W
Wozza
Guest
I’m sorry. I didn’t take it seriously.
- Status
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
2 Samuel 12:14 King Davids child had to die because of the sin of his father
1 Kings 14:12 King Jeroboams child had to die because of the sin of his father
I should mention also Jeremiah 31:29-34 The prophecy of the new covenant in which no longer a child must die because of his fathers sin, or a father must die because of his sons sin. Jeremiah 31:33-34 also mention that the fulfillment of that prophecy is at the time when men knows God, and that Gods law is in mens heart.
Please read also Ezekiel 18:19-22
Having mention those passages, I think that a clump of cells is precious if conceived within marriage. Because within blessed marriage, we humans, can safely assume that life begins at conception. God works in orderly manner. So, consequently it is very very wrong to abort a pregnancy conceived within marriage. But then again, there is always room to dispute if husband and wife doesn’t treat each other as marriage should.
For cases of unlawful sex, or even crime, it’s not necessarily true that life begins at conception. A clump of cells grow into adult human pleasing to the Lord, takes mens (and womens) repentant heart. With a culture that allows sex as entertainment, I think we are still at the time when men and women has not known God, and that Gods Law is not in mens heart yet.
In other words, if the church only speak loudly for women to become prolife, but doesn’t speak up to condemn neither excomunicate porn business and watchers with which men and women use sex as meaningless entertainment, then the church is teaching that being moral is merely pushing the victims to continue become victims and the perpetrators can continue doing whatever they can do. The victims of this culture are women and their children.
The argument that abortion is genocide, how about teen abuses drugs pushes by porn culture? Isn’t it genocide too? Men addicted to sex abuse women and children. Arent those genocide too? Show blood as entertainment in violent movies become more and more prevalent, to make sure mens (and womens) hearts are cold and hard. When that clump of cells is born, what would it learn? That’s the question.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
This is so wildly un-Christian I have no idea where to even start the rebuttal.
So, the basics:
God is the author of human life.
Every human being is created in the image of God, whether that child’s parents want the child or not.
Every human being has human dignity.
If you deny the right to life based on the marital status of the parents or the perceived value of the child in the eyes of the parents, you have the license to murder, and that license carries over into all spheres of life.
Your position is grossly immoral.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Nah. The reason of course why this topic even exists is because many pro abortion rights folks really DO still make this argument. That is abortion= removal of a clump of cells like a tumor.RaisedCatholic:
Y’all keep saying this. And nobody is arguing against it.
I’ll repeat that so you don’t have to waste your time repeating yourself. Nobody is arguing against that.
Which is right from the 70s when technology didn’t allow us yet to know much about the unborn child like we know today. Hasn’t changed very much.
Last edited:
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
I agree
I am talking about a clump of cells that has not started breathing. Differentiating a clump of cells conceived within marriage, and a clump of cells conceived through crime or unlawful sex. both are pre-humans by nature.
The one within marriage: its personhood is in the mind of God since beginning. But how about the other one? As a mere human, I can only guess that the clump of cells conceived through unlawful sex exist in the hope of life, i suppose God doesn’t plan people to have unlawful sex or rape. Killing the clump of cells is to kill a hope of life (which is also wrong to some degree). But its not the same with a clump of cells conceived within marriage: killing it is killing a person (who already exist in the mind of God since conception).
Last edited:
What do you suggest it is if not murder?
E
EZweber
Guest
No offense taken. But it was meant seriously.
W
Wozza
Guest
No offense meant, EZ. And I appreciate that you meant it seriously.Wozza:
No offense taken. But it was meant seriously.
W
Wozza
Guest
If a woman takes a morning after pill, then the only time that that would be classed as murder is when someone is arguing against abortion and using emotive language in place of reasoned argument.Wozza:
What do you suggest it is if not murder?
S
Sbee0
Guest
Morning after pill =/= abortionvz71:
If a woman takes a morning after pill, then the only time that that would be classed as murder is when someone is arguing against abortion and using emotive language in place of reasoned argument.Wozza:
What do you suggest it is if not murder?
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
Actually yours is the emotional argument. I was the same organism as a zygote that I am now as an adult.
W
Wozza
Guest
No you are not. Apart from having the same dna, you are not even the same person as you were when you were a child. And the child is completely different to a baby. And there is no comparison between a baby and an embryo and an embryo and a fertilised egg.Wozza:
Actually yours is the emotional argument. I was the same organism as a zygote that I am now as an adult.
W
Wozza
Guest
I agree. I should have said if a woman takes mifepristone or similar at the very earliest stage of pregnancy.Wozza:
Morning after pill =/= abortionvz71:
If a woman takes a morning after pill, then the only time that that would be classed as murder is when someone is arguing against abortion and using emotive language in place of reasoned argument.Wozza:
What do you suggest it is if not murder?
S
Sbee0
Guest
Just like a brick can never become a house(another dreadful analogy which is a pro choice favorite for some odd reason), a non descript “clump of cells” can never become an adult human being. Intrinsic biological programming. That’s the difference.
An embryo can do so of course, as can a fertilized egg.
Honestly pro choicers who make this comparison lose any credibility with me they might have in this debate.
An embryo can do so of course, as can a fertilized egg.
Honestly pro choicers who make this comparison lose any credibility with me they might have in this debate.
S
Sbee0
Guest
Got it. 10 charSbee0:
I agree. I should have said if a woman takes mifepristone or similar at the very earliest stage of pregnancy.Wozza:
Morning after pill =/= abortionvz71:
If a woman takes a morning after pill, then the only time that that would be classed as murder is when someone is arguing against abortion and using emotive language in place of reasoned argument.Wozza:
What do you suggest it is if not murder?
W
Wozza
Guest
With me too. It’s a very bad argument.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
Assuming life begins at conception, morning after pill should not be used within marriage, because sex within marriage is ordained by God, thus it is hold true that life begins at conception.
Outside marriage, however, the question is, if the unlawful sex itself is immoral, then how is it immoral to remove the outcome of an immoral act? So long it is still a clump of cells and not human yet?
Last edited:
Whether you take the life moments after conception or months after, you have still taken a life.
It is not an emotional argument to be consistent with language and understanding of what we are dealing with.
Do you have another word to describe the deliberate taking of another human life?
They are all human life.
W
Wozza
Guest
Maybe you missed tbe earlier discussion on what it means to be a person.Wozza:
They are all human life.
- Status