Stonedpilot wrote: » How is this even a thread. Like really. How can someone call themselves Christian and support abortion??. How?. Its like a Vegetarian eating meat. You arent a Vegetarian. Ditto Christian and abortion. It is that simple.
Delirium wrote: » So it's a question of what the foetus will hopefully become, i.e. a person?
Delirium wrote: » Yet you're not overly concerned about the effect of forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.
Delirium wrote: » Based on the results, it's more a punitive law on those that are too poor/disabled to travel or legally can't travel. You've even suggested as much in that you're okay with them having abortions if they can travel.
Delirium wrote: » In what way?
Delirium wrote: » please explain how a 1 day foetus passes the test that is used to determine a person is dead when turning off the life support.
Delirium wrote: » what about short-term injury or disability?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » essentially it's about protecting their right to develop and to life. in terms of non-medical issues no . i believe the unborn's right to life is more important then someone's want not to be pregnant.
i have never stated i'm okay with anyone having abortions outside medical necessity. what i have stated, is that as much as i wouldn't agree with anyone having an abortion outside medical necessity, i couldn't support measures to stop them from traveling to procure it because it's highly likely those measures would effect all pregnant women, and i don't believe all pregnant women should suffer for those traveling for an abortion. i have no issue with the law being a tad punitive in terms of non-medical abortions.
it doesn't because as i said, both are very different issues.
i don't believe it would be enough for me to support abortion.
end of the road wrote: » it's not okay for pregnant women to smoke while pregnant. i have already stated this. no, it's not okay, but it's a question of practicality in terms of stopping it. nothing inconsistent about what i have stated.
Delirium wrote: » If the unborn dies as a result of the smoking, should she serve 14 years in prison?
end of the road wrote: » if it can be proven the smoke caused the baby's death, then to be honest, yes . she knew the risks it would bring upon her baby.
Delirium wrote: » How? In both scenarios, a person doesn't exist. Why is one acceptable but the other not?
Delirium wrote: » So you don't think temporary/ short-term (which could be months or years) injury or disability isn't a medical reason for an abortion? E.g. a woman unable to walk for six months?
Delirium wrote: » Seems extraordinarily cruel from here.
Delirium wrote: » Thanks for the clarification. To follow on from that, should all miscarriages be investigated to determine that it wasn't an abortion (or smoking related etc.)?
J C wrote: » That is just a convenient legal fiction to allow abortion. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that at the moment of fertilisation, a new Human life is formed.
end of the road wrote: » essentially it's about protecting their right to develop and to life.
knipex wrote: » So contraception is bad ???
end of the road wrote: » because in the case of abortion, the fetus is developing and will be a person. in the case where a life support is being switched off, the person is dead.
no . as unfortunate as it would be for her i cannot agree to the life of the unborn being taken in such circumstances.
i don't necessarily disagree, but taking the life of the unborn is a whole lot crueler in my view.
no .
end of the road wrote: » of course it isn't.
Turtwig wrote: » Christianity encompasses a broad range of philosophies and theologies. The purpose of this thread is to accommodate this range and let people, both Christian and non Christian alike, discuss and explore the ethics of abortion within that context. Christians, don't necessarily have to subscribe to your interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be Christian.
Delirium wrote: » Okay, so why do the right to life of a potential person outweigh the rights of an actual person?
Delirium wrote: » thanks for the honesty. I didn't actually expect that as an answer. It blows my mind that someone would impose the physical cost of not being able to walk for months on another person.
Delirium wrote: » I don't see how actions on a potential person could be crueler to actions on an actual person.
Delirium wrote: » Why not? you just said that a woman who causes the death of the unborn due to smoking during pregnancy should serve the same as a person who had an abortion. Why would you not support a system that investigates all miscarriages for evidence of abortion (or smoking etc.)?
robarmstrong wrote: » So a fetus WILL be a person, so would it not make sense that the ACTUAL person take precedence over them, no?
knipex wrote: » So until the point of fertilization its all OK but from that point on ?? I am not trying to stir here. I personally do not think its a clear cut as many posters here seem to so I am genuinely interested in your view..
Stonedpilot wrote: » Who said anything about my interpretation?. Completely Changing subject matter. Bible is very clear on life being sacred. Outside the obvious thou shall not kill here's two good phrases.Deuteronomy 27:25 ‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen. Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace. You simply cannot state you are Christian and be pro abortion. It has nothing to do with my interpretation. It's in the Bible!.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Yeah It also states If Raped, an Unmarried Woman Must Marry Her Rapist (Deut. 22:28-29). Do you think women should be forced to marry thier rapist?
Stonedpilot wrote: » But as you know ans I know it doesnt state rape. Send screenshot of your Bible page with the word rape please.
end of the road wrote: » where medically necessary, of course. where not, then no, they are both equal in my book.
end of the road wrote: » implantation would be the cut off for me.
robarmstrong wrote: » 12 weeks is plenty enough time
end of the road wrote: » i disagree. 12 weeks unrestricted is to much for me and many others hence our no vote.
robarmstrong wrote: » So you would much prefer a woman to have an abortion at the implantation stage, where she might not even know she's pregnant? Do you read what you type sometimes or does it just come out?
end of the road wrote: » it was very obvious what i was talking about given the post i responded to. implantation being the cut off between life simply beginning and the developmental stage really ramping up. nothing to do specifically with abortion but answering the question asked.
splinter65 wrote: » Poor you so very confused by the notion that lots of people don’t agree with abortion. Not just Christians but lots of non Christians and non faith people. It seems to leave you perturbed. Is it just the abortion thing or do you struggle with any opinion that doesn’t match your own?
