Posted on 08/15/2013 7:10:04 AM PDT by Morgana
1 Cor. 9:19-23
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
That's certainly not what Jesus said. He said the Gospel would be incredibly divisive.
Of course they are welcome to the pro-life movement. It is their right to express their views. NO less than a pagan pro-abort has the right to express their views.
How is it a question?
That's a definition of what abortion does, not an explanation of why it is immoral.
Antibiotics interrupt the normal process of bacteria killing you.
Currently the President of the United States is a man who celebrates abortions of all sorts. He was elected twice. The MSM has made a political icon of a vile woman in Texas who promotes late term abortion. America is in an advanced state of decadence. Anytime anyone comes to a rational insight on abortion, it is a welcome occurrence.
Well said
There is a moral judgment involved in determining that interrupting pregnancy is good, while interrupting cancer or pneumonia is bad. At the most basic level, it’s the judgment that continuing to live is good, while dying is bad. Almost everyone makes that judgment about himself - life good/death bad - at all times.
Did you not read what I said. He still said it was wrong.
What a ridiculous premise.
Of course someone can be pro-life without necessarily being religious or being of different faiths or being atheist. After all, it the conviction is called pro-LIFE not pro-religion or pro a particular religious ideology.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.l4l.org/
“O less than a pagan pro-abort has the right to express their views.”
This article is about Pro life pagans not pro abort pagans. Yes they do exist.
Not many people of that if that idea. Most people when they think “Pro Life” they think of Catholics praying the Rosary or protestant street preachers yelling at women as they enter the clinics. No one ever thinks of pagans as being “pro life” but I have met quite a few.
Let me rephrase that. Not many people think of that idea. Sorry not had my coffee yet.
I understand he said it was wrong. But he did not provide you with a reason why it was wrong, only with a definition of the process.
Many things we do interrupt natural processes. There is a general consensus for most those interruptions as to whether they are good, bad or neutral ethnically.
Abortion is one on which people disagree as to morality. It being an interruption of a natural process does not provide any guidance, of itself, as to whether it is right or wrong.
Cancer is a natural process. Surgery and chemotherapy are attempts to interfere with that natural process. Doesn’t make them wrong.
The one thing that major religions agree on is that abortion is wrong.
Any sane person can see that jabbing a needle into a babies head to kill it is wrong.
True. But the judgment is that ending life is wrong, not interrupting a natural process.
BTW, contraception also interrupts a natural process. Most non-Catholic conservatives don’t therefore believe it to be wrong.
I have no data on Cherokee attitudes towards birth control. :)
Please don't think I am putting you down (though I tend in the “Natural Law” direction.) I think the question is important and needs to be examined and discussed.
So, herewith: :-)
Consider: It is “normal,” to judge by history, for some humans to enslave others. Yet we claim there are “natural rights.” (natural <- natus <- nativity => rights that come with or pertain to birth.)
Consider: Some feminists argue that if contraception is not funded by government programs, then neither should Viagra (etc.) be so funded.
IMHO the comparison is flawed because contraception interrupts the “that for the sake of which” (or one of them) the genitals are made, while Viagra restores a function lost through some defect. It would seem to make no sense to say that contraception is the same kind of thing as setting a broken arm, yet because the arm in question is a short one, that distinction is ignored.
Again, that's not meant to be an argument. It's only a hint at another view.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few large (though declining) denominations that disagree with you.
“I understand he said it was wrong. But he did not provide you with a reason why it was wrong, only with a definition of the process.”
Dude he is a Cherokee they are like that. Kinda like Master Yoda. It’s wrong so don’t do it. End of story.
When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith in the earth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.