Biotech babies

On Wired today, Steven Edwards broadens the discussion of genetically altering preborn gays, if that theory holds true, to genetically altering anyone for any reason.

He linked to an article describing a March 20 meeting at Harvard of some of the world's leading liberal and conservative bioethicists. This group formed "unaccustomed alliances" to agree biotechnology should be used only to treat disease and not enhance people, such as to raise IQs:

perfect baby.jpg

Michael Sandel... head of the Program in Ethics and Public Policy at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute... not[ed] that "we choose our friends, and we choose our spouses, at least partially on the basis of traits we find attractive. But it's an important part of parenting that we don't choose our children"....

Unconditional love of children, and their unpredictability, are important facts of life, Sandel said. The author of an about-to-be-released book titled "The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering," said that the "qualities of children are unpredictable, and here's a domain of chance where the fact that the domain is governed by chance is morally important."

But even if limiting preborn biotechnology to treatment of diseases or handicaps, which diseases or handicaps would qualify?

And this question does not just apply to preborns. Some scientists support using technology not only to repair deficits like hearing, sight, or motor loss but also to enhance hearing, sight, and motor function - to hear what others can't hear (whispers 100 ft. away), see what others can't see (through clothes), throw a ball farther than can now be thrown, etc.


Comments:

Here's a puzzler:

If nobody believes in God anymore, why does everybody want to be Him?

"I'm not God, but I play Him on TV..."

"To an atheist the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever created by "nobody"." GKCHESTERTON
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 24, 2007 5:54 AM


This is facinating. We can kill children in the womb because they are simply "blobs of tissue", but we can't genetically alter the blobs that are "part of the woman's body" :)

Posted by: Tony Author Profile Page at March 24, 2007 5:57 PM



I can cite anything that you want but it's a twisty trail...

Madame Blavatsky (founder of Theosophy) mentored Alice Bailey. Alice Bailey wrote a book called "The Secret Doctrine" saying that Lucifer is the true god. The light bearer.

The Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer foundation) is sanctioned by the UN and is their official spiritual office. They are funded by the likes of the Rockerfeller founddation. Go the Lucistrust.org and you will see that they are followers of Alice Bailey.

Madame Blavatsky = Theosophy = Alice Bailey = The Lucifer Foundation = Lucis Trust = UN - New Age...

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 6:29 AM


Lucifer (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lucifer was a journal published by Helena Blavatsky. The first edition was issued in September 1887 in London.

[edit] History

The journal was first published by Blavatsky. From 1889 until Blavatsky's death in May 1891 Annie Besant was a co-editor. Besant then published the journal until September 1895, when George Robert Stowe Mead became a co-editor. The journal appeared two times a year and was 500 to 600 pages long. The last of twenty editions was published in August 1897. More than 2800 articles were published in this journal between 1887 and 1897. Then the journal was renamed to The Theosophical Review.

The journal published articles on philosophical, theosophical, scientific and religious topics. There were also book reviews (e.g. of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra).

Lucifer (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lucifer was a journal published by Helena Blavatsky. The first edition was issued in September 1887 in London.

[edit] History

The journal was first published by Blavatsky. From 1889 until Blavatsky's death in May 1891 Annie Besant was a co-editor. Besant then published the journal until September 1895, when George Robert Stowe Mead became a co-editor. The journal appeared two times a year and was 500 to 600 pages long. The last of twenty editions was published in August 1897. More than 2800 articles were published in this journal between 1887 and 1897. Then the journal was renamed to The Theosophical Review.

The journal published articles on philosophical, theosophical, scientific and religious topics. There were also book reviews (e.g. of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra).


Lucifer (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lucifer was a journal published by Helena Blavatsky. The first edition was issued in September 1887 in London.


In America, Alice Bailey made contact with the Theosophical Society, in which she encountered the work of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. This led her eventually to become a member of the Esoteric section of the Theosophical Society.


Just like Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger was a disciple of Theosophy and its founder, Madame Blavatsky. Both Sanger and Hitler were involved in a religion that worshipped Lucifer and were energized by the same dark, spiritual forces.

Lucis Trust is a prominent modern day representative of Theosophy, an extension of the Lucifer Publishing Company, which is also a United Nations NGO. Lucis Trust was founded by Alice A. Bailey during the early 20th century. Bailey was a disciple of Madame Blavatsky and nominal leader of the Theosophical Society in the early 1900s.

Because the name "Lucifer" had such a bad connotation, Bailey changed the name of her organization from the Lucifer Publishing Company to Lucis Trust. The nature and beliefs of this organization, however, have always remained the same.

Lucis Trust is one of the major front groups through which Theosophy influences life in America. Publications from Lucis Trust regularly refer to "The Plan" for humanity that has been established by "The Hierarchy." Sanger's disciples are alive and functioning today, influencing national and international population control policy.

David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Section, October 22, 1989, as saying, "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true...We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth...Until such time as homosapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the
right virus to come along." 7

In The First Global Revolution, published by the Council of the Club of Rome, an international elitist organization, the authors note that, "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."8

On April 5, 1994 the Los Angeles Times quoted Cornell University Professor David Pimentel, speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that, "The total world population should be no more than 2 billion rather than the current 5.6 billion."

In the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau wrote, "The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics-it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."9

In The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell said, "At present the population of the world is increasing...War so far has had no great effect on this increase... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others...If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full...the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."

Speaking at Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco in 1996, New Age writer and philosopher Dr. Sam Keen stated that there was strong agreement that religious institutions have to take a primary responsibility for the population explosion.

He went on to say that, "We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

Dr. Keen's remarks were met with applause from the assembled audience of New Age adherents, Socialists, Internationalists and occultists

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm


he UN plan for population control isn�t confined only to China, however.

