Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Even more accurately, a mother has the legal authority to....abort....her child. A father doesn't. The child doesn't.7. A plank in the secular platform is that one must never speak from a religious perspective in the public arena: that would be imposing ones views on another. But is this the case? Hardly…it seems that way only because many fail to recognize the dualistic and subjective view of human nature, that divides the human into a mechanical body, separate from a moral, value-prone consciousness; this fragmented view treats the body as expendable, thus abortion, assisted suicide, ‘pulling the plug.’
And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society. Rather than seeing the existence of two conflicting worldviews, we speak of religion versus science, or faith versus fact.
8. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts, endorses, and approves any practice, it implicitly commits itself to the accompanying worldview- even more so if the practice is enshrined in law, which tells us what society considers morally acceptable. One should be very careful of acceptance of worldviews that endorse a low view of human life. The secular view that separates humanity into segments, rather than integrates, does that.
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three
More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.
It says the Lord made a man out of dust from the ground and breathed life into him. Let me know when anyone around here does the same. Until that time, we won't be creating humans, we will born them of humans.That the way you read Genesis 2:7? lolScience is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?
More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
Please tell me what the following means:
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
You don't even know what your own sacred book says. Which doesn't surprise me.
Science is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?That's a value judgment. The very fact that it multiplies, specializes, and creates a human form through no other force of will but it's own is a compelling indicator of humanity that can't be set aside.
Abracadabra, spooky magic stuff for those who believe in stone age superstitions.
"Force of will" is utter nonsense when applied to cell division which a biochemical process controlled via DNA.
You might as claim that the app running on your cell phone has a "force of will" because it was programmed to send out your tweets.
More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
Now you're using the Bible to both support your position and oppose it.It says the Lord made a man out of dust from the ground and breathed life into him. Let me know when anyone around here does the same. Until that time, we won't be creating humans, we will born them of humans.That the way you read Genesis 2:7? lolMore Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
Please tell me what the following means:
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
You don't even know what your own sacred book says. Which doesn't surprise me.
Breathed the breath of life through the nose. When that being took it's first breath of air through the nose it was alive.
That is what the bible says about when life begins.
Oh and if the story of adam and eve in the bible is true, all humanity came from incest.
Science is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?Abracadabra, spooky magic stuff for those who believe in stone age superstitions.
"Force of will" is utter nonsense when applied to cell division which a biochemical process controlled via DNA.
You might as claim that the app running on your cell phone has a "force of will" because it was programmed to send out your tweets.
More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
You make no sense. I don't usually read your posts because you never make sense. You just post random words from someone else. Do you have any original thoughts of your own?
What does that have to do with the bible saying when life begins?
You're perfectly free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to force it on anyone else.
I'm not christian so what your bible says doesn't have any relevance to me or my life and how I live it.
Oh, and jeremiah isn't the christian god. You're using the words of jeremiah not the christian god.
7. A plank in the secular platform is that one must never speak from a religious perspective in the public arena: that would be imposing ones views on another. But is this the case? Hardly…it seems that way only because many fail to recognize the dualistic and subjective view of human nature, that divides the human into a mechanical body, separate from a moral, value-prone consciousness; this fragmented view treats the body as expendable, thus abortion, assisted suicide, ‘pulling the plug.’
And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society. Rather than seeing the existence of two conflicting worldviews, we speak of religion versus science, or faith versus fact.
8. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts, endorses, and approves any practice, it implicitly commits itself to the accompanying worldview- even more so if the practice is enshrined in law, which tells us what society considers morally acceptable. One should be very careful of acceptance of worldviews that endorse a low view of human life. The secular view that separates humanity into segments, rather than integrates, does that.
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three
More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.
"A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone."
But the child is not "her body."
It is a totally separate biological being.
True story.
Science is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?That's a value judgment. The very fact that it multiplies, specializes, and creates a human form through no other force of will but it's own is a compelling indicator of humanity that can't be set aside.
Abracadabra, spooky magic stuff for those who believe in stone age superstitions.
"Force of will" is utter nonsense when applied to cell division which a biochemical process controlled via DNA.
You might as claim that the app running on your cell phone has a "force of will" because it was programmed to send out your tweets.
More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
According to the KJV the first breath is when man becomes a "living soul" too.
6. The views that include abortion, harvesting organs, eugenics, and other ways of disposing of human beings, evolved in several directions, first substituting the image of a self-creating dynamo for the universe, operating by automatic, undirected physical forces: never mind the contradictory nature of the concept, it served the need of eliminating a Creator.
This takes us in the direction of a mechanistic, value-free view of nature. We can call this view ‘liberalism,’ as defined by the self-identified liberal philosopher Peter Berkowitz: “Each generation of liberal thinkers [focuses on] dimensions of life previously regarded as fixed by nature,” then seeks to show that in reality they are “subject to human will and remaking." Sex Lies and Secularism - Christian Research Institute
Science is mystified by the force of life. The great philosophers have exalted its inscrutability. You don't even know that classes are held on it. How pathetic is that?
More Ooga-Booga superstition from the believer in sky bullies and talking snakes.
Getting a science lesson from you would be like listening to pond scum expound on what happens inside a black hole.
They don't even follow their own books.
The bible very clearly says that life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose. That can't happen inside a uterus surrounded by amniotic fluid.
It's right there in genesis 2-7. But then I don't expect any one of those so called christians to have actually read that book or if they did, actually understood it.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
You make no sense. I don't usually read your posts because you never make sense. You just post random words from someone else. Do you have any original thoughts of your own?
What does that have to do with the bible saying when life begins?
You're perfectly free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to force it on anyone else.
I'm not christian so what your bible says doesn't have any relevance to me or my life and how I live it.
Oh, and jeremiah isn't the christian god. You're using the words of jeremiah not the christian god.
The passage clearly defeats what you posted...as you admit: "I'm not christian so what your bible says doesn't have any relevance to me or my life and how I live it."
You might also see Psalm 139
Whatever lets you libs sleep at night after brutally mutilating and killing a helpless human life form in the womb.
Three times I've posted that the individual that Liberals would like...'erased'....is a separate human being from the mother who is being given the 'right' to kill same.
No one has argued that this is not the case.
Therefore.....all who giving that right to the mother are agreeing that it is the killing of another human being.
And that is the point of the thread.
7. A plank in the secular platform is that one must never speak from a religious perspective in the public arena: that would be imposing ones views on another. But is this the case? Hardly…it seems that way only because many fail to recognize the dualistic and subjective view of human nature, that divides the human into a mechanical body, separate from a moral, value-prone consciousness; this fragmented view treats the body as expendable, thus abortion, assisted suicide, ‘pulling the plug.’
And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society. Rather than seeing the existence of two conflicting worldviews, we speak of religion versus science, or faith versus fact.
8. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts, endorses, and approves any practice, it implicitly commits itself to the accompanying worldview- even more so if the practice is enshrined in law, which tells us what society considers morally acceptable. One should be very careful of acceptance of worldviews that endorse a low view of human life. The secular view that separates humanity into segments, rather than integrates, does that.
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three
More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.
"A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone."
But the child is not "her body."
It is a totally separate biological being.
6. The views that include abortion, harvesting organs, eugenics, and other ways of disposing of human beings, evolved in several directions, first substituting the image of a self-creating dynamo for the universe, operating by automatic, undirected physical forces: never mind the contradictory nature of the concept, it served the need of eliminating a Creator.
That assumes there's only one origin for support for abortion. Which isn't true. The legal rationale for abortion is the authority of a woman to choose for herself how her body will be used, based on the right to privacy.
Which has nothing to do with 'eugenics'. That a eugenicist may also support abortion has no more relevance than the fact that a suicide bomber may also support the belief in a creator.
You keep assuming that whatever you believe is universal truth and objective morality. But that's not necessarily true. Nor even probable.
This takes us in the direction of a mechanistic, value-free view of nature. We can call this view ‘liberalism,’ as defined by the self-identified liberal philosopher Peter Berkowitz: “Each generation of liberal thinkers [focuses on] dimensions of life previously regarded as fixed by nature,” then seeks to show that in reality they are “subject to human will and remaking." Sex Lies and Secularism - Christian Research Institute
Again, you're view of liberalism is based on the same fallacy that you tripped on before: liberalism isn't 'value free' anymore than its 'morality free'. Liberals simply reject the idea that you, Political Chic, define morality or values. Your entire argument is predicated on our acceptance of you as an infallible arbiter of objective morality and universal truth.
And you're not.
And without our acceptance of you as infallible moral arbiter, you're just another schmo with a personal opinion. Which is what you were all along. You don't have an objective moral system. You have a subjective one.
Absolute truth doesn't care what you believe.That's the funny thing about the absolute nature of truth. Your disbelief won't save you from hell. Only repentence will. All persons who commit, comission, or advocate abortion will be condemned unless they repent.
That last part was the good news.
Oh I'd love to believe in the fairy tale that sends all the bad people to a place for eternal punishment for their deeds, unless they repent but, I don't.
Nor the Greek, Romans or Egytians, nor the current brand of popular poly-theism either.
The absolute truth is you cannot tell me where the mythical place called Hell is can you?
Dear BlindBoo
Hell is relative for each person, just like Heaven.
Heaven is where there is love, forgiveness, healing and equal inclusion and security/peace for oneself and all others as one.
This can be found internally in the mind, it can be established externally in relations. It can exist collectively for all humanity somewhere in time and space, and some people can already be living at that energy level of existence, while others aren't.
Hell is where there is suffering from unforgiven conflicts, projected instead of healed.
this goes in a vicious cycle to cause "eternal hell"
collectively, the suffering of all humanity on all levels of spirit and whatever levels of life and consciousness or energy
exists, becomes this greater hell.
War is hell.
Drug addiction that leads to endless drive toward self destruction is hell.
It depends on the person what is their part of hell and process of experiencing or overcoming the forces of hell.
BlindBoo if you want to get scientific about it
we could start measuring the energy and brainwaves when someone is at peace
and the energy/brain waves when someone has demonic obsessions that are a living hell.
So we could distinguish these two, and agree what we are talking about.
One is positive life giving energy that facilitates healing and productive good will and good faith in relations.
And that energy will show up as one form or level.
The other is negative energy of retribution and ill will, that kills the spirit,
blocks healing of the mind and body, destroys relations and leads to abuse, crime, violence, bullying etc.
If you want to scientifically prove
that one is positive and the other is negative
that isn't impossible to do.
So one leads to peace and collectively what people call the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth
by healing and maximizing relations and resources we share with others
And the other leads to diminished health, destroying relations and wasting resources
on war, crime, violence abuse and unresolved conflicts creating negative cycles.
One aligns with the path to heaven by forgiveness correction healing and inclusion.
One aligns with the path to hell by unforgiveness retribution ill will and divisive bullying by coercion or exclusion.
These two are clearly distinct from each other.
And attract the respective consequences by cause and effect or the laws of justice.
Heaven and Hell are symbolic terms for the COLLECTIVE level
but they can refer to someone's personal process and experience on an individual level.
either positive toward life and healing, or negative toward death and destruction.
Not rocket science, but so simple a child can understand.
In symbolic terms I can understand and even agree somewhat. However, those are not absolutes. That path to Heaven, or Nirvana, is not dictated by me accepting some mythological creature as the Christ, or savior of mankind, who died for my sins......nor is it contingent upon me to denounce my pro choice stance.
7. A plank in the secular platform is that one must never speak from a religious perspective in the public arena: that would be imposing ones views on another. But is this the case? Hardly…it seems that way only because many fail to recognize the dualistic and subjective view of human nature, that divides the human into a mechanical body, separate from a moral, value-prone consciousness; this fragmented view treats the body as expendable, thus abortion, assisted suicide, ‘pulling the plug.’
And this secular liberal ideology is imposed on the entire society. Rather than seeing the existence of two conflicting worldviews, we speak of religion versus science, or faith versus fact.
8. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts, endorses, and approves any practice, it implicitly commits itself to the accompanying worldview- even more so if the practice is enshrined in law, which tells us what society considers morally acceptable. One should be very careful of acceptance of worldviews that endorse a low view of human life. The secular view that separates humanity into segments, rather than integrates, does that.
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three
More accurately, we have a high view of personal choice. A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.
"A woman has the authority to deny the use of her body to anyone."
But the child is not "her body."
It is a totally separate biological being.
Which, as noted above, doesn't have anymore claim to the use of her body than anyone or anything else. She gets to chose who or what uses her body. And with her choice, can deny that use.
Then why are you infantcidal Leftists so terrified we'll end legal abortion?And why shouldn't it?The law could recognize mitigating circumstances in it's punishment, or not. The punishment for abortion is a different topic than the legality.You have changed the topic from crime to punishment.
I haven't changed anything. Why all the obfuscation?
If abortion is murder, it's murder. What do we do about murder in this country, from a criminal justice perspective?
If the fetus has the same rights as you or me, which is what the life begins at conception crowd wants, there are no mitigating circumstances.
Having an abortion becomes the equivalent to killing any other human being.
It won't because the extremism and irrationality of the personhood for fetuses argument prevents it.
