Abortion Views

[mercaptovizadeh]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't get how another person's body is your business. If you're against abortion, that's cool, but how does someone's decision effect anyone else in any physical way? It doesn't, so that's why i am pro choice.

People should mind their own business, simply put.

So, parents can kill their own children? When does the business of the mother end and the business of the child begin?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Aside from the moral arguement, legally privacy granted under the Constitution extends to a person's body and the person has complete control over their own privacy; so people should be allowed complete control over their own bodies.


Now, how can you explain the arguement against abortion in the case of rape or incest? How does a man or woman who has never been raped understand the trauma of having to raise the child of their rapist and then having to love it? Have to look at the face of the person who violated them? How can you justify preventing them from getting an abortion?
A male Freshman Senator from Oklahoma who is an OB/GYN and has performed three abortions during his career supports death penalty for abortion providers. His great grandmother was raped by a sheriff and she raised the child and this congressman said that abortion in the case of rape are "abortions of convenience." This is a scary trend considering this person is creating law in this country and is clearly educated on the subject.

You conveniently forgot adoption. Or should I say, you omitted it becuase it is not consistent with your ridiculous argument.

And privacy has it's limits, just as do our other freedoms. You cannot allow religious groups, for example, to kill people based on their religious beliefs. That's when that freedom ends.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Although I am not sure if this is true, I want to bring up another point. While we argue over the ethics of "killing" embryos and partial fetuses of unborn babies which have absolutely no consciousness or cognitive abilities, we are okay with killing grown adult mammals for research. Now I am not against the pursuit of knowledge and conduct of research, but dont you think this is a little bit odd? In the same sense, no matter how intelligent a monkey is, it will never have the same sympathy from the population as a less intelligent mentally challenged child. This is because the child is a human and the monkey is not. There is no sound reason as far as moral ethics go that grant a fertilized egg any rights according to our value system besides the fact that it could one day become a human. But then where does it stop? Are you against killing sperm and unfertilized eggs? And one day when even skin cells have the potential to give rise to humans, will you be against the sloughing off of skin cells while you are sleeping? My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere and that line should be based on cognitive/ conscious abilities of the organism...not based on what species it is or what "potential" it may have. Just something to think about.

I see, so intelligence has become the denominator of humanity? So, if someone has an IQ of, say, below 50, we have a right to kill it? See how absurd your argument is?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

if I put on a condom when boning some chick, isnt that about the same as abortion? I am preventing pregnancy and thus life. I dont want to be a hipocryte, so I guess I would be pro choice. abortion is birth control, and birth control is abortion.

oh give me a freaken break....you don't need a physiology lesson; it's not a child, it's sperm you let die but they die every day when you jerk off or don't create a child; it's obviously not the same thing.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

A lot of Christian doctrine is not explicitly laid out in the Bible either but that doesn't mean it is invalid or wrong. In the Orthodox Church, for example, we have the writings of the various Saints and Church Fathers who "fleshed out" the beliefs of the Church. This is why we have theologians.

One difference between churches like the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches and various Protestant denominations is that the many protestant sects have abandoned almost all aspects of Christian dogma not explicitly laid out in the Bible. (many of the fundamentalists fall into this category)

This is why there are some protestant sects that deny the divinity of Christ and downplay the role of the Theotokos (Virgin Mary). This is fine, of course, as it's a free country where we can all practice any or no religion according to our conscience. But this is also why a sect like the Unitarians, for example, are pro-choice (sort of) while the Catholics and the Orthodox are extremely pro-life. (The Catholics to the point of forbidding birth control)

When I have some time I will search for some of the writings of our church fathers (some from the distant days of the Byzantine Empire) dealing with abortion. Just for your interest, of course. I know that if you don't believe it won't sway your opinion. I only want to demonstrate that some churches have given a good deal of thought to the matter of abortion.

Personally, both from our Church Fathers and a gut feeling, I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortion. Surely there is a special place in the an olympic swimming pool of lava somewhere in Hell for those who perform the so-called "partial birth abortions."

Hi Panda, it is only those Christians who have become legalistic who read it in that strict way. They cannot see the spirit of the word, love for other human beings. Christ had so much love for children.

Another point: there is EXPLICIT BIBLICAL evidence to support the notion that the unborn is to be viewed as a living human being, in Deuteronomy there is a provision for a woman who has been struck so as to cause an abortion, yet without killing her.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

oh give me a freaken break....you don't need a physiology lesson; it's not a child, it's sperm you let die but they die every day when you jerk off or don't create a child; it's obviously not the same thing.

Which is why mechanical birth control is OK, yet the morning after pill, for example, isn't.

 

[leechy]

Really, it all comes down to whether or not you view an embryo as a life or as a blob of cells.

Hey, did you read my posts? Embryos are life... dogs are life.. insects are life... plants are life... You do not have this strict choice between classifying something as either a blob of cells or a person whom it is murder to kill. And it is because there is no strict dichotomy that a pro-choice person can logically advocate distributing morning-after-pills (which prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs) to reduce the number of abortions.

As someone else pointed out, the main you can grant a human zygote rights that you wouldn't grant to a chimp with the cognitive development of a three year old are on theological / religious grounds. Such arguments shouldn't have a place in legislation.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Woh there partner. As a christian, let me be the first to tell you that many of us are pro-choice, and quite comfortably justified so based upon study of the bible. Let me clairify: Nowhere in the bible does it specifically say that abortion is wrong or sinful. Nowhere. Abortion was fully known in ancient times, and many a text or injunction had been written about it. For example, part of the original text of the ancient hippocratic oath:


This document, written 400 years BC sees the necessity to specify an injunction against abortion. It recognizes that a fetus is not the same thing as a human being, and as such it follows the command to abstain from killing a person with a necessary clairification, a second command to abstain from ending the life of fetus.

If god, being almost by definition omnipotent, had wanted to make clear his/her objection to abortion, s/he would have specified it. Instead, the bible is resoundingly silent about the issue. We are not told that it is wrong or right in the almighty's eyes. Thus, one is left with the only conclusion possible, that the decision should be left up to the individual. Thus god (Jesus) was pro-choice.

i find it odd that you call yourself a Christian and can't even capitalize God or Bible (His word). Your views do not support mainstream Christianity.

However I agree with you on being offended by his comment that Christians do not base anything on logic.

 

[leechy]

I see, so intelligence has become the denominator of humanity? So, if someone has an IQ of, say, below 50, we have a right to kill it? See how absurd your argument is?

But your argument would make possession of human DNA the sole arbiter of personhood, regardless of how intelligent, conscious, or aware an entity was. And if the strict moral dichotomies expressed by most of the pro-lifers on this thread are representative, you either contain a full set of human DNA, which makes it murder to kill you, or you're a "clump of tissue" that needs to be treated with no more respect than a rock. A moral philosophy that would grant human zygotes protections that we would deny to at least some other intelligent non-humans does not sit well with my conscience or my reason.

I also wanted to speak more generally of this issue of "where to draw the line", which has been brought up several times. Boundary disputes are indeed a major issue in bioethics (from what little I know of the subject). But boundary disputes are an issue in practically any policy. Here's the boundary dispute argument framed in terms of abortion:

“If we allow women to abort fetuses, we’re going to have to set a boundary point, an age, at which it is no longer permissible to abort. But it’s hard to draw such a boundary point; is a 25 week old fetus really so different from a 24 week old fetus? Where would we draw the line? We would head down a slippery slope in which we'd allow mothers to kill their eight year olds. Therefore, to be safe, we must not allow abortion under any circumstances.”

Let's look at an analogous argument:
“If we allow adults to vote, we’re going to have to set a boundary point, an age at which it is no longer permissible to vote. But it’s hard to draw such a boundary point; is a 17 year old really so different from an 18 year old? Where would we draw the line? We would head down a slippery slope in which we'd allow eight year olds to vote. Therefore, to be safe, we must not allow voting under any circumstances.”

My point is, the existence of gray areas in determining the permissibility of an action does not mean that action should never be allowed. Why? Because there are clear cases which don’t fall in a gray area. Five year olds are not capable of political decisions. 30 year olds are. The same way, human zygotes are not persons whom it is murder to kill. Five year old children are. Granted, I’m using extreme cases. We can quibble about whether the voting age should be 17 or 20, just as we may quibble about whether personhood is established at 30 weeks or at birth. This doesn’t mean we have to either allow infanticide or outlaw the morning after pill to be logically consistent.

 

[Brain]

Another point: there is EXPLICIT BIBLICAL evidence to support the notion that the unborn is to be viewed as a living human being, in Deuteronomy there is a provision for a woman who has been struck so as to cause an abortion, yet without killing her.

Yes, but the penalty for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to have an abortion carries the same penalty as assault and battery. We've all heard of the eye for an eye rule. If God considered this abortion to be the murder of a human being, then why doesn't the penalty for this person reflect that of murder? Because it isn't. When did Adam become alive in the book of Genesis? When he took his first breath. Thus, one can interpret this to mean that life begins when we draw our first breath, which is after we are born. The point is that there are multiple interpretations of the bible. Who gives one person the right to interpret it and then expect everyone else to live by it?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Which is why mechanical birth control is OK, yet the morning after pill, for example, isn't.

yes, prevention and murder are two entirely different things

 

[leechy]

Which is why mechanical birth control is OK, yet the morning after pill, for example, isn't.

Women who exercise or diet suddenly have a higher risk of having a spontaneous early miscarriage. Should exercise be outlawed for potentially pregnant women - or at least made a misdemeanor - since it tends to prevent implantation of fertilized eggs?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Women who exercise or diet suddenly have a higher risk of having a spontaneous early miscarriage. Should exercise be outlawed for potentially pregnant women - or at least made a misdemeanor - since it tends to prevent implantation of fertilized eggs?

exercise is considered beneficial to women unless she is high risk. early miscarriage is generally due to problems with the fetus and there is nothing one does to cause it nor anything one can do to prevent it

 

[the other Dr.]

yes, prevention and murder are two entirely different things

Please tell me where you are going to med school.

 

[8744]

Woh there partner. As a christian, let me be the first to tell you that many of us are pro-choice, and quite comfortably justified so based upon study of the bible. Let me clairify: Nowhere in the bible does it specifically say that abortion is wrong or sinful. Nowhere. Abortion was fully known in ancient times, and many a text or injunction had been written about it. For example, part of the original text of the ancient hippocratic oath:


This document, written 400 years BC sees the necessity to specify an injunction against abortion. It recognizes that a fetus is not the same thing as a human being, and as such it follows the command to abstain from killing a person with a necessary clairification, a second command to abstain from ending the life of fetus.

If god, being almost by definition omnipotent, had wanted to make clear his/her objection to abortion, s/he would have specified it. Instead, the bible is resoundingly silent about the issue. We are not told that it is wrong or right in the almighty's eyes. Thus, one is left with the only conclusion possible, that the decision should be left up to the individual. Thus god (Jesus) was pro-choice.

You are absolutely correct when you imply that Roman and Greek classical civilizations had a more tolerant view on abortion. Where it was banned or proscribed in ancient times it was more often because because the woman deprived her husband of a potential heir than for any particularly moral objections to the practice. This was an age where the populations of cities were routinely put to the sword as legitimate foreign policy and I suppose the ancients were a little less sensitive than we are.

Early Christians regarded any abortion after the fortieth day after conception as murder (and it is obvious why this period was chosen) because they believed this was the time when the fetus was fully formed and was "ensouled."

Consulting my "Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization," I find that the Roman Emperors Severus and Caracalla introduced the first bans on abortion in the early third century AD and viewed abortion as a crime against the rights of the parents. It was punished with temporary exile.

"The Teachings of the Apostles," a second century Christian document that was the first to mention abortion condemned the practice as did the letter of Barnabas, Tertullian, and many other early Christian theologians.

So objection to abortion is not without sound theological tradition.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you all would try to keep the debate civil. We have a perfectly good thread going here without the usual insults and flaming.

 

[8744]

Hey, did you read my posts? Embryos are life... dogs are life.. insects are life... plants are life... You do not have this strict choice between classifying something as either a blob of cells or a person whom it is murder to kill. And it is because there is no strict dichotomy that a pro-choice person can logically advocate distributing morning-after-pills (which prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs) to reduce the number of abortions.

As someone else pointed out, the main you can grant a human zygote rights that you wouldn't grant to a chimp with the cognitive development of a three year old are on theological / religious grounds. Such arguments shouldn't have a place in legislation.

Well, chimps aren't humans. Neither are dogs. As much as I love my dogs I would never pretend that they have a right to anything. (I mean, their idea of a swell time is nosing each other's butts and rolling on dead squirrels.)

If the majority, and I mean a substantial majority, of the population believes in God and furthermore, between the Christians, Jews, and Moslems in this country agree on certain broad principles of religion-based morality (which they do) why shouldn't their beliefs have a place in legislation? I certainly will never vote for an atheist and while I neither want nor expect my legislators to launch a jihad against people who make the sign of the cross with an open hand I do expect them to be guided by their religious principles.

The constitution rightfully prohibits the establishment of an official state church but I can't find anything in any of our founding documents which even remotly implies that religion need remove itself frompublic life.

 

[8744]

Please tell me where you are going to med school.

Pscho Doctor is right. I am perfectly willing to draw the line at conception. Seems perfectly reasonable. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I'm all for birth control and I wish more of my ignorant, young, female patients would avail themselves of the free Depot Provera we offer at our clinics rather than viewing becoming pregnant at sixteen as a way to gain independence from their mother.

Not to mention somehow castrating the dumb, ignorant, babby-daddies who have no intention of supporting their bastard children.

The way some of the children look at me I can tell that I am the first male authority figure they have ever seen who was not either beating their momma or selling her drugs.

On the other hand, some physicians I know are against giving birth control to minors without the consent of thier parents and I would never try to force them to act contrary to their religious beliefs. I am a pretty tolerant guy.

The Catholic Church, by the way, does not condemn birth control because they believe it to be the same as abortion but because it violates the injuction to be fruitful and multiply.

I am not a Catholic. I am not defending them. I could be wrong.

 

[stinkycheese]

No. Every attempted suicide thay bring into our Emergency Department is brought in by a police officer who would not allow the person to kill himself. Of course, many folks are just looking for attention when they "attempt" suicide but law enforcement will not allow you to even attempt it if you can be stopped. People are not prosecuted for attempted suicide but they are often involuntarily confined to a psych ward while they get treatment. It is not just a silly "blue law." If it were, the police and health care providors would be ambivalent.

The police officers have a right to bring in a suicidal person because that person is presumed to not be in a sound state of mind, and is at potential for harming him/herself. Public safety officers have a duty to protect the lives of their community members. They're not bringing them in to uphold a law, they're bringing them in to save a life. The spirit of the action is different. No one is prosecuted after attempting suicide, but they are prosecuted after attempting murder. There is a difference with regards to why police officers intervene with the two.

Additionally, I have read your argument that pregnancy is not a disease and that in the case of rape, you are still against referring the woman to a pro-choice physician. I would like to point out that many women are afflicted wth PTSD post-rape and carrying the rapist's child for nine months could exacerbate this diagnosis. People with PTSD are at a high risk for developing depression, and people with depression are at a high risk of committing or attempting suicide. Therefore, it seems that you may be worsening the health of your patient by refusing to refer, and that in this case, pregnancy, although not a disease itself, is contributing to the exacerbation of a real and serious mental illness.

As a physician, you are responsible for not only your patient's physical well-being, but also for her emotional and mental health. It would strike me as negligent to not refer a patient at least to a pro-choice physician, if not an abortionist, in the event that someone with PTSD post-rape seeks an elective abortion. She would need to be able to seek treatment from a physician who could help her make the right choice for her continued health, and if you were unable to fill that role for her, then you should refer her to someone who can discuss abortion as an option, even if the other doctor wouldn't perform the abortion herself. Do you see what I mean?

Finally, I would like to applaud everyone on this thread for the calm discussion. Especially Panda. We have very different viewpoints, but I have actually started to re-evaluate my own stance on abortion after reading your well though-out viewpoints. I appreciate the candor and the civility. Keep it up, everyone!

 

[stinkycheese]

A: Not everyone is of that view. I do not support abortion under ANY circumstances - rape, incest, or health of the mother. So your point does not apply to all.

In the case of a patient who could not carry a pregnancy to term without serious risk of death due to complications, would you let her die before referring her to a physician who could perform an abortion?

 

[stinkycheese]

Well, chimps aren't humans. Neither are dogs. As much as I love my dogs I would never pretend that they have a right to anything. (I mean, their idea of a swell time is nosing each other's butts and rolling on dead squirrels.)

See, and this is where I also disagree. I think they have a right to their own lives -- ie, if they are not a threat to society or the animal population, they have a right to autonomy in a safe setting, and no one has the right to kill a healthy, safe animal. I also believe all domesticated animals have a right to a loving home where they will be well taken care of. I don't think that they have the right to roam wild and spread disease, which is why I understand that stray dogs and feral cats sometimes have to be put down for the good of the larger animal population. Unfortunately, there aren't enough homes to go around, and sacrifices must be made for the greater animal population. That is also why I support spaying and neutering my pets -- they are happier (not in heat and they can live with other animals without constant sexual escapades), healthier, in many cases... so I guess you'd say that I don't give them the right to their own body. I think of it more that I know what is best for them, and I am acting out of love, not control.

But I do think that my dogs and cats have many rights. They have the right to not be picked up when they don't want to be. They have the right to play when they want to. THey have the right to sleep where they choose in my house and to make their own decisions about how to plan their day. They have a right to their claws. For as long as they don't hurt anybody, or put themselves in danger (I don't let my cats out because we live in the city), they have a right to do whatever they choose. They are alive. They can survive on their own, and I choose to help them with a warm home, food, water, and love.

It's interesting that often, animal-rights activists are very liberal. I wonder how they feel about abortions... I'll bet many of the more extreme animal-rights people don't eat eggs because those are "chicken abortions", but support a woman's right to choose. Very interesting.

But this isn't a vet thread, so I'll stop here. 🙂

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Please tell me where you are going to med school.

please tell me how your lost the ability (or never had it) to realize when things are said so sarcastically and appear nonesensical to prove what should be a really obvious point....but it keeps being overlooked or ignored

 

[Crake]

It's interesting that often, animal-rights activists are very liberal. I wonder how they feel about abortions... I'll bet many of the more extreme animal-rights people don't eat eggs because those are "chicken abortions", but support a woman's right to choose. Very interesting.

But this isn't a vet thread, so I'll stop here. 🙂

Wait, PETA people eat aborted fetus's? Hypocrites!

 

[Geronimo]

See, and this is where I also disagree. I think they have a right to their own lives -- ie, if they are not a threat to society or the animal population, they have a right to autonomy in a safe setting, and no one has the right to kill a healthy, safe animal.🙂

Can you not see that it seems as though you two carry on a double standard? You would bend over backwards to protect a mouse or monkey but act as though you could care less about a developing human.I am stretching this a little as I know you don't esteem mice above humans but that is the same frustration pro-lifers feel when they hear people who are opposed to abortion go on and on about how much they love and protect animals. If you believe in the Holy Bible to be the inspired word of God then you must subscribe to its teaching. One is that animals have no souls. This does not mean that we must not respect them. We must and treat them with care and love. God designed Adam as the "zookeeper" if you will along with gardener. Adam was to "rule over" all the beasts of the field, sky, and water. Rule over means take care of and not "crush beneath your heel. So, if animals do not have souls (yet humans do as the Bible describes) it should be easy to understand why someone will freak out over the destruction of an embryo (which has eternal consequences) and not freak out as much over the death of a lab rat (which ends its consciousness). Of course, you say this below and I commend you for noting the dichotomy of it.

I also believe all domesticated animals have a right to a loving home where they will be well taken care of. I don't think that they have the right to roam wild and spread disease, which is why I understand that stray dogs and feral cats sometimes have to be put down for the good of the larger animal population. Unfortunately, there aren't enough homes to go around, and sacrifices must be made for the greater animal population. That is also why I support spaying and neutering my pets -- they are happier (not in heat and they can live with other animals without constant sexual escapades), healthier, in many cases... so I guess you'd say that I don't give them the right to their own body. I think of it more that I know what is best for them, and I am acting out of love, not control.

So, maybe we should do the same to humans (especially those who have had multiple abortions(women) or are responsible for causing women to have multiple abortions (men) and have shown they really don't want kids).

But I do think that my dogs and cats have many rights. They have the right to not be picked up when they don't want to be. They have the right to play when they want to. THey have the right to sleep where they choose in my house and to make their own decisions about how to plan their day. They have a right to their claws. For as long as they don't hurt anybody, or put themselves in danger (I don't let my cats out because we live in the city), they have a right to do whatever they choose. They are alive. They can survive on their own, and I choose to help them with a warm home, food, water, and love.
It's interesting that often, animal-rights activists are very liberal. I wonder how they feel about abortions... I'll bet many of the more extreme animal-rights people don't eat eggs because those are "chicken abortions", but support a woman's right to choose. Very interesting.🙂

I have one other thing about this idea of “rights.” The idea itself is very philosophical and way overused as is love. We love hamburgers, we love our computer, we love our children, we love our cell phones, we love cars, we love, we love, we love. It devalues the meaning of love to love everything. The Greeks had it right when they used four different words for love. One is a brotherly or friendly love –Phileo- another is erotic love –eros- another is true selfless love –agape- and the last is I like it or respect it love – Stergo. I think “rights” is way over used as well. Google has bunches of definitions for “right.” When you boil it down to primary definition, you get an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law. Well, as we all know, a law or the constitution is only good as long as the citizens of that country and those who rule over them obey or enforce those laws. So, in essence there are fewer “rights” that mean anything anymore. Since animals have rights to their on claws, women have rights to kill their unborn babies, kids do not have the right to say a prayer over their meals in school, and so on, the meaning of “rights” become very unclear and disconcerting to a Christian. Basically, Americans think they have “rights” to do pretty much whatever they please as long as it doesn’t offend anyone else (excluding Christians of course). You can offend a Christian all you want because they have to take it (they are the majority) and plus doesn’t the Bible teach to “turn the other cheek?”

People usually fail to realize that Jesus was using a figurative speech of that day. It was not as literal as people suggest now. Jesus was fiery man with radical ideas, such as woman are to be treated with respect as well, and children are highly esteemed not just possessions, prostitutes get another chance, and many of the pious religious folks are heading straight into hell and not even realizing it. The way he didn’t take crap from the Sadducees and the Pharisees suggests he didn’t literally turn the cheek everytime someone hurled insults at him. Yet, there were times when he did hold his tongue (like in front of his accusers in his trial) and He often showed love and compassion when society suggested death for a lawbreaker, like the woman that was about to stoned.


Christians, for the most part, could never hold true to the concept of turning the other cheek in the literal sense. Christians should stop being pansies and stand up for what they believe. They have stood in the halls of congress to long allowing activist groups like the ACLU and homosexual agenda chip away slowly at Christian heritage and family. Christians and Jews are the majority in this country and should have a darn big “say” in what goes on around here.

If we are seen as trampling on minority rights, then we have to consider two things. First of all, is it tradition or is it something that is morally defensible. If it lines up with God’s word, such as abortion or homosexuality, then we can not take a back seat and let others run the country. If it has to do with praying over a meal at school, God never said prayers can’t be silent. None-the-less, God does say let your light so shine before men that it will bring glory to God the Father in heaven. If a child can’t pray in school, they probably can not proselytize either. That limits there freedom of religion as God does instruct men to make disciples of others. Perhaps the greatest goal of the Christian church is to convince others that there is a God, He is Holy and Just and expects mean to live without blemish or sin, all men have failed an fallen short of God’s standard, none-the-less God loves man, He died in place of man for man’s sin, man only needs to accept that fact and offer his love in return to God in return for eternal life.

Now, you may say that Christians can not do this if they offend others. God’s word is offensive. The very nature of telling other people they will go to hell if they don’t subscribe to our faith is offensive. However, we see it as love to try and save you from falling into eternal damnation, not a hateful offense. Jesus said that some will never listen, some will listen but never accept it, others will listen and entertain it but in the end, not accept, and yet others will listen and accept it. Christians should be prepared to deal with all of this, realizing they are just going to offend some people. If someone is so offended by the “Truth” that they will not accept it, that is terribly sad as they will spend eternity without God. But, the Christian fulfilled what God expects of them and delivered the message. Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message. Jesus said that if you are rejected by man, it is not you there are rejecting but Me.

 

[W222]

GERONIMO Do tell how the homosexuals and ACLU are ruining the American family? It looks to me like Christians are doing a wonderful job of ruining the American family without the help of others. The Bible belt states have some of the highest rates of divorce, those who identify themselves as Christians are more likely to marry multiple times, and Christians are more likely to marry and have children at a young age. All of these factors point to an internal cause. (I am not making these thing up by the way, do some digging and you will see). My state of Massachusetts (considered Sodom by some) has the lowest divorce rate.

 

[Geronimo]

Oh yeah, I know you aren't making it up. You are exactly right in that too many Christians are getting divorced. I can think of several examples among people I know which is just aweful. It sets a terrible example. My wife and I spend more time working on our marriage to ensure its success than we do at almost anything else.

Divorce among Christians can be cataloged by number of marriages. While you may read, the rate is the same among Christians as everyone else, that is not accurate. What you are seeing is the same people getting married and divorced over and over again, thus driving up the numbers for Christians. This is due their conscious driving them back into marriage when they become involved with someone even though they have tried it before and been failures at it.

What do the homosexuals and ACLU have to do with ruining the American Family. I'll have to answer that tomorrow. I have a dentist appointment in 15 minutes. More later 🙂

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Oh yeah, I know you aren't making it up. You are exactly right in that too many Christians are getting divorced. I can think of several examples among people I know which is just aweful. It sets a terrible example. My wife and I spend more time working on our marriage to ensure its success than we do at almost anything else.

Divorce among Christians can be cataloged by number of marriages. While you may read, the rate is the same among Christians as everyone else, that is not accurate. What you are seeing is the same people getting married and divorced over and over again, thus driving up the numbers for Christians. This is due their conscious driving them back into marriage when they become involved with someone even though they have tried it before and been failures at it.

What do the homosexuals and ACLU have to do with ruining the American Family. I'll have to answer that tomorrow. I have a dentist appointment in 15 minutes. More later 🙂

also keep n mind more than half the people who call themselves Christians are NOT true Christians.

 

[leechy]

Well, chimps aren't humans. Neither are dogs. As much as I love my dogs I would never pretend that they have a right to anything. (I mean, their idea of a swell time is nosing each other's butts and rolling on dead squirrels.)

No, chimps aren't human. Their DNA differs from ours by a few percentage points. But many display cognitive and emotional abilities on par with a young child. It would be immoral to disregard these facts when deciding upon their moral status or possible personhood.

Imagine if intelligent aliens landed on our planet. If they believed they should only accord moral status to themselves, then they would have the right to kill humans as they please. Is that moral? I think not.

I'm not saying all animals are morally EQUAL to the average human. I certainly don't think so, though I also don't believe their moral status is the same as plants. My point is that moral status / personhood (and our judgment of whether or not it's murder to kill something) should not solely be determined by possession of human DNA. Yes, a human zygote contains human DNA. That doesn't make it a person.

I'm not an big animal rights person or anything, I just think it's a huge inconsistency in traditional pro-life moral philosophy to base moral status / personhood solely on possession of human DNA. Most pro-lifers I know are vehemently opposed to animal rights, when nothing would be more logical than an alliance between the two camps. As Geronimo noted, this is because the theological interpretation upon which pro-life morality is based denies souls to animals. That is an article of faith, upon which there is much disagreement even among the religious.

If the majority, and I mean a substantial majority, of the population believes in God and furthermore, between the Christians, Jews, and Moslems in this country agree on certain broad principles of religion-based morality (which they do) why shouldn't their beliefs have a place in legislation? I certainly will never vote for an atheist and while I neither want nor expect my legislators to launch a jihad against people who make the sign of the cross with an open hand I do expect them to be guided by their religious principles.

As we've seen, there is substantial disagreement about abortion within religions and between religions. How would you decide which interpretation of scripture (and which scripture) should get precedence? I know many pro-choice people who are religious and believe in God.

 

[leechy]

Can you not see that it seems as though you two carry on a double standard? You would bend over backwards to protect a mouse or monkey but act as though you could care less about a developing human.I am stretching this a little as I know you don't esteem mice above humans but that is the same frustration pro-lifers feel when they hear people who are opposed to abortion go on and on about how much they love and protect animals.

I wouldn't bend over backwards to protect a mouse. I wouldn't bend over backwards to protect a human embryo, either, for some of the same reasons.

 

[stinkycheese]

If you believe in the Holy Bible to be the inspired word of God then you must subscribe to its teaching.

But... I don't.

Christians and Jews are the majority in this country and should have a darn big “say” in what goes on around here.

A great majority of modern Jews believe in a woman's right to choose. Up until the baby has crowned, the mother's life and wishes come first.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

If you believe in the Holy Bible to be the inspired word of God then you must subscribe to its teaching.

But... I don't.

isn't that hypocritical then? or are you saying you don't believe it to be the inspired word of God?

 

[stinkycheese]

isn't that hypocritical then?

What is hypocritical? I don't believe in the Bible and therefore do not subscribe to its teachings.

Good try, though, Psycho. 🙄

 

[leechy]

exercise is considered beneficial to women unless she is high risk. early miscarriage is generally due to problems with the fetus and there is nothing one does to cause it nor anything one can do to prevent it

Early miscarriage does have a relationship to the energetic balance of the woman. Women's bodies are pretty fine-tuned to reduce the likelihood that they'd get pregnant when environmental/ nutritional conditions aren't adequate. Part of this fine-tuning is the rejection/miscarriage/prevention of implantation of zygotes, often before a woman is aware she is pregnant. This is why women trying to get pregnant are often advised to cut down on exercise and refrain from dieting.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

What is hypocritical? I don't believe in the Bible and therefore do not subscribe to its teachings.

Good try, though, Psycho. 🙄

well that was the second part of the question, which i just realized what you probably meant. i was probably adding as you were responding.

 

[vhawk]

I see, so intelligence has become the denominator of humanity? So, if someone has an IQ of, say, below 50, we have a right to kill it? See how absurd your argument is?

Actually, isnt it Bible-thumpers who do, IN FACT, use intelligence as the denominator of humanity? Isnt that what makes us better than animals, cognizance and "free will?" Lets not get carried away, we all rank things based on intelligence, which is why there are stricter testing standards on chimps than on minnows or flies, for example.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Early miscarriage does have a relationship to the energetic balance of the woman. Women's bodies are pretty fine-tuned to reduce the likelihood that they'd get pregnant when environmental/ nutritional conditions aren't adequate. Part of this fine-tuning is the rejection/miscarriage/prevention of implantation of zygotes, often before a woman is aware she is pregnant. This is why women trying to get pregnant are often advised to cut down on exercise and refrain from dieting.

"Benefits of Exercising During Pregnancy
No doubt about it - if complications don't limit your ability to exercise throughout your pregnancy, exercise is a big plus for both you and your baby"
http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_fit/fitness/exercising_pregnancy.html

"Exercise
Exercising during pregnancy has been shown to be extremely beneficial. "Low-impact, moderate intensity exercise activities are best," says Dr. Shanahan. "
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/preg_health.html

"Check with your doctor to make sure that it's safe for you to exercise during your pregnancy. Although some questions have been asked about the effects of exercise on pregnant women, there is no proof that gentle exercise has any bad effects on pregnancy. Studies haven't shown any benefits for the baby, but exercise might help you feel better and maintain your weight. If you have no serious medical problems and you have an uncomplicated pregnancy, it's probably safe for you to do some exercising."
http://familydoctor.org/305.xml

"Pioneers such as James Clapp., M.D. and Elizabeth Noble have proven through their work that exercising actually makes for an easier pregnancy and delivery. In fact, Dr. Clapp found through a study of 500 pregnant women that those who exercised delivered a healthier baby with a stronger fetal heart rate. Even more compelling is the fact that of the women who exercised, time spent in labor was shortened by about a third, with 65% of the women delivering in four hours or less. And when you're in labor, every extra hour seems like an eternity"
http://www.childbirth.org/articles/pregnancy/safeexercise.html

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Actually, isnt it Bible-thumpers who do, IN FACT, use intelligence as the denominator of humanity? Isnt that what makes us better than animals, cognizance and "free will?" Lets not get carried away, we all rank things based on intelligence, which is why there are stricter testing standards on chimps than on minnows or flies, for example.

no it's b/c God created man in His image and gave them a soul.

 

[stinkycheese]

How do you define a soul other than "G-d said we have it and we say animals don't?" I don't believe in "souls", I believe in cognition and emotional processing. I look into my cats eyes and I see emotion and longing and processing of information, albeit on a smaller scale than I see with my human loved ones. Simiarly, I believe my dog has as much of a soul as I do. Simply saying, "Well, G-d said so" doesn't hold water for me in terms of how to treat people vs. animals. Additionally, do you believe people who are brain-dead have more of a soul than an alive animal?

 

[8744]

The police officers have a right to bring in a suicidal person because that person is presumed to not be in a sound state of mind, and is at potential for harming him/herself. Public safety officers have a duty to protect the lives of their community members. They're not bringing them in to uphold a law, they're bringing them in to save a life. The spirit of the action is different. No one is prosecuted after attempting suicide, but they are prosecuted after attempting murder. There is a difference with regards to why police officers intervene with the two.

Additionally, I have read your argument that pregnancy is not a disease and that in the case of rape, you are still against referring the woman to a pro-choice physician. I would like to point out that many women are afflicted wth PTSD post-rape and carrying the rapist's child for nine months could exacerbate this diagnosis. People with PTSD are at a high risk for developing depression, and people with depression are at a high risk of committing or attempting suicide. Therefore, it seems that you may be worsening the health of your patient by refusing to refer, and that in this case, pregnancy, although not a disease itself, is contributing to the exacerbation of a real and serious mental illness.

As a physician, you are responsible for not only your patient's physical well-being, but also for her emotional and mental health. It would strike me as negligent to not refer a patient at least to a pro-choice physician, if not an abortionist, in the event that someone with PTSD post-rape seeks an elective abortion. She would need to be able to seek treatment from a physician who could help her make the right choice for her continued health, and if you were unable to fill that role for her, then you should refer her to someone who can discuss abortion as an option, even if the other doctor wouldn't perform the abortion herself. Do you see what I mean?

Finally, I would like to applaud everyone on this thread for the calm discussion. Especially Panda. We have very different viewpoints, but I have actually started to re-evaluate my own stance on abortion after reading your well though-out viewpoints. I appreciate the candor and the civility. Keep it up, everyone!

If suicide were not a crime, then Dr. Kevorkian would not be in jail.

I do agree that the impulses which drive people to kill themselves are usally symptoms of a mental disorder which needs treatment. On the other hand, if we are going to be strictly "hands off" when it comes to someones right to do what they will with their own bodies then we should allow people who are mentally competant to kill themselves as advocated by Dr. Kevorkian.

I also want to add that while I am very pro-life I don't expect that elective abortion will ever be criminalized. As a pragmatist, I would be happy if we could ban the so-called "partial birth abortions" and second and third trimester abortions. I think you could generate enough support from the electorate for this. You could certainly never generate enough support for a complete ban on the practice which is why I don't waste my time, except for here, agitating for it. In this, I think my fundamentalist Christian friends protesting outside clinics are fundamentally wasting their time and winning few converts to our cause. I certainly vociferously support legislation for "conscience clauses" and the halting of federal funding for elective abortion because these things are politcally possible.

 

[8744]

I just want to add that I have five indoor dogs. 350 pounds of indoor dogs, to be precise. I treat my dogs better then many people treat their children. Some of the children I have seen as patients in the Emergency Department and on my pediatrics rotations would move up in the world if they were treated half as well as I treat my dogs. Three of them sleep in the bed with us and we feed them table scraps shamelessly. (They'd be fat but the two biggest scrap offenders also run five or six miles with me almost every day.)

On the other hand I don't lose sleep over dogs being euthanized at the pound. It's sad but what can we do? (We do our part by taking in strays and finding homes for them.)

Call me a heretic but I believe that dogs have souls even if this flies in the face of theology.

 

[leechy]

"Benefits of Exercising During Pregnancy
No doubt about it - if complications don't limit your ability to exercise throughout your pregnancy, exercise is a big plus for both you and your baby"
http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrit... later, hopefully with textual examples. :)

 

[leechy]

Call me a heretic but I believe that dogs have souls even if this flies in the face of theology.

You rock! 😉 I have some pro-life friends with similar viewpoints.

 

[leechy]

How do you define a soul other than "G-d said we have it and we say animals don't?" I don't believe in "souls", I believe in cognition and emotional processing. I look into my cats eyes and I see emotion and longing and processing of information, albeit on a smaller scale than I see with my human loved ones. Simiarly, I believe my dog has as much of a soul as I do. Simply saying, "Well, G-d said so" doesn't hold water for me in terms of how to treat people vs. animals. Additionally, do you believe people who are brain-dead have more of a soul than an alive animal?

My views exactly. 👍

 

[stinkycheese]

If suicide were not a crime, then Dr. Kevorkian would not be in jail.

Actually, his crime was assisting other people's suicide. Suicide of one's own self is not a crime. There is a substantial difference.

 

[the other Dr.]

please tell me how your lost the ability (or never had it) to realize when things are said so sarcastically and appear nonesensical to prove what should be a really obvious point....but it keeps being overlooked or ignored

Please tell me how you lost the ability to articulate your point (or lack thereof) in a logical and grammatically decipherable manner.

Also please tell me where you are going to med school.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Actually, his crime was assisting other people's suicide. Suicide of one's own self is not a crime. There is a substantial difference.

well it's hard to prosecute someone when they are dead. 🙄

 

[stinkycheese]

well it's hard to prosecute someone when they are dead.

🙄

It's not hard to prosecute someone who survives a suicide attempt, but I have never heard of someone being prosecuted for attempting suicide and surviving.

 

[Geronimo]

A great majority of modern Jews believe in a woman's right to choose. Up until the baby has crowned, the mother's life and wishes come first.

They would certainly not be considered to fall under the pale of orthodoxy if they do believe in a woman's right to choose. In Rabbi Ben Shava's address last month in Tel Aviv, he pointed out that those who abort their unborn children are no better than the pagan kings of old, like Babylon and the Philistines who ritualistically sacrificed mothers and their babies. The are like many of the "so-called" Christians in America who subscribe to religion but have little or no true faith in the teachings of Holy Scripture.

no it's b/c God created man in His image and gave them a soul.

Amen Psycho Doc! God created no other animal "in His image."

How do you define a soul other than "G-d said we have it and we say animals don't?" I don't believe in "souls", I believe in cognition and emotional processing.

You are speaking gobbledygook. Cognition and emotional processing has nothing to do with eternal existence. Sp, if you don’t believe in souls, then you don’t believe in eternal life. Fine, your loss. You will believe one day, when your time on Earth is over.

I look into my cats eyes and I see emotion and longing and processing of information, albeit on a smaller scale than I see with my human loved ones.

So you believe there is a difference? I would say “gotya” except I’m sure you would explain it away by saying that you are “like creatures” and thus a dog would see their emotion and longing and processing of information on a larger scale with other dogs than with a cat or a human.

Simiarly, I believe my dog has as much of a soul as I do. Simply saying, "Well, G-d said so" doesn't hold water for me in terms of how to treat people vs. animals. Additionally, do you believe people who are brain-dead have more of a soul than an alive animal?

God says so, and millions of other humans say so. By God saying so is enough. God will honor those who have enough faith to believe in His word alone. Jesus honored those who believed in Him while He was on Earth. One of the men who died on the cross beside Jesus believed and was saved. The other demanded a sign or a miracle before he believed. He was not saved.

And what is your problem with just coming out and saying “GOD” or are you afraid He may actually exist and so you have to avoid saying His name in order to keep your conscious at ease? Or perhaps you just think you would offend others by using the letter O between G and D.

🙄

It's not hard to prosecute someone who survives a suicide attempt, but I have never heard of someone being prosecuted for attempting suicide and surviving.

Why, because they are emotional nut-cases who would never be fit to stand trial. So, we send them to get help and they spend some time in a ward. Sounds like punishment enough to me.

GERONIMO Do tell how the homosexuals and ACLU are ruining the American family? It looks to me like Christians are doing a wonderful job of ruining the American family without the help of others. QUOTE]
This is where the label “Christian” has hurt the Christian cause tremendously. Religious Christians are vastly different than “Christ followers.” It is one thing to go to church and pretend to be a follower of Christ. It is entirely different to spend time each day reading scripture and talking with God, trying to follow His teachings, and listening to His guidance. Christ changes your heart and makes a person free from the bondage of guilt, depression, loneliness, and often times sickness or financial problems. So, when you say Christians, you mean the religious folk. That group like what Christ says but are often too selfish to truly deny themselves and there wishes. They pick and choose which scripture they wish to obey or discard. The have a form of godliness which would seem right but the end thereof is death and eternal damnation. So, use caution when you refer to Christians. So, I would make a distinction and say the “religious Christians” and they “true Christ followers.”

Another distinction must be drawn here as well. Christians in the USA are vastly different in a number of ways from Christians in the rest of the world. Our wealth has somehow corrupted many Christians into thinking they can get along just fine without God. There is no god police standing down the street to arrest us when we pray. We feel safe and secure in whatever we do, so we have very little need for God in this country. As a result, Christians in the USA do not feel the need to adhere strictly to God’s teaching. That is why the Christian family may also appear to be in such disarray.

Now, to the ACLU and the homosexual agenda and their evil agenda: They are simply giving the final death blow to the family.
The ACLU is stripping parents of their rights to bring them up as they wish. They fight parent custody when a child wishes to marry at age 14 or 12 or even 10 in a case from Nevada. They fight home schooling on every front they can. They fight any public mention of God (the Christian/Jewish God)that is while fighting for public allowance of other gods. Very hypocritical indeed. The wish to wipe all mention of our God from this country as Holland has succeeded in doing. Now, Amsterdam is the most crime ridden and heinous city on earth. It would certainly be a modern Sodom or Gomorrah. They are the murder capital of the world (per capita), with the highest drug use in the world, a very high infant death mortality rate, and so on and son on. Amsterdam has had the highest instance of child molestation of any city in Europe for the last ten years. Marriage is non-existent in Amsterdam, because there is no use for it. The godless people there are in utter ruin.

The homosexual agenda wants nothing more than for their lives to be sanctioned as godly or acceptable. In their effort to gain mainstream acceptance they are watering down the establishment of marriage. This is a slippery slope though. As they fight to have “equal protection” as married couples, they actually want to be “named” such as well. This all sounds fine and dandy until you consider what is next around the corner. Once two men can be legally married, why should we stop there. Why not three men or two men and two women, if you want to define marriage as a simple contract between loving individuals who are committed to living together? Why not two men and a teenage boy? Why not a man and his dog? This is insanity but we are already seeing evidence of this happening in Holland where polygamy men and women are fighting for rights two have marital rights among several people. You may be thinking, well, what is wrong with that. Many things are wrong with it, beginning with it being of the devil. Beyond that, it destroys the fabric of society. How are insurance companies and social security going to deal with such devastating costs? Many studies have been shown showing the destructive nature wrecked on children who have absentee moms or dads and how they are more likely to do drugs, get put in prison, or even commit murder. Separate from the basic framework God established for family, a man and a woman in a lifelong monogamous loving relationship, society will implode.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

They would certainly not be considered to fall under the pale of orthodoxy if they do believe in a woman's right to choose. In Rabbi Ben Shava's address last month in Tel Aviv, he pointed out that those who abort their unborn children are no better than the pagan kings of old, like Babylon and the Philistines who ritualistically sacrificed mothers and their babies. The are like many of the "so-called" Christians in America who subscribe to religion but have little or no true faith in the teachings of Holy Scripture.

Amen Psycho Doc! God created no other animal "in His image."


You are speaking gobbledygook. Cognition and emotional processing has nothing to do with eternal existence. Sp, if you don’t believe in souls, then you don’t believe in eternal life. Fine, your loss. You will believe one day, when your time on Earth is over.

So you believe there is a difference? I would say “gotya” except I’m sure you would explain it away by saying that you are “like creatures” and thus a dog would see their emotion and longing and processing of information on a larger scale with other dogs than with a cat or a human.


God says so, and millions of other humans say so. By God saying so is enough. God will honor those who have enough faith to believe in His word alone. Jesus honored those who believed in Him while He was on Earth. One of the men who died on the cross beside Jesus believed and was saved. The other demanded a sign or a miracle before he believed. He was not saved.

And what is your problem with just coming out and saying “GOD” or are you afraid He may actually exist and so you have to avoid saying His name in order to keep your conscious at ease? Or perhaps you just think you would offend others by using the letter O between G and D.

Why, because they are emotional nut-cases who would never be fit to stand trial. So, we send them to get help and they spend some time in a ward. Sounds like punishment enough to me.

GERONIMO Do tell how the homosexuals and ACLU are ruining the American family? It looks to me like Christians are doing a wonderful job of ruining the American family without the help of others. QUOTE]
This is where the label “Christian” has hurt the Christian cause tremendously. Religious Christians are vastly different than “Christ followers.” It is one thing to go to church and pretend to be a follower of Christ. It is entirely different to spend time each day reading scripture and talking with God, trying to follow His teachings, and listening to His guidance. Christ changes your heart and makes a person free from the bondage of guilt, depression, loneliness, and often times sickness or financial problems. So, when you say Christians, you mean the religious folk. That group like what Christ says but are often too selfish to truly deny themselves and there wishes. They pick and choose which scripture they wish to obey or discard. The have a form of godliness which would seem right but the end thereof is death and eternal damnation. So, use caution when you refer to Christians. So, I would make a distinction and say the “religious Christians” and they “true Christ followers.”

Another distinction must be drawn here as well. Christians in the USA are vastly different in a number of ways from Christians in the rest of the world. Our wealth has somehow corrupted many Christians into thinking they can get along just fine without God. There is no god police standing down the street to arrest us when we pray. We feel safe and secure in whatever we do, so we have very little need for God in this country. As a result, Christians in the USA do not feel the need to adhere strictly to God’s teaching. That is why the Christian family may also appear to be in such disarray.

Now, to the ACLU and the homosexual agenda and their evil agenda: They are simply giving the final death blow to the family.
The ACLU is stripping parents of their rights to bring them up as they wish. They fight parent custody when a child wishes to marry at age 14 or 12 or even 10 in a case from Nevada. They fight home schooling on every front they can. They fight any public mention of God (the Christian/Jewish God)that is while fighting for public allowance of other gods. Very hypocritical indeed. The wish to wipe all mention of our God from this country as Holland has succeeded in doing. Now, Amsterdam is the most crime ridden and heinous city on earth. It would certainly be a modern Sodom or Gomorrah. They are the murder capital of the world (per capita), with the highest drug use in the world, a very high infant death mortality rate, and so on and son on. Amsterdam has had the highest instance of child molestation of any city in Europe for the last ten years. Marriage is non-existent in Amsterdam, because there is no use for it. The godless people there are in utter ruin.

The homosexual agenda wants nothing more than for their lives to be sanctioned as godly or acceptable. In their effort to gain mainstream acceptance they are watering down the establishment of marriage. This is a slippery slope though. As they fight to have “equal protection” as married couples, they actually want to be “named” such as well. This all sounds fine and dandy until you consider what is next around the corner. Once two men can be legally married, why should we stop there. Why not three men or two men and two women, if you want to define marriage as a simple contract between loving individuals who are committed to living together? Why not two men and a teenage boy? Why not a man and his dog? This is insanity but we are already seeing evidence of this happening in Holland where polygamy men and women are fighting for rights two have marital rights among several people. You may be thinking, well, what is wrong with that. Many things are wrong with it, beginning with it being of the devil. Beyond that, it destroys the fabric of society. How are insurance companies and social security going to deal with such devastating costs? Many studies have been shown showing the destructive nature wrecked on children who have absentee moms or dads and how they are more likely to do drugs, get put in prison, or even commit murder. Separate from the basic framework God established for family, a man and a woman in a lifelong monogamous loving relationship, society will implode.

great post, Geronimo

and the God without the O has bothered me everytime i see it. The explanation i was once given was that they can never write God's name b/c if it got thrown out it was disrespectful to God. meanwhile God asks us to proclaim His name; hiding from it or refusing to mention it is an abomination to GOD!

 

[leechy]

Amen Psycho Doc! God created no other animal "in His image."

You are speaking gobbledygook. Cognition and emotional processing has nothing to do with eternal existence. Sp, if you don’t believe in souls, then you don’t believe in eternal life. Fine, your loss. You will believe one day, when your time on Earth is over.

I'm doubtful of eternal existence, and maybe I'll be proven wrong after death, but I'm not going to let theories of who gets to survive eternally and who doesn't play a role in how I treat living beings here and now. And don't you doubt the compassion of a God who would put animals on this earth, have them suffer and feel pain and in some cases even emotions, and not at least possibly have some place for them in the eternal scheme of things?

So you believe there is a difference? I would say “gotya” except I’m sure you would explain it away by saying that you are “like creatures” and thus a dog would see their emotion and longing and processing of information on a larger scale with other dogs than with a cat or a human.

Sure, there are differences between the cognition/intelligence of cats and humans. There are also differences in cognition / intelligence (even bigger differences, in my opinion, since the zygote has not yet developed a nervous system) between a human zygote and a child. That's why I don't think taking the morning after pill is murder.

God says so, and millions of other humans say so. By God saying so is enough. God will honor those who have enough faith to believe in His word alone. Jesus honored those who believed in Him while He was on Earth. One of the men who died on the cross beside Jesus believed and was saved. The other demanded a sign or a miracle before he believed. He was not saved.

Well, I think this post alone proves why America shouldn't be turned into a theocracy.

 

[leechy]

great post, Geronimo

and the God without the O has bothered me everytime i see it. The explanation i was once given was that they can never write God's name b/c if it got thrown out it was disrespectful to God. meanwhile God asks us to proclaim His name; hiding from it or refusing to mention it is an abomination to GOD!

Uhh, I'm not Jewish, but I find your words disrespectful towards someone else's tradition.