Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

Topic: I dont understand, please help
LadyinDayton Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 2	Tue 10/14/08 02:34 PM
Please help me to understand how Vice presidaent canidate Sarah Palin can be so religious to say that abortion is never acceptable because that is killing and the 10 commandments states that "Though shall not kill". Yet it is ok for her to belong and brag about her membership to the NRA, includng promoting semi automatic weapons, and shoot wolves from the sky? I dont undestand. I also dont understand how born again, evalengelical believers inluding Sarah Palin can state and believe that even if a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to abort the fetes. In my faith, (in which we use only the old testiment), a woman that would suffer physical or emotional damage due to caring a fetus full term, if supposed to abort the child. The woman's helth comes first. I cannot imagine how delivering a child conceived as a result of rape would not cause immense emotional and psycological damage to the already emotionally damge woman.

ddn122 Joined Mon 11/05/07 Posts: 12855	Tue 10/14/08 02:37 PM
kill vs. murder

ljcc1964 Joined Fri 10/19/07 Posts: 8298	Tue 10/14/08 02:47 PM Edited by ljcc1964 on Tue 10/14/08 02:53 PM
Have you written her and asked her these questions?

Derekkye Joined Sat 12/22/07 Posts: 3427	Tue 10/14/08 03:08 PM
why do those in favor of abortion always seem to use the rape scenario as justification for aborting - it is akin to someone being in favor of killing because it could stop the suffering of someone living on life support - so why not just kill whoever - doesn't make sense

capk35 Joined Thu 10/09/08 Posts: 1	Tue 10/14/08 03:16 PM
Many people (good & bad) who have lived or live currently, were born as the result of rape.

looking4u52 Joined Mon 10/01/07 Posts: 333	Tue 10/14/08 03:19 PM
People seem to have opinions, doesn't mean there is logic involved. I am fine with folks having their own point of view. Just don't restrict what I do and my rights because you view the world differently than me. Just my opinion on this.

Quikstepper Joined Mon 04/28/08 Posts: 2998	Tue 10/14/08 03:21 PM
Uh...I think the difference is abortion kills innocent life. Self defense & hunting for food is not a sin. Do you have to eat to survive? What's sad is people are so bamboozled that they can't distinguish between murder & self defense or sport vs. self preservation ????

TheLonelyWalker Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 11870	Tue 10/14/08 07:16 PM Edited by TheLonelyWalker on Tue 10/14/08 07:17 PM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Tue 10/14/08 09:12 PM
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old. The fundamentalists have it all wrong as usual. Leviticus 27 27:6 And if it be FROM a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And babies (or fetuses) less than one month old are worth nothing at all.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Wed 10/15/08 05:02 AM Edited by Krimsa on Wed 10/15/08 05:11 AM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman.

invisible Joined Mon 04/09/07 Posts: 7692	Wed 10/15/08 05:10 AM Edited by invisible on Wed 10/15/08 05:12 AM
Carrying a child that is conceived by can cause emotional and mental damage, sometimes so severe that it leads to suicide. It should be the woman's choice whether she can cope or not.

Britty Joined Sat 09/08/07 Posts: 3480	Wed 10/15/08 09:22 AM
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old. The fundamentalists have it all wrong as usual. Leviticus 27 27:6 And if it be FROM a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And babies (or fetuses) less than one month old are worth nothing at all. When one has a belief that money = power and that power = worth, one might deduce that from this passage. It is rather speaking about a vow of dedication to the temple. Not all cultures believe that wages (money) are a proof of value. So one has to take all things into consideration in order to properly understand the scripture. As for the OP - that has to be ultimately a personal decision and women tend to look at that from an emotional point of view rather than a logical one. (ie. subject of rape).

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Wed 10/15/08 09:31 AM Edited by Krimsa on Wed 10/15/08 09:56 AM
I found this is in Leviticus last night. I dont simply harp on Leviticus. It just so happens there is a preponderance of injustices and brutality located there in. 27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 27:5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 27:7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. God defines the value of human life in dollars and cents. Of course, to God, females are worth considerably less than males (50 - 60%) less on average but neither are worth much to be fair. Males (20 - 60 years old) are worth 50 shekels. Females are worth 30. Males (5 - 20 years old) are worth 20 shekels. Females are worth 10. Males (under 5 years old) are worth 5 shekels. Females are worth 3. Feel free to re-explain this passage Britty, if I have misunderstood. In prison, you can have someone killed for a pack of cigarettes.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Wed 10/15/08 01:01 PM
Please help me to understand how Vice presidaent canidate Sarah Palin can be so religious to say that abortion is never acceptable because that is killing and the 10 commandments states that "Though shall not kill". Yet it is ok for her to belong and brag about her membership to the NRA, includng promoting semi automatic weapons, and shoot wolves from the sky? I dont undestand. I also dont understand how born again, evalengelical believers inluding Sarah Palin can state and believe that even if a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to abort the fetes. In my faith, (in which we use only the old testiment), a woman that would suffer physical or emotional damage due to caring a fetus full term, if supposed to abort the child. The woman's helth comes first. I cannot imagine how delivering a child conceived as a result of rape would not cause immense emotional and psycological damage to the already emotionally damge woman. There are a lot of points brought up here, but I'm only going to address one. I fail to see how membership in the NRA is in any way incompatible with a belief in the commandment "Thou shalt not Kill."

Eljay Joined Tue 05/08/07 Posts: 2426	Wed 10/15/08 02:24 PM
Please help me to understand how Vice presidaent canidate Sarah Palin can be so religious to say that abortion is never acceptable because that is killing and the 10 commandments states that "Though shall not kill". Yet it is ok for her to belong and brag about her membership to the NRA, includng promoting semi automatic weapons, and shoot wolves from the sky? I dont undestand. I also dont understand how born again, evalengelical believers inluding Sarah Palin can state and believe that even if a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to abort the fetes. In my faith, (in which we use only the old testiment), a woman that would suffer physical or emotional damage due to caring a fetus full term, if supposed to abort the child. The woman's helth comes first. I cannot imagine how delivering a child conceived as a result of rape would not cause immense emotional and psycological damage to the already emotionally damge woman. What does the issue of abortion have to do with guns? These are two totally unrelated concerns.

Eljay Joined Tue 05/08/07 Posts: 2426	Wed 10/15/08 02:27 PM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard?

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Wed 10/15/08 02:34 PM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? It is no longer part of the woman's body at birth. A woman should have the right to control her body. A fetus is a part of her body until it is born. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child after birth and kills it then it is a human being with full rights. I should not even have to explain this, it is obvious.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Wed 10/15/08 02:43 PM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? Well lets take a look at what the bible says about disobedient children shall we? Also you avoided a direct answer to my question. Where were all you anti-choice religious folks when abortion was criminalized? Clearly it is not your overwhelming concern over the welfare of the adult female, but what she can and can not do with her own body. Thats the real point of contention. Here is your bible's take on it found in Exodus 21 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Kill unruly children. Well that will teach em! You cant be serious. Will you be taking care of all of these unwanted children that these women will now be forced to carry to term? What about the ones that will be born with medical and psychological problems from drug addicted mothers? Hmmm? How many rooms is your house Eljay?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Wed 10/15/08 02:48 PM
is the child product of a raped responsible for the rape? if we accept that life has the same value in any form full developed or in fetal state then which one has more value that of the mother or the fetus. is the fetus some sort of being which does not have life? the fact that a human being is not full developed make him or her of less value of a full developed human being? who are we to decide who lives or die? it is correct a human being has the absolute right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body. however, when there is a pregnancy it is not one body anymore there are two bodies there. so does the right to do what i want with my body gives me the right to do what i want with another human being's body? not judging anybody just making questions. at the end questions of life and dead cannot be answered if we are not in the very same position as the person who has to make the decision. God gives guidance to those who has to make these choices. keep the little babies close to you. Amen. But you are not allowing the woman to make a choice. Look at what you just indicated. Your "choice" in other words, is that she MUST be restricted to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a religious argument and not based on a woman's fundamental right to autonomy. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a “person” or when abortion is morally justified. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization to cry out for these ADULT females who were being murdered as they sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly you care more about these fetuses than the woman. Then why don't we allow mothers to kill their incorrigible children? What if the baby is two years old and the mother decides she desn't want it any more. Isn't is against her fundamental right to autonomy to get rid of the child whenever she wishes? What difference does it make if the child is 4 months in the womb or 4 years old in the back yard? I would say that the only real difference it makes is with opinions and agreements. You pretty much have a single opinion with unanimous agreement regarding the 4 year old in the yard. You have more opinions and less agreemnt about the 4 month old in the womb.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Wed 10/15/08 02:58 PM
It is no longer part of the woman's body at birth. A woman should have the right to control her body. A fetus is a part of her body until it is born. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child after birth and kills it then it is a human being with full rights. I should not even have to explain this, it is obvious. The child is never a part of the woman's body. It has it's own DNA and exists separated from her body by the placenta. Do you support the right of women to commit suicide? If not, why not? Do you support the right of women to mutilate their bodies? If a women wanted to remove all of the skin from her body, should she be allowed to? If not, why not?