Should people vote on the abortion issue foremost?

[danieldemol]

All I can say is you better pray real real hard that most people vote differently.

Ah the threats of an impotent god, like when God allegedly threatened to bring down Tyre to ruin using the armies of Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7-21

 

[tytlyf]

Child sacrifice and murder of innocent babies is a big issue for some people.

Depends on the religion.

Should they vote with this a a priority?

If they don't like the founding parameters of America.

I would suggest it would be a good idea. What do you think? Be prepared to defend your position.

Do you feel that a fetus has a soul? Does the soul create itself after conception?
The Bible recommends abortions in certain cases. (Bitter water). Doesn't the Bible separate Bitter Water from Murder in that case? Aren't there exceptions in the Bible for abortion? I think there are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you feel that a fetus has a soul? Does the soul create itself after conception?
The Bible recommends abortions in certain cases. (Bitter water). Doesn't the Bible separate Bitter Water from Murder in that case? Aren't there exceptions in the Bible for abortion? I think there are.

The Bible takes no issue with abortion.

... but women making their own reproductive decisions? That's the thing that the Bible is really against.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I totally accept that abortions are necessary, and will remain so.
What the world needs now is less people not more.
I do not even see it as a religious or moral matter.
Souls are not short of space. When they are not living they are of God.

The only decision regarding bringing a new life into the world is for the person who must look after it, if it were born, and that is the potential mother.
It would be better if a featus was never started, than for a termination to be necessary.
However things happen and it takes two to tango, the female is often the unwilling partner from the start.
Sex education and the protection of women against rape and enforced seduction, are very poorly funded and supported.
Get these right, and the need for terminations will go down.

No one needs more poor single parents and unwanted children in this world, least of all them selves. Far better to properly support those that we have now, though no fault of their own, like orphans and deserted or widowed women.

 

[tytlyf]

The Bible takes no issue with abortion.

... but women making their own reproductive decisions? That's the thing that the Bible is really against.

The whole abortion debate for the right has been manipulated by corporate elitists for political reasons. The republican establishment doesn't have issues with abortion, but they'll act like it's an abomination for votes =)

 

[dad]

I'm not even sure the bible would define an unborn potential person, or even baby or child, as being totally 'innocent,' if that's what your trying to read into that.

I am not sure anyone else would qualify. They are also defenceless. They should be protected since they cannot protect themselves by leaders.

For abel had to learn what your god wanted, whereas cain expended no effort to learn. The argument then, is that the blankest state that human has, is closer to falling into sin, as it takes effort for the individual to learn to be good. But you are arguing with someone who is considered 'pagan,' and a nature worshiper.

No real need to argue.The point about killing babies is beyond argument. The thread simply asked about whether leaders supporting the slaughter should have the issue determine our vote or not.

I don't think people should have more that one child really, and we cannot continue to use fossil fuels to produce artificial fertilizer, to feed all these billions of people.

Your thoughts are opinion. God sends babies and He can provide. I have often wondered why some people (not that you are one of them, I have no idea) advocate population control, and killing certain parts of the population such as babies. If they are believers in reduction of life, why would they start with OTHER lives rather than their own? That seems selfish to me.

I know you won't listen to that, as the christian view is that you should generally bring as many people into the world as possible, for then more people have the possibility of reaching heaven

Well, I won't argue with that one.

But if you wish to argue more using the bible, what about the example of Judas? Jesus said it would be better that he not have been born. What's so important about being born in that passage?

The idea there was that if some folks make horrible evil choices that impact their souls and eternal future, it would be better they were never born considering the consequences of their choices. That does not mean whack innocent babies or anyone else.

 

[dad]

So we should vote against bodily autonomy? Should we require people to give blood by law? Or make everyone give up a kidney or other transplantable organ? Do you think people shouldn't have the ability to opt out of being an organ donner upon death? If no to any of these why are you okay with axing the bodily autonomy of child bearing peoples?

Natural child bearing and birth have zero to do with man's draconian, frankensteinian medical experiments and dictates.

 

[dad]

So you don't understand how forcing women to remain pregnant is forcing them to allow somebody else to use their uterus?

Did nobody explain to you how babies are made?


I don't care about your religious beliefs.


My roommate doesn't live inside my body and make use of my organs before being violently passed out of it.

If your roommate decided to implant themselves inside of your body and make use of all of your organs, and disconnecting your body would kill them, do you have a right to do it or should you be forced to carry your roommate around for the rest of your life?

Natural childbirth is not carrying a grown roommate around forever. Poor excuse to sacrifice children. The thread is not an bout whether slaughtering millions of babies is right or wrong. It is evil and wrong, no possible debate about it. The discussion of the thread is whether people should vote with this issue as the biggest factor or not.

 

[dad]

Ah the threats of an impotent god, like when God allegedly threatened to bring down Tyre to ruin using the armies of Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7-21

The verse I cited is Him speaking in the First Person, and saying nations will bite the dust if they slay those innocents. Don't blame me. Looking at the rain falling already in the world, it looks like the boom may be about to be lowered. But I will hope for better times and people changing etc...not that I would bet the farm on it though.

 

[Tambourine]

@dad Do you think the government should force pregnant women to carry their children to birth?

 

[dad]

Depends on the religion.

If they don't like the founding parameters of America.

People who do not want millions of innocents murdered do not care about the founding perimeters of America or your opinion of them actually. Protecting innocents is bigger than any nation. I do not believe that any founders of the US preached mass murder of babies either.

Do you feel that a fetus has a soul? Does the soul create itself after conception?
The Bible recommends abortions in certain cases. (Bitter water). Doesn't the Bible separate Bitter Water from Murder in that case? Aren't there exceptions in the Bible for abortion? I think there are.

Grasping at some story from Israel untold centuries ago that you have zero clue about the meaning, and that does not apply is a desperate act.
It is clear that babies still in the womb are people, such as in the cases of Jacob and Esau, and John the Baptist, and Jesus.

 

[dad]

@dad Do you think the government should force pregnant women to carry their children to birth?

I think they should force women and men not to kill millions of innocents. Like it or lump it. I also agree that God is Holy in judging any peoples and nations that do sacrifice the innocents.

 

[Tambourine]

I think they should force women and men not to kill millions of innocents. Like it or lump it. I also agree that God is Holy in judging any peoples and nations that do sacrifice the innocents.

Are you afraid to give a straight answer to this question?
Should the government force pregnant women to birth children, yes or no?

 

[dad]

Are you afraid to give a straight answer to this question?
Should the government force pregnant women to birth children, yes or no?

A good government or a bad one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The verse I cited is Him speaking in the First Person, and saying nations will bite the dust if they slay those innocents. Don't blame me. Looking at the rain falling already in the world, it looks like the boom may be about to be lowered. But I will hope for better times and people changing etc...not that I would bet the farm on it though.

Seeing how that passage condemns "violence to the stranger" as strongly as it condemns killing the innocent, I trust that you are doing as much to stop the ICE concentration camps as you are to stop abortion.

Right?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I am not sure anyone else would qualify. They are also defenceless. They should be protected since they cannot protect themselves by leaders.

I guess no else might qualify, but the unborn cell clusters are exempt by being in a limbo stage of faux innocence, though down the road they inevitably become sinners, if they are not already, by merit of being the descendants of adam. So then would you agree that they are innocent for but a short window of time, and at what point do they receive their second birth as a sinner, as this is where they all head? And so, should we say that they are sinners, period?

Wait, what does this psalm mean that I just stumbled on... Psalms 51:5

Your thoughts are opinion. God sends babies and He can provide.

How? Does he rain down food and housing?

I have often wondered why some people (not that you are one of them, I have no idea) advocate population control, and killing certain parts of the population such as babies. If they are believers in reduction of life, why would they start with OTHER lives rather than their own? That seems selfish to me.

