Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

Woa dude, you type a lot So if I believed in eye for an eye, I would be correct?I also agree with what you went on to say until you got to the point of:
"To craft laws on the latter proposition, not only represses actual living women in order to "take a chance" for the gestational being, but enforces that metaphysical position on others."Where I say the chance, and the choice is in the act of having sex. It is not our right to have sex without the repercussions that could follow. That, to me is a law of nature. The right to sex is a law of science and man, because it relies on science for it to happen without the repercussions. I think thats the order in which we do things, but I am not sure since Iam new to it. The first priority is to help the children at risk, then another group of people can go preach. We will if the grant allows to claim that we are doing the work of the Lord.Most of the people we help speak defferent language, so it makes it hard to preach, or witness. Well how else woould they know?
Do you consider reading the bible being preached to?
I know several people who got saved just by reading the bible.I have been learning not to preach to much, but just spread love, and then people start asking me about God. In here it's much harder, because we talk about issues that we don't talk about to much person to person. Plus I am not the best at expressing myself at writing, but it's getting better since coming to this forum.Also you have to know about the confusion of the message. If everything is true about God, and the devil, it is obvious how the devil would interfere with the travelling of the message. It happens in schools, and through corrupt people. It is a battle we fight, and the way I see it, many people do not understand the true message, or word of God. So far no one I ever meet who doesn't believe inGod understands the true message of God, or how he comes to us and dwells within us. Even with all that, we are still just men and woman, and are not perfect. Whats amazing is that you know a word like that, and use it. I had to go look it up, lol. I do believe we are the supreme beings on the planet, and by evidence we are in charge of all other life, and should control it. That means save it when it needs saving, and kill it when it needs killing. A gestational being does not fall into this category of other life.
this of course will raise a lot of eyebrows, and someone will complain about it.
I understand your point, but do not agree with it. We obviously have to live with some kind of morals. It's our collective to decsion to decide these morals, and they are not based on anyones, or groups specific philosophy. We are however a nation founded under God, and should consider that when we decide things. This later concept is what people are trying to change now, I also understand why. Living is what us, as a people make of it. Have you watch MTV lately? You missed my point. It doesn't matter what drives my belief's. You cannot tell me that I can feel a certain way towards something, just because it is biblical. That would be hypocritical.I can do what ever I feel is right according to my kingdom, and you cannot stop me. Just as you can do whatever you feel is right based on the lastest survey, or statistic, or discovery. This is all for another thread.This is precisly what I am talking about. People who do not believe in God today are trying to confuse what our founding fathers were trying to accomplish.It was the corruption of religion and government being together, not the actual morals of religion that they were running from. Since man cannot be charge of the 2, since man is so corrupt, and they felt as though man was not really fllowing what the creator had in store for us, hence the opening statements of the declaration of independence.I'm a little sick and tired of atheists taking the separation of religion and state out of context, it's getting absurd.But let's leave this to another thread. That's not what it is about. Majority rules.What are "Xians" ?
Do you mean Xi'an's? As in capital of Shaanxi?What answers in particular have you sought in the bible, and did not recieve? I will refer to the parable of the weeds to answer that question. Pluralism will not condemm me to hell, but I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right. But that's just it, I do respect it. In fact I believe that all God's may infact be the same God for all we know. Who are we to judge?
Each culture has a God based on their specific needs. For the start of this country it was the Christian God. As long as Christians continue to dominate this country you are stuck with the laws that come from it.The good news for you is that, I find most people who claim to be Christian, actually do not follow their faith. Which also may be bad news, because they are caught in the middle, and are not really sure of what is going on. Again, majority rules, and I will live by those laws. If Jesus is truth, and we explain the truth to them, the truth will prevail. You cannot stop truth from reaching people. We are taught to go out into the world and spread the word, but not condem or judge. It is a choice. We are not wrong for bringing it to them, the true gospel of Jesus Christ, to Love God, and love others, and believe in him that you may be saved. People are free to choose. But people must be made known of the choice. You had a chance to decide, why shouldn't others? When people see the miracles, and experience the Holy Spirit, the truth is then known to them. God speaks to them right into their hearts. That is over what you believe in, that we are destroying cultures. They can keep their cultures, and still believe in Jesus. If it improves them, and makes the world a better place, isn't that good? Should we just ognore African head hunters, and not tell them of the love of Jesus? When we did, they stopped head hunting.People choose Jesus by their own free will. The fact that we brought it to them has nothing to do with it's validity. The fact that you have not found him yet has nothing to do with it's validity either.

That's a good one. Anything I have to say about it, would be just my opinion, but based on my belief's in God.Since we don't really know what caused this to happen, it's hard to say what is the correct course of action. I feel as though it is not from God, and more likely from something man made. Since man has polluted this world so much, this deformity could have evolved from that.Or it could even be a spiritual deformity, that could be healed through the power of God. I know you probably won't accept that explanation, but that is fine.Either way, it is not the way God created us, and since it is born already, man would have to take the necessary steps to correct it.
With the current laws of abortion, most likely it would have been recommended that the whole thing be kiled before it ever was born. Not giving either head a chance. It's a judgement call by the doctor's and the mother. At least the mother gave birth to it. I also feel it does not relate to abortion, even though you do.

RiverRat,Since you still seem to be participating in this thread just as much as you ever were, I'd like a response to message 229, please.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2005 14:38 AM

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

X = greek letter "Chi" = traditional symbol/abbreviation for "Christ" dating from Christian use before the 1500's.

As long as your moral rules were consistent then they are valid moral rules. So as long as you didn't have that rule, plus something contrary like "don't ever do violence", then eye for an eye is valid to hold.I can argue against your position based on its consistency, or appeal to feelings you may have which would suggest your rules are incompatible with your actual assessment of the world, in order to "convert" you, but I cannot say you are wrong to hold any consistent moral rules which are not inconsistent with facts. Yes, I see this and it is valid up to a point. Choosing to have vaginal sex (and I wish you wouldn't keep saying "sex" as there are plenty of safe options) does set up a risk situation and the repercussion is conception, followed by implantation, and then full gestational process.So the person is risking those latter "repercussions". In reality the woman actually faces another possible "repercussion" and that is abortion. In that case the full gestational process is removed. It is a repercussion as most assuredly it is not something that is viewed as positive.Now here is where the law comes in. If your views are embodied by law then the woman is artificially restricted to the original repercussions (which do carry a greater risk), in order to give the gestational life a "chance". Having no laws allows a person to choose whether to follow your moral strictures or face the other repercussion which is allowed by my moral strictures. That is exploitation plain and simple. If you are really there to help people then there is only one priority: help the people.I have helped people in trouble and never ever have I used that "wedge" to then discuss my religious (moral) or political beliefs. If they are interested they will ask, otherwise it is taking advantage of another's disadvantage. What would prevent them from finding out on their own? Especially as communities build and begin to network more and more, there is no reason for missionaries except to oppress people into believing.But back to what I was saying in my post... If your religion was real, why wouldn't people discover it all on their own? Why wouldn't God have a way for them to find out, besides men who as you yourself go on to admit are fallable and liable to exploitation. This is a good example of an inconsistency. If you believe the above, how do you trust the Bible at all? It was written by men and translated numerous times by men. If one can have the faith that that was inerrant, then why not have the faith that those you are helping will know who God is, or come to find out on their own? Really? Which God? The major founding fathers rejected evangelism. Did you know this? They hated it. Even evangelicals trying to rewrite history of the US as being founded in Xianity had to admit this fact. They clearly said this nation was founded BY MEN, in order to secure what nature and nature's Creator (deism) granted.If you want to keep taking this tack I will turn and agree. Fine, we are founded under God, the deist God, time to start passing laws against evangelists!You should consider this when you start claiming we have to take religion into account when creating laws. No I do not watch MTV. You cannot live without taking risks. That is the point I was making. Every action comes with risks. You simply want to deny the ability of people to take a certain kind of risk because the repercussions may be something that your religious position does not accept. Actually you missed mine. You can feel anyway you want. The problem is you cannot pass laws which act to enforce religious standards on others. There are very good reasons for this which the founding fathers understood, having just gone through periods of faith and law combined to ill effect.People who do not believe in God today are trying to confuse what our founding fathers were trying to accomplish. Open a thread on this subject, or better yet do not and simply read what the founding fathers wrote. I agree that athiests have taken separation of religion and state too far. That does not change the fact that evangelists are trying to merge the two in ways that are patently unconstitutional and against the designs our nation's creators had for this country.You have made several statements regarding the nature of our government which are completely false and the product of evangelist revision of history. Why not go right to the source (and I don't mean the quotes mined by evangelicals)? Actually read what the founding fathers had to say in full context.I have never said they were not religious, neither have I said they were not of Xian denomination. That does not alter the fact that they hated evangelism and created a secular nation to block the mixing of religion and politics so that all religions (including DEISM) could flourish, unencumbered by weight of majority law. I hope you were saying that it is NOT about majority rules. If you think it is then you seriously need to move beyond the Declaration of Independence and read the Constitution. I am sick of evangelicals using quote mining from the Declaration and various state laws (pre US gov't) to try and bypass any knowledge of what our gov't is about. The Bill of Rights removes the simple rule of Majority. That is exactly what it is there for. Christians. It is shorthand and has historical ties to Christianity (Crash has already explained). Always amazed at how many Xians get insulted when I use their own historic semantics. Yes, and the question is where is the right venue. When you are taking a religious stand then the law is not the proper venue. You have no idea why this nation was formed and the principles it was built on do you? Do you really believe it was based on the Bible and not philosophers like Locke? Do you really believe they did not specifically try to remove the possibility of what you just described above as it was an abhorrent notion to them? So if a certain denomination of Xians rose to majority and started passing laws based on its tenets, and thereby oppressed your beliefs, you would say that was what this nation is about? Or when Islam becomes the majority religion you'll be fine with living under Islamic law?This is what the United States Constitution was designed to prevent happening, specifically the added Bill of Rights. Majority does not rule in the US. If the people are on an equal level with you, then this statement makes sense. If you specifically go to people that are in need of assistance and do the same thing then you are simply preying on them. I don't see how you do not see this fact.If a drug cartel went to an impoverished community and helped them out financially and then explained how good drugs are for their community and for people in general, wouldn't you consider that exploitation?There is a difference between being there and if someone asks, explaining what your beliefs are (making it available). But when you go in and give them aid with the secondary purpose to change their culture, or introduce your religious faith, then it is subterfuge.And honestly, you just said that you believed they probably worship God, just in another form. Instead of going and telling them what you think they ought to believe, why not let them enlighten you with what they know about faith? Then at least your help would be viewed as reciprocal.It it is the truth, it doesn't have to hide behind a mask of generosity. How on earth can they have a free choice when their aid is linked to a religious message? Come on. This is BS on its face. Can you keep your culture and deny Jesus, or believe in Mohammed or Zeus? As soon as you bring in foreign elements you alter what generations have spent building as their culture. All they need is food and housing to improve. Why did they need your God to improve? Do I think it improves them? Hell no. We have more religious violence now because of missionary work than simple tribal warfare beforehand.As far as your head hunting claim, I'd love to see proof of that. They needed Jesus to end it? Why not Buddhism? Or how about introduction of reasons (or mechanisms) whereby head hunting becomes unnecessary? When you bring it to them with the food and housing they need, then its validity is highly questionable.Have you ever heard of Cargo Cults?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Wait a second, are you saying that God can make mistakes when creating life? He obviously created that child as it was born... right? You are now wholly picking and choosing. It is directly related to abortion, given your stated criteria, not mine. That is why I brought it up.You said LIFE is what is important, must be protected, and even lack of certain qualities was irrelevant. The second head was there and functioning (even smiling).Now you say it should be up to the mother? Heck, that isn't even giving the right to the sister to whom the head was attached (which is more directly related to abortion).Since you are now claiming this case is not related, I want to know why you say that. What is the difference between this case and protecting life in general, as well as this case and a mother who has a parasite attached to her with drastically less functional capacity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I have been worned of my multiple replies in this thread, and most of your questions have been answered already by my statements in other replies.Is there a thing in particular?
Is it the infanticide thing you posted?The third choice in a google search, right after the link you supplied is this one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
That's from the government, not some pro-abortion web-site, an dit shows an increase in infanticde.Abortion does not justify infanticide. They are the same to me. That is from this web-site:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: InfanticideSo your asking me which is worse, when they are both just as bad in my eyes.BTW, there is nothing wrong with me asking you to back up your claims, and I have done some research on subjects I talk about. That does not limit me to being correct all the time.

Ah, ok.
I have never seen it used like that, so it through me off.
I've only seen it used like X-mas.
thanks.

While it shows a numerical increase culminating about 10 years ago, you failed to also state that the rates have remained substantially stable. In fact, the rates seem to have even dropped.The increase in numbers easily involve an increase in population.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Now, after all that, this is all you have to say? Just what is it that you claim to understand?I don't think you do, or you wouldn't also claim that your opinion should be law.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Me too, for the bible says we should give and not make a show of it.
This link better explains our principles:
http://hopeforthenations.com/content/AboutItem.phtml?art=...I am sorry if you feel it's exploitation.
If it is, then so are many things in life.Oh, and I titally agree with you that we should show love, and then let others then ask us about God. I believe that people should see Christ in me, and then ask on their own.again, this is hard to accomplish in a forum, well at least for me so far. But in the real world, it has been the best way for people to get to know Christ so far. If I am doing the right thing, according to God, then people will naturally seek him. That is a conformation that God exists and the ways of the bible are his word. There are many cultures that do not even have a bible in their own language, or do they even know the stories contained within. In some countries you can even be killed for becoming a Christian. In other countries your family will dis-own you for becoming a Christian.Nobody on a mission is opressing anyone, they are just telling them the good news. It is a choice of the individual.We also believe our God sent his son to us, and he told us to spread the news. Yes, your right. I have seen translations that I disagree with, or find parts of it, or it's wording to not be the word of God.This is why we must be a vessel to show people who and what Christ is all about.But I believe the thing about the bible is that you can indeed find God's word through studying it. I think praying to God, and asking for clarity is important. Then asking him to explain things to you when you do not understand. I know many people who came to know the Lord just by reading the bible.One story is how the church kept the bible in Latin for so many years, and oppressed the people into not knowing the whole word of God. when the bible came out in translations, people started to know the true word of God, and then realized that they did not need a church to find God, or to serve God. Corruption is high in the church, which I find so sad since that is were we go to find relief from said corruption.
It is also why we need a separation of church and state. this is where you are misunderstanding me. I am not asking you to take into account my religion. I am telling you must accept what I believe to be right, as well as I have to accept what you believe is right, then the majority rules.If I get my belief's from my religion, that is my business, and has nothing to do with if I feel it is right or not. You cannot tell me what is valid to get my belief's from. No, have you been listening? It's no great secret, that if you have vaginal intercourse, you can create life.
There is risk in crossing the street, but we look both ways don't we?
If you don't you can get hit by a car.
So you get hit by a car, and the doctor helps you, should we kill your child to save you? It does not matter where I derive my standard from, it is what I feel is right. Agreed, I didn't mean it like that.
I was speaking about things that we vote about. Na, I wasn't insulted, I just didn't know. Hold on to your old history books, and compare them 30 years from now to the new ones. That is why when I entered this thread, I mentioned I would leave God out of it. My belief's on abortion, comes from my respect of human life. It was then later confirmed by God to me. I understand what you are saying, but this is not where we are coming from. I will give an example. There is a hopr house in Thailand, and we are giving a place for young girls who have been sexually exploited and contracted AIDS to live out the rest of their lives in a safe place.While they may or may not be on the same level of us, there is obviously bad things happening to them over there, and if we come in and do good things, isn't this enough for them to see the difference between what they believe in, and what we believe in?They are going to die, and will probably never get to tell others of what we would show them about Jesus. I hardly find that exploitation.The word exploitation means to use someone for ones advantage. What advantage do we get having some kid in a jungle on the other side of the world become a Christian? It's not like we are asking them to send us all their banana's or something.On the other hand a drug Lord would exploit people for his own benifit. http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/1997/dawn9715.html#Borneo3Also bottom of page 13 in this pdf document
Page not found - Global UniversityToday's Christian Woman magazine | Love God. Live Fearless.I know these are not things you will see on CNN, because it is not bad news, and does not bring in the ratings. You either feel God, or you do not. We cannot control what people feel in their hearts. We are not exploiting these children, we are saving them from it. What do we need from them? Why should we kill ourselves trying to do good in the world? When God places something like this on your heart, you follow it.

I guess you missed the part where I said, we do not know how or why this child was born the way it was. To me it was most likely a man made interference, or a spiritual one, as in not God, but devil. We are talking about a deformity created by what?
It also has a chance to live now, where if it was aborted, it would not. The sister had no choice in the way she was born, we do not seem to know exactly why she was born the way she was, and it makes it hard to debate about it. you keep refering to protecting life in general, but as I told you I am for abortion if the mother is in assured danger outside the normal dangers of a pregnancy.

And NO ONE is telling you that YOU can't believe this. No one is forcing you to stop believing this, or to force you to have an abortion. No one is even trying to stop you from convincing someone else of your belief.You do NOT have control over what I do with MY body, or my beliefs.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

But you seem to think yours should.
You are giving everyone a second chance if they screw up, right?
That's what you want.What happens when it happens over and over, when does it become wrong?
Just how many abortions can a woman have before it becomes wrong?
Shouldn't we give all people who break the law by accident a second chance, or a third?

Except no one is breaking a law dear.Laws denying me the privacy and ability to make decisions concerning my own body were struck down as unconstitutional.There is no "law" saying go have an abortion. What there is is a little something we like to call the Constitution. This same constitution that allows you to make decisions for YOUR body that you feel are right for YOU and allows me to make decision for MY body that I feel are right for ME.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com