A question for all you conservative Christians (Page 7): When Christ died, the old law was done away with. Col. 2:14, Eph.2:15-16, He.6_13, 2Cor.6-14. There is noting in the N.T. that...

Blackie

When Christ died, the old law was done away with. Col. 2:14, Eph.2:15-16, He.6_13, 2Cor.6-14.

There is noting in the N.T. that says the death penalty for heinous crimes cannot be applied.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

ringoffire wrote:

Anyone ignorant enough to call a dot on sonogram a baby should be checked by a shrink.

So then what will that "dot on a sonogram" eventually become? A frog? A puppy?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. "A******n is slaughter of unborn children."
This depends on when you consider that a gamete is truly alive.

Correct...
Those of us against a******n (for convenience) have made a distinction as to what constitutes a life...
I have yet to find a supporter (Poor choice of words..) of a******n who can definitively make this distinction...
At what point is the fetus considered alive?

Quote:

Where you stand on this depends on what pew you sit in. This whole issue is based on religious dogma that is being foisted off on the American public as a universally moral issue. It is not.

Disagree...
I know of no religion or moral authority which promotes such a practice... Historically there have been several religions that allow/ require human sacrifice... But I sincerely doubt that anyone today would accept such practices as valid...
Do you feel that the Aztecs were acting morally when they cut out the hearts of prisoners and offered them to their gods? Or the Malachites when they sacrificed their living children? Were these just examples of a different moral code? Or pervisions that were rightly stamped out?
Love of life and recognition of its value is a moral issue is a universal value...

Quote:

If these moral issues were valid, we would be putting people in stocks for profanity; burning witches at the stake; branding women with a scarlet "A" for adultery; and any number of other religious offenses.

No...
This argument is flawed...
There are no lobbies protesting witchcraft or profanity (I would support this one) or adultery (quite the opposite)...

Quote:

And you rail against the Sharia law as being barbaric and ungodly, which has the same general traits that we as a country used to have in the original colonies.

This is an accurate statement...

To be fair, very few people on the OPP seem to have any understanding of Sharia law and what it is...

Quote:

With the exception of the moral Commandments (which are universally accepted in all cultures in one form or another) the rest of these so-called moral offenses are based on religious beliefs that are not universally accepted.

Agreed...
I believe "thou shall not murder" is a universally accepted moral commandment...

Quote:

Roger Williams in Rhode Island, William Penn in Pe... (show quote)

Apologies... Perhaps I am misreading..
Are you making the argument that moral imperatives are subject to majority rule?

As much of the Islamic world view women as inferior and of lesser value to men, does it grant the majority the moral right to subjugate women?

Perhaps a solution would be to allow States to decide for themselves?
If California or New York Wish to allow such practices so be it.... Why should Texas or Alabama need to accept such practices as well?

Quote:

We used to have blue-laws that required businesses to close on Sunday. They were overturned.
We used to have stocks in the public square and ducking stools. No more.
We used to have prohibition of alcoholic beverages. It was overturned.
There are numerous others.

The argument being any practice that has its origins in the past must be flawed?
Mistakes have been made.. And corrected...

I pray that the concept of "morally acceptable" a******ns of convenience join the ranks of flawed ideologies post haste...

Quote:

In short, these issues are fine as long as they are observed in private lives and church environment. The Hasidim manage to do this very nicely, as do the Mormons. Within their own communities they observe their own standards of conduct. For the most part, they do not impose their religious practices on the rest of the population. I wish that the conservative Christian sects would do the same.

As long as they were practiced in private or Church would you allow:
S***ery?
Child marriage?
Forced circumcision? (of either sex)
Mob punishment?
Polygamy or polyandry?

Also... Giving birth is not a religious practice... Pregnancy is not limited to any one religious group...
On this issue Christian will stand with Muslim will stand with Jew will stand with Hindu will stand with Buddhist will stand with Sihk will stand with Taoist...
Why? Because it is an affront to all humanity...
Only athiests (and not all.. many recognize the intrinsic value of human life...) support (wholeheartedly.. there are far too many people of fauth who turn a blind eye) the practice of a******n by claiming it is not a moral issue.

