|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:20 pm
I don't understand how it is taken out of context when I pasted the whole verse...seems like a weak point to me.
Sure maybe it doesn't say a time to abort...but where does it say "in the case where clinical abortion becomes available, don't do it" ?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:23 pm
lymelady Beware the Jabberwock Akshamala I.Am ...That says "Time to kill" not "Time to abort" or "Time to kill your young ones." It's pretty obvious to me that the killing it is talking about is killing in war, whether to defend your country or spread it's growth... Quiet you, or I'll sic Stephen Harper on you.
sad
Damn you Christian's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:26 pm
Eeowynn I don't understand how it is taken out of context when I pasted the whole verse...seems like a weak point to me. Sure maybe it doesn't say a time to abort...but where does it say "in the case where clinical abortion becomes available, don't do it" ? But see, you are trying to use it to justify abortion. But it doesn't say anything about abortion. And in my mind it is pretty much obvious that it means killing people in defense of your country, or your people. You gave the whole verse, yes. But you didn't show where it said it had anything to do with abortion. You just showed where it justifies killing, in a way. But you have yet to give any evidence that one of the "times" it speaks of is abortion. And if it isn't speaking about abortion, which it doesn't seem to be, then you are taking it out of context. Meaning that I think your argument is much weaker then ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:27 pm
Eeowynn I don't understand how it is taken out of context when I pasted the whole verse...seems like a weak point to me. Sure maybe it doesn't say a time to abort...but where does it say "in the case where clinical abortion becomes available, don't do it" ?
Not really the BEST way to get across your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:04 pm
Beware the Jabberwock lymelady Beware the Jabberwock Akshamala I.Am ...That says "Time to kill" not "Time to abort" or "Time to kill your young ones." It's pretty obvious to me that the killing it is talking about is killing in war, whether to defend your country or spread it's growth... Quiet you, or I'll sic Stephen Harper on you.
sad
Damn you Christian's! Holy s**t, Miranda, the Pope is right behind you! Run!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:33 pm
I.Am Talon-chan lymelady pro-abortion is by definition favoring the legalization of abortion. It's truly a matter of semantics. pro-abortion left alone without any qualifiers is pro-abortion at any time of the pregnancy for any reason... which most pro-choicers are not. There are very few people ok with abortion at all times of a pregnancy. Just like pro-life without any qualifiers is pro-all forms of life no matter what species they are. Of course it would be rediculous to say the two sides of debate are: pro-fetal-life-where-the-woman's-life-is-not-in-danger/anti-choice-for-elective-abortion-where-the-woman's-life-is-not-in-danger versus pro-choice-for-elective-abortion-whenever-a-woman-wants-up-until-viability/anti-fetal-life-up-until-viability/pro-abortionwhenever-a-woman-wants-one-up-until-viability u.u; Which is exactly why Pro-Abortion means for the legalization of abortion, whereas Pro-Abortion without qualifiers would mean that you want everyone to have an abortion. But for the same reason, would you then be accepting of the anti-choice label? Since as far as the debate is concerned choice only refers to legal elective abortions? As for the bible bit... If you take the "a time to be born" and "a time to kill" and understand that passage as meaning there is a reasonable time for just about everything... one could infer that there is a "time for abortion" based on "a time to be born" and "a time to kill." Not sure what would justify those times (ie war justifies killing)... but one could infer that much from those versus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:41 pm
I'm anti-choice when it comes to making a legal choice to abort, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I'm anti-choice when it comes to legally choosing rape, too. But anti-choice is more likely to line up with anti-life when it comes to opposing sides than it is to line up with pro-abortion. I'm not afraid to say I'm anti-abortion, nor am I afraid to say I'm anti-choice as it relates to abortion. Why should anyone be afraid to say they're pro-abortion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:20 pm
Mcphee Eeowynn I don't understand how it is taken out of context when I pasted the whole verse...seems like a weak point to me. Sure maybe it doesn't say a time to abort...but where does it say "in the case where clinical abortion becomes available, don't do it" ?
