doug yowell Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Bob, Doug....... Take a minute to think about the state of the world. Then please tell me what is so great about the human species. Me and Bob!!
M. T. Cross Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Bob, Doug....... Take a minute to think about the state of the world. Then please tell me what is so great about the human species.
Gordon1 Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Quite correct EmptyCross, there is nothing great about the human species. It is fallen, through disobedience. There is nothing good or great apart from God, and man is definitely apart from God.
doug yowell Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Seems to me that the original post very clearly points out that the catch phrase "Pro-Life" is much bigger than just being anti abortion.
doug yowell Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 As far as abortion is concerned, I think laws could be more defined on it, possibly a criteria to be met. I agree that sex ed is very very important. Yes there is, in Western Culture, more contrecptives available than ever - and they are often free. But what has not changed is the stigma of a girl being scared of being labeled as a [censored] if she uses these services. What also has not changed is sex being an emotional act that is most often spur of the moment - especially among the youth. What has not changed is that guys will successfully use the whole "Its ok baby, you can't get pregnant from one time" (or some other line ) with a girl that is caught up in the moment of feeling special, beautiful, and loved. Want to prevent unwanted pregnancies? We need to change society as a whole. Now some of those changes may conflict with Christian moral standards.Some of those changes have to be with the media monster that makes young girls feel that they need to be sexy, beautiful and loved by a guy. Empower those girls to feel good about themselves for simply being themselves and you will see changes. I think you make some very good points,EC. Only it's not necessary to conflict with Christian standards in order to accomplish the goal. In fact, I think you've just enunciated several of those Christian principles.Respect for the dignity of all human life starts at home. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
doug yowell Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 It also is inaccurate to say that making abortion illegal makes much of a difference in number of abortions. See the thing is, there is not much recorded data on the number of coat hanger type abortions or self induced miscarriages. I personally would much rather see these women get the procedure done in a safe, sanitary clinical enviroment - regardless of what I think about their decision.
M. T. Cross Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Why I say it might conflict with Christian morals is because part of it is accepting that like it or not, kids are going to have sex. As the father of an adult daughter and a teenage son, I have often been torn about it. Of course I want them to wait till they are in a solid committed relationship. But I also understand teenage hormones. Its a fine line between enabling and educating and making sure that they are safe from unwanted pregnancies and diseases. Its also one of the few places I think I have done well as a parent. Because there are no babies and no diseases. We have always just been open and available on the subject and the pro's and cons and the options and consequences.
doug yowell Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Quite correct EmptyCross, there is nothing great about the human species. It is fallen, through disobedience. There is nothing good or great apart from God, and man is definitely apart from God. Yet, God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son to die for their reclamation and later speaks of many as being those "of whom the world is not worthy." "Have you considered my servant Job?" God sees the potential of those who are created in His image. This is the foundation of being pro-life.God asks humanity to choose life and not give up on Him.He has no desire to be apart from man.
M. T. Cross Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Quote: Actually there's enough data on those types of abortions to conclude that most of illegal abortions performed in the 1900's were done by Dr.'s and not with coathangers.Yet even with today's clinics there is still a greater risk of physical injury or death than with carrying a baby to term.Women still die from abortions that are legal. Oh I am not saying its a totally safe procedure. I also know that Dr.'s were doing illegal abortions. I am actually thinking more about the self inflicted miscarriages. Those also happen with abortion being legal. But that again is because of a fear of being labeled, a fear of going to a clinic that is available and legal. How much more will that occur with it being illegal? Quote: Why do you think you feel that way? Have you ever examined your own perceptions? Why do you think your feelings are in harmony with the perceptions of the majority of people in western civilization? I have examined my perceptions, and I did not say that they were in harmony with the majority of Western Civilization. Nor do I care if they are, I disagree with the majority on a lot of stuff. I am against it being used as birth control because I believe in self responsibility. You choose to do the act with no regard for the possible outcome, with no protection, then you need to accept the consequences. Thats my view, for my life. Others will disagree and they certainly are welcome to do so. Also as with everything else in life there are times where it is not that black and white.
