Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: >> i) Dimwit here implies left=abortion. With that realistic conception of >> politics one understands where the rest of his stupid political remarks >> come from. >> >> > > Yes, Michael seemed to be implying the "LEFT" supports abortion, which > is not only not true, but fails to speak to the real issue of who has > the choice; state or individual person. > Where did I suggest I was talking about Michael? :-P
> > >> ii) God grants us free will, that means that you are ALLOWED BY GOD to >> sin, kill babies or whatever. He'll send you to hell later (unless you >> repent), but you are allowed to do it (of course this stems from god's >> omnipotence, you can do nothing without god knowing and allowing). >> > > There are a few matters you didn't touch on like at what point does life > begin during a pregnacy, what circumstance, like rape, incess, or danger > to life of mother, create exceptions to the rules, and where do we go to > find authoritative evidence where God has specifically spoken to the > issue of abortion, and whether God forbids it or no. > I seem to remember once in this list talking about the 1st commandment "Thou shalt not kill", me saying that you could not be a soldier and christian at the same time and Minimus (I think) telling me the original word referred to killing not sanctioned by society or something similar. So if there was a law allowing abortion, according to Minimus having an abortion would not go against the 1st commandment, therefore not a sin. ;c) >> So >> obviously god has nothing to say about how the state should punish or >> not abortion, nothing to do with religion, all to do with what is good >> for society as a whole. >> >> > > The issue of abortion seems to revolve around religion, regardless of > whether the individual or state makes the choice, (eg free choice or not > free choice). Abortion could be a societal issue as well, if, for > example, abortion were needed to control population growth, or if > societal efforts to control the crime of abortion, including housing the > guilty parties in a penal system, became to complex and expensive. > Not merely so. In this country higher class women have no issue with abortion allowance or not. They can always go to an expensive clinic or travel abroad, and have an abortion without concern for the law. Problem here is that low income women who get pregnant and cannot raise the child have no way out and end up doing it themselves or going to some not very professional places to have an abortion performed. Obviously we have a high mortality between these women. If you look it from the POV of society, it is not convenient. If you look at it from the POV of religion, instead of one death you have two, and besides the mother dying in sin without opportunity to repent. Whereas if society allowed abortion, religion could always convince the woman not to perform it, and in case that was not possible, try and save the woman's soul later by urging her to repent. The babies soul from the POV of religion is already saved. And if we consider religion is here to save souls and not bodies........ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4bbe3723.4090...@gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
