why abortion is good.

[Bluth Corporation]

But it's not relevant! Abortion is justifiable because an unwanted unborn fetus is no more than a parasite, and since the mother has total control over her own body she's entitled to expel it just like she's entitled to expel any other parasite. If you were a Christian, you'd know this.

You don't understand Christianity, clearly. Using the Christian argument, the child has a soul and is made in God's image and likeness, and therefore has human value. That's the Christian view, and that's why Christianity is pro-life. However, no secular person accepts this, so we've been avoiding using it for the most part and quite honestly, i don't expect many who read this to accept it. So the pro-life side will have to use other arguments.

Except Christianity holds no such belief. For one, Christianity is atheistic, so the idea of "God's image and likeness" is absolutely alien to Christianity.

[Bluth Corporation]

So to sum things up, basically what you guys are saying is that a fetus is a parasite if unwanted, but not so if it is wanted. There shouldn't even be any unwanted children. People should be smart enough to keep their pants on. And if you play the rape card, that is an exception, but most pregnancies are not the result of rape.

Sometimes people want to have sex but don't want children. Sometimes they take steps to prevent that but those steps don't work. Since wanting to have sex without having children is a perfectly legitimate choice for consenting adults to make, abortion is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving the desired result.

[Hathradic States]

I feel that the topic of abortion constitutes a ridiculousy important role in US politics. The fact is that all you pro-lifers fail , AND I MEAN FAIL, to realise that abortions are disproportionately preformed on low income urban people. you fail to realise that these "innocent children" you are "saving" will lead lives of abuse poverty and neglect at the hands of uneducated and often criminal parents eating up tax dollars. they will most likely emulate these negative traits and continue the cycle of urban decay. so if your such a god fearing moral christian , why would you rather have a child suffer than not exist at all? also ask your self this , who would force someone to bear a child.


P.S. ; I AM A CONSERVATIVE , HARD TO BELIEVE RIGHT

Translation for Dummies:
Abortion keeps more people from being created.

I find that such logic is as much a fail as those who spout morals as their reason for being pro-life.

[Farnhamia]

I feel that the topic of abortion constitutes a ridiculousy important role in US politics. The fact is that all you pro-lifers fail , AND I MEAN FAIL, to realise that abortions are disproportionately preformed on low income urban people. you fail to realise that these "innocent children" you are "saving" will lead lives of abuse poverty and neglect at the hands of uneducated and often criminal parents eating up tax dollars. they will most likely emulate these negative traits and continue the cycle of urban decay. so if your such a god fearing moral christian , why would you rather have a child suffer than not exist at all? also ask your self this , who would force someone to bear a child.


P.S. ; I AM A CONSERVATIVE , HARD TO BELIEVE RIGHT

Translation for Dummies:
Abortion keeps more "mud" people from being created.

I find that such logic is as much a fail as those who spout morals as their reason for being pro-life.

Made a better translation for you.

[Crispicaea]

You don't understand Christianity, clearly. Using the Christian argument, the child has a soul and is made in God's image and likeness, and therefore has human value. That's the Christian view, and that's why Christianity is pro-life. However, no secular person accepts this, so we've been avoiding using it for the most part and quite honestly, i don't expect many who read this to accept it. So the pro-life side will have to use other arguments.

Except Christianity holds no such belief. For one, Christianity is atheistic, so the idea of "God's image and likeness" is absolutely alien to Christianity.

Dude, that makes no sense. Christianity isn't atheistic, and we DO hold that belief.

[Bluth Corporation]

Except Christianity holds no such belief. For one, Christianity is atheistic, so the idea of "God's image and likeness" is absolutely alien to Christianity.

Dude, that makes no sense. Christianity isn't atheistic, and we DO hold that belief.

What you're describing sounds more like Paulinism than Christianity.

Paul of Tarsus, and therefore the Church he founded, completely and totally rejected the true nature of the Christ.

[Crispicaea]

WHAT?

I understand that Paul did change Christianity, but Jesus NEVER said that God didn't exist. Show me ONE Bible verse that says God isn't real.

[Sin]

You're making a judgement that all would-be aborted kids are born into welfare-consuming criminal families-- this is not the case.

I am pro-choice, however.

[Divair]

WHAT?

I understand that Paul did change Christianity, but Jesus NEVER said that God didn't exist. Show me ONE Bible verse that says God isn't real.

He didn't say anything even close to what you're saying.

[Bluth Corporation]

WHAT?

I understand that Paul did change Christianity, but Jesus NEVER said that God didn't exist. Show me ONE Bible verse that says God isn't real.

Jesus was not the Christ, but only an imperfect manifestation of him. Since belief in a god is incompatible with Christness, whenever Jesus expressed belief in a god or behaved in a manner inconsistent with nonbelief in a god, he was not being the Christ at those times.

It's Christianity, after all, not Jesusism.

[Crispicaea]

WHAT?

I understand that Paul did change Christianity, but Jesus NEVER said that God didn't exist. Show me ONE Bible verse that says God isn't real.

Jesus was not the Christ, but only an imperfect manifestation of him. Since belief in a god is incompatible with Christness, whenever Jesus expressed belief in a god or behaved in a manner inconsistent with nonbelief in a god, he was not being the Christ at those times.

It's Christianity, after all, not Jesusism.

Jesus was not the Christ: Then explain the whole death on the cross, saved us from sin, coming back to kill the libbies, etc.
Imperfect manifestation: HE WAS GOD FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
Belief in God is incompatible with "Christness"? How? That doesn't make any sense!
So you're saying that because Jesus believed in His own Father, he isn't the Son? What?


You're trolling, there is no way you can possibly be a Christian. You posted that to irritate me.

[Bluth Corporation]

Jesus was not the Christ, but only an imperfect manifestation of him. Since belief in a god is incompatible with Christness, whenever Jesus expressed belief in a god or behaved in a manner inconsistent with nonbelief in a god, he was not being the Christ at those times.

It's Christianity, after all, not Jesusism.

Jesus was not the Christ: Then explain the whole death on the cross,

He was executed because a bunch of people didn't like him.

saved us from sin, coming back to kill the libbies, etc.

Jesus did no such thing.

For that matter, neither did the Christ. The Christ saved us by showing us how to live among one another peacefully and amicably, so as to keep us from destroying ourselves.

Belief in God is incompatible with "Christness"? How? That doesn't make any sense!

Since there is in fact no god, belief in one or supplication to one is a distraction from doing the Christ's work of saving mankind from destroying itself. Thus, Christness is incompatible with theism.

[Crispicaea]

Jesus was not the Christ: Then explain the whole death on the cross,

He was executed because a bunch of people didn't like him.

saved us from sin, coming back to kill the libbies, etc.

Jesus did no such thing.

For that matter, neither did the Christ. The Christ saved us by showing us how to live among one another peacefully and amicably, so as to keep us from destroying ourselves.

Belief in God is incompatible with "Christness"? How? That doesn't make any sense!

Since there is in fact no god, belief in one or supplication to one is a distraction from doing the Christ's work of saving mankind from destroying itself. Thus, Christness is incompatible with theism.

You are a troll. Flat out. If you claimed to be a Jew, it could by a stretch be believable. But this is the most obvious trolling I've ever seen. Enjoy being ignored, I will not respond to you specifically again.

[Mavorpen]

^^ The Rage is strong in you.

[Frisbeeteria]

Dude, that makes no sense. Christianity isn't atheistic, and we DO hold that belief.

What you're describing sounds more like Paulinism than Christianity.

Paul of Tarsus, and therefore the Church he founded, completely and totally rejected the true nature of the Christ.

Bluth Corporation, Crispicaea, Sin, and anyone else involved in this diversion: Knock it off. Take this diversion to another thread if you want, but leave this one on it's original topic.

[Rocotia]

Obviously Bluth Corporation is a Catholic based on his veiws, and I have not understood these people.

[Wiztopia]

You don't understand Christianity, clearly. Using the Christian argument, the child has a soul and is made in God's image and likeness, and therefore has human value. That's the Christian view, and that's why Christianity is pro-life. However, no secular person accepts this, so we've been avoiding using it for the most part and quite honestly, i don't expect many who read this to accept it. So the pro-life side will have to use other arguments.

Except Christianity holds no such belief. For one, Christianity is atheistic, so the idea of "God's image and likeness" is absolutely alien to Christianity.

You do realize that you're the only one in the world that believes that right?

I feel that the topic of abortion constitutes a ridiculousy important role in US politics. The fact is that all you pro-lifers fail , AND I MEAN FAIL, to realise that abortions are disproportionately preformed on low income urban people. you fail to realise that these "innocent children" you are "saving" will lead lives of abuse poverty and neglect at the hands of uneducated and often criminal parents eating up tax dollars. they will most likely emulate these negative traits and continue the cycle of urban decay. so if your such a god fearing moral christian , why would you rather have a child suffer than not exist at all? also ask your self this , who would force someone to bear a child.


P.S. ; I AM A CONSERVATIVE , HARD TO BELIEVE RIGHT

Translation for Dummies:
Abortion keeps more people from being created.

I find that such logic is as much a fail as those who spout morals as their reason for being pro-life.

Well you're right. Abortion has nothing to do with people and only zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc.

[Rocotia]

Except Christianity holds no such belief. For one, Christianity is atheistic, so the idea of "God's image and likeness" is absolutely alien to Christianity.

This is not true. In Genisis 1:26 it says "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

[Crispicaea]

I think the guy is trolling bro, obviously his "Bible" consists of a pamphlet distributed by the FFRF to tell people how to troll Christians.

[Ninjopolis]

So to sum things up, basically what you guys are saying is that a fetus is a parasite if unwanted, but not so if it is wanted. There shouldn't even be any unwanted children. People should be smart enough to keep their pants on. And if you play the rape card, that is an exception, but most pregnancies are not the result of rape.

Sometimes people want to have sex but don't want children. Sometimes they take steps to prevent that but those steps don't work. Since wanting to have sex without having children is a perfectly legitimate choice for consenting adults to make, abortion is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving the desired result.

So you're saying that if they try to use contraception and it fails, they should be able to kill the result of having sex? Abortion isn't a means to preventing pregnancy, since you can't have an abortion until after conception. Abortion is not a legitimate means of achieving anything except murdering one's offspring.

[Mavorpen]

Sometimes people want to have sex but don't want children. Sometimes they take steps to prevent that but those steps don't work. Since wanting to have sex without having children is a perfectly legitimate choice for consenting adults to make, abortion is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving the desired result.

So you're saying that if they try to use contraception and it fails, they should be able to kill the result of having sex? Abortion isn't a means to preventing pregnancy, since you can't have an abortion until after conception. Abortion is not a legitimate means of achieving anything except murdering one's offspring.

You're missing the point. A fetus is not a human. If it is unwanted and unintentional, they have the right to do whatever they want with their body. You're trying to take away rights they would have naturally in the world. These natural rights are also UNALIENABLE rights, meaning they cannot be taken away.

Let's apply your logic with something else. Say you get into a car and drive to the market. Now, you have CHOSE to get into the car. Then you get into a wreck; someone blindsided you, and your child is killed. You CHOSE to get into the car, but you did not choose to get hit by another vehicle, nor did you choose your child's death. Using your logic, the other driver cannot be punished in any way, simply because you chose to get into the car in the first place. See how absurd it is when you DON'T use abortion as a smoke screen to cover up the fact you simply want to take away someone's rights?

[Four-sided Triangles]

So you're saying that if they try to use contraception and it fails, they should be able to kill the result of having sex? Abortion isn't a means to preventing pregnancy, since you can't have an abortion until after conception. Abortion is not a legitimate means of achieving anything except murdering one's offspring.

You can't murder something that isn't a person.

[Ashmoria]

Sometimes people want to have sex but don't want children. Sometimes they take steps to prevent that but those steps don't work. Since wanting to have sex without having children is a perfectly legitimate choice for consenting adults to make, abortion is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving the desired result.

So you're saying that if they try to use contraception and it fails, they should be able to kill the result of having sex? Abortion isn't a means to preventing pregnancy, since you can't have an abortion until after conception. Abortion is not a legitimate means of achieving anything except murdering one's offspring.

if they havent sprung off they arent offspring.

abortion is a last ditch chance to decide you dont want a child before there IS a child. whether its from forced sex, unprotected sex, a contraceptive failure or a tragic pregnancy, its GOOD to not have children you dont want to have.

[Crispicaea]

You're missing the point. A fetus is not a human. If it is unwanted and unintentional, they have the right to do whatever they want with their body. You're trying to take away rights they would have naturally in the world. These natural rights are also UNALIENABLE rights, meaning they cannot be taken away.

[quote=Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I see three unalienable rights. One of them is life. None of them are not sex without consequences, and none are the ability to murder your child because you "control your body". In fact, the control of one's body is not even mentioned, so I do not see where your logic comes from.

Now, I do see where it says that I can destroy the US government if it infringes upon my rights, but since the US government as already thrown that one out, I'd say that Jefferson's "unalienable rights" are as alienable than any.

Let's apply your logic with something else. Say you get into a car and drive to the market. Now, you have CHOSE to get into the car. Then you get into a wreck; someone blindsided you, and your child is killed. You CHOSE to get into the car, but you did not choose to get hit by another vehicle, nor did you choose your child's death. Using your logic, the other driver cannot be punished in any way, simply because you chose to get into the car in the first place. See how absurd it is when you DON'T use abortion as a smoke screen to cover up the fact you simply want to take away someone's rights?

Do you think this is a conspiracy? We don't want to take away anybody's rights, and if murder is a right then it ought to be taken.

[Divair]

You're missing the point. A fetus is not a human. If it is unwanted and unintentional, they have the right to do whatever they want with their body. You're trying to take away rights they would have naturally in the world. These natural rights are also UNALIENABLE rights, meaning they cannot be taken away.

[quote=Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I see three unalienable rights. One of them is life. None of them are not sex without consequences, and none are the ability to murder your child because you "control your body". In fact, the control of one's body is not even mentioned, so I do not see where your logic comes from.

Now, I do see where it says that I can destroy the US government if it infringes upon my rights, but since the US government as already thrown that one out, I'd say that Jefferson's "unalienable rights" are as alienable than any.

Let's apply your logic with something else. Say you get into a car and drive to the market. Now, you have CHOSE to get into the car. Then you get into a wreck; someone blindsided you, and your child is killed. You CHOSE to get into the car, but you did not choose to get hit by another vehicle, nor did you choose your child's death. Using your logic, the other driver cannot be punished in any way, simply because you chose to get into the car in the first place. See how absurd it is when you DON'T use abortion as a smoke screen to cover up the fact you simply want to take away someone's rights?

Do you think this is a conspiracy? We don't want to take away anybody's rights, and if murder is a right then it ought to be taken.

You don't want to take rights away? So you support abortion based on the fact that if you oppose it you are in favour of stealing the mother's rights?