Then given that the nature of the conflict is being able to debate effictvly it seems likely you will lose.
Upvote
0
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.
You support abortion. You favor murder of infants. Therefore, you are an adversary - a supporter of killers - and I don't care about politesse when dealing with foes.
Ecco,
They labeled Africans slaves as 3/5ths a person and considered it ok to hang them from a tree for no good reason at all. Now all the sudden we frown on this!
Likewise for all who consider that life within a human woman's womb to be less than a person. In the end this will change but how many humans must "hang" via abortion before it does?
You've chosen a position that is inconsistent with what the founders of this country thought when they listed those inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In doing so you undermine the value of your own life when in turn affects your liberties and happiness. If a government official can simply declare a person to not be a person, thereby denying them their protection of life, then they become the same kind of dictator the founders were setting up the American form of government against.
Vicomte need not invoke any scripture to make this point and the reason he does is precisely because this country was founded on Christian principles whether you like it or not. This is not to claim the founders were all Christians... not even that some were... but that they gave us a foundation based upon Christian thinking that saw all human life as infinitely valuable.
If you don't like that I present my views, don't respond to them. If you don't respond, I'll have nothing to say back to you.On top of this you argue within a Christian forum claiming you cannot be affected by such thinking.
I don't take them for granted which is why I will speak out, and take other action, when I see people trying to erode my or other's civil liberties.So you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to the protection of your own life and liberties. To take for granted the basis of these protection is to dismiss them altogether.
After she came out of the birth canal she was a person.Likewise your compassion for an adult woman is nil since that woman must come through not just the birth canal but all the stages of life prior to it.
I am not the one who has a lack of respect for life. By forcing women to carry to term a pregnancy initiated by rape, you show your disrespect for the woman. By alternatively forcing a woman to have a back alley abortion, you show your disrespect for the woman. By wanting to impose your views on all Americans you show your lack of respect for most other people.It's interesting how your lack of recognition of life after death spills over into a lack of respect for life prior to death.
My anti-religious sentiment really comes out when religious people arrogantly proclaim "My way is the only Right way".The association is there yet you are blind by your anti-religious sentiment.
Never-the-less you possess the same protection on your life as preborn persons should have and if the drift in American continues against life it will eventually effect more and more of us adults you so jealously guard. This movement toward the disorder of homosexuality as being equivelent to heterosexuality is not just short sighted but dangerous. In the future those who disagee with calling that disorder normal will be compelled to do so on pain of death. We already see the beginnings of this with the bakery owner who has been denied his livelihood because he would not make a wedding cake for a "same-sex couple."
What has been going on my whole life is a flipping around of normal and abnormal, an exchange of good and evil, and the consequent confusion such mindset brings. None of us live in a vacuum and eventually these ideas will affect all of us because as has been wisely said: ideas have cosequences. We carry out what we think mostly about and this sex-saturated culture we live in wants even more than what Nazi's had... their own kind of sexual perversion in concentration camps eventually morphed into a lack of respect for human life (and vice-versa). Americans were instrumental in stopping the Jewish holocaust only to find years later their children's children without memory of or stigma against these same kind of atrocities... just under different terms.
... The only times it can be justified (in my opinion) is in the case of rape (especially of children), or if the woman could lose her life if she bears the baby to term.
Vicomte13 said: ↑
When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry
ecco said: ↑
Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?
Wrong. It was OUR OWN LAWS that abolished slavery in opposition obeying god's laws which encouraged, permitted and gave rules on how to acquire and treat them. (Exodus 21). You defined this a committing idolatry.
So Christians buying heathen African slaves right off the boat was OK since they were not yet Christians. The abolishment of slavery was done in accordance with the Constitution of the US, not in obedience to a god that permitted and encouraged slavery.
Approximately 30% of pregnancies abort spontaneously. God's will.
But that "justification" does not, and did not, stand up to actual Scriptural scrutiny.Slavery in American was justified by the permission given by god in Exodus.
I'd say that you're trying to reason with pro-abortion people . . .
Maybe not here on this board but they do exist elsewhere.No one here is pro-abortion. All of us wish that we lived in a world where not one elective abortion would occur.
Maybe not here on this board but they do exist elsewhere.
No but one woman (who apparently has been lauded by many) got one because she was carrying a male child and could not bear to bring one more monster into the world.Does anyone think that women go to get abortions because they are fun?
No one here is pro-abortion. All of us wish that we lived in a world where not one elective abortion would occur. .
No but one woman (who apparently has been lauded by many) got one because she was carrying a male child and could not bear to bring one more monster into the world.
Why would we want such a world unless a human being in the womb is as much a person as anyone else?
Why would we want such a world unless a human being in the womb is as much a person as anyone else?
And that is what some of these radical feminists want too. A world with no men. (or maybe a few as "donors" until they figure out how to reproduce with out males)What we would want is a world where women are not disadvantaged by having a child, and a world where women are not vilified by conservatives for seeking assistance to support her family.
Ananda,As a Buddhist, I happen to be blessed with other declarations of moral reality as found in the Tipitaka, in no way means you, or anyone else, don't have to live by the same rules.
I'm not advocating for lawlessness. Anyone who can demonstrate measurable harm received from another is entitled to restoration through the power of law.
And that is what some of these radical feminists want too. A world with no men. (or maybe a few as "donors" until they figure out how to reproduce with out males)
I am saying that I have the right to intervene to save lives.
Ananda,
There is a difference between moral and civil law. In fact as Vicomte has been trying to get across in this thread there is a law called divine positive law upon which all other law rests. I think the simplist definition of it is God's absolute will. Then comes the moral law which has to do with human behavior (more accurately the acts we make). Moral laws is unchangeable like positive law. Moral law resides outside us and is summed up in the Christian Ten Commandments. It can be discovered by us... not made up at our whim.Then civil law which is moral law codified by human beings. We must make distinctions or we talk past each other here.
Now you say you have your own code of behavior or law but if it in any way violates moral law (or divine positive) then it is not valid. This is where our difference is in how you see that moral law outside you. Your Buddhist version may be an attempt to codify (clearify) moral law or not... you tell me. Never-the-less it is dependent on that immutable law imposed on us by our nature (by God creating us) or it is not good law. Likewise for civil law any society lives under which is precisely why any law that supports abortion, the deliberate killing of a living person, is a bad law and we are not bound by it. There need not be a civil law against abortion, or any other form of murder, unless in a particular society that sort of behavior becomes a problem. Since in our society abortion is a serious problem we need to legislate against it.
In a nutshell, we cannot kill an innocent helpless person with impuniity, just because of where they are living.
Because there are more effective ways to prevent unwanted children? Because preventing medical procedures is a good thing?
No ananda, I'm not a moral relavitist!You forgot to end all of that with "in my opinion"...
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?