Why Aren't More Protestants Pro-Life?

[LightHorseman]

Lighthorseman,
It doesn’t to me, it sounds like two parents trying to play God. [/color]

Having sex is playing God now?

Murder it is as murder is taking life and against God’s purposes whether some humans like yourself think it is or not.

Buy a dictionary.

Well just this last week a gay man says he killed his gay lover and it is illegal but he hasn’t got prosecuted for it. Liberals make the law up to suit themselves and throw at others who don’t hold their worldview.

I have no idea what you're talking about or why its meant to be relevent. In short, I doubt you do either, or that it is.

 

[drstevej]

Not hardly. The concept abortion is murder is not based in reality.

Here's some reality for you.

California Man Convicted of Double Murder, Killing Pregnant Girlfriend Unborn Child

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A 34-year-old California man, Aaron Ashley was convicted of two counts of murder in the killings of his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]California is one of 35 states to have a state law allowing two charges with both mother and child are killed.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[drstevej]

The reasons for a woman having an abortion are no one else's business.

Makes sense for a tooth extraction. But a tooth does not have a father nor is it capable of independent life outside the mouth.... even if it is an inconvenient tooth.

 

[LightHorseman]

Here's some reality for you.

California Man Convicted of Double Murder, Killing Pregnant Girlfriend Unborn Child

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 34-year-old California man, Aaron Ashley was convicted of two counts of murder in the killings of his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]California is one of 35 states to have a state law allowing two charges with both mother and child are killed.[/FONT]

This is an interesting law... but its notable that it is only applied where it can be shown that the pregnancy was going to be carried to term. Indeed, it is precisely to stop these "boyfriend kills pregnant girlfriend" type murders that this is supposed to be a deterent against.

The important point is that the killing of the foetus is considered a murder in this case because the foetus is WANTED. And I think you'd have to go a klong way to find anyone who would support abortion providers conducting abortions on WANTED pregnancies.

Its also noteworthy that the killing of the foetus is only chargeable as murder if the mother dies as well. If the mother survives the attack, and the foetus doesn't, a murder charge is not applicable.

 

[LightHorseman]

Makes sense for a tooth extraction. But a tooth does not have a father nor is it capable of independent life outside the mouth.... even if it is an inconvenient tooth.

Virtually zero voluntary (as opposed to medically mandated) abortions occur at a stage where the foetus is capable of independent life outside the mother.

Where the father fits in is an interesting point... however I would contend that while a father's imput should certainly be considered, since it is the woman who's body is effected, she has the greater say.

 

[drstevej]

Nice to see someone give the father any say. And PM me when any tooth survives extraction.

Sure glad the birth mom of my son didn't listen to any of these rationalizations for killing what is now my 23 year old son. She made the hard choice of giving birth and then giving her son for adoption.

BTW I still have his baby teeth. I keep them as a special reminder of that phase of his life. Unwanted womb dwellers usually are tossed in the dumpster.

Shameful.

 

[drstevej]

This is an interesting law... but its notable that it is only applied where it can be shown that the pregnancy was going to be carried to term. Indeed, it is precisely to stop these "boyfriend kills pregnant girlfriend" type murders that this is supposed to be a deterent against.

The important point is that the killing of the foetus is considered a murder in this case because the foetus is WANTED. And I think you'd have to go a klong way to find anyone who would support abortion providers conducting abortions on WANTED pregnancies.

Its also noteworthy that the killing of the foetus is only chargeable as murder if the mother dies as well. If the mother survives the attack, and the foetus doesn't, a murder charge is not applicable.

How about unwanted toddlers?

 

[LightHorseman]

How about unwanted toddlers?

for a start, there is far more social consensus on the place of toddlers in society. Next, I don't think many people would try to claim that toddlers aren't sentient people, albeit primitive ones. Final point, an unwanted toddler can be picked up by children's services(or equivalent) NOW, whereas an unwanted pregnancy doesn't have that option, and the pregnant woman would be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy until delivery.

For the record, I would ALWAYS favour a woman carrying a viable foetus to term and then giving it up for adoption, but then, its probably easy for me to say that, given its not my body we're talking about, and its not a decision I will ever have to make.

