Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[bernee51]

This is not speaking of physical death. It is spiritual death, that is, separation from God from in sin. When man sins against God, he lives in darkness and has no spiritual life.

I am a man. I do not believe your god exists. I do not sin. I have a life full of joy and light (mixed in with pain and attachment). I consider myself (and others consider me) to be spiritual. I know others like me. Your statement then is incorrect.

An example to show that faith is not feelings was when God told Abraham ...blah blah blah

Why is it that you seem to only ever answer with a quote from your book of myth or an interpretation of it? Do you ever think for yourself? What does Daystar think? What does daystar feel?

Most liberals do not trust God to influence and direct their lives.

Because he/she/it does not exist for many people. They actually take responsibility for their own beliefs and do not rely on ancient myths for their world view.

This book and your religion was invented by and designed for agricultural, paternalistic societies.

If the Bible is God's word, and "Thou shall not murder" is one of his commandments, then abortion is murder because the life he creates in his mind is a human being even before he was conceived:...
followed by more quotes from the book of myth

Abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal killing of another human being.

[Day] Yes, it is true that God allows young children to be destroyed. He allows sinful man to destroy what he creates, just as he allows sinful man to lie, steal, hate, war, etc. In this sense alone is it "acceptable" to him because he knows exactly what he is doing.

then your god is evil for allowing such things to happen when he/she/itsupposedly has the power to stop it.

I don't think I could ever like your god let alone respect or worship. I certainly would not have he/she/it as a house guest. I would be worried about my safety and that of my family.

[Daystar]

You are free to interpret Proverbs 14:12 however you choose, but it does not mention spiritual death; merely Death.

[Day] God told Adam that in the day he ate from "that" tree he would surely die. He ate, but he didn't die. Spiriitual death is separation from God who gives life spiritually. This is what Prov. 14:12 means. But it can also include phsyical death.

An example to show that faith is not feelings was when God told Abraham to pack up and leave without telling him where to go. All human reason and emotion would say, don't go. Abraham trusted God and went in spite of his feelings or reason.

That is not a case of faith not being feelings, but rather it is a case where one set of feelings won out over another.

[Day] Faith is the substance of things expected, the conviction of things unseen. One can experience feelings, but act on faith.

It is possible to experience two sets of conflicting emotions at the same time (thus "feeling torn" between two things). In this example, Abraham allowed faith and duty to win out over desire and reason. That does not make faith less emotional; it simply means that faith is a powerful emotion.

[Day] I will disagree. Faith is not an emotion. I have faith that Jesus Christ died for my sins. There is no emotion in this. I believe he rose from the dead and will return. Still no emotion. Maybe I'm missing your point.

Human reason and feelings tell us {Lots of things} Yet, faith tells us to do just the opposite of these things.

Faith, again, is just another feeling, though a very powerful one.

[Day] Reason it out. If you are totally trusting in God, and he told you to do something, why would there be any feelings of doubt, fear, etc.

It is not based on any sort of rational foundation. Reason tells us that there may be different appropriate actions based on the specific situation. It allows us to have variables, and to come up with a different answer if the problem is similar, but different in key ways. It is the balance to feelings. Reason may tell us to turn the other cheek if it is prudent to do so. Feelings tell us to react or not, depending on which feeling is strongest at the time. Without reason, imperfect balance that it is, feelings are dangerous things, faith included. You may have faith that if you jump off a tall building, god will catch you. Reason tells us that you are likely to plummet to your death.

God restricts no one because he will never interfere with our free will.

You said earlier that "To liberals, God is anathema because he places restraints on our behavior."

[Day] Those "restraints" take the form of the Ten Commandments, which are to hopefully restrain people from doing evil. Obvioulsy, many aren't paying any attention.

If the Bible is God's word, and "Thou shall not murder" is one of his commandments, then abortion is murder

The Then does not follow logically from your If statement. God says do not murder. Abortion, at least before the fetus is capable of surviving under the power of its own organs, is not murder. Though denial of an organ results in death for the fetus, it is not murder because the intent is not to kill the fetus so much as it is to free the woman. Therefore, that statement does not do anything to prove your case.

[Day] Your argument is based on the baby not being human until a certain point. So I can't argue against it, even though I disagree. From God's perspective, it was a baby even before conception, and it is from that perspective which I argue.

Yes, it is true that God allows young children to be destroyed. He allows sinful man to destroy what he creates, just as he allows sinful man to lie, steal, hate, war, etc.

God COMMANDS young children to be destroyed in the bible, and in the psalm line I quoted he said that those who smashed the heads of the infants of babylon on the rocks would be happy, indicating his approval for the action, as opposed to acceptance.

[Day] Please notice that it is not God who is COMMANDING this. It is a captive's cry for vengeance. Nevertheless, God did command the destruction women and children in OT times.

In God's eyes, the baby existed before he was conceived. Man imposes his feelings and reasoning above God when he decides to kill what God creates. Man is more concerned about his man-made laws which will one day be overturned at the bar of Divine justice.

Not everyone in the world is a Christian. Why would it be acceptable in a democratic environment containing a multitude of varying faiths to ban an action on the basis of one?

[Day] I do not deny that I'm arguing from the Biblical perspective and certainly understand that not all accept it. But what if it's true

Man has been killing what God creates since he was formed. plants, animals, whatever, something is dying to feed man.

[Day] God doesn't condemned anyone for killing plants or animals. He has given them to us for food. Unless God says differently, it's a different matter for killing human beings.

Our desire to survive is what we place above the animals we kill. Our desire to be free is what we place about the lives of our oppressors. The Israelite's desire to claim the land of Canaan (based on their desire to have faith/listen to what they believed was God) was placed above the lives of those who were living there at the time.

[Day] God gave very clear orders when he wanted the Isrealites to kill the occupants of a given territory. Today, the Palestinians want to take that land away which was given to them by God. God owns it all and is pleased to put whomever he wants in the lands he chooses for them. That may sound tyrannical, but it's his creation and he is not unjust in what he does according to his counsel.

Man IS concerned about his manmade laws, underwhich abortion falls.

[Day] My point is that man is MORE concerned with his man-made laws.

If it is against your faith, and your religious code of laws to have an abortion, then you are not forced to have one.

[Day] But if God's commandments are real, then they are binding on everyone. Just not believing them is certainly an option and, in my view, explains why man makes laws to suit himself.

We are not arguing eugenics here, but rather the option to do something. No one is being Forced to have an abortion against there will, nor is this the top of a slippery slope that might lead to that situation.

[Day] Yes, man has the option to disregard what many believe are divine commandments. True, no one is being forced to have an aborition, but God's law commands that they don't. If you don't believe that, you don't have to, just like I can choose not to have an abortion. My point is that, ultimately, divine justice will speak harshly to man-made laws that abridge his commands.

I could offer non-Biblical reasons why it is wrong for a woman to have her baby destroyed, but there would be no teeth in them.

I think this is the crux of the issue here. You offer religious justification for the banning of abortion. Justification based on faith. Justification based on emotion and feelings.

[Day] Indeed, it is the crux, and a mighty big one I don't believe abortion is wrong for emotional reasons, rather trust in God's laws.

You admit yourself that the Rational arguments against abortion do not have any teeth. Not everyone in the world, or in fact even in the United States, shares your belief system.

[Day] Again, I am completely aware of that. There are proabably two billion who also believe that. But in my view, here's the problem. I think nature speaks of intelligent design. That tells me there is someone who had enormous ability and power to create. It makes sense to me that for his creation to function in harmony, certain rules and regulations are necessary. That is why I believe, in part, that God gave the Ten Commandments. A society with no moral standards, or civil ordinances, is doomed to collapse. Look at Sodom and Gormarrah. America will ultimately collapse if the statues in the Ten Commandments and moral code of Jesus are disobeyed.

Therefore, I do not see how you can justify banning abortion outright for all peoples. I can understand you justifying it for Christians, but what about Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Atheists?

[Day] Like I said, it is my belief that the Ten Commandments are binding on everyone. The Creator sets the rules and expects his creation to follow them.

And, yes, of course, we are all free to believe what we want.

Apparently not, as women are not allowed to believe themselves in control of their own bodies,

[Day] Sure, they are "allowed" to believe anything. Your only objection is that you think we are trying take away their right to destroy what's in their womb. (and your right Roe v Wade was bad law, I mean really bad.

or at the very least are not allowed to act on that belief.

[Day] Right, we would have women consider adoption over abortion. But no one has succeeded in forcing any woman from having an abortion.

Is "Thou shall not murder" emotional? Or, is it a commandment of God? Is the life that dwells inside a mother's womb something that God wants destroyed?

1) No, there is a rational basis for it.

[Day] By whose standard? The Creator, or sinful man?

2) It might be. It is possible that it is both in fact. God need not be irrational in his commandment.

[Day] God need not be irrational? I certainly hope not.

3) I don't know, nor does it matter in the context of this discussion.

[Day] It does if God is our Creator and has laid down commandments to govern his creation.

My question is what wording exists in the constitution that even remotely suggests that a woman should have the right to kill her baby?

It does not suggest that anywhere. Babies are born, fetuses are not.

[Day] Then why was Roe v Wade even necessary if babies are only a blob of cells? What's unlawful about killing a bunch of cells?

Mothers who practice infanticide are held accountable for their actions.

Would you at least say that in the case of partial birth abortion, it is a baby being destroyed?

Technically no,

[Day] Should two or three inches determine whether it is or isn't? Why?

as I've said before "Babies" are born, and I have already agreed that the fetus can be considered a person from the moment of conception and it will have no impact on my arguments.

[Day] But it should if the fetus is human at conception.

However, I will agree that in that case abortion should be banned, as the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother at that point, and thus the arguments for her self defence or slavery are both rendered moot.

[Day] Praise the Lord! At least you stand against PBA But why should viability have anything to do with aborting it? I don't understand the philosophy behind that argument.

Was it a baby a week before? A month? Five moths? Eight months?

It is a baby the moment it is outside the womb.

[Day] What makes it any less a baby at 8 months? Isn't a human life based on what it is and will become when born, and not whether it can or cannot live outside the womb? Don't forget, God knows the baby before it is born

However, I think it deserves protection when it is capable of existing independent of its mother.

[Gaunt]

I think you are misunderstanding my arguments if you think that they rely on the fetus becoming a person at some point in time. The two arguments I'm referring two, at the top of page 9, grant that the fetus is a person, a human being, or even a baby (I dislike this word because I associate it with infant rather than fetus. Sorry if this has caused confusion with my responses previously) from the moment of conception. It does not matter when the fetus is a person, my arguments are that the mother is not obligated to donate the use of her organs against her will. If the fetus can survive without being connected to mom, then it should not be aborted. If it cannot, and mom doesn't want it hooked up to her, she should be allowed to disallow the use of her organs to another being. The arguments do not have anything to do with the personhood of the child, but rather on the personhood of the mother. That is why the 13th and 14th amendments apply to abortion, as, even though you do not recognize it, the state recognizes the woman as owning her own body. Therefore, to ban abortion outright is to violate the 13th amendment in that it effectively makes the woman an indentured servant to her offspring against her will, and the 14th amendment in that the state is depriving the woman of her property, her own body, and her liberty without her having committed any crime. When the fetus is capable of surviving without being hooked up to mom, then neither her property nor her liberty are being deprived against her will, a) as 4 months is plenty of time to decide whether or not one wants to keep the child and b) the fetus no longer REQUIRES mom to survive.

Then why was Roe v Wade even necessary if babies are only a blob of cells? What's unlawful about killing a bunch of cells?

Roe v Wade was necessary because Texas took it upon itself to ban abortion outright. Roe v Wade overturned Texas's decision and allowed abortion to the extent it is at now. That is, aokay for the first trimester, only in the event of harm to the mother in the second trimester.

It does if God is our Creator and has laid down commandments to govern his creation.

We do not live in a Theocracy. We require more than "God said so" for a law to ban an activity to be passed.

God need not be irrational? I certainly hope not.

See? We CAN agree on stuff!

By whose standard? The Creator, or sinful man?

Sinful man's, as it is man's law we are discussing here. Again, you can, if you so choose, forbid abortion for yourself, and condemn it in those you know, but to ban it across the board is the makings of a Theocracy.

Slippery slopes are fun I can see why people like using them.

Right, we would have women consider adoption over abortion. But no one has succeeded in forcing any woman from having an abortion.

Council adoption over abortion all day long, but do not remove the option.

But if God's commandments are real

God cannot even be proven to exist. That is a mighty big if. You may choose to believe that he does exist, and that would in fact make his laws binding for you. However, in the absence of that belief, you cannot rationally justify banning abortion outright just because it says so in a book.

But what if it's true

Then who are you to deny those of us who wish it the opportunity to fail?

Reason it out. If you are totally trusting in God, and he told you to do something, why would there be any feelings of doubt, fear, etc.

You've never felt mixed emotions about something? How about at a wedding. You are convinced you love the person and you want to spend the rest of your life with them, and yet there is still fear and anxiety present.

Faith is not an emotion

Yes it is. It is not based on logic or reason, therefore it is an emotional response.

Faith is the substance of things expected, the conviction of things unseen. One can experience feelings, but act on faith.

Conviction is an emotion. expectation is an emotion. one can act on feelings just as one can act on reason. For example, fleeing in panic, or freezing in fear. If something is not based on reason and logic, the only other option is that it is based on emotion.

[Daystar]

I think you are misunderstanding my arguments if you think that they rely on the fetus becoming a person at some point in time. The two arguments I'm referring two, at the top of page 9, grant that the fetus is a person, a human being, or even a baby (I dislike this word because I associate it with infant rather than fetus. Sorry if this has caused confusion with my responses previously) from the moment of conception. It does not matter when the fetus is a person, my arguments are that the mother is not obligated to donate the use of her organs against her will. If the fetus can survive without being connected to mom, then it should not be aborted. If it cannot, and mom doesn't want it hooked up to her, she should be allowed to disallow the use of her organs to another being. The arguments do not have anything to do with the personhood of the child, but rather on the personhood of the mother. That is why the 13th and 14th amendments apply to abortion, as, even though you do not recognize it, the state recognizes the woman as owning her own body. Therefore, to ban abortion outright is to violate the 13th amendment in that it effectively makes the woman an indentured servant to her offspring against her will, and the 14th amendment in that the state is depriving the woman of her property, her own body, and her liberty without her having committed any crime. When the fetus is capable of surviving without being hooked up to mom, then neither her property nor her liberty are being deprived against her will, a) as 4 months is plenty of time to decide whether or not one wants to keep the child and b) the fetus no longer REQUIRES mom to survive.

Then why was Roe v Wade even necessary if babies are only a blob of cells? What's unlawful about killing a bunch of cells?

Roe v Wade was necessary because Texas took it upon itself to ban abortion outright. Roe v Wade overturned Texas's decision and allowed abortion to the extent it is at now. That is, aokay for the first trimester, only in the event of harm to the mother in the second trimester.

It does if God is our Creator and has laid down commandments to govern his creation.

We do not live in a Theocracy. We require more than "God said so" for a law to ban an activity to be passed.

[Day] No, we don't live in a Theocracy, but as his creations we are responsible for our behavior in light of his laws, just as we are accountable to our civil laws. Both prescribe punishment for breach.

God need not be irrational? I certainly hope not.

See? We CAN agree on stuff!

By whose standard? The Creator, or sinful man?

Sinful man's, as it is man's law we are discussing here. Again, you can, if you so choose, forbid abortion for yourself, and condemn it in those you know, but to ban it across the board is the makings of a Theocracy.

[Day] The Theocracy was applied to the Israelites only. Under that, there were all kinds of laws that are not applicable today. I realize it is a losing argument to invoke God in such things as abortion and homosexuality. But that doesn't mean God won't hold us accountable for those things we do that violate his laws. I'm not good at arguing from any practicality concerning such issues, so that's why I approach it from the Divine standard.

Slippery slopes are fun I can see why people like using them.

[Day] "Broad is the way and wide is the path that leads to destrutciton, and many enter by it. But straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it." (Matt. 7:13,14) The path to hell is wide, slippery, fun, pleasure-filled and deceiving. Most people are on that path because they reject the one who died to get them on the other path.

Right, we would have women consider adoption over abortion. But no one has succeeded in forcing any woman from having an abortion.

But if God's commandments are real

God cannot even be proven to exist.

[Day] When I hear statements like this I invite a person to find his way to the Mt. Palomars of this world and peer through those giant telescopes and view Saturn, nebulas and spiral galaxies ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth his handiwork." (Ps. 19:1) From there to the laboratory and look into an electron microscope and behold that wonders of DNA. "By him and for him were all things created." (Col. 1:16)

That is a mighty big if. You may choose to believe that he does exist, and that would in fact make his laws binding for you. However, in the absence of that belief, you cannot rationally justify banning abortion outright just because it says so in a book.

[Day] Indeed, it is a big if. The law of gravity will be unforgiving for any who leap from buildings because they don't believe in it.

But what if it's true

Then who are you to deny those of us who wish it the opportunity to fail?

[Day] I don't deny anyone anything. I just believe there is a better way.

Reason it out. If you are totally trusting in God, and he told you to do something, why would there be any feelings of doubt, fear, etc.

You've never felt mixed emotions about something?

[Day] Of course I have. But learning to trust God and believe in his promises is a life long journey that begins at Calvary. I've observed people under very trying circumstances and am amazed at the calm and peace their faith gives them.

How about at a wedding. You are convinced you love the person and you want to spend the rest of your life with them, and yet there is still fear and anxiety present.

Faith is not an emotion

Yes it is. It is not based on logic or reason, therefore it is an emotional response.

Faith is the substance of things expected, the conviction of things unseen. One can experience feelings, but act on faith.

Conviction is an emotion.

[Day] I'm convicted that it is wrong to steal, but I don't get emotional over it. OTOH, someone who is convicted of a crime, is certain to expericence emotion. But wouldn't guilt and fear of punishment be the emotion, not the conviction?

[bernee51]

[Day] No, we don't live in a Theocracy, but as his creations we are responsible for our behavior in light of his laws, just as we are accountable to our civil laws. Both prescribe punishment for breach.

Day can you possibly accept the possibility that god only exists for those who believe. His (sic) laws are for you the believer not for me the non believer.
I am certainly accountable to the laws of society but am not to those of a god that does not exist in my worldview.

By whose standard? The Creator, or sinful man?

Slippery slopes are fun I can see why people like using them.

Accepting the so called 'laws;' of god for one thing is what is meant by slippery slope. Pretty soon all his so called 'laws' as interpreted by men will be expected to be obeyed.

Before the Enlightenment the laws of treason and heresy were virtually equivalent, with the punishment exacted extreme.

You and your ilk would take us there.

That is the slippery slope.

[Day] "Broad is the way and wide is the path that leads to destrutciton, and many enter by it. But straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it." (Matt. 7:13,14) The path to hell is wide, slippery, fun, pleasure-filled and deceiving. Most people are on that path because they reject the one who died to get them on the other path.

Day, respectfully, quoting your book of myth at every occasion is a wonderful self justification for your worldview - it means nothing to those who understand the bible for what it truly is - a book of myth like all the books of myth describing theistic beliefs.

Right, we would have women consider adoption over abortion. But no one has succeeded in forcing any woman from having an abortion.

God cannot even be proven to exist.

[Day] When I hear statements like this I invite a person to find his way to the Mt. Palomars of this world and peer through those giant telescopes and view Saturn, nebulas and spiral galaxies ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth his handiwork." (Ps. 19:1) From there to the laboratory and look into an electron microscope and behold that wonders of DNA. "By him and for him were all things created." (Col. 1:16)

Yes the universe, macro and micro, is awesome. It's existence, however, does not presuppose the existence of your (or any other) deity.

[Day] Indeed, it is a big if. The law of gravity will be unforgiving for any who leap from buildings because they don't believe in it.

false dichotomy.

But what if it's true

Pascal's wager?

[Day] I don't deny anyone anything. I just believe there is a better way.

why do you wish to impose your 'better way' on the rest of the world?

I've observed people under very trying circumstances and am amazed at the calm and peace their faith gives them.

I've to have observed people unde extremely trying circumstances and am amazed at there composure ans self posession without the interference of a deity.

Meditation can have an incredible centering effect on the psyche.

[Daystar]

Day can you possibly accept the possibility that god only exists for those who believe. His (sic) laws are for you the believer not for me the non believer.

[Day] No, I cannot because God says we cannot. All men (and women) are sinners and are accountable to God. That is not a popular notion, but if the Bible is not God's word, there is nothing to fear.

I am certainly accountable to the laws of society but am not to those of a god that does not exist in my worldview.

[Day] In all sincerity, I would encourage you to rethink your view:
"It is appointed for man once to die and after that judgment." (Heb. 9:22)

You and your ilk would take us there.

That is the slippery slope.

[Day] If you want to view it as so, you are free to do so. But I would caution you to consider the other path.

[Day] "Broad is the way and wide is the path that leads to destrutciton, and many enter by it. But straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it." (Matt. 7:13,14) The path to hell is wide, slippery, fun, pleasure-filled and deceiving. Most people are on that path because they reject the one who died to get them on the other path.

Day, respectfully, quoting your book of myth at every occasion is a wonderful self justification for your worldview - it means nothing to those who understand the bible for what it truly is - a book of myth like all the books of myth describing theistic beliefs.

[Day] Have you ever really given the Bible a fair chance? I mean have you actually studied it to see if it might be so?

God cannot even be proven to exist.

[Day] When I hear statements like this I invite a person to find his way to the Mt. Palomars of this world and peer through those giant telescopes and view Saturn, nebulas and spiral galaxies ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth his handiwork." (Ps. 19:1) From there to the laboratory and look into an electron microscope and behold that wonders of DNA. "By him and for him were all things created." (Col. 1:16)[/quote]

Yes the universe, macro and micro, is awesome. It's existence, however, does not presuppose the existence of your (or any other) deity.

[Day] I only ask you to consider them and then think if it is all random without purpose.

[Day] Indeed, it is a big if. The law of gravity will be unforgiving for any who leap from buildings because they don't believe in it.

false dichotomy.

[Day] Why? Comparing the physical with the spiritual? I think it is entirely comparable.

But what if it's true

Pascal's wager?

[Day]

believer present a good argument against this wager. "The WAGES of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)

[Day] I don't deny anyone anything. I just believe there is a better way.

why do you wish to impose your 'better way' on the rest of the world?

[Day] As I said above, I believe it is a better way. But I don't impose, rather share

I've observed people under very trying circumstances and am amazed at the calm and peace their faith gives them.

I've to have observed people unde extremely trying circumstances and am amazed at there composure ans self posession without the interference of a deity.

[Day] Yes, I believe that is possible. The only difference being where each believe they will spend eternity.

Grace and peace in the name of our Savior, Jesus

[Jose]

Day can you possibly accept the possibility that god only exists for those who believe. His (sic) laws are for you the believer not for me the non believer.

No, I cannot because God says we cannot. All men (and women) are sinners and are accountable to God. That is not a popular notion, but if the Bible is not God's word, there is nothing to fear.

<snip>

why do you wish to impose your 'better way' on the rest of the world?

[Day] As I said above, I believe it is a better way. But I don't impose, rather share

This really is the conundrum, isn't it? For many of us, it is absolutely clear that the Bible is a man-made work, presenting the assembled wisdom and mythology of an ancient tribe as if it really is the word of a god. We see no point in playing along with the game, because we have perfectly fine reasons to behave morally--even to the extent of believing in preserving the rights of a mother.

Yet for others, the Bible is apparently seen as true commands which must be obeyed at the risk of eternal damnation. I have no problem with this, as long as they "don't impose, but rather share." Sharing is great, and we sinners may learn something along the way (or, perhaps, the Saved may learn something from us). The problem is that a great many biblical types really do want to impose. They want laws that prohibit certain behaviors (like gay marriage), whether those behaviors affect anyone else or not. They want laws that restrict the constitutional freedoms of one sex, but not those of the other. They don't mind bombing other countries for no reason other than "someone said" we should, and that someone believes God told them to. I see this as bernee51 does, the beginning of the slippery slope that leads, eventually, to a form of Christian Taliban running the country. It's the "America--Love it or Leave it" sentiment of the 60's, with an overlayment of Puritanical prudishness and a desire to let God do the judging (with human help, of course, as they did in Salem).

It's the "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy, the "coalition of the willing" philosophy, the "now we can do Right for the country, and if the Democrats don't come along with us, we'll leave them behind" philosophy. In other words, there are those who, once in positions of power, will impose their beliefs on the rest of us, without regard to our rights, without regard to any information to the contrary, because they won't even listen to the information to the contrary.

This is really scary, and I would hope that Christians would open their hearts and minds to the rest of us, and help work toward moral treatment of everyone. We are, I believe, at a watershed, of which suppression of gay rights and suppression of abortion rights are a symptom. Suppression of scientific information that contradicts Christian ideology (as has been done by the Bush administration) is another. Forcing non-science into science classes, and punishing--rather than helping--schools that don't have the resources to teach everyone well, are yet others. If these trends continue, we are in serious danger of losing our place as a respected world leader. We have already lost respect, and are losing ground in education, science, and technology. Christians and sinners (oops--I mean scientists) need to join together to reverse these trends. Unfortunately, I see little evidence of this happening.

[Gaunt]

"It is appointed for man once to die and after that judgment."

So why are you forcing judgement before death?

Again, this is not a theocracy. Being against something on moral grounds is not justification enough for banning it for everyone. If you cannot come up with a rational explanation for why the activity should be banned, then no matter how much you are against it, you cannot justify banning it in Western society. The beauty of this is that it works to your favor as well. You can't be forced into doing anything you don't wish to do (like for instance attending a mosque or a synagogue weekly) simply for moral grounds either.

You keep saying "but what if it really is God's word?" The short answer is that it doesn't matter. We, in western society, have legalized countless things that are against God's word. "God said no" didn't stop Nevada from legalizing prostitution, alcohol is still going strong despite the strong religious sentiment against it, many western countries have legalized gay marriages, and pornography is very much alive and well. It doesn't mean that anyone has to partake in those activities, but the option is there. Without a rational justification for banning, it is simply a case of your feelings against someone else's feelings.

Why? Comparing the physical with the spiritual? I think it is entirely comparable.

It is not comparing the physical with the spiritual. the "law" of gravity is not a law as such but merely an observation as to how things work. The law that is more applicable is the civil courts we have established, which are guidelines and rules, rather than observations. If you break the law of gravity, you won't be punished for it after all. Only if you follow it are consequences leveled .

But I don't impose, rather share

By banning an action, you are imposing. You can share your "better way" through conversation, counselling, or a myriad of other avenues, but the minute you attempt to legislate it you are imposing that view on others. Conversely, allowing it does not impose, as no one is being forced into something they do not wish.

[Piper Plexed]

Ya know I generally avoid this topic, mostly because I am as uncomfortable with debating my right to self determination as I am with knowing others feel they have the right to be present during my gynecological exams and have a say in any subsequent discussions with my physician. That said there is a contradiction in the pro-life argument that I remain unable to reconcile.

I have always considered the following to be basic truths of my faith.
A- Faith in God and Jesus are a personal choice, one must accept to believe, Free Will being key to a relationship with God.
B. I am judged by God, ultimately God will determine if I lived a just life.

Why, when it comes to woman do so many feel they have the right to remove free will and to codify personal and subjective morals and beliefs into law thus removing free will from the equation. Are woman lesser beings that can not be trusted to make the right choices? Assuming men and woman are equal in the eyes of God and will all meet their maker for judgment wouldn't any such intervention as laws that restrict free will be viewed negatively by God. In the end since most anti-abortionists are Christians where does Free Will and a Faith in Gods Plan go when they consider the right to self-determination for Woman? Why are they not content with preaching from their pulpits and why in this case do we need to establish laws, why not just keep preaching and teaching.

edited to add: As a Christian and a woman I would like to add that I find the whole pro-life argument insulting to my sense of self worth. I promise that all reproductive choices that I have made in my life have been in keeping with my moral compass, I also trust that my fellow woman will approach their choices in much the same way as I have and in the end we are all answerable to our maker or lack there of. It is my body my life and my soul and I am responsible for these things alone.

