Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 ]it causes me to question the depth of my own commitment to Christ. self-explanatory quote Originally Posted By: Doug Yowell I love you, Pam. Sexual harrassment - violation of forum rules. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
doug yowell Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Let's get something clear. I am pro-choice when there is rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk, or when tests reveal that the fetus would not function on its own outside the uterus. I AM for the woman to make a decision about her own body without outside harrassment. I do not condone the murder of physicians who perform abortions. Now. You can argue till the cows come home, but you won't change my mind about this. Quote
there buster Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Quote: Embryos are not women. Doesn't matter. The problem is that every reason you put forth to justify abortion can just as easily be used to justify something we all recognize as wrong. I know I won't change your mind, but it has nothing to do with reason. When it comes to the law. I am for choice--and consequences. If a woman chooses to engage in sex, she is choosing all the consequences of that action, including pregnancy. She has made her choice, and must accept the consequences. When it comes to rape and incest, choice has been taken from her, and the situation becomes more complicated. I think legally abortion would be justifiable in such cases. As far as the life of the mother, that is a very rare case, and is generally abused to include things like the mother's happiness. Nevertheless, I think that legally, if she chooses, abortion is justifiable in such cases. Current law is a mockery since--and this is just one example of many-- a woman whose drug abuse damages or kills the child she is carrying can be prosecuted (a case not long ago in Illinois), whereas if she causes the child to be directly attacked for the purpose of abortion, she is immune from prosecution. Either the state has an interest in the child that must be accounted for, or it has none. Current law tries to have it both ways. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Current law is a mockery since--and this is just one example of many-- a woman whose drug abuse damages or kills the child she is carrying can be prosecuted (a case not long ago in Illinois), whereas if she causes the child to be directly attacked for the purpose of abortion, she is immune from prosecution. Either the state has an interest in the child that must be accounted for, or it has none. Current law tries to have it both ways. Frightening, really. The schizophrenia. Quote
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Embryos are not women. Little girls aren't women, either. Shall we allow their mothers to kill them at their discretion? Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 Let's get something clear. I am pro-choice when there is rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk, or when tests reveal that the fetus would not function on its own outside the uterus. I AM for the woman to make a decision about her own body without outside harrassment. I do not condone the murder of physicians who perform abortions. Now. You can argue till the cows come home, but you won't change my mind about this. OK Pam. That's clear.but are you still pro-choice when an abortion is is performed for for reasons which don't include the above mentioned? Since embryo's are not intentionally aborted,would you draw the line somewhere? Like if two parents didn't want a second child? Or if the woman didn't want to look bad in her bikini that summer? Or if a child would interfere with the first year of medical school? Or any other form of birth control or convenience? Are you saying that you are pro-choice 100% or do you see some as unacceptable? I do not agree with abortions for convenience reasons. But I will NOT force my opinion on the woman who makes that decision. Is that clear enough for you? Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: rudywoofs Embryos are not women. Little girls aren't women, either. Shall we allow their mothers to kill them at their discretion? irrelevant Little girls aren't embryos either. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl Little girls aren't women' date=' either. Shall we allow their mothers to kill them at their discretion? [/quote'] irrelevant Little girls aren't embryos either. What, exactly, do you consider an embryo to be? Do you think an unborn baby is human? Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate, and 2) to say that I am for the non-interference of women who are contemplating abortion. My own opinions of abortion, really, are not at issue here. I will not be drawn into an argument with you about when a group of cells becomes a human being. God did say in the Bible that Adam did not become a living soul until he breathed into him, btw. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate, and 2) to say that I am for the non-interference of women who are contemplating abortion. My own opinions of abortion, really, are not at issue here. I will not be drawn into an argument with you about when a group of cells becomes a human being. God did say in the Bible that Adam did not become a living soul until he breathed into him, btw. God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. One of them He referred to as "that Holy Thing." Aren't we glad that Holy Embryo wasn't aborted? Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. One of them He referred to as "that Holy Thing." Aren't we glad that Holy Embryo wasn't aborted? That's really irrelevant too. Unless you don't believe in the Bible. The whole Old Testament referred to the coming of the Messiah. God works in mysterious ways. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. One of them He referred to as "that Holy Thing." Aren't we glad that Holy Embryo wasn't aborted? That's really irrelevant too. Unless you don't believe in the Bible. The whole Old Testament referred to the coming of the Messiah. God works in mysterious ways. Huh? Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 If you don't believe in the Old Testament prophecies, then no Messiah would appear. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 Holy Embryo sounds like the name of a pope LOL Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: rudywoofs That's really irrelevant too. Unless you don't believe in the Bible. The whole Old Testament referred to the coming of the Messiah. God works in mysterious ways. Huh? the irrelevancy to this topic with mary and the baby Jesus that i see is that the angel came to mary and told her Gods intentions. her response? it isnt like mary just popped up pregnant not knowing what had happened. so since we are given the details im not seeing how this "point" has any validity. mary is told she will become pregnant. mary says, so be it. then we have God Who knows all. so why would He pick a person if He knew that person would then abort the baby Jesus for some reason? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: rudywoofs My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate, and 2) to say that I am for the non-interference of women who are contemplating abortion. My own opinions of abortion, really, are not at issue here. I will not be drawn into an argument with you about when a group of cells becomes a human being. God did say in the Bible that Adam did not become a living soul until he breathed into him, btw. God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. do you see this as accurately representing the position of the person you are disagreeing with? when did rudywoofs state that the unborn are not human? Quote: I will not be drawn into an argument with you about when a group of cells becomes a human being.[/quote']was what she said. so how, better yet why, did you answer her as if she said what you accuse her of? I would be delighted were she to come right out and say she believes unborn babies are humans. Can we agree that unborn babies are humans beings? Quote
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 God has spoken about unborn babies in His word. He does not refer to them as unhuman. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl Huh? the irrelevancy to this topic with mary and the baby Jesus that i see is that the angel came to mary and told her Gods intentions. her response? it isnt like mary just popped up pregnant not knowing what had happened. so since we are given the details im not seeing how this "point" has any validity. mary is told she will become pregnant. mary says' date=' so be it. then we have God Who knows all. so why would He pick a person if He knew that person would then abort the baby Jesus for some reason? [/quote'] Yes, we know that God prepped Mary for what was to come, but how does that let the rest of the pregnancies off? Are you saying that God has to appear to each pregnant woman on a case by case basis in order for her to know that the baby inside her is not to be killed? God has made it abundantly clear that He knows all about pregnancy and has power over opening wombs and closing them. Isn't it presumption to decide that He made a mistake? Quote
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) the irrelevancy to this topic with mary and the baby Jesus that i see is that the angel came to mary and told her Gods intentions. her response? it isnt like mary just popped up pregnant not knowing what had happened. so since we are given the details im not seeing how this "point" has any validity. mary is told she will become pregnant. mary says' date=' so be it. then we have God Who knows all. so why would He pick a person if He knew that person would then abort the baby Jesus for some reason? [/quote'] Yes, we know that God prepped Mary for what was to come, but how does that let the rest of the pregnancies off? what does that have to do with the rest of the pregnancies? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl Yes, we know that God prepped Mary for what was to come, but how does that let the rest of the pregnancies off? what does that have to do with the rest of the pregnancies? That was my question. How can we extrapolate from this that God is OK with killing other babies? God knows what is going on in women's wombs. If He wanted it stopped, He would stop it. Read this: Women who possess principle and who are well instructed will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits, and especially in diet. How can God tell us that above and then tack on: "But if you want to just outright kill your baby, be My guest, but do it antiseptically?" Quote
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) what does that have to do with the rest of the pregnancies? [/quote']That was my question. please show the resemblance. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl Huh? the irrelevancy to this topic with mary and the baby Jesus that i see is that the angel came to mary and told her Gods intentions. her response? it isnt like mary just popped up pregnant not knowing what had happened. so since we are given the details im not seeing how this "point" has any validity. mary is told she will become pregnant. mary says, so be it. then we have God Who knows all. so why would He pick a person if He knew that person would then abort the baby Jesus for some reason? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
karl Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) please show the resemblance. I want to know how God's treatment and description of the "in-the-womb" Jesus let's us treat other in-the-womb babies with contempt. How does it let us off the hook of caring for them? How does God's instructions to Samson's parents let us off the hook for other pregnancies? How about His statement to Rebecca that there were two nations in her womb? What does that tell us about God caring about the unborn? What about when God said to the Israelites: Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. What does that tell us? After the firstborn it's open season on 'em? Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. Listen , O isles, unto me; and hearken , ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. ------------ I just don't find anywhere in the Bible where God has no concern for what is in the womb of His followers. I think His followers should share His concern, don't you? How can we extrapolate from God's care.... to abortion? Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 7, 2010 Members Posted January 7, 2010 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) what does that have to do with the rest of the pregnancies? That was my question. How can we extrapolate from this that God is OK with killing other babies? God knows what is going on in women's wombs. If He wanted it stopped, He would stop it. Read this: Women who possess principle and who are well instructed will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits, and especially in diet. How can God tell us that above and then tack on: "But if you want to just outright kill your baby, be My guest, but do it antiseptically?" [/quote'] Originally Posted By: Karl Women who possess principle and who are well instructed will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits, and especially in diet. And where did you find that in the Bible? Originally Posted By: Karl How can God tell us that above and then tack on: "But if you want to just outright kill your baby, be My guest, but do it antiseptically?" irrelevant What does Mary's pregnancy have to do with an abortion option? Nothing. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.