D
Drawmack
Guest
I made no judgment about whose hands the blood was on, I simply said that it wasn’t on mine. God will decide whose hands are bloody; I don’t have to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fix
Guest
Choice to kill an innocent.As far as they are concerned the main issue is that you’re trying to take away someone’s choice.
Are they pro rape? Because I never see them claiming that is simply a choice. I assume they are pro abortion because they support legalized killing of innocents.I’m certain they are also pro every other choice as well. You’re assuming they are anti-some choices and pro-this choice. Why do you assume that?
Pro life can include support for capital punishment as the Church teaches. That is a separate thread.Also how is pro-life to mean pro-innocent-life correct if pro-choice to mean pro-the-choice-to-abort is incorrect?
Pro choice means allowing no protection from the state for innocent children from being killed. I find no analogy.
F
fix
Guest
That some stop listening is not the fault of those speaking what is true. Why not assign blame where it belongs?This is a thread about how to educate people. If someone finds your words disrespectful they are likely to stop listening to you. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are overly sensitive or not. You have lost the opportunity to educate if they have stopped listening. If you’re seeking to educate, how does it serve your purposes to utilize language which stands a good chance of getting people to stop listening?
It is implied as simply a choice even though it involves killing an innocent. Is rape simply a choice? Genocide?I don’t remember anyone ever using the term pro-simply-a-choice. Is it a choice to stop extra-measures? Is this simply a choice? Is this a choice with the same gravity as the choice of a soft drink?
Genocide is a choice, too. Speaking of these deeds in such a way trivializes what the acts really are and that is why the pro death forces use them.Murder is a choice unless someone is making the murder kill the other person and when someone is forced to murder someone else we have another word for that man-slaughter. So, if you say it is not a choice and say it is murder you are contradicting yourself.
I stand corrected.Not just disallowed, I believe we call it gravely evil.
Where do we get an egg with no genetic material?The destruction of life people identify is the subsequent destruction of the cloned organism when it is used as a stem cell factory.
We have to make it.
What do we make an egg without genetic material from?
We make it from an egg with genetic material.
And it is at that point that destruction of human life could occur.
I do not much care how it got there, we still have a human being in the earliest stages of development being destroyed.The destruction of life people identify is the subsequent destruction of the cloned organism when it is used as a stem cell factory.
It does not matter.Would the cloned human have an immortal soul? If so, wouldn’t that mean God was involved in the process? How could he participate in grave evil? On the other hand, maybe the cloned human would be soulless.
Ensouled or not, we don’t know. But we must always err on the side of life.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Women produce eggs all the time. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks they have a right to life anymore thgan people think my skin cell has a right to life. It is only when the egg is fertilized that people assign it rights.Where do we get an egg with no genetic material?
We have to make it.
What do we make an egg without genetic material from?
We make it from an egg with genetic material.
And it is at that point that destruction of human life could occur.
The egg has a nucleus, like all cells. This nucleus is removed and the DNA from the donor is inserted.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
But, if the clone is implanted in a woman and allowed to continue through gestation to birth it is not destroyed.I do not much care how it got there, we still have a human being in the earliest stages of development being destroyed.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I’m just asking if the clone has an immortal soul. That’s all. .It does not matter.
Ensouled or not, we don’t know. But we must always err on the side of life.
If doesn’t matter.But, if the clone is implanted in a woman and allowed to continue through gestation to birth it is not destroyed.
The here and now is a human life.
Then I will repeat myself…I’m just asking if the clone has an immortal soul. That’s all. .
It does not matter.
D
Drawmack
Guest
So, as long as what I am saying is true I do not have to put any thought into the way I say it right?That some stop listening is not the fault of those speaking what is true. Why not assign blame where it belongs?
For the rapist yes it is a choice to rape. If it were not a choice for the rapist then they would not be culpable. A choice yes, simply a choice no. As for genocide this takes the actions of a large number of people acting in accord. This takes one person, or one group of people, this takes a lot of planning, manipulation, and propaganda. Definitely a choice, but not simply a choice.It is implied as simply a choice even though it involves killing an innocent. Is rape simply a choice? Genocide?
Can you tell me what rape and genocide have to do with abortion please?
No it doesn’t trivialize the acts. If genocide were not a choice then those who committed it would not be culpable for their actions. By removing refusing to admit it is a choice you are removing culpability from the person who makes the choice.Genocide is a choice, too. Speaking of these deeds in such a way trivializes what the acts really are and that is why the pro death forces use them.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Willie & vx:Then I will repeat myself…
It does not matter.
Allow me to add - “Ensoulment” isn’t even an issue to be discussed - This is:
Priests for Life - Looking Abortion in the Eye - Go through ALL the LINKS
priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries
This is the reality of Abortion - Those who claim to be “Pro-Choice” (I’m always amazed that’s the one sentence we NEVER finish) can defend THAT! and, I’m always amazed that those defending abortion NEVER want to acknowledge that we’ve done that to 48 MILLION of our fellow Americans since Roe v. Wade, and 2 BILLION of our fellow humans since Abortion was legalized in various countries, and made mandatory in others, beganing in the late 1960’s…
Your Brother in Christ, Michael
F
fix
Guest
If you want to call the intentional killing of a baby a choice you are free to do so. In some, strange, pedantic, removed way it is a choice. An evil choice. The problem is when people say “pro choice” they do not say pro mortal sin choice, pro murder choice, pro abortion choice, pro denying a baby the right to live choice, or anything like that. They say “pro choice” and then claim it is only about the free will of the mother. It is obfuscation. If you want to confirm that error go ahead. I will not.So, as long as what I am saying is true I do not have to put any thought into the way I say it right?
For the rapist yes it is a choice to rape. If it were not a choice for the rapist then they would not be culpable. A choice yes, simply a choice no. As for genocide this takes the actions of a large number of people acting in accord. This takes one person, or one group of people, this takes a lot of planning, manipulation, and propaganda. Definitely a choice, but not simply a choice.
Can you tell me what rape and genocide have to do with abortion please?
No it doesn’t trivialize the acts. If genocide were not a choice then those who committed it would not be culpable for their actions. By removing refusing to admit it is a choice you are removing culpability from the person who makes the choice.
Thanks for the reminder.Willie & vx:
Allow me to add - “Ensoulment” isn’t even an issue to be discussed - This is:
I was wondering just how far the train could stray from the tracks.
D
Drawmack
Guest
You are rehashing conversations I’ve already had on this thread. It is the same type of circular logic I see every time I talk about this stuff.If you want to call the intentional killing of a baby a choice you are free to do so. In some, strange, pedantic, removed way it is a choice. An evil choice. The problem is when people say “pro choice” they do not say pro mortal sin choice, pro murder choice, pro abortion choice, pro denying a baby the right to live choice, or anything like that. They say “pro choice” and then claim it is only about the free will of the mother. It is obfuscation. If you want to confirm that error go ahead. I will not.
You want to defend using this type of language, that’s fine. Just realize that you are defending relativistic morals when you do so.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Willie Wonka:No, it’s not intended to impress you. I mention it to observe there is a large difference between people’s personal participation in abortion and their willingness to impose their personal beliefs on others. And if they are not willing to impose their own views on the population, they are probably even less willing to impose someone else’s views on the population. This indicates people really do see the question as an issue of personal choice. If I were interested in re-educating people, I’d be interested in both their personal and social views.
We enforce MORALITY on people all of the time - The LAWS AGAINST Murder, Rape, Theft & Perjury, for example, are all laws based on RELIGIOUS or MORAL LAW.
And, Today, NO ONE would ever get away with:
“I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to own a ******.”
“I’m personally opposed to rape, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to force himself on his wife, his girlfriend, or his slave-woman.”
“I’m personally opposed to murder, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to take another man’s, woman’s, or child’s, life.”
“I’m personally opposed to genocide, but I wouldn’t want my country to interfere with another country’s deliberate slaughter of an entire race or creed.”
Willie, NO ONE would get be ALLOWED in any rational or civilized society to get away with such obvious NONSENSE! so, Why are you spouting its equivalent here???
I’m asking you to think - Because ABORTION IS THE DELIBERATE TAKING OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. THAT’S NOT RELIGION – THAT’S SCIENCE!!!
I’m sorry to be so hard, but some of here have dealt with cases where DISABLED ADULTS were treated as NON-HUMANS and LEGALLY killed, because they needed “extraordinary care”. One particularly appalling case involved a Grandmother who was being “spoon fed” her meals and given her fluids through a straw. That was called “Extraordinary Care” by a judge at the request of her Granddaughter, and the Grandmother was legally “Dehydrated” to death. The Grandmother never had any inkling this was being done until nutrition & hydration were removed by the staff per the court order.
We tried contacting lawyers, state Senators and even Congress, but it was too late. The Granddaughter just had too much of a jump on us - And, We just couldn’t catch up before the Grandmother died.
The Granddaughter had used the Precedent established by the Terry Schiavo case & had filed while we were still fighting for Terry.
Do you know someone who’s disabled or elderly or just poor? That person either has or will have the same rights as the fetus does now. As I am Disabled & Poor, I am that person.
Yours in Christ, Michael
F
fix
Guest
No, I am defending objective morals. If you want to indulge people who use terms that devalue life that is your prerogative. The baby gets no choice.You are rehashing conversations I’ve already had on this thread. It is the same type of circular logic I see every time I talk about this stuff.
You want to defend using this type of language, that’s fine. Just realize that you are defending relativistic morals when you do so.
Also, what is circular is defending pro abortion language simply because the supporters of abortion say so.
And that is how we re-educate so that people will understand about abortion.Willie Wonka:
We enforce MORALITY on people all of the time - The LAWS AGAINST Murder, Rape, Theft & Perjury, for example, are all laws based on RELIGIOUS or MORAL LAW.
And, Today, NO ONE would ever get away with:
“I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to own a ******.”
“I’m personally opposed to rape, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to force himself on his wife, his girlfriend, or his slave-woman.”
“I’m personally opposed to murder, but I wouldn’t interfere with another man’s right to take another man’s, woman’s, or child’s, life.”
“I’m personally opposed to genocide, but I wouldn’t want my country to interfere with another country’s deliberate slaughter of an entire race or creed.”
Willie, NO ONE would get be ALLOWED in any rational or civilized society to get away with such obvious NONSENSE! so, Why are you spouting its equivalent here???
I’m asking you to think - Because ABORTION IS THE DELIBERATE TAKING OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. THAT’S NOT RELIGION – THAT’S SCIENCE!!!
I’m sorry to be so hard, but some of here have dealt with cases where DISABLED ADULTS were treated as NON-HUMANS and LEGALLY killed, because they needed “extraordinary care”. One particularly appalling case involved a Grandmother who was being “spoon fed” her meals and given her fluids through a straw. That was called “Extraordinary Care” by a judge at the request of her Granddaughter, and the Grandmother was legally “Dehydrated” to death. The Grandmother never had any inkling this was being done until nutrition & hydration were removed by the staff per the court order.
We tried contacting lawyers, state Senators and even Congress, but it was too late. The Granddaughter just had too much of a jump on us - And, We just couldn’t catch up before the Grandmother died.
The Granddaughter had used the Precedent established by the Terry Schiavo case & had filed while we were still fighting for Terry.
Do you know someone who’s disabled or elderly or just poor? That person either has or will have the same rights as the fetus does now. As I am Disabled & Poor, I am that person.
Yours in Christ, Michael
We simply must continue to profess the truth about it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.