Community Forum
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Maybe a little of both, God does answer prayers, you ask for something and he will place it in your path and it's for you, then its a prayer answered, that's when you say "Thank You, Jesus".
And I'm still thankful for the bread pans and the blender. And still baking bread.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Just thought I'd mention that the fruit of the tree was not 'poisonous'. That is, if you're referring to the tree in the midst of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve sampled.
Or is it "Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well."
Paints,you say woman own their bodies.What about gays,drunkards and drug addicts?Clearly those 3 are sins against God.What makes abortion any different?The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Ever hear of fruit of the poisonous tree? What do you think the Protestant denominations were protesting?
There are misogynists in every denomination. Pedophiles and rapists too.
Your analogy doesn't work, because the slave owner didn't carry the slave in their body. By forcing women to carry to term, when it is not in her best interest, because of your beliefs, you count women as breeders. Like cattle. Or womb-slaves.
Women own their bodies.
Not looking to debate with you,but God is out of the picture with you and HE views abortion as murder.
If you view the situation to be more important from a womans perspective rather then Gods.....i will accept how you feel and thats that.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
After the last slaves were freed, women were still property.
The patriarchal church has tried to keep it that way.
Seems to me you've got an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. As someone who is not Catholic, this means nothing to me or my argument. My point is that you're not seeing the unborn as a person any more than slave owners saw their slaves as anything more than cattle.
And like slave owners, pro-abortioners don't want the problem of granting their victims humanity for the sake of convenience.
Just like it was easier to see slaves as less then human. Who wants the hassle of actually dealing with hiring workers to be paid and expect fair treatment and conditions? What an inconvenience, Right?
Just won $150 on a $5 scratch ticket. WooHooo!
Do you stock up on sodas? Stores have sodas price at 3 cases for $11.00 (with a limit) and baskets are full. Do you do this? If so, how long does it take to drink 3 cases? I don't drink sodas often. I may buy a 2 liter once every 6 weeks.
Every child has the right to be wanted, loved and cared for.
But not the right to live...
You are absolutely 100% correct when you say that God doesn't require women to die in order to bear children. I have no qualms about giving full agreement with that statement. In some cases that does unfortunately happen. But the flip side of your statement is also true. God also doesn't require or intend that innocent babies die in order for their mothers to live a more comfortable and less stressed life which the inconvenient pregnancy would bring about as a result if brought to term. I don't suppose I could get your agreement on that opinion?
What you call "inconvenient pregnancy" can mean life or death.
Last winter, a homeless woman and her newborn baby froze to death on a park bench.
Should she not have been able to abort, before both lives were lost?
If the woman has no value, how much do we really care about her unborn child?
But you keep changing the parameters of the argument to suit your agenda and in the process make faulty assumptions of what I do or do not care about. I'm not able to justify my position to someone who keeps moving the goalposts.
With sincerity and unpatronizingly - may God bless you and your children, paints. I do not concede the argument to you, but I am not going to respond to your comment above which does not correlate in any way to what I said or the position I have consistently voiced.
The faulty logic comes in when any person other than the woman who is pregnant insists that she must stay pregnant.
Not your body, not your business.
Again, you don't seem to be getting the point that slaughtering an unborn life over convenience is what we're talking about. It's not a personal choice to allow murder, because that body is in the womb. It's still a life being taken.
If the uterus is not in YOUR body, you have NO say.
So basically, by your logic Slavery wasn't a human rights issue either.
"Those slaves are not in YOUR plantation, you have no say."
It sounds pretty much like what you're saying to me.
