Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In that case your argument seems to fail, because the people that you are working with chose not to use an available service and still tell their children that they did not want them. Unless you are suggesting that people should be forced to have terminations, your objections about harm to children because they are unwanted are not solved by abortion...your city/region has it, and yet still these unhappy family situations exist.Yes they did.
I only really ever spoke to one of those parents (she was a teen when she was pregnant). Her parents didn't allow access.
Almost all of them (except the above noted one)
Absolutely. Edmonton Alberta Canada. We have clinics; it is medically paid for.
I work for an addiction recovery charity. I am the art and craft facilitator there, not a social worker. I have no idea if you think that counts. We are regarded as providing an essential service by the local authorities....that means lives are deemed to depend on what I do (in a non-medical context) , and the official services of NHS and Family Services reckon they could not manage without us.You know how Christians talk about the "broken and sinful"? Well, spend some time doing social work and you'll understand that "broken" doesn't necessarily (by a LONG shot) refer to sin.
Yes, I believe I understand, see above, but poor decision making cannot be resolved by abortion can it? The problems you are depicting are drug related, drug use in a community is not cured by abortion...if it was you would not have these troubles in your community, because as you have said, the legal option is already there, and it is free.These parents had FAS; they had addictions issues; several of them were raped (often on substances). They were not good decision makers....and surprise surprise, they didn't make great parents.
I wouldn't take guidelines by worldly standards or the worldly definition of murder. The word for "you shall not murder" in Exodus 20:13 is Ratsach which means unlawful, intentional or premeditated homicide.We've carved out a place for solidiers in war to "murder"...
Yes, it is and its actually backed up by science since we can see exactly what happens when the egg and sperm join. Some bible verses as examples: Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44, Exodus 21:22-23, Proverbs 6:16 and my personal favorites, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Genesis 9:6, Job 31:15. God considers it a life and not just a "clump of cells" but actually a "reward" Psalm 127:3.Whoa. Back up. You just provide your logic and then confidently said it's "God's stance".
No one didPErhaps but CERTAINLY that is not up to us to decide.
"unlawful".I wouldn't take guidelines by worldly standards or the worldly definition of murder. The word for "you shall not murder" in Exodus 20:13 is Ratsach which means unlawful, intentional or premeditated homicide.
Yes, it is and its actually backed up by science since we can see exactly what happens when the egg and sperm join. Some bible verses as examples: Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44, Exodus 21:22-23, Proverbs 6:16 and my personal favorites, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Genesis 9:6, Job 31:15. God considers it a life and not just a "clump of cells" but actually a "reward" Psalm 127:3.
I don't see how my argument fails. I mentioned those people were broken. They don't make good choices.In that case your argument seems to fail, because the people that you are working with chose not to use an available service and still tell their children that they did not want them.
I would never ever EVER suggestion force for that (I've already said I don't "like" abortions). They absolutely exist. But for those babies who were aborted, they do have to suffer through that life.Unless you are suggesting that people should be forced to have terminations, your objections about harm to children because they are unwanted are not solved by abortion...your city/region has it, and yet still these unhappy family situations exist.
Good for you. Thank you for doing that work. I also worked with a LOT of fentyl and crystal meth addicted youth. They can be pretty tough. I'm sure adults are tough too.I work for an addiction recovery charity. I am the art and craft facilitator there, not a social worker. I have no idea if you think that counts. We are regarded as providing an essential service by the local authorities....that means lives are deemed to depend on what I do (in a non-medical context) , and the official services of NHS and Family Services reckon they could not manage without us.
It would really depend on how you define the word "resolve". Nothing can resolve poor decision making but abortion would change the outcomes of poor decision making.Yes, I believe I understand, see above, but poor decision making cannot be resolved by abortion can it?
They are not always drug dependent but OFTEN they have been. I woluld NEVER argue drug use is cured by abortion.The problems you are depicting are drug related, drug use in a community is not cured by abortion...if it was you would not have these troubles in your community, because as you have said, the legal option is already there, and it is free.
How do you think so many Jews came to the opposite conclusion as the Prolife crowd when they use some of the same texts?I wouldn't take guidelines by worldly standards or the worldly definition of murder. The word for "you shall not murder" in Exodus 20:13 is Ratsach which means unlawful, intentional or premeditated homicide.
"Backed up by Science"?Yes, it is and its actually backed up by science since we can see exactly what happens when the egg and sperm join.
"Children ARE a reward". (....CHILDREN. I agree)Some bible verses as examples: Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44, Exodus 21:22-23, Proverbs 6:16 and my personal favorites, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Genesis 9:6, Job 31:15. God considers it a life and not just a "clump of cells" but actually a "reward" Psalm 127:3.
I voted yes. Christians find themselves supporting biblically immoral, wicked, and vile things all the time.
Same reason so many Christians come to wrong conclusions about the bible in general, they aren't being led by God.How do you think so many Jews came to the opposite conclusion as the Prolife crowd when they use some of the same texts?
Yes, you should see what they found. They have video of the very moment of conception and there is a "light"."Backed up by Science"?
Sure.If you're willing, we can discuss Exodus 21 in greater detail....as this AS CLOSE as the Bible comes to directly discussing the value of life inside a mother.
So, the verse is calling the unborn child a life. So if there was harm done to the unborn child, then the judgement is life for a life. If an unborn baby isn't considered "alive", it wouldn't require the giving of a life if the unborn baby dies.If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Which comes first being wrong or not being led by God? One is your opinion...Same reason so many Christians come to wrong conclusions about the bible in general, they aren't being led by God.
The release of zinc I believe.Yes, you should see what they found. They have video of the very moment of conception and there is a "light".
