Leaderboard

Even though my position is a strong one, I can say this. those who have had an abortion will always be welcomed, with no condemnation, into my circle of friends. That I want to make clear.

In part I was making the point that this thread has an awful lot of middle-aged men (like me) in it opining about women's health. It would be informative if young women of child-bearing age were taking a more active part in the discussion. I would genuinely love to hear their perspectives. I was also making the point that many threats of hellfire (in various forms) are being made... but I am not culpable of this particular thing. I have many other sins of my own, of course. Perhaps (like me) other middle-aged men in the thread could focus a little more on the sins over which they have some direct control, rather than seeking 'remote control' over others.

lol

My sentiments also

@David Geelan I agree with what you said. Those who oppose it, in my opinion, should also be willing to step up to the plate and support the mother, esp if she is a single mom, with true love, necessities of life, babysitting, diapers and school expenses and so forth. They deserve not only to live, but quality of life.

Some Americans are truly awful people.

Today, my step-Grandaughter gave birth to baby Noah and I became a step-Great Grandfather. Noah had previously been scheduled to enter the world on July 17. But, he got restless and entered our lives today weighing in at 5 pounds one ounce. All in all he was healthy. However, as he was premature, his respiration is being closely watched and he is on oxygen. He is expected to stay in the neo-natal intensive care unit for the next 4 - 6 weeks. But, that will give moma a chance to recover and get set to enter into full-time child care. All of us are thankful for his good health considering his pre-mature status.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/

I chose the Copperhead Answer: Regarded as the fastest snake in the world, the Black Mamba can move at 17.6 feet per second and reach amazing speeds of 12 mph. The Black Mamba is not only the fastest snake in terms of moving, but it is also one of the fastest striking snakes in the world. The Black Mamba is regarded as the most feared snake in Africa, where its bite is known as the “Kiss of death”. A single bite contains enough venom to kill ten people. The Black Mamba’s extraordinary speed, combined with its fast-striking venom, make it one of the world’s most deadly snakes.

My chose is Cornell Answer: The Battle of Princeton (January 3, 1777) was a pivotal battle in which General George Washington's revolutionary forces defeated British forces near Princeton, New Jersey. The American victory at the Battle of Princeton was one of the most consequential of the American Revolution. George Washington and his soldiers marched north from Trenton and attacked a British force south of the town. Part of the battlefield is now preserved in Princeton Battlefield State Park, which was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1961.

No doubt about it, Argentina! I read that same article!! haha C. Australia Crikey! Seven of the 10 deadliest and most venomous snakes call Australia home. Just one, the rattlesnake, lives in the United States. Source: various web sites. I guess next time I need to read the question a little more carefully!!!!! hahahahahahahahahaha

Absolutely!!!

For what it's worth, I and many others on the Left deplored the 'naked Trump' statues. His policies are the issue, and bodyshaming is both off topic and a bad thing in itself.

Green said: 1) Please show me why you don't believe the OT. Jesus said "Search the scriptures…they are they which testify of Me." He was speaking, of course, of the Old Testament. Yes, they do testify of Christ. They show how He worked with wayward Israel to win them back, even then they took multiple wifes, offered their children to other gods (who were no gods), and wanted to be like other nations and have a human king over them. Israel fought even though that was not God's plan and why did they fight? Because their minds were blinded. Do we need to still be blind today? The oldest book of the Bible lays the foundation, which if ignored will lead to the conclusions that Green has come to. Green said: 2) Why are you trying to find Jesus hurting someone? Christ is the revelation of the Father. If you have seem Me He said, you have seen the Father, John 14:9. Christ mission was to reveal the character of God. We we ever see Christ killing people? No. Green has stated in another forum that he believes we learn little of the character of God from Christ short say on earth. But this is contrary to scripture and the writings or Ellen White. Green said: I have stated that the Bible defines the soul by its breath. But Green ignores the fact that an unborn child lives by the breath. There is not separate entity of a soul that magically enters the body at birth. Green ignores the testimony of the New Testament of John the Baptist on this point. The Bible definition of a soul is the whole person. Green said: If I work a solid day's labor, and my wages are $120, did the dollars pay me? Who paid me my wages? Wages do not pay themselves! God will pay the wages. He tells us so. If you smoke, does God have to step in and give you lung cancer or COPD? If you don't take care of your teeth, does God step in and cause tooth decay? Sin pays it wage, and when it is full grown, brings death, not execution by God. EGW who Green claims to believe in, says, Nature recoils from the thought of dissolution, which is the consequence of sin. {5Red 81.2} The sacrificial offerings were ordained by God to be to man a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of his sin and a confession of his faith in the promised Redeemer. They were intended to impress upon the fallen race the solemn truth that it was sin that caused death. {PP 68.1} Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. {DA 764.2} Stan said: Those who oppose it, in my opinion, should also be willing to step up to the plate and support the mother, esp if she is a single mom, with true love, necessities of life, babysitting, diapers and school expenses and so forth. And Stan said: Even though my position is a strong one, I can say this. those who have had an abortion will always be welcomed, with no condemnation, into my circle of friends. Amen Stan. James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Frankly, I would have a difficult time trying to convince myself to vote for Hillary. And it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. And I think Bonnie has a point. Can you imagine the utter and sheer magnitude of uproar and incense if Republicans placed statues around the country of a naked senior citizen Hillary Clinton showing the fall of gravity on various body parts of her less-than-svelte figure? The Democrats thought the naked statues of Trump were outstandingly funny. But it's not so funny when one would be hoisted on one's own petards. I may not be one of the country's "deplorables," but I find it just as disgusting for *either* side to argue that their candidate should be chosen on the basis of their genitalia. Voting for Clinton because she's a woman who would break a political glass ceiling is as ridiculous as voting for Obama simply because he was half black. Vote for the people you think would do the best job!

Excellent question! Of Jesus it was said: New Living Translation He will not crush the weakest reed or put out a flickering candle. Finally he will cause justice to be victorious. [Matthew 12:20] Think of this. It states that Jesus would not put out a "flickering candle," yet we are arguing about putting out the life of a human being being created by the power of God. Jesus identified with "the least of these." No other group of human beings deserve more the "the least of these" label than the unborn. Every abortion harms Jesus himself.

Your comments make a lot of common sense! If it is true that abortion is not prohibited in the Bible, then it would follow that Mary, the mother of Jesus, could have opted for an abortion. She was young, unmarried, and poor. I challenged a young Adventist physician some years ago with this question and he responded with "I would have not hesitated in performing and abortion for her." This prompted a long exchange of views that lasted several months, but we failed to reach an agreement. This convinced me that we have no power to convict any one of sin. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that your understanding of the passage found in Exodus is erroneous. Notice that many Bible translators have rendered the word "fruit" as premature birth. This means that harm to either the woman or the unborn baby is prohibited. Exodus 21 on abortion New International Version (©1984) "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. New Living Translation (©2007) "Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. New American Standard Bible (©1995) "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand.

No. Larceny, theft, and rape are all prohibited clearly by the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not murder" are fairly clear commands, would you agree? Which commandment says "thou shalt not commit abortion?" Most anti-abortionists will say it's the command that says "thou shalt not kill." Unfortunately, they base this on an egregious mistranslation. The word "kill" in the KJV should have been rendered "murder." Because it was not, many have come to the irrational/incorrect conclusions that 1) God contradicts Himself, by commanding killing and commanding against it; 2) there is no Biblical distinction between killing and murder; and 3) the taking of any life is a sin, and God would never do so either. Thus, in a twisted sort of way, the theology behind many people's reasoning who oppose abortion is inextricably linked with a theology that teaches such blatant errors as that God will destroy no one in hell, that God didn't actually mean what He said to and about King Saul, and that capital punishment is a sinful crime against humanity. However, in the Word of God, evidence exists that abortion is not murder. Those passages have already been looked at. One point that has not been heretofore made clear is that the passage speaking most directly of abortion in the Bible ties it to a fine unless "mischief" follows, and that must receive its just retribution in the form of "life for life," "tooth for tooth." Many are quick to apply this to the fetus, saying if the fetus were to have died, then it should be "life for life." However, how many fetuses have teeth? The language used clearly sets the focus on the woman, not her "fruit." Had the "fruit" been considered a viable "person," why use the word "fruit" in place of "person"? The Hebrew could have used, as in other places, the word "nephesh," meaning "breathing creature/soul." But Moses did not use this word. We can only conclude that the "fruit" was not yet a "soul." Had it been considered a "soul," then any "mischief" brought to it would be a capital crime, punishable by death. Even Jesus is said to have come to a "body" not to a "soul" when He entered our world in Bethlehem. The Bible's teaching on this subject is plain enough, and consistent. Again, I am not pro-abortion: but I am certainly anti-false theology on the matter. Let's get our theology straight before trying to straighten other people out with whom we disagree.

Not sure who this question was directed to. I'll guess blink182fan rather than me, since I've already stipulated that I'm anti-abortion. For me, though, being anti-abortion also means supporting the provision of contraception, health care and education, including sex education that accepts the reality that people will have sex in ways we don't condone. An approach to harm minimisation - in terms of making the number of abortions as low as we possibly can, preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections - is not supporting abortion and it's not condoning sexualities we have a problem with. It is valuing life and health and working to promote those things in a fallen world.

Are you forgetting that nine unelected old men--Justices of the Court--decided that removing the right to life of a large segment of innocent human beings was the right thing to do? This is reminiscent of when black people had no right to life nor right to anything. They were sold to the highest bidder like merchandise. Now Planned Parenthood aborts innocent human beings and sells their boy parts to the highest bidder. Do you accept this as morally right?

Do we believe that God is the Source of all life? If so, then this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the spirit of life from God has been given to the developing embryo. Furthermore, we cannot avoid the further conclusion that taking the life of an unborn baby is a direct crime against God Himself. One remaining question is at what point is the spirit of life given to the developing embryo? Catholic doctrine is that it is at the moment of conception. Some people would argue it is when the developing embryo has enough complexity to support consciousness. Objective medical evidence indicates that embryos develop demonstrable consciousness months before birth. They hear and react to what they hear, they feel pain, and have some awareness of their surroundings. They are born knowing the sound of their mother's voice. I would also add that the spirit of life that comes from God is more than just an energizing spark; it must necessarily include an essential identity. The old metaphor of electricity and a lightbulb is not adequate, because it would lead to the conclusion that resurrection is a fraud inwhich a new body is imprinted with duplicate memories, and only thinks it is the same person. God does not perpetrate a fraud. When He resurrects someone, He truly returns to life the actual, same person who lived before. There is no consciousness in death, but there is some essential identity that God preserves. There is a soul, but it sleeps in death until the resurrection. If this were not true, then how can we explain the Incarnation of Christ? His entire genetic heritage came from His Mother, with the only change being that one of the "X" chromosomes was changed to a "Y" chromosome, so He could be born a male. Nothing physical outside of humanity could have been brought in, because then Christ would not have been truly, fully, and completely human, so He could qualify to be the Saviour of sinful humanity. So what was brought into Mary's womb that made Him the Son of God? How was Michael brought down from Heaven and placed into Mary's womb? It could not have been anything physical, anything genetic. So it could only have been the spirit of life, that included the essential identity of the Son of God. Our understanding of the value of the life of the unborn child is thus bound up inextricably with our understanding of the nature of man, which in turn is bound up with our understanding of the nature of Christ, that qualified Him to be our Saviour. Thus it is bound up with our understanding of Salvation itself.

Should we do away with laws against larceny, theft, rape, and sexual abuse of children as well in order to allow people some freedom of choice? Do you think that stealing someone's life is a small matter?

So you don't think that anyone should stand up for the baby as their life is painfully taken from them?

The article said what I have long believed but didn't want to take the time to prove through research. Whenever I have asked the question "why do you dislike Hillary", I get vague, unsubstantiated replies, from both women and men. Most say "I don't know, there is just something about her"! How true, her is a women! The bottom line is 'how dare she think she can be in charge'. (What if God is gender neutral? Maybe that makes 'Him' God!)

I was not aware that a recommendation had been made for you to have an abortion.

It's a longish thread and it's got a bit afield from the topic. I am anti-abortion. I also recognise that about 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion and the other 97% is providing healthcare for women, and that no public funding is used to fund abortion. As such, I am anti-abortion and anti-defunding Planned Parenthood. If those seeking to defund it are proposing to replace it with better cheap and free medical care for women who need it, all well and good. I suspect instead they are content to leave those women uncared for, so long as their own theological purity can be maintained. Serve those in need: it's what Jesus did.