Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
You find it shocking that I think that embryos are alive and killing them is murder? Why does this make you sick?Frank Hipper wrote:"How much for a tour of the secret archives?"
Shocking. *vomits*And on the subject of the 9yo who got an abortion, Johnathan wrote:....I agree with him in believing that the abortion was a sin....
I think it's repugnant that you think it's a sin for a NINE year old RAPE VICTIM to abort an embryo that would have most likely killed the mother, if carried to term. What possible reason could you have for inflicting that child with an infant, an infant CONCIEVED IN RAPE!!!! It's monstrous.Jonathan wrote: You find it shocking that I think that embryos are alive and killing them is murder? Why does this make you sick?
Pope Fu!!Queeb Salaron wrote:"Tell me, your excellency, have you ever wanted to laugh right out loud at those stupid asses who fall to their knees at the very mention of God?"
"Who's your fashion consultant? I want to slap him."
"Are you hiding curly-toed shoes with bells underneath that gown?"
"Do you ever feel the desire to just smack a Cardinal or two with that stick of yours? You know, bust out the ol' Pope-Fu and go Crusades up in this hizzy?"
LOL!! I can just imagine the old fruit smacking around a minister!
Your analogy is flawed. It's not just one member of the clergy having a molestation scandal, it is many. Granted, it may not be a significant percentage, but they're still high profile cases.Jonathan wrote:Don't you tihnk it's a little unfair to label all those in position of leadership within the Catholic church as child molesters? I mena seriously Mike, if a member of cabinet was revealed to be a child molester, should everyone in government have that label hung round their neck?
Forcing a 9 year old to carry a baby because of your religious beliefs is sick, asshole. And a first-trimester embryo is just as sentient as a pine tree.Jonathan wrote:You find it shocking that I think that embryos are alive and killing them is murder? Why does this make you sick?Frank Hipper wrote:Shocking. *vomits*And on the subject of the 9yo who got an abortion, Johnathan wrote:....I agree with him in believing that the abortion was a sin....
Ah, more moralizing from our favoure Biblical baby-killing advocate. If everyone else in government helped cover it up, then yes, I would gladly hang that fucking label around their neck.Jonathan wrote:Don't you tihnk it's a little unfair to label all those in position of leadership within the Catholic church as child molesters? I mena seriously Mike, if a member of cabinet was revealed to be a child molester, should everyone in government have that label hung round their neck?
Amen to that, Frank. If the baby was conceived, it would have killed them both. The death of two sentinent beings is far more of a tragedy than the death of an embryo with no brainwave activity.Frank Hipper wrote:I think it's repugnant that you think it's a sin for a NINE year old RAPE VICTIM to abort an embryo that would have most likely killed the mother, if carried to term. What possible reason could you have for inflicting that child with an infant, an infant CONCIEVED IN RAPE!!!! It's monstrous.Jonathan wrote: You find it shocking that I think that embryos are alive and killing them is murder? Why does this make you sick?
Not at all -- don't believe in the office of "pope" in the first place; but he does seem awfully old and frail -- retirement to Miami or Sierra Vista couldn't hurt him...aphexmonster wrote: wai ? ... you want his job ? n.n
I never said anytihng about forcing her. I just said I think it was wrong.Darth Wong wrote:Forcing a 9 year old to carry a baby because of your religious beliefs is sick, asshole.
You've mind melded with one then?And a first-trimester embryo is just as sentient as a pine tree.
That's not true, my position is exactly the same. I'm talking about murder in the sense of God's law, which I consider more important than any laws formed by the government.BTW, I love the way you switch position on the use of the word "murder". Abortion is legal, therefore by your own definition of murder (in which you refuse to let anyone refer to killing as murder unless it's illegal), it's not murder. But let us not stop you from banging your self-righteous drum, even though you're the same sociopath who said you would gladly kill babies if God commanded you to.
It's people like you who I wish would just grow up and realize that when you take away the option of abortion for anyone, SOMEONE HAS TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO HAVE THE BABY. Take into account the fact that the baby could be brought into a world where there is no one to care for it, no one to love it, no one to raise it correctly, and you have the equation for developmental disaster. And then take into account the number of parents you're creating who lack the ability, either physically or in terms of capability, to raise a child. This nine-year old girl is TOO YOUNG to have a child. Now, if a young girl participated in consensual sex, I could understand your argument. She made the conscious decision to risk impregating herself. But this girl was RAPED. She was forced into sex, and now you're forcing her into pregnancy and childbirth. Which is the greater sin?Jonathan wrote:I never said anytihng about forcing her. I just said I think it was wrong.Darth Wong wrote:Forcing a 9 year old to carry a baby because of your religious beliefs is sick, asshole.
Oh grow up and read a science magazine.You've mind melded with one then?And a first-trimester embryo is just as sentient as a pine tree.
Which is the exact point that I think Mike was arguing. By obeying a divine order to kill, you would, theoretically, be disobeying society. Granted, God will never give the order for a man to take another man's life, according to post-Vatican II doctrine, but if it were to happen, you would break the unspoken social contract (as Rousseau would say,) in the name of God.That's not true, my position is exactly the same. I'm talking about murder in the sense of God's law, which I consider more important than any laws formed by the government.
How puerile. You realize that a first-trimester fetus HAS NO BRAIN, which means NO MIND TO MELD WITH and NO SENTIENCE, meaning it is not a true human being, since in order to even be considered remotely human being you need at least a sentient mind, right?Jonathan wrote:Darth Wong wrote:You've mind melded with one then?And a first-trimester embryo is just as sentient as a pine tree.
Now, now, Ghandi was a wise man, I am certain. It may be more appropriate to say that fundamentalism and wisdom do not mix.Montcalm wrote:I can`t help but think that religion and wisdom don`t mix.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
I personally am against abortion as a form of birth control. If necessary for medical purposes, or possibly if birth control failed (still thinking on that one), then I have no moral qualms with medically necessary abortion. There's still a grey area in my moral thinking on it, but I'm trying to find as good a line as I can to delineate what I consider proper behavior.Enforcer Talen wrote:I think abortion is immoral, but you cant really do much about it. people will find away to do it, so may as well make it safe.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Oh please.Queeb Salaron wrote:It's people like you who I wish would just grow up
Shove your arrogance to the side for a moment and realise that I am perfectly aware of this and yours isn't the only opinion possible with a mature sensible mind. Stop being so bigoted.and realize that when you take away the option of abortion for anyone, SOMEONE HAS TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO HAVE THE BABY.
There are social services and health care and other family members. These factors are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is murder to kill an unborn child. That is what I ma saying makes it immoral.Take into account the fact that the baby could be brought into a world where there is no one to care for it, no one to love it, no one to raise it correctly, and you have the equation for developmental disaster.
Which has no impact on the question of whether or not it is murder, as I believe it to be.And then take into account the number of parents you're creating who lack the ability, either physically or in terms of capability, to raise a child. This nine-year old girl is TOO YOUNG to have a child.
I'm not forcing her, I'm saying it's morally wrong for her to do it because she would be murdering a child. Whether or not she was raped does not change whether it is murder or not. Should she have been raped No. So stop rapes. People who are not prepared for children should take precautions or abstain from sex until they are ready. If the precautions fail, then they should raise the child and get help if they are genuinely not capable of it.Now, if a young girl participated in consensual sex, I could understand your argument. She made the conscious decision to risk impregating herself. But this girl was RAPED. She was forced into sex, and now you're forcing her into pregnancy and childbirth. Which is the greater sin?
Quit it with the arrogance.Oh grow up
I believe that a child, once conceived has a soul. That will be in no science magazine. I understand why someone who does not believe in God would disagree and I will not call their opinion childish or moronic. I will respect their right to have that opinion and their reasons for holding it, even though I strongly disagree. It is a hugely difficult issue and would be made a little easier if there was more of that respect and tolerance going back and forth. If the girl wanted an abortion, I would not have given it to her, but would not have prevented someone else from doing it as it is her choice. I would have made it very clear to her and her parents why I believed it was wrong and left the matter to their consciences. I would have welcomed them back to church to support them with compassion at a time when they greatly need it and sought their repentance which I feel they would have to give. I certainly wouldn't throw them out and am appalled that that is what happened.and read a science magazine.