I must admit... I have missed our talks...
Hope all is well with you...
And apologies if anything I wrote was incorrect regarding my understanding of your position...

Have a great day...

Your friend, Kyle

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Liberty Tree wrote:

You seem perfectly willing to force your religion of secular humanism on everyone else.

Nope ... just live and let live.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Blade_Runner wrote:

What a load of prog psychobabble. When you questioned whether or not a gamete (male or female) is "truly alive", I had no need to read the rest of this crap. How could a gamete not be a living organism? The lifespan of a sperm cell in a woman's body is around 5 days. Once released, an ovum lives for 12 to 24 hours. The life of these organisms have nothing to do with what seat one is sitting in. Good grief, your ignorance is astounding.

Well done Blade...

That there was some great refuting of whitnbrat's argument...

Until you pointed it out I was completely unaware that she was a mental deficient...

I have been operating under the assumption that because she has always been civil and taken the time to post well-written arguments that she was someone worth engaging with...

Glad you cleared that up for me

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Well done Blade... br br That there was some grea... (show quote)

Thanks, K, every time a pro choice lib tries to tell me the seeds of human life are not humans until they are humans, I ask them if these little organisms have a choice in what they will be after they are born. Like a frog maybe, or a puppy. I suppose I would be called a r****t if I suggested the little guy or gal in there will be a Great White shark.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

As long as they were practiced in private or Church would you allow:
S***ery?
Child marriage?
Forced circumcision? (of either sex)
Mob punishment?
Polygamy or polyandry?

It isn't up to me to allow or disallow. All the things you just listed have been (and are probably being) done in various sectors of our society as we speak.

Quote:

Also... Giving birth is not a religious practice... Pregnancy is not limited to any one religious group...
On this issue Christian will stand with Muslim will stand with Jew will stand with Hindu will stand with Buddhist will stand with Sihk will stand with Taoist...
Why? Because it is an affront to all humanity...

Maybe I'm misreading, but I'm not sure of what you're saying here. I have to assume you're talking about a******n here, but I'm missing something.

Quote:

Only atheists (and not all.. many recognize the intrinsic value of human life...) support (wholeheartedly.. there are far too many people of faith who turn a blind eye) the practice of a******n by claiming it is not a moral issue.

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a moral issue ... which is not shared by large numbers of other people, both religious and not.
If I may digress a bit here ...
What of the situation where you force the woman to carry to term and then abandon her. She cannot afford to support the child and the child winds up in foster care if they're lucky. Compound the issue if the mother is crack addicted and the baby is also by definition. Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case. The mother is incapable, so the government has to take the baby (or not), support it until it is eighteen (maybe) and then turn it loose onto a society that it is unready to enter because of the severe psychological problems that it probably has. Crack babies are notoriously hard to find adoptive parents for, and triple that if the mother is African-American.
Another situation is where an unborn child is diagnosed in-utero with severe brain damage that will require 24 hour care for the entire life of the person. Usually there is no physical impairment, which means that this person is in someone's care for at least the next fifty years. The family will be destitute and eventually the state has to pick up the care, which means you and me plus many others. They can't be adopted and are a burden.
In many "uncivilized tribes" these kinds of babies are left to die or are put on an ice floe because the tribe knows that it will impair the ability of the tribe to survive in their environment.
You will flame me for not valuing a human life. I would point out that forcing the woman to carry to term and then abandoning her to her own resources is also not valuing the human life you required her to produce.
Let's assume that we do force all women to carry to term and give birth. How many of you that promote this concept are willing to adopt that child and raise it regardless of its psychological or physical problems.
I thought so.

Lonewolf

whitnebrat wrote:

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a moral issue ... which is not shared by large numbers of other people, both religious and not.
If I may digress a bit here ...
What of the situation where you force the woman to carry to term and then abandon her. She cannot afford to support the child and the child winds up in foster care if they're lucky. Compound the issue if the mother is crack addicted and the baby is also by definition. Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case. The mother is incapable, so the government has to take the baby (or not), support it until it is eighteen (maybe) and then turn it loose onto a society that it is unready to enter because of the severe psychological problems that it probably has. Crack babies are notoriously hard to find adoptive parents for, and triple that if the mother is African-American.
Another situation is where an unborn child is diagnosed in-utero with severe brain damage that will require 24 hour care for the entire life of the person. Usually there is no physical impairment, which means that this person is in someone's care for at least the next fifty years. The family will be destitute and eventually the state has to pick up the care, which means you and me plus many others. They can't be adopted and are a burden.
In many "uncivilized tribes" these kinds of babies are left to die or are put on an ice floe because the tribe knows that it will impair the ability of the tribe to survive in their environment.
You will flame me for not valuing a human life. I would point out that forcing the woman to carry to term and then abandoning her to her own resources is also not valuing the human life you required her to produce.
Let's assume that we do force all women to carry to term and give birth. How many of you that promote this concept are willing to adopt that child and raise it regardless of its psychological or physical problems.
I thought so.

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a... (show quote)

you have some vary good points

Rose42

whitnebrat wrote:

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a moral issue ... which is not shared by large numbers of other people, both religious and not.
If I may digress a bit here ...
What of the situation where you force the woman to carry to term and then abandon her. She cannot afford to support the child and the child winds up in foster care if they're lucky. Compound the issue if the mother is crack addicted and the baby is also by definition. Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case. The mother is incapable, so the government has to take the baby (or not), support it until it is eighteen (maybe) and then turn it loose onto a society that it is unready to enter because of the severe psychological problems that it probably has. Crack babies are notoriously hard to find adoptive parents for, and triple that if the mother is African-American.
Another situation is where an unborn child is diagnosed in-utero with severe brain damage that will require 24 hour care for the entire life of the person. Usually there is no physical impairment, which means that this person is in someone's care for at least the next fifty years. The family will be destitute and eventually the state has to pick up the care, which means you and me plus many others. They can't be adopted and are a burden.
In many "uncivilized tribes" these kinds of babies are left to die or are put on an ice floe because the tribe knows that it will impair the ability of the tribe to survive in their environment.
You will flame me for not valuing a human life. I would point out that forcing the woman to carry to term and then abandoning her to her own resources is also not valuing the human life you required her to produce.
Let's assume that we do force all women to carry to term and give birth. How many of you that promote this concept are willing to adopt that child and raise it regardless of its psychological or physical problems.
I thought so.

It is a moral issue for those that want it to be a... (show quote)

" Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case"

By secular standards that would be true. I have family members that have raised children who they were encouraged to abort for mental r****dation, spina bifida and various physical ailments. All are wonderful human beings and have made those around them better human beings.

Such disregard for life is repugnant.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Rose42 wrote:

" Both the mother and child and the society would be better off to abort by almost any standard that you choose in this case"

By secular standards that would be true. I have family members that have raised children who they were encouraged to abort for mental r****dation, spina bifida and various physical ailments. All are wonderful human beings and have made those around them better human beings.

Such disregard for life is repugnant.

There are exceptions to the rule, no doubt. Which is why it must be up to the woman, their doctor and spiritual adviser to make the decision to abort. If you choose to do what your family members did, more power to you. But you cannot make that decision for anyone else. Period.

Rose42

whitnebrat wrote:

There are exceptions to the rule, no doubt. Which is why it must be up to the woman, their doctor and spiritual adviser to make the decision to abort. If you choose to do what your family members did, more power to you. But you cannot make that decision for anyone else. Period.

Nor can you presume to know what should be done and who is involved.

I don't expect Roe v. Wade to be repealed. I also expect acceptance of a******ns to rise. It doesn't speak well for our nation.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Dimwitted, as expected. Every time I see your avatar, I just know what's coming...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Larry the Legend wrote:

Dimwitted, as expected. Every time I see your avatar, I just know what's coming...

Yep ... the t***h!

Brad1040

Stupid lib. Someone executed k**led another human being. As far a I know, babies are born innocent.
Take another try. Never met a smart lib and you prove my point.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Brad1040 wrote:

Stupid lib. Someone executed k**led another human being. As far a I know, babies are born innocent.
Take another try. Never met a smart lib and you prove my point.

And your direct pipeline to God let you know all this? I'm impressed. I never claimed to be smart, just logical and pragmatic. And I never take anything for granted without proof other than someone claiming biblical citations.