Home - List All Discussions

A word for Christian pro choicers

by: laurissamarcotte

For Christian pro choicers...
Do you really think that God wants his children dead before they even were born? Before they got a chance to serve Him and love Him?
Jesus said He is in every person. If you support abortion, you are supporting the killing of Jesus in that baby. All over again.
God said He put the breath of life in you when you were in your mother's womb.
I really can't see how a Christian can support abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

There's no such thing.

reply from: pray4em

Exactly, love give life meaning, not love gives life death.
They killed Jesus according to law as well. hmm?

reply from: MaleNurse

Agreed. There is no such thing as a Christian pro-choicer. If they argue to the contrary, they are ignorant of what they believe.
They are what has been termed "cultural christians". They enjoy the christian friends, the sermon on Sunday, the christian education / schools, but don't believe in ALL the teachings of the church. Instead of accepting an obedience to God's will they pick and choose what they like and don't like. They view the church like a smorgish-borg. Like they're in line at the country buffet.
"I'll take some of the marriage sacrament, and the saving grace of Christ; but no thank you, I don't want any of the thou shall not murder - I'm pro-choice."
I often wonder if this is why I rarely hear sermons in church that speak clearly against abortion, as the pastor might fear a loss in attendence/membership as s/he fully recognizes it is a contraversial topic that some members might not agree with.

reply from: theamericancatholic

You can no more be a Christian that approves of abortion than you can be a Christian that apprpoves of idoltry, adultry, lying and false testimony, stealing, sexual deviancy or any form of heresy or sin.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

EDIT: Sorry that was unnecesary.

reply from: theamericancatholic

A typically anti-religious statement. It presumes that a life of Christianity is a life of restriction and of freedoms curtailed.
As a Christian ones choices in life are not restricted, in fact the moral truths are made more concrete to us as truth and reason come from God. The act of faith and the will to be a Christian is the acceptance of being and aspiring to be all that man can be, as he was created to be by his creator. The freedom to do all one wants to without moral signifigance and to simply act on every carnal whim and desire is better left to the animal kingdom. Truth is freedom and the first of all good and right choices.

reply from: MaleNurse

Actually to the contrary. When you decide to accept Christ and truely be "Christian" is when the choices in life really BEGIN.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok, it was a controversial statement to make but i'm not about to rise to the debate on here.

reply from: scopia1982

You CANNOT be Christian and support abortion, the two are incompatiable.

reply from: Sigma

You can be Christian and support choice, however. Even those who killed Jesus had the choice to do so, even if that choice damned them.

reply from: theamericancatholic

To be for abortion, is a rejection of life and Christ!

reply from: Sigma

I didn't say "for abortion" I said "support choice". Free will to choose moral or immoral actions is a gift from God. Supporting this would be a Christian belief.

reply from: theamericancatholic

To follow this absurd line of thinking Sigma, should one conclude that hell is a gift from God as well? God gives us the capacity to choose. That we can choose God is the gift. To reject God is to choose the absense of God. Any choice, that accepts abortion as a right, is a rejection of God and Christ.
There is nothing that say in Christian thought that says that because a thing that exists, than God approves of that thing. This kind of thinking is not Christian. God makes man. Man makes sin.

reply from: Sigma

What do you conclude from knowing that God is everloving of each of us, even the sinners? Hell could be obliderated by God at any moment, yet He allows it to continue to exist.
Choosing the absence of God is the moral right of each and every one of us. God could command each of us to love Him, yet he does not wish this. He wishes for us to choose to love him or to not love him.
Every thing that exists does so because God allows it, and He does so for a reason. Sin is allowed to exist, as are sinners allowed to sin. God allows each of us to choose to be moral or choose to be immoral. Free will is the gift. You said "That we can choose God is the gift", which is correct with one modification. That we can choose God is the gift. Only we may choose to worship God.
Thus is choice a Christian ideal.

