We need to stop arguing whether or not abortion should be legal

NekoRightsActivist said:
even doe it's atheists that are killing xheir own kinds. and it's not like xhey are going to take care of xheir own kids if abortion was banned.
Click to expand...
Every life deserves a chance
1721603542017.png
 
Weebhunter3000 said:
What if a woman would die from childbirth and required an abortion to live?
Click to expand...
Good question. What we should first acknowledge is the realism to such a situation. From what I've read on the subject, less than 1% of all abortions are ever conducted with such a nature; to save the life of the mother. Secondly, scientifically, in these rare, rare cases, doctors themselves have said that such a case simply would not require the death of the baby to save the mother's life; rather, the mother would certainly need to undergo an emergency c-section operation to get it out of her, but it is simply impossible, because of modern medical advancements that have perfected such operations, that a baby would need to undergo the harm of such a drastic case of death in order to save the mother's life. Thirdly, if, somehow, in some one-in-a-gazillion chance, the mother was truly threatened and it was her life or the baby's, that is when I would leave it up in part to human decision. God is a Lord of miracles, if He is truly putting such a decision into the hands of the child's parents, it is up for them to decide, with prayer to God, how the situation should proceed, yet that sort of trial is practically never at all the case, and that word "practically" is not at all a "1 in 10,000" or a "1 in 100,000" that I'm speaking of, here. It is truly a sliver of chance, a fleck of dirt off of the world, an extraordinary case in of itself because of medical science that we have been blessed with having that can be used to save either life. So, if this were the usual case, in that a woman's life were threatened from pregnancy, I wouldn't support an unnecessary slaying of an infant child, I would support the sensible option of a surgical removal of the baby, but if, somehow, in some way, it truly were the case, because of such rarity, I would have to want, after very strict investigation of any other possibility, the parents to have a choice in deciding between the life of the mother or her little one.
 
baqqrih said:
Good question. What we should first acknowledge is the realism to such a situation. From what I've read on the subject, less than 1% of all abortions are ever conducted with such a nature; to save the life of the mother. Secondly, scientifically, in these rare, rare cases, doctors themselves have said that such a case simply would not require the death of the baby to save the mother's life; rather, the mother would certainly need to undergo an emergency c-section operation to get it out of her, but it is simply impossible, because of modern medical advancements that have perfected such operations, that a baby would need to undergo the harm of such a drastic case of death in order to save the mother's life. Thirdly, if, somehow, in some one-in-a-gazillion chance, the mother was truly threatened and it was her life or the baby's, that is when I would leave it up in part to human decision. God is a Lord of miracles, if He is truly putting such a decision into the hands of the child's parents, it is up for them to decide, with prayer to God, how the situation should proceed, yet that sort of trial is practically never at all the case, and that word "practically" is not at all a "1 in 10,000" or a "1 in 100,000" that I'm speaking of, here. It is truly a sliver of chance, a fleck of dirt off of the world, an extraordinary case in of itself because of medical science that we have been blessed with having that can be used to save either life. So, if this were the usual case, in that a woman's life were threatened from pregnancy, I wouldn't support an unnecessary slaying of an infant child, I would support the sensible option of a surgical removal of the baby, but if, somehow, in some way, it truly were the case, because of such rarity, I would have to want, after very strict investigation of any other possibility, the parents to have a choice in deciding between the life of the mother or her little one.
Click to expand...
I find your reasoning to be… logical.
 
NekoRightsActivist said:
being neglected and ended up on street as a 'p prostitute doesn't sound like a chance anyone would want.
Click to expand...
It is something horrible to be raised in that environment and no one will ever say otherwise unless they are some sick freakshow. And people do get raised in that environment and find their way past it and live their lives in a righteous way through the Gospel. The disabled are another "class" of people that have the same stigma put onto them of "why bother living when you don't get to live it like everyone else?" but find their way to God like the rest of us. They come from a different situation from mine and keep the Faith all the same. Who are any of us to decide what life is worth living if the abused and disabled are alright with their circumstances and happy to be alive and serving God?
 
What really irks me is when people see a puppy get murdered and exclaim "oh no, that pupper!" but when a human fetus is murdered they say "That's fine, It's up to you-- a mortal-- to decide to end a human life (eve and tho you intentionally commited adultery with advance knowledge that you'd become pregnant)". More proof still that Kikes are trying to decrease the value of human children so that they can enslave the Goyim.
 
encrusting_acro said:
We need to start discussing how we can use it to our advantage
Click to expand...
Do you mean something like eugenics? if you suppport that free access to abortion is the closest to practicing eugenics. Generally women with lower moral standards have more abortions. Liberals support this, and far right-wingers don't seem to object either. Don't think christians are ok with that
 
baqqrih said:
You’d might as well put on a kippah and head to the local synagogue, then, because it’s very clear in the Bible that we’re different from the Judaic ones, being under a New Covenant with God. We don’t follow the whole of the Old Law because of this reason, with the blood sacrificing and such. Similarly, we don’t seek such drastic revenge as was said to be their desire in their time, because we know Christ has already won the war against Satan, and we now only long for His imminent return. You can not justify the mass murder of babies.
Click to expand...
I suppose he never did write up a response to this. Quite the shame. I'd like to at least hope he acknowledged my words, but it doesn't seem like he does that often. Sad!
 
baqqrih said:
If you're taking the Psalms as full-on commands meant for you particularly to forever follow, that's your issue. That's in Psalm 137, which was written when the Jews of the ancient times desired vengeance for those who enslaved and harmed them. The writer speaks of the looters and captors of Jerusalem specifically, and desires revenge, but, if you read, say, the Epistle to the Romans, you'd know we, as followers of Christ, are not to seek such vengeances or calls to extinct our enemies to the extent of their little ones.
>Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Click to expand...
>Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good

wait, how is this smart?
 
Jacksonvalley said:
>Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good

wait, how is this smart?
Click to expand...
How do you mean?
 

Similar threads

Anon_Humor
We Need to Discuss the "israel is my friend because they destroy muslims probem"
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
1K
1844 or something
1844 or something
XXX_SKIBIDISIGMA_XXX
We need more chuddy fictional characters.
2
Replies
31
Views
390
SanrioWABAG
SanrioWABAG
oxamrazor
WE NEED TO BUILD THE WALL
Replies
3
Views
111
Chesnaught
Chesnaught
FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need to kick the ethnic Han out of Taiwan and leave it for the native Austronesians
Replies
8
Views
275
FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back
Top