You Tube has been having issues and comments are taking a long time to show up, but they usually do show up eventually, so it's best to assume that they will and only repost if they haven't appeared after several hours.
Another thing I find hypocritical is a pro-choice, anti-death penalty liberal... They think a serial killer, a serial rapist or a pedophile has more of a right to live than an unborn baby? To me, it seems that they're defending dangerous criminals who harm women and children over an unborn baby... That's how I see it. Their excuse is that it's not a developed human at the time of abortion but if one wouldn't disrupt the process it would be a "fully-developed" baby soon enough.
I'm pro-life but in the case of rape I'm really unsure and confused... I mean the girl didn't choose to have sex, it wasn't a result of her irresponsibility or anything of that nature. It's sad because she has to bear the child when she might only be a teenager or a young adult who wasn't ready... But at the same time this is a child... but it's just so confusing. I would never condemn a female for getting an abortion under these circumstances but I would admire her for raising the child anyway.
i agree. not all rape victims would be able to emotionally and physically handle 9 months of pregnancy on top of the trauma of birth. my friend was one of them. in that case it definetly needs to be the womans decision. as far as it being birth control, i could see outlawing it for that because that is just plain stupidity.
Generalizations are convenient for the sake your argument, but they are most definitely dead ends. What is your goal here? What is the intention behind this video?
I often feel despair to realize we fought a Civil War over slavery, yet TODAY every human being in America starts life as a slave. For the first 9 months of their life, every American is a slave to a woman. She can have it tortured and killed any time she wants. No husband or father can protect his offspring or son from being murdered during this time. Cameras inside the womb PROVE we're killing human beings. Yet we claim the Constitution DEMANDS this? Why was abortion illegal in 1792 then?
The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, you dumbass. Slavery wasn't even thought about during the war, until three years after it started. For somebody who claims to know American history, you're really lacking.
And a fetus isn't in danger of being aborted for the first 9 months. The abortion can only be performed during the first few weeks of development. Otherwise, it will not only kill the fetus, it'll kill the woman as well.
And, who really knows when the soul enters the fetus, or the newborn? The spirit? If man is more than his physical body, then should one not consider these aspects as well, in this discussion?
Here again, we can learn things from the Bible. God knows the preborn child. Psalm 139 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Exodus 21:22-25: 22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The 'thou shalt not kill' is countered by the Bible with justification to kill the holy temple of our brothers, our sisters? For me, all life is holy. Nothing justifies taking a life. To kill my brother is to kill me. And if someone were about to kill you? Some would say that if one brother feels the great need to kill your body, one can be strong in faith and know that he/she does not die, that the body temple is but part of his/her being, that the soul lives forever...
First of all, this comes from Exodus 20:13 and the word you call "kill" is actually the Hebrew word "Ratsach" which is better translated as "murder" and IS translated as such in the best translations. Killing is a different thing and if all killing were against God's law then God himself would have ordered man to be guilty of this time and time again. According to the Bible there are justifiable reasons for killing. Capitol punishment and war are among them.
A double standard regarding the sanctity of human life absolutely astonishes me...that some religious people, who believe so strongly in the rights of the fetus yet do not have a problem with killing under certain circumstances i.e. wars, convicted prisoners, etc... I just do not understand the attitude of selective killing. How can we not honor and have compassion for ALL of human life? How does one so easily turn it on and off like a switch?
Ah, perhaps a difference in guilt and innocence? Also, as I have already stated here. I only support capitol punishment for the most heinous of killers who are unquestionably guilty.
And a woman who goes in for an abortion isn't killing her OWN child? Preacherman shakes his head at the double standard. Also, any real man will be just as responsible for that child as what he expects of the woman he slept with. When that doesn't happen, well, I covered that in the other video. I would have been happy to discuss this you, but in the other video you chose to personally insult me and therefore displayed your lack of character, so you are done.
Preacher,prior to this blog, i thought you had a logical brain, BUT to compare a eight year old child to a foetus is ABSURD! and a clinically controlled "operation" with counselling offered prior to and after, to be compared to taking a 8 year old girl out into a field and shooting that child,,,your OWN child <shakes her head, its SO left of field it AINT funny!
I agree. Unless of course God gives man the authority to make such judgements as is the case with capitol punishment, but we are never given the authority to kill our Children.
Correct or in the time of war and we are instructed by our leaders. Unless the order goes against Gods word or will. Then it is better to obey God then man.
I've read a hell of a lot about abortion over the last 2 years the only problem is whenever I ask about it people have an agenda. It's about the most biased arguement you can find.
Well I won't deny that. It's a matter of life and death and that using comes with an agenda. Someone is fighting for a right to life and someone else is fighting for the right to kill.
It's ironic how humans are the most intelligent species on the planet yet the disadvantage is we find imaginative ways to end eachothers lives. And I'm not just talking abortion.
I'm pro choice as a last resort because I believe that ultimately the woman should have total control over the state of her body and pregnancy. That hers is the last word on whether she gives birth or not. Further, bringing an unwanted or disadvantaged child into the world is a potential misery that should be avoided, again, as a last resort.
Yes, the fetus is alive but it has no human rights, is unformed and is only "potentially" a human being.
As an aside, I notice how some pro lifers espouse the sanctity of life mantra yet many of them are pro capital punishment. As you say, "who are we to destroy life". Well, if this is true, isn't it true of all life? That only God has the right to give and take life?
Then there's the question of human egocentricity: We kill other animals to survive, we kill them for sport and their pelts. We have no compunction in the taking of "God given" life except human...in selective cases.
Where does the sanctity of life come into all this? I'm musing on this purely in secular terms without consideration for the biblical argument.
To my mind, being agnostic, life at any stage in it's development is in the hands of us all. It requires sensitivity, compassion and understanding in making the right choices as to whether life is to be terminated.
A life that has been lived is not ours to take. A life that has yet to emerge into the world, as a final resort, for the sake of all involved may have to be forfeited...with deep regret. This is the choice that should be the right of all women
I suspected you probably wouldn't agree with these videos given your perspective, but my objective wasn't to convert people like yourself, rather it was help folks understand the reasons this is such a passionate issue for some people and that we are not all just a bunch loons.
I addressed some of your concerns in part two of this video and some others in my reply to helterskelter1. You say that the previable baby is only a potential human being and I would guess that is because you have no basis for the sanctity of life, but even from a scientific perspective, it's not just potential. If nature is allowed to take it's course, the vast majority of the time a fully formed human will result. But then there are those who feel it's ok to kill them too.
The basis I have for the sanctity of life is not based on religious faith, mine is known as Humanism which considers all life...ALL life should be cherished for the good of society, however, there are some circumstances under which life needs to be given up. For instance, I believe in saving the life of the condemned man because it's all he has but the condemned fetus has nothing but potential. It's not even conscious.
As for the scientific perspective, indeed if allowed to grow it'll become a baby. But the resemblance between a baby and a fetus is small. Life is precious, Mike, I agree. So too is the life in every living thing, yet some of us are very selective about what should live and what can die.
In the abortion debate, pro lifers often use their faith as the guiding principle of this selectiveness. I believe that those who don't believe have the right to choose as they see fit, according to their moral principles. This is what choice is all about.
Well, for Christians there is always a basis for the position they take. None of it is arbitrary or based on emotion. God tells us human life is sacred and so we keep that, but he also tells us that those who murder have lost their right to life. If life comes from God, then he also has the right to make those kinds of judgements. Having said that, and while I believe in capitol punishment, I think it must be exercised with extreme caution.
There is a basis for the position non believers take too if their ethics is based on firm principles. One does not need a God to be a righteous person. Life we innately know is precious because when you get down to it, it's all we have.
As for murder, if I recall the words of Jesus, he said: "But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."
Granted. But none of that had anything to do with murder. I mean Jesus himself was condemned to death unjustly. If ever there was a time to speak against the death penalty, had he wished to, I think that was it.