reply from: MaleNurse

Sigma I'm surprised you know this piece of history. Do I sense a change in your beliefs on religeon? Looky there! God is in your heart after-all ! Now gather up all that knowledge that I know you have, and start applying it.
BTW congrats on becoming an executive member of a pro-life web-site.

reply from: Sigma

Thank you You'll be an executive as well, all it takes is many posts.
Being outnumbered helps, as I have plenty of people to reply to.

reply from: MaleNurse

I don't know if anyone could speak with authority on the subject of "hell"; why it exist and why it doesn't exist. The bible is vague with respect to this question. But I do recognize some empty spots in your Christian knowledge.
Of course. Adam/Eve...the apple. One of the most fundamental teachings of the bible is moral choice. And God commands us to not eat the apple, and we eat it anyway...and there goes the whole ball of yarn ! The next thing ya know ...we're all wearing fig leafs. !
Do you mean by US legal rights? or by God's legal system.
God's legal system gives a penalty for such a choice. (H.E. double toothpicks)
So if you're implying that God doesn't care if you follow his law, you're wrong. If you choose NOT to do as God commands, and don't want to have anything to do with him, he gives you exactly what you want. Either way, your moral choices will manifested in a very personal outcome.

reply from: Sigma

No doubt. I was not trying to imply that God was "okay" with immoral choices, only that he wishes us to have the freedom to choose to be immoral.
Thus encouraging certain choices but not enforcing certain choices is a very Christian thing to do. Allow choice and encourage moral choice by example.

reply from: MaleNurse

Is this sort-a like laws were made to be broken?
I don't know about all that. This is a discussion you should have in person with a qualified pastor or priest. I am not qualified. I'm not abandoning you though.
Do you really want to know more about Christianity?

reply from: Sigma

No, more like "God gave us, and wishes us to have, the free will necessary to break His laws".
If it relates to this topic, certainly.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you admit abortion is against God's law, yet continue to support it?

reply from: Sigma

No, I claim supporting choice is not against God's law. Whether abortion is or is not is unimportant in this context.

reply from: yoda

So you admit that (elective) abortion is against the "law" of common decency?

reply from: pray4em

You can be Christian and support choice, however. Even those who killed Jesus had the choice to do so, even if that choice damned them.
If they where damned for it, it was obviously the wrong choice.
Do you ever think about what you are saing?

reply from: pray4em

No, I claim supporting choice is not against God's law. Whether abortion is or is not is unimportant in this context.
That is like the murder defendant telling the judge, " I didn't kill him the bullet did "

reply from: Sigma

Yes, I do
Certainly it was the wrong choice, but it was their choice to make. No others could make their decision to sin or not to sin. That's the point.
How is what I said like this?

reply from: yoda

Well of course! And Andrea Yates made the decision that was hers to make, didn't she?
Do you think she "sinned"? Do you want to protect her "choice to sin" by repealing all laws against drowning of children in bathtubs?
Are you "pro-sin", or just "pro-the-choice-to-sin"?
Oh, and btw, how could anyone take away your "choice to sin"? Even in prison there are opportunities to sin, aren't there?

reply from: pray4em

Yes, I do
Certainly it was the wrong choice, but it was their choice to make. No others could make their decision to sin or not to sin. That's the point.
How is what I said like this?
OK, no one is against the choice not to abort
We are against the choice to abort
If you suport the choice to abort, you support abortion, and abortion kills a living human being.
finger pulls trigger, hammer hits bullet, bullet kills person.

reply from: Sigma

To have this as a choice, abortion must also be an allowed choice.
I see. So, if you support the right to smoke, you are supporting cancer. You have an interesting perspective, but not one that will resonate with the majority of people.
One can support others rights while encouraging those others to not exercise such. You can not like what someone says but support their right to say it.

reply from: yoda

Absolutely untrue. Choosing is not limited by what is NOT a choice, but by what IS a choice.
Indeed you are. What's so difficult for you to understand about that?
Sure you can, and people will think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, as you are doing right now.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you support the choice for a woman to kill her child, God's child, the child He made with His own hands and put the breath of life into. Going by this road, it would be okay to support the choice of murder, even though it is against the Ten Commandments.