IT calls it "Alive". It says that if two men fight and hit the woman causing her to miscarry and the child dies, there is a fine.So, the verse is calling the unborn child a life. So if there was harm done to the unborn child, then the judgement is life for a life. If an unborn baby isn't considered "alive", it wouldn't require the giving of a life if the unborn baby dies.
For the better part of my 60 years on this earth, I have believed that there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I stand corrected.
Have we truly fallen this far?
Father have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Holy Spirit lift the veil.
Considering that close to 90% of the women having abortions are unmarried, they are first and foremost not Christian by way of continued unrepentant fornication.Add your vote to the Poll
Can you support abortion, the killing of growing babies in the womb...and also be a Christian?
Technically you're essentially just cells made up of water, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen.. etc. Does that make you less of a person to be downgraded by the specific compounds that you're made up of? Even if it's the releasing of zinc, that doesn't negate that life began with light and what was the FIRST thing God created in Genesis? Light...The release of zinc I believe.
Being wrong because, not being led. It's an effect of. Jews disregard Christ, so that would mean they aren't being led by God because they have rejected their creator. So if a bunch of Jews came to a wrong conclusion about anything scripture related, that is the reason. Same with Christians. I'm making a general statement based off your initial question.Which comes first being wrong or not being led by God? One is your opinion...
Sure, but the outcome is the same. If the baby dies, the requirement is life for a life.IT calls it "Alive". It says that if two men fight and hit the woman causing her to miscarry and the child dies, there is a fine.
If any other harm (presumably to the mother since the baby has miscarried) follows THEN it is to be "eye for eye, tooth for tooth".
22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Considering that close to 90% of the women having abortions are unmarried, they are first and foremost not Christian by way of continued unrepentant fornication.
So having an abortion just continues their state of spiritual darkness. Rape however, is another story.
Blessings
My point is merely that abortion does not solve the problems you are talking about. Let us imagine we can solve the problems that are causing the neglect and abuse. Let us imagine we can let teenagers know they matter, let us imagine they do not have to stay in touch with family that do not want them.I would never ever EVER suggestion force for that (I've already said I don't "like" abortions). They absolutely exist. But for those babies who were aborted, they do have to suffer through that life.
I am thinking that if you are emplyed by the state, and working with teenagers, it maybe tougher for you because it is less clearly their own choice to be in your care. Plus you are probably working longer hours.Good for you. Thank you for doing that work. I also worked with a LOT of fentyl and crystal meth addicted youth. They can be pretty tough. I'm sure adults are tough too.
It means that basically people who do not end up living at all are spared suffering hardship in life. Yes they are, but I do not believe Jesus sees stop life as a suitable solution to the matter of life being tough.It would really depend on how you define the word "resolve". Nothing can resolve poor decision making but abortion would change the outcomes of poor decision making.
I thought you were saying that, but then you described people having children and then not wanting them. The solution to the misery you describe is to ensure those neglected human beings discover loving and being loved, and know that God/Canada/all civil members of the human race can see that they are worthwhile because they are people. I do not see how that message is conveyed to anyone by thinking that their parents, who concieved them, should not have had them.Youre presumption is that every person who says "I don't want this child" would get an abortion.
I assumed the OP was meant to simply open a discussion, rather than an attempt to find out the answer.For the better part of my 60 years on this earth, I have believed that there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I stand corrected.
I would posit that it prevents them from taking place against a child (because the child doesn't exist).My point is merely that abortion does not solve the problems you are talking about.
The world is broken; we can only imagine solving those as concepts. WE can help individuals only.Let us imagine we can solve the problems that are causing the neglect and abuse.
That's what I do in my class every day and that's what I did in the counselling position as well. Often times they didn't and we would respect it (worked a couple kids through the immancipation process)Let us imagine we can let teenagers know they matter, let us imagine they do not have to stay in touch with family that do not want them.
To an extent....as a teacher (obviously) no. As a frontline social worker? The kids were happy to have me but yeah, they didn't have a choice.I am thinking that if you are emplyed by the state, and working with teenagers, it maybe tougher for you because it is less clearly their own choice to be in your care. Plus you are probably working longer hours.
Have you read "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" by Gabor Mate. To have ANY sense of addition, I think this is required reading. I would just encourage you to read it. He was the doctor that worked in the world famous drug consumption site in EAst Vancouver back in the 1990s before ANYONE EVER really thought it was a "really good idea".However difficult my work gets, everyone who comes to us has basically chosen to do so. Although even among adults, we really do not see anybody who says that they are from a happy untroubled home, and references to parental drug use are the norm.
But you are not terminating people (that implies adults to me...though I doubt you meant that). You are keeping the child from being born. The solution is that they don't have to go through that painful life i've seen so many other kids go through.I still do not see terminating people as the way to solve anything.
Yes. THat's correct.It means that basically people who do not end up living at all are spared suffering hardship in life.
I understand why folks think that because it seems like such a distasteful solution.Yes they are, but I do not believe Jesus sees stop life as a suitable solution to the matter of life being tough.
OF the kids that I have worked with who fit the description I gave above, ALMOST half of them, when they were crying in their bad at night, confused why their FAS brain got them in trouble and not understanding anyhting would wail "I wish my mom just aborted me" (perhaps a bit dramatic but I mean half of them DID say those words to me).I thought you were saying that, but then you described people having children and then not wanting them. The solution to the misery you describe is to ensure those neglected human beings discover loving and being loved, and know that God/Canada/all civil members of the human race can see that they are worthwhile because they are people. I do not see how that message is conveyed to anyone by thinking that their parents, who concieved them, should not have had them.
I understand that.I do understand that my idea of the solution looks absurdly unrealistic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?