When Does a Person Become a Person? Is it during conception, after conception? What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are this probably could have been addressed in any of the four currently active threads on the subject.
We are all constantly developing, so that the person we are at 20 is not the same one at 80 physically or mentally. The only time we stop developing is at death, although many people believe that it continues even after this time. So, it depends what you mean by person.
What it all boils down to is, when does a person become a person in this world, and when does a person become a person in The Eyes of God?
Well, so far as when does a person become a person in this world, there are a number of answers to your question.
In this world, for example, some would answer, At the point of conception -- others would answer, At the point when an infant leaves the womb and is born alive -- and still others would answer, At the point when a young human being has been out of the womb for two years.
So far as the way God sees it; I do not have any idea.
The only thing I have concerning the answer to a question such as yours is my opinion -- and you know what "they" say about opinions.
From the time when one starts hearing and seeing.
Wow! Great come back. You are really fast on your feet.
She could see through things and communicate with signs.
You become a person as soon you are born. for instance when you are not born, you are like a thought in the mind, when you are born you are like a speech that have be heard. in this case is only the spirit that can some time know your mind, but when it come to a speech or an act, is being carried or spoken which got a space or mark of notification.
You become a person at the moment of conception. You don't have to be religious to think that. Even Christopher Hitchens said that an un-born baby is a person with rights.
I believe a person is a person or human while in the womb or at conception. For example, if a dog is pregnant she is pregnant with a puppy. The puppy will be born and grow into an older dog. So when the dog becomes pregnant she gives birth to a puppy. When a woman gets pregnant its a little person growing inside of her, not a dog, or a cat but a human.
When they are registered and certified!
person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
Depends on what a person or society choose to define the word to mean. If your definition is according to the worlds standards then Life begins whenever it is convenient for their own laws and rules of conduct.
If your definition of the word however stems from the Bible and your beliefs are Christian: then Life begins at Conception and we know the mess that makes of this worlds attempts at justifying its own actions...
To a Christian: Abortion is a Child Sacrifice on the altar of Immorality.
Sweeping generalizations and stereotyping.
Many just cannot restrain themselves from stereotyping others and making vast, sweeping generalizations.
First, not all Christians are opposed to abortion. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Christians in such areas of the world as Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand are NOT opposed to aborion.
Second, you wrote, "...To a Christian: Abortion is a Child Sacrifice on the Altar of Immorality."
Well, my first reacton to that is, you certainly do have a flair for the dramatic. That sounds downright Shakespearean.
My second reaction is, for those of us who oppose the procedure, "Abortion is NOT a Child Sacrifice on the Altar of Immorality."
We simply view abortion as being premeditated murder; first-degree homicide -- and as a means to carry out genocide against certain groups of human beings, such as black people.
You are so correct in something... I almost forgot... That my definition of "Christian" is that it means Christ Like.... and you are correct that many so called christians of today probably do not appose things that the Bible would condemn and that the Christ /Jesus would have apposed...
Not everything that says it is a "Christian" today is even close to that... Not even with all of the so called Spirituality that they can muster...
Jesus said in Mat 7;22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The way I see things is the following:
Because God, in His Infinite Wisdom, knows that human beings are of a "sin nature" -- and that not a one of us will ever come anywhere close to being a "perfect Christian," or a "perfect anything else," for that mattter -- He sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to this world to sacrifice Himself for everyone's sins and shortcomings.
If you're trying to justify abortion by saying God did it to his son than you've overlooked something pivotal to your argument: His son also freely chose to accept it and did it out of love. He wasn't being forced into a fate. The innocent children aren't given a chance to choose what they want because others either think the choice is of no concern to them and they have a superior say or that the child isn't a child Yet. Who doesn't have a more superior right to their life or the decisions about it than the Human Being whose life is being taken away? You may say well we make decisions for little children everyday because they don't know what's best for them but no matter how you skew the phrase Death isn't! And if becoming human is a matter of time than the elderly are the most human and the rest of us are just what?
Obviously, you do not know a damned thing about me and have never read any of my hubs.
I am so anti-abortion that I believe that the procedure should be outlawed, even in the cases of rape and incest, and even when carrying a baby to term would endanger the health or life of the mother.
I am a stone-cold "pro-lifer."
Finally, I strongly suggest that the next time you decide to get on somebody's case around here, you do your homework first.
So, you believe you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their lives?
Debating 101: When you want to gain the upper have over your opponent, put words into his mouth -- then go about the business of tearing down what you said he said.
Where did I say that I believe that everyone else should have the same opinion as mine, or that the law should be changed to coincide with the way I see things?
I did no such things. I merely stated my own opinions concerning the issue.
So, please, stop trying to run your amateurish games which are nothing but pathetic little attempts to build yourself up.
Unless I misread your post, he simply highlighted two of your statements and asked a valid question.
Outlawing abortion would, in essence, push your opinion on another and force them to live by your opinion. You would be telling them how to live their lives.
Your words are bolded above, did you not write those words? How did I put those words in your mouth? Could you be any more dishonest or is that how Sunday school taught you to act?
I would not waste time getting angry with ATM. He just likes to push people's buttons.
I am sorry feenix, I must've read it too fast and as it is hard to distinguish tone in these posts, I wrongly assumed. I am just very passionate about this topic and was too hasty in my judgement.
Interesting statement. Since Christianity is the primary religion in America, and it is Christians who are the majority voters; and, of course, the lion's share of politicians are Christian.....how do you come up with that statement?
Some Christians are against abortion, obviously. The minority within Christianity are against abortion, obviously. Don't attempt to lump all Christians into the class of the dissenting minority. Facts too easily refute your statement. Unless your argument is that any who don't agree with the minority aren't really Christian. Which wouldn't be outside of the norm for the minority voice.
Actually it is Biblical... that most who proclaim to be God's people are not...
But with todays version of Christianity anything goes.. and the Bible (God's Word) is the first thing that seems to be thrown out.
That is your opinion and your interpretation of God's word. You do understand this?
I think, it's more important that mrmaranatha understands that since he's the one who made the statement.
Unless he's your sock puppet. In which case, I wouldn't broadcast that. I don't think it's allowed.
Well I personally question which part of my Statement that you are calling "Opinion" and secondly I will agree that in some definitions of the word Opinion that My opinion stands true for what it is..
If Your Usage of the Word Opinion is catagories 2 though 5 then I will categorically accept your statement. If However your usage of the word is catagory 1, then by all means let me know what you would like clarified with chapter and verse substantiation...
Here is the Definition of o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA noun
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
The question then becomes, is there any such thing as the "correct" interpretation of God's Word? And if there's not, then what is really even the point in debating who is and is not "Christian?"
Did Jesus really claim the things attributed to Him but 4 different authors?
Are we free to "allegorize" statements that were not made allegorically?
When do we decide what's right and wrong, and how?
You make a very strong argument for atheism. Well done, sir!
Where did Jesus comment on the subject of abortion?
You read what you want into things and claim to know God's mind by your interpretation. You shouldn't argue about it anyway. Live your life by what you know to be right in your own mind. Give others room to do the same.
Nope. That is your interpretation. The Mosaic laws clearly show that the death of an unborn child is not viewed in the same manner as the death of an individual. You've added, to suit the conscience you have developed. You cannot prove the words in that text support your interpretation.
That is your Type 1 interpretation. Nor have you given in context support for your supposition that Mosaic Law is of that determination. Most particularly there is evidence in Mosaic Law that supports the killing of an unborn child as a matter of Manslaughter in today's terms.. and of this you are probably already aware. which means you are a deceiver.
Interpretation (the spell checker changed my wording)
Actually, you interpret things to suit your fancy. As you clearly stated, there are rules dictating how to handle it when a woman loses the child in her womb; whether it is caused by accident or on purpose. This is handled separately than the laws governing a person. You said manslaughter. Not murder. You obviously understand that the baby in the womb is not treated the same as a person. But, you want to argue the point anyway. Not surprising.
Your comment about me being a deciever is hilarious. If you want to deceive yourself, please feel free. But, don't expect me to join your little party.
The difference between Manslaughter and Murder is one of Motivation. In order for their to have been a Man Slaughtered... There must first have been an Man to slaughter.
The only difference in the two legal actions is how the death of a Person occurred.
I obviously didn't make my point. You switched up from murder to manslaughter. Why? You couldn't make your case. You are wrong on the manslaughter count also. IMO.
No.. You just refuse to acknowledge the truth...
