ARCHIVE: Abortion is always murder

[Knight]

Abortion has been a hot topic on TheologyOnLine for the past few weeks.

I would like to state that abortion is always murder. There is no circumstance, or set of circumstances that would make the taking of an innocent life considered NOT murder.

I would like to explore any and all questions about why abortion is always murder.

I want to make the following pre-statements...

I am a man.... yet I still have the right to condemn abortion
I am not a doctor.... yet I still have the right to condemn abortion

[firechyld]

I don't think I've ever heard a response from you on pregnancies terminated due to medical emergency that would cost the life of both mother and child... for example, ectopic pregnancies, terminal illnesses requiring heavy treatment, etc.

What's your view on those?

firechyld

[Knight]

Firechyld writes...I don't think I've ever heard a response from you on pregnancies terminated due to medical emergency that would cost the life of both mother and child... for example, ectopic pregnancies, terminal illnesses requiring heavy treatment, etc.

What's your view on those?Excellent question! And no doubt the toughest and most difficult to deal with dilemma regarding abortion.

Trust me I do not take this issue lightly.

And I will most likely do a crummy job explaining my view point since this one would be much easier to explain in person. But we do not have that luxury so here goes.....

Terminating pregnancy due to life of the mother is wrong....

However, allowing the mother AND the child to die because of lack of action is also wrong!

The solution is in the intent of the medical community and how society and the law should view this tragic dilemma. All effort should be made to save BOTH the mother and the child in complicated pregnancies. The situation should be handled very similar to handling conjoined twins, in other words when there is the tragic case of conjoined twins and separation must be done or both twins will die, the surgeon(s) do not enter the operation with the mindset that they are going to terminate one twin or the other. The surgeon(s) enter the operation with the mindset that they intend to save BOTH twins, all the while knowing full well that one of the twins will most likely die.

Likewise, in the tragic case of ectopic pregnancies and other similar situations the mindset of the medical community and the doctors involved should be to save BOTH the mother AND the child, even though with our current medical expertise the child will most likely not survive.

That is a drastic contrast to the mindset of abortion which has no other intent but to terminate a life. Think about it.... with an abortion procedure it is only successful if one of the patients die!

It is VERY possible that abortion is constricting medical advances that could be invented to handle these types of complicated pregnancies.

In a nutshell....
Abortion is a mindset of murder and death. Abortion is the lazy man's outlet for complicated situations. A much better mindset is dealing with complicated pregnancies with intent to save all patients (even the littlest ones). And who knows? Someday we may be able to save these little ones even though currently many of them will tragically die.

[His_saving_Grac]

murder (mûrdõr) n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous.

—murder v. murdered, murdering, murders.
—tr.
1. To kill (another human being) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
—intr.
To commit murder.

—idioms.
get away with murder. Informal.
To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act.
murder will out.
Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed. —murderer n. —murderess n.


As you can see, it seems the definition of murder deals with the legalness of the killing. If it is unlawful, then it is murder. If it is lawful, then it isn't murder.

The problem we run across in discussing this is that while both abortion and the death penalty are legal in some places and illegal in others, this within this same country, how do we differentiate?

Those who are in the enyartian faction call ALL abortion murders even though that is not true according to the definition of the word.

They also want the death penalty, yet call that NOT murder, although since it IS illegal in most states it does qualify.

Now if we add the very first definition in it's complete usage, then the words "premeditated malice" become a major part of our focus.

IF one is FOR the death penalty, and wants this law in place, then there is premeditation, or forethought on the commiting of the act. Thus those for the death penatly are on par with "murder" in fulfilling the definition.

So lets go on into the definition of the second part of that. Malice

malice (mal*s) n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

OK, now we see that the Enyart faction is premeditating the deaths of others, AND they do it with malice, since the paper "Day 1" details the way those who are to die are to die slowly and with revenge (offering the family of the victim the opportunity to participate is revenge.)

So the Death Penalty IS murder by the definition of the words.

Now lets look at abortion. They stand up against abortion, and call it murder. Well for the most part, they ARE premeditated (except in life or death situations when the mother and child are both at risk of dying and the mother is not conscience) but can we honestly say it is done with malice? In some cases, I am sure it is. But in most cases? Can we honestly say this mother hates the life inside her? Do they desire to see someone harmed and suffer? Is it extreem ill will or spite? Sometimes yes. Most often, not at all.

Now there are other definitions of murder there. Legality is a big part. So the Enyart faction (I say this because they are the most vocal in this forum. I know there are others who do not believe in what Bob Enyart believes in, yet agrees with them in these issues) seems to want to make one form of murder legal, and another form illegal.

So let's dig deeper. The next definition of murder is brutally. Well that is subjective to the persons opinion, but in most cases, the way that the Enyartians believe the death penalty be carried out is very brutal. (Read day 1 if you have any questions www.enyart.com) They can say the same about an abortion too, so this evens out, they both qualify as murder in this sense.

The next definition qualifies in both cases also. (To put and end to, destroy)

So we go to the last definition (next is a slang so we will pass on that. It really has no bearing on this discussion) To spoil by ineptness/mutilate. Well they both qualify as that.

So as we can see, both the death penalty and abortion CAN qualify as murder, with the death penaly actually being a bit stronger because of the malice and revenge factor.

So are we really discussing abortion as being right or wrong, or should we rather be discussing the value of ALL life. It is perfectly clear that if both of the Enyartian beliefs are put into place, then what they are doing isn't sanctifying all life, but rather insuring that more people live to be tortured in the death penalty clause. If no baby is aborted, then more will end up commiting a crime since we can't even employ 100% of those we DO have, how will we do it with another whatever number Elena Marie came up with in the other thread.

I could not decide on abortion since it is not my body that is carrying this baby. I can only say what I want in my own family, and I could not force my will to be enforced if my partner really wanted an abortion. They do it without doctors now, what would happen once there is no doctor present? We already know because abortion was once illegal.

But what I want to get at is the duplicity of the faction. Reguardless of beliefs, both do qualify as murder by our definitions. So how can one person advocate murder, and in the same breath say that murder is wrong? That is exactly what is being discussed. It isn't the sanctity of life, it is the ideal of opportunity for revenge. It is the want to dictate every aspect of someones life. The NEED to control others.

If you want to be taken serious ND, then you have to make the stand. It is life for all or death for all, not life where YOU pick and choose and death where YOU pick and choose. I know one thing. God isn't going to argue semantics with us on judgement day. He is going to say "All life is precious" and those of you who think they are championing a cause are going to be left out in the dark.

If Abortion is murder, the death penalty is murder. If the death penalty ISN'T murder, then abortion isn't murder.

[Knight]

HSG writes… The problem we run across in discussing this is that while both abortion and the death penalty are legal in some places and illegal in others, this within this same country, how do we differentiate?

Those who are in the enyartian faction call ALL abortion murders even though that is not true according to the definition of the word.OK, HSG let’s go slow for you so you can be an asset to this discussion.

If murder is only murder when it’s deemed illegal by the governing authorities than the holocaust was not murder, do you believe the holocaust was murder? I do! Yet the holocaust was a sanctioned government practice. Therefore, we shouldn’t judge things like murder simply based on the current law, because the current law may be wrong. Make sense?

Said another way…
Abortion is currently legal. Abortion was illegal not so long ago. Was the law wrong when abortion was illegal or is the law wrong now that abortion is legal? I would argue that abortion is murder regardless of what the current law of the land states.

You continue… They also want the death penalty, yet call that NOT murder, although since it IS illegal in most states it does qualify.The death penalty is legal in this country (even federally!). Do you think the law that legalized the death penalty is wrong? Or do you think the death penalty is not wrong because it is legal as your above logic would indicate?

You continue… So the Death Penalty IS murder by the definition of the words.Only by a nut like you who fails to read his own definitions. :D

You continue… If you want to be taken serious ND, then you have to make the stand. It is life for all or death for all, not life where YOU pick and choose and death where YOU pick and choose.Your statement is completely ignorant and only used by the laziest death penalty opponents (there are far more interesting arguments out there).

Capital criminals are guilty of capital crimes and therefore their execution is NOT murder in the same way it is not murder to kill to protect your country and or your family against a perpetrator.

Unborn babies are not capital criminals. They are innocent of any criminal action therefore taking their life is wrong.

Capital Criminals = GUILTY
Little Babies = INNOCENT

[Knight]

HSG thinks we should protect this person (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=81) but HSG thinks its OK to kill this person! (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=71)

[Knight]

Firechyld I would like to know if you read my response to your question. And if you did, what did you think of it?

[beanieboy]

Is God a murderer, then, if a woman has a spontaneous abortion within, say, the first month, and may not even know that she was ever pregnant?

[Knight]

Beanie says...Is God a murderer, then, if a woman has a spontaneous abortion within, say, the first month, and may not even know that she was ever pregnant?Since when would a miscarriage be murder? No one is claiming that (besides you of course).

Abortion vs. miscarriages
Abortion is a medical procedure in which a "doctor" intentionally kills a living person within or partially within the womb of a woman. A miscarriage is a tragic an unwanted death of a human life. Certainly you can see a distinction between abortion and a miscarriage can't you beanie?

Furthermore God does not orchestrate miscarriages.

[beanieboy]

I can say that I am unsure about the issue. I struggle with it.

