Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: Jesus not against abortion, it seems
Sin_and_Sorrow Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 5757	Mon 02/13/12 01:10 PM
I see so much wrong with this tread and wonder how any of you can actually sit here and argue this with a straight face. I see people arguing abortion is wrong then justifying war, saying that "thou shall not kill" covers everything. Well if it covers everything, you can not later justify other acts of killing no matter the reason.. Lets go back to abortion here for a second, I am going to justify it right now, Mothers life is in danger carrying the child for health reasons. would killing that child not be self defense therefore justifying it? No I am not arguing for abortion as I personally have issue with doing with my own children. I do not judge other on their choice as sometimes that is whats best for the child. My point is that it's either one or the other, you either think killing is a sin or you don't. there are no exceptions or you are a hypocrite. choosing to take a human life is sinful choosing to save one is not in the case of a mother in grave danger , the decision to take a life is no longer in anyones hands as its been decided that SOMEONE will l ikely die,, the issue then becomes , which do you save? the same is true of self defense, when the issue of someone being harmed or killed is not a choice but a certainty then the issue becomes , what to do to SAVE someones life (even our own) the same is true of wars, or any situation where an aggression makes it certain that some will be hurt or killed than the choice has changed from one of doing no harm, to allowing no harm to be done to,,,,, You speak of sacrifice. ..the Bible itself speaks a lot of 'sacrifice'.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 02/13/12 01:37 PM
The health and well being of a society depends in large part on mothers being able to freely decide the right time to get pregnant. This fundamental fact cannot be understated, and no appeal to emotion can override how detrimental to society taking away that right truly is.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 01:39 PM
The health and well being of a society depends in large part on mothers being able to freely decide the right time to get pregnant. This fundamental fact cannot be understated, and no appeal to emotion can override how detrimental to society taking away that right truly is. I agree women need to decide upon the right time to get pregnant. I disagree on what options are reasonable in doing so. there is abstinence, and protection if we truly dont wish to be pregnant if we want to lie down and take the risk, I dont personally believe that a life needs to be sacrificed for that poor choice,,

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 02/13/12 01:49 PM
The health and well being of a society depends in large part on mothers being able to freely decide the right time to get pregnant. This fundamental fact cannot be understated, and no appeal to emotion can override how detrimental to society taking away that right truly is. I agree women need to decide upon the right time to get pregnant. I disagree on what options are reasonable in doing so. there is abstinence, and protection if we truly dont wish to be pregnant if we want to lie down and take the risk, I dont personally believe that a life needs to be sacrificed for that poor choice,, Removing access to abortions is bad for society. Statistics prove this point over and over again. Never has existed a society without accidental births. No amount of ideology seems to change a persons behaviors when it comes to the very strong impulse to reproduce. I dont really blame a person for this either, evolution has made it impossible for many of us to abstain in the face of rational reasons to do so. Mileage may vary as does genetics.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 02:10 PM
The health and well being of a society depends in large part on mothers being able to freely decide the right time to get pregnant. This fundamental fact cannot be understated, and no appeal to emotion can override how detrimental to society taking away that right truly is. I agree women need to decide upon the right time to get pregnant. I disagree on what options are reasonable in doing so. there is abstinence, and protection if we truly dont wish to be pregnant if we want to lie down and take the risk, I dont personally believe that a life needs to be sacrificed for that poor choice,, Removing access to abortions is bad for society. Statistics prove this point over and over again. Never has existed a society without accidental births. No amount of ideology seems to change a persons behaviors when it comes to the very strong impulse to reproduce. I dont really blame a person for this either, evolution has made it impossible for many of us to abstain in the face of rational reasons to do so. Mileage may vary as does genetics. again, we are talking extremes as if there are no other options I am not for removing the option, Im for it not being so quickly and easily promoted and accessible it should be for certain situations, but not for ANY situations

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 02/13/12 02:17 PM
again, we are talking extremes as if there are no other options I am not for removing the option, Im for it not being so quickly and easily promoted and accessible it should be for certain situations, but not for ANY situations I think placing burdens on the process, or setting up restrictions is just a way of subverting the rights/morals of the person in favor of you or the legislatures rights/morals who would come up with those specifics. I think when we start trying to make something like abortions harder to get what we are really doing is saying human beings cannot be trusted with reproductive rights.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 02:43 PM
again, we are talking extremes as if there are no other options I am not for removing the option, Im for it not being so quickly and easily promoted and accessible it should be for certain situations, but not for ANY situations I think placing burdens on the process, or setting up restrictions is just a way of subverting the rights/morals of the person in favor of you or the legislatures rights/morals who would come up with those specifics. I think when we start trying to make something like abortions harder to get what we are really doing is saying human beings cannot be trusted with reproductive rights. have you seen the state of some of our children? perhaps there are many human beings who CANT be trusted without some MOTIVATION to do whats responsible

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 02/13/12 02:46 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Mon 02/13/12 02:48 PM
again, we are talking extremes as if there are no other options I am not for removing the option, Im for it not being so quickly and easily promoted and accessible it should be for certain situations, but not for ANY situations I think placing burdens on the process, or setting up restrictions is just a way of subverting the rights/morals of the person in favor of you or the legislatures rights/morals who would come up with those specifics. I think when we start trying to make something like abortions harder to get what we are really doing is saying human beings cannot be trusted with reproductive rights. have you seen the state of some of our children? perhaps there are many human beings who CANT be trusted without some MOTIVATION to do whats responsible I have, and laws exist to punish that kind of behavior already and to try to protect the children. What is important to ask is if reproductive rights should be Rights, or privileges and if you think the latter then you have to ask yourself what is wrong with what China does? Reproductive privileges: a very slippery slope.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 02:56 PM
again, we are talking extremes as if there are no other options I am not for removing the option, Im for it not being so quickly and easily promoted and accessible it should be for certain situations, but not for ANY situations I think placing burdens on the process, or setting up restrictions is just a way of subverting the rights/morals of the person in favor of you or the legislatures rights/morals who would come up with those specifics. I think when we start trying to make something like abortions harder to get what we are really doing is saying human beings cannot be trusted with reproductive rights. have you seen the state of some of our children? perhaps there are many human beings who CANT be trusted without some MOTIVATION to do whats responsible I have, and laws exist to punish that kind of behavior already and to try to protect the children. What is important to ask is if reproductive rights should be Rights, or privileges and if you think the latter then you have to ask yourself what is wrong with what China does? Reproductive privileges: a very slippery slope. I dont think maternal/paternal/reproductive responsibility is a mere privelege or right I think its something, because of the great potential to create and therefore directly affect another person, should be considered seriously and in any society which WISHES to make policy regarding the responsibility we should have for our bodies, they should do so I dont consider it 'right' or 'wrong' , if it is responsible

MorningSong Joined Mon 02/11/08 Posts: 4505	Mon 02/13/12 03:00 PM
but, here is the rub in a public forum such as this,, there is much more than just the person posting information/misinformation there is also the NUMBER of people who are reading it in such a context, correct information is important to add to the discussion,,,,not to try to teach the non believer, but to try to re affirm and teach believers who may be reading and watching,,, MsHarmony, I was addressing All Believers in General... my apologies for not clarifying that....

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 03:02 PM
but, here is the rub in a public forum such as this,, there is much more than just the person posting information/misinformation there is also the NUMBER of people who are reading it in such a context, correct information is important to add to the discussion,,,,not to try to teach the non believer, but to try to re affirm and teach believers who may be reading and watching,,, MsHarmony, I was addressing All Believers in General... my apologies for not clarifying that.... no problem

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 02/13/12 03:50 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Mon 02/13/12 03:51 PM
I dont think maternal/paternal/reproductive responsibility is a mere privelege or right I think its something, because of the great potential to create and therefore directly affect another person, should be considered seriously and in any society which WISHES to make policy regarding the responsibility we should have for our bodies, they should do so I dont consider it 'right' or 'wrong' , if it is responsible Not very clear what your point, nor your position is here. Lets make this clear, becuase often times its in the best interest of politicians to make this as muddy as possible and I think the whole topic gets muddied by what we see as standard operating procedures when it comes to this topic. Are you for banning abortions? Are you for restricting the conditions under which a person can express the reproductive right of abortion? If so how? Are you for defining when a fetus has its own rights? If so when?

DaddyTime Joined Wed 02/01/12 Posts: 530	Mon 02/13/12 03:54 PM
I see so much wrong with this tread and wonder how any of you can actually sit here and argue this with a straight face. I see people arguing abortion is wrong then justifying war, saying that "thou shall not kill" covers everything. Well if it covers everything, you can not later justify other acts of killing no matter the reason.. Lets go back to abortion here for a second, I am going to justify it right now, Mothers life is in danger carrying the child for health reasons. would killing that child not be self defense therefore justifying it? No I am not arguing for abortion as I personally have issue with doing with my own children. I do not judge other on their choice as sometimes that is whats best for the child. My point is that it's either one or the other, you either think killing is a sin or you don't. there are no exceptions or you are a hypocrite. choosing to take a human life is sinful choosing to save one is not in the case of a mother in grave danger , the decision to take a life is no longer in anyones hands as its been decided that SOMEONE will l ikely die,, the issue then becomes , which do you save? the same is true of self defense, when the issue of someone being harmed or killed is not a choice but a certainty then the issue becomes , what to do to SAVE someones life (even our own) the same is true of wars, or any situation where an aggression makes it certain that some will be hurt or killed than the choice has changed from one of doing no harm, to allowing no harm to be done to,,,,, No thou shall not kill, it does not say "thou shall not kill but...." that means no killing at all. you can either choose that or not to, not just the bits and pieces that suit you at the time. If you are attacked simply turn the other cheek, god will punish them but you must stay pure. The bible is not the bill of rights it can't be amended.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 03:56 PM
I dont think maternal/paternal/reproductive responsibility is a mere privelege or right I think its something, because of the great potential to create and therefore directly affect another person, should be considered seriously and in any society which WISHES to make policy regarding the responsibility we should have for our bodies, they should do so I dont consider it 'right' or 'wrong' , if it is responsible Not very clear what your point, nor your position is here. Lets make this clear, becuase often times its in the best interest of politicians to make this as muddy as possible and I think the whole topic gets muddied by what we see as standard operating procedures when it comes to this topic. Are you for banning abortions? Are you for restricting the conditions under which a person can express the reproductive right of abortion? If so how? Are you for defining when a fetus has its own rights? If so when? No, I wouldnt want them banned Yes, I would like to see them restricted for use in life threatening situations and cases where the mother is too mentally deficient(not to be confused with being too bothered) to take care of the child, and only in the first trimester Yes, I dont know about 'rights' in general, but I would like to see a right to life beginning at the second trimester and no later than the third