The Point is Not "Murder" The Point is HUMAN LIFE being taken.
The point is- What does the bible say about it?
If the Bible clearly shows that a Negligent situation that results in a Miss-carriage is counted (Depending on circumstances) as anything from a Negligent homicide or manslaughter .... or worse... all the way up to and including the death penalty if the mothers life is also lost... Then the case is fairly clear that the Bible does have something to say on the subject...
In fact it says far more than you are willing to admit.
The death penalty if the mother's life is lost. You wrote it. That says it all. If a living, breathing human being is involved. Not simply the fetus.
I don't have any less respect for the unborn than you do. What I am trying to get through to you is what you wrote, but fail to accept. And the bottom line is that when you speak of murder, immorality and sin you run the risk of hurting another human being who reads your words. You appear to have less respect for others than you realize. You condemn them with your words and that is trampling on their rights. You do not understand the spirit of the law.
"Where did Jesus comment on the subject of abortion? "
Where did THAT come from? Did I say that? Talk about reading into things what you want...
But to respond to your statement, you imply, strongly, that the only real "right and wrong" is what is right or wrong for the individual. As in, there is no objective truth. I don't agree, and even if I simply "live life by what I know to be right in my own mind," that means I can't simply sit back and let others tell lies. Because the point of objective truth is that it comes from a source outside oneself.
But pointing out that a lie is a lie is not the same as ramming my beliefs down somebody else's throat.
The abortion comment came because you interjected a comment into a conversation about beliefs on abortion. I assumed you were on the same subject we were.
I personally think the laws of the land follow a moral code. We don't murder our neighbor. It's wrong to steal. Etc. Etc. The laws are developed to allow the pursuit of happiness in harmony with those around us. The written law is the minimum standard.
You know that anyone who lives by the letter of the law can certainly cause strife for others. They don't care about others. They attempt to gain everything they can. Their only concern is staying out of jail. Throw an attorney into the mix and the law is easily circumvented.
Those who live by the spirit of the law don't need the written law. They know what hurts their neighbor. They are open to learning when they cause strife and will work to change actions on their part when they find that their behavior is not in line with the spirit of ensuring liberty and the pursuit of happiness by someone who also lives by the spirit of the law.
It's a continuing learning experience. It's a process that has a life of its own. But, the law is always in the background to remind us of what we, as a society, have determined is right and wrong.
That isn't to say every aspect of the present written law ultimately determines what is right and wrong. It never has. Our written laws waiver with the wind. That is why debate on issues such as abortion continue. The spirit of the law becomes clearer as more people explain why behavior patterns have inhibited their pursuit of hapiness. We don't always agree on what is morally right. But, to impose my beliefs on another would inhibit their pursuit and I don't feel that legislating belief falls in line with the spirit of the law. I am free to stand firmly by my beliefs. Others should be given the same freedoms.
The bottom line. The spirit of the law is the only objective truth. What is right or wrong for the individual is unique and can only be determined by them. They are only wrong, in my mind, when their decisions trample the rights of another. I expect the written law to fall in line with the spirit of the law as our citizens speak their concerns.
If you point out a lie is a lie, I agree. But not when it comes to religion. Religion is opinion of spiritual truth and no one can definitively define spiritual truth. IMO.
Although I certainly don't agree with everything you wrote, it is well stated. I appreciate that.
"What is right or wrong for the individual is unique and can only be determined by them." Boy, would I love to live my life by that code. Unfortunately, the potential for real harm to other individuals grows exponentially when that is done. And since this is a debate about abortion, then the question becomes "Is the fetus a person?" Personhood has an unfortunate tendency to be defined by the state (which brings it under the "letter of the law") which is why the state is sometimes wrong. And if fetus' are people too (as the Bible teaches they are,) then you have to wonder if the unique, self-determined right of one person really makes it okay to terminate the unique, self-determined right of another, especially when the "another" can't defend themselves.
First, as I stated, the written law exists in order to ensure that those who don't abide by the spirit of the law continue to meet the minim standards of conduct. It is the choice of the individual to sink to the lowest possible moral stance, or rise to the full intent. That's one aspect of freedom.
And, I also stated that debates such as the one on abortion continue because we all disagree. On multiple points. Don't get me wrong. I, personally, do not believe I would have ever opted for abortion. But I was never in a position where I had to consider it.
You can argue all day long about what a fetus may or may not be. What you can't argue is that you are attempting to force your will on another living breathing human being. You are advocating forcing someone to do something that will change their life forever. You are taking no responsiblity other than the moment you force your will upon them. It is asking everything and giving nothing in return. It is not in line with the spirit of the law.
"What you can't argue is that you are attempting to force your will on another living breathing human being. You are advocating forcing someone to do something that will change their life forever. You are taking no responsiblity other than the moment you force your will upon them."
That's a little simplistic, at best. First, whether you want to acknowledge this or not, someone's will is being forced on someone else. Period. At the moment, the will of someone who believes abortion is not only acceptable but indeed preferable (I don't mean you) is being forced on those of us who believe abortion is murder. That is the fact. So that argument is only valid if you can truly achieve a state where NO ONE actually influence anyone else. Guess what? Reality seems to trump that myth and superstition, every single time. Somebody is forced to accept the will of somebody else.
Now, I apologize for the yelling.
As for the part about "advocating forcing somoen to do something that will change their life forever," hello! This moment has been arrived at by a continuous process of doing something that will change your life forever. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not lacking in either sympathy or empathy for women who are faced with this choice. One of the great tragedies of this entire debate has been how we Pro-Lifers have allowed the conversation to be manuevered into a "woman v fetus" position. And there are many Christian organizations out there that are set up to help pregnant women who are in bad situations. But to make that statement implies, no it outright states, that this moment is divorced from all other moments that have occurred along the way. If only it were true. And to say that I am taking no responsibility other than the moment I "force my will" upon them is (and this is being charitable) a huge assumption as to both motive and action.
But let me put it this way. If you had it the way you seem to want, I would be forced to submit to your will instead of standing up for human beings, made in the image of God, who are not able to speak for themselves. An action which you would take no responsibility for after the moment your will was forced upon me.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, when one points out facts, they are forcing their will upon those who believe otherwise.
That would be the pointing out of facts to Pro-Lifers who believe otherwise.
Yes, Crisis Pregnancy Centers have been reported to spread false medical information, most are not licensed and provide no medical services whatsoever. Legal action has been taken against them in order to curb their deceptive and dishonest tactics.
Totally wrong. People can speak for themselves, you are not required to stand up for anyone in the name of your God. That's how conflict and wars get started.
Too clever by half, atmo
The facts being pointed out are too well known to us. Emile was making a philosophical statement, and I was pointing out the flaws in said philosophy as well as the practical outcome of it.
Unborn babies cannot speak for themselves. Unless you count "Silent Scream."
I daresay that Crisis Pregnancy Centers have done more than you ever have for scared, confused teenage girls in trouble. They provide support, money, food, clothing. If I read you literally here, you'd just throw them to the wolves. Nor are they the only organizations I was speaking of.
Conflicts and wars get started for all kinds of reasons. If you want to quote history, learn it.
So, you're here to speak for unborn babies?
Even though, you have absolutely nothing to do with them?
Really? Then, why were the authorities forced to take legal action against the fact they do nothing but spread lies and deceit?
So, in your world, it is better to evangelize your religion to pregnant women or the other option is to throw them to the wolves.
"So, you're here to speak for unborn babies?
Even though, you have absolutely nothing to do with them?"
Yes (I and others like myself) because they are human beings made in the image of God, just like you and me. So no, it's not like I have absolutely nothing to do with them. They need to be protected, and the mothers need to be helped, which is what organizations do.
"Really? Then, why were the authorities forced to take legal action against the fact they do nothing but spread lies and deceit?"
What lies and deceit did they spread?
"So, in your world, it is better to evangelize your religion to pregnant women or the other option is to throw them to the wolves."
Ah, your skill at twisting words almost sounds like the product of actual thinking.
No, it is better to evangelize the truth to everybody, who can accept or reject it as they see fit. YOU are the one who would simply throw them to the wolves, which is what I said. You bring nothing in the way of a positive solution to the debate, you simply deride what you don't agree with. So in your world the innocent baby is sliced up and thrown away, then the mother goes on her merry way with no one checking to see if she's okay, if she has any regrets (which not all women do, but some do) or if she's still in the same kind of bad situation she was in in the first place. Who cares? We don't impose our will, and that's all that matters, right? Hey, they're certainly not your responsibility, the only thing you need to do is laugh at me and you're all right with the world.