 

[drstevej]

for a start, there is far more social consensus on the place of toddlers in society. Next, I don't think many people would try to claim that toddlers aren't sentient people, albeit primitive ones. Final point, an unwanted toddler can be picked up by children's services(or equivalent) NOW, whereas an unwanted pregnancy doesn't have that option, and the pregnant woman would be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy until delivery.

For the record, I would ALWAYS favour a woman carrying a viable foetus to term and then giving it up for adoption, but then, its probably easy for me to say that, given its not my body we're talking about, and its not a decision I will ever have to make.

Just curious, why do you display a Catholic icon and argue publicly against the teaching of your Church? Does reason have a place over your religion? If so, why the inconsistency?

 

[LightHorseman]

Just curious, why do you display a Catholic icon and argue publicly against the teaching of your Church? Does reason have a place over your religion? If so, why the inconsistency?

I don't belive I have said anything contrary to mychurch's teaching have I?

I am pro life. Staunchly so. That doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding the other side of the discussion.

Further, I don't think that reason and religion should ever be in conflict. If you can't maintain reason AND your faith, IMHO there's something wrong with your faith. Or your reason. But they can't BOTH be correct.

 

[lux et lex]

How about unwanted toddlers?

Do you believe this is a legitimate argument/comeback? Seriously...i'm not being snarky I'm curious, because I find it absolutely inane. Of course you can give a toddler to Child Protective Services or someone else to care for as soon as it becomes unwanted. You can't do that with a fetus. PM me when you can.

 

[chestertonrules]

Do you believe this is a legitimate argument/comeback? Seriously...i'm not being snarky I'm curious, because I find it absolutely inane. Of course you can give a toddler to Child Protective Services or someone else to care for as soon as it becomes unwanted. You can't do that with a fetus. PM me when you can.

So an inconvenient child can be killed?

 

[chestertonrules]

God creating life gives him the right to take it, but two parents creating life doesn't give them the right to take it?

And this doesn't strike you as a double standard?

Parents don't create life, God does.

People are not God.

Parents don't have the right to kill God's children.

 

[LightHorseman]

So an inconvenient child can be killed?

What part of "an unwanted child can be given to child protective services" did you read as "an inconvenient child can be killed"?

 

[LightHorseman]

Parents don't create life, God does.

Basic biology disagrees with you.

People are not God.

Never said they were.

Parents don't have the right to kill God's children.

Doesn't come close to addressing my initial question. Why is it OK for God to kill millions upon millions of unborn zygotes, embryos and foetuses every year, but not for people to do it?

 

[lux et lex]

There are some thick heads around here. FROM BIRTH ON A CHILD, WHEN IT BECOME INCONVENIENT CAN BE GIVEN TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OR SOMEONE ELSE. NO YOU CANNOT KILL IT AND YES THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM ABORTION. Good grief.

 

[chestertonrules]

There are some thick heads around here.

I agree!

FROM BIRTH ON A CHILD,

Says who? Is a baby not a child?

Luke 1
39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

WHEN IT BECOME INCONVENIENT CAN BE GIVEN TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OR SOMEONE ELSE. NO YOU CANNOT KILL IT AND YES THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM ABORTION. Good grief.

Pregnancy is considered an inconvenience by some, but you can't morally kill a human being for convenience.

 

[chestertonrules]

Why is it OK for God to kill millions upon millions of unborn zygotes, embryos and foetuses every year, but not for people to do it?

God makes the rules, we don't.

Thou shalt not kill is our rule, not his.

We don't understand him, but he understands us.

If you kill his child, you are breaking his rules.

 

[lux et lex]

Wow. Just wow. Baby=Child. Fetus =/= Baby. Translating the Bible however you want does not a fact make.

 

[chestertonrules]

Wow. Just wow. Baby=Child. Fetus =/= Baby. Translating the Bible however you want does not a fact make.

Facts are stubborn things.

Some baby pictures:

4D ULTRASOUND PICTURES OF UNBORN BABIES