| Welcome to Saint Rangers. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Our goal is to equip saints to go out and witness to not only those on the internet, but to those we come into contact with on a daily basis. Through discussion and debate we are confident that growth in the knowledge of Jesus Christ will increase as we learn to perfect holiness in our daily lives, and to also strive for the doctrinal purity and harmony that is to be a primary characteristic in the mature Christian. Members of differings faiths and atheists are welcome here, but we will moderate the behavior of all who come here, and ask that civility be kept in all discussion. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Inhuman:Undercover in America's Late-Term Abortion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2014, 12:47 PM (1 View) | |
| Tico | May 30 2014, 12:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Sojourner
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://youtu.be/BtpdYlcbVRQ |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | May 31 2014, 05:47 AM Post #2 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for that. Here... http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/ ...is where the petition can be signed. I encourage everyone to sign it. God bless. |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 9 2014, 08:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Some discussion which came about from the link:
Actually the focal point is the body of the child. It has nothing to do with opinion. |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 9 2014, 08:47 AM Post #4 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let me see if I get this right: if we don't pay for abortion then we will pay for these other things? We're already paying for these other things...remember? Pretty poor argument.
Well, let's start with parenting: a parent has every right to tell a daughter that she does not have the right to be promiscuous while she lives under their roof. Yes or no? Contrast that with Obama's desire that his daughters have an escape plan...when they are promiscuous (and that is the implication). And who is "we?" Are you a female, John? If not you have just... ...shown yourself to be a hypocrite, interjecting yourself into the equation. Now let's look at the rights of the child...where are those, in your view? Is it not a child because the child has not been born yet? Who are you to make that determination? Now let's consider one more thing: how about the woman's right to end the life of the child...after the child has been born? Is that okay with you? If so...why? If not...why? At what point would you determine a woman's rights to kill her child ends? 1 week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? Tell me, oh great defender of Women's Rights...what is your judgment on this? Would you walk into a hospital and pull the plug on a premature baby that was born at four months? If so...why? If not...why? |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 9 2014, 08:47 AM Post #5 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The good news for you is that you have not lost your soul, primarily because you are a soul, lol. It is your moral compass that has been lost, though, it may be that you never actually had one. You argue that cost of raising a child outweighs abortion. You seem to have forgotten that it is possible to negate both costs by simply teaching your children well. But, when we have people that do not count the costs of their actions...we are going to have to debate these issues. You take a position that is probably demanded from your views on other aspects of your world-view. If you feel sexual relations are okay outside of marriage and in fact the commitment necessary for marriage is not necessary, then of course their are going to be "accidents" which have to be "corrected." Unfortunately that "correction" which came about usually through circumstances that could have been avoided is the murder of the most innocent among the Human Race. Perhaps the only truly innocent example we have. And don't bother using the rape card, unless you also present statistics on what percentage of abortions are in fact rape cases. Those among the sex-slave trafficking rings cannot be used either, because that has a solution in dealing with their captors. Now how young do you think is acceptable for relations outside of marriage to be? 16? 18? Tell me. This is why we have so many costs...because your kind of morality and mentality literally breeds conditions that bring these costs about. Why buy the cow (sorry ladies) when you can get the milk for free? |
![]() |
|
| theophilus | Jun 10 2014, 07:28 AM Post #6 |
|
Sojourner
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When a comparison of the costs of having an abortion to those of having a baby comes up, perhaps a good response would be to point out the nonmonetary cost of abortion: You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. (Numbers 35:33 ESV) |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 10 2014, 04:32 PM Post #7 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Took your advice, brother Theophilus, lol:
Well, just address the non-religious parts of my post. Which would be everything I said, with perhaps my comment on the fact that you do not have a soul, but are a soul, lol (which can be a hot item of debate among believers). Just some questions, John, that I don't think you have considered. Does a parent have the right to refuse his child their "right" to have sexual relations? Do sex slave criminals and pimps have the "right" to exploit children and women? Does a woman have the right to have a full disclosure of the possible mental as well as physical repercussions of abortion? Is the woman in the video...more than a salesperson? Doing her job? But the most important question I can ask you is...what about the child's rights? Why would the mother's be more important? Oh, and by the way, not to get "religious" on you, but... Numbers 35:33 King James Version (KJV) 33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Have you considered that you, my friend, may be held accountable for the blood of innocents? Edited by S.T.Ranger, Jun 10 2014, 04:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 11 2014, 06:47 AM Post #8 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Speaking of meaningless, I see you still refuse to answer the questions posed to you. So let's make it a little easier for you: at what point does the mother lose the right to kill her child? Edited by S.T.Ranger, Jun 11 2014, 06:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 11 2014, 06:48 AM Post #9 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is untrue on two counts: (1) that a fetus is a child never changes. When the fetus comes to term, it is a human that comes forth, not a cat, dog, or giraffe...they are human. So to call the child a fetus does not change what they are; (2) it is common knowledge that abortions involve late term children. Were you in favor of Partial Birth abortion? You can soothe your conscience by calling the child a fetus, but the fact remains that abortion take place on children. Now let me ask you the same thing your fellow has refused to answer: when exactly do you consider the "fetus" to become a child? Just answer that for me if you will.
Did you watch the video? The money0grubbers in the Abortion Industry are not so concerned with "time limits."
No it doesn't. What happens is that people do not consider the cost of their irresponsibility, do not have concern for the life they take, and engage in promiscuity which I would be shocked to learn you would be okay with your own daughter engaging in, if you have one. To say a woman becomes pregnant on accident is like saying people get drunk on accident.
And this is nothing more than someone transferring the responsibility of an individual to someone else. The only person that has a responsibility for a pregnancy are the people involved, both the man and the woman. I guess you think it is my responsibility to give money to people who refuse to work. It's the same thing. Before we get to a "woman's right" we need to first look at a woman's responsibility. And a woman has a responsibility to make decisions that will not end in the death of another human being. When someone is careless in their drinking and kills another human being...we do not sit around and talk about that person's "right to drink," do we? And your argument is so confused I am a little surprised you cannot recognize it, nor that it keeps you from posting on the subject.
This is without doubt one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard, sorry. You're right...the child is not guilty of the mother's sin. Yet you say it's not up to her to provide for her child (not fetus). Is that supposed to make sense? Let's put some sense into it, Barbar: "The child is not guilty of the mother's sin, so don't say it is okay for the mother not to provide for her child." And most basic provision which even animals provide for their young is...protection. Your reasoning is simply staggering.
So now you try to employ hypotheticals. Two points: why would we consider promiscuity or what Christianity considers sexual sin (which you yourself have deemed the mother's actions!)...a conservative approach? Secondly, people that try to "hide sex under the table" are admitting what they are doing...is wrong. Now why is that, Barbar? If they are so "liberated" then why would they hide their actions? Maybe because some of them are very young and they have been taught that they are not to engage in sexual activity? Maybe some of them are cheating on their spouses? Are you okay with that kind of behavior?
Your education and my education are likely two entirely different things. Your education likely condones pre-marital sex, even among those of the same gender (whether you endorse it or not that is being taught to children these days under a guise of "tolerance" and enlightenment). My education would focus first on genuine relationship that has in view...commitment to one person and one person alone, and of the opposite sex. My education would teach that we are responsible to our fellow man, and that includes children. Actions always have consequences, and we are individually responsible for our actions. You have expressed that somehow I should be responsible for the actions of others. I should be responsible for a child that two other people conceived? That is ludicrous, and it pains me that there are people like you that think like that. And the death toll for children was quite a bit lower when the government kept their nose out of sex education.
What do you think should happen, the government should provide better contraception? Is it the "right" of the American people that the government should make sure there are no "accidents" when our children engage in the activities they are teaching them? Absurd.
