• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Abortion opponents: question for you.

I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.

However, I think there should be a ban on partial birth abortions with the exception of if the mother's life were in danger.

🙂
 
Even though I agree with what the ruling contains and would vote for a Roe v. Wade law if I were a Legislator, I still believe Roe v. Wade was the greatest perversion of jurisprudence in the last 50 years. At least as grievious as the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergueson. It was the ruling that finally confirmed that the USSC could not be trusted in any way to faithfully follow the Constitution or their appropriate role in the government. The decision blew to hell the Tenth Amendment, was decided on completely fictitious constitutional grounds, and has turned an issue which would have been settled decades ago by the democratic process and turned it into an eternal polarizer of the electorate.
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I tried to say that the other day but it came out more like 'There's a big difference between being in favor of abortion and being opposed to anti-abortion legislation'.
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.

However, I think there should be a ban on partial birth abortions with the exception of if the mother's life were in danger.

🙂
Click to expand...

Not only does it make sense, it is the only position that i can find that DOES make sense, you don't WANT abortions to happen but there should be a choice.

Where i live there are no partial birth abortions so i pretty much have no opinion on the matter.

AND there is a crew of psychiatrists that she gets to talk to before and after the abortion, if she is underaged she CANNOT have an abortion without parental consent either.

The middle road is most often the smartest path to take.
 
I think abortion should be permitted only for voting age conservatives regardless of their rationale. After all they are mostly career oriented professionals without time to care for their issue. The absence of direct parental influence is what causes 'day care' kids to grow up to be liberal and we know what that means.
Liberals need to practice a better means of 'birth control'. After all their issue grow up to occupy the Burger King and McDonald's counter positions and we've known for years that has been designated for the illegal alien and 'out sourced' engineers.
On this critical issue the man should have the only say in this poll and the law given he is the umbrella under which the woman flourishes. Besides, the man of today was never an aborted fetus so he can speak logically to the issue. The woman on the other hand is potentially a law breaking apple eating intellectually inferior chip off the ole rib cage... unworthy of knowing or discerning what is occurring within her own body.


edit to change their to her..
 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think abortion should be permitted only for voting age conservatives regardless of their rationale. After all they are mostly career oriented professionals without time to care for their issue. The absence of direct parental influence is what causes 'day care' kids to grow up to be liberal and we know what that means.
Liberals need to practice a better means of 'birth control'. After all their issue grow up to occupy the Burger King and McDonald's counter positions and we've known for years that has been designated for the illegal alien and 'out sourced' engineers.
On this critical issue the man should have the only say in this poll and the law given he is the umbrella under which the woman flourishes. Besides, the man of today was never an aborted fetus so he can speak logically to the issue. The woman on the other hand is potentially a law breaking apple eating intellectually inferior chip off the ole rib cage... unworthy of knowing or discerning what is occurring within their own body.
Click to expand...

Excellent, a post with so few words containing so much worthwhile thoughtprovoking information.

The christian right against what men can never understand and therefore deem inferior, i love it.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.

However, I think there should be a ban on partial birth abortions with the exception of if the mother's life were in danger.

🙂
Click to expand...

Not only does it make sense, it is the only position that i can find that DOES make sense, you don't WANT abortions to happen but there should be a choice.

Where i live there are no partial birth abortions so i pretty much have no opinion on the matter.

AND there is a crew of psychiatrists that she gets to talk to before and after the abortion, if she is underaged she CANNOT have an abortion without parental consent either.

The middle road is most often the smartest path to take.
Click to expand...

I lived in England for eight years, and it was kinda the same at the time. Abortion was legal, but you had to see your GP, then he referred you to someone else, and both doctors had to sign off on it. It was just a formality, as all you had to do was tell the docs that you would have a nervous breakdown, or whatever, but it was not like just walking into a clinic and having an abortion then going home to watch a movie.

