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.
madison1101 said:Let me just advocate for a minute. Many children are born into horrible poverty to mothers who are barely able to support themselves, much less a child. Poor, inner city girls become pregnant out of stupidity and the baby is used as a trophy that a "man" and I use the word loosely, found them attractive for one night. These mothers are usually teenagers, and use that baby to prove they are now women. These babies are often neglected, abused, and worse. They don't know their fathers, and live in the worst conditions. Does an child deserve that?
Evee said:If someone is born so severely mentally and physically handicapped then what?
Would you wish that child not be born?
Just wondering.
Terry Schiavo was not executed. I think we can make our points without resorting to plain untruths. This is very unChristian.Monica02 said:These handicapped children have just as much a right to their life as you or me have to ours. SHould we kill someone who becomes handicapped after birth? Do agree with the execution of Terri Shiavo?
statrei said:Terry Schiavo was not executed. I think we can make our points without resorting to plain untruths. This is very unChristian.
Fortunately, this is not the thread to discuss Terry Schiavo and the rights of her husband.Ragamuffins said:ABortion is killing. Killing is bad therefore, abortion is bad.
Schiavo was starved to death. Starving people to death is wrong.
Who cares? I wasn't the first to bring it up, and about his rights: No one has the right to take anothers life. Period.statrei said:Fortunately, this is not the thread to discuss Terry Schiavo and the rights of her husband.
SugarMag said:IHowever, I also believe people need to not be stupid and get pregnant without planning..
"But he did it first"Ragamuffins said:Who cares? I wasn't the first to bring it up, and about his rights: No one has the right to take anothers life. Period.
The ultimate sin is "grieving away the Holy Spirit". As for abortion, it is murder, and that is breaking the Sixth Commandment (no matter the circumstances. Would you kill a child because he is an inconvenience after he is out of the womb?)louchstr87 said:Abortion is murder. Murder is the ultimate sin, which can NEVER be justified.
Do you know anyone who is anti-life? (Should that be con-life?)AngCath said:I am pro-life,
But why is it that most who claim to be pro-life assume that the opposition are pro-abortion?AngCath said:I'm sure you know what I mean by "pro-life"
statrei said:But why is it that most who claim to be pro-life assume that the opposition are pro-abortion?
Don't you support abortion under certain conditions? If the mother's life is in danger what do you recommend?JunkYardDog said:Because they are.
It is simple. Both sides believe in choice. There are three choices possible -- live birth and keeping, live birth and adopting out, and murder. Pro-life people and their opposition BOTH believe in the first two choices. Only the opposition believes in the additional choice of murder. So they are pro-abortion. They may not "prefer" abortion, but they are definitly PRO-abortion. The other side is ANTI-abortion.
statrei said:Don't you support abortion under certain conditions? If the mother's life is in danger what do you recommend?
In other words, you are pro abortion. Thank you. Are you also pro-death penalty?JunkYardDog said:When a circumstance arises where continuing will kill BOTH (almost exclusively a tubal pregnancy), then the only other option is to remove the child. This is not done by a standard abortion procedure, but by removal of the tube itself. In some instances, where the child may still be in the tube, but very near the uterine entrance, a methotrexate chemical abortion may be possible. In either event, morally that is simply a "double effect" -- the act has the intentional effect of saving the mother's life while having the unintentional effect of killing th child. It is rather like being only able to throw the rope to one of two drowning people.
Other than that exteremely rare circumstance, no.
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?