You do not even know what you believe:
Exactly. And we teach the consequences as a means to dissuade people from behavior that leads to those consequences. It doesn't take a genius to understand that abstinence can avoid the consequences. If you don't want to die in a tornado...don't live in Kansas. If you do not want to have to murder a child you have conceived...don't have sex. If getting pregnant is not desired, there is a pretty simple way to avoid it. You think you are helping women, but you are part of the problem. You do more to encourage the abuse of children and women than you know. You are helping to fund an evil industry which includes the mop-up team that deals with the psychological problems that arise when women abort their babies. And this is usually the case in Liberal Agendas: they work under a guise of defender, when they are the primary culprits, doing more harm than that which they are supposedly battling against. Now just two questions I would ask you to answer: when does a "fetus" become a human being? And, when does the mother lose her right to kill her child? Give me a specific age. |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 13 2014, 07:44 AM Post #10 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And I would view 20 weeks as late term, Barbar. [url="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/09/the-amazing-fetal-development-of-unborn-babies-at-20-weeks/"]The child is very developed at this point.[/URL] So you, just like most liberals...judge at what point a child can be put to death. Your fellows in abortion do not all agree with you. Some have no problem with partial birth abortion, for example. But the point is...what gives you the right to be the one to decide at what point it is okay to kill a child? And...what gives you the right to say the person okay with killing the child at 21 weeks, or 35 weeks is wrong? And the bottom line is that the egg and the sperm, is human, and if left unmolested will be a child. A human killed at 1 week is still a human killed. And we can see that this is true in the eyes of the Law in a majority of States: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide"]Feticide[/URL] The problem is that we have so many people trying to decide when it becomes unacceptable to kill the unborn child. The article has this to say: Of the 38[3] states that recognize fetal homicide, approximately two-thirds apply the principle throughout the period of pre-natal development, while one-third establish protection at some later stage, which varies from state to state. For example, California treats the killing of a fetus as homicide, but does not treat the killing of an embryo (prior to approximately eight weeks) as homicide, by construction of the California Supreme Court.[4] Some other states do not consider the killing of a fetus to be homicide until the fetus has reached quickening or viability. So your view of 20 weeks conflicts with the Law of California. Which of you are right, Barbar?
Yeah, that is clear in the video, isn't it? It is a money-making industry that has a focus on the bottom line. It is horrific, and you are supporting it.
Not true. I addressed what you said. And you ignored most of what I said.
The living child suffers? Better he is ripped apart in the womb? Can you hear yourself? This is an insane argument: that if the child is allowed to live he will suffer... Better to just put him out of his/her misery, right?
You can't even directly address the issue. You again speak of the mother...but what about the child? Better for them to die than to have a chance to overcome...bad parenting? Absurd.
No it doesn't. Perhaps if you spent a little time in it you would not use erroneous arguments to support your view. What it does say is... Genesis 38:7-10 King James Version (KJV) 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also. In view was the responsibility of the brother to raise up "seed" to his fallen brother. Here, Onan refused to do so and let his seed fall to the ground, for which disobedience God Slew him. This is not a general principle taught to all of mankind but is specific to Israel. We see this same principle when the Sadducees tested Christ: Matthew 22:23-29 King James Version (KJV) 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Lastly, I would ask how your convoluted reasoning negates Biblical principles concerning sexual sin? Like many liberals, and as the Sadducees, your error in regard to Scripture does not keep you from distorting it to your own end. This is precisely what many atheists and even liberals that call themselves "believers" charge Theologians (Preachers, Teachers, and Evangelists) with. Which is worse, the hypocrisy? Or the error itself?
You go into a completely irrelevant issue, which is typical for people arguing for the wrong position. You can't defend it, and you know it.
What's the difference? Oops, contraception failed. That's okay, just kill the consequence which happens to be a living human being. Murder. No way around it.