This is getting away from the subject a little but from my understanding, Jesus accepted his death so that he could die for our sins. He asked God to "take this cup away from me" in a moment of doubt but resolved to meet his fate in order to fulfill the prophecy. I don't think it entered his mind that then was the time to go anti-capital punishment.
You're exactly right. He went willingly, but had he chosen to speak against what they were going to do to him, it would not have changed what they did. Consider also the the thief who repented and asked Jesus to remember him. He told the other thief they were getting what they deserved. Did Jesus tell him "No, you don't deserve to die?" No, he just told him he would be with him in Paradise. Point being, he had ample opportunity speak against it, but he didn't.
It may also be worth noting that polls here in the US tell us that about 70 to 80 percent of Americans support capitol punishment and in many places here it is the law of the land. A law that unlike abortion was correctly passed. Now those who support abortion generally argue that we should not go against the established law in our land, but when it comes to capitol punishment they'd be happy to. Therefore, once again, the killers are more important than the babies.
In Australia you could reverse those figures. We did away with capital punishment in 1967. Our crime rates haven't changed percentage wise for decades.
I don't agree with you on liberal supporters of the law putting "killer's" lives ahead of "babies". Firstly, a fetus isn't a baby.
"Killers and babies" is an emotive comparison, you are using. Secondly, pro choice people arguing for the end of capital punishment doesn't mean they are "going against the law of the land". They are entitled to voice an opinion. I'm quite sure U.S pro choicers and Aussie ones like me see view saving an adult life and ending an unwanted fetus as two distinct matters.
I see them as two distinct matters as well. In fact, I don't think they have anything to do with each other, but it's the pro choice people who keep making the comparison. Also, the words I'm using may be emotive, but that doesn't make them any less true.
Not the pro choicers I know. One is about saving a conscious life, the other is about terminating an unconscious unformed life as a last resort. I believe in euthenasia for the same reason. A person has the right to terminate his own life when there is no hope left. When unconscious the plug may be pulled. The fetus and the unconscious dying man are thus the same: unconscious and unable to function without life support.
Well, that depends. I have no problem with the plug being pulled if a person can't live without life support and there is no hope of recovery. If a machine is having to keep you alive, that's not allowing nature to take it's course. But if the Person wants to be kept alive artificially that's fine. I also have no problem with DNR orders.
My only problem would be for people who can live without life support and are conscious and alert, but unable to talk and in a vegetative state. If they left no living will, some relatives will decide to starve them to death.
Well, we'll have to just disagree on that one because the only difference in my eyes is a matter of development. A two year old is no less a human being than a thirty year old is and neither is a one month old "fetus" any less a human being than two year old.
In fact, I would say that devaluing these children as being less than human is critical to the pro choice debate. People could never bare the thought of what's being done to them if they didn't convince themselves they were less than human. It's not unlike slavery in that way. Many people believed blacks were less than human so they didn't have a problem making slaves of them.
I think pro choicers are putting the rights of the mother and her circumstances first. Dehumanizing a fetus may be true of a minority for the sake of their argument, and obviously if allowed to live it would become a baby, but what is most valued to the majority is that human life be acknowledged as conscious living and breathing life, not the potentiality of that. That society cares above all for what is, not what may be. We aren't as heartless as you may think. :)
Not what may be, what will be and is. Everything that is needed is already there. All it needs is time. Even you, are arguing from a perspective that the baby is less than human, so I have trouble buying the idea that the argument is only the view of a minority. But the point you made was exactly the point of my video. That is exactly what I said demonstrates liberal logic in this case. That is the fact that you want to put convenience of the mother above the life of the baby.
In most cases, mothers would gladly give up their very lives for the sake of their Children, but liberals believe for the sake of convenience and for the sake of avoiding personal responsibility is makes perfect sense to kill the baby. It is a rather twisted set of priorities.
Again we come back to this definition. You call a fetus a baby and use this term to make analogies. A fetus isn't a baby, it has the potential to be a baby given time and health but at it's 1 month old state the similarities of a fetus and fully developed conscious baby is small.
Not really. Only in the sense of development. Everything needed is already there. Nothing has to be added to make it human. Only time is needed for growth and development. Just because you say it isn't human, doesn't it make it so. Just like when Darwin said blacks weren't really human didn't make that so.
Not that they weren't human, but that they were less human or inferior on the evolutionary scale than whites. He considered both blacks and aborigines to be most ape like. He also figured these lesser men would in time be exterminated. It can all be found in The Descent of Man.
Read the link I sent you in the PM. Darwin opposed slavery unlike many leading christians during the 19th century. His views were quite liberal and way ahead of his time for the average person during that time period. Compare his views with leading preachers during the mid 1800's
Darwin's view on slavery is not the point. Darwin's views on evolution were used a fodder for many who wanted to enslave and mistreat the blacks. The way you talk one would think that all Christians supported slavery. Not hardly. There were many great Christian people who stood against slavery.
Because people misunderstood Darwin and his views on slavery does not make Darwin responsible no more than it makes the Bible responsible for people who misunderstand it.
I didn't say the Bible doesn't talk about slavery, I said it does not teach racial inequality. Slavery was a common part of life in Biblical times and was more an issue of social standing and/or economic situation and not racism. The Bible speaks of it and even regulates it, but also condemns it in the case of Joseph, whose slavery had much more in common with the kind of slavery that effected the blacks in more recent times.
I agree and I find it very interesting that the Bible said some 2000 years ago that in Christ everyone is equal. God is no respecter of persons. Everyone has equal access to salvation and every man of every nation was created from one blood. This was a very unusual notion for those times and for most of our history up to the 20th century.
Not really. Slavery had some very different aspects in Biblical times than what we understand today. Often times, people went into slavery to pay off a debt or they went into it to make a better life for themselves. In other words, they sold themselves into slavery. Almost like joining the military. It's something you go into to better yourself, you are not free to leave at any time and you can face discipline. You may want to look into various aspects of slavery in ancient times.
It's not a baby, Mike, it's a growth in the woman's womb that is totally dependent on the health of the mother to survive. It becomes a baby at birth. And when I say "may" I mean if it lives. Many of the women who abort have a drug dependency or alcohol problems etc.
Ok, now we've reduced it down to nothing more than a growth. Funny I've never seen a one month old growth that has a beating heart. Wow! it doesn't become a baby until birth. One minute in the womb, nothing but a growth, next minute out of womb, presto, it's baby. I know they say that Christians don't get science, but please, that concept is laughable. No wonder some people are ok with killing babies up to full term.
You know what I mean. I'm using my term to illustrate the difference between a fully developed baby and a fetus. You used the analogy of someone going out and shooting his 8 yo daughter as the same thing as killing a fetus. A little far fetched don't you think? The girl has a life, is conscious, has a history and a foreseeable future. As a human being she cannot survive without dependingon anyone. The fetus cannot.
I don't think it's far fetched at all. The baby has a life, brain waves by six weeks, a short history (but a history none the less) and a foreseeable future. Even after birth a baby cannot live on it's own, but requires a great deal of help, so that kills your argument on that point. If it's just a matter of can it survive if taken out of the womb. Well it often can by about the fifth month, but you say it's not a baby til it's born, so you still lose on that point.
I didn't say a baby, I recalled your 8 yo girl analogy so my argument is very valid. You are saying an 8 year old child's life and that of a fetus are of equal value. There is no way you can justifiably say that. Common sense alone will show the vast difference in what is and what "probably" will be if it's born and fed and taken care of and reared properly...if, maybe.
I have no problem admitting that. We do put the woman ahead of the fetus. That's because she is a functioning living being with rights, responsibilities and hard decisions to make where as the fetus is an unconscious growth totally dependent on the mother. Remember, I did say 'as a last resort'.
I also think that part of the pro life argument comes from your belief in the divine God given spark of life being gifted to the fetus - that it is God's creation- thus your use of the word "baby". That's fine but it is your belief, not that of many others.