Hilarious. It's no wonder why your religion causes so many conflicts and wars, simply because it's followers want to rule over how they believe everyone should behave and be treated.
They do not need your protection nor have they asked for it, hence you are forcing your beliefs onto others.
Are you saying that because you truly don't know about the government bills like the “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Services Act” for example?
No, it isn't, that's what causes conflict and wars. See history.
How dishonest of you. You want to force your religion on others and when others don't want your religion forced on us, it is derision and not a positive solution. Again, how very dishonest of you.
Obviously, you don't, all you care about is evangelizing your truth.
Yes, you do.
And, they are not yours, either.
"It is one of the most selfish and disrespectful things you can do. People can find Jesus on their own if THEY want, not if YOU want."
I'm sorry that you're so angry about this. But let me be clear, I don't want to force anyone to practice my religion. If everyone knew God and understood the gift that Jesus gave, then that would be indeed a blessed thing. But I'm not advocating a theocracy, nor are any of the preachers I respect and listen to. Nor does the Bible.
No, you're not. If you were sorry, you would stop.
Yes, you do, you are commanded by Jesus.
No, it would be a very bad thing as the world would crumble and we would all go back to the Dark Ages.
Yes, you are advocating theocracy and so are the preachers.
Please try hard not to make false statements in light of the facts.
"They do not need your protection nor have they asked for it, hence you are forcing your beliefs onto others."
Some day, you may be lying in a bed, unable to speak for yourself and depending on people like you for care and sustenance. And they may turn out to have your basic attitude. So remember that you said that, and when. The unborn cannot ask for themselves, but that doesn't mean they don't need it.
And we don't want to rule the world.
FTLT - bye!
<--- coveted double laughie award
So, you dishonestly compare the infirm to pregnant women as some sort of reason for you to force your beliefs down our throats.
The unborn are not your problem, you have nothing to do with them, they are the responsibility of the mothers, not you waving a bible in your hand spreading the gospel looking for converts.
"Yes, you are advocating theocracy and so are the preachers."
No, I'm not, and neither are any of the ones I listen to.
I'll give you one more chance. Show me where I advocated theocracy. You can't do it, but if you think you can, then do so.
Otherwise, the lie that lets you stay angry and indignant is more important than the truth that might not be so comfortable (and yes, I mean for you, ATM. If you try to apply that to me, you simply prove me right yet again.)
And if so, I invoke Matthew 7:6.
"I call your Matthew 7:6 and raise you a 2 Chronicles 15:13."
Impressive! Finally and at last you say something that makes some kind of sense to people who don't actually understand what's going on!
Boy it took you long enough! I was really thinking that you just enjoyed being a jerk!
Of course, you understand that OT passages like that were specifically applied to the Israelites during that period of time, not anybody else at any other time, right? I mean, you are that smart, aren't you?
In other words, I see your 2 Chronicles 15:13 and raise you a Matthew 5:38-42!
You may not be a waste of time after all!
So, let me see if I follow your argument. Your belief trumps the reality of another person's life? How convenient for you.
So, your belief gets to influence others because....what? Are you that special? Do you see how foolish that argument is? Does that mean we have to cater to the beliefs of every person in America? Put them on the same footing as the reality we know? Do you understand how ludicrous that sounds?
No, only if they have to kowtow to your belief structure. Only if they are expected to live in spiritual slavery to your ideas of right and wrong. Slavery ended a century ago. As much as you would like to control the lives of others. It's illegal.
And you perceive that as a tragedy because the truth is that is the bottom line. That is the debate and you cannot support your stance. You cannot prove your points. It is all faith on your part and you attempt to shove your beliefs into the arena of reality. I have no sympathy for the fact that you have failed to prove your points.
THat may be so, but you are doing nothing. Nothing more than spouting off about murder. You run the risk of bashing innocent women Chris. With every word. That is a reality. That is not a belief. How do you feel about that?
No, what it implies is that you are assuming you have the right to take one moment of another person's life and force them to choose what you prefer that they do. Grow a uterus Chris. Then you might, and that is a tiny might, be in a position to express an opinion without sounding judgemental and chauvinistic.
No, it's obvious your participation ends after you condemn others. If not, please tell me how many children you have adopted? How many unwed mothers have you helped?
No, you would be forced to not believe that your beliefs are on the same footing as another person's reality. You would be forced to live by your own standards and let others do the same.
I do take responsibilty for my actions Chris. But, my telling you that a woman's body is none of your business does not create a mouth to feed or a butt to wipe. It doesn't almost guarantee that you will fall into poverty. It doesn't create a burden on the state. It doesn't jeapordize a child to live in a situation where they are unwanted or unloved. It doesn't do a thing except to remind you to mind your own business.
I will give you points for consistency and loyalty to your beliefs. You completely missed what I was saying, which I think was a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
That may well be, but I have lived among the religious for the better part of my life. I have heard the arguments in depth. I have questioned, as deeply as I know how, the morality of the topic.
I cannot, in good conscience, accept the religious stance. It is not in keeping with a loving and caring attitude toward my fellow man. Nor is it in step with the spirit of the constitution.
If the religious truly cared, they would take the needs of everyone involved into account. They would actively work to create an environment where their beliefs did not endanger the welfare and happiness of both parties. But, all we see is self righteous pandering. Holier than thou attitudes that seek to condemn women who are probably struggling with an unbearable emotional decision. We see hatred in action. Never love. Of course I will always vehemently oppose the anti abortion stance, until such time as they offer a compassionate and viable alternative.
"I cannot, in good conscience, accept the religious stance. It is not in keeping with a loving and caring attitude toward my fellow man. Nor is it in step with the spirit of the constitution."
Then I would suggest you have lived among the wrong religious people, because that is incorrect on both counts. First, let me state categorically that, whether you agree with this or not and whether this is the message that you gotten from Christians or not, the most loving thing we can do is point people to Jesus. We are ALL sinners and the Bible teaches that ALL SIN leads to death (i.e. Hell and damnation.) Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is the only thing that can save us from that. I know you probably don't agree with that, you may even have negative feelings based upon that statement and if you do, I'm sorry. The church has a terrible record of helping people to understand what we're saying, and I've been guilty of that too.
The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. Certainly not all of them were, but many of them were even Ministers of the Gospel. I find it hard to believe that most of them would call it a "living document" where you can find almost any right you wish.
It is one of the most selfish and disrespectful things you can do. People can find Jesus on their own if THEY want, not if YOU want.
Yes, we all know the religious fantasy.
But, that won't stop you from continuing the terrible record.
That is yet another fantasy.
Chris, the only way to point people toward Jesus, in my opinion, is to walk in his footsteps. Live your life in a manner that keeps with loving your God and your neighbor as yourself. Not your potential neighbors. Not what may, or may not, at that moment be a neighbor. Love the ones you have right now. Jesus was an example of a life well lived. If you want to draw people to the idea; follow his example. None of you are Jesus, but you can walk in his footsteps as best you can.
When you open your mouth and start preaching to us about your ideas of sin and judgement you are following Paul's example. You are following the example of evangelical ministers. You are pointing people in the direction of these examples. Not the example of a man who taught to never judge, that only God was good, and that those who seek to show their piety in public will receive no rewards for their efforts.
And, I don't doubt that many of the founding fathers were Christian men. I do know that many Christian people were mistreated by other Christian people. I do know that many Christian sects attempted to push their ideas and agendas on other Christian sects. I do know that the forefathers of one of the largest evangelical Christian sects in America today are the ones who fought most vehemently and spoke the most eloquently against the behavior you are now exhibiting. They spoke in favor of complete and total separation of church and state; because they saw what you cannot see. Complete freedom of conscience is the only manner by which any government can fully ensure that everyone is given the latitude to find the truth within themselves that is right for them.
I realize you cannot accept this, but you are advocating spiritual slavery. If you badger and push a person into accepting your view through guilt you have not saved them; no matter how pious you feel when condemning them.
And once the Constitution is seen by the majority of Americans through your eyes; once the majority decides that it is not a 'living document' we all lose. Because only by accepting that the will and needs of the people are always first and foremost in importance can we all be free. When you kill off the spirit of the constitution you automatically lose the ability to ensure the right of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"You apparently are someone whose primary function is to foster ill will. Is that a religious mandate, or do you do it just for the fun of it?"
I've noticed that those among whom I foster ill will are those among whom ill will toward my point of view already exists. I seek honest debate and usually get anger.
BTW - Once the Constitution is seen by the majority of Americans as a "living document" we all lose, for 2 reasons -
1) The God-given rights of people to pursue their own happiness are erased in favor of "rights" of whoever can make the "living document" say what they want it to say. It eventually becomes a winner-take-all firefight where honest debate and what might really be best for society are subsume to the desires of people to do whatever they want even at the expense of everybody else.
2) The limited powers of the federal government enumerated in the Constitution become window dressing as the government takes more and more power to do anthing they want. It starts with stuff that sounds good, but it will end with marshal law.
I don't think you get anger Chris. It appears to me that people respond in kind. That makes you angry. You need to ask yourself why.
But, I think we both think we view the constitution in a similar manner, our agendas are simply different. I think you are blinded to the needs of others by your religion. I don't think you can honestly assess how your behavior inhibits the rights of others because your religion prohibits it.
The spirit of the constitution stands in defiance of your beliefs. To honor your desire to enforce your religious views on others would kill the spirit. To allow the religious the right to define the rights as enumerated in the constitution would push us toward marshal law because you are demanding the right to do what you want at the expense of others. You can't see it because you are blinded by faith in your idea of a god.
I don't get angry. At least not most of the time, but I can honestly say that I have never responded to you in anger.
I don't see my religion as blinding me to people's needs, quite the opposite. Now, as "inhibiting the rights" of others, you have a kind of point. If you define the "rights" as being able to do whatever you want as long as you "don't hurt others" (which is pretty nebuluous and invites abuse) then you're right, my religion does inhibit the "rights" of others, but only those others who actually subscribe to my religion. Not, and please let me be clear about this, not people who subscribe to my religion. Other agencies define and inhibit those rights, including law, courts, police, and the Constitution.
You insist on believing that I personally want to enshrine my beliefs as law and back them up with the force of the police. Let me state - AGAIN - that I have no such desire. In fact, I don't think theocracy is even possible in 21st Century America. So, you don't understand what I want or why. Especially when you accuse me of the very thing that I have warned you would happen if everybody were to view the document as a "living document." Rights will be eroded and the state will define who gets to do what, when and where, and what people are allowed to say (in direct contradiction to the Constitution.) That's not my "idea of a god" talking, that's an understanding of the Constitution actually says coupled with a pretty fair knowledge of history. Study the French and Russian revolutions to see where these things can lead.
I know four women who have had abortions. One I've lost touch with so I haven't been able to use her as an example to watch and ponder on. But two of the ones I know have learned from their youth and are strong women who would probably eat you alive in an argument on women's choice. I think they know their previous decisions were short sighted on some levels, and the only option they had at the time on others. They have learned, forgiven themselves for any part they felt they had done wrong and moved on.
The other wouldn't admit her actions for the world. She condemns others as vigorously as you do. She raised a couple of brats to follow in her footsteps. The sad part of it is, I think she participates in it all as some bizarre and perverted penance. She lives in a hell of her own design. I often wonder how many of the pro lifers are the same. Bashing others because they can't come to terms with decisions they made in their own lives.
Abortion should not be an option anyone has to consider. But life isn't always fair. We have actively participated in creating a society that celebrates sexual prowess of men and the size of a woman's boobs. We've allowed hormones to be infused in our commercial food supply so that our children reach maturity at a younger and younger age. They are bombarded with images of sex and innuendo from the moment they watch their first cartoon. They are weaned on it and then, when they reach puberty, we throw a half hearted comment out about how great it would be if they ignore everything we've taught them and abstain. It's not going to happen.
We have children having children. I know this because my son and his girlfriend did the same. I lived in two years of hell mopping up the mess that immature and manipulative girl created. She had a child for selfish reasons not because of maternal instincts. I am proud of my son's behavior throughout it all, but he is emotionally scarred from the experience. I paid to have the girl educated because I knew it would eventually boil down to divorce and I didn't want him strapped for life financially.
I love the kid to death, but had I the chance to do it again I would stilll advise abortion. Her mother was lucky, I think. But what of the young girls who don't manipulate others successfully. What happens to the children they bear? They didn't want them, they were simply a tool. A means to an end. Your stand condemns those children to a life unloved and unwanted.
We need to change the way we view it all. Top to bottom. But until you change the way society views it all, until you implement a system where people look at life head on and accept that abstinence is not a realistic form of birth control; until we ensure that young girls are protected against themselves until they are mature enough to make adult and life changing decisions they wil get pregnant. And as long as we don't expect them to take full responsibility, as long as they can use pregnancy as a means to manipulate the lives of others; girls will get pregnant. Accidentally at times, and cold and calculated at others.
Things aren't perfect. But you cannot remove abortion as an option, because it is impossible to correct the problems that exist in our society that make it a necessary tool. I would have more respect for pro lifers if they attacked the problems head on, instead of blowing steam at one of the symptoms.
I forgot to add, if you truly are only expressing an opinion and not attempting to imply that laws should be changed, I guess I can respect that. Just don't be so hard hearted with your comments. Some women who have had abortions will always struggle with that decision. They need to know that all things can be put in perspective and, if they lean toward religion, all things can be forgiven. We all make choices we might have made differently; at another moment in our lives. None of us has the right to contribute to the emotional pain of others.
“ But two of the ones I know have learned from their youth and are strong women who would probably eat you alive in an argument on women's choice.”
That sounds like an invitation to an argument. I'm not trying to argue. I don't want to fight just to fight. But this does speak to two things I have said repeatedly:
1) That the argument has been maneuvered into “Women's Rights” vs. “The Rights of the Baby” is a great injustice, to the mothers and the babies, and society in general, which feeds into -
2) The situation is certainly more complicated than is normally expressed. Emotions running high can make for good television, but they make terrible debate.
“She condemns others as vigorously as you do.”
You read a lot into what I say. I keep saying that I don't condemn anyone, that I have a lot of sympathy and compassion for these women. I don't really want to get into a fight with you either, but I fail to understand why you keep categorizing me like this when I don't say or think or feel so many of the things you claim I do.
“Bashing others because they can't come to terms with decisions they made in their own lives.”
I don't know how many pro-lifers are like that. There are some. There are also pro-choicers who are the same way, bashing others because they made bad decisions they don't want to face up to. It's easy to categorize. It's difficult to lead.
“Abortion should not be an option anyone has to consider. But life isn't always fair. We have actively participated in creating a society that celebrates sexual prowess of men and the size of a woman's boobs. We've allowed hormones to be infused in our commercial food supply so that our children reach maturity at a younger and younger age. They are bombarded with images of sex and innuendo from the moment they watch their first cartoon. They are weaned on it and then, when they reach puberty, we throw a half hearted comment out about how great it would be if they ignore everything we've taught them and abstain. It's not going to happen.”
Until you got to that last sentence, I wondered if we were really on different sides of this debate. For the record let me state that I agree with everything you wrote except that last part.
Now, to be honest, abstinence has never been quite as prevalent as I wish it had been. There were shotgun weddings centuries before there were shotguns. And I don't think that complete abstinence across society is going to happen short of a Revival or another Great Awakening. Nevertheless, just because some/most/a lot of kids won't practice it is no reason to give up on them. Instead of throwing out half-hearted comments about it, we should strive to show what the true value of saving yourself for the person you marry really is.
“They didn't want them, they were simply a tool. A means to an end. Your stand condemns those children to a life unloved and unwanted.”
I follow what you're saying. I do feel bad for your situation, and it certainly wasn't right. But are the kids really unloved and unwanted? And even if they are truly unwanted, are they unworthy? Are we just animals, suitable for throwing away if inconvenient?
I don't mean to minimize what you've gone through or what anyone else goes through, please don't think that. But humans are so much more than mere flesh and bone.
I disagree that abortion is a necessary tool to correct any wrongs in our society. Whether abstinence is in any way realistic or not, I think the presence of abortion – on the whole, not in every individual case – compounds the problem. It causes just as much if not more heartache than it prevents. And I believe human beings are made in the image of God, which makes every human life infinitely valuable. Every single one.
I've known three women who I know for sure had abortions. I'm sure I've known many who have but had no reason to tell me. It's not my business. Of the three, I don't know how one felt because we lost touch. One already had a child. She acted like it was no big deal, but you knew she was just faking it. The third one has been open about her abortion and how it drove her to be more pro-life (not unlike Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade.) I have three children and one of them is special needs. You would not believe the number of times we were advised to abort our children (my wife is sick and has been for longer than we've been married.) Abortion is simply not the answer to society's ills.
“until we ensure that young girls are protected against themselves until they are mature enough to make adult and life changing decisions they will get pregnant.”
Not trying to play psychoanalyst here, but I found it interesting that you picked out girls. Don't boys also need “protection from themselves”? Part of the problem is that, arguments about women's rights notwithstanding, this is still a masculine-oriented society (as your statement about “a society that celebrates sexual prowess of men and the size of a woman's boobs” so amply demonstrates, which I agree with.) Teen girls get into sex, not only earlier but also into more of what used to be considered weird behavior (like kissing other girls at parties for the amusement of boys) because it gets them attention from boys. This is not to minimize what happened to you or your son. There are plenty of immature and self-centered girls. But you can't single them out.
You are exactly right about the boys. I think teenage girls get under my collar because I have worked in environments where we cater to teens and I've shaken my head at the behavior of the young girls. I've rolled my eyes at the foolish naivete of the parents. In the age brackets I've observed the most, it is the young girls who are the aggressor. Every one of them needs to be validated and the boys become men in the process.
I honestly believe that a large part of our problem is an inability to take personal responsibility. We make so many excuses for ourselves any time we do something wrong. We don't see it because we are so engrossed in watching and commenting on the behavior of others. We don't give them the benefit of the doubt. We don't attempt to understand them, and we certainly would never deign to find the good because we want, so very much, to condemn them for their actions. The children are watching, and learning, as we selfishly conduct our lives.
If we all spent more time living up to the standards we claim, we would be examples. And that is the only way the world can change. Words mean nothing. We all know how empty they can be.
People in positions such as the one I find myself in can only make a difference with the example of their lives and by attempting to be there for those whose lives they interact with. I think that is true of most of us. Our lives don't intersect with the women who read your rhetoric. All they hear is the word murder. Do you honestly believe this is a positive impact? Are you projecting love and compassion toward the eyes that read your posts? It doesn't matter how noble you perceive your motivation..it is your words they read.. That is your action. Living, breathing human beings are hurt. Do you honestly think you do more good than harm with these actions?
"You are exactly right about the boys. I think teenage girls get under my collar because I have worked in environments...Words mean nothing. We all know how empty they can be."
Well said, sir!
I have tried several times to clarify what I mean when I use the word "murder." Still, your point is taken. Most people don't really read the entire train of thought, especially if it is broken up over several different posts, sometimes weeks apart from each other. Most people look at the buzzwords and really don't see beyond that.
That having been said, I can't back down from the point I'm making just because there are people who will take it the wrong way, no matter why they do it.
However, there are ways to say it more compassionately and more accurately.
That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with me. Heck, before I became a Christian, I wouldn't agree with me either. I'm truly sorry for that.
But you're right, living and breathing human beings are hurt. Either way. And they are hurting, either way. That's the real tragedy.
You are right. We don't have to agree. But we do have to talk. It is so much easier to do that when both sides refrain from using rhetoric that is generated by emotion and designed to illicit an emotional response. If the pro lifers could simply approach the subject with the delicacy it demands, I think you would be surprised at how receptive others might be to the input. But so much of it really does come off as a slap in the face condemnation, that those of us who do want to see both sides stand squarely in the camp of pro choice.
Communication is essential, and I'm glad that you and I, at least, can do that.
"You apparently are someone whose primary function is to foster ill will. Is that a religious mandate, or do you do it just for the fun of it?"
To answer you a little more directly and a little less snarkily - No, my primary function is NOT to create ill will. That ill will is created is because -
a) I have a definite and well-thought out point of view that is not compatible with the way a lot of people view the world. Many of the people I disagree with will take something that I've written, filter it through their worldview, then react to something that I didn't actually say.
b) I don't always help my own case. More often than I would like to admit, I've allowed myself to get into a position where the perceived need to respond to something quickly means the response is less thoughtful than I would like.
c) The soundbite nature of forums. Although you and I have for the most part given fairly lengthy responses to each other, most of the time the give and take of these forums not only discourages but actively works against thoughtful debate.
This also works into what I said about ill will engendering where it already existed. People who already tend to view you a certain way (even without ever knowing anything about you other than some neat definition they fit you into) will often react more to the way they view you than to who you actually are. I've found that to be true a lot. Sometimes I will say something and the response that comes back - even quoting me! - will be like they talked to a totally different person.
Que sera, sera.
I do look for people who give thoughtful answers, and I've appreciated that you have been one of those people.
I've often wondered at the need to respond to replies whose only intend is to belittle. We all do it. I think, because we like to read what we type.
I don't see a great deal of use in attempting to debate when people willfully pervert my intent. Miscommunication is bound to happen, but when it is clear the other party isn't listening; I am left to wonder at their purpose.
Sometimes, I think the most valuable lessons I have learned are that I wasn't thinking clearly and my behavior, as viewed by others, warranted such a flippant and callous response.
I'm not implying that is true for you, but if everything one says comes off as arrogant and insensitive; sometimes others are compelled to reflect.
Yet, in reality on this planet, the real harm comes from those who believe and evangelize myths and superstitions compared with those who don't believe in them.
Funny how reality seems to trump those myths and superstitions.
Actually this would be a great hub.
Jesus did say He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.
God did say He knit us together in our mother's wombs.
By that logic, then it is society that defines the right to be called a person. In other words, there is not intrinsic "person" as such, there is only what the society (which inevitably will mean the state) chooses to grant the definition to.
Which make slavery and incest okay, by the way, as long as someone can get the state to declare that the slaves or the relatives are not really fully autonomous human beings.
Why? What makes them not a human being while they are still in the womb, or in the birth canal?
Would a 26 week-old baby taken from the mother for whatever reason and being kept alive on a respirator in an incubator with a feeding tube really have a better claim on "personhood" than a 35 week-old baby still in the mother's womb? Why?
A person is defined as an individual, before you are born you are not. Human does not mean the same as person.
You couldn't be more incorrect.
Person-a human being
human-relating to a person
They why were women and blacks at one time not classified as persons? Person is a legal term...
By this same type of analogy... Blacks were Slaves... slaves could be beaten or killed legally as they were property and not human according to the laws of the time... Did that really make them any less alive??? or any less Human??? No, but the hardness of peoples hearts allowed them to exist in that state of legalized brutality...
But if "person" is strictly a legal term, then only what the state chooses to legally define as a person has any rights. In which case Dred Scott was perfectly acceptable because blacks were not defined as full persons in a legal sense. Of course it was wrong, but it was legal. However, it is the exact logic that makes Roe v. Wade acceptable, because rightly or wrongly, we define the mother as a full person and the unborn child as not being a person at all. If the unborn child had a legal definition of personhood, then abortion would be much harder to justify. And remember that Roe v. Wade defined the "right" to abortion for any reason or no reason at all.
That having been said, that doesn't mean I think it's easy for the women to make this decision. There's a lot that goes into the decision to abort. So please don't think I'm demonizing women who choose, for whatever reason, to have the procedure performed.
A Troubled Man Wrote:
I believe that the procedure should be outlawed...
The keywords in that statement is I BELIEVE which is clearly not a case of my dictating anything to anyone else.
As examples, I BELIEVE there should be world peace -- I BELIEVE that everyone in the U.S. should have health-insurance coverage -- I BELIEVE that the rate of poverty should not be as high as it is in the U.S. -- I BELIEVE that every child in America should get enough to eat every day -- I BELIEVE that all of the roads and bridges in the U.S. should always be in good repair -- I BELIEVE that I should not have to explain that I BELIEVE qualifies a statement as an opinion or personal code -- and that those two words make it clear that what is said is not a direction, dictate or an attempt by one to impose his will on others.
To say that you believe abortion is wrong could certainly be viewed as a statement of your personal code. Saying that you believe the procedure should be outlawed is saying that you believe everyone should live by your personal code.
Do you see the difference?
Someone posted this on my wall in another site...
thought it was relative to this discussion so here it is.. enjoy:
Would you consider abortion in the following situations?
1. There's a preacher and wife who are very, very, poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with her 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty, and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. 1st is blind, 2nd is dead, 3rd is deaf, 4th has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?
4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Her fiance is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion?
