Federal Judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
When the Bible, which is proven divine by prophecy, says when life begins, the question is not:
"Can we discuss it regardless of Biblical view?",
but
"How is it even POSSIBLE to discuss it without Biblical view?"

The Bible is a book, NewGuy.
Are you forcing your religion on me?

 

[UsaPride]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Unless the mother brought it up, then I would respect her wishes(discussion) as I do HER body.

It's not "HER body" that's going to be killed, it's the unborn child that's at risk of that.

Guys have it easy.

I'm not a guy so I can't say for sure, but I don't think they have it so easy. They don't have a choice in what happens to THEIR child. What if the father of that child wants to take it and raise it, he can't because it's HER body and HER choice, that's ridiculous!

 

[5stringJeff]

Flasher (James, right?), you're in the religion forum, so religion is fair game.

But to answer your question, yes, I do have a justification for my pro-life positions outside of my religious beliefs. But it will have to wait until lunchtime!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
The Bible is a book, NewGuy.
Are you forcing your religion on me?

Why?

Are you gnashing your teeth?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
The Bible is a book, NewGuy.
Are you forcing your religion on me?

Do you know who the author is?

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Hannitized
It's not "HER body" that's going to be killed, it's the unborn child that's at risk of that.


I'm not a guy so I can't say for sure, but I don't think they have it so easy. They don't have a choice in what happens to THEIR child. What if the father of that child wants to take it and raise it, he can't because it's HER body and HER choice, that's ridiculous!

Not to get into the whole ownership thing because I realize the point of thread, but I think that if a man truly wants a child and the woman he is with doesn't and adoption is out of the equation, there are always other options where the man's sperm can be involved in creating a child through other means. Just a thought.

 

[UsaPride]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Not to get into the whole ownership thing because I realize the point of thread, but I think that if a man truly wants a child and the woman he is with doesn't and adoption is out of the equation, there are always other options where the man's sperm can be involved in creating a child through other means. Just a thought.

In this case, his sperm already was involved in creating a child.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I see where you are coming from, but I'm just throwing up a suggestion. If for what ever reason the woman that the man is with doesn't want to carry the child, he still has other options to have a kid of his own if that is what he truly wants. That's all I'm saying.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Why?

Are you gnashing your teeth?

NO. Just suggesting that our laws aren't based on the Bible, though many are in agreement with it, i.e Thou shalt not kill.

So the more you give biblical reasons for things the more you stay away from discussing the legal issue decided by the Supreme Court in R v. W.

Am I wrong here?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot

Ok, I will state the difference. We are God's children. My dog is God's creation.

Douglas:

So we (humans) are G-d's children and your dog (animals) are
G-d's creation and together all G-d' children are His creations. All G-d's children got to have shoes. Let's play with symantics.

I think mankind is a higher form of life, and the fact that we can know good from evil, make choices, and reason are results therefrom. As far as eating animals, I believe that all God created was for the benefit and use of man. One reason animals exist on the earth is to provide mankind with what we need, be it food, clothing, or whatever. The idea to keep forward, though, is moderation in all things. I don't think it's good for me to take my gun and just go kill as many animals as I can under the pretense that I will eat it all.

You might be interested to know that dolphins are now considered by many scientists to have an equal ability to think and reason like humans. They seem to have the same ability to understand, make choices, reason, decide and do evil things by hurting other aquatic animals and doing good by protecting humans in shark infested waters.

http://www.currybean.i8.com/custom2.html

Dolphins may not be as intelligent as humans, but there is not really anyway to measure it at this point, maybe, sometime in the future, we will be the ones learning the tricks...

When I said what I said about the spirit, I implied that the phrase "breath of life" was symbolic. Symbolic in that it doesn't refer to someone taking a breath of oxygen, but receiving their spirit into their body. Nobody knows when exactly the spirit enters into the fetus, and therefore, nobody knows exactly when life begins. However, as I said before, if the unborn baby is already acting and reacting within the mother's womb, that is a good sign that it is, indeed, alive.

You say if a 1) baby is acting 2) baby is reacting = 3) good sign that it the baby is indeed alive.

I think that this thought process is also symbolic as that verse in Genesis 2 does not relate to breathing oxygen as the fetus takes in oxygen through the umbilical cord, but 'breath of life' does not mean oxygenation of blood but with the first breath of oxygen through the NOSTRILS brings both oxygen and the life force many consider a soul. But that is only the Bible's opinion.

Again, the breath of life refers to the spirit, not oxygen - if there is no spirit, there is no life. If there is no life, there is no murder (my thoughts, at least).

Exactly... The breath of life does indeed refer to what humans consider a spirit or a soul. Read that Genesis 2:7 verse again carefully.

King James Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and (then) breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul.

No soul/spirit then there is no life and the fetus has not had the breath of life breathed into it's nostrils as yet. Do you now understand the concept?

And your point being...?

My point is that Adam besides meaning 'man' also means 'earth soil' in Hebrew. The original language of the Bible from which the King James Version and all other versions derived the first part of the Old Testament.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Do you know who the author is?

Many authors, divine revelation...debatable.

Here's an opinion I came across:

The Truth is that The Bible is: A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost.

So wrote M. M. Mangasarian, former Congregationalist and Presbyterian Minister, who studied at Princeton Theological Seminary, and very early in his life renounced his Christian affiliation and pursued a remarkable career as a proponent of Free Thought.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Many authors, divine revelation...debatable.

Here's an opinion I came across:

The Truth is that The Bible is: A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost.

That isn't exactly true flasher. With the discovery of the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls your theory of copies from copies is proved wrong.

Those Dead Sea Scrolls are the same, letter identical to the same Hebrew language Bible used to this very day. Not english translations but the original remains identical. Now that they have been found hidden for two thousand years, the fact that the original has been transcribed letter for letter.

Ergo, the possibility that it was unchanged for a total of 3,316 years has a probability of 99%.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I see where you are coming from, but I'm just throwing up a suggestion. If for what ever reason the woman that the man is with doesn't want to carry the child, he still has other options to have a kid of his own if that is what he truly wants. That's all I'm saying.

I'm saying what if he wants the one that he already helped create? Are you saying he shouldn't have that choice?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I'm saying what if he wants the one that he already helped create? Are you saying he shouldn't have that choice?

Did the man CREATE the fetus or did the male CONTRIBUTE one-half of his genetic material in his sperm and the woman contributed one-half of her genetic material in her egg.

The baking of the embryo to the form of a human takes place because of a series of events considered irreducibly complex, none of which can be done by the man or the woman in any meaninful manner.

Since the woman is doing the cooking, it is in her possession for about 9 months and no. the man has little to do with the woman's choice of how she handles this processing group of cells within her body.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by ajwps
Did the man CREATE the fetus or did the male CONTRIBUTE one-half of his genetic material in his sperm and the woman contributed one-half of her genetic material in her egg.

The baking of the embryo to the form of a human takes place because of a series of events considered irreducibly complex, none of which can be done by the man or the woman in any meaninful manner.

Since the woman is doing the cooking, it is in her possession for about 9 months and no. the man has little to do with the woman's choice of how she handles this processing group of cells within her body.

You beat me to the answer!

But I did pretty much answer Dillo's question in not so many words in an earlier post:

Ya, I kind of agree. I think the man does have say, but ultimately the woman should have the final say because she is the one who will be carrying if for 9 months and then giving birth to it, not the man.

But you explained it much better ajwps.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by ajwps


That isn't exactly true flasher. With the discovery of the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls your theory of copies from copies is proved wrong.
---not my theory. Have to read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Those Dead Sea Scrolls are the same, letter identical to the same Hebrew language Bible used to this very day. Not english translations but the original remains identical. Now that they have been found hidden for two thousand years, the fact that the original has been transcribed letter for letter.

Ergo, the possibility that it was unchanged for a total of 3,316 years has a probability of 99%.
--- What does all of this suggest about the origins of the Bible?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I'm saying what if he wants the one that he already helped create? Are you saying he shouldn't have that choice?

I'll jump in here just to say that as a potential father I should have a voice in what I help create. I don't see how I can force my opinion on a woman, though, since it's her body that is involved for nine months. My physical involvement sort of ends after I ejaculate...

IMO.

Pardon my Arabic.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I'll jump in here just to say that as a potential father I should have a voice in what I help create. I don't see how I can force my opinion on a woman, though, since it's her body that is involved for nine months. My physical involvement sort of ends after I ejaculate...

IMO.

Pardon my Arabic.

I don't really like posting on this type of topic, can get too heated, I'd rather stay with political issues. But a question regarding Flasher's point, Barring force, hasn't the woman made an implicit committment regarding the potential life that she might create by being involved with said man? If so, why should she, just by nature, have total control over the potential child?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I don't really like posting on this type of topic, can get too heated, I'd rather stay with political issues. But a question regarding Flasher's point, Barring force, hasn't the woman made an implicit committment regarding the potential life that she might create by being involved with said man? If so, why should she, just by nature, have total control over the potential child?

Good point, Kathianne. Perhaps there is a sort of natural vs. physical obligation.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Good point, Kathianne. Perhaps there is a sort of natural vs. physical obligation.

Well it just seems like when it comes to 'her body/her decision' the courts give no rights to the man. (truly I can't believe I'm arguing this...), however, IF she CHOOSES to keep the child, the man will be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years.

Now don't get me wrong, the child needs to be supported and we all have our responsibilities, but what about fairness, whether or not we'll argue morality of the discussion?