Ten Years Later, Boy's 'Hand of Hope' Continues to Spark Debate

#26
#26
KB5252 said:
I wouldn't have been cool with it. My personal views are it is wrong, I struggle with this because at the same time I don't feel I have the right to tell another what he or she shouldn't do.

At the same time I am steadfast in my thinking that tax payer dollars going to fund or subsidize abortion is wrong and should not happen.
Click to expand...

I am on the same page as you.
 
#27
#27
rjd970 said:
Since it is "naturally occurring" wouldn't that mean a higher power is simply doing the killing, if you believe in that? Same with cancer?
Click to expand...

Or being indifferent and letting the course play out as it will under the design he has set. This is in line with my beliefs.
 
#28
#28
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
at what point would you have been cool with your mother aborting you?
Click to expand...

I would have been fine with it the first 6 weeks...because I wouldn't even be "me" yet. No conciousness, no heart, no nervous system...there is nothing to suggest my clump of cells would suffer in the least. The only thing human about me would be lifeless DNA, of which in itself, guarantees nothing that I would turn into a viable fetus.
 
#29
#29
KB5252 said:
I wouldn't have been cool with it. My personal views are it is wrong, I struggle with this because at the same time I don't feel I have the right to tell another what he or she shouldn't do.

At the same time I am steadfast in my thinking that tax payer dollars going to fund or subsidize abortion is wrong and should not happen.
Click to expand...

i hear yah on that first part, but the way i see it, the laws say do not murder, the reason why is because if we didnt then people would murder freely... i mean a baby is a blessing no matter how you look at it, plain and simple, maybe not for that paticular mother, but its a blessing, a live born child in all statistical odds is a miracle, we protect that child after he/she is born, why not all the way before.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
Or being indifferent and letting the course play out as it will under the design he has set. This is in line with my beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well then you would have to accept that the designer set the design so countless innocent lives would be destroyed.
 
#31
#31
rjd970 said:
I would have been fine with it the first 6 weeks...because I wouldn't even be "me" yet. No conciousness, no heart, no nervous system...there is nothing to suggest my clump of cells would suffer in the least. The only thing human about me would be lifeless DNA, of which in itself, guarantees nothing that I would turn into a viable fetus.
Click to expand...

up to six weeks, you still have what becomes a child, there are two sets of chromosones, 23 from mama, 23 from daddy that are joined to form that "lifeless" DNA, in that DNA the blueprint for "you" everything is there, its just not in place
 
#32
#32
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
up to six weeks, you still have what becomes a child, there are two sets of chromosones, 23 from mama, 23 from daddy that are joined to form that "lifeless" DNA, in that DNA the blueprint for "you" everything is there, its just not in place
Click to expand...

I'm still not "me" yet in the humanistic sense. Like you said, I am only a blueprint for "me" at that point. "I" don't exist yet.
 
#33
#33
My eyelash has 23 pairs of chromosomes, and in that DNA is the blueprint for "me." Same with my toe nails.
 
#35
#35
rjd970 said:
Well then you would have to accept that the designer set the design so countless innocent lives would be destroyed.
Click to expand...

I would say he set the design with the intent of free will, that we would not be mindless robots praising him but actually loving him. In order to do this he had to allow the alternative, hate and the evil it brings. The is good and there is bad, people have to deal with both as part of the life experience. I think part of the bad involves diseases and what have you. In the end he gave us the greatest gift, good and free will. On the other hand there had to be bad and evil for there to be a good, there had to be some balance. At least that is the way I see it.
 
#38
#38
IPorange said:
Just saying, certain kinds of commonly used birth controls prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, allowing to pass out as if it were a normal menstrual cycle. Since it is fertilized, I guess that is life and millions of humans are killed each month in this country alone. Since life begins right away and all.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of miscarriages each month, from fertilized eggs just happening not to implant on the uterine wall. Must have been the old testament God's idea.
Click to expand...

Be proud to be pro death, pro parasite and then one magical day it turns into a human!

:eek:k:
 
#39
#39
IPorange said:
No, to follow my logic dying of cancer is a tragedy. I never said a miscarriage is murder. I was just saying that if a fertilized egg is a person, a lot of people are dying.

And of course, IUD's and some hormonal birth controls are aborting babies like crazy.
Click to expand...

But the abortion issue is about human intention. I agree that the birth control methods constitute human intention but miscarriages are simply natural occurrences.

So it is not only an issue of "is it life" or "is it a person" -- it is an issue of is it okay for one human to destroy another (if it is a "person").
 
#40
#40
KB5252 said:
I would say he set the design with the intent of free will, that we would not be mindless robots praising him but actually loving him. In order to do this he had to allow the alternative, hate and the evil it brings. The is good and there is bad, people have to deal with both as part of the life experience. I think part of the bad involves diseases and what have you. In the end he gave us the greatest gift, good and free will. On the other hand there had to be bad and evil for there to be a good, there had to be some balance. At least that is the way I see it.
Click to expand...

So your basically saying the best he could come up with in order to give us free will would be creating a design that uses innocent life as collateral? Of which thousands of lives are probably sacrificed everyday with miscarriages?

I don't see why free will can't exist without miscarriages. You're saying he gives free will to us, but at the same time denies that opportunity to countless unborn lives with the design he set in place. To me, that is the biggest flaw in your line of thinking.
 
#41
#41
rjd970 said:
Well then you would have to accept that the designer set the design so countless innocent lives would be destroyed.
Click to expand...

No, no, no................. remember the fall??????

Every thing was perfect......

Remember there is also more than one line about Jesus in history texts!

:p
 
#42
#42
KB5252 said:
I would say he set the design with the intent of free will, that we would not be mindless robots praising him but actually loving him. In order to do this he had to allow the alternative, hate and the evil it brings. The is good and there is bad, people have to deal with both as part of the life experience. I think part of the bad involves diseases and what have you. In the end he gave us the greatest gift, good and free will. On the other hand there had to be bad and evil for there to be a good, there had to be some balance. At least that is the way I see it.
Click to expand...

Someone who gets it!
 
#44
#44
KB5252 said:
I wouldn't have been cool with it. My personal views are it is wrong, I struggle with this because at the same time I don't feel I have the right to tell another what he or she shouldn't do.

At the same time I am steadfast in my thinking that tax payer dollars going to fund or subsidize abortion is wrong and should not happen.
Click to expand...

This is where I fall also.

Every thing should be about freedom but who speaks for the child and why in the world does the dad have no rights?
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
But the abortion issue is about human intention. I agree that the birth control methods constitute human intention but miscarriages are simply natural occurrences.

So it is not only an issue of "is it life" or "is it a person" -- it is an issue of is it okay for one human to destroy another (if it is a "person").
Click to expand...

To me, I don't view an egg not implanting as a miscarriage and death of a human being. I think the vast majority of people don't, as it happens all the time and no one bats an eye. Thus, they (and I) think life does not begin at conception.

Where does it begin? I don't know. I personally would never want my significant other to get an abortion outside of it being a life or death issue for the mother, but I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions to the point of supporting legislating the choice for others.
 
#48
#48
rjd970 said:
So your basically saying the best he could come up with in order to give us free will would be creating a design that uses innocent life as collateral? Of which thousands of lives are probably sacrificed everyday with miscarriages?

I don't see why free will can't exist without miscarriages. You're saying he gives free will to us, but at the same time denies that opportunity to countless unborn lives with the design he set in place. To me, that is the biggest flaw in your line of thinking.
Click to expand...

But who is to say that life is denied, they either go to heaven because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or the spirit is allowed to come back via another conception. To be honest I don't know what the Bible says about this (if anything). The point is the child is not lost due to the evil (selfishness etc) of man therefore no sin has happened by man and the child is always innocent. Who loses here?
 
#50
#50
KB5252 said:
But who is to say that life is denied, they either go to heaven because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, or the spirit is allowed to come back via another conception. To be honest I don't know what the Bible says about this (if anything). The point is the child is not lost due to the evil (selfishness etc) of man therefore no sin has happened by man and the child is always innocent. Who loses here?
Click to expand...

The child does. If one believes that life begins at conception and then a natural miscarriage happens 6 weeks later, was that child not denied the free will you think is so important? And while the child was not lost to "evil", it was lost to a set design so the rest of us could practice free will....by your explanation.

Either way, the child loses out by virtue of a designer's design or lack of intervetion to give that child the same chance everybody else had. It's either negligence or callousness on the part of the designer.

The free will explanation simply doesn't make sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top