Originally posted by DRH: How is this any different than what I said???It's still just a question of whether or not it is taking a human life. The pro-lifers believe it is starting from conception. The pro-choicers believe it's later. I don't know of any pro-choicers that say "yea, it's murder but it's OK".
Didn't listen... There are PLENTY of pro-choicers that say "Yes it's murder." No-one said ANYTHING about "OK." The point is that these people feel that it's the woman's right to choose. They acknowledge that it's a human life they are taking...
Me, I don't beleive it's a human being until a little later in the pregnancy. My GF beleives that it IS a human, but that the needs of the parents and child have to be balanced. SHE thinks it's murder (in some cases) but ALSO beleives that it's STILL A RIGHT TO BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO PROPER FACILITIES.
Just because one SUPPORTS the right of abortion doesn't mean that one thinks that it's OK... It's about a basic right to CHOOSE. I.E. pro-choice
IP: Logged
07:48 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
When I say Christians I think catholics, I have never heard the Baptist refer to themselves as Christians only Baptist, I guess that is my ignorance, But that makes we wonder are Protestants Christians also?
IP: Logged
07:55 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by avengador1: When I say Christians I think catholics, I have never heard the Baptist refer to themselves as Christians only Baptist, I guess that is my ignorance, But that makes we wonder are Protestants Christians also?
Yep. Protestants are pretty much Catholics, only those that have refuted the Catholic church. MY definition of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of a certain dude, born around 0 AD... Some other people have different opinions, though (imagine that! )
Actually, I'm a Baptist, of sorts. We are supposssed to folow the teachings of Jesus. Can't tell you anymore what the Southern Baptist Convention stands for, they've made so many changes thru the years. We're not supposed to drink, and can't have sex standing up, for fear someone will think we're dancing It's a joke, yall!
Originally posted by ray b: LETS SAY that ben lauden built his bomb with U-23X he mined HIMSELF and TOTALY has ownership of it under common law??
little kids dad gave him the gun to protect him and thinks he should allways be armed, just in case, so if you give it back to dad, dad will return it to kid. WHAT DO YOU DO NOW???
DRUNK will drive as soon as he gets keys back and will be drunk next day too. I would steal his car too.
Time for more definitions
Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Justice: 1.The quality of being just; fairness. 2. The principle of moral rightness; equity. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude.
Since we know Bin Laden is a risk, having a nuke or not. It doesn't matter if he is the legal owner of it or not. If you're taking something so it can't be used to harm others. It isn't stealing.
As for the father giving his kid a gun. If he gave the kid a gun irresponsibly, not theaching the kid that the gun is for self defence and the rules of gun saftey. You do have the right to take the gun away. If the kid shouldn't have the thing, and the father still gives it back to him. Not only should the gun be taken away from the kid, the father should too. If the drunk driver is a threat to the lives of other people, yes you should take his keys, and the car too if you have to. But you are not stealing it. Are you taking it and using the owner being drunk as an excuse? If so, you stole it.
Originally posted by avengador1: When I say Christians I think catholics, I have never heard the Baptist refer to themselves as Christians only Baptist, I guess that is my ignorance, But that makes we wonder are Protestants Christians also?
COUNT ME AMONG THE MANY WHO THINK THE LAST TRUE CHRISTIAN WAS ALLSO THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE.
WHY, IF WE HAVE FREE WILL DO CHRISTIAN WANT TO CHANGE LAWS SO ALL SIN IS OUTLAWED FOR ALL WHERE IF FREE WILL THEN?? I THINK LAWS SHOULD NEVER BE TIED TO FAIRY TALES AT ALL.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
10:59 PM
Dec 3rd, 2001
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
Just because one SUPPORTS the right of abortion doesn't mean that one thinks that it's OK... It's about a basic right to CHOOSE. I.E. pro-[b]choice
Wow... I can understand how someone that believes it's a human being would want it to be illegal. I can understand someone who thinks it's not, leaving the decision to the woman (after all she would be the only "person" involved). I can't understand your girlfriend's position though.
This is not a consenting adults issue where you can think it's wrong but nobody else is being harmed. If it's a human life it is a member of society and has the right to be protected just like anyone else.
wow..450 posts...Harry Potter must be one popular guy...
------------------ '88 coupe, 5 speed, custome paint job "I! have a plan!" Have you seen my website yet? Http://www.LithiumEffects/pheageysfeiro Killed: '97 civic CS auto; Killed by: '94 Civic Ex, '96 Camery LX Vandalised: 2 time (in 2 days).
IP: Logged
09:05 AM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
My wife is just over 12 weeks pregnant, at 6 weeks, the baby was hard to see in the ultrasound, but already had a heartbeat.
At 12 weeks? All the finger and toes are there, you can tell gender (usually) and he/she is FULLY functioning...sucking thumbs, stretching out...moving around...hardly a "blob".
My opinion? Apply the same "proof of life" test that they do in emergency medicine...
They're a living human being when they have brain function. (BTW, this is usually before 99% of people realise they're pregnant.)
Why is that such a hard concept?
IP: Logged
10:55 AM
Joe Torma Member
Posts: 3485 From: Hillsborough, NJ USA Registered: Jul 2001
If they are not breaking the NO SEX rules, they dont need condoms - if they are breaking the more important NO SEX rule, then what do they care if they are breakig the no comdom rule too.
Its totally insane that anyone would accuse the catholic church of causeing the spread of AIDs, by banning condoms amounsgt their followers.
Ken: Makes sense.
quote
Ray, don't take this wrong, but you're the single most ignorant and paranoid person I have ever met. ~ Really!
"Bible belt states kill the most people"... How about next time you talk out your anus you give some reference or backup? What the hell are you talking about now?! ...And how does it make Christians or the Bible responsible?!
AGREED!
Ray - Have you ever heard the expression 'greater good'? Think about it: eliminating a killer, may save other lives. It is a tough decision but someone's gotta do it. There are waaaaaay too many repeat offenders out there. The death penalty protects the society.
I, personally, would not want to be the one making this decision. I know it's a difficult moral issue. As humans, we do make mistakes and, perhaps, some should not be executed. Then again, some who are not 'eliminated' probably should be.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY, Ray. It has to do with protecting the rest of the society.
quote
No, that's what pro-lifers argue. The pro-choicers that *I* know have the opinion that Yeah, its WRONG... But it's still *OUR* bodies, and we can do whatever the hell we want with them... Why do WE have to put up with an unwanted parasite just because it has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human being.
Mach10 - Actually, a part of their body does NOT belong to them - it belongs to the new human being in-the-making.
PARASITE??!! Wow. I've never heard anyone use this name to describe a fetus. Do you think of yourself as a parasite when you were in your mother's womb? And spare me the definition of a parasite. It has a very negative connotation.
quote
ABOVE ALL ELSE. If having the child (for whatever reason, although some better than others) is going to negatively disrupt the mother's life in a serious way wether physically or psychologically, then SHE has the choice.
Having a CHILD (your words, Mach) would NEGATIVELY DISRUPT the mother's life?! Isn't that something to think about BEFORE you screw around?
You ask, who are we to judge if they were fooling around? Let me use this analogy: If a dude takes a car and drives like an idiot, because it makes him feel good (kinda like sex - definitely not as good, though ) and he hurts someone, by accident (kinda like getting preagnant by 'accident'), would you say that we can't judge him? I mean, he was only having some fun and there should be no consequences, right? WRONG. He'd be thrown in jail, regardless of the 'disruption' this would cause in his life.
Point of the story? Everything we do has consequences. In the case of sex, it may be a baby (or an STD). Worry about the cause, not the solution.
It's funny how the pro-abortionists call themselves 'pro-choice'. What it really means is 'pro-abortion'. It has nothing to do with CHOICE. They are FOR it and think they should be able to do it whenever they choose to. You don't see any people AGAINST abortion in the 'pro-choice' crowd yelling 'I CHOOSE LIFE!', do you?
quote
Christian's believe in an eye for an eye
Avengador1 - which Bible are you reading? True Christians are followers of Jesus. Jesus put an end to 'eye for an eye'.
Baptists are Prodestants. (so are Mennonites, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopals, Assembly of God, Apostolic Christians, etc...)
Prodestant are Christians.
Prodestants are NOT Catholics...two different Faiths.
Some will argue whether Catholics are Christians...(Most Catholic priests I know will shun the "Christian" title...)
(Mormons (LDS, RLDS), Jehova's Witnesses, Ba'hai Faith, Christian Science, Scientology (Dianetics), Wicca/Witchcraft, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, Buddhism, Taoism, Deism, Rastafarianism, etc, all are "other" beliefs with their own leaders and beginnings, seperate from the Jewish~Catholic~Christian faiths.)
FYI...
[This message has been edited by TRiAD (edited 12-03-2001).]
IP: Logged
03:47 PM
Voytek Member
Posts: 1924 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: Baptists are Prodestants. (so are Mennonites, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopals, Assembly of God, Apostolic Christians, etc...)
Prodestant are Christians.
Prodestants are NOT Catholics...two different Faiths.
Some will argue whether Catholics are Christians...(Most Catholic priests I know will shun the "Christian" title...)
(Mormons (LDS, RLDS), Jehova's Witnesses, Ba'hai Faith, Christian Science, Scientology (Dianetics), Wicca/Witchcraft, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, Buddhism, Taoism, Deism, Rastafarianism, etc, all are "other" beliefs with their own leaders and beginnings, seperate from the Jewish~Catholic~Christian faiths.)
FYI...
[This message has been edited by TRiAD (edited 12-03-2001).]
Couple of things on this.
ProTestant is actually a Christian church. While all the ones you name may be protestant, there is a Protestant denomination (just like Anglican, or Catholic or other).
Secondly, I'm not sure what kind of Catholic priests you're talking to. I've been a strong, practicing Catholic all my life, and my parents were always heavily involved in the church. We've known many priests, even on a personal level. Every one of them would tell you that the Roman Catholic church is Christian in its strongest sense.
According to Oxford dictionary: Christian - 1. of Christ's teaching 2. believing in or following the religion of Christ 3. Showing the associated qualities
Again, we can go into the argument here of which church fits the description. It boils down to whether you follow the Bible and what Bible version you're following.
Prodestant is the nomenclature used for the group of churches that severed ties with the Catholic church over the issues of a few books of the Bible the Prodestants did not find to be Canonical (ie, the true Word of God). There is also a denomination simply called Protestant, and they are a part of this group.
Whether Catholic is Christian or not I was leaving out of my post, only that Prodestant Christians are not Catholic, and that there are Catholics that would debate whether they're technically "Christians" or not...intertestingly, the Pope makes this distinction as well...
Originally posted by TRiAD: Prodestant is the nomenclature used for the group of churches that severed ties with the Catholic church over the issues of a few books of the Bible the Prodestants did not find to be Canonical (ie, the true Word of God). There is also a denomination simply called Protestant, and they are a part of this group.
Whether Catholic is Christian or not I was leaving out of my post, only that Prodestant Christians are not Catholic, and that there are Catholics that would debate whether they're technically "Christians" or not...intertestingly, the Pope makes this distinction as well...
Read martin luthers BULL [his name for it not mine] that was nailed to the church door. Thats were Protestants started but they are very late in the history of reform movements FIRST REFORMER WAS SAUL/paul WHO TOTAL CHANGED BELIFE OF EARLY CHURCH to suit his needs/wants to preach to non jews. then there were a bunch of others before roman reconition like arians and gnostic movements. then church split east/west greek/roman with others like syrian going their own way CATHARS were the BEST reform but catholic church killed them in 1300's crusade in south of france killing over one million. and of course many split from original luther and later calvin protest to form even more sub-cults of their own.split and split again even baptest split in to many sub-cults now. SO WHAT IS REAL CHURCH OF JC NOW SOME, ALL OR NONE OF ALL THESE CULTS I VOTE NONE
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
06:51 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12398 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by ray b: FIRST REFORMER WAS SAUL/paul WHO TOTAL CHANGED BELIFE OF EARLY CHURCH to suit his needs/wants to preach to non jews.
Okay, I'll take the bait (this oughta be good for a few more pages)... Paul changed the belief of the early Church??? Put down that crack-pipe, ray, get some help!
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Thanks for the clear up Triad. As for the eye for an eye that is my own opinion, not my church's, not my religion's, just mine. I have my own free will and choose to feel this way. I feel if you suffer damages you are owed restitution. That is my eye for an eye. If I were on a jury that is asked to convict a person for murder, I would definitely have to be convinced of his guilt to find him guilty, as for the death penalty I would not find for this sentence unless the person is obviously unrepentant of his actions and a drain on society.
------------------
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
baptistheart Member
Posts: 120 From: norfolk,nebraska,u.s.a Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by Cheever3000: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ray b: [b] FIRST REFORMER WAS SAUL/paul WHO TOTAL CHANGED BELIFE OF EARLY CHURCH to suit his needs/wants to preach to non jews.
Okay, I'll take the bait (this oughta be good for a few more pages)... Paul changed the belief of the early Church??? Put down that crack-pipe, ray, get some help!
[/B][/QUOTE]
THERE IS A WHOLE WORLD WIDE WEB OUT THERE DO ANY OF YOU THUMPERS EVER USE IT?????
SAUL/PAUL WAS THE FIRST REFORMER THIS AS MOST OF THE THOUGHTS I POST HERE ARE NOT MY THOUGHTS BUT IDEAS OF BIBLE SCHOLARS THE GUY WHO FOUGHT THE CHURCH TO PRINT COPYS OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THIS AS HAVE OTHER SCHOLARS BASICLY PAUL CHANGED THE JEWISH-CHRISTIANS INTO A BELIFE ROMANS COULD FOLLOW BY STOPING CIRCUMCISION AND FOLLOWING OF THE LAW AS PRECONDISIONS OF JOINING CHURCH.
Ray, you do realise you're reading old info, right? Gnostic heretics have been around since Paul's time. Some of his letter to the Colossians was about their "knowledge".
No wonder you're saying all this stuff about Christ's "kids" and mary Magdaline being His wife...I should have realised sooner...
"The Secret Gopel", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Forbidden Gospel"...these sound familiar?
How about "Yaldabaoth"? And the serpent sharing GOOD info with Adam and Eve that that mean old God didn't want them to have?!
So, do you believe Jesus didn't die on the cross too? He got Simon of Cyrene to do it for Him, didn't He?!
You're starting to make more sense...why didn't you tell us what you were before? Afraid someone would be able to refute you?
You're no different than anyone else here...you just have your own set of beliefs and you don't want any of us to know where they come from...
-----------
Don't believe everything you see published on the net, man...
IP: Logged
01:05 AM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
I have nothing against the fetus... Just remove it from the body. What it does next it up to it.
Now, the DREADED definition:
quote
par·a·site (pr-st) n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
I STILL consider myself a parasite But seriously, there's nothing terribly negative about that definition. Its how a lot of the animal kingdom survives. The human embryo is a parasite in every sense of the word. The two blood-streams are totally incompatible. If the fetus did not take steps, the mother's own immune system would melt it down to it's component Amino-Acids. It's an unwanted pest, and seriously strains the mother's body. However, in 99% of the cases, the mother is perfectly willing to endure it...
I didn't ask anyone to judge about fooling around. What I said was that we were in no position to judge anyone as to what goes on in the bedroom. It's none of your business, and none of mine. AS SUCH, you can't make a judgement about the reasons to abort the pregnancy (unless you are pro-life. I can respect that view, also).
Agreed. EVERY action has consequences. But again, it's not our business what goes on in the bedroom. The point gets raised: Do you REALLY want a pair of completely irresponsible parents raising a child?
Last point: Completely, totally, and UTTERLY false. Pro-Choice is EXACTLY that. In FACT, you'd see PLENTY of pro-choicers that would never get an abortion. Hell, I know SEVERAL of them. As much as it PAINS the pro-lifers, the issue is more of a FEMINIST issue, rather than a population control. (which by the way is neither NEW, nor EXCTINT. Infanticide is still practiced world-wide... Abortion is a NICE way out) The fact remains that you will only ever see your own side of it. I don't particularly LIKE your side... But I know and understand it. I suggest you do the same before making these kinds of comments.
Triad: I'm with you on this one. It's a human when brain function starts... However, I disagree slightly about the point at which this happens. The Neural system starts operating pretty much as soon as the stem cells specialize... But the neural structures aren't really formed until sometime towards the middle of the 2nd trimester, if I'm not mistaken... That's about 20-26 weeks. I am ALL AGAINST late-abortions (ie, past 1st trimesester)EXCEPT where the pregnancy is endangering the safety of the mother. <== And yes, THIS DOES HAPPEN.
If you are going to get an abortion, it should be done pretty much as soon as you find out (ie., missed cycle, and TEST).
IP: Logged
02:12 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Hmm I haven't read the whole thread, but it's about abortion I see... So taking into account the title, we're discussing if Harry Porter's mother should have had an abortion?
Originally posted by AusFiero: Well I am adopted at birth so I will say no more on abortion.
Actually, I am as well...
Here's the scoop; it's 1972, you're a 15 year-old drug-addicted dropout, and you're pregnant. You're lucky enough to actually go full-term, and now there's this "parasite" (sorry Mach, had to) you have to care for and feed... So the kid gets malnourished and shows visible signs of skin disease, and is not developing quickly enough...so the State comes in and takes custody.
I was taken at 9 months and rehabilitated, at 14 months, I was adopted, but could not walk or talk at all. (I could whistle ).
