Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: UK Hospital burning fetus's

  1. #1

    UK Hospital burning fetus's

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/britains...h-report-says/

    Nice GREEN solution! its all about a women's choice I guess LMAO. Liberals better pray there is no god. and they thick Christians are dangerous

  2. #2
    found a very interesting article this morning that evangelical Christianity has only determined the fetus to have a soul since the late 70's.


    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._from_not.html

    In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
    This position was reaffirmed at a symposium sponsored by Christianity Today and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, where participants agreed to disagree over the “sinfulness” of an “induced abortion,” but agreed about “the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances,” namely, rape and incest. The document produced by the conference, “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction,” said, “The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God for married life” and that the “method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with one’s physician.”

    Three years after the symposium, the conservative Southern Baptist Convention endorsed this view, with a call for “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

    By 1982, however, the SBC—along with most American evangelicals—had switched gears entirely.
    conclusion: it's not really about saving lives. It's about control over women.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    found a very interesting article this morning that evangelical Christianity has only determined the fetus to have a soul since the late 70's.




    conclusion: it's not really about saving lives. It's about control over women.
    Conclusion: you're a lemming easily mislead by the leftist propaganda echo chamber.
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-26-2014 at 01:54 PM.

  4. #4
    Did you even read the verse you are referencing??

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    Conclusion: you're a lemming easily mislead by the leftist propaganda echo chamber.
    most of the Christian church thought abortion was justified until about 1980... that doesn't interest you? No response? Just a personal attack?

    I guess that's more enjoyable for you than confronting new information.

  6. #6
    New, lol. You are such an ignorant tool. I know more about this issue off the top of my head than the nonsense you posted here, because I have debated this with tools and operatives like you stuck in the leftist echo chamber many times. Slate cherry-picks one liberal theologian and then claims that's the way it was? With dubious exegesis to boot?? The Bible is littered with commands to respect life and not to murder, and infanticide was considered pagan or even Satanic. It was what the Baal worshipers did (then and NOW).

    Modern-day liberals – or “progressives” as they more discreetly prefer – labor under an awkward misconception; namely, that there is anything remotely “progressive” about the fundamental canons of their blind, secular-humanist faith. In fact, today’s liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.

    While visiting the Rivermont Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, Va., a few weeks back, I heard a troubling, albeit thought-provoking, sermon. Pastor John Mabray addressed the ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship and, though he didn’t reveal it by name, connected the dots to its present-day progeny: liberalism. Baal, the half-bull, half-man god of fertility, was the focal point of pagan idolatry in Semitic Israel until God revealed His monotheistic nature to Judaism’s forebears.

    In his sermon, Pastor Mabray illustrated that, although they’ve now assumed a more contemporary flair, the fundamentals of Baal worship remain alive and well today. The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator).

    Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”

    The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of “unplanned parenthood” were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to “terminate” the unwanted child.

    Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of “fertility” has been replaced with worship of “reproductive freedom” or “choice.” Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant “gay rights” and “comprehensive sex education.” And, the pantheistic worship of “mother earth” has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.


    http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83960/
    Listen, contraception has always been a Catholic thing, and pretty much still is. But abortion, you have to be kidding me with that cr@p tripe you posted. While it is true that the religious right did not get on board with the legal battles surrounding Roe v. Wade until a couple years after-the-fact, it was more to do with the politics of the denominations than anything else. You see, the Catholic Bishops were out front on the issue of abortion in the mainstream and in the courts. So the Protestants, by-and-large, were late to the game due to their caution to join with the Catholics, but better late than never. And this doesn't mean that "most evangelical Christians" were ok with abortion, hardly! They just weren't as vocal or political about their views, as it was one off those issues people didn't like to think about (and not much has changed int hat regard).

    So this is nothing I haven't heard from other pro-aboriton-on-demand industry leftist drones like you. Just because it's new to you doesn't really matter and shows how uncritical you are with your sources and how gullible you are to agitprop revision. But, then again, we already knew that. These b@stards will do anything to distort and rewrite history to advance their agenda. Finally, regardless of the history, what matters now is debating the issue on merit of ethics and morality, not politics.
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-26-2014 at 03:23 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    The Bible is littered with commands to respect life and not to murder, and infanticide was considered pagan or even Satanic. It was what the Baal worshipers did.
    and yet many Christians endorse war. And capital punishment. So there's clearly some wiggle room there on the Thou Shalt Not Kill commandment. Killing is allowed in certain circumstances.


    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    You see, the Catholic Bishops were out front on the issue of abortion in the mainstream and in the courts. So the Protestants, by-and-large, were late to the game due to their caution to join with the Catholics, but better late than never. And this doesn't mean that "most evangelical Christians" were ok with abortion, hardly! They just weren't as vocal or political about their views, as it was one off those issues people didn't like to think about (and not much has changed int hat regard).
    I didn't actually say that everyone was ok with abortion. It's a terrible thing. What I said was it's justified. And by the way how can a fetus have a soul in 1990 but not have a soul in 1970? I don't recall any scripture that fortold the exact moment a fetus got a soul. It's church doctrine not scripture.

    I know that many Protestant Christians take offense when the Mormons write their own bible or the Catholics add a couple books. How is this "fetuses have a soul" thing different? Where in the Bible does it say that fetuses have a soul?

    Here's that verse by the way and yes it seems to imply that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus.


    Exodus 21:22-24
    New International Version (NIV)
    22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

    Footnotes:

    [A] Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage
    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    Finally, regardless of the history, what matters now is debating the issue on merit of ethics and morality, not politics.
    If a girl is raped by her brother and gets pregnant, i find it ethically and morally justified to abort that abomination fetus.

    If a woman finds that the baby is severely mutated and likely to be stillborn I find it ethically and morally justified to abort that non-viable fetus.

    If a single mother has 5 kids already that she can't fully take care of, and she decides to abort the 6th, I find that to be both ethically and morally justified as well.

    I'll tell ya what's not morally justified: Pretending that making abortions illegal will stop them, and turning a blind eye to the coathanger back alley procedures that WILL replace them. And saying that if a woman dies of sepsis from a botched amateur abortion, that's her fault.

    maybe it's not all about controlling women. It's also about winning elections. The pawns in the GOP don't see the fact that this law will NEVER be overturned. Right now there's a 5-4 conservative majority in the Supreme Court ask yourself why isn't it being challenged? Because if the right actually does overturn Roe, it loses millions of single issue voters.

  8. #8
    BTW, this "argument" reminds me of attempts to relegate YEC beliefs to Seventh Day Adventist churches in the 19th century or the Trinity not being in the Bible. lol The former has been taught and accepted for millenia and the latter is a ploy of semantic games as the Trinity is covered thoroughly even if never given that specific name. In other words, deceptive, WEAK leftist BS and once again your favorite dish!

    Another one: The creation/evolution debate only started in 1859 or the Scopes Trial, when the issue of chance vs. design predates Plato, et al.
    Last edited by ibleedgreen; 03-26-2014 at 03:56 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    and yet many Christians endorse war. And capital punishment. So there's clearly some wiggle room there on the Thou Shalt Not Kill commandment. Killing is allowed in certain circumstances.




    I didn't actually say that everyone was ok with abortion. It's a terrible thing. What I said was it's justified. And by the way how can a fetus have a soul in 1990 but not have a soul in 1970? I don't recall any scripture that fortold the exact moment a fetus got a soul. It's church doctrine not scripture.

    I know that many Protestant Christians take offense when the Mormons write their own bible or the Catholics add a couple books. How is this "fetuses have a soul" thing different? Where in the Bible does it say that fetuses have a soul?

    Here's that verse by the way and yes it seems to imply that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus.





    If a girl is raped by her brother and gets pregnant, i find it ethically and morally justified to abort that abomination fetus.

    If a woman finds that the baby is severely mutated and likely to be stillborn I find it ethically and morally justified to abort that non-viable fetus.

    If a single mother has 5 kids already that she can't fully take care of, and she decides to abort the 6th, I find that to be both ethically and morally justified as well.

    I'll tell ya what's not morally justified: Pretending that making abortions illegal will stop them, and turning a blind eye to the coathanger back alley procedures that WILL replace them. And saying that if a woman dies of sepsis from a botched amateur abortion, that's her fault.

    maybe it's not all about controlling women. It's also about winning elections. The pawns in the GOP don't see the fact that this law will NEVER be overturned. Right now there's a 5-4 conservative majority in the Supreme Court ask yourself why isn't it being challenged? Because if the right actually does overturn Roe, it loses millions of single issue voters.
    congratulations bit, you've justified 2% of the abortions in this country. the other 98% are for convenience.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by AFL12 View Post
    congratulations bit, you've justified 2% of the abortions in this country. the other 98% are for convenience.
    whether it's legal or not it's gonna happen.

    btw what do you think of that Exodus verse. If you make someone's wife miscarry you pay a fine. If you seriously damage or kill the wife, it's an eye for an eye. If a Fetus was a person than Eye for and Eye means a miscarry kills a person. It's all there in the Bible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO