks I think it is. Once this happens, then there is a possibility that the baby, if the mother does not want it at the later stages, could be expelled, live and then adopted. ( or maybe given to the father). BUT most abortions take place in the first weeks of conception so its almost a mute point.
That's where my confusion came from. I thought he was talking about giving birth to a live baby during the later stages of pregnancy and giving it to another family -- which, of course is adoption.
But removing the fetus during the first few weeks and expecting it to live? How is that even possible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But removing the fetus during the first few weeks and expecting it to live? How is that even possible?
It's not. The gestational age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is getting earlier and earlier because of medical advancement... but I have to believe at some point it's just impossible, at least as far as modern medicine can take it. Right now medicine can keep the baby alive if it has to grow outside the womb... But earlier on, before it's really "growing" when it's more "developing".. I don't see how that can happen outside the womb. Perhaps science will someday prove me wrong... not sure if it would be a good thing though.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629 |
Quote:
I'm always amazed at how some men can talk about the morality of abortion but NEVER talk about their responsibility in making the baby. MAYBE if some men took responsibility for their actions, women would not feel compelled to have the abortion!!!
Yet the courts do not allow the father to have any say in the matter.  If the father wants to keep the child and raise it, he is not allowed if the mother wants to murder his child. It makes about as much smacking yourself in the face with a hammer 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
IAnd when Ralphie starts a thread on this subject and says he's not expecting a debate, does anyone believe him? 
Jules...the last thing I wanted to do was to have to take on a group of cynics. I was serious but it appears that you must have to get in the first cynical jab whenever possible. If I am in error I apologize.
I have an unusually focused interest in this issue as my lovely bride of 35 years is a survivor of a botched pregnancy termination. back in the 50s these procedures were very rare and live births almost unheard of then...that's all.
My point was, if you think you can put this subject on this board without a debate insuing then you are either very naive or fibbing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Jaybird....You have entered dangerous territory. Be aware of the principle of compound interest. You may believe that you are dealing with one maybe 2 women discussing the procedure of abortion...you are mistaken as the number of posts will grow exponentially...you'll swear that there are 6-10 females involved...when it is only 2-4. Always be deferential.
You really have trouble with women who have their own opinions. LOL. I've never seen anyone who brings up people's particular gender more often when having a debate, in fact you do it every time. Somebody is very insecure. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
Quote:
You should have posted the other graph too.. the one that said less than about 2% of abortions occur due to health of the mother or abnormalities to the fetus.. the other 98% are pretty much because having a baby would be inconvenient for the mother...
That wasn't the question I was attempting to answer. Somebody posed a question, I factually answered it, that's as much as I want to get involved in a thread like this.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629 |
Afraid to hurt your beak 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DC (and RALPHIE)... Quote:
The gestational age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is getting earlier and earlier because of medical advancement... but I have to believe at some point it's just impossible, at least as far as modern medicine can take it. Right now medicine can keep the baby alive if it has to grow outside the womb... But earlier on, before it's really "growing" when it's more "developing".. I don't see how that can happen outside the womb. Perhaps science will someday prove me wrong...not sure if it would be a good thing though.
science will absolutely prove that to be wrong...Embryos simply receive required nutrients and expel toxic waste products through the mother...it's not an issue where the mother is helping develop the child...she's providing the infrastructure necessary for development to occur, to be blunt about it...WHEN those things can be done out of the womb (actually before then), then we will have to address the ethics of such a process...
i wonder how many on the pro-life side would refuse this as an alternative to abortion...as MAMMAL said, one could easily argue that a fetus not only has a right to life, but a right to a certain quality of life...i.e. in-womb development...
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
DogDNC---thanks for your analysis and I agree completely with you.
The vast majority of pregnancy terminations are done during the first trimester.
At this time the viability of a 4-8 week fetus is borderline nonexistent...TODAY.
As I mentioned earlier that the technology is being developed to both terminate a woman's pregnancy and also save the life of the fetus...how long it will take or how much gov't regulation pro or con is not known at this time.
And yes...men who do the hit and run... are despicable boys[without regard to their actual age] and should be outcasts rather than"players".
By the same token the ladies who allow the sexual activity in the first place need to be reprimanded just the same; however, the interest of the child must come first.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
"...My point was, if you think you can put this subject on this board without a debate insuing then you are either very naive or fibbing"
Actually Jules I am not fibbing nor naive...and I know that this can be discussed in a genteel tone regardless of preconceived notions[no pun intended]. The first 2 and 1/2 pages of posts have been understated and calm... really unusual with such a touchy subject.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877 |
Quote:
Quote:
IAnd when Ralphie starts a thread on this subject and says he's not expecting a debate, does anyone believe him?
Jules...the last thing I wanted to do was to have to take on a group of cynics. I was serious but it appears that you must have to get in the first cynical jab whenever possible. If I am in error I apologize.