So, being 1972, and what her situation was, it's amazing I wasn't aborted. She has had 3 abortions since (basic "birth control" abortions), and no living kids.
I'm kinda glad to be here...
IP: Logged
10:44 AM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Well, if you ask me (and you didn't ) My stance is that adoption is the best way out. My feelings, however, are such that it's the mother's decision, plain and simple.
Ray, you do realise you're reading old info, right? Gnostic heretics have been around since Paul's time. Some of his letter to the Colossians was about their "knowledge".
No wonder you're saying all this stuff about Christ's "kids" and mary Magdaline being His wife...I should have realised sooner...
"The Secret Gopel", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Forbidden Gospel"...these sound familiar?
How about "Yaldabaoth"? And the serpent sharing GOOD info with Adam and Eve that that mean old God didn't want them to have?!
So, do you believe Jesus didn't die on the cross too? He got Simon of Cyrene to do it for Him, didn't He?!
You're starting to make more sense...why didn't you tell us what you were before? Afraid someone would be able to refute you?
You're no different than anyone else here...you just have your own set of beliefs and you don't want any of us to know where they come from...
-----------
Don't believe everything you see published on the net, man...
I DO NOT BELIVE IN ANYTHING OR ANY GOD I DO NOT FOLLOW ANYTHING, EXCEPT MY HEART I DO READ ABOUT EVERY BELIFE FROM ATONISUM TO ZORASTERISUM AS PART OF STUDY OF HISTORY SOME ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN OTHERS ,BUT ALL ARE WRONG.
GNOSTIC IS A EARLY SUB-CULT OF CHRISTIANS.
THOMAS'S "SAYINGS" IS THOUGHT BY SCHOLARS TO BE THE FIRST BOOK WRITTEN ABOUT JC, NOT THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF T OR THE GOSPEL OF T JUST THE SAYINGS AS FOUND AT NAG HAMMADI SITE.
THEN CAME THE LOSTED "Q" GOSPEL THE BASE OF MARK, MATT, AND LUKE=PAUL STORYS IN YOUR BIBLE.
MY IDEAS OF RIGHT AND WRONG ARE NOT BASED ON ANY RELIGION OR BELIFE SYSTEM. ALL RELIGIONS ARE EVIL AND DO EVIL. TALIBAN IS EVIL AS ARE ALL FUNDIES OF ANY RELIGION, EVERY ONE OF THEM, ALL THE TIME.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 12-04-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:35 PM
PFF
System Bot
malacite Member
Posts: 2213 From: Casselberry Fl 32707 Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by malacite: you people are LAME!
this thread is supposed to be somebody's rant about how the popularity of a certian movie is making his job aggrivating.
it is not about religion it is not about abortion it is not about anything else i didn't read in these 500 or so posts.
you guys are all cool people, but you need lives.
Hmmm, how many threads have you seen that actually stayed totally on topic for more than a handful of posts? The longer they go, the farther they stray, just like *real* conversations.
Actually I think that aspect of long threads was covered a couple of pages back. See, now you're contributing to the insanity by rehashing it. And a double post to boot...
IP: Logged
04:04 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
I didn't ask anyone to judge about fooling around. What I said was that we were in no position to judge anyone as to what goes on in the bedroom
ACTUALLY, Mr. Mach, I didn't say you asked anyone for judgment. Re-read, please - thank you.
quote
The fact remains that you will only ever see your own side of it. I don't particularly LIKE your side...
Well, guess what? I don't particularly like your side, either! What a coincidence! Kinda statin' the obvious, ain't ya?
quote
the Pope makes this distinction as well...
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Triad. I have (and read) a book written by the Pope Himself. If you have any opinion from the Pope, I'll be happy to look it up.
MALACITE - The fact that you took time to post in this thread, and the contents of your post say only one thing: YOU NEED A LIFE!!
BTW: to all else who INTELLIGENTLY contributed to this thread: I haven't seen the Harry Potter movie but I've rather enjoyed most of this debate. Keep it interesting.
[This message has been edited by Voytek (edited 12-04-2001).]
IP: Logged
06:08 PM
malacite Member
Posts: 2213 From: Casselberry Fl 32707 Registered: Oct 2001
) and he hurts someone, by accident (kinda like getting preagnant by 'accident'), would you say that we can't judge him? I mean, he was only having some fun and there should be no consequences, right? WRONG. He'd be thrown in jail, regardless of the 'disruption' this would cause in his life.
