Why Stop At Birth?

[Stripe]

The complications of a mother's immune system attacking the child can have significant risk to the mother. the rest was addressing the viability of the child which is one of the medical reasons for an abortion.

Nope. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.

 

[glorydaz]

I think the important thing is that abortion is seen as the answer to ectopic pregnancies when medical investigation and advance might save these mothers and kids.

However, pro-aborts only have an eye for justifying childkilling.

Well, you make a good point with medical advancement. They're growing babies in test tubes up to a certain time, and then with goats or something they continue in some kind of plastic bag.

 

[glorydaz]

I think contraceptives should be used only by married couples (man + woman) if they decide they want to have fun in the bedroom, but don't want children.

If people are using contraceptives outside of marriage, then it's an indication that society has some serious issues.

In fact, society DOES have some serious issues. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That should just tell you that one cannot legislate righteousness.

As far as contraception goes, it's much better than abortion, so I'm not seeing your point here.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Nope. There is never a need to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.

You are absolutely correct, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to stop delivering a baby in order to kill him.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Well, you make a good point with medical advancement. They're growing babies in test tubes up to a certain time, and then with goats or something they continue in some kind of plastic bag.

The development of a safe artificial womb would indeed solve a lot of problems.

 

[glorydaz]

You are absolutely correct, to the best of my knowledge there is no need to stop delivering a baby in order to kill him.

There now...we have something on which we can agree. :thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

The development of a safe artificial womb would indeed solve a lot of problems.

Maybe.

It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Maybe.

It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.

Or banning sex altogether.

 

[ok doser]

Maybe.

It might just lead to growing babies to sell to the highest bidder....for sex slaves, etc.

i would think there'd be a larger market for donor organs

 

[JudgeRightly]

In fact, society DOES have some serious issues. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That should just tell you that one cannot legislate righteousness.

It's one thing to try to regulate people's thoughts.

It's quite another to prohibit actions that harm other people.

As far as contraception goes, it's much better than abortion, so I'm not seeing your point here.

Sure. But abstinence until marriage (between a man and a woman only) is even better than an unmarried man and woman having sex and using contraceptives, because contraceptives only work most of the time to prevent pregnancy, whereas abstinence is guaranteed (barring rape) to prevent pregnancy.

If people don't face consequences for their actions, then they'll continue doing those things that harm them.

 

[glorydaz]

i would think there'd be a larger market for donor organs

Yep, basically selling children.

 

[glorydaz]

Or banning sex altogether.

Good luck with that one. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

It's one thing to try to regulate people's thoughts.

It's quite another to prohibit actions that harm other people.

And people having sex harms other people? Or using contraceptives harms other people?

Perhaps I'm missing your point.

Sure. But abstinence until marriage (between a man and a woman only) is even better than an unmarried man and woman having sex and using contraceptives, because contraceptives only work most of the time to prevent pregnancy, whereas abstinence is guaranteed (barring rape) to prevent pregnancy.

Since there's no way to enforce abstinence, I fail to see why contraceptives aren't better than nothing. In fact, not everyone who finds themselves with an unwanted pregnancy sees abortion as an option. I was a rubber baby myself (as my mom used to say).

If people don't face consequences for their actions, then they'll continue doing those things that harm them.

And? I still fail to see your point. We live in a world of sin, but reaping what you sew is a natural law, wouldn't you say? People live and learn or they don't learn. That has been the way from the beginning of time. I seriously doubt we can change that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And people having sex harms other people? Or using contraceptives harms other people?

Perhaps I'm missing your point.

People having sex outside of marriage harms people, and causes problems for those who are conceived as a result.

Since there's no way to enforce abstinence, I fail to see why contraceptives aren't better than nothing.

Sure there is.

If two unmarried people (male and female) are caught having sex outside of marriage (in other words, fornication), they should be forced to marry, and never be allowed to divorce.

If it's homosexual, both are to be put to death, for homosexuality is an abomination.

If it's adultery, both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.

In fact, not everyone who finds themselves with an unwanted pregnancy sees abortion as an option. I was a rubber baby myself (as my mom used to say).

Of course not.

And? I still fail to see your point. We live in a world of sin, but reaping what you sew is a natural law, wouldn't you say?

Sure, but a crime is still a crime, and should be punished swiftly and painfully.

A criminal reaping what he sews may not be quick enough for him to be deterred from his activity.

People live and learn or they don't learn. That has been the way from the beginning of time. I seriously doubt we can change that.

And that's why that's not the goal.

 

[glorydaz]

People having sex outside of marriage harms people, and causes problems for those who are conceived as a result.

Not as many problems as people having sex within marriage, because it's harder to get a divorce than it is to just move out.

Sure there is.

If two unmarried people (male and female) are caught having sex outside of marriage (in other words, fornication), they should be forced to marry, and never be allowed to divorce.

Really?

If it's homosexual, both are to be put to death, for homosexuality is an abomination.

You think that would be acceptable to ANYONE? I don't believe it would.

If it's adultery, both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
​

We aren't living among the Jews, JR.

We are not God's chosen people, and the laws you're speaking of were for the Jews.

I'm surprised you're attempting to inflict Moses' Law upon us.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not as many problems as people having sex within marriage, because it's harder to get a divorce than it is to just move out.

The only reason a person should be allowed to divorce is if one of them committed sexual immorality.

People need to learn to solve problems within their marriage, rather than just give up.

"When marriages fail and divorce becomes an epidemic, then people who would have never ended up getting a divorce, end up getting a divorce. When divorce is mainstream, you end up not with the worst, most impossible marriages failing, but you end up with literally 10s of millions of marriages failing, so that a family that has five kids may see seven to eight divorces among their kids. . . . This is becoming normal."
-Bob Enyart, kgov.com/divorce (play the audio file)

We need to return to what the Bible says.

I recommend, if you have the time, that you listen to the show on that page.

Really?

Yes, really.

How many children are born out of wedlock each year?

Compared to children who have both a father and a mother in their lives who are married, how do the children who are born out of wedlock fare in life, generally speaking?

You think that would be acceptable to ANYONE? I don't believe it would.

This ain't a popularity contest, GD. You know that...

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.​

We aren't living among the Jews, JR.

Never said we were.

We are not God's chosen people,

Never said we were.

But society as a whole needs rules. What better rules to use than the one's God gave that apply to all people.

and the laws you're speaking of were for the Jews.

Not just the Jews. The laws against adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, theft, murder, all of these apply equally to everyone.

I'm surprised you're attempting to inflict Moses' Law upon us.

No, not Moses' law upon us.

God's law, on those whom the law was made for.

 

[glorydaz]

The only reason a person should be allowed to divorce is if one of them committed sexual immorality.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's ludicrous to even suggest it.
A wife may be beaten? Is that your claim? Kids may be harmed in every way imaginable, is that your claim?

People need to learn to solve problems within their marriage, rather than just give up.

That would be the ideal, but saying it, or demanding it, won't make it happen.

Which, I might add, is the problem with LAW.

"When marriages fail and divorce becomes an epidemic, then people who would have never ended up getting a divorce, end up getting a divorce. When divorce is mainstream, you end up not with the worst, most impossible marriages failing, but you end up with literally 10s of millions of marriages failing, so that a family that has five kids may see seven to eight divorces among their kids. . . . This is becoming normal."
-Bob Enyart, kgov.com/divorce (play the audio file)

Clearly that is an accurate observation, but demanding people stop doing what they're doing is a pipe dream.

We need to return to what the Bible says.

It would be nice if everyone walked according to the Spirit, but it's impossible to demand from people who don't. Which is the whole point, in a nut shell.

How many children are born out of wedlock each year?

Compared to children who have both a father and a mother in their lives who are married, how do the children who are born out of wedlock fare in life, generally speaking?

Again, a legitimate observation, but so what?

This ain't a popularity contest, GD. You know that...

It isn't? And here I thought we were in some kind of competition with the world to see who could be more righteous. :chuckle:

But society as a whole needs rules. What better rules to use than the one's God gave that apply to all people.

Which rules did He give to apply to "society as a whole"? He gave the moral law which held no punishment here on earth. The rest He gave to Israel....His chosen people.

Not just the Jews. The laws against adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, theft, murder, all of these apply equally to everyone.

No, they do not. Do you see Paul demanding we stone adulterers? Or we put people to death for breaking some law like fornication?

No, not Moses' law upon us.

God's law, on those whom the law was made for.

The Laws you're attempting to enforce are Moses' Law with it's punishments. If you were fair, you'd be claiming we could bring a clean lamb to offer as a sacrifice for those sins. But you don't. You only want to kill those who break the law. :nono:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's ludicrous to even suggest it.

That's not my opinion.

That's what the Bible says.

The rule is, "you will not divorce your spouse."

The ONLY exception is sexual immorality.

A wife may be beaten? Is that your claim? Kids may be harmed in every way imaginable, is that your claim?

Abandonment is a form of sexual immorality.

A husband that does not love his wife by taking care of her and their children gives her grounds for divorce, because he has abandoned that which he promised to do.

That would be the ideal, but saying it, or demanding it, won't make it happen.

Which, I might add, is the problem with LAW.

And yet, I'm going to continue to advocate good law, because the law is righteous, and was made for those who are wicked.

Clearly that is an accurate observation, but demanding people stop doing what they're doing is a pipe dream.

That's what the law is for. To enforce righteous behavior, and to punish the wicked.

It would be nice if everyone walked according to the Spirit, but it's impossible to demand from people who don't. Which is the whole point, in a nut shell.

And yet, we shouldn't stop demanding that righteous law be enforced simply because people don't walk according to the Spirit.

I mean, look at Israel. They were utterly wicked, and God didn't say, "oh well, I should stop enforcing the law because they're so wicked."

No, He gave them even more laws, because they couldn't keep the one's He gave.

Again, a legitimate observation, but so what?

By restricting those who can get a divorce to ONLY those who are victims of sexual immorality, it forces couples to at least attempt to solve their problems and provides a stable environment for their children, even if they are unsuccessful at eliminating most of their problems.

It isn't? And here I thought we were in some kind of competition with the world to see who could be more righteous. :chuckle:

:AMR:

Which rules did He give to apply to "society as a whole"? He gave the moral law which held no punishment here on earth.

This is just plain untrue.

When is the last time you read through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy?

They contain plenty of laws that have earthly punishments, even for ones that do not only apply to Israel.

The rest He gave to Israel....His chosen people.

Which, clearly, do not apply to the world.

No, they do not. Do you see Paul demanding we stone adulterers?

No, I see him supporting the death penalty.

Which means there are crimes that are worthy of being put to death if one commits them.

Or we put people to death for breaking some law like fornication?

That's a wicked punishment that not even GOD would enforce.

God said it would be just to force fornicators (non-homosexual) to marry and never allow them to divorce.

He did NOT command that they be put to death, and this is something that I have already stated.

The Laws you're attempting to enforce are Moses' Law with it's punishments. If you were fair, you'd be claiming we could bring a clean lamb to offer as a sacrifice for those sins.

This is a straw man, and something I already addressed, though you may have missed it.

I said that those laws that apply to everyone should be enforced.

The sacrificial laws, and all the symbolic ordinances were addressed only to Israel.

Laws such as "do not covet," "you will have no other god's before Me," "you will will not take the name of the LORD in vain," are all laws against sin, not crime.

Laws such as "do not murder," "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," "do not bear false witness," etc, are laws that apply to everyone.

But you don't. You only want to kill those who break the law. :nono:

Another straw man.

No, I don't.

There are three forms of punishment God authorized in the Bible.

Death penalty, flogging/corporal punishment, and restitution.

 

[glorydaz]

That's not my opinion.

That's what the Bible says.

The rule is, "you will not divorce your spouse."

The ONLY exception is sexual immorality.



Abandonment is a form of sexual immorality.

A husband that does not love his wife by taking care of her and their children gives her grounds for divorce, because he has abandoned that which he promised to do.



And yet, I'm going to continue to advocate good law, because the law is righteous, and was made for those who are wicked.



That's what the law is for. To enforce righteous behavior, and to punish the wicked.



And yet, we shouldn't stop demanding that righteous law be enforced simply because people don't walk according to the Spirit.

I mean, look at Israel. They were utterly wicked, and God didn't say, "oh well, I should stop enforcing the law because they're so wicked."

No, He gave them even more laws, because they couldn't keep the one's He gave.



By restricting those who can get a divorce to ONLY those who are victims of sexual immorality, it forces couples to at least attempt to solve their problems and provides a stable environment for their children, even if they are unsuccessful at eliminating most of their problems.



:AMR:



This is just plain untrue.

When is the last time you read through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy?

They contain plenty of laws that have earthly punishments, even for ones that do not only apply to Israel.



Which, clearly, do not apply to the world.



No, I see him supporting the death penalty.

Which means there are crimes that are worthy of being put to death if one commits them.



That's a wicked punishment that not even GOD would enforce.

God said it would be just to force fornicators (non-homosexual) to marry and never allow them to divorce.

He did NOT command that they be put to death, and this is something that I have already stated.



This is a straw man, and something I already addressed, though you may have missed it.

I said that those laws that apply to everyone should be enforced.

The sacrificial laws, and all the symbolic ordinances were addressed only to Israel.

Laws such as "do not covet," "you will have no other god's before Me," "you will will not take the name of the LORD in vain," are all laws against sin, not crime.

Laws such as "do not murder," "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," "do not bear false witness," etc, are laws that apply to everyone.



Another straw man.

No, I don't.

There are three forms of punishment God authorized in the Bible.

Death penalty, flogging/corporal punishment, and restitution.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Your post is too long, and you're simply wrong wrong wrong.

Where do you find this RULE, and where do you see it being enforced among the Gentile nations?

Answer that and we can proceed further.

 

[Arthur Brain]

People having sex outside of marriage harms people, and causes problems for those who are conceived as a result.



Sure there is.

If two unmarried people (male and female) are caught having sex outside of marriage (in other words, fornication), they should be forced to marry, and never be allowed to divorce.

If it's homosexual, both are to be put to death, for homosexuality is an abomination.

If it's adultery, both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.



Of course not.



Sure, but a crime is still a crime, and should be punished swiftly and painfully.

A criminal reaping what he sews may not be quick enough for him to be deterred from his activity.



And that's why that's not the goal.

What if someone's been caught having sex outside of marriage with multiple people, who are they going to be forced to marry, all of them?

You're applying laws set to a people of the time, in far different circumstances as to now. People should only be able to divorce on account of sexual immorality of their spouse? I doubt there's many married couples who take the breakup of a marriage lightly and in some cases there's more than grounds enough for a person to want to be free from a relationship and pursue another that isn't linked to sex.

Forcing people to marry and remain together with no possibility of separation is just legalism run amok. I would ask you to question some of these hardcore beliefs you adhere to but is there any real point? By that, I mean, do you actually think on these topics independently and arrive at your own conclusions?