Actually, I think Mike was saying that it couldn't be murder as abortion is legal under society's laws. I was pointing out that my definition of 'legal' re:morality is what God says is according to his Law.Which is the exact point that I think Mike was arguing.
God matters more than society. Society is sometimes wrong. I do not believe that God can be.By obeying a divine order to kill, you would, theoretically, be disobeying society. Granted, God will never give the order for a man to take another man's life, according to post-Vatican II doctrine, but if it were to happen, you would break the unspoken social contract (as Rousseau would say,) in the name of God.
As did Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Hitler's Germany and was hanged for denouncing him as unChristian.Al-Quaeda thought the same way, you know.
Is it 1 in 10 clergy? Goodness no. I think the analogy is fairly good, percentge wise and most likely is actually unfair to the clergy in saying it would be as many as one member.Darth Yoshi wrote:Your analogy is flawed. It's not just one member of the clergy having a molestation scandal, it is many. Granted, it may not be a significant percentage, but they're still high profile cases.Jonathan wrote:Don't you tihnk it's a little unfair to label all those in position of leadership within the Catholic church as child molesters? I mena seriously Mike, if a member of cabinet was revealed to be a child molester, should everyone in government have that label hung round their neck?
It's a horrendous dilemma. I personally think that the best course of action is to work towards making abortion unnecessary. Better health care, better social services, better contraception, encourage people not to have sex underage or outside of marriage and if they do, then at least use contraception. Make people more tolernat and compassionate so young girls aren't afraid of being thrown out of home if they get pregnant.Enforcer Talen wrote:"just cuz god loves to kill babies doesnt give you permission" is a landover baptist webpage, actually.
I think abortion is immoral, but you cant really do much about it. people will find away to do it, so may as well make it safe.
If humans can overcome the need for wealth, then finally this would be possible.Jonathan wrote:It's a horrendous dilemma. I personally think that the best course of action is to work towards making abortion unnecessary. Better health care, better social services, better contraception, encourage people not to have sex underage or outside of marriage and if they do, then at least use contraception. Make people more tolernat and compassionate so young girls aren't afraid of being thrown out of home if they get pregnant.Enforcer Talen wrote:"just cuz god loves to kill babies doesnt give you permission" is a landover baptist webpage, actually.
I think abortion is immoral, but you cant really do much about it. people will find away to do it, so may as well make it safe.
It's a little ambitious, I know :^)
Like I said, it would take humanity to lose the reliance on dollar signs for this to ideally happen.Jonathan wrote:There are social services and health care and other family members. These factors are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is murder to kill an unborn child. That is what I ma saying makes it immoral.
Precautions aren't going to prevent a deranged man from raping a girl, especially when 9 yrs old. How is it morally wrong to abort when raped? That is just like saying it is morally wrong to treat a cut.Which has no impact on the question of whether or not it is murder, as I believe it to be.
I'm not forcing her, I'm saying it's morally wrong for her to do it because she would be murdering a child. Whether or not she was raped does not change whether it is murder or not. Should she have been raped No. So stop rapes. People who are not prepared for children should take precautions or abstain from sex until they are ready. If the precautions fail, then they should raise the child and get help if they are genuinely not capable of it.
This is another aspect entirely, so I'll avoid getting into the "soul" discussion. But even if there was a "God" with "souls", wouldn't your "God" be sensible enough to put the soul AFTER the body has been fully formed?I believe that a child, once conceived has a soul. That will be in no science magazine. I understand why someone who does not believe in God would disagree and I will not call their opinion childish or moronic. I will respect their right to have that opinion and their reasons for holding it, even though I strongly disagree. It is a hugely difficult issue and would be made a little easier if there was more of that respect and tolerance going back and forth. If the girl wanted an abortion, I would not have given it to her, but would not have prevented someone else from doing it as it is her choice. I would have made it very clear to her and her parents why I believed it was wrong and left the matter to their consciences. I would have welcomed them back to church to support them with compassion at a time when they greatly need it and sought their repentance which I feel they would have to give. I certainly wouldn't throw them out and am appalled that that is what happened.
Please don't capitalize Law in "God's Law", as his law holds no significance over other deital laws of other cultures.Actually, I think Mike was saying that it couldn't be murder as abortion is legal under society's laws. I was pointing out that my definition of 'legal' re:morality is what God says is according to his Law.
Another aspect completely, I'll avoid discussing God's imperfection.God matters more than society. Society is sometimes wrong. I do not believe that God can be.
I thought your beliefs placed the unsinnable one as one of the precursors to your religion's Enlightenment?BTW, I'm not Catholic and have issues with quite a few Catholic doctrines and practices. They may be descended from the original church, but they went badly astray somewhere and I certainly disagree with their views on the Pope. I don't believe that a Catholic can't be a Christian, but I think there's some stuff that can get in the way and that there are certain dangers, such as the emphasis placed on Mary.
Eh? I'm not a big history buff, but I don't quite understand this statement.As did Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Hitler's Germany and was hanged for denouncing him as unChristian.
Yes, it would.Sektor31 wrote:Like I said, it would take humanity to lose the reliance on dollar signs for this to ideally happen.
Because you're either killing a child, or you're removing some flesh. If you're killing a child, then you're killing a child under any circumstance and it's wrong. If you're just removing some flesh, then there's nothing wrong.Precautions aren't going to prevent a deranged man from raping a girl, especially when 9 yrs old. How is it morally wrong to abort when raped? That is just like saying it is morally wrong to treat a cut.
I think the soul is there as soon as it's a foetus and not just a separate sperm and egg.This is another aspect entirely, so I'll avoid getting into the "soul" discussion. But even if there was a "God" with "souls", wouldn't your "God" be sensible enough to put the soul AFTER the body has been fully formed?
Already covered. It's either murder or it's not. If it's murder, it's murder under any circumstance.Also, you wouldn't give a raped victim an abortion? Refer to my previous analogy.
I believe otherwise and it's to distinguish between his moral Law and the laws he gave to do with how the Israelited should act to mark themselves out as different to other people.Please don't capitalize Law in "God's Law", as his law holds no significance over other deital laws of other cultures.
Probably a good idea :^)Another aspect completely, I'll avoid discussing God's imperfection.
Eh?I thought your beliefs placed the unsinnable one as one of the precursors to your religion's Enlightenment?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a famous German theologian and a leader of the Confessing Church there. They stood up to Hitler and the Nazis, denouncing what they did and their subversion of Christianity in Germeny. He was eventually arrested and hung.Eh? I'm not a big history buff, but I don't quite understand this statement.
"I never said anything about forcing people to die. I just said I thought it was wrong to let doctors save lives."Johnhathahnhhh wrote:I never said anytihng about forcing her. I just said I think it was wrong.
And in the meantime, fuck 'em!Jonathan wrote:It's a horrendous dilemma. I personally think that the best course of action is to work towards making abortion unnecessary. Better health care, better social services, better contraception, encourage people not to have sex underage or outside of marriage and if they do, then at least use contraception. Make people more tolernat and compassionate so young girls aren't afraid of being thrown out of home if they get pregnant.Enforcer Talen wrote:"just cuz god loves to kill babies doesnt give you permission" is a landover baptist webpage, actually.
I think abortion is immoral, but you cant really do much about it. people will find away to do it, so may as well make it safe.
You believe contraception is acceptable? Not that I don't, it's just that Catholics (I know you aren't one) and a lot of other Christians believe that contraception is just as immoral as abortion.Jonathan wrote:It's a horrendous dilemma. I personally think that the best course of action is to work towards making abortion unnecessary. Better health care, better social services, better contraception, encourage people not to have sex underage or outside of marriage and if they do, then at least use contraception. Make people more tolernat and compassionate so young girls aren't afraid of being thrown out of home if they get pregnant.Enforcer Talen wrote:"just cuz god loves to kill babies doesnt give you permission" is a landover baptist webpage, actually.
I think abortion is immoral, but you cant really do much about it. people will find away to do it, so may as well make it safe.
It's a little ambitious, I know :^)
What leads you to believe that? Assuming that souls exist, they wouldn't be part of the biological process would they? It doesn't make sense imo, to give a clump of cells a soul. There's no doubt that that clump of cells is human, but I wouldn't say it's a person. I would say by the time the fetus is in the third trimester (with functioning brain and the ability to survive outside the womb) it is a person.Jonathan wrote: I think the soul is there as soon as it's a foetus and not just a separate sperm and egg.
