Abortion Bloopers

[steen]

If you went to the site you would find all Dr Reardon sources at the bottom of the article.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/Abo...eDangerous.htm

Ah, good combination. The know liar reardon and the known liar ABTV. Yup, good scientifically accurate source there... ROTFLMAO

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

"We the people" have decided, via SCOTUS. If a national referendum stated that we should ban abortion, it would still have to face SCOTUS again.
And even if we did ban it here in the USA, there are many nearby countries surrounding us, north, south, and even east, where the procedure would remain legal.
Abortion was practiced long ago, even during the time that Christ was on his mission. Yet, he said nothing about it. He said nothing about a lot of things.
What he DID say something about is, unfortunately, ignored by most of us.
He did say, don't judge, judgment is mine, love one another, feed my lambs, etc.
Throwing rocks at "sinners" is not an answer to the problem.

No but I can tell them Christ died so our sins can be forgiven. The only thing we have to do accept him and his teachings. Now here is what the Bible says about abortion. Take note about the old testament Exodus verse. I wrote this several years ago.

Please Define sentience Lets go to the Good Book instead of the dictionary
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5
The Lord Knew us even before we were in the womb. Sentience

"...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15;
How could the Holy Spirit ever fill anything but a person?
Again Sentience

"This is what the Lord says- He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you" --Isaiah 44:2
The Lord recognizes the baby in the womb and helps it survive. Sentience.

"For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." --Psalm 139:13-14
Sentience Made in the image of God and being recognized as one of God's children. My definition back up by no dictionary man made but by the Word of God.

"Before I was born the Lord called me...from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." "And now the Lord says-He who formed me in the womb to be His servant..." --Isaiah 49:1,5
When we abort we take a servent from the Lord.

"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" --Job 31:15
Yes The same God that form you in your mothers womb form the thousands of babies being aborted everyday.

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by His grace..." --Galatians 1:15
I guess God is recognizing The Baby in His or Her"s Mother's womb as Sentience Why would he call?

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." --Psalm 51:5
Oh yes The sin that Adam and Eve commited for which we are saved by Jesus's shed blood. I guess God knows even in our Mothers womb we were charged with this sin until Jesus saved us. I guess we were sentience

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." --Exodus 21:22-25 The Good Lord Knows the baby inside the Mothers womb is protected by the 6th commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
The Bible passages were taken from abortioninfo.net the comments after are by me. I was setience in my Mothers womb and so were you? Why destroy a Baby created in the image of God. Would God really want us to destoy someone innocent created in His image?
God Bless,

Proudly Pro Life JP Freeman



BTW, the civil rights movement was accomplished mostly by the minorities demanding their rights, and the courts supporting them, not the general (white) public.

Yes and it was mostly republicans who supported the Civil rights legislation proposed by President Johnson.

 

[tryreading]

"the occurrance of either induced or spontaneous abortions independently and significantly increased the risk of subsequent development of secondary infertility." - Study of 252 women at Harvard from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Feb 1993 issue.

There are side effects with all surgery. 'Significantly' can mean that occurance increased from .7 per 100,000 to .8 in 100,000, or similar.

· "Uterine bleeding occurred on the second or third day after RU486 intake in 1256 women (88.8 percent), and lasted 11.7 +/- 6.4 (SD) days, range 2-55 days. One subject had blood transfusions due to excessive bleeding." -Shangchun, W., et al., Contraception

These numbers, if accurate, represent risk that is involved in use of any medication. As far as bleeding, women bleed monthly, they bleed when they miscarry, they bleed a lot, so RU-486 induced bleeding probably isn't that earth-shattering to them.

"Prolonged bleeding/spotting lasting more than two weeks had been found in more than 20 percent of women who had complete abortion in this study [of RU486]." --Shangchun, W., et al., Contraception

More bleeding. Spotting. I don't think many women like bleeding, but, again, it is part of their life.

African American women who have had abortions are 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer. -- Laing AE, et al.Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience. Similar studies have supported this among women of other races, such as "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion" by Janet Darling, et al. in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

A risk of elective surgery. Lots of women get liposuction, and I have seen nightmarish risk data on that procedure. But the procedure is very popular.

Psychological Side Effects
· A survey was conducted of 1900 women who had had abortions. The survey asked "Were there any negative psychological effects... [caused] by your abortion?" 94% answered "Yes." 2% answered "No."
· Another study was conducted by Dr. Anne Speckhard at the University of Minnesota. She concluded, "After 5-10 years 54% of mothers choosing abortion had nightmares, 81% had preoccupation with their aborted child, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt they had taken a human life."
· 39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL. 245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life.

Aborters remorse? Life can be tough. One's decisions can entail guilt. They can bring relief, though.

Many on the abortion threads have posted statistics, and I believe the consensus on the total number of abortions performed since Roe v Wade is about 40,000,000. If you divide 245,000 by 40,000,000, this is a miniscule percentage. I realize the 40,000,000 includes some multiple abortion cases, but if factored in, the NRL percentage would still be tiny.

 

[steen]

OK Here are some more sources

"the occurrance of either induced or spontaneous abortions independently and significantly increased the risk of subsequent development of secondary infertility." - Study of 252 women at Harvard from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Feb 1993 issue.

I must have missed where these women died?

Oh, and by the way, the two biggest sources of infertility (other than menopause) are clamydia and.... Giving birth.

· "Uterine bleeding occurred on the second or third day after RU486 intake in 1256 women (88.8 percent), and lasted 11.7 +/- 6.4 (SD) days, range 2-55 days. One subject had blood transfusions due to excessive bleeding." -Shangchun, W., et al., Contraception

And they died? Many women die from bleeding after giving birth.

"Prolonged bleeding/spotting lasting more than two weeks had been found in more than 20 percent of women who had complete abortion in this study [of RU486]." --Shangchun, W., et al., Contraception

And? Yes, ongoing soptting? That is the worst you have?

African American women who have had abortions are 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer. -- Laing AE, et al.Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience. Similar studies have supported this among women of other races, such as "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion" by Janet Darling, et al. in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Ah, good one. Thge breast cancer link - well, the CLAIMED one. Prolifers have spewed SO MANY LIES about this that the American Cancer Society have seen it necessary to put up information to the contrary because of that scaremongering lie:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c...tion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp
...What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child).

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." ...

Obviously you are willing to use any lying or outdated false source to make your point never mind how much you have to lie in the process.

Psychological Side Effects
· A survey was conducted of 1900 women who had had abortions. The survey asked "Were there any negative psychological effects... [caused] by your abortion?" 94% answered "Yes." 2% answered "No."
· Another study was conducted by Dr. Anne Speckhard at the University of Minnesota. She concluded, "After 5-10 years 54% of mothers choosing abortion had nightmares, 81% had preoccupation with their aborted child, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt they had taken a human life."
· 39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL. 245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life.

Ah, do you remember this list of SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that disprove the prolife lie about mental health problems:

Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231.

Now, are there ANY more ignorant, already-disproved claims you want to make here?

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

I must have missed where these women died?

Oh, and by the way, the two biggest sources of infertility (other than menopause) are clamydia and.... Giving birth.
And they died? Many women die from bleeding after giving birth.
And? Yes, ongoing soptting? That is the worst you have?
Ah, good one. Thge breast cancer link - well, the CLAIMED one. Prolifers have spewed SO MANY LIES about this that the American Cancer Society have seen it necessary to put up information to the contrary because of that scaremongering lie:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c...tion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp
...What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child).

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." ...

Obviously you are willing to use any lying or outdated false source to make your point never mind how much you have to lie in the process.
Ah, do you remember this list of SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that disprove the prolife lie about mental health problems:

Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231.

Now, are there ANY more ignorant, already-disproved claims you want to make here?

· 39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL. 245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life. that fact speaks for itself. Also I will start a new thread soon about Lisa. Can You tell me were you found all these sources Probally from some Pro abortion web site HMMM

 

[UtahBill]

Yes and it was mostly republicans who supported the Civil rights legislation proposed by President Johnson.

Very true. The gains that blacks enjoyed after the civil war were accomplished mostly by republicans, and the first Democratic Party President that came along, Woodrow Wilson, did his best to undo those gains.

Your bible quotes only serve to show that abortion was an issue in biblical times, and yet, Christ said nothing about it!

This is a moral issue ONLY within a church. Outside your own congregation, it is a legal issue. We will always have separation of church and state, God willing, as there are NO, NONE, ZERO religious leaders on the face of the earth who have the ability to rule righteously.

 

[tryreading]

Anybody pro-life who happens upon this thread, please join the argument. It is too one-sided, as far as pro/con. JP should not be expected to save the world by himself.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

Very true. The gains that blacks enjoyed after the civil war were accomplished mostly by republicans, and the first Democratic Party President that came along, Woodrow Wilson, did his best to undo those gains.

Your bible quotes only serve to show that abortion was an issue in biblical times, and yet, Christ said nothing about it!

This is a moral issue ONLY within a church. Outside your own congregation, it is a legal issue. We will always have separation of church and state, God willing, as there are NO, NONE, ZERO religious leaders on the face of the earth who have the ability to rule righteously.

There will be one and He is coming back soon.

The New testament Quotes are Christ teachings they show That Christ recognized a Baby in the womb as a person. I am sure there are probally many quotes concerning murder.

 

[UtahBill]

There will be one and He is coming back soon.

The New testament Quotes are Christ teachings they show That Christ recognized a Baby in the womb as a person. I am sure there are probally many quotes concerning murder.

As much as I agree that abortion is wrong most of the time, especially if used as birth control, the last thing the world needs is to be saved by any individual(s) other than God/Christ.
Not one person in history has ever managed to rule righteously over a large population without the power he wields turning his head to unrighteous and/or illegal behaviour.
You assume that the bible is inerrant, I do not. Much has been attributed to Christ just because it was said by a follower of Christ, or self appointed spokesman. Does that include the senile preacher Pat Robertson? Even Billy Graham had his anti-semite phase. Much of what Paul said is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ (faith/grace vs. works). And the OT has little relevancy to Christians, at least whatever is there is secondary to what was said by Christ in the NT. Christians should follow the teachings of Christ first, the initial apostles next, and then worry about what John the Baptist, Paul, or some scribes might have said later.
A weak foundation makes for a weak structure. A weak understanding of the teachings of Christ makes a weak form of Christianity.
If there is one major flaw among the Christian faiths, it is that too many Christians spend too much time on what they stand AGAINST, and spend too little time on what they stand FOR, assuming they even know what that is.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

As much as I agree that abortion is wrong most of the time, especially if used as birth control, the last thing the world needs is to be saved by any individual(s) other than God/Christ.
Not one person in history has ever managed to rule righteously over a large population without the power he wields turning his head to unrighteous and/or illegal behaviour.
You assume that the bible is inerrant, I do not. Much has been attributed to Christ just because it was said by a follower of Christ, or self appointed spokesman. Does that include the senile preacher Pat Robertson? Even Billy Graham had his anti-semite phase. Much of what Paul said is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ (faith/grace vs. works). And the OT has little relevancy to Christians, at least whatever is there is secondary to what was said by Christ in the NT. Christians should follow the teachings of Christ first, the initial apostles next, and then worry about what John the Baptist, Paul, or some scribes might have said later.
A weak foundation makes for a weak structure. A weak understanding of the teachings of Christ makes a weak form of Christianity.
If there is one major flaw among the Christian faiths, it is that too many Christians spend too much time on what they stand AGAINST, and spend too little time on what they stand FOR, assuming they even know what that is.

I have read the Bible cover to cover and I by no means consider myself a bible scholar. I do consider the Bible inerrant but I agree with everything you have said. I believe the Good Lord knew what would happen if I witness the death of our 5 premature babies. I know he did not cause these deaths. But I think he knew how I would react. Those deaths were a wake up call to me.Those deaths told me where I had to stand. That is why I am so passionate about abortion. I thank the Lord for waking me up. Over the years I know some lives were saved. Bringing another servent to the Lord. How great is that.

 

[UtahBill]

Bringing another servent to the Lord. How great is that.

If done by persuasion, or as taught in the NT by Christ, it is great. If it helps the person make sense of life and brings peace to his soul, it is great. If it is done by force, by man's law, by unrighteous acts, then it is not great, but a sin. God gave us free will, so we can decide for ourselves. Forcing people into situations where they are unable to sin is not God's way. We are to come willingly, or not at all.
So, an anti-abortion law done through SCOTUS, or churches, or Congress, is not according to God's wishes. We should obey Him willingly, if we are to do it right.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

If done by persuasion, or as taught in the NT by Christ, it is great. If it helps the person make sense of life and brings peace to his soul, it is great. If it is done by force, by man's law, by unrighteous acts, then it is not great, but a sin. God gave us free will, so we can decide for ourselves. Forcing people into situations where they are unable to sin is not God's way. We are to come willingly, or not at all.
So, an anti-abortion law done through SCOTUS, or churches, or Congress, is not according to God's wishes. We should obey Him willingly, if we are to do it right.

I disagree If we thought that way there would be no laws against murder, rape, stealing, .... Our very society depends on laws in the end everyone either choses to obey the law or ignor it. In exodus The Lord gave power to the judges to enforce laws. The Best way is to always obey him willingly Unfortunately we live in a world controled by Satan and we need laws to protect the innocent. I can think of no one more innocent than the unborn.

 

[UtahBill]

I disagree If we thought that way there would be no laws against murder, rape, stealing, .... Our very society depends on laws in the end everyone either choses to obey the law or ignor it. In exodus The Lord gave power to the judges to enforce laws. The Best way is to always obey him willingly Unfortunately we live in a world controled by Satan and we need laws to protect the innocent. I can think of no one more innocent than the unborn.

Your logic is flawed. This country, as in most countries, has laws against those things. It does not have a law against abortion. To say that one crime being permitted would allow all other crimes is ignorance of the purpose of law.

We have judges appointed by man, and it is man's laws that we are subject to in the present time. If abortion is a sin, the judgment of the hereafter will settle the issue.

Yes the unborn are innocent, and I believe young children are as well, until some age of accountability. I do not believe for a moment that God would punish a child for a transgression by Adam. That is a misunderstood concept conceived by the early church, and perpetuated by present day churches, in yet another effort to control God's children for false purposes. Nearly all large religions have a certain element of unrighteous control of its members.

Suppose you get your way and abortion is not only illegal, but rarely committed in this country, legally or otherwise? What will be the next issue that the preachers, pastors, and priests use to divert our attention from the true message of Christ? The one that says feed my lambs, not fleece them, shear them, and abuse them for monetary purposes? Or the one that says serve God, but only if you get a substantial salary, plus housing and car allowance?
These religious leaders take money for the purpose of serving God and then use it almost exclusively for their own purposes, leaving the poor, the sick, etc. to fend for themselves. One I read about recently is even building a country club with golf course for the exclusive use of its members. Ever hear of Heritage USA? Jim and Tammy Baker? Yes, that is old news, but google Christian Theme park and see what is happening NOW.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

Your logic is flawed. This country, as in most countries, has laws against those things. It does not have a law against abortion. To say that one crime being permitted would allow all other crimes is ignorance of the purpose of law.

We have judges appointed by man, and it is man's laws that we are subject to in the present time. If abortion is a sin, the judgment of the hereafter will settle the issue.

Yes the unborn are innocent, and I believe young children are as well, until some age of accountability. I do not believe for a moment that God would punish a child for a transgression by Adam. That is a misunderstood concept conceived by the early church, and perpetuated by present day churches, in yet another effort to control God's children for false purposes. Nearly all large religions have a certain element of unrighteous control of its members.

Suppose you get your way and abortion is not only illegal, but rarely committed in this country, legally or otherwise? What will be the next issue that the preachers, pastors, and priests use to divert our attention from the true message of Christ? The one that says feed my lambs, not fleece them, shear them, and abuse them for monetary purposes? Or the one that says serve God, but only if you get a substantial salary, plus housing and car allowance?
These religious leaders take money for the purpose of serving God and then use it almost exclusively for their own purposes, leaving the poor, the sick, etc. to fend for themselves. One I read about recently is even building a country club with golf course for the exclusive use of its members. Ever hear of Heritage USA? Jim and Tammy Baker? Yes, that is old news, but google Christian Theme park and see what is happening NOW.

If you view a baby in the womb as a person you would think he or she should be protected under the same laws we all are. If that was the case we would not need a law to ban abortion because the baby in the womb is not protected we need a law. Someday soon we will have non disputable evidence that personhood starts at conception. (I feel we do now with DNA) I usually have to ask this question. Were you there at your conception? If not where were you? If you were not there then how could you be here now? Personhood is not a stage of developement of a person. Zygote ,fetus, (which is latin for baby) infant, todler, .... are all stages of developement for a person. About some religious leaders being corrupt you are right but it is only a small minority. I am sure the good Lord will make them answer for their crimes. I still need church. I find friends, fellowship love and support, a group of God's people coming to celebrate his saving graces through his prescious blood. I love that party.

 

[UtahBill]

I still need church. I find friends, fellowship love and support, a group of God's people coming to celebrate his saving graces through his prescious blood. I love that party.

As long as you don't allow your "need" to blind you to false teachings, fine.
Less obvious than false teachings is the failure to teach correct teachings.
Too many Christians have a long list of what they are against, and a very short one of what they are for, and act accordingly.

I do not need church, as it only serves to remind me that so much is wrong in organized religions. Money grubbers and power mongers can in no way be true Christians.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

As long as you don't allow your "need" to blind you to false teachings, fine.
Less obvious than false teachings is the failure to teach correct teachings.
Too many Christians have a long list of what they are against, and a very short one of what they are for, and act accordingly.

I do not need church, as it only serves to remind me that so much is wrong in organized religions. Money grubbers and power mongers can in no way be true Christians.

Sounds like you just have not found the right church for you. Maybe try some different ones. Or if you get over to NE PA look me up i'll be happy to take you and your family to my church.
Best Regards & God Bless
Proudly Pro Life JP Freeman

 

[steen]

· 39000 women who have had an abortion are members of NARAL. 245000 women who have had abortions are members of National Right to Life. that fact speaks for itself.

And is irreelevant to your outright lies.

Also I will start a new thread soon about Lisa.

So?

Can You tell me were you found all these sources

The breast cancer info was from the American Cancer Society's pages, as I linked to. The SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES are from the medical database of Scientific journal Articles (known as "Medline") the one where physicians get their factual, scientific information. I have personally reviewed all of them and vouch for them.

Now, about your silly list that you obviously have NOT reviewed yourself, most of these are articles that reardon have lied about, or are not scientific sources as I showed. So your sources are purely political.

My sources are outright Scientific, your lame ad hominem attempt none withstanding.

Probally from some Pro abortion web site HMMM

Nope, you are spewing false claims again. As is expected.

 

[steen]

There will be one and He is coming back soon.

Pascal's Wager is a really lame argument.

The New testament Quotes are Christ teachings they show That Christ recognized a Baby in the womb as a person.

No, they don't. Please ceasde your misrepresentation of Jesus words. To misrepresenting Jesus for your political agenda is highly offensive; I implore you to cease bearing false witness like that.

 

[steen]

I can think of no one more innocent than the unborn.

Yes, you obviously don't give a damn about women, we noticed that.

 

[steen]

If you view a baby in the womb as a person you would think he or she should be protected under the same laws we all are.

The law doesn't recognize the unborn as a person.

If that was the case we would not need a law to ban abortion because the baby in the womb is not protected we need a law.

Nope. YOU BELIEVE we need that law. That is your personal, subjective opinion, nothing else.

Someday soon we will have non disputable evidence that personhood starts at conception.

Personhood is a legal construct. It is not determined through biology. As for "indisputable evidence," the EVIDENCE is right there in Roe vs Wade, that the unborn is not a person. So that is already done with.

For some odd reason you keep trying to portray "personhood" as somehow a biological phenomenon, when it is no such thing. Very odd, and possi bly the source of how absurd your arguments come accross.

(I feel we do now with DNA)

DNA merely confers speciation and possibly the identification of unique presense, that's all. IT sauys nothing about the legal character of the cell tested, nor of the source of that cell. Your argument remains patently absurd.

I usually have to ask this question. Were you there at your conception? If not where were you? If you were not there then how could you be here now? Personhood is not a stage of developement of a person.

It is a legal stage coinsiding with birth.

Zygote ,fetus, (which is latin for baby)

No, it isn't, that's another lie of yours. That aside, we are not speaking latin. IN English, "Fetus" is a developmental stage (in humans) beginning at the 9th week and lasting until birth. So your revisionist linguistic hyperbole merely shows your argument to be dishonest.

infant, todler, .... are all stages of developement for a person.

The latter two are. The former are stages at a time before there legally is a person.

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

And is irreelevant to your outright lies.
So?
The breast cancer info was from the American Cancer Society's pages, as I linked to. The SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES are from the medical database of Scientific journal Articles (known as "Medline") the one where physicians get their factual, scientific information. I have personally reviewed all of them and vouch for them.

I value my sources and I chose which one I use you don't

Now, about your silly list that you obviously have NOT reviewed yourself, most of these are articles that reardon have lied about, or are not scientific sources as I showed. So your sources are purely political.

So if they are they are I differ with you.

My sources are outright Scientific, your lame ad hominem attempt none withstanding.
Nope, you are spewing false claims again. As is expected.

Sorry steen I am voicing my opinion and that is not a false claim. Why do I respond to someone who is so hateful and narrow minded. You sir need Dale Carnigy Course "How to win friends and influence people" You will never get anywhere if you continue to make people angry with you. Do you ever go out for a beer with a buddy. Watch a football game you know enjoy life. You sound so angry. Cheer up Jesus Loves you.

 

[steen]

Sorry steen I am voicing my opinion and that is not a false claim.

No, you were questioning my sources. Please don't lie here.

Why do I respond to someone who is so hateful and narrow minded.

I merely am disguunsted with liars. Stop lying and I won't have to comment on them any more. That's all there is to it. Do you think you can do that?

You sir need Dale Carnigy Course "How to win friends and influence people" You will never get anywhere if you continue to make people angry with you.

I have no concern over liars being angry with me. I have no interest in close association with people that are so disrespectful that they lie to me.

Do you ever go out for a beer with a buddy. Watch a football game you know enjoy life.

Absolute;y (Well, I don't care much for football, though). Life is good, I get to do what I enjoy and love my life. But thanks for your concern.

You sound so angry.

Angry? Not at all. I merely challenge liars. That doesn't particularly make me angry. perhaps a bit stubborn in insisting on challenging the lies, but that's all.

Cheer up Jesus Loves you.

Absolutely. Hmm, the same Jesus who asked us to not bear false witness. So what is YOUR beef with Jesus? Why are YOU spitting him in the eye with your incessant lies?

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

No, you were questioning my sources. Please don't lie here.
I merely am disguunsted with liars. Stop lying and I won't have to comment on them any more. That's all there is to it. Do you think you can do that?
I have no concern over liars being angry with me. I have no interest in close association with people that are so disrespectful that they lie to me.
Absolute;y (Well, I don't care much for football, though). Life is good, I get to do what I enjoy and love my life. But thanks for your concern.
Angry? Not at all. I merely challenge liars. That doesn't particularly make me angry. perhaps a bit stubborn in insisting on challenging the lies, but that's all.
Absolutely. Hmm, the same Jesus who asked us to not bear false witness. So what is YOUR beef with Jesus? Why are YOU spitting him in the eye with your incessant lies?

Again I am not lying. You do not agree with my opinion and I do not agree with you No lies we both have very different opinions.

 

[Blind man]

FACT:

A woman having a coat hanger shoved up her ***** is 1000x more likely to have fatal/deforming results than a woman who has a legal abortion by a licensed physician.

 

[Felicity]

FACT:

A woman having a coat hanger shoved up her ***** is 1000x more likely to have fatal/deforming results than a woman who has a legal abortion by a licensed physician.

Okay..that is a fact...but does it happen? Could you provide statistics? Otherwise it's fallacious.


http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/illegal.html

Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.

The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. In fact, as we shall see, this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the popular arguments for the pro-choice position......



Dr. Frank Beckwith is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California Campus. He holds a Ph.D. from Fordham University.

Prior to coming to Trinity, Professor Beckwith held full-time faculty appointments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas(1989-96) and Whittier College (1996-97). His many books include Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. His articles and reviews have been published in numerous journals including Journal of Social Philosophy, Public Affairs Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, Focus on Law Studies, Simon Greenleaf of Law and Religion, and the Canadian Philosophical Review.