Are you glad your Mother was prolife?

[Ancient of Days]

Are you glad your Mother was prolife? Yes.

Its so easy for the pro-choice folks to be pro-choice since they have already been born. After all its not their body that they want aborted. Reminds me of the Eugenics crowd, they want to kill of a big chunk of the population as long as it isn't themselves. What a bunch of cowards!!

 

[keith99]

I know it is hard to believe but even back when I was born they knew where babies came from and I and all my siblings were planned.

I'm very glad my parents were not the pro life of their time squirting out a new kid every year until my mom was worn down by constant pregnancy and none of the kids ever getting the full attention they deserved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How would an abortion provider answer that Q?

I'm sure I don't know...but my mom is and was pro-choice.

 

[bhsmte]

If you knew I believed that committing adultery was ok and I professed myself a Christian, would you stay silent and leave me to my destruction?

That would depend on whether i was a person who felt i should be judging others and making determinations about their fate. You obviously believe you are.

 

[bhsmte]

Why would an atheist come on a Christian site? Do you frequent anti God sites?

What is wrong with it? Do you feel threatened?

 

[bhsmte]

The Bible lays out what happens to those that aren't obedient to His commandments. Your beef isn't with me, I'm just pointing out what's in scripture. By all means, contend with me about these things from a Biblical perspective... but an emotionally driven narrative is not to be our guide in this life, on any subject. To be our color, yes... but not the truth.

I dont have a beef with anyone, i am just enjoying the show.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you glad your Mother was prolife?

I think she was pro choice at the time, like many mothers.

 

[SPF]

not everyone sees the unborn as people that need the rights of a person. There is much debate on when a person is a person. For me for example first trimester really there is no person as such sense they could not live outside the mother even with ALL the tech today. While I would neither have an abortion nor encourage another woman to do so I am not sure that a "baby" that is CLEARLY not viable really needs the protection of law.

Sounds to me like you're discriminating against a human being based upon their level of development.

A new and unique human being is created at fertilization. Why must a human being be x months old before it becomes morally valuable? How does one even objectively make a case for a human being x months old before it's morally valuable? Seems to me that any and all cases to make the distinction between a human being (not morally valuable) and a human person (morally valuable) are necessarily subjective and arbitrary.

Indeed, the only reason I can think of that someone would even want to create a distinction between a human being and a human person would be so that some action can be committed against the human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes, cause that's what the grand majority of marriages are.... sorry sister, your starting to grasp at straws.

what are the vest majority of marriages?

 

[dogs4thewin]

The idea of government not abridging on the religious rights of the people is illistrated to us in Daniel with the story of the image set up on the plains of Dura. King Nebuchadnezzar built a huge golden statue of himself and demanded every person in the kingdom bow down and worship the image. All did but the three young Hebrew boys that refused under penalty of death. This was the state dictating on the conscience of the people a form of religion. We know God opposed it and the three boys were miraculously saved in the furnace.

that was not freedom of religion facing death for not following a particular religion or for following a particular religion is not freedom of religion.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Sounds to me like you're discriminating against a human being based upon their level of development.

A new and unique human being is created at fertilization. Why must a human being be x months old before it becomes morally valuable? How does one even objectively make a case for a human being x months old before it's morally valuable? Seems to me that any and all cases to make the distinction between a human being (not morally valuable) and a human person (morally valuable) are necessarily subjective and arbitrary.

Indeed, the only reason I can think of that someone would even want to create a distinction between a human being and a human person would be so that some action can be committed against the human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.

If the child is not viable then some people may feel that it is not really there to protect. That is why for example, often if a mother is killed while expecting often how far among the mother was will help define whether a person will face a second charge. In fact, some laws even say that there most be knowledge that she was expecting ( in certain cases before the person can be charged or at the very least that a DA is unlikely to file a charge if the woman was closer to conception than birth.

 

[Dave-W]

Not showing up for work would be a breach of my contract, is that illegal too?

It depends on the job. If you are in the military ....

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That would depend on whether i was a person who felt i should be judging others and making determinations about their fate. You obviously believe you are.

No offense, but as an atheist, you don't have the same responsibility as the followers of Christ do... actually, you do but you dodn't recognize the Giver of those responsibilities. Jesus asked us to rebuke, reprove and exhort each other if we were out of the Way.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What is wrong with it? Do you feel threatened?

Not at all but I'm not going to stop espousing Christian values on a Christian site...

 

[Nithavela]

How would an abortion provider answer that Q?

This might surprise you, but pro-choice people have children, too.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

what are the vest majority of marriages?

Not open as suggested. At least one of the persons in most marriages expects fidelity and it is even included in the vows that both say "I do" to.

 

[SPF]

If the child is not viable then some people may feel that it is not really there to protect.

Which is discrimination against a human because they are not developed to a certain degree.

That is why for example, often if a mother is killed while expecting often how far among the mother was will help define whether a person will face a second charge. In fact, some laws even say that there most be knowledge that she was expecting ( in certain cases before the person can be charged or at the very least that a DA is unlikely to file a charge if the woman was closer to conception than birth.

This is a categorical mistake and does not apply to the ethical question of whether or not a distinction exists between a human being and a human person. Cultural laws do not determine morals.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the womb. This is why people attempt to make a distinction between a human being and a human person. The question is no longer, "when does life begin". Science has answered that question, it's at fertilization. The shift then goes to creating a distinction between a human being and a human person.

Thus, what some people do is draw the line at the first trimester, or the second trimester, or the third trimester, or some go so far as to say any time while the unborn is still in the womb. Others say things like viability, or development of the nervous system and the ability to feel pain, or development of the brain. People draw the line at any of these points in an attempt to justify abortion at any point before their subjective and arbitrary line. But all the reasoning and argument for the line is again - subjective, arbitrary, and at the end of the day, fallacious.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

that was not freedom of religion facing death for not following a particular religion or for following a particular religion is not freedom of religion.

I'm sorry, I didn't think I needed to spell it completely out for you...

this behaviour by the Babylonian king was against God's standards, therefore when the US was set up under it's Christian principles, the 1st amendment was written to ensure what happened to the Babylonians couldn't happen in the US. Understand now?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This might surprise you, but pro-choice people have children, too.

Some alive... some dead. At least that's their prerogative, right?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

If the child is not viable then some people may feel that it is not really there to protect.

This notion of "not viable" is another lie spread around like it has merit. A 3 month old, a 6 month old, a year old baby is not viable to survive without constant care. Whats the difference?