"During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

"In October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite' Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country's anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite' obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists.

"Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.

"� when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies.

"The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy." - Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?

This could go on forever, but just type UN population control in your search engine.
Or mix it up: Madame Blavatsky, Margaret Sanger, UN, Lucis Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, Ted Turner/Poplulation control, Alice Bailey, etc...

It's pretty frightening stuff.

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 7:15 AM


Tony, I think you will find that educated pro-choicers do not argue that a fetus is simply a blob of tissue. We are aware of the facts of fetal development. The argument on which the pro-choice movement is contingent is that no human, fetus or adult, has the right to invade the body of another human for its survival without permission. We do not allow this for a full-grown, contributing member of society, so why would we allow it for one that has yet to even be born? I must also say that almost all the pro-choicers I have come in contact with (altho admittedly college age) despise the actual act of abortion and are eager for a day when it is no longer necessary.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 8:36 AM


SamanthaT:

Ever heard of Chubby Checker? He popularized the song "Twist and Shout" in the '60's. Maybe I should call pro-deathers "ChubbyCheckerites" because that so aptly describes their pattern in arguing for murdering innocent children. Twist the logic and then shout it louder then your opposition and by that we will turn lies into truth. You know, I don't hear "Twist and Shout" on the radio much anymore. It was just a fad....."but the Word of God endureth forever".

Your quote: "The argument on which the pro-choice movement is contingent is that no human, fetus or adult, has the right to invade the body of another human for its survival without permission. We do not allow this for a full-grown, contributing member of society, so why would we allow it for one that has yet to even be born?"

My answer: You're absolutely right (not really) but misapply the word invade. To invade means enter without permission. But, here's where you're wrong....again. The baby living in a women's womb did not INVADE her. She opened the door and gave permission for the sperm to enter her through her vagina, you know, to enter her body when she had sex unless of course you are telling me that pro-deathers are so ignorant that they don't know that having sex is somehow associated with getting pregnant......I see how that could be a possiblity.

Have you ever seen someone pass out after a heart attack? Based on your logic, no one should have the right to "INVADE", i.e., split open their sternum, stop their heart, connect to a pump, cut their leg open, withdraw a vein, install that vein on the stopped heart, restart the heart...etc., etc., etc., to try to SAVE tehm from death. Based on your logic we should just let them die because we didn't get their permission? Well, I guess that would be evidence of your consistency pro-deather....eh?

Keep trying.......I will refute every lie you try to propagate on this site.

Oh, have to go to church now to worship and pray now. I will pray for you CC.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 11:06 AM


Congratulations on once again using a completely nonhomologous analogy, His Man. A heart attack victim is in no way confronted with another human who would use his organs to survive. If I were going to force you to donate your kidney to me, that would be analogous. Sex is not a contract for pregnancy. But since you want to play that game, what about rape and incest? Those women dont "open the door and give sperm permission to enter the vagina." The bottom line is that no one has the right to sponge off of another human's body. And while you're busy "refuting" my "lies," how about trying to refute a few of your own?

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 11:57 AM


Tony, I think you will find that educated pro-choicers do not argue that a fetus is simply a blob of tissue. We are aware of the facts of fetal development. The argument on which the pro-choice movement is contingent is that no human, fetus or adult, has the right to invade the body of another human for its survival without permission. We do not allow this for a full-grown, contributing member of society, so why would we allow it for one that has yet to even be born? I must also say that almost all the pro-choicers I have come in contact with (altho admittedly college age) despise the actual act of abortion and are eager for a day when it is no longer necessary.

So you actually agree that abortion does kill a human being's life, and that it is murder, but that the murder of an innocent baby is justifyable because the baby happens to need it's mother to survive? That is terribly, terribly sad that you, or anyone for that matter, think this way. I don't think there's any reason for myself or anyone to discuss it with you anymore if you acknowledge what it is and still defend it. :-(

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2007 12:24 PM


"So you actually agree that abortion does kill a human being's life, and that it is murder, but that the murder of an innocent baby is justifyable because the baby happens to need it's mother to survive?"

Please do not take my words and expound on them to include what you want me to say. No, I do not think abortion is murder. I am a biologist, not a lawyer. However, I do know that murder is illegal. Abortion is legal. Fetuses do not have rights. Fetuses cannot be murdered.

The murder of a baby is never justified. Abortion is not the murder of a baby. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The unfortunate direct result of this is the death of the embryo/fetus.

If there was a two-year-old sitting in front of me who would die if I didnt give her a blood transfusion, I would have every right to leave her there. I cannot be forced to donate any product of my body for her survival and cannot be tried for murder if she dies. I cannot understand why a fetus should be elevated to a status above a breathing, thinking person. If you cannot discuss with me the basis for your position without resorting to emotional appeal, then you are correct in saying that there is no further reason for conversation.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 1:37 PM


Samantha,


f there was a two-year-old sitting in front of me who would die if I didnt give her a blood transfusion, I would have every right to leave her there. I cannot be forced to donate any product of my body for her survival and cannot be tried for murder if she dies.

Nobody could force you to do anything. But what kind of a person uses "I would have every right to leave her there" as criteria for right and wrong.

There are three reasons a person does the "right" thing. One, because they fear punishment. Two, because they respect and follow the laws of society, and Three, because they answer to a higher law.

Of course you can say there is a difference between murder and abortion because murder is illegal and abortion is legal. But, honestly, don't you see that that is a rather shallow criteria for right and wrong? You say you want to be independent, you say you don't want anyone telling you how to run your life, and yet you let the government decide your moral code by falling back on "it's legal".

It may be legal, but it's wrong. You've got to up your standard of morals, not let the "law" decide what's right and wrong for you.