I think... and I am a bit older... that abortion in this country is a really messed up thing. It is all so extreme. On the one hand, taking away a woman's right to choose, is wrong, imho. I mean, it starts us on a slippery slope of freedom of choice in too many things. A woman was warned by her doctor, recently that she needed an emergency C Section. She refused and one of the twins she was carrying died. They wanted to charge her with murder. To me, that is insane... what would be next?... you smoked, ate too much red meat... didn't walk a mile every afternoon. Who is to tell where that would end.

On the other hand, we have 13yr old little girls having abortions without their parents even knowing. We have women using abortion as a form of birth control. We have women who, legally, can go to a doctor two weeks before her due date and abort the baby. Women can, legally, abort their babies, at any time for any reason and no one is suppose to raise an eyebrow.

When I was younger, women had legal abortions. And it was a shameful thing. It was a disturbing thing. It was a tramatic thing.

Now we have women boldly wearing teeshirts proclaiming that they had abortions and are proud of it.

I think, and again, this is mho... Abortion should be a woman's right to choose. I also think that it should not be so easy and commonplace to have second trimester abortions and partial birth abortion should be banned althogether, unless the mother's life is in danger.

And I have never ever in my life met anyone who is PRO abortion. PRO choice, yes. PRO Abortion, no. I have never ever met anyone who thought abortion is a GOOD thing.

🙂
 
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.

However, I think there should be a ban on partial birth abortions with the exception of if the mother's life were in danger.

🙂
Click to expand...

Not only does it make sense, it is the only position that i can find that DOES make sense, you don't WANT abortions to happen but there should be a choice.

Where i live there are no partial birth abortions so i pretty much have no opinion on the matter.

AND there is a crew of psychiatrists that she gets to talk to before and after the abortion, if she is underaged she CANNOT have an abortion without parental consent either.

The middle road is most often the smartest path to take.
Click to expand...

I lived in England for eight years, and it was kinda the same at the time. Abortion was legal, but you had to see your GP, then he referred you to someone else, and both doctors had to sign off on it. It was just a formality, as all you had to do was tell the docs that you would have a nervous breakdown, or whatever, but it was not like just walking into a clinic and having an abortion then going home to watch a movie.

I think... and I am a bit older... that abortion in this country is a really messed up thing. It is all so extreme. On the one hand, taking away a woman's right to choose, is wrong, imho. I mean, it starts us on a slippery slope of freedom of choice in too many things. A woman was warned by her doctor, recently that she needed an emergency C Section. She refused and one of the twins she was carrying died. They wanted to charge her with murder. To me, that is insane... what would be next?... you smoked, ate too much red meat... didn't walk a mile every afternoon. Who is to tell where that would end.

On the other hand, we have 13yr old little girls having abortions without their parents even knowing. We have women using abortion as a form of birth control. We have women who, legally, can go to a doctor two weeks before her due date and abort the baby. Women can, legally, abort their babies, at any time for any reason and no one is suppose to raise an eyebrow.

When I was younger, women had legal abortions. And it was a shameful thing. It was a disturbing thing. It was a tramatic thing.

Now we have women boldly wearing teeshirts proclaiming that they had abortions and are proud of it.

I think, and again, this is mho... Abortion should be a woman's right to choose. I also think that it should not be so easy and commonplace to have second trimester abortions and partial birth abortion should be banned althogether, unless the mother's life is in danger.

And I have never ever in my life met anyone who is PRO abortion. PRO choice, yes. PRO Abortion, no. I have never ever met anyone who thought abortion is a GOOD thing.

🙂
Click to expand...

I am German and your point is pretty much lost on me, i can read it and understand it, but i have little faith in he English system.

PRO life, what is opposite of that, it could be PRO death, which is what they would like you to belive, but the difference from an absolute is choice, and that is what it is, a choice.

I am pro choice. (and i do have kids)
 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Even though I agree with what the ruling contains and would vote for a Roe v. Wade law if I were a Legislator, I still believe Roe v. Wade was the greatest perversion of jurisprudence in the last 50 years. At least as grievious as the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergueson. It was the ruling that finally confirmed that the USSC could not be trusted in any way to faithfully follow the Constitution or their appropriate role in the government. The decision blew to hell the Tenth Amendment, was decided on completely fictitious constitutional grounds, and has turned an issue which would have been settled decades ago by the democratic process and turned it into an eternal polarizer of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Glenn, help an ignorant Canadian out:

Is the 10th amendment State rights? The one that granted States the right to determine anything not specifically denoted as being Federal jurisdiction?
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: KarenMarie

I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.


🙂
Click to expand...

I am German and your point is pretty much lost on me, i can read it and understand it, but i have little faith in he English system.

PRO life, what is opposite of that, it could be PRO death, which is what they would like you to belive, but the difference from an absolute is choice, and that is what it is, a choice.

I am pro choice. (and i do have kids)
Click to expand...

The terms used in this country... I believe.... are used to polarize us.

The far right ANTI abortion ppl use PRO LIFE to make anyone who does not want to ban abortion appear to be PRO baby murder. It is my opinion (and openly staing controversial opinions is dangerous, I know) that they want us to see the flip side of PRO choice to be PRO Life.

The far left PRO choice people, like to paint the PRO choice ppl as fanatics, which some but not all are.

It is a word game. Designed to pit the two sides against each other and scare the sh!t out of the middle of the road people and force them to take sides.

I, too, and pro choice. I have a 20yr old daughter. I am one of those caught in the middle people, I suppose. If I were forced to take a side... I would, without a doubt, choose Pro Choice. However, I think the current ways things are... abortion is an overused, and often misued procedure.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by having little faith in the English system. Do you mean in the way we face the abortion issue, or is it a language thing?

(p.s. I have been to Germany several times. Loved it every time.)
 
pro choice here. i dont think anyone should have the right to make decisions for the person who's pregnant. like WTF do those people think they are anyhow?
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: glenn1
Even though I agree with what the ruling contains and would vote for a Roe v. Wade law if I were a Legislator, I still believe Roe v. Wade was the greatest perversion of jurisprudence in the last 50 years. At least as grievious as the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergueson. It was the ruling that finally confirmed that the USSC could not be trusted in any way to faithfully follow the Constitution or their appropriate role in the government. The decision blew to hell the Tenth Amendment, was decided on completely fictitious constitutional grounds, and has turned an issue which would have been settled decades ago by the democratic process and turned it into an eternal polarizer of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Glenn, help an ignorant Canadian out:

Is the 10th amendment State rights? The one that granted States the right to determine anything not specifically denoted as being Federal jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Glenn1's pretty much correct - Roe v. Wade is very bad constitutional law. The Supreme Court decided that although the Constitution didn't explicitly list a "right to privacy", such a right was within the "penumbra" of rights afforded therein. Whatever. Of course, I'd argue that the Court had long ago confirmed it wasn't faithful to the Constitution, but that's another thread . . .
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
Click to expand...

Nice generalization, Klixxer. Since you like painting with too broad a brush, can we just assume you're a Nazi since you're German? Fair's fair, eh?
 
Glenn, help an ignorant Canadian out:

Is the 10th amendment State rights? The one that granted States the right to determine anything not specifically denoted as being Federal jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's also known as the "Reserved Powers Amendment."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The "constitutional" principle cited by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was a "zone of privacy" they felt was implied in the Bill of Rights despite not being mentioned whatsover. Griswold v. Connecticut (which tossed out laws prohibiting birth control) is another example using the same logic. It's not that I disagree with the end result of the rulings because I don't. But I feel even stronger that the Supreme Court has no damn business whatsoever involving itself in matters such as this as it is prima facie NOT a federal issue, and is furthermore manifestly a legislative issue not a judicial issue. That the court has made it a federal judicial issue not only completely shreds the Tenth Amendment, but ensures that the legal issue is thus settled completely arbitrarily by fiat of a court. This is dangerous because the framers realized that thorny legal issues are best dealt with by means of the give-and-take, compromise, and final acceptance of the dissenting stakeholders via their legislators. It also means the issue NEVER becomes settled because the side which feels "shut out" by the court will never come to a middle ground agreement with their opponents, feeling that the court may at a later time rule in their favor.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Glenn, help an ignorant Canadian out:

