On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:
reams of your **** flushed where it belongs
You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to
remove the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life
vs the alternative.
The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take
responsibility for the aftermath.* Pregnancy is a well-known
result of sex, so for her to kill an innocent child, she commits
murder by taking the life of another innocent human being.
That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby
after a rape to full term.
Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman
STILL has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill
an innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?
That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone
murder. Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.
You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their
babies because they should have control of their own bodies,
I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.
You believe women should be able to abort their children. What do you
think happens when they abort them?* They already have control over
their bodies and they make choices to have sex and often get pregnant
from that choice.* The problem with your reasoning is choice does not
include aborting innocent babies without also receiving the title of
baby killer.
You can't defend women's right to CHOOSE ABORTION without also
condoning the killing of innocent babies.
According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'
Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living
human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person
with a soul until after drawing its first breath.
This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living
being. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he
was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
You're talking about God creating man.* That is not the same as conception.
In Job 33:4, it states: The spirit of God has made me, and the breath
of the Almighty gives me life.
http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being
This scripture has many interpretations.
Muggles!* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or
you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.
You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back your
personal view of life.
No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.
1000 CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLE
MOST OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED BELOW WERE COMPILED AND WRITTEN BY
CHRISTIANS,EX-PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS OF THE BIBLE.
https://wardoons.wordpress.com/debate/