Thread: I never know what to say about such things!

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Matt, I'd love to quote you for my signature line!

Chris L

Quote away my friend.

Matt

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I can see no issue with a man or woman who performs a legal abortion, or an illegal one, attending church on Sunday. If you believe abortion is "bad", then isn't this exactly the sort of person you would want to encourage into a Church? Or is Jesus only interested in the "good" people nowadays?

The very idea that this Doctor's attendance at a Church is questionable, or ironic, or hypocritical, is worrying based on my understanding of Christianity.

James.

In the '60s when I was a stereotypical hippie the quip was that if Jesus returned they wouldn't allow him to set foot in a church because of his appearance. I personally am not comfortable with abortion for selfish reasons... i.e. because the women doesn't want to deal with it... but I am more uncomfortable with government imposing it's will on individuals on what is IMO a matter of conscience and should be up to the individual. As far as the murderer of the doctor, there is another group of people who feel that their religious convictions justify committing murder. We are fighting them in Afghanistan right now. I don't see one group of fanatics as being morally superior to the other.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

As far as the murderer of the doctor, there is another group of people who feel that their religious convictions justify committing murder. We are fighting them in Afghanistan right now. I don't see one group of fanatics as being morally superior to the other.

Once again, Jimmy, you are right on. When I first read the article I thought to myself, "wow, an act of radical al-Qaeda-esque terrorism on US soil with all the same properties: religious (or moralist, for argument's sake) fanaticism, cowardice, shame, and vigilantism. I wonder if anyone in the thread will see it like that."

Bravo.

Thanks,

Ogie

EDIT: Regardless on where you (not just Jimmy, but the forum as a whole) stand on abortion, these actions are despicable. This topic could have been twisted a number of directions to be applied to an issue of importance outside abortion and it wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the publicity. Just some food for thought. As for my stance on abortion -- I'd rather not get involved!

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Once again, Jimmy, you are right on. When I first read the article I thought to myself, "wow, an act of radical al-Qaeda-esque terrorism on US soil with all the same properties: religious (or moralist, for argument's sake) fanaticism, cowardice, shame, and vigilantism. I wonder if anyone in the thread will see it like that."

Bravo.

Thanks,

Ogie

EDIT: Regardless on where you (not just Jimmy, but the forum as a whole) stand on abortion, these actions are despicable. This topic could have been twisted a number of directions to be applied to an issue of importance outside abortion and it wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the publicity. Just some food for thought. As for my stance on abortion -- I'd rather not get involved!

I think you will find many who are of the same thought process as yourself Ogie.

Originally Posted by Joeman

I think you will find many who are of the same thought process as yourself Ogie.

Of course I do not mean to imply that nobody was thinking it. I just agreed with what Jimmy wrote. I'm sure lots of people agree!

Thanks!

this has got me thinking. Has there ever been a recorded case of the opposite of this happening? (that is, someone in favor of abortion killing a doctor who refuses to perform them) I've been googling around but I can't find one yet. Any links would be appreciated.

Here is a line of thinking I sorta like when it comes to the Abortion issue....

The real problem seems to be "Life"

Now we have at this time a perfectly functioning legal definition of the end of life right??? Most everyone is comfortable with the "Brain Wave Definition" ie: when there are no brain waves present that life has ended....

Why can't we just reverse that definition????

When the fetus has a brain wave pattern it is now a "Living Human Being"

Wouldn't that solve the problem????


Or is that just way to simple????

When does a fetus have such activity, anybody know?
Do you mean ANY activity in the brain?
Are we talking brian-stem level "some activity" or, this brain could sustain breathing unassisted (if the lungs were developed?)
I don't know much about the brain, and what types of activity develop when...but maybe that is part of what will help me in my quest to define the "line" for myself when living tissue turns into HUMAN life.

-removed-- I removed this because a VERY brief internet search shows radically differing opinions and claimed science.

over here the definition line is at 3 months.

Why not use the same standard as they use on the other side of life????

One it begins and the other it ends.. same definition