Can someone help explain why abortion is much worse than the Iraqi War?

[PerryJ]

Furthermore, I have to query the notion of innocence here - at what point does a person stop being innocent? What about a person who has tried to lead an exemplary life, and has done good deeds and helped people? I’m sure there are people like that being killed and maimed in the Middle East. Isn’t that worse than aborting a foetus - which is only ‘innocent’ through lack of opportunity? I’m well aware of the pro-life argument that an unborn child may one day discover a cure for cancer, or go on to achieve greatness in some other fashion; by the same token, they may grow up to be an arch-villain, a-la Hitler or Mussolini.

At the end of the day, killing is killing. What is at issue is whether it is more wrong to kill an unborn child than an adult. In practical terms, in real terms, killing an adult who has formed attachments in the world affects more people than killing an unborn foetus. I’m pretty sure that I will never be convinced that abortion causes more suffering than war.

It is more wrong to kill a child than an adult. Your are using the term fetus to portray a belief that it is a mass of cells. Abortions occur to children with arms, legs and a brain. They can yawn or hiccup. The feel the pain of death. Some studies state they feel pain more than adults do. In Iraq we have 4,000 soldiers volunteering to fight the war as compared to 5 - 6 million children that feel the pain of death with no choice. A person God created and deemed to be put on this Earth. Once on this Earth man has the free will to chose his life path. To kill a fetus as you state is to directly deny God’s intent. That is why it is a mortal sin.

In fact science has proven that the fetus is a life. The child feels pain and has the ability to move. On does not even need to be a Christian to understand this principle. Many atheist understand that abortion is wrong.

 

[cazayoux]

As I understand it, the whole purpose of war is to kill the enemy. Every soldier is, basically, trained to kill. I’m still a little hazy on how war represents a lesser evil than abortion. If abortion is performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, it causes no suffering because the foetus feels no pain - it is not biologically capable of suffering. That can hardly be compared to the suffering caused in wartime, both to soldiers and civilians.

Whether the baby feels pain or not doesn’t matter for this discussion. It means nothing to the discussion of morality of abortion. A bomb used in war may kill someone before they even know what has happened, that doesn’t make it a ‘good’ bomb.

You understand that the whole purpose of war is to kill people.
I would not agree with this blanket statement.
If we look at history, we can see those that go to war to gain property others to defend property. We can see those that go to stop killing, others that defend their killing.

Furthermore, I have to query the notion of innocence here - at what point does a person stop being innocent? What about a person who has tried to lead an exemplary life, and has done good deeds and helped people? I’m sure there are people like that being killed and maimed in the Middle East. Isn’t that worse than aborting a foetus - which is only ‘innocent’ through lack of opportunity? I’m well aware of the pro-life argument that an unborn child may one day discover a cure for cancer, or go on to achieve greatness in some other fashion; by the same token, they may grow up to be an arch-villain, a-la Hitler or Mussolini.

There are, sadly, good Muslims that are innocent victims of the fighting in Iraq. I wouldn’t use the discussion point that a child being considered for abortion might be somebody great. I would say that every life is valuable, whether they do ‘great’ things or not.

You seem to only discuss the innocent ones that are killed in war.
What percentage of those killed in war are innocent?
What percentage of abortions kill an innocent?

At the end of the day, killing is killing. What is at issue is whether it is more wrong to kill an unborn child than an adult. In practical terms, in real terms, killing an adult who has formed attachments in the world affects more people than killing an unborn foetus. I’m pretty sure that I will never be convinced that abortion causes more suffering than war.

Again, the question isn’t about suffering, it’s about morality.

Romans 5:3
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance

Since you brought up suffering, I thought you should know this about abortion. You seem to think there is no downside for an abortion … at least for anyone other than the baby.

** - It’s a medical procedure. There are always risks on the table. (infection, perforation of the uterus, failure to extract all ‘product of conception’, embolisms, bleeding, anesthetic complications, death, … other)
** - Abortion may lead to long-term problems (sterility, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, cervical incompetence, increased risk of breast cancer - especially if aborting a first pregnancy)
** - PAS - Post Abortion Syndrome - psychological problems (guilt, anger, anxiety, broken relationships, depression and sense of loss, psychological ‘numbing’, suicide … and more)

Still think abortion means no suffering?

