War may be between two groups who can protect themselves but what does that have to do with the sanctity of life.  Killing someone in a time of war is either just or unjust.  According to the bible "thou shalt not kill" so why is it acceptable to kill in a time of war?  This is not apples to oranges at all but asking why it's ok for Lula to draw lines when it comes to killing people but I can't draw lines as to when abortion is ok and when it isn't.

You implied all: "The pro-abort people are NOT consistent.  They ok murder in the womb but oppose war and capitol punishment."  But that's neither here or there, the same could be said about some pro-lifers who are very much in favor of war and capital punishment.  If all life is sacred then why is it ever ok to kill even if the other person has committed horrible attrocities?

What am I asking you to accept?  I'm not asking you to accept civil unions as marriage.  I'm not even asking you to accept the people in the civil union merely tolerate that they exist.

We are not to murder and there is a difference.  The call to individuals to not murder and the call to war  corporately are two completely different things.  One is sanctioned by the bible one is not. 

I've already said and told you it's because of sanctity of life.  When one goes to war it's to protect and defend it's people.  We went to war to stop Hitler from further atrocities against mankind.  It all fits under the sanctity of life. 

There is no ok in scripture anywhere where it's ok to take the life of the unborn.  It's not ours to take.  Oh we may think we have the power...but the end of the story is not written yet.  We will always reap what we sow.  For Christians like Lula and I we feel we are speaking for the unborn.  Those who do not have voices to speak out. 

again...to protect life.   Sometimes to take out an evil force by war or capitol punishment is necessary to protect the innocent. 

it's a slippery slope we're on now.  Schools are changing their textbooks.  The media and tv shows are showing acceptance of this lifestyle even though for thousands of years it was deemed dispicable, madness or an abomination.  So we are being force fed to believe this is ok.  OUr children are now being taught in schools it's intolerant not to believe its ok.  We're homophobic if we fight against such militancy. 

Did you not know that two states are in the process of outlawing beastiality?  Why is that?  Never had to do this before.  Why now?  Because we are now in a moral freefall.   We are losing our way and people are now going to the next thing on the menu.  Sex with animals.  Who's going to tell them it's not ok?  That's why you're going to see states start scrambling to put this new law on the lawbooks like sodomy used to be.  My how times have changed....and not for the better when it comes to this. 

Read this and tell me this isn't sick:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510015,00.html

And the Netherlands which is far more progressive than we are are also deep into this problem.  The Dutch Parliment has come out to outlaw this as well saying the Netherlands seems to be a magnet for such atrocities.  Hmmmm....I wonder why? 

They are ahead of us and can give us a glimpse of where we're going. 

What about wars where you are the agressor?  There is always an agressor and a defender in war so why is it ok for the agressor to go to war or are you trying to tell me that no christian has ever started a war?  At some point someone had to make the call that it was ok to take a life in this instance so what makes it any different?  Just because the other side might be able to defend themselves?  What about when the King of Englad tried to over take Scotland?  Sure the Scots were able to defend themselves a bit but they certainly weren't a real match for the entire English army and England was most certainly Christian.

But the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".  That seems pretty straight forward.  The commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not kill, unless ....."

No you're being asked to tolerate it not accept it.

I forget what states but there have been a couple where it's been outlawed for some time now.  And in some other states it falls under animal cruelty.

But they were still people who claimed to be Christians starting wars even though their own religious text told them not to kill.

Many English kings during the dark ages were Christians and they started many wars.

Where is the vengence or malice in abortion?  Often times it is a very difficult decision for the woman, one that is not made lightly, there is certainly no vengeful or malicious feeling toward the developing fetus.

And who determines that it's a just war? 

I hadn't heard about that.  That's absurd the guy should have the right to refuse whatever jobs he wants for whatever reasons he wants.

TALTIMER POSTS #204

You know what..this whole way of talking is maddening!  It's nothing else but a humanistic rationalization for promoting the abortive mentality. It's disdain of innocent human life in the womb is terrifying....as if, any one can make a "call" of when the baby in the womb gets his/her human rights!!! There is nothing arbitrary about the unborn baby's right to be born (right to life). Beside the right to his/her life itself, the unborn child has rights to inheritance, to damage suits from injuries suffered in the womb, to medical attention in utero, etc.

May I remind you that we are discussing the dignity of HUMAN life, not that of dogs or cats, or some other animal. While it's easy to make this kind of judgment on a dog or cat's life, who of us can judge the worth of an individual in the womb? Who of us can assume the responsibility of determining who shall be born and who shall die...that prerogative belongs to Almighty God alone.

Again, with the exception of legitimate defense, nothing ever authorizes a man to dispose of the life of another. It's a law written in every one's heart... that inner voice of conscience tells them that it's immoral to kill an innocent, defenseless, child trapped in the womb.  

Yet, the Supreme Court rulings assault this fundamental principle of justice that innocent human life can never be attacked directly. The justices who made these decisions assault the blatant core truth of the Declaration of Independence upon which the founding documents were written...that the inalienable right to life is the first right granted by our Creator.

lula, human rights are not an innate thing. It is a choice of society, societies with sensible human rights prosper, societies with bad ones collapse.

Allowing murder and assult, extreme disregard for human life, causes social collapse. That is why the whole dignity of human life, it is actually a point that all humans should have equal right to life and freedom, not only the aristocracy.

Allowing abortion and execution, slight disregard for human life in very specifical circumstances, improves a societies stability.

The pro abortion group pretends that the fetus is not a human, either due to ignorance or because it is easier to argue. When in truth it is simply a case where human life is NOT sacred and should not be protected. The last thing we need is more lower class teens dropping out of high school and into welfare to raise their accidental babies.

Or worse, having them perform an illegal abortion, and then putting them in prison (and out of the workforce) at taxpayer expense.

That doesn't change the fact that many wars were carried out in the name of Christ.

You said Murder was about vengence or malice which implies that the motive must be considered to declare something as murder.

Just because a woman elects to have an abortion doesn't mean she has "ill will" or "wishes to harm another".  If you elect to take someone off life support which will most likely result in their death does that mean you have "ill will" or "wish to harm" them?  Of course not, it is much the same with abortion, the fetus is on life support but you are elected to take them off of it.  Maybe it's because the woman is on some heavy medications that are deadly to the developing fetus and can't be taken off of them so it is in the best interest of all involved to terminate, there's no "ill will" here.

Who determines the criteria and what is said criteria?  There were many "experts" who were in favor of the war and many who were against it.  It depends on what you use as justification for it.  If you use 9/11 as the justification then it was an unjust war, if you use WMDs it's a toss up, if you use spreading democracy it's a toss up.  But this is a topic for another thread.

And it's sad that it's going on.  I certainly don't agree with crap like this.  I'm all about tolerance, and I think civil unions are a big piece of that tolerance, but stuff like this is taking tolerance way too far.

All of those "rights" are predicated on the woman choosing to carry the child to term.  It only gets inheritance rights because the woman chose to carry it to term in the first place, the family can only sue if the woman had intended on carrying the child to term anyway, etc.  It's all predicated on the woman's choices and none of those rights are given until that child is actually born.  The only time the fetus is considered to have rights is when the woman and fetus are murdered like the case of a robbery gone bad the robber would be charged with multiple counts of murder because if it wasn't for the robber the woman would have carried it to term.  I have a feeling that if the defense could prove that the woman was on her way to get an abortion the other murder charge would be dropped.

Why is it any different for dogs, cats, etc?  Why are their lives worth less in your eyes?

But I don't believe in god so that argument doesn't work on me.

Obviously it's not written in my heart.  I have no moral problem with abortion.  You might have a problem with it which means that you should never get an abortion but why should your morals be imposed on me?

Because we already legalize killing.  Capital punishment, self defense, war to name a few.

El-Duderino posts: #188

I think it was Bill Clinton whose mantra was "keep abortion safe, legal and rare". What a crock!

Legal?

Problem is, even though the proponents of abortion and the media tell us the the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and that it is now "the law of the land", abortion is not legal.  Article VI of our founding document declares that "this Constitution, and the laws of the US...made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...made under the authority of the US shall be the supreme law of the land." What's missing from this list of supreme laws is a court opinion. Court decisions can never be law. We see from the COnstitutional text that a statute enacted by COngress is the supreme law of the land only if made "pursuant to"  (meaning in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute passed by the people's representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, how can a court decision be given a higher status? It can't.

Safe?

There is no such thing as a safe abortion..there are always dangers inherent in an abortion. Even under the best conditions, the procedure is a gory, bloody mess that always results in the death of the child and always carries risks during and after the procedure for the mother.    

There are short and long range complications as well as effects on subsequent pregnancies and bodily functions. Some immediate or short range complications are hemorrhaging, pelvic infection, perforated uterus, cervical damage, steritlity and even death. Saddest of all is the increase of miscarriages and death of babies of subsequent pregnancies.

Medical experts are finding a linkage between abortion and breast cancer,

Rare?

One year before Roe V. Wade, in 1972, there were 750, 000 legal abortions......By 1979, abortions totalled 1, 500, 000 per year. By 1990, the number reached 1,600,000 per year with 10% of major abortuaries not reporting. By 1988, repeat abortions were 44% and rising 1% per year.  From 1990 through today, the number of pregnancies ended by abortion per year is approx. 1,300,000.  

According to Finer and Henshaw 2003, "Abortion is the most common surgical procedures in the US."  

I know from your personal testimony that this is a very weighty subject on your heart and want to assure you that I do not want to impugn your sincerity or judge you in any way.

"What if" terms are introducted to change the terms of the reality...what is bad, abortion, becomes good...by making it a "curative treatment". Ever since 1973, medicine has become a manipulative tool with practioners involved in both healing and killing. The Hippocratic oath formed the foundation for civilized medicine for 1500 years, but is now no longer  required of medical students.

It's bad...in this case, the role of medicine is so bad that who would have ever thought that abortion would be used to end the lives of healthy unborn babies simply becasue they weren't the preferred sex or becasue the baby was genetically defective?

For some abortion, no matter what, is never an option. I've read stories of pregnant mothers whose health and lives were in danger and let nature take its course. We could call them heroic choosing to put their baby's life and needs above their own.

No they aren't.  "What if" questions are asked to get a full scope view of where people stand on an issue.  I am merely asking if you would be ok with an abortion of a fetus that was destined to die in the womb anyway because of the medications that the woman is taking.  That isn't changing the terms of reality, it is asking you to consider the reality of your stance on abortion.  This situation does exist, my wife is an example but she is certainly not the only one.  She has schizophrenia and is bi-polar to boot (among other conditions).  The medications used to treat these mental conditions are deemed fatal to developing fetuses.  And according to the doctors we have talked to by the time you know you're pregnant it is too late to stop the medications to avoid damaging the fetus in most cases.  I have had a vasectomy so that we are never faced with the decision to have another abortion but that doesn't change the fact that other woman may need to make that choice.  If the fetus is doomed in-utero anyway what is the problem with aborting it before it becomes a major weight on the woman's health?

And that was the woman's choice and I would certainly respect and support her decision even if I didn't necessarily agree with it because it was her choice to make, not mine.

Yes.  Morals are extremely subjective to attempt to make laws based on something subjective is difficult at best and impossible at worst.  If I or others claim that it is immoral for churches to be tax exempt because churches have opinions that I and others don't agree with (ex gay marriage) would that be right?  Of course not.  Especially on topics that are split as much as this issue is.

Wrong because this isn't so much about morality as it is maintaining order in a society.

Wrong.  I don't think a buddhist needs to 10 commandments to know that murder is conducive to an ordered society.  Those laws are NOT based from religion.  If we based laws on the 10 commandments then why isn't illegal to take your lords name in vain?  Why isn't adultery illegal?

While some abolitionists may have been inspired by judeo christian ethics that doesn't mean we would bring back slavery.  Our constitution says that all men are equal, slavery treated people as not being equal so we were violating our own constitution.

That's not entirely true.  While you might claim it to be a scientific fact that life begins at conception that doesn't mean that the entire abortion debate hinges on that determination.  It's about how much control do you give the woman over what is going on in her body.

