• 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.

In Perspective.

Status
Not open for further replies.

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
I disagree...this has much to do with your age. You don't have the life experience to make these types of decisions regarding life. You haven't seen an ultrasound of your baby's heart beating or sucking his thumb. You haven't experienced the joy of a baby kicking or your husband beaming with joy as he holds his son in his arms for the first time.

Whether or not someone wants those things is a personal choice. I want these things. But not now. Later, when I'm ready. There are many people my age who would agree with me. They want to have kids, but they're not ready for that at this age. They may be ready for sex, but not kids.

Also, you may likely say that if you're not ready for kids, you shouldn't have sex, but some people don't want kids until they're 40. Is it fair to expect them to wait until then?

I'm not mocking you or your age, but you lack experience in this arena. You shouldn't attempt to step into an area where you carry no authority. This is not about a number, but your age is a factor. I did MANY stupid things that I HIGHLY regret when I was 15 - and 16 - and 17 - etc...you get the point. We all gain experience as we pass through life and your views will change on a variety of subjects. You most likely don't have the same viewpoints today that you did when you were 5. That's just life.

Why do you have more authority in this area? I am entitled to my opinions. My dad has more life experience than you, and he agrees with me wholeheartedly on this issue. He has two kids and a step daughter.

But in this field, you just haven't had the opportunity to experience the joys that children bring. You are just seeing the negative. Ask any mother what they think about their 6 month old and I can assure you that it won't involve the economy. According to your own words, you want to have children when you are older. Believe me...you will feel differently then.

A baby is never positive at my age. Unless I lived 200 years ago, but I don't. I would love to have my own children one day. But now I am working at preventing pregnancy. I don't like abortion. Its not an easy choice for someone to make, but they should have that option.

A way to lower teen pregnancy, and thus lowering abortion, would be to teach about birth control in schools.

That's a good idea for a thread! And I'm off...
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whether or not someone wants those things is a personal choice. I want these things. But not now. Later, when I'm ready. There are many people my age who would agree with me. They want to have kids, but they're not ready for that at this age. They may be ready for sex, but not kids.

Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit to cement the commitment with your spouse. If you are not able to deal with the natural consequence of having sex, which without birth control or abortion is having children, then don't have sex.

Also, you may likely say that if you're not ready for kids, you shouldn't have sex, but some people don't want kids until they're 40. Is it fair to expect them to wait until then?

Wow...you can see the future. I'm impressed.

That was quite the logical jump there, but yes...if you are not married or in a place to carry the responsibility of bearing children, then do the world a favor (in your view) and DON"T HAVE SEX.

Why do you have more authority in this area? I am entitled to my opinions. My dad has more life experience than you, and he agrees with me wholeheartedly on this issue. He has two kids and a step daughter.

Because I have experienced these things. These are not opinions. This is experience. And...sidenote...you're 15 and you're dad wholeheartedly agrees with you having sex? For some reason...I HIGHLY doubt that. If he's ok with you having sex at 15, he's got serious problems and that would be a whole other thread.

A baby is never positive at my age. Unless I lived 200 years ago, but I don't. I would love to have my own children one day. But now I am working at preventing pregnancy. I don't like abortion. Its not an easy choice for someone to make, but they should have that option.

I agree that a baby at your age is difficult, but I disagree that it is never positive. I know many mothers that had a child in their teens. Now those children are graduating high school...and the mothers couldn't be more proud. But unlike most, they accepted the challenge to bear the consequences of their actions. They had the courage to raise their children. And now they are reaping the benefits of that choice.

A way to lower teen pregnancy, and thus lowering abortion, would be to teach about birth control in schools. That's a good idea for a thread! And I'm off...

An even better idea would be to teach abstinence in schools. This way, you not only get rid of the abortion/teen pregnancy problem, but you also deal with other side-benefits of uncommitted sex like STD's, broken hearts, and shattered lives. Hmmm....

Look...I'm not just trying to pick on you. I used to think the same way when I was under 21. But believe me that you will not see things the same way in 15 years. Uncommitted sex just gets old after a while. Very boring. And after you have children, you suddenly think about how they will learn about sex. And you now have reasons to act better than you did when you were 15. I can say without a doubt that every 35+ year old that I've ever known feels this way. Trust me...you'll see. That's the benefit I have in this debate...time. Experience will prove me correct.
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
Follow this logic to its conclusion. It the world will benefit from fewer babies, why not just knock off everyone over 60? I mean...they're not really doing anything but taking up air. And they are...old. Besides, they've had a long life. The world would be better without them.

And while we're at it...let's get rid of all mentally/physically challenged people. They're not helping society. And they eat.... There you go. Let's get them out as well.

And what about all the people in Africa. I mean...seriously...they live in deserts. Their quality of life is horrible. And all of that starvation and disease and poverty - if they go, we can get rid of all that stuff. They will never have a good life because they are in a economic depression. Now we're down to what - a few billion worldwide?

What about the Chinese? That's a few billion. No...wait...who'd make our stuff. Got to keep them. But the French...

See the relativism of this argument? By the time you get to the end, you'd find yourself on the chopping block. THEN you'd probably have a problem.


No, that's not what I'm talking about. We don't need to destroy people that are already living. What we need to do is watch ourselves. We are balancing precariously on completely leaching the earth of it's resources. If a woman cannot have an abortion, then we are adding to the problem. She has a child she herself cannot support. This further dogs the economy. Think about the consequences of MORE PEOPLE.

China has billions of people. And the law is one child to family.
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit to cement the commitment with your spouse. If you are not able to deal with the natural consequence of having sex, which without birth control or abortion is having children, then don't have sex.

Sex is not soley for procreation. It is a natural thing to do.



Because I have experienced these things. These are not opinions. This is experience. And...sidenote...you're 15 and you're dad wholeheartedly agrees with you having sex? For some reason...I HIGHLY doubt that. If he's ok with you having sex at 15, he's got serious problems and that would be a whole other thread.

This is not about me having sex. This is about abortion. My dad support abortion.



I agree that a baby at your age is difficult, but I disagree that it is never positive. I know many mothers that had a child in their teens. Now those children are graduating high school...and the mothers couldn't be more proud. But unlike most, they accepted the challenge to bear the consequences of their actions. They had the courage to raise their children. And now they are reaping the benefits of that choice.

And that's their choice. Who's to say that that choice is for everyone?



An even better idea would be to teach abstinence in schools. This way, you not only get rid of the abortion/teen pregnancy problem, but you also deal with other side-benefits of uncommitted sex like STD's, broken hearts, and shattered lives. Hmmm....

See my new post on this. The govenment only supports abstinence programs. It has not been effective. It has done nothing.

Look...I'm not just trying to pick on you. I used to think the same way when I was under 21. But believe me that you will not see things the same way in 15 years. Uncommitted sex just gets old after a while. Very boring. And after you have children, you suddenly think about how they will learn about sex. And you now have reasons to act better than you did when you were 15. I can say without a doubt that every 35+ year old that I've ever known feels this way. Trust me...you'll see. That's the benefit I have in this debate...time. Experience will prove me correct.

Who says I'm not committed? Just because I'm not committed in the eyes of God, or the Law, doesn't mean I don't love my boyfriend.
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, that's not what I'm talking about. We don't need to destroy people that are already living. What we need to do is watch ourselves. We are balancing precariously on completely leaching the earth of it's resources. If a woman cannot have an abortion, then we are adding to the problem. She has a child she herself cannot support. This further dogs the economy. Think about the consequences of MORE PEOPLE.

China has billions of people. And the law is one child to family.

This is where you and I differ in worldviews. To quote you, "We don't need to destroy the people that are already living."

Here's what I think:

I'm sitting here with my six-month old son. I remember the day that I saw his ultra-sound. He was 20-weeks old. I saw his heart beating. I didn't see a fetus. I didn't see a choice. I saw my son. I saw an answer to two-years of constant prayer.

When would you have told me that my son was a human being deserving of life? At what time could my wife have chosen to terminate his life and it not be called murder? If not before birth, then when? We call people that kill infants murderers; and rightly so. We call people that abandon their children to starve inhuman; and rightly so.

So when my son drew his first breath, did he breathe in his right to life - his rights as a human being? Let's examine nature. When life exists, it requires food and grows. So when do we apply the gift of "life" to a fetus? It requires food. It grows.

Would it be after 30-weeks? Maybe. Would it be only after the baby becomes viable? Well science has pushed that back to 20ish weeks. Where is the line? That's the problem with our culture. People are scared of lines. We can't draw lines because it might offend someone. We would do well to remember the words of Edmund Burke when he said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Now my son is in my arms; I see his face - he looks like his Mom (thank God). I feel his little hands wrap around my finger as he studies it. I see his eyes as they turn to peer into mine. I place my hand on his chest and feel him breathing. I feel his heart beating.

He smiles at me and I melt. I heard him really laugh for the first time today. Do you know that I waited years to hear that laugh? Do you know that when he hugs me while on my shoulder that I sometimes cry? Do you know that when I come home and he looks over - sees me - and breaks out into the biggest toothless grin (well - to be honest, he's got two small teeth coming in), the joy welling up in me cannot be measured?

These are all emotions connected to that child that was once a 20-week old image on an ultrasound. When I first saw that image, it forever cemented in me that these children MUST be protected. We have become so blase' with this issue. We have become so concerned about hurting each other's feelings we avoid any issue that could potentially be interpreted as "you're trying to condemn me." It's not about condemnation or blame. It's about a child's life.

Well...the place I've chosen to stand is here - with my son and any other child. There are plenty of people speaking out for a woman's right to choose. I choose to speak for those that can't. I choose to fight for them."
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
You chose to keep your baby. Not everyone should have to choose that. You child was concieved out of love, as far as I can tell. What about children concieved out of rape? Out of incest? What do you do when a father rapes his twelve year old daughter? It's not as rare as you'd like to believe.
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sex is not soley for procreation. It is a natural thing to do.

Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit. It's the natural consequence. Try having sex without birth control for a while and see what happens "naturally"


This is not about me having sex. This is about abortion. My dad support abortion.

Yes...if you have sex...you can potentially have a child. Ergo...this is about sex.

And that's their choice. Who's to say that that choice is for everyone?

So are you debating that EVERY choice is good no matter the consequence? This would then point back to the "if I want to murder - it's my choice" option brought up earlier in the post. Not every choice is a good choice. I'm sure that you know that.

See my new post on this. The govenment only supports abstinence programs. It has not been effective. It has done nothing.

Actually...schools taught birth control in my day. And from what I see, it's still the primary format taught in schools these days. Tell me - how's that condom handing out thing working these days?

Who says I'm not committed? Just because I'm not committed in the eyes of God, or the Law, doesn't mean I don't love my boyfriend.

Commitment is more than boyfriend/girlfriend. If your boyfriend gets tired of you (or vice-versa), he can leave without consequence. You get nothing. No help...sometimes not even a good excuse as to why he's leaving. So that is not a commitment. It's a convenience. You are able to feel lovey-dovey with him and act like you have a serious commitment, but really you don't. You've made an agreement to not see anyone else, but if that happens - or he loses interest in you - the agreement is broken.

At least with marriage, you have legal recourse and there is some consequence. A person just can't pick up and leave. There are judgements involved and both parties have to agree to how the divorce occurs.

And until you are ready to make a REAL commitment that involves being able to provide for each other and the potential child, do yourself a favor and stay away from sexual relations. You will save yourself more heartaches than you can image...AND..side benefit...not have to face the option we're debating here. If all you want is the pleasure involved in sex, go find some toy. Stay away from rolling the dice with sex.
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You chose to keep your baby. Not everyone should have to choose that. You child was concieved out of love, as far as I can tell. What about children concieved out of rape? Out of incest? What do you do when a father rapes his twelve year old daughter? It's not as rare as you'd like to believe.

Rape and incest are horrid ordeals that I would not wish upon any woman. The emotional and physical scarring involved in that violent act are demonic.

But does another violent act against a child just as innocent of the crime perpetuated justify the means? By killing an unborn child, are you going to instantly wash away the emotional scars of rape? By aborting the child, are you going to escape the memories of an obviously demonically influenced father? Years of therapy don't help many women past this point in their lives. Why would an abortion be any different.

I propose that abortion adds to the pain suffered by the woman/girl that has to endure in this tragedy. The emotional and physical anguish they would have to overcome would be compounded by the abortion. Now they suffer not only with the memory of the violent act against them, but they now must come to terms with the violent act they perpetrated against the "fetus".

Why not allow the baby to come to term and give it up for adoption? What is wrong with that option?

As far as my choice, you are correct. He was conceived in love. But it was not just a choice. It was years of prayer. It was my destiny. I am so fulfilled being a dad. Words cannot express it. You'll know that feeling one day. And you won't be able to compare that joy to anything in the world.
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit. It's the natural consequence. Try having sex without birth control for a while and see what happens "naturally"

I am perfectly aware of what happens naturally.




So are you debating that EVERY choice is good no matter the consequence? This would then point back to the "if I want to murder - it's my choice" option brought up earlier in the post. Not every choice is a good choice. I'm sure that you know that.

Sometimes abortion is the best choice. And that is not up for you or I to decide. It's up to the woman in the position.



Actually...schools taught birth control in my day. And from what I see, it's still the primary format taught in schools these days. Tell me - how's that condom handing out thing working these days?

It's not. The government only funds abstinence only programs. I went to a Catholic school, so they definatly did not hand out condoms. I am transferring to a public school this year, I will see if they do that.
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am perfectly aware of what happens naturally.

So your argument that sex is not primarily for procreation???? Pregnancy is not a natural byproduct of sex??? Sorry...you lost me there.


Sometimes abortion is the best choice. And that is not up for you or I to decide. It's up to the woman in the position.

And where is the man in this decision? Would he have a say if he wanted to keep the child he helped to create? Why does the woman have the final decision in this matter? Does she specifically own the child? Or do half of the chromosomes in that fetus not belong to the dad?

Point being that it's not a good choice. Choices are a part of life. But there is a difference between a good choice and a bad one. That's something that you'll pick up in the next 15 or so years as well. Trust me. This will all make sense after age 25.


It's not. The government only funds abstinence only programs. I went to a Catholic school, so they definatly did not hand out condoms. I am transferring to a public school this year, I will see if they do that.

REALLY???!!! Yeah...the government only funds abstinence programs? LOL! You really can't believe that. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt because you go to a Catholic school...where the should teach abstinence - since they get no government support they have the right to teach what they want. BTW...condoms break. Often. When the guy actually uses them. Not that great of a method for birth control eh?
 
Upvote 0

Trashionista

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2007
6,222
554
The Copacabana
✟9,243.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
What legal precedent do you draw this from? If this is cast in stone, why are people that strike pregnant women and cause miscarriage charged for manslaughter? When a person kills a pregnant woman, that person can be charged for a double murder (case in point - Scott/Lacy Peterson)

Why am I allowed to get an abortion, but it would be illegal for me to kill my mother? Barring physical defense.
[For the record, I love my mamma. Hypothetical situation.]

On the topic of Lacey & Scott, obviously, Lacey didn't want to have an abortion, as she was quite far along in the pregnancy.
There was no consent by her to have her fetus aborted.
However, when a woman goes in for an abortion, there are is consent to have the procedure done.
 
Upvote 0

Trashionista

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2007
6,222
554
The Copacabana
✟9,243.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
Sex is for procreation. Pleasure is a side-benefit to cement the commitment with your spouse. If you are not able to deal with the natural consequence of having sex, which without birth control or abortion is having children, then don't have sex.

Given the health benefits or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and intercourse, as well as the fact that even babies and young children have been known to touch, I don't see how pleasure can just be seen as a "side-benefit."

You can be madly in love with your spouse, but receive no sexual pleasure from having sex with them. Obviously, there's enough sex therapists to verify this.
Likewise, you can have satisfying sex with someone you aren't married to or even madly in love with. Or with someone you don't even particularly like.
Maybe the example you gave of pleasure vs. pro-creation can be applied to your marriage, but it certainly doesn't speak of all sex lives. Nor can it really be applied to all sexual encounters.

So, clearly, sexual intercourse, foreplay and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that accompany these acts can be a much bigger motivation for having sex than pro-creation. And therefore, an even bigger issue in some couple's marriages.

So, I'll say I disagree entirely on that point.
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why am I allowed to get an abortion, but it would be illegal for me to kill my mother? Barring physical defense.
[For the record, I love my mamma. Hypothetical situation.]

On the topic of Lacey & Scott, obviously, Lacey didn't want to have an abortion, as she was quite far along in the pregnancy.
There was no consent by her to have her fetus aborted.
However, when a woman goes in for an abortion, there are is consent to have the procedure done.

This is where the legal system has gone awry. There is a double standard in consideration for the fetus/child. In one sense, if the pregnant woman "desires" to have an abortion, the fetus is not considered as a living person and thereby the mother can kill it without afterthought.

Whereas, if the mother "desires" to carry the pregnancy to term, the same fetus/child is given the status of living being and afforded the right of consideration. If that child is terminated (notice the same result in both), its life is considered valuable and the act that killed it is determined to be an act of violence that can be criminally charged.

Thus...a double standard based on the desires of one person. No consideration is given to the child in question; no consideration is usually given to the father that helped to create the child (even if the father is asked, if he wants life and the mother wants abortion, the mother trumps the father). What would work here is a standard that determines exactly WHEN the fetus in question in a viable life. That's what I'm asking those whom disagree with "life at conception". When do you (or the mother) determine that the life inside is a life. No one can answer that question.

For those that would say, "Well...it's the law. And the government is just trying to protect the right of the mother's body." I would point you to the laws passed by the government in the past: "Jim Crow" Laws that discriminated based on the color of someone's skin; Laws preventing women and blacks from voting; seriously this list could go on for quite a while. Is this the same government that is out to "protect" one life over another? Please...
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Given the health benefits or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and intercourse, as well as the fact that even babies and young children have been known to touch, I don't see how pleasure can just be seen as a "side-benefit."

You can be madly in love with your spouse, but receive no sexual pleasure from having sex with them. Obviously, there's enough sex therapists to verify this.
Likewise, you can have satisfying sex with someone you aren't married to or even madly in love with. Or with someone you don't even particularly like.
Maybe the example you gave of pleasure vs. pro-creation can be applied to your marriage, but it certainly doesn't speak of all sex lives. Nor can it really be applied to all sexual encounters.

So, clearly, sexual intercourse, foreplay and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that accompany these acts can be a much bigger motivation for having sex than pro-creation. And therefore, an even bigger issue in some couple's marriages.

So, I'll say I disagree entirely on that point.

This is an absurd argument. If all your out for is pleasure, then self-stimulate. Avoid the troubles that accompany sex outside of marriage. If the purpose of sex was only pleasure, then childbirth would not be a NATURAL consequence if sex was left to itself without intervention.

The original purpose of sex given Biblically was to procreate. Remember the "Go forth and multiply" line God gave to Adam and Eve? Whether you believe the Bible as authoritative or not, you have to recognize that the reason sex is pleasurable is to cement the commitment between the spouses and procreate in order to populate the world.
 
Upvote 0

Trashionista

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2007
6,222
554
The Copacabana
✟9,243.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
This is an absurd argument. If all your out for is pleasure, then self-stimulate. Avoid the troubles that accompany sex outside of marriage. If the purpose of sex was only pleasure, then childbirth would not be a NATURAL consequence if sex was left to itself without intervention.

The original purpose of sex given Biblically was to procreate. Remember the "Go forth and multiply" line God gave to Adam and Eve? Whether you believe the Bible as authoritative or not, you have to recognize that the reason sex is pleasurable is to cement the commitment between the spouses and procreate in order to populate the world.

If we're created in God's image, why would the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] have as many nerve endings as a full penis?
Sex is meant to be enjoyed. There's enough just in the way one's reproduction system is set up to show that.

You can't really say one is moreso the purpose than the other. That's all pretty dependant on the couple.
If you only want two kids, afterwards, sex is more for the purpose of pleasure.
For a woman's who has gone through menopause and can't conceive, the argument of sex for procreation argument really can't be applied.

I don't disagree that part of sex could be the goal of making babies, but to suggest pleasure is an after-thought is completely false.
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
This is an absurd argument. If all your out for is pleasure, then self-stimulate. Avoid the troubles that accompany sex outside of marriage. If the purpose of sex was only pleasure, then childbirth would not be a NATURAL consequence if sex was left to itself without intervention.

The original purpose of sex given Biblically was to procreate. Remember the "Go forth and multiply" line God gave to Adam and Eve? Whether you believe the Bible as authoritative or not, you have to recognize that the reason sex is pleasurable is to cement the commitment between the spouses and procreate in order to populate the world.


Sex is much better when shared with another person. Why is that? If sex was meant only for marriage, why are we able to have sex before marriage? Wouldn't God prevent us from having sex before marriage?
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sex is much better when shared with another person. Why is that? If sex was meant only for marriage, why are we able to have sex before marriage? Wouldn't God prevent us from having sex before marriage?

For the same reason that God allows us to do anything; it's about free-will to choose. It's the same reason that God doesn't strike dead for any other sin, such as abortion. God intends the best scenario for us; but we have the right to choose the good choice.

Hence the basis of the abortion argument. Does a person have the ability to choose abortion? Yes. Does that ability to choose always make it the right, good choice. No. This is where the conscience comes in. God has given each of us a conscience to discern between the good and bad choices. Standards have been set to help determine. What you do with that is your choice. But just because you choose pre-marital sex or abortion doesn't mean that its God's best. And we do have to answer for our choices, both good and bad.
 
Upvote 0

exxxys

Heathen
Apr 30, 2008
439
21
THE BIG T DOT
✟15,768.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Others
For the same reason that God allows us to do anything; it's about free-will to choose. It's the same reason that God doesn't strike dead for any other sin, such as abortion. God intends the best scenario for us; but we have the right to choose the good choice.

Hence the basis of the abortion argument. Does a person have the ability to choose abortion? Yes. Does that ability to choose always make it the right, good choice. No. This is where the conscience comes in. God has given each of us a conscience to discern between the good and bad choices. Standards have been set to help determine. What you do with that is your choice. But just because you choose pre-marital sex or abortion doesn't mean that its God's best. And we do have to answer for our choices, both good and bad.

You cannot deny the fact that abortion is sometimes the best choice. You never commented on the scenario presented to you by me earlier in the thread. "What about a 12 year old girl who is raped by her father?"

What are supposed to do in that situation? Don't tell me a baby is a 'wonderful blessing' in the above situation. Anyone who thinks that is sick, I'm sorry.

What about the abortions women will try to do themselves if the choice to have a safe, medical abortion is not available? That will often result in infections such as gangrene, and will often kill the mother. How is that good? How is this God's will?
 
Upvote 0

rcorley

Active Member
Jul 21, 2008
79
12
Madison, MS
✟22,956.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You cannot deny the fact that abortion is sometimes the best choice. You never commented on the scenario presented to you by me earlier in the thread. "What about a 12 year old girl who is raped by her father?"

What are supposed to do in that situation? Don't tell me a baby is a 'wonderful blessing' in the above situation. Anyone who thinks that is sick, I'm sorry.

I actually answered those questions about a page back. I won't double post here, but please go back to read the response. Tell me what you think.

What about the abortions women will try to do themselves if the choice to have a safe, medical abortion is not available? That will often result in infections such as gangrene, and will often kill the mother. How is that good? How is this God's will?

So...let's follow that logic out. What if I won't to chop off my left arm for no reason. I'm not that fond of it. I really don't use it that much. But if I go to a doctor and request that he chop off my arm, his first response should be "Why??" If I explain to him that it's not that useful and I'd be better off without it; I mean...I didn't ask for that arm anyway - he'd look at me like I was crazy. He wouldn't perform the amputation. But if I really want to do it, that I would just attempt to cut it off myself and I tell him so. Should he perform the amputation now because I'm going to do it anyway and I'll probably bleed to death in the process. No...more likely he will call the psychiatric ward.

So if a woman wants to perform a violent act upon herself and her child, should we bend to the request to keep her from attempting it herself? People do stupid things everyday. We should not change the standard to prevent them from being stupid.

That's like saying you should kill a certain person because if you don't I'm going to kill him. Your act to prevent my act by circumventing it won't change the fact...a person was killed.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.