reply from: Sigma

Again, valuing having a choice does not mean one is "ok" with abortion.
Murder is more complex since it involves another autonomous individual. One can certainly know and value the free will that God gave us to do so while morally condemning the act.

reply from: scopia1982

"Again, valuing having a choice does not mean one is "ok" with abortion. "
That is like saying a child molester should have the choice to molest, but you are not ok with it.

reply from: Sigma

Choices that involve other autonomous individuals are a bit more complex.

reply from: yoda

"Autonomous"???? Woah, Siggy has used a major big two-bit word on us, folks!! Is there no limit to which he will not go to justify KILLING BABIES???
Here are the two definitions of "autonomous" that apply to a gestating baby. The first one, 3a, would simply mean viable in the case of a gestating baby. The second one, 3b, DOES apply to all gestating babies, because they are developing and growing independently (as in "self-governing") from the mother.
Main Entry: au·ton·o·mous Function: adjective
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autonomous

reply from: pray4em

what about women's rights ---- what about the baby
what about free will ------------ what about the baby
what about rape ---------------- what about the baby
what about this ----------------- what about the baby
what about that ----------------- what about the baby
Abortion kills a living human being.
It's not hard to understand why that's wrong.
When people can't understand that they are either very confused
or they are deliberately ignoring the truth.

reply from: Sigma

pray4em, some of us would give consideration to the woman first since she must be the one to carry the pregnancy to completion. Some of us would ask "Well, what about the woman?"

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Again, valuing having a choice does not mean one is "ok" with abortion.
Murder is more complex since it involves another autonomous individual. One can certainly know and value the free will that God gave us to do so while morally condemning the act.But you would rather abortion be legal than illegal. You want to give a woman the oprtion of abortion. I'm sure God wants abortion illegal.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, I would want the woman to have the option to not be virtuous and self-sacrificing. What I am talking about isn't the free will to do something to another, it is the free will to not do something for another.
We have the free will to be self-sacrificing for another, and we should have the free will to not be self-sacrificing. The free will to be moral or immoral.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

But this is in the case of someone's LIFE. A life, Sigma. You are absolutely right if it didn't kill someone. But it does.
You are born. But if you were transported back into your womb, I'm sure your veiws of your mother's "choice" and "free will" would change drastically.

reply from: Sigma

I think I'm absolutely right even if it kills someone. Morally speaking, one still should respect the free will to not be virtuous and self-sacrificing.
While in the womb and during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed I would have no concept of "choice" or "free will" or even of self.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you're saying you wouldn't mind getting your head twisted off because someone didn't care about you and didn't want to be self sacrificing?
So a father driving along the highway with his kids in the back. He hits a semi truck. He flips over into the ditch and is able to get out of the burning car. According to you, he has the right to walk away from the burning car with the kids inside because he doesn't want to get burnt.
Here's another one. A woman strolling in the country wiht her four year old daughter. They go by a pond and her dughter jumps in and starts drowning. The mother has just gotten her hair done. According to you, she has every right to walk away from her drowning child with out saving her because she doesn't want to mess up her hair.
That is beslide the point. If you were a concious fetus, I'm sure your veiws would change.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, he does and should have that option. While we may morally condemn him for it, we should respect his ability to choose whether to sacrifice of his body.
This is not really analogous to either abortion or your other example. Getting wet is not really sacrificing of ones own body. We are assuming an element of risk or at least some damage to ones body in the process of saving another. If the water were immediately hazardous to her health then it might be analogus.
This is besides the point If I had a family member on death row my views might change, and if I were on death row my views might change again. Personal involvment does not make a logical position.

reply from: AshMarie88

No, he shouldn't have that option.
It should be up to him to save his kids before himself, that's the way it usually works. And if someone else saved the kids and the dad didn't, he (the dad) SHOULD NOT be allowed to care for those kids no longer. If he's not going to risk his life to save theirs, why should he be allowed to see them? He obviously doesn't care much about them.

