Guest LiterateParakeet Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I will bet you donuts that I'm the most Pro-Life person on this entire forum. I hold by the Catholic viewpoint on abortion - Neither rape, incest, nor the life of the mother in danger is a valid reason for abortion - regardless of when the spirit joins the body. I even started a thread here on why the exception for the life of the mother is not needed in legislation. I didn't know that exactly, but I suspected something along that line. I also didn't realize that that is the Catholic viewpoint. Thanks for explaining. Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I didn't know that exactly, but I suspected something along that line. I also didn't realize that that is the Catholic viewpoint. Thanks for explaining. The Catholic doctrine is that Life begins at Conception - that is, both Spirit and Body are created when the sperm fertilizes the egg regardless of whether the zygote gets implanted in the uterine wall or not. That's why, in the Catholic faith, the use of artificial contraceptives that works to prevent the zygote from implantation is just as bad as abortion. Quote
pam Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 That's cdowis for ya. If you disagree with him then you must be an evil... I don't really know what he thinks, just that you're evil. He has some comprehension blockage when you disagree. Interesting because he's big on apologetics. Interesting that you of all people would say this. When people disagree with you, how many times have we had you say that English is your 3rd language and therefore there is some comprehension or understanding problems of some English terms. Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Interesting that you of all people would say this. When people disagree with you, how many times have we had you say that English is your 3rd language and therefore there is some comprehension or understanding problems of some English terms. Big difference. I am trying to understand but didn't because of a language barrier. Cdowis won't even read the post let alone try to understand it. Quote
pam Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Big difference. I am trying to understand but didn't because of a language barrier. Cdowis won't even read the post let alone try to understand it. Perhaps....but I'm just throwing out a comparison when we start attacking people on the forums. Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Perhaps....but I'm just throwing out a comparison when we start attacking people on the forums. I'm not attacking cdowis. It's a plain old simple observation. It's pretty clear on this forum. Understanding cannot be achieved when somebody refuses to read what you wrote but then replies to it. It's a futile exercise that just leads to frustration. And that's why he is leaving. He is frustrated. For reasons that can easily be alleviated if he would just read. Edited October 2, 2015 by anatess Quote
NightSG Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I don't know if he has a temple recommend Can you imagine the poor bishop that has to keep a straight face while asking him if he has been completely honest in his dealings? Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Can you imagine the poor bishop that has to keep a straight face while asking him if he has been completely honest in his dealings? Now this is an interesting point. If a bishop interviews a politician - any politician that is of the opposing party - this question... and the politician says yes - what does he do when he feels that the politician's political actions belie honesty? Because, this is not limited to Reid... Edited October 2, 2015 by anatess Quote
estradling75 Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Now this is an interesting point. If a bishop interviews a politician - any politician that is of the opposing party - this question... and the politician says yes - what does he do when he feels that the politician's political actions belie honesty? Because, this is not limited to Reid... My understanding is... That unless the spirit prompts them very strongly... The Leader takes them at their word. Edited October 2, 2015 by estradling75 Quote
Windseeker Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Someone mentioned in the now locked thread Nathaniel Givens blog and thought this piece was pertinent. Linker: “Democrats are going to pay a price for defending an unreasonably maximal position on abortion” Time will end the horrific human rights abuse that is the American system of abortion-as-birth control. There will be a day when we look back on this time period with the same mixture of shame and incomprehension as slavery, segregation, and male-only voting. The Democratic Party can get out of the way, or they can take a turn understanding the true meaning of the phrase “the wrong side of history.” mordorbund 1 Quote
Vort Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 "Thing"???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [...] Thank God that my daughter did not think she was a "certain thing", something to have a partial birth abortion, something to have her body parts sold or disposed as biological waste. You pick odd things to hyperventilate about, cdowis. You have badly misinterpreted anatess, whose feelings on the topic probably match your own. She used the word "thing" because she was making a generic argument, not because she was saying that an unborn baby is not a person. I've enjoyed many of your contributions. Sorry to see you go. But realize that you are leaving, not because anatess was offensive (she wasn't), but because you threw a fit over a word you didn't like -- a perfectly reasonable word that fit the context well. Quote
Vort Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Someone mentioned in the now locked thread Nathaniel Givens blog and thought this piece was pertinent. Linker: “Democrats are going to pay a price for defending an unreasonably maximal position on abortion” Yes, they surely will. But not in this life, when their prince reigns on earth and rages in the hearts of men (and women). Windseeker 1 Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Someone mentioned in the now locked thread Nathaniel Givens blog and thought this piece was pertinent. Linker: “Democrats are going to pay a price for defending an unreasonably maximal position on abortion” Yes, they surely will. But not in this life, when their prince reigns on earth and rages in the hearts of men (and women). But then they've been on the wrong side of History for most everything! Slavery - democrats. Segregation - democrats. Woman's Suffrage - opposed by democrats. Quote
Vort Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 But then they've been on the wrong side of History for most everything! Slavery - democrats. Segregation - democrats. Woman's Suffrage - opposed by democrats. Yes, I agree. But honestly, the whole "wrong side of history" argument is a coward's refuge. I will live by my principles and try to do what is right, and if that puts me on the "wrong side of history", so be it. I want to be on the right side of God and my family. History be damned. kapikui and mordorbund 2 Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Yes, I agree. But honestly, the whole "wrong side of history" argument is a coward's refuge. I will live by my principles and try to do what is right, and if that puts me on the "wrong side of history", so be it. I want to be on the right side of God and my family. History be damned. Yes, yes. A better statement would be - wrong side of morality... maybe. Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I would stand with Anatess regarding the futility and counter-productivity of the bill in question. But (without wanting to point at any individual post) I have a problem with what seems to me to be a zeal that can lead toward passing unrighteous final judgement on Senator Reid individually and the Democrat Party as a group. I think this zeal makes it too easy to lose sight of our eternal goals for the mortal methods and short-term objectives that actually get in our way. Sadly, it also makes it too easy for us to be on the same team but not help our cause by misunderstanding and needlessly offending each other, or taking offense unnecessarily. Edited October 2, 2015 by UT.starscoper Quote
Blackmarch Posted October 6, 2015 Report Posted October 6, 2015 Not having read the whole thread, nor having read the exact wordage of what was blocked i can think of at least one situation where a late term abortion can be just or justified... As ugly as that situation would be. Quote
cdowis Posted October 11, 2015 Author Report Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Unborn babies [things] can began learning much earlier than doctors originally estimated, according to the results of a Spanish study. The study concluded that babies can hear at 16 weeks gestation, rather than the typically scientifically accepted 26 weeks. The study, led by Dr. Marisa Lopez-Teijon of the Institut Marques in Barcelona, involved 100 pregnant women between the 14th and 39th week of pregnancy. Researchers used a device called a Babypod, which was inserted into the vagina, to play Partita in A Minor by Johann Sebastian Bach. The babies [things] responded to the music, indicating they could hear. Doctors said almost half moved during the music, making head and limb movements as if they were dancing. Another 30 percent began moving their tongues or mouths. Ten percent stuck their tongues out, doctors said. Researchers said they know the music caused the babies to move because most stopped their movements when the music ended. Not only did the babies move – doctors said they sang. Video shows the child moving its mouth and tongue, and it looks like singing. Doctors said it isn’t uncommon for babies to respond to sounds with movements that look like they are trying to speak or communicate. However, researchers never anticipated these movements to happen so early in the pregnancy. Researchers wrote on the Institut Marques website that this proves children can learn before they are born.That will be a major advantage to new parents and doctors, researchers said.“We are aware of and recognize the importance of talking to babies [YES, THESE ARE BABIES] from the moment they are born to promote neurological stimulation. Now we have the amazing opportunity to do this much sooner, which is a huge advance,” researchers wrote.Experiments with headphones on the mother’s stomach did not result in the babies making similar movements. Researchers said babies could hear their mother’s voice, her heartbeat and the sound of her heels on the floor, but only faintly due to the barrier of the stomach wall.http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-startling-footage-of-16-week-old-unborn-baby-catches-doctors-completely-off-guard/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=57&v=n9AWjb0D8gw Edited October 11, 2015 by cdowis Blackmarch 1 Quote
cdowis Posted October 11, 2015 Author Report Posted October 11, 2015 This last post was not meant to offend anyone, especially those who consider these as "things", and their life or death, whether they are sold for their body parts, as merely a political "wedge issue". To those who think in this way, I offer my apologies for appearing judgemental. I leave judgement to someone else. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.