nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

am946745

Well the devil has shown his colours. The abortion industries dirty side.

Glad to see its not making the rounds in pro-life circles but also in secular Media.

Sickening.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/planned-parenthood-defends-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies-calls-body-parts-tissue/

Its worth noting that mothers are being paid for the "donated" body parts of their children.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bee06

Given Russia's disregard for human life in other situations I would think this is less related to protection of unborn life and more to do with the government's attempts to impose further strictures on society.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

I suppose that very few people other than staunch Catholics would consider a freshly fertilised human embryo that has yet to even embed in the uterine wall to be a human comparable to you or I. To do so demands religious belief. Similarly, many others wouldn't consider a human foetus just a few weeks into gestation that has yet to develop any nervous system to be a person quite yet. Perhaps to do so requires a notional belief in a soul, which is of course a religious belief, thus jackies66's point is not so easily dismissed.

Did you read jacksie66's point that I responded to? He/she referred specifically to a woman who wanted to abort "her child."

Are you really sure you want to continue arguing that a freshly fertilised human embryo that has yet to even embed in the uterine wall is a child?

The foremost organisation in the world promoting human rights is most probably Amnesty International

They certainly used to be - but they have departed a long way from their founding ideals.

it does seem fair to say the Christian pro-life position very much tramples all over the human rights of other non-Christians. For many of us, the pro-life stance is barbaric.

Neither fair nor coherent, given that Christians hold a wide variety of pro-life positions.

I am opposed to slavery. Does that mean I am trampling over the human rights of those non-Christians who want to enslave others?

I am opposed to capital punishment and warfare. Does my pacifist position mean I am trampling over the human rights of those non-Christians who want to hang criminals and shoot one another in territorial squabbles?

Human rights (genuine human rights, not the pretended right to purchase a pimped girl or to kill a baby) transcend religion.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Surely if one is interested into how pro-life people oppose abortion they can look in the other two threads on the front page of the Christianity forum?

We've been through this topic so many times that one has to wonder if it is something of an obsession.

It is a very sad feature of this forum that we don't look and consider and focus on the Lord Jesus who we Christians claim to follow and who we believe and trust in.

I am pro-life on non-religious secular human rights grounds and arguably it is a secular political issue for the Politics forum.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So what should girls and women who do not wish to remain pregnant be able to do? Are their human rights always subject to those of a foetus, even if their lives or health are at risk?

In a civilised society we don't selfishly stamp our feet and scream, "I demand my rights, and I don't care if others are denied their rights in the process." We try to work out ways in which the human rights of all can be respected.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

No, people are not free to do as they please. For example, in a civilised society people are not free to rape, kill or torture other people. They are not free to drive while intoxicated.

I don't believe people should impose their religious beliefs on others. But I do believe that human rights should be protected. That includes the human rights of the voiceless and defenceless.

You asked: If a woman wishes to kill a child then who is anyone else to tell her otherwise? I would have thought that the answer is self-evident - anyone who gives a fig about human rights should have the right to protest. And any society that pretends to be civilised (which probably doesn't include Russia btw) should intervene.

So what should girls and women who do not wish to remain pregnant be able to do? Are their human rights always subject to those of a foetus, even if their lives or health are at risk?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't believe people should impose their religious beliefs on others. But I do believe that human rights should be protected. That includes the human rights of the voiceless and defenceless.

I suppose that very few people other than staunch Catholics would consider a freshly fertilised human embryo that has yet to even embed in the uterine wall to be a human comparable to you or I. To do so demands religious belief. Similarly, many others wouldn't consider a human foetus just a few weeks into gestation that has yet to develop any nervous system to be a person quite yet. Perhaps to do so requires a notional belief in a soul, which is of course a religious belief, thus jackies66's point is not so easily dismissed.

The foremost organisation in the world promoting human rights is most probably Amnesty International, and they have clearly stated that Ireland's blanket prohibition on abortion is a violation of human rights, as has the UN human rights committee, so it does seem fair to say the Christian pro-life position very much tramples all over the human rights of other non-Christians. For many of us, the pro-life stance is barbaric.

Nick Park

jacksie66 wrote: »

If a woman wants to abort a child who is anyone else to tell her otherwise? Aren't people free to do as they please or are they only free to do what they want so long as it adheres to Christianity's rules?
I don't believe in God and I'm quite happy with my life. I don't believe people should dictate or force their personal beliefs on others.

No, people are not free to do as they please. For example, in a civilised society people are not free to rape, kill or torture other people. They are not free to drive while intoxicated.

I don't believe people should impose their religious beliefs on others. But I do believe that human rights should be protected. That includes the human rights of the voiceless and defenceless.

You asked: If a woman wishes to kill a child then who is anyone else to tell her otherwise? I would have thought that the answer is self-evident - anyone who gives a fig about human rights should have the right to protest. And any society that pretends to be civilised (which probably doesn't include Russia btw) should intervene.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

I've just had to had out multiple cards to posters and we're just 10 posts into the thread. If the standard doesn't improve this thread won't be left open for long.

A reminder for everyone.

1. comparing Christianity to fairy tales isn't acceptable posting for this forum.

2. Swearing is against the charter. This includes abbreviations and acronyms.

Please remember this before posting.

Thanks for your attention.

solodeogloria

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

The Abortion of unborn children is medieval and barbaric.
Big turn around for two countries where state atheism and the persecution and mass murder of Christians reigned supreme for most of the 20th Century.

Good morning!

Yet I've pointed out in a previous post that Russia is passing legislation that could lead to persecution of non-Orthodox Christians by banning house worship and evangelism.

I'm not convinced that Russia is an enthusiastically Christian country or that Vladimir Putin is doing this for Christian reasons.

I'd rather live in a secular country that values freedom of speech and religion than an Orthodox country that stifles it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Giacomo McGubbin

The Abortion of unborn children is medieval and barbaric.
Big turn around for two countries where state atheism and the persecution and mass murder of Christians reigned supreme for most of the 20th Century.

endacl

FortySeven wrote: »

I believe edgy refers to a idealogical viewpoint that is different to the norm?

If so, that ain't edgy.

Middley <snip>.

FortySeven

beach_walker wrote: »

Edgy <snip>.

I believe edgy refers to a idealogical viewpoint that is different to the norm?

If so, that ain't edgy.

beach_walker

FortySeven wrote: »

Banning abortion? How very backwards.

Doing it because of a story that has as much credibility as the tooth fairy is barbaric.

Edgy <snip>.

endacl

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon.

I'm sorry but this is another extreme.

It's obvious that Christianity has more credibility than the story of the tooth fairy because it is heavily grounded in history and on the testimony of eyewitnesses and indeed because we've got a lot of manuscript evidence to back it up.

Rubbish. Every time I lost a tooth as a child I was 50p richer the following day. Actual, tangible evidence right there.

Lots of things that have been revealed as poppycock have been 'heavily grounded in history'. Manuscript evidence? I have manuscript evidence of a little nodding man who drove a red and yellow taxi. His best friend was a brownie. They lived in Toyland. Testimony of eyewitnesses? Ladies and gentleman, I humbly submit for your consideration...

Manach

alma73 wrote: »

Great news to see that Russia is returning to its Christian Values and is passing a bill to Ban abortion. Poland are also in a process to restoring the protection of all human life under new laws.

For Poland that is welcome news, however given that states legal obligations under EU membership it will be challenged in the courts. As for Russia, while the rule of law there is more fragmented restrictions on abortion are more likely due to the demographic collapse of the population, re book Last Russian, than due mostly religious observation.

solodeogloria

FortySeven wrote: »

Banning abortion? How very backwards.

Doing it because of a story that has as much credibility as the tooth fairy is barbaric.

Good afternoon.

I'm sorry but this is another extreme.

It's obvious that Christianity has more credibility than the story of the tooth fairy because it is heavily grounded in history and on the testimony of eyewitnesses and indeed because we've got a lot of manuscript evidence to back it up.

You mightn't believe that this is true, but your post is about as extreme as the OPs in my eyes.

Let's discuss the post with respect rather than silly point scoring on the basis of latent prejudices. We can all do better than knee jerk reactions.

I'm not even sure that Putin has banned abortion because of Christianity. I think extensive discussions about secular legislation only detracts from discussing the true Jesus and what He came to do.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

FortySeven

Banning abortion? How very backwards.

Doing it because of a story that has as much credibility as the tooth fairy is barbaric.

MrPudding

alma73 wrote: »

Great news to see that Russia is returning to its Christian Values and is passing a bill to Ban abortion. Poland are also in a process to restoring the protection of all human life under new laws.

Yes, great news the protection of human life, apart from those women that will die as a result of this, and not forgetting that outright bans on abortion don't actually stop it. But apart from that, yay! go Russia and Poland.

MrP

solodeogloria

alma73 wrote: »

Great news to see that Russia is returning to its Christian Values and is passing a bill to Ban abortion. Poland are also in a process to restoring the protection of all human life under new laws.

Good afternoon!

It's not all so rosy for Russia.

They are also looking to ban evangelism and worship outside of church.

To be even more controversial. I'd rather live in a country that allowed freedom of evangelism and worship with abortion laws rather than a country that suppressed the gospel of Jesus and was pro-life. Being denied the opportunity of eternal salvation is deadly serious from a Biblical standpoint (John 3:36).

Do you see what I mean about obsessing about two particular issues and not looking to the whole picture?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

alma73

Great news to see that Russia is returning to its Christian Values and is passing a bill to Ban abortion. Poland are also in a process to restoring the protection of all human life under new laws.

Absolam

I bet the Irish government wouldn't stop you from travelling if you said you wanted to go fight for ISIS. In fact, I bet it wouldn't stop you from travelling if you said you wanted to euthanise someone either.

You may very well be subject to sanctions if you actually attempt or conspire to kill someone, or attempt or conspire to assist someone to commit suicide, whilst you are in the Irish jurisdiction, since those would be acts that are actually illegal to engage in in Ireland, but that's a rather different proposition, isn't it?

I believe your logic is somewhat flawed.
:rolleyes:

Cabaal

alma73 wrote: »

You can travel. What you do outside this country is your business. In THIS country we don't make our children medical waste.

Interesting outlook,
So if a person in Ireland wants to go off and fight for ISIS in Syria and kill people the Irish government should just leave them do it because its happening outside of Ireland and is none of Ireland's business? (After all in THIS country we don't shoot people for religious reasons.....anymore)

What about if I want to bring a relative to fulfill their wishes to be euthanised in another country, should the Irish government be fine with that? Your logic suggests the government should do nothing.

Of course we know that in both examples the Irish government will step in and stop both things from happening if they become aware of them.

I believe your logic is somewhat flawed.
:rolleyes:

Overheal

Supreme Court in the US has nullified the 2013 Texas law that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges and operate surgical grade facilities

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-strikes-down-strict-abortion-law-n583001

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Removing the 8th and bringing in more availability of abortion won't stop "families that would never have been", making abortion abailable is not the same as making abortion obligatory. People can always choose not to end their pregnancy.

Well... had abortion been available and the prospective parents chosen to make use of it, then families which do exist would never had been were that the case. They're not saying no families would ever have been (which would be the case if abortion were obligatory), they're saying certain families would never have been (if abortion were available).

I'd be dubious how many parents will want to get on a bus with their kids to say "Well, I would have gotten rid of you if I could but sure it's great you're here now", but certainly that's how I'd read "families that would never have been". Or perhaps those children who might have been aborted but weren't (and for some unfathomable reason were made aware of the fact by their parents) who are now grown and have their own families? They might be a little more sanguine about it all. And then, I suppose we all know one or two people who were told (or made aware) that they were the 'accidental' child; perhaps they're a bit grateful that it was that bit too difficult for their parents to erase the accident as a result of the 8th.

robdonn

fran17 wrote: »

Here is something that I personally only became aware of today at mass.Hopefully it will,and should,get a lot more coverage in the coming week.

http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/main/celebrate-the-8th/

Stories of families that would never have been if our constitutional protection for the unborn didn t exist.

Removing the 8th and bringing in more availability of abortion won't stop "families that would never have been", making abortion abailable is not the same as making abortion obligatory. People can always choose not to end their pregnancy.

fran17

Here is something that I personally only became aware of today at mass.Hopefully it will,and should,get a lot more coverage in the coming week.

http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/main/celebrate-the-8th/

alma73

in the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has allowed all priest to forgive the sin of Abortion.

alma73

Most merciful Lord,
Keep the vicitms of abortion close to your heart as their lives are torn apart, physically and spiritually.
Grant them solace in their time of need and keep us all strong in out struggles against such evils in the coming years.

solodeogloria

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't believe I just typed a big long reply to this, with numbered paragraphs and everything, and just at the end the screen went blank and it's all gone!!!

God must be telling me to go and do something else!!

Seriously though, basically I said I agreed with your first three paras, and can see that the 4th and 5th are more of a philosophical approach than anything that needs or even can be, examined for "truthiness". Can t now remember for 7 and 8, but mostly agreed to some extent or else again felt that it's also somewhat about personal experience, and agree that texts written in the desert several thousand years ago can't tell us directly how to integrate new technologies or inventions. OTOH that is the problem with the literalistic interpretation of Islam that seems to be obligatory nowadays, but OTOH non literalism leads to an almost unavoidable accusation of cherry picking. (Literalism too I guess.) so not sure where that leaves us.

Number 6 was where I had a problem - I've bolded it. If we can't thwart God's will, then what happens in our everyday life? if I drink a bottle of wine and then drive, is it God's will that put that pram just where I mounted the pavement?

I don't see how doctors are doing God's will by removing someone's heart and putting a new one in any more than the drunk driver is doing so by testing God's back seat driving. Is it that we give God the credit for the things we approve of, and blame man, or the devil, for the stuff we don't like?

TBF, that's how it looks to me.

Good evening!

Thanks for your post. Let me see how I get on. If I misinterpret something in your post or get the wrong end of the stick please correct me.

You make an interesting point about Biblical interpretation in the first paragraph. It kind of goes beyond the remit of this thread, but it is worth touching on. I think there is an approach that resolves the dilemma both of cherry picking and of being excessively literal. That is understanding the Bible for what it is. The word "bible" comes from a Greek word which means library. The Bible is a collection of sacred writings from both the Hebrew and Christian tradition. Two thirds of it makes up the Old Testament, and one third of it the New Testament. There are books of different types. Poetry, parable, narrative, law, history, gospel. It is important that we read these particular Bible books according to their context and genre. Genre is more straight forward. We read poetry as poetry and law as law and history as history. Indeed within the gospels there are also parables.

Context is more broad. Within books of the Bible there is context. For example how does Paul's argument work in the book of Romans? How has he structured it? Who is he speaking to? What is he trying to do? Who is this for? How does this apply to us today as a result? I call this book context.

Then the books of the Bible are written in particular times. The Bible is a book that has a beginning in time and an end in time. The end points towards Jesus returning to rescue His people at the end of time. The beginning points to creation and the fall which brought us into sin and into a bad relationship with God, and the rest deals with how we get to the point in the end where God rescues His people finally on that last day and we are in right relationship with God. Understanding where particular books and in turn quotation in the Bible fit into this story helps us to find it's context in the Bible story. I call this Biblical context. I.E where does X, Y or Z book or verse fit into the whole Bible story or grand narrative.

On point number 6, what I mean is that medical science which prolongs life isn't against God's will. God knows everything, and sees everything. It isn't as if a doctor can control God or beat God. God is Lord of all. If a doctor does something, or if a scientist learns something new it is by God's permission. If someone survives through medical intervention that is because God has willed it. Conversely if someone dies God has willed it. There is no get out clause for that. It isn't that the devil has decided to kill someone. The doctor isn't and can't be at war with God, for nothing escapes Him. They can't thwart God, because God will have the last say. Nobody can thwart God, because when Christ comes as judge His rule will be final as far as I can see it. If people live longer because of medical science that is because God has allowed it to happen. At the end of the day death still faces all.

I also think we need to be careful about God's will. I think God is sovereign and in control. I think this is different from what God desires from us morally. God is in control, and dare I say it in both the good and the bad. This is difficult and hard to hold together, because it means that in the drinking scenario that you have presented it means that God strongly and morally disapproves of the horrendous sinful things we do in this present world. However, if we also hold that God is in control over all things that God must be in control of this happening. The Calvinists when they saw this stuff in the Bible came up with two ideas of God's will. God's sovereign will (what He allows to happen) and God's moral will (what He desires from us). I'm not 100% sure if I'm fully an adherent of this understanding, but Christians have thought about this lots over centuries. But let's be clear and honest (that's something I want to do and be here) this is bloody hard, and it is something I've not worked out fully. Yet, I still trust God, and I know that He is good, especially through His Son Jesus. So I work hard at working things out, and hope for understanding and maturity as I grow, but I also recognise the limitations of my understanding (which is hard for me, because I'm a fairly rational sort of bloke who likes understanding things).

By the by, I agree with you, I'm deeply skeptical of when people say that God only allows the good stuff to happen to us. I don't believe that either, and it is quite frankly a disgustingly simplistic view of God (not that I'm saying you hold it, you are very very right to bring it up, but when I come across glib views of God that's how I feel). I'm quite frankly especially skeptical when I face many of the crap things in this life. Many Christians I know have faced horrendous adversity in this life. Things have happened in my life that make me cry out "Why God?". This is normal. We live in a fallen word. God doesn't promise that He will make everything in this life OK, or alright. He doesn't promise exclusive blessing to Christians, and a lot of the time wicked people prosper. Why? Well perhaps God is more concerned with the last day and with the restoration of all things at the coming of His Son? Does that mean that He doesn't care for us now? Absolutely not. He sent His Son so that we could know Him now, and grow in godliness now, and be sharing the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection now so that people can come to know Him. So, I agree. The blaming the devil approach is far too easy. Although, I do believe clearly in the devil and that He does lead us towards doing things in opposition to what God has declared in His word.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria