Sex, lust, desire are SINS. Come, be saved!

T

tony2

Registered Member
Since Christians are the chosen ones and they speak for God, then what they believe defines what it "moral" and what is "immoral". This having little to do with actual ethics, but there is some overlap. Murder is generally considered a bad thing in all cultures. Atheists and realists agree with that.

But sex is considered immoral outside the context of Christian marriage, an in the case of Catholics, outside the context of reproduction. (idiots!) Sex is not a form of amusement to Catholics and is look upon as a necessary evil to repopulate the planet. :mad: Birth control is also considered a sin to many Christian cults.

Christian fail to realize that if sex were limited to the context of Christianity, the human race would have become extinct, which would however eliminate sin and keep God from getting pissed off. :D

Sex is a necessary human function. We are the decedents of 3 billion years of sex. There are people who have risen above their instincts to control their sexuality, but those people are not our ancestors. :) We are the decedents of those who failed to control their sexuality, or had no desire to control it. :p It's an instinct homed by billions of years of evolution, and much of our behavior is controlled by our sexual instincts.

Christianity is based on sexual denial and sex becomes the "work of the Devil". It equates sex with evil and irresistible temptations, caused by Satan, to steal the souls of Christians from God and subject you to eternal punishment. Sex is an easy target because when you're not having sex, it seems like bizarre behavior. :) Other instincts, like eating, breathing, drinking seem more natural and one would quickly die if denied. Therefore sex is the best target for redefinition as sin.

But sex is life and without it we wouldn't be here, but Christians have criminalized human reproduction to bring it into the domain of their control. If sex is immoral, the life is immoral.

******

Abortion

On the surface Christian portray themselves as "God's righteous army fighting the evil Satan worshipers who are slaughtering innocent little babies that result from their uncontrolled sexual urges." But in reality, Christians don't care about "the baby" and once they get past preventing an abortion, the mother and child are on their own. :D

The real issue behind fighting abortion is that Christians believe that children (bastards) are God's way of punishing women for being sluts. "Pregnancy is God's way of punishing teenage girls for being sluts. "

But the Christian bastard fetish is also an extension of Christian group sex rituals and an expression of Christian group sexuality as a whole. Christianity is one of the most sexually obsessed religions on the planet. Sexuality permeates Christian rituals. Christians perform a form of sadistic sexual oppression on young girls, waiting for them to sin, and then holding them in public disdain for their sexual evils.

It is Satan, after all, who creates "lust in the heart" so Satan represents the incarnation of Christian sexual desire, and pregnancy is God's punishment for allowing Satan to use their bodies for sexual purposes. A teen carrying a baby allows Christians to entertain themselves with a judgment rituals of the girl who can't "hide her shame".

Guilt and shame sexual rituals are a big part of Christian culture, and the sensation of moral superiority is very addictive and destructive.

Pregnancy and being a young unwed mother label a woman as a slut and allow her to be used as a judgment object and someone to secretly be lusted after as a "bad girl in the church". They become objects of gossip and contribute much entertainment to the Christian community.

Abortion threatens this experience because is allows women to sin without punishment, and thus encourages women to do the Devil's work (have sex) and get away with it. It denies the sexual experience associated with the judgment of the fallen, and the men of the church have no clear way of knowing which young women are sexually active and perhaps available for extramarital activity.

So through Abortion, the congregation is denied the opportunity to take advantage of the young girls in their community. :D

The Abortion issue also gives Christians something to do, something to stand for, to create an identity around and issue. Woman who are pregnant are very vulnerable, especially if they are young. After all, what's a 14 year old pregnant girl going to do? These young girls represent a sexual commodity and abortion turns them back into normal little girls again.

But they are an easy target, and Christianity is a religion for lazy believers who don't want to have to work hard to get their moral fix. Therefore picking on little girls becomes an easy job, as compared to ending poverty and feeding the homeless.

--------------

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED:

If you're not serving Christ, you're serving Satan, and you are the tool of the Devil and serving an evil purpose. :D So the idea of personal liberty and free thinking is the same as giving rights to Satan to be evil. :) Something God would never approve of, but seems powerless to stop.

Obviously, Satan is working through me right now making me write this, and you're being influenced by Satan in reading it. Pray that you don't believe a word I say!
 
Sex in the Bible is not evil. Like any other physical desire it can cause you to harm others if you allow it to controll you or cause you to do harm careing only about yourself.
Mariage in the Bible was without the service and legal paper work oour government laws require us to have today. Marriage in the Bible consisted of an agreement between partys for such a commitment and was then "closed" by the act of sexual relations. It was also required that if the act of sex took place with out such an agreement of commitment than an agreement was then required.
Do I think sex is wrong...no, of course not. Does sex for the "fun" of it cause tremendouse harm to young teenagers, yes it does and you need not be Christian to realize that. Not only to the children that result from it but to the "children" who are now faced with the responsibility of raising a baby when they can not provide for themselves yet.

Sex with out concern results in betrayal to ones spouse if you are married, break down of your family thereby harming any children yoou already have. And of course we all know about STD's. Either way you need not be a Christian to see that sex with out regard or keeping it under controll of a commited relationship hurts others.
As for abortion, and it is a dangerouse subject to tread on I know...it is in fact murder of an innocent life. There is no way in the world to deny that, religion or no religion. My rights END where someone elses begin. I had a RIGHT to not have sex...I had a RIGHT to protect myself from conception. Just as with anything else, if I forfiet those rights than the consequences are my own, who should be a martyr to save me when I knowingly and willingly brought it upon myself? Certainly not a child who can not speak for itself.
Ever met a woman who didn't know when her "time of the month" was? They write it down, keep calanders in their purse, memorize it a month ahead almost religously so as not to be inconvenienced by "starting" unprepared at the wrong place at the wrong time. Well it is a fact that there is a window of less than a week during which a woman can actually get pregnant. It too can easily be documented by the "other" week she is already documenting and by clear physical signs that the woman has when fertile. Is preventing the life of an unwanted child not more important than haveing to leave a party to go home and change 'cause "you started" ? All a woman has to do is keep up with that week of fertility as faithfully as she does her period.
 
Things that make you Hmmm ...

Naturally, women have a pretty good idea about what "time of the month" it is for them. But this discounts the relatively large amount of women that have irregular periods due to environmental factors or psychological issues. How, <b>Taken</b>, do you propose for these women to counter against getting pregnant? Contraception? Well and good, but some do not wish to take contraception and still do not wish to become pregnant, yet they do. Incest (which was prevalent in the Bible--and I'm not talking about Genesis) and rape (slightly older than prosititution) cause unwanted pregnancies. Should women be forced to bring up the baby, even though the baby is clearly not at fault? I don't think most women would be proud to be carrying around Uncle Larry's child, especially since the life of the child could be further complicated by inbred genes.

Even if you are against abortion, wouldn't you at least prefer an option just in case of rape or incest?

And, about the having a child while still a teenager ... There are plenty of parents, nuclear if you will, that have children and are just as prepared emotionally as teenagers. Perhaps there should be a counseling session before considering kids. The kids, if no one else, would probably prefer that.

BTW, nice post, <b>tony2</b>.

Thanks!

prag
 
More discussion points

Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.

Sex is God's gift to marriage. God has nothing wrong with sex. He tells us to be fruitful and multiply. I don't know any other way to do that than to have sex. On the other hand, God views sex as a special relationship between a man and a woman. Furthermore, before any studies had proven it, God knew that a two parent household was the best environment for raising a child, therefore he decided that procreation should occur within the bounds of marriage to ensure that future generations would not be cheated, but would be able to enjoy the benefits of two loving parents. This was God's ideal for sex and marriage.
 
Makaera ...

Ever taken a look at a human being during the first trimester? Even the Bible, AFAIK, is unsure as to exactly when the spirit is said to enter the body. For instance, when the cousin of Mary learned that Mary was to conceive the Christ child, it is said (paraphrasing) that little John the Baptist leapt within her belly. This is most likely into the third trimester, at most the second. I don't think the fetus is capable of leaping within the belly during the first trimester.

You talk of murder as if it was a bad thing within your religion. Might want to crack open that Bible of yours and peer into the Old Testament for a bit. See if the God it describes there isn't some vicious, kill-first-check-under-bed-second kind of being. Murder <i>is</i> abominable and you get into some gray areas when discussing abortion. When exactly is a human a human? At conception? If so, then it has nothing to do with physical characteristics. Because of potential to be human in appearance?

Sex is not God's gift to marriage. Again, in the O.T. it was Lot that slept with his two daughters (even though he supposedly wasn't aware of it at the time--:rolleyes: ), thus implying that incest was God's original purpose for sex (see Genesis).

I think the point you're missing entirely is that sex is not intended solely for procreation. If you think so, then make sure you never engage in the unholy acts of oral, anal, or any other kind of sex that does not procreate. In fact, if you can't conceive children, then don't have sex at all, either, else you're using the procreative act for an experience which will not create children.

You don't know of any other way to have children except through sex? Test-tubes work pretty good in cases where some people can't have children. Artificial insemination is another. Cloning is on the up-and-coming.

You're saying that a two-parent household is the ideal way to go when raising kids, eh? Glad to hear you say that--apparently that means that you're all for same-gender parents to raise children, then. I guess you're more open-minded than I originally thought. Though I come from a single-parent household and I'm pretty sure my brothers and I are fairly decent folk.

God's ideal for sex? Not marriage. That was God's ideal for further servitude to him. Sex, like tony2 has said, is an inherent evil in the religion that is, both, disapproved of disproportionately and and entertained relentlessly within the religion. At the same time.

BTW, capital punishment is murder as well. So is euthanasia. And certain fields of gene therapy.

I think it was <i>Southpark</i> that once said (Mephisto): Genetic engineering is our way of correcting God's horrible mistakes.

makaera, when you declare abortion is wrong across the board, then I have to assume that if a dear relative of yours was raped and was carrying child from the rapist, that would be all fine and dandy with you as long as they carried the child full-term. Is that what you're saying? Might want to ask what your relative would think of that before you reply.

Thanks!

prag
 
But that's the way that God wanted it ...

... er ... something like that.

Prag:
Even if you are against abortion, wouldn't you at least prefer an option just in case of rape or incest?
Click to expand...
I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child. It's a pretty stiff realization, but that's what a human being--specifically, a woman--is worth to the God of the Bible.

Makaera:
Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Might I inquire as to your location? For instance, I live in the United States, where abortion is a lawful procedure. This practice has gone before our Supreme Court and while there exists no constitutional right to abortion, the "law" that demands abortion be made illegal is, in practice, subordinate to the Constitution, which ensures certain rights, some of which are inherently violated by anti-abortion laws. The "law" of God is not the law practiced here: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It's a fine distinction, but to classify it as wholly unlawful ignores the practical facts.

To issues and conscience, I can only leave you to your God, as such. And while I do not object to your statements on God and marriage in principle, I can only wonder what significance that bears toward the pressing ideas of God's blessing toward an incestuous conception or conception resulting from forced sexual intercourse.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Fact...the heart is beating by day 24...most women won't even realize they are pregnant till day 28 thru day 30 depending on how regular their period is or how well they keep up with it. Movement can not be accuratly used to asses life. The fetus moves months before it can be felt any way. I do not have a personal opposition to condoms. I am just saying that something so important like a life should be given more seriouse consideration.

We will take vitamins to prevent dietary problems, drink OJ to prevent a cold, spend 100's of dollars to fight ageing.
Abortion is NOT a legitimate form of birth control. If the life of a woman is endangered by pregnancy under a solid medical evidence then I could see it as an option. Not that I think that would justify it, but laying down your life for another, especially your own child although the noble choice is not a commandment or something we can demand someone do.
As for rape and incest, there are adoption alternatives. But the real solution lays in the attitude of low regard and victimization we allow to be placed on women. If as a society we made it unacceptable under ANY circumstances, stiffen punishments to severe harshment and stopped portraying women as sexual objects we could in fact lower the numbers and we know it. I do not just blame men either, a lot of women feed in to and perpetuate the problem for self gain and due to low self esteem and no accountability.

We have to start holding ourselves responsible and not the babys. Yes there has always been incest and rape and adultry. But the fact is that not so many years ago in this country most women married haveing no idea what sex was and before that many not even knowing for sure where babys come from. Knowledge is not always a good thing. In our children we need to protect their innocents. We do them no service by giving them exsposure to ideas and information they are not ready to handle with responsibility.

I find it both disturbing and reassuring that in this country it is mostly men on the front line fighting against abortion. With the way babys are used to capture them, years of mandatory child support in large sums, much of which the mothers do not spend on the children, unable to begin a life long commited relationship often due to that financial bind. Don't get me wrong, they laid down and made that baby and deserve those consequences. But if anyone was gonna want abortion as a regular normal practice you would think it would be the men. But instead it is the mothers, the life giving, loveing, nuturers who are fighting for the right to kill their own babys. I just don't get it.
 
prag:

My interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is that life begins at birth. The psalmist writes "sinful from the time my mother conceived me." I take this to literally mean that humans are sinful from conception, which means that they must be alive, and therefore killing fetuses is wrong. The God of the Old Testament did approve of some mass murders. In fact he commanded them! I do not dispute this fact. However, he rarely ordered these events, and when he did, he made it very clear when and where it was supposed to happen. These events were his judgement on unbelievers. However, in no place is mass murder allowed on the general case. Did what I say make sense?

BTW, I am against euthanasia, I don't understand what you mean by "certain fields of gene therapy" as I am unfamiliar with that field. I do, however, believe that God has given governments that right to use capital punishment. A careful reading of Romans 13:1-5 will make it clear that God has given the authorities the right to execute people. I do not want to clutter this post by placing those verses here, but if anyone would like me to do so, I can put them in a later post.

About your comments about God's attitude towards sex. I never said that sex was to only be used for procreation. I am sorry if I implied that. What I said was that sex was a gift given to married couples, to be used within the bounds of marriage. That is all I meant. Concerning Lot and his daughters: there are many instances of sin in the bible. Just because the bible records these events does not mean it condones them.

While this is not exactly relevant to the topic at hand, I believe that homosexuality is a sin that is condemned in the bible. Two verses that make this clear are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you know that the wicked will not inherit that kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Romans 1:27
Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Finally, while I implied that a two parent household was the best way to raise a child, I in no way intended to imply that anyone who was not raised this way is inferior, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Certain parts of the bible condone one parent households.

tiassa:

I reside in the United States. However, this does not mean that I like all the laws. I often take advantage of my right to criticise the government and its actions. However, I am curious which of the Constitutional rights would be violated by an anti-abortion law. This is an argument that I have never heard before. Enlighten me.

Finally, I would like to quote another verse from the bible, Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him who have been called according to his purpose.

That just about sums it up. Thank you.

--------
All biblical quotations are taken from the NIV translation. All spelling errors are mine.
 
Last edited:
You don't notify a moderator. You click on edit at the bottom right of your post then check "delete" post then click the button off to the right to actually delete it.

Ben
 
Hoo-boy! A little long ...

<b>Taken</b>,
Abortion is NOT a legitimate form of birth control. If the life of a woman is endangered by pregnancy under a solid medical evidence then I could see it as an option.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more about abortion not being a good form of birth control. People need to exercise a little intelligence and forethought when it comes to sexual experiences. They need to take measures to insure that pregnancy will not occur and shouldn't (IMO) just step back and say, "Oh well, there's always abortion." Last resort, sure, but not primary consideration.

I think I argue the point of abortion because I believe that there should be choices available for people, especially since this is a gray area (even though many will claim this is a yes or no issue). Personally, I'm not entirely sure what my choice would be on abortion, but I would not like to take that choice away from others.
As for rape and incest, there are adoption alternatives.
Click to expand...
Naturally. Adoption is not a bad thing, although I'm sure it can be incredibly traumatic when children are passed over due to physical factors. But I suppose that's a part of life. The important point to make is that adoption is another viable <i>alternative</i>, just as abortion is. The thing I don't understand is that the O.T. God called for and justified the killing of children; the reason why this is different from abortion is because God ordered death because they were not of the fold. So, is the Christian opposition to abortion a way of telling God that they're disagreeing with his positions on certain issues?

<b>makaera</b>,
Hey, a belated welcome, but welcome to SciForums! I might've been a little stiff in that last post.
What I said was that sex was a gift given to married couples, to be used within the bounds of marriage. That is all I meant.
Click to expand...
While sex within marriage is admirable and, most likely, expected unfortunately in society, I take issue with your assertion that sex is only intended for marriage. Once again, the definition of sex must be included somewhere. For, oral sex is sex which in no way leads to the conception of children. Anal sex gives pleasure to both but does not create any offspring whatsoever. Masturbation as well as hand manipulation by a partner will produce intense feelings but will not produce children. So, it would seem that only vaginal intercourse by a male would have the possibility of producing children. In which case, it stands to reason that God is against vaginal premarital intercourse only. Ah, but the others fall into the broad category of fornication, you say. But isn't it interesting that one minute, all things sexual are blatantly blasphemous if not performed in a marital relationship, when the next minute it's anything goes! Dance around like monkeys if that's what gets you being fruitful and multiplying, says God. Here's an apt analogy: My brother went on an LDS mission to Brazil (I'm sure you've seen the smartly-dressed young men walking around and preaching--no, not Jehovah's Witnesses!;) ). He told me of one guy on his mission that had been preaching and converting and baptizing for nearly a year before it was realized that he had never been ordained in the first place to do so. Did that mean that they would have to rebaptize those that he had baptized? Of course not. Too much of a hassle. So they decided that God would sort everything out in the end. How does this apply to this topic? Even though God may say that fornication before marriage is evil and should not be practiced, it's technically okay. It all boils down to whom you're speaking with at the time. So, if you get married someday, think about that as you prepare to enjoy your honeymoon night; namely, that just "yesterday" everything was off-limits, but "now" it's somehow all right and expected. Kinda weird, don't you think?

<b>tiassa</b>,
Man, it's been far too long.
The "law" of God is not the law practiced here: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Click to expand...
You raise an interesting point, to me at least. With the likes of extremists like the one-man-band of tony1 who thinks everyone else is too lax in their beliefs, and other Christian posters who think that tony1 preaches about a heaven they would rather not see, it must be difficult to understand just what Christians stand for. Apparently, it's much easier for Christians to declare what they <i>don't</i> stand for, e.g. abortion, murder, tax evasion. They say love and such, but that's such a foreign concept for tony1 that he still hasn't figured out what love translates to in any one of the nine languages he knows:rolleyes: .

It gets to be such self-limiting disclosures as well. Yeah, yeah, Christians believe that homosexuality, abortion, TOOL, and coffee cake are inherently evil. But, just what in hell is good? Communing with God? Loving their neighbor? Empty words with nothing behind them, especially since loving their neighbor excuses them from facing the paradox of saying that same neighbor is condemned by God because of their flamboyant lifestyle.

It seems to me that the "law" of their God is continually becoming more and more mainstream Christian ethics. It's like fewer and fewer of them try to develop anything within their religion--just stick to the basics and quote feel-good scriptures. Not a lot of thought going behind the study of their own scriptures. Sure, you get cranks like tony1 that show off their ability to manipulate others and attribute that characteristic to a God-given right; then there are the Sir <b>Loon</b>ies, who think that the best way to bring others to the fold are through inane strings of lunacy (yeah, way to go there Sir Loon!).

Truthfully, it was because of some posts by Taken, that I began thinking that not every Christian that comes here is incapable of revising a little part of their thinking. Hell, I can do that, I just did above. It's as if most Christians think that if they give a little in any direction, then they're prime candidates for Satan's influence. Frankly, I think the great majority of Christians are not worthy of Satan's hovering presence. What an ego-bust.

Well, you got me thinking, as you usually do, tiassa. Thanks again for that. And thanks for posting Taken and makaera. Even though we may not agree on certain issues, I enjoy discussing them. I learn new things, you know.

Thanks!

prag
 
Makaera

However, I am curious which of the Constitutional rights would be violated by an anti-abortion law. This is an argument that I have never heard before. Enlighten me.
Click to expand...
] http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

This is Roe v. Wade, the famous 1973 Supreme Court decision that has become the focus of the abortion debate. From the syllabus:
Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html is a link to the Constitution and Amendments. I'd pick out the citations for you but I have to get myself to work oh, right about now. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
My stand against abortion has nothing to do with my being a Christian. It has to do with being a human, and possibly influenced by my being a woman. I say possibly because the fact is that my brothers most of whom take no claim to Christianity also do not condone the idea of abortion. You said you do not wish to take other peoples rights away, is abortion not takeing away the rights of the children it kills? Do those rights not apply to ALL humans? No matter how small. Even an institutionalized person unable to speak for themselves has their rights protected by the government. We protect the rights of murderers and rapist in prison. Even in the case of incest the predator has rights does he not? Why should he be above the new innocent life that was created?
The Bible states that children are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I do not see that as condoning their murder.

We are effectivly makeing it OK and socially acceptable for people, women especially to take no responsibility for their own actions. Yes they had rights, most of them willingly gave up those rights to get in the situation to start with. We see 40+ women takeing fertility drugs to get pregnant then when there are too many babys present they electivly kill part of them, or when the baby presents with Downs Syndrome or some other anomilie they abort. Most abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the mothers health...just to make the mothers life easier. easy would be NOT getting pregnant to start with.

It takes all of congress and the senate and the president to make a law. Then in the cases of rape or medical harm to a mother, should we not atleast have a review board to decide if it is indeed the lessor of two evils as opposed to drive thru abortions by just anyone who wants one?
 
Sticking my two cents in again

You said you do not wish to take other peoples rights away, is abortion not takeing away the rights of the children it kills?
Click to expand...
I'm inclined, Taken, to ask whether or not you consume caffeine or alcohol, whether you have stairs in your house, and what kind of car (how old) you drive, among other things.

So you carry your sixth child and give birth. Everything seems to go well for nine months and then your child is born with some developmental issue. Perhaps the problem won't manifest for a year or two or even five. But here's the questions: did you consume too much caffeine? How much alcohol can one consume before fetal alcohol syndrome kicks in? What if you're breathing bad air from your own exhaust leak in the car? What if you're breathing ... how many people's exhaust?

I'm happy to draw a line at fetal viability: that is, viable without any equipment beyond that used to accommodate a healthy newborn. But even then, if God wanted them out of your body and functioning as independent creatures, they would be.

All I'm after is the idea of whether or not you understand what happens when you reduce an individual (mother) to the status of human transport and service vehicle. Look at all we know about "how to have a healthy baby". If that "child" is a human being entitled to its full constitutional rights when it is merely a dividing cell, what rights has the mother left?

***
PROSECUTOR: Ms Taken, when did the cramping begin?
TAKEN: About midnight. I was in bed.
PROSECUTOR: And how were you laying in bed?
DEFENDER: Objection.
JUDGE: Overruled. The witness will answer.
TAKEN: I slept on my ____ (back/side/whatever)
(General gasp from audience and jury.)
JUDGE: Order, order.
PROSECUTOR: Do you always sleep on your ____, Ms. Taken?
DEFENDER: Objection. Counsel cannot ask witness to incriminate herself.
***

If you miscarried, Taken, would you be willing to endure a murder investigation? Because more often than not, they will be able to show that the carrier's living habits included behaviors which were not to the benefit of the developing citizen, and therefore we might sign off the death certificate as Homicide by Neglect.

What happens if you slip on the floor in socks? Or trip and fall down the stairs? A murder charge because you were looking to see what that sound you heard was when you tripped? Too bad, your mind wasn't on your duties toward that citizen inside you, and therefore your negligence resulted in events which contributed to the death of said citizen.

I know it seems like a good thing to many people to stop the horrendous, evil doctors from harming all those innocent people, but the truth of the matter is that nobody will reproduce except for the irresponsible or stupid. How many people are going to surrender their constitutional rights just so they can spend eighteen years frustrated and in debt?

Incidentally, it's already happened that a controlled-substance charge was overturned in Missouri: the defendant, aged 20 years and four months at the time of his arrest, demonstrated that under Missouri law, he was 21 years, 1 month old, and therefore legally entitled to be in possession of alcohol.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Last edited:
Tiassa your point is well taken. I however learned years ago that it wasn't something in the water. LOL I know exactly what causes pregnancy and if I knowingly get pregnant or put myself in a position of getting pregnant than I have with full knowledge made a choice to take on responsibility for another humans life.

If I was an alcoholic or a crack addict, then common sense dictates my lifestyle by choice is not one for which haveing a baby would be a priority and I have the choice to NOT get pregnant.
That is why we need to get the decision of getting pregnant and the importance of responsible sexual practices back in to perspective. As a society we create and sustain what is acceptable and what is taboo. Not long ago, irresponsibility of sex and conception was a taboo...we as a whole slackened those restraints and we as a whole must once again tighten them.

YOU pay for the thousands of government institutions that are now filled with children born with special needs. YOU pay for the juvenile detention centers now filled with kids whose parents let them run wild and then didn't want to deal with them or be bothered by them. YOU pay for all the kids on welfare, not due to lost jobs or disabled parents who found themselves in need of a little help unexpectedly...but thousands of kids born to women who were not married, did not intend to marry and knew full well they could not support the children.

If we made family a priority again, put some of the old taboos about premarital sex and unwed birth back in place...it would no longer be so openly acceptable that these "kids" and self-serving single women could pump out babys just because they can, or even worse just to raise the amount of their welfare check. It hurts the Babys, but it also hurts our country and each of us as a whole. We aren't even talking orphanages, foster homes, free clinics, ......if we just eliminated the three institutions of child welfare in my previouse paragraph, your bring home pay would increase by atleast 15%.

The answer is not to make it easy to kill the babys, the answer is to make it non-acceptable to create a life you do not want.
 
I believe you'll find us in agreement

The answer is not to make it easy to kill the babys, the answer is to make it non-acceptable to create a life you do not want.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'll get any debate from me on that point. We might differ a few degrees on the word "easy", but I think we'll find essential agreement.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Re: More discussion points

Originally posted by makaera
Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.

Sex is God's gift to marriage. God has nothing wrong with sex. He tells us to be fruitful and multiply. I don't know any other way to do that than to have sex. On the other hand, God views sex as a special relationship between a man and a woman. Furthermore, before any studies had proven it, God knew that a two parent household was the best environment for raising a child, therefore he decided that procreation should occur within the bounds of marriage to ensure that future generations would not be cheated, but would be able to enjoy the benefits of two loving parents. This was God's ideal for sex and marriage.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not murder!

Abortion: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual beign. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the un-born).

Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has "right to life". A pice of protoplasm has no rights--and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concers only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. Observe that by ascribing ritghts to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For consciotious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbiding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.* Ayn Rand

Abortionists picket the abortion clinics, one day a very young teenager walked up to her mom at the picketing line in front of the clinic, the little girl was supprised to see her mom there, so was the mother, she asked "what are you doing here?" The little girl looked at her mom, saw what her mom was doing, and she stood in silence, her mom demanded an answer "tell me!!" The little girl crying told her mom "I'm pregnant!!!!"

What happens next?
 
***I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child.***

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.
 
Last edited:
Blonde_cupid, did you read above what I wrote?

Originally posted by blonde_cupid
***I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child.***

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.
Click to expand...

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual beign. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the un-born).*Ayn Rand*
 
Godless,

Yes. I read what you wrote. I don't agree with Rand on this issue.

Rand calls the embryo the not-yet-living. This is a false characterization of an embryo. The embryo is already living, otherwise, there would be no need to kill it to prevent it from becoming a mature human being.

Human growth and development is a gradual process. An embryo is a human being in a most fragile and defenseless beginning stage of its growth and development. Human beings continue to develop from fertilization through adulthood. Prescribing a non-living status to an embryo is, to me, no different than prescribing a non-living status to an infant or a toddler or a prepubescent adolescent or a teenager since they are all various but different stages of the growth and development of a unique human being which is not-yet-mature.

