Pro-Life in Name Only

“by that i mean the way we view it and interpret it

I know what you meant. If you read the Bible there are actually teachers (preachers/apostles) in it who explain to the church's how to interpret it and view it. There are whole books on it. They certainly do not say to take it figuratively.

Christianity was taught from the beginning as literal. Not figurative. (Just read the letters in New Testament if you don't believe me.)
last edited: 8/01/05 5:58:05 PM”

“Anyways - gotta go crash.

smell ya later”

“Christianity was taught from the beginning as literal. Not figurative

there are many biblical scholars and other serious writers who would disagree, with you, sarge. no, i dont know their names off the top of my head

but, as a layman, i can say that the bible is not a book, but a collection of books that some committee decided were to be bound together and called "the bible". maybe the author of these letters (i assume youre talking about the epistles?) felt that all holy script up to that point should be interpreted literally, but thats his bias. he really has no idea if the authors were being truthful, objective, figurative, or what. he cant read their minds. and when it comes down to it, you really have no idea whether or not the bible is gods word or just the ramblings of insane shepherds. i suspect something somewhere in the middle.

the bigger point is, im tired of you crapping on people's religious beliefs. whether or not you think something is valid is beside the point. your dismissiveness is arrogant and hypocritical. i know, we started it first. whatever.
last edited: 8/01/05 6:12:35 PM”

“there are many biblical scholars and other serious writers who would disagree, with you, sarge. no, i dont know their names off the top of my head

actually, yes, i do. karen armstrong, whose book "a history of god" i am currently reading, and bishop john shelby spong”

“what amazes me is, for an adherent of a religion that has as its main core faith, you sure are bent on rationalizing it.

one could say you were faithless”

“seriously, you couldnt ignore my brief mention of buddhism, or just chuckle to yourself and be mute on it. no, you had to crap on it.

tp
kill”

“hell, christianity is the ultimate "self-help"

youre helping yourself get into heaven and be with god

your religion just has a more complex (some, including myself, would say convoluted) hierarchy and mythology. doesnt make it any better or closer to Truth. as a matter of fact, i would venture that its extreme anthropomorphic tendencies and its insistence that it knows the UnKnowable borders on blasphemy
last edited: 8/01/05 6:31:59 PM”

“btw, nigal, to answer your question, buddhists frown on abortion, as they value all life, human or not”

“buddhism was not a reaction to judaism. the dominant religion around buddha was hinduism.”

““buddhism was not a reaction to judaism. the dominant religion around buddha was hinduism.”

True. There is a Kabalistic teaching in Judaism that when G-d created the light most of it went into Torah but some shards went everywhere else. The teaching says this is why we see things in nearly all religions that agree with each other. Kindness. Goodness. Charity. And it is taught that there are many things in the Torah that we will not know until all the religions are brought together where these other shards will reveal the unknown. This is one reason why Judaism respects all other religions and generally does not seek converts from other religions.

And just to clear up the Buddhism is a bastardizing of Christianity…
Siddhartha Gautama lived from 563 BCE to 483 BCE. A half century before Jesus.”

“And just to clear up the Buddhism is a bastardizing of Christianity…
Siddhartha Gautama lived from 563 BCE to 483 BCE. A half century before Jesus. - Nigal

Well, if you read what I said in context, you wouldn't feel a need to explain that.”

“there are many biblical scholars and other serious writers who would disagree, with you, sarge. no, i dont know their names off the top of my head

There are many who would agree with me. Actually, just read it for yourself crash. It's pretty obvious the message. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand when was meant in the writings if you read them all in context.

you really have no idea whether or not the bible is gods word or just the ramblings of insane shepherds. i suspect something somewhere in the middle.

Based on my research I have concluded that the Bible is God's Word. You write as if it's not even historically accurate. That tells me you haven't really researched this at all crash.

what amazes me is, for an adherent of a religion that has as its main core faith, you sure are bent on rationalizing it. one could say you were faithless

There is much evidence to support the New Testament writings. As a non-believer, you will not accept faith as a testimony. If you would actually research it, you would see that the writings in the Bible do not require more faith than any other historic book from centuries past. I have come to know God by faith, but am willing to offer historic testimony as evidence to the non-believer. I believe I have no power to convert a non-believer, but God calls us to spread His message, so I try to do that for Him. It isn't about me as you would suggest. It's about God. I do it for Him, not to justify my own faith.

seriously, you couldnt ignore my brief mention of buddhism, or just chuckle to yourself and be mute on it. no, you had to crap on it.

It's ironic that you are preaching to others about crapping on other faiths. I'm going to put information out there, whether you want me to or not. You can keep complaining, but I'm going to keep doing it. It's how it works crash. Save your breath and stop complaining. Put me on ignore if you feel better.

buddhism was not a reaction to judaism. the dominant religion around buddha was hinduism

People are not always taught the dominant religion around them. In fact, it was because Christianity was so obscure around Buddha that he was faithless. Like I hinted before, the message wasn't getting sent out.”

“It's ironic that you are preaching to others about crapping on other faiths. I'm going to put information out there, whether you want me to or not

i dont have time to respond to everything now, but i am going to respond to this. the difference between you and me is, im trying to be tolerant of others views. if you want to put info out there, fine, thats not what is offending me, its when you, out of the blue, call something garbage. im pretty sure jesus would not approve of your attitude. i get tired of your disrespectful sht, and then you blame it on "whacko liberals" who started it first, or whatever. take some personal accountability and admit that youre out of line every once in awhile. we're all tired of you thinking your sht dont stink. later”

“the difference between you and me is, im trying to be tolerant of others views

You are confusing not accepting lies with intolerence. I am not going to sit here and say "all faiths are beautiful" and "there is good in all religions". That is a lie. It may be the PC thing to do, but it's a lie.

PS - If you read what Paul said about false religions in the Bible, you wouldn't have said that Jesus wouldn't stand for intollerence of other religions. Jesus was very intollerent of false religion because it took from the truth. Stop believing the "let's just all get along" crap. It's a ploy to distract you from the truth.”

“im pretty sure jesus would not approve of your attitude. - crash!

Here is what Jesus says about tolerance of false religions. Many of these are His words regarding these false religions. Often He uses harsher language than I have.

Matthew 23 (all)
Matthew 5:19-20
Matthew 15:1-9
Matthew 7:13-14
Matthew 7:21
Acts 7:51-53
Romans 15:5-6
1 Corinthians 1:10
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12”

“Here is some of Jesus' language, which may sound somewhat familiar to you crash.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!"

Remind you of anyone on here? ... and you say Jesus would not approve!”

“Other words by Jesus ...

"You blind fools!"

"You blind men!"

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

"You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee!"

"You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

As you can see crash - Jesus was intollerent of false religion.

He also approved of His dear cousin John the Baptiser. Would you care to read what he said to people who were following false gods? I'll spare you ...”

“Was Jesus "afraid" of losing converts?

He was basically speaking to Jews in those phrases above.

It is no wonder why the Jews rejected Jesus.

But you see crash, they didn't reject Him because of these words. They rejected Him before these words were ever spoken. Jesus rebuked them so that others could see their evil hearts. It wasn't so much for their benefit, but for the benefit of others. He wasn't trying to convert these guys, He was getting the truth out. The truth is they were full of lies and Jesus did not stand for lies.”

“finally ...

take some personal accountability and admit that youre out of line every once in awhile. we're all tired of you thinking your sht dont stink. - crash!

If you've ever admitted you were wrong on here, I haven't seen it. I have admitted to being wrong on here several times. What I will not do is compromise my beliefs just so that I can get along with others. If people do not accept me and my beliefs how they stand, then I'd rather it be that way than for them to accept me based on my compromises.”

“..
last edited: 8/02/05 9:00:56 AM”

“Sarge..How many converts do you think you'll get with this "turn or burn" mentality? When reading the teachings of Christ, where do you find Him hitting people over the head with bricks in order to make then understand the truths of His teachings? Our command from Christ was to love one another, so that men could see His light thru us. I've read the litany you've provided for both Crash and Mutt, and I think you've become lost in your obsession to make your point regarding Christianity and its teaching. This is not an effective from of ministry to others. It will turn them away from seeking Him, and they will label you as a religious zealot. Jesus was successful in His teachings because of the love He displayed for those who were lost, and for those who followed Him. As Christians, we will have a more positive effect on people by showing the love of Christ thru our daily walk. How we respond to questions about our beliefs, how we show love to those around us, and how we reflect the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.
Remember the teachings of Christ, there are those who will accept, and those who will not. For those who will not, we were commanded to shake the dust from our feet as we left that town. A seed planted, can only grow in fertile soil. Examine the work of your current field.....will it bear fruit? From what I've read...I think it's time for you to move on..”

“Nigal, you should have left your post up. It was interesting.”

“I acted out of emotions and was unkind. I was wrong. Truth is not a club. I did e mail it to Crash so he'd be able to get it.”

“Sarge..How many converts do you think you'll get with this "turn or burn" mentality?

I believe only the Holy Spirit can create converts. Also, personally I don't use the "turn or burn" mentality. Where did you get that? Sounds like you are stereotyping me.

When reading the teachings of Christ, where do you find Him hitting people over the head with bricks in order to make then understand the truths of His teachings?

Where did you find me "hitting people over the head with bricks in order to make them understand the truths of His teachings?

Our command from Christ was to love one another, so that men could see His light thru us.

That is one of many commands from Christ. There are others.

I've read the litany you've provided for both Crash and Mutt, and I think you've become lost in your obsession to make your point regarding Christianity and its teaching.

Lost in my obsession for getting past the stereotypes and the lies? If I'm going to have an obsession, that will be it. What's your obsession pakratz?

This is not an effective from of ministry to others. It will turn them away from seeking Him, and they will label you as a religious zealot.

I am not concerned about labels. Jesus' apostles did the same thing and they were tortured, "labeled" and murdered. I am not above them. I am willing to be "labeled" as well.

Jesus was successful in His teachings because of the love He displayed for those who were lost, and for those who followed Him.

That is true, and I have love of others. You have ignored other things Jesus did. Did you read the passages I provided? Tell me how that is any different than what I do please pakratz.

As Christians, we will have a more positive effect on people by showing the love of Christ thru our daily walk. How we respond to questions about our beliefs, how we show love to those around us, and how we reflect the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

I have been successfully used by God on many occassions by the methods you've seen here. Crash my say he despises my words, but one thing he has admitted to struggling with is the hypocricy of Christians. He is learning through talking to me that one thing I am not is hypocritical. I am willing to take his abuse so that he can see the truth. People will struggle with the truth, but eventually they break free and see the truth (sometimes). It is not up to me to change their hearts. It is up to me, and you, to get the truth out. If you want to use other methods, that's great! I think that's awesome! But don't be so critical of my methods, especially when they more closely reflect any of the teachers you will read in the Bible. You are trying to be politically correct, which is fine, and some people are responsive to that, but to me it's not always truthful. I understand your opinion and viewpoint. But there are other effective ways.

Remember the teachings of Christ, there are those who will accept, and those who will not. For those who will not, we were commanded to shake the dust from our feet as we left that town.

What that means is that we are not to take responsibility for the failures. I do not. I also do not take responsibility for the successes. Don't assume what I am thinking. You're most likely not going to get it right.

A seed planted, can only grow in fertile soil. Examine the work of your current field.....will it bear fruit? From what I've read...I think it's time for you to move on..

Interesting. I have been asked by members of my church (a very loving church in the community) to lead a discussion this year for some families. I have been asked by a Deacon of the church and our Associate Pastor. They asked me because they have seen my fruit. My "work in the field" is just fine, thank you.

Regarding people outside the church, I have seen a good friend of mine, a HARDCORE liberal, who is extremely intelligent (164 IQ) and very well adjusted come closer to Christ in the last 2 years because God has used our discussion to reveal his truth. Our discussions have been MUCH more heated than the ones you've seen here. Yet, God has used them and he is now going to church and teaches his daughter about Jesus. I thank you for your concern, but I do believe I am on the right track.

From what I've read...I think it's time for you to look in the mirror and remove the plank for your own eye.
last edited: 8/02/05 9:28:27 AM”

“My arguments INSIST on keeping the goal posts where they are. That is how I debate.

LOL! Hey everybody, the sky is purple!

Sarge, I have to hand it to you - you can deny the obvious with a straight face like few I've seen. Glad to have experienced "the Sarge".”

“Mutt - What about that bet? You keep ignoring that. I wonder why?”

“Um, because it bores me and because I feel sorry for you that you've had to dredge up a past debate to score a point here. If it makes you feel better to have that point, go for it! I don't care.”

“Mutt - You are nothing but ad hominem attacks anymore. You can't back up your own words, other than to turn the attack personal. That's all you do!

I'm growing quickly bored debating with you. At least others make the attempt. You seem to be hell bent on just crying "fallacy!", when you don't know what the fallacies are.

What? You do?

Then take me up on the bet! Otherwise, you're just boring me.

Crash at least has an opinion. Do you? You don't even seem to have one other than you don't like my arguments. Your diatribes with big words that mean absolutely nothing do not impress me Mutt.”

“Um, because it bores me and because I feel sorry for you that you've had to dredge up a past debate to score a point here. If it makes you feel better to have that point, go for it! I don't care.

Past debate? It was from what? Last week? You disappeared after that. It was like the last debate we had! LOL!

Ok, you want me to "go for it!" Then agree with me on the terms so that you won't cry "fowl" when the results come back. Are you willing to do that? Or are you afraid? Let me know and I'll explain my plan how we can do this fairly.”

“You seem to be hell bent on just crying "fallacy!"

Pot, kettle, black, Mr. (incorrectly used) Strawman.

But you're right, Sarge. I disappear when I have work to do, and I rarely post outside of work, and that's not fair in debate. I just don't hold on to it like you seem to, so that's why I let things drop.

You're also right that I haven't been forthcoming with my perspective. I believe that abortion should remain legal because the issue of when life begins is a hopelessly muddled scientific/religiospiritual tangle that the government should just stay out of, per the constitution. I think the medical community is more than capable of policing itself (e.g. limiting 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions to extreme cases). I also think education and access to contraception - particularly targeted to teens - would be much more effective than a hamfisted, ineffective ban.

So that's how it is in my mind - a conservative perspective. I embrace the dignity of life by wanting to reduce abortions as much as possible without compromising people's religious freedom. And it keeps the government out of it.”

“Pot, kettle, black, Mr. (incorrectly used) Strawman.

I call fallacies as they happen (actually, I've ignored many in recent months). The point is you don't debate. All you do is complain about the other's argument. I at least debate on here. You do not.

But you're right, Sarge. I disappear when I have work to do, and I rarely post outside of work, and that's not fair in debate. I just don't hold on to it like you seem to, so that's why I let things drop.

I'm not asking you to be on here 24/7. I'm just asking you to stop pretending like a discussion we had was so long ago it doesn't warrant revisiting.

You're also right that I haven't been forthcoming with my perspective. I believe that abortion should remain legal because the issue of when life begins is a hopelessly muddled scientific/religiospiritual tangle that the government should just stay out of, per the constitution. I think the medical community is more than capable of policing itself (e.g. limiting 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions to extreme cases). I also think education and access to contraception - particularly targeted to teens - would be much more effective than a hamfisted, ineffective ban.So that's how it is in my mind - a conservative perspective. I embrace the dignity of life by wanting to reduce abortions as much as possible without compromising people's religious freedom. And it keeps the government out of it.

Boy, it should we be great and interesting to truly debate you on these beliefs you hold, and without you telling me what I am supposed to be debating myself. I'd like to do that sometime.”

“I'm just asking you to stop pretending like a discussion we had was so long ago it doesn't warrant revisiting

Sorry, but in Internet time "last week" is a year ago, imnsho.

And, okay, if you want to debate my beliefs let's try it on your terms of how debate should preceed.”

“And, okay, if you want to debate my beliefs let's try it on your terms of how debate should preceed.

My terms are always simple. Debate me and not the group of people you associate me with, and don't change the standards for what is "right" and what is "wrong" in mid-discussion.

Shall we revisit the "When does human life begin?" question you posed? I will most likely have to repost many of my arguments to get back up to speed if you do want to revisit this, but that's fine.”

“Mutt, drop me an email.”

“I will not debate, on an open forum, my personal beliefs regarding the teachings of Christ and His sacrifice at the Cross.
However...IF and WHEN, we have an opportunity to meet face to face, I'd be more than willing, even happy to sit around a campfire and discuss the apparent differences in our approach to ministry. God uses each of us, and our individaul spiritual gifts in different ways. You may very well be the ramrod that God needs to move people, that is not my gift.
As far your plank comment.....I'm pretty sure I did not accuse you of a sin, nor did I cast any stones in your direction.
I'll leave you with this thought for the day by Elbert Hubbard..

"We need someone to believe in us-if we do well, we want our work commended, our faith corroborated. The individual who thinks well of you, who keeps his mind on your good qualities, and does not look for flaws, is your friend. Who is my brother? I'll tell you: he is the one who recognizes the good in me.

Have you taken a look at Crash and Mutt and seen the good in them? Can you call either a friend, or perhaps maybe a brother?”

“Mutt, drop me an email.

Done.”

“As far your plank comment.....I'm pretty sure I did not accuse you of a sin, nor did I cast any stones in your direction.

When reading the teachings of Christ, where do you find Him hitting people over the head with bricks in order to make then understand the truths of His teachings?

I've read the litany you've provided for both Crash and Mutt, and I think you've become lost in your obsession to make your point regarding Christianity and its teaching. This is not an effective from of ministry to others. It will turn them away from seeking Him, and they will label you as a religious zealot.

Examine the work of your current field.....will it bear fruit? From what I've read...I think it's time for you to move on.

-----

I'll leave you with this thought for the day by Elbert Hubbard..

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

----

Have you taken a look at Crash and Mutt and seen the good in them? Can you call either a friend, or perhaps maybe a brother?

I have just met Mutt. Crash and I have a good relationship. He and I have an understanding. I consider him a friend and a brother. If he is honest on here (on this board), I would say he would say the same.

pakratz - I have been corresponding with Crash and Mutt(recently) and have a relationship that is building. You, on the other hand, I don't think have communicated with me until just now. Yet, all you have done is been critical of my relationship with others. LOL. You make me laugh. Thanks for your concern. Message received. And I'd love to meet you and talk to you someday, but until then, don't assume you know me very well.”

“Sarge, let's talk about when human life begins. I say there's an unavoidable religiospiritual aspect to it, but I take it you disagree.”

“I do believe there is a "religiospiritual aspect" to the beginning of human life.

That being said, I don't consider that when I consider my view on abortion. It's unnessesary. This is why:

If I was for abortion, then considering the religious/spiritual aspect would have merit because I might be inclined to change my position IF I were to determine we had souls.

That being said, I already am against abortion, without the religious consideration. It is highly unlikely that my view would change if we do or do not have souls.

So you are correct, I disagree that the religious/spiritual aspect is unavoidable * in certain circumstances *.

To clarify, I do think it might become an opinion changer if one were to be pro-life, and suddenly realize that we had souls at some point in our existence.

Therefore, it is worthy of discussion, but if you're going to discuss this with me, I feel confident defending a pro-life stance without the added religous/spiritual discussion. I believe a pro-life stance can be easily defended without such talk. Not that it doesn't have merit, but it's unnessesary. You would be better served having that discussion with somebody who based their pro-life stance on the religious/spiritual aspect.”

“I'd like to pull the discussion back a little bit.

There are some issues that my church (Catholic) - is nuts on. At least in my personal opinion. The ban on most types of contraception within marriage is one. However, I try to really think through these disagreements before changing position because I am a part of a community and I value its opinion. I believe that in most instances, the sum total of the community's thoughts and prayers result in a nuanced and valuable set of beliefs. I do believe that God works within each of us and in a community.

So, I don't necessarily have a problem with a disagreement with my church's teaching on abortion.

However, the core issue for me is "When does life begin?" I think that it certainly is present after birth. I don't see a difference between a baby one second before birth and one second after birth. It's the same kid.

The trimesters were simply a creation of the Supreme Court, so those are arbitrary lines. Viability is a constantly moving line based on the science and medical understandings of a particular day and age. Is a pregnancy at 6 months a life in 2005, but not in 1905? No. I think that the line has to be more fixed than that.

Is the line brain activity? That is compelling, but is the value of life defined by one's ability to think? Is the line a heartbeat? Why should cardiovascular systems be the deciding line? Is it the ability to feel pain? That seems arbitrary to me. Is it implantation into the wall of the uterus? Is it conception?

The actual line is not clear to me, but I do feel that the line must be pretty early in the pregnancy. I certainly believe that a fetus/child at 7, 8 and 9 months is a real, live human being.

So, without a clearly logical alternative to the "life begins at conception" argument of the Catholic Church, I don't see a compelling reason to disagree with my church on the issue. Conception is a very logical place to believe that life begins.

This brings us to the political side. Having established that conception is a reasonable place to understand the beginning of life, what is the best way to protect that life? And how valuable are the rights of that early life when matched against the rights of other living things, basically the mother and society?

I am not one of those progressives who believes that faith should be kept out of politics. Believing people should have as much right as anyone else to push for ideas that are important to them. But politics is the art of the possible.

My belief is that 33 years of failed attempts to reduce abortion politically prove that politics is not an effective way to achieve the Catholic/conservative Christian goal of respect for life from conception onward.

And I think that throughout history, Christians have had disagreements on strategy. In the early church, for instance, some Christians believed that evangelization should be limited to the Jewish community. Paul and others believed that it should be brought to all peoples. It was a difference in strategy between very Holy people.

I believe that the same is true today. I don't fault Christian conservatives from pushing for political limits on abortion. I just think that it is an ultimately futile exercise.

Better to use these efforts to support young mothers and raise kids to act responsibly than waste a lot of energy in Washington.

This "free market" solution to the problem of abortion would also allow Christians the opportunity to better evaluate the other moral issues that the parties present to us.”

“rl - Believing what you believe about human life - If you saw somebody cutting a 1 hour old newborn into tiny pieces, and there was no law forbidding it, wouldn't you fight hard to make it a law (after vomiting profusely)?

My belief is that the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality of American's is disgusting and demands a call-to-action for laws to restrict abortion.”

“Not that it doesn't have merit, but it's unnessesary...You would be better served having that discussion with somebody who based their pro-life stance on the religious/spiritual aspect.

Okay fair enough Sarge, let me switch tracks, then. And if you don't want to address it, that's not a black mark on you. I think this debate isn't going to go anywhere if we stick to individual definitions. The reason is, the debate isn't that meaningful if we exclude government involvement. After all, the end here is "should government ban it". If we include government involvement, then individual differences in opinion over the definition of life are only significant in that they do differ. That is, regardless of how correct a person might feel their definition is, the fact remains that others differ. The question is, is there a means of determining validity?

From a sterile biological point of view, the point of conception is a very convenient and very logical starting point for human life. And you're right - in light of this the religiospiritual dimension is unnecessary to be pro-life as an individual. However, a significant portion of society *does* incorporate religiospiritual beliefs in their definition. There's no denying that, I believe. They believe that the "soul" or whatever is present at conception or at some point thereafter (see Nigal's post above, for example), and that the clump of cells isn't "human" before, so that abortion isn't murder. Moreover, since science cannot even come close to fully explaining the mystery of human life, leaving the religiospiritual dimension out of it is a conscious religiospiritual decision - much like a strong atheist position. Science simply cannot say that the soul does or doesn't exist. To leave that concept out, like strong atheism, is a leap of faith. Thus, there is no objective or scientific means to test validity. There is no escaping the religiospiritual dimension.

With that in mind, how is the government to establish a particular viewpoint as correct when there is a religiospiritual dimension to the definition of human life? How can the government come in and say your spiritual beliefs are wrong - life begins at conception?

Okay, Sarge, you might not want to entertain this line of thinking, and it isn't well written, but there it is. Do you see a way around this issue that keeps the government out of religion?”

“Certainly, Sarge. But the most practical solution is to divert the attention of the person doing the cutting, get to know them and understand why they are doing this and then speaking to them from your heart and mind and encouraging them to feed the child instead.

It does the same thing - saving the child. It is just different strategy.

There is currently a witch hunt going on within the pro-life community. Those who are free market pro lifers are made into villains.

We want the same thing. And, honestly, after 33 years, isn't it time to give another segment of the movement a chance?”

“sarge,I hate to ask but restrict abortion how and when. I know I will probably disagree =)



RL, I know a lady who is a very staunch Catholic. So far she has had 6 kids. The last two she has had major problems during the pregnancy. The Dr has told her not to have anymore. She thinks if God wants here to have another child she will no matter what happens to her. She refuses to even think about contraceptive's for herself or her husband. IMO she has enough kids and needs to take care of them and not worry about having another.
In your opinion is her way of thinking due to what the Catholic church has taught her since she was a kid?”

“Ewker, I think that is probably true.

I agree that the church's position on most contraceptives is short-sighted, based on the idea that a married couple can be open to life within the marriage outside of a particular sexual encounter.

So, I would think that it is entirely moral for this woman and her husband to consider birth control.

But, it is difficult for me to make a comment on the choices that a particular couple makes.

K and I have some married friends. The wife became pregnant and found out that she had cancer shortly after. She and her husband decided to wait for the chemo until after the baby was born. They went against the doctor's advice, but the baby was born, the chemo started and the tumor is now gone.

A woman can probably make that decision better than I can.”

“Ewker - I would restrict abortion in all circumstances.

-----

Mutt - Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Let me repost a few of your sentences and then comment.

The reason is, the debate isn't that meaningful if we exclude government involvement.

To leave that concept out, like strong atheism, is a leap of faith. Thus, there is no objective or scientific means to test validity. There is no escaping the religiospiritual dimension.

With that in mind, how is the government to establish a particular viewpoint as correct when there is a religiospiritual dimension to the definition of human life? How can the government come in and say your spiritual beliefs are wrong - life begins at conception?

Okay, Sarge, you might not want to entertain this line of thinking, and it isn't well written, but there it is. Do you see a way around this issue that keeps the government out of religion?

The main part I'm unsure of is, do you think I'm wanting to leave government out of the debate? I'm not. To me, this is about government involvement. It's essential that we make laws to prevent the abortions.

I agree that the religious/spiritual aspect is important Mutt, but I also believe that there are legitimate reasons to make laws forbidding abortion that have nothing to do with religous reasons.

Put it another way - Murder. Cold blooded murder on the street corner by a thug. Does the victim have a soul? Does it matter to you if the person has a soul? Should we drop all laws dealing with murder until we find out if people have souls?

With that in mind, to answer your question, I do see a way to discuss this without the religious/spiritual aspect of the discussion.

---

rl - But the most practical solution is to divert the attention of the person doing the cutting, get to know them and understand why they are doing this and then speaking to them from your heart and mind and encouraging them to feed the child instead.

There are over 4,000 abortions performed daily. You had better get busy talking to those moms. From my experience, 99.9% don't want to hear it. Nonetheless, good luck.”

“And god said,"
i hav'nt priced insurance, I don't want to pay high closing costs and I hav'nt found one of those famous Inns that make you so special, but I'll talk about that life long appointment to the supreme...".”

“Ewker - I would restrict abortion in all circumstances
Sarge
12:38:41 PM
8/02/05


restrict: To keep or confine within limits

so what limits would you impose”

“so what limits would you impose

complete”

“So you would totally ban all abortions and send women back to the dark ages”