|
Post by k8reader on Mar 6, 2005 6:49:19 GMT -5
One went pretty well, and another I had to miss today. I've spent most of the day at the doctor only to get some rather startling news about my health. I am 20 years old and have some out of control blood pressure issues that could could lead to stroke. I am a little scared. Dear Heavenly Father, I lift up this young man to You! You are the Healer! Jesus, I ask that You fill this man with Your peace. Place Your hand on him, and help him heal. Lord use this experience for Your glory, and his good. Thank You Lord, that You are with us, even in our darkest hours. Thank You for standing beside us, and holding us up. Thank You for hearing our prayers! In Jesus' Name, Amen.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 7, 2005 8:29:40 GMT -5
There are many survivors of the holocaust that would be very offended by that statement. Comparing anything in this world to it is a far reach at best. While abortion may be a sin, I will not argue that point, if it is then it is equal to all other sins. We do not try to make every conceivable sin illegal, so what makes this one so special. The freedom of speech that so many Americans hold in highest regard allows for blasphemy. Are soon going to attack that right because a few consider it a sin? Conservatives often use the argument that the majority of Americans are against same sex marriage as a reason for banning it. Well, a majority of Americans are pro-choice, why the double standard? Why is it that the "right" has hijacked so many issues and turned them into electoral victories, but refuses even touch the others that come in on the same religious playing field? The truth is if those in power who claim to be pro-life really wanted to do something to ban abortion it could easily be done with the majority they hold in all branches of government. The fact is they won't do it because if they did they would lose on of the key issues they campaign on. It's the social issues that get them by, the certainly don't have an economic leg to stand on. Please wake up and see what the so called champions of your cause are really doing. Were you human before you were born? I know I was. Are we not commanded by God to love our neighbours as much as we love ourselves? Doesn't that include our unborn neighbours? I believe it does, unless you can prove to me otherwise..... Politics is always about compromise, God doesn't compromise on anything He says. For the Christian, His Word is final.Andy.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 7, 2005 12:04:18 GMT -5
Were you human before you were born? I know I was. Are we not commanded by God to love our neighbours as much as we love ourselves? Doesn't that include our unborn neighbours? I believe it does, unless you can prove to me otherwise..... Politics is always about compromise, God doesn't compromise on anything He says. For the Christian, His Word is final.Andy. We've already hashed out my thoughts on when a fetus becomes a life. What I would to know is do you really believe those who come out barnstorming about abortion to win elected office would really like to do something about it, or would they just rather have the issue?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Mar 7, 2005 14:31:52 GMT -5
We've already hashed out my thoughts on when a fetus becomes a life. What I would to know is do you really believe those who come out barnstorming about abortion to win elected office would really like to do something about it, or would they just rather have the issue? Well, I never raised the issue of politics itself (other than saying that I believe abortion should be illegal because it is murder). I really don't care for politicians at all. It is an inherently self-serving profession, where the majority of one's time is spent in devising ways of keeping your position. Whether or not the people who say that they are "against" legalized abortion actually mean what they say, or they just realize that by saying that will get them elected is a whole different issue.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 8, 2005 8:06:20 GMT -5
We've already hashed out my thoughts on when a fetus becomes a life. What I would to know is do you really believe those who come out barnstorming about abortion to win elected office would really like to do something about it, or would they just rather have the issue? Because politicians compromise on things, they inevitably break promises. When they are running for office they promise the world, but when they get there they end up failing to deliver; not always, but often. Will abortion be outlawed? I doubt it. Politics is about self-interest; it shouldn't be, but it is. God Bless, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Mar 9, 2005 11:01:36 GMT -5
