Christianity and Abortion

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 

I have always taken anything a Religious Leader says with a grain of salt as they have no power anymore. Church closings have reached a Breaking Point in the U.S. and in a way to gain members...the softening of the Churches Doctrines in the U.S. is obvious but this softening is not given to the Third World where the Church still maintains a degree of control.

Split Infinity




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

Dear SplitInfinity,

At the risk of irritating you (Heaven forbid!), please allow me to dig my feet in a little.


The Church has not rendered an directive to Priests to preach against the evils of Fertility Clinics.
You may be right, I don't know. But, even if true, that doesn't show what the Church believes.

They have turned a Blind Eye on this subject and have made various conflicting statements both Pro and Con. Split Infinity
I have trouble accepting that. The Catechism is the official teaching of the Church, and the most recent edition (1997) contains this:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."
www.scborromeo.org...
It looks like it has been fairly clearly addressed, and condemned, to me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 



... the argument religions use against anything and everything they dislike is that its immoral according to their religion and hence its wrong for everyone, yet when you examine their idea or what is and is not moral it falls flat on its face, if their morality is based on the bible then it is flawed morality.


Society still accepts that the deliberate taking of another person's life through murder is not acceptable, whether or not one is Christian. The ten commandments of Our Creator are summed up by love God and love your neighbour, doing no harm. His law is good because He alone is Good.


The bible not only condones murder in the name of the god they believe in it condones the murder of your own child or wife should you actually follow the bibles morality, the problem is they want to pick and choose what they 
believe out of the bible is "true morality". the problem we run into there is they cant agree on it even...


Killing and murdering are two different concepts. The fact that you do not seek your Creator's views leaves you blind to the difference between a faithful Christian and an apostate Christian, and between good and evil. The blind therefore follow the blind into the pit. Those laws tell us which sin leads to death. They still stand.


Until they can admit that the bible is immoral and we as secularist have fought tooth and nail to bring true morality to laws that govern people, things will never get better. If it were up to religions we would see the perversion of real morality in the name of bringing things in line with their religion.


The "true morality" that secularists have brought to the nations, as they wipe Christ from our governments, laws, schools and homes, is this: overflowing prisons filled with murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and thieves, entire neighbourhoods with bars on windows and doors, vehicles and homes alarmed, parents escorting their children to the school door for fear of abductors, porn that destroys the lives of women and children just to satisfy the sexual lusts of millions, addictions that destroy the marital home and kids committing suicide in record numbers. We reap what we sow, just as Our Creator tells us. The fact that you believe what you do demonstrates blindness and the Truth of God at the same time. It demonstrates that despite the visible and overwhelming evidence in front of everybody's face, man is blind without the light of God and that man will destroy himself by choosing to redefine good as evil. 


Abortion is both moral and immoral is the true answer here, it can be used for both good and bad, a good way to look at it would be this: Is the military a moral or immoral thing? if you answer honestly then it is both, it can be used for good and bad both, the problem with what religion does is that it makes blanket statements and absolutes where there are none.


Abortion is the deliberate taking of life, the Pre-planned act of making an alive being, dead. Thou Shalt Not Murder is an absolute from your Creator, and it is only man that changes it. It's not your Creator that changes - He is the same today as yesterday. 


To believe you automatically have the moral high ground without actually having any morality is just wrong; to lie, cheat and steal because your god makes the rules and well you only have to answer to him is a fallacy sold to you by religion, morality is based on human beings by human beings.


There are only two choices given - choose good and reap life or choose evil and reap misery and death. God makes His point clearly; man, on his own, will always succumb to desires of the flesh. Man will then relabel these things as "good" EVEN IF it brings misery and death to others. Abortion is a case in point. Women and men want the pleasure of sex EVEN IF it leads to killing the life that is created. This is why they redefine murder to abortion, redefine life to the moment of birth and redefine a baby to foetus - all to justify that abortion "really isn't murder". They do exactly what God's words tell us they will do! Men want their porn so badly that they no longer care to believe that the women and children featured are harmed by it. They actually convince themselves that the women and children like it. How sick is that? Man justifies his decision by relabeling evil as good because it removes the innate conviction that he feels. He convinces himself that it is "good" because he can then enjoy it with no guilt.

