How could a heaven operate?

[Akar]

The hypocracy of my words come from the Bible so is God a hypocrite?

Yes.

Of course he must be in your eyes because anyone who doesn't agree with you is also a hypocrite.

No, I follow the usual definition for hypocrisy, which is to say one thing and do the other.

We're to blame for what God describes as your final destination which you scoff at on a regular basis.

No one is "to blame" for the irrational actions of a non-existent deity.

[basics]

Akar,

If God is a non-existent deity then your three line post is meaningless. Surely not very intellectual of you to insist about something that doesn't exist?

[Akar]

I don't think that sentence even means anything. Can you rephrase that?

[basics]

I don't think that sentence even means anything. Can you rephrase that?

Akar,

To put it another way, If you are convinced there is no God why is it that you are so obsessed about Him? I mean I don't see you obsessing about the millions of babies torn limb from limb out of their mother's womb every day of the year as though these beating little hearts were nothing. Why is that?

[conon394]

Akar,

To put it another way, If you are convinced there is no God why is it that you are so obsessed about Him? I mean I don't see you obsessing about the millions of babies torn limb from limb out of their mother's womb every day of the year as though these beating little hearts were nothing. Why is that?

Err you are a little off the likely number is 200,000 a day not millions. In any case too bad evangelicals, conservatives and other conservative religious types stand in the way of quality sex education, effective availability of birth control and plan B and maybe that number would very much lower.

[basics]

conon394,

The context was that millions of babies have been intentionally killed in the womb every day of the year over a period of time so why does my wrongful explanation take anything away from the fact that abortion is murder. If you think it is not then explain?

[conon394]

The context was that millions of babies have been intentionally killed in the womb every day

Because of you now facts. Not that many abortions happen. If I talk the president into starting a nuclear war with hysterical numbers of soviet bombs ready to launch and a missile gap than I am basing my argument on a lie. Second I think you are wrong that abortion is murder before fetal viability. Third answer the question do you hold making sure every young women gets a well rounded health/sex education instruction and easy access to birth control and plan B options? If not than I call BS.

[Akar]

Akar,

To put it another way, If you are convinced there is no God why is it that you are so obsessed about Him?

I'm not obsessed with him. I post here because I care about rampant anti-intellectualism that's being fueled largely by ignorant religious zealots.

I mean I don't see you obsessing about the millions of babies torn limb from limb out of their mother's womb every day of the year as though these beating little hearts were nothing.Why is that?

Because I'm not enough of a misogynist to think that I have the right to tell a woman (or anyone, for that matter) what she can or cannot do with her body. Abortion, intentionally induced miscarriages, and other pregnancy preventative measures have been used by humans for thousands of years. The old testament bible even describes how to perform and abortion, and when one should do so.

And those "beating little hearts" are nothing. They don't matter. They haven't been born and rely on their mothers for survival. Life for the sake of life is nonsense. You should worry about ensuring that every baby that does end up being born has a high quality of life and loving parents, rather than only caring that babies are born. Why are you so dedicated to making sure that babies are born to people who don't want them at all. It's funny, religious types only ever seem to care about the babies BEFORE they're born. As soon as they're born it's all about condemning single mothers, restricting welfare and childcare, banning contraceptives, etc. Religious people and conservatives only care about abortion when they can use it to exercise control over a woman's bodily autonomy. That's all this comes down to.

If you can't understand that, Basics, then you're just a pawn in a much clever man's game.

The context was that millions of babies have been intentionally killed in the womb every day of the year over a period of time so why does my wrongful explanation take anything away from the fact that abortion is murder. If you think it is not then explain?

Because your statement was wrong. You're saying "why does it matter that I was wrong?", well it matters because you were wrong. Don't make false and blatantly inaccurate statements if you don't want to get called out on them.

And no, abortion is not murder.

babies torn limb from limb out of their mother's womb

Saying like this just shows how little you understand about abortion, contraceptives, and bodily functions. Read a science book published this century, please.

[basics]

Dear ole guys, Akar and conon394,

Just so you get it, life of everything on this planet begins at fertilization. That is a biological fact. So to take life is murder specifically with human beings, why? We eat other life but we don't eat human beings. So, if we eat other lifeforms why don't we eat unborn babies after all you both say they are nothing so why not? If your wife served up her dead unborn for Sunday dinner why wouldn't you eat it? After all it's just another piece of dead meat. Think of the choice, black meat or white meat or red meat or yellow meat or just plain ole brown meat. Is that not a practice that has been indulged in by certain tribes down through the years. We don't do it because it would be against our nature, even our fallen one.

The scary thing is that we are so fallen that our lusts have overtaken our senses of what is right and wrong. The argument that women have a right over their own bodies is man's answer to a large problem within society because it alleviates his responsiblity when satisfying his own lusts. So to make it quite legal and normal the pressure is placed on the woman by giving her these so-called rights. As a result, millions of unborn babies have been torn limb from limb to save man from his responsiblities. Having heard from nurses who have to help in such procedures I have not yet heard of one who enjoys the experience.

[AqD]

How can sending someone to heaven be a bad thing? Wouldn't you agree heaven is better than earth and by abortion the baby would be born into heaven instead?

[Prodromos]

As a mere created being, lower than God, you lack the authority to send anyone to heaven or hell. Your task is to obey God, and he forbids the deliberate killing of innocent people.

[AqD]

Where is it ever mentioned that humans have the right to create life?

Do you think it's a nice thing for pig in farm to give birth, knowing her children would be imprisoned for life until slaughtered for the enjoyment of others?

Is it so bad to do something that would benefit another person greatly, but is forbidden by authority? If it's indeed beneficial for that person but very bad for the doer who would break the rule, wouldn't you consider it a form of self-sacrifice?

[basics]

AqD,

Abortion is not self sacrifice rather self indulgence. It is written that man was given dominion over all other things but as for creating new life, another species, he can't do that. Animals have a natural instinct to protect their young and if you've ever seen cows separated from their calves it can be quite heartbreaking to watch.

[conon394]

Just so you get it, life of everything on this planet begins at fertilization.

Odd the human body disagrees since an overwhelming number of fertilized eggs are lost without anyone knowing they were pregnant. So rather why stop at fertilization since it is only one potential point why not go back farther and penalize women for harming their eggs seeing as each is simply an earlier stop on the way a potential birth?

That is a biological fact

Interesting thought from you seeing as you reject so many other scientific facts. But realistically initially a fertilized egg is a bit more of a parasite and deemed as such by most of women's body which is why so many never properly place and get to grow.

We eat other life but we don't eat human beings. So, if we eat other lifeforms why don't we eat unborn babies after all you both say they are nothing so why not?

Its a bad ideal to eat you own species in general. Its a good way to transfer prion based illness for example as a Brit should well know or have you forgotten Mad Cow.

The scary thing is that we are so fallen that our lusts have overtaken our senses of what is right and wrong. The argument that women have a right over their own bodies is man's answer to a large problem within society because it alleviates his responsiblity when satisfying his own lusts. So to make it quite legal and normal the pressure is placed on the woman by giving her these so-called rights. As a result, millions of unborn babies have been torn limb from limb to save man from his responsiblities. Having heard from nurses who have to help in such procedures I have not yet heard of one who enjoys the experience.

"Satisfying his own lusts" "pressure is placed on the woman by giving her these so-called rights" Ahh yes the chaste weaker vessel and its silly little head ... Women have no lusts nor desire for agency. No right to want to enjoy sex or the freedom to not be pregnant? No right to judge if they are not in situation to raise a child responsibly. Rather in fact often live in a world where where they may be told they must give birth but also one that takes no particular interest in providing health care, or maternal leave or quality day care or even quality schools or family sick days. A world that often cares not about the expense of raising children after all most people are not peasants any more and unless you still have those pushing mine cart jobs around or maybe sewing in sweat shop in India, you child is mostly a burden financially for some time.

I am curious do you oppose women using long term birth control to avoid the discomfort, annoyance and oft time embarrassment come with a monthly period?


Anyway the OT obviously disagrees with you anyway that life starts with fertilization.

--------------------

As a mere created being, lower than God, you lack the authority to send anyone to heaven or hell. Your task is to obey God, and he forbids the deliberate killing of innocent people.

Tell that to citizens of Jericho. Will obviously a fable story it does imply God is down with killing innocent people.

[Cope]

Odd the human body disagrees since an overwhelming number of fertilized eggs are lost without anyone knowing they were pregnant. So rather why stop at fertilization since it is only one potential point why not go back farther and penalize women for harming their eggs seeing as each is simply an earlier stop on the way a potential birth? Interesting thought from you seeing as you reject so many other scientific facts. But realistically initially a fertilized egg is a bit more of a parasite and deemed as such by most of women's body which is why so many never properly place and get to grow.

A genetically unique, individual living organism is created at the point of fertilization. This is the scientifically indisputable point at which new life begins. That many of these lives fail for reasons beyond our control or understanding does not detract from the reality that a zygote is an distinctive human being.

Its a bad ideal to eat you own species in general. Its a good way to transfer prion based illness for example as a Brit should well know or have you forgotten Mad Cow.

The relevant point is that human life has an intrinsic value greater than the value of animal or plant life.

"Satisfying his own lusts" "pressure is placed on the woman by giving her these so-called rights" Ahh yes the chaste weaker vessel and its silly little head ... Women have no lusts nor desire for agency. No right to want to enjoy sex or the freedom to not be pregnant? No right to judge if they are not in situation to raise a child responsibly. Rather in fact often live in a world where where they may be told they must give birth but also one that takes no particular interest in providing health care, or maternal leave or quality day care or even quality schools or family sick days. A world that often cares not about the expense of raising children after all most people are not peasants any more and unless you still have those pushing mine cart jobs around or maybe sewing in sweat shop in India, you child is mostly a burden financially for some time.

A person's right to pleasure should not supersede another person's right to life. In societies where contraceptives are freely available, there is no justifiable reason for unwanted pregnancies to exist, especially in cases where the parents are educated and financially stable.

I am curious do you oppose women using long term birth control to avoid the discomfort, annoyance and oft time embarrassment come with a monthly period?

No.

Anyway the OT obviously disagrees with you anyway that life starts with fertilization.

No it doesn't.

Tell that to citizens of Jericho. Will obviously a fable story it does imply God is down with killing innocent people.

No it doesn't.

[Akar]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

No.

He's not asking you, he's asking BASICS. Because BASICS has been ignoring that question constantly because he's too afraid to answer it.

A person's right to pleasure should not supersede another person's right to life.

An unborn person or fertilized egg or embryo or whatever does not have a "right to life". No "right to life" exists until you are born. Which is oddly enough just around the time when religious people stop caring about them all-together. Probably because they're no longer useful pawns in your morality games.

In societies where contraceptives are freely available, there is no justifiable reason for unwanted pregnancies to exist, especially in cases where the parents are educated and financially stable.

If you actually believe this, why do you constantly support political parties who go out of their way to limit a woman's access to contraceptives?

The relevant point is that human life has an intrinsic value greater than the value of animal or plant life.

The value of one's own species is always going to be considered to be higher than that of another species. This is not unique to humans. Outside of a human perspective, humanity has no greater inherent value than anything else. Earth doesn't think Human's are more valuable, neither does the galaxy, solar system, or universe. We are just another collection of biological matter and electronic pulses.

The relevant point is that basics simply doesn't understand why cannibalism is considered to repugnant to humans and most other (non-starving) animals, because it is incredibly unhealthy. An unwillingness to eat your own kind unless absolutely necessary is a logical and obvious evolutionary step.

I don't see why christians need to try to read more into this than there is.

[conon394]

A genetically unique, individual living organism is created at the point of fertilization. This is the scientifically indisputable point at which new life begins. That many of these lives fail for reasons beyond our control or understanding does not detract from the reality that a zygote is an distinctive human being.

So are cancer cells that is unique to their host do thay have a right to life while thay are basically a non viable parasite.

The relevant point is that human life has an intrinsic value greater than the value of animal or plant life.

In general why? I'm Human and I might agree. But I'm rather sure The chickens in my back yard might disagree that their offspring are inherently more valuable as an omelette with cheese than a chick. Also last I checked Human are you know animals as well and we are rather good about not giving too dumps about most of us.

A person's right to pleasure should not supersede another person's right to life. In societies where contraceptives are freely available, there is no justifiable reason for unwanted pregnancies to exist, especially in cases where the parents are educated and financially stable.

First I believe you will accept no contraception is perfect.

Second on the last that is really in the eyes of a fair judge an assessment of more than a few people in this world ("parents are educated and financially stable") for not a child but constant children?

No it doesn't.

Yes it does else would it not hold harming a pregnant women and causing and miscarriage as murder.

No it doesn't.

So what evil did its children and animals commit to deserve death?

[Sir Adrian]

Cancer cells are not a form of life. They're sick cells basically.

[Cope]

So are cancer cells that is unique to their host do thay have a right to life while thay are basically a non viable parasite.

Cancerous cells are not organisms; they are diseased biological matter which exist within living beings. Since their replication leads to the destruction of their host, it is wholly justifiable to destroy them.

In general why? I'm Human and I might agree. But I'm rather sure The chickens in my back yard might disagree that their offspring are inherently more valuable as an omelette with cheese than a chick. Also last I checked Human are you know animals as well and we are rather good about not giving too dumps about most of us.

The short scientific answer is because we are evolved to value our own species above others. The short Scriptural answer is that man was made in God's image.

First I believe you will accept no contraception is perfect.

The imperfections of contraceptives do not account for the millions of abortions which are performed annually across the western world. My comment was to be taken as a general rule, not one without exception.

Second on the last that is really in the eyes of a fair judge an assessment of more than a few people in this world ("parents are educated and financially stable") for not a child but constant children?

Rephrase for clarity.

Yes it does else would it not hold harming a pregnant women and causing and miscarriage as murder.

It does.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Exodus 21:22-25.

So what evil did its children and animals commit to deserve death?

The Canaanites' destruction was a consequence of their wickedness on earth. To a person invested in liberal justice, the elimination of the young might seem undeserved, but the purpose of God's command is to illustrate that the faults and imperfections of one generation are inherited by another. Thus the Canaanites drove their own children and their own nations into ruin.

[basics]

conon394,

A woman can have a hysterectomy to do away with the things you mention and still be sexually active. That means no need for any abortion. I am not against any woman using birth control at all why? Because it prefigures fertilization which is the beginning of life. Tearing apart a human life is disgusting and now there is a proposal by some that even after birth a newborn can legally be killed. I mean how evil is that?

No, the Old Testament lays out what that little thing inside a pregnant woman is and how its killing is to be administered. It's amazing how you think you know the Bible and yet still can't see the wood for the trees.