Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

[fieldgeneral 10]

Be careful about the bible and the murder issue. If you carefully read your bible you will find that all killing is not considered murder in the eyes of God. There are cases and instances in which it was justified in the bible. In those cases it was justifiably done to a GUILTY PERSON.

 

Not an innocent unborn child..........

 

 

I agree, but what about many many innocent children and men and women that have been killed in the war.

 

If your wife or child was raped or had a pregnancy that threatened their life not knowing it before hand, would you expect them to die for the unborn child? To some that could be considered suicide, intentionally taking your own life. While some would consider this admirable, some would not. I'm not saying that I'm for this or that, I'm just asking what would you do in this case?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I agree, but what about many many innocent children and men and women that have been killed in the war.

 

 

It's known as accidental, unfortunate and very regrettable, not quite the case when an adult does something to intentionally harm a child or someone else.

[fieldgeneral 10]

It's known as accidental, unfortunate and very regrettable, not quite the case when an adult does something to intentionally harm a child or someone else.

 

Well shooting a missle or dropping a bomb is intentional, the target may have not been those that are innocent, but we usually call that manslaughter if it's not WAR.

 

No need to argue our points , I think we all know where we stand. I defend on both sides of this because I hate the typical abortion and I'm sure it's done more than those with a cause. The fact that this isn't just a black/white, right/wrong type of an issue is exactly why it will be debated for many years and I feel that it will never be made illegal.

[tvp 10]

Well shooting a missle or dropping a bomb is intentional, the target may have not been those that are innocent, but we usually call that manslaughter if it's not WAR.

 

No need to argue our points , I think we all know where we stand. I defend on both sides of this because I hate the typical abortion and I'm sure it's done more than those with a cause. The fact that this isn't just a black/white, right/wrong type of an issue is exactly why it will be debated for many years and I feel that it will never be made illegal.

 

I noticed in a couple of your posts fieldgeneral that you said (and correct me if I misunderstood) that abortion is not a black/white, right/wrong issue. Before I comment on that statement I would like to ask you a question:

 

Who determines what is right and wrong? God or man?

 

I look forward to hearing your answer. But some food for thought, if you say God sets the standard, then you have a real dilemma. For God defines life as beginning at conception (as did the medical profession and scientific world prior to the Roe v. Wade decision). If God defines right/wrong then it is absolutely wrong to ABORT A CHILD after it has been conceived (a point I will establish after I receive your answer). Secondly, if you say man, then why limit abortions at all? Why disagree with it in any form or fashion? If evolution is true and there is no God and we are all the product of blind natural processes that had no order or design in mind (and I'm not accusing you of being an evolutionist nor am I saying you don't believe in God, just trying to bring out a point) then why use terms like right/wrong. Would such not be utter nonsense? If abortion serves society well by weeding out those who would otherwise be a drain on society (through tax-payer funded health care, welfare, etc) then why not allow such a process to take place unbridled or unrestricted? (Assuming we all understand that by far the majority of abortions are performed on women who are considered to be living in poverty by American standards and receive government assistance).

 

I know I am sort of singling you out but I really don't mean to. The same statements and questions could be put to all who have posted here in favor of any form of abortion and have tried to diminish the issue or dismiss it as being a debatable practice. I post it here simply because you are the last one to post and the thoughts which are the freshest.

 

So, again, who determines what's right and wrong? God or man?

Edited March 10, 2009 by tvp

[fieldgeneral 10]

I noticed in a couple of your posts fieldgeneral that you said (and correct me if I misunderstood) that abortion is not a black/white, right/wrong issue. Before I comment on that statement I would like to ask you a question:

 

Who determines what is right and wrong? God or man?

 

I look forward to hearing your answer. But some food for thought, if you say God sets the standard, then you have a real dilemma. For God defines life as beginning at conception (as did the medical profession and scientific world prior to the Roe v. Wade decision). If God defines right/wrong then it is absolutely wrong to ABORT A CHILD after it has been conceived (a point I will establish after I receive your answer). Secondly, if you say man, then why limit abortions at all? Why disagree with it in any form or fashion? If evolution is true and there is no God and we are all the product of blind natural processes that had no order or design in mind (and I'm not accusing you of being an evolutionist nor am I saying you don't believe in God, just trying to bring out a point) then why use terms like right/wrong. Would such not be utter nonsense? If abortion serves society well by weeding out those who would otherwise be a drain on society (through tax-payer funded health care, welfare, etc) then why not allow such a process to take place unbridled or unrestricted? (Assuming we all understand that by far the majority of abortions are performed on women who are considered to be living in poverty by American standards and receive government assistance).

 

I know I am sort of singling you out but I really don't mean to. The same statements and questions could be put to all who have posted here in favor of any form of abortion and have tried to diminish the issue or dismiss it as being a debatable practice. I post it here simply because you are the last one to post and the thoughts which are the freshest.

 

So, again, who determines what's right and wrong? God or man?

 

One no need to question my faith. I was baptised in January along with my son.

 

Two, I believe that GOD does determine what is right and wrong. However, I believe that noone has the right to tell a woman she must die to give birth or must carry out a pregnancy that she did not agree to or ask for because of rape. Other than those two things, I disagree with any form of abortion.

 

I simply stated that this is an issue that won't be settled. It will never be stopped in my opinion because of the two issues I mentioned. I'm not advocating it, I'm just telling why I think it won't happen. None of us can really speak of those two predicaments without experiencing. I just feel that if my wife or daughter were to be raped that they should not have to carry that child. I also feel that if my wife or daughter would die if they gave birth, then I also agree that the woman has her choice there. I don't like it, I love children and have one of my own and he is the best thing in my life. It's just an issue that isn't completely one way or the other.

 

I hope I answered what you asked me, if I didn't feel free to message me.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Well shooting a missle or dropping a bomb is intentional, the target may have not been those that are innocent, but we usually call that manslaughter if it's not WAR.

 

No need to argue our points , I think we all know where we stand. I defend on both sides of this because I hate the typical abortion and I'm sure it's done more than those with a cause. The fact that this isn't just a black/white, right/wrong type of an issue is exactly why it will be debated for many years and I feel that it will never be made illegal.

 

intentions matter though in considerations of what's murder or what isn't.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

One no need to question my faith. I was baptised in January along with my son.

 

Two, I believe that GOD does determine what is right and wrong. However, I believe that noone has the right to tell a woman she must die to give birth or must carry out a pregnancy that she did not agree to or ask for because of rape. Other than those two things, I disagree with any form of abortion.

 

I simply stated that this is an issue that won't be settled. It will never be stopped in my opinion because of the two issues I mentioned. I'm not advocating it, I'm just telling why I think it won't happen. None of us can really speak of those two predicaments without experiencing. I just feel that if my wife or daughter were to be raped that they should not have to carry that child. I also feel that if my wife or daughter would die if they gave birth, then I also agree that the woman has her choice there. I don't like it, I love children and have one of my own and he is the best thing in my life. It's just an issue that isn't completely one way or the other.

 

I hope I answered what you asked me, if I didn't feel free to message me.

 

It seems to me the ? is what would God say about the extreme cases you're mentioning, I agree there's not an easy answer and I don't really know 100% what God would say about the extreme cases, my guess is He'd say it's still murder because perhaps what happened had a purpose, that He doesn't create life accidentally, but I don't know that's for certain.

[tvp 10]

One no need to question my faith. I was baptised in January along with my son.

 

Two, I believe that GOD does determine what is right and wrong. However, I believe that noone has the right to tell a woman she must die to give birth or must carry out a pregnancy that she did not agree to or ask for because of rape. Other than those two things, I disagree with any form of abortion.

 

I simply stated that this is an issue that won't be settled. It will never be stopped in my opinion because of the two issues I mentioned. I'm not advocating it, I'm just telling why I think it won't happen. None of us can really speak of those two predicaments without experiencing. I just feel that if my wife or daughter were to be raped that they should not have to carry that child. I also feel that if my wife or daughter would die if they gave birth, then I also agree that the woman has her choice there. I don't like it, I love children and have one of my own and he is the best thing in my life. It's just an issue that isn't completely one way or the other.

 

I hope I answered what you asked me, if I didn't feel free to message me.

 

If you read carefully my post you will notice that I was very careful not to question your belief in God, in fact, I made that very statement. I was merely showing a point that you now have agreed to. If God sets the standard of right and wrong (and I agree with you that He does) then that standard does not bend or change. If it is wrong to murder the innocent, then it is wrong in every case (by the way, to contend every case of killing is murder is not accurate--see Lev. 10:1-2, 1 Sam. 15:1-3, is God guilty of ordering murder?). I understand that rape and incest are terrible acts but the one that needs to be punished is the rapist, not the unborn child. He/she O(the baby) had no part in the actions. Instead of aborting the child why not punish the rapist and give help to the victim and the baby? Certainly, I would readily concede that it would be difficult to bear a child that is the result of a terrible action, but (and I know this sounds cliche') but two wrongs do not make a right. If it is wrong to abort a healthy child, then it wrong.

 

Now, what about when a woman's life is at risk? Consider this quote from a great website: http://www.christiancourier.com, the writer is Wayne Jackson and he makes a very accurate observation on this issue:

 

"Occasionally (though rarely), a circumstance will arise where a continued pregnancy would result in the death of the mother, or the child—possibly even both. In such a case, a decision has to be made as to which life will be saved. If an abortion is performed, this is not comparable to arbitrarily taking the life of a healthy child from a healthy mother for convenience sake.

 

If one happens upon two persons who are struggling in the water beside a capsized boat, and he can rescue only one of them, does the fact that he chooses one, in deference to the other, mean that he has murdered the victim who drowns? The answer is too obvious to need comment.

 

We might mention, however, that Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, once said that in some thirty-five years of medical practice, he never encountered a case where an abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life."

 

Today the social liberals are careful to talk about the health of the mother. They would like for us to assume that this is a threat to a mother's life, but we know that the language allows for much more than that. It is used as a loop hole to refer to any and all potential "problems" that a woman may encounter. Basically, it allows for abortion for any reason.

 

But really, to talk about abortion because of rape or incest or threat to the mother's life is all the minority of cases. If you check the statistics by far the women getting abortions are for other selfish reasons (don't want a child, interferes with their career, etc.). To argue to keep abortion legal simply on the grounds that sometimes bad things happen is utterly ridiculous. Not to mention it violates the standard set forth by God.

Edited March 10, 2009 by tvp

[fieldgeneral 10]

It seems to me the ? is what would God say about the extreme cases you're mentioning, I agree there's not an easy answer and I don't really know 100% what God would say about the extreme cases, my guess is He'd say it's still murder because perhaps what happened had a purpose, that He doesn't create life accidentally, but I don't know that's for certain.

 

 

Sure that is a great question, but we do not know the answer. We have to make the best choice / decision for ourselves.

 

I fully believe in GOD. I do feel that he doesn't make everything happen, he simply gives us the gifts we have and lets us make the decisions on how to use them. For instance, he doesn't have someone kill another, yet he gave the gift of the ability to walk and think to the person who did the murder. He doesn't condone the murder and that person will have to be judged when the time comes. He doesn't condone a rape, but gave the man the ability to reproduce and the man committed a crime that resulted in the pregnancy of the victim. I don't believe that he would look at this victim as a bad person for not wanting to carry that child. The morning after pill was created for this type of situation.

 

I feel he gives us the talents, tools, and abilities to do things, it's up to us how we use them. That is part of our life's journey, we will be judged on our use of those gifts when that time comes. That's just my 2 cents.

[fieldgeneral 10]

If you read carefully my post you will notice that I was very careful not to question your belief in God, in fact, I made that very statement. I was merely showing a point that you now have agreed to. If God sets the standard of right and wrong (and I agree with you that He does) then that standard does not bend or change. If it is wrong to murder the innocent, then it is wrong in every case (by the way, to contend every case of killing is murder is not accurate--see Lev. 10:1-2, 1 Sam. 15:1-3, is God guilty of ordering murder?). I understand that rape and incest are terrible acts but the one that needs to be punished is the rapist, not the unborn child. He/she O(the baby) had no part in the actions. Instead of aborting the child why not punish the rapist and give help to the victim and the baby? Certainly, I would readily concede that it would be difficult to bear a child that is the result of a terrible action, but (and I know this sounds cliche') but two wrongs do not make a right. If it is wrong to abort a healthy child, then it wrong.

 

Now, what about when a woman's life is at risk? Consider this quote from a great website: http://www.christiancourier.com, the writer is Wayne Jackson and he makes a very accurate observation on this issue:

 

"Occasionally (though rarely), a circumstance will arise where a continued pregnancy would result in the death of the mother, or the child—possibly even both. In such a case, a decision has to be made as to which life will be saved. If an abortion is performed, this is not comparable to arbitrarily taking the life of a healthy child from a healthy mother for convenience sake.

 

If one happens upon two persons who are struggling in the water beside a capsized boat, and he can rescue only one of them, does the fact that he chooses one, in deference to the other, mean that he has murdered the victim who drowns? The answer is too obvious to need comment.

 

We might mention, however, that Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, once said that in some thirty-five years of medical practice, he never encountered a case where an abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life."

 

Today the social liberals are careful to talk about the health of the mother. They would like for us to assume that this is a threat to a mother's life, but we know that the language allows for much more than that. It is used as a loop hole to refer to any and all potential "problems" that a woman may encounter. Basically, it allows for abortion for any reason.

 

But really, to talk about abortion because of rape or incest or threat to the mother's life is all the minority of cases. If you check the statistics by far the women getting abortions are for other selfish reasons (don't want a child, interferes with their career, etc.). To argue to keep abortion legal simply on the grounds that sometimes bad things happen is utterly ridiculous. Not to mention it violates the standard set forth by God.

 

I know that it makes up a small portion of abortions, but how do you police it. How do you prove whether or not it was really rape? You can't. There would be a lot of falsely accused men in jail.

 

Forcing a woman to carry a child for nine months and birth this child is ridiculous. Why must she be held accountable and alter her life for a crime that she didn't commit? If someone is raped and conception has occured, many believe that life has started and that any action to abort a fertilized egg is murder. If the victim were to wait weeks / months then it's too late in my opinion. The day or so after is acceptable. They make a drug to do this the day after. I'm not saying I'm all for it, I'm saying there are some circumstances where it's justifiable.

[tvp 10]

I know that it makes up a small portion of abortions, but how do you police it. How do you prove whether or not it was really rape? You can't. There would be a lot of falsely accused men in jail.

 

Forcing a woman to carry a child for nine months and birth this child is ridiculous. Why must she be held accountable and alter her life for a crime that she didn't commit? If someone is raped and conception has occured, many believe that life has started and that any action to abort a fertilized egg is murder. If the victim were to wait weeks / months then it's too late in my opinion. The day or so after is acceptable. They make a drug to do this the day after. I'm not saying I'm all for it, I'm saying there are some circumstances where it's justifiable.

 

There were a lot of things in my last post that you did not respond to or chose not to. The dilemma that you find yourself in is that you want to say that God sets the standard but then back away from it to suit your personal opinion (again, I'm not questioning your belief in God only trying to get you to see the implication of your position). If God has set forth an absolute standard then there will be consequences for disobedience (and the standard by which we will be judged is God's Word, John 12:48). Certainly, man can choose to reject God's commands or choose to follow that which God condemns but the consequences of those actions will have to be dealt with either here or in the life to come. Abortion is a prime example. Abortion is not a woman's issue, it is a moral issue. Abortion is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. When God designates a baby in the womb as a living human being (and He does, Luke 1:41 as well as many other passages--by the way, if it is a baby just before birth it is a baby when it is conceived, that is a necessary implication) then it is wrong to MURDER that child regardless of the reason. If we are going to claim there is a higher moral standard then we have to follow it in order to be consistent. We cannot change it simply on the grounds something doesn't seem right to us (see Prov. 14:12). When it comes to cases of rape and incest (as sad as it is), as I said before, two wrongs do not make a right. I completely understand that all rapists cannot be found, etc. but that does nothing to change the rules by which we are commanded to live. There are too many other options than to kill the innocent child.

 

Also you made the statement: "I don't believe that he would look at this victim as a bad person for not wanting to carry that child. The morning after pill was created for this type of situation." With all due respect "I don't believe" is not sufficient proof. To establish something to be right/wrong there must be some type of authority behind it if we truly believe that God is the one who sets the standard (again, not saying you don't believe in God, just trying to get you to see the implication of your words). There must be some objective standard to which we can appeal. Truth is not determined by whether or not I believe something, truth is determined by God. Truth is truth whether I believe it or not (John 8:32).

 

Also, in that same statement you say, "I don't believe that he would look at this victim as a bad person for not wanting to carry that child. . ." Certainly, no one could blame an individual for not wanting to bear the child, but sin brings consequences and with that sometimes the innocent have to suffer (in this case the rape victim). If someone murders one of my family members, they committed the sin, but I have to suffer the loss. What should I do in such a case? Should I hunt down the individual and kill him to extract my revenge? No, I should let justice run its course and let the powers that be (Rom. 13) prosecute the offender (and there may be occasions when the offender cannot be found). But suppose I did hunt down the person who killed my loved one and then extracted my revenge, would that take back what was done? would it take away the emotional trauma? Or would I too then be guilty of sin? I would be guilty and my loved one would still be gone and the hurt still remains. IN similar fashion, when a woman is raped there is great emotional trauma but how will aborting the child change or undo what has happened? You know the answer without my commenting. Two wrongs don't make a right nor do they change what has been done. To abort the child would only serve to make the victim then guilty of taking the life of the innocent.

Edited March 11, 2009 by tvp

[traveler4 10]

Everyone posting on this thread knows that the number of abortions performed due to rape or concern for the life of a mother are miniscule. Why argue about abortion using those examples?

 

I wanted to ask those who fervently argue the pro-life agenda from a biblical standpoint, are you all as rabid about all the other sins that people commit? Doesn't the bible state that a sin is a sin, they are the same? Why aren't you all as opposed to gluttony, or gossiping, or those little white lies that people tell often? It just seems like the subject of abortion comes up and everyone jumps on it with both feet whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. I just wonder if it is really just reprehensible to you personally and the biblical argument is what you use to get your point across, or do you believe that abortion is the "worst" sin.

 

I also find it interesting that many people who are so vehemently opposed to abortion are men, who will never have to make any type of decision regarding abortion one way or the other.

[tvp 10]

First, abortion is not the worst sin, however, it is one of the worst signs of degenerate society. Certainly, gossip, lieing, etc. are just as abhorent in the eyes of God, but there is no way that a government could regulate such actions since they take place in the heart of an individual. However, abortion would not and does not fall into that category. It is the killing of an unborn child. A legalized practiced in our society. Whereas the other actions mentioned cannot be regulated by man, abortion certainly can. One could never put a stop to the sins you mentioned even if they were made illegal by some type of legislation, but the murdering of children? You're exactly right, the percentage of those having abortions due to rape or incest is miniscule but that's exactly what makes this practice so frightening and such a poor reflection on our society. By far the majority of those having abortions are out sheer selfishness which demonstrates a lack of respect for the sanctity of human life.

 

As far as men arguing against abortion--so what? Because a man can never bear a child does that lessen his responsibility to stand against that which is wrong and for that which is right? Abortion is not just a woman's issue, it is a moral issue.

 

I appreciate the comments traveler4 but, and I say this kindly, why not answer some of the statements I made in my earlier posts instead of diverting the issue to other things?

 

What if a person who claims to be religious didn't stand as ardently against gluttony as he did against abortion, would that make abortion less of a sin? Would it diminish the damage that it's doing to society on the whole? Of course not. Would it make that person inconsistent, perhaps, but it certainly would not lessen the tragedy that abortion truly is. Personal attacks on those who are religious do not change the fact that children are being murdered. However, if you would like to start a new thread on the sin of gluttony and how it ought to be avoided, I'll be right behind you to support what you've got to say as long as it was in accordance with God's Word!

Edited March 11, 2009 by tvp

[fieldgeneral 10]

There were a lot of things in my last post that you did not respond to or chose not to. The dilemma that you find yourself in is that you want to say that God sets the standard but then back away from it to suit your personal opinion (again, I'm not questioning your belief in God only trying to get you to see the implication of your position). If God has set forth an absolute standard then there will be consequences for disobedience (and the standard by which we will be judged is God's Word, John 12:48). Certainly, man can choose to reject God's commands or choose to follow that which God condemns but the consequences of those actions will have to be dealt with either here or in the life to come. Abortion is a prime example. Abortion is not a woman's issue, it is a moral issue. Abortion is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. When God designates a baby in the womb as a living human being (and He does, Luke 1:41 as well as many other passages--by the way, if it is a baby just before birth it is a baby when it is conceived, that is a necessary implication) then it is wrong to MURDER that child regardless of the reason. If we are going to claim there is a higher moral standard then we have to follow it in order to be consistent. We cannot change it simply on the grounds something doesn't seem right to us (see Prov. 14:12). When it comes to cases of rape and incest (as sad as it is), as I said before, two wrongs do not make a right. I completely understand that all rapists cannot be found, etc. but that does nothing to change the rules by which we are commanded to live. There are too many other options than to kill the innocent child.

 

Also you made the statement: "I don't believe that he would look at this victim as a bad person for not wanting to carry that child. The morning after pill was created for this type of situation." With all due respect "I don't believe" is not sufficient proof. To establish something to be right/wrong there must be some type of authority behind it if we truly believe that God is the one who sets the standard (again, not saying you don't believe in God, just trying to get you to see the implication of your words). There must be some objective standard to which we can appeal. Truth is not determined by whether or not I believe something, truth is determined by God. Truth is truth whether I believe it or not (John 8:32).

 

Also, in that same statement you say, "I don't believe that he would look at this victim as a bad person for not wanting to carry that child. . ." Certainly, no one could blame an individual for not wanting to bear the child, but sin brings consequences and with that sometimes the innocent have to suffer (in this case the rape victim). If someone murders one of my family members, they committed the sin, but I have to suffer the loss. What should I do in such a case? Should I hunt down the individual and kill him to extract my revenge? No, I should let justice run its course and let the powers that be (Rom. 13) prosecute the offender (and there may be occasions when the offender cannot be found). But suppose I did hunt down the person who killed my loved one and then extracted my revenge, would that take back what was done? would it take away the emotional trauma? Or would I too then be guilty of sin? I would be guilty and my loved one would still be gone and the hurt still remains. IN similar fashion, when a woman is raped there is great emotional trauma but how will aborting the child change or undo what has happened? You know the answer without my commenting. Two wrongs don't make a right nor do they change what has been done. To abort the child would only serve to make the victim then guilty of taking the life of the innocent.

 

I don't have to explain my beliefs to you or anyone. I'm not attempting to come off as argumenative, but because I don't thinks are as black and white or right/wrong as you make them out to be doesn't mean I have less faith than you or whatever. I know that you say you aren't questioning, but really you even if it's not intentional.

 

I don't have to give proof of anything that I feel or think as my opinion. I'm not trying to win you over or anyone. I've given my side and you've given yours.

 

As far as the rest of your post:

 

Abortion is at times a woman issue even if it's a small portion of that time. Life has changed a lot and I agree that we have certain morals / codes / or commandments to live by, but I will never fault any woman in those positions to do what they think is right for them.

 

A female having an abortion is not "revenge" as you compare it to with the murder of a family member. As I've said before, I don't like it at all, but I don't believe that it is any human's job to tell that woman what she can and can't do with her body in that situation. If a woman in that position is wrong to have that procedure, then it's up to GOD to judge / punish her, not us.

 

All I am saying is that it would be hard to get a law passed to completely ban it.

[tvp 10]

This will be my last post on the issue and I'll let it go. I'll keep it brief unlike my other posts. If America is going to change the direction she's headed then it will take a strong stand by people of faith. That's the bottom line. We cannot change when truth is compromised.

 

Also, I find it interesting that when people are asked to defend views that are obviously contrary to divine revelation why they take offense and say the things like you have said. What's wrong with defending your beliefs? If they're correct shouldn't they stand the test of examination? In reality, that is all I was asking you to do, defend your viewpoints. If there is an absolute standard then why back away from it? There is not my truth and your truth, if the Bible is accurate then it is truth and we are all subject to it's teachings. Thanks for your time and effort in responding. I truly hope there are no hard feelings and look forward to reading your posts in the future.

[fieldgeneral 10]

This will be my last post on the issue and I'll let it go. I'll keep it brief unlike my other posts. If America is going to change the direction she's headed then it will take a strong stand by people of faith. That's the bottom line. We cannot change when truth is compromised.

 

Also, I find it interesting that when people are asked to defend views that are obviously contrary to divine revelation why they take offense and say the things like you have said. What's wrong with defending your beliefs? If they're correct shouldn't they stand the test of examination? In reality, that is all I was asking you to do, defend your viewpoints. If there is an absolute standard then why back away from it? There is not my truth and your truth, if the Bible is accurate then it is truth and we are all subject to it's teachings. Thanks for your time and effort in responding. I truly hope there are no hard feelings and look forward to reading your posts in the future.

 

I wasn't offended at all. I don't think you really tried to question faith, but did with some of your comments and that's cool, this is a message board. Anyway, I agree that America was built with faith and thrived with faith being a strong foundation. I agree that our society was less problematic when they had fewer choices because of fear or other reasons. I truly believe that if we had less divorce and more traditional families that we would have less problems. Our 13 colonies were variations of faith and tolerant of each other and lived in the region they felt comfortable because of faith.

 

I defended my point. You defended yours with religion, and I defended mine based on today's society and crimes that are much more abundant than when the bible was written. I'm not saying the Bible needs updated, I'm just saying we have to look at things somewhat differently at times but with the Bible in mind. My only point was that abortion is bad and I don't like it, however, there are times where the procedure is there for those that have been a victim or life saving procedure.

 

We talk about banning abortion because the conception is GOD's work. If that is the case, then the human body is GOD's work, why not ban all plastic surgery. I know it's not murder, but if we are using religion as a basis of arguement, then there are many things that sould be "banned."