Abortion...I would call this a theological issue

[8thdaypriest]

I will just add my 2Cents worth.

1.  Robert - are you really Mike Clute?  Your teaching that God does not KILL, reminds me of literature I used to get in the mail (it was never requested). 

I do believe God's "wrath" is what happens when God separates Himself from individuals.  I also believe that God WILL finally consume out of existence the "spirits" (the essence) of those who un-repentantly rebel against Him.  But that is God's mercy - NOT God's "wrath" - like putting down a rabid dog. 

I don't see the "lake of fire" as a one-time-event.  The Beast with its 7 heads (not just an end time entity) and False Prophet are thrown into that divine "fire" at the Second Coming (Rev. 19:20).  The Devil and His angels are not thrown in until Gog/Magog (Rev. 20:10).

2.  I believe "the rest of the dead" will be all of those (nations of them) who died in ignorance or immaturity.  My God will leave no human being "behind" who could be saved, with more information and/or the maturity to comprehend the Good News. 

A friend of mine miscarried at 6 months.  Her baby girl was fully formed.  She gasped for a few minutes, then died.  Her lungs just were not mature enough.  OF COURSE I told her that child will live again!!  But at the 8th millennium - not directly into eternal life.  She MUST CHOOSE to worship and serve Jesus as LORD. 

[Nic Samojluk]

12 hours ago, David Geelan said:

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. 

You wrote:

"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."

I suggest that you watch the following video. You might have heard about the book entitled: "How to lie with statistics."

For many years PP claimed that women would have no help without the mammograms provided by them until an investigator began to call as many PP offices as he could and discovered that they do no offer mammograms; they simply refer their patients to other agencies that actually offer those services.

PP do not offer sonograms either. Their business is killing innocent human beings for profit. Sonograms business is not profitable.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

13 hours ago, David Geelan said:

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. 

David,

Here is the testimony of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee. She claims that the way they report their activities is fraudulent. An abortion is reported as a single service provision, while a pack of condoms is reported as 24 services, when in fact it represents a single visit. Here is the link that I suggest you take the time to watch.

If you compare the PP income from abortion with the income from other services, then you discover that abortion represents 83 percent of their income.

 

[Bravus]

Could you perhaps provide a source on that that does not have a massive axe to grind? Some impartial source like audited financial documents or equivalent.

If I'm running a business, I don't want the sole representation of it to come from (a) those who hate it and (b) disgruntled ex-employees.

I am quite prepared to accept that the 3% figure may not be 100% accurate. What if it's 8%, 10%, heck even if it were true that it's more than 50%.

That *still* means that if it were de-funded there would be a huge gap in terms of providing women's health services.

So where is the plan to provide those services in its absence?

[8thdaypriest]

45 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

Could you perhaps provide a source on that that does not have a massive axe to grind? Some impartial source like audited financial documents or equivalent.

If I'm running a business, I don't want the sole representation of it to come from (a) those who hate it and (b) disgruntled ex-employees.

I am quite prepared to accept that the 3% figure may not be 100% accurate. What if it's 8%, 10%, heck even if it were true that it's more than 50%.

That *still* means that if it were de-funded there would be a huge gap in terms of providing women's health services.

So where is the plan to provide those services in its absence?

It is true that it's getting very hard to find physicians who will see Medicaid patients.  That is because Medicaid pays about 17 cents on the dollar - or less. 

My husband works one day a month at a local (used to be) "Free" clinic.  (Now patients pay a fee determined by their income.)  This clinic provides pap-smear tests, lab tests, birth control meds, immunizations, referrals for mammograms, etc. etc.  It's not just for women's issues, but it does provide for women's issues.  Literally millions of these clinics are found all over the United States, in towns large and small. 

Just because PP has a recognized name, does NOT mean they are the only ones providing care.   

[Bravus]

Oh, I get that. But they do provide care. If they were not there, less care would be provided. Less is not none, but its less... which means none for some individuals.

I have no particular brief for Planned Parenthood as an organisation. My question is not about Planned Parenthood per se, it's about how those who want to withdraw those services intend to replace them.

No-one has yet answered that question. Am I justified in assuming that they do not plan to replace those services at all?

If that happens, people will die unnecessarily. Which is hardly 'pro-life'.

[Bravus]

(oops, quoted the wrong thing, new post)

[Bravus]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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

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.

[Stan]

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

 

[Nic Samojluk]

16 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

 I am simply against their opinions becoming laws.  Such laws remove freedom of choice in a domain that is unclear and should be left to individual judgment/conscience.

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?

[Ron Lambert]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

2 hours ago, David Geelan said:

So where is the plan to provide those services in its absence?

If Planned Parenthood Loses Government

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/17/planned-parenthood-loses-government-funding-heres-map-health-clinics-take-place/

[Nic Samojluk]

1 hour ago, blink182fan said:

I think abortion is a great thing and people should not be judged for it. It is wrong to judge anyone.

Judging right is not wrong! Judging wrong is wrong!

Judging According to the Bible

With that statement you have condemned all the court decisions made by the court system, all the verdicts of history, and all the rulings of the highest courts of the land

What the Bible condemns is not the acts of judging, but rather wrong judgments.

New International Version (©2011)
“Do not show partiality in judging;” [Deut. 1:17]

King James Bible
"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

[Nic Samojluk]

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

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.

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?

[Nic Samojluk]

Just now, Nic Samojluk said:

Are you forgetting that nine unelected old men--Justices of the Court--decided that removing the right to life from 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 body parts to the highest bidder. Do you accept this as morally right?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

Oh, I get that. But they do provide care. If they were not there, less care would be provided. Less is not none, but its less... which means none for some individuals.

The money granted to Planned Parenthood would go to those clinics and other health clinics would be created with those funds.

[Nic Samojluk]

3 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Could you perhaps provide a source on that that does not have a massive axe to grind? Some impartial source like audited financial documents or equivalent.

I believe that if you take the time to see this source, you will find the answer to your objection:

The Planned Parenthood Deception

https://www.adflegal.org/issues/sanctity-of-life/beginning-of-life/planned-parenthood-the-whole-story/the-planned-parenthood-deception 

[Bravus]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

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

 

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.

[Stan]

@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.

[Stan]

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.

[Outta Here]

2 hours ago, David Geelan said:

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.
 

1

I'm not young, but I'm still of child-bearing age. When I *was* young, I used services from Planned Parenthood. What would you like to know, genuinely?

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Nic Samojluk said:

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?

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.

[Robert]

11 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Which commandment says "thou shalt not commit abortion?"  

Which commandment says "don't ride a Honda motorcycle during the 4th month of every 7th year?"

I too can ask asinine questions.... 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Which commandment says "don't ride a Honda motorcycle during the 4th month of every 7th year?"

I too can ask asinine questions.... 

Maybe you ask asinine questions because you ask them before reading for understanding.

[Robert]

20 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

We can only conclude that the "fruit" was not yet a "soul."

This so called doctrine that you are presenting is demonic.  It comes from the father of lies himself.  It is a twisting of God's word calculated to devalue human life at its source.  This can't be of God!