Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]confusion wrote:

I figure this is a call out,but I like to keep it real. Cool. I retract what I said about christians and the gun lobby. Reason? I feel the gun lobby has a large interest in having guns for self defense,I don’t think christians should be involved in that type of thing,however,I also know that there is more to the gun lobby than just that,ie,hunting shooting,etc. Ok? Thanks.[/quote]

Ok, first I would like to point out that even if what you think of christians is true (I don’t believe it is anywhere close to true, but lets agree to that for a moment), then simply because a christian refuses to own or use a gun for self defense doesn’t mean that they must needs be against other NON believing people being able to use guns for self defense or protection from tyranny. So on that level I would say you are wrong to say “christians should not be involved in that type of thing”, even granting your premise.

Second, I don’t find any evidence for what you say is a prohibition from self-protection. None. And at the very most I would say that if a person’s individual conscience does not allow them to do so, then fine. But I do not find it a command or prohibition.

802

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Thanks for the response. I’m not necessarily pro abortion. No matter my situation I would want the child to be born and would do my best as a father to raise it. But i think others should have a choice. If you believe in god i don’t think it’s your job to judge. I think my biggest reason for allowing abortion is that if you make it illegal people will find other means of getting it done.

In the case of war i don’t think collateral damage is really taken much into consideration. it really isn’t a matter of “if” there will be collateral damage. There will always be collateral damage and those life are chosen to be aborted regardless of age. So the decision to murder innocent people is accepted, whether it’s justified all depends on which side your on.

And i agree abortion is targeting of only innocent lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I get it and a lot of people feel the way you do. “It’s not for me personally, but I don’t want to stop others…”.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning for the following reason. If you understand what the process is and what it does, in other words people deliberately, willfully terminating a human life and you believe in general that such type of killing is wrong, how can you consciously allow it, in the society you live in and are force to interact with? In other words, if you against humans killing each other, and abortion is killing another human, how can you support somebody else doing that?

This isn’t a “My business” and “your business” issue. It’s a life and death issue. There is no difference between go next door and shooting your neighbor and killing a child en utero save for the method and location. The result is the same, a human life is taken.

It’s not an issue of personal rights or what a person wants to do with their own body. If they want to cut their finger off and ram it up their own ass, I don’t care. But I do care if people kill their own children. I do care that Casey Anthony killed her own baby. It’s not my baby, their family is none of my business until your start killing off members of your family. That becomes everybody’s business. In the same way, killing your own child whether in the uterus or in the crib is the same thing. And that’s why I don’t understand the “I wouldn’t do it myself, but it’s none of my business if somebody else does.”

If abortion kills a human life, and we are against killing human lives then it should not be allowed, regardless of whether people will do it anyway. For every law on a book there is a person breaking that law. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the laws.

We cannot totally stop people from having abortions anymore than we can stop any other type of murder. People murder anyway, people will have abortions anyway, hopefully not as many. Because then as a society as a country we will have recognized clearly, that the truth is, abortion is murder, murder is morally wrong and we live in a society that recognizes and abides by basic objective moral constructs, in order to have a free functioning society where one’s freedom stops only on the encroachment of another’s.

It’s not judgement that I seek. I seek the recognition of the truth, seeing this action for what it really is. I recognize that many of those who have had abortions, are not fully understanding what they are doing because the law is murky and they don’t know the truth. [/quote]

i think it is judgement. your judging their actions. let god deal with them.

803

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of Christians today and historically aren’t pacifists. Quakers and a few other fringe sects and that’s about it.

804

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Ok, first I would like to point out that even if what you think of christians is true (I don’t believe it is anywhere close to true, but lets agree to that for a moment), then simply because a christian refuses to own or use a gun for self defense doesn’t mean that they must needs be against other NON believing people being able to use guns for self defense or protection from tyranny. [/quote]

Magnificent. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone use the expression “must needs” correctly on an internet forum, and scarcely ever in print outside of, say, Sir Richard Burton.

This only confirms that you, my friend, are a gentleman and a scholar.

805

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of Christians today and historically aren’t pacifists. Quakers and a few other fringe sects and that’s about it.[/quote]

I was gonna post that, but figured I’d let a Christian do it. :slight_smile:

807

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Thanks for the response. I’m not necessarily pro abortion. No matter my situation I would want the child to be born and would do my best as a father to raise it. But i think others should have a choice. If you believe in god i don’t think it’s your job to judge. I think my biggest reason for allowing abortion is that if you make it illegal people will find other means of getting it done.

In the case of war i don’t think collateral damage is really taken much into consideration. it really isn’t a matter of “if” there will be collateral damage. There will always be collateral damage and those life are chosen to be aborted regardless of age. So the decision to murder innocent people is accepted, whether it’s justified all depends on which side your on.

And i agree abortion is targeting of only innocent lives.
[/quote]

Yeah, I get it and a lot of people feel the way you do. “It’s not for me personally, but I don’t want to stop others…”.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning for the following reason. If you understand what the process is and what it does, in other words people deliberately, willfully terminating a human life and you believe in general that such type of killing is wrong, how can you consciously allow it, in the society you live in and are force to interact with? In other words, if you against humans killing each other, and abortion is killing another human, how can you support somebody else doing that?

This isn’t a “My business” and “your business” issue. It’s a life and death issue. There is no difference between go next door and shooting your neighbor and killing a child en utero save for the method and location. The result is the same, a human life is taken.

It’s not an issue of personal rights or what a person wants to do with their own body. If they want to cut their finger off and ram it up their own ass, I don’t care. But I do care if people kill their own children. I do care that Casey Anthony killed her own baby. It’s not my baby, their family is none of my business until your start killing off members of your family. That becomes everybody’s business. In the same way, killing your own child whether in the uterus or in the crib is the same thing. And that’s why I don’t understand the “I wouldn’t do it myself, but it’s none of my business if somebody else does.”

If abortion kills a human life, and we are against killing human lives then it should not be allowed, regardless of whether people will do it anyway. For every law on a book there is a person breaking that law. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the laws.

We cannot totally stop people from having abortions anymore than we can stop any other type of murder. People murder anyway, people will have abortions anyway, hopefully not as many. Because then as a society as a country we will have recognized clearly, that the truth is, abortion is murder, murder is morally wrong and we live in a society that recognizes and abides by basic objective moral constructs, in order to have a free functioning society where one’s freedom stops only on the encroachment of another’s.

It’s not judgement that I seek. I seek the recognition of the truth, seeing this action for what it really is. I recognize that many of those who have had abortions, are not fully understanding what they are doing because the law is murky and they don’t know the truth. [/quote]

Pat

thank you for this post and others like it

809

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I figure this is a call out,but I like to keep it real. Cool. I retract what I said about christians and the gun lobby. Reason? I feel the gun lobby has a large interest in having guns for self defense,I don’t think christians should be involved in that type of thing,however,I also know that there is more to the gun lobby than just that,ie,hunting shooting,etc. Ok? Thanks.[/quote]

Ok, first I would like to point out that even if what you think of christians is true (I don’t believe it is anywhere close to true, but lets agree to that for a moment), then simply because a christian refuses to own or use a gun for self defense doesn’t mean that they must needs be against other NON believing people being able to use guns for self defense or protection from tyranny. So on that level I would say you are wrong to say “christians should not be involved in that type of thing”, even granting your premise.

Second, I don’t find any evidence for what you say is a prohibition from self-protection. None. And at the very most I would say that if a person’s individual conscience does not allow them to do so, then fine. But I do not find it a command or prohibition.[/quote]

A couple scriptures:
â?? If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good. Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody. Never take revenge, instead let Godâ??s anger do it. If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good.â??

“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

Colossians 3:15
â??Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.â??

Matthew 5:44
Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.â??

Matthew 5:39

â??Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessingâ?¦.â??

1 Peter 3:9

There is nowhere demonstrated in the new testament that is acceptable to do violence. Nor to disregard these scriptures.Confusion

810

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I think its pretty clear that Christians should not be fighting,so collateral damage shouldn’t be an issue[/quote]

Should they just lie down and die? [/quote]

Jesus did[/quote]

That’s specifically what he was sent to do.[/quote]

I thought he was also setting an example[/quote]

An example to aspire to absolutely, but not to necessarily emulate. I don’t know anyone that can raise from the dead and ascend to heaven on their own accord. Do you?[/quote]

of course not. I think it was an example of non violence. worked for Gandhi.[/quote]

“I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” Mohandas Gandhi

811

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I figure this is a call out,but I like to keep it real. Cool. I retract what I said about christians and the gun lobby. Reason? I feel the gun lobby has a large interest in having guns for self defense,I don’t think christians should be involved in that type of thing,however,I also know that there is more to the gun lobby than just that,ie,hunting shooting,etc. Ok? Thanks.[/quote]

Ok, first I would like to point out that even if what you think of christians is true (I don’t believe it is anywhere close to true, but lets agree to that for a moment), then simply because a christian refuses to own or use a gun for self defense doesn’t mean that they must needs be against other NON believing people being able to use guns for self defense or protection from tyranny. So on that level I would say you are wrong to say “christians should not be involved in that type of thing”, even granting your premise.

Second, I don’t find any evidence for what you say is a prohibition from self-protection. None. And at the very most I would say that if a person’s individual conscience does not allow them to do so, then fine. But I do not find it a command or prohibition.[/quote]

A couple scriptures:
â?? If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good. Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody. Never take revenge, instead let Godâ??s anger do it. If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good.â??

