Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So little? That's exactly what they are. They are a living organism that is dependent on it's host, in this case the mother, to survive. It's exactly what it is. Just because it's created by a human doesn't mean I'm going to subject it to special treatment.You said that a rape victim should have the baby because it's not the baby's fault she got raped. Possibly the most stupid, disgusting, un-pro-life view I've seen.
Not "special" treatment---the same treatment is what they deserve.
Its not un-pro-life, because by definition I think the baby should live. Its not the baby's fault that the woman got porked against her will.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
While you have seriously misinterperetd the meaning of those scriptures,(they are meant to say that the sinners in question won't be alowed children, or that the children they have will die young/badly, if they disobey God... they are not endorsing the killing of babies and you know it.) .... You ought to be careful as the Bible is a two-edged sword.
God does not approve of the killing of unborn children, but He will cause pregnant women and unfaithful wives to miscarry (Hosea 9:14 & Numbers 5:27-28)?
God does not approve of the killing of born children, but He will do so to punish a sinful parent (Hosea 9:16 & 2 Samuel 12:14)?
God does not approve of the killing of born and unborn children, but He will "rip open pregnant women," and "dash their [born] children to pieces" (Hosea 13:6)?
By all means, point out where I have interpreted the versus incorrectly.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He never meant to endorse killing babies. He was in despair and wished he had never been born. (Like Geroge Bailey) He turned back to God in the midst of his ruins and was blessed beyond belief.
I did not claim that Job endorsed the killing of babies:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...Job is despairing over being treated unfairly by God.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't think that you really believe in the Bible, Adam, but I do. I would kindly advise you not to read something out of context and try to post it in an attempt to further your own point of view.I was a supervisor at a Christian bookstore for 3 years, and I will catch you every time you try to. (if you would like to talk about the Bible however, I would love to in a PM or another thread. 🙂 )
There is no figurative way to interpret Hosea 9:14, 16; Hosea 13:6; 2 Samuel 12:14; or Numbers 5:27-28. Either God kills children or He does not. If He does, then He must approve of doing so, or He is a hypocrite.
Do not presume to know how educated I am about the Bible.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
We don 't need the Bible to debate this.Not once have I or any other Christian on these boards said:
"Abortion is wrong because the Bible said so. A fetus is a human being because the Bible said so. Anyone who commits an abortion is guilty of a sin becuase the Bible said so."
I have mentioned the Bible as part of my personal belief system, and I may or may not believe the above statements to be true, but I have never tried to use them as points in a debate.
Don't assume that you necessarily know what I am thinking, or bring your prejudices against Christianity into a debate about abortion and when the point of life begins.
The Bible states that a child is not a person until he is one month old (Numbers 3:15). This clearly conflicts with your view in regards to abortion.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Poe and AC are debating their points-of-view. They are, in fact, not "pwning" everyone.I've given up in this thread. Christians are stupid. Nevermind the fact that talking with me is like talking to a brick wall with a learning disability, 'cause Christians are doo-doo heads. My entire view isn't clouded by my beliefs AT ALL. Not like I'm taking the same, unwavering stance opposite to the pro-lifers or anything. Because I'm not and therefore I'm not like those dumb Christians.
Christians are stupid.
Originally posted by meep-meep
I'm a tool.
First, no "pwning" has been done (only because I hate that term and every term like it, and believe they should be banned).
Second, I'd like to ask what constructive additions you've made, Fece? All I've seen you do is preach religion, the one element that has no place in this debate. So you've probably added the least amount of constructive commentary to this thread.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
First, no "pwning" has been done (only because I hate that term and every term like it, and believe they should be banned).Second, I'd like to ask what constructive additions you've made, Fece? All I've seen you do is preach religion, the one element that has no place in this debate. So you've probably added the least amount of constructive commentary to this thread.
-AC
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm afraid that religion does belong in the thread. After all, it is what shapes my beliefs. I have stated my views and why I believe them. This is constructive. You, on the other hand, have caused more strife in this thread with your arrogance and condescension than any other member.
Strife? What can I say? Too many stupid people or regular people with stupid views for my likings. If that offends anyone, I'd love to say I'm sorry but I'm not. Smarten up. Condescension? I'll deal with that hypocricy at the end of my post.
Secondly, they are your beliefs, exactly. Chosen by you later in life. They don't apply to everyone, they're not the default correct belief. You chose to be a christian, so coming in here and preaching what your religion does and does not agree with and then applying that to what may very well be athiest women, is wrong. It has no place here or anywhere.
What makes you think you have the right to tell a female that she cannot do something because of what a belief and religion YOU CHOSE, says? I'm curious. Religion has no place in this debate, which brings me back to you calling me condescending.
You believe you have the right to preach to me in a negative way about my condescension when you are prepared to argue that it's ok to tell a female what to do, or that she is wrong, because of a religion you chose to adopt? Think about the dynamics of that. Christianity is like Coldplay, I don't dislike the religion/the band nearly so much as I dislike their respective fanbases. Always talking out both sides of their mouths.
-AC
The New Front Line in the Abortion Wars
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Morality is subjective, I've never said any different, but look what happens when religion is involved. This is exactly why it can't be involved.-AC
Ahh and exactly why it has to be because it is a factor in the issues concerned, it's affecting outcomes, thus its affects should not be pverlooked, it is a variable.
The human body hasn't evolved to the point that medical definitions are now obsolete, they need no changing.
The law being very old doesn't mean it necessarily needs changing. This is a law that is evaluated and dealt with every day in court and still isn't called into question.
Religion clouds things and is causing dangerous laws to be passed. What you forget is that laws passed on the basis of religion therefore have to apply to everyone, including the non-religious. Hardly fair is it? I'll be damned if I'll live by a law that was brought about by someone's beliefs in God.
-AC