Originally Posted by serandfae

What I wonder is, why are Christians the ones who oppose abortion? If God is the one who creates souls, isn't he going to find a home for them regardless? Don't Christians simply look at the body as a vessel?

If one used that type of spiritual belief to justify abortion, I think it's a short leap to justify murder. You would just be "relocating souls", no harm done.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Yes, I know Witnesses are an exception to that, but I'm talking about the main denominations that oppose abortion.

I would hope the argument is about the sanctity of life, a value which hopefully supercedes any religious beliefs regardless of faith. It once again leaves the argument back at the doorstep of "When does life truly begin". Many Christians believe it begins at conception. If everyone could agree on that, there would be no abortion debate, as no one I know is in favor of killing small children.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If one used that type of spiritual belief to justify abortion, I think it's a short leap to justify murder. You would just be "relocating souls", no harm done.

It is sometimes necessary to take an argument to its extreme to grasp the full scope of its meaning. I was thinking more along the lines of justifying the right to die, which is also opposed by many Christians. But in the extreme it could also be used to justify both murder and suicide, sure. But I didn't question why Christians don't use that argument to justify them because there are other proscriptions against same.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I would hope the argument is about the sanctity of life, a value which hopefully supercedes any religious beliefs regardless of faith. It once again leaves the argument back at the doorstep of "When does life truly begin". Many Christians believe it begins at conception. If everyone could agree on that, there would be no abortion debate, as no one I know is in favor of killing small children.

And yet not everyone believes that. My wager is that at least for a legal definition, life begins when electrical activity starts in the brain, seeing as how the legal definition of death is when said activity ceases.

Funny, as I re-read my post within your post, I remembered myself once saying life began for me at age 16..... Don't get any funny ideas!

Originally Posted by serandfae

My wager is that at least for a legal definition, life begins when electrical activity starts in the brain, seeing as how the legal definition of death is when said activity ceases.

That was the view of Carl Sagan

So 7-10 weeks then, if Brain Electrical Activity is the start of life. Interesting reading. So you are in favor an "Abortion is Murder" law if it applied only to fetus's of 10 weeks or older?

On a personal level, I don't approve of abortion except in cases of extreme medical necessity, or in cases of rape. I would say that in the first trimester the choice should have been made. I do not support legislating that. I think that the medical community generally supports that view anyway. Again, if anyone dissents with that, feel free to support alternatives, and leave the government out of it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

as no one I know is in favor of killing small children.

Of course that is every reasonable person which doesn't include you know who.
http://www.evilbible.com/god%27s%20not%20pro-life.htm

Wow. We actually agree on something regarding the Bible--there's nothing in it that supports pro-life. Does that mean the Apocalypse is upon us?

I do have to ask, though, since I know you are so opposed to the Bible: Why do you keep picking it up? (OK, OK, I'll stop.... ) The other obvious question is: If you believe one shot is all ya got, shouldn't you be mortally opposed to abortion? It would seem that when the players picked sides they went against their respective natures. While that's a side note to the issue, it does bear some scrutiny.

Originally Posted by joder

Of course that is every reasonable person which doesn't include you know who.
http://www.evilbible.com/god%27s%20not%20pro-life.htm

I love it. A religion hate website. Its funny that either you or Fastreplies posted that Fox News and preaching islamic hatred because either Hannity, or O'Reilly drills in on on some verse from the Koran ordering the "killing of infidels". Hard to believe you can write those words and then post a link to a site like this which is a self proclaimed religion hate site. It is kind of scary that the imagery, wording, and reasoning are not to far off some of the things you might see on a white supremacist site. I imagine this kind of site would have been pretty popular in Germany in 1939, specifically the old testament quotes and jewish application thereof.


Personally, I got a good laugh out of it. This quote had me in stitches:

"
Child abuse: Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.” It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac. To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.
"



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH.



Another cup of cool-aid please.


Pure comedy.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Wow. We actually agree on something regarding the Bible--there's nothing in it that supports pro-life. Does that mean the Apocalypse is upon us?

I'm running to my cave

Originally Posted by serandfae

I do have to ask, though, since I know you are so opposed to the Bible: Why do you keep picking it up? (OK, OK, I'll stop.... )

I'm opposed to the people who have believed it is the literal word of god, forced others to heed their interpretation and persecuted and killed millions over it. The vast majority of believers throughout the last 2600 years have taken it literally. The allegorical interpretation has only been accepted since the 19th century as a result of the findings of science and archeology.

I don't see any reason to read a book that was meant to be taken literally allegorically at the same time changing the meaning of it. Such as when it says god did this and you say god is not like that. As a side note, Confucius stated the golden rule more logically than Jesus.

Originally Posted by serandfae

The other obvious question is: If you believe one shot is all ya got, shouldn't you be mortally opposed to abortion? It would seem that when the players picked sides they went against their respective natures. While that's a side note to the issue, it does bear some scrutiny.

That's a good question and I will answer subject to the stipulation that I may have to clarify .

Personally I would never be a part of aborting a child I fathered except in the case where the life of the mother was in danger. But I see us as human animals. By that I mean in this circumstance that we all are different in how we are made up and think and have been brought up in different circumstances. I can't tell another person that they should bear and bring up that fetus. To me it is wrong after around the 6th month when the brain is fully developed. Then the fetus becomes it's own entity that can feel.

If you look at different cultures, morality is different among them. What one sees as wrong, others may not. There are very few principles that everyone agrees on as absolutes.

We all have one shot including the mother and father. They have to make their own choices.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Another cup of cool-aid please.

Pure comedy.

Obviously your one of those people who have never read the Bible. Can you dispute the verses in the Bible where God orders the killing of children? Or, are you just shooting off your mouth?

Originally Posted by joder

Can you dispute the verses in the Bible where God orders the killing of children?

You need to read my post again. I didn't dispute anything. I simply pointed out that you are linking to what most would classify as a hate site.

I only provided the one quote that the site says advocates child abuse for it's absurdity. If you cant see that for yourself, there is nothing I could ever say to convince you of it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

You need to read my post again. I didn't dispute anything. I simply pointed out that you are linking to what most would classify as a hate site.
.

So any site that quotes the bible is a hate site. Got it If you read the bible you could consider it a hate book

I think every case is unique and there should be no rules, but I'm strongly against it in my family, though I don't feel I have any right to impose my point of view.

Originally Posted by joder

So any site that quotes the bible is a hate site. Got it If you read the bible you could consider it a hate book

Actually, I was thinking the title on the page "Church of Thiests suck" could easily be changed to "Church of Black People suck" or "Church of Jews Suck". Are you hearing me now?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Actually, I was thinking the title on the page "Church of Thiests suck" could easily be changed to "Church of Black People suck" or "Church of Jews Suck". Are you hearing me now?

This is the last time I'm responding to your diatribes. You pick out one phrase from a site and change words and think that is somehow rational?

You do know that you are speaking like someone from the far-left who you constantly rail against?

Thanks for the neg TP. I just wanted to point out your TP comment(Personal Attack) was in error, unless you can explain to me how pointing out your linking a hate site is a personal attack. I just thought I'd be the guy to point out the pink elephant in the room.


/Hugs Joder

Edit: For the record, if I argued for banning sites like the one you linked to, I would be arguing the argument of the left. I appreciate the existence of sites like these, as well as the white-supremacy sites. For me they serve as a reminder of what intolerance looks like.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I love it. A religion hate website.
Another cup of cool-aid please.

Man, when you guys go at it, you hold nothing back. Personally I didn't see an attack, but, well, it's all out there now. Given the title of the site, I took it with a grain of salt to a Bavarian salt mine, yet I cannot dispute that the Bible really doesn't support the pro-life view taken literally. Its other claims do not, IMHO, hold water. But wait....

Originally Posted by joder

I'm opposed to the people who have believed it is the literal word of god, forced others to heed their interpretation and persecuted and killed millions over it. The vast majority of believers throughout the last 2600 years have taken it literally. The allegorical interpretation has only been accepted since the 19th century as a result of the findings of science and archeology.

Yet the majority of Christians today see the Bible as the inspired word of God and do not take it literally. And I don't personally believe that the religion that was built around Jesus was in fact the religion of Jesus. The fact is, religion evolves just as cultures do, which is not to say there won't still be a few throwbacks. It's a shame that there are those who judge all of Christianity based on them.

Originally Posted by joder

I don't see any reason to read a book that was meant to be taken literally allegorically at the same time changing the meaning of it. Such as when it says god did this and you say god is not like that. As a side note, Confucius stated the golden rule more logically than Jesus.

Well, the Golden Rule has been stated in pretty much every religion. And the church did a good job of changing the meaning of Christianity: Jesus was killed because he cut out the wealthy rabbis by telling folks they could have direct experience of the divine, then the church built around him said you have to go through their go-to guys. Ironic, huh? I'm certain you can come up with more examples. But if you wish to take that up, start a thread....

Originally Posted by joder

That's a good question and I will answer subject to the stipulation that I may have to clarify .

Personally I would never be a part of aborting a child I fathered except in the case where the life of the mother was in danger. But I see us as human animals. By that I mean in this circumstance that we all are different in how we are made up and think and have been brought up in different circumstances. I can't tell another person that they should bear and bring up that fetus. To me it is wrong after around the 6th month when the brain is fully developed. Then the fetus becomes it's own entity that can feel.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by joder

If you look at different cultures, morality is different among them. What one sees as wrong, others may not. There are very few principles that everyone agrees on as absolutes.

We all have one shot including the mother and father. They have to make their own choices.

And yet, in our pluralistic society we still have to have a uniform legal system. What do you feel should be the law's stance?

good points

He returns! And with some deep thoughts!