G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Archive through March 31, 2017 » I love/hate abortion thread? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 11:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Only abortion I am for is retro-active abortion. It is biblical.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.



That is how I see it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Torquehd
Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 11:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

You must be of straight Hebrew lineage, and you must somehow still be trapped in the pre-33AD timeframe.

If you're going to quote bible, you need to recognize the grace that Jesus brought directly from God (and the fulfillment of the OT law), where it's no longer "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", but forgive your brother "seventy times seven" and "if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses".

Murder is murder, regardless of age. Dependency on mother is a stupid argument.
Incest/rape is also a stupid argument. Is it OK to kill a 30 year old, just because his mom got raped by her brother? If not, then it's not ok to kill the same prior to his seeing the sunshine.

Bill Maher, in his infinite wisdom once said something to the effect of, if you have an abortion, you're a fetus killer, not a baby killer. He was trying to make a case for abortion, but he admitted that abortion is killing (a human).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 11:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Is it OK to kill a 30 year old, just because his mom got raped by her brother?

That is not the reason for the stoning above. Simply states that the rod was not spoiled and the rebellion continued. The first commandment with promise was to honor your parents and you could receive long life. No honor, short life.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pwnzor
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 08:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

OBAMA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Slaughter
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 08:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Post-partum abortion is more effective for society - say, up to the age of majority. At that time, you can finally say that this person IS a true burden/inconvenience on the parents and society at large.

Of course, it'd be done humanely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Torquehd
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 09:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Ourdee, that argument wasn't regarding your post above, but the overarching topic of abortion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 09:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

My repeated question to abortion advocates, "What limits on killing do you want to live with? No killing third trimester? Hundredth?" has never been answered. I always get blind incoherent rage.

I must assume they demand the power to kill anyone anytime. The provisions in Obamacare to kill the elderly support this conclusion. No doubt in time the classic eugenics programs will return, ( names changed, of course ) and we can look forward to the feeble minded, handicapped, and enemies of the State being put to death just like the glory days in Germany when Socialists ruled.

So, sure, it's ok to kill the adolescents too. There's no age or reason limit on abortion.

Tomorrow, we can discuss alternative names for the death panels, & the best spin to put on forcible euthanasia.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 10:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Now that "He" has been brought up, Is the X still getting a divorce?

Abortion as soon as the sperm has met the egg is murder. That is my opinion. That is what I understand my Deity's position to be.

HITLER
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 10:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Oh, come on! That was supposed to be a subtle reference to the planet's #3 mass murderer. ; )

You are good with contraception that prevents the sperm & egg from hooking up, right?

It WAS against Roman Catholic rules, but that was before the Last Pope. It's ok now. ( So are many things I don't like under the New guy. I do admit he's charming, and the shtick about being humble sells. )

The Catholic rule against contraception is simple and logical. The side with more warriors, or votes, or likes, wins. So it makes no sense to control your population when others do not. Demographics.

And, if the Europeans had stuck to that they wouldn't have the problems they have today. It would be a different set of problems, probably worse in many ways, but certainly not the problem they have of being out numbered.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Henshao
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 02:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The SLED test.

...Size: The unborn is clearly smaller than a born human. It’s hard to reason how a difference in size, though, disqualifies someone from being a person. A four year-old is smaller than a fourteen year-old. Can we kill her because she’s not as big as a teenager? No, because a human being’s value is not based on their size. She’s still equally a person even though she differs in that characteristic. In the same way, the unborn is smaller than a four year-old. If we can’t kill the four-year old because she’s smaller, then we can’t kill the unborn because she’s smaller either.

Level of development: The unborn is also less developed than a born human being. How does this fact, though, disqualify the unborn from personhood? A four year-old girl can’t bear children because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen year-old girl. That doesn’t disqualify her from personhood. She is still as equally valuable as a child-bearing teen. The unborn is also less developed than the four year-old. Therefore, we can’t disqualify her from personhood for the same reason we can’t disqualify the four year-old. Both are merely less developed than older human beings.