I have an unusually focused interest in this issue as my lovely bride of 35 years is a survivor of a botched pregnancy termination. back in the 50s these procedures were very rare and live births almost unheard of then...that's all.
Let me just say that nobody has a right to a dead fetus if that's what you're getting at.
All the rights that we have, as Americans, are listed in the Constitution of the United States and the various state constitutions (which are pretty much the same in terms of rights).
The Roe v. Wade decision was enforced under a woman's right to privacy. This right to privacy would not correlate into her having the right to a dead fetus. At most, what the woman could do is sue the doctor for not performing the procedure correctly.
The court specifically stated in the decision that an anti-abortion law within the first trimester would be an infringement upon the privacy rights to females. However, states do have the authority to enact legislation that disallows abortions in the second or third trimester. The cap of course to allowing abortions to occur is that partial birth abortions are illegal. Therefore, anything between the first trimester and partial birth abortions is up to the state legislatures.
I'm really glad to hear that your wife survived by the way.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
DNA- "...i wonder how many on the pro-life side would refuse this as an alternative to abortion...as MAMMAL said, one could easily argue that a fetus not only has a right to life, but a right to a certain quality of life...i.e. in-womb development... "
That is a tough question to answer since we have none of the particulars to study ...YET.
I doubt a large number of pro-lifers would oppose this new development on it's face...since it is an abortion without the end of life for the fetus...but you never know do you? Some of us Pro Lifers are crazy haters with guns aplenty
just waiting to blow up some innocent confused children aren't we.
We may want to consider the pro choice side who fervently believe that abortion/termination of the life of the fetus is the lynchpin holding the woman's rights movement intact. I can hear the complaints now...and in some cases they may be valid...[[[ The fetus belongs to the woman and she should determine if it is given the chance to survive outside her body...]]]] or [[[We need to make sure that the woman's health will in no way be adversely affected at all before we begin to consider the secondary primitive life form known as a fetus]]].
Man talk about a debate to come.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,877 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe in justified murder
Off topic, but if someone busted into your home and you shot and killed them, is that okay?
Actually, the courts in a lot of states say it's not.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750 |
Quote:
I'm always amazed at how some men can talk about the morality of abortion but NEVER talk about their responsibility in making the baby.
I can only think of two reasons to argue against abortion, morality/murder, take resposibility for your actions. What are the other reasons to argue against abortion?
Go Irish!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
I think abortions should be allowed up until the 5th trimester. If you don't want the baby after it's born, you have six months to kill it, after that, it's just inhumane.
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 786
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 786 |
If you don't want the baby after it's born, you have six months to kill it, after that, it's just inhumane.
Errrrrrr....ok, so you are saying as long as you murder the baby in a humane fashion its ok.  Are you and Christyk comprehending what you are saying? You are admitting you are killing a baby and justifying it by doing it in its earlier stages.  I am totally dumbfounded by peoples blindness to morals and lack of taking responibilty for there actions. We are reaping the harvest of a society with no morals, which in turn will lead into a loss of control over a society in the future that then has no concious of its actions. SAD!!!!! 
You dont have to win every game just the next one!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Hey DeepSouthDawg... I believe that Jobenincasa was just kidding you. The purpose of this thread was to get congenial and rational thoughts concerning future alternatives to deadly abortion and we succeeded somewhat.
Chrystyk maybe a Steeler's loyalist but she is not advocating indiscriminate murder.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DEEPSOUTH...
are you familiar with the term sarcasm?...we all get it...you're opposed to abortion...if you can't accept that there are different and equally valid opinions on morality issues, i'll borrow a phrase from Colin Cowherd...that's a you problem...
RALPHIE...
i'm assuming you were having fun with that pro-life crazy haters comment...given MAMMAL's comment, i thought that the question of right to 'in vivo' (in the womb) development may in fact be a red flag for the strictest of anti-abortion advocates...such a method would certainly not address the 'taking responsibility for one's actions' arguments...
the biggest problem i see with a future of 'grown' babies replacing abortions is that responsibility argument...it is not much of a deterent to a couple to allowing an unwanted pregnancy...the 'threat' of carrying a child to term is clearly a pretty big deterent, otherwise most abortions would have already been replaced by adoptions...
and i'm sure people will just rail on me for such a liberal perspective, but a medical alternative is not the solution, even when it is possible...IMO, like many issues, the majority of abortions stem from socioeconomic/educational circumstances...i.e. a number of studies across the US and the world have shown tendencies of poor, uneducated, and/or urban populations contributing a disproportionate # of abortions...