And what you haven't yet realised is that society's morals are changing to the morals of another religion. Your teachers and leaders have already rejected the rule of Christ Jesus, and they are already damned. And they are damning their converts by making them twice the children of hell as they are. The blind leading the blind straight into the pit.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

Dear SplitInfinity,

At the risk of irritating you (Heaven forbid!), please allow me to dig my feet in a little.


The Church has not rendered an directive to Priests to preach against the evils of Fertility Clinics.
You may be right, I don't know. But, even if true, that doesn't show what the Church believes.

They have turned a Blind Eye on this subject and have made various conflicting statements both Pro and Con. Split Infinity
I have trouble accepting that. The Catechism is the official teaching of the Church, and the most recent edition (1997) contains this:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."
www.scborromeo.org...
It looks like it has been fairly clearly addressed, and condemned, to me.

With respect,
Charles1952


Chuck...the Church does not even talk about the issue in Church. Pope John Paul II was the Pope who prevented the issue to become a problem in the U.S. as the Church KNEW that to take a Hard Stance with the U.S. Faithful on the issue would cause a massive loss of membership. John Paul II also was the Pope who stated that New Scientific Data had proven that Man Evolved. The Italian Newspapers ran the Headline...POPE SAY'S WE CAME FROM MONKEYS! You can Google that and come up with a lot. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

Dear SplitInfinity,

You are absolutely right on all of it. (Did you expect that?)

It is a fairly common criticism that the Church is avoiding teaching its doctrine in some areas. I believe that's true, but I think that's a bad thing. Regardless of whether it is being proclaimed or not from the pulpit, the teaching is still there and is part of the Church's beliefs.

As far as the monkey business (Sorry, I couldn't help myself), thanks I did look it up. Here is a comment I found:

The Vatican's first substantive response to the theories of evolution was contained in the encyclical, Humani Generis, written in 1950 by the late Pope Pius XII.

It cited no objection to discussing evolution while cautioning that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to cut God out of the equation.

Pope John Paul has previously endorsed the 1950 document. He said on Wednesday that its essential point was that "if the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."

But he also said: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."

www.greenspun.com...

It sounds like the Church is being open minded and scientific, while holding on to the idea that we, as children of God, with souls, were created by Him.

Just curious, but I was going back to the OP for a second. Where are you on the position that abortion is an acceptable Christian doctrine? I thought that had pretty much been resolved in the negative, but who knows, maybe there is more room for discussion.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Actually morality cannot be said to come from religion or vice versa if we are to
be honest, they both go back to pre recorded history, that is a fact. Are some of our
laws based on religious ideals? yes they are. does that make them right? no.
morality is what makes the laws right. not the fact that the laws exist.

Your claiming allot here really, first thing would be first, prove a direct connection
between the increasing prison occupancy and the lack of belief in a god or the
basis of law on non religious morals. the simple truth there again is you cannot
do such a thing, even if you could draw a correlation between the two you would
still need direct evidence to prove that statement, which you are lacking.

I understand that you believe your religious book is the right one and that it is
indeed somehow moral even though it contains things that are so immoral it
isn't even worth arguing over, a simple example is slavery and the fact that
we know it be immoral now yet in the bible it not only does not condemn it
it gives you rules by which to own slaves and how they might be treated,
including the fact that you may kill them so long as they suffer for more what is
it? 2 days or three before they die...... you speak of morality but lack the
understanding that your supposed god is also immoral.

the common response to that is well his is god so he can do as he pleases but
yet again your not being moral simply allowing immoral things to happen because
your god said it was ok.

On the issue of abortion, im afraid the true answer is that yes indeed there
are biblical basis for abortion, this thread itself is proof of that as that was
the entire point of the OP whether or not your could justify it by the book,
also there is another passage, i honestly cant remember where, that
speaks about a women cheating on her husband and many agree that
it deals with the idea of aborting a child born of adultery.

This is not to justify abortion isn't really murder, this is to say there are facts,
we should use fact when arguing real issues and not fantasy, if you really
wanted me to i could use the bibles morality to justify you murdering your
son, but that i believe is not necessary, while i understand that you want
your religion to be as moral as you actually are it simply is not. what we need
to do is decide as a society whether or not we believe it is moral or immoral,
not as religious people.

The only thing i can say about the blanket statement you chose to make about
porn is what in all that is moral kind of porn are you seeing around with children
in it? that's illegal by secular laws and we had to fight hard to make it so........
so far as i know the bible does not address child pornography at all.
there are those that can convince themselves that the child may "like it"
as you say but guess what? i can say with non religious based morality
that is just plain wrong. i say that based on the fact that children do not
understand all the emotional and physical repercussions sex can have.
Also i hate to say but many women do enjoy their career in pornography,
while you may dislike that idea it doesn't make it any less true.

And im very glad you have stated im damned to hell because your religion
is the correct one, what happens if you are wrong by the way? what if say
islam is correct? what if mormons got it right? would you not be in the
exact same boat with me then? i think so.......



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I know the Church absolutely condemns abortion. I personally find it distasteful but it is not my or anyone else's business except the woman who is pregnant.

Abortion could be drastically lowered if options such as Plan B and the Morning After Pill were made easy for ANY Female to be able to purchase it.

As far as I am concerned it is STUPIDITY to try to make these methods of contraception difficult to get which could result in an Abortion. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
And still... A lot of men posting on the topic of abortion with the attitude that they (and only they) know what is right and proper for mother and child. It should be a common rule in these threads to state whether your male or female so we can get a proper idea of just which gender is pushing opinions.

I honestly believe that on this topic, men are over opinionated. Lets face it, you all have an opinion which is great, but the majority of you want to put the world to rites in the same breath, which is not your place - never has been.

Now get back in the garage and fix my car



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara and WhoKnows100
 

Gentlemen,

I was hoping this wouldn't happen. Sometimes people with strong beliefs lose sight of the fact that they are talking to real people, children of God, whom we should support and nourish along the way.

Consider what you have in common. An acceptance of a moral code dating to the beginning of humanity, if not before. A belief that abortion is, in almost all cases, wrong. Two minds that are able to express intelligent thoughts and carry on a reasonable discussion if you so choose.

Winning a debate is nothing, but offending another and turning him away from love is an eternal error.

_____________________________________________

On a related topic, it's not to helpful to use the Old Testament as an indicator of morality for Christians. It was given to the Jews to guide them the the situation they were in after that Garden of Eden debacle, and before Christ came to get us restarted. Yes Christ talked about slaves, but remember, slaves were commonplace and had to be dealt with somehow. Christ was dealing with individuals, not national policy.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
What a travesty that people calling themselves Christians would sacrifice the true understanding of scripture in order to be more politically correct and avoid having liberals bash them incessantly to conform to the religion of Molech.


Daniel 12:10-12
Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.”
The word used for ABOMINATION here is Strong’s H8251, שקוץ, pronounced shik•küts’, a masculine noun meaning “detestable thing or idol, abominable thing, abomination, idol, detested thing”, including “of [the] flesh of victims” (e.g., in Zechariah 9:7). First use (key for establishing context) comes in 1st Kings 11:5-7 in which the ‘abominations’ are all idolatrous ‘gods’, e.g., Milcom/Molech of the Ammonites and Chemosh of Moab.

The links above are worth perusing but what these gods have in common is the sacrifice of children. The story in 2nd Kings 23:13, 24 adds Ashtoreth of the Sidonians to the pile and with it, the ‘sacrifice’ of a woman’s chastity… and then, of course, the children that result from such a union.

In Leviticus 18:21 (for example) the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Leviticus 20:2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed (i.e., his kid) to Molech shall “surely be put to death”. It is also provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation, (in effect, the second, permanent death of the soul).



newine.wordpress.com...
edit on 12-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


Yes it is out there. Believe me, I was just as blown away when I was asked the question and I am pro-choice. Seriously, this is why I am curious. I enjoyed your answer, especially about adults not even knowing who they are yet. Its a good way to reply to such a question. If the question had any merit and the foresight was possible, I think any person would probably choose to say that they would not have the child. That is what I said. Wish I had thought to say what you did.



As human's it is in our nature to think that we can change things. If the parent KNEW the child had the potential to "become the next Hitler", they would most likely go ahead and have the child and work endlessly to try to prevent that from happening. Afterall, Hitler was a great leader, he did terrible things, but he was still a great leader. They would say they could prevent the spark of evil that developed with Hitler and perhaps produce, instead, the leader that would "save the world" instead.