Not really the BEST way to get across your point.Perhaps not in your OPINION, but then again, i'm not *really* trying to get my point across to the "pro-life" side of the argument. I'm simply stating it, and looking for critique on it, which I have gotten, and thank you. My general opinion does not require the people on the other side of the discussion to convert in order for me still to believe it, because I will believe it regardless of others opinions, as will they theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:25 pm
Beware the Jabberwock lymelady Beware the Jabberwock Akshamala I.Am ...That says "Time to kill" not "Time to abort" or "Time to kill your young ones." It's pretty obvious to me that the killing it is talking about is killing in war, whether to defend your country or spread it's growth... Quiet you, or I'll sic Stephen Harper on you.
sad
Damn you Christian's!I like the blue box thinger in your signiture, It states a good point. The only question I would raise from it, perhaps you can answer me, what, taking that veiwpoint, would be the answer for an unwanted pregnancy? If the pregnant person for example could not/ did not want to carry on with the pregnancy until its completion and give birth? - Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:32 pm
Artificial wombs aren't available yet, but when they are there will be an alternative to unwanted pregnancy.
Another way to bring unwanted pregnancy down is better contraception and birth control. None of this is impossible to obtain. Abortion just gives us an excuse not to focus on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:45 pm
lymelady Artificial wombs aren't available yet, but when they are there will be an alternative to unwanted pregnancy. Another way to bring unwanted pregnancy down is better contraception and birth control. None of this is impossible to obtain. Abortion just gives us an excuse not to focus on them. womentowomen.com Intra-uterine Devices (IUD/IUD) - 99 % reliable Hormonal Methods (i.e pill) - 99 % reliable Male Condom - 98 % reliable Female Condom - 95 % reliable Female Cervical Cap - 91 % reliable Spermicidal Sponge - 91 % reliable Diaphragm with spermicide - 94 % reliable Those figures look pretty good to me. sweatdrop I agree with you on the artificial uterus idea though 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:48 pm
I used to teach Sex education to 14 year olds...
Part of our syllabus was to explain that abortion does not count as a valid method of contraception...what with it not preventing conception and all... sweatdrop
It worried me that some of them thought it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:50 pm
Eeowynn lymelady Artificial wombs aren't available yet, but when they are there will be an alternative to unwanted pregnancy. Another way to bring unwanted pregnancy down is better contraception and birth control. None of this is impossible to obtain. Abortion just gives us an excuse not to focus on them. womentowomen.com Intra-uterine Devices (IUD/IUD) - 99 % reliable Hormonal Methods (i.e pill) - 99 % reliable Male Condom - 98 % reliable Female Condom - 95 % reliable Female Cervical Cap - 91 % reliable Spermicidal Sponge - 91 % reliable Diaphragm with spermicide - 94 % reliable Those figures look pretty good to me. sweatdrop I agree with you on the artificial uterus idea though 3nodding The bottom few could be worked on. Then there's also sex education, which isn't so hot right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:00 pm
lymelady The bottom few could be worked on. Then there's also sex education, which isn't so hot right now. True they could be worked on indeed. Our Sex Ed is getting much better now. Believe me, having taught it myself I have checked the syllabus thouroughly, but I definatley think there is room for improvement, particularly in teaching how each method should actually be used, as most of the percentages are only if used correctly. Unfortunatley there's only so much you are allowed to say as irritating parents and government officials don't like us exposing their offspring to such things. Personally I'd rather my kid (shock horror) learnt what contraception was, and how to use it in class, with a trained health care officer, and in a non judgemental environment than not know and be exposed to STI's or an unwanted pregnancy... hmm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:13 pm
Eeowynn lymelady The bottom few could be worked on. Then there's also sex education, which isn't so hot right now. True they could be worked on indeed. Our Sex Ed is getting much better now. Believe me, having taught it myself I have checked the syllabus thouroughly, but I definatley think there is room for improvement, particularly in teaching how each method should actually be used, as most of the percentages are only if used correctly. Unfortunatley there's only so much you are allowed to say as irritating parents and government officials don't like us exposing their offspring to such things. Personally I'd rather my kid (shock horror) learnt what contraception was, and how to use it in class, with a trained health care officer, and in a non judgemental environment than not know and be exposed to STI's or an unwanted pregnancy... hmm Well, you're talking about England's Sex Ed, I'm guessing. But most of us live in the US or Canada. sweatdrop Anyways, I think that parents should take over responsibility for a lot of sex ed; I would say all of sex ed, but, considering the fact that you can't expect everyone to be a good parent and teach their kids what they are supposed to, we've kinda gotta have sex ed. But I don't think that the schools should be responsible for all of the sexual education, partially because a parent might have religious beliefs that the school wouldn't teach, or would teach against in sex ed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
