skinsbuck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 what makes the woman think she has the right to destroy a living being that rightfully belongs in half to the man? Because it's in her body. It's not a person yet and the outcome effects her entire future. It's her call to make. Plain and simple. There's already restrictions on abortions, to protect the baby and the mom. I don't follow the belief that the man has ANY right. I won't even argue that belief. NO ONE has the right to control anothers body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsbuck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Are you reading any of the posts?I didnt say it did.It establishes the fact that you are a human and God knows you before you leave the womb and there are people who are killing humans without their say-so or even giving those little babies a chance at life. I've read. If you're going to be a scripture quoter than do it right. And, it doesn't establish anything. Abortion is natures selective elimination process. Some baby lions are killed by their fathers, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Because it's in her body. It's not a person yet and the outcome effects her entire future. It's her call to make. Plain and simple. There's already restrictions on abortions, to protect the baby and the mom. I don't follow the belief that the man has ANY right. I won't even argue that belief.NO ONE has the right to control anothers body. If you believe what you just wrote, then the father should not be held responsible financially for the child to age 18 or college graduation. If you believe that then you are advocating a woman controlling a mans body, because he now has to use that body to pay for the child. Meanwhile, a man has no options if he wants to keep the child and the woman aborts. What are his choices? I forgot, the man is just a sperm donor unless the woman wants to give the man rights..... And name the last time anything besides a human was produced when a man and woman procreated. Until you can identify some other life form created by a man and a woman, anything that is created during sex should be designated as human.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 no,I am not. the point I was trying to make is that God says that He knows us before we were formed must mean that we are a living soul in the womb and not just "a clump of cells."Lets not get into a pissing contest over scripture.And yes we should create public policy on that religious document for it was that very document that this country was founded on and has been debated and visited and established through various threads on this board before. OK, I'm reading you. We'll keep some parts of the Bible and discard others in order to create public policy. So, to sum up, and correct me if I'm wrong: we need to create laws based upon your particular interpretation of a particular religious document. We should ignore other aspects of that document, just as we ignore the doctrines of all other religions, except where they agree with our personal beliefs. Forgive me, but to me that all sounds a bit... capricious. It makes me glad that the founding fathers understood the concepts of both freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Abortion is natures selective elimination process. Some baby lions are killed by their fathers, for example. So if I walk over there and puncture your skull and suck your brain out, that is natures selective process? No, a child dying from anything other than an accident is not natures process. If that is your reasoning, why do murderers go to jail? They are just advancing natures process? And before you say it isn't murder, look at all the cases where a man is tried for 2 counts of murder for killing a woman and her unborn child.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsbuck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 OK, I'm reading you. We'll keep some parts of the Bible and discard others in order to create public policy. So, to sum up, and correct me if I'm wrong: we need to create laws based upon your particular interpretation of a particular religious document. We should ignore other aspects of that document, just as we ignore the doctrines of all other religions, except where they agree with our personal beliefs. Forgive me, but to me that all sounds a bit... capricious. It makes me glad that the founding fathers understood the concepts of both freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. :applause::applause::applause::applause: You hit the nail on the head there Chief. Religious zealots aren't worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsbuck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 So if I walk over there and puncture your skull and suck your brain out, that is natures selective process? No, a child dying from anything other than an accident is not natures process. If that is your reasoning, why do murderers go to jail? They are just advancing natures process? And before you say it isn't murder, look at all the cases where a man is tried for 2 counts of murder for killing a woman and her unborn child.... As human beings we make everything too complicated. I see it as natures selection process just as a male lion will kill another male lion when it is a cub. It really is that simple. If I were killed by another human being, for any reason, I guess it was just my time to go. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 As human beings we make everything too complicated. I see it as natures selection process just as a male lion will kill another male lion when it is a cub. It really is that simple. If I were killed by another human being, for any reason, I guess it was just my time to go. :2cents: So you believe that all the laws on the books regarding personal safety should be repealed right? Because if you don't, that is one of the most hypocritical lines of logic I have seen to date on this board.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Putting aside the moral debate over abortion (which will NEVER be solved on this message board), I'd like to go back to the original post for a moment. I think the basic premise of the post is flawed. Planned Parenthood does not make a "profit" any more than other charities make profits. If it has years that it brings in more money than it spends on immediate operating expenses, those funds are used to pay down debt, are invested to protect against future lean years, or are used to expand the operation. Same as any other non-profit in the country. I was on the board of directors of a school. The school had a modest endowment that served many functions, mostly scholarships and capital expenses. In years where income exceeded expenses, money was added to the endowment. In years where expenses exceeded income, the board had to draw down from the endowment. The goal of any responsible governing board of a non-profit is to have more of the latter years and less of the former. No one owns Planned Parenthood stock, no one collects dividends from Planned Parenthood, and as far as I know, there are only four employees of Planned Parenthood who make $150,000 a year (the President, the Chief Strategic Officer, the Chief Medical Officer, and the VP for Development). Sorry, but that is hardly top heavy for an organization of this size. (I got this information from STOPP - an anti-abortion orgaization.) So, in sum, challenging Planned Parenthood on whether its activities are positive or negative for society is completely fair. Accusing them of excessive "profits" is not fair, not unless you wish to apply the same reasoning to every charity in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 :applause: Predicto, thank you for bringing a little sanity to this debate. And on a side note, whoever came up with the idea to pledge an abortion clinic picketer is a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 It has to be fair, Predicto, the name of the site the article comes from has "moral clarity" in its title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 And to be fair,one of the major points of the article is to site that this organization is using tax dollars to help fund abortions and that it makes enough money alone to not use tax dollars.Hard to believe as it may seem,some people may not want their tax dollars to go towards murder. :2cents: and furthermore,what decent organization wouldnt rollover extra revenue to the next fiscal year?So as some might think Predicto's response was valid,(which it was)I dont think that was the issue,it was just the fleecing of taxdollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 That is your opinion -- one not shared by the scientific community. I believe the Scientific community considers 'it' to be a person by 8? weeks from the 4d pictures and able to survive outside the womb at 23 weeks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 From wikipedia: LifeNews.Com recently criticized Planned Parenthood for their new advertisements including the chance to win an iPod and discounts on movie tickets. They believe this series of advertisements is aimed at teenagers, and do not believe teenagers should receive services from Planned Parenthood clinics. One poster depicts a teenage girl whispering into the ear of her friend with the caption, "Get free movie tickets? Yes. When you tell a friend about Planned Parenthood."[ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsbuck Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 From wikipedia:LifeNews.Com recently criticized Planned Parenthood for their new advertisements including the chance to win an iPod and discounts on movie tickets. They believe this series of advertisements is aimed at teenagers, and do not believe teenagers should receive services from Planned Parenthood clinics. One poster depicts a teenage girl whispering into the ear of her friend with the caption, "Get free movie tickets? Yes. When you tell a friend about Planned Parenthood."[ That's just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 And to be fair,one of the major points of the article is to site that this organization is using tax dollars to help fund abortions and that it makes enough money alone to not use tax dollars.Hard to believe as it may seem,some people may not want their tax dollars to go towards murder. :2cents: and furthermore,what decent organization wouldnt rollover extra revenue to the next fiscal year?So as some might think Predicto's response was valid,(which it was)I dont think that was the issue,it was just the fleecing of taxdollars. I guess I don't read it that way. As I understand it, the government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is directed toward specific educational programs, not to abortions. If they make a positive cash flow on their clinic fees and private donations (which is clearly the case) then your tax dollars are not being used to fund abortions - they are being used to fund whatever programs they are directed toward. Now if your argument is that tax dollars should not be funding otherwise appropriate programs because the particular organization that carries them out ALSO performs abortions (an inherently evil thing), then that is a different argument. But that does not appear to be the argument you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 didnt kill any babies?check Jeremiah:1:4: Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. I dont think they were clumps of cells at all,they were INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS!! and churches making money?give me a break. :doh: what church do you know that makes that kind of money?especially not killing innocent babies.1 day some people are going to have a lot to pay for :2cents: Please stop quoting scripture. It means NOTHING to the people you are trying to argue with. Nothing. Churches making money? I'll just say this. I used to manage a bank branch in NoVa. Every monday, several churches made deposits larger than the WalMart did. And this is WITHOUT any inventory walking out the door and little to no overhead. Church is big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Please stop quoting scripture. It means NOTHING to the people you are trying to argue with. Nothing. I think I'll quit quoting scripture when you pry the Word from my cold dead hands. :laugh: There is some that believe it is a dusty old book with no value but there is still a few around who stand on its moral teachings.Before Voltaire died,he stated that in a hundred years you wouldnt find a bible but in a dusty museum.But today his very house is a printing press for bibles. :laugh: My opinion,we wouldnt have these problems if people would turn from their wicked ways and get back to the teachings of the bible. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 what makes the woman think she has the right to destroy a living being that rightfully belongs in half to the man? :laugh: I'm not even going to dive all the way into this debate, I'd just like to go out on a limb and say that I'm fairly certain that in a vast majority of cases where abortion is considered the man is not against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I think I'll quit quoting scripture when you pry the Word from my cold dead hands. :laugh: There is some that believe it is a dusty old book with no value but there is still a few around who stand on its moral teachings.Before Voltaire died,he stated that in a hundred years you wouldnt find a bible but in a dusty museum.But today his very house is a printing press for bibles. :laugh: My opinion,we wouldnt have these problems if people would turn from their wicked ways and get back to the teachings of the bible. :2cents: I don't think he was saying that you were wrong to believe in the Bible. He was saying that you aren't scoring any points in this debate with people who do not value the Bible the way you do. Some guy could pop on here and quote a verse from the Quran in response to every topic that arises. It wouldn't convince anyone of anything either. Not trying to offend - just pointing out reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 And to be fair,one of the major points of the article is to site that this organization is using tax dollars to help fund abortions and that it makes enough money alone to not use tax dollars.Hard to believe as it may seem,some people may not want their tax dollars to go towards murder. :2cents: and furthermore,what decent organization wouldnt rollover extra revenue to the next fiscal year?So as some might think Predicto's response was valid,(which it was)I dont think that was the issue,it was just the fleecing of taxdollars. 'Course, it doesn't say that. Doesn't even imply that. What it says is that a corporation that makes a profit is receiving tax money. (Quick, somebody tell Haliburton. Or Boeing.) It says nothing about how much of the profit came from abortions, and how much from other sources. ('Course, it also says that abortions are their "primary business", and that they account for 12% of their income.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I don't think he was saying that you were wrong to believe in the Bible. He was saying that you aren't scoring any points in this debate with people who do not value the Bible the way you do. Some guy could pop on here and quote a verse from the Quran in response to every topic that arises. It wouldn't convince anyone of anything either. Not trying to offend - just pointing out reality. Thanks for the clarification. I see a sentence that starts with "Matthew 2:23" and i just skip it. I think I'll quit quoting scripture when you pry the Word from my cold dead hands. :laugh: There is some that believe it is a dusty old book with no value but there is still a few around who stand on its moral teachings.Before Voltaire died,he stated that in a hundred years you wouldnt find a bible but in a dusty museum.But today his very house is a printing press for bibles. :laugh: My opinion,we wouldnt have these problems if people would turn from their wicked ways and get back to the teachings of the bible. :2cents: "John 4:98: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" Also, do you have any response to the other part of my post, or is it just more convenient to skip over that part? And I would also like to respond to your last sentence by pointing out that religion has probably caused more evil than it has prevented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Thanks for the clarification. I see a sentence that starts with "Matthew 2:23" and i just skip it."John 4:98: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" Also, do you have any response to the other part of my post, or is it just more convenient to skip over that part? And I would also like to respond to your last sentence by pointing out that religion has probably caused more evil than it has prevented. Well,for one,the reason I didnt respond to your last part is because I dont know much about that.I dont get involved in the politics of church affairs,I dont like it.On conference nights at my church I leave because that has nothing to do with saving souls. And you might be right,religion has caused a lot of evil.But im not speaking of religion,I am speaking of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the inspired Word of God.Humans can make anything religion.You are speaking of things that you do not understand. :2cents: and then you blame it all on religion and group all of us together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Well,for one,the reason I didnt respond to your last part is because I dont know much about that.I dont get involved in the politics of church affairs,I dont like it.On conference nights at my church I leave because that has nothing to do with saving souls.And you might be right,religion has caused a lot of evil.But im not speaking of religion,I am speaking of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the inspired Word of God.Humans can make anything religion.You are speaking of things that you do not understand. :2cents: and then you blame it all on religion and group all of us together. Dude, you started this thread. You entitled it: "Abortion - a money maker?" Then when people discuss the actual contents of your post, you pretty much check out other than to quote a few scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Well,for one,the reason I didnt respond to your last part is because I dont know much about that.I dont get involved in the politics of church affairs,I dont like it.On conference nights at my church I leave because that has nothing to do with saving souls.And you might be right,religion has caused a lot of evil.But im not speaking of religion,I am speaking of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the inspired Word of God.Humans can make anything religion.You are speaking of things that you do not understand. :2cents: and then you blame it all on religion and group all of us together. Fair enough. But if you are going to talk about the money making nature of a group the church (and therefore, you) opposes, you should at least be educated on the money making nature of the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.