Your arguments go in circles. You say that you realize that a fetus is human. Killing a human is murder. But the human fetus isn't a person. So it isn't murder. It's ending a pregnancy. Pregnancy is the carrying of a non-person human being. So you can kill it. Even if it's human, because it's not a person. So it's not murder because murder is killing a human.

Then you end it by saying abortion is legal and murder isn't.

Don't get all mad now...take your time, and explain what you mean. I'll listen. It's just that your arguments are confusing to me.

Kay?
MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 2:40 PM


hey guys,

MK was asked if eugenics was alive today ... maybe not as overt but there does seem to be a strong lemming-fopr-human quality affloat ... this is a very recent blog (long - but very relevant):

This Is War!

March 11, 2007

Weapons for Winning a War Without Fighting

You are a target in a war. So are your children, grandchildren, parents, and the people half way around the world whom you have never met. The war is for resources and you are in the way.

You Are In the Way. It’s that simple.

US foreign policy became very clear in the December 10, 1974 National Security Study Memorandum, “NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” also called the Kissinger Document. In it, an explicit policy by which the US would promote rapid population decline in 13 countries was articulated. Kissinger’s now famous (and declassified) quote sums up the elaborate plan:

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

NSSM 200 became official US policy in November 1975 under President Gerald Ford. Birth control, war and famine were all tools to serve US access to mineral resources without impediments caused by third word populations who were to be eliminated. Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger’s replacement as National Security Adviser was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, along with the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Agriculture.

Brazil Noticed

Carrying out this depopulation agenda, other agencies besides those most closely identified publicly with the US are active as well.

Former Brazilian Health Minster Carlos Santana, for example, pointed out that “The World Bank, through their reports of its Presidents, has always made its proselytizing for a rigid birth control policy explicit,” and that included in World Bank credit packages and investment in Third World countries is an implicit agenda of depopulation. He questioned why Brazil was targeted for birth reduction, with approximately forty per cent of Brazilian woman having been already sterilized.

Quotes Worth Noting

The architects and engineers of global depopulation include iconic figures, corporate and governmental leaders and national decision-makers.

Depopulation programs worldwide are directed and funded by major international money interests, including McGeorge Bundy of the Council on Foreign Relations, (the architect of the US nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD policy); Warren E. Buffet, the second wealthiest man in the United States; and, long term supporters of eugenics, the Rockefellers.

In 1998, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, announced “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”**

Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon Magazine said, “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” and is using his purported $1Billion “gift” to the UN to further global depopulation programs.

UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer and ambassador for the environmental movement, said in 1991,

“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

As Alex Jones pointed out, “That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.”***

But what about the US? Is anyone trying to get rid of us? Look at what the USDA and FDA permit as “food” and tell me whether the preventable diseases of under nutrition and toxicity which are killing us to the great profit of the “Bigs” (Big Pharma at the top of the list, of course, but Big Chema, Big Biotechna, Big Abgribiz and Big Medica) could possibly have been regulated this disastrously by accident alone.

Help Me Out Here

Tell me if you believe

* That the permission to market spectacularly toxic drugs long after their dangers are know is caused by simple incompetence and greed.
* That the policies which support regulators who consistently protect drugs and pesticides and GM “FrankenFoods” which are killing the American population are the simple results of corruption.
* That the CDC’s decision to hide the harm being done to our young while protecting the vaccine industry’s profits is mere corruption or whether somewhere, at some level, the real impact of treatments and procedures which are destroying our population through completely preventable disasters is simply a grave error of judgment and that the scientists who try to correct these problems in the regulatory agencies are intimidated and harassed as random acts of administrative error.
* That a multi-trillion dollar business which treats people with chemotherapy agents which the industry supported American Cancer Society admits provides any benefit for a mere 3-4% of people suffering from cancer while the US government ruthlessly suppresses effective, inexpensive and safe cancer treatments is simply a result of unalloyed greed.

If so, then you can buy the notion that the disastrous (and wildly profitable) deaths by pharmaceuticals which account for huge numbers of preventable deaths in the developed world (according to journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, etc.) could be due to corrupt regulators alone.

It also means that you buy the story that degraded and depleted food laced with poisons is regulated onto our tables and shelves by accident. That Donald Rumsfeld’s statement (as the CEO of Searle) that he wanted Aspartame approved by the FDA and he did “not care how many people it killed” was just a poor turn of phrase.

That means that you are comfortable that the depopulation agenda being so vigorously pursued elsewhere in the world does not touch the shores of the US.

Are You Disposable?

No one, rich or poor, believes they are disposable. And they are right.

I have traveled to places populated by some of the most abjectly poor people in the world on the health freedom trail. People without any way out of that abject poverty, people starving and watching their children starve, have not been willing, just as you and I are not willing, to hold up their hands and say, “Yes, I am a useless eater! For the sake of the elite and their comforts, my children and I are willing to be eliminated.”

Yet read what a leading proponent of eugenics/depopulation has to say about those stubborn people who for some reason will not willingly class themselves as useless eaters for their own good!:

“The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters … We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?

I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement … they won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. … it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”

- From Galton and Mid Century Eugenics by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956

Weaponizing Food

Using food as a weapon goes back to the beginning of inter-group struggle. Sieges are mounted to starve the opposing side. Scorched earth policies deprive peasant and warrior alike of the food they need to survive. Food has been a weapon of tribal and national policy since there were tribes and nations. The US upper echelon policy makers and their friends the would-be masters of the planet have taken this ancient form of intentional misery and death one step further.

With chilling directness, food was officially weaponized by NSSM 200 which the US has never repudiated. The document states, “Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”…. “Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Among the conclusions reached by NSSM 200 is that “mandatory [emphasis added] population control measures” may be “appropriate.”* NSSM 200 states that “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,…can be expected” as policy events and points out “In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion” and suggests that the UN and other agencies be used to carry out these policies.

Codex: A Perfect Disguise

Codex works perfectly for that purpose. If you were turning food into a tool of depopulation and political control, wouldn’t you do exactly what the Codex Commission has done? Wouldn’t you create a high sounding international body to “protect consumer health” and “ensure the free trade of food” while bringing your less developed brethren along to develop their “science based” agriculture and food processing capabilities? Wouldn’t you make sure that higher and higher levels of deadly chemicals, hormones and other toxins (including heavy metals and animal drug residues) were lacing their foods and get them to want to pay you premium prices for helping them to contaminate their own food and buy your illness-inducing “food” at the same time? Wouldn’t you set up seemingly scientific “risk analysis” procedures to mandate global mal- and under-nutrition knowing that, as Linus Pauling said, every disease is caused by a nutritional deficiency”? Then you could sanctimoniously declare that the “preventable diseases of under nutrition” were killing more and more and more people and wasn’t it terrible!

Supposedly “Science Based” and advisory in nature, and backed up by WTO trade sanctions (unless countries follow our two step protective strategy), Codex serves the interests of the multinational corporations which are controlled by people whose idea of a really great planet is one without 5/6 of the people on it now. You have to hand it to the would-be masters: Codex is a brilliantly constructed, glossy and beautifully crafted deception and disinformation system.

Third world countries are led down the disastrous garden path of depleted and damaged food resulting in peoples with weakened immune systems who are under nourished and over fed on nutrient poor food. Their food is irradiated, contaminated with highly profitable chemicals, genetically modified foods and the results are inevitable.

Codex Delegates Disinformed

The men and women who attend Codex as National Representatives and Delegates, by the way, are, in my experience, in the main, good, decent and hard working people who have been totally hoodwinked by brilliant misrepresentation and pseudo science. The amazing thing is how quickly they convert their nagging suspicions and unease to clear understanding when we present the facts as we understand them in personal and direct conversation.

We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For

Success in taking back our food and our freedom is really up to us. We have the information and we have the power to take back our futures. This war has been brought to our tables and our bodies. It is up to us to “Join the Mouth Revolution” in more ways than just spitting out fake food. We need to speak, we need to educate, we need to purchase healthy foods and nutrients, and we need to share what we know with everyone we reach. The stakes are literally life and death. Yours, mine and theirs.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 25, 2007 2:46 PM


the above blog comes from this site http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php . Hard to explain just how important this is to everyone's future

Posted by: John McDonell at March 25, 2007 2:50 PM


MK I understand what youre saying. Okay, Im going to be honest. Please, nobody attack me for this, because it doesnt mean what you think it does, okay...but I personally do not think that abortion is okay because it kills a fetus that will become a precious baby that was created in God's image. Working with 13 year olds in the children's home, it breaks my heart to think that they dont have a loving home to go to. I absolutely cannot imagine the horror of being tiny and helpless and not having a mom and dad to love you and make you safe. However, sometimes it is necessary to save the mother, and I always feel that the mother's life is more important because she has already established relationships and connections and will leave voids behind if her life is ended.

That said, that belief stems solely from my religion. As a person who enjoys the freedom to practice my religion freely at my discretion and without persecution, I can ask no less of anyone else living in this country. That includes not pressuring them to take on the morals embedded in my religion. Some things are a given when living in a civilized society, like not raping children. Some things arent so black and white for people, and abortion is one of those things. The argument that I have presented above is the legitimate basis for the pro-choice movement. MK, you ask what kind of person would let a child die; admittedly a selfish one. Some people argue that abortion is in the best interest of the fetus, or that it is inconsequential to it. I am not one of those people. However, the point of the analogy was that selfish or not, you cannot force someone to share their body with another. When you pass a law that allows the government to force a woman to gestate, what is to stop them from forcing me, a stupid white girl, to sacrifice my liver to allow the life of a genius black boy? Its not much different.

So basically, what Im trying to tell you is that I understand how you can say religiously that abortion is wrong. But in a secular country that does not recognize a national religion, you cannot legislate based on one group's preference.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 4:26 PM


Wow,

Samantha, that is the best explanation I have heard on here yet. I still totally disagree. But it was really well put.

The difference between you being forced to give your liver to a stranger is that while you may be one person that could save his life, you are not the only person that could save his life.

You did not create this boy by your actions. He is not completely dependent on you for every function of his body.

99.9% of the time a pregnancy comes about from a choice made by the parents prior to the pregnancy. We can argue semantics and say that having sex is not permission for a pregnancy to take place, but it is a natural consequence. You can argue all you want that you didn't intend to get pregnant, but the fact remains that sex leads to pregnancy.

So, morally, we must take responsibility for our actions.

No, we will never stop abortion. But I want to live in a country where we have it on the books as illegal. A country where we cherish all life, wanted or unwanted, useful or useless. A country where age or infirmity or genetic disease or homosexuality does not quantify the right to live.

And I promise you that if our country ever forces a stupid white girl to sacrifice her liver to anyone I'll be standing outside of those clinics protesting too. The fear of one injustice is not permission to commit another injustice.

We have to stay on the side of what is good and right no matter how hard it is and no matter what the "law" says.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 4:41 PM


John,

While I think that you get go to the other extreme and hide from every shadow, I too have read up on many conspiracy theories. Truthfully, I believe them. But I don't believe any one group is behind them. I believe satan is. That said, he'll use any one he can get.

MKULTRA, Tuskegee, the Club of Rome, the G-7, one world government, Bachelors Grove, the aids virus, and the list goes on...

How many are true, how many are partly true, how many are completely fabricated...it doesn't matter.

There is a war, and satan will use any pawn, any means, anybody to get what he wants. And what he wants is complete annihilation of the human race.

