Over 40 Million Dead Babies - Will Either Obama Or McCain Stop The American Abortion Holocaust?

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GordonJQ
 


There's an incredible amount of people out there that are waiting to jump at the chance to adopt a beautiful little baby. If you can't handle the responsibility of having a child, at least have enough compassion to carry it and give it to a family who can care for it.




posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Oops, thousands of children sit in orphanges as we speak. Maybe they should be adopted before we introduce more.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GordonJQ
 


There's room for more and even here in America there is a year long waiting list to adopt. It's a perpetual system, like that of a car dealership. Have you ever seen a car lot empty out before it brings new ones in? No, because that would be inefficient. Having young children wait to be adopted is okay. Adoption is much more humane than termination.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GordonJQ
 




The Good Book clearly states you don't get your soul until you're born. So that right there lays waste to any "Its a human!" arguement.

Sir, your audacity takes the breath away. Having read The Good Book times without number I can say with 100% certainty that this is totally untrue, and it does you no credit. I have come across this tactic before: assert the Bible says something on the assumption you won't be caught out. It is not so much ignorance, as assuming others are so ignorant you can take advantage of their gullibility. As a general tactic it is below the belt. But forging teaching from the Bible? How low can you go?

Here is a brief glance at the true picture.


...Mary set out and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judah where she entered Zechariah's house and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped inside her... (Elizabeth) exclaimed... "...when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped for joy inside me!"

Luke 1:39&41a, 42a&44

How old was the baby in the womb (John the Baptist) that leaped for joy? According to verse 36 he was in the sixth month of his development - sometime between 22 weeks and 26 weeks.

I stated what I wanted to say in this debate several pages back without quoting the Bible, and only mentioning issues of faith briefly and in passing, in specific response to other people touching on such things. My sole purpose here is to rectify a brazen attempt to misrepresent the Scriptures.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


The Lord did not give Adam his soul until he took his first breath or the "Breath of Life" So that is clearly the Lord saying that until you take your first breath you do not have a soul. Unless you know better than the Lord.

Read Genesis, all of it. Inspiring literature. If its true or not is up to ones interpretation. But it does limit the Lord doesn't it? To say that the Lord can only do it one way is limiting Him and in my opinion is wrong. But again, the Lord says in His book, no Breath of Life, no soul.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by GordonJQ]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GordonJQ
 


Firstly I retract the implication that you were being deliberately disingenuous.

Secondly I have to say that using Adam as evidence is so utterly tangental that it is still entirely spurious. According to the text Adam was a fully-formed man when the breath of life was given him. He was not a baby in a womb.

Conversely, the Scripture I brought in specifically said that the baby in the womb was a living human being capable of experiencing joy. There is no way round that.

I would therefore politely encourage you to revisit your claim to Scriptural authority in the view you put forward.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


And you just stated Adam was a man, not in the womb, when given his soul. Just proving again what the Lord said in his Book. Adam was not a fetus, not in the womb, but out and a human when he recieved his soul.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I've read a number of 'abortion' threads in US fora and it usually leads to my wondering how many of the anti-abortionists are male.

In any number of fora, you can read posts by fathers defaming their ex-wives and partners (who are also the mothers of some of their now fatherless children).

These men have the time to post in a forum or three
They obviously find the money to pay for internet connection

Yet the same men state freely that their ex-wives can burn in hell before they'll pay them a cent in child-support.

When you ask these men WHY they aren't prepared to support their own children, there's no limit to their justifications. Usually they claim their ex-wives are expletives. They say their ex-wives are sleeping with or married to other men now. They claim their ex-wives earn more than they. They claim their ex-wives will spend child-support on drink and drugs. It's endless. But it all boils down to the same thing: these men want their ex-wives to suffer ! And withholding of child-support is the tool used by these losers to ensure their ex-wives suffer. Too bad for their 'ex-children' who're forced by their FATHERS to live in humiliating and painful poverty and want.

But mention abortion and the same men start pontificating like ten Moses at once !

And it's always seemed to me that by attempting to demonise and outlaw abortion, these men are again simply trying to ensure that their ex-wives and women generally are made to SUFFER.

What I usually say is this: tie a knot in it --- use three condoms at once -- go and get a quick, simple and relatively painless vasectomy. THAT is how you decrease the numbers of abortions.

And when men have ensured they are not putting more unwanted, unsupported children out there ... then get off internet and start supporting the children upon whom you've inflicted life .. often a very hard, painful and unwanted life.

How's that ?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
If no babies were ever aborted, the planet would be a seething mass of starving, fighting people up to our armpits in filth due to overpopulation. I read somewhere that the earth can only feed about 7 or 8 billion people and thats without crop detruction due to drought, storms, floods ect. I'm not certain but I think the planet has around 7 billion at the moment, if abortion and war were stopped worldwide I believe we would exceed the earths ability to sustain us all fairly quickly. Which is better Abortion, war, starvation. Nature is just as cruel as man. I myself do not condone abortion and would do anything possible to stop a child of mine being aborted. But if others do it then thats their business.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Toecutter.]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
There's a very simple solution to abortion, and that is to sterilise 90% of the planet's male population.

Probably a good idea

The fertile 10% could be chosen for their superior attributes

And when couples are able to prove they are financially, psychologically, emotionally and otherwise capable of supporting and raising a child, they can apply for a licence and get in the queue

There would of course be stipulations, primarily requiring both parents to already have x amount of dollars in a joint 'child' account which would remain untouchable by either parent and to be used specifically and only for the child's support, education, etc. Should the parents decide to divorce, the child would thus be financially secure and its continued education etc. assured. Upon divorce, both parents would be ineligible to ever again apply for another child, regardless of whether or not they remarried.

Yeah, I think the authorities should and will eventually arrive at a similar plan.

It could be refined of course. Some women, probably quite a lot of them, should be sterilised also. That way, the majority of the world's population could fornicate like rabbits lifelong, instead of churning out children they neither planned nor want



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 



Having read The Good Book times without number I can say with 100% certainty that this is totally untru...


So, having read the *Good Book* many times, I have to ask you.

Do you believe in predestination or free will?

Predestination = She was predestined to have the abortion.

Free will sound better to you?
Does to me.

I choose to believe:

The greatest gift God ever gave man is free will.

Not you or anybody has the right to try and take God’s Gift (free will) away.



Do I believe abortion is right?
No.

Is it a woman's choice.
You bet'cha.


... * ...





[edit on 24-9-2008 by silo13]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Dear MandM,

No president is ever going to get Abortion Illegalized. I myself am Pro-Life, however, the Presidential Candidates Stance on Abortion means nothing whatsoever to me because they simply either:

A. Don't give a # and say what they wanna say to get votes

or

B. Would never get congress to sign a bill Illegalizing it

It saddens me people are so stupid and lazy they would prefer to kill a baby over buy a condom. There is NO excuse in this country for women to have abortions, they should learn to RESPECT life and to USE PROTECTION, if not for their good, for the good of the children they are murdering.

However, this doesn't devoid me from the fact that Abortion is here to stay. This is the end of times no?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Dock6
What you fail to realise is that 1 man could fertilse thousands of women, most would do so gladly, or would at least give it a good try
so sterilising 90% of males is not the answer, if anyone should be sterlised it would be women from a practicle point of view anyway, though thats not my opinion, not having a licence won't stop people getting pregnant either. In short there is no real solution to the lack of natural attrition in our highly medicalised world.
Oh yeah and what if the remaining 10% according to your plan, all got sick and died? What then? Good plan hey.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Toecutter.]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Toecutter.]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Toecutter.
 


The past two posts of yours have been completely irrelevant and far fetched. 1 man can, but is that realistic, no? You can't just use wild speculation and present it to people as truth or as a scientific method, because simply, it is not.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Hi silo, I haven't bumped into you before. Thanks for the challenge.


So, having read the *Good Book* many times, I have to ask you.

Do you believe in predestination or free will?

Holy cow, you don't beat around the bush do you? Is that how you always introduce yourself to a stranger?


I am sorely tempted to take the bull by the horns, however discretion is the better part of valour, as they say, so I'll ask if you don't mind if I try to stay directly on topic. I'd be happy to answer a U2U if you're really interested though. The problem is I need a few paragraphs to be able to define my terms and applications, as what is generally understood by both those terms is, I believe unbiblical.

As to your main question, I believe the Bible teaches that neither its concept of free will nor of predestination abrogate personal responsibility for moral choices and decisions. On the contrary, it teaches we are all liable to be called to account.

Put simply, if you read my earlier posts I stated in detail my position that a baby in the womb is not part of the mother's body, but a distinct person (genetically and anatomically, etc.) who is dependent on its mother for survival, (in a way similar to a new-born child) and that as such it is the moral responsibility of both of the mother and of society to protect and care for the individual before, as after birth. Where a mother wishes to harm the growing life within her I believe it is the responsibility of the law to protect it.

I have no doubt you will have questions in response, but please be so kind as to read my previous posts in which a number of them have likely already been addressed, from my perspective.

All the best.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Toecutter.
 


Think it through, Toecutter

The majority of males do not plan to produce a child every time they go to bed with a woman

Nor do the majority of males appear prepared to financially and otherwise support their children.

The average male .. even those who imagine themselves to be 'decent guys' .. has left at least one illegitimate child in his wake by the time he dies.

Where do you imagine all the illegitimate children come from ?

Who are the fathers of the hoardes of homeless children in every city in the world ?

Who are the fathers of the legions of welfare-supported children ?

Why do so many divorced and separated males neglect and refuse to support or even see their offspring ?

Why not go to all the US war zones, planet-wide, and count the illegitimate, unwanted and denied children born to US military ?

Go to Japan, why not .. you'll find 60 and 70 year olds born to US military in WW2. They're still there. Their fathers zipped up and walked away, ran back to the States, accepted medals, married their childhood sweethearts, produced legitimate offspring and simply pushed from their self-righteous minds all those children they left behind in poverty and misery.

Viet nam ? The same

People here talk about God and the Bible as if by doing so they can justify their misogynistic rantings.

But where in the Bible do they find justification for the illegitimate children they seeded in crack whores .. children born screaming because of the drugs in their system. Children born mentally and physically handicapped to women who work in the so-called 'sex industry' -- prostitutes who simply walk away and leave those screaming, unwanted bundles of flesh for the world at large to raise.

And don't tell me you're unaware of threads here in ATS, about those very same babies, handicapped and shunned by BOTH parents from before birth, who were found jammed into animal cages at the rear of supposed 'foster parents'' homes. The US taxpayer was forced to take financial responsibility for those children from before birth. But NO-one wants babies like that ! So people undertake ... for PAY ... to give those children a 'home' ... an animal cage. God's plan ? Anyone who has the audacity to claim so will be lucky if God doesn't smite them damn hard for playing so fast and loose with His name simply in order to further misogynistic agendas within ATS or anywhere else.

Go see some of those completely unwanted babies and children --- living in PAIN, POVERTY, NEGLECT, MISERY.

Then, if anyone wants to rant about what THEY have decided is 'God's Plan' ... then let them put their LIVES, TIME, ENERGY, MONEY, PATIENCE, HEART and SOUL where their MOUTHS are !

Heart-rending commercials about 'starving children' in Africa ?

Why not support the non-commercially-exploited and starving children in the United States !

Or is that because the sheer amount of starving, neglected children in the United States are not good tv-commericial material ? Is it all too embarrassing ? Are the zionist exploiters (those who take 90cents out of every dollar donated to 'starving children') aware that men in the US would prefer to keep the fatherless/starving child issue at a distance ? Would those men .. most of whom have at least 3 ignored children in their wake (wild oats) .. prefer to send money to Africa to salve their own consciences, rather than acknowledge their OWN starving, neglected children right there under their noses ?

Wild oats. So poetic huh ? Makes it sound almost nice. Biblical.

I think you'll find, at the end of the day, that God has never bothered to read the Bible. He might even add that he's never been attracted to fiction. Yet here are characters attempting with all their puny might, within an open forum, to use the Bible as justification for forcing women generally into a life-sentence of unpaid servitude and poverty, raising children whose fathers are busy playing golf and spouting off on internet.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by Toecutter.
 


Think it through, Toecutter
The majority of males do not plan to produce a child every time they go to bed with a woman
Nor do the majority of males appear prepared to financially and otherwise support their children.


Then they shouldn't be having sex! Grow up, guys.


The average male .. even those who imagine themselves to be 'decent guys' .. has left at least one illegitimate child in his wake by the time he dies.


What 'average' male???
I dated LOTS of guys before I got married and only ONE had a child from a previous marriage and he loved and took care of her.
Are you saying the woman gets pregnant and forgets to tell the man or he just knows and doesn't care, 'cause (Thank God)I haven't ever seen that in my friends!


Who are the fathers of the hoardes of homeless children in every city in the world ?


I've seen a LOT of homeless WITH their dads.




Why do so many divorced and separated males neglect and refuse to support or even see their offspring ?


Many times it's the wife who is at fault, too.
"You're not seeing your children unless you do thus and so, you creep!"
Many women have undermined a Dad's role in their children's lives ON PURPOSE.


Why not go to all the US war zones, planet-wide, and count the illegitimate, unwanted and denied children born to US military ?


Yes, that's a problem, but what role did the military play in letting prostitution rackets have free-market in 18 year old and up military troops!
Also, when many military men get older and they KNOW they have children back in Japan,nam (or wherever) they go back to visit.
I've seen it!



People here talk about God and the Bible as if by doing so they can justify their misogynistic rantings.

I haven't seen any hateful posts about women.


But where in the Bible do they find justification for the illegitimate children they seeded in crack whores .. children born screaming because of the drugs in their system. Children born mentally and physically handicapped to women who work in the so-called 'sex industry' -- prostitutes who simply walk away and leave those screaming, unwanted bundles of flesh for the world at large to raise.


NO ONE can find that acceptance in the Bible.
Recreational drugs, prostitution and human degradation are FORBIDDEN in the Bible.
Even in the Old testament God told men to take good care of their wives.

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

Polygamy was not authored by God;
plain truth about polygamy
King David and Soloman were only supposed to have ONE wife;

"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as "THIS LAW" in verses 18 and 19.

In the New Testament, Jesus said;

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Col 3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

also;

“They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:7-8)



But NO-one wants babies like that ! So people undertake ... for PAY ... to give those children a 'home' ... an animal cage.


I know lots of people who took in menatally DE-TACHED and abused children into their home, even to the point that their lives were in danger, but, they did it anyway.

Churches also, have homes for these children and most Christians donate to such work.
I don't know any that don't.
Open hearts and open hands.



Heart-rending commercials about 'starving children' in Africa ?
Why not support the non-commercially-exploited and starving children in the United States !


Wherever the need is....., I agree.


Or is that because the sheer amount of starving, neglected children in the United States are not good tv-commericial material ? Is it all too embarrassing ? Are the zionist exploiters (those who take 90cents out of every dollar donated to 'starving children') aware that men in the US would prefer to keep the fatherless/starving child issue at a distance ?

If you mean taking from the non religious, programs, maybe, but, aside from some people in Christian organizations in the past who got caught with their hands in the till, MOST ALL the money goes to those it was intended for, from what I know.


Wild oats. So poetic huh ? Makes it sound almost nice. Biblical.


Those men should get themselves a kick in the posterior and take care of that child and the mother!


I think you'll find, at the end of the day, that God has never bothered to read the Bible. He might even add that he's never been attracted to fiction.


Jesus WROTE it, He is "the Author and the Finisher of our faith".


Yet here are characters attempting with all their puny might, within an open forum, to use the Bible as justification for forcing women generally into a life-sentence of unpaid servitude and poverty, raising children whose fathers are busy playing golf and spouting off on internet.


I used to be a very angry young woman, who thought that the Bible was demeaning to women. Like we were cattle. Many men had treated me that way.
I thought that God was a woman, 'cause men were so stupid and selfish.
When I decided to pray to God, I asked Him, "Show me in the Bible where You love women AS MUCH AS MEN and I'll accept You."
I opened up my Bible that my mom had given me and THERE it was.

Jesus came into my life and He loves me like no one, man, woman or child can.
Sincerely, without insulting me, without throwing me out if I am not good enough or pretty enough.

I know you see the manipulation of some Christians who let money-loving preachers and fake zionist

Revelation 2:9 the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

rule over them like masters, but, some have great wisdom, not me particularly, but, the Lord helps me.

I had an abortion as a young single woman 19, it was the WORST and most animalistic thing that I ever did.
It ruined my life for a LONG time until I asked Jesus to forgive me and now, the pain and guilt are gone, but, I hate for anyone to make that horrible act, like I did.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Population control, limited resources, sterilize 90% of males, enforced contraceptive education... These things are thrown out in a culture in which the excesses of evolutionary theory convince (conveniently) that we are just base animals with an irresistible drive for rutting.

People continue to laugh and sneer at Catholicism and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae yet people fail to note that Paul VI's encyclical has turned out to be prophetic:

Humanae Vitae 17:
Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be more efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.


Women who campaign for abortion, contraceptive rights etc are not feminists they are misogynists arming men with the tools to abuse and degrade them. Who takes the pill - not men. Who is filled with spermicide - not men. Who has to put her feet up on the stirrups of the gurney - not men. Which gender is aborted most frequently - not men. Who runs the companies and invents the pills and techniques and methodologies - oh yeah, that's where the men take "responsibility."

We are not base animals who cannot resist the urge to copulate. We are not pack animals who kill the "runts". We are human and the lie of "freedom", which is the "right" to hump who you like degrades us all and results in the abysmal murder of our brothers and (most often) sisters.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Holy cow, you don't beat around the bush do you? Is that how you always introduce yourself to a stranger?


For me ATS isn't a Social Club.
People will get to know me by my words and actions.
That speaks louder than any *how-dee-doo* I can think of.

Thanks though for your response to my post.


I'd be happy to answer a U2U if you're really interested though. The


I don't see any reason to go to U2U as you posted this topic in a public forum.

As for my question you chose to take the *predestiantion* vs *free will* by the horns.
I didn’t see anything in your reply relating to (what I feel) is the most important part of my questions to you, so I'll say/ask again.

We have two choices when it comes to people vs. God.

Either everything we do or say or think and *are* is predestined
OR
God gave us FREE WILL

Free Will to do and say and act in a way we choose (and of course to be held accountable for) not in a way He's programmed us.

Honestly, I do believe Gods Greatest Gift to Mankind is Free Will.


“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, (Deuteronomy 30:19)...

Besides the verses that tells us directly to make choices, there are hundreds of verses that tell us how we are to live. Obviously, following this advice requires free will and the ability to choose. So, the Bible indicates pretty clearly that we are to make choices. If everything is predestined, then choice is not possible.


This being said, I do not believe it is for you, or anyone, to take God’s Greatest Gift, that being the Gift of Free Will, away.

This includes the God Given Right of Free Will within a woman's decision as to what or what not to do with her body.


As for a baby not being a part of a woman's body?
Where would the baby be without the mothers body?
It wouldn’t be.
Semantics.

Once more - for me, abortion (in most cases but not all) is wrong.
But that is just me, and that is just the point.


...taps...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I don't agree with that. From conception there is another "being" inside you. Thus, making it not part of you, but dependent. There is a mile wide gap, between belonging and reliant.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join