In the first case, you have just killed John Wesley. One of the great evangelists in the 19th century.
In the second case, you have killed Beethoven.
In the third case, you have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.
If you said yes to the fourth case, you have just declared the murder of Jesus Christ!
SAY NO TO ABORTION AND REMAIN BLESSED.
Evangelizing does not make one great, quite the contrary.
It could be just been as easy to say that abortion could have killed Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Your point is entirely moot.
No, the point is good. Just because the villains could have been killed does not render the point that great people could have been killed moot. Abortion is still wrong.
Yes, it does.
So sayeth the believer with nothing to support his claim other than scriptures.
Good point... In other words: Abortion Kills Human Beings... good and bad.
Is killing innocent victims ever Moral???
It is not moral and it is like killing the self, there is no purpose in it, but it happens. Death is an unfortunate side effect of living and it is visited upon all. Accepting it won't take the sting out of it, but it makes it easier to avoid harming others.
No it is not, the point of my question was for them to search themselves and hopefully find the correct answer, because everyone knows it.
The Zygote is a fully formed strand of DNA, which represents in whole, an individual.
Thus, you have a live person.
So now a strand of DNA is a live person?
So DNA is not alive?
And DNA does not represent an individual?
I think you need to go read up on the subject.
DNA represents every known living organism on the planet.
Your DNA is also YOU.
Your statements show your lack of understanding, troub.
One question. A piece of your DNA is unique to you. If you extract a DNA sample from me, does that sample become a living breathing human being? Are we going to have the religious start screaming that we are killing babies in a DNA test?
In todays laboratories... yes it can continue to be a living person.
ie; cloning. IVF, etc...
No. It can't. No one has cloned a human. That I am aware of.
Only because it is illegal and against all morals and ethics as of yet.
But the tech is there.
And IVF occurrs every day. And test-tube babies have been born.
So yes it can.
The tech is not necessarily there. Not to successfully clone a human. You can't make a claim that hasn't been proven possible to be done successfully.
And a test tube baby is not a strand of DNA. You are grasping at straws.
What does IVF have to do with this?
We clone sheep, organs... so why not a person/
the tech is there... the will is not.
And IVF creates the Embryo outside the body then impants it... that requires the creation of a Zygote... and onward from there.
No. simply because you can clone a sheep does not mean you can successfully clone a human. That's like saying since we have a space shuttle we can easily build an intergalactic ship.
And you still haven't proven that a strand of DNA, a zygote, or even an embryo is a person. You are simply repeating yourself.
I said it is representative of an individual.
And you can say the tech isn't there... I say it is.
Just because we do not do it... does not mean we cannot do it.
The tech is there to try. There is no guarantee it would succeed.
And, as is typical of believers, you began with a bold claim and have now pared it back to something different, claiming this what you said in the first place. Because you can't support the initial statement with fact. Not very original, but not unexpected.
What are you talking about?
I have stated that a Zygote is a fully formed strand of DNA and is representative of that specific individual, and it being alive satifies the individual life definition. it is an individual person... no other like him/her in the world. Unless there is a twin.
That is a scientific fact.
You can follow troubs BS about DNA representing all life and yes there is truth in that. But that Zygote has trait functions and expressions that create a specific individual.
You asked if it could live outside the body... today it could.
That is a scientific fact.
So do not try to twist this into a you win BS line.
I have stated what I said and stand behind it.
That Zygote represents and individual and is alive... both parameters met.
Individual and alive.
You stated e Zygote is a fully formed strand of DNA, which represents in whole, an individual. Thus, you have a live person.
You haven't proven it is a person. Repeating yourself is not tantamount to proving your argument. Not everything that lives is a person, no matter how much you really, really need to believe it to be so.
Many people like to believe that cats and dogs have no sentience, but they enjoy our company. Do they not? We'd like to believe we are the pinnacle of creation, but that is what we'd like to believe. We put ourselve's at the top of creation and are not willing to come down.
What else is that Zygote ?
A monkey... no.
It is a person in its earliest stage of life... like an adolescent, adult, etc.
Just another stage in LIFE.
So what? Your argument is invalid simply because all living things have DNA, hence it is as reprehensible for a woman to have an abortion as it is to pick a small spud potato out of the ground and eat it, based on your logic.
When an individual gains wisdom; I think that makes him a person.
When one can look after one with some independence.
1. Accumulated knowledge, erudition or enlightenment
2. The trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight
3. Ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding or common sense and insight
4. The quality of being prudent and sensible
Your definition of wisdom does not fit, by any means, stringent molds of wisdom as defined by the dictionary. I do know that I asked you your definition, but maybe you should reconsider how you define wisdom.
We see a man walking in the street; most of the time just with a glance we know the person is a normal sensible person or not; this much is enough for observation.
Honestly? I don't know. Maybe its not a specific point. One second just a bit of protoplasm, next moment a 'proper person' doesn't sound right to me.
I decided a long time ago that I was capable of making sure I don't find myself pregnant and in need of an abortion (outside of the rape scenario of course) and that I would choose not to have an abortion in this life. I imagined it would be more traumatic then I could handle. This might not be the case for other women and until I have the god like supreme powers to know what other women are capable of, I shall avoid trying to impose my views/opinions on them or judge them. When I have total and complete knowledge of everything in all of time and space, maybe then I will be in a position to judge and dictate to others what is right and wrong but until that day..... *sigh*
"Jesus was an example of a life well lived. If you want to draw people to the idea; follow his example"
Yet Jesus taught that man goes to Hell. There are many verses on it. He taught that He is the only way to Heaven. He taught that He is equal to God. If I say these things, I am preaching "my" ideas about sin and judgement and parroting Paul, yet it was Jesus who said these things. Jesus told the woman to stop sinning. He preached that those who claimed His name but did not do what He said were going to Hell. Yet it is unloving to point this out.
Yes, He did teach "Judge not lest you be judged." Who, exactly, did He say that to and why?
Yes, He did teach that public piety for its own sake will receive the reward due it on earth on none in Heaven. That goes back to His teaching about those who claimed His name but did not do what He said to do.
He taught that only God is good, but that means that sinful man cannot merit any favor with a Good, Perfect and Just God. Only His sacrifice can achieve that. If you read His words (not Paul's) then it's impossible to think that all can be saved, that there will be no suffering and that the world would be a better place if we just kept our noses out of others' business. That doesn't mean we can but in whereever we want, but it does mean that we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand.
"Complete freedom of conscience is the only manner by which any government can fully ensure that everyone is given the latitude to find the truth within themselves that is right for them." That's kind of what the early settlers and Founding Fathers had in mind. They absolutely wanted a place where they could worship God as they saw fit, without the government tellling them how to worship. That is what America was founded upon. But it was freedom TO worship, not freedom FROM worship they sought.
Yes, you are absolutely right about the mistreatment of Christians by other Christians. It happens when the spiritual realm strives for temporal power. I would love to say that it's not true, but I know history all too well to say otherwise.
"They spoke in favor of complete and total separation of church and state" Yes they did. They spoke in favor of the government staying out of the church so that people could be free to worship as they chose (also known as the Abridgement Clause of the Constitution.) None of them advocated for religion to be shuttered off in a corner and told to shut up about public worship. As a Christian, I don't mean that only Christians should be allowed to worship. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims and Jews should also be accorded that God-given right.
"I realize you cannot accept this, but you are advocating spiritual slavery." There's nothing like a sweeping assumption, insultingly made, to show that you're the more open-minded party in this debate. However, no, I am saying that the only true freedom lies in Jesus Christ. You don't have to accept it. But telling you about it is not the same as forcing my will upon you. If you don't want to read my responses, then leave the argument. That's obviously not what I want, but neither is slavery. I want you to be truly free and alive in the Spirit of God.
Nor have I "killed off" the spirit of the Constitution. Free debate is necessary and a point of view is essential.
Okee dokee Chris. That is what you want to focus on, that is your decision. It's really sad, though. He taught so much more and you just want to beleive you are better than others, so you focus on the fact that you believe you get a free ticket out of hell and everyone else has to worry about it. It's your life. Definitely not one I would want to lead.
That's rich. You ignore the entire point that the tale was retold. He advised that if there was a person without sin, they should cast the first stone. That was the point. Or, are you without sin so therefore qualified to continue to cast stones at the poor women who have enough on their minds where they shouldn't have to worry about a holier than thou attitude.
I think you know that. People such as yourself. The ones accusing someone else of sins. You know, kind of like telling a woman she is murdering a baby when she has an abortion.
It wasn't meant as an insult Chris, simply a fact. When you use words like murder in a conversation about abortion; you are speaking from your beliefs on what you have been taught that God would want. God is considered to be spirit. You are asking others to fall in line with your understang of the spirit. If you badger them into believing that they are sinning; that is spiritual slavery. If you are offended; you have only offended yourself.
I thought we were having a discussion. It's an argument?
You are the one who said that I had no right to consider the Constitution a living document. So, do you want to kill the spirit, or not? You have to make up your mind.
“Okee dokee Chris. That is what you want to focus on, that is your decision. It's really sad, though. He taught so much more and you just want to believe you are better than others, so you focus on the fact that you believe you get a free ticket out of hell and everyone else has to worry about it. It's your life. Definitely not one I would want to lead. “
No, you are wrong. He did teach so much more, I was the one pointing that out. You focused on loving your neighbor, then went on to define neighbor in such a way as to say you were off the hook about the unborn. I disagree, and my reasoning is based on everything, everything, that Jesus taught in the Bible. He taught us to love our neighbor, and that our neighbor is the one we would least think of as our neighbor as well as the one who we would most think of as such. You are my neighbor. Muqtada al Sadr is my neighbor. And unborn children are my neighbor.
Jesus' death IS a free ticket out of hell. Not just for me or people who think like me, but for you, and TroubledMan and kirstenblog and parrysurrey and CastlePoloma and everyone else who has ever lived. The thing is, you have to accept it. Everyone has to worry about it, and if you think I don't worry about it or don't think I need to then you truly don't understand this point at all. And you shouldn't want to lead my life. Everyone has to work out their own salvation.
“That's rich. You ignore the entire point that the tale was retold. He advised that if there was a person without sin, they should cast the first stone. That was the point. Or, are you without sin so therefore qualified to continue to cast stones at the poor women who have enough on their minds where they shouldn't have to worry about a holier than thou attitude.”
Do I? Retold by whom? Eyewitnesses? Yes, by eyewitnesses. Matthew and John were were eyewitnesses, Mark knew Peter, another eyewitness. Luke talked to a lot of different eyewitnesses. And no one who was around at the time ever was recorded as saying, “No, that didn't happen. He didn't feed those people, he didn't heal that blind man, he didn't say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.”
To say that I am casting stones at the women is a misrepresentation of what I have repeatedly said, to you and to TroubledMan and everyone else here. Wanting to preserve the life of the baby and also take care of the needs of the women who may not have resources of their own is what I have said, and it's not casting stones. If you don't believe me, go back and look at my posts. And it doesn't come from a place of being holier than anyone else, it comes from a knowledge of just how unholy I am compared to the living God.
“I think you know that. People such as yourself. The ones accusing someone else of sins. You know, kind of like telling a woman she is murdering a baby when she has an abortion.”
This goes back to a point I have made several times, where it's a tragedy that we have allowed this conversation to be about the woman vs. the baby. It's not, it's about both. But answer me this, then, why do so many women (not all, but many) when they have had an abortion, immediately think, “I've killed my baby.” Don't think that happens? Then try doing the research and talking to more than a handful of women who have had abortions. And answer me this, why are there so many conservative religious organizations that try to help the women? Is that casting stones?
“It wasn't meant as an insult Chris, simply a fact. When you use words like murder in a conversation about abortion; you are speaking from your beliefs on what you have been taught that God would want. God is considered to be spirit. You are asking others to fall in line with your understanding of the spirit. If you badger them into believing that they are sinning; that is spiritual slavery. If you are offended; you have only offended yourself.”
God is spirit. It teaches that in the Bible, so there's no argument there. I have been taught by God what He would want. Don't for one second think I don't understand how that probably sounds to you. I'm fully aware of how I'm viewed in these forums. I didn't arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum, nor by a process of indoctrination.
I am asking others to look into what I am saying, not demanding that they "fall in line" with my thinking. Am I so special? NO! I am not smarter, or purer, or holier than anybody else.
“I thought we were having a discussion. It's an argument? “
It is when you use insulting language and broad assumptions then say, “I'm just being honest.” That isn't debate, that's badgering. If I've been guilty of it, then I'm sorry, I try not to (except with TroubledMan, but that's a different story.)
“You are the one who said that I had no right to consider the Constitution a living document. So, do you want to kill the spirit, or not? You have to make up your mind.”
What spirit am I trying to kill?
You make a lot of sweeping assumptions about me. To an extent, that's an unavoidable hazard of these forums. If somebody presents a point of view, then everybody who reads it makes assumptions about that person based on what they've read and what they think about it. Of course I do that too. But I try to adjust my assumptions based on the conversation I am having with a particular person. I try to be respectful, most of the time (ref. TroubledMan.) I don't always succeed. But I don't make sweeping accusations against people most of the time.
I am 45. I became a Christian when I was 21. I didn't come from a Christian background before that, so there was no “indoctrination”. I was living in New York City before I became a Christian, and partook of a lot of what it had to offer, so it's not like I haven't lived in the “real world.” Nor was I any big fan of the Moral Majority, I wasn't even a Christian at the time.
I have a very sick wife and three children, one of whom is severely autistic. I have tried hard to explain what I think and why. I know that many people reading these posts still don't understand, and I actually understand that. But this is my last post in these forums, at least for a good long time. I wish everyone here well (even TroubledMan,) and that you would all find the greatest good that anyone can know, which is an actual relationship with Jesus.
And, you will fill all your neighbors with talk of being saved by Jesus while telling them how to live their lives and what to do with their unborn children.
Once again, you telling us we HAVE to accept it. Classic stuff.
No, we don't.
Balagna. Your agenda has been revealed...
"...the most loving thing we can do is point people to Jesus."
Like the Christian run pregnancy clinics the governments are trying to shut down?
No second thoughts, no questioning of source, no alternatives, no other religious beliefs that also describe god, nothing at all to oppose that claim as nothing but a fact.
Parting is such sweet sorrow. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord.
That didn't last very long, 4 days? But at the very least, your dishonesty is consistent.
No, my situation just changed. Thanks for asking. That empathy and concern for your fellow man just continues to shine through.
Consistent, though, I will give you that.
At least your agenda is revealed!
Yes, you said you weren't coming back for a good long time and that changed to you coming back after just 4 days.
You will continue to act like a child and I will continue to treat you like one. If you need to see things in such black and white terms that you make me look positively New Thought, then go for it!
I said that I have a sick wife and a special-needs kid. Did you actually rejoice to hear that, like I deserve it somehow?
If so, then you just relinquished any right you ever had to have me treat you like an adult.
Your own dishonest words define you, not me.
Wow, that is low. Show me where I said anything about your wife and kids or kindly provide an apology.
Ah, the desperation of those trapped by their own need to be right!
You never fail (to fail) at any rate, I'll give you that!
You rejoiced when I said I was leaving. I had listed as my reason my sick wife and special-needs kid. You said "Halleluja, thank you Jesus."
I was verifying whether the two had any connection. I guess that being guilty of not reading my entire post before reacting is better than rejoicing in my pain.
But why in the world would I apologize to the single most dishonest person I've run across in these forums? Anything I say you take and try to twist to whatever you want them to mean (notice I wrote "try.")
So, no, your dishonesty marks you out every time. The one or two times you seemed like you were actually starting something that required thought and integrity (even if I didn't agree with them) you abandoned them quickly.
It occurred to me in my last response to you that I might have come across as lacking any sympathy for what you've gone through.
I'm sorry if that's the case, I do have sympathy for what you've gone through, and I certainly wouldn't wish that on anybody.
I haven't read anything since then, so I don't know if you let me have it both barrels or what, but in any case I'm sorry if I seemed like I have no compassion for you or your son.
I may have forgotten. What have I been through? Are you talking about having to deal with white trash for a couple of years? If that is the worst life throws our way, I'll consider myself lucky.
A living child is made as soon as the mother's egg unites with the father's sperm. All through the pregnancy you can follow the growth of the child and see the development of that child. It is not a "fetus", it is a child. Abortion is murder, and should be dealt with as such. It is interesting to note, the Bible never uses the term "pregnant", but rather says "with child". You can see what God's view on the matter is.
So why do most pregnancies terminate early? Many women don't even know they were pregnant until a doctor discovers the after effect. I guess its OK for God to murder unborn babies......
