The right to abort. The right to ask for the aborted to be adopted instead. These are the same thing!
- Thread starter Gottservant
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If you continue to promote killing and eating human babies I don't think it's gonna be so funny on Judgment Day.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Anyone can provide videos to prove anything. Do you really believe everything that you see on the web or TV?
The videos I provided are VERY short and absolute proof!
That's quite akin to saying the recent school shootings were the deliberate firing of several bullets, Jim. So, yes, but the deliberate termination of a pregnancy is ~ even scientifically (biologically) speaking ~ the deliberate termination of a human being, which translates to murder.
The whole "viable" thing is mere misdirection or rationalization or both. Now, if you were to say, "not all pregnancies result healthy newborn children," you'd surely be right about that, but that's no different than saying "not all children become healthy adults." Moreover, it is just as "unfortunate" that not all women survive giving birth to children. Every one of these truths is equally heartbreaking.
Yes, people die, through all sorts of ways and means. It is a result of the Fall of Adam and Eve, a judgment placed upon mankind. Originally, though, this was not so... God created a world without death. Therefore death, Jim, is not natural (despite what many might say). The great thing is, God has promised to remove this judgment through and because of the work of Christ Jesus on the cross. And all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Jesus. Through His sacrifice, this judgment has been reversed and will one day ~ one great Day ~ be no more.
Grace and peace to you.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
I'm debating whether your post deserves an actual reply...
a) Bringing recent school shootings into the discussion is absurd!
b) Your first paragraph is also absurd. Termination of a pregnancy is -- ready? -- the termination of a pregnancy! Why are you incapable of understanding that not every pregnancy results in the birth of a healthy baby? Fetuses can be malformed, i.e., lacking well-formed vital organs such as a heart and/or lungs, that make it impossible for the newborn to survive. Claiming that "the whole "viable" thing is mere misdirection or rationalization or both" is just nonsense!
c) Your last paragraph is just spouting irrelevant doctrine, so I will ignore it. Try sticking to the subject. If you can't do that, then answer these questions (preferably elsewhere): why did God kill all the firstborn in Egypt (humans and animals) and why did He allow Herod to kill all the young boys, two years old and younger?
You can't exercise the right to adopt, over a mother dying - but no one is asking to! We want the baby that would be aborted, even if the mother lived!
I'm not surprised, considering your posting history in this thread (and probably others).
This is a total miss of the point. Or avoidance, or misdirection, or... all three.
My goodness. Is this not what I just said? Yes, I quote myself: "...if you were to say, 'not all pregnancies result healthy newborn children,' you'd surely be right about that...", and this was in response to your statement that, quoting you, "not all pregnancies result in a healthy, viable fetus...", and in so doing my clear (printed) point in saying that was, the "viability" of the "fetus" was mere semantical misdirection and/or rationalization. So here again, you are avoiding the point, presumably because you know there is no escaping it (though you certainly tried...). I'll only say, yet again, that the deliberate termination of a pregnancy is ~ even scientifically (biologically) speaking ~ the deliberate termination of a human being, which translates to murder.
Hopefully, you're only one in a dwindling number of human beings who actually "think" that.
LOL! You mean, try letting you shift the subject to something it never was in the first place? LOL! I mean, that's quite the problem, Jim, but I get it; you're avoiding that issue altogether. I understand.
Now, these are excellent questions. How can a good God allow evil to happen? How can a good God allow suffering and death? Age-old questions, these are... Now, maybe you'll dismiss this again as "spouting off irrelevant doctrine," which will be just as ludicrous here as it was before, but I'll answer thusly, that just because we can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean there cannot be one. Paul says in Romans 8:28, that, "God works all things..." ~ all things, which presumably includes things that we would consider bad, or even terrible ~ "...together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose." But beyond that, I'll merely answer these two questions, with three questions of my own, the second and third more pointed than the first:
1. Assuming you are a Christian, is God not the the giver of life, and as such, possess the prerogative of ~ as Job puts it in Job 1:21 ~ give and take away? This was immediately after he learned of the death of his children. Or, as Paul puts it in Romans 9, "...has the potter..." (God) "...no right over the clay..." (those whom He made)?
2. Picking back up in Job 1, immediately after verse 21, quoted above, we read that Job says, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” And in the very next verse, Moses writes that "(i)n all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." So, the question is, would you charge God with wrong? Would you presume to instruct God on what is right and good?
3. In advocating abortion, would you presume to put yourself in the place that only God can possibly be? Regarding even life itself, would you give and take away?
Grace and peace to you, Jim.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Two points: 1) "that the deliberate termination of a pregnancy is ~ even scientifically (biologically) speaking ~ the deliberate termination of a human being, which translates to murder" is absurd. A zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, are not "human beings", capable of independent life, so the termination of a pregnancy is not "murder". Removal at any stage prior to birth (without outside intervention) will result in a death. If a fetus has defective lungs or a defective heart or any other fatal condition, do you want to watch them suffer and die because of your morals?
Claiming that "the deliberate termination of a pregnancy is ~ even scientifically (biologically) speaking ~ the deliberate termination of a human being, which translates to murder" is beyond nonsense.
In preventing abortion, would you presume to put yourself in the place that only God can possibly be? Not every pregnancy will result in the birth of a healthy baby. It is up to God to determine if a pregnancy will result in a live birth or not.
My grace and peace come from God, not you.
What you say here is absurd. And a denial of science.
Now, this is a different subject ~ and may open a whole 'nother can 'o worms for you ~ but I will say that the deliberate termination of a human being is not always murder; neither killing another human being in self-defense, nor in state-sanctioned war/combat necessarily murder... nor is, again, necessarily, state-sanctioned capital punishment.
Again, from the "Everything you need to know you learned from Dr. Suess Department": "A person is a person no matter how small" (Horton Hears a Who). No matter the stage of development (or age)...
Ah, "capable of independent life"... Well, really, no child is capable of independent life until adulthood, nor is a senior citizen suffering from, say, dementia. But murdering a human being at any stage of development (or degeneration) is ~ and rightly so; surely we would agree on that ~ against the law. Well, it should be, we'll say...
Yes, so it is a deliberate causing of the death of a person without warrant, which, Jim, is murder. Just deciding, for one reason or another, to cause that death most certainly does not qualify as warrant, and neither does what may or may not be that person's future quality of life.
Those conditions are not necessarily fatal. No one wants to watch anyone suffer or die (except sadists or masochists or the like). What we're talking about ~ or should be, regarding those who swim in the same streams of "thought" as you ~ is giving the person every chance at life ~ which God has covenanted to each and every one of us.
Again, to label what I said "nonsense" is absolute nonsense. It's a denial of science and even reality itself.
This question is nonsensical. I would answer it by saying nothing happens in this world without God directly causing it or allowing it to happen; we've covered this point. Again I would say (regarding God allowing evil, suffering, and death to happen, as you seem to have brushed it aside), just because we can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean there cannot be one. As Paul says in Romans 8:28, that, "God works all things..." ~ all things, which presumably includes things that we would consider bad, or even terrible ~ "...together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose." As Job says, "The LORD (gives) and the LORD (takes) away; blessed be the name of the LORD," and to his credit did not charge God with wrong. Yes, God can prevent death and even murder, but perhaps ~ perhaps ~ His purposes (which, as Job finally acknowledges, "cannot be thwarted"; Job 42:2) are much higher and more transcendent than we can imagine. As Isaiah says, "For (God's) thoughts are not (our) thoughts,
neither are (our) ways (His) ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our ways) and (His) thoughts than (our) thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
To answer your "question," here, Jim, I do absolutely believe it is possible ~ and even charged to us by God ~ to sustain and even defend life, which is the greatest grace He has given any one of us ~ as much as we possibly can, And ~ presuming you are American, though that matters not, as this is true regardless of ethnicity ~ I do believe that every person... again, no matter how small... is endowed by (God) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence, 1776), and that any person would think otherwise is just terrible.
Agreed! Jim, you are unequivocally and without question defeating your own argument, here. Surely you see that.
LOL! I hope so, Jim. I mean, that was my intent in wishing you grace and peace. Paul says this over and over again in closing all his letters to the various churches (in Rome, Ephesus, Galatia, etc.). It is very much in keeping with what God instructs Aaron regarding offering blessing to the Israelites in the book of Numbers (6:24-26): "The LORD bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace."
Grace and peace to you, Jim.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
There is no point in our discussing this any further. Grace and peace to you as well.
Well, if you would change your "thinking," I would agree. But, fair enough.
Grace and peace to you.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Well, okay, knowledge based on errant and/or incomplete thinking, as denoted by the quotes, and therefore not... true knowledge... :)
Grace and peace to you.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
You were the one who used the quotes. They denoted your opinion, not facts. I can just as easily say that your "knowledge" is based on errant and/or incomplete thinking, i.e., it's not true knowledge.
I say again, My thinking (without the quotes), unlike yours, is based on knowledge.
Since I am right and you are wrong, there is no point in our discussing this any further. If you persist, I will "ignore" you.
Right. :)
Well, now that's your opinion, Jim.
You can, for sure, but... I wouldn't advise it.
And I say again, okay, "knowledge" based on errant and/or incomplete thinking, as denoted by the quotes, and therefore not... true knowledge.
Opinion... and intransigence, I guess...
Sure. Unfortunate, but, respectfully, okay.
I... don't care. :)
Oh wait... you have 'ignore' in quotes, there. I assume that's very intentional. So, Jim, does that mean you're not really going to ignore me? Because that would be in keeping with my acknowledgement of your "thinking" and "knowledge," neither of which is correct, complete, or true thinking/knowledge... :)
Ah well, anyway, yeah, I don't care. That's perfectly fine with me (as if you needed my approval). :)
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
You're quoting the curse on God's enemies. You're cursing yourself! lol
You don't seem to know anything about the Bible Stan, excepting twisting verses.
Last edited:
Similar threads