Is the 10th amendment State rights? The one that granted States the right to determine anything not specifically denoted as being Federal jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's also known as the "Reserved Powers Amendment."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The "constitutional" principle cited by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was a "zone of privacy" they felt was implied in the Bill of Rights despite not being mentioned whatsover. Griswold v. Connecticut (which tossed out laws prohibiting birth control) is another example using the same logic. It's not that I disagree with the end result of the rulings because I don't. But I feel even stronger that the Supreme Court has no damn business whatsoever involving itself in matters such as this as it is prima facie NOT a federal issue, and is furthermore manifestly a legislative issue not a judicial issue. That the court has made it a federal judicial issue not only completely shreds the Tenth Amendment, but ensures that the legal issue is thus settled completely arbitrarily by fiat of a court. This is dangerous because the framers realized that thorny legal issues are best dealt with by means of the give-and-take, compromise, and final acceptance of the dissenting stakeholders via their legislators. It also means the issue NEVER becomes settled because the side which feels "shut out" by the court will never come to a middle ground agreement with their opponents, feeling that the court may at a later time rule in their favor.
Click to expand...

I agree, 100%, with your stance about the courts. there are more who feel the same, but are too busy trying to make ends meet to get involved, and have been led to believe that there is nothing they can do about it.

But, your statement is, imho, 100% correct.

🙂
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
Click to expand...

The absence of Christianity within one's Christianity makes rational discussion difficult to achieve for the Christian... As seen by the observer. I suspect each of us suffer from similar drawbacks.. We are different and we think so it holds that we ought to think differently. But, we do live with some commonality... even among nations.
What I think is that we mostly agree with the exit philosophy of life so why not apply that to the entrance.. as close as we can get it.. We agree, I think, that a person ceases to be a person (a sentient being) somewhere along the death process... why not agree a person became a person somewhere along the birth process.. with some reasonable modifications to account for the difference of mind content and the like.. Somewhere when there is no reliance on other or another for life function... the individual's ability to survive.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
Click to expand...

I can see how you may think this, as their contradictory stances on abortion and capital punishment may indicate.

As a Christian, I'll have to apologize for all the neocons out there who call themselves Christians but know nothing about what it means.

I don't believe that we ever have the authority to decide if one person should live or die - it is God's decision alone. Be it a fetus or a criminal.

I am consistent in that and may I have no personal agenda which helped to formulate that perspective.
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: KarenMarie

I am pro choice but not pro abortion... if that makes sense.


🙂
Click to expand...

I am German and your point is pretty much lost on me, i can read it and understand it, but i have little faith in he English system.

PRO life, what is opposite of that, it could be PRO death, which is what they would like you to belive, but the difference from an absolute is choice, and that is what it is, a choice.

I am pro choice. (and i do have kids)
Click to expand...

The terms used in this country... I believe.... are used to polarize us.

The far right ANTI abortion ppl use PRO LIFE to make anyone who does not want to ban abortion appear to be PRO baby murder. It is my opinion (and openly staing controversial opinions is dangerous, I know) that they want us to see the flip side of PRO choice to be PRO Life.

The far left PRO choice people, like to paint the PRO choice ppl as fanatics, which some but not all are.

It is a word game. Designed to pit the two sides against each other and scare the sh!t out of the middle of the road people and force them to take sides.

I, too, and pro choice. I have a 20yr old daughter. I am one of those caught in the middle people, I suppose. If I were forced to take a side... I would, without a doubt, choose Pro Choice. However, I think the current ways things are... abortion is an overused, and often misued procedure.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by having little faith in the English system. Do you mean in the way we face the abortion issue, or is it a language thing?

(p.s. I have been to Germany several times. Loved it every time.)
Click to expand...

I believe in pro choice, i really do, wether it is abortion, suicide or whatever, i believe in individuals, stupid perhaps but i still do, you could probably say i am an idealist and there would be some truth to that.


I'm not originally German, actually i am a citizen of Germany but i was born and raised in the country of the thousand lakes (Finland). I do like Germany though, were you stationed here or did you visit?

I can, as every freedom be abused, of course it can, but who are you or i to judge that? I am sure that in some cases they would just become another welfare family for the christian right to complain about.

Sucks, doesn't it, have an abortion and they scream, have the baybe and the scream.

I mean the english system as in he GB system as in the nation.

It is, in some cases misused the question is, is the minority allowed to put the majority to shame, i know your answer already, this is just a question we all have to ask ourselves.

The answer should be obvious to everyonw.
 
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
Click to expand...

I can see how you may think this, as their contradictory stances on abortion and capital punishment may indicate.

As a Christian, I'll have to apologize for all the neocons out there who call themselves Christians but know nothing about what it means.

I don't believe that we ever have the authority to decide if one person should live or die - it is God's decision alone. Be it a fetus or a criminal.

I am consistent in that and may I have no personal agenda which helped to formulate that perspective.
Click to expand...

No, read he bible, would you touch the doorhandle after a mensturating woman has touched it?

I mean it literally, you as an individual may not pick and choose your church does that for you.

You have nothing to apologize for, i have only my own views and if i sound condemning it is certainly not my intention, not towards christians and not towards anyone else.

It is more of a specific argument against ONE of the teachings and a demonstration of how it can work.

Now i am a jew by heritage and a chrisian by family, i ask you, do you belive that all of the "word" of god should be followed, if not, how do you know what matters? And if it is the churches words that matter is this even close to the truth of the personal relaionship with god the man-god connection?

It might feel like i am setting you up, but i am just eager to hear your version of "the truth".
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the issue is simple. Viability is the key. And, the phrase "When does a fetus - a particular fetus - reach viability" is the answer. It is both logical and legal to accept that a fetus is the woman until it has reached that point in its development to survive apart from the woman. At that point it has become an individual person with all the rights to exist as any other person. It seems to me all rights should attach to that unborn person at viabilty... viability beyond a medical certainty maybe too strong.. so maybe a lesser standard deferring to the fetus should be adopted..

The case mentioned above relating an emergency C section is interesting.. Going against medical opinion to give birth Naturally... as God may have intended... hehehehehe interesting.. Elective surgery or mandated surgery... just who gets cut up... who survives... who is threatened.. Thwarting God's will might be an argument against not having an emergency C section...
Click to expand...

Christians like to pick and choose, if you want a rational discussion, they cannot be involved.
Click to expand...

I can see how you may think this, as their contradictory stances on abortion and capital punishment may indicate.

As a Christian, I'll have to apologize for all the neocons out there who call themselves Christians but know nothing about what it means.

I don't believe that we ever have the authority to decide if one person should live or die - it is God's decision alone. Be it a fetus or a criminal.

I am consistent in that and may I have no personal agenda which helped to formulate that perspective.
Click to expand...

No, read he bible, would you touch the doorhandle after a mensturating woman has touched it?

I mean it literally, you as an individual may not pick and choose your church does that for you.

You have nothing to apologize for, i have only my own views and if i sound condemning it is certainly not my intention, not towards christians and not towards anyone else.

It is more of a specific argument against ONE of the teachings and a demonstration of how it can work.

Now i am a jew by heritage and a chrisian by family, i ask you, do you belive that all of the "word" of god should be followed, if not, how do you know what matters? And if it is the churches words that matter is this even close to the truth of the personal relaionship with god the man-god connection?

It might feel like i am setting you up, but i am just eager to hear your version of "the truth".
Click to expand...

I don't think you're setting me up - I think that is a very very valid question.

The Bible was NOT one book written by one person in modern times. It is hundreds of stories told by something like 60 authors over a span of I believe close to 1000 years, and inspired by God, and written for a purpose - many were not written primarily for those who lived 2000 years in the future.

I believe, for instance your example is one from the OT, where God challenges men to prove their faithfullness as they more often than not will get sidetracted into worshiping other gods or falling completely into sin. It is out of a context that I personally, don't care much for - though maybe I should. As I read the OT more, my views may change.

I believe, in true Protestant tradition, that ritual isn't what connects you to God, it is a sense of humility, and dependance on God, and the desire for worship - which endears you to God - essentially whats in the heart. It makes no sense to me that ritual is the way - God isn't some tabulating computer which has a slot that says "insert worship and sacrifice here" and which only accepts it in precisely a few forms.

If God is powerful enough to create the universe and the heavens, He can surely know your heart. If this doesn't answer your question please feel free to pm me or ask again.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer

I believe in pro choice, i really do, wether it is abortion, suicide or whatever, i believe in individuals, stupid perhaps but i still do, you could probably say i am an idealist and there would be some truth to that.


I'm not originally German, actually i am a citizen of Germany but i was born and raised in the country of the thousand lakes (Finland). I do like Germany though, were you stationed here or did you visit?

I can, as every freedom be abused, of course it can, but who are you or i to judge that? I am sure that in some cases they would just become another welfare family for the christian right to complain about.

Sucks, doesn't it, have an abortion and they scream, have the baybe and the scream.

I mean the english system as in he GB system as in the nation.

It is, in some cases misused the question is, is the minority allowed to put the majority to shame, i know your answer already, this is just a question we all have to ask ourselves.

The answer should be obvious to everyonw.
Click to expand...

Pro choice in everything would be wonderful in an ideal world. However, without some measure of morality, there would be no line to draw between one person's choice taking away the choice of another. I mean, where would we draw the line? It would be left to each person's individual concept of what they feel they should have the choice to do.

Where would the line of freedom of choice be drawn? Abortion in the first trimester...second... two weeks before birth? Within a week after. And those are just the questions of abortions. The next step would be to have total freedom of choice in death for not just babies. What about the old and infirm? Where would one persons freedom end and another's begin? Would people have the right to blast the stereo at 3:00AM in a small apartment building filled with other people? Would a person have the freedom of choice to have babies and sell them? Seems like a stretch, but hey... stranger things have happened.

I notice that you have made quite a few remarks against Christians. I put this to you... in a respectful, nonconfrontational manner.... Not ALL Christians are fanatical right wingers. In fact, the overwhelming majority are not. In addition, it is not only the Christian faith that gets stuck with lunatic fanatics. They are in every religion. But you have singled out the Christians... and I must ask... is it only the Christians that have a strong stance on the abortion (and other) issues? How do the muslims and the Jews and the Hindis and the Buddists feel about abortion used as birth control and 13yr old having abortions without parental knowledge or even partial birth abortion? I tend to think that these religions, practiced faithfully would not be happy about the way abortions are preformed, and I also believe that they all have their hare their fanatics.

I agree with your stance on the religious fanatics that use that religion to harm others... Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are not any better or worse that the Fanatics who fly plane into building thinking they are getting a bunch of virgins when they die. It is also not any better or worse than staunch atheists who want to wipe out anyone who has a differing religion to theirs. But they come in all shapes, sizes, colors and religions... not just Christians.

Finally, the mention of welfare babies and having people complain whether they have an abortion or live off the state.... I think, on the whole, most people do not resent people who use welfare as a helping hand until they get on their feet again. It is the chronic abusers who pop out babies only to suck off the state that most people have a problem with. And I think abortion or welfare is not, and should not be the only alternatives.... Personal responsibility, being careful in your sexual activities are also options... as is adoption.

I have a 20yr old daughter... I raised her to be modest, self respectful and very careful. I taught her, first and foremost, abstenience. Once she did get a boyfriend and they were together for over a year, we dicussed birth control. And I hope... most importantly... that if she did have an unexpected pregnancy, that abortion would be the very last option, not the first. Having said that... I would be fully prepared to step in and help her raise the child and I understand that there are many young people who are not fortunate enough to have this option.

Cheers, Klixxer

:beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top