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.
Now who is being dishonest? More women are not killed by abortion than childbirth. In fact, the only abortion procedure which yields comparable maternal fatality rates is late term Dilation & Extraction, which your group likes to call "partial birth abortion". The maternal fatality rates for D&X are about 1% lower than childbirth.geocajun said:Also, did you know more Women are killed by abortion than childbirth?
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Death rate: 6 or 7 per million procedures on average (about 9 times safer than bearing the fetus to term)[/font]
You can't sacrafice to an idol if you don't recognize the idol, or realize its existence. I know what you're probably intending to say here, but the point of an idol is that you're worshipping someone or something other than God.All4one said:After praying and studying this subject for some time I have come to find that abortion is offering a sacrifice to an idol.
How would you feel if people told you to shut your mouth? It probably would annoy you, right?Those who speak for abortion needs to shut their mouths and examine the situation in a first person standpoint.
There is, actually, a fairly morbid argument that because an aborted infant would go straight to heaven, abortion guarantees their salvation, and is therefore compassionate in a perverse way.If half a brain abided there you may think, " When I was in my mothers womb would I have said abortion is ok?"
As others have said, God has advocated infanticide in the past. Granted, His motives were far beyond our understanding, and therefore always pure. But He has done it.What if God aborted His children because He just does not want them.
You can run this argument both ways, i.e. "what if Hitler had been aborted?"Or worse, what if Christ had been aborted?
geocajun said:Actually, it was worded that way by the writers of the constitution of the United States..
origionally coined by God.
did you bother to read the link you removed from my quote?inked_n_pink said:Now who is being dishonest? More women are not killed by abortion than childbirth. In fact, the only abortion procedure which yields comparable maternal fatality rates is late term Dilation & Extraction, which your group likes to call "partial birth abortion". The maternal fatality rates for D&X are about 1% lower than childbirth.
doh! sorry, declaration of independence:Archivist said:Where is this phrase in the US Constitution????
Declaration of Independence said:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
so you were making the point that it is legal to have an abortion, by stating that 12,000 babies were born each day in contrast to the 4,000 unborn which are murdered?inked_n_pink said:Yes, you have failed to see my point. It is legal to have an abortion, it is not legal to kill your already born children.
geocajun said:doh! sorry, declaration of independence:
Removed? It hasn't been removed. Anyway, yes I read the site and it's Catholic propaganda. Obviously the Catholic Church who is not only extremely anti-abortion, but also anti-contraception, will say whatever it takes to make abortion look as dangerous as possible, even if their information from a less than reliable source doesn't mesh with information from the CDC. Just like these anti-abortion groups tell women that abortion causes breast cancer when the American Cancer Society has already issued a report that clearly states there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. So who should the American population trust? The Right to Life League or the American Cancer Society? Come on now, it's a no-brainer.did you bother to read the link you removed from my quote?
No, "a reason" was given, and I raised questions from there. Is it the onlygeocajun said:so "A" reason was given, and you took it as the "only reason" possible?
Being the person who does not agree with what God's saying, I'm ratherof course, because we cannot possibly conclude that people just haven't figured out whats been revealed... better that we assume a deficit on the part of God right?
I'll wait for your HLI info.Its source is HLI Human Life International, however I couldn't find it right away on their website, but I will look a little later when i am not at work
Also, did you know more Women are killed by abortion than childbirth?
http://www.staycatholic.com/abortion_kills_more_mothers.htm
pthalomarie said:Do you agree with the exceptions the 60's laws allowed for?
QUOTE]
I honestly do not know the exact terms of the laws. I only know that my mother told me that the doctor offered and that my mother would not even consider it. That said, I do not believe that direct abortion should ever be allowed. The Church does teach that medical treatment to save the life of the mother is morally permissible. If this treatment results (as a secondary result) in the death of the unborn child, this is not considered a direct abortion.
All efforts should be made to save both lives. I do not support laws that would allow for health exception.
I never said verbal engineering in and of itself was sinister. The term "pro-choice" is a verbally engineered term to put a nice face on the killing of the unborn. That is what I said.pthalomarie said:Well, it had to come from someone, somewhere. Somebody, at some point, was the first person to say the word "word." The act of forming new words and new languages is the very same "verbal engineering" that you seem to find so sinister.
.
Monica02 said:I do not believe that direct abortion should ever be allowed. The Church does teach that medical treatment to save the life of the mother is morally permissible. If this treatment results (as a secondary result) in the death of the unborn child, this is not considered a direct abortion. All efforts should be made to save both lives. I do not support laws that would allow for health exception.
Archivist said:Do you believe that a person has a right of self defense if their life is threatened? If so, why do you want to take this right away from pregnant women.
I'm happy for you that your mother chose to carry you to term. Why do you want to take this choice away from other women who face the risk of death if they carry children to term?
On that same token we can say that the pro-life side is really trying to put a pretty spin on their cause, as if they are admirable for advocating the sanctity of life, when in reality most of them still support war and capital punishment.Monica said:The term "pro-choice" is a verbally engineered term to put a nice face on the killing of the unborn.
And it's a wonderful thing your mother had that choice.I am also happy that my mother did not kill me.
Monica02 said:Any pregnancy carries the "risk" of death.
This pro-lifer does not support capital punishment. I support war in some cases. The "pro-life" term is normally understood to include abortion, euthenasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment issues. War would have its own term. The pro-aborts love to drag the war issue and the capital punishment issue into the abortion debate because they need to change the subject.inked_n_pink said:On that same token we can say that the pro-life side is really trying to put a pretty spin on their cause, as if they are admirable for advocating the sanctity of life, when in reality most of them still support war and capital punishment.
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?