However, I do find it a little odd when a person who is ProLife will talk about poor people who should not have children, complaining about welfare, complaining about unwed mothers, etc.

I find it odd that most ProLife Minnesota ads show a 9 month unborn baby, as opposed to a 1 month baby who has a tiny body and an enormous head, and kind of looks like shrimp, or a tadpole.

But is a embryo a "person" the moment a sperm comes in contact with an egg? In my opinion, to say yes is as pointless as saying no. I don't know.

[Knight]

Beanie says...I find it odd that most ProLife Minnesota adds show a 9 month unborn baby, as opposed to a 1 month baby who has a tiny body and an enormous head, and kind of looks like shrimp, or a tadpole.So you feel less guilty about killing what you consider "ugly" babies?

You continue...But is a embryo a "person" the moment a sperm comes in contact with an egg? In my opinion, to say yes is as pointless as saying no. I don't know.If you truly "didn't know" if a embryo is a person why would you advocate killing it? If you truly "didn't know" wouldn't you want to error on the side of the embryo being a person just in case?

It would seem a little irresponsible to me to admit that you do not know if a embryo is a child yet advocate terminating that embryo.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
Beanie says...Since when would a miscarriage be murder? No one is claiming that (besides you of course).

Abortion vs. miscarriages
Abortion is a medical procedure in which a "doctor" intentionally kills a living person within or partially within the womb of a woman. A miscarriage is a tragic an unwanted death of a human life. Certainly you can see a distinction between abortion and a miscarriage can't you beanie?

Furthermore God does not orchestrate miscarriages.

That's a good point.

However, if your wife got pregnant and confirmed it in February, and 10 weeks into the pregnancy, she miscarried, would you have a full blown funeral for the "child" that was the size of a dime? This is one of the things I don't quite understand. When spontaneous abortions happen - ie, the body naturally expels the embryo, as opposed to the embryo/fetus/baby dying in the womb, it doesn't have the same status. Or maybe it does.
It's just that I have never been to a funeral where someone was burying something that looked like a tadpole. It was always at least 7 months or more into the pregnancy.

[Knight]

Beanie writes...However, if your wife got pregnant and confirmed it in February, and 10 weeks into the pregnancy, she miscarried, would you have a full blown funeral for the "child" that was the size of a dime?I am not sure what type of service would be appropriate with a miscarriage hopefully that never happens to me or my wife! But I do not think the type of funeral service is an indication on the importance of the life lost. There have been many funeral services in history of all types and sizes.

Some have died and NO services were performed yet that does not diminish the importance of their life, right? Others have lived and died without anyone knowing that they existed yet their life was still as important to them as yours is to you.

You continue...When spontaneous abortions happen - ie, the body naturally expels the embryo, as opposed to the embryo/fetus/baby dying in the womb, it doesn't have the same status.There is no such thing a "natural abortion" as you seem to indicate with your "spontaneous abortion" comment. Any time that a baby naturally dies in the womb that is a "miscarriage" any time that a "doctor" kills a living person in the womb then that is an abortion.

[beanieboy]

Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.

Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.

Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.

An aborted organism.

Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Sorry you have an issue with the definition.
Maybe you can take it up with webster.

Sometimes, the embryo dies OUTSIDE of the womb. Not because a doctor did anything. The embryo connects on the uteran wall, and early on in the pregnancy, it just expels everything, and the embryo is expelled. See definition 1.

[Flyonthewall]

I am in agreement with Knight.

If we take our definitions from Scripture, instead of Webster, we can clearly deduce that murder is the taking of innocent life, or the shedding of innocent blood. Note, two agents are employed: the one whose blood is shed, and the one doing the shedding. A miscarriage cannot be classified as murder because no one "sheds" innocent blood--it is a natural phenomena. This does not make the life any less precious, but no one can be held accountable for the crime of shedding innocent blood, because no crime was committed!

As to the issue of funerals, I would say that we rely more on our customs in this regard than anything. I do know people who have had funerals for miscarried babies, or other ceremonies of rememberance. At any rate, the funeral is not the deciding factor of life, the word of God is.

For some good resource material check out Operation Save America: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org. Their link section has several good websites on the topic of abortion.

[Knight]

Thanks for the link fly, would you mind submitting that link to our directory??

[Flyonthewall]

One step ahead of you Knight--I just submitted it. God bless!

[Flyonthewall]

Proverbs 24:11-12

"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"

[Knight]

That's funny! As soon as I posted that last post I saw you had submitted the link. We must think alike! (poor you!) ;)

Thanks for the link!

[firechyld]

Hi Knight.... Sorry, I DID read this earlier but didn't get around to responding for some reason.

Thanks for the swift and non-avoidy response.... as I've mentioned on other threads, it's an question which is reasonably difficult to get answered.


Originally posted by Knight
Likewise, in the tragic case of ectopic pregnancies and other similar situations the mindset of the medical community and the doctors involved should be to save BOTH the mother AND the child, even though with our current medical expertise the child will most likely not survive.

That is a drastic contrast to the mindset of abortion which has no other intent but to terminate a life. Think about it.... with an abortion procedure it is only successful if one of the patients die!

Since we're talking about medically required abortions, I think we should assume that every pregnancy we're talking about in this focus is a wanted one.

In that case, I agree with you completely that every effort be made to save both mother and child... however, it is rarely possible.

A scenario I find even more difficult to milk a response out of people, however, is this (which I have posted on another thread):

A woman is suffering from a potentially terminal and rapidly spreading cancer. She is pregnant.

All other attempts to save her life have failed. The only available recourse is extreme chemotherapy.

A pregnant woman cannot be given chemotherapy. Without treatment, she will die long before she can give birth.

In this instance, either the mother and child both die, or an abortion is deliberately performed to enable the mother to be treated.

*shrug*

It certainly doesn't happen to everyone, but it does happen. What's your view on this hypothetical?


It is VERY possible that abortion is constricting medical advances that could be invented to handle these types of complicated pregnancies.

Hmmm... I'd disagree there. From what I've seen, medical research seems to be poured into saving the lives of adults and children alike.

Are you basing that statement on anything specific?

firechyld

[beanieboy]

Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?

[Knight]

firechyld, I really think my first response answered all your concerns you raised in your last response.

Let me summarize...
If there are a tragic set of circumstances as in a fast spreading cancer there is a dramatic difference in the mindset if saving the mother AND the tiny child even knowing that the current technology will most likely not make it possible for the child to live than there is in the mindset of simply killing the baby.

[Knight]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc? Beinie I have two points in response to your point....

1. Currently in the USA we have all the consequences you mentioned "Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?" and abortion IS currently legal!

2. Justifying murder based on a desire to create a society the way you see fit is wrong, if not "Hitler-esk". In other words... we have no right to deny another humans right to live based on other societal problems that are unrelated to that individuals birth.

[beanieboy]

Knight - while it exists, those raped usually have abortions, those who have been impregnated usually end the pregnancy, and those on welfare would INCREASE. Less abortions, more babies, and so, more children in the welfare system, more unwed mothers, more babies with DownSyndrome from incest, you wife having some rapist's kid, etc.

Are you prepared for these consequences?

[Amazing_Grace]

Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.

Just something to think about....

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace
Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.

Just something to think about....

50 years ago, African Americans couldn't vote, eat in White Only Restaurants, marry white people, or many of the other Civil Rights that Martin Luther King Jr. helped lead them to.
There was less crime 50 years ago.

Does that mean that granting all Americans Civil Rights leads to higher crime rates?

Not necessarily. Nor does having two televisions in most homes lead to higher crime rate, the invention of the Internet lead to higher crime rates, having higher Lead Restrictions in house paint lead to higher crime rates, the introduction of bananas and kiwi fruit lead to higher crime rates - all which have changed over the last 50 years.

You know - when we had 49 states, there was less crime. Maybe it's all Hawaii's fault ;)

[Amazing_Grace]

I guess I didn't make my point very clear. The tone of your post implied that if abortion were made illegal things like the number of people on welfare and such would be astronmical. I was just pointing out that it was illegal not too long ago and these were not huge concerns. When it was illegal the country did not fall apart, it was in fact in better shape in many ways than it is today. Not in all ways, obviously, but many.

I didn't mean to imply that there is a direct corelation between the legality of abortion and the increase in crime, although in re-reading my post I can see how you took it that way.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG writes…Your statement is completely ignorant and only used by the laziest death penalty opponents (there are far more interesting arguments out there).

Capital criminals are guilty of capital crimes and therefore their execution is NOT murder in the same way it is not murder to kill to protect your country and or your family against a perpetrator.

Unborn babies are not capital criminals. They are innocent of any criminal action therefore taking their life is wrong.

Capital Criminals = GUILTY
Little Babies = INNOCENT You know ND, this is pretty much immature. Do you alway name call when someone disagrees?

Once again I will revert to facts. Not everyone who is accused of a capital crime is actually guilty of it. Yet many are covicted no matter what.

Under the definitions posted above BOTH ARE MURDER! If you refuse to accept that, it is your choice when facing God, but the facts remain the same. Your ACL wants slow tortuous deaths of those accused and convicted, and also want participation by the family of the victim. That is sickening, Why do you not like bringing up THAT point in here?

You may as well ban me ND. I am not going to be called ignorant by a fool anymore.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG thinks we should protect this person (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=81) but HSG thinks its OK to kill this person! (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=71) What Knight supports (from Bob enyarts site under wrtings, Day 1)

"America’s death row inmates will be executed tomorrow beginning at 7:00 p.m. local time.
Lethal injection and other painless execution techniques are permanently prohibited. Prosecution witnesses, victims’ family members and friends may participate in the execution if so desired. From this day forward, those convicted of any capital crime will be executed.
All abortion clinics are ordered closed and padlocked by the local police or sheriff’s department.
Anyone aborting, attempting or conspiring to abort, or advocating the killing of an unborn child from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed.
Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU*486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed."

Yes sir ladies and gentlemen if you buy or manufacture a birth control product will be KILLED! How about that. Yet Knight was denying that the use of a condom was a executional offence, yet here it is. The ignorant Bob Enyart doen't know that an IUD stands for Inter Uterine device, which is used to stop SPEARM for entering the womb and inpregnating a woman. In the same ignorance he included the birth control pill saying THAT is a Abortion item. Yet knight foolishly doesn't know the difference either!

But there is MORE! This is how those who are to die will die.

"America’s death row inmates will be executed tomorrow beginning at 7:00 p.m. local time.
Lethal injection and other painless execution techniques are permanently prohibited. Prosecution witnesses, victims’ family members and friends may participate in the execution if so desired. From this day forward, those convicted of any capital crime will be executed."

Yes sir-e-bob. The nice sssslllllloooooooowwwwwww tortuous REVENGE DEATH that is an act of condemnation according to God.

What about it knight? You like calling people ignorant. Here are the words THEM SELF. Why do you hide them? Why aren't the posted on this web forum for ALL to see the truth of your Hate and anger?

They also claim that this government is not an attempt to OVERTHROW US Government, but here is the beggining of his fantasy.

"
Chapter 1
Day*One
"The twentieth century was not a good one for the United States," Candy judged. At 4:58*a.m., Candy Smythe, the 28-year old NBC executive secretary, finished preparing the room for the 5:00 a.m. meeting. "Nobody could foul up things worse than they’ve been over these last two years," Candy thought solemnly. "Good grief, especially last month, nothing could beat last month," she thought. Still, here she was, prepping NBC’s executive conference room at New York City’s One Rockefeller Center Plaza, for this emergency meeting.
"The last time these top execs got here this early, Mr.*Radner was cursing about Peter Arnett and CNN broadcasting from Baghdad during the Gulf War," she thought. This time though, her boss wasn’t just angry. Fred Radner, the president of NBC News, was more than angry. He and his associates were bewildered. Even frightened, she could see as they filed into the room quietly. They were tired too, since most had only left a few hours ago about midnight. They all had rooms in the Waldorf Astoria which, conveniently, was a quick three-minute walk from the office.
"Whatever happened at 3:47 this morning (no one had yet told Candy anything), it had to be huge, news-wise," she thought. And it had to be bad. The country was in decline for decades. Over these last years, and especially these last months, people were thinking we were approaching our breaking point. "Did we break?," Candy wondered as she closed the doors, gladly shutting herself out of a crucial NBC meeting. Here's the letter Bob's been sending people and reading on his show.
"The last thing I’ll let my organization do is help this coup succeed," said Mr.*Howard Toht, executive director of NBC News. "I agree with the other networks," he argued. "We should refuse to report anything for this coup government."
"It’s not a coup," said Linda Ratcliff, the chief operating officer of NBC News.
"It’s a coup," snapped Toht, "I don’t care how it happened, it’s still a coup."
"Do you still recognize the word democracy, Howard?," Linda Ratcliff asked sarcastically.

Let's see. Last I heard, ellections were run in broad daylight with the outcome very well known monthe BEFORE the new or re-elected president is named, yet even by his own hand, this is done in secrecy and hidden from EVERYONE so much so that it is BREAKING Early morning news, before most people are awake. In our constitution, this is against the law, yet the writer of this fiction says it is DEMOCRACY!

And this isn't even the best part. Spend $10, and get day two in which he has a woman stripped and publiclly flogged for demanding the right to have her LAWYER while in trial. Aren't these the GREATEST OF CHRISTIAN beliefs?

I don't expect this post to survive, nor me to be around. I am very sick of fools calling other people ignorant, when the fool has NEVER READ THE BIBLE EVEN ONCE. He only reads the verses his 'leader" tells him to read.

I am sorry to all those who truely wish to hear about the real christianity. You may still email me at webmaster_couple@yahoo.com.

Goodbye.

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace
Beanie, abortion was illegal not so many years ago and if I have my facts straight, there was less crime and poverty in the 40s and 50s than there is now.



Oh, I don't know if I'd want to make that argument if I were you. It really ain't true, especially concerning poverty.

[Jaltus]

Are those who are strongly opposed to abortion ready to deal with the consequences of society if such a thing would be outlawed? Welfare, and poor families have their 8th kid, a impregnated 4th grader who was molested by her father, your wife becoming pregnant after being raped, etc?
Do you have any idea how many couples are looking to adopt? The rate is astronmical. The liklihood of getting to adopt is dropping substatntially. If there were more births, there would still be people looking to adopt those babies. Remember, adoption is a much better avenue than terminating a life. It is not the child's fault that it was conceived, so why blame him/her by killing them?

[Knight]

Beanie you write...Knight - while it exists, those raped usually have abortionsWhich is wrong! A son should not receive the death penalty for the guilt of his father.

You continue...those who have been impregnated usually end the pregnancy, and those on welfare would INCREASE.Maybe, maybe not, but either way I don't see that as a satisfactory excuse for taking innocent lives do you?

You continue...Less abortions, more babies,That is your assertion. I assert that if abortion were illegal more young men and women would be more thoughtful and careful in their sexual activity (not all of them, but more of them). Furthermore, the world could use MORE babies not less!

You continue...you wife having some rapist's kid, etc.That is the difference between you and me I guess. If my wife were raped (Heaven forbid) I would want the rapist put to death NOT my child!

[Knight]

HSG writes...You know ND, this is pretty much immature. Do you alway name call when someone disagrees?There are not sufficient names for someone who claims to be a Christian but then advocates murdering innocent babies and compares babies to "bacteria".

You continue...Your ACL wants slow tortuous deaths of those accused and convicted, and also want participation by the family of the victim. That is sickening, Why do you not like bringing up THAT point in here?First things first.... it is NOT my ACL! Its a fiction book you moron! Furthermore, I would love to participate in the execution of someone who murdered a family member of mine! Are you claiming that many of God's people were "sickening"? Family members often participated in the executions of wicked people. I would love to push a giant boulder on Osama Bin Laden! Let me at him!!!!

You continue...You may as well ban me ND. I am not going to be called ignorant by a fool anymore.I am not going to ban you since you have done nothing to be banned. However you are free to not come back if you choose.

I am POSITIVE you will find many Christian websites that will be sympathetic to your advocating murdering babies.

[Knight]

HSG writes...Yes sir ladies and gentlemen if you buy or manufacture a birth control product will be KILLED! How about that. Yet Knight was denying that the use of a condom was a executional offence, yet here it is. The ignorant Bob Enyart doen't know that an IUD stands for Inter Uterine device, which is used to stop SPEARM for entering the womb and inpregnating a woman. In the same ignorance he included the birth control pill saying THAT is a Abortion item. Yet knight foolishly doesn't know the difference either!That might have been the stupidest paragraph ever written at TheololgyOnLine!

First... a condom is not a "abortifacient" therefore nobody would be committing any offense by using or manufacturing them.
Second... An IUD does NOT stop sperm from entering the uterus that's why its called "Inter Uterine" you see, because its already INSIDE! A IUD does however make the body reject the fertilized egg and therefore it is a abortifacient. (it aborts a fertilized egg)
Third... most (if not all) birth control pills ARE abortifacients!!!

HSG we should be paying you for this stuff, its great!!!

[firechyld]

I'm not quite sure I understand why the pill is being classified as an "abortifacient".

Also, regarding IUDs.... you are aware that preventing a fertilised egg from lodging in the uterus is not it's primary function? An IUD alters the course of both sperm and egg inside the reproductive tract, as well as creating a spermicidal environment within the uterus. Fertilisation is unlikely to occur.

The uterine wall is slightly altered, making it hostile. In the event that fertilisation does occur, the fertilised egg is expelled within 4 days of fertilisation. The IUD is one of the most effective means of contraception for those in monogamous relationships.

I'd also be interested to hear if this view covers only the older style copper IUDs, or the newer hormonal ones as well.

Thanks!
firechyld

[firechyld]

Originally posted by Knight
firechyld, I really think my first response answered all your concerns you raised in your last response.

Let me summarize...
If there are a tragic set of circumstances as in a fast spreading cancer there is a dramatic difference in the mindset if saving the mother AND the tiny child even knowing that the current technology will most likely not make it possible for the child to live than there is in the mindset of simply killing the baby.

*smile* I understood what you were saying.

However: in the example I gave (assuming that the pregnancy is wanted and that all attempts to save both lives have failed) the mother MUST choose between aborting the pregnancy to receive treatment, and refusing treatment and dying.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... hmm... difficult to express.

It should be noted that there ARE circumstances where it may be necessary to make that declaration of "We have to terminate the pregnancy to save your life". That "killing the baby" mindset does have it's place in the medical world, harsh as it may seem.

My point with the example was that a pregnant woman cannot be given chemotherapy. There's not a doctor in the world who would administer it. For her to receive the treatment that may save her life, she has to opt to terminate the pregnancy.

It's quite a sad situation... but it does happen.

firechyld

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
Beanie you write...That is the difference between you and me I guess. If my wife were raped (Heaven forbid) I would want the rapist put to death NOT my child!

Knight - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that I was undecided on the issue. This "difference between you and me" attitude comes off as haughtiness, and immaturity.

I was simply asking if people strongly opposed to abortion were prepared for the consequences. What I am getting back is more or less, "stuff like that won't happen," "people will be responsible" and other half thought out responses.

So, a father gets his 12 year old daughter pregnant. Because of the genetic makeup, the child will probably have some deformity. The child will probably have some special needs, and if the father is arrested, the mother and the 12 year old girl will have to support the child. Are you prepared for this reality?

Your wife gets raped. No, I don't think that is the fetus's fault. But, it's not like your wife is going to say, ah, well, I got a baby out of it! Score! Some guy held your wife down against her will and raped her. She's going to be tramatized for some time. And then she will start getting bigger, reminding her of it. And then she will have a baby that looks nothing like you. And if you choose to keep it, it will grow older, and you may think about what happened because of this kid. Are you ready for those consequences?

Are you ready for people who die because they may go to back alley abortion clinics?

Are you prepared for in increase in welfare? It is a very likely possibility.

Are you prepared for an increase in unwed mothers?

Are you prepared for an increase in young girls having kids?

These would be realities.

[Knight]

Firechyld writes...I'm not quite sure I understand why the pill is being classified as an "abortifacient".Because the pill is! Look into it.

You say...It should be noted that there ARE circumstances where it may be necessary to make that declaration of "We have to terminate the pregnancy to save your life". That "killing the baby" mindset does have it's place in the medical world, harsh as it may seem. I realize this is a tough topic an extremely tough to explain without talking one on one. But I still feel like your missing my point.

We both agree it would be wrong to let mother AND baby die in these tragic circumstances right?

So we agree the baby must be removed or something that will allow the woman to be be treated for her disease. Right?

We also agree these are the most rare abortion cases. Right?

Couldn't attempts be made to save this tiny baby?

Maybe they try placing the baby in another woman, maybe they try inventing ways to develop the baby in other ways.... none of these idea's are probably technologically possible yet but they may be possible some day if we try!

Necessity is the mother of invention.

But if necessity aborts than invention is murdered.

Not so long ago premature babies had little or no chance of survival. But through ongoing medical advances and efforts now we can save premature babies at an incredible success rate not to mention premature babies at younger and younger ages.

Who knows what we could think of if we shed the mindset of death!

[Knight]

Beanie writes...Knight - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that I was undecided on the issue. This "difference between you and me" attitude comes off as haughtiness, and immaturity.

I was simply asking if people strongly opposed to abortion were prepared for the consequences. What I am getting back is more or less, "stuff like that won't happen," "people will be responsible" and other half thought out responses.OK, fair enough...

Here is the point....

People generally are not responsible in that they do not take responsibility for their actions but abortion only creates an environment where people can take far less responsibility for their actions.... "hey, what if you get pregnant?"..."No problem, I will get an abortion".

Abortion is legal and people are less responsible than ever!

You continue...So, a father gets his 12 year old daughter pregnant. Because of the genetic makeup, the child will probably have some deformity. The child will probably have some special needs, and if the father is arrested, the mother and the 12 year old girl will have to support the child. Are you prepared for this reality?Two Points...

1. The father is a capital criminal and should be put to death
2. The baby is NOT a capital criminal and should not be put to death even though the baby is "less desirable" to many in society.

You continue...Your wife gets raped. No, I don't think that is the fetus's fault. But, it's not like your wife is going to say, ah, well, I got a baby out of it! Score! Some guy held your wife down against her will and raped her. She's going to be tramatized for some time. And then she will start getting bigger, reminding her of it. And then she will have a baby that looks nothing like you. And if you choose to keep it, it will grow older, and you may think about what happened because of this kid. Are you ready for those consequences?You make good points... sin has ongoing tragic consequences. Some of the consequences are painful and long lasting but many things in life have these types of consequences.... Take a woman who has had an abortion, she has to live with that for the rest of her life! She has to think every day about what she did!

Sin has consequences, consequences that even effect the innocent like the example you raised about the raped woman but justifying the murder of the innocent baby only compounds these consequences as now we have a father who is a rapist and a mother who is a murderer.

[firechyld]

Ah.... I think I see where you are coming from now.

However (still talking about our very specific example) I think it has to be admitted that until these very nifty ideas are feasible, our hypothetical woman is still in a situation where saving her life means aborting the pregnancy.

Remember that we are talking about a wanted pregnancy... I specified that so that we could be sure doctors and family were doing all they could to save both lives.

Regarding the pill... I'm actually quite well informed on matters of contraception, and I'd like you to explain why you think it's an "abortifacient", if it's not too much trouble. For clarification... are you referring to the standard combined pill, or the progesterone-only or mini-pill?

firechyld

[Knight]

Beanie asks....Are you ready for people who die because they may go to back alley abortion clinics?If crime is going to occur, I would rather have it in our back allies and be a punishable offense, than in our hospitals sanctioned by our government.Are you prepared for in increase in welfare? It is a very likely possibility.I assert that there would be a decrease in welfare. However, assuming you were right I would say one stupid government policy (welfare) shouldn't be the justification of an EVIL government policy (abortion).Are you prepared for an increase in unwed mothers?I assert there would be a decrease in unwed mothers as girls would know they could not rely on abortion to get them out of a situation caused by irresponsible casual sex.Are you prepared for an increase in young girls having kids?See previous answer.

Furthermore, even if your assertions were true (which we have no evidence to suggest they would be) I would still trade a million mothers turned into murderers for a million unwed mothers.

[Knight]

Firechyld states..However (still talking about our very specific example) I think it has to be admitted that until these very nifty ideas are feasible, our hypothetical woman is still in a situation where saving her life means aborting the pregnancy.Well, the "nifty' ideas could start immediately! But your right, the success rate initially and tragically would be very low! Just like currently the success rate is almost zero for separating conjoined twins without having one or both of the twins dying, however we still try to save both! It is a mindset difference.

You continue...Remember that we are talking about a wanted pregnancy... I specified that so that we could be sure doctors and family were doing all they could to save both lives.You talk as if every unwanted pregnancy is aborted? Many woman have unwanted pregnancies but that doesn't mean they opt for abortion.

Firechyld writes...Regarding the pill... I'm actually quite well informed on matters of contraception, and I'd like you to explain why you think it's an "abortifacient", if it's not too much trouble. For clarification... are you referring to the standard combined pill, or the progesterone-only or mini-pill?Lets make this simple.... Are there any birth control pills that are abortificants?

[firechyld]

No, I wasn't implying that every unwanted pregnancy is aborted. :)

Define "abortificant", and I'll let you know.

No offence... but I'm noticing you won't actually straight out answer the question. You also ignored my question about copper/hormonal IUDs. Umm.. I don't want to be rude, but are you actually all that well informed on the nature and makeup of these forms of contraception?

firechyld

[Knight]

Firevhyld writes...No offence... but I'm noticing you won't actually straight out answer the question.What question?

You continue...You also ignored my question about copper/hormonal IUDs. Umm.. I don't want to be rude, but are you actually all that well informed on the nature and makeup of these forms of contraception? Your right! I am NOT an expert on these contraceptives. But you agree that IUD's can act as an abortificant since you did say that yourself.

P.S. I gotta go now.... I will be back later

[firechyld]

I gotta go sleepy... it's 4am over here. :)

But I'll clarify before I do: By "abortificant" do you mean "thing that changes the interuterine wall, making it hostile to implantation"?

And the question I referred to was simply the matter of why contraceptive pills were "abortificants".

firechyld

PS Now go and play the "Battleground god" game on the philosophy board! :)

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by KurtPh


Oh, I don't know if I'd want to make that argument if I were you. It really ain't true, especially concerning poverty.

In reference to my quote about abortion being illegal in the 40s and 50s and there being less crime and poverty back then.

Kurt, if you honestly think that there isn't more crime in this day and age than there was back then I believe you are mistaken. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with that. Yes, I realize that there were many crimes that went unreported back then, but I don't for one minute believe that the world isn't more dangerous today than it was then. So I have to be at least half right.

Like I said in the post I made following this one, I did not state my point clearly enough. I was getting to the fact that at one time abortion was illegal and society did not fall apart. Beanie brought up many good points as to what may happen if abortion were outlawed, I was simply pointing out that abortion was outlawed at one point in time and I don't recall there being a huge single-mother epidemic in the 40s and 50s, that's all.

[Amazing_Grace]

I think Jaltus made a very good point about adoption. There are many who go outside of the country in an attempt to get children. I don't think there would be a problem finding parents for these children. (That would also help with the whole 'increased welfare cases' question.)

One thing I'd like to point out (and I point this out as someone who has never been through the trauma of rape, so don't think I'm passing judgement) but many say that abortion is okay in the instance of rape, that carrying the child would be a constant reminder, and so on. What has never made sense to me is that if you abort the baby, you do not forget the trauma you have experienced. It does not make the pain from the rape go away. You will be reminded of that regardless of whether or not you keep the baby. If you opt to put the baby up for adoption, then you may be able to make another family very happy by giving them a child, and maybe get some good out of the tragic situation.

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....

[beanieboy]

Knight - thanks for your answers.

I struggle to understand some of the people whom I have heard who to me seem contradictory. I remember a guy who went off about how welfare is unjust, and he wasn't going to pay for someone else. Then he would go off about abortion being a crime. Then he would go of about how poor people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. But then he said that all forms of contraception, including condoms, for example, were wrong.

And I would say - so, what is your solution for the poor? And it was that they should abstain from sex, even if they are married.

It seemed impractical, as well as imposing a huge amount of control on other people's lives from someone who claimed to want small government.

I just try to reconcile the contradictions, even with the liberal side of things.

[kiwimac]

What we see in Knight's postings are a profound lack of compassion for people who find themselves in situations he can not even begin to appreciate!

He condemns and criticises, he finger-points and carps but does he actually do anything, like standing alongside someone as they agonise over the decision that they must make, does he involve himself in post-abortion counselling?

Does he offer to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?

Not at all likely it would seem!

Kiwimac

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace


In reference to my quote about abortion being illegal in the 40s and 50s and there being less crime and poverty back then.

Kurt, if you honestly think that there isn't more crime in this day and age than there was back then I believe you are mistaken. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with that. Yes, I realize that there were many crimes that went unreported back then, but I don't for one minute believe that the world isn't more dangerous today than it was then. So I have to be at least half right.

Like I said in the post I made following this one, I did not state my point clearly enough. I was getting to the fact that at one time abortion was illegal and society did not fall apart. Beanie brought up many good points as to what may happen if abortion were outlawed, I was simply pointing out that abortion was outlawed at one point in time and I don't recall there being a huge single-mother epidemic in the 40s and 50s, that's all.

Perhaps I consider insitutionalized racism to be a crime.

I will agree that there is more crime today than in the 40s and 50s, but does that have something to do with the morality of the time period, or does it have something to do with an exponential increase in the population of your major urban centres in the 1980s and the mess that it created? I personally would offer the latter as more accurate.

As for there not being a huge-single mother "epidemic," in the 1940s and 50s, I'm not certain that I would make that claim. Conventional wisdom would agree with you, but I'm the kinda guy who likes to see the figures. I do know that being an unwed mother was perceived as so shameful, (especially if the mother was still a child herslef), that there have been cases where a relative had raised the child as her own.

[Knight]

Kiwi says...What we see in Knight's postings are a profound lack of compassion for people who find themselves in situations he can not even begin to appreciate!Yea... your right... hacking a living baby into pieces is far more compassionate than giving it the chance to live.

He continues....He condemns and criticises, he finger-points and carps but does he actually do anything, like standing alongside someone as they agonise over the decision that they must make, does he involve himself in post-abortion counselling?That really isn't a very good argument. Are you saying that if you found out that I stand by people when they are making an agonizing decision then I am more right than if I don't?

I bet you don't stand by a "would be" murderer while he makes his decision if he is going to murder or not, yet you Kiwi would still argue that murderers are wrong and evil wouldn't you?

You continue...Does he offer to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?There are literally tens of thousands of people willing (moreover, begging!) to adopt infant children in the USA.

[Knight]

Amazing Grace says...You will be reminded of that regardless of whether or not you keep the baby. If you opt to put the baby up for adoption, then you may be able to make another family very happy by giving them a child, and maybe get some good out of the tragic situation.

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....Great point and I agree 100%.

[kiwimac]

Actually Knight, I asked if you were willing to:

to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?

I mentioned nothing about others, this is directed specifically at you!

Kiwimac

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....

Hi AG--

Projill and I are discussing these very topics on the "Projill--I moved it over here" thread in the current events category.

As a side note, I'm surprised that more people aren't chiming in on that discussion, but I think I know at least a few reasons for the relative silence. For one, no one can claim that I don't know what I'm talking about; second, we are quite civil with each other although our perspectives are quite different; three, we are working toward each other rather than attempting to condemn one or the other to hell.

It's sort of sad, actually. . ..

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by Elena Marie


Hi AG--

Projill and I are discussing these very topics on the "Projill--I moved it over here" thread in the current events category.

As a side note, I'm surprised that more people aren't chiming in on that discussion, but I think I know at least a few reasons for the relative silence.

It's sort of sad, actually. . ..

I'm still following it, Elena, and am enjoying your civilized discussion!:)

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by Knight
Amazing Grace says...Great point and I agree 100%.

Oh Goodness, I'm not sure that's ever happened before!;)

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by KurtPh


Perhaps I consider insitutionalized racism to be a crime.

I will agree that there is more crime today than in the 40s and 50s, but does that have something to do with the morality of the time period, or does it have something to do with an exponential increase in the population of your major urban centres in the 1980s and the mess that it created? I personally would offer the latter as more accurate.

As for there not being a huge-single mother "epidemic," in the 1940s and 50s, I'm not certain that I would make that claim. Conventional wisdom would agree with you, but I'm the kinda guy who likes to see the figures. I do know that being an unwed mother was perceived as so shameful, (especially if the mother was still a child herslef), that there have been cases where a relative had raised the child as her own.

I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!

As far as the morality/increased population debate, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think that the morality of the 40s and 50s was altogether different and had an effect on the number of abortions needed in the first place.

I am sure there were plenty of relatives who raised the children if they were born out of wedlock, but I would say that more often than not the couple simply were married when the woman discovered she was pregnant.

Daddy getchur gun...;)

[Knight]

Kiwi...Actually Knight, I asked if you were willing to:Yes, I am willing.

OK... now how does that change the debate?

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace


I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!

As far as the morality/increased population debate, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think that the morality of the 40s and 50s was altogether different and had an effect on the number of abortions needed in the first place.

I am sure there were plenty of relatives who raised the children if they were born out of wedlock, but I would say that more often than not the couple simply were married when the woman discovered she was pregnant.

Daddy getchur gun...;)

There's a couple of things I have to disagree with. It is hard for me to say that the 40s or 50s were morally superior. Germans were killing off Jews, and we kind of sat on the sidelines and picked our nose. In fact, we even turned away Jews seeking asylum. We also looked the other way when there was lynchings, segregated blacks as much as possible, etc.

Were there less abortions in the 40s and 50s when it was illegal than there are now that it is legal? I am unsure how you would go about getting the data for that. It's not like people are going to report illegal activity. How many people in the US smoke pot? At best, it can only be estimated. If it were legalized, you could get the information without landing in jail for devulging if you do. If one has an abortion, and no one knows they are pregnant, no one will be looking for a "body" the way you would in a murder - noticing that someone hasn't called in a while, is not at work, didn't come home, etc. You could have the abortion, and no one would ever know, really, because the fetus doesn't have relationships with other people.

That being said, why is it that there are so many people that want to adopt and are unable to get children unless they wait several years? It would seem that if there were so many unwanted pregnancies, that there would be some ProLifers and ProChoicers that chose to give the child up. It seems like there is a baby shortage. Is that true?

[Jaltus]

There is a baby shortage, yes.

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by beanieboy


There's a couple of things I have to disagree with. It is hard for me to say that the 40s or 50s were morally superior. Germans were killing off Jews, and we kind of sat on the sidelines and picked our nose. In fact, we even turned away Jews seeking asylum. We also looked the other way when there was lynchings, segregated blacks as much as possible, etc.

That being said, why is it that there are so many people that want to adopt and are unable to get children unless they wait several years? It would seem that if there were so many unwanted pregnancies, that there would be some ProLifers and ProChoicers that chose to give the child up. It seems like there is a baby shortage. Is that true?

I hadn't thought of those things when referring to that time period, Beanie. I was mostly thinking about how secure we felt as Americans, but those are all good points.

I don't know what you're getting at in your second part of your post. There is a baby shortage. It sounds as though you are implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies, although the number of abortions performed would negate that fact. If abortion wasn't so convenient, more mothers would have to carry the child to term and then it could be put up for adoption, but with abortion being more available now that isn't the case for the most part. When you don't want a baby and you are faced with the decision to not have the baby or go through nine months of pregnancy which includes physical and emotional pain, and then go through the pain of childbirth and giving the baby away, which do you think you are going to choose?

Don't think I'm saying I like the choice often made, but I can see why it is.

[beanieboy]

A_G -
I wasn't implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies. To the contrary, I was questioning why there were simultaneously so many abortions performed and a baby need. While someone could argue about whether or not women should have the choice, it seems like if you have are pregnant but don't want a baby, and someone wants to adopt, that carrying it to term makes more sense, from a logical point of view.

[Knight]

If you want an infant baby you are going to have to go to another country to get one.

[Amazing_Grace]

Originally posted by beanieboy
A_G -
I wasn't implying that there aren't that many unwanted pregnancies. To the contrary, I was questioning why there were simultaneously so many abortions performed and a baby need. While someone could argue about whether or not women should have the choice, it seems like if you have are pregnant but don't want a baby, and someone wants to adopt, that carrying it to term makes more sense, from a logical point of view.

It seems logical to me, too, but most women don't want to carry a baby for nine months that they don't want, and then deal with the pain of giving that baby away. It seems easier to them at the time to just end the pregnancy and go on with their lives. What I don't think they realize is the trauma that goes along with having an abortion. Unfortunately you can't really know about that until it's too late.

[firechyld]

Knight.... I don't think you answered me about the contraceptive pill issue. I'm honestly curious as to why anyone would clasify it as an "abortifacent".

firechyld

[firechyld]

A question has just occured to me for all those who stand by the "children should be carried to term and put up for adoption instead of being aborted" school of thought...

I'm curious what your views in relation to adoption criterea... do you believe that adoption should be limited to nuclear family units? Should gay and lesbian couple be allowed to adopt or prevented from adopting? Single mothers? Single fathers? Polyamorous family units?

firechyld

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by firechyld
Knight.... I don't think you answered me about the contraceptive pill issue. I'm honestly curious as to why anyone would clasify it as an "abortifacent".

firechyld

Hi firechyld--

The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent.

[Zakath]

Elena Marie,

You wrote:The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent.


In that case, since sports like marathon running interfere with the ebb and flow of endometrial tissue and implantation of ova, are these sports considered to be unacceptable for "real Chrisitans"?

[Elena Marie]

Hi Zakath--

Unless one is running a marathon with the intent of not getting pregnant, the answer would be no. Furthermore, while intense physical training may in some individuals interfere with the normal progression of conception, most athletes are capable of becoming pregnant.

[KurtPh]

So, if a couple have sex using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy, then this would be a horrible sin?

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Amazing_Grace


I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!


Oh, not at all! Sorry I left you with that impression. No, what I was refering to was the social and political climate of the 1940s and 50s.

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Knight
If you want an infant baby you are going to have to go to another country to get one.

When those people start adopting children older than the age of 2 en mass, then you might have a case.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Elena Marie
Hi Zakath--

Unless one is running a marathon with the intent of not getting pregnant, the answer would be no. Furthermore, while intense physical training may in some individuals interfere with the normal progression of conception, most athletes are capable of becoming pregnant.

In the U.S. birth control pills are not infrequently perscribed these days for treatment of certain types of acne. (I'm really serious.) Do you know what the RCC's view is on medical use of something with abortifacient side effects?

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by KurtPh
So, if a couple have sex using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy, then this would be a horrible sin?

Okay, so I should have said, "interrupt the normal progression of conception." No, the rhythm method is not a sin--avoiding copulation altogether is not sinful, for that matter. But copulating and then interrupting the development of a resulting human is a sin.

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by Zakath


In the U.S. birth control pills are not infrequently perscribed these days for treatment of certain types of acne. (I'm really serious.) Do you know what the RCC's view is on medical use of something with abortifacient side effects?

To the best of my knowledge, the Church's position is this: if a medication is necessary for the health of the woman taking it, and the woman is not taking it for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of copulation, then it is permissible. Although I don't know that a clear complexion counts as necessary for health . . ..

But in another example, some women must take BCPs to control extraordinarily bad menstrual cycles. In that event--and to the best of my knowledge--taking the drug is permissible.

IMO, it hinges on the reason for taking the drug. If one is taking the pill to control or moderate severe menstrual cycles, that's one thing. Taking the drug so you can have sex whenever you feel like it with whomever you feel like without fear of consequences is another issue altogether.

I'll do some checking on the Church's stance regarding BCPs prescribed for medical conditions.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Elena Marie


Hi firechyld--

The Pill is considered a potential abortifacent because one of its functions is the interruption of normal endometrial growth with the intent of preventing the implantation of the human blastocyst. Because it is an artificial attempt at interrupting the natural progression of conception, it is an abortifacent. Under that definition, then condoms would be part of those disallowed and executable items. Yet knight and Jefferson both say they aren't included. So your reasoning is either faulty, or theirs is.

[Zakath]

HSG,

Good to read your posts again!

To me that would indicate that the area in discussion is probably not a moral one but one of social practice or preference. I think the issue you raise is that different churches have differing rules about such things.

Most religions tend to think similarly along basic moral lines. It is the areas of practice in which they differ so tremendously.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Elena Marie


To the best of my knowledge, the Church's position is this: if a medication is necessary for the health of the woman taking it, and the woman is not taking it for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of copulation, then it is permissible. Although I don't know that a clear complexion counts as necessary for health . . ..

But in another example, some women must take BCPs to control extraordinarily bad menstrual cycles. In that event--and to the best of my knowledge--taking the drug is permissible.

IMO, it hinges on the reason for taking the drug. If one is taking the pill to control or moderate severe menstrual cycles, that's one thing. Taking the drug so you can have sex whenever you feel like it with whomever you feel like without fear of consequences is another issue altogether.

I'll do some checking on the Church's stance regarding BCPs prescribed for medical conditions. Again incorrect. The very wording of Day 1 makes the possession or the sales of these items executional punishment. Before defending a church belief, you need to get to KNOW that churches belief.

The rules stated in Day 1 does NOT leave any grey area of "unless the woman/man has this disease. It is perfectly clear.

"Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU*486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed." Do not make exuses to make their form of religion more tolerable. I just is NOT there.

[Knight]

HSG can you not see the difference?

1. An abortificant (IUD, RU 486 etc.) terminates a fertilized egg in one way or another.

2. A condom DOES NOT terminate a fertilized egg. It simply prevents a egg from becoming fertilized in the first place.

Please (for the moment ) just tell me if you can see the difference between the two items listed above.

[Elena Marie]

HSG--

The rules stated in Day 1 does NOT leave any grey area of "unless the woman/man has this disease. It is perfectly clear.

"Any manufacturer, provider, or advocate of, or anyone procuring, conspiring or attempting to procure, any abortifacient (such as RU 486, the IUD, or any birth control pill which also acts as an abortifacient) from this day forward, upon conviction, will be executed." Do not make exuses to make their form of religion more tolerable. I just is NOT there.

What church are you talking about? The Roman Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, and I have said nothing that infringes upon the beliefs of my church, neither to make it more "tolerable" to you nor out of blatant disregard for its teachings.

[Elena Marie]

Originally posted by His_saving_Grac
Under that definition, then condoms would be part of those disallowed and executable items. Yet knight and Jefferson both say they aren't included. So your reasoning is either faulty, or theirs is.

First, I think you need to pay a bit more attention to my posts, HSG. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that Zakath asked me for the Catholic take on the subject of oral contraceptive pills when prescribed for medical conditions. My guess is that you think I'm a member of Knight and Jefferson's denomination--whatever that is, I'm not sure. Not that it isn't ironic that you think this way--their theology says that I am a willing subject of the Whore of Babylon. ;)

Furthermore, the difference between a condom and an abortifacent is quite simple: a condom prevents fertilization to begin with, while an abortifacent destroys the human being created by fertilization. The RC condones neither the pill nor condoms, but the pill is by far the worst of the two, since a life is taken by its use.

[Knight]

Elena says...their theology says that I am a willing subject of the Whore of Babylon.Yikes.... Elena be careful, HSG will now add that to his list of misrepresentations he has of me!

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG can you not see the difference?

1. An abortificant (IUD, RU 486 etc.) terminates a fertilized egg in one way or another.

2. A condom DOES NOT terminate a fertilized egg. It simply prevents a egg from becoming fertilized in the first place.

Please (for the moment ) just tell me if you can see the difference between the two items listed above. Actually, that is the point I made (except you are incorect on the IUD's). The statement in Day 1 States "birth control pill that also acts as an abortionant. Since their are medical purposes for the prescribing of the "pill", and that is not spelled out in the Page "Day 1", then the use for medical purposes would still make it illegal, The person I was talking to stated otherwise.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Elena Marie
HSG--



What church are you talking about? The Roman Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, and I have said nothing that infringes upon the beliefs of my church, neither to make it more "tolerable" to you nor out of blatant disregard for its teachings. LOL The part I am speaking about is your support for the ideal that is pointed out by the Enyart faction. By giving your support, you tend to lean to the right, which is NOT the roman Catholic teaching, although they are against abortion.

Again, you seem to not really read most of my posts. I am not against ANY church organization, Cotholic or otherwise. I feel every form of worship to God has redeeming qualities. I may disagree with a church doctrine, but I never insulted anyone for their religious convictions OTHER than the kill/don't kill rational that seems to be the logic behind the enyartian faction.

You see, I see all life as precious. I am even turning vegetarian (although it is more for health reasons than a disgust for meat items). The improvement in Soy based items, and vegetable made burgers have changed immencely over the past 20 years. I even drink Soy milk (again for medical reasons. Too expensive to do by choice).

So if you were one of those who did follow most of my posts, you would see I spend much of my time defending the religious convictions of others here, some that I don't agree with.

I had a discussion with Jaltus, who I believe is the same faith as your own. At no time did I insult or belittle him for his catholic faith, I just mentioned that I realized that his religion is why he was holding a belief. We were discussing something logically, and I was trying to do it without the denomination taking over the discussion. He was firm in his belief, and at no time did I try and convert him from Catholicism, or to belittle this. In fact, I was sickened when I read the thread one of our more avid emotional posters started in which he questioned whether catholics were christians.

So please, look or ask before trying to place me in a group. I made that mistake with you and I do appologize. The way you were arguing made it seem you were part of the Enyartian faction. I was wrong and sincerely appologize for mis-understanding your denomination, and your beliefs.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Elena Marie


First, I think you need to pay a bit more attention to my posts, HSG. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that Zakath asked me for the Catholic take on the subject of oral contraceptive pills when prescribed for medical conditions. My guess is that you think I'm a member of Knight and Jefferson's denomination--whatever that is, I'm not sure. Not that it isn't ironic that you think this way--their theology says that I am a willing subject of the Whore of Babylon. ;)

Furthermore, the difference between a condom and an abortifacent is quite simple: a condom prevents fertilization to begin with, while an abortifacent destroys the human being created by fertilization. The RC condones neither the pill nor condoms, but the pill is by far the worst of the two, since a life is taken by its use. You are right, which I just said in my prior post. I never saw zakaths question, and I have been part of this thread from the beginning, but recently something happened and I didn't get any post notifications for a couple days. As I said above, I am sincerely sorry.

[Elena Marie]

So please, look or ask before trying to place me in a group. I made that mistake with you and I do appologize. The way you were arguing made it seem you were part of the Enyartian faction. I was wrong and sincerely appologize for mis-understanding your denomination, and your beliefs.

Apology accepted. and thank you.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
Elena says...Yikes.... Elena be careful, HSG will now add that to his list of misrepresentations he has of me! I am very sorry ND/Knight. Are YOU Bob Enyart? Because basically it is his definitions of christianity that I have a problem with. I discuss it with you because you say the same things that he has in his writings. But I don't think I have ever misrepresented YOU, unless YOU are Bob Enyart and you feel the posts of mine are not doing you justice.

If you look back, I complimented you on your behavior in the thread "Meeting at the IHOP" (under your old name of Nathon Detroit), and more recently in your answers to beanieboy in the Honey/Vinegar thread. The person who has been misrepresented is me by you, when you call me ignorant or your other pleasentries when you get upset with me.

You stated in another thread (The Guess who this is) that I don't know anything about Bob Enyart. I DO know that it is his teaching in "The Plot" that shows you how to skip and read only parts of verses (the 'sentence within a sentence' teaching) which is why you haven't read the entire bible, IF you are following what is shown in there.

I know YOU are an avid supporter, and when we use scripture to back our points, you use an answer Bob Enyart has already used, or you don't address the verses at all. I know that lately you have had a short fuse, and I FEEL the only reason I am still around is because you feel it would cause an uproar if I were to be banned too, but lately many people HAVE been banned in a relative short time. I don't know if YOU are responsible for all the banning, but you are responsible for one that you admited too (you call him/her zara)

I asked you to read the entire bible instead of relying on your concordance. Is that misrepresenting? You stated you hadn't read it in it's entirety, so I told the truth. I said the if a friend of mine came and had the problem of being pregnant and asking my advice on what to do. I was completely truthful in saying I really don't know. The situation would have to dictate what I said or didn't say. That is being realistic. The situation DIDN'T happen so I do not have a written down response, and will not make a decission with a minimum of evidence.

I pointed out the definition of murder, and showed that while your point of abortion would qualify as murder, so would your stand on the death sentence qualify as murder. I did not make up the definitions, nor did I take them out of context. You never addressed that.

You see, ND, my biggest problems with you is:

#1 Your insulting when disagreed with. There is no post that is an ignorant post. There ARE posts that are uninformed. If you want to inform me, then do it as equals. As long as you talk down to me, I will end up fighting for my dignity.

#2 You don't see that both stances of anti-abortion and death penalty are both a form of murder, and therefore if one is a sin, the other is too, especially in the form described in "Day 1" since it is done with vengence in mind (which is prohibited in the NT texts) and since there is malice in the intent.

3. You refuse to see ANY other side to an arguement. In the "Judge Rightly" thread, we agree that we all judge daily, yet we disagree one the point of what is considered righteous. When you are judged by anyone, you have a tendency to reply "you are judging, and not righteously." I disagree and use scripture to show that the judgement is actually Christs. You then revert to #1 above.

Now if you ARE Bob Enyart, then I would love to address you as such, and not as someone who supports you. There is a big difference in the way the discussion would go. The disagreement would be there, but I would be asking questions into your past to find out why you formed these beliefs. (*Which I would like to know anyway ND). But that is the ONLY way you could make a claim I misrepresented you, and I would ask You (Bob Enyart) for clarification. But if you are not Bob Enyart, then there is no way I have ever misrepresented you, and deserve an appology. I don't care if I get one, just that you know that I deserve it.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Zakath
HSG,

Good to read your posts again!

To me that would indicate that the area in discussion is probably not a moral one but one of social practice or preference. I think the issue you raise is that different churches have differing rules about such things.

Most religions tend to think similarly along basic moral lines. It is the areas of practice in which they differ so tremendously. First let me say thank you for your welcome.

I agree with your assessment. I myself don't really know the morality behind these discussions (I just recently read a book in which the author stated that everyone is born with a set of moral beliefs. We usually know what is morally wrong. We all know, reguardless of religious convitictions, that murder is wrong. The same with stealing, and lying, and deceit and many other things. Even those who claim agnostic or atheist or pagan know inside themselves that these are "wrong" behaviors. Many will do it anyway, reguardless of faith of convictions, but they "know" it is wrong.)

But this is one of those grey areas in which there is no black and white answer. It is how our upbringing and what we have experianced in life that dictates the shade of grey we give it. In the idea of abortion, the shade of grey I seem to get from ND, and the writings of Bob Enyart, their shade of grey is very close to being black/white (I will not place the color though in anyones mind. Let it remain that black/white are both absolute end of the spectrum). My shade on this is very close to the middle. But on the idea of the death penalty, the one we have in place in certain states I am very close to white/black on, and absolutely black/white on the form described in Day 1, while again, the shade being espoused by the Enyart faction is the exact opposite.

(I do want to make this clear to everyone White does NOT mean right in my wording above, just as black does not mean wrong. The same thing with the opposite form. They are just the ends of the spectrum)

[Prisca]

I just like to add a personal note:

About five years ago, my sister-in-law told me about a friend of hers who was trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion. At that same time, my husband knew a couple that was desperate to adopt a baby. My sister-in-law informed her friend about this couple, but she decided to abort the baby instead. What a tragedy! A childless couple, a murdering mother, and a poor helpless baby! We were at a loss. We tried to help this woman do the right thing, but because our government condones this horrible form of murder, we were powerless to save this precious little life.

Pro-aborts often accuse pro-lifers of not being willing to take on the “burden” of these “unwanted” children, but that is not the case. Not only have we tried to arrange adoptions for these babies, but we have also offered to adopt these babies ourselves. Fortunately, most mothers decide to keep their children after they have been convinced that abortion is not the answer. Last summer, I was fully expecting to adopt one of these “unwanted” babies, when in the end, the mother decided to keep the baby herself. I was glad that she wanted her own baby, but I couldn’t help feeling disappointed. I was all ready to snuggle up a brand-new little bundle of joy even though I already have four of my own. If the opportunity presents itself again, I am ready to take on the responsibility of cuddling, loving, and caring for any little child that a pro-abort would rather defend killing. :cry:

[His_saving_Grac]

As I was saying, Becky, different circumstances demand different answers. In the case you described, you missed the part about the government getting involved in the adoption process. IF they had already give the adopting couple tha A-OK, I would probably side with you as long as I knew how good the people were. I would kill myself if I birthed a child (although I can't) that was physically, sexually, or emotionally abused. To me, that would be a worse punishment for that child than abortion would be.

But as you see from personal experiance, no matter what YOU discussed with them, they still did as they chose. You didn't influence the decission. That is where I am at. If I DID influence the decission, and the abuse life is what ends up happening to that adopted child, I would be responsible for helping place the child into that enviroment. I don't care one bit if I didn't KNOW. I carry the pain of my mistakes with me always. God may forgive me, but I will not forgive me.

But if I addvised the abortion, did I just help in the death of the next Einstein? Would that child find the cure for cancer? Would he/she discover a way to keep me from dying slowly of heart disease and diabetes?

But then there is the other side. Will my advice bring us the next Hitler? Dahmer? Gacey? Bundy?

So until I am in the situation described, I can not tell someone on this forum what I would do. I can not even honestly say "if it was MY body..." because it never WILL be my body. To say that is a mockery.

I have 3 children. I love them to death. They are my reason for fighting the diseases that are taking me slowly towards a very painful death. I exist today because God has a purpose for each of them and I have to make sure they are strong enough to do it. I had a horrible marriage. I won't even go into the details, since many of them are bloodletting in which I shed the blood, but every day I think about the main decissions I made that led me down that path that ended up with these 3 children. And I think if I would do everything the same. I HAVE and always DO answer yes. I would suffer every indignaty, every knife wound, every pan of burning bacon grease on my back, EVERYTHING again to insure that these three children came into being.

But I will NEVER make that decission for someone else.

[Prisca]

After the birth of my fourth child, I went in for my six-week exam and got into a discussion about abortion with the nurse. She made a comment about how fortunate we are to have legal abortions in this country. I told her I was pro-life and she got very upset with me. Hostile, in fact. To my disbelief, she angrily told me that when her mother was pregnant with her, she had wanted an abortion, but couldn’t get one. I was dumbfounded! Was she serious? Was she really defending her mother’s intent to have murdered her? Suddenly, I think she realized what she had just said and she got very quiet. I said, “But I’m sure she loved you very much.” She said, “Yes, but that’s beside the point!” and with that she silently left the exam room. She was so embarrassed, that she sent another nurse to finish the exam. I was sorry she left. It seemed there was so much more to say. Still, I can understand why she did. To defend something that would have eliminated your existence must be a sobering moment. :noid:

[Elena Marie]

I bet that was a moment to behold, Becky. Perhaps she will think a bit more about her unabashed support of abortion.

[Projill]

Scary stuff. 'Tis strange...you've met a nurse who's mom almost aborted her and who was still pro-choice. I met a girl who's mother refused to abort her and she was pro-life...up until she turned up pregnant. Life is a capricious thing.

[Lion]

HSC-You make a terrifying statement that makes no sense to me. You state that you would rather have a child murdered than abused. I would kill myself if I birthed a child… that was physically, sexually, or emotionally abused. To me, that would be a worse punishment for that child than abortion (the murder of that child) would be. By that logic perhaps all abused children should just be put to death as quickly as possible to spare them more pain.

Even your three children (who you would fight to the death for) might one day be molested or abused (it’s a cruel world you know) so maybe you should do the merciful thing and kill them now to spare them the possibility of future pain.

[Knight]

HSG writes...I am very sorry ND/Knight. Are YOU Bob Enyart?No, I am not Bob. Although I am flattered that you would ask ;)

You continue...If you look back, I complimented you on your behavior in the thread "Meeting at the IHOP" (under your old name of Nathon Detroit), and more recently in your answers to beanieboy in the Honey/Vinegar thread. The person who has been misrepresented is me by you, when you call me ignorant or your other pleasentries when you get upset with me.Sorry, I have little use for pleasantries with people who advocate the right to murder babies and have the gall to compare them to "bacteria" and a "virus"

You continue...You stated you hadn't read it in it's entiretyAnother lie... I never once stated that I hadn't read the Bible. I stated that I am not going to read the entire Bible before every post I make. I think concordances are excellent resource tools.

[His_saving_Grac]

Actually, that is NOT what you said. I asked you to quit using the concordances and read the ENTIRE bible instead. You stated that you won't post until you have read it, and to give you 2 weeks because you read slow.

As for your likes and dislikes, that is your problem, just as I control my likes and dislikes. I have no tolerance for someone who calls one form of killing murder, yet calls another justifiable, when they BOTH fall under the definition of murder. I also can not stand those who, after being REPEATEDLY told that I am NOT pro-abortion, still state the same thing.

And if you don't like the fact that both bacteria and fetuses can only live by getting their food from a host body, again that is your problem. I suggest you have a embryo implanted inside of you and carry it to full term.

So go ahead ND, use your godlike powers and kick me out like all the others. You are too cowardly to answer the question and point made in your own thread as to how both abortion AND the death penalty ARE MURDER! As always, you resort, like a child, to namecalling and the hope no one will go back and see the post where you stated you needed two weeks to read the bible entirely, and that you wouldn't post until then.

You bore me ND. You don't know what you are talking about, you speak for someone else yet you yourself don't understand him. Actually, you are beginning to resemble a virus to me.

If you ever DO read the bible, have someone contact me. I would love to discuss with you how you can redeem yourself in the eyes of God (instead of the eyes of man which is what you want from Bob Enyart).

So this is goodbye. I won't respond to any more of your posts, reguardless if you kick me out or not. After all, it's YOUR ball, just run on home and make sure NO ONE can play.

[Lion]

HSC-Do you really mean to say that you can’t understand the difference between the righteous killing of a convicted capitol criminal and the wanton murder of an innocent baby? Are you that far gone? Ezek. 13:19 “And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…
Gen. 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
And this one applies to you HSC: Rom. 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

[Projill]

Lion, murder is murder.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Projill
Lion, murder is murder.

Murder is murder, but killing is not always murder.

Check a legal dictionary. I think you'll find the distinction lies in the definition of "murder" versus the definition of "execution".

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath


Murder is murder, but killing is not always murder.

Check a legal dictionary. I think you'll find the distinction lies in the definition of "murder" versus the definition of "execution".

Oh, I know. Believe me. I just don't happen to agree with that legal dictionary. I've met too many mothers with children on death row. To them, someone is killing their child.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Projill


Oh, I know. Believe me. I just don't happen to agree with that legal dictionary. I've met too many mothers with children on death row. To them, someone is killing their child.

As a parent I can sympathize. Killing another human is indeed a terrible thing.

But, as a fellow human, I can say that, unfortunately, it is occasionally the correct thing to do in the circumstances.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath


As a parent I can sympathize. Killing another human is indeed a terrible thing.

But, as a fellow human, I can say that, unfortunately, it is occasionally the correct thing to do in the circumstances.

I've always been confused by atheists who believe in the death penalty. I mean, if there is no afterlife, the whole right to live thing would seem even more important than if you did believe. I'm honestly curious about how that plays out for the atheist. I know more than a few atheists and agnostics, but you're the first one I've ever come across that is in favor of the death penalty...so I find you very intriguing. :)

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Lion
HSC-Do you really mean to say that you can’t understand the difference between the righteous killing of a convicted capitol criminal and the wanton murder of an innocent baby? Are you that far gone? I really mean to say they are both murder, or neither are murder. The definition of murder has already been posted. Whether you accept it or not, is your upbringing and lack of understanding, not mine. I pested the definitions of both murder and malice. Both capitol punishment AND abortion qualify. If YOU can't see that, then it is not my problem, by a problem in your own morality. If you can't see that the bible does NOT give us the right no matter WHAT the Enyartian party loves to quote, to kill ANY of God's beloved human creations, then you really do not know the bible, nor are completely familiar with the NT texts.

Are YOU that far gone where you can actually dismiss the word of God that easily where you will refuse to CHECK the bible on Jesus and all the Apostles stand on murder of ANY kind? You soul rests on the outcome of your decision. I suggest you quit skiping verses and read it in it's entirety. I suggest you quit thinking two or 3 verses override the entire theme of the bible. And I suggest you look up the definition of the word "murder" and see if it states ANYWHERE that it isn't murder if it is state sanctioned. And then read "Day 1" by Mr Enyart, and tell me if those killings proposed are not done with malice and revenge.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Zakath


Murder is murder, but killing is not always murder.

Check a legal dictionary. I think you'll find the distinction lies in the definition of "murder" versus the definition of "execution". murder (mûrdõr) n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous.

—murder v. murdered, murdering, murders.
—tr.
1. To kill (another human being) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
—intr.
To commit murder.

—idioms.
get away with murder. Informal.
To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act.
murder will out.
Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed. —murderer n. —murderess n.


malice n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

premeditation n.
1. The act of speculating, arranging, or plotting in advance.
2. Law. The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.


According to the writing of Day 1, since this plan is pre written, it qualifies as pre meditated. Since they advocate the involvement of families and witnesses, and they also refuse any humane form to take pain away, it is done in malice. Enyart's LAW IS MURDER!

[His_saving_Grac]

http://www.deathpenalty.org/

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveReasons.html

FIVE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
The United States is one of a handful of countries which still executes people.
There are currently more than 3,500 people on death row -- more than at any time in U.S. history.
Since 1976, more than 580 people have been executed in the United States. Over 50% of those have been killed since 1992.
More than three-quarters of all executions since 1976 took place in Southern states. The reality is that lynching still exists -- it's just legal now.
Texas Gov. George Bush has personally signed death warrants for 100 executions and counting.
President Clinton's 1994 crime bill added 58 more crimes that are punishable by death. And his "Anti-Terrorism" bill limits the number of federal appeals for death row prisoners to just one within one year of conviction.
Both parties have created a "get tough" climate which can only mean more executions. It's time to take a stand against this barbaric practice.
What follows are five reasons why you should oppose the death penalty and how you can get involved in the fight to end it.
1) The death penalty is racist.
The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was rife with racial disparities. Over twenty five years later, those disparities are as glaring as ever.

* African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.
* Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim.
* In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person.
* A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks.
* More than 75% of those on federal death row are non-white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74% of the defendants were non-white.

2) The death penalty punishes the poor.
"One searches our chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata in this society." - Justice William O. Douglas.

* If you can afford good legal representation, you won't end up on death row.
* Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys.
* In most states the pay for court appointed attorneys is so low that lawyers assigned to capital cases will lose $20-$30 an hour if they do an adequate job. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi defense attorneys are paid a flat fee of $1,000 -- which translates into about 5 dollars an hour for most lawyers.
* In 1996 Clinton cut federal funding to 20 legal resource centers which provided counsel to poor defendants. Now, all of the centers that received this funding have shut down.
* Many capital trials last less than a week -- hardly enough time to present a good defense.

3) The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.

* Since 1976, more than 82 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. In other words, 1 in 7 of those on death row have been freed after being fully exonerated.
* The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted and given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.
* Illinois has released as many from death-row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, "Despite the courts' efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just..., the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death... If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths."
* President Clinton has called appeals by death-row prisoners "ridiculous" and "interminable." He signed a law that limits prisoners to a single habeas corpus appeal within one year of conviction. Under this law, many of those released from death row due to innocence since 1976 would be dead.

4) The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

* An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not.

5) The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."

* In the decades since Furman 13 people have been executed who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime for which they were convicted. Seventy more juveniles are currently on death row awaiting execution.
* Since Furman 34 mentally retarded inmates have been executed.

http://www.cuadp.org/valentine.html

St. Valentine


Valentine was clubbed to death, then beheaded, on February 14 around 270 C.E. during the Christian persecution.* In a way, it could be said he died for love and it may be for this that his feast day, named in 496 C.E. by Pope Gelasius, has be