So by this logic, all the people in Vegas that caught Hepatitis from blood tests were wrong for getting blood tests?

For those not familiar, a medical group was reusing needles. IIRC, it resulted in thousands of people catching it. Given the numbers, it is a sad irony that at least one person probably went there to get tested for Hepatitis when they didn't have it.

A couple off-topic comments were just deleted.

Second, no, it's the problem of the medical group re-using needles.

Actually, they WEREN'T off-topic, you are just being a douche-bag thread nazi.

I said:

This thread is distinctly lacking in uteruses.

And, "it's uterUS, not uterYOU"

BL me if you want, but I'll just keep re-posting this to piss you off.

Ok, to get back on topic then, when do you believe a person becomes a person? And do you have any reason outside the bible to believe this? Is there even a reason in the bible?


No reading between the lines for literalists.

Funny, I dont see many checking to see if the baby has a US or YOU. Or asking before exercising their "choice".

If the baby is not aware of itself, then it can't really do that.

It is not much of an issue for me, seeing that I am a man. But I would rather abort a defective baby than raise a retard. It's a simple choice for me. And I would rather abort a baby who I could not care for than allow it to finish developing into something that understands how irresponsible I was for letting it grow. I would rather my parents had aborted me if I were going to be mentally or physically crippled or if they would have to put me up for adoption.

Now addressing the issue of them aborting babies when they can care for them just because they want to further their careers, I think that mothers should have the choice to destroy an embryo before the embryo knows that it exists.

Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." If a baby does not think, it is nothing.

Ahhh, Dr. Guy is speaking to me? That's a new development.

Google the quote.

Whoops, Texas, I missed your point. Facepalm.

Anyways, to nobody in particular, since all life is inherently evil, and therefore damned, you end up sending the poor soul straight down. I doubt this, though, as God is fair and just, but you don't seem to get that. It is still killing the only living beings that have not comitted a sin.

Me? I'm pro-abortion.

 

That's right, not pro-choice, pro-abortion. There are too damn many people in the world, and a great many of them (in my experience) are idiots that couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. Fewer babies means less stupid people.

 

Of course the rest of humanity will die out from contracting a horrible disease from unsanitized public telephones, but, meh, whats ya gonna do?

Really? You see a lot of people using public telephones? You see a lot of public telephones?

Are you posting via your time machine from 1986?

Erathoniel: Glad to see you kept me around. I add much to every discussion.

Isn't merely existing a sin?

~Zoo

"Really? You see a lot of people using public telephones? You see a lot of public telephones?"

 

Suprisingly? Yes. Why, I just watched an NCIS marathon this weekend and in 37% of all cases, a public telephone was used by the criminal(s). You just can't argue with those kind of statistics! My source of data is at least as equally valid as the OP claim that casual sex causes intense psychological damage.

I always bow to great Douglas Adams references! Well played!

Touche!

Indeed, Zoo brings up a point of confusion for me in this line of argument.

Is Abortion wrong because it kills innocent life? Erathiniel seems to be saying so. But in his post entitled "On Evil" he says that "Man is born evil, and has no hope of salvation without Jesus Christ."

Well, an unborn fetus would not likely have accepted Jesus Christ as it's personal savior, so then, as an evil being, would it not be condemned to an eternity of hell?

So then, is abortion evil because it takes away the chance for the fetus to choose to be baptized and accept Jesus? Would that mean that it is not sinful to destroy those that have actively repudiated Christ in their lives? What about those those haven't made a decision? Or those that have never heard the message of Christ?

Or, does that mean that abortion is wrong because it is the killing of a living being, with the concept of innocence being irrelevant? If so, then why use the term "innocent" in the orginal formulation of the argument? Would that be because emotional arguments are so much easier to make than well-reasones ones?

 

Being human is a sin, because humans are flawed. We turn to Jesus Christ, therefore we can save ourselves through faith in Him. Therefore, the innocent are only those who have not been born, for the second we take our free will, we have sinned. Will you, not through having free will, but through taking upon ourselves our flawed nature.

Those who have not made a decision are not saved, those who have not heard are also lost, so we must try to save them.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

~Zoo

No, just damned for existing. It's less likely to have loopholes.

Just an FYI from someone with a uterus:

A fetus doesn't generally break the 2 lb mark (per your original post) until 28 weeks, which is 3rd trimester (beyond the general point of legality).

I never stopped. You did not choose to engage me.

And I dont have to google the quote. I doubt it was made by a victim of abortion. That is why they are called silent screams.

Yes, I am sure it is. It just doesn't have quite the ring to it when people admit to the ambiguity of the issue and remove all their irrelevant presumptions.


Here's a good example. It assumes a abortion has a victim, and uses a oxymoron for an emotional appeal.