Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's obvious that any organization whose motto is "stand with us for reproductive justice" will be more than willing to, pardon the pun, whitewash Sanger's racism.
You'll need to find a source that could conceivably be somewhat objective if you want me to take it seriously.
Ignore away. Me a racist. That is a laugh. My point was very clear. Yours is an attempt to use ideologies taken out of context to promote a very destructive agenda of your own. Since no one (as earlier posters point out) willinjg to care for, and provide nurturing homes for babies of color, why oh why would anyone reasonable want to FORCE poor mothers into such a desperate position?
Birth control pills have been around since early 1960 - 1961..
I can't believe you are quibbling with me over four to five years of discrepancy. Really? Ok. 1960 if we must. That is even more to my point that the young people of childbearing years NOW, should have better birth control technology than Baby Boomers. Only 1/3 of sexually active women even use BC pills because they have so many risks and remain out of reach financially without health insurance coverage. Something that tens of millions of Americans still do not have. You're ok with that? I am not. As I understand it, Smartphones have made more progress in 5 years than birth control in 50 years. That just should not be.
"Thou shall not kill" applies to people. You know fully developed, independently functioning humans
I guess you think abortion doctors are exempt from that Commandment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
If God believes that fetuses are people, then the punishment for "murdering" a fetus would be exactly the same as the punishment for murdering an actual person. Right? But that is not what God says at all. He says the offender "must pay a fine" and right after He says that, He states "a life for a life." If a fetus is in fact a life, why is the punishment so drastically different for the two offenses; a simple fine, verses your own death?
22“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The fine is if a LIVE baby is born prematurely. If the baby is stillborn, then "life for life" is the punishment He ordains, and the murderer shall be put to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Also why does God think it's perfectly okay to abort a fetus conceived through adultery?
He doesn't. You're once again misreading Scripture to fit your own agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
In number 5, He tells the woman to drink bitter water to induce a miscarriage.
The drinking of the bitter water was not to induce a miscarriage. It was to test whether or not the woman was faithful to husband. If she was faithful, no harm would come. If she had been unfaithful, the Lord would "cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Haha. You may want to reread that Bible quote because it says that "He breathed life into his nostrils." And as you so thoroughly pointed out, fetuses can't breath through their nostrils. Just because something is receiving oxygen does not mean that it is breathing. A fish needs oxygen, yet it does not breath.
You're still hung up on breathing, and are ignoring cellular respiration. Fish are alive, they exhibit cellular respiration, but they don't breathe. Likewise, babies in utero are alive, they exhibit cellular respiration, but they don't breathe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
The word "breath" is written numerous times as the indicator of whether or not a person is alive in the Bible.
You're engaging in something called "literalism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
7"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Maybe it should've been written ""Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and installed into him a living soul, and the man became a living being." so that you could comprehend and accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Since you seem to be so handy with scripture, I want you to show me the EXACT verse that says abortoin is murder and/or a sin.
I already did, in my last post. Now I want you to show me which one says that abortion is exempted from the definition of "kill," and which one says that abortion doctors are allowed to violate the Commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
It IS a part of her just as much as the rest of her organs.
It is not one of her organs. It is a separate being that is developing within her womb. It has its own unique genome, not a duplicate of the mother's. It is not considered part of the human body in any medical textbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Again, something without brain function can't choose.
Do you even know when brain activity is first detected? It's WAY before the moment of birth.
The fact that a baby in utero cannot make choices is exactly why we must make the correct choice for it - the same way we do for our child after it has been born - until it is able to make its own choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
embryo (54% of abortions occur during the embryo phrase) have more rights than an actual person with her own thoughts and feelings?
It doesn't have more rights than the mother, it has the SAME right to life that the mother does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Well duh, and that is the exact reason why birth control should basically be free of charge.
No. If she can't afford birth control, then she can't afford to take the risk of becoming pregnant. It's called personal responsibility, without it you will not be able to raise a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
The government will pay either way and paying for birth control is much cheaper than paying for a child.
Those of us who had no input into the decision-making process shouldn't have to pay for the result of those decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
And if she has birth control, then the odds of her needing an abortion are reduced to as little 2%.
And if she practices abstinence, then the odds of needing an abortion are 0%.
In the last couple of years there have been state laws passed which have put more burden on doctors who preform abortion, and in some states the requirements are so high that clinics have closed down. Some states make the woman see an ultrasound of the fetus. Do you support Abortion being legal or not and why.
Yes, I support legal abortions.
The decision to abort should be made between a woman and her doctor, and not by politicians or religious leaders. Her partner can have input, but the decision belongs to the woman.
No. But unfortunately here in Malta abortion is illegal, which of course doesn't stop anyone from having abortions, but they are forced to use shady "backstreet clinics" or travel to the UK to get it done. There are even a bunch of bible bashing pro life women who are at the moment trying to stop the government from allowing the freezing of embryos for IVF! Being a very Catholic country Malta is sadly full of many loud, vocal & hypocritical "Christians" who pick & choose what rules/morals they decide to live by from the bible. Divorce was only legalised here a few years ago, so I cannot see abortion being made legal here anytime soon...
1. Murder and war don't get you sent to Hell; the way to get to Hell is to refuse salvation. And if murder did earn you a trip to Hell, then abortion most certainly would.
2. God sanctioned the death penalty in Exodus 21:12.
1. No, based on this, women who have abortions and accept salvation would not go to hell. No matter how many abortions they have.
2. If killing is wrong, the death penalty is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Apples-to-oranges. "Thou shalt not kill" commands people not to take innocent life. By contrast, "an eye for an eye" is the punishment God sanctions when an innocent life has been wronged.
Who decides which life is innocent? And by what standards, since the bible constantly contradicts itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Wrong. In that chapter of Scripture, God was not authorizing humans to kill infants and pregnant women. He was stating that those acts would be among the punishments He would inflict upon the people for disobeying His commands.
The entire verse reads as follows (NIV): "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
So it's okay to kill little children when their parents rebel against a supposedly kind, benevolent deity? And if it's okay to rip pregnant women open and thereby kill fetuses because they rebelled against God, what's the problem with abortion? Would it be sanctioned for atheists/non-believers only? If so, make abortions illegal for Christians and let non-believers continue to have them.
Abortions used as birth control, ABSOLUTELY NOT! (Once is excusable, sh*t happens, twice or more is NOT)
YES to Abortions if the pregnant person is:
too young,
too old,
too sick (with non-pregnancy issues)
if it is life-threatening
pregnant as a result of a rape,
or too poor
to continue with the pregnancy.
To all you bible thumpers out there: God gave people brains to proceed with modern medicine or we'd still be like cows in a barn giving birth whether we wanted to or not. Modern medicine gives us the ability to help prolong life or take a life.
Is it ok for your neighbor to join the service and go kill someone from ISIS, and not ok for his 10 year old daughter to terminate a pregnancy? The commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't discriminate if you look at it this way. You can't either.
Last edited by gouligann; 11-18-2015 at 02:06 PM..
Abortions used as birth control, ABSOLUTELY NOT! (Once is excusable, sh*t happens, twice or more is NOT)
YES to Abortions if the pregnant person is:
too young,
too old,
too sick (with non-pregnancy issues)
if it is life-threatening
pregnant as a result of a rape,
or too poor
to continue with the pregnancy.
To all you bible thumpers out there: God gave people brains to proceed with modern medicine or we'd still be like cows in a barn giving birth whether we wanted to or not. Modern medicine gives us the ability to help prolong life or take a life.
Is it ok for your neighbor to join the service and go kill someone from ISIS, and not ok for his 10 year old daughter to terminate a pregnancy? The commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't discriminate if you look at it this way. You can't either.
It really isn't about the number of abortions! My husband had a vasectomy after our fourth child was born. That decision was made because we did not want nor could afford any more. 5 years later the vasectomy failed but original doctor wouldn't admit it. I had an induced miscarriage at 7 weeks with pill from PP.
Not even a year later, I found out I was pregnant again and again induced miscarriage at 7 weeks. New doctor redid the vasectomy and now, 10 years later no pregnancies.
My husband and I made the decision to abort because it was better for our family but we didn't make the decision that it was better for our family at the time of the pregnancy... we made it when we decided to get the vasectomy.
If we had only 1 abortion allotted to us then the 5th child would have cost their siblings some of the things we've been able to provide. My situation is not on your list of "acceptable situations." We made a choice not to have any more kids and we took steps to ensure that was what happened... as is and should be our right.
Abortions used as birth control, ABSOLUTELY NOT! (Once is excusable, sh*t happens, twice or more is NOT)
Why not? Someone who is forced to carry out a pregnancy they don't want would likely get minimal prenatal care and engage in behavior that could seriously affect the fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gouligann
YES to Abortions if the pregnant person is:
too young,
too old,
too sick (with non-pregnancy issues)
if it is life-threatening
pregnant as a result of a rape,
or too poor
to continue with the pregnancy.
Who decides what is too young or too old or too poor? There are people who made the best of any of these circumstances because they genuinely wanted the child. On the other hand, someone can be the right age, have the right income, become pregnant without rape, be perfectly healthy, and make a horrible parent because they do not want a child. And since women are not human incubators they should not be forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy if they don't meet your criteria. IMO, the only valid and necessary reason for a woman to have an abortion is that she wants one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gouligann
Is it ok for your neighbor to join the service and go kill someone from ISIS, and not ok for his 10 year old daughter to terminate a pregnancy? The commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't discriminate if you look at it this way. You can't either.
Why not? Someone who is forced to carry out a pregnancy they don't want would likely get minimal prenatal care and engage in behavior that could seriously affect the fetus.
Who decides what is too young or too old or too poor? There are people who made the best of any of these circumstances because they genuinely wanted the child. On the other hand, someone can be the right age, have the right income, become pregnant without rape, be perfectly healthy, and make a horrible parent because they do not want a child. And since women are not human incubators they should not be forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy if they don't meet your criteria. IMO, the only valid and necessary reason for a woman to have an abortion is that she wants one.
I agree.
Someone like a hooker or tramp should be encouraged to have her tubes tied, rather than have abortion after abortion.
It is a personal choice or if it is a minor, then the parents must sign a waiver unless it's against the child's wishes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a very Catholic country Malta is sadly full of many loud, vocal & hypocritical "Christians" who pick & choose what rules/morals they decide to live by from the bible. Divorce was only legalised here a few years ago, so I cannot see abortion being made legal here anytime soon...