[Daystar]

Day can you possibly accept the possibility that god only exists for those who believe. His (sic) laws are for you the believer not for me the non believer.

No, I cannot because God says we cannot. All men (and women) are sinners and are accountable to God. That is not a popular notion, but if the Bible is not God's word, there is nothing to fear.

<snip>

why do you wish to impose your 'better way' on the rest of the world?

[Day] As I said above, I believe it is a better way. But I don't impose, rather share

This really is the conundrum, isn't it? For many of us, it is absolutely clear that the Bible is a man-made work, presenting the assembled wisdom and mythology of an ancient tribe as if it really is the word of a god. We see no point in playing along with the game, because we have perfectly fine reasons to behave morally--even to the extent of believing in preserving the rights of a mother.

Yet for others, the Bible is apparently seen as true commands which must be obeyed at the risk of eternal damnation. I have no problem with this, as long as they "don't impose, but rather share." Sharing is great, and we sinners may learn something along the way (or, perhaps, the Saved may learn something from us).

[Day] This is wonderful You admit you're a sinner Now, if we can just get you to take the next step.

The problem is that a great many biblical types really do want to impose. They want laws that prohibit certain behaviors (like gay marriage),

[Day] It's not only evangelicals that oppose gay marriage, but non-evangelicals as well. If men and women want to cohabitate with members of the same sex, no is going to bother them or stop them. But when it comes to redefining marriage and turning the institution upside down, then they have crossed the line. Most Americans are strongly opposed to such marriages. People who believe it's all right for same sex to marry need to return to their Papa's knees and have some moral sense spanked into them.


whether those behaviors affect anyone else or not. They want laws that restrict the constitutional freedoms of one sex, but not those of the other. They don't mind bombing other countries for no reason other than "someone said" we should, and that someone believes God told them to.

[Day] What in the world are you talking about? The Security Council, Congress, Kerry, Hillary all supported Bush in going to war. But when things don't go our way, then they politicize it.

I see this as bernee51 does, the beginning of the slippery slope that leads, eventually, to a form of Christian Taliban running the country.

[Day] Name me one thing about Jesus Christ that you don't think belongs in any country.

It's the "America--Love it or Leave it" sentiment of the 60's, with an overlayment of Puritanical prudishness and a desire to let God do the judging (with human help, of course, as they did in Salem).

[Day] That's right. Love it or leave this great country founded by men and women who feared God and loved Jesus Christ.

"Of all the dispostions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensibe supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriot who would labor to subvert these pillars of happiness." (George Washington, Farewell Address)

Looks like some democrats are heading to Canada Hope they find peace and joy in socialism.

It's the "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy, the "coalition of the willing" philosophy, the "now we can do Right for the country, and if the Democrats don't come along with us, we'll leave them behind" philosophy. In other words, there are those who, once in positions of power, will impose their beliefs on the rest of us, without regard to our rights, without regard to any information to the contrary, because they won't even listen to the information to the contrary.

This is really scary, and I would hope that Christians would open their hearts and minds to the rest of us, and help work toward moral treatment of everyone.

[Day] Really scary? Oooooooo...... Why should Christians condone what God condemns? No Christian condemns any homosexual, but wants him to be set free from it. The gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to do that if the homosexual is willing to repent. It will also set you free.

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of salvation for everyone who believes...." (rom. 1:16)

We are, I believe, at a watershed, of which suppression of gay rights and suppression of abortion rights are a symptom.

[Day] You are one sick puppy

Suppression of scientific information that contradicts Christian ideology (as has been done by the Bush administration) is another. Forcing non-science into science classes, and punishing--rather than helping--schools that don't have the resources to teach everyone well, are yet others. If these trends continue, we are in serious danger of losing our place as a respected world leader. We have already lost respect, and are losing ground in education, science, and technology. Christians and sinners (oops--I mean scientists) need to join together to reverse these trends. Unfortunately, I see little evidence of this happening.

[Day] You are one well-entrenced liberal. I'll pray for your deliverance