DaddyTime Joined Wed 02/01/12 Posts: 530	Mon 02/13/12 04:03 PM
I dont think maternal/paternal/reproductive responsibility is a mere privelege or right I think its something, because of the great potential to create and therefore directly affect another person, should be considered seriously and in any society which WISHES to make policy regarding the responsibility we should have for our bodies, they should do so I dont consider it 'right' or 'wrong' , if it is responsible Not very clear what your point, nor your position is here. Lets make this clear, becuase often times its in the best interest of politicians to make this as muddy as possible and I think the whole topic gets muddied by what we see as standard operating procedures when it comes to this topic. Are you for banning abortions? Are you for restricting the conditions under which a person can express the reproductive right of abortion? If so how? Are you for defining when a fetus has its own rights? If so when? No, I wouldnt want them banned Yes, I would like to see them restricted for use in life threatening situations and cases where the mother is too mentally deficient(not to be confused with being too bothered) to take care of the child, and only in the first trimester Yes, I dont know about 'rights' in general, but I would like to see a right to life beginning at the second trimester and no later than the third Mommy had a baby and the head popped off.

MorningSong Joined Mon 02/11/08 Posts: 4505	Mon 02/13/12 04:24 PM Edited by MorningSong on Mon 02/13/12 04:26 PM
Thou shall not kill....means...thou shall not murder. we kill animals , fish, and fowls of the air, in order to eat... even the birds of the air kill bugs on the ground for their daily meals.... point being...the Word has to be studied and rightly divided..... and also btw..... There is a big difference between walking in Faith...versus walking in Foolishness

DaddyTime Joined Wed 02/01/12 Posts: 530	Mon 02/13/12 06:06 PM
Thou shall not kill....means...thou shall not murder. we kill animals , fish, and fowls of the air, in order to eat... even the birds of the air kill bugs on the ground for their daily meals.... point being...the Word has to be studied and rightly divided..... and also btw..... There is a big difference between walking in Faith...versus walking in Foolishness Then why doesn't it say that?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 06:34 PM
I dont think maternal/paternal/reproductive responsibility is a mere privelege or right I think its something, because of the great potential to create and therefore directly affect another person, should be considered seriously and in any society which WISHES to make policy regarding the responsibility we should have for our bodies, they should do so I dont consider it 'right' or 'wrong' , if it is responsible Not very clear what your point, nor your position is here. Lets make this clear, becuase often times its in the best interest of politicians to make this as muddy as possible and I think the whole topic gets muddied by what we see as standard operating procedures when it comes to this topic. Are you for banning abortions? Are you for restricting the conditions under which a person can express the reproductive right of abortion? If so how? Are you for defining when a fetus has its own rights? If so when? No, I wouldnt want them banned Yes, I would like to see them restricted for use in life threatening situations and cases where the mother is too mentally deficient(not to be confused with being too bothered) to take care of the child, and only in the first trimester Yes, I dont know about 'rights' in general, but I would like to see a right to life beginning at the second trimester and no later than the third Mommy had a baby and the head popped off. feeling a bit silly...??

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 02/13/12 06:36 PM
Thou shall not kill....means...thou shall not murder. we kill animals , fish, and fowls of the air, in order to eat... even the birds of the air kill bugs on the ground for their daily meals.... point being...the Word has to be studied and rightly divided..... and also btw..... There is a big difference between walking in Faith...versus walking in Foolishness Then why doesn't it say that? depending upon the translation,, it does translates,, thou shalt not murder, which is unlawful killing, and leaves alot of room for debate based upon culture and current laws,,,

DaddyTime Joined Wed 02/01/12 Posts: 530	Mon 02/13/12 06:36 PM Edited by DaddyTime on Mon 02/13/12 06:40 PM
Thou shall not kill....means...thou shall not murder. we kill animals , fish, and fowls of the air, in order to eat... even the birds of the air kill bugs on the ground for their daily meals.... point being...the Word has to be studied and rightly divided..... and also btw..... There is a big difference between walking in Faith...versus walking in Foolishness Then why doesn't it say that? depending upon the translation,, it does translates,, thou shalt not murder, which is unlawful killing, and leaves alot of room for debate based upon culture and current laws,,, I have not read one bible where it said thou shall not murder, can you link me to this version please?