ARCHIVE: Abortion is always murder

[Elena Marie]

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow! This has been an interesting discussion.

Wow! This has been an interesting discussion.

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.

 

[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]

Now for an absurd note:

Now for an absurd note:

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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 entirety

Another 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]

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]

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.