Okay, so you want the government to provide for your children. Where are you in all of this? Do you teach your children it's okay to have sex, regardless of age? You okay with a 13 year old having sex? What if the boy is 17? Do you talk to your children as you talk here? Or are you a hypocrite when it comes to your own kids? Please answer truthfully. Do you have children, and is what you advocate here what you teach them? I don't view that as Communist, for even among communists there are people whose morals force them to properly instruct their children and demand a certain level of morality from them. I view it as immoral to teach children it's okay to have sex freely. And as a man, I understand that most boys (and men) have one thing on their mind, and the girls need to be protected from being taken advantage of.
I never said that. And you say I play with your words. Quote me saying sex is sin. Sexual relations are built into our design. It is necessary for the human race to continue. It is pleasurable. But it is not meant to be abused. And when it is...it is considered sexual sin. While as a Christian I view sex to be within a marriage, and should be confined to marriage, but, one doesn't have to be a Christian to adopt some fundamental aspects which most people adhere to: adultery is sexual sin, and even those that "live together" will, for the most part...be against infidelity. Some people are swingers, but, most people demand faithfulness, and cheating will end most relationships despite whether they are married or not. Another issue would be the age in which it is acceptable for people to engage in sexual relations. Again, have any daughters? How old does she/they have to be for you to be okay with them engaging in sexual relations?
Pay attention, Barbar, at no time I have ever said a child is responsible. It is the mother that is called to accountability and it is the mother's responsibility you are glossing over. You are giving a free pass to women to engage in activity that has obvious consequences despite their taking precautionary measures. And we can also include the responsibility of the father: he is also responsible. Yet you deny the responsibility of both so you can support abortion.
It should be. Not always the case. How great and enjoyable, for example, is date-rape? Molestation? Do you see these as "sin?"
For some it is: that is why there is such a problem with "fatherless children." Now despite the fact that some enjoy the benefits of sex without the responsibility, I would guarantee there would be overwhelming opposition of the mothers of these children to the thought of harming their children. In other words, your argument that these "unwanted children" are better off dead is a load of horse-feathers.
Makes the rapist and the molester feel good too, but we don't condone those actions. If your married, Barbar, are you okay with your wife making herself feel good with another man? If not...why not? Because most sane people have a moral structure attached to the issue of intimacy. It's not free.
Some sex is. You won't change that, and you are a hypocrite if you deny that there are limitations concerning sexual relations so you can support the murder of children. What is different between murdering a child at 20 weeks in the womb and murdering a child at 20 weeks outside of the womb? Nothing.
And that is an orthodox Christian Doctrine. The Bible teaches that men sin because they are sinners, not the other way around. But the Bible also teaches God's grace in regards to sinners. God has made provision for the sinner and the remission of sins.
Why would I view that as a conservative position? I have a friend that was liberal in raising his daughters, because he "would rather they weren't doing things behind his back." He taught them from a liberal view, very much like you come across, and guess what: both daughters ended up pregnant. As far as trying to make this a matter of my beliefs against yours, for one thing I have not been the one to bring my Christian beliefs into it, but another did. This isn't a matter of one of us is right and one is wrong, it's a matter of looking at the facts. And the fact is, the unborn child is a human being just as the unborn pup is canine. You can't change the facts. Another fact, just as presented in the video, are the people that circumvent the Law and persuade, for money, women to have abortions. But if you are okay with a needle being stuck into a baby that has passed even your limit, 20 weeks, and then that baby being ripped from the womb in pieces...that is on you. I hope you have seared your conscience enough to live with that. So the argument that "If we did not have legal abortion there would be illegal abortions" is a farce. Even though we have legal abortions it has become clear that there are those in the abortion industry that circumvent the Law and perform abortions they should not. How about if your 14 year old daughter became pregnant and someone took her across state lines to get an abortion performed without your knowledge or consent? You okay with that? The bottom line is you are defending and supporting perhaps the most atrocious practice ever known in mankind's history. I am certainly glad that this is not something I have to live with. |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 13 2014, 05:22 PM Post #11 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again with the deflection. In view is whether it is a human being, regardless of twenty weeks or two. You support killing a child up to that point, and because the child's ability to live is questionable...this justifies this in your mind? Incredible. Will the baby live if left unmolested? Usually.
Not at the expense of children...no. Now let's look at the rest of your statement:
"It" is in fact not an it...but a who. Your words show that you understand that, and you are still defending killing them. incredible. The child is human, and has human DNA, and do you stand to protect the unborn child? No...your mind appeals to more excuses. This is a good reason to murder another human being? Amazing.
So you are judge. As long as everyone conforms to Barbar's way of thinking...everything is okay. But let Barbar consider the ugly side of sex and he must rethink his position. Do you have children? Did you teach them the nonsense you're speaking here? The big bad Christian trying to take away everyone's rights and fun?
Actually, He has done that. Pity you have not experienced it. But outright rejection of God will in most cases make it a sure bet that one never will. But let's not get off the topic, Barbar, I have talked to you about God and already know your position. We can talk about Abortion from a human perspective.
In part you are right, because judgment yet awaits for those that have committed these murders. You yourself have spoken of "the mother's sin" and that even at 20 weeks a child is human and has human DNA. That is the point that I want you to think about as you armchair philosophize. I want you to consider whether that 20 week old child can feel the needle spoken of by the "nurse" or salesperson or whatever the woman in the video is. Or when his/her little body is torn apart for the sake of money, for the sake of "getting rid of a problem," for the sake of not burdening some poor woman who wants to have free sex but is so self-centered that she fails to see the real cost, which is paid... ...by the child.
Until the Millennial Kingdom...we need those guys. And you might not want to admit it, but many in the world need those guys. Since you are okay with killing children, I guess you are okay with people like Saddam Hussein also committing murder (and I picked a liberal article in hopes you might read it), right? Well, some of our guys have a problem with that. And they are well equipped to step in.
There is a difference between killing and murder. As far as I know, the actions in the Middle East have not been considered murder except by Muslims and liberals. I have no problem with someone going into the woods and killing a deer...he hasn't committed murder. I have no problem with someone catching a fish and eating it...he hasn't committed murder. But to take the life of an unborn child is...murder. The taking of another human being's life without cause (i.e. self defense, execution of criminals, and war) is murder, no way around it. And if you want to argue that those things I list are murder, go ahead. It will just support my view that abortion is murder and will not help your cause...at all. But you are again defending this atrocity when you use soldiers to justify it. And this is disgusting. Just as disgusting as condoning sexual freedom at the cost of another human being's life. A mother, when she behaves as a mother...does everything she can to protect her baby. Animals do that. And when human beings behave worse than animals...it surely speaks volumes about that culture. One person said "America is the only country that saves the whales and trees...and kills it's children." Not entirely true, of course, but you get the point. And to be honest, I am quite happy to kill. When someone intentionally takes the life of their fellow man their own life is forfeit. Murderers should have exacted from them the same penalty they enforced on those they kill. But the sad fact is that their are loopholes and reasons why some murderers get away with it. You are part of that problem. Stop thinking about sex, amigo, and consider that everyone is responsible for their actions. Think outside of the liberal box and consider that this issue could be greatly reduced to the point where arguments for abortion are placed in their proper perspective. Consider that there is a responsibility of both men and women for their actions that result in conception. Teach children a moral perspective instead of your free sex, or, whatever you decide is free and what is not, that is. One question you can answer for me now: how old did you or would you begin instructing your daughters about how they can go out and enjoy sex as long as they took proper precautions? Just answer that for me. Edited by S.T.Ranger, Jun 13 2014, 05:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 13 2014, 05:45 PM Post #12 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yep. You're out there all right. ![]()
I did, and it resulted in a facetious response...sorry. Just kidding, okay?
Yes...you are.
That is not being a realist. What is real is that with legalized abortion we see it occurring in the tens of thousands, which would be greatly reduced if it were outlawed, though with the culture of America these days it would probably take a while. There is hope of recovery though. So if I took a perspective that was okay with a limited number of botched abortions in alleys and motel rooms as opposed to the big business it is today...would you think me horrible? And if so...how is that different than what is currently going on. National abortion policy is built upon this judicial "fact" that abortion is a "safe" procedure. If this "fact" is found to be false, then national policy toward abortion must be re-evaluated. Indeed, if it is found that abortion may actually be dangerous to health of women, there is just cause for governments to regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect their citizens. This is especially true since over 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year.
Then you are, I am sorry to say, just as bad as I am. Just because you're standards are looser than mine, you still put a cap on sexual freedom. Admit it. I am still curious as to what age you think children should be allowed to exercise their rights in this area.
That the point...it is not without harm to others. And I am not just talking about the babies, but many of the mothers as well: "National abortion policy is built upon this judicial "fact" that abortion is a "safe" procedure. If this "fact" is found to be false, then national policy toward abortion must be re-evaluated. Indeed, if it is found that abortion may actually be dangerous to health of women, there is just cause for governments to regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect their citizens. This is especially true since over 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year."]National abortion policy is built upon this judicial "fact" that abortion is a "safe" procedure. If this "fact" is found to be false, then national policy toward abortion must be re-evaluated. Indeed, if it is found that abortion may actually be dangerous to health of women, there is just cause for governments to regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect their citizens. This is especially true since over 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year. Since the Court's ruling in 1973, there have been many studies into the aftereffects of abortion. Their combined results paint a haunting picture of physical and psychological damage among millions of women who have undergone abortions. So while you are defending the rights of women, have you given any thought to the facts that we don't hear people speaking about? How about this (from the same article): Cervical damage from previously induced abortions increases the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and complications of labor during later pregnancies by 300 - 500 percent.12,15,19,33 The reproductive risks of abortion are especially acute for women who abort their first pregnancies. A major study of first pregnancy abortions found that 48% of women experienced abortion-related complications in later pregnancies. Women in this group experienced 2.3 miscarriages for every one live birth.19 Yet another researcher found that among teenagers who aborted their first pregnancies, 66% subsequently experienced miscarriages or premature birth of their second, "wanted" pregnancies.25 Now lets look at your statement again:
You still believe that? But that's the philosophy many live by: If it feels good...do it. But we are more than animals, Barbar. Should be, anyway. Edited by S.T.Ranger, Jun 13 2014, 05:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 14 2014, 07:35 AM Post #13 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I hope it worked for you. The only thing it clears up for me is that you have a "So what!" attitude which I greatly question. I seriously doubt you taught your young children the things you promote in this post. It is ironic that you take a morally superior position over God and Christians yet most people reading your words would likely shake their heads, regardless of whether they believed in God or not. I find it equally curious that you make a bee-line to the topic of God when I have not been the one to introduce Him to this conversation. I could interpret that as your conscience going to the source of your worldview.
According to Scripture...He has. You remain in a minority in this world. Most peoples recognize God's existence, even if their parents have taught them a corrupt version, which we can trace back to man's beginnings.
This would be true if man had not come under the curse of sin. Yet despite that, people still grow up to recognize that which God has written on their hearts and placed in Creation for all to see.
I agree with this in part, because the knowledge of the truth, while it should be passed down from generation to generation, is corrupted by parents that rebel against God's Sovereignty and teach their children to worship something other. But that does not negate God's intervention, even among heathens.
He has. You can read about that in both the Old and New Testaments. He has provided a means for men to know Him in a relationship which is not primarily temporal, but spiritual and eternal. I know me saying "I've been where you are but you have not been where I am" will likely fall on deaf ears, but, that is the case. I was a drug addict and alcoholic, played Heavy Metal music, and held views very much like yours. I was born again in 95 and while it has been a road of learning and trial, I can say without doubt I am a new creature, even as it is written. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can ask those I associated with back then. It is interesting to note that of the four members of one of my bands back then, three have been saved, myself, and two others, they being ordained ministers now. But God is not going to reward rebellion, insolence, and insult with revelation of Himself to individuals. In my case, He literally broke me to get my attention.
You, like many others, and in fact seems to be a theme for pro-abortionists like you, try to pass off responsibility for consequences of sin (and you can call it something else if you like, like evil, or whoopsies, lol)...on God. You name the evil, and I will guarantee we can find man's hand at the wheel. You talk of children in the world starving, yet boast of an expensive trip around the world. Let me ask you something, Barbar...exactly what are you doing to ease the suffering of your fellow man? What? And you call God sadistic? But you are like most atheists, railing against God and the Church, blaming the evils and suffering of God on Him, when in fact the Church is used of God for real efforts to help others...regardless of their religious views. Concerning abortion, if t were not for the efforts of both those of faith as well as conservatives who do not profess any affiliation with God, Partial Birth Abortion would still be openly practiced, with you on the sideline saying...So what!" Not a question, a statement.
Well it's not the case, so what excuse will you find for the Living God not to be worthy of your worship now? Your position is syllogistic at best, deceitful and hypocritical at worse. And I will break this up because this may be a lengthy response. Continued... |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 14 2014, 08:03 AM Post #14 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you are suggesting that the women that have abortions are first led of God to engage in sexual activity which is usually contrary to His will concerning sexual relations, then led of God to murder their child which is contrary to His revealed will? Let's face it, most abortions are performed on women who had relations but did not want to become pregnant. It is God's will that women go through the problems as seen in the article I posted yesterday? This is ridiculous. Of course, because you cannot argue against what is clearly abominable practice, you must grasp at such arguments as these.
Please. God's will has been revealed in such a way that even those that are spiritually dead...can understand. It is not God's will that people engage in the "free sexuality" you promote, which leads to death in a number of ways: 1) death for the "unwanted child;" 2) death through medical complications; 3) death through disease; 4) death of future children when the mother decides to have a "wanted child." You speak of free sex as "harming no-one," but, Barbar...your philosophy is one of death. But let me guess..."So what!" Don't blame that on God. Take responsibility for yourself.
This is probably the most insane, heartless, and calculating defense of abortion that I have ever heard, and I shudder that people like you think this way. One problem is that you are detached from the issue. No reason why you could not take steps to help at least one person in the world, for instance...whose quality of life is pitiful. Very hypocritical to say "that innocent are killed due to starvation and illness when in fact they need not," and not raise a finger to do something. You admit that you have a murderous heart. Omission is as bad as commission, so rather than a morally superior position, you place yourself on the same level as those that kill innocents and let the starving...starve.
So what, right? You're okay with that. Please, spare me the appeal to a self-deprecating defense which seeks sympathy, because I have no sympathy for someone that could do good but does not. And this is the rub: I doubt very seriously that you are 100% immoral, but rather...hypocritical. You have a sense of morality that runs by your own standard, and quite literally to Hell with everyone else. You are the god of your own world, setting the standard for morality which conforms to your own wants, desires, and lusts.
Me either. As I said, you have not experienced the Living God's interaction in your life, but I have. As I said in another thread, we could liken this to a thief saying "I don't see any cops." The reason is...you're not actually looking for God. You have walled your heart with syllogistic defenses which upon examination fall to the wayside for the error they are. This allows you to remain in that state of deception from which even basic principles such as killing a child is wrong...eludes you. And I can tell you this, for those of us that have tested God and have come to Him with even a small amount of faith...there is no insecurity. And it is because of this that we have seen historically people die for their faith in God, rather than deny the work He does in those He calls. And I am assuming that you meant to say "I do not hide..."
Nor do I "glorify the past." In fact, I am opposed to a mentality that stays locked within the efforts of the past. I believe that God will work a work in our day and raise up new heroes of faith that have their hearts set to battle against the evils of this world. Abortion is a good example, because apart from the efforts of those that seek to perform the standard of righteousness provided in the Word of God...it would be a lot worse.