CoAspen Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Quote: The mothers of the babies that may have died exercised their freedom of choice not to surrender to the Jews and their children paid the price... so what's the problem? The assumptions never stop! Can only shake my head! As the original article was pointing out, we have an inconsistency here in the pro life issue. As I pointed out earlier.....the way the term is being used is not about life in and of itself. It simply means 'anti-abortion' and in the extreme, under all circumstances. One needs to ask themself the question, why are those in that camp afraid to simply call themselves 'anti abortionist'? Could it be because 'pro life' sounds so wonderful? Pro life, as the term is being used, is only about one single issue. No need to pretend any different. If that is a persons belief, then don't obfuscate the core of that belief with pretensions that it is about all life. What is the problem in the above quote, the assumption is that the mothers would have been able to surrender on their own, culture, did women have a choice in their life, and that it was okay for the babies to die. Sounds to me like pro lifers, would be upset about those circumstance! Is that not why women of today are being condemned for their choices, the fetus/baby had no choice? Consistency is the name of the game or should I say honesty was the thrust of the article, in my opinion. Was interesting to see what it sparked!! Want to really stop the debate and hollering everywhere in society, get rid of the term "pro life" and much of it will vanish.
Moderators Bravus Posted February 26, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 26, 2012 Ah, now I finally understand the 'omission' Doug was wanting us to guess about: the anti-abortion position. But hang on, throughout the whole thread doug has been claiming that the term 'pro-life' means (and can only mean) anti-abortion. If that's the case, without the brackets, then raising the word at all means anti-abortion is present - and doesn't need to be explicitly stated. The aim of the original poster was to *expand* the definition of 'pro-life' *beyond* being only anti-abortion. It was *not* to be pro-abortion! It was to note that being 'in favour of life' *includes* pre-natal life but is not *limited* to pre-natal life. It's a statement about logical and moral consistency. Truth is important
doug yowell Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Ah, now I finally understand the 'omission' Doug was wanting us to guess about: the anti-abortion position. If that's the case, without the brackets, then raising the word at all means anti-abortion is present - and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 hamilton-beach wrote: “And I don't want government telling me that I HAVE to carry to term a child that I don't want....” The fact that you don’t want the government to do certain things is irrelevant regarding the protection of human life. The question is whether your right to your wants should have priority over the right to life of the unborn. Your wants cannot be more sacred than the right to life of another human being. I know an Adventist physician who related to me the following incident which will illustrate what I am saying. One of his patients requested an abortion because she didn’t want to carry her pregnancy to term. Her unborn baby was past the stage of viability, which means that the baby could survive outside the uterus, and an abortion is illegal under such circumstances in certain States. Since the woman was determined to have her unborn baby killed, this doctor reported this to the authorities, and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 CoAspen wrote: “Babies and children of nations we choose to be at war with, are okay to die? We are defending our freedom and taking another life so we can live, just a defensive tactic? What choice were they given?” The policy or preventive wars promoted by Bush is morally wrong, I believe. We had no moral right to attack Iraq on the premise that Saddam was developing atomic weapons which could be used against us in the future. If such morally faulty argument had been used by either the Soviet Union or the U.S. during the Cold War, we wouldn’t be here to discuss this today.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Pro life means not killing those women and men in their pre-born state. Pro life mean not killing humans for the sake of convenience. Pro life means not killing the pre-born babies in demonstration of your free will to "choose". Pro life means valuing human life even in its preborn state. When civilizations turned to the killing of their own infants they filled up their cup of iniquity. Turns out "that is a bad thing". Pro life means that we value human life today instead of yielding to popular ideas about downgrading the value of human life. Many today who would not think of approving slavery the way the democrats did in the 1800's will not give a second thought to approving the killing of humans if they are not quite born. In the 1800's SDAs were on the record as voting against slavery - and upholding the value of human life. In modern times our own religious liberty department as seen its way clear to not side with abortionists under that same principle of upholding the value of human life. So what is the logical end of those who deny these glaringly obvious truths? Someone has already been kind enough to illustrate that end for us -- Bob I am amazed. Another pro-lifer besides Doug in this Adventist forum. This is unheard of! I feel like shouting "Praise the Lord."
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “A great point was made in another post - why do we place the importance of an unborn life above that of the many children that are killed in times of war? Why should that life concern us more than the other?” Good point! If the life of the unborn is sacred, so is the life of those we consider to be our political enemies. Did Jesus die only for the unborn and for us and not for those who live elsewhere? Wars of conquest and wars designed to protect us from potential future enemies’ attacks against us are morally reprehensible, I believe. Bush started us on a very dangerous course when he attacked Iraq on the premise hat this was a preventive war. “I guess it is biblically workable, since it did not seem to matter how many small children were likely killed as the Hebrews made their warring way across the land after leaving Egypt. I can't imagine that when the walls of Jericho came down all were safe......” I don’t agree with this argument for two reasons: First, if you read the Bible with care, you may discover that on many instances the Israelites were attacked first and thy acted in self defense. Besides, there is a difference between a war initiated by human beings and one which was based on a divine command. You need to remember the explanation God gave to Abraham regarding the Promised Land. The Lord stated that he could not take possession of Palestine because the iniquity of the inhabitants was not complete. This should be compared to what happened during the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom. When the iniquity of certain nations reaches a divine determined limit, the destruction initiated by heaven is sure. “As far as abortion is concerned, I don't think it should ever be illegal.” It is illegal already even in the U.S. past the point of viability when the unborn baby can survive outside the uterus. It is still illegal in many countries of the world; and it was illegal for two thousand years: Physicians were forbidden to engage in the killing of unborn babies due to the Hippocratic Oath which was respected by the medical profession. The legality of killing certain human beings is rather new and of recent history.
M. T. Cross Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “A great point was made in another post - why do we place the importance of an unborn life above that of the many children that are killed in times of war? Why should that life concern us more than the other?” Good point! If the life of the unborn is sacred, so is the life of those we consider to be our political enemies. Did Jesus die only for the unborn and for us and not for those who live elsewhere? Wars of conquest and wars designed to protect us from potential future enemies’ attacks against us are morally reprehensible, I believe. Bush started us on a very dangerous course when he attacked Iraq on the premise hat this was a preventive war.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “It also is inaccurate to say that making abortion illegal makes much of a difference in number of abortions.” I believe that the facts of history suggest the opposite. In 1973, the year abortion was legalized Planned Parenthood reported 700 thousand abortions. In less than a decade following the legalization of killing unborn children the number of abortions doubled to one million and a half. How can you explain this with your theory? “See the thing is, there is not much recorded data on the number of coat hanger type abortions or self induced miscarriages. I personally would much rather see these women get the procedure done in a safe, sanitary clinical environment - regardless of what I think about their decision.” What we need to do is to weigh the small number of illegal and unsafe abortions with the huge number of innocent human beings which were sacrificed in order to provide a safer way for women to kill their unwanted unborn babies. Do you think that the lives of 55 million aborted babies were worth less than the limited number of women who were choosing those illegal and unsafe abortions? “For the record I would like to say that abortion being used as a method of birth control leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. I don't think it is right. But that is my personal view. I don't think I have the right to push it on others.” Let’s think this through: Would you use the same argument about other actions which are also not right like rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? Rape is morally wrong, but we don’t argue that we have no right to impose our moral standards on other regarding rape—in spite of the fact that when a woman is raped she is still alive and able with God’s mercy to eventually recover from the terrible ordeal. Why do you seem to justify the killing of innocent children, but condemn rape, theft, and the sexual abuse of children which does not result in the death of the victim? If someone steals my car, I can buy another one. The unborn has no such luxury. The stolen life of the unborn is final and irreversible! I hope you can see the difference!
Stan Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 I still find it puzzling why so many who are against abortion are for Capital Punishment and why so many who are against Capital Punishment, are for abortion AND yet... they seem so satisfied with their excuses reasons If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
M. T. Cross Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “It also is inaccurate to say that making abortion illegal makes much of a difference in number of abortions.” I believe that the facts of history suggest the opposite. In 1973, the year abortion was legalized Planned Parenthood reported 700 thousand abortions. In less than a decade following the legalization of killing unborn children the number of abortions doubled to one million and a half. How can you explain this with your theory? “See the thing is, there is not much recorded data on the number of coat hanger type abortions or self induced miscarriages. I personally would much rather see these women get the procedure done in a safe, sanitary clinical environment - regardless of what I think about their decision.” What we need to do is to weigh the small number of illegal and unsafe abortions with the huge number of innocent human beings which were sacrificed in order to provide a safer way for women to kill their unwanted unborn babies. Do you think that the lives of 55 million aborted babies were worth less than the limited number of women who were choosing those illegal and unsafe abortions? “For the record I would like to say that abortion being used as a method of birth control leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. I don't think it is right. But that is my personal view. I don't think I have the right to push it on others.” Let’s think this through: Would you use the same argument about other actions which are also not right like rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? Rape is morally wrong, but we don’t argue that we have no right to impose our moral standards on other regarding rape—in spite of the fact that when a woman is raped she is still alive and able with God’s mercy to eventually recover from the terrible ordeal. Why do you seem to justify the killing of innocent children, but condemn rape, theft, and the sexual abuse of children which does not result in the death of the victim? If someone steals my car, I can buy another one. The unborn has no such luxury. The stolen life of the unborn is final and irreversible! I hope you can see the difference! I refer you to my above statement on when "life" begins. And the mention that we will likely not agree on that.
M. T. Cross Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 I still find it puzzling why so many who are against abortion are for Capital Punishment and why so many who are against Capital Punishment, are for abortion AND yet... they seem so satisfied with their excuses reasons Exactly! This is what I was saying in pointing out that for all of history people have been stoned, hung, crucified etc. Now of course the argument by someone in support of capital punishment will say that the person being executed made that choice. They committed a capital crime and the punishment fits the crime. But we all know how fallible the justice system is, we all know that many many many innocent people have lost their lives that way. Again I will stress this point. There is no easy way to decide any of this, the taking of life is one of the most grey area type topics there is.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “This is where I take exception. The flood and Sodom are prime examples of stories that make me question the Christian Gods self proclaimed love of his creation.” If you question God’s wisdom of ordering the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, then it follows that the final destruction of the wicked and of the Devil will never take place, and we are condemned to live with sin and rebellion throughout eternity. Is this what you want? “Why did so many children need to die in those instances? - The Flood. God comes to one man and tells him that the world will be destroyed by an act that is completely unheard of. This man is supposed to convince everyone that this is going to happen even though it makes zero sense. That’s just the adults. Now the children of those people are going to believe what their parents say. I would venture a guess that there were children that wondered if Noah was right, but did not go to him out of respect for their parent’s wishes. But they died none the less. They died because they were human and they followed their human instinct - an instinct that would be God given.” Suppose God has spared the lives of all the children from the Flood. Would Noah have been able to raise them properly? The children were innocent, yet they perished in their innocence, which means that they can be resurrected and there will be millions of Christians to take care of them and raise them up. “I am not pro abortion, nor am I anti abortion.” Fine, should we then apply the same criteria to other crimes of a lesser nature which do not involve the loss of life for the victims like rape, grand theft, larceny, and the sexual abuse of children? Should the government say, we are not against rape and theft or the sexual abuse of children, nor are we in favor of such crimes? Let everybody have a choice regarding these matters. The government has no business interfering with the freedom of people. Would you be happy with such an arrangement? “I really don't place human life above other life. I think as a species we are a plague and a parasite on this planet.” I do place the value of human life above other forms of life because I do believe when the Bible tells me that Adam was created in God’s image. Said claim God did not make regarding the animals or plants. Of course, if you do not accept what the Bible teaches regarding this, then there is no way we can ever agree on this issue!
Nic Samojluk Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Stan wrote: “I still find it puzzling why so many who are against abortion are for Capital Punishment and why so many who are against Capital Punishment, are for abortion AND yet... they seem so satisfied with their excuses reasons” Good question! I cannot speak for others, but I can share with you my views on this. I am against abortion and also against the Capital Punishment. Nevertheless, my opposition to Capital Punishment pales in comparison to my rejection of abortion. The reason is quite simple: I believe that there is a huge moral contrast between killing a hardened criminal and the killing of an innocent human being who has never done any harm to anybody. I hope you agree with me on this. Lets take the case of an individual who has murdered ten or fifteen innocent people. If the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, I would not cry over his execution. But, in the event the evidence is not very strong, I think that it would be wrong to execute him/her. Actually, there have been many cases where DNA evidence has proved the innocence of people who were incarcerated for a long time and were released following the examination of said DNA evidence. For this reason, I am opposed to the death penalty, unless the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that no amount of DNA would be able to prove their innocence.
Moderators Bravus Posted February 26, 2012 Author Moderators Posted February 26, 2012 If life begins at conception, God is the greatest abortionist, since between 40 and 80 percent of fertilised ova never implant. Truth is important
Members phkrause Posted February 26, 2012 Members Posted February 26, 2012 That's an interesting perspective Bravus, But I don't agree with you there, even though I see where your coming from. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Recommended Posts