Viker
Häxan
It's not even that.Oh okay. So fetus offering if you will.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's not even that.Oh okay. So fetus offering if you will.
Hmm ... that would depend on the individual right? I think satanism is all about the self. So of course it's up to you. Your body is your temple to self and you can do whatever you want with it.It's not even that.
Basically, yes.Your body is your temple to self and you can do whatever you want with it.
It seems you may have entirely missed the point.Point one:
Why stop with abortions? If they're protected so is human sacrifice.
Second point:
Whether you agree with abortion as a right or not. What kind of sick religion thinks it's a sacrament?
I really hate this argument.That's less than 1% of all abortions when there has been rape or incest involved to create the pregnancy. About 85% of the women who become pregnant through rape or incest choose to have their children anyway.
An Elliot Institute study on rape-related pregnancies found that nearly 80% of the women who aborted said that abortion was the wrong solution.
Many women say that when they see their child, they fall in love at first sight. Others choose adoption because they don’t want an abortion, but don’t want the child either.
I am not prolife because I have a visceral response to abortion. I have a moral argument against it.@Clizby Wampuscat , an atheist opposed to abortion, might be an exception. His visceral response might be unrelated to church indoctrination, but such exceptions are very rare in these threads.
Others have. You jumped into the conversation.Well - I never made this claim.
I would argue that's completely unrealistic. By the way, you know pregnancy takes two to tango, right? But here we are just talking about how women should stop having sex entirely, until they're ready to have children.I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children.
I agree with that. The problem is that protection doesn't always work. Condoms can fail. Vasectomies can fail.If that standard is too high - then at least practice safe sex in a monogamous and committed relationship.
If that standard is too high - then at least practice safe sex in general - every time.
What if that man is a rapist? Or your father? Or an abuser? Or someone you don't want to spend your life with?If that standard is too high - then at least marry the father of your "oops baby" and live happily ever after.
I agree that people shouldn't murder children. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't children.If that standard is too high - then at least don't murder your child - put he/her up for adoption.
My position is that there are so many scenarios and situations that can come into play, that it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them. That should be left up to the individual.You are scraping at the bottom of the barrel of "scenarios" when there were many better options.
Those couples should adopt some of the thousands and thousands of children that are already in the system.Correct - which is why couples wait literally years in order to adopt a newborn - there are many more couples ready to adopt than there are newborns needing adoption.
I'm all for promoting birth control, but the problem seems to be that some conservative types think even that should be outlawed. Which makes me question their motives in the first place.We should be promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability, safe sex practices - and not murdering babies.
That children used to be babies? Please tell me you're joking.Whoa - wait - are you a biologist?
Because if you ain't an "expert" you can't make this kind of claim.
I'm not.I agree that the situation regarding children in foster care is unfortunate - but why are you assuming that all of these children were placed in the system as babies?
You understand that a child can be placed in the system at any time - not just when they are babies?
The way to fix the problem is not to exacerbate it by forcing more unwanted children into the world.The vast majority of children in the system are there because their parents made bad life choices - and most are not babies - because babies tend to get adopted.
And the way to fix that problem is not by blaming the children and killing them.
If babies are being murdered, those people should be arrested. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't babies and don't fit the definition. And their life shouldn't trump that of the actual fully grown and developed, fully sentient human being in which they reside.Of course it won't "solved everything" - but it will stop babies from being murdered.
Actually, I'm not looking for a "cure-all" answer. My answer is to let every individual decide for herself what is best for her, in her situation. Not having some outside parties dictating to her what they think is best for her. The latter seems to be what you want.You know - fighting Russia in Ukraine won't "solve everything" - but it will save many Ukrainian lives.
You know - getting the COVID vaccine won't "solve everything" - but it will save many lives.
You are looking for a "cure-all" answer - where there are none - but the least we can do is stop murdering babies.
Human beings have sex. That's a fact of life.Then after we get that squared away - let's teach people to not be selfish horndogs - so we can avoid further heartache and tragedy.
These last two posts of yours, I think, perfectly demonstrate how attitudes like yours infantilize women.How do you define "sentience"?
I believe that those who protest against abortion are those who delight in children because they tend to have them.
Also - they do not avoid looking at the science regarding the not-yet-born - because those facts tend to validate their beliefs - rather than contradict them.
There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists are against waiting periods and ultrasounds for pregnant women seeking abortion - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.
There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists want it labelled "abortion" and stress over terms and vague concepts - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.
"Pro-life" advocates have always demanded more information - more facts - more options - and more time for people to review before making their decision.
Because if they actually gave it some thought - and don't get caught up in the sensationalism and fear-mongering - they realize that it is wrong to kill their child.
Rubbish.No their interest is making money... from the corpses of babies.
And the typos.Sorry, but biased sites are not very reliable. You do realize that is not a science based site, don't you? You can tell by their use of references that this is not an honest site. Instead of going directly to the peer reviewed science articles when they make a claim who do they go to? Another antiabortion site. That is an improper use of citation and is a very bad sign. Why didn't they go to the peer reviewed source? Perhaps it is because the source does not support them.
The evidence may be out there but that does not count.
Whether you agree with abortion as a right or not. What kind of sick religion thinks it's a sacrament?
It's nonsensical to say that abortion is a religious right if it has nothing to do with your religion.
I am not prolife because I have a visceral response to abortion. I have a moral argument against it.
You haven't seen the video evidence? They were literally selling body parts.Rubbish.
Nope, that was creative editing and a gullible audience.You haven't seen the video evidence? They were literally selling body parts.
Wishful thinking.Nope, that was creative editing and a gullible audience.
Oh, you didn't know that all investigations into that rubbish claim came up empty? You didn't know that the people who made the claim were indicted on felony charges?You haven't seen the video evidence? They were literally selling body parts.
Your belief that anyone was "literally selling body parts" from aborted fetuses, is based in wishful thinking.Wishful thinking.
Would you like to see a video of some mermaids, it's on YouTube?You haven't seen the video evidence? They were literally selling body parts.
I'll bet you're a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe the twin towers of the world trade centre were blown up by the CIA? Or that Kennedy's assassination was not the work of one man? Or that NASA didn't really put men on the moon?Wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking.
Or outright duplicity?Your belief that anyone was "literally selling body parts" from aborted fetuses, is based in wishful thinking.