Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[Fuzzy]

Saw this elsewhere, though of y'all.

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2508455&nav=23iiSdZ2

The skinny:
Trick or treaters in Virginia got plastic baggies from one house that
contained anti-abortion/pro-life pamphlets with "graphic pictures"
along with the candy. Some parents raised a fuss, the police were
unable to do anything, since the home handing it out didn't violate
the law. A local Baptist church has claimed responsibility for the fliers,
and states the fliers were not intended for the kids.

1. How does one put a piece of literature into a bag of candy, and NOT
intend it for trick or treaters?

2. If kids are "not hurt" by these sorts of things as has been postulated
earlier in this thread, why is the church responsible apologizing and seeking
forgiveness from the community?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Wow, jesusfreak3786, I never realized how convincing an argument poorly-wriite poetry can be. You have truly blown me away.

ha ha ha, thats truely funny, I didn't write those for debate reasons thogh, and I never claimed to be able to spell well. lol, the responce really is funny though. he he he ha ha ha .............

 

[pthalomarie]

JesusFreak,

So true about American kids being sheltered. Another thing I have observed from my experience holding abortion signs is that foreign mothers and fathers rarely freak out when their kids see the pictures. They just walk on by and sometimes answer a child's question. Usually it is an American parent flipping.

And I'll repeat my question to you in my last post to you:

What is the correct reaction children should have to the photos?

You've attempted the very bizarre juggling act of, on one hand, insisting that the photos can and should shock people, and on the other hand emphasizing the cavalier disinterest children have towards the photos as evidence that they're not worth complaining about.

It's clear that this is a hard corner to get out of. If the point is to shock as many people as possible, then you admit that there is merit to those who say that the photos are traumatic to children. However, if those young people who laugh and play unfazed by the photos are giving you the intended reaction, then you admit that the phgotos don't work, and then they're unneccessary.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Saw this elsewhere, though of y'all.

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2508455&nav=23iiSdZ2

The skinny:
Trick or treaters in Virginia got plastic baggies from one house that
contained anti-abortion/pro-life pamphlets with "graphic pictures"
along with the candy. Some parents raised a fuss, the police were
unable to do anything, since the home handing it out didn't violate
the law. A local Baptist church has claimed responsibility for the fliers,
and states the fliers were not intended for the kids.

1. How does one put a piece of literature into a bag of candy, and NOT
intend it for trick or treaters?

2. If kids are "not hurt" by these sorts of things as has been postulated
earlier in this thread, why is the church responsible apologizing and seeking
forgiveness from the community?

I agree that is a very strange thing to do but I do think parents should show thier children the truth pro-abortion or not.

 

[kissybug27]

One cannot answer the question without more facts. Do our souls exist before their entry into this realm?

If they do, then where do are they? Presumably they would probably exist in heaven. This would mean that you'd have to reverse your argument. And suddenly, the notion of leaving heaven for this realm does not seem to be terribly desirable.

There are additional factors to consider. Most Christians would agree that a child who is murdered before birth would go straight back to heaven. However, once born, there exists a chance of damnation. Is life in this world worth the gamble of eternal damnation? Or, would souls prefer to play it safe and take the "guaranteed" option and simply not enter this world?

To take it further, if you gave this choice to a person who lived a miserable life, followed by eternal damnation, what do you think they would choose in hindsight? Odds are, they would prefer not to have been born.

So as you can see, there are far too many variables to provide a "realistic" answer. But in terms of eternal bliss, the safe bet is to choose not to be born.

I don't know what all the bible says about where souls come from but I have always thought that everyone that is concieved gets a new soul. It would seem wrong for a soul to be taken from heaven with a chance at not making it back. I believe that God makes a new soul for everyone that is concieved. I know that in the bible it says that God knew us before we were born but maybe that means that ...well .......He knew about us and that we would be concieved not that we had a personal relationship with Him already.

I do believe that every child that is killed regardless of born or still in the womb goes to heaven. I believe there is an age, not the same for everyone, where innocense is lost, the age of accountiblity, until a person reaches this age and understands what sin is and who God is if they die they get a free ticket to heaven.

You could say you are doing a child a favor by not bringing it into this world, but you have to think about the good that little person might bring, but so many are never giving the chance.

God Bless

 

[Fuzzy]

but I do think parents should show thier children the truth pro-abortion or not.

And some of the local parents would disagree with you. The parents,
presumably checking the candy for tampering or anything the child is allergic
to, intercepted the messages, felt they were inappropriate, and had to
try to prevent the kids from seeing it. There's a video clip detailing more
of the story on the link page.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

That choice is yours. It should not be MADE FOR YOU by law and I can't see how you can think it should be.

Perhaps other people feel the loss of a woman who is a wife, mother, daughter, aunt, teacher, etc.has more far reaching trama to the world than the loss of an unborn child. Just a thought.

Let me understand this, you say the mothers choice to kill her baby should not be hindered by law. How about murder of a toddler or an adolesent, or you for that matter? Why not, if killing babys not yet born should be legal, why shouldn't killing anybody be lagal? Or how about theft, robbery, the black market, or how about even genocide why not? The poeple who feel strongly justified in these things, they shouldn't be forced not to commit these acts either. Hmm I wonder where this world is headed.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

And some of the local parents would disagree with you. The parents,
presumably checking the candy for tampering or anything the child is allergic
to, intercepted the messages, felt they were inappropriate, and had to
try to prevent the kids from seeing it. There's a video clip detailing more
of the story on the link page.

Oh don't worry I'm quite sure a lot of parents would not agree with me, I am somewhat of a radical mom I guess. Thru expierence(my own and my daughters) I know that one effective way to insure your kids won't be traumitized by these pictures is by teaching them about it yourself. That way when they see it on the streets or (man!) in their trick or treat bags, they will know about it already.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

O.k. someone mentioned that the agument boils down to when life begins, I agree completly with that. So I feel I should probably point this out. An amieba is a single cell life form, it is life. Now when sperm and egg meet(so to say) thier information very quikly(I don't know exacly how long but not more than a few hours I presume) form a cell. At that point the baby is a uneversaly exepted form of life. I must refer agian to the amieba, I can't imagen anyone dening the fact that the amieba is alive, therefore has life. Life begins the very instant the sperm and the egg form a cell.

 

[kissybug27]

Let me understand this, you say the mothers choice to kill her baby should not be hindered by law. How about murder of a toddler or an adolesent, or you for that matter? Why not, if killing babys not yet born should be legal, why shouldn't killing anybody be lagal? Or how about theft, robbery, the black market, or how about even genocide why not? The poeple who feel strongly justified in these things, they shouldn't be forced not to commit these acts either. Hmm I wonder where this world is headed.

As I was reading your post I remembered Dr. Kavorkian ..........

As of April 1999, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in all but a handful of states. Over thirty states have enacted statutes prohibiting assisted suicide, and of those that do not have statutes, a number of them arguably prohibit it through common law. In Michigan, Jack Kevorkian was initially charged with violating the state statute, in addition to first-degree murder and delivering a controlled substance without a license. The assisted suicide charge was dropped, however, and he was eventually convicted of second degree murder and delivering a controlled substance without a license.

I have heard of people who unhooked life support from their loved one to give them peace and have went to jail on murder charges.

If you do something to someone like if you bully them or are mean to them and they kill themselves should you be convicted of murder. People have been.

But yet we still have a law that permits women to kill their unborn children. It saddens me.

 

[flicka]

Let me understand this, you say the mothers choice to kill her baby should not be hindered by law. How about murder of a toddler or an adolesent, or you for that matter? Why not, if killing babys not yet born should be legal, why shouldn't killing anybody be lagal? Or how about theft, robbery, the black market, or how about even genocide why not? The poeple who feel strongly justified in these things, they shouldn't be forced not to commit these acts either. Hmm I wonder where this world is headed.

My post was in responose to those saying a woman should carry a baby even if it put her life at risk because she already got to live and should now give the baby a chance. I stand by my statement. If you would die for you unborn child more power to you, if you would force another woman to that is nothing more than you playing god. And only god can play god.

 

[kissybug27]

My post was in responose to those saying a woman should carry a baby even if it put her life at risk because she already got to live and should now give the baby a chance. I stand by my statement. If you would die for you unborn child more power to you, if you would force another woman to that is nothing more than you playing god. And only god can play god.

Aren't you playing God when you decide to kill an unborn child?

 

[flicka]

Aren't you playing God when you decide to kill an unborn child?

Well hey, I'm not deciding to do that.

We don't get to tell other people what they have to die for. Sorry.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

My post was in responose to those saying a woman should carry a baby even if it put her life at risk because she already got to live and should now give the baby a chance. I stand by my statement. If you would die for you unborn child more power to you, if you would force another woman to that is nothing more than you playing god. And only god can play god.

I won't deny the threat of death would be a compeling factor in abortion, but dont forget, there are poeple that will kill another person at the threat of death. Like for instance a gang leader tells his # 1 man to go kill this woman because she exposed some sensitive information to the police, The # 1 man knows if he doesn't do it, his "boss" will have him killed and possably his family too. So the man murders the woman. This man also had a very compeling reason to kill, but it's still wronge and should be illigal. It is in this case, but not in the case of a baby. Whether or not there is a compeling reason it's sick and discusting. Bad compounded into bad. The mother see's that her situation(dangerous pregnancy) is bad, so she does something bad to solve it.

 

[kissybug27]

Well hey, I'm not deciding to do that.

We don't get to tell other people what they have to die for. Sorry.

I guess I should have worded my post differently...........I should have said........Isn't a person playing God when they decided to take the life of an unborn child?

I didn't mean to imply that you would ....sorry if you miss understood me.

 

[flicka]

[/color]

I guess I should have worded my post differently...........I should have said........Isn't a person playing God when they decided to take the life of an unborn child?

I didn't mean to imply that you would ....sorry if you miss understood me.

Heh..no worries

I don't know why I even post here. I keep saying I won't...but I do. lol

 

[holyorders]

Abortion is the killing of innocent life.

 

[vinki]

As I was reading your post I remembered Dr. Kavorkian ..........

As of April 1999, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in all but a handful of states. Over thirty states have enacted statutes prohibiting assisted suicide, and of those that do not have statutes, a number of them arguably prohibit it through common law. In Michigan, Jack Kevorkian was initially charged with violating the state statute, in addition to first-degree murder and delivering a controlled substance without a license. The assisted suicide charge was dropped, however, and he was eventually convicted of second degree murder and delivering a controlled substance without a license.

I have heard of people who unhooked life support from their loved one to give them peace and have went to jail on murder charges.

If you do something to someone like if you bully them or are mean to them and they kill themselves should you be convicted of murder. People have been.

But yet we still have a law that permits women to kill their unborn children. It saddens me.

When a life could have been saved simply with a helping hand.The lines are drawn by those with opinions and those who do what they can within their power.It amazes me how much a little getting involved could make a difference. For example: as this dr(small casing) was being picketed outside his work and home in BC, I sent him a letter to let him know that if a mom should happen to come into his office and he felt in his heart that she had potential to follow through with her pregnancy but lacked support,he was welcome to consider me a contact. I told him that I don"t blame him for standing on the line he has drawn. He would not at that time reach out to a pro life agency,yet, to establish a good repor with this dr opened doors that crossed the enemy line.

 

[Archivist]

Aren't you playing God when you decide to kill an unborn child?

Aren't you playing God when you tell a pregnant woman who faces the risk of death as a result of her pregnancy that she can't have an abortion that could save her life.

It works both ways.

 

[Outspoken]

All one's ability to answer means is that their mother carried them to term,
and they eventually learned how to communicate. Someone can be pro-choice
and still have kids of their own. The concepts of "I'm gonna have a baby" and
"Others should have the option to not have an unwanted baby, if they so
choose." are not mutually exclusive.



the wheels on the thread go round and round, round and round....

You miss the point. She was acting as a pro-life person by taking the baby to term. I think you might want to change your words there, you misspoke if you are pro-abortion. The correct sentence is...

"All one's ability to answer means is that its mother carried it to term and it became them."


remember according to pro-abortion people its not a baby until AFTER its born.