Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[Shogun]

a laugh!


EUREKA!


Have a great day, Anguille.

 

[Anguille]

a laugh!


EUREKA!


Have a great day, Anguille.

Shogun, since the other day when you posted that photo of puppies to Ravir, I've had a sneaking suspicion you're not as bad as you appear to be. Still very, very bad, but maybe not quite as bad.

You have a great day too and don't believe any crazy stuff manifold says about me.

 

[Shogun]

I dont believe anything any of you crazy bastardos say about anything anyway.


and you may be right, I may be crazy. But it just may be a luuuunatic you're lookin' for.


ok. enough of this. I've got a reputation to consider.

 

[Jon]

No, because it hasn't had an opportunity to be saved.

It takes more than being human to get to heaven. You have to actually have had the opportunity to choose Christ...and then you have to actually choose him.

Have you even READ the Bible? Because you seem to know very little about Christian faith.

 

[manifold]

Have you even READ the Bible? Because you seem to know very little about Christian faith.

Sure she has. She keeps this copy, dog-eared pages and all, right on her nightstand.

 

[sealybobo]

i Didn't Say Women Often Or Frequently Kill Their Baby Right Before Birth In Order To Have Some Kind Of Evil Power Or Vengeance On The Child's Father. What I Said Was -it Doesn't Make Any Difference Under The Law If That Is Why She Wants To Do It Or Not. The Law Will Back Up Whatever The Woman Decides For Whatever Reason She Has For That Decision -whether Society Considers It A Valid Reason Or Not, Whether The Child's Father Considers It A Legitimate Reason Or Not. Or Back Her Up If She Wants To Force Him To Be A Parent Against His Will -even If Her Only Reason For Doing So Is Because She Believes It Will Force Him To Stay In Her Life Or Because She Figures He Is A Source Of Income With Child Support Or Whatever. The Law Will Back Up Her Right To Cram Her Decision, Regardless Of The Worth Of Her Reason For That Decision - Down A Man's Throat No Matter What She Decides And No Matter Why She Makes That Decision. Good Reasons, Bad Reasons, Moral Reasons, Evil And Very Immoral Reasons -it Will Back Her Up In Forcing Her Decision On The Man.

Now How Is This More Fair Than The Laws Of The Past -which At Least Held Both Parties Accountable And Forbid Either From Killing That Child -who Is The Only Innocent In The Whole Thing? Past Laws Did Not Force Men To Marry A Woman They Impregnated -social Mores Put That Pressure On Men To Marry A Woman If He Impregnated Her. It Was Considered The Only Way To Rectify Irresponsible Behavior By Behaving Responsibily Toward Both The Mother And Their Child. But Whether They Married Or Not, The Law Still Held Both Morally And Financially Responsible.

My Point Is That An Act Both People Consented To Engage In Should Carry The Same Consequences For Both, Should Hold Both Parties Accountable. Our Laws Today Do Not Do This. Instead It Gives The Woman The "right" To Make A Decision That Has Profound And Lifelong Consequences For The Man's Future And Another, Totally Innocent Person's Very Existence. And Neither Of The Other Two People So Profoundly Affected By That Decision Have Any Right To Have Any Say In A Decision That Will Directly Affect Them. I Fail To See Any "equality" In Such A Law, I Fail To See How This More "fair" In Any Way -and I See Some Pretty Significant And Undesirable Consequences For Society As A Result.

According To The Allan Guttmacher Institute, For Women Who Choose To Have A Late Term Abortion, 71% Of Those Women Said They Were Having A Late Term Abortion Because They Had Just "misjudged" How Far Along They Were. Now I Bet That "misjudged" Bs Includes A Whole Lot Of Other Reasons Women Are Actually Very Reluctant To Reveal When Getting A Late Term Abortion. But That Was The Most Common Reason Women Had For Having Her Viable Or Extremely-close-to-viable Fetus Killed. 33% Said They Were Having A Late Term Abortion Because They Had Been Reluctant To Tell Their Partner And Kept Postponing Revealing Their Pregnancy, 24% Said It Took That Long To Decide Whether To Even Have An Abortion, 8% Decided To Wait To Have An Abortion Until Their Relationship With The Child's Father Had Changed (whatever That Means), 6% Changed Their Mind About Wanting A Child After They Had Intentionally Gotten Pregnant. And Just 2% Had A Late Term Abortion Because A Fetal Problem Had Been Diagnosed Late In Pregnancy. The One That Is A Nonexistent Reason For A Late Term Abortion Are Threats To A Woman's Life Or Health -doesn't Even Appear On The List Of Reasons Women Give For Having A Late Term Abortion. That Is Because It Actually Isn't Necessary To Kill A Viable Fetus To Save The Life Or Health Of The Mother. Having To Choose Whether To Save The Baby Or The Mother Is The Stuff Of Tv Dramas -but It Isn't Reality. Doctors May Deliver A Baby Early For The Sake Of The Mother's Health And That Child May Later Die From Complications Of Prematurity -but They Won't Deliberately Kill It To Save The Mother. A Late Term Abortion Is For The Specific Purpose Of Killing A Fetus Who Would Otherwise Survive.

So The Vast Majority Of Late Term Abortions Are To Satisfy The Woman's Personal Whim, Who Compounded Her Irresponsible Behavior Of An Unplanned Pregnancy With More Irresponsible Behavior By Allowing That Child To Continue To Live And Then Waiting Until The Child Was Viable Or Very Near Viable -and Then Killing It. Not Because There Was Either Something Wrong With The Fetus Or Because The Woman's Life Or Health Was At Stake.

The Cdc Collects Statistics On Late Term Abortions Performed In The Us -but Does Not Collect Information On The Exact Gestational Age Of A Fetus Killed In A Late Term Abortion Or What Percent Were Done To Viable Fetuses. All Abortions Performed After The 20th Week Of Pregnancy Are Just All Lumped Together As "late Term Abortions" By The Cdc. My Son Was Born At 24 Weeks Gestation -and That Was 20 Years Ago. Perfectly Normal Guy Who Is Now 6' And 185 Lbs. And In College. And He Was Not Even Close To The Most Extremely Premature Child To Survive Either Then Or Now. That Record Is Now Held By A Girl Born Last Fall At 21 1/2 Weeks Gestation.

Fortunately, There Are Only A Few Doctors Who Are Willing To Kill Viable, Healthy Fetuses In The Entire Country, And Only Two Who Are Willing To Kill A Healthy, Full Term Fetus In The Process Of Its Birth. So Unless A Woman Is Willing To Travel To The States Where These Doctors Practice In One Of The Four States That Allow Late Term Abortion On Demand, It Isn't Easy For Most Women To Have Their Viable Fetus Killed In This Country. But It Can Be Done -and It Is Done. According To The Pro-abortion Allen Guttmacher Institute, 15,000 Babies Are Killed After 21 Weeks Gestation And 600 Are Killed Anywhere From 26 Weeks To 40 Weeks. Every Year. Since The Youngest Surviving Preemie Was Born At 21 And 1/2 Weeks -that Means Thousands And Thousands Of Viable Babies Killed Every Year. There Have Been More Than 42 Million Abortions Since 1973 -a Holocaust That Puts Nazi Germany To Shame.

In The Four States That Allow Late Term Abortion On Demand On Healthy, Viable Fetuses, There Is No Time Limit In The Pregnancy After Which They Cannot Have One. There Is No Time Limit As Long As It Is Done Before The Child Takes Its First Breath -which Means A Woman Can Be Full Term, Go Into Labor And Decide To Have Her Child Legally Killed As Long As It Is Killed Before It Takes Its First Breath. The Whole Point Of A Late Term Abortion On Demand Is To Kill A Healthy, Viable Child Who Otherwise Would Take That Breath Unless It Is Killed.

Surely Allowing A Baby To Grow Until It Is Viable Is A Woman Giving Her Consent For That Pregnancy. Once It Is Viable -a Woman Cannot Claim She "owns" That Child's Life And She Can Have That Child Killed If She Chooses. Because Once A Fetus Is Viable, That Child Is The Sole Owner Of Its Life. And Since Two People Had To Give Their Consent For The Sex Act That Resulted In That Child, Both Parents Should Be Held Accountable Instead Of What The Law Has Done By Giving Sole And Incredible Power To Just One Of The Two Partners. A Power By Which She -for Any Reason She Wants -can Force On A Man What The Law Will Never Force On Her. The Notion That A Man Loses Any Right To Have A Say In His Future, Or Whether His Child Will Live Or Die On The Grounds His Sperm Has Left His Body And Took That Man's Rights With It -is Ludicrous. But It Certainly Makes Men Second Class Citizens With Fewer Rights Than Women.

Oddly Enough, The One Group Of People Who Are The Biggest Supporters Of Abortion On Demand Are............single Men. Maybe They See It As A Terrific Solution For Any Future Irresponsible Behavior On Their Part. But Without Appreciating The Tremendous Loss Of Say In Their Future And The Very Real Profound Consequences For Their Future That They Forfeit At The Same Time.

Now It All Makes Sense. I Need Not Research Your Opinions Any More To Know Why You Are Voting Gop This November. Save The Obama Bashing. You Were Voting Gop All Along.

 

[manifold]

If a fetus is a person, then logically he/she has a soul. And since he was never given the opportunity to commit a sin, his soul would remain unblemished and he'd be welcomed into heaven. So, if gaining entrance into heaven is what life is all about, then by all accounts an aborted fetus is one lucky bastard.


Just sayin...

Good times, good times.

 

[amrchaos]

To Manifold

Aren't people born under the original sin.

Therefore, should not the child go to hell, and not heaven?

 

[manifold]

To Manifold

Aren't people born under the original sin.

Therefore, should not the child go to hell, and not heaven?

Maybe.

But if they're never born...?

i.e. Is the burden of original sin applied at conception or at birth?

 

[amrchaos]

To Manifold

Aren't people born under the original sin.

Therefore, should not the child go to hell, and not heaven?

Maybe.

But if they're never born...?

i.e. Is the burden of original sin applied at conception or at birth?

I don't actually know.

I think the sin is transferred during sex, or else children born of C-section never inherit the curse of the orignial sin.

So I guess the devil has fried baby fingers and toes at his eternal Bar-B-que!

 

[frazzledgear]

Do you know that for a fact or is that merely what you choose to believe?

I know for a fact that there is no evidence of such a thing.. which, probably does facilitate my decisions on spirituality.

Actually there is evidence of a soul. First you have to realize we have bodies with cells that have individual life of their own. We should be nothing but a biological computer existing and reacting to the stimuli of the physical world around us. Like a jellyfish which is actually a community of living cells, each responding to physical stimuli and its neighboring cells for the benefit of the entire community. Yet we have an existence that is above and beyond the conglomerate existence of the living cells that make up our physical body. That is one hurdle science has never been able to jump because it cannot ever be explained by science -why and how we have an independent life distinctly separate from the individual lives of our individual cells. There is no scientific theory in existence to even attempt to explain that -because it can't be physically explained how it is possible for an organism to have a separate life from that of its own cells making up its body. Consciousness itself cannot be explained by any scientific theory and in fact there is no scientific theory even attempting to explain it. That is because scientific facts undeniably say living organism should actually be nothing more than biological computers. Yet your own physical death can occur long before the deaths of all those millions of cells and likewise you can and do exist in spite of the never ending deaths of those individual cells.

If we had no soul then losing chunks of our body would mean losing parts of our humanity, being less than fully human. If you lost half your brain in an accident, that should mean you are only half a human, with half of "you" left. If you lose a limb, you would lose the corresponding percentage of "you" with it. But there is nowhere in the human body where it is possible to identify where "you" exist. You are not your brain (or any other organ or limb) and this is provable by the fact people have had half their brain removed due to disease or injury yet still been all there person-wise. Even doctors realize the brain is not the seat of what makes you "you" but an organ that allows the individual to manipulate his physical body and use it express "him". You can damage that organ without causing damage to "you" and you can also cause such serious damage the individual is no longer able to use the remaining connections to express himself or use the physical body at all. There are people who spent extended periods of time in a coma who emerged and made it clear they were aware of their surroundings, people, conversations but unable to do let anyone know they were still "in there". Which means what makes you "you" is something else and located somewhere else. Brain damage can be so severe as to be incompatible with life, it can be incompatible with the ability of the individual to effectively use his body again and it can interfere with the total ability of an individual to control his physical body including using it to express himself. But we are not our physical bodies and the proof of that is the fact losing body parts has never once resulted in producing someone who lost the same percentage of what makes them "them".

 

[InDoctriNation]

None of what you said is evidence for the soul as I understand the definition of 'soul,' but for the sake of argument let's assume that there is a soul, it is infused in the person at the moment of conception, and Christianity is true. Where are the souls of the countless billions of "people" throughout human history who were never born (including miscarriages, abortions, etc.)? Heaven or hell?

 

[Care4all]

To Manifold

Aren't people born under the original sin.

Therefore, should not the child go to hell, and not heaven?

Maybe.

But if they're never born...?

i.e. Is the burden of original sin applied at conception or at birth?

I don't actually know.

I think the sin is transferred during sex, or else children born of C-section never inherit the curse of the orignial sin.

So I guess the devil has fried baby fingers and toes at his eternal Bar-B-que!

Just to clarify:
At birth would be the child's first breath, and a c-section newborn along with a natural birth newborn both take their first breath when they are born.... so, if original sin is passed on to the baby at birth, then c-section children would also receive it at that time.

 

[manifold]

Maybe.

But if they're never born...?

i.e. Is the burden of original sin applied at conception or at birth?

I don't actually know.

I think the sin is transferred during sex, or else children born of C-section never inherit the curse of the orignial sin.

So I guess the devil has fried baby fingers and toes at his eternal Bar-B-que!

Just to clarify:
At birth would be the child's first breath, and a c-section newborn along with a natural birth newborn both take their first breath when they are born.... so, if original sin is passed on to the baby at birth, then c-section children would also receive it at that time.

So if they're aborted before that... fast track into heaven, no?

 

[Care4all]

I don't actually know.

I think the sin is transferred during sex, or else children born of C-section never inherit the curse of the orignial sin.

So I guess the devil has fried baby fingers and toes at his eternal Bar-B-que!

Just to clarify:
At birth would be the child's first breath, and a c-section newborn along with a natural birth newborn both take their first breath when they are born.... so, if original sin is passed on to the baby at birth, then c-section children would also receive it at that time.

So if they're aborted before that... fast track into heaven, no?

In my humble opinion, yes, and even after that imho as well....only because the God I know as God would not give eternal damnation to an innocent... of their own accord child....and I don't care what's out there in scripture that may seem like it conflicts with that....

 

[Sky Dancer]

Just to clarify:
At birth would be the child's first breath, and a c-section newborn along with a natural birth newborn both take their first breath when they are born.... so, if original sin is passed on to the baby at birth, then c-section children would also receive it at that time.

So if they're aborted before that... fast track into heaven, no?

In my humble opinion, yes, and even after that imho as well....only because the God I know as God would not give eternal damnation to an innocent... of their own accord child....and I don't care what's out there in scripture that may seem like it conflicts with that....

Welcome back Care.

 

[Ravi]

Just to clarify:
At birth would be the child's first breath, and a c-section newborn along with a natural birth newborn both take their first breath when they are born.... so, if original sin is passed on to the baby at birth, then c-section children would also receive it at that time.

So if they're aborted before that... fast track into heaven, no?

In my humble opinion, yes, and even after that imho as well....only because the God I know as God would not give eternal damnation to an innocent... of their own accord child....and I don't care what's out there in scripture that may seem like it conflicts with that....

iirc, the Catholic church did away with original sin....or maybe just made it a non-damning offense.

 

[manifold]

So if they're aborted before that... fast track into heaven, no?

In my humble opinion, yes, and even after that imho as well....only because the God I know as God would not give eternal damnation to an innocent... of their own accord child....and I don't care what's out there in scripture that may seem like it conflicts with that....

iirc, the Catholic church did away with original sin....or maybe just made it a non-damning offense.

Link?

 

[Ravi]

In my humble opinion, yes, and even after that imho as well....only because the God I know as God would not give eternal damnation to an innocent... of their own accord child....and I don't care what's out there in scripture that may seem like it conflicts with that....

iirc, the Catholic church did away with original sin....or maybe just made it a non-damning offense.

Link?

Ah, they left it up to God to decide. How novel!

Editor's note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

I was speaking of babies and the unborn. I've no idea what they think of an adult dying without being baptized.

 

[ding]

I'll never understand how something that is unborn can be killed.

That's because you don't believe that a new, genetically distinct human being is created at conception. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This is not a metaphysical contention, this is a scientific fact proven by empirical evidence.