While abortion may be a sin, I will not argue that point, if it is then it is equal to all other sins. We do not try to make every conceivable sin illegal, so what makes this one so special. There are two types of sin; Sins against God and sins against our fellow man. MK 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" MK 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' Running afoul of this commandment is, obviously, a sin against God 31 The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these. Running afoul of this commandment is a sin against our fellow man. Our legal system concerns itself only with the second category. To make a sin against God a criminal act would be instituting a theocracy, which we can all agree we Americans don't want. (It's the whole reason the Pilgrims came here in the first place, isn't it?) Abortion, if you believe the life is a person, is murder, as Philip pointed out. No, because blasphemy is a sin against God, not against man. Actually, most Americans are NOT pro-choice. Reputable polls from unbiased pollsters (e.g., NOT the Heritage Foundation or Planned Parenthood) consistently show that most Americans favor choice on an EXTREMELY limited basis (life of mother/rape/incest) and not as a means of birth control. Ask yourself; if most Americans were really pro-choice, why didn't they make abortion law the usual way (through the legislative process) rather than going through the courts, where the People have no say? The answer is because the law wouldn't have pkmtyolped, just as same-sex marriage didn't pkmtyolp. Like what? And, further, doesn't an electoral victory translate to "the will of the People"? Don't we choose our leaders based on which of the candidates most closely matches our own values? Really? How? Abortion, thanks to that little constitutional fiction (right to privacy), is now the Law of the Land. Frankly, I think Bush's approach is the most sensible one I've heard in years; Let's raise the moral standard of our citizens so that abortion becomes a non-issue. People won't be seeking it because if a woman gets pregnant, it'll be because she wants to, not because she was careless. Oh, not to worry, there are plenty of others to pick from! ?? ?? Do we need a lesson on economics and economic policy here? I could say the same to you. "Safe, legal, and rare" sounds nice, but abortions are hardly rare, and have slipped down a barbaric slope to include such horrific practices as so-called "partial birth" abortion, which the pro-abortion crowd fights tooth and nail to protect. Further, the pro-choice crowd isn't pro choice. We need only to look at the lawsuits which have arisen over some agencies' practice of counseling pregnant women regarding what exactly is in her womb (with pictures/ultrasound) and discussing adoption options. For some reason the pro "choice" (cough, cough) crowd thinks that's wrong to do. Pro "choice" people seem to think the only valid choice is abortion. To me, that makes them pro abortion, not pro choice. Blessings, LJ
|
|
beth
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by beth on Mar 9, 2005 19:36:35 GMT -5
Well donkey, since you can almost admit that abortion is a sin, but you still believe that it is okay, I must admit to being puzzled. But now I just gotta ask this, what else can an unborn baby possibly be but human?
Honestly, no malice intended here, but do folks, who like yourself, use that worn out old line of "its not really human", know how incredibly dumb that sounds? Sorry, but there it is. C'mon, what else is it? A donkey, a cat, dog, fish...........what???
You say there should be safe, legal and rare, abortions on demand. But in all truth there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. The complications caused by abortions extend for a life time. Literally, and not just from emotional damage, I mean long term, health ramifacations, they will haunt a woman for the rest of her life, if not kill her. No I am not just being dramatic either.
A study of 11,057 pregnancies in Jerusalem, of whom 752 had had previous abortions, showed that those with abortions were more likely to report bleeding in the first 3 months of this pregnancy, less able to have a normal delivery, and more needed manual removal of the placenta or other intervention in the third stage of labor. There was a significant increase in low birth weight, a 3 to 4 times increase in neonatal deaths, and an increase in fetal malformations. S. Harlap et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion," Am. J. of Epid. (1975) 102, p. 217
Sterility is the most feared long-term complication of induced abortion. This can result from scarring due to infection caused by the abortion. It can also result from the surgical procedure itself. If the suction curette scrapes and cuts too deeply across the tube opening, these can scar shut, and she is sterile.
A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a "two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]," as well as "losses up to 28 weeks gestation." Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499
Of a group of 52 women who had induced abortions 10-15 years previously and who were followed very closely during that length of time, it was found that one-half (27) had no problem with subsequent pregnancies. There was one ectopic pregnancy, eight subsequent — but long-delayed — conceptions, and three women with permanently blocked tubes. Of the remaining 11 women, there were 33 pregnancies with 14 early and 3 midtrimester losses, 6 premature deliveries, and only 10 full-term births. Hilgers et al., "Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by S. Lembrych. University Publications of America, 1981, pp. 128-134
Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4
There was a doubled incidence of midtrimester spontaneous losses. Herlap, New England Jour. of Med., no. 301, 1979, pp. 677-681
"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.1% suffered a mid-trimester loss (compared to 2.4% controls)." G. Ratter et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480
Severe Bleeding: Perforating the uterus or tearing the cervix will cause bleeding severe enough to require a transfusion and may possibly cause death.
Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: An analysis of all reputable studies done to date suggests, as a conservative figure, that women who have miscarriages or abortions before the first live birth initially have a risk 50% higher than women who do not. (Scott W. Somerville, 1993; Before You Choose the Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer. )
Dr. Joel Brind, a leading expert on the abortion-breast cancer link, conducted a meta-analysis of 23 published reports on breast cancer and abortion, 18 of which documented a link between abortion and breast cancer. Brind and his fellow researchers concluded that women who aborted their first pregnancies faced a 30-50 percent higher risk of breast cancer. Seven out of ten studies also showed that women who had multiple abortions had a higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who had undergone only one abortion
Tearing the cervix: The cervix is a muscle at the base of the uterus. During a pregnancy, the cervix tightens up and closes off the uterus. During an abortion, the cervix is dilated, forced open, in order to get the suction tube and other instruments into the uterus. This can cause tearing and permanent damage to the cervix. That tearing could make it incapable of functioning properly during a subsequent pregnancy, causing a miscarriage.
Perforation of the uterus: During an abortion, the doctor uses a sharp, curved scraping tool called a curette to scrape the lining of the uterus. Without extreme caution, the curette can cut through the uterus leading to much more serious medical problems.
There are greater increased risks for cervical cancer, also for endometriosis (sp?). There is also elevated chances for placenta previa, placental abruption, the list just goes on and on.
Speaking from experience, the abruption is terrifying, I would spare any woman that misery. I was 30 weeks along when I had one, its where the placenta is torn off the uterine wall. With alot of luck, skill, and some super nasty drugs, they can keep such a patient pregnant, but not all the time. Sometimes its just too big of a tear....no hope.
Still call abortion safe?
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 10, 2005 1:54:18 GMT -5
Well donkey, since you can almost admit that abortion is a sin, but you still believe that it is okay, I must admit to being puzzled. But now I just gotta ask this, what else can an unborn baby possibly be but human? Honestly, no malice intended here, but do folks, who like yourself, use that worn out old line of "its not really human", know how incredibly dumb that sounds? Sorry, but there it is. C'mon, what else is it? A donkey, a cat, dog, fish...........what??? You say there should be safe, legal and rare, abortions on demand. But in all truth there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. The complications caused by abortions extend for a life time. Literally, and not just from emotional damage, I mean long term, health ramifacations, they will haunt a woman for the rest of her life, if not kill her. No I am not just being dramatic either. A study of 11,057 pregnancies in Jerusalem, of whom 752 had had previous abortions, showed that those with abortions were more likely to report bleeding in the first 3 months of this pregnancy, less able to have a normal delivery, and more needed manual removal of the placenta or other intervention in the third stage of labor. There was a significant increase in low birth weight, a 3 to 4 times increase in neonatal deaths, and an increase in fetal malformations. S. Harlap et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion," Am. J. of Epid. (1975) 102, p. 217 Sterility is the most feared long-term complication of induced abortion. This can result from scarring due to infection caused by the abortion. It can also result from the surgical procedure itself. If the suction curette scrapes and cuts too deeply across the tube opening, these can scar shut, and she is sterile. A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a "two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]," as well as "losses up to 28 weeks gestation." Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499 Of a group of 52 women who had induced abortions 10-15 years previously and who were followed very closely during that length of time, it was found that one-half (27) had no problem with subsequent pregnancies. There was one ectopic pregnancy, eight subsequent — but long-delayed — conceptions, and three women with permanently blocked tubes. Of the remaining 11 women, there were 33 pregnancies with 14 early and 3 midtrimester losses, 6 premature deliveries, and only 10 full-term births. Hilgers et al., "Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by S. Lembrych. University Publications of America, 1981, pp. 128-134 Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4 There was a doubled incidence of midtrimester spontaneous losses. Herlap, New England Jour. of Med., no. 301, 1979, pp. 677-681 "In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.1% suffered a mid-trimester loss (compared to 2.4% controls)." G. Ratter et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480 Severe Bleeding: Perforating the uterus or tearing the cervix will cause bleeding severe enough to require a transfusion and may possibly cause death. Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: An analysis of all reputable studies done to date suggests, as a conservative figure, that women who have miscarriages or abortions before the first live birth initially have a risk 50% higher than women who do not. (Scott W. Somerville, 1993; Before You Choose the Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer. ) Dr. Joel Brind, a leading expert on the abortion-breast cancer link, conducted a meta-analysis of 23 published reports on breast cancer and abortion, 18 of which documented a link between abortion and breast cancer. Brind and his fellow researchers concluded that women who aborted their first pregnancies faced a 30-50 percent higher risk of breast cancer. Seven out of ten studies also showed that women who had multiple abortions had a higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who had undergone only one abortion Tearing the cervix: The cervix is a muscle at the base of the uterus. During a pregnancy, the cervix tightens up and closes off the uterus. During an abortion, the cervix is dilated, forced open, in order to get the suction tube and other instruments into the uterus. This can cause tearing and permanent damage to the cervix. That tearing could make it incapable of functioning properly during a subsequent pregnancy, causing a miscarriage. Perforation of the uterus: During an abortion, the doctor uses a sharp, curved scraping tool called a curette to scrape the lining of the uterus. Without extreme caution, the curette can cut through the uterus leading to much more serious medical problems. There are greater increased risks for cervical cancer, also for endometriosis (sp?). There is also elevated chances for placenta previa, placental abruption, the list just goes on and on. Speaking from experience, the abruption is terrifying, I would spare any woman that misery. I was 30 weeks along when I had one, its where the placenta is torn off the uterine wall. With alot of luck, skill, and some super nasty drugs, they can keep such a patient pregnant, but not all the time. Sometimes its just too big of a tear....no hope. Still call abortion safe? You present a very well prepared argument, one I will not take the time to counter here. We could both produce studies that support our positions for the next 5 years. The majority of this board is pro-life and we will never change each other minds. I am pro-choice I always will be. I believe each woman is entitled to make her own decisions in regards to her reproductive health. I do not believe a fetus is a life until it is born naturally, if a woman chooses to stop that process from occurring in her body it is her choice. A choice I support, just like I support the choice of two people to marry regardless of gender. Freedom of choice is something I stand by strongly. This right must be protected by a strong secular government. My faith nor the faith of any other has a place in the government of the United States. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by k8reader on Mar 10, 2005 7:11:19 GMT -5
You present a very well prepared argument, one I will not take the time to counter here. We could both produce studies that support our positions for the next 5 years. Do you mean to tell me that you can present studies that illustrate the BENEFITS of abortion? That's highly doubtful. But please, I've got time to look at some studies:) How can you be so sure that you'll never change your mind? I used to be pro-abortion as well, but my mind is changed. Will you hang on to your position out of stubbornness? That seems kind of silly. Watch me, I'm going to play the prophet and make a prediction! I will first guess that your heart ALREADY knows that abortion is wrong. I predict that once you marry that wonderful young lady of yours and begin to have a family of your own, your mind will follow your heart. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction. Ok. Is that same woman entitled to make her own decisions in regards to her body in other ways? If a woman decides that she doesn't want a nose, and starts cutting it off in front of you, what are you going to do? How about a woman's circulatory health? What if she decides that she only wants half of her veins, and begins removing the rest? WHY? So, according to your definition, the woman who has a miscarriage didn't lose a baby? It was a baby, alright. She already had it named. And I should be able to claim my cat as a dependent on my tax returns! Why gay marriage? Marriage is a covenantal religious relationship, which according to the Bible is between one man and one woman. Why can't the two of the same gender join in a civil union which gives them the legal rights they apparently desire marriage for??? Why aren't civil unions good enough? I don't know, but I'm forced to believe that they want to force Christians to accept their unions in the same way, as a covenantal relationship approved by God. A Christian then has three choices 1. "Reinterpret" scripture in a way that would support a gay marriage; 2. Reject the scriptures that describe what marriage is; or 3. Stand by the Word of God and be called judgmental, homophobic, intolerant, etc. I’ve been called names before! I’ll stand by God. It is the homosexuals who are intolerant of MY beliefs and want to force me to change them. WHAT? So you only want atheist governmental representatives? That's kind of a contradiction in terms, isn't it? How can someone represent you, if they are not a believer? Their whole world view is different. The choices they make will be grounded on a completely different foundation. How can someone with no faith represent someone with faith? How is your blood pressure DD? I hope that problem has been resolved!