So, I guess it would depend a lot on whether they feel our lots in life are prewritten or whether our roads depend on which direction we go.

It is a good question, just one that takes a great deal of thought after getting over the initial offenses, surprise and emotional responses.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Did you really think you could "Christian Bash" and no one would call you out on it?
Quad


Not "Chrisitan Bashing" at all, I AM Christian. I just don't happen to be an extreme right-wing, blinded, hypocritical, self-centered, judgemental bigot. There's a big difference


The "Christian Left" has remained silent for far too long and our very system of faith has been hijacked. It's time we take our stand and stop the progression that will eventually destroy the beautiful faith for future generations.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by marbles87
 


Just wanted to let you know your post wasn't overlooked. It was well thought out, well written and looked at all sides of the issue. Thank you for submitting it.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I just want to give a thank you to Charles and SplitInfinity. Although they have differing beliefs on the matter, they have been respectful to one another and have extrapolated on their arguments without shouting "you're stupid!' or "you'll burn in hell!". This is the way people should discuss differences, not with personal attacks, but with stating your position and discussing it.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Matthew 18:2-7

2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

still say the prolife group would do better to spend more time asking why women are choosing not to have kids and addressing the problems women will bring up as justitfications than it is to just rant on about the immorality of the act....and work so hard to enact laws forbidding the act.... let's face it, abortion has been around very much longer than our laws have been!!
if nothing else christ taught of a forgiving God, who, if you read the above scripture, you might get the idea that well...it's not only the act of the women who is committing the sin that he will be looking at, but he will look at the actions of others that might have caused the women to do what she did...and they will be held accountable far worse than her...
or that is I what I get from it...

it takes two to create a baby, and it takes two to raise a baby, and, well, it takes a secure environment to do it successfully...
human society has always had no problem with the first requirement, heck for the longest time, men had made it so that women had no choice as to weather or not a baby would be concieved...they were to be just obedient helpmates for their hubbies!! the second two though, well , there has always been a problem with those...
and often neither would be available as men created the wars.

and it's so ironic that many of the same people who are screaming about abortion will also sit there and tell a person that if they couldn't support a baby they shouldn't have had the baby...in an attempt to protect the money from uncle sam....





...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


It is also possible that their decision to NOT have an obortion will haunt them... as well as "haunting" the child born into unfavourable circumstances...

PA



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”


So is this up for interpretation. Actually, it doesn't mean biological life at all. Elihu is talking about a fulfilled life here, that he is "full of life with the Lord".

Context is king. And the author of the article has done what morons continue to do as a matter of course: use the words of the Bible to fit their agenda without even considering the context of the words that were written.


Numbers 5 describes "the Lord" ordering an abortion. Many argue that this is a misinterpretation. It's clearly stated in verse 22, "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."


Interestingly, this is part of a passage that doesn't have anything at all to do with a pregnant woman. Yet again, the author has tried to make a Bible passage prove his point for him. Only two translations that I could find (I stopped looking after going through 15 of them) mention miscarriage. However, most use the word "thigh", while others say what it really means: that the woman will forever miscarry because she will become infertile.

Did the author of the article, and the OP of this thread, forget that there are people like me to bring the light of truth to their lies? That there's a thing called "the internet", where people can find out information for themselves?

You decry the religious for disregarding science in matters of abortion and evolution, then you decry them for using religion in matters of abortion and evolution. It's clear that your only agenda is to decry the religious. Your clear agenda is get all up in their business about stuff that you don't like. Yet when they do the same, you get all butt-hurt.

I would challenge you to put as much energy as you put into your pro-abortion stance into reversing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which says that a person that kills a pregnant woman has committed a double-homicide. If it's only a mass of nonliving tissue, then they've only killed one person, right? A mass of tissue isn't a person, according to your beliefs, so you agree, don't you?

No, you don't, because you're a bunch of hypocrites.

And it any of you start with your "oh you're just a religious nut" crap, save it. If you can't come up with a rational, cogent argument against what I've said, you'll just continue to embarrass yourselves. Besides that, I'm not even remotely religious.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


That is possible as well, but until one has been in the position of being forced to make that decision one does not know. I can assure you that even though it may be the best possible decision for all (including the possible child) at the time the decision is made that decision will still come back to haunt you. Abortion is not an easy decision, and the repercussions are just as difficult.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join