Those other lives don't actually exist yet. You and I are here

The idea there was that if some folks make horrible evil choices that impact their souls and eternal future, it would be better they were never born considering the consequences of their choices. That does not mean whack innocent babies or anyone else.

Your bible mentions birth so much, that it must be some kind of important stage. However, when I read psalms 51:5, it says that even zygotes are sinners. Personally, I am not that cruel to zygotes, I just see them as cell clusters. So why then would the bible make a big deal out of birth? I suppose at that point, it is because the so called 'sinner' officially arrives on the planet, and combines with a soul. As to the 'innocence' you find in that jeremiah passage, it arguably refers to the innocence that a person works toward in life, it takes effort to become 'upright'

 

[dad]

I guess no else might qualify, but the unborn cell clusters are exempt by being in a limbo stage of faux innocence, though down the road they inevitably become sinners, if they are not already, by merit of being the descendants of adam. So then would you agree that they are innocent for but a short window of time, and at what point do they receive their second birth as a sinner, as this is where they all head? And so, should we say that they are sinners, period?

You cannot overrule God and declare victims of murder clumps.

How? Does he rain down food and housing?

He provides in many ways.

Those other lives don't actually exist yet. You and I are here.

Says you. John the Baptist existed in the womb, and was spoken about even before he got there. He leaped for joy when mom got near pregnant Mary. Your clump theory is invented and anti God.

Your bible mentions birth so much, that it must be some kind of important stage. However, when I read psalm 51:5, it says that even zygotes are sinners

Some more than others apparently. But so what if they were? Does this mean some killer psychopath should be able to run around killing people because they are 'sinners'?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Some more than others apparently. But so what if they were?

Well, that psalm surely refutes some of your ideas here.. how does your idea of innocence stack up against it?

 

[dad]

Well, that psalm surely refutes some of your ideas here.. how does your idea of innocence stack up against it?

If you mean the one about the unborn being innocent, here is the Hebrew meaning of innocent.

1. clean, free from, exempt, clear, innocent
   1. free from guilt, clean, innocent
   2. free from punishment
   3. free or exempt from obligations
2. innocent

The unborn children are innocent from any crimes. They are clear.They are not to be punished. They are being born (hopefully, if the killers don't get en first) into a world of sin, but they are still innocent. That does not mean they may or may not have some sin or be in some state of sin before being born. I do not know many believers that would not think unborn babies who don't make it to birth will not be born in heaven!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The unborn children are innocent from any crimes. They are clear.They are not to be punished. They are being born (hopefully, if the killers don't get en first) into a world of sin, but they are still innocent. That does not mean they may or may not have some sin or be in some state of sin before being born. I do not know many believers that would not think unborn babies who don't make it to birth will not be born in heaven!

And this would be relevant for someone like Judas right, the guy who is supposedly 'better off not being born,' as either your god or the son of your god says. That isn't being very charitable to the character, though Jesus seems to be making a pretty direct argument for birth control. Somewhere down the line, this Judas character eschews the notion of being upright, and perhaps becomes a selfish liar. If this is because society didn't have the capacity to process him into an upright person, as opposed to an 'evil' one who would contribute to general social ills, then perhaps it is like Jesus says, where it would be better if birth control was present. With this , we can deduce a sort of archetypal Judas, as being any person who commits social ills because society couldn't quite process them. To my mind then, it is not the fault of Judas that he is the way is, nor is it evident that Jesus thinks this, since the character becomes 'fated' to act the way he does

And to reiterate a prior point, an unborn baby or born baby just represent a transitory state, for in the future, time has them both born into a man, who sins. Therefore, by your logic, where we define preceding states by their ends, you might as well define human life in any form by its eventual conclusion. Perhaps we could even declare that thoughts are babies, for thought sometimes goes into creating babies. And then maybe, thoughts are sinners, for babies are destined to become sinners, with time, but they started with thought