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 10, 2005 10:23:42 GMT -5
How is your blood pressure DD? I hope that problem has been resolved! Not too bad, I have had change my eating habits and and exercising a little more. I've been running every morning before cpkmtyoll. While I'd like to respond to the other parts of your post, I can't. I promised myself I wouldn't comment on the topic anymore. We aren't going to change anyone's opinion here.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Mar 10, 2005 18:16:33 GMT -5
I do not believe a fetus is a life until it is born naturally, if a woman chooses to stop that process from occurring in her body it is her choice. What about Cesarean (sp?) section pregnancies? Those are definately not "natural" births. Would this also man that a woman could decide to end the life of a baby that is in an incubator from being delivered prematurely? After all, if it has stayed in her womb, she could have killed it. A choice I support, just like I support the choice of two people to marry regardless of gender. Freedom of choice is something I stand by strongly. This right must be protected by a strong secular government. My faith nor the faith of any other has a place in the government of the United States. So, with the almighty freedom of choice, I can go out and choose to kill my next door neighbor? I can choose to take a TV from the local walmart and not pay for it? And because of my "freedom of choice", I do not have to face any legal consequences?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Mar 10, 2005 18:20:43 GMT -5
While I'd like to respond to the other parts of your post, I can't. I promised myself I wouldn't comment on the topic anymore. We aren't going to change anyone's opinion here. That is unfortunate, because that is not the attitude of a Christian. A Christian should be open to being taught. I would take your side of the debate in a second if you can show me one place in the Bible which can be interpreted as allowing abortion. After all, Christians should be modelling their thoughts and attitudes after those of Christ, am I right? If you can show me this, then I will gladly join your side of the debate on this topic. I only ask the same respect and openness to learn and to be taught from you.
|
|
|
Post by k8reader on Mar 11, 2005 7:03:40 GMT -5
Not too bad, I have had change my eating habits and and exercising a little more. I've been running every morning before cpkmtyoll. I'm glad to hear that! My mother has had trouble with her blood pressure before. She has her own cuff (sphygnamanomometer sp??) and was on medication for a while. The meds for BP are pretty nasty. I hope that you can avoid them! You are under no obligation to respond or even read my post. You are correct in assuming that I will not change my mind on this matter, but I didn't get the impression that you were trying to change my mind. It is easier for me to be against abortion then you. I am married. I don't have the same temptations you are exposed to. It would be very hard to be in love, and save sex for marriage. How many people do you know are virgins? Not many, I'll bet. With sex, comes risk. The risk related to this discussion is pregnancy. pregnancy is a consequence of having sex. Here are your choices: no sex until you are prepared to be a parent (married); sex and risk becoming a parent before you are ready; sex with the understanding that if pregnancy results, you can abort the baby. Of those three choices, the last offers the greatest amount of freedom to give in to temptation and sin (sex outside of marriage). Sin looks appealing, and attractive nearly each and every time. But sin is rotten and empty. I just want to encourage you to resist temptation DD. Sin leads to regret, desolation, and sadness. Don't try to do it on your own. You have the help of the Holy Spirit! Ask God to help you. Ask our Lord to strengthen you, to shield you. You can do anything through Jesus. You know, you can! I just want you to know, I understand what your life is like. My life was like that too. My prayer for you is that you could have less regrets then me. Believe me, you will have them, and they are a bitter pill. God's way is sweet to the remembrance. It is good, and happy, and joyful. Even though it doesn't look as appealing as the sinful way, it is far, far superior. Just think on my words my dear brother.
|
|
beth
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by beth on Mar 19, 2005 9:44:22 GMT -5
DD, just wondering if you can tellme something?
What is it like knowing that you condone something that God Himself hates?
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 19, 2005 15:27:46 GMT -5
Not too bad, I have had change my eating habits and and exercising a little more. I've been running every morning before cpkmtyoll. another thought - take the stairs whenever possible! one up equals 2 down believe it or not - that's one of my best ways of keeping in shape. it's simple but it works! Good Luck & Take Care!
|
|