@kingdavid403 said"The anti-life of that stance that supports abortion is that it goes against the nature of God, who is the author of our lives and who forms us in our mother's wombs
My stance on abortion is the life of the unborn, which is a completely different topic
There is nothing different at all. A life is a life; and the unborn are not alive until they are fully formed and close to birth. So, it is only you who chooses death over life.
one is an innocent life whose only crime is being,
It's not a life, no being.
The ...[text shortened]... needless derogatory
insults.
Why yes you do; and, you twist God's Holy Name and Word to do it.
It does not go against the nature of God; hence, God killing King David's baby, from King David's rape of another mans wife. Furthermore, no one is killed from an abortion."
Sin has been brought into this life's death; we all die due to that; there is an
appointed time for all of us to die and, after that, the judgment. God starts each
life and ends them in the 10 Commandments; we are not to murder, that is,
taking a life unlawfully; there are times when taking a life is justified, but to end
one outside of that is not. You talk about the life of a born child to David as an
example for us of the rightness us killing an unborn child. Do you apply to the
justification for all children born because you do it here with this example? I doubt
that because that to is God doing something, not us! Do you equate what God
does in ending all life here with death at some point since we are all going to die
at some time, a justification for us killing one another when we want? If not, why
are you using God ending anyone's life as a justification for us to take one?
@kellyjay saidThis is All complete worthless mumbo jumbo that's all over the place. No scriptures, just your worthless opinions. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're grasping at straws as your sinking.
"The anti-life of that stance that supports abortion is that it goes against the nature of God, who is the author of our lives and who forms us in our mother's wombs
It does not go against the nature of God; hence, God killing King David's baby, from King David's rape of another mans wife. Furthermore, no one is killed from an abortion."
Sin has been brought into ...[text shortened]... we want? If not, why
are you using God ending anyone's life as a justification for us to take one?
11 edits
@fmf said24 weeks is in the sixth month of a pregnancy; that's fully formed and somewhat close to birth; in my opinion anyway. I personally do not agree to abortions at this stage of a pregnancy. I don't think abortions should be performed after the third or forth month of a pregnancy; "The Quickening".
Are you really claiming that a foetus is not viable outside the womb until "close to birth"? If so, are you suggesting that experts ~ who say a foetus can live outside the womb at around 23 or 24 weeks of age ~ are wrong?
I hate to say this; however, I feel that Russia has an excellent law on abortions. In Russia abortions must be done within the 1st 90 days of a pregnancy. In my opinion, this gives any woman or girl plenty of time to know if they are pregnant, and what choice they want to make.
If so, are you suggesting that experts ~ who say a foetus can live outside the womb at around 23 or 24 weeks of age ~ are wrong?
They can live outside the womb with life-support; not on their own accord; not in the 5th or 6th month of a pregnancy anyway. Technically, This means that they actually are not viable outside the womb; yet anyway.
2 edits
@kellyjay saidbut how do you know?
one is an innocent life whose only crime is being,
It's not a life, no being.
Says you, but how do you know? Where did you go to find out this truth?
Because it does NOT have a brain; not until around 5 months of pregnancy or "the Quickening." Until then, It's "a dead lifeless glob of cells." Remember?
Where did you go to find out this truth?
To planet Earth.
@kingdavid403 saidIf their lives can be saved using life-support, then that means they are viable, right?
They can live outside the womb with life-support; not on their own accord; not in the 5th or 6th month of a pregnancy anyway. Technically, This means that they actually are not viable outside the womb; yet anyway.
@fmf saidEvery life is viable where they belong a fish in water, people in a breathable atmosphere and a fetus in the womb. To call a fetus viable only outside of the womb is changing it from its natural position in life to something it may not be fully ready for YET!
Once again, because you Gish galloped before: Are you really claiming that a foetus is not viable outside the womb until "close to birth"?
1 edit
@fmf saidYou can have knee jerk reactions, from time to time (I have them too), if you look at what you quoted as if it was from me, you should have paid attention to the quote signs. I was responding to something someone said, then you assumed what I said later was directed at you. I know you are pro-life so why would I say that to you?
Once again, because you Gish galloped before: Are you really claiming that a foetus is not viable outside the womb until "close to birth"?
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThis...
You can have knee jerk reactions, from time to time (I have them too), if you look at what you quoted as if it was from me, you should have paid attention to the quote signs. I was responding to something someone said, then you assumed what I said later was directed at you. I know you are pro-life so why would I say that to you?
"Once again, because you Gish galloped before: Are you really claiming that a foetus is not viable outside the womb until "close to birth"?"
...was meant for KingDavid403.
I have no idea how his words [that I had quoted] got attributed to you. Sorry.
So it wasn't a knee jerk reaction at all.