The embryo is a unique being. Once it is killed, a unique life has been ended which cannot be replaced. Once it is killed, it becomes the not living... the dead.
 
Blonde Cupid

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.
Click to expand...
And here we hit an interesting issue: whose right is right?

By establishing the idea of a "child" at conception, instead of what it is--two cells with certain and approximately predictable potential--creates a circumstance where legalistically we must now consider whose rights take precedent. It's well enough to reduce women to breeding machines and to say that they must "live with the choices they make". But when we enter the idea of rape and incest, we're entering a gray zone of principles. In the case of rape, we can note that, like believing in God, the "choice" made by a rape survivor to be raped is, specifically, not to die or be maimed. You know, that free will decision to be raped?

In the case of incest, there are other areas at play. I'm reminded of the line from National Lampoon's Vacation: "Daddy says I'm the best kisser of 'em all." I'm not sure that in certain incestuous unions both persons are knowledgeably consenting. If a child is taught to make decisions according to poor criteria, at what age do we start holding that child responsible? Breeding age? Tell me a menstrual twelve year-old who has accommodated her daddy for years knows that what she's doing is not proper.

So with rape and incest, I don't see the same easy out that comes with living with one's choices.

What choice has been made by the rape victim who is pregnant? What choice has been made by the young girl who doesn't yet understand how she got pregnant? Here we find the problems of speaking of rights.

So to award rights to the "child" at the time of conception, we reduce women to factory status. Even having an adverse emotional reaction to an unfounded insult can be unhealthy to the child. Is it a violation of that child's right to an ideal developmental environment? Or we could manifest the child's right to life by simply extracting it from the mother and playing Variations on Sparta.

Rights transcend processes. That's part of the problem. Rights are not a concrete reality, but a conventional one. We might ask what that "child's right to life" includes. Room? Board? A smoke-free environment? Well, if that "child" is an independent citizen with rights, then that child is an independent citizen with responsibilities, and owes the woman for housing it, as well as both parents for the carnal labor.

If we establish what that right to life includes, it may not be so much to ask. But I'm guessing that we're not that coldly practical, though such an examination might prove worthwhile.

Think of it this way: you're giving that "child" more rights than he has when he is actually born.

In the practical realm of legalisms, the idea of rights is a sticky and complex one. Fundamentally, all people have rights. The way to undermine this is to start stretching the definition of what people are.

My cousin, about nine years younger than I, has a small scar on his leg obtained in utero during an amniocentesis. Does he have the "right" to sue for the damage? After all, if his older sister hadn't been a Down's Syndrome child, the test probably would never have been run; had his test shown irregularities, he might not have been born. In the end, we can demonstrate from the observation of the subject that the test was unnecessary and reactionary to prior cause. Seems a pretty stupid reason to start sticking a child with needles. Why bother?

On the flip side, I endured a bioethics class in high school which raised the question of reproduction and retardation. Should genetically-deviant retardations be subject to sterilization?

And there we see a third place in which consent is not established as genuine. So what to do with a pregnancy there?

In the end, I think the legalisms need to be hammered out before we go relegating women to livestock. It's always nice to have an idea of the value we're getting in the trade.

Now, I've only addressed the legalisms. Of those issues more divine, I can only point once again to the principle that God chooses to bless these births that result from rape, incest, and the more instinctive matings among those not demonstrating capacities to operate independently within society. I can see why God would want more retarded people in the population: it kind of reminds me of the dependence He wished of Adam and Eve. But I don't see why He should bless a union He has condemned (incest), nor why women are so worthless to Him that he should visit the iniquity of rape upon them (by His Will, a point I'll drop when other idiocies stop being described as His Will) and bless them with thereby with a child.

Of course, with such an example before us, I can see why many of the faith are rushing to hurl women back into the wallow.

If rape and incest are not correct, why, then, does God bless so many of these wrongs with offspring?

You and I might agree on the wrongness of forced or incestuous union, it's just that it seems we might be at odds with the Lord Almighty.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top