Abortion has taken care of 1 billion. What else will we fall for?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 5:00 PM


MK--wow, thanks! Okay, about the whole responsibility thing, yes, I agree that people should be responsible for their actions. But you still have the 1% of abortions that are due to rape (and then you have the ones that are due to rape, but the mothers dont cite that as the cause for their pregnancy). So if we illegalize abortion in all cases except those, that in effect is saying, "Okay, rape babies are of less value than babies concieved of consensual sex and are therefore worthy of abortion while the others are worthy of gestation." That, to me, is unacceptable. Every fetus must have the same worth to the government, or the government is doing the same thing it did to blacks and women. By allowing the abortions to take place, the government is taking the easy way, admittedly, by saying, "Okay, nobody has rights until they are actually born." But what else can they do? I feel like the law should be the minimum requirement, the absolute minimum that society can allow and still function. It is up to the members of society to elevate their own personal standards above that minimum guideline and raise that society as high as it can be. If women are given options, educated, given birth control (I know that makes you cringe, but remember, not everyone is Catholic!) and taught how to use it properly, etc. then there wont be a need for abortion. I think the need for it has to be eradicated. Illegalizing it wont solve the problem; it will only make it more dangerous.

And one more thing--about the whole responsibility issue. If you smoke for thirty-seven years and get lung cancer, should your doctor just let you die because you knew the risk? I nderstand that comparing life to a cancer is rather callous, but just understand the point.

This is a completely separate issue. I found this verse and am wondering what your take is on it, since I have always been taught that unborn babies are sinless:
"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."
Psalms 51.7

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 6:00 PM


Samantha, it means that we are all born with a sin nature, not that we have sinned already, but that we without a doubt will sin in the future, because it is in our nature. The Bible is consistent with this throughout the Bible. I do believe that babies are incapable of sinning in the womb, but they still possess that nature.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is the King James version for that verse.

. So if we illegalize abortion in all cases except those, that in effect is saying, "Okay, rape babies are of less value than babies concieved of consensual sex and are therefore worthy of abortion while the others are worthy of gestation." That, to me, is unacceptable


Exactly! This is exactly how we see it. Babies are human beings no matter what situation brought them onto this earth. It is not their fault if they were brought into this world by rape. It makes no difference whatever the situation...a human life is a human life.

That's why I believe abortion should be illegal in all situations. Murder is murder is murder, and two wrongs never make a right.

Posted by: Bethany at March 25, 2007 6:22 PM


Samantha,

You're going to hate this answer but HisMan could probably give you a better historical interpretation.

I looked it up in my bible, and it isn't worded quite that way.

I'm only now studying the old testament and haven't gotten to David yet, so I don't know the circumstances in which he was conceived.

I do know however that every one of us, since the fall of adam and eve was born with the stain of original sin on our souls. This is one of the reasons Catholics have infant baptism, and the reason that all christians are baptized.

This sin is no fault of their own, but passed down from generation to generation and we can thank Eve.

Bishop Fulton Sheen says: "Winning the world to Christ - or winning it to anti-christ - requires playing one of two roles: that of Eve or Mary"

Two women, two choices. One said no. One said yes.

We are still paying for the one who said no. We are still reaping the benefits of the one who said yes.

In the old testament, sin was eradicated yearly at what is now called Yom Kippur. Or the day of atonement. Sacrifices were made and sins were confessed and God help you if you sinned again before the next day of atonement. Just like the blood covenant that was made with moses, this hasn't worked out too well. We keep screwin' up our end of the bargain.

So Jesus (God) came and performed on ultimate Yom Kippur Day of Atonement...and the rest is History.

Really simplified version, but you get it.

A small child can't really sin again until they reach the age of reason (usually between 5 and 7) which is why most children don't make their first Holy Communion until then.

Does this help?
MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 6:25 PM


Samantha,

Bethany is right. A wrong is a wrong.

When I'm at the clinic and someone says that it should be legal in the case of rape, I feign shock and ask them if they have been raped by a baby!

If we kill this child because of his father's sins then do we also kill his mother, sister, uncle and brother? Why would we punish the child for something the father has done?

But why you ask, should the woman suffer? The only answer I have is because she must. Suffering really gets a bad rap. If we understood the beauty of it, the promise of it...

Again: Bishop Fulton Sheen: "The tragedy of this world is not so much the pain in it: the tragedy is that so much of it is wasted".

Christ himself taught us that suffering is the ultimate act of self giving. We must suffer and we must embrace suffering. If a woman is raped and turns that violent act and subsequent pain into an act, given up for the salvation of other souls...well, wow, the rape becomes a magnificent testimony. No longer pointless, but powerful.

Ah, you say again, but not everybody is Catholic (Christian). But, Samantha, you are. You will not be taking all of the feminists, rape victims and like minded thinkers with you when you stand in front of the Man. When he asks you "What did you do about the abomination of abortion" and you say, "wellll, I didn't like it, but I didn't do anything to stop it..." what do you think His response will be.

300 years ago, you might have gotten away with buying a little time, but I promise, we are running out of time. This is war. And there are ONLY two sides. His and the other. If you claim that you are not on either, you have actually chosen the other side. There is no middle ground. Anyway who is not for Him, is against Him.

Is this too much?
I can slow down, or back off if you want...

You're right, we can't make everyone see it the way we do. But we can't compromise ourselves under the false compassion that is disguised as political correctness.

Whether people hate you for it, or tease you about or dump you because of it, YOU MUST STAND FOR THE TRUTH!

The laws might not change, but at least you stood firm.

Father Corapi says, "You may not like what I say, it may be hard to swallow, but as a Catholic and a priest, I HAVE to say it. Because I'm not going to hell for anyone!"