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886 |
Ralphie, Like you said, trying to keep a 4-8 week embryo/fetus outside the womb to grow to full term is not a scientific reality right now. BUT think about the other morality issue that will have to be discussed just in that. I'm no fan of abortion but I know there are situations that it MIGHT better than if the parents were to bring that child into the world and abuse it..etc ( I know ppl say adoption but that is not a absolute, which means foster care which is a night mare..etc). But that is why I focus on things BEFORE the deed is done! Like I was taught, there are only two outcomes when you are sexual with a woman, and if you do not want one of those outcomes, plus the 20+ years of responsibility, then take steps not to make that happen. Quote:
By the same token the ladies who allow the sexual activity in the first place need to be reprimanded just the same;
Yes, they do but it takes two to tango, not one! That is why both parties better be responsible, or atleast think about what happened as a result of their actions. Back in the single world, I always told my girlfriends that if that happened, I would take responsibility, I knew what was going down and I knew the possible results.
** I wish someone would have explained that about marriage but that is another debate **... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,886 |
KYdawg, Quote:
I can only think of two reasons to argue against abortion, morality/murder, take resposibility for your actions. What are the other reasons to argue against abortion?
Its always hard to argue against those two points but I could point out that morality did not come up when the two people were about to get busy!! And morality does not come up when the man does not feel like paying/visiting/supporting the mother and kid afterwards. My thing is that if you are going to be moral, then be consistently moral, not half-a** moral!!!
M
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
Quote:
Women should be afforded 3 abortions per lifetime.
People should be afforded the right to kill three people per lifetime. (dripping with sarcasm)
I don't think that's exactly the point he is trying to make.
This is what I got out of his post: Abortion IS legal. There are many ethical issues surrounding the procedure, but it is still legal. Because of this, some women take no responsibility of their actions because they know that if they do end up pregnant, they can simply walk down to the doctors office (or where ever abortions take place), and terminate the pregnancy and not have to worry about it again. They can do this 100's of times if they want to.
By placing a limit on the number abortions, it will force them to act more responsibly because they no longer have the choice to abort the fetus.
It's not like it would persuade women to have abortions because they are now granted 3. The women who are against will still choose not too. Just because they have are granted a number doesn't mean they change their view on it. But, the women who do undergo the procedure will not be able to have anymore than 3 in their lifetime, thus reducing the total amounts of abortions.
I'm not saying that's what I think should happen, that's just what I got out of his post.
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629 |
Here is a better idea Make aboritions illegal again. That will reduce them even more 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901 |
Yah then we can just argue about kicking unwanted babies off welfare and prison rolls, and higher education grants. (when they grow up)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I've always said...find me someone arguing pro-life who also argues against any kind of killing - war, executions, etc. - and, despite my difference of opinion, logically I will not be able to argue with them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
You make a great point. Most people who are "pro life" are happy to endorse the death penalty and wars they deem just. It's not that they are against killing, they are against killing that doesn't fit in with their particular moral code. They are "pro-life" unless they think the person deserves death. The judging is supposed to be left to God, or at least that's how I understand it.
I have a hunch, though, that deepsouth is not opposed to the death penalty, to the iraq war, or to killing someone in self defense. All things Jesus was vehemently against.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629 |
Quote:
Yah then we can just argue about kicking unwanted babies off welfare and prison rolls, and higher education grants. (when they grow up)
So every baby thas not aborted is going to be a lazy ass, crack baby, born to a poor mother
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,629 |
Quote:
I've always said...find me someone arguing pro-life who also argues against any kind of killing - war, executions, etc. - and, despite my difference of opinion, logically I will not be able to argue with them.
Well I am against executions, and unprovoked war, so we you can't argue with me to much 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
The term unprovoked wars insinuates provoked wars being left off of the list...and a provoked war would be one where the murder is done in the name of the safety of and a better life for a people...and if one were to argue abortion - maintaining your definition that it's murder - they could say that it's done for the safety and better life of person(s).
I could also argue the hell out of that statement...the abortion debate cycle is a tired one. It boils to down to two distinct viewpoints that can't really argue with each other, as neither are on the same page.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Every war is provoked by both sides. If you don't resist, there is no war. Killing is killing GM, nice try.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,905
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,905 |
Quote:
Every war is provoked by both sides. If you don't resist, there is no war. Killing is killing GM, nice try.
Sorry pal - "killing is killing" just doesn't cut it.
Abortion is killing - an innocent baby that had no say or choice.
War is very different. If you can't see that, there is no point in discussing it with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
I've always said...find me someone arguing pro-life who also argues against any kind of killing - war, executions, etc. - and, despite my difference of opinion, logically I will not be able to argue with them.
You can't argue that either. Unborn babies have committed no crime, and have done nothing to warrant being killed. Criminals who are put to death have committed a crime that they knew was a crime. Comparing a criminal being put to death for a crime, and an unborn child who hasn't done anything is obsurd.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
We don't kill innocents in Wars?
