 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Getting personal: Why this Pro-lifer is voting for Barack Obama | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2008 7:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Brandon:
My loving response would be to encourage her to have the child. If she is insistent to have an abortion, we should all feel remorse, repent of it and mourn the life of that which never was.
Thanks for the answer. Knowing you, you would also definitely extend the forgiveness, grace, and mercy of God to everyone involved, too, yes?
****************************************
Brandon:
You say, “For whatever reason” and this seems to me to be a very autonomist response. Should she get an abortion for "whatever reason?" Even if she believes that it is the lesser of two evils, which seems to me to be the most solid ground arising out of her rationale, I would say that our first response should be to encourage life for her reasoning may not be with the fullest clarity possible.
I said "for whatever reason" just to get away from having to totally detail some situation. I didn't mean "willy nilly" like you're thinking. Personally, I would say our first response is to immediately pray for Jesus' presence right then and there first. And then go from there. But that's what I would do.
****************************************
Brandon:
Let me also say something at this point. Even though I believe that law should affirm life, because politics is what it is, as a bud of mine says, “It may be necessary to settle for less than one would like out of the political process. I have little sympathy with those pro-lifers who would sooner bring down the entire political order than tolerate a single abortion.” And of course the Catholic Church has even taken this stance even though she strongly opposes abortion. But as someone else also said, “The pope is acknowledging human reality: rarely can any of us achieve our moral ends perfectly, or all at once. Integrity will at times require that we take what we can get." And at some point I think it would be good to eventually abolish it. Yes?
Now, THIS makes sense. I work at Catholic Charities...and this "realistic" stance IS what they take on abortion.
*************************************
Brandon:
My point though D is that given the Democratic platform, it appears that it’s policy statement has hardened to hardened in its support for Roe vs. Wade ("strongly and unequivocally"), dropping the old language of wanting to make abortion "rare," consenting only to expand the number of choices available to pregnant women who might decide against abortion. This not only makes no dent in the party's pro-choice position as Wallis would have it, it is consistent with it. Don’t you think that Wallis and company have allowed themselves to be used for partisan purposes while gaining nothing of significance in the return? In this respect, his claim to have moved the party in a better direction rings hollow.
1) Well, from what I've heard Obama say, he's used Clinton's very words (the language of "rare" ) with respect to this...and he's been outspoken about how "no one is pro-abortion." I don't know what that goes for as far as the Democratic Party...what that's what I've been hearing as I listen to him.
2) I wonder if Wallis believes that Obama really believes in his words about making abortions "rare"...and all that? Do you think that could have something to do with it?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2008 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm....I didn't see this before...
Brandon:
It kinda scares me that you know the response to your question about the 23 year old woman above. It's this kind of "first response" issue that I find problematic. "Well what would you do? I know what I would do and that would be to encourage her to get an abortion." Like it's first off the bat. Maybe that's not what you're saying? But that's the signal I'm getting.
Wait a friggin minute. Here's my quote...
Actually, let me raise the stakes a bit. Here's a true story I've heard somewhere.
A young woman around 23 has 3 children already, one of which is a newborn. She's been raped by her last ex-boyfriend (who is physically abusive)...and may be pregnant and is considering an abortion if her next period is late.
Is this a "case" for justified abortion? Selah? Brandon?
My question to YOU was...is this a case for justified abortion, in your mind. I said NOTHING about myself about what I would or wouldn't do. Are you jumping to conclusions or something?
But honestly, I guess I WOULD know my first response. I think I said it above in one of the previous posts. (Hint: It deals with Jesus.  )
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/23/2008 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | |
Dwayne: Thanks for the answer. Knowing you, you would also definitely extend the forgiveness, grace, and mercy of God to everyone involved, too, yes?
Brandon: I hope so.
Dwayne: I said "for whatever reason" just to get away from having to totally detail some situation. I didn't mean "willy nilly" like you're thinking. Personally, I would say our first response is to immediately pray for Jesus' presence right then and there first. And then go from there. But that's what I would do.
Brandon: I realize that. But surely you see a moral difference between someone having an abortion because it will stand in the way of their career as oppose to someone doing it out of rape. Either way, if someone has an at risk pregnancy the chances are greater that they will bring their baby to term with support systems in place. Those friends, family members, doctors, government, organizations, etc should not advocate death first. I realize that there is a gap between what is and what we ought to do, I realize that there are limitations in our capacity to counter the overwhelming evil forces that impact on the decision-making process, but this is something of a prophetical call--about our involvement on not just a personal level, but a political one as well.
Dwayne: 1) Well, from what I've heard Obama say, he's used Clinton's very words (the language of "rare" ) with respect to this...and he's been outspoken about how "no one is pro-abortion." I don't know what that goes for as far as the Democratic Party...what that's what I've been hearing as I listen to him.
Brandon: There are numerous examples of how pro-abortion Obama really is.
Dwayne: 2) I wonder if Wallis believes that Obama really believes in his words about making abortions "rare"...and all that? Do you think that could have something to do with it?
Brandon: I’m sure he does. Again, this blog: A Step Forward on Abortion (by Jim Wallis) Regardless, the Democratic Platform (starting on page 50) doesn’t have the language of making abortions “rare.” Rather the it speaks of “reducing the need for abortions” but also says that it “strongly and unequivocally” supports “Roe v Wade and a woman’s RIGHT to choose a safe and legal abortion.” It rings hollow to not only say that you want to reduce abortions, but that you cancel out the old language and then believe strongly and equivocally that a woman has a right to safe and legal abortion on demand and then via policies and voting record show consistently how pro-abortion you really are. I mean think of it. Abortion on demand is a RIGHT. This is autonomistic plain and simple. The sex act which leads to pregnancy represents a lack of autonomy right from the start. And the rest of life falls along these lines.
Dwayne: My question to YOU was...is this a case for justified abortion, in your mind. I said NOTHING about myself about what I would or wouldn't do. Are you jumping to conclusions or something?
But honestly, I guess I WOULD know my first response. I think I said it above in one of the previous posts. (Hint: It deals with Jesus.)
Brandon: OK…second response. How’s that? The point I’m making is that that is the signal I’m getting.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/23/2008 12:11:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/23/2008 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes.
One Love said...Selah: T: If this were my daughter I would encourage her to have the baby and support her through her pregnacy. I would absolutely never recommend she kill her child. Never. To me THAT would cause her more suffering! As much as the child is a part of the rapist, it is a part of her... Moreover, GOD gives life. The child is a part of God, right?... It's never our right to take life away.So, then you are FIRMLY and ABSOLUTELY against the "day after pill", right...even in the cases of rape and incest? You do believe that life begins at conception, right? So you would be against anything that would abridge or "abort" the post-fertilization implantation of an blastocyst...when it becomes an embryo. Is this right?
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love." ~ Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/23/2008 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | No. This is not a case for justified abortion. Having an abortion, in my mind, INCREASES the pain and suffering for this young woman. Besides that, EVERYone has potential and purpose. Let God bring good out of evil through this child... don't increase the effects of evil by having the woman live forever with the pain of knowing she took that life...
Children are a gift from the Lord (doesn't it say that somewhere?)
One Love said...
Actually, let me raise the stakes a bit. Here's a true story I've heard somewhere.
A young woman around 23 has 3 children already, one of which is a newborn. She's been raped by her last ex-boyfriend (who is physically abusive)...and may be pregnant and is considering an abortion if her next period is late.
Is this a "case" for justified abortion? Selah? Brandon?
(Not ignoring you, Corey. I'm tracking with you, actually.)
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love." ~ Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/23/2008 11:13 PM (GMT -6) | | So basically, the mantra is Obama's OVERALL policies will reduce abortions. What do you think about this?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/24/2008 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | | S: I'm 94% sure I'm pro choice. God gives us the freedom to kill babies.
Sweet Selah, I think you're one of the most awesome people in the world, but gently now, this is some of the sloppiest thinking I've encountered in a long time. (Aww.... I hate to be rough! But in the interest of truth -- not to mention the unborn kids! --, I feel compelled to be blunt this time. I hope you and I have established a context of trust. I care way more about you than I do this topic.)
We're not debating whether we have the volitional capacity of choosing an abortion. And we're not debating whether God gave us free will. But it's a FRICKIN' HUGE LEAP to get from there to the conclusion that we ought to not have laws enforcing the protection of the life of a human person. Why do we have any such laws, whether we're talking the unborn or not? Didn't God give us the freedom (freewill potential) to have other gods before him, to make idols, to abuse his name, to desecrate the sabbath, to dishonor our parents, to murder, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, to covet? Yes, of course we have this freedom of will, but obviously that didn't stop God from codifying into law what the correct choice is. The morality of the choice was NOT left up to the individual, only whether or not to comply.
Just because God gave us freewill in this regard in no way implies or entails that the choice is morally neutral, or that the morally superior position ought not be codified into law.
It's my belief that the only way abortion ought be legal is if we're convinced the fetus is not a human person. That's where the debate needs to center, the rest of it hinges on that. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/24/2008 7:05:08 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | |
OK. So we have 1.2 MILLION lives aborted each year in the United States. Even if we were to allow exceptions such as rape, which account for a small number of pregnancies, and given the fact that most people would prefer a reduction in abortions, you have to admit that that is a lot of needless abortions. Its hard to not “ mistake this for some type of liberal anarchist and immoral lawlessness.” I mean that kind of language rings hollow man. The sheer scale of abortions dwarfs the enormity of even other PER SE equally grave issues like euthanasia and ESCR (embryonic stem cell research), as well as serious issues such as the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Anything that reduces the incidence of abortion is obviously TO THAT EXTENT a good thing.
Now, Obama’s position on this is that his OVER ALL policies will or are likely to decrease abortion.
How do they know this? Is this even knowable? How can anyone predict what the abortion rate will be in the next four to eight years regardless of whatever parties are in office or what effect if any their policies will have on abortion? If we can’t know why abortion rates have dropped in the recent past, how can we predict what trajectories they will take going into the future?
It may be the case that "improving the economic well-being of the average family in general, and of the women facing the abortion decision in particular, can save unborn lives." Of course, it's also true that the "economic well-being of the average family in general" rests at least significantly on factors beyond any president's control, even assuming that Obama would pursue the right policies successfully while McCain would not.
However, Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (which he is determined to do, and which he may well have at least as much chance of succeeding at doing as "improving the economic well-being of the average family in general") would COST unborn lives. How do advocates of this position account for that?
Even if it were true that a candidates position would reduce abortions, this says nothing of the law itself that would call evil good and good evil. Again, it is the first and most fundamental responsibility of civil society to safeguard the right to life of every member of the community. The law must recognize this first and most fundamental duty before it can begin to fulfill it.
As a friend of mine says, “In our society today, the juridical fiat, functioning as law, that the right to end innocent human life is guaranteed in our nation's foundational legal document subverts the whole basis of civil law and jurisprudence more critically than any other injustice we face. This is not to elevate abortion above other life issues in terms of moral gravity; it's just that we are not (yet) burdened by a Supreme Court decision positing iron-clad constitutional warrant for, say, the right to "die with dignity." In American rule of law as we know it today, the fiction of the "right to choose" is the knife in the heart of justice. Or the scissors in the back of the skull.”
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/24/2008 8:26:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | You haven't. You can't be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. That's a no-brainer.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | By the way. I'd say it's being more vice-regent than lord. Yes?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/24/2008 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey and Selah. Serious question for the Kierkegaard enthusiasts.
Would Kierkegaard consider a human fetus a "human person"? If so, why? If not, why not?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/24/2008 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: First, I think you might be confusing salvation by law with civil law and you seem to intuitively recognize this as for when you say: “ However, this does not mean we claim that the external law is abolished, it still has a vital function in steering our judgement and framing justice in this world.” Now, I’m not suggesting that OT laws and especially modern days laws are salvific in nature, but I think you might be on to something when you say they function to help us in our judgements and framing justice in this world. Thus I think one can make a statement about say alleviating poverty through governmental means based in OT legalities. There’s enough there to help guide I think.
Mark: No Brandon, you’re not tracking with me very well on this, you are fragmenting what I’m trying to convey. First off, I’m speaking as a Christian, one that’s tired of defending myself from the likes of other Christians (Pacifist, Catholics, Evangelicals, etc.) claiming that it’s a sin to vote, or not to vote or who to vote for. I’m saying no true Christian can place manmade pagan laws above the Royal Law, The Perfect Law, the Law of Liberty. James reconciles this point with the Sermon on the Mount when he says: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. “ In other words, perfect law is not penned from the hand of man, it cannot be legislated. No multitude of laws, filling endless books of annals, could ever reach the floor of heaven, unlike one act of love that can. All of these manmade laws are attempting to work around the absence of the Royal Law, the works of love. We are to submit to the Royal Law that is written on the heart of man, the law to love that fulfils all laws. What we have instead is a web of manmade laws that have become a fortification to harbour deceit and corruption of the Royal Law as we falsely judge the true spirit of law.
“Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor? “ –James
I fully respect everyone’s choice to vote and hope it’s done out of good conscience, that’s all I can ask.
Brandon: Second, it seems to me that you think that the Sermon on the Mount is concerned with exceptions to external laws in unique circumstances. Once again, No. See above. This is not about exceptions to the law, this is about how no Christian can ever possibly fill any law, period, once removed from Perfect Law. This is about men that think if they pass a law against abortion that they can rest with a clean conscience with no regards for their sin that was perpetrated on the woman.
Bradon: However, there are laws that are wholly good in excluding only evils and not preventing goods. Minimal laws against elective abortions would certainly fit this description. Any suggestion that an elective abortion could ever be "a choice for a greater good that factors in love" seems to me to be profoundly contrary to the gospel of life. Once again, your responses are not reflective of my view, I posed the above statement as a question. The key word in the question is “love”, so the only thing that would be contrary to the gospel of life would be a perversion of Divine love. This endless pursuit to create pagan laws with the hope to fulfill Divine love is a ridiculous belief for Christians, it’s a pagan dream of utopia.
Brandon: Again, you might as well say the same of rape, or slavery, or child abuse. Can we set aside the Sermon on the Mount? Can we set aside looking out for the interests of the most vulnerable members among us? There is no civil law against adultery, does that make it morally right, are you morally accountable for not changing the law? I say, you are morally accountable for the act of committing adulatory, and like I said before, men are morally accountable for their individual part played in abortion. Men fornicate woman and then place the onus on them, leaving them with child, in a man’s world without a real man.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others." Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 10/24/2008 10:56:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | TA, if someone jumps you from behind when you are travelling down a desert hilly road. What would be the most loving response for the situation?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/24/2008 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
TA, if someone jumps you from behind when you are travelling down a desert hilly road. What would be the most loving response for the situation?
Ooh, ooh! Can I answer?
"Call on the Spirit of Jesus IMMEDIATELY, bringing Him into the situation!"
The most loving thing we could do for the victim AND the victimizer is to NOT IGNORE God's Presence during the time of trial...and going into ego-defense mode. (Limbic/reptilian brain activity, too?)
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/24/2008 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
BBBCanada said...
TA, if someone jumps you from behind when you are travelling down a desert hilly road. What would be the most loving response for the situation?
I would evangelize to him…as I kick the living daylights out of him. Then I would tie him up and waterboard him until he signs a legal document stating his conversion to love everyone. Then I would beat my chest with righteousness and send the man off to proclaim the good news of ass kicking love.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | |
We are on slightly different pages at this point. One is more individualistic it seems while another is more communitarian in nature. Matt 4:23 and 9:35 Jesus both “went about…teaching..and preaching…and “went about doing good and healing” Acts 10:38 So evangelism and social concern have been intimately related to one another. Christians have engaged in both activities quite unselfconsciously without feeling any need to define what they were doing and why. That’s the mandate in scripture, right?
Evangelism, no problem. Do we need to ask Jesus into this? Well, yeah. We do. We still need to look at the situation. Assess. Stragetigize, etc. ALL PRAYFULLY. Right? Social concern? Another question. Would not the loving thing to do in that situation be to help the person? I mean doesn’t Jesus show us that in the Good Samaritan story in describing who our neighbour is?
Well, if you are think of social concern in terms of social service meaning to relieve human need, philanthropic activity, doing works of mercy, ministering to individuals and families, I would say, again, yes. Do it all PRAYERFULLY.
However, there is another response to the situation and that is SOCIAL ACTION. The removing the CAUSES of human need via political and economic activity, seeking to transform the structures of society, the quest for justice.
Is it more loving to help in terms of social service or in terms of social action? I’m simply saying that social action is a very loving response. HOW we carry that out, is another question and it is here where we need the Spirit. Nobody is saying to NOT invite Jesus into the situation. We need his power and strength because the need is so great.
I have to get ready for work, but I'll try and get on your Kierkegaardian question. I think we human persons constituted as biologically, psychologically, relational and temporal and eschatological each functioning as a part of the whole but with none capabable of defining the whole.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | LOL! ROTFLMAO!
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/24/2008 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Evangelism, no problem. Do we need to ask Jesus into this? Well, yeah. We do. We still need to look at the situation. Assess. Stragetigize, etc. ALL PRAYFULLY. Right? Social concern? Another question. Would not the loving thing to do in that situation be to help the person? I mean doesn’t Jesus show us that in the Good Samaritan story in describing who our neighbour is?
Well, if you are think of social concern in terms of social service meaning to relieve human need, philanthropic activity, doing works of mercy, ministering to individuals and families, I would say, again, yes. Do it all PRAYERFULLY.
I respectfully disagree.
James Loder. Transforming Moment. Pg. 110.
To be sure, the Christian ecstatic is liberated by a new awareness; the "I," as in therapeutic knowing, is set in the position of being free to choose for or against the new World Christ intends. Yet this sort of freedom and power to create depends entirely on discerning the intentionality of Christ. The point is not to discover how to do things "spiritually", but to discover what the Spirit of Christ is doing so as to choose for HIS World.
Thus, the Christian response is less likely to be marked with manifestations of spiritual power than by sacrificial love. But even here, one does not decide ahead of time what is loving and then seek spiritual power for doing that; rather, one seeks the Presence of Christ and receives discernment regarding HIS intention so that freedom, power, or whatever may be called for will have contours that fit what God is already doing. In Christian terms, one seeks to compose ONLY the World that God is composing.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/24/2008 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...I don't think that is problematic for what I'm saying Dwayne, especially your highlighted part. I think what God is composing is justice. I think justice manifested in terms of equal rights for women and blacks and minorities is the work of God in the earth in line to some degree or another with a sound biblical eschatology.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/24/2008 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Jesus is pro-life and pro-choice, don't you? If not, please tell me why you don't think so.
BBBCanada said...You haven't. You can't be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. That's a no-brainer.
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love." ~ Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/25/2008 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Would Kierkegaard consider a human fetus a "human person"? If so, why? If not, why not?
Corey: I suggest, "yes". The fetus is a being created in God's image, thus suitable for a love relationship with him. This is the essence of being human: a love relationship with God. | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|