Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:26 pm**

Once again...next you're going to tell me that there will be no pregnant women going to hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:09 pm**

BavarianWheels wrote:
humblesmurph wrote:I don't want women to have abortions. I think that education, and contraception are the keys to this, not the law.
Amen, brother!

I'm glad to see that someone understands that the problem is not solved by law. Make abortion as illegal as you want, the problem still exists...and to no less a degree. The fight for ending abortion is not in law...I wish everyone all up in arms about it would see this. This fight for more law is so ironic, btw.

As mentioned in another thread on this issue, I'm a Christian that is Pro-Choice.

It is interesting you always seem to condone pro-abortion side Bav. Any reason for this?

No doubt abortion still would exist, as does drunken violence, as does murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you. Would you have the law legalise infanticide, or if it were legal, would you care to try change such laws to provide greater protection to infants? Why or why not?

At least if abortion were illegal (and it is to some degree is many states):

women would not as easily deceived about the nature of the unborn
the unborn would now legally be entitled to the human rights they deserve in virtue of their humanness.

Pro-abortionists also love to talk about the rights of women, but the rights of women are often trumped by the influence of others who would pressure them into having an abortion.

Women would not be as easily taken advantage of it abortion were illegal. And those who want abortion, as you have stated in your own words, could still seek out ways of having one. No doubt just as safely as visiting their local clinic (or underground pro-abortionist doctor). They would just be doing so illegally and could be charged with killing an innocent human life.

Bav wrote:
jlay wrote:Your are correct. We could never irradicate abortion by making it illegal. Just as you can not irradicate theft, murder, and myriad of other crimes by passing a law.
So on the issue of abortion, where would our efforts be be best placed?

In every area possible, not just one.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:16 pm**

[video=abort73-2min][/video]
http://www.abort73.com/

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:25 am**

Kurieuo wrote:It is interesting you always seem to condone pro-abortion side Bav. Any reason for this?

What's interesting is that you quote my words of being pro choice and then label me pro abortion. Now that may be because you falsly equate the two, but they are not equal at all.

I am pro choice...that's not to say I am pro abortion. I believe it is a choice for the woman to make (along with the father if he's stuck around for the decision). Does this condone murder? To some degree one can argue so. However it is no different to allow that choice than God allows us all choices. There may not be immediate civil consequences with a pro choice "law", but that doesn't mean the woman lives life without consequences after the fact.
I think you're right...you mention below that we should be involved "in every possible" area of minimizing this. Law does not minimize. The greater work to minimize is firstly in education of our own family. If we all do this instead of relying on a law to "make" other abide by our morals, then the work is greater spent on the best deterrant. Making abortion illegal will simply make abortion more tragic and ugly. It simply just wont stop. Not to mention our penal system is already taxed to its limit, you want every woman and man that decide to abort to be prosecuted for murder, and jailed? For how long and at whose expense? Can you give me the numbers of the aborted last year?

Kurieuo wrote:No doubt abortion still would exist, as does drunken violence, as does murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you. Would you have the law legalise infanticide, or if it were legal, would you care to try change such laws to provide greater protection to infants? Why or why not?

The better question is what are "we" doing about drunken violence, murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you? Nothing? Anyone that drinks is happy that a law doesn't exist keeping you all from drinking because it allows you to drink and get drunk as long as you don't get violent. By partaking of the drink and being part of the legalization of drinking, you are enabling drunken violence...and all the crime that results because of drinking. But you Christians that drink and every other "pro life" person that "legally" drinks is a hypocrite! It's not unlawful to drink or get drunk, but everyone is happy to allow drinking (and fight for their right to drink) even though crime, murder, death, rape, drug use, and ultimately abortions are the ugly result.

Kurieuo wrote:At least if abortion were illegal (and it is to some degree is many states):
women would not as easily deceived about the nature of the unborn

the unborn would now legally be entitled to the human rights they deserve in virtue of their humanness.

Do you really believe they are decieved? Quite certainly there are those that don't think twice about the aborted after the fact, I won't deny that at all, but the vast majority know what they are doing and suffer long after for their actions. No, I don't buy that they're being decieved. The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far.

Kurieuo wrote:Women would not be as easily taken advantage of it abortion were illegal.

Now this made me giggle because if you believe this to be true, then I have some ocean front property in Las Vegas to sell you. Abortion being legal or illegal would have no effect on the woman "being taken advantage of". Abortion does not come about from the act of abortion. Abortion, or thoughts about it come AFTER getting pregnant. That's two steps after thinking about sex with a guy and after determining to themselves, "I won't get pregnant." and then having sex. No, I disagree with this notion.

Kurieuo wrote:And those who want abortion, as you have stated in your own words, could still seek out ways of having one. No doubt just as safely as visiting their local clinic (or underground pro-abortionist doctor). They would just be doing so illegally and could be charged with killing an innocent human life.

So what's the punishment for killing an "innocent" human life? What do you think they should get as a sentence?
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:50 am**

Romans 3:23, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” NKJV

None righteous no not one it says in Romans 3:10 as well.

The search for morality instructs us of how we fall short of any morality we make and contrive.

Then, next, compared to God’s morality as defined by his character and nature, our own morality, to borrow the phrase, is like filthy rotting rags. Only God is good. The quest for morality of a matter should enable us to see how far we have fallen from God’s original plans, fore, without morals we cannot know sin and how we justify sin as well as pit God’s own morality against himself, which reveals the true fruit of what sin desires to accomplish.

My answer has really nothing to do about abortion but rather how we all fall short of the glory of God and need his grace in order to be washed, purged, cleansed, able to do His true Good effectively.
-
-
-

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:55 am**

BavarianWheels wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:It is interesting you always seem to condone pro-abortion side Bav. Any reason for this?
What's interesting is that you quote my words of being pro choice and then label me pro abortion. Now that may be because you falsly equate the two, but they are not equal at all.

I am pro choice...that's not to say I am pro abortion. I believe it is a choice for the woman to make (along with the father if he's stuck around for the decision). Does this condone murder? To some degree one can argue so. However it is no different to allow that choice than God allows us all choices. There may not be immediate civil consequences with a pro choice "law", but that doesn't mean the woman lives life without consequences after the fact.

You're entitled to label yourself pro-choice. However, if someone was pro-choice on infanticide (i.e., I won't do, but by all means you make your own decision), then such sanctioning is pro-infanticide. Abortion is no different to me. I am entitled to my belief that pro-choice on abortion equates to pro-abortion.

Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:No doubt abortion still would exist, as does drunken violence, as does murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you. Would you have the law legalise infanticide, or if it were legal, would you care to try change such laws to provide greater protection to infants? Why or why not?
The better question is what are "we" doing about drunken violence, murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you? Nothing? Anyone that drinks is happy that a law doesn't exist keeping you all from drinking because it allows you to drink and get drunk as long as you don't get violent.
By partaking of the drink and being part of the legalization of drinking, you are enabling drunken violence...and all the crime that results because of drinking. But you Christians that drink and every other "pro life" person that "legally" drinks is a hypocrite!

Jesus turned water into wine. I guess this makes Jesus a hypocrite too.

Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:At least if abortion were illegal (and it is to some degree is many states):
women would not as easily deceived about the nature of the unborn

the unborn would now legally be entitled to the human rights they deserve in virtue of their humanness.
Do you really believe they are decieved? Quite certainly there are those that don't think twice about the aborted after the fact, I won't deny that at all, but the vast majority know what they are doing and suffer long after for their actions. No, I don't buy that they're being decieved.

Quite a generalisation. Many women getting abortions think because it is legal that they are not killing human life. I know this, because I know some women who have had abortions.

Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far.

Wouldn't go "THAT far". What, are they frogs and not humans?

Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:And those who want abortion, as you have stated in your own words, could still seek out ways of having one. No doubt just as safely as visiting their local clinic (or underground pro-abortionist doctor). They would just be doing so illegally and could be charged with killing an innocent human life.
So what's the punishment for killing an "innocent" human life? What do you think they should get as a sentence?

I have my thoughts as to what is a just penalty for murder. Whether it can be justly applied is another question.

What I think is irrelevant however. Penalties are something for legislators in a country to decide.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 am**

BavarianWheels wrote:I think you're right...you mention below that we should be involved "in every possible" area of minimizing this. Law does not minimize. The greater work to minimize is firstly in education of our own family. If we all do this instead of relying on a law to "make" other abide by our morals, then the work is greater spent on the best deterrant. Making abortion illegal will simply make abortion more tragic and ugly. It simply just wont stop. Not to mention our penal system is already taxed to its limit, you want every woman and man that decide to abort to be prosecuted for murder, and jailed? For how long and at whose expense? Can you give me the numbers of the aborted last year?

That's right Bav.

Money should always dictate the laws, rather then morality.

The extent of protection offered to people should be ultimately decided by money.

I can think of much worse money wasting, like funding abortions under healthcare, or funding "health" workers overseas to provide abortions to those in poorer "less civilised" third-world countries.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:37 am**

Bav, Did you really mean this?

Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:10 am**

Kurieuo wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:It is interesting you always seem to condone pro-abortion side Bav. Any reason for this?
What's interesting is that you quote my words of being pro choice and then label me pro abortion. Now that may be because you falsly equate the two, but they are not equal at all.

I am pro choice...that's not to say I am pro abortion. I believe it is a choice for the woman to make (along with the father if he's stuck around for the decision). Does this condone murder? To some degree one can argue so. However it is no different to allow that choice than God allows us all choices. There may not be immediate civil consequences with a pro choice "law", but that doesn't mean the woman lives life without consequences after the fact.
You're entitled to label yourself pro-choice. However, if someone was pro-choice on infanticide (i.e., I won't do, but by all means you make your own decision), then such sanctioning is pro-infanticide. Abortion is no different to me. I am entitled to my belief that pro-choice on abortion equates to pro-abortion.

I guess you're entitled then. The next time I feel entitled to label you or someone else, I'll feel free to do so.

Kurieuo wrote:
Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:No doubt abortion still would exist, as does drunken violence, as does murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you. Would you have the law legalise infanticide, or if it were legal, would you care to try change such laws to provide greater protection to infants? Why or why not?
The better question is what are "we" doing about drunken violence, murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you? Nothing? Anyone that drinks is happy that a law doesn't exist keeping you all from drinking because it allows you to drink and get drunk as long as you don't get violent.
By partaking of the drink and being part of the legalization of drinking, you are enabling drunken violence...and all the crime that results because of drinking. But you Christians that drink and every other "pro life" person that "legally" drinks is a hypocrite!
Jesus turned water into wine. I guess this makes Jesus a hypocrite too.

I don't believe Jesus turned water to wine as we know it today.
Wine in the Bible

Kurieuo wrote:
Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:At least if abortion were illegal (and it is to some degree is many states):
women would not as easily deceived about the nature of the unborn

the unborn would now legally be entitled to the human rights they deserve in virtue of their humanness.
Do you really believe they are decieved? Quite certainly there are those that don't think twice about the aborted after the fact, I won't deny that at all, but the vast majority know what they are doing and suffer long after for their actions. No, I don't buy that they're being decieved.
Quite a generalisation. Many women getting abortions think because it is legal that they are not killing human life. I know this, because I know some women who have had abortions.

You say, "Quite a generalization" to me and then in your next breath you say, "I know this, because I know some..." What's that saying about a pot and kettle?

Kurieuo wrote:
Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far.
Wouldn't go "THAT far". What, are they frogs and not humans?

Frogs? Did I mention frogs? I thought we were talking about rights of humans??? How did frogs come into this...oh, unless...oh nevermind.

You tell me. Are rights afforded at conception, first, second, third trimester, or at birth? When should a SSN be issued? If the unborn have rights, then certainly the mother of the unborn can start collecting on those rights? Where exactly are those rights, who is giving those rights and then who pays for those rights? What rights? How many and what are these rights? Where were the rights of the ("innocent") children that God commanded be killed along with their parents in the OT days? What rights?

Kurieuo wrote:
Bav wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:And those who want abortion, as you have stated in your own words, could still seek out ways of having one. No doubt just as safely as visiting their local clinic (or underground pro-abortionist doctor). They would just be doing so illegally and could be charged with killing an innocent human life.
So what's the punishment for killing an "innocent" human life? What do you think they should get as a sentence?
I have my thoughts as to what is a just penalty for murder. Whether it can be justly applied is another question.

What I think is irrelevant however. Penalties are something for legislators in a country to decide.

All of a sudden we have thoughts about how difficult penalty for this is? I thought you and pro lifers had this all figured out? No? How can you be so sure of the crime, but "unsure" of the penalty? I would be very interested in your insight for the punishment, please share.

All of a sudden we have democratic thinking that says, "leave that to the legislators..." You wash your hands of their punishment as long as there is punishment for their murderous acts? What if legislators and thus society deem it legal? All of a sudden you're not much for democracy. Or what if the punishment is probation? The punishment must fit the crime, yes? The woman is no danger to humans already born, just the unborn. Let's ban her from maternity wards for five years and she can't be within 50 yards of a pregnant female. Isn't that enough? What is your idea of punishment fitting the crime? I am interested.

This thread has evolved to an Abortion thread...maybe someone should split or start a new topic?
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:37 am**

RickD wrote:Bav, Did you really mean this?
Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far

Of course I mean it. What rights. Just saying the fetus has rights is vague. Right to life? Is that all? It has life already doesn't it? What other rights, if any? At what point? I don't mean to say the fetus has no rights, but at what point do the rights of the fetus override the "mother's"?
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:21 am**

BavarianWheels wrote:
RickD wrote:Bav, Did you really mean this?
Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far

Of course I mean it. What rights. Just saying the fetus has rights is vague. Right to life? Is that all? It has life already doesn't it? What other rights, if any? At what point? I don't mean to say the fetus has no rights, but at what point do the rights of the fetus override the "mother's"?
.
.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I erroneously thought that you meant the baby wasn't human because you said that. If I may answer your last question: I think that the point that the fetus' rights override the mother's rights is when the mother wants to kill or intentionally harm one of God's children. As far as "mother's rights" are concerned, I believe the mom's responsibility to keep her child alive and nurture him/her overrides her man given right to kill her child. Jeremiah 1:5 says that God knew us before He even formed us in our Mother's womb. God is the creator of life. Who gives us the right to take another's life, in the name of "right to choose"?

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:52 am**

RickD wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:
RickD wrote:Bav, Did you really mean this?
Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far

Of course I mean it. What rights. Just saying the fetus has rights is vague. Right to life? Is that all? It has life already doesn't it? What other rights, if any? At what point? I don't mean to say the fetus has no rights, but at what point do the rights of the fetus override the "mother's"?
.
.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I erroneously thought that you meant the baby wasn't human because you said that. If I may answer your last question: I think that the point that the fetus' rights override the mother's rights is when the mother wants to kill or intentionally harm one of God's children. As far as "mother's rights" are concerned, I believe the mom's responsibility to keep her child alive and nurture him/her overrides her man given right to kill her child. Jeremiah 1:5 says that God knew us before He even formed us in our Mother's womb. God is the creator of life. Who gives us the right to take another's life, in the name of "right to choose"?

I can certainly respect that position. How far are you willing to take this back? Is there a point where a woman can decide not go through with a pregnancy? Is the woman bound to pregnancy each and everytime, the moment after sex is done? What about birth control? Birth control is a type of abortion when we interfere with the natural course of actions in sex.