“over 90% of women surveyed felt they did not have enough information to make an "informed choice,” Reardon

The mother is a victim precisely because she is uninformed.
You think the abortion doctor informs her of these risks?

michel

 

[PerryJ]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes.

Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity” [al-Mumtahinah 60:8]

This post is not entirely true is it. You know that Muslim’s treat non-Muslims differently. They have different laws for us. For example a non-Muslim that kills a Muslim is executed. A Muslim that kills a non-Mulsim may do time in prison. Many times they do not.

You also know that a Muslim may not become a slave; yet, a non-Muslim can be sold into slavery. Not only is it acceptable your beliefs support this action.

We are second class citizens and your religion’s political realities show this to be true.

Abortion is evil and will cause great turmoil in the next 20 years. As Christian have embraced this evil act Muslim’s will become the dominant religion in the next 20 years. Soon many european countries will have large voting blocks of Muslims and perhaps in the next several decades have to live by Muslim laws. France and Germany may be changed to Islamic belief in the next several decades. Just as they did in every country in the past, they will gain political supremacy and changed the laws to Islamic laws and then commit mass genocide of Christians. After centuries of attacks by Muslims to conquer the world they may win it because of abortion.

 

[Memaw]

I think mark a says it well. Not all wars are evil, but all abortions are evil. There is nothing that the child could have possibly done to deserve to be killed.

The very fact that we have to even discus this shows just how far our society has fallen into decay in the past 40 years or so. I was married and had several children before I even knew what an abortion was, even then I could not believe that a mother would really choose to have her baby killed. Let alone our nation making it legal. A nation that does not protect its most innocent, is a nation in serious decline no matter what other “good” that nation claims to do. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

This post is not entirely true is it. You know that Muslim’s treat non-Muslims differently. They have different laws for us. For example a non-Muslim that kills a Muslim is executed. A Muslim that kills a non-Mulsim may do time in prison. Many times they do not.

You also know that a Muslim may not become a slave; yet, a non-Muslim can be sold into slavery. Not only is it acceptable your beliefs support this action.

We are second class citizens and your religion’s political realities show this to be true.

Abortion is evil and will cause great turmoil in the next 20 years. As Christian have embraced this evil act Muslim’s will become the dominant religion in the next 20 years. Soon many european countries will have large voting blocks of Muslims and perhaps in the next several decades have to live by Muslim laws. France and Germany may be changed to Islamic belief in the next several decades. Just as they did in every country in the past, they will gain political supremacy and changed the laws to Islamic laws and then commit mass genocide of Christians. After centuries of attacks by Muslims to conquer the world they may win it because of abortion.

Fr. Paul Marx, founder of Human Life International, tried to alert us of that over 20 years ago.

 

[rpp]

As I understand it, the whole purpose of war is to kill the enemy. Every soldier is, basically, trained to kill. I’m still a little hazy on how war represents a lesser evil than abortion. If abortion is performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, it causes no suffering because the foetus feels no pain - it is not biologically capable of suffering. That can hardly be compared to the suffering caused in wartime, both to soldiers and civilians.

Furthermore, I have to query the notion of innocence here - at what point does a person stop being innocent? What about a person who has tried to lead an exemplary life, and has done good deeds and helped people? I’m sure there are people like that being killed and maimed in the Middle East. Isn’t that worse than aborting a foetus - which is only ‘innocent’ through lack of opportunity? I’m well aware of the pro-life argument that an unborn child may one day discover a cure for cancer, or go on to achieve greatness in some other fashion; by the same token, they may grow up to be an arch-villain, a-la Hitler or Mussolini.

At the end of the day, killing is killing. What is at issue is whether it is more wrong to kill an unborn child than an adult. In practical terms, in real terms, killing an adult who has formed attachments in the world affects more people than killing an unborn foetus. I’m pretty sure that I will never be convinced that abortion causes more suffering than war.

Lots of incorrect information here.

In a just war, the purpose of war is NOT to kill people but to defeat the enemy. If the purpose of war war is to kill people, then the result is nothing less than genocide; such a war can never be just.

Second, a baby in the womb most certainly cvan feel pain. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie. I mean really does some magical switch happen when the baby is born? Do not insult our intelligence by making such demonstrably false statements.