reply from: yoda

There is absolutely NO logic about your position, or mine, for that matter. Personal values and/or morals are NOT subject to any rules of logic.
You "values" are that innocent human life is not worth squat, and that has no logic whatsoever behind it.
Nor is there any logic in "preserving the right to ignore the plight of others", that's nothing more than your opinion, and/or your (lack of) values.

reply from: Tam

To have this as a choice, abortion must also be an allowed choice.
LOL Allowed by God, or allowed by law?
A better analogy would be: so, if you support the choice to rape, you support rape, and rape violates a living human being's rights. Smoking does not always result in cancer. Rape always results in violation of human rights. Abortion, correctly performed, always results in a dead child (except when the child miraculously survives).
Right, like those who don't like rape but do think it's a man's right to rape women. They can say "I don't like rape, and I don't support it, but who am I to tell anyone else what he can and cannot do with his women?"

reply from: Tam

While in the womb and during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed I would have no concept of "choice" or "free will" or even of self.
You just keep on telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. I'm sure it's much easier to believe that a human soul magically forms at birth.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88
Yes, he should. He has the free will to choose to be moral or not. That is how it should be in a situation where one would be required to give of ones own body to save another. You may condemn him for not choosing the moral route, but his free will to choose not to do such should be respected. Requiring such self-sacrifice is immoral in and of itself.
Tam,
And I do not support rape since violating a woman's rights in this manner and matter is unjustified.
As opposed to believing a human soul magically forms at conception.

reply from: Tam

Yes. I recently had a very pro-life pastor say to me, "Well, I've been wondering whether I should blow up my ministry." and when I asked what that meant, he said he was thinking of addressing the abortion issue from the pulpit, but knew full well it would alienate so many members of his congregation that his ministry would be over and he'd be asked to leave the church within the year. So the question became one of telling the truth about abortion or being able to keep his ministry. A sad commentary. Of course, this was in a very "blue" area; in a "red" state it might be different--maybe he should just move, and maybe he would if not for his family.

reply from: yoda

Oh I LOVE this one! Here's a fellow who makes his living by supposedly keeping high moral standards, obeying his conscience, and trying to influence others to follow his example..... right? I mean, that's his whole thing in life, right?
And YET he has to stop, think, and decide whether to follow his conscience, or hold on to his salary and position by keeping his conscience quiet?
Sounds like he's lost that battle already.

reply from: pray4em

what about the woman ----------- what about the baby
Who is the ultimate victim of abortion?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So let me get this straight. A guy can just let his kids die in a burning car because he might get a burn? This is very cruel.
Yes, it is analogous to abortion. You say it is ok for any reason, even if she doesn't want toget fat or wants something she wouldn't be able to afford with a baby. This is what I'm talking about. According to you, this scenario is 100% A-OK.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Why only abortion? Why not make rape, robbery, child molesting, murder, ect. legal so everyone can make their own choices whether to be moral or not.
But in the case of abortion, it doesn't matter whether the baby's right to life, just as long as the woman gets what she wants, right?
Which would be the best answer. Birth does not create anything, whereas conception does. Birth is just the passing from the womb to the outside of the mother.

reply from: pray4em

You got a mind like a bear trap Laurissa, I hope I'm never on your bad side.
Your signature, "What part of "Thou shall not kill' don't you understand" would make an exceellent T-shirt.

reply from: MaleNurse

I predict that when the abortion issue comes to the fore-front, (for example a big RvW challenge) with tons of media coverage, they church pastors will start talking about it. This would come with regional organization/coordinated effort, so that ALL churches are talking about it at the same time; so that a member couldn't leave one church and go to another that was neutral on the matter.
I admire the Catholic church for this. They pull no punches about declaring publicly they are against abortion. (by decree of the pope). I wish all churches would make this bold move. Their major problem is that despite this, many Catholic members are still pro-choice. (actually, a member could be kicked out if it's found she had an elective abortion) Obviously this isn't unique to the Catholic church only. Any Christian church is by nature pro-life, and any Christian church you enter will have sinners within. Pastors and preists are no exception either. The Catholics just get a lot of bad press because they're so big.
However, there is a great dedication to Catholic membership. And the unity of the organization allows them to make this kind of statement public. If you want to go to another Catholic church that's neutral about abortion, forget it. Catholic Church leaders are all unified in this matter. Protestant churches lack this scale of unity and the dedication / family tradition / ect that would prevent members from leaving.
BTW, I was born and raised Catholic, but changed to protestant non-denominational later in life.

reply from: Sigma

Perhaps. He, however, cannot and should not be compelled to suffer burns even to save another.
Not quite. The situations need to be analogous, not the reasons. No matter the woman's reason for abortion (which may be frivolous), the fact is that pregnancy is detrimental to her health. Your example with water does not have any immediate health risks.
And I would, were they not to involve another autonomous individual. Remember, what I am talking about is not the free will to do something to someone else, but the free will to not do something for another when self-sacrifice is required.
It has no right to life, but if it did it would not have a right to live in every possible situation. When it infringes upon the woman's freedom she may remove it from her body.
Actually, the best answer would be when there is a mental existence.

reply from: yoda

WOAH PARTNER!! There's that 4-bit word again! "Autony-mouse", is that what you said? Dang! That's a jaw-breaker, partner!!
What does ole Daniel have to say about 'er?
Main Entry: au·ton·o·my Function: noun 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence3 www.m-w.com/dictionary/autonomy
Hmmm...... "self-governing"........ wonder whut thet means?
Main Entry: self-gov·ern·ing Function: adjective
: having control or rule over oneself; specifically : having self-government : AUTONOMOUS http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/self-governing

Hmm...... kinda circular, ain't it? But them there babies is pretty much like little princes and princesses swimmin around in there, so I reckon you could say they's got "control over oneself"...... I mean since they are in charge of all their metabolic, nervous, and circulatory systems, as well as growth and development, all of which are guided and directed by the baby itself....... and it even decides when it's time to make it's grand appearance, did you know that? Yesssir, it produces a hormone that causes labor when it's good and ready to exit it's cozy little apartment.......
But shucks! That ain't whut you're lookin fer, is it? Naw, you're looking fer some nother excuse to kill them little buggers, ain't cha?
Well gee, I'm sorry I couldn't help you none.......

reply from: pray4em

what about the woman ----------- what about the baby
Who is the ultimate victim of abortion?
Sigma,
I would appreciate a straight answer on this one.

reply from: Sigma

The fetus dies, if that's what you're asking. It is difficult to victimize something that has no consciousness.

reply from: pray4em

"something" is a living human being, an unborn baby. There is nothing wrong with the baby, it's the mother's lack of compassion that is the problem. It is the lack of compassion that makes all baby killers look at a baby and call it a thing. It is compassion in a woman's heart that causes her to regret an abortion. Caring about others is a good thing. People that care about others don't kill them they help them.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

He wouldn't necessarily get kicked out- we have a church on campus, and the pastor speaks out regularly about abortion and pre-marital sex. He's still there.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

But we live in a red state, and a conservative community, Laurissa.

reply from: Sigma

I'll agree with that.

reply from: yoda

There is absolutely nothing moral about free will, it is simply a fact of life.
There is absolutely nothing moral about "not being virtuous and self-sacrificing", in fact that is an immoral state.

reply from: yoda

Since when? You kill and unconscious person and that doesn't victimize them?
What planet did you say you are from?

reply from: jgalclassy

Have you ever heard of free will? You can agree and disagree on many different religous topics but to each their own. Just beacuse I had premarital sex doesn't mean I can't continue to be catholic. You choose everyday to sin or go against your religon in one way or the other, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. You do the best you can and when you mess up or make a bad choice God still forgives you.That is the awe of religon. You can have faith enough to know that any sin you commit or any "wrong"thought you have and shouldn't.....your forgiven if you ask to be. No one can say you can't be a certain religon and feel differently about certain issues, because if you didn't there would be no need for religon, or for faith.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I know about free will... the Christian pro-choicers continue to support abortion, they say "I'll take the 'thou shalt not steal' and the 'thou shalt not commit adultery,' but I don't think I'll go with 'thou shalt not murder" as someone said before in this forum.

reply from: pray4em

I'll agree with that.
I'm glad we agree. I hope we can expand on this one day.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Isaiah 49 says:
Before I was born the Lord called me.
He who formed me in the womb to be His servant...
Psalm 139 says:
...you knit me in my mother's womb
Can a mother forget the child at her breast, or show no compassion for the child of her womb?

reply from: Sigma

What would those quotes be meant to show?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

They say that God includes an unborn child is a person.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

He created us before we existed physically.
Not hard to understand.

reply from: Tam

You are presenting as fact the idea that in general pregnancy is detrimental to the health of women. Proof of this?
Ironically, you are pretending that the ACTION of abortion is really a state of INACTION, and that the INACTION of allowing a pregnancy to progress naturally is taking an ACTION. Why?

reply from: yoda

Does the term "Newspeak" ring a bell?

reply from: Sigma

Would you agree that pregnancy in general places stress upon the woman's body that would not be there with no pregnancy?
No, I'm really not. What you quoted means that abortion prevents something from happening to you. I said nothing of action and inaction.
Requiring a woman to carry her pregnancy to term is not inaction.

reply from: Sigma

Really. How do you figure?

reply from: Sigma

In what way would that constitute an ensoulled person in the eyes of God?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

When it says "Before I was born, you called me" it means that God called the unborn baby to be His servant. Why would he call a lifeless, soulless blob of skin?

reply from: yoda

He certainly wouldn't call a baby a chair, would He?

reply from: Sigma

I don't know. Why would He call someone who cannot in any realm of possibility do anything good or right or virtuous to be a servant of God?

reply from: pray4em

"He calls us each by name" means he has created us all as unique individuals, not like being stamped out with a cookie cutter.

reply from: Sigma

Certainly each soul is unique and He created our bodies in the womb, but I'm not sure that is support that those in the womb were ensoulled at conception.

reply from: yoda

Now you're spouting religion? You, the cheerleader of the bloody butchers who slay innocent babes in the womb? You, the apolgist for those who kill without cause?
Now you're arguing again that killing in the womb is "okay" because YOU are not sure the baby is ensouled yet?
Well I'll bet that makes ALL the babykillers happy!

reply from: pray4em

Certainly each soul is unique and He created our bodies in the womb, but I'm not sure that is support that those in the womb were ensoulled at conception.
So what evidence of life do you have sigma?

reply from: Sigma

As in me personally? It depends on the criteria. I'd say my ability to think augurs for me being alive.

reply from: yoda

If so it augurs poorly:
life Biology. the fact of being alive; the condition that distingushes organisms such as humans, animals, and plants from inorganic matter and from dead organisms. Organisms that have life generally share powers and functions such as the following: a specific and identifiable structure or organization; the ability to move from one location to another or to carry on internal movement; the capacity for metabolism, reproduction, and growth; the ability to detect the conditions of the surrounding environment and respond to them; and the ability to adapt to long-term changes in this environment. (Harcourt)

reply from: pray4em

Biology is good hard fact; Evidence.
Reasonable thinking would be; If they come out of the womb alive, they must of been alive on the inside.

reply from: yoda

Most intelligent people consider biological science to be factual, yes.
"Life" is a continuum.... it does not stop and start again from non-living tissue, at least not in "modern times". It must split off from other living tissue.

reply from: Sigma

Ok then. What evidence of biologic life can you offer me to prove that you are alive?

reply from: pray4em

My point is, you can't prove that you are any more of a human being than an unborn baby. Sure the unborn are different, but who isn't. By sub-humanizing others, people think they can justify killing.
"How sure do you have to be that someone is not alive before you start shoveling dirt on them?" (Ronald Regan)

reply from: Sigma

The fetus doesn't have the machinery necessary for anything resembling thought during the timeframe the vast majority of abortions are performed. That's a bit more than a difference in skin color. It doesn't have what puts us apart from other animals. I can deny that it is a human being, in that a being has existence in actuality. A fetus does not have this.
I am not saying that the fetus is not human, however.
I take this to mean you cannot give me any evidence that you are biologically alive.

reply from: yoda

Well we've seen the probabykilling BIG LIE, now here's Siggy with the SMALL LIE.
First, Siggy makes up his own stupid exclusionary daffynition of "human being" that has no basis in biological science, and then he says with a straight face that a fetus does not fit HIS daffynition. WOW! Big surprise!
So, once again I'll post some REAL, linked, valid definitions of "human being", because I just know it will irritate the heck out of ole Siggy:
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20humanhuman being: NOUN: human
PLEASE NOTE: All of these definitions are all-encompassing, they cover all of humanity..... there are NO exclusions mentioned.

reply from: pray4em

The fetus doesn't have the machinery necessary for anything resembling thought during the timeframe the vast majority of abortions are performed. That's a bit more than a difference in skin color. It doesn't have what puts us apart from other animals. I can deny that it is a human being, in that a being has existence in actuality. A fetus does not have this.
I am not saying that the fetus is not human, however.
I take this to mean you cannot give me any evidence that you are biologically alive.
Actually a fetus dose exist, other wise they would be called a _____,
and they are living unless they are dead, same goes for me.
How much evidence do you need before you don't shovel dirt?
Any life is life and any person is a person.

reply from: Sigma

It has no mental existence. A human 'being' would, to me, have thought and consciousness or at least the machinery to support such.
Well, what evidence can you present to me that you are alive?

reply from: yoda

You are not that stupid, so I must conclude that you are intentionally lying.
First, the word "human" and the term "human being" ARE INTERCHANGABLE, as evidenced by the definitions I post, and you are apparently too lazy to read:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20 human being: NOUN: human
Meriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com Main Entry: human being Function: noun : HUMAN
Second the term "being" by itself can refer to any object in the universe:
Main Entry: 1be·ing Function: noun1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/being [/a]
Third your stupid made up definitions do you no credit, since anyone with an ounce of sense can look up the term "human being" as a phrase and see that no such qualifications apply to that term: (emphasis added)
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
All things considered, your attempts to deceive the readers of this forum with your idiotic conjectures about what qualifications you think ought to apply to the term "human being" are downright sickening in the most perverse sense of the word. How any warm-blooded human being could attempt such deceit for the purpose of encouraging the slaughter of innocent babies is beyond the bounds of my understanding, as well as the bounds of human decency. I am appauled that anyone could sink this low.

reply from: pray4em

I already answered this question in my last post, "they are living unless they are dead, same goes for ME", Life is Self-Evident.
The machinery for thought is a brain and the developmental stage of the brain dose not make a person more or less human or justify killing.

reply from: pray4em

- On the day of birth a person changes from unborn to born not unhuman to human.
- On the day of abortion a preson changes from living to dead.
- On the day of fertilization two become one and one is an unique individual, a human being.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Look. Abortion ends a life, correct? Ending a life is killing, correct? God says, "Thou shalt not kill." End of story.

reply from: Sigma

What evidence can you offer me that you are not dead, then?
No, but for some it does make that human not a person. Morally speaking, calling another a person would assume that "someone is in there". The fetus has no acquired a mental existence, therefore to many it is not yet a person.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

God is not a pacifist. Why would He lead His people into war if we was? Why would He let His Son die so violently? By "Thou shalt not kill," God tells His people to not murder, which means killing outside of self defense.