I believe there is a window of choice. I'm pro choice, but certainly not through the whole time of pregnancy (save for the woman's life being threatened)
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:18 pm**

I can certainly respect that position. How far are you willing to take this back? Is there a point where a woman can decide not go through with a pregnancy? Is the woman bound to pregnancy each and everytime, the moment after sex is done? What about birth control? Birth control is a type of abortion when we interfere with the natural course of actions in sex.

I agree that there are types of "birth control" that are types of abortions. If one believes that human life physically begins at the moment of conception, then any birth control that doesn't allow conception, doesn't kill a human life. Any "birth control" that terminates the life of a human (embryo, fetus) at any time after the moment of conception, is killing a human. For example, the morning after pill would fit into the same category as an abortion, because conception already happened.

I believe there is a window of choice. I'm pro choice, but certainly not through the whole time of pregnancy (save for the woman's life being threatened)

I'm also pro-choice. We can choose to have sex, or not to have sex. As for the life of the mother being threatened, that is a strawman. Any doctor with integrity would choose to try to save the baby AND the mother at all costs. Our former surgeon general, C. Everett Koop stated:

"In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life."

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:42 pm**

RickD wrote:
I can certainly respect that position. How far are you willing to take this back? Is there a point where a woman can decide not go through with a pregnancy? Is the woman bound to pregnancy each and everytime, the moment after sex is done? What about birth control? Birth control is a type of abortion when we interfere with the natural course of actions in sex.
I agree that there are types of "birth control" that are types of abortions. If one believes that human life physically begins at the moment of conception, then any birth control that doesn't allow conception, doesn't kill a human life. Any "birth control" that terminates the life of a human (embryo, fetus) at any time after the moment of conception, is killing a human. For example, the morning after pill would fit into the same category as an abortion, because conception already happened.
I believe there is a window of choice. I'm pro choice, but certainly not through the whole time of pregnancy (save for the woman's life being threatened)
I'm also pro-choice. We can choose to have sex, or not to have sex. As for the life of the mother being threatened, that is a strawman. Any doctor with integrity would choose to try to save the baby AND the mother at all costs. Our former surgeon general, C. Everett Koop stated:
"In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life."

I disagree with the former, that a morning after pill is "abortion". It is abortion, but the abortion is of simple cells not quite a human yet. IMHO. If it is murder as some seem to say, then so be it. I still don't think it is my place to say a woman can't abort their pregnancy if they wish. (again up to a certain point.) A miscarriage is the body rejecting the cells/fetus. Is that murder? Who or what goes on trial due to a miscarriage?

As for Dr. Koop. Is that to say he knew of every single instance in those 36 years...and that that statment is truth since the beginning of time until the end?
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:59 pm**

I disagree with the former, that a morning after pill is "abortion". It is abortion, but the abortion is of simple cells not quite a human yet.

Bav, if human life doesn't physically begin at the moment of conception, then when does it begin?

I still don't think it is my place to say a woman can't abort their pregnancy if they wish.

If I were to tell you right now that I wanted to kill someone for a reason that seems wrong, would it be your place to tell me not to kill that person? Or, would you just let me kill him? If life begins at conception, then that analogy holds water.

A miscarriage is the body rejecting the cells/fetus. Is that murder? Who or what goes on trial due to a miscarriage?

Of course it's not murder unless it's a forced miscarriage. No one but God is responsible for most miscarriages imo.

As for Dr. Koop. Is that to say he knew of every single instance in those 36 years...and that that statment is truth since the beginning of time until the end?

My point was that a very prominent, long tenured doctor never knew of one case. The argument from the pro-abortion side usually comes down to the health of the mother. Bav, do you know that abortion is not an unforgivable sin? As horrible as it is, God is willing to forgive if we ask him.

Evidence for God from Science

Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

Re: Meaning and purpose to Atheists...