Some People Is Not Every People.

i think that a Christian wouldn't have a problem with killing everybody if they felt that they'd be wiping out evil from the planet forever. even though God already told them that it couldn't be done.

Yes, I'm sure there's "a Christian" who feels that way.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

it's been demonstrated time and again that they have a tendency to impose their will by inflicting death and suffering upon other people...

nobody here is crusading through the dark ages, dibs

why bother? it's already been done.

fluffs and giggles sounds like as good of a reason as any, but who wants to get a passport, right? then you have to exchange your money and try to work the flight around your available miles. too much hassle. why i haven't, at least.

now, how is my one vote within a democratic society "imposing my will", or sorry, "imposing my Christian will"?

dude, you're pretty much required to make a sound and rational reason as to why God requires us to not kill unborn children... is heaven getting to full of poor innocent souls that haven't had a chance to sin before they were born?
are there too many women burning in hell because they chose abortion over adoption?

why do you feel the need to force people from being able to commit a sin?

sound and rational reason as to why god requires us to not kill unborn children?

If you do not believe in Christianity, then this will mean nothing to you. Exodus or Deuteronomy (i did have to check :P), we'll go with exodus

20:12-13
(12)Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
(13) You shall not murder.

I'm positive you'll thumb your nose at that, but your days may be long upon the land which the lord your god gave you.. why they should be born before they can sin and live eternally in hell, and then i think (13) essentially speaks for itself..

the next time im arguing with someone about religious beliefs and why it think they are absurd, im going to link them to this thread.

that fact that people make all thier life decisions based on how they think some imaginary being is going to judge them when they die makes me sad.

alittle after that comes this beautiful passage..

exodus 21:2
if you buy a hebrew servant he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing

lets take this word for word, the whole book :P

thank you, pain. i don't take that as an insult at all because of how utterly ignorant it is. but again, thank you.

have we not earlier established that not every life decision is at all based on how one might think some imaginary being is going to judge them?

really, it's that black and white, all or nothing? no middle ground, no happy medium?

you guys are far worse off than me

i didnt mean to insult you but what part of what i said was not correct? do you not make choices based on how you think god will judge you?

you are against abortion because you believe it is against gods will. how about being against something because you just think its wrong?

what if tomorrow someone proved that god infact does not exist (as if there is not enough proof against it as opposed to for). then what would your reasons be?

LOL, this stuff wasn't learnt nor created out of thin air, least not the current thin air that we are suffering under. what is it? like a hundred generations old by now?

i do not rape people because i have no desire to rape them. God doesn't enter into the conversation. I do not do heroin because I have no interest in doing heroin, God does not enter the conversation. I do smoke marijuana, in large amounts, when God likely doesn't want me to. I can quote more scripture where it says do not get drunk on wine for this is debauchery, and yet likely tonight i am going to get drunk. i wear condoms during sex for hygenic reasons, God doesn't enter into the conversation. I believe the planet is older than five thousand years, God does not enter into the conversation. I believe that murder is wrong, if you need me to explain rationally why, then i'm going with God says not to over the canadian government says not t o?

i never mentioned gods name at all for the first however many posts i made, not that i recall at least (correct me if I'm wrong?). until this went downhill, it was a moral, not a religious debate. there is a difference.

the same reason you wouldn't want me stabbing your eight month old baby to death, pain. the exact same reason. God doesn't tell me its wrong, he doesn't exist. (i apologize if by chance you actually have a baby, i didn't mean *anything* by it)

i also download ridiculous amounts of pirated information when God clearly tells me I shall not steal.

something tells me moses and him didn't discuss the internet before hardening out the finer details

dude, you can't rationalize your stance by trying to invoke an emotional response. how i know that it wasn't your 8 month old baby that you were stabbing to death simply because you didn't feel like paying child supportf

i do not braden, and i would not take offense. i understand your trying to make a point.

but the fact is, if i choose to terminate my own offspring for whatever reason i choose, neither you nor god should have any bearing on the decision.

to get back on track.

im an not at all against abortion, as ive had to make that decision before. but i do agree that if someone should choose to do it they should be doing it as soon as they find out of the pregnancy. there is no reason someone should wait 5-6 monts then decide they want one. basically if a child has developed enough to where it could actually live outside the womb then i dont think someone should be able to abort it.

American neo-cons would you please go home and leave Canada alone?

.

edit fail

are y'all done with sneaking pot across the border?

dibs: like i advocated many, many times earlier in this thread, and continue to do now, i would put this child up for adoption before I would ever kill it. Gods feelings on the issues would once again not come into the conversation. that is how you know it isn't my eight month old baby. now, can you respond to my actual rational response?

we trade it straight up for coke in Washington state. You guys get fluffed on the exchange.

what rational arguement? you just attempted imaginary homicide on an 8 month old baby simply because you didn't know that it was yours...

you can scroll up and find it, or do with the paraphrasing.

you asked for a sound and rational reason for why god doesn't want us to kill unborn babies.

i presented a passage where He Himself says that you should not.

You asked for a rational reason why God does or doesn't want something, and i gave it to you, right out of his own mouth.

no wonder you ignored it

no, i asked why you felt the need to impose your will above God's will and how you were going to go about enforcing your will upon God. you haven't demonstrated 1 iota as to why a person should be denied the opportunity to defy God's will.

do you hold the same argument towards the murder of a grown human being? That by saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, I'm denying them their right to defy God? Or does your argument only hold water (if it does) for abortion?

who mentioned anywhere about forcing my will on god? you took some giant leap somewhere that i didn't take with you.

you must be intentionally trying to obfuscate this.. and i'm a little late the party?

oh, thats right, i impose my will on god because i would vote in an democratic election. of course, i forgot about that one. you also never explained how this is dictatorial and imposing?

you're the one that stated that you would vote for banning abortion. bloody potheads. where's callypigian?

Ten commandments said not to commit adultery, this would apply whether in wedlock or outside of it. It was a god inspired ammendment that added not to have relations outside of wedlock.

Adam and Eve weren't married though they were made for each other, if they weren't able to have sex we wouldn't exist.

Relgion is the basis of modern morality and laws but is not the be all and end all of them. God gave us free will and the fact that half the bible is written by the church (humans), then laws set by humans and agreed to by society and our species have weight. Laws created by humans can never be totally correct because we aren't God/s, though that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Your example of flying planes is a silly one because one of the ten commandments rule not to murder. If you could do so in a way that caused no loss of life directly or indirectly then its not as big of a problem.

There are hense two arguements going on in this thread:
1.) When does the unborn child count as a living human, this is where science weighs in and talks about feeling pain and being conscious. Whereas the religious side argues about when the soul enters the body.
2.) That abortion may allow for 'immoral' behaviour and thats why we should ban it. Though I still stand by my stance that a proper education system, that encourages people to go on to higher levels of education, would help prevent the problems far better than banning abortion.

As for you last comment Braden, if you wish to conservative, then I want you to do so. Its better to vote than to not vote, that is the heart of democracy.

it doesn't matter whether or not your vote is one of the many that would actually be required to make it into a law. you are casting that vote specifically to deny people the right to choose.

If it was one of those one person elections we hear so much about in Canada and north america, then yes, you would be completely right.

now, explain to me how it is either when you take into account every single other person also getting their fair share of an opinion and a vote? Would their vote also make them wrong like I am if they voted that adoption should be legal?

can we both agree before we go any further that my not wanting anybody dead makes me the bad person here? i feel if we can agree on this, we can start to make headway..

you would probably define anybody as a human being, but would be willing to eat one of my cats because they weren't anybody...

you'll say its her body, it isn;t the other persons body in your scenario, and you are right.

but the woman doesn't get to make a choice. this is bad, i do not deny this. but then the child doesn't get to live. this is worse.

dibs, I have three cats that I would save their life over yours, without a doubt or second thought. I would never, in my life, eat one of your cats, or cause any harm to them. You chose the wrong animal, I love them to the stars, you my friend are wrong about that.

I would sleep better at nice knowing I saved them than you, yes. Try and fit that into my anti abortion argument, heh

"Your example of flying planes is a silly one because one of the ten commandments rule not to murder. If you could do so in a way that caused no loss of life directly or indirectly then its not as big of a problem."

you are entirely right, and i think i mentioned earlier it was.

"this would apply whether in wedlock or outside of it. "

again, entirely right. as a non married man i didnt even look at it in that light. (covet thy neighbours wife i took to be adultering and the like)

"That abortion may allow for 'immoral' behaviour and thats why we should ban it."

It isn;t the immoral behaviour, i argued for quite a while before God brought into it at all that adoption, across the board for all parties involved, is the far better decision that abortion.

Then I got propositioned with fictional elections and imposing my will over God (agreeing with Gods will is imposing on him, i guess). I would not cast a vote that would kill a child, regardless of the feminine rights implications. if you ask me woodrow made the real mistake.

I am quite sorry I even opened my mouth at this point in time :P
(i can;t believe he fired meatloaf!)

well, i suppose you could mean that the child hasn't had the oportuntinity of being baptised and absolved of original sin... but i sorta thought that only applied to catholics... great, now you want the child to live long enough to be molested by the errant priest... bah, i'm fairly certain that you're just bound and determined that the poor innocent bastage childs should be made to suffer before they die.

how come every time i open this thread it opens to the fourth page and not the fifth? its really bothering me :P

even though i am presbyterian, i do not believe in child immersion. i am with the baptists on this one, get baptized when you make the spiritual decision to do so. It's how I got to do it.

I believe that murder is worse than refusing to let somebody make one choice, presumably once in their life. One is a slight, one is disrespect, one is maybe a little 1910s. The other is death. That is my point, no matter how you may have had me stretch it to suite your arguments.

and now i must give you fair warning, I am finishing the chateau saint germain, so we might want to stop discussing anything of importance ;)

The one thing that I love about God is that he allows humanity to live life; He allows us to make mistakes and sin. While it should be our goal to serve God and be good ministers, we must realize that we can only do so much. Making laws against abortion to save the life of an unborn child is wrong, IMO. It creates resentment and close-minded people. God lets us sin, and instead of passing laws that would ban sin; I would much rather abortion's be provided in a safe, clean environment instead of in a back alleyway where potentially two persons could die. Allowing people the ability to sin is what makes God so awesome; I certainly would rather have the opportunity to minister to a person considering abortion than to have that person feel hopeless and in despair with no place to turn to.

Hate the sin; love the sinner. Use the sin as an opportunity to encourage sinners to come closer to Christ. God has given us the ability to make bad and good choices in life; I would do the same.

"Allowing people the ability to sin is what makes God so awesome;"
very well said :)

Wow, I only skimmed it all it got so repetitive and circular.

It seems to me that Dibs thinks that christians are trying to enforce Gods will on abortion. I think that is an intentional attempt to misconstrue the argument.

Christians believe it is wrong to abort just like I believe it is wrong to kill somebody. Hence we come to the argument Evolution brought up. Pro-lifers believe it is a human being killed, pro-choicers do not. It's is really as simple as that.

All other arguments really fall off to the wayside.

BUt your not the woman whose choice it is so ythat doesnt matter



This argument is not as good as you think I don't think......



Me too...Wow.

long

A lot of conservative so called Christians, sure celebrated Osama's death.

Kinda hard to make an argument that they think murder is wrong,
when their actions say murder is right.

meh, the question is probably too big for my head.

can't be too wrong to kill people, because my tax dollars go towards paying for it to happen every dang day.

Round and Round The Mullberry Bush,
The Monkey Chased The Weasel,
The Monkey Thought It Was All In Fun,
POP Goes The Weasel!

plus there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada

you want to force people to bear children just so that they can be abandoned by society?

I'm sure you know of the huge difference between tabling a topic for discussion and enacting it into law. Hell, the majority of bills don't even make it past first reading. I'm sure it's a topic for discussion beacuse it is a topic that many Canadians are affected by; however, I seriously doubt that any government in Canada will ever reverse our current abortion laws (or lack thereof). Even regulation can only go so far given the decisions by the Supreme Court. The most right-wing House of Commons we've got would still look like a bunch of sissy Marxist socialists vis-a-vis a Democratic House of Representatives in Washington (well not really, but you see my point.)