Abortion is murder. GOD hates murder. It is hurting our nation.
A me awertire, Shield Of Faith.
A me awertire, Shield Of Faith.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Abortion: Murdering our young...
- Thread starter ShieldOFaith
- Start date
- Status
Obviously a great many people DON'T feel it's murder.
Isn't that why abortion is such a hot topic?
Isn't that why abortion is such a hot topic?
Upvote
0
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,647
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
This is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
However, the legal system does not agree with the first statement you make, and the church, imo, does not agree with the second part.
It is people who hate, as you are well aware. And it is the hatred of such people which is hurting the nation more than anything else on earth. They can project that hatred onto God all they like, as you are doing, but they still own it.
God does not hate anyone or anything.
Upvote
0
The Word of GOD is my opinion???
My opinion equals the Word of GOD???
Are you sure about that???
Rethink that one...?
Upvote
0
Maybe, just maybe you should have read the entire Bible before you said this, "God does not hate anyone or anything.".
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. --Deut. 12
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]4 The Lord is in His holy temple, The Lord's throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. 5 The Lord tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. --Psalm 11
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]16 These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren. --Prov. 6
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...q=&NavBook=pr&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6#F27 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! --Romans 9[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]You are 100% wrong.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Please think this over.
[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Okay done...now what?
I didn't see any references to abortion being murder. Perhaps you can point me to the specific verse (we're talking the KJ version right?)
Also I thought the Old Testament was rendered obsolete by "the good news"
Upvote
0
seeker777
Thinking is not a sin.
Why aren't there funerals then?
In another thread, you bragged that you were a proud and fully trained killer, courtesy of the U.S. military. If you consider abortion murder, why then do you get a free pass to kill whomever you want, just because it is sanctioned by the U.S. government?
The question is, you are railing against abortion, yet you are the proudest KILLER that I have ever come across...killing is killing.
An unjust war, is an unjust war...no?
Upvote
0
PassionFruit
I woke up like dis
- May 18, 2007
- 3,755
- 313
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Probably the worst post I've ever read.
That's actually a legitimate question. What about miscarriages? Those are abortions, but people don't have funerals for them.
Upvote
0
Seriously...I just read the whole book of Amos. Although it wasn't very long I'd at least like the courtesy of an explanation as to why you had me read it.
Especially considering it is in the Old Testament which I understand Jesus rendered obsolete.
Especially considering it is in the Old Testament which I understand Jesus rendered obsolete.
Upvote
0
T
tollyT
Guest
Then why is it the the law in many states allows for 2 counts of murder if the victim happens to be pregnant?
Does it matter who decided to kill the child, or who performed the act that resulted in the child's death? Do doctor's have special authority to kill the child, while the person charged with murder doesn't.
Tolly
Upvote
0
Because obviously some people DO believe it's murder.
Isn't that why abortion is such a hot topic?
Obviously some people don't consider a fetus to be a child.
Isn't that why abortion is such a hot topic?
See above
See above
I don't know. Is abortion legal in the states you mentioned?
Upvote
0
T
tollyT
Guest
Yes, as you know. Roe v. Wade has authority in all states. Perhaps I missed your point. I don't like the clubbing of baby seals either. But it is legal. I don't like schools teaching revisionist history, but its legal. I don't like NAMBLA advocating sexual assault on children, but its legal. Just my opinion, not trying to offend.
Tolly
Tolly
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
his point was that killing a fetus is only considered murder in some states because the law says it is, the same point that you are making.
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
Anyways, my 2c:
I don't think that a zygote to early fetus qualifies as a person anymore than any random combination of sperm and egg qualifies as a person. It's not a person yet, it's a potential person.
Before the fetus develops a nervous system i don't have any qualms about someone aborting it, because until it actually has thoughts and feelings it's simply an overgrown sperm and egg, no better or worse than any other random combination of sperm and egg.
There is no practical difference, from anyone's perspective, including the fetus', between getting pregnant and aborting at 5 weeks, versus not getting pregnant at all. I'd argue from end results that abortion at 5 weeks is not immoral unless A) celibacy is immoral or B) sex for pleasure not reproduction is immoral.
The final end-result and total amount of suffering for all entities (including the fetus) is the same between the two options: A) abortion at 5 weeks B) not getting pregnant. Therefore, if B is not immoral, neither is A.
once you get into the 2nd trimester when it starts developing a nervous system, it gets stickier, but i still don't think that at this point it has a right to life, or any more rights than an animal. ( eitherway, 90% of abortions occur before this point) Obviously, it would be hideously cruel to, say, torture it to death, in the same way you shouldn't torture animals, but i don't think it has a right to life at this point that override's the woman's sovereignty over her own body and reproductive system.
There's a huge difference between a person and a fetus, a person is unique and irreplaceable... a fetus is only unique insofar as it is a unique combination of genetic material, which is no likely to be better or worse than any other random combination.
Furthermore, a person is usually an integral part of the community and is irreplaceable, a fetus is replaceable by any fertile woman given a few months time. Much of the social order logic used for why you shouldn't murder people does not apply to fetuses. One reason to keep it alive is a general sense of empathy, but that could simply be replaced by empathy for it's mother, who apparently doesn't want to grow a baby right now, for whatever reason.
I do think that at the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb without medical intervention, it shouldn't be aborted, because someone would want to adopt it.
I don't think that a zygote to early fetus qualifies as a person anymore than any random combination of sperm and egg qualifies as a person. It's not a person yet, it's a potential person.
Before the fetus develops a nervous system i don't have any qualms about someone aborting it, because until it actually has thoughts and feelings it's simply an overgrown sperm and egg, no better or worse than any other random combination of sperm and egg.
There is no practical difference, from anyone's perspective, including the fetus', between getting pregnant and aborting at 5 weeks, versus not getting pregnant at all. I'd argue from end results that abortion at 5 weeks is not immoral unless A) celibacy is immoral or B) sex for pleasure not reproduction is immoral.
The final end-result and total amount of suffering for all entities (including the fetus) is the same between the two options: A) abortion at 5 weeks B) not getting pregnant. Therefore, if B is not immoral, neither is A.
once you get into the 2nd trimester when it starts developing a nervous system, it gets stickier, but i still don't think that at this point it has a right to life, or any more rights than an animal. ( eitherway, 90% of abortions occur before this point) Obviously, it would be hideously cruel to, say, torture it to death, in the same way you shouldn't torture animals, but i don't think it has a right to life at this point that override's the woman's sovereignty over her own body and reproductive system.
There's a huge difference between a person and a fetus, a person is unique and irreplaceable... a fetus is only unique insofar as it is a unique combination of genetic material, which is no likely to be better or worse than any other random combination.
Furthermore, a person is usually an integral part of the community and is irreplaceable, a fetus is replaceable by any fertile woman given a few months time. Much of the social order logic used for why you shouldn't murder people does not apply to fetuses. One reason to keep it alive is a general sense of empathy, but that could simply be replaced by empathy for it's mother, who apparently doesn't want to grow a baby right now, for whatever reason.
I do think that at the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb without medical intervention, it shouldn't be aborted, because someone would want to adopt it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
for the record, i support laws that make it murder to kill a fetus if you're not a doctor performing a lawful abortion, not because i think it's murder but because i think that people who attack pregnant women deserve to be locked up for long periods of time.
People shouldn't confuse the law with morality, anyway.
People shouldn't confuse the law with morality, anyway.
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
This response is so absurdly funny that it's worth at least 5 points.
Implies, without directly stating, that the U.S. government sanctions soldiers to kill anyone they want. Very well interwoven. +3 points.
equivocating killing in war to killing fetuses, moral equivocation almost makes it look like a serious post, at the same time implying, on no evidence, that whatever war shield of faith fought in was "unjust".
+ 2 points.
You friend, win this thread, 10/10 troll-o-meter. Shield, you should be taking some trolling tips from him.
Upvote
0
T
tollyT
Guest
Nathan,
Both your points are valid, and I respect them.
First, I would answer your second response with a question. If law is the codification and agreement within a society about what is moral and what will be the standards within a collective community, then how is law separated from morality?
As to your first post, which I also respect, I have thought about this long and hard. I have concluded that scientifically, the zygot is separate from any other human as it has its own DNA, and therefor it is a separate individual from its mother and father.
In my thinking, this would satisfy the definition of 'an idividual entity'. Some argue that this is an invalid arguement because the 'zygot' could not exist without the phisiological processes of the mother. I don't argue the truth of the statement, but rather, does this render the being as 'lifeless', 'non-human', or 'with out human soul', as descibed in many advocacy literature I have read?
Respectfully,
Tolly
Both your points are valid, and I respect them.
First, I would answer your second response with a question. If law is the codification and agreement within a society about what is moral and what will be the standards within a collective community, then how is law separated from morality?
As to your first post, which I also respect, I have thought about this long and hard. I have concluded that scientifically, the zygot is separate from any other human as it has its own DNA, and therefor it is a separate individual from its mother and father.
In my thinking, this would satisfy the definition of 'an idividual entity'. Some argue that this is an invalid arguement because the 'zygot' could not exist without the phisiological processes of the mother. I don't argue the truth of the statement, but rather, does this render the being as 'lifeless', 'non-human', or 'with out human soul', as descibed in many advocacy literature I have read?
Respectfully,
Tolly
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