Thx but I disagree that science is on your side because what it really boils down to is whether it is ethical to terminate a life that has yet to be born, not whether it's technically a human being, a baby or anything else.
Ah, yes, now we get down to the heart of the matter. Ethics! In our modern age ethics have become a relative thing. There really is no right or wrong, but rather just what's right or wrong for you. But they usually say so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but this time it does, but we won't worry about that cuz we can't see it, we can't feel it, it's not really human so it must not feel any pain. I'm sure it doesn't even bleed. Hey, let's go let a killer out of jail, cuz we can see him.
Ethics evolves over time don't you think? Crucifying thieves in Christs time has evolved into doing time. It's called civilization and progress. Morality is not monolithic. It IS relavent to the times we live in. I'm not talking about the basic evils that we innately know is wrong like premeditated murder and rape etc.
As for hurting anyone, the taking of life involves pain no matter what it is, I grant you. It's sad but that's life. Executing a wronfully convicted man would hurt too.
Yeah, but who is speaking in favor of executing a wrongfully convicted man. I think I said yesterday that the death penalty should only be exercised with extreme caution. I think many women do innately know that it's wrong to have an abortion. As a pastor I have had to counsel women who've had them and are being eaten up by the guilt. But we are living in a culture that has devalued life and now we see young girls dumping their babies in trash cans to die. Why are we so surprised.
Gee, I can't imagine why you'd feel it needs to be "a last resort". The way you've described it couldn't be much more worthless. Besides, it's rarely ever a last resort here in America.
A last resort after counselling and consideration of all the options. Looking at government assistance programs. There are a whole raft of things to be considered but once all the options have been exhausted then the woman should be allowed the choice to terminate
Yeah, if she doesn't want to bother herself with going through the trouble of appealing to all those options. One of which I noticed you left off the list was adoption. There are tons of couples who would love to adopt a baby cuz they can't have one of their own, but they often have to wait years for that because there are not enough babies. But who cares? It's just a growth. Kind of like a nasty wart. Let's have it removed.
Adoption wasn't left off on purpose. That's a great idea and I am all for it if the woman is willing, BUT, it's her bay, her body and her life and if she chooses not to then that should be her right.
Wayne, I'll be honest with you. I think you and I could debate this all night long and never get anywhere. We just see these things differently and much of that has to do with our respective world views. Those world views are not likely to change and neither are our opinions on this issue.
Indeed. And if you study the cases of those who've been sentenced to death, you'll understand why. The state of TX has a website which lists each criminal sentenced to death, what their crimes were, who their victims were, and who their accomplices were. It gives graphic detail of the crimes committed. When you read those accounts, and imagine the evidence the jury must have seen and heard, you can understand their vote on the sentence.
This brings up the crime and punishment question. In ancient times, stealing was a capital offence, today you get a slap on the wrist. What exactly is the appropriate punishment for crimes? It changes as the times change.
Should we adhere to punishments as advocated in the bible or settle for as they are today? If murder in biblical times was a captital offence but so too theft, then is today's society wrong for it's more lenient sentences for lesser crimes? Are we to strictly adhere to an eye for an eye as in biblical times or be more progressive as exampled by our relative leniency today. What is true justice? Is it really set in stone or is it relative to the times and mood of the public?
Well, for one thing we have to remember that the laws, as we have them defined in the Bible were a legal code for the nation of Israel and were given for the purpose of crime and punishment in the age of the law. But even God himself did at times extend mercy to the guilty. King David probably should have had to face death for what he did to Uriah and Cain should have for killing Able, but in both cases, God had mercy on them. Yet as a rule, his people were told to take life for life.
Now the Bible puts us in the age of grace and while he has not told us that we cannot take life for life, I do believe we have the option to extend greater mercy than what they had in OT law. I do not believe that even everyone who commits murder should have to die, but I do believe the option should be reserved for those cases which are most hideous and for those people who pose the greatest threat to society.
Kind of like the way I'm ok with abortion for those cases which are most extreme, like when the pregnancy actually does threaten the life of the mother.
But as an agnostic you are really betting the farm by saying that. If there is a God, that fetus may very well have a purpose and value that goes far beyond that of potential. On the point of conscience. I think it says sad things about our society when we condemn those who are not only innocent and the weakest among us, but also unable to speak on their own behalf.
If there is great necessity such as the life of the mother, it's one thing, but when it's just because we don't want to be responsible for our actions, it's something else. Also, if I say it's my belief that I have the right to go out and kill my eight year old child, no one is going to say I am right to do that. But when those little ones are out of sight, it's all too easy to also put them out of mind.
Sure, I agree here. I did say 'as a last resort. I don't believe in abortion just because the mother couldn't be bothered having a kid. There must be rigorous grounds for an abortion to be legally performed but in the end, if those criteria are met then it's the mothers choice that is paramount.
There are no rigorous grounds for abortion here in the US. If there were, it probably would not bother me so as much. Abortion is available upon demand. Even to be used as a form of birth control and until recently it could be performed on anyone, even up to full term using what is called a partial birth abortion. All that required was for a doctor to say there was a health concern which in all honesty could be anything. It was recently discovered that a doctor in KS was just making up reasons.
Sure i'm betting the farm on it but so are you. We don't know and that's the bottom line so we adhere to what we believe in. And Mike, you are speaking of the fetus's innocence as if it was a person. It isn't. In fact in legal terms it's a non entity. This is why I ask for tolerance for those who want choice. If it's what they and I believe then isn't it their right?
The law has little to do with it because the law, at least here in the US was not made according to our law. Our supreme court made the law which supports abortion and according to the constitution, the court does not have such authority. The issue has never been officially debated here through proper channels or voted on by the people. We base our laws against murder on the teaching of religion and all lawful people accept them, but the biblical value of unborn life doesn't seem to matter.
I never consider the pro lifers as loons. Passionate and forthright, but never loons and of course the debate is a complex one in which both sides have valid points. I also knew that you knew that I would have this perspective. :) I just wanted to add my two cents worth.
I have 2 friends who thought it was alright to get an abortion, that it was just a fetus but not a baby yet. Afterwards they felt differently. They said suddenly their heart felt a life ripped away, whereas before they felt it was too early to be a "life" and they are haunted by it to this day. I am so thankful I have never been pregnant.
There are tons of stories like that. They should do a documentary on such women, although I doubt that would ever happen in our current political climate.
If intelligence is a yard stick for measuring the value of life than the chimp in this case wins. Why should animals lives be so disposable? Conservative logic says it's okay to kill non-christians and all animals. But let's protect that 2 week old liquid goo. If you value life it should be across the board and not selective based old primitive beliefs.
"Fetus" Heaven forbid we should call it a baby or a human. Who said anything about intelligence being a yard stick measuring the value of life? I guess you must be a Peta member, but sorry but I'm not going to debate that with you. I know of no Conservatives or Christians who believe it's ok to kill non Christians. There is far more to that "liquid goo" than you think there is.
I'm not a peta member. But I do value all life. If conservatives are pro-life why are so many of you war mongers? Lets save the fetus but will send them to die in war once their adults. Pro death penalty is another favorite. At least be consisted in your beliefs. Pro-life on one hand and pro-death on the other.
There is nothing inconsistent about supporting life for the innocent and justice for the those who maliciously take life. Only a liberal would believe a cold blooded killer is entitled to the same right to life as an innocent child. Also, I am not a war monger. I hate war. But I believe freedom comes at a price. You may not appreciate that price or the people who have died to keep you free, but if you end up praising Allah someday, I think you will get the picture.
Your opinion assumes all war is justified. The current war has done nothing but breed more terrorism. Iraq had no WMD or any of the other lies the public was given as to the reasons for this war. The conservatives were the main supporters. I am Pro-life unlike most conservatives.
Yet you seem to think it's ok to kill babies. Nobody lied to get us into this war. That is the same old tired liberal drivel I've been hearing for years and while it sounds good, it's completely ignorant of the facts. Bush and the majority of congress both Republicans and Democrats took action based on the best available intelligence that not only they, but also other countries all over the world believed. The intelligence was either bad or Saddam got rid of the weapons, but nobody lied.
Once Saddam was gone the war changed in nature from one of a preventative strike to one of helping the people of Iraq retain their liberty from the insurgents and others who want Iraq to fall back under tierney. While I will grant that Bush was woefully slow about re-evaluting the status of the war and making the changes needed to turn it back in our favor, he did eventually do so and it is now without question a mission of success.
If in these terrible times we ever have a president who doesn't have the guts to make the hard choices Bush has made and stand up to those who wish to destroy us, God help us all.
The Lord helps those who help themselves. He also has the wisdom to let those who want to jump off a cliff go ahead and jump. When in doubt read the manual. You preach it here regularly but I don't think Bush even knows it exists.
I presume you mean how little I understand Bush so maybe you can enlighten me. When Bush states his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" can you tell me where he's getting that from in the manual? I must have missed the part where Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims are all praying to the same God Christians are. Maybe that whole part about being a jealous God and having no other gods before me didn't apply to gods equated to me.
The war has neither changed in nature nor has Bush been slow about its prosecution. Look at results. Patriot act, Uniform Military commissions Act, Repeal of Posse Comitatus and Revision of the 1807 Insurrection Act among some of the most notable. Signing statements? Are you kidding me? America is loosing the "war" and it has nothing to do with Iraqis or insurgents and everything to do with willful blindness and abdication of responsibility ... just like abortion. Wise up.
Well, I guess you decided to start commenting after all. Even some of the biggest liberals out there who have condemned the war, have had to admit that the war is now succeeding. However, they do their best not to talk about it much. I don't have a problem with anything that's been done in legislation for the war on terror. We are at war and what we are doing now is nothing compared to what we have done in the past in order to protect this nation.
As to what the gov has done in the past versus the legislation I mentioned you haven't seen nothing yet. You best give up your idolization of the state and put all your faith into what that Bible teaches. I wouldn't want to be spreading the secular view over the biblical one. God does occasionally seem to pick sides in a war and the losers tend not to fare too well no matter what the odds. He has also shown a propensity to punish his chosen people when they get full of themselves.
Yea, I suppose I picked the wrong video to start commenting on, lol! Will you say the war is still succeeding 10 years from now? How about a 100? As I recall Bush said 5 yrs ago "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Good thing we didn't loose eh? Vietnam went what 10? 11 yrs? Care to place any bets on Iraq/Iran? A war succeeds when it is over, any claims of winning/victory before that are just propaganda.
I would not have an abortion. But, with the increasing human population around the world we will all suffer someday if something isn't done. Birth control is not the only answer.
I am pro-life but if someone feels abortion is in everyones best interest than it should be an option.
We are not running out of space. There are vast amounts of very habitable space in this world that are not being used. There are also vast amounts of resources to provide for people that are not being shared. Those are the problems that must be answered. Killing off excess humans is not the answer. Abortion is very rarely in anyone's best interest, least of all the baby in question. We can do much to help mothers who need help, if only we focused on that rather than on taking the easy way out.
Nobody lied? That's willful blindness and doesn't help your case or the country. All major wars are started with lies. Hitler lied to the Germans about the Reichstag and communism, The Americans were lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin, and Bush lied about WMDs and affiliations w/ AlQuaida. Nobody in their right mind starts a real war because you can NEVER predict the outcome. Saying you didn't know it was a lie worked "so well" for Mcnamara, so I'm sure it will have better results for Bush.
Choosing to believe that Bush lied, but not applying that same standard to the bulk of congress and other world leaders who believed the same intelligence, it just willful ignorance. He made a decision based on the best information available at the time. Assuming he knew something that no one else in the world knew is nothing short of ridiculous.
And who says I don't apply that same standard to congress or world leaders? Ever heard of The Downing Street Memo of July 2002? Bush and Blair knew the WMD bit was incorrect at best. Even were the lack of Iraq attack ability to be considered wrong you don't go to war over questionable evidence (Iran?). Congress more so holds the power of the purse and could stop this war anytime they chose. Instead they are a spineless bunch of rubber stamps for any BS that pops out the whitehouse derriere.
PM I love this response.Well said though I would tend to disagree with you on the war in Iraq but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Grace & Peace
That's ok. I'm accustomed to being in the minority where it comes to my position on the war, but you're right, this really has nothing to do with that.
It's so funny that folks are quick to call Bush a liar, yet Gore, both Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and many others agreed that the evidence supported the initiative to go in with force. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. No one knows going into an armed conflict what may occur. But no one calls the folks I mentioned above liars, even though ALL of them were of the same opinion as the president. There is so much misinformation out there, and most of it on the liberal side.
This is a HARD subject and kudos to you for making this video. There is a HUGE fallacy by the pro-abortion. Pre Roe v Wade it was legal for a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life or if there was a real chance of serious deformity of the unborn (ie exposure to rubella, one woman got one because while traveling in Europe she'd been given thalidemide).
It cannot live on its own even outside the body, so these claims that someone not being able to live outside the body invalidates their status as a human being are false. Babies can't live on their own.
Weird, my comments didn't display. Maybe they'll show up soon...
Mismagius 4 years ago
You Tube has been having issues and comments are taking a long time to show up, but they usually do show up eventually, so it's best to assume that they will and only repost if they haven't appeared after several hours.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Another thing I find hypocritical is a pro-choice, anti-death penalty liberal... They think a serial killer, a serial rapist or a pedophile has more of a right to live than an unborn baby? To me, it seems that they're defending dangerous criminals who harm women and children over an unborn baby... That's how I see it. Their excuse is that it's not a developed human at the time of abortion but if one wouldn't disrupt the process it would be a "fully-developed" baby soon enough.
Mismagius 4 years ago
Amen!
preacherman777 4 years ago
I'm pro-life but in the case of rape I'm really unsure and confused... I mean the girl didn't choose to have sex, it wasn't a result of her irresponsibility or anything of that nature. It's sad because she has to bear the child when she might only be a teenager or a young adult who wasn't ready... But at the same time this is a child... but it's just so confusing. I would never condemn a female for getting an abortion under these circumstances but I would admire her for raising the child anyway.
Mismagius 4 years ago
I feel the same way.
preacherman777 4 years ago
i agree. not all rape victims would be able to emotionally and physically handle 9 months of pregnancy on top of the trauma of birth. my friend was one of them. in that case it definetly needs to be the womans decision. as far as it being birth control, i could see outlawing it for that because that is just plain stupidity.
leiapeison 3 years ago
Yes I understand what you are saying and this video should help people to understand our pro-life point of view.
ApostleProphet 4 years ago
Thank you.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Generalizations are convenient for the sake your argument, but they are most definitely dead ends. What is your goal here? What is the intention behind this video?
thaumatology 4 years ago
I think I explained my intention in the video. To help people better understand pro-life people and why they are so passionate about the issue.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I often feel despair to realize we fought a Civil War over slavery, yet TODAY every human being in America starts life as a slave. For the first 9 months of their life, every American is a slave to a woman. She can have it tortured and killed any time she wants. No husband or father can protect his offspring or son from being murdered during this time. Cameras inside the womb PROVE we're killing human beings. Yet we claim the Constitution DEMANDS this? Why was abortion illegal in 1792 then?
scottfreitas 4 years ago
The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, you dumbass. Slavery wasn't even thought about during the war, until three years after it started. For somebody who claims to know American history, you're really lacking.
Shylaraes 4 years ago
And a fetus isn't in danger of being aborted for the first 9 months. The abortion can only be performed during the first few weeks of development. Otherwise, it will not only kill the fetus, it'll kill the woman as well.
Shylaraes 4 years ago
I was pro-life before I was a Christian. Fantastic video. I'm sorry it took me so long to get to it. Looking forward to part two.
(((Hugs))) to you & yours...
Paula
CagedSongBird 4 years ago
Thank you. There are many pro-life people who are not necessarily Christians. It's just the humane way to be.
preacherman777 4 years ago
And, who really knows when the soul enters the fetus, or the newborn? The spirit? If man is more than his physical body, then should one not consider these aspects as well, in this discussion?
LizBizToo 4 years ago
Here again, we can learn things from the Bible. God knows the preborn child. Psalm 139 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
preacherman777 4 years ago
15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Exodus 21:22-25: 22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
preacherman777 4 years ago
The 'thou shalt not kill' is countered by the Bible with justification to kill the holy temple of our brothers, our sisters? For me, all life is holy. Nothing justifies taking a life. To kill my brother is to kill me. And if someone were about to kill you? Some would say that if one brother feels the great need to kill your body, one can be strong in faith and know that he/she does not die, that the body temple is but part of his/her being, that the soul lives forever...
LizBizToo 4 years ago
First of all, this comes from Exodus 20:13 and the word you call "kill" is actually the Hebrew word "Ratsach" which is better translated as "murder" and IS translated as such in the best translations. Killing is a different thing and if all killing were against God's law then God himself would have ordered man to be guilty of this time and time again. According to the Bible there are justifiable reasons for killing. Capitol punishment and war are among them.
preacherman777 4 years ago
So your problem is not so much with pro life people as it is with God or at least the Bible.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Saint1 and HelterSkelter I agree with you here.
A double standard regarding the sanctity of human life absolutely astonishes me...that some religious people, who believe so strongly in the rights of the fetus yet do not have a problem with killing under certain circumstances i.e. wars, convicted prisoners, etc... I just do not understand the attitude of selective killing. How can we not honor and have compassion for ALL of human life? How does one so easily turn it on and off like a switch?
LizBizToo 4 years ago
Ah, perhaps a difference in guilt and innocence? Also, as I have already stated here. I only support capitol punishment for the most heinous of killers who are unquestionably guilty.
preacherman777 4 years ago
And a woman who goes in for an abortion isn't killing her OWN child? Preacherman shakes his head at the double standard. Also, any real man will be just as responsible for that child as what he expects of the woman he slept with. When that doesn't happen, well, I covered that in the other video. I would have been happy to discuss this you, but in the other video you chose to personally insult me and therefore displayed your lack of character, so you are done.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Preacher,prior to this blog, i thought you had a logical brain, BUT to compare a eight year old child to a foetus is ABSURD! and a clinically controlled "operation" with counselling offered prior to and after, to be compared to taking a 8 year old girl out into a field and shooting that child,,,your OWN child <shakes her head, its SO left of field it AINT funny!
kiwigal36 4 years ago
Abortion is murder and when is it ever ok to commit murder? Only God can decided life and death, who are we oh man to play God.
mcguck 4 years ago
I agree. Unless of course God gives man the authority to make such judgements as is the case with capitol punishment, but we are never given the authority to kill our Children.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Correct or in the time of war and we are instructed by our leaders. Unless the order goes against Gods word or will. Then it is better to obey God then man.
mcguck 4 years ago 2
To be honest I don't know about abortion. I seemed to have ignored it.
themanwhoknew 4 years ago
Never hurts to learn something new.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I've read a hell of a lot about abortion over the last 2 years the only problem is whenever I ask about it people have an agenda. It's about the most biased arguement you can find.
themanwhoknew 4 years ago
Well I won't deny that. It's a matter of life and death and that using comes with an agenda. Someone is fighting for a right to life and someone else is fighting for the right to kill.
preacherman777 4 years ago
It's ironic how humans are the most intelligent species on the planet yet the disadvantage is we find imaginative ways to end eachothers lives. And I'm not just talking abortion.
themanwhoknew 4 years ago 2
You are right about that.
preacherman777 4 years ago
What a profound comment
SadieDammit 4 years ago
yeah I know lol
themanwhoknew 4 years ago
I love this subject! :)
I'm pro choice as a last resort because I believe that ultimately the woman should have total control over the state of her body and pregnancy. That hers is the last word on whether she gives birth or not. Further, bringing an unwanted or disadvantaged child into the world is a potential misery that should be avoided, again, as a last resort.
Yes, the fetus is alive but it has no human rights, is unformed and is only "potentially" a human being.
sainter1 4 years ago
As an aside, I notice how some pro lifers espouse the sanctity of life mantra yet many of them are pro capital punishment. As you say, "who are we to destroy life". Well, if this is true, isn't it true of all life? That only God has the right to give and take life?
Then there's the question of human egocentricity: We kill other animals to survive, we kill them for sport and their pelts. We have no compunction in the taking of "God given" life except human...in selective cases.
sainter1 4 years ago
Where does the sanctity of life come into all this? I'm musing on this purely in secular terms without consideration for the biblical argument.
To my mind, being agnostic, life at any stage in it's development is in the hands of us all. It requires sensitivity, compassion and understanding in making the right choices as to whether life is to be terminated.
sainter1 4 years ago
A life that has been lived is not ours to take. A life that has yet to emerge into the world, as a final resort, for the sake of all involved may have to be forfeited...with deep regret. This is the choice that should be the right of all women
sainter1 4 years ago
Sainter1 I agree with everything you said.
Thumbs up
helterskelter1 4 years ago
Thx Helter'. :)
sainter1 4 years ago
I suspected you probably wouldn't agree with these videos given your perspective, but my objective wasn't to convert people like yourself, rather it was help folks understand the reasons this is such a passionate issue for some people and that we are not all just a bunch loons.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I addressed some of your concerns in part two of this video and some others in my reply to helterskelter1. You say that the previable baby is only a potential human being and I would guess that is because you have no basis for the sanctity of life, but even from a scientific perspective, it's not just potential. If nature is allowed to take it's course, the vast majority of the time a fully formed human will result. But then there are those who feel it's ok to kill them too.
preacherman777 4 years ago
The basis I have for the sanctity of life is not based on religious faith, mine is known as Humanism which considers all life...ALL life should be cherished for the good of society, however, there are some circumstances under which life needs to be given up. For instance, I believe in saving the life of the condemned man because it's all he has but the condemned fetus has nothing but potential. It's not even conscious.
sainter1 4 years ago
As for the scientific perspective, indeed if allowed to grow it'll become a baby. But the resemblance between a baby and a fetus is small. Life is precious, Mike, I agree. So too is the life in every living thing, yet some of us are very selective about what should live and what can die.
sainter1 4 years ago
In the abortion debate, pro lifers often use their faith as the guiding principle of this selectiveness. I believe that those who don't believe have the right to choose as they see fit, according to their moral principles. This is what choice is all about.
sainter1 4 years ago
Well, for Christians there is always a basis for the position they take. None of it is arbitrary or based on emotion. God tells us human life is sacred and so we keep that, but he also tells us that those who murder have lost their right to life. If life comes from God, then he also has the right to make those kinds of judgements. Having said that, and while I believe in capitol punishment, I think it must be exercised with extreme caution.
preacherman777 4 years ago
There is a basis for the position non believers take too if their ethics is based on firm principles. One does not need a God to be a righteous person. Life we innately know is precious because when you get down to it, it's all we have.
sainter1 4 years ago
As for murder, if I recall the words of Jesus, he said: "But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back."
sainter1 4 years ago
Granted. But none of that had anything to do with murder. I mean Jesus himself was condemned to death unjustly. If ever there was a time to speak against the death penalty, had he wished to, I think that was it.
preacherman777 4 years ago
This is getting away from the subject a little but from my understanding, Jesus accepted his death so that he could die for our sins. He asked God to "take this cup away from me" in a moment of doubt but resolved to meet his fate in order to fulfill the prophecy. I don't think it entered his mind that then was the time to go anti-capital punishment.
sainter1 4 years ago
You're exactly right. He went willingly, but had he chosen to speak against what they were going to do to him, it would not have changed what they did. Consider also the the thief who repented and asked Jesus to remember him. He told the other thief they were getting what they deserved. Did Jesus tell him "No, you don't deserve to die?" No, he just told him he would be with him in Paradise. Point being, he had ample opportunity speak against it, but he didn't.
preacherman777 4 years ago
It may also be worth noting that polls here in the US tell us that about 70 to 80 percent of Americans support capitol punishment and in many places here it is the law of the land. A law that unlike abortion was correctly passed. Now those who support abortion generally argue that we should not go against the established law in our land, but when it comes to capitol punishment they'd be happy to. Therefore, once again, the killers are more important than the babies.
preacherman777 4 years ago
In Australia you could reverse those figures. We did away with capital punishment in 1967. Our crime rates haven't changed percentage wise for decades.
I don't agree with you on liberal supporters of the law putting "killer's" lives ahead of "babies". Firstly, a fetus isn't a baby.
sainter1 4 years ago
"Killers and babies" is an emotive comparison, you are using. Secondly, pro choice people arguing for the end of capital punishment doesn't mean they are "going against the law of the land". They are entitled to voice an opinion. I'm quite sure U.S pro choicers and Aussie ones like me see view saving an adult life and ending an unwanted fetus as two distinct matters.
sainter1 4 years ago
I see them as two distinct matters as well. In fact, I don't think they have anything to do with each other, but it's the pro choice people who keep making the comparison. Also, the words I'm using may be emotive, but that doesn't make them any less true.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Not the pro choicers I know. One is about saving a conscious life, the other is about terminating an unconscious unformed life as a last resort. I believe in euthenasia for the same reason. A person has the right to terminate his own life when there is no hope left. When unconscious the plug may be pulled. The fetus and the unconscious dying man are thus the same: unconscious and unable to function without life support.
sainter1 4 years ago
Btw, euthenasia could be the subject of your next vid. I think I know how you feel about it lol.
sainter1 4 years ago
Well, that depends. I have no problem with the plug being pulled if a person can't live without life support and there is no hope of recovery. If a machine is having to keep you alive, that's not allowing nature to take it's course. But if the Person wants to be kept alive artificially that's fine. I also have no problem with DNR orders.
preacherman777 4 years ago
My only problem would be for people who can live without life support and are conscious and alert, but unable to talk and in a vegetative state. If they left no living will, some relatives will decide to starve them to death.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I agree with you...finally. Fancy that, An agnostic liberal and a Christian conservative seeing eye to eye. LOL!
sainter1 4 years ago
Well, we'll have to just disagree on that one because the only difference in my eyes is a matter of development. A two year old is no less a human being than a thirty year old is and neither is a one month old "fetus" any less a human being than two year old.
preacherman777 4 years ago
In fact, I would say that devaluing these children as being less than human is critical to the pro choice debate. People could never bare the thought of what's being done to them if they didn't convince themselves they were less than human. It's not unlike slavery in that way. Many people believed blacks were less than human so they didn't have a problem making slaves of them.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I think pro choicers are putting the rights of the mother and her circumstances first. Dehumanizing a fetus may be true of a minority for the sake of their argument, and obviously if allowed to live it would become a baby, but what is most valued to the majority is that human life be acknowledged as conscious living and breathing life, not the potentiality of that. That society cares above all for what is, not what may be. We aren't as heartless as you may think. :)
sainter1 4 years ago
Not what may be, what will be and is. Everything that is needed is already there. All it needs is time. Even you, are arguing from a perspective that the baby is less than human, so I have trouble buying the idea that the argument is only the view of a minority. But the point you made was exactly the point of my video. That is exactly what I said demonstrates liberal logic in this case. That is the fact that you want to put convenience of the mother above the life of the baby.
preacherman777 4 years ago
In most cases, mothers would gladly give up their very lives for the sake of their Children, but liberals believe for the sake of convenience and for the sake of avoiding personal responsibility is makes perfect sense to kill the baby. It is a rather twisted set of priorities.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Again we come back to this definition. You call a fetus a baby and use this term to make analogies. A fetus isn't a baby, it has the potential to be a baby given time and health but at it's 1 month old state the similarities of a fetus and fully developed conscious baby is small.
sainter1 4 years ago
Not really. Only in the sense of development. Everything needed is already there. Nothing has to be added to make it human. Only time is needed for growth and development. Just because you say it isn't human, doesn't it make it so. Just like when Darwin said blacks weren't really human didn't make that so.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Darwin never said blacks weren't really human.
What creationist source did you get that from?
helterskelter1 4 years ago
Not that they weren't human, but that they were less human or inferior on the evolutionary scale than whites. He considered both blacks and aborigines to be most ape like. He also figured these lesser men would in time be exterminated. It can all be found in The Descent of Man.
LiberalLogic 4 years ago
Read the link I sent you in the PM. Darwin opposed slavery unlike many leading christians during the 19th century. His views were quite liberal and way ahead of his time for the average person during that time period. Compare his views with leading preachers during the mid 1800's
helterskelter1 4 years ago
Darwin's view on slavery is not the point. Darwin's views on evolution were used a fodder for many who wanted to enslave and mistreat the blacks. The way you talk one would think that all Christians supported slavery. Not hardly. There were many great Christian people who stood against slavery.
LiberalLogic 4 years ago
Because people misunderstood Darwin and his views on slavery does not make Darwin responsible no more than it makes the Bible responsible for people who misunderstand it.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
That's just stupid. The Bible does not teach racial inequality. Darwin did.
preacherman777 4 years ago
The bible doesn't talk about slavery?
helterskelter1 4 years ago
I didn't say the Bible doesn't talk about slavery, I said it does not teach racial inequality. Slavery was a common part of life in Biblical times and was more an issue of social standing and/or economic situation and not racism. The Bible speaks of it and even regulates it, but also condemns it in the case of Joseph, whose slavery had much more in common with the kind of slavery that effected the blacks in more recent times.
preacherman777 4 years ago
There is very little and some will argue no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Inequality is just as bad as slavery.
Slavery is slavery no matter how you slice it.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
I meant to say inequality is just as bad as racism.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
I agree and I find it very interesting that the Bible said some 2000 years ago that in Christ everyone is equal. God is no respecter of persons. Everyone has equal access to salvation and every man of every nation was created from one blood. This was a very unusual notion for those times and for most of our history up to the 20th century.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Not really. Slavery had some very different aspects in Biblical times than what we understand today. Often times, people went into slavery to pay off a debt or they went into it to make a better life for themselves. In other words, they sold themselves into slavery. Almost like joining the military. It's something you go into to better yourself, you are not free to leave at any time and you can face discipline. You may want to look into various aspects of slavery in ancient times.
preacherman777 4 years ago
It's not a baby, Mike, it's a growth in the woman's womb that is totally dependent on the health of the mother to survive. It becomes a baby at birth. And when I say "may" I mean if it lives. Many of the women who abort have a drug dependency or alcohol problems etc.
sainter1 4 years ago
Ok, now we've reduced it down to nothing more than a growth. Funny I've never seen a one month old growth that has a beating heart. Wow! it doesn't become a baby until birth. One minute in the womb, nothing but a growth, next minute out of womb, presto, it's baby. I know they say that Christians don't get science, but please, that concept is laughable. No wonder some people are ok with killing babies up to full term.
preacherman777 4 years ago
You know what I mean. I'm using my term to illustrate the difference between a fully developed baby and a fetus. You used the analogy of someone going out and shooting his 8 yo daughter as the same thing as killing a fetus. A little far fetched don't you think? The girl has a life, is conscious, has a history and a foreseeable future. As a human being she cannot survive without dependingon anyone. The fetus cannot.
sainter1 4 years ago
Correction - I meant the girl CAN survive.
sainter1 4 years ago
I don't think it's far fetched at all. The baby has a life, brain waves by six weeks, a short history (but a history none the less) and a foreseeable future. Even after birth a baby cannot live on it's own, but requires a great deal of help, so that kills your argument on that point. If it's just a matter of can it survive if taken out of the womb. Well it often can by about the fifth month, but you say it's not a baby til it's born, so you still lose on that point.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I didn't say a baby, I recalled your 8 yo girl analogy so my argument is very valid. You are saying an 8 year old child's life and that of a fetus are of equal value. There is no way you can justifiably say that. Common sense alone will show the vast difference in what is and what "probably" will be if it's born and fed and taken care of and reared properly...if, maybe.
sainter1 4 years ago
I have no problem admitting that. We do put the woman ahead of the fetus. That's because she is a functioning living being with rights, responsibilities and hard decisions to make where as the fetus is an unconscious growth totally dependent on the mother. Remember, I did say 'as a last resort'.
sainter1 4 years ago
I also think that part of the pro life argument comes from your belief in the divine God given spark of life being gifted to the fetus - that it is God's creation- thus your use of the word "baby". That's fine but it is your belief, not that of many others.
sainter1 4 years ago
Well, I'll give you that, but I also believe the science is on my side.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Thx but I disagree that science is on your side because what it really boils down to is whether it is ethical to terminate a life that has yet to be born, not whether it's technically a human being, a baby or anything else.
sainter1 4 years ago
Ah, yes, now we get down to the heart of the matter. Ethics! In our modern age ethics have become a relative thing. There really is no right or wrong, but rather just what's right or wrong for you. But they usually say so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but this time it does, but we won't worry about that cuz we can't see it, we can't feel it, it's not really human so it must not feel any pain. I'm sure it doesn't even bleed. Hey, let's go let a killer out of jail, cuz we can see him.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Ethics evolves over time don't you think? Crucifying thieves in Christs time has evolved into doing time. It's called civilization and progress. Morality is not monolithic. It IS relavent to the times we live in. I'm not talking about the basic evils that we innately know is wrong like premeditated murder and rape etc.
As for hurting anyone, the taking of life involves pain no matter what it is, I grant you. It's sad but that's life. Executing a wronfully convicted man would hurt too.
sainter1 4 years ago
Yeah, but who is speaking in favor of executing a wrongfully convicted man. I think I said yesterday that the death penalty should only be exercised with extreme caution. I think many women do innately know that it's wrong to have an abortion. As a pastor I have had to counsel women who've had them and are being eaten up by the guilt. But we are living in a culture that has devalued life and now we see young girls dumping their babies in trash cans to die. Why are we so surprised.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Gee, I can't imagine why you'd feel it needs to be "a last resort". The way you've described it couldn't be much more worthless. Besides, it's rarely ever a last resort here in America.
preacherman777 4 years ago
A last resort after counselling and consideration of all the options. Looking at government assistance programs. There are a whole raft of things to be considered but once all the options have been exhausted then the woman should be allowed the choice to terminate
sainter1 4 years ago
Yeah, if she doesn't want to bother herself with going through the trouble of appealing to all those options. One of which I noticed you left off the list was adoption. There are tons of couples who would love to adopt a baby cuz they can't have one of their own, but they often have to wait years for that because there are not enough babies. But who cares? It's just a growth. Kind of like a nasty wart. Let's have it removed.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Adoption wasn't left off on purpose. That's a great idea and I am all for it if the woman is willing, BUT, it's her bay, her body and her life and if she chooses not to then that should be her right.
sainter1 4 years ago
Wayne, I'll be honest with you. I think you and I could debate this all night long and never get anywhere. We just see these things differently and much of that has to do with our respective world views. Those world views are not likely to change and neither are our opinions on this issue.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I agree, mate. It was good debating you. You shed some light on your thinking and I hope I did likewise.
Let's agree to disagree.
sainter1 4 years ago
It was a good debate. I know I can get a little sarcastic at times, but you took it well. I wish all the agnostics/atheists were as cool as you are.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Indeed. And if you study the cases of those who've been sentenced to death, you'll understand why. The state of TX has a website which lists each criminal sentenced to death, what their crimes were, who their victims were, and who their accomplices were. It gives graphic detail of the crimes committed. When you read those accounts, and imagine the evidence the jury must have seen and heard, you can understand their vote on the sentence.
jimclbn 4 years ago
Good point!
This brings up the crime and punishment question. In ancient times, stealing was a capital offence, today you get a slap on the wrist. What exactly is the appropriate punishment for crimes? It changes as the times change.
sainter1 4 years ago
Should we adhere to punishments as advocated in the bible or settle for as they are today? If murder in biblical times was a captital offence but so too theft, then is today's society wrong for it's more lenient sentences for lesser crimes? Are we to strictly adhere to an eye for an eye as in biblical times or be more progressive as exampled by our relative leniency today. What is true justice? Is it really set in stone or is it relative to the times and mood of the public?
sainter1 4 years ago
Well, for one thing we have to remember that the laws, as we have them defined in the Bible were a legal code for the nation of Israel and were given for the purpose of crime and punishment in the age of the law. But even God himself did at times extend mercy to the guilty. King David probably should have had to face death for what he did to Uriah and Cain should have for killing Able, but in both cases, God had mercy on them. Yet as a rule, his people were told to take life for life.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Now the Bible puts us in the age of grace and while he has not told us that we cannot take life for life, I do believe we have the option to extend greater mercy than what they had in OT law. I do not believe that even everyone who commits murder should have to die, but I do believe the option should be reserved for those cases which are most hideous and for those people who pose the greatest threat to society.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Kind of like the way I'm ok with abortion for those cases which are most extreme, like when the pregnancy actually does threaten the life of the mother.
preacherman777 4 years ago
But as an agnostic you are really betting the farm by saying that. If there is a God, that fetus may very well have a purpose and value that goes far beyond that of potential. On the point of conscience. I think it says sad things about our society when we condemn those who are not only innocent and the weakest among us, but also unable to speak on their own behalf.
preacherman777 4 years ago
If there is great necessity such as the life of the mother, it's one thing, but when it's just because we don't want to be responsible for our actions, it's something else. Also, if I say it's my belief that I have the right to go out and kill my eight year old child, no one is going to say I am right to do that. But when those little ones are out of sight, it's all too easy to also put them out of mind.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Sure, I agree here. I did say 'as a last resort. I don't believe in abortion just because the mother couldn't be bothered having a kid. There must be rigorous grounds for an abortion to be legally performed but in the end, if those criteria are met then it's the mothers choice that is paramount.
sainter1 4 years ago
There are no rigorous grounds for abortion here in the US. If there were, it probably would not bother me so as much. Abortion is available upon demand. Even to be used as a form of birth control and until recently it could be performed on anyone, even up to full term using what is called a partial birth abortion. All that required was for a doctor to say there was a health concern which in all honesty could be anything. It was recently discovered that a doctor in KS was just making up reasons.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Sure i'm betting the farm on it but so are you. We don't know and that's the bottom line so we adhere to what we believe in. And Mike, you are speaking of the fetus's innocence as if it was a person. It isn't. In fact in legal terms it's a non entity. This is why I ask for tolerance for those who want choice. If it's what they and I believe then isn't it their right?
sainter1 4 years ago
The law has little to do with it because the law, at least here in the US was not made according to our law. Our supreme court made the law which supports abortion and according to the constitution, the court does not have such authority. The issue has never been officially debated here through proper channels or voted on by the people. We base our laws against murder on the teaching of religion and all lawful people accept them, but the biblical value of unborn life doesn't seem to matter.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I never consider the pro lifers as loons. Passionate and forthright, but never loons and of course the debate is a complex one in which both sides have valid points. I also knew that you knew that I would have this perspective. :) I just wanted to add my two cents worth.
sainter1 4 years ago
I have 2 friends who thought it was alright to get an abortion, that it was just a fetus but not a baby yet. Afterwards they felt differently. They said suddenly their heart felt a life ripped away, whereas before they felt it was too early to be a "life" and they are haunted by it to this day. I am so thankful I have never been pregnant.
RiverBirch1967 4 years ago 2
There are tons of stories like that. They should do a documentary on such women, although I doubt that would ever happen in our current political climate.
preacherman777 4 years ago
What's more intelligent a fetus or a chimp?
If intelligence is a yard stick for measuring the value of life than the chimp in this case wins. Why should animals lives be so disposable? Conservative logic says it's okay to kill non-christians and all animals. But let's protect that 2 week old liquid goo. If you value life it should be across the board and not selective based old primitive beliefs.
You still a nice guy though :)
helterskelter1 4 years ago
"Fetus" Heaven forbid we should call it a baby or a human. Who said anything about intelligence being a yard stick measuring the value of life? I guess you must be a Peta member, but sorry but I'm not going to debate that with you. I know of no Conservatives or Christians who believe it's ok to kill non Christians. There is far more to that "liquid goo" than you think there is.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I'm not a peta member. But I do value all life. If conservatives are pro-life why are so many of you war mongers? Lets save the fetus but will send them to die in war once their adults. Pro death penalty is another favorite. At least be consisted in your beliefs. Pro-life on one hand and pro-death on the other.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
There is nothing inconsistent about supporting life for the innocent and justice for the those who maliciously take life. Only a liberal would believe a cold blooded killer is entitled to the same right to life as an innocent child. Also, I am not a war monger. I hate war. But I believe freedom comes at a price. You may not appreciate that price or the people who have died to keep you free, but if you end up praising Allah someday, I think you will get the picture.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Your opinion assumes all war is justified. The current war has done nothing but breed more terrorism. Iraq had no WMD or any of the other lies the public was given as to the reasons for this war. The conservatives were the main supporters. I am Pro-life unlike most conservatives.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
Yet you seem to think it's ok to kill babies. Nobody lied to get us into this war. That is the same old tired liberal drivel I've been hearing for years and while it sounds good, it's completely ignorant of the facts. Bush and the majority of congress both Republicans and Democrats took action based on the best available intelligence that not only they, but also other countries all over the world believed. The intelligence was either bad or Saddam got rid of the weapons, but nobody lied.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Once Saddam was gone the war changed in nature from one of a preventative strike to one of helping the people of Iraq retain their liberty from the insurgents and others who want Iraq to fall back under tierney. While I will grant that Bush was woefully slow about re-evaluting the status of the war and making the changes needed to turn it back in our favor, he did eventually do so and it is now without question a mission of success.
preacherman777 4 years ago
If in these terrible times we ever have a president who doesn't have the guts to make the hard choices Bush has made and stand up to those who wish to destroy us, God help us all.
preacherman777 4 years ago
The Lord helps those who help themselves. He also has the wisdom to let those who want to jump off a cliff go ahead and jump. When in doubt read the manual. You preach it here regularly but I don't think Bush even knows it exists.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
That shows how little you know and understand the man. But that is probably a willful choice as well.
preacherman777 4 years ago
I presume you mean how little I understand Bush so maybe you can enlighten me. When Bush states his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" can you tell me where he's getting that from in the manual? I must have missed the part where Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims are all praying to the same God Christians are. Maybe that whole part about being a jealous God and having no other gods before me didn't apply to gods equated to me.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
The war has neither changed in nature nor has Bush been slow about its prosecution. Look at results. Patriot act, Uniform Military commissions Act, Repeal of Posse Comitatus and Revision of the 1807 Insurrection Act among some of the most notable. Signing statements? Are you kidding me? America is loosing the "war" and it has nothing to do with Iraqis or insurgents and everything to do with willful blindness and abdication of responsibility ... just like abortion. Wise up.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
Well, I guess you decided to start commenting after all. Even some of the biggest liberals out there who have condemned the war, have had to admit that the war is now succeeding. However, they do their best not to talk about it much. I don't have a problem with anything that's been done in legislation for the war on terror. We are at war and what we are doing now is nothing compared to what we have done in the past in order to protect this nation.
preacherman777 4 years ago
As to what the gov has done in the past versus the legislation I mentioned you haven't seen nothing yet. You best give up your idolization of the state and put all your faith into what that Bible teaches. I wouldn't want to be spreading the secular view over the biblical one. God does occasionally seem to pick sides in a war and the losers tend not to fare too well no matter what the odds. He has also shown a propensity to punish his chosen people when they get full of themselves.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
Yea, I suppose I picked the wrong video to start commenting on, lol! Will you say the war is still succeeding 10 years from now? How about a 100? As I recall Bush said 5 yrs ago "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Good thing we didn't loose eh? Vietnam went what 10? 11 yrs? Care to place any bets on Iraq/Iran? A war succeeds when it is over, any claims of winning/victory before that are just propaganda.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
I would not have an abortion. But, with the increasing human population around the world we will all suffer someday if something isn't done. Birth control is not the only answer.
I am pro-life but if someone feels abortion is in everyones best interest than it should be an option.
helterskelter1 4 years ago
We are not running out of space. There are vast amounts of very habitable space in this world that are not being used. There are also vast amounts of resources to provide for people that are not being shared. Those are the problems that must be answered. Killing off excess humans is not the answer. Abortion is very rarely in anyone's best interest, least of all the baby in question. We can do much to help mothers who need help, if only we focused on that rather than on taking the easy way out.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Nobody lied? That's willful blindness and doesn't help your case or the country. All major wars are started with lies. Hitler lied to the Germans about the Reichstag and communism, The Americans were lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin, and Bush lied about WMDs and affiliations w/ AlQuaida. Nobody in their right mind starts a real war because you can NEVER predict the outcome. Saying you didn't know it was a lie worked "so well" for Mcnamara, so I'm sure it will have better results for Bush.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
Choosing to believe that Bush lied, but not applying that same standard to the bulk of congress and other world leaders who believed the same intelligence, it just willful ignorance. He made a decision based on the best information available at the time. Assuming he knew something that no one else in the world knew is nothing short of ridiculous.
preacherman777 4 years ago
And who says I don't apply that same standard to congress or world leaders? Ever heard of The Downing Street Memo of July 2002? Bush and Blair knew the WMD bit was incorrect at best. Even were the lack of Iraq attack ability to be considered wrong you don't go to war over questionable evidence (Iran?). Congress more so holds the power of the purse and could stop this war anytime they chose. Instead they are a spineless bunch of rubber stamps for any BS that pops out the whitehouse derriere.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
PM I love this response.Well said though I would tend to disagree with you on the war in Iraq but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Grace & Peace
ThirdProverb 4 years ago
That's ok. I'm accustomed to being in the minority where it comes to my position on the war, but you're right, this really has nothing to do with that.
preacherman777 4 years ago
It's so funny that folks are quick to call Bush a liar, yet Gore, both Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and many others agreed that the evidence supported the initiative to go in with force. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. No one knows going into an armed conflict what may occur. But no one calls the folks I mentioned above liars, even though ALL of them were of the same opinion as the president. There is so much misinformation out there, and most of it on the liberal side.
jimclbn 4 years ago
Hey Mike, I guess you can put me in the minority here as well.
jimclbn 4 years ago
Welcome to the club.
preacherman777 4 years ago
Great job brother, much appreciated.
Yokeup 4 years ago
Thank you.
preacherman777 4 years ago
This is a HARD subject and kudos to you for making this video. There is a HUGE fallacy by the pro-abortion. Pre Roe v Wade it was legal for a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life or if there was a real chance of serious deformity of the unborn (ie exposure to rubella, one woman got one because while traveling in Europe she'd been given thalidemide).
VioletKitty411 4 years ago
Thanks for adding that info.
preacherman777 4 years ago
It cannot live on its own even outside the body, so these claims that someone not being able to live outside the body invalidates their status as a human being are false. Babies can't live on their own.
frl287 4 years ago 2
Yes, very good point.
preacherman777 4 years ago
youtube hates comments.
themoderateextremist 4 years ago