|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:09 pm
Once Again for Religious debates
Is it possible for someone to be pro-choice and a Christian?
No. Christian doctrine declares that God is the author of life and that He is incapable of making mistakes. From those beliefs, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that when life exists in the womb, it is God’s will that it be there. Given that support for legal abortion denies both of these realities, by definition, it is incompatible with Christian belief.
People who claim to be both pro-choice and Christian are, basically, asserting three things. The first is that life is not a right inherited from God, but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so. The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb. Finally, they are saying it is possible to reject the innocent new lives which God creates without rejecting God Himself. From a Christian perspective, these arguments are absurd.
The bottom line is, a Christian cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:10 pm
Religious Debates, unless someone calls you religious
This is a religious issue and you have no right to force your beliefs on other people. Keep your Rosaries off my ovaries!
A person does not have to be religious to say it’s wrong to murder a child, any more than they have to be religious to say it’s wrong to steal money. Just because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs does not make abortion a religious issue. Remember, the civil rights movement was often led by pastors and headquartered in churches, but that didn’t make civil rights a religious issue.
To say that abortion should be off limits to the law because most pro-life people are Christians, is as illogical as saying we should do away with laws against theft because one of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt not steal.” If we are going to start rejecting laws simply because they are supported by religion, given that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have to do away with all of our laws.
As for the ovary issue, we pro-lifers are as indifferent to our opponents’ ovaries, as we are to their spleens, gall bladders, and tonsils.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:11 pm
Pro-lifers talk about the sanctity of human life but most support the death penalty.
To begin with, there are many pro-life people – including the author of this book – who strongly oppose the death penalty.
However, those who support it are not disqualified from legitimately claiming to be pro-life. It is not inconsistent to contend that convicted murderers should be executed but innocent babies should not be. The interesting thing is, the pro-choice crowd thinks opposing abortion while supporting the death penalty is inconsistent, but supporting abortion for the innocent while opposing the death penalty for the guilty is “enlightened.”
An example of this kind of pro-choice hypocrisy was seen in January of 2000 when the governor of Illinois issued a moratorium on the death penalty citing concerns that the state could be executing innocent people.
Politicians all across America – many of them fellow abortion apologists – lauded his action and called for other governors to follow suit. The question is, where is the moratorium on abortion? Why are these people, correctly, unwilling to take the smallest chance of executing even one innocent human being on death row, but so unwilling to consider the possibility that America may be executing millions of innocent human beings in the womb? How can they justify being so eager to defend those who may be innocent, while completely ignoring the wholesale slaughter of those who are undeniably innocent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:05 am
Meh, these are easy...
Why shouldn’t a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion?
Everything's going to die eventually, so what's wrong with nuking the planet?
What about overpopulation?
This is a difficult concept, so I'll type slowly: Don't. Get. Pregnant.
What others believe about abortion is irrelevant. All that matters is what the woman believes.
I'm a woman. I believe it's wrong. Well, that was easy...
What about a 14-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant?
Sadly, she does not qualify for World's Youngest Mother. But mazel tov anyway!
Keep your Rosaries off my ovaries!
I don't own a rosary, but if I did I'd find a less messy place to keep it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:31 pm
As for the "Abortion has to do with women so should be decided by women"
is like saying "murder is done by people with guns, so gun owners should decide if murder is right."
Or theft. Theft is often done by those in need.
therefore, the needy should decided if stealing is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:15 pm
I have to point this out: Quote: Contraception is the answer to abortion.While this may seem logical, in practice it is now clear that pushing contraception increases sexual activity at a greater rate than it increases the use of contraception. This became apparent starting in the 1960s when America’s dramatic increase in contraception use was accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in sexual activity, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Despite this, the abortion lobby and the pill pushers continue to market contraception as the holy grail of pregnancy prevention. In private, however, they sing a different song. Dr. Robert Hatcher is a widely recognized expert in the field of contraception, a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and author of the book, Contraception Technology. At a 1995 National Abortion Federation meeting held in New Orleans, Hatcher cited a study conducted at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, saying, “...half of the women put on Norplant, and half put on oral contraceptives-now listen to these numbers-at the end of 15 months, all these women not wanting to become pregnant, 38 percent of the pill patients were pregnant! Thirty-eight percent! What are we doing? We’re giving them a fertility pill!” So, what would be the pregnancy rate if these women hadn't been using ANY birth control? Quote: Hatcher’s observation on the relationship between birth control and pregnancy rates are not new. After a 1958 Planned Parenthood conference, a report was published on its findings which included the following statement: “It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.” (The fact that this quote relates to illegal abortion is irrelevant. The question of how contraception use affects pregnancy rates is not influenced by the legal status of abortion.) This report was edited by Dr. Mary Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, and the Chairman of the Statement Committee was Alan Guttmacher for whom Planned Parenthood’s research branch is named. One of the participants in this conference was Dr. Alfred Kinsey. When another of the attendees continued to push contraception as the way to eradicate abortion, Kinsey responded, “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induc%d abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives.” Catch that date? 1958.