When I had my conversion (on the toilet - i swear) I knew that half of my friends would leave me. And they did. I no longer smoked pot, I didn't want to go to bars, I pretty much gave up everything. And they couldn't handle it. I really learned who my true friends were. And these were people that I had been friends with for 20 years. I was lonely at first, but I discovered that God provided and I have an incredible group of Catholic friends now. They're everywhere. Just look at John McDonnell. It's like belonging to a secret club. Except we're tripping over each other to tell the "secret" to everyone!

I know you were raised protestant, and I Catholic, so as much as all Christians are on the same page up to a point, we are going to part ways at some point. Let me know when it gets uncomfortable, and maybe Bethany can take over. O maybe you've had enough. And that's okay too. At least your thinking and self examining.

By the way, I do smoke, and when I get lung cancer, I'll just have to practice what I preach and offer it up...unless of course you start praying for me and yet another miracle happens and I can quit!

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 6:46 PM


"ask them if they have been raped by a baby!"

Rape is the loss of control over your body. So in essence, yes, a woman would be being raped by a fetus if she didn't want to continue the pregnancy and was forced to.

I could not imagine waking up every morning and having the child of my rapist growing inside of me. If I couldn't get an abortion, I'd probably end up killing myself.

Posted by: Danielle at March 25, 2007 7:28 PM


Danielle,

I could not imagine it either. But it would be even harder for me to imagine that I aborted the baby.

9 months is a long time. It's a large sacrifice.
I admit that. But it wasn't the child's fault any more than it was yours. Your actually in the same boat. You didn't ask to get raped, and she didn't ask to be born. But the circumstances are what they are.

You could bond with the baby in utero and share your 9 months together, knowing that this baby is entering a world of unknowns too. Nobody's life turns out the way they planned it.

I often tell my son (the one with bi-polar) that there is always light at the end of the tunnel. Just when he starts to roll his eyes I say, that's the good news. The bad news is there's another tunnel comin' up. Everyone can look for the light, it's how you handle the tunnels that matter.

Life is good, life is bad, life is life. All that really matters is what you do with it.

Of course, I also add, that the light at the end of the tunnel is mostly likely a train comin' straight at ya!

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 7:35 PM


I applaud any woman who is strong enough to go through with a rape pregnancy. I would not be. And I don't see why you or anyone else has the right to try and force me to.

Posted by: Danielle at March 25, 2007 7:40 PM


MK

Okay, that was my point. You pulled the whole responsibility card, but you arent willing to allow abortions for those who arent responsible for their circumstance. Therefore, you are going to have to find another argument that will encompass all abortions that arent medically necessary, and one that will stand up in a secular court. Do you understand where Im coming from with this? Now consider this; if those women were on birth control, even the ones who were raped, they would be much much less likely to get pregnant. The CDC reports a 98% success rate among oral BC users; of the 2% in which it fails, the number who would be abortion-minded would be very small. After the mothers are given a chance to view an ultrasound, that number would decrease by another 84%...do you see? My generation believes that the answer to abortion is education and birth control because the fact is that 95% of Americans are sexually active by age 16.

Okay, about the verse thing, I use the NIV because it didnt go thru all the alterations that King James had done to keep women on the back burner. But what I was wondering is if humans are sinners from conception, how do aborted fetuses get to heaven?

And about the whole smoking thing--my grandmother has been smoking since she was 14. She will be 83 on Wednesday, and she doesnt have cancer (altho she does have a bad cough!).

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 8:26 PM


MK you may be right here,

conspiracy theories, y2k, 9/11 ... abortion, silly youth, pro-choicers/pro-lifers ... we all seek a wee bit of leverage >>> to win, THE WEAPON OF CHOICE IS FEAR. Am I good enough to be a good Christian ... a good enough girlfriend/boyfriend - am I good enough to become a parent? Can't be, 'cause I'm scared!

We are taught not to enter any trap of judging, especially self-judging (letter of St. John). How then will I make it to eternal life? ANSWER: You won't - ALONE. Jesus did not say I am the Way, Truth and Life because it sounds good. We enter redemption upon baptism (not at our death) because we enter Jesus (become one, with and in Him) ... since He is Truth and is Life, we too become Him (His Truth & His Life)... like a candle(us) feeding the flame of Love Himself.

Thought of the way to handle HisMan - we cannot get scared into repentance .... St. Paul asks us to cloth ourselves in gentleness, kindness ........ etc. Over these (not instead of these), put on love! I've a wee trick here because I really need help getting dressed, I ask Jesus to live in me as He sees fit ... to speak to others with or without my consent/control. It really comes down to trusting Him ... when I'm falling apart ... when His crucifix is so close I can taste it - - He asks me not to fear. [Sorry Leah, I asked you to fear for your future. Not good ... not Jesus in me.]

hope these ramblings help -

Posted by: John McDonell at March 25, 2007 8:51 PM


John Mcdonell,

Not only are you going to get in, you'd better have my room painted pink by the time I get there. Oh yeah, and I'm partial to champagne. Other than that I'm strictly peasant stock. Oh and lobster. But I don't wear Khaki and I don't do heels. So just the pink room, champagne and lobster. It can even be a cell with nothing but a bed, as long as it's pink.

I am reading the most amazing book (fiction) that I have read in years, and I read A LOT. It's called Eclipse of the Sun by Michael D O'Brien (another fine Irishman). It's a fictional account of the end battle from a Catholic standpoint. It's got priests, and a boy and government and oooohhhh you'd like it. Best of all it's part of a series so when you finish it theres more. It's 850 pages long. I love it!!!!

About HisMan, yeah, I know, it's got to be done with love or it's empty. These girls have some hurt on them and the last thing they (or anyone) needs is being told their lives are meaningless.

They'll get there. I have complete faith in them. Each one of them has a gift. Alyssa is sweet and open. Samantha is smart as a whip and dying to learn, learn, learn. Ingrid is strong and untamed. Leah is funny and spiritual. Danielle is a fighter and is probably very compassionate under her gruff outside. All of them diamonds in the rough that need guidance and coaxing, not bullying. With people who are already Christian, HisMan would be awesome. And smaller scripture quotes would be great. It's just that he keeps throwing them meat, when they need milk.

(Sorry we're talkin' about you like you're not here guys...feel free to eavesdrop...I don't think I've said anything wrong...)

He perceives my easy going banter as lukewarmness, but oh how far from the truth he is. Like bull, I am. My husband calls me the bulldozer! But you have to take into consideration who your talking with.

Like St Francis says: Preach the Gospel always. Use words if you have to.

Did you watch the video?

Okay, back to the war!
MK


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 25, 2007 9:17 PM


Hi Danielle,

it's really hard to engage in any conversation ,,, let alone a debate with a depressed person whether pro-life or pro-choice. One of the mental patterns that folks with depression have is a thought-routine where ideas are obsessed about, over and over. Your posts here do not reach out to any kind of different understanding, but you repeat the same ideas ... and the words of those ideas.

Meds are not candies ... just because they helped with suicide two years ago does not mean they'll work the same way for you now. Seek out the advice/direction of a psychiatrist ... or, a naturopath (ND) if you plan to limit your med-intake long term. From the way you describe things, I think you may have a major deficiency of zinc ... confirmed by white spots on nails, PMS complaints, dandruff ... straight dull hair, etc.

Its one way out! Hope this helps ....

Posted by: John McDonell at March 25, 2007 9:43 PM


Bethany--what about in cases where the mother is in danger?

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 25, 2007 10:18 PM


John,

Uhh, thanks, but I'm already doing all those things. I know that meds aren't the answer, but before them I was unable to function properly. I'm now trying to eat healthier as well as exercise.

And I've only been on the meds for a year now (and half of that time was just trying to balance me out), I made a mistake earlier and just caught it now. I've been with my boyfriend for a little over two year and tend to get the two parts of my life mixed together since I started feeling better when I initially started dating him and then even better when I went on the meds.

I was seeing a psychiatrist for awhile, but it didn't really help me and was just another bill to add to my already large one.

And yay now my thoughts don't count because I'm depressed. Nice.

Posted by: Danielle at March 26, 2007 2:14 AM


Samantha,

I can't make an exception for a victim of rape because, as you say, that would be like saying that some babies are worth saving, and others aren't.

Being pro-life is not being pro-rape. Rape is awful. Carrying a child that is a product of rape would be extremely difficult. But life ain't fair. Ask John McDonell. Sometimes it just is what it is. She wouldn't have to keep the baby, just give it a chance at life.

As for the life of the mother, I think we did this earlier, but here goes; If a mother's life is at stake, you can take the baby at the latest possible moment and do everything that you can to save it's life. If it dies, even if you know it will die because of how young it is, but your intention is NOT to kill it, then you may take it. Some mothers opt to take their chances but this is a heroic act and not mandatory. These woman have often been canonized (made saints) in my church.


There is never a reason to kill a baby in a late term pregnancy, because the exact same process is used for an abortion as for a live birth. The baby still has to pass through the birth canal which has been artificially dilated.

So if you have an ectopic pregnancy, you can take the baby at the last possible moment, hoping you can save the baby, knowing that you can't, and thereby saving the mother's life. You don't want to kill the baby, but it will be an inevitable end.

I promise you, we are not trying to punish rape victims nor would we just let mothers die instead of the babies. We would do what was best for both parties in a bad situation.

But in neither circumstance would we choose "evil" over "good". There is no such thing as a necessary evil. There is unfortunate sometimes, but "evil" has to do with the intent, rather than the action.


MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 26, 2007 6:00 AM



Bethany--what about in cases where the mother is in danger?

Samantha,
Here's something that completely sums up what I believe about the life of the mother and abortion (taken from the American Life League's website):

Is abortion ever medically necessary?

Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life.

It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions.

They are justified under a concept called the "principle of double effect." Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother's life.

Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.

-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2007 7:06 AM


That last part was by Alan Guttmacher, not the first parts. I didn't put quotations around it, sorry.

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2007 7:24 AM


no Danielle,

this means the way you express yourself is a critical factor in the way your brain operates. One of the ways to note mental health is the diversity of possible actions. This does not mean how 'smart' a person may be (ask my sister ... brains galore and bi-polar to the n-th).

Her solution (never a plural) has to be the correct one. In the other thread, Samantha wrote of a possible action .... never heard of this, but really sounds terrif!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 26, 2007 7:45 AM


Haha, sweet? Nah...I'm just a good actress. :)

Posted by: Alyssa at March 26, 2007 8:05 AM


Samantha,

. But what I was wondering is if humans are sinners from conception, how do aborted fetuses get to heaven?

This is a great question and shows you're really paying attention.

First of all, while we may know many things from scripture, tradition and the Holy Spirit's inspiration, we do not know all things. Least of the all the mind of God.

We do know that He is infinite mercy and infinite love.

This question is actually why Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea of "limbo" (which by the way, is not church doctrine, just an idea that Aquinas had). Limbo, being a place where the unbaptized infants go.

Bottom line is that if God made the rule, He can bend them. So until I meet Him, I won't know for sure.

Can't imagine that their are not with Him though.

In Medjugorge, 6 children began receiving apparitions in 1982. They were told that they would each receive 10 secrets. When all the secrets had been given, the apparitions would stop.

They are now all adults, and I believe that all but three of them have been given their secrets.

In one of the apparitions, Mary told the children, that all of the aborted babies were with her. She was their mother now.

I think the pain of being aborted is nowhere near the pain of being abandoned. So even tho they are with Our Lady, they still long for a relationship with their earthly mothers. And it's not too late.

That is the premise of project Rachel.

This apparition has not yet been approved by the church because it is still going on. But it probably will be, because apparitions (among other things) are judged by their fruits. And the conversions due to Medjugorge are in the millions.

If you want to know more, let me know.

Here is a link to more on unbaptized infants:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4387

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 26, 2007 8:08 AM


Alyssa,

You are too sweet. Even though you're illiterate :)
MK

"am not"
"are too"
"am not"
"are too..

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 26, 2007 8:13 AM


Samantha, 3/25, 8:26p, asked: "But what I was wondering is if humans are sinners from conception, how do aborted fetuses get to heaven?"

II Samuel 12 describes the death of King David's newborn son. "David pleaded with God for the child; he fasted and lay on the ground all night. The older leaders in his palace stood beside him to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling. And he wouldn't eat with them."

This lasted for seven days. Then the baby died. David's officials were afraid but finally told him. They were shocked that he "got up from the ground, bathed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes. He went into the Lord's house and worshiped. Then he went home and asked for food."

When his officials asked David why he responded this way to his child's death, David said, "Can I bring him back? Someday I'll go to him, but he won't come back to me."

This Scripture indicates innocent babies go to heaven.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 26, 2007 11:56 AM


Thank you, Jill, for reminding me of that scripture! It is comforting.

Posted by: Bethany at March 26, 2007 12:14 PM


The Bible says "the soul that sins shall surely die". Sinning is a decision we make or decide to do as those subject to accountability. In Jewish custom, a boy became accountable at his bar-mitsvah and similary with a girl. I don't see how a human in the womb could sin or be accountable, so how could it die (I mean spiritually)?

It also says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and "even if your mother forgets you I will never forget you". Statements of love from a incredibly and infinitely loving Father.

God is sovereign, God has the ability to make anyone right in His own eyes, the real question is do we want Him to make us right in His eyes? He won't force you to love Him. There's the true choice of life, to accept Him or reject Him, love Him or hate Him. Not some bogus, "Right to Choose", a counterfeit of satan. There's no middle ground because we are dealing with an infinitely holy God who is full of integrity. Our stance on abortion is merely a reflectional symptom of that decision or representative of a lack of a true understanding of God's nature. We can be on our way to heaven, but still be wrong about some things.....thank God for grace. However, we will be judged by the amount of light we have been given. If you have read this post, you have been given enough light to be judged by God because enough of His word has been revealed on the subject.

Since God is a loving God and cannot lie or do the wrong thing, the simple answer is always that He is trustworthy or worthy of being trusted. So for those who aborted babies or lost a baby to a miscarriage, it's simply fruitless to try to figure out where your baby's soul is apart from faith. It is not humanly possoble to have enough information to make that kind of decision apart from wishful thinking simply based on knowledge or understanding or wisdom. But that's OK because God is a good God and we don't have to figure it out. As in so many other areas of life, He asks, no pleads for us to trust Him. I have found Him to be faithful.

The same answer can be applied in the situation where the question is asked, "Should I have an abortion"? The answer is always no because to say yes would mean a lack of trust in God being able to work all things out for good for those that lvoe him and are called according to His purposes, even in an unwanted pregnancy. This requires faith, however, and if you don't even believe that God exists, you're defeated before you even start. Faith is a prerequisite to all major decisions in life. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

If we die without ever having proved to ourselves and God that we trusted Him who we could not see, how, when faced with the decision to live with Someone we have never learned to trust but can now see, why should we be allowed into heaven? What, at death, having lived a life of never putting our trust in God by believing His Word, would make us change? Since we would turn heaven into hell if allowed in, we send ourselves to hell. God does not want this as demonstrated by His sending His only Son to die for us as the ultimate expression of how He feels about us. If we don't get that, God can do nothing else for us.

A human in the womb has had no other One to trust but God, therefore, couldn't make any other decision than to trust the One. Therefore, in my faith opinon, all babies who die in the womb go to Heaven.

You then might ask the question, "Why then, if babies who die in the womb all go to heaven, why isn't abortion OK"? Answer: We never have enough infomation to know God's will in each situation except to say that He says, "Thou shall not murder". So, to trust God, we obey that command. You don't obey somebody you don't trust, just ask an abused woman.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 26, 2007 11:13 PM


The same answer can be applied in the situation where the question is asked, "Should I have an abortion"? The answer is always no because to say yes would mean a lack of trust in God being able to work all things out for good for those that love him


Well put, sir, well put.

I might add that the innocent babes will go to heaven, but your soul has been sold. Just as, in the case of rape, a baby should not be punished for the sin of his father, an aborted baby will not be punished by God for the sin of his mother.

However, the rapist will and should be punished, and unfortunately, the mother who sacrifices her child will have to meet God one day and face her consequences. They won't have to meet me or HisMan, but THE MAN. So when HisMan, Bethany, Jill, John, Valerie and I tell you to think long and hard about your "choices" we are really and honestly thinking of you down the line. We may seem judgmental, but that is because we sincerely desire your final judgment to be a happy one.
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 27, 2007 6:27 AM


Yes MK,

Well said,

I do really and truly love all the people that post on this web-site as I always tell them the truth of God's word, which is to hear, listen, believe and be saved. If they diss me, it doesn't matter.

To withhold the truth for any reason, intended or not, is an act of hatred since it shows no concern for another's eternal soul.

And it's not just the sin of committing or supporting abortion that would send one to hell, rather, it's one's relationship to Jesus Christ, i.e., one's acceptance or rejection of Him, that determines where we spend eternity.

Supporting abortion or committing abortion is merely an outward manifestation of something that's internