Having an abortion is the equivilent to throwing away sperm in a condom. The thing is not living yet, it doesn't think, it's not wondering why their mother is killing them like people portray in some poetry and stories. If you accidently get pregnant and don't want the child, there's no reason why you should keep it. Abort it. Save the time for when you want to have a child and are fitting enough mentally and financially to support it. And no, don't argue that you can send it off to an adoption home, because those are sick places flooding with children. There's enough children that need to be adopted, why just throw your kid in with the rest of them? I'm pro choice all the way, no matter what the reason. If you don't want to have a baby you shouldn't be forced to birth it. It's not like there's a population crisis, anyway.
I can't believe you brought up Islamic terrorist thinking in any way that could even remotely be considered as positive. I'm disappointed in you. You may need to seriously consider relocating to a country that has no concept of freedom of religion - if you can find one that is not Islamic. In America, you're going to see a constantly increasing number of people making a real effort to live a non-christian lifestyle. We're not going anywhere. Southern culture used to force their brand of fundamentalist christianity on everyone down here, and the end result was a monolithic society that was sexist, racist, homophobic, and generally 100% intolerant of any other philosophy or any form of ethnicity other than that of the dominant group. I saw the remnants of that culture, up close, in my grandparents' generation, and it was ugly. I'll take our current problems over that bullshit any day. The old Northern culture was much more diverse and tolerant. It prevailed, because there is strength in diversity. One positive thing that I have to say here about mainstream christians is that the majority have always sought to bring people into the christian lifestyle and faith by persuasion, not by force. And you have personally benefited from this culture of free choice, when you switched denominations several years ago. What you must understand is that you can't have it both ways; if you deserved the freedom to choose your own beliefs and act upon them, then other people do too. Freedom of religion is nothing more than an empty phrase if everyone is forced to follow the christian bible in evaluating moral issues and values. Slowly but surely, society is increasingly rejecting the concept of adoption. I think it is sad that so many adopted kids become obsessed with their birth parents, but I don't know what it feels like to be in their position, so I can't say they are wrong.
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; I use the Bible as a guide to my life. This is my own personal preference, which I have no desire to force on someone. I think people who choose to do so are happier than people who don't but that's just my opinion. As you can see in the quote above, the Bible says the bed is undefiled. If I am interpreting that correctly, that means there is nothing wrong with having sex. Where in my posts did you get the idea I want sex to be forbidden? Apparently you are making assumptions based on your lack of knowledge of the Christian religion. Sex is the glue that keeps a man and woman together and in love. I have never believed there was anything wrong with having sex, and never will. Even if I did think so, I have no desire to force my will upon others. I also have no desire to have people's lives ruined when they become pregnant. That is one of the reasons I oppose abortion, because it ruins so many lives. I feel sorry for those people who spend the rest of their life feeling guilty for killing their baby after an abortion. If I was able to prove myself right, that the soul starts growing at conception and goes to an afterlife in heaven if the embryo dies, then the laws would probably be changed forcing people to birth every baby that survives, and abortion would be illegal. That is not what I am about at all. I want people to accept this concept by faith of their own free will. I have never believed that you can legislate morality. Even when people come back from the dead and say they saw their relatives, people still do not believe them. Their will never be proof that we have a soul, or that it goes to an afterlife. It must be accepted by faith, in much the same way as you believe our "scientists" when they state that there is no life after death and we are all here by some grand accident. In fact, it takes more faith to accept that than it does to accept the Bible. "The United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution 44/82 of 8 December 1989, proclaimed 1994 as the International Year of the Family (IYF). The significance of the landmark event of the IYF lies in its reinforcement of the interrelationship between family well-being and sustainable development." You can read the rest of this paper here; http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/familypolicies.PDF . The actual benefits of a strong, secure family to a country are innumerable and to state that the family has nothing to do with any nation reveals a certain lack of insight.
Also, the terrorists wanted to take our freedom. And apparently, we should just lie down and give up THAT freedom, too, because freedom of religion (those who are not christian are seen with deep suspicion, I experience this daily) and speech/assembly (wiretapping, heavy suppression of protests, general media control) are long gone. By the way, jeebus was brown. If you saw the guy, you'd probably call your local motherland security office and hurry your family away from him.
DUDE!!! A woman should have the legal right to get an abortion in the first trimester. I believe wholeheartedly and devoutly in God...and I'll just be damned if I'll judge another woman should she make this decision. Just my opinion, of course...and this decision should be between her and her God, not the whole wide world and her and God. Making abortion illegal is most assuredly not going to stop a thing...it'll just make it more difficult for a woman (and sometimes girl) to get a clean abortion with quick access to good medical facilities should the need arise. Years ago prohibition surely didn't stop drinking.
Talking with you is similar to masturbating with a cheese grater. Kind of interesting, but mostly painful. (I read that quote somewhere this morning, I guess atributed to Andrew Dice Clay.) A reasonable stance, eh? I am being reasonable. Killing a baby is wrong. Whats unreasonable about that? Oh, and who's reason are we basing "reasonable" on? I do give people time limits. Use a condom or birth control that prevents the egg from becoming fertilized. What's so hard about that? In the event an egg is accidently fertilized, have the baby and give it up for adoption. You know there are people with much more unreasonable stances than that. One of my uncles has 198 grandchildren. This is the foggiest thinking I have ever encountered yet in my whole life concerning abortion. I wonder what you were smoking last night. Prior to this you have made several statements concerning the fetus being conscious. How do you determine when the baby is thinking, or when it is conscious? The fetus at some point will respond to music being played in the same room as the mother. Maybe you could contrive a test using Led Zeppelin and if the baby responds, abortion is no longer allowed. No response means the fetus has the same rank as cancer and can be disposed of at will. But then what if the fetus is really conscious and thinking and just doesn't like Led Zeppelin? My thinking is very concise and contains no smog; if a human egg is fertilized, it has the potential to become a person therefore has all the rights of a person. How can I make it any more concise than that?
Scientists state that there is no life after death? No, scientists state that they cannot prove the existence of life after death. Neither can they disprove it, nor find any substantial evidence one way or the other. They don't deal with matters of faith and belief. That's not what they are about. If a scientist tells you what he personally believes, he is speaking as an individual, and not in a professional role. I think any analysis of the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the christian bible belongs in the religion section. There are lots of threads on it there. I have plenty of concerns about that book, but I'm not going into it in a political forum.
Yes. In a perfect world, nobody would die. When people die the ones who were their friends and family and are still alive normally feel a sense of loss. My wife and I had 2 babies that died and we cried when it happened. Thinking about it now brings tears to my eyes. Some people might say that if nobody were to die, we would run out of resources. That is bunk. There are millions of other worlds out there, and a lot of them probably have environments similar to the Earth's. All we would have to do is figure out interstellar space travel in order to get there. The problem is that we have aborted the baby that would have figured that out.
Miss Karen, you are a kind and intelligent woman. You might find this link interesting. I know Stephen Hawking does not speak for all scientists, but he did air his views on the afterlife for publishing. When a renowned scientists calls the afterlife a fairy tale based solely on his own opinion with no evidence to back it up, it kind of makes one wonder about modern science. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-fairy-story-150719080.html
Did you know that the word so meant, it is true. In a perfect biological system every life gives itself to every other life. If it is wrong to die then quit insisting on wrongness.
If every life were to give itself to every other life, everything would be dead. There would be no life, because it would all be given away. In your perfect world, the epitome of human life would be to be eaten by a person. A perfect world would have life in it to live in the world. In perfection, everything has purpose, so if there were no life in the world the world would have no purpose and therefore would be imperfect. What you say is not true, that in perfection every life gives itself to every other life. In a perfect world, we only give a portion of ourselves to other life around us, each of us doing our part to provide for the others, thus each one is sustained in perfection. When the egg and sperm are united, they have a chance to grow into a person. Why do you people think you can convince me to change my view on this without presenting some sort of intelligent evidence? If the egg and united sperm are allowed to grow for a month or two or three, and then removed and put in an environment where the growth is forced to stop, isn't this death? This is why the anti-abortion movement is called "Pro-Life." Your accusation that I am insisting on death by choosing life makes no sense to me; perhaps you could lower your intelligence long enough to write on my level.
why is it that the scientists have to prove the nonexistence of afterlife or god? afterlife and god are conjectural concepts and as such it is their existence that should be proven first before handed out for people to believe in, or have their life significantly altered by insistence on these concepts. i can think of this universe in such a manner, that what we are, solar systems, galaxies, everything out there, is simply blood flowing through the veins of something else. for example. again a theoretical concept. and it is not something that should be thought of as true, or something to base a cult around until scientists prove otherwise. it is a concept, and until we have technology to venture into such areas, it means nothing, whether true or false. and there are billions of concepts out there, we don't accept them all as 'true until proven false'. that's a ridiculous notion. religion is when you accept that notion, but only for one specific thing like christian god for example. if religious people understood this, they would have to accept all the faiths out there, all the gods that have been concocted up, all the possible concepts. they find that laughable, but not the premise by which they accept their own one religion as true.
This is the definition of science from Dictionary.com. Notice it says it deals with a body of facts. Granted, we don't know we are alive, we have to accept that by faith as well. The theory "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes is flawed. If you have watched "The Matrix" you are familiar with the concept that we may be hooked up to a machine making us think we are thinking. So everything we accept as fact is in fact a leap of faith. Howevere, if we accept the earth as fact, and the things we can see and experience as fact, then science should deal only in fact. If a scientist is going to comment negatively for publication on theories that have not been disproven and claim that those theories couldn't be possible based simply on his own intuition without using any scientific method, he should be thrown out of the scientific community. It would be different if he said "This is just my opinion and is not based on any research." And the fact is as Miss Karen said, science should keep it's nose out of religion. If science wants to disprove the Bible, they should send out archaeologists to prove that the history written in the Bible is inaccurate. I accept the Christian religion based on the evidence I have studied, not based on conjecture or other people's faith. There is the Bible, the life of Jesus and the apostles, the near death experiences of thousands of people plus my own near death experience. I have a number of books on theology that are worth reading, plus a good book reviewing the evidence by Josh McDowell. If you want me to I can PM the titles and authors to you.
No, if people spend thousands of years proclaiming shit about god with no proof, and a scientist calls it a fairy tale, he's totally right. A fairy tale is something mystical with no proof, though many of them have more than religion does. You need to prove yourself, he does not need to disprove you. I can easily see anybody, scientist or otherwise, getting frustrated when christians constantly demand that their fairy tale be DISPROVEN by science, when in fact this is the opposite of how science works, and they are the ones who need to PROVE it. (of course, many have tried) Speaking on evidence, it is entirely sound to proclaim god a fairy tale, until such a time as he or somebody else proves his existence.