Environment: The unborn is located in a different environment than a born human. How does your location, though, affect your value? Can changing your environment alter your status as a person? Where you are has no bearing on who you are. An astronaut who spacewalks in orbit is in a radically different environment than a person on the planet. No one could reasonably deny his personhood simply because he’s in a different location. Scuba divers who swim under water and spelunkers who crawl through caves are equally as valuable as humans who ride in hot-air balloons. If changing your environment can’t change your fundamental status, then being inside or outside a uterus can’t be relevant either. How could a 7-inch journey through the birth canal magically transform a value-less human into a valuable person? Nothing has changed except their location.

Degree of dependency: The unborn is dependent upon the mother’s body for nutrition and a proper environment. It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. Newborns and toddlers still depend upon their parents to provide nutrition and a safe environment. Indeed, some third-world countries require children to be breast fed because formula is not available. Can a mother kill her newborn son because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a toddler fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring him not valuable simply because he depended on you for his survival? Of course not! Since the unborn depends on his mother in the same way, it’s not reasonable to disqualify his value either.
Notice that although toddler and teens differ from each other in the four SLED categories, we don’t disqualify toddlers from personhood. Since born and unborn humans differ in exactly the same ways, we can’t disqualify the unborn from personhood either.
...

https://www.str.org/articles/the-s.l.e.d.-test#.WM GqCLitI40
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 02:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The simplest and most comfortable definition I have come up with is that the first point at which a unique DNA signature starts independently replicating, it is at that moment a new life form.

That could be a bacteria, in which case it is a new living bacteria.

It could be a human, at which point it is a new living human.

Until that new DNA self replicates for the first time, it is a matter of choice and chance. After that first replication, it is a life.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2017 - 08:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I am OK with contraceptives, if the consenting adults are married. I know there are people that are not. I know there are people that are not OK with marriage.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2017 - 02:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I don't know what marriage has to do with contraception from a morality standpoint.

Abortion has been with us since before there were cities. Surgical abortion was, until very recently in history, rare, and usually fatal for the mother. However, drug based abortion has been around for thousands of years. With, as you'd expect from it's "take this child cursing draught of forest herbs and poisons" origins, also a fairly high fatality rate, and still not a foolproof method to kill the unborn and not the mother.

Contraception, OTOH is only a few thousand years old, in the form of condoms. Post civilization. And Chemical contraception ( as opposed to chemical abortion ) is less than a century old.

The moral difference between preventing and eliminating the unborn is obvious to me. YMMV.

How to encourage our civilization's citizens to be responsible and intelligent about sex so we have far far fewer abortions is a tough question. ( I don't expect perfection, neither should anyone else )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2017 - 02:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Btw, Ourdee, re: the OP, I think every parent with an adolescent has considered sending them off to be stoned.

Although that has a different meaning in Denver, I understand.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2017 - 11:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Mine were sending me to military school when I ran away. Took less than a year for me to become a loner. Would Denver stoning qualify one as a drunkard?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2017 - 12:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

https://www.infowars.com/paging-feminists-abu-dhab i-gov-arrests-forces-virginity-test-on-unmarried-p regnant-woman/

Sure. Denver Rocky mountain high. Close enough to drunkenness.

May be a great example of how government messes things up by nature. The urge of legislators to make life harder & take bribes for direction, masked in fake morality.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ducley
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2017 - 05:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Henshao, my "test" is similar to yours. It just came out when the subject was discussed at work(gov't) one day. Having to set aside my Christian belief system, I came up with a logical one.
If you can't kill the child one minute after it is born, you can't reasonably kill it one minute before it is born. If that is the case, then back up minute by minute and what minute is significantly different enough to make removal morally acceptable?
The minute before conception.
One could argue when the fertilized egg is embedded in the uterus, but how long does that process take? (For the sake of the minute by minute comparison.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alfau
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2017 - 07:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I am OK with contraceptives
The fist condoms were made of animal intestines. They started with a live goat and soon realized by using only the intestine it might work as a form of contraception.

Here is the proof.






(Message edited by alfau on March 13, 2017)
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration