christian_soldier
Member
vic C. said:
Yes. That is the explanation that should have accompanied Quath's post.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Abortion Biblical?
- Thread starter Quath
- Start date
Yes. That is the explanation that should have accompanied Quath's post.
I am not saying we are debating that. I am just pointing out that gross pictures are not a good way to debate and I used knee surgery as an example.vic C. said:
Murder is unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it is not murder. I think this has been pointed out before, so I am not sure why you still make this claim.christian_soldier said:
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
It was lawful for Nazis to kill Jews.
Defend that.
:roll:
I am not saying that if something is legal, it is ethical. So the Nazis did not murder the Jews. They killed them and committed genocide, but they did not murder.christian_soldier said:
So you can say abortion is killing. You can say that abortion is unethical. You can say it is a travesty. But if you say it is murder, you are not correct.
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
I'm not interested in playing word games with you.
Lewis
Member
Go here and look at the procedure' of partial birth abortion. Now do you think God wants that. Just take a look. Quath I love you brother' but you ought to be ashmed of yourself. If you think that Jesus supports this. This is pure evil.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
It is not a game when people are trying to communicate ideas. It is part of understanding each other.christian_soldier said:
For the most part this extraction is due to deformation, dead fetus, risk to mother's health, genetic defects, etc. Since this represents 0.17% of abortions, it is a good indication that is is mostly a last choice option.Lewis W said:
Now, I gues sthe question is why would God/Jesus makes a fetus defomed, dead, defected, or a health risk to the mother. That seems to be the tougher question.
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
Right. And an unborn baby is just a blob of tissue.
I don't know if you are truly ignorant or intentionally misleading.
Shocking Revelation: Late-Abortions Given So Women Could Go To Rock Concerts
"I saw no file that justified abortions," says Psychiatry Expert.
Wichita, KS - June 20th, 2007 - A Psychologist who has examined over thirty medical records subpoenaed from abortionist George R. Tiller, says women were given late-term abortions on viable babies so they would not have to miss rock concerts and sporting events.
Dr. Paul McHugh revealed last week that he examined medical records that showed women who were 26 to 30 weeks into their pregnancies were being given abortions by Tiller for "trivial" birth control reasons under the guise of "mental health" concerns that could not be substantiated by the records.
Dr. McHugh is a Harvard educated psychologist who headed the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 26 years and serves on the President's Council on Bioethics. He was asked to review the abortion records by former Attorney General Phill Kline to determine if the mental health diagnoses were psychiatrically justified.
Dr. McHugh stated that the records "highlighted certain kinds of things, which. . .were sometimes of a most trivial sort, from saying that, 'I won't be able to go to concerts,' or 'I won't be able to take part in sports,' to more serious ones, such as, 'I don't want to give my child up for adoption.'"
Of Tiller's psychiatric diagnoses, Dr. McHugh stated, "He had mostly social reasons for thinking that the late-term abortions were suitable. . .Again, these ideas that he was suggesting - these were not psychiatric ideas, these were social ideas that he is proposing. And by the way, again, there was nothing to back these things up in a substantial way."
When asked if Dr. McHugh could find even one file that justified a late-term abortion by demonstrating that the woman would suffer substantial and irreversible harm as required by Kansas law, he responded emphatically, "I saw no file that justified abortion on that basis."
"The people of Kansas have written these laws. Viable fetuses should not be aborted unless there's a substantial and irreversible condition that the pregnancy will produce. Well, when a psychiatric diagnosis is brought forth, I think that people should understand that that requires a heck of a lot more than I found in these records," Dr. McHugh said.
"It doesn't take a Harvard education to understand that missing a rock concert doesn't 'substantially and irreversibly' impair a woman, physically or mentally," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. "It is clear that Tiller is breaking the law at the cost of innocent lives. The public must rise up and say that enough is enough!"
Please continue to contact Attorney General Paul Morrison and ask him to charge Tiller for committing illegal late-term abortions.
Attorney General Paul Morrison
Phone: (785) 296-2215; Fax: (785) 296-6296
E-mail: general@ksag.org
christian_soldier
Member
aLoneVoice said:
Our court system is legislating from the bench, for one thing.
Bush takes his stands where he can:
Today's News & Views
June 22, 2007
U.S. House Votes to Undermine "Mexico City Policy" -- Part One of Two
Editor's note. Be sure to read Part Two which is NRLC President Dr. Wanda Franz's opening remarks to the NRLC Convention. Please send your comments and questions to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
Pro-lifers narrowly failed to pass an amendment in the House yesterday that would have eliminated a provision of H.R. 2764 that provides certain types of U.S. government assistance to private organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries. Offered by pro-life Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), the amendment to remove the pro-abortion language failed, 205-218.
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill unless the pro-abortion provision is removed. The bill itself passed the House by a vote of 241-178, far less than the two-thirds margin that would be required to override a veto.
Were H.R. 2764 to become law, it would gut a vital pro-life policy (called the "Mexico City Policy"), which has been enforced by President Bush (and by past pro-life presidents) through executive orders. Under the President's pro-life policy, overseas organizations must agree not to perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning, in order to be eligible for U.S. government assistance.
The pro-abortion language, authored by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), was approved as part of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. Under the Lowey provision, the U.S. Agency for International Development--the agency that administers foreign aid programs--would be required to provide contraceptive supplies to an overseas private organization even if that organization promotes abortion as a method of family planning.
NRLC sent a letter June 18 to Members of the House that explained its support of the Smith-Stupak Amendment. In part, it reads,
"The most important characteristic of the Mexico City Policy is that it establishes an eligibility criterion for U.S. funding: If a group is unwilling to agree to avoid promotion of abortion, that group will not receive any type of U.S. support. In short, the Mexico City Policy is not about how an organization keeps its books. Rather, it is about the type of groups the United States is going to support. If a specific organization declines to accept the policy, then the same funds are channeled to other organizations that agree to the contract. There is, therefore, no overall reduction in funding for family planning programs resulting from the Mexico City Policy."
If you have any comments, please send them to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
See Part Two
http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/June ... part1.html
G
Guest
Guest
Which organizations actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning?
christian_soldier
Member
I'm sorry, I seem to have misplaced my directory of foreign organizations.
But, you didn't specify foreign, so I guess Planned Parenthood would be an answer to your question.
But, you didn't specify foreign, so I guess Planned Parenthood would be an answer to your question.
Way to ignore my point. If partial birth abortion is so bad, why doesn't God/Jesus stop making fetus that are defomed, dead, defected, or a health risk to the mother?christian_soldier said:
Say that cases like these were stopped so that abortion was first trimester for pure choice and second and third trimester for medical reasons. Would you be for it then?
If not, then what is the purpose of this article?
Sounds odd. Seems you are upset when the judicial branch influences legislation but you support the executive branch doing it. Just sounds like you are supporting whatever philosophy agrees with what you want.
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
What point?
I think just ignoring you period is what I need to do, for a while at least.
Adios.
G
Guest
Guest
christian_soldier said:I'm sorry, I seem to have misplaced my directory of foreign organizations.
But, you didn't specify foreign, so I guess Planned Parenthood would be an answer to your question.
Do not be sorry, it is okay if you do not know the answer - I thought that you might since abortion is your top crusade.
The 'buzz' about foreign aid is that the US will not fund organizations that provide medical treatment, birth control, sexual education if that organization also "actively promotes" abortion as a method of family planning. I would just like to know exactly which organizations actively promote it.
Even Planned Parenthood does not ACTIVELY promote it. Granted, they will answer questions about it, and suggest that iti is an option - but I fail to see where they ACTIVELY promote it.
Now, I agree that it should not be an option - but isn't that something the church should be dealing with? Shouldn't the church be a haven for those facing a tough decision as to what to do?
Why give the power to the government, when the church should have it?
christian_soldier
Member
aLoneVoice said:
:o
Last year [2005], Planned Parenthood showed revenue totaling nearly $810 million dollars. Of their $810 million in revenue, $265 million came from taxpayers in the form of government grants and contracts. In 2004 and 2005, Planned Parenthood received $551 million in governmental funding. This is money coming out of our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood uses our tax dollars to promote, advertise and market the benefits of abortion, including partial-birth abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood performed almost 250,000 abortions, a number that has steadily increased since 1997. They also use tax dollars to fund explicit materials promoting abortion directed at teens. Over the past three years, Planned Parenthood has reportedly spent over $110 million of taxpayer money bringing lawsuits, challenging legislation and promoting their agenda.
http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=420
christian_soldier
Member
aLoneVoice said:
I'm not in favor of empowering govt.
Someone implied Bush does nothing regarding abortion. I came across an instance where he at least addresses aspects of it.
The church, meaning the leadership and members, should be at the forefront of a lot of issues. Sadly, I don't see it happening. That's why I encourage folks to get off their pews.
G
Guest
Guest
christian_soldier said:
Perhaps I do not live in a big enough city - but I have never seen an ad campaign by Planned Parenthood advertising the benefits of an abortion, or even actively promoting abortions.
From what you posted, I do not see any evidence of active promotion. Are there examples?
S
Solo
Guest
Some public proclamations made by Planned Parenthood representatives concerning abortion:
Abortion
Abortion
- "[W]e have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say 'yes, it kills a fetus, but it is the woman's body, and therefore…her choice."
~ Faye Wattleton, PPFA president, Ms, May/June 1977
[/*:m:3c27b] - "By age five, children should: Understand the concept that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to."
~ Human Sexuality: What Children should Know and When They Should Know it, PPFA, 1996
[/*:m:3c27b] - "I'm so proud of what we're doing, offering abortion…"
~ Shelley D. Stuchell, PPBEC, The Buffalo News, March 10, 2002
[/*:m:3c27b] - "[W]e have taken unequivocal and courageous stands…working for minor's access to abortion and contraception…and leading the way for abortion."
~ Gloria Feldt, PPFA president, INsider, Spring 1997
[/*:m:3c27b] - "We see abortion as a necessary, desirable service and as an integral piece of comprehensive reproductive health care services."
~ NEWS from CAPS, October 1990
[/*:m:3c27b] - "[F]or a lot of women this [abortion] is a positive decision…and they don't have to gnash their teeth and feel horrible guilt."
~ Faye Wattleton, PPFA president, Vogue, January 1992
[/*:m:3c27b] - "[R]eproductive choices…are not just legal rights but are recognized as moral necessities without which there can be no liberty."
~ Gloria Feldt, PPFA president, The Washington Times, January 22, 1997
[/*:m:3c27b] - "We're trying to shame the medical profession into doing its job. It's a breach of the public trust when you're graduated and licensed as an ob-gyn not to perform abortions."
~ Alexander Sanger, president of PPNYC, Kokomo Tribune, February 10, 1995[/*:m:3c27b]