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.
He created a biological feature where everyone dies. Thanks to AdamFollow that logic to its conclusion. God created biological features which kill unborn children, therefore ______ is responsible for those deaths.
Now you have accepted that God kills unborn children, what's your objection to killing unborn children?He created a biological feature where everyone dies. Thanks to Adam
You taking another persons life for your personal benefit is not justified by the biological feature of life that we all will die.
My objection to killing unborn children is the same as my objection to killing born childrenNow you have accepted that God kills unborn children, what's your objection to killing unborn children?
The usual double standard of somebody largely unaffected by the issue, then. God does it, so it must be right, but if a woman does it it must be wrong. No grey areas, no context or outcome dependencies, just a simple, blinkered, right/wrong standard.My objection to killing unborn children is the same as my objection to killing born children
If there's a cause worth a fight to the death, it's to stop takeover by a fundamentalist theocracyThe usual double standard of somebody largely unaffected by the issue, then. God does it, so it must be right, but if a woman does it it must be wrong. No grey areas, no context or outcome dependencies, just a simple, blinkered, right/wrong standard.
See title.
Animals eat for the purpose of providing nutrients for the replenishment of energy stores, cellular rejuvenation, and so on. If an animal stops eating, metabolic processes no longer have the 'fuel' required to function and the animal eventually dies.
According to creationists there was no death before the Fall. If animals were no longer in danger of starving to death then why would there be a need to eat?
Youre the one with the double standard not me. I just specifically and deliberately proclaimed a single standard for the born and the unborn. At least admit you have a double standardThe usual double standard of somebody largely unaffected by the issue, then. God does it, so it must be right, but if a woman does it it must be wrong. No grey areas, no context or outcome dependencies, just a simple, blinkered, right/wrong standard.
A single standard is a double standard.Youre the one with the double standard not me. I just specifically and deliberately proclaimed a single standard for the born and the unborn. At least admit you have a double standard
No, you proclaimed, probably unintentionally, that you have a double standard. I then detailed what that double standard is - one rule for God, a different rule for man. If that's not the case, let's hear you condemn God for all those children he kills.Youre the one with the double standard not me. I just specifically and deliberately proclaimed a single standard for the born and the unborn. At least admit you have a double standard
This is an interesting perspective. My main concern is for the mother and the doctor who out of convenience decide to remove a human life, at a stage they both passed through. Emotionally this passing of judgement on oneself and removal of care and protection is actually a profound devaluing of ones own origins and the flow of society to which we belong.Follow that logic to its conclusion. God created biological features which kill unborn children, therefore ______ is responsible for those deaths.
You're not alone thinking that.If there's a cause worth a fight to the death, it's to stop takeover by a fundamentalist theocracy.
You, like Platte, are over-simplifying reality. Sure, there may be cases where abortion is a lazy and, perhaps, unjustified action. But there are many, many instances where that is not the case but you choose to wash over them with this simplistic view of life. If this shallow view is representative of the majority view in US then it explains a lot.This is an interesting perspective. My main concern is for the mother and the doctor who out of convenience decide to remove a human life, at a stage they both passed through. Emotionally this passing of judgement on oneself and removal of care and protection is actually a profound devaluing of ones own origins and the flow of society to which we belong.
Sex is founded on security, love and care, given by the couple towards the growing family. Everything within us, our love for our parents, our families, are hard wired into us and drive everything forward.
It is therefore important for the society to recognise respect for the beginning of life and the unborn is part of respect for themselves and the tapestry of life itself.
God declares hurting this process and structure is sinful and leads to death. But not in a judgement sense, but in a self destruction sense. No loving caring mother sees their child die without deep trauma and grief.
This is the cost of walking the path of not recognising the harm throwing away unborn lives without due regard has on everyone and especially those personally involved.
I have to say I have personal experience of a friend of my daughter who went to a party at which things went to far with alcohol, and the morning after pill was sought to resolve any unfortunate consequences.You, like Platte, are over-simplifying reality. Sure, there may be cases where abortion is a lazy and, perhaps, unjustified action. But there are many, many instances where that is not the case but you choose to wash over them with this simplistic view of life. If this shallow view is representative of the majority view in US then it explains a lot.
I have to say I have personal experience of a friend of my daughter who went to a party at which things went to far with alcohol, and the morning after pill was sought to resolve any unfortunate consequences.
My wife got depressed over being pregnant, and the doctors first reaction was, you can get an abortion. There is a presumption that life if causing a problem can be resolved quickly without reference. It was supposed to be because the pregnancy was a danger to life, not an awkward consequence of events.
When a society becomes reduced to a 5 minute conversation and the option to stop a pregnancy is fine, there is something wrong. It is this awkwardness and lack of openness to harm and life long consequences which are not just resolved like a hang over which society needs to face.
God bless you
So ova are destroyed on a regular basis during the menstrual cycle. Do women (or men) experience 'deep trauma and grief' about that?God declares hurting this process and structure is sinful and leads to death. But not in a judgement sense, but in a self destruction sense. No loving caring mother sees their child die without deep trauma and grief.
This is the cost of walking the path of not recognising the harm throwing away unborn lives without due regard has on everyone and especially those personally involved.
Was that the right decision? It sounds almost as if you recognise things aren't always as black and white as you said they are.I have to say I have personal experience of a friend of my daughter who went to a party at which things went to far with alcohol, and the morning after pill was sought to resolve any unfortunate consequences.
Why is this wrong? It wouldn't have anything to do with your religious beliefs, would it?When a society becomes reduced to a 5 minute conversation and the option to stop a pregnancy is fine, there is something wrong.
It seems to me that the religious right are the ones not open to facing harm and life long consequences. One size does not fit all, but that’s exactly what this "abortion is always wrong" attitude tries to impose.It is this awkwardness and lack of openness to harm and life long consequences which are not just resolved like a hang over which society needs to face.
Was that the right decision? It sounds almost as if you recognise things aren't always as black and white as you said they are.
Why is this wrong? It wouldn't have anything to do with your religious beliefs, would it?
It seems to me that the religious right are the ones not open to facing harm and life long consequences. One size does not fit all, but that’s exactly what this "abortion is always wrong" attitude tries to impose.
I wish the "straw man" was unhinged, it was a real experience." Society reduced to a five minute conversation" is such a ridiculous straw man, so utterly unhinged from possibility, it spoils any sense there may be
in anything else you say.
So ova are destroyed on a regular basis during the menstrual cycle. Do women (or men) experience 'deep trauma and grief' about that?
I mean, after all, ova are also unborn potential lives.
Who's responsible for all that destruction?
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?