I am not sure why you not "attacking those that want the same standard" is supposed to mean...of course you would not. But you would attack those who want a standard that is higher than yours, because your conscience is pricked when their morals are compared to yours. It's a weak position to defend the murder of unborn children. It's hard to think that our ideals are in fact viewed by others as not just in error...but evil. And murder of unborn children is evil. You know it, and I know it. Continued... |
![]() |
|
| S.T.Ranger | Jun 14 2014, 09:16 AM Post #15 |
|
Ranger
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not sure why you would say this. Is this perhaps your conscience trying to get through to you? No reason why we should not enjoy the fruit of our labor, and while I doubt I would spend this kind of money (if I had it, I do not), I will not presume to judge how someone else spends their money. But let me ask you again, are you doing anything to offset the consequences of sin and evil? Not trying to put you on a guilt trip, just asking that if you had the chance to help just one under-privileged child, and it cost you $30 a month, would you be interested in that? [url="http://www.mannaworldwide.com/"]Here[/URL] is a missions effort my fellowship supports and they are doing good in a number of parts of the world. Bringing food, medical, education, shelter, and yes, they also teach about Christ. But, you can forego blaming God for the ills of the world and take an active part in someone else's life. Would you? There are secular organizations as well which you could invest in.
You have not answered my question: at what age were you teaching your kids about...
...? And it seems to me that you are steering away from the original tact you were taking, now offering other choices to avoid abortion. Wish I could applaud you, but to teach children these things, in my view...is sick. And makes me question why a parent would want to teach them this. Though I know that at least part of it is because you enjoy these things, and to see them as wrong would bring you yourself into question, and we can't have that...right? Because you are the standard for morality in your world.
And that is a Christian view, we also (should) understand that humanity is inter-related and cannot be separated. And while cultural differences separate us, the truth is that people are the same wherever you go. But what does escaping racist sentiments have to do with Abortion? Racist and non-Racist alike can condone, or speak against the murder of unborn children.
And I would never question that. But I am highly doubtful that you taught them the garbage you spew about other measures to avoid having to get an abortion. Did you really teach your children that anal sex is an option for them? And how old were they? This just boggles my mind. Did you also teach them the possible [url="http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns"]dangers[/URL] of this practice?
That's great, but how can you be happy for one who is delusional? Or is her spirituality lacking a belief in God? And doesn't this counter your prior statement...
...?
I do? That's one of your problems, Barbar, you have to construct false and irrelevant arguments. At no time have I ever said that pregnancy occurs only in the unbelieving population of the world, and believe it or not I understand, better than you do, that everyone is susceptible to getting into situations where undesirable consequences can occur. As a matter of fact, it is just as likely that a child raised in a "religious" or even "Christian" environment will end up yielding to their lusts as one raised in an environment that is hostile to God and Christianity. It is a myth that all Christians look down their noses at atheists and those among false religions, because we (should) understand better than anyone the nature of Man and how easy it is to fall into sin (and again you can call it whatever you like). There is a saying, "The Preacher's daughter is the wildest one in the bunch," and I believe that is explained by a principle which is ever present in "religious" households: children have religion forced down their throats as children by parents that cannot uphold the righteous standard set forth in the Word of God. And it natural (literally) for many of these children to, when they get to the age where they make their own decisions, to act out their own desires. If a young child could do what they wanted to, they would have hot fudge sundaes for dinner every night, lol. Same principle.
It happens, but understand that I am not condemning those that yield to lust which is a combination of the innate desires we have for the opposite sex and the inability of self-control due to a fallen nature. You can laugh at that but that is just how I see it from a Biblical perspective. But, for those that get into these circumstances, what I will say is that murdering the child is not a viable option. The child, who is a result of that sin, should not have to be the one to give his/her own life to cover the sins of the mother and father. That is barbaric.
Your theme song. Continued... |
![]() |
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Abortion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





1:26 AM Jul 11