“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

Colossians 3:15
â??Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.â??

Matthew 5:44
Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.â??

Matthew 5:39

â??Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessingâ?¦.â??

1 Peter 3:9

There is nowhere demonstrated in the new testament that is acceptable to do violence. Nor to disregard these scriptures.Confusion[/quote]

I guarantee someone will say you’re taking these out of context

812

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In addition to that is the story of the cleansing of the temple.[/quote]

When Jesus returns maybe this time he’ll drive the moneylenders out of the Federal Government.

813

[quote]confusion wrote:

A couple scriptures:
â?? If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong.

[/quote]

Self defence is not “wrong”.

Operative word: revenge. Self defence is not “revenge.” It’s what people instinctively do to protect themselves and others from harm. Preventing harm is “good.”

Does not mean, it is forbidden to defend yourself from violent attack.

Nothing about self defence being wrong.

Again, operative word is "revenge".

Self defence is not “repaying with evil.” It is not “evil” to defend yourself.

[quote]

1 Peter 3:9

There is nowhere demonstrated in the new testament that is acceptable to do violence. Nor to disregard these scriptures.Confusion[/quote]

You have a very imaginative interpretation of scripture. And very few Christians interpret scripture in such a way.

814

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of Christians today and historically aren’t pacifists. Quakers and a few other fringe sects and that’s about it.[/quote]

do we really know what this means? His disciples said look,here we have two swords and He said,it is enough.

815

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I figure this is a call out,but I like to keep it real. Cool. I retract what I said about christians and the gun lobby. Reason? I feel the gun lobby has a large interest in having guns for self defense,I don’t think christians should be involved in that type of thing,however,I also know that there is more to the gun lobby than just that,ie,hunting shooting,etc. Ok? Thanks.[/quote]

Ok, first I would like to point out that even if what you think of christians is true (I don’t believe it is anywhere close to true, but lets agree to that for a moment), then simply because a christian refuses to own or use a gun for self defense doesn’t mean that they must needs be against other NON believing people being able to use guns for self defense or protection from tyranny. So on that level I would say you are wrong to say “christians should not be involved in that type of thing”, even granting your premise.

Second, I don’t find any evidence for what you say is a prohibition from self-protection. None. And at the very most I would say that if a person’s individual conscience does not allow them to do so, then fine. But I do not find it a command or prohibition.[/quote]

A couple scriptures:
�¢?? If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good. Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody. Never take revenge, instead let God�¢??s anger do it. If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good.�¢??

“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”

Colossians 3:15
�¢??Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.�¢??

Matthew 5:44
Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�¢??

Matthew 5:39

�¢??Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing�¢?�¦.�¢??

1 Peter 3:9

There is nowhere demonstrated in the new testament that is acceptable to do violence. Nor to disregard these scriptures.Confusion[/quote]

I guarantee someone will say you’re taking these out of context
[/quote]

No, just misunderstanding them.

816

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I think its pretty clear that Christians should not be fighting,so collateral damage shouldn’t be an issue[/quote]

Should they just lie down and die? [/quote]

Jesus did[/quote]

That’s specifically what he was sent to do.[/quote]

I thought he was also setting an example[/quote]

An example to aspire to absolutely, but not to necessarily emulate. I don’t know anyone that can raise from the dead and ascend to heaven on their own accord. Do you?[/quote]

of course not. I think it was an example of non violence. worked for Gandhi.[/quote]

“I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” Mohandas Gandhi[/quote]

You might want to include the rest of that quote where is states that non violence is infinitely superior.

817

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I think its pretty clear that Christians should not be fighting,so collateral damage shouldn’t be an issue[/quote]

Should they just lie down and die? [/quote]

Jesus did[/quote]

That’s specifically what he was sent to do.[/quote]

I thought he was also setting an example[/quote]

An example to aspire to absolutely, but not to necessarily emulate. I don’t know anyone that can raise from the dead and ascend to heaven on their own accord. Do you?[/quote]

of course not. I think it was an example of non violence. worked for Gandhi.[/quote]

“I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” Mohandas Gandhi[/quote]

And keep in mind when this was said. Gandhi put India at risk from the Japanese, deliberately undermined the British war effort, told Indians not to serve in the British Army, acted as an apologist for Japan and threatened British troops who were only there to protect the country from Japan and left as soon as the war ended. Yes, Gandhi was a real piece of work. No wonder the left like him so much.

819

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Matthew 5:44
Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.�¢??

[/quote]

Again, operative word is "revenge".

[quote]

The second sentence seems awfully close to don’t defend yourself and take your beating like a man.