Exactly.  Andrew Jackson, our 7th President said this:

"That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."

Now why would he say that if our laws were not patterned after the 10 commandments found in "that book"? 

Anyone who has done any research knows that America "was" a Christian nation founded on Christian principles no matter how hard the secularists of our day deny this and try to convince us otherwise. 

Well El-D I can see you don't like doing research as much as you claim....adultery was against the law in every state for quite a long time.  In fact from what I understand it's still on the books in some states, although not enforced anymore.  It was for a time a legal basis for divorce.  I remember lots of talk about adultery when I was a kid, how important it was to prove one spouse committed adultery in a court of law.  Nowadays, who cares? 

So now do you believe me that our laws were based from the 10 commandments? 

When you research history and read about our laws when our republic was first born it's easy to see that our laws and moral behavior was once based on the scriptures and especially the commandments.  Even the Sabbath was built into the laws.  When I was a child almost everything was closed on Sunday. 

But see now, little by little, politicians, law breakers and immoral people have done a very good job in getting rid of these constant reminders so they've denied there ever was a Christian foundation for our laws which is hard to do really because all the monuments in Washington are covered in scripture. 

You know why?  Because immorality is big business.  Follow the money trail.

But the rest of us are left holding the stone tablets that have been thrown to the ground. 

Patrick Henry in 1775 said this:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

Sad to say even an atheist like Alexis can't say this anymore:

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

So even an atheist from enlightened France could see there was something divine going on in America that made her a great nation. 

We are on our way to ceasing to be great.  What a shame. 

Not so.  For a truly ordered society everyone needs to be treated equally.  Look what is happening with AIG right now as an example of this.  People are in an uproar because they see AIG execs as being treated differently that they are.  It's not about morality it's about keeping order.

No it wasn't.  Yes some of our founding fathers were Christians, and they probably used their religion as a measuring stick but that doesn't mean that we ever were a Christian nation.  If we were a Christian nation why bother allowing freedom of religion?  Why not just make it the national religion from the get go?  Because some of our founders weren't Christian and some of those who were thought of religion as a private matter and not one for government.  In fact part of the reason that they created our founding documents the way they did was to avoid the tyranny that comes along with a theocracy.

It was at the state level, we weren't talking about the state level but the federal level which to my knowledge never outlawed adultery, but I could be wrong on that because I haven't researched it (happy, should I qualify every statement I make with whether I've researched it throughly or not).

As far as I'm aware it's still a legal basis for divorce.  But this isn't because it's immoral but because it's against the contract that you enter into when getting married.

That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong to do so.  We are supposed to have freedom from religion in this country and if someone wants to be open on Sunday they should be allowed to, which is why most of the blue laws have been overturned.  Even in WV the blue laws have been overturned but there are still some busninesses that choose to close on Sunday, but that is their choice and their right.

I agree with you here, just for different reasons.

The whole right to privacy.  I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong but they chose to interpret that right to privacy to include abortion.  It's not new law but new interpretation of old law.

Now if you want to get into the validity of that interpretation that's another matter and I would probably be led to (take a deep breath) agree with you.  And if that's the case it should be challenged and let the Supreme Court over turn it.  Or have the US congress pass a law to ban abortion or make it legal.  Then that new law could be challeneged on it's constitutional grounds.

el-duderino posts: 248

Ya, the right to privacy...which the National Organization of Women (NOW) gals quickly sloganized a so-called "right to choose". But again there is no right to privacy to commit abortion. It doesn't even make sense. There's nothing private about committing abortion. Other people are involved, the father, the unborn baby, the abortionist and nurses.

As to the validity of that interpretation, when you think it through...there is none.

The right to privacy is an important human right.   At the same time government has always understood that an individual's rights don't include taking another person's life.  It's disorderd... placing a mother's right to a private life over society's responsibility to protect the weakest members and government's constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare.

What's at stake here is the principle of the moral and natural law and the very dignity of human life which can't be trifled with.

Roe v. Wade was a grevioulsy wrong decision and even Justice Ruth Ginsburg said of Roe, "We ventured too far in the change it ordered andpresented an incomplete justification for its action."