Anyway, you make my point. It's a judgment on who deserves death and who doesn't. Thinking you are in a better position to judge such matters means you think your morals are better than others', or that you believe you are on par with God in judging sin, or both.
If God wants to save those unborn babies he will. And if he wants to punish the murderers, he will. Once you are free of sin, then you can start telling others what to do.
And if you are wondering, the answer is yes, I am in fact, perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
If God wants to save those unborn babies he will. And if he wants to punish the murderers, he will. Once you are free of sin, then you can start telling others what to do.
Not everyone holds those beliefs. You can't apply your religious beliefs to justify killing innocent babies. There are a good number of people who don't believe in any type of god.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
Quote:
If God wants to save those unborn babies he will. And if he wants to punish the murderers, he will. Once you are free of sin, then you can start telling others what to do.
Not everyone holds those beliefs. You can't apply your religious beliefs to justify killing innocent babies. There are a good number of people who don't believe in any type of god.
Exactly. Bringing religion into an argument instantly lessens its credibility.
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
I know. I'm one of them. I just use that religious example because in my experience, the majority of people arguing that abortion is wrong base it on a religious morality, the bible, or at the least claim to be good christians.
My honest opinion about abortion? I think it's a waste of time to try to argue whether or not it's murder, whether a fetus is a human being, all that. We all die, it's just a question of when. Do your duty to those you love and to yourself, and let other people take care of themselves and make their own decisions. The world would be a much better place, in my opinion, if we stopped judging others so much and cleaned our own houses instead.
Abortion is awful, if you've ever gone through it or made that decision. I've been a part of two of them. The first one, was the right decision, definitely. The second one wasn't, and I really regret it. Both of them were very painful for everyone involved. I feel a loss, I wonder what the child would have been, and if what I did was "wrong." I hope to be a father one day, and if I have a choice I'll never be a part of another abortion again, because I'm in a place in my life where I can care for a child and provide a loving and healthy home. I refuse, however, to judge someone else's decision, and I frankly don't care whether we call it "murder" or not. It's an important part of our society, it has had both a positive and negative impact on the lives of many, and I'm glad it's legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,905
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,905 |
Quote:
We don't kill innocents in Wars?
We don't try, but yes, it does happen.
Quote:
Anyway, you make my point. It's a judgment on who deserves death and who doesn't.
No, I think YOU made my point.
Quote:
Thinking you are in a better position to judge such matters means you think your morals are better than others', or that you believe you are on par with God in judging sin, or both.
There is no way I am on par with God. There is not a human around that is on par with God. Nice try though.
I will say this: If you are okay with abortions as a form of birth control - and you appear to be - then I would guess you are also okay with euthenasia as a form of lowering medical bills as well. In abortion for birth control, people that are for it argue "better than having those kids end up in an orphanage", so by the same token, when someone is diagnosed with a disease, wouldn't it be better to just kill them as soon as they get the diagnoses? That's where your line of thinking leads to.
Quote:
If God wants to save those unborn babies he will.
If someone were standing over you with a gun to your head, would your response be "go ahead, shoot me - if God wants me to live, he'll save me"? I think not. You would do what you could to survive. Unborn babies do not have that option, as they cannot struggle/fight to survive. But you seem to be okay with that. If you are, then I'm sure, when someone is about to kill you, you'll just lay back and take what comes, right?
Quote:
And if he wants to punish the murderers, he will.
God will, you are correct about that.
Quote:
Once you are free of sin, then you can start telling others what to do.
And if you are wondering, the answer is yes, I am in fact, perfect.
None of us are free of sin. We are, though, able to make choices. Babies in the womb are not free to make choices.
I have no doubt that babies "aborted" go to heaven. I have doubts about many others, but I am not the one to judge.
Your tone has taken on a "my way or the highway" current. If you don't believe, that's fine. You are able to make that choice. But again, if abortion as a form of birth control is fine with you, (i.e. "having a baby is just too inconvient for me right now"), then you should expect the same treatment when you are diagnosed with a disease. Society may say "off him now, so as to save ourselves the inconvenience of dealing with him".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
DNCDog...I'm no fan of abortion but I know there are situations that it MIGHT better than if the parents were to bring that child into the world and abuse it..etc ( I know ppl say adoption but that is not a absolute, which means foster care which is a night mare..etc)."
OK...but to eliminate the potential of a child of God,of learning of wonder simply because he or she may be abused is below you. I realize your good intentions but no...you can't kill a fetus to protect one.
."
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Quote:
I've always said...find me someone arguing pro-life who also argues against any kind of killing - war, executions, etc. - and, despite my difference of opinion, logically I will not be able to argue with them.
Finally a pro choice representative who admits abortion is killing...thanks
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Abortion question which concerns
me...no debate intended.
|
|
