T
Teelynn
Guest
Which ever way you do it, it is WRONG. Intrinsically EVIL. But like I’ve seen posted in another thread, “only those with ears can hear”.
- Status
S
SteveGC
Guest
Indeed.
And one cannot have ears to hear when one equates the dependency a naturally growing child has in the natural womb with the dependency a naturally dying man has on artificial life support. If one claims abortion’s not murder because it’s not murder to take a dying man off life support, one severely fails to see the very fundamental reality of life itself. A child is naturally growing, and a dying man is naturally dying. Letting nature take it’s own course in both cases naturally results in the death of the dying man, and naturally results in the LIFE of the unborn child. When we intervene in the latter, we are simply letting nature take over. When we intervene in the former, we are telling nature “no”. We are playing God.
And one cannot have ears to hear when one equates the right to abortion with the right to privacy, the right to protection from random home invasion. Such an obnoxious claim blatantly ignores the lack of required similarity in the issues one is comparing. Of course the law protecting citizens from random federal invasion is sound and just. Because when there is no known and significant reason to invade, a person’s privacy has primacy. But this is not what’s happening with abortion. It is widely, publicly known what is going on with abortion. It is widely known that the life of a child is being threatened, or terminated. It is not a privacy issue because the right to privacy presumes innocence in the absence of revealing data to the contrary. With abortion, we have the diabolical evidence.
And one cannot have ears to hear when one places more value on an illogically extreme sense of “own body ownership rights” than they do on human life itself. To do so, one has to claim such while fully ignoring the fact that another person is part of the issue. In no other issue regarding what goes on inside a person’s body is there another person directly involved and directly impacted by the choice made. Even if one were cold enough to support legal suicide and allow for someone the choice to remove a vital organ from their body, this is not the same as their right to remove another life. The other life, since it will naturally develop a sense of it’s own personal choices of the value of its own life, and because a vital organ will never have that capability, it is a non-sequitur to claim that allowing for the removal of the latter should justify allowing for the removal of the former.
And finally, one cannot have ears to hear when one avoids answering questions pertaining to their personal sense of morality of killing a person.
When one recognizes these things and begins to understand the fallacy of their claims, one begins to have ears.
H
hazmat
Guest
i disagree with your opinion.
T
Teelynn
Guest
Not something that I care to go round and round about. I say it is intrinsically evil, as does the Church which is the bride of Christ on earth, you say that it is not. If you cannot come to terms with this…my suggestion is to pray about it.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Kill them before you throw them into the ovens. You have a remarkable finesse in your coldness. Perfect possession, perhaps?
Morality is not an opinion based. People’s moral views are not equal.
There is an objective truth to what is wrong and what is right.
May God have mercy on your soul!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well its more accurate is to say, you agree with the killers and disagree with those who uphold the sanctity of life for the helpless.
Noble stance.I mean lets call it for what it is.
T
Tigg
Guest
Well, you see…Christ called the evil one a **Murderer **from the very beginning. Now we’ve all been aware since Roe v Wade who is running the show on the pro-abort side, but they are getting bolder and showing their true colors…even to the point of calling a soul belonging to God an “It.”
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Obama appointee will be ‘one of the strongest pro-abortion justices’ on nation’s most liberal court
lifesitenews.com/news/obama-appointee-will-be-one-of-the-strongest-pro-abortion-justices-on-natio
H
hazmat
Guest
bit of a contradiction there.
S
SteveGC
Guest
Pretty sure he was contrasting morality itself with people’s view of morality. Pretty sure he was emphasizing that the former is objective, regardless of the latter - the subjectivity people want to impose upon it. Pretty sure you already knew it, especially given the context of the entire post. Pretty sure you’re still ignoring me, but hey, there you have it anyway.
K
kslat
Guest
Why? Is there something wrong with abortion?
- Status