reply from: yoda

No lie is too big or too small for Sigma to tell in an effort to encourage the killing of more babies.
NO dictionary in all the world associates the word "person" with "mental existence" or any such notion. Sigma simply lies by reflex, with absolutely no shame and no reluctance. In point of fact, the very term "mental existence" is a pure figment of Sigma's putrid imagination.
For an actual glimpse of how our society has used the word "person" (and therefore what a person "is") for many, many centuries, we have only to look to an honest standard reference work:
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD

reply from: AshMarie88

God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children. Gods Word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each life:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jeremiah 1:5).
"Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His" (Galatians 1:15).
"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mothers womb . . . Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13, 16). "Your hands shaped me and made me . . . Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life" (Job 10:812).
"This is what the Lord saysHe who made you, who formed you in the womb" (Isaiah 44:2).
"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15).
Because man is made in Gods own image (Genesis 1:27), each life is of great value to God: "Children are a gift from God" (Psalm 127:3). He even calls our children His own: "You took your sons and daughters whom you bore to Me and sacrificed them...You slaughtered My children" (Ezekiel 16:20, 21). The Bible says of our Creator, "In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being" (Job 12:10). God, the giver of life, commands us not to take the life of an innocent person: "Do not shed innocent blood" (Jeremiah 7:6); "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:25). "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder"He didnt kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave" (Jeremiah 20:17) and God vowed to punish those who "ripped open the women with child" (Amos 1:13).
The unborn child was granted equal protection in the law; if he lost his life, the one who caused his death must lose his own life: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined . . .But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life" (Exodus 21:22, 23). Life is a gift created by God, and is not to be taken away by abortion. God is "prochoice, " but He tells us clearly the only acceptable choice to make: "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

reply from: ilovefetus

hahahaha. you guys are so close minded its great!
i'm not christian so ***** if they are hypocrits, because how are you not a hypocrit if you want to quote 'god' by saying he said though shall not kill, yet have you read the bible? and how they condone killing? and if your neighbor is like sinning it's okay to kill him? oh yeah, because the bible isn't hypocritical at ALL!
come on now.

reply from: AshMarie88

You must make you close-minded, as well.
After all, you have your own opinions like us.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Have YOU read the Bible? If so, where does it say to kill sinners?

reply from: yoda

I wonder which probabykilling advocate this troll is? Any guesses?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Skippy? ScreamingIke? MoaningMike? RePit?

reply from: ilovefetus

Have YOU read the Bible? If so, where does it say to kill sinners?
where does it say this?
try reading: Exodus 35:2 and not as to death, but where it states that a town should get together to stone someone for sinning, which had ended up leading to deaths try Lev.24:10-16
right...

reply from: ilovefetus

Skippy? ScreamingIke? MoaningMike? RePit?
how about just... I LOVE FETUS.
sweet.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Naw, this guy's too immature to be those poeple. They at least tried to be smart.

reply from: yoda

GO AWAY TROLL........ IT'S WAY PAST YOUR BEDTIME!!

reply from: Sigma

Ah. So God did not mean what he said, he meant something else.

reply from: Sigma

It would seem, then, that abortion would be part of God's plan since He personally created life knowing it would be aborted.
Interestingly enough, there are different translations for that passage.
"If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges."(BBE)
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."(KJV)
It seems to refer to a miscarriage or death, as premature births would have meant death for 'departed fruit', especially in a situation such as that.
Yes, God appears to be pro-choice.

reply from: pray4em

"Life is Self-Evident" is not as Confusing to "some people" as it is Conflicting to there motives.

reply from: Sigma

I take this to mean you have no evidence you can produce.

reply from: pray4em

Are you now tring to deny my life and existance? I am my evidence. Same goes for everyone born or unborn, young or old, male or female. That's good news Sigma, your not alone, welcome to the human race.

reply from: Sigma

No. You asked for my evidence of life and were unsatisfied with my answer. I am asking you to find out what evidence you can produce.

reply from: yoda

It's getting pretty bad when a live human being is not evidence of life. Kinda like an unborn human being is not evidence of a living human.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics