Search results

I'm not a leftist.

This is why intent matters. If the intent is to kill the baby, then yes, it is murder. But if the goal is to save mom and the baby if possible, then it's not murder. Again, letting a dying person die is NOT murder. Intentionally killing a dying person is murder. If a doctor can only save...

Removing the baby from the woman's body will end the baby's life, but it's not murder unless you intentionally kill the baby. Letting a dying person die =/= killing a dying person That's the point I'm trying to make, Anna. Now you're moving the goalposts. Currently, in an abortion...

Only if your intent is to kill the baby. Otherwise, you only terminate the pregnancy, not the baby's life. This crucial difference is what determines whether the procedure is moral or immoral. Again, the difference is intent. The goal is to save the mother and the baby if possible. If that...

What you believe or don't believe doesn't trump what scripture says, B57. Again, WHICH church? There are at least two. Espoused doesn't mean "predestinated" (sic). It means "betrothed."

Now you're equivocating. I made it clear above what I was talking about. Again, abortion can be used to mean either "the intentional killing of the baby in the womb" (where what's being aborted is the life of the baby) or it can mean "the ending of the pregnancy" (where what's being aborted is...

Because he's hilarious!

But Paul never mentions the word "bride"... So how could he be talking about that church being the Bride of Christ?

He's trolling, because he doesn't like what doser said. Prediction: He'll do the same with my above post.

Guess what, that's because our current government (including the documents involved) are flawed, to the point where this today is where it has led us. All symptoms of a greater problem, not the problem itself. Again, symptoms of a larger problem. The government IS totally and completely...

Something else: I wonder how far we would be in medical technology if all the money that has been wasted on providing abortions was instead used on researching ways to save the babies in ectopic pregnancies. I guarantee that we would be much, MUCH farther than we are today. But that's what...

Which church?

NO. Intent matters here, Anna. The goal is not to kill the baby, even if the baby ends up dying as a result. Actually, what happened here was that I thought I had read somewhere that it had become possible recently, but it seems I was mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't have a general idea of...

I was using "deliver" in the broader sense of "removing baby from mom's body." So yes, "delivery" is the only valid option. Chemical abortion is still the killing of a baby, and should NEVER be used. The correct option (and only moral one) is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube to...

Yup. Which is why you deliver the baby and love the baby, not kill the baby.

I may or may not get to the other stuff from this post, but I wanted to address this: No. Here's why: The goal is not to kill the child, but to save mom and if possible the baby. Abortion is always wrong, without exception, and should be abolished. If delivering the baby in an ectopic...

Alright, perhaps I overstated my case, depending on how you took my above statement. However, this does not mean that abortion is the only solution. 1. The claim that termination of an ectopic pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother a. The actual danger that an ectopic...

From the bottom of the page: Are these not scientific enough for you?

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html

That's false. And I just showed you proof. Don't just dismiss the evidence because it doesn't fit the narrative you've been told.