As for the whole topic of innocence, again, the whole argument is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, silly. Not really worth responding to. In fact, this entire post barely merits the dignity of a response since it is clearly not sincere.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

As I understand it, the whole purpose of war is to kill the enemy. Every soldier is, basically, trained to kill. I’m still a little hazy on how war represents a lesser evil than abortion. If abortion is performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, it causes no suffering because the foetus feels no pain - it is not biologically capable of suffering. That can hardly be compared to the suffering caused in wartime, both to soldiers and civilians.

Furthermore, I have to query the notion of innocence here - at what point does a person stop being innocent? What about a person who has tried to lead an exemplary life, and has done good deeds and helped people? I’m sure there are people like that being killed and maimed in the Middle East. Isn’t that worse than aborting a foetus - which is only ‘innocent’ through lack of opportunity? I’m well aware of the pro-life argument that an unborn child may one day discover a cure for cancer, or go on to achieve greatness in some other fashion; by the same token, they may grow up to be an arch-villain, a-la Hitler or Mussolini.

At the end of the day, killing is killing. What is at issue is whether it is more wrong to kill an unborn child than an adult. In practical terms, in real terms, killing an adult who has formed attachments in the world affects more people than killing an unborn foetus. I’m pretty sure that I will never be convinced that abortion causes more suffering than war.

Picture this,if you would:your in a cave theres no room to move and your pleasently happy and content.Then you hear a noise a drilling sound it is a drill and it starts drilling and tearing at your flesh.You cannot move from there,and theres no one who can help you.You feel the pain and scream,but no one hears you.Your stuck,can’t move,Oh no! they must not want me! The pain is unbarable,blood is everywhere,your screams are no heard,and no one cares.after you finally get chopped up enough you drop out of the cave,and the villian say’s “Well Done another one bites the dust” Now we can further our attempts to,save mankind I saw a video about abortion and what happens and the look on the fetus face the horrible pain they go through,and then they put a monitor where the fetus was and my son and I could hear the screams of the unborn.It was so bad we screamed and cryed and never forgot what we saw.Psalms:94-20 KJV love to all Nancy

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

If abortion is performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, it causes no suffering because the foetus feels no pain - it is not biologically capable of suffering. That can hardly be compared to the suffering caused in wartime, both to soldiers and civilians.

…

At the end of the day, killing is killing.

And so what if the foetus feels no pain during the first 6 or 8 or whatever number of weeks - does that justify the murder? There was a Nazi “Doctor” who anesthetized his victims and killed and dissected them under anesthesia - was that OK, since it is a biological and medical fact that they felt no pain while being killed?

Why not stick to the basics instead of getting tangled in fancy and faulty arguments - here, let me quote you: “At the end of the day, killing is killing.”

 

[apromisemade]

One has to remember that Queen Mary was fighting for her life.

She was fighting for power, for her throne. The reason so many people did not want Queen Elizabeth to inherit the throne after her was because, among other reasons, that she was a Protestant. Give me one bit of evidence Mary was anything other than a ruthless tyrannt. You make it sound as though there is nothing wrong with burning people to death for having a different faith.

\You do not understand separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State was not meant to keep Christianity out of government. It was to keep government out of religion… This is to ignore a basic timeline. Thomas Jefferson was a Christian scholar during the time of the Constitution and his presidency. He became a deist much later in life.

First off, the founding fathers created seperation of Church and State because they saw the constant bloodshed and violence in Europe that was a result of people and nations waging war in the name of religion. They wanted to prevent the conflict that they knew would result from politicians trying to be preachers.
Second of all, Thomas Jefferson was a man of science and a member of the Virgina State Legislature long before he wrote even the Decleration of Independence. It was in part because of his actions that the Virginia Colony enacted laws that made it part of the foundation for religious freedom in America under national law. From the beginning he was a man who " ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we are accountable to him, and not to the priests."

Islam is 100 percent a political ideology. If one reads the history of Muhammad one will see that his religion is 100 percent linked to political life. The political and the religious can not be separated. For example the Islamic belief not only supports slavery of non-Muslims it very exactingly defines how to do it. As one can not go against Muhammad and his teachings the political concept of slavery of a non-Muslim can not be changed. It appears that you have a Western thought process that a new revelation from God can exist. This is a Western thought and again why the Catholic religion was able to pull man out of the dark ages. Islamic belief does not allow their political ideology to change. A non-Muslim is a second class citizen and there is nothing a Muslim can do to change that belief. Their religion also dicates that the whole world has to submit to Islam. This belief creates a political dynamic that can not be changed.

Again. How was medevil Christianity any different?

Your experience with Islam has clearly not been a fair and balanced one, so to speak. You are singeling out the extremists and thier views. You could easily point to a warlord in Africa who uses biblical references to justify torturing, brutalizing, and terrorizing the people and forcibly enslaving children and say, “See! He used Gods bible to justify that, all Christianity is based on the Bible, therefore all Christians must be evil.” Fallacy of exclusion my friend.

Lastly, you have missed a major fact that Muslims have to live as the Prophet Muhammad did. His beliefs in murder, slavery, adultery and conquests have to be followed. One does not have a choice as one must follow his every action as if he is a God. Again, they claim he is not a God; however, they treat him as a God and hold him to the same level as a God. They are monotheistic in name only and not in practice.

If ones views are not biased and inflammatory like yours, it is easy to see slavery, adultery, and conquest are not uncommon practices among the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament. Again, it is quite easy to draw parrallels between Christianity as it once was and still is for many people and Islamic extremism as it is exists today.

Muslims do not believe that the sword should be put down. In fact they believe the Bible has been corrupted.

I was not talking about Muslims, I was talking about Christians. It’s not just about who they are, it’s also about who we are.

To end with a note from the original thread the thought that abortion and the Iraq war are comparative is very nonsensical. Abortion takes a human life that has not committed a sin and has not even been born into original sin. As such it is like killing an angel. It is killing pure innocence. The Church stated that they did not support the war; however, they did not state that it was an unjust war. The soldiers involved no matter how good are tainted with the stain of original sin and must pay the punishment by dying. Every one of those soldiers had to die and was not innocent, just as I am not innocent and must die. Lastly from a per mathematical perspective how does one compare 4,000 lives that gave freedom to 25 million people to the 5 – 6 million abortions of innocent lives during the same time period. This is not even to take into account that the soldiers volunteered to help. I have seen this comparison many times and just do not understand how anyone can compare the two.

Again, there seems to be a contradiction in there. No one deserves to slowly bleed to death in the burning sun after getting their leg blown off by an IED. But if you are speaking strictly of original sin, that is, reperation for something someone who lived thousands of years before them did, then that would be something the unborn would be tainted with as well. Therefore, they are not innocent either. As far as your mathmatics go, you are not taking into account the innocent Iraqi civilians. The children who die in their beds when a bomb blows up their house, the pregnant mothers who are hit by stray bullets, and the thousand upon thousands of others who never wanted or had anything to do with starting this war.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

She was fighting for power, for her throne. The reason so many people did not want Queen Elizabeth to inherit the throne after her was because, among other reasons, that she was a Protestant. Give me one bit of evidence Mary was anything other than a ruthless tyrannt. You make it sound as though there is nothing wrong with burning people to death for having a different faith.

First off, the founding fathers created seperation of Church and State because they saw the constant bloodshed and violence in Europe that was a result of people and nations waging war in the name of religion. They wanted to prevent the conflict that they knew would result from politicians trying to be preachers.
Second of all, Thomas Jefferson was a man of science and a member of the Virgina State Legislature long before he wrote even the Decleration of Independence. It was in part because of his actions that the Virginia Colony enacted laws that made it part of the foundation for religious freedom in America under national law. From the beginning he was a man who " ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we are accountable to him, and not to the priests."

Again. How was medevil Christianity any different?

Your experience with Islam has clearly not been a fair and balanced one, so to speak. You are singeling out the extremists and thier views. You could easily point to a warlord in Africa who uses biblical references to justify torturing, brutalizing, and terrorizing the people and forcibly enslaving children and say, “See! He used Gods bible to justify that, all Christianity is based on the Bible, therefore all Christians must be evil.” Fallacy of exclusion my friend.

If ones views are not biased and inflammatory like yours, it is easy to see slavery, adultery, and conquest are not uncommon practices among the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament. Again, it is quite easy to draw parrallels between Christianity as it once was and still is for many people and Islamic extremism as it is exists today.

I was not talking about Muslims, I was talking about Christians. It’s not just about who they are, it’s also about who we are.

Again, there seems to be a contradiction in there. No one deserves to slowly bleed to death in the burning sun after getting their leg blown off by an IED. But if you are speaking strictly of original sin, that is, reperation for something someone who lived thousands of years before them did, then that would be something the unborn would be tainted with as well. Therefore, they are not innocent either. As far as your mathmatics go, you are not taking into account the innocent Iraqi civilians. The children who die in their beds when a bomb blows up their house, the pregnant mothers who are hit by stray bullets, and the thousand upon thousands of others who never wanted or had anything to do with starting this war.

How dare anyone even try to compare life to life? unborn to children! Father is not happy with the thoughts of man, and hears everything you say,think,feel. War is ugally,abortion is ugally Look up the meaning of Killing (to hide in wait) to premeditate,Look up war, Then look up Psalms:94-20 then nancy

 

[petsr4ever]

All wars ARE evil. How can anyone say they aren’t? The deaths of innocents in war are justified because of the REASONS for the war? I don’t think so. If one of the innocent victims of a war was your mother, father, sister, brother, or your child, you would find no justification in that.

God does not justify war, either. In no way will I ever believe that the God I believe in wants people to kill each other. That’s why there is no way I can believe in the Old Testament as being anything but a fairy tale, and a bad one at that.

If a person has to kill another in self defense in a one-to-one situation, where there is no other alternative, I think this is acceptable. I don’t view war in the same way.

Look at what the United States did to Hiroshima and Naghasaki in World War II. Look at how many innocent lives were instantly wiped out.

And look at all the innocent Iraqi men women and children who have been killed since our government decided that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”, so we attacked them before they could attack us.

Look at how many Native Americans were slaughtered by so-called “Christians” when the Europeans first came to this country. Read the “true story” of what Christopher Columbus and his men did to them. And, Christopher Columbus, I believe, was a Catholic.

There are going to be a whole lot of Christians that are going to be in for a really big and bad surprise when the end of time comes for them. And, rightfully so. There is no justification for murder. NONE. So stop fooling yourselves before it’s too late. Condoning killing is just as bad as doing the killing yourself.

 

[Sair]

Lots of incorrect information here.

In a just war, the purpose of war is NOT to kill people but to defeat the enemy. If the purpose of war war is to kill people, then the result is nothing less than genocide; such a war can never be just.

Second, a baby in the womb most certainly cvan feel pain. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie. I mean really does some magical switch happen when the baby is born? Do not insult our intelligence by making such demonstrably false statements.

As for the whole topic of innocence, again, the whole argument is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, silly. Not really worth responding to. In fact, this entire post barely merits the dignity of a response since it is clearly not sincere.

Firstly, I object to your supposition that my argument lacks intellectual rigour. Do you imagine that because an argument does not agree with Catholic doctrine that it is automatically invalid? Frankly, having read many other posts on this forum, I don’t think you have any justification to diss my argument for being ‘silly’. I have to say that I have given a lot of thought to this issue, and it bothers me immensely that so many Catholics seem to feel that abortion is the world’s greatest evil - they consider it in complete isolation, apparently, from every other issue affecting life on this planet. So yes, my post was absolutely sincere.

Secondly, in war, how does one defeat the enemy other than by killing, maiming and otherwise crushing their defences? No-one ever wages war without some intention of killing and causing harm, regardless of how ‘just’ the political leaders claim it to be.

And finally, can you present some scientific evidence pertaining to the capability of a foetus to feel pain before it has developed a nervous system?

 

[PerryJ]

She was fighting for power, for her throne. The reason so many people did not want Queen Elizabeth to inherit the throne after her was because, among other reasons, that she was a Protestant. Give me one bit of evidence Mary was anything other than a ruthless tyrannt. You make it sound as though there is nothing wrong with burning people to death for having a different faith.

First off, the founding fathers created seperation of Church and State because they saw the constant bloodshed and violence in Europe that was a result of people and nations waging war in the name of religion. They wanted to prevent the conflict that they knew would result from politicians trying to be preachers.
Second of all, Thomas Jefferson was a man of science and a member of the Virgina State Legislature long before he wrote even the Decleration of Independence. It was in part because of his actions that the Virginia Colony enacted laws that made it part of the foundation for religious freedom in America under national law.
Again. How was medevil Christianity any different?

