Bible thumping teenagers

[Good Old Neon]

How does killing the child make the experience less horrific?

 

 

I think the media has painted an inaccurate view of the evangelical denomination. The non-denominational, or 'evangelical' movement was a movement AWAY from centralized religion. There is MUCH less emphasis places on church doctrine, and alot more placed on solely what the Bible says on such matters. A rule-based, tic-in-the box religion is what we are trying to avoid. We are striving for a religion based on a PERSONAL relationship with God. See how that jives with the libertarian mindset? ( Though to be fair, most evangelicals are more moderates than libertarians.)

 

We are all our own person, and we are all given free will.

 

We have no desire to make this nation a 'Christian Nation'. America never has been and never will be a theocracy. ( The concept of separation of church and state was brought into play to protect the Church, not the state.)

 

A person is free to live their lives however they want. Outside of a religious faith, people would have no reason to abstain from homosexuality or any other sins. Why should we expect a secular society to act like a Christian society? Instead, most evangelicals are far more worried and passionate about the people themselves, serving the community, trying to help people and love them unconditionally; to show them God's love. It's really only through seeing that that we can expect positive change in people's lives.

 

Does that make sense?

Do you guys not deny that alot of stuff is screwed up with the way media portrays the 'common' lifestyle of people, especially teens? Or is it anything for a quick buck?

 

I see what you mean.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGrltT54OsA...ted&search=

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PUQATCcQ0A...ted&search=

 

This last one is especially telling - listen to what Pastor Ted has to say at the end. The former head of the evangelical movement seems to contradict what you have stated above.

[ction]

So far, and I think I counted correctly, only one man has answered Miss Chris' post regarding the frequency unprotected sex in which they have knowingly indulged. I am keen to hear this.

 

27 out of 2539

[Beltmann]

27 out of 2539

Seems about right. I was there.

[Spawn's dad]

does anal count?

[viatroy]

No. Neither do devices operated remotely.

[JUDE]

Two or three times, and even though I was in an altered state of consciousness, I was fully aware of the possible outcome. I just didn

[cryptique]

So far, and I think I counted correctly, only one man has answered Miss Chris' post regarding the frequency unprotected sex in which they have knowingly indulged. I am keen to hear this.

Zero. I have no interest in being part of an unwanted pregnancy (corresponds to my total lack of interest in ever having kids).

[Good Old Neon]

So, there is a universal sliding scale of what constitutes as living? Using the ... criteria, should we kill off everybody in a coma or severely developmentaly disabled?Whatever, I guess i'd like to believe that said clump of cells is allowed to have said dreams and aspirations...and not have the opportunity yanked away from it agasint it's control.Sidebar, going back ott he whole Pro-Lifers being for War (AKA Death)...if your Anti-War (AKA Death), how can you be okay w/ abortion (AKA death)?that of course was solely 'unprotected'.

 

I have tremendous respect and am forever in awe of life

[EL the Famous]

I would rather us focus our efforts on assisting living breathing human beings than an embryo with potential. To suggest that an embryo is every bit as viable as a living breathing human is to suggest that there is no difference between dropping an egg or a chicken into a boiling pot of water

[Spawn's dad]

I'm not a big fan of running other people's lives. I only know that if I were the father I'd prefer to see the pregnancy through and seek some other ending to the story.

[foolnrain97]

So far, and I think I counted correctly, only one man has answered Miss Chris' post regarding the frequency unprotected sex in which they have knowingly indulged. I am keen to hear this.

never out of "a decent amount"

[Good Old Neon]

we're comparing humans to chickens now? again, that is your opinion and that's fine...as long as you don't consider it fact, i'm fine.

 

It is was an analogy

[Good Old Neon]

see, the second part is troubling to me. outside of a rape scenario, that whole logic circumvents the shared responsibility two people have when they have sex. i understand that from a medical standpoint, the lion's share of said responsibility is on the mother who will have to carry the child...but she is partly responsible for getting to that point. You can call it 'punishment' or you can call it 'being held accountable'.

 

plus, all fathers do not and cannot just 'walk'...there are laws in place that determine support is required. i think that fathers who do walk are considered pretty harsh as well and should be. which, again, is what confounds me...the father is and should be expected to support both mother and child once a child is born, but until the child is born the father doesn't have a say in what happens to the child?! it makes no sense to me.

 

i guess this is all rooted into my absolute disdain for the widespread victim mentality this country seems to have come under. again, taking rape out of the scenario...if people just felt more accountable for their actions, that in and of itself would eradicate a lot of these problems and debates. it's like we throw up our hands and say: 'nobody will realize the reprecussions of pregnancy via unprotected sex, so we just need to make ot perfectly acceptable to bail out via abortion'.

 

...but of course, that's MY opinion. not fact.

 

Maybe you

[EL the Famous]

It is was an analogy

[MrRain422]

Okay, you're in a burning building. On one end of it is a human baby. On the other end of it is a petri dish with a dozen human embryos. You only have enough time to grab one of them and leave before the building collapses on you. What do you do?

[Good Old Neon]

of course, but (IMO) the end result is the same. a tract of existence is halted unaturally. i understand your point/opinion that there is a sliding scale of existence and just don't agree with it.

 

If you had to make the choice between saving a comatose person, and a perfectly functional capable person

[M. (hristine]

The abortion/war question is not about saving, it's about killing. You can't turn your face from that and make it something different. How often do our own bodies reject the fertilized egg? How often does hospice give just enough morphine to stop the heart? Look at the real questions here. Americans are so fearful of seeing death.

 

The more advanced medical science becomes, the more we have to ask these questions.There is nothing 'natural' about the 'continuum of life' anymore. 'Cause what about all of those frozen embryos? Since they exist in no 'womb' are they somehow exempt from these moral judgements?

[EL the Famous]

Maybe you

[Good Old Neon]

nice. i'm not at all perfect/exempt from making mistakes and didn't say that i was...i just believe that one should be responsible enough to understand these 'mistakes' can happen and, versus expecting someone to handle them for you, that you may need to step up and see the result through. if you can't or just don't want to raise a child...why roll the dice by putting yourself into a situation where that may be the case? that doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

 

really, it comes down to making a personal call on which is more reasonable: abstinence or abortion. only one of those decisions bears an absolute 100% ironclad path that will insure neither a child, nor (in cases of an abortion gone wrong) mother has to worry about the cessation of a life. that, is a fact.

 

in a response to both the burning building and coma question...i'll use M. Chris's statement: it's not a question of 'saving' anybody, it's a question of allowing someone to live or not. the sliding scale i keep referring to relative to this discussion is who should be allowed to continue to live and, in this case, having this child doesn't mean you will die. to make it a choice of one person over the other isn't the point.

 

Fair enough.

 

My point goes back to the Wallace quote I originally led off with.

 

 

[caliber66]

I respect the Pro-Life position, I simply draw the line at enacting laws to limit a women

[Good Old Neon]

I'm going to take exception to this one. Why does the belief that fetuses should not be aborted have to come from religion? Does the law against murder?

 

The question of whether or not embryos or fetuses should be afforded some of the same rights as, um, "ex-utero" humans isn't a religious one, despite the fact that many anti abortion groups are religious in nature.

 

It does not come from religion, however, the vocal, political majority pushing for the abolition of abortion is religious in nature. Which is why I added

[EL the Famous]

The abortion/war question is not about saving, it's about killing. You can't turn your face from that and make it something different. How often do our own bodies reject the fertilized egg? How often does hospice give just enough morphine to stop the heart? Look at the real questions here. Americans are so fearful of seeing death.

 

The more advanced medical science becomes, the more we have to ask these questions.There is nothing 'natural' about the 'continuum of life' anymore. 'Cause what about all of those frozen embryos? Since they exist in no 'womb' are they somehow exempt from these moral judgements?

 

The difference between war and abortion, is the person being killed in once scenario has absolutely no say in the matter. While it is our governement's responsibility not to put our soldiers in unwinnable and/or unjustified conflict...those soliders enlisted w/ the understanding they will be putting their life at stake. If you take issue w/ someone making a decision if someone else lives or dies...how is war any different than abortion? Be you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you are contradicting yourself.

 

A mother's body rejecting the fertilized egg, is different than a conscious decision made by said mother to terminate the egg. Euthanising someone who is suffering or has no chance for survival is different than not allowing someone the opportunity to move forward in life w/ no issue.

 

The frozen embryo thing, again, comes down to if you view them as a living being...personally, i don't think they are exempt and that is just my opinion. i also don't find the process of assisted fertility treatments any less 'unnatural' than other medical procedures put in place to prolong a life that has a chance to live because of it. that said, comparing the two or using it as basis for a stance about abortion seems a rough road for me. one is allowing life to continue and (depedning on your views) one is ending it.

[Lammycat]

Just popped in to add that I think I have plenty of "right" to help make decisions on a pre-birth being. Just because I'm male and it's not my body does not mean I forfit rights to decide the pre-born's fate. Without a man the fetus wouldn't be there. If the man wants the pregnancy and the woman doesn't I'd hope it'd be a viable court case.

[caliber66]

It does not come from religion, however, the vocal, political majority pushing for the abolition of abortion is religious in nature. Which is why I added

[M. (hristine]

The difference between war and abortion, is the person being killed in once scenario has absolutely no say in the matter. While it is our governement's responsibility not to put our soldiers in unwinnable and/or unjustified conflict...those soliders enlisted w/ the understanding they will be putting their life at stake. If you take issue w/ someone making a decision if someone else lives or dies...how is war any different than abortion? Be you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you are contradicting yourself.

Sorry K. Many innocent human lives are lost in legally sanctioned wars who are not 'enlisted.'