Nineteen bloody fifty-eight.Couldn't find anything more recent, could they? Think there have been any medical developments since 1958? Did anyone stop to think that maybe the correlation exists because women who use contraception and have abortions are ones who don't want to be pregnant, whereas women who don't use contraception wouldn't want to have an abortion anyways, because they're the ones who want to get pregnant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:34 am
you're trying to argue logic to people who follow a movement rooted in faulty logic
what do you expect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:38 pm
La Veuve Zin I have to point this out: Quote: Contraception is the answer to abortion.While this may seem logical, in practice it is now clear that pushing contraception increases sexual activity at a greater rate than it increases the use of contraception. This became apparent starting in the 1960s when America’s dramatic increase in contraception use was accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in sexual activity, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Despite this, the abortion lobby and the pill pushers continue to market contraception as the holy grail of pregnancy prevention. In private, however, they sing a different song. Dr. Robert Hatcher is a widely recognized expert in the field of contraception, a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and author of the book, Contraception Technology. At a 1995 National Abortion Federation meeting held in New Orleans, Hatcher cited a study conducted at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, saying, “...half of the women put on Norplant, and half put on oral contraceptives-now listen to these numbers-at the end of 15 months, all these women not wanting to become pregnant, 38 percent of the pill patients were pregnant! Thirty-eight percent! What are we doing? We’re giving them a fertility pill!” So, what would be the pregnancy rate if these women hadn't been using ANY birth control? Quote: Hatcher’s observation on the relationship between birth control and pregnancy rates are not new. After a 1958 Planned Parenthood conference, a report was published on its findings which included the following statement: “It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.” (The fact that this quote relates to illegal abortion is irrelevant. The question of how contraception use affects pregnancy rates is not influenced by the legal status of abortion.) This report was edited by Dr. Mary Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, and the Chairman of the Statement Committee was Alan Guttmacher for whom Planned Parenthood’s research branch is named. One of the participants in this conference was Dr. Alfred Kinsey. When another of the attendees continued to push contraception as the way to eradicate abortion, Kinsey responded, “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induc%d abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives.” Catch that date? 1958.
Nineteen bloody fifty-eight.Couldn't find anything more recent, could they? Think there have been any medical developments since 1958? Did anyone stop to think that maybe the correlation exists because women who use contraception and have abortions are ones who don't want to be pregnant, whereas women who don't use contraception wouldn't want to have an abortion anyways, because they're the ones who want to get pregnant? Medical advancements? Nonsense! Now pass me my radiation water!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:08 pm
divineseraph Medical advancements? Nonsense! Now pass me my radiation water! lmao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:49 am
*does a shot of mercury* i'll drink to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:48 am
MiNdCaNdY you're trying to argue logic to people who follow a movement rooted in faulty logic what do you expect? Well we could just go with the fact that they go by feelings...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:13 am
La Veuve Zin What about overpopulation? This is a difficult concept, so I'll type slowly: Don't. Get. Pregnant. Actually it isn't even that, our planet can support many more billions of people, just wealth and resources, the way we utilize energy and our environment is what confuses people that we are overpopulated. Now albeit, places like Japan, India, and China (examples off the top of my head) are over crowded and well, yes overpopulated, but the world as a whole isn't. And yet still, what does human population growth have anything to do whether a child has a right to be born or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 pm
]Kaiser[ And yet still, what does human population growth have anything to do whether a child has a right to be born or not? If overpopulation trumps common morality, hell, let's just nuke Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:04 am
La Veuve Zin ]Kaiser[ And yet still, what does human population growth have anything to do whether a child has a right to be born or not? If overpopulation trumps common morality, hell, let's just nuke Africa. Wonder what the pro-choice liberals would do then??? Probably blame pro-life conservatives!!! No offense to either side!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![]Kaiser['s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/45/d1/499e0b0716d145_flip.png?t=1230584771_6.00_00)