Posted on 08/15/2004 9:59:17 PM PDT by Coleus
This one deserves a bump. Makes you hope that God isn't the Old Testament God, or we're in for some trouble.
bump
Your response only further reveals your absolute disdain for the "sanctity of life." You are a person who can easily be persuaded to kill the lame, the aged, the mentally compromised, and the "inconvenient". You have revealed to all of "Christian Conservatives" whether you believe in abortion at any time or any reason. Do you? When do you believe life can no longer be snuffed out? 2 days after birth, 2 months after birth, 2 years after birth, any time it becomes inconvenient for your lifestyle?
Your use of the word "subset" says it all, your
judgment of anyone else as a member of a "subset"
is condemnation of yourself out of your own mouth.
Thou shalt not kill. Don't like it? Tough.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Well, isn't this one HELLUVA note to add to the list? What a story! "Take care of it," indeed. Yes, perhaps murder of the pre-born WILL be the straw that breaks the camel's back... if anything does.
Solution: REPEAL ALL LAWS DEALING WITH ABORTION IN ANY FORM. Then treat it under the murder statutes. Why even bother with "Anti-abortion" laws? They are redundant and needless. Set a time linit (over 30 days would work) and say that after that time, it's murder to kill the 31-day old baby. Prior to that, I would say that it could be argued that retroactive birth control pills would be able to be used. This would take care of the "rape and incest" issue. A woman would have that much time and ONLY that much time to use her RU-whatever. IF she had already filed a criminal complaint of rape and/or incest. After all, while it IS a woman's body and her right to decide, her decision to engage in behavior which is KNOWN to create new lives ENDS her decision making until AFTER the baby is born. She becomes responsible for that child inside her.
I can't argue with anything you said, but rather wholeheartidly agree with nearly every single jot and tittle you most eloquently articulate sir...
Me too...I need to hug my little ones right now.
Me too...I need to hug my little ones right now.
...rather than making an attempt to sway their opinion with something other than bible verses.
Former Fetus wrote:
Let me get this right... you think that quoting Bible verses is "stooping down", right?
Trying to justify an argument about changing the law by quoting from the Bible is not conducive to swaying non-christians to your point of view.
How would you feel if somebody chose to justify their viewpoint by quoting the Kama Sutra at you?
And I am not a Liberal. is it truly impossible that somebody can be conservative and not Christian?
Murder is a sin in your religion, and a crime. There are actions which are sins and which are not crimes.
Be thankful to be in a forum where people will quote the Bible to youNo thanks, I've read it already, I'd be less insulted if you quoted the Koran, at least some of those verses would be new to me.
You said it, not me. Look at the bottom of your post #112
quoting the Kama Sutra
I wouldn't like it, this is supposed to be a Christian country! At least that's what I concluded from studying American history for my citizenship exam. This is a Christian country and we don't persecute people of other religions, but our laws are (or should be) based on Christian Scripture. Other countries may base their laws on the Kama Sutra, but not this one.
I'd be less insulted if you quoted the Koran
Have it your way, but the Koran will not show you the way to eternal life and the Bible will. What kind of person would I be if I knew about God's love for me but refused to tell others about it? I'd rather offend you quoting the Bible, hoping that the Holy Spirit will touch your heart, than be nice and friendly quoting the Koran and let you go to eternal damnation.
This is why Alan Keyes decided to run against Barak Obama.
Obama voted against a bill that declared even aborted living babies deserve the right to life.
I wouldn't like it, this is supposed to be a Christian country! At least that's what I concluded from studying American history for my citizenship exam. This is a Christian country and we don't persecute people of other religions, but our laws are (or should be) based on Christian Scripture. Other countries may base their laws on the Kama Sutra, but not this one.Interesting conclusion -- I've taught the citizenship exam study material, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and never encountered the phrase "Christian nation" in these materials, nor did I draw the same conclusion as you.
Funny how a "Christian" country somehow neglected to mention Christ anywhere in the founding documents that define this nation!
The Constitution contains no references to "God" (unless you are willing to read a lot more into the phrase "..in the year of our Lord..." than is reasonable).
The founding fathers were not Christians.
Thomas Jefferson was a heretic (Rationalist) who rewrote the Four Gospels of the Christian New Testament, eliminating all references to the divine nature of Christ! (but don't believe me, buy your own copy and read it for yourself).
I assume you intend to ignore The Treaty of Tripoli (written by Joel Barlow, a friend of Thomas Paine), a treaty with what is now Libya, which reads in part "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This treaty was signed by president John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797.
Jefferson wasn't a Christian. It is my understanding that he was a Deist. He is one of the founding fathers. However, that does not refute that the nation was founded primarily by Christians.
The article you cited is not well researched, nor is it very accurate.
Our nation is certainly living in a post-Christian, postmodern era. There have been ebbs and flows in both the practice and the expression of faith throughout our history.
I commend to you a book by Peter Marshall and another author whose name I don't recall. The first in the series is The Light and The Glory. It may not persuade you, but you might find it an interesting and different take on the subject.
I think it likely that you would agree it is wrong to kill a baby. Interestingly enough, some have argued that there should be a "buyers remorse" sort of provision for the parents of infants - notably an "ethicist" named Peter Singer.
I'm not very fond of the slippery slope argument, but I think it has occurred in the practice and acceptance of abortion in our country. The justices started with a "we don't know where life begins" approach, and it has slid from there to where, literally, babies that in a few inches/moments would be born normal and healthy have surgical instruments pierce their brain and have their brains sucked out.
The question is not what hath God wrought, but what have we as a "never want to be inconvenienced" society found to be acceptable.
I don't have all of the answers, and I don't think you are implying that you do. However, the notion of abortion as a back up form of birth control has, IMHO, brought us to where we are today.
I would also say that the laws regarding the destruction of a condor egg are far more protective of a developing condor than our laws protecting developing humans. Do you not think that is an odd set of priorities?
Thanks for the links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.