God does not murder unborn babies. You cannot take everything you find wrong and blame God for it.
If God says they are already people, then he is murdering them just as he has done through out the bible.
First of all, when a child is taken early, it can be for a number of reasons. It could be the result of the mother's choices in life, it could be a medical reason, etc. God loves children. Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." I don't know exactly why God chooses to take the child before he is born, but I do know God has, in His infinite wisdom, a plan that we cannot know or understand. Perhaps God is sparing that child a life of misery and pain in this world. Maybe God is sparing that child and his parents a life of heartache because of a health problem or disease that child has. I do know God loves children, and He has a master plan in life for each one of us if we will bit let Him lead.
Nor should you take a natural biological process you apparently don't understand and infuse it with religious belief in an effort to find reason to condemn others. I would think.
Why would you say "I apparently don't understand"?
Read your initial post. Do some research. Set religious dogma to the side and take what we know for facts only into consideration. I trust you are intelligent enough to figure it out from there.
Please be specific. What exactly did I say that you disagree with in "the natural biological process"?
First. Let's be honest. If we view your idea of 'God's view' we will find it is really more a reflection of your view than that of a deity. Rummaging through the Mosaic laws will help you understand that.
And, you stated that as soon as sperm meets egg you've got a baby. That isn't correct. Using that definition for that stage in the development is purposely inflammatory, or willfully ignorant. Only you can be the judge of that.
Can you prove that it does not become a child at conception? Because I can prove it does. When the sperm and egg unite, within 24-36 hours, the cells begin to divide amd multiply--it begins growing as a child even at that point. Within 3-4 days the child (mass of cells) enter the uterus where he continues to grow. 6 days after fertilization a women is considered pregnant (with child).
Well, if you think a couple of cells dividing, that haven't made their way to the uterus, is a baby; that is apparently all the proof you need. Fortunately, our best and brightest are a little more educated.
Funny how the time table for pregnancy calculated by the typical OB/Gyn shows a woman to be pregnant before she actually is. Lucky for you. More time to be judgmental.
Don't get me wrong. I think the window of opportunity for seeking an elective abortion when the convenience of the mother is the only factor should be limited to the first trimester. But, you don't really have a little human until it attains consciousness. If I were labeling something with a soul, that would be my cut off. That would be where I would be willing to determine if it was ethically right. That would be the only time I would feel justified in voicing an opinion on what should be the actions of other women who are pregnant.
Ok, first of all, I never claimed to be "the best or brightest", but I do try to use the common sense God gave me in matters. Common sense, here, seems to say obviously if something is growing and multiplying, something (and in this case, someone) was created! Its not that hard to figure out. Why would this be taking place if something (someome) was not created?
Secondly, you say an abortion "at the convenience of the mother" is acceptable, does that mean you don't agree with abortion otherwise? Why is something ok one time, and wrong the next? Define "convenience". Are you for abortion or against? You cannot be both. Does anyone consider the child within? What of them?
By the way, someone asked a question here in the forums. They asked for feedback. I gave them that. Why am I labeled "judgmental" ? If they did not want to hear opposition, they should not have posted
Actually, I too can think anything I want. Convenience of the mother might have been a harsh term. But, I do think if a pregnancy is unwanted, for any reason, a couple of months is ample time to come to grips with the situation and rectify it.
I'm not heartless, or unconcerned with the health and welfare of the fetus. I try to understand so that the needs of everyone can be best considered. A mustard seed can become a mighty tree, but that is if it reaches full growth and potential. It really is just a seed at the start. That is honestly what you have when sperm and egg unite.
The question isn't simply, when does it jump from potential human to human? Because we do also need to understand when it feels pain. Even if it lacks all else, that ability to suffer has to be taken into account and factored in.
The point is, you pro lifers have no regard for anyone, or anything but your own opinions. This heartless and callous disregard for human life on one level trivializes your argument for the sanctity of life on another. It is difficult to respect your stand.
Well, your last statement makes no sense in regards to my behaviour. Me? No regard for anyone but my opinions? My heartless amd callous disregard for human life? What about you? Those statements should be used against abortion, not me. By the way, when did I show a heartless and callous disregard to human life? If you look back, you will see the exact opposite coming from me! In regards to your mustard seed, the seed is GROWING into the tree. Just as the little child is growing into adulthood from the moment of conception. There is life there as it continues to grow
Your callous and heartless disregard began when you likened the procedure to murder. That negates any value I could hope to find in your subsequent argument.
As long as you condemn other living and breathing human beings simply over a philosophical disagreement you are displaying an utter disregard for their needs and feelings. Is that too difficult to understand?
You're right that the question isn't simple.
Most of us pro-lifers (despite rhetoric) don't judge the mothers harshly. We have a great deal of compassion for them.
The abortion industry, on the other hand, does not. Yes, there are the caring doctors who are trying, to the best of their abilities to understand it, to help these women. But many of them are in it for the money, and that makes it murder.
I don't know you, so I don't want to make an assumption here, but have you ever discussed this with a woman who has actually had an abortion, especially at a PP facility? I don't think you ever answered the questions I posed you.
It basically boils down to a vue of human life. If you believe that all humans are made in the image of God, which I do, then the moment of conception is really the only logical time to say that a human being becomes a human being. If you believe that humans are simply more evolved animas, then whatever justification you use makes it, basically, okay to abort. But I would challenge you to think seriously about what constitutes "unwanted" life and what give anyone else the "right" to determine that that life was not worth being allowed to live.
To get back to your statement about it being complicated, yes, you're absolutely right. And the answer is not simply a blanket ban on abortion. There is so much more about the way people view themselves and others that needs to be taken into account. Ask Norma McCorvey.
Unfortunately, common sense does not dictate fact or what someone might try to "figure out" on their own. That's why we have the scientific method, to help produce facts in light of common sense.
And, there are plenty of examples. Newton thought the speed of light was instantaneous, he was wrong in light of fact. Newton also thought gravity was instantaneous and "action at a distance", but he was wrong in light of fact.
Common sense might tell you the Earth is flat...
You mean the earth isn't flat? My parents lied to me!!
Common sense goes a long way though. The examples you gave were "theories" that were tested and proven false. You cannot prove wrong the stages of growth during a pregancy. They are there, and you cannot change their growth. There is nothing to prove false. Therefore your examples arenot relevent to this matter.
The procedure is murder. To take a life in this matter is murder. Is this too difficult to understand? I see you ignored what I said about your behaviour. Howdo you justify that? You say I am "showing disregard to needs and feelings", is this not what you are doing to the unborn child?
When viewed by the hypocrisy and false piety displayed by the religious, I suppose I am. I say, take the facts we know to be true and the needs of all into account and find a balance. You judge without thought for any but your idea of what might be true. There is a big difference. You let your personal opinions cloud your judgement, to the detriment of others and there is no doubt they are hurt by your actions.
And yet, the scientific method can be used to say things contrary to science.
Hitler did it!
And that's history.
"Wow! Truly amazing what believers will say to defend their faith. "
Yes, I find it easy to believe that you are amazed by actual history and the truth.
"Certainly not your version of it."
No, not my version of it. The version you can look up in history books and verify for yourself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you got something, let's play. So far you seem to think that simply calling me names proves something (other than that you can call me names.)
It seems to me that "We think" that life begins when it becomes measurable by our standards.
As to say that the great White Shark did not exist until one of us stumbled across one and lived to tell about it, And even then; for quite some time it was considerer to be a mythical creature.
I think that life existed before it morphed into our physical existence (at the moment of conception). ... And then that life morphs again when it leaves this cocoon.
When does a butterfly become a living thing?
What does this statement have to do with the OP? …
Nothing! … and … everything!
That depends upon how you see it or NOT.
It seems to me that "We think" that life begins when it becomes measurable by our standards.
As to say that the the great White Shark did not exist until someone stumbled across one and lived to tell about it. And even then, for quite some time it was considerer to be a myth by many.
I think that life existed before it morphed into our physical realm, at the moment of conception. ... And then this life morphs again.
check the DNA it will be human.
Hope that clears it up for ya.
by Claire Evans21 months ago
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the...
by gulnazahmad7 years ago
Do you think that religion effects the way we deal in our day-to-day life and the way our personality has been molded? Is drinking, rape, murder, assault and other such things have to do with religion or is it just...
by Melissa Barrett3 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
by Nicole Canfield5 months ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other...
by Brie Hoffman6 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKEqM5bi … ded#at=195
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.