Katie Full Leak wrote: » Perhaps you should read it for yourself. That way you can't accuse anyone of trying to deceive you. Btw you've still not backed up your claim that a foetus isn't human. Do you have any reply on that one?
david75 wrote: » What word comes after human. Give you a clue. It’s being. A foetus doesn’t qualify in either. It is nether human (concious aware sentient) nor being (it cannot survive outside its surroundings) Therefore a woman has the right to determine for herself what happens within her own body. You don’t get to decide. Nor does you god actually. Except when he’s being a completely evil git and gives it an abnormality that renders it incompatible with life. Which he does. Often. Nice god you got there. Real charmer.
david75 wrote: » What word comes after human. Give you a clue. It’s being. Hi David, A foetus doesn’t qualify in either. It is nether human (concious aware sentient) nor being (it cannot survive outside its surroundings) Therefore a woman has the right to determine for herself what happens within her own body. You don’t get to decide. Nor does you god actually. Except when he’s being a completely evil git and gives it an abnormality that renders it incompatible with life. Which he does. Often. Nice god you got there. Real charmer.
The human life cycle begins at fertilization . . .and the heart begins beating at three weeks . . .
J C wrote: » Nick was referring to your conflation of the Great Commission ... to go forth and make desciples of all Nations, with the Salvation of unborn children and other Human Beings that never got the chance to be Saved, in this life.
J C wrote: » There is actually. The above scripture is referring to violence directed at a pregnant woman that results in the serious injury or death of an unborn child ... which would also encompass procured abortion.
J C wrote: » Thou shall not kill, is pretty clear ... and the Commandments, being given directly by God, apply to all Christians.
J C wrote: » It would seem so ... but by not being Saved at the earliest opportunity, you would lose out on the benefits of being a Christian, for as long as you remained un-Saved.
Bob_Marley wrote: » A fetus is an unborn child and a human life. Even Varadkar the leader of pro abortion has corrected people on that. And in addition to the article below, you can listen to the recent interview with him on RTE radio, where he says when talking about abortion, a fetus and unborn child are the one and the same.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dont-use-foetus-when-you-mean-baby-varadkar-35234768.html So you can use the term fetus all day long, but no one is going to be fooled that it's not a human life / unborn child. You're disguising nothing. Also here is some biology revision.http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
david75 wrote: » So according to that at three weeks the heart starts beating. I think you better let the world of medicine know. It looks like a pro life organisation knows more and knows better than them. The shock! As for varadkar do you agree with every statement he makes? And if he makes a statement do we all have to agree and follow suit? Did you agree when he supported marriage equality? Do you agree with him completely ignoring banks forcing families into homelessness, or indeed the long ignored homeless problem? Don’t bring nonsense and irrelevance into your points especially when it’s from a Taoiseach who has no mandate yet is a gp who opposed abortion initially but now says he supports it. The man is a snake and he goes where the winds blow him to serve himself, be it politically or otherwise. Try harder.
david75 wrote: » So according to that at three weeks the heart starts beating. I think you better let the world of medicine know. It looks like a pro life organisation knows more and knows better than them. The shock!
As for varadkar do you agree with every statement he makes? And if he makes a statement do we all have to agree and follow suit?
The man is a snake and he goes where the winds blow him to serve himself, be it politically or otherwise. Try harder.
david75 wrote: » What god allows a new life be doomed to die in the womb before it ls born? What so called Christian would force any mother to give birth to a baby that would die moments later because of that god given physical flaw or incurable sickness only so she has to watch it take its last breath moments later? That’s a merciful god? Seriously?? That’s Christian? Forcibly imposing suffering on a life that cannot survive and Imposing that suffering forever on a mother that has to live with that memory? I’d like to believe God wouldnt do that. It’s his hysterical myopic followers doing that.
Achasanai wrote: » And something that plenty of denominations and theology has confused as well.
Achasanai wrote: » Or: serious injury to the woman involved. But again, not an explicit reference. You also mentioned the Old Covenant that doesn't apply to those who follow Christ. Does this injunction fall within that understanding?
david75 wrote: » SO many replies. So little time. If only you each had the same time to commit to helping real children in crisis. Or even cared about them.
J C wrote: » You seem to be spending quite an amount of time here as well. Here is an interesting article on the link between the occult and abortion, which Christians should be aware of.https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/complete-interview-with-abigail-seidman-abortion-and-the-occult
david75 wrote: » So you’re now linking abortion to the occult. You’re not joking and that’s the really sad part. Don’t expect to be taken seriously though.
splinter65 wrote: » You have no idea what anyone here does in their spare time, or any time in fact. You’re clutching at straws. You’ve every entitlement to argue your point, but this smacks of desperation.
J C wrote: » Its no joke allright.
david75 wrote: » It’s accurate though.
david75 wrote: » It’s accurate though. You and everyone from your POV seem to have unlimited time to be here and argue. Endlessly. Is that not weird? It’s bizarre in fact. I’m postulating that perhaps that would be time better spent would it not? You have the highest post count i this thread by a long long way. I’m not clutching at anything by the way. Least of all at women’s wombs.
benneca1 wrote: » Why not. Why should you force others who don't believe in your God to do what he says. I have no problem with you doing what your God tells you. I do have a problem when your God tells me what to do especially when I don't think he exists. Bit of an impasse really. To be honest we should have gone beyond all this crap by now but we haven't. If i don't believe in god can I sin ? If I don't believe in God are you obliged to stop me sinning ? Should we ban alcohol to stop the sizeable muslin population sinning ? Or pork ? Or blood transfusions for the other loonies Good God give me a bloody break
end of the road wrote: » why not what? this is a thread about whether a christian can vote for unlimited abortion. if you are a christian, then based on my very limited knowledge and understanding of it there is only one god. you, don't believe in a god so i'm not sure how your post is relevant?
Katie Full Leak wrote: » Is that like saying something with human DNA isn't human.perhaps it really is an orange:D
david75 wrote: » Please. That whole stretch was so funny. Plc campaigning for oranges. It was gas. Oh The never ending lunacy
benneca1 wrote: » Well doh of course a Christian cannot vote for abortion for herself if she wishes to abide by the rules from the big one in the sky. But are they prohibited from allowing those who don't believe from exercising free will. Live and let live abortion won't be compulsory.
