Abortions????

[mama2one]

Well, I would disagree that girls grow up "just fine" without a father.

agree

seeing our child and interactions with husband, see how really valuable the "father, daughter" relationship is

she sees daddy, a patient, kind, Christian man as the example of the man she'll say yes to some day for marriage

 

[RDKirk]

When you lose an argument you insult the poster. This is what you tend to do. Tells anyone something about you.

I didn't insult you, I insulted your posts. And this is very specifically the first time I've done so.

I thought a good deal about it before doing it. The primary reason I've done so this time is because you don't bother to read people's posts. Or rather, you read them through the goggles of the particular pigeonhole you've already put someone in, and you don't even notice if someone has actually said something different from what you're presume they would say.

So your posts turn out "screwy" because you respond to what you presume the person is saying rather than what he actually said.

 

[RDKirk]

What about men being responsible for abortion? We are living in a world where we have given ourselves over to lust, greed, false politicians, naysayers..., we can find them all in the Bible. Realistically we old men need to return to being responsible for what we do and we need to teach our young men that they are responsible as well.
No child came into this world without a man and way too many think they can walk away from their responsibilities without repercussions. Too many young men are being taught they are animals with no control over their biological functions. Too many old men tell young men that if they make a girl with child they will have them for life. These same old men tell these young, deluded men that the more babies they make the more girlfriends they will have to go from home to home and will always have some place to stay.
It might be unrealistic to expect that all men can actually keep themselves chaste, but it is not unrealistic to teach them that they (all of us) are responsible for what we do and also, to live that level of responsibility out in our behavior and our lives.
If we want to change behavior we have to live it out and we have to be willing to do it ourselves. But one also has to begin teaching it and it must start somewhere. Realistic doesn't mean submissive just to avoid being laughed at. Jesus was laughed at and hung for all to see..., that didn't make it just nor right nor should he have gone back and diluted his message as God on earth. Men are responsible first and foremost.

No, we "old men" didn't do that. At least I never heard it. And I'll be the first one to say, "Men must hold men accountable. That's the job of men."

We didn't tell men they didn't have those responsibilities, but we did fall silent during the 80s when the Women's Liberation movement went into its third wave. Then women began teaching each other, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

We fell silent. But women still wanted children, and they raised their own sons with that principle. And now we've got an entire X generation that was raised with that principle.

Our sin--and this is something my Millennial daughter blames us Boomer men for, as she sought a husband herself--is that we fell silent.

 

[RDKirk]

Its extremely unrealistic to expect no male to make love to a woman until he considers if he is ready to be responsible for the child that might be the result. Not saying it’s a bad thing, just being realistic. The males would laugh at such an idea. One needs to be realistic of one wants change. Even the Bible doesn’t require this. It requires the males to marry the woman solving both problems.

I remember back around 1969, a particular summer afternoon when my high school buddies and I fell into a discussion about sex--mostly about how to get girls to give it.

But then we talked about the possibility of pregnancy. It was pretty difficult for a minor to get condoms in Oklahoma in 1969. They were kept in the pharmacy out of sight behind the counter in most places. You had to get on a bus and go to the state capital to buy condoms without having to prove adulthood. So the few condoms we ever got were hoarded.

But we talked about the possibility of a girl getting pregnant--if and when we ever got one to succumb.

And we talked about the certainty of having to marry her if that happened. That wasn't even a question. Marriage would have been a certainty. The community would demand it. Her father and our father would enforce it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

Because it is not our decision to make. We are not God!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I didn't insult you, I insulted your posts. And this is very specifically the first time I've done so.

No, you insulted me personally and I recall you doing this often.

I thought a good deal about it before doing it. The primary reason I've done so this time is because you don't bother to read people's posts. Or rather, you read them through the goggles of the particular pigeonhole you've already put someone in, and you don't even notice if someone has actually said something different from what you're presume they would say.

Then point it out instead of justifying insulting.

So your posts turn out "screwy" because you respond to what you presume the person is saying rather than what he actually said.

Actually you probably don’t understand my posts being some intellectual knots above average so using insulting terms is easier. Those of low intellectual prowess do this more frequently.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I remember back around 1969, a particular summer afternoon when my high school buddies and I fell into a discussion about sex--mostly about how to get girls to give it.

Not surprising level of discussion.

But then we talked about the possibility of pregnancy. It was pretty difficult for a minor to get condoms in Oklahoma in 1969. They were kept in the pharmacy out of sight behind the counter in most places. You had to get on a bus and go to the state capital to buy condoms without having to prove adulthood. So the few condoms we ever got were hoarded.

But we talked about the possibility of a girl getting pregnant--if and when we ever got one to succumb.

And we talked about the certainty of having to marry her if that happened. That wasn't even a question. Marriage would have been a certainty. The community would demand it. Her father and our father would enforce it.

So did this really happen in your community? No unwed mothers EVER occurred???

 

[RDKirk]

No, you insulted me personally and I recall you doing this often.
Then point it out instead of justifying insulting.Actually you probably don’t understand my posts being some intellectual knots above average so using insulting terms is easier. Those of low intellectual prowess do this more frequently.

Well, pot, meet kettle.

 

[RDKirk]

Not surprising level of discussion.

I'm sure nobody who has been a 16-year-old boy is surprised that we sometimes talked about girls and about sex.

So did this really happen in your community? No unwed mothers EVER occurred???

It takes a village. Church-going mid-sixties military community, with all fathers present and employed in every family. They weren't all saints, but they were certainly all aware of their community status. Not surprising and not unique.

 

[FireDragon76]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

I am moderately pro-choice but the above is a terrible argument and sub-Christian.

 

[marineimaging]

I know this is going to open a can of worms, but I just had a thought. Christians who are against abortions, I'm curious as to why you would rather a child suffer in this life, rather than being sent to heaven before enduring any suffering? As far as I can remember children are granted automatic entry into heaven until they can be held accountable. So why deny a child a chance to have a loving home with your heavenly father instead of being raised in foster care, or worse? I don't get it.

I used to think like you. Then the Holy Spirit told me clearly that the construct and decision of life is from God, not man. Every abortion robs God of those whom he would assign to lead others to eternal salvation, to lead countries, to perform miracles before others. Life is according to God, not men.

Men are the cause of abortions because the power and responsibility to guide and decide in this world belongs to them. The moment a single sperm connects with a single egg a new life has begun. All of the opportunities for all of the decisions that should have been before that man and that woman joined have passed. It is not ours to decide who should live and who should die. Taking that life out of the womb permanently hurts the mother, the father, the nurses and doctors. It destroys families worse than cocaine or heroine or even alcohol. It is a delayed destruction, but it is as real as the lifeblood flowing through the new child. But, you ask why deny a child? The answer is, who are we to decide that child won't grow up just fine and dandy and be a wealthy giver of presents and wonderful lives to other children all over the world? The only way to find out is to be alive and ready to receive Jesus.