Moderators Bravus Posted February 22, 2012 Moderators Posted February 22, 2012 Honestly just meant as a thought-provoking post, not a political or religious one, but I have no control over how it evolves, so mods please feel free to move it if you need to. Truth is important
Members phkrause Posted February 22, 2012 Members Posted February 22, 2012 phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
doug yowell Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Honestly just meant as a thought-provoking post, not a political or religious one, but I have no control over how it evolves, so mods please feel free to move it if you need to. A redefinition of the term pro-life by those who aren't. Bad and inconsistent extreme left wing propaganda. Does anyone catch what's missing in the definition?
Members phkrause Posted February 22, 2012 Members Posted February 22, 2012 Pro-agenda???? I always wonder what the "pro" meant, in front of "choice," "life," etc. I think I got it, its "professional," but professional of what. So I guess the other side of the coin must be "minor?" hahaha hehehe hohoho, more stupid labels. You either believe that God has given us free choice or not! phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Members phkrause Posted February 22, 2012 Members Posted February 22, 2012 A redefinition of the term pro-life by those who aren't. Bad and inconsistent extreme left wing propaganda. Does anyone catch what's missing in the definition? So there are those that are minor-life?? phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
CoAspen Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Pro-Life is really a phrase/word to signify an agenda. Breaking down the words to their actual meaning is quite different as your quote points out. It is a demonstrastion of how we use words 'out of context' without considering the word usage. It is a redifinining of words for an paticular agenda that a person may have.
Members phkrause Posted February 22, 2012 Members Posted February 22, 2012 Pro-Life is really a phrase/word to signify an agenda. Breaking down the words to their actual meaning is quite different as your quote points out. It is a demonstrastion of how we use words 'out of context' without considering the word usage. It is a redifinining of words for an paticular agenda that a person may have. Not sure who you are replying to CoA? I agree with you that its an agenda, its sad that everything has to come down to not just any agenda, but a political agenda. For me if someone is for life or not, they are neither right or left, politically speaking, but they are right or wrong per God! He is the ultimate judge, seems each side wants that right to judge us for the right to "choose" as God has designed us to do. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Woody Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Quote: For me if someone is for life or not, they are neither right or left, politically speaking, but they are right or wrong per God! He is the ultimate judge, seems each side wants that right to judge us for the right to "choose" as God has designed us to do. Good Post pk. I've noticed that I am always on the Right side of God. But to date - I've not witnessed anyone else. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â
Moderators Bravus Posted February 22, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 22, 2012 So, um, we ought to be anti-education and pro-violence, discrimination and poverty?! Truth is important
CoAspen Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Could you go alittle further in your questioning? Not sure just exactly where you be going.
Members phkrause Posted February 23, 2012 Members Posted February 23, 2012 I'm guessing he's asking Doug, but I'm not sure? Since he's not asking or replying to someone other them himself. At least that's my opinion. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 Doug Yowell posted this as a response to the original thing I posted: Quote: A redefinition of the term pro-life by those who aren't. Bad and inconsistent extreme left wing propaganda. Does anyone catch what's missing in the definition? What I posted says we ought to be pro-education and anti-poverty, discrimination and violence. Since Doug seems to think that is 'bad and extreme left wing propaganda', it seemed logical to me to at least ask whether he believes the opposite. Truth is important
Members phkrause Posted February 23, 2012 Members Posted February 23, 2012 Doug Yowell posted this as a response to the original thing I posted: Quote: A redefinition of the term pro-life by those who aren't. Bad and inconsistent extreme left wing propaganda. Does anyone catch what's missing in the definition? What I posted says we ought to be pro-education and anti-poverty, discrimination and violence. Since Doug seems to think that is 'bad and extreme left wing propaganda', it seemed logical to me to at least ask whether he believes the opposite. Excellent point Bravus, it seems like a legit question. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
CoAspen Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Thought so....didn't want to do what I hate most...assume!!
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Pro-Life is really a phrase/word to signify an agenda. Breaking down the words to their actual meaning is quite different as your quote points out. It is a demonstrastion of how we use words 'out of context' without considering the word usage. It is a redifinining of words for an paticular agenda that a person may have.THe entire difinition is hypocritical attempt at moral consistency that is self condemning. It redefines life to be a subjective term which openly includes the "quality" of life as if a lesser quality of life is not life at all or at least not one that counts. I asked the question that didn't get answered, what point is conspicuously missing from the list? Does nobody ever analyze the statements or is the undisguised attack on the pro-life position satisfying for those who care little about the lives of the unborn? Everyone knows that pro-life means that one holds the sanctity of human life more valuable than the convenience of the selfish endeavors. Why not argue whether any of the individual points can legitimately be called "Pro-life?
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell A redefinition of the term pro-life by those who aren't. Bad and inconsistent extreme left wing propaganda. Does anyone catch what's missing in the definition? So there are those that are minor-life?? Yes, they are considered potential-life by people like the writer of this article. If their mothers decide they have potential then they'll eventually let them move up to the bigs.
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 So, um, we ought to be anti-education and pro-violence, discrimination and poverty?! The theme of the thread you started is called pro-life,Brav,are you trying to change the subject? The above cliches are non-sequiters and have nothing to do with whether one lives or dies.
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 What I posted says we ought to be pro-education and anti-poverty, discrimination and violence.
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 Just a little clarification. I am anti-abortion. I *do not* support the use of abortion for contraception. I diverge - based on bitter and painful personal experience - from the Santorums (and yowells) of this world in that I believe abortion can sometimes be the lesser evil when the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is not viable anyway. The point of this post was *not* to attack those who are anti-abortion and who label their position as 'pro-life'. It was simply to note that there is more to making it through life than the first 9 months. And that there are more ways of decreasing the number of abortions required than by criminalising them. I actually have (almost) the same goals in relation to abortion - I want them to be vanishingly rare, and used only in very extreme circumstances. But I also have goals in relation to the rest of life: and that seems to be what has made doug so angry. Truth is important
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Just a little clarification. I am anti-abortion. I *do not* support the use of abortion for contraception. I diverge - based on bitter and painful personal experience - from the Santorums (and yowells) of this world in that I believe abortion can sometimes be the lesser evil when the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is not viable anyway.
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 Gotta remember, in a discussion forum, that this is not a conversation between the two of us. That whole post was addressed to the whole forum, not to you specifically. Truth is important
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 The original post mentions several things that make abortion rarer other than legislation: high quality sex education and access to contraception, for two. Education in general, for another. Truth is important
doug yowell Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Gotta remember, in a discussion forum, that this is not a conversation between the two of us. That whole post was addressed to the whole forum, not to you specifically.No one is used to this method, even CoA was wondering.So who was the big fat liar who told you I was angry? It's late and I'm up early so...tomorrow.
Moderators Bravus Posted February 23, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 23, 2012 {shrug} People who speak the way you spoke are often angry, but text online is notoriously bad at conveying tone. If you weren't angry, that's probably a good thing, and I'm certainly not planning to maintain that you were. As to the content of the thread, I'm happy to let the readers make their decision. Truth is important
Recommended Posts