Comment by Nina — 02.16.07 @ 8:09 pm
————————————————
Nina, no one says she no longer has the right to manage her own life (that’s emotional manipulation by the pro-abortion crowd talking)–they’re saying that now there are TWO lives to consider, and because of that you shouldn’t make decisions for yourself IN THE SAME WAY (sorry for the caps but I don’t know how to do italics) as you did before you were pregnant. That’s why I never call the pro-abortion crowd “pro-choice”–the only choice, only “right”, they seem to care about is the woman’s choice to abort. Pro-lifers are the real “pro-choicers” because only they seem to understand that there are many choices for women facing an unplanned pregnancy that don’t involve terminating her baby’s life. And not all of us are against birth control, either. We’re just against blindly giving it out to children without educating them on ALL the possibilities of what could happen to them if they have sex, which education they don’t necessarily get in their schools. If they are going to be taught about methods of birth control, they NEED to be taught about abstinence, because contrary to what the drug companies and condom manufacturers will tell you, abstinence education DOES work, for a lot of people, and not every teenager alive is out having sex. Not all sides of the story are being heard because of how society has made talk of abstinence “politically incorrect.”
On another note I heard in some above comments, people talking about a person “needing” an abortion–I have a big problem with the over-use of the “necessary abortion” argument. Pro-abortioners trot this argument out all the time to justify keeping abortion clinics open at all costs; however, as has already been said but I’ll say it again anyway, abortions done for reasons of life and health of the mother are very much in the minority of abortions performed, and(hopefully!!!) are determined to be “medically necessary” by the woman’s doctor and performed in a hospital and not some Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic. It’s a bad argument, and has very little to do with the real goal of the pro-abortion movement, which is abortion on demand, paid for by our taxes and accepted without question. I sincerely hope we never see that day.

There’s a philosophical conundrum … I give in. – JohnD

No, I’m not saying that cruelty to animals* is considered moral or admirable in Christian philosophy. I’m saying that it doesn’t come under the philosophically justifiable purview of human law. Much like other things that the Bible describes as unholy or displeasing to God – hateful thoughts, lust, homosexuality, idol worship, and so on – which do not harm a non-consenting adult**, animal cruelty laws don’t belong in a just government. Advocating animal cruelty laws is identical in logic to advocating anti-sodomy laws and a government established Christian church with compulsory attendance.

And if it makes a difference to you when considering this, I’m not a Christian. I’m a Deist, but familiar with the philosophy and theology because I’m apostate.

*I’m talking about actual cruelty to animals – torture and unnecessarily cruel killing and so on rather than normal exploitation. I’m not saying that the lunatics who believe in moral vegetarianism are biblically grounded, because they’re not. They’re either theologically illiterate fools or creation worshiping heretics.
** I’m aware that most Christians believe that homosexual sex harms all participants. Even if it does, as long as they’re all consenting adults it would be between them and God and not your business.

Toothpick Johnny is right. Humans were designed to be omnivorous. We eat plants AND animals. To do less would be extremely unhealthy for us. Even the 7th Day Adventists found that they had to modify their vegan diet to allow dairy, fish, and some poultry because their children were getting completely avoidable diseases like ricketts and iron deficiency anemia. The 7th Day Adventists have the very BEST records on this sort of thing. Their hospitals and record-keeping system are among the top in the nation. The vegan diet they formerly had is now only for those who can eat it AND stay healthy. Most of them use dairy products today, many fish and poultry.

Further, while I HAVE “accidentally” stepped on bugs, if the things are in my house I step on them quite deliberately, with a scurrilous “You’re not hanging out in MY house, bud!”

A virus or bug does not develop into a thinking, adult human if left alone.

The end of your post demonstrates the coldness of the pro-abortion camp, by talking about only the woman’s rights. There is another life involved. Deny that all you like, but that won’t change the fact that there are two beating hearts. You can deny the sunrise, but it’s there every day just the same.

unborn babies — yes
Soldiers — no — but not because they like the military — it’s so they can use their deaths as levers. Always ok to kill a baby, never a soldier.
DUI victims — off the radar
Weather related deaths — not so much worry
Age related passings — it happens
3000 9/11 victims. Not ok to kill, but time has passed enough to forget it happened.
Palestinians – horrible
Israeli’s — too bad but it’s their fault.
Homeless in the US — martrys
Homeless in the world — I don’t want to know
Political killing in the world — It’s not my problem.

I raise beef cattle. Sentient is not a word I would attach to those critters. The only time they seem intelligent in the slightest is when they’re trying to avoid going where I want them to go. Other than that, they’re as dumb as a post. Still, I treat them with respect, care for their health, insure their comfort, and never allow them to suffer.

Respecting the animal world is one thing, a good thing. But equating animal deaths with human baby deaths is disturbing, to say the least.