Your experience with Islam has clearly not been a fair and balanced one, so to speak. You are singeling out the extremists and thier views. You could easily point to a warlord in Africa who uses biblical references to justify torturing, brutalizing, and terrorizing the people and forcibly enslaving children and say, “See! He used Gods bible to justify that, all Christianity is based on the Bible, therefore all Christians must be evil.” Fallacy of exclusion my friend.

If ones views are not biased and inflammatory like yours, it is easy to see slavery, adultery, and conquest are not uncommon practices among the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament. Again, it is quite easy to draw parrallels between Christianity as it once was and still is for many people and Islamic extremism as it is exists today.

I was not talking about Muslims, I was talking about Christians. It’s not just about who they are, it’s also about who we are.

Again, there seems to be a contradiction in there. No one deserves to slowly bleed to death in the burning sun after getting their leg blown off by an IED. But if you are speaking strictly of original sin, that is, reperation for something someone who lived thousands of years before them did, then that would be something the unborn would be tainted with as well. Therefore, they are not innocent either. As far as your mathmatics go, you are not taking into account the innocent Iraqi civilians. The children who die in their beds when a bomb blows up their house, the pregnant mothers who are hit by stray bullets, and the thousand upon thousands of others who never wanted or had anything to do with starting this war.

I will bring evidence concerning Queen Mary. She did kill people and it was wrong. For you to believe it was only a religious episode is not factual in any context. I will post sources showing this thought from credible sources. Again this is a sin of man not a sin of religion. You appear to be confusing the two issues.

Your second thought appears to show a bias against religion. Thomas Jefferson can be a man of science and God. Your post makes the two incompatible; which, is nonsense. In the next post I will again post the quotes from the Founding Fathers. The Founding Father’s built this country on Christian values and without them the Consitution will fail.

My experience is absolutlety fair with Islam. I would suggest you read the following books: A History of the Middle Ages by Joseph Dahmus, Inside Islam a Guide for Catholics 100 hundred Questions and Answers by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer forward by Fr Mitch Pacwa, What Went Wrong in the Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis, and The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovoc. All books except the last are very balanced. Although not balanced it shows several points that one must understand. I would start with the book Inside Islam a Guide for Catholics. Your conjecture concerning Christianity and Islam are incorrect. You are confusing sins of man with sins of a religion. It is a totalitarian religion that is linked to political ideology. It appears that you are misunderstanding Muhammad’s role within his religion. To compare Christianity to Islam is just factually incorrect on so many levels. I can not explain it all in one post. For example the Bible shows slavery as a cultural reality it does not support slavery. Islamic beliefs fully supports slavery of man and the denigration of anyone not Muslim. This is clearly documented by their beliefs. Many of the Old Testment stories show adulterous behavior was punished by God. Even to his favored. Muhammed supports adultery. For example his taking of his nephew’s wife. Please read the books I recommend and you will see a clear distinction. My views are not biased they are based upon the thoughts of historians and experts on the Middle East. For example your thoughts do not agree with Bernard Lewis in any shape. If one has read any details of the Middle East one would have had to read several of his books by now.

If you are a Catholic you do not understand the concept of original sin and innocence. In this context I would recommend reading Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth.

I will not be able to explain all of these thoughts in a short post like this. Please read the books I have listed. They are fair and unbiased and will give you insight into being in this world; but, not of this world.

Lastly, your thoughts appear to be formed by the popular media and not in depth analysis by historians or theologians. If you have read a historically credible book that supports your beliefs I will buy and read the book. This issue is too important to believe Islam is not a political ideaology. Please read the books I have outlined.

Peace.

 

[PerryJ]

To be fair to this thread I have posted the quotes from the Founding Fathers under the thread Moral Theology and the Constitution.

I was straying too far from the major thoughts of this thread.

Sorry

 

[PerryJ]

And finally, can you present some scientific evidence pertaining to the capability of a foetus to feel pain before it has developed a nervous system?

I can not prove the babies feels pain before it has a nervous system. I can show the nervous system exist and feels pain long before most abortions occur. Go to Lifesite.net and one will find the scientific information to prove these thoughts. From research at the Univeristy College of London and others it has been proven that feotus feels pain more intensly and longer than adults. The mechanisms for a feotus to feel pain is in place at 4 weeks old. The vast majority of abortions occur after 4 weeks. At 7 weeks old the baby can actually move away from pain.

Please look at this site. It will show you a more detailed analysis of how and why this pain threshold exists in feotuses.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/ Peace

… Muhammed supports adultery. For example his taking of his nephew’s wife.

Please , don’t spread lies & hatred . I gurss you are referring to Prophet’s marriage with his cousin who was divorced by Prophet’s slave . If u want to know more , pl ask in the related thread. There is a thead on Ask about Islam . Also , u can open a new thread.

Moreover , how Prophet Muhammed (p) is related to abortion or Iraq war ? Christians believe he is a fake one ; so how they can justify a war by using his example ? Strange.

 

[rpp]

Firstly, I object to your supposition that my argument lacks intellectual rigour. Do you imagine that because an argument does not agree with Catholic doctrine that it is automatically invalid? Frankly, having read many other posts on this forum, I don’t think you have any justification to diss my argument for being ‘silly’. I have to say that I have given a lot of thought to this issue, and it bothers me immensely that so many Catholics seem to feel that abortion is the world’s greatest evil - they consider it in complete isolation, apparently, from every other issue affecting life on this planet. So yes, my post was absolutely sincere.

Secondly, in war, how does one defeat the enemy other than by killing, maiming and otherwise crushing their defences? No-one ever wages war without some intention of killing and causing harm, regardless of how ‘just’ the political leaders claim it to be.

And finally, can you present some scientific evidence pertaining to the capability of a foetus to feel pain before it has developed a nervous system?

I read this. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[PerryJ]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/ Peace

Please , don’t spread lies & hatred . I gurss you are referring to Prophet’s marriage with his cousin who was divorced by Prophet’s slave . If u want to know more , pl ask in the related thread. There is a thead on Ask about Islam . Also , u can open a new thread.

Moreover , how Prophet Muhammed (p) is related to abortion or Iraq war ? Christians believe he is a fake one ; so how they can justify a war by using his example ? Strange.

I am not spreading lies. We have discussed this before. I do not want to misquote you so please tell me if I am wrong. I gathered from your belief that divorce is acceptable. When Muhammad made an advance to his nephew’s wife this was acceptable according to Islamic teachings. This is an adulterous act to Christians. His nephew then divorced his wife; in order, to allow his wife to marry Muhammad. From a Catholic perspective this is adultery and is very clearly defined by John the Baptist in the Bible. It appears that Muslims do not follow Biblical teachings and allow divorce. Catholic’s do not allow divorce. My understanding is that Muslim’s should follow the Bible; however, they believe it has been corrupted and therefore do not have to. I am not spreading lies. From a Christian perspective he committed two acts of adultery. From your religious perspective perhaps he didn’t.

In previous posts you also have made it appear that the nephew did this on his own. I have not found a source to confirm or deny this fact. It should be noted that he may not have done this on his own as Muhammad had three people assassinated during this same time frame. The assassinations involved people writing poetry about him that was not in a positive light. Certainly keeping a woman from him would be a more direct refusal to Muhammad than simple poetry.

I do not justify the war with Muhammad. I am only stating why Islamic beliefs are growing in this world. It is due to the evil act of abortion. Islam’s is not growing via conversions. It is actually a reduction in Christianity due to abortion.

 

[PerryJ]

I failed to mention that he also kept slaves as concubines. I can produced several historians that state this as fact. As you know Muhammed’s life is very well detailed and we know much about his personal life.

Is this not adultery in Islamic law? I do not know recall.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

First off, the founding fathers created seperation of Church and State because they saw the constant bloodshed and violence in Europe that was a result of people and nations waging war in the name of religion. .

You may want to check this out a little further,

I don’t believe the founding fathers created or intended “a separation between church and state” the 1st amendment guarantees that the will be no establishment of a state religion. No where does “separation between church and state” show up in the constitution or any of the amendments. It’s a fabrication started by a secret society that pledges loyalty to it’s members above God. Funny enough, the idea has been fostered since by the protestant ideaology to a point were it is accepted today by everyday folks as some part of law.