(August 28, 2015 at 12:36 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And yet there it is: the real life result of abortion on demand. It doesn't matter if murder only happens occasionally. If there's only a little bit of pig shit in the brownies I'm still not going to eat them. And what's with the unscientific and totally arbitrary line between first trimester -1 and first trimester +1? A human being is a human being no matter how early in its development or how feeble and compromised if later becomes. People who cannot acknowledge the basic humanity of others have no moral compass. Zero. Despite all your pleas and protests about being good without god you still cannot stop yourselves from justifying ending a human life that inconveniences your material resources and sexual liberty.

I agree Chad, though to be fair, inconvenience is not the only reason some choose to terminate.  It is one of the reasons, but there are other more difficult reasons.

Very true, and I should have pointed this out as well. 

I do not envy the plight many women are faced with when they eventually resort to abortion, and definitely don't mean to belittle the crisis they are in. These women need to be regarded with love, not condemnation. Nonetheless, a sense of unconditional respect for all human life begins with the smallest, most feeble, most voiceless amongst us.

I called it an appeal to emotion because you posted a later developed fetus to demonstrate how human like fetuses are, despite the fact that the vast majority of abortions are done well before that. I understand your reasons for being against abortion, that's not what I was calling into question, I just thought it was dishonest to use that image to demonstrate how "human" fetuses look.

I found the picture that Chad posted along with the story, if anyone is curious.

You have to scroll down about halfway through the article. He was born at 19 weeks, which is just under 5 months...so halfway through 2nd trimester. He didn't survive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...weeks.html

(August 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: I called it an appeal to emotion because you posted a later developed fetus to demonstrate how human like fetuses are, despite the fact that the vast majority of abortions are done well before that. I understand your reasons for being against abortion, that's not what I was calling into question, I just thought it was dishonest to use that image to demonstrate how "human" fetuses look.

What was dishonest about the image of a real 'fetus' that was actually extracted from its mother's womb using a procedure defended by Barry Obama and Hillary Clinton. Damn right its emotional, because it's a contemporary holocaust and if you had any humanity you too would be appalled by what the butchers at Planned Parenthood do every day and apologists like NARAL that support and encourage exactly what you see in the photo.

Don't be stupid. You're trying to excuse yourself by implying that no no you would never support what the photo shows just the termination of 'blobs of tissue'. Guess what. You yourself are a blob of tissue. Euphemisms make it easy to justify evil. Look at the earlier posts that claim human rights are social construct, etc. etc. They do not really believe in the things theists do like the essential dignity and sanctity of human life. If they did they wouldn't be so quick to define human rights away or rather define them to please whatever political agenda they support.

(August 28, 2015 at 1:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Look at the earlier posts that claim human rights are social construct, etc. etc. They do not really believe in the things theists do like the essential dignity and sanctity of human life. If they did they wouldn't be so quick to define human rights away or rather define them to please whatever political agenda they support.

Whereas theists, who define their morality according to the Bible, reject the essential dignity of sentient life, which includes not only persons but a wide variety of animals. If you respected a living being's capacity to suffer you'd feel less concerned about the death of undeveloped, unfeeling fetuses than you do about the horrible conditions in which livestock are raised and slaughtered.

(August 29, 2015 at 1:40 am)Nestor Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 1:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Look at the earlier posts that claim human rights are social construct, etc. etc. They do not really believe in the things theists do like the essential dignity and sanctity of human life. If they did they wouldn't be so quick to define human rights away or rather define them to please whatever political agenda they support.

Whereas theists, who define their morality according to the Bible, reject the essential dignity of sentient life, which includes not only persons but a wide variety of animals. If you respected a living being's capacity to suffer you'd feel less concerned about the death of undeveloped, unfeeling fetuses than you do about the horrible conditions in which livestock are raised and slaughtered.

I think it's wrong to kill a human being, regardless of whether they would feel it or are consciously aware of it. Killing without the victim suffering or knowing what is going on, is still contrary to human dignity.

My bold. You raise a great point, and the answer is we Christians ought to care about this too. 

"That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that animals are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures…. Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible." - Pope Benedict XVI, when asked about the right of animals

Nestor hit the nail on the head.

I think it's extremely important for folks who claim to be pro life to actually BE pro life. That extends out beyond (but not exclude) caring about the lives of unborn children, to caring about all life. We should also care for the well being of the mothers facing crisis pregnancies and raising a child in difficult circumstances, we should also speak out against the death penalty, we should give to charity, volunteer, not abuse our environment, not start a war unless absolutely necessary, and take good care of our animals.

Imagine how much more respect we'd get as pro lifers, if every single one of us remained consistent in our defense for life?

(EDIT TO ADD: not saying Chad and King are amogst those who are not consistent. there are many people who are, but sadly, many who are not.)

(July 16, 2015 at 6:48 am)Nestor Wrote: Do you believe in human rights? What do you include in these? What is it that gives anyone a right? 

Remember, I DON'T mean legal rights. I mean something more, in nature, whatever that is, that entitles (is that the word I want?) a person to enjoy certain benefits, and that as a right it is others' duty not to impose or negate that right.

If you do not believe a person has anything like a natural, universal right, then how does that affect your beliefs/actions IRL circumstances when the issue of so-called violations (of life, liberty, property, etc.) comes up?

If you humans had "rights" then they wouldn't be able to take them away. They aren't rights, they are just privileges.
Nobody in nature has any rights. The lion doesn't have any right to getting any food for the night, a gazelle doesn't have any rights to not getting eating that night. People like to come up with "universal laws" to protect themselves, but they don't exist.

(August 28, 2015 at 10:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Maybe you haven't heard of the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, World Vision, or any of thousands of Christian organizations working locally and worldwide to be Christ's presence on a suffering world. My favorite is the Pacific Garden Mission. Your donations are always welcome.

And maybe you haven't heard of the countless deaths from AIDS in Africa, because *somebody* told them condoms would kill them, leaving millions of orphans behind. Pro life my fucking ass.

(August 29, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 10:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Maybe you haven't heard of the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, World Vision, or any of thousands of Christian organizations working locally and worldwide to be Christ's presence on a suffering world. My favorite is the Pacific Garden Mission. Your donations are always welcome.

And maybe you haven't heard of the countless deaths from AIDS in Africa, because *somebody* told them condoms would kill them, leaving millions of orphans behind. Pro life my fucking ass.

This doesn't make much sense, Vic. You're saying they all got AIDS because they're following Church teaching. But Church teaching is that you shouldn't have sex at all except in a monogamous relationship with a life partner... it isn't that you should have sex with multiple people and just not wear a condom when you do it lol. 

Saving sex for monogamous life long relationships would, in fact, help bring down AIDS if it was actually followed. So it's not that AIDS continued to spread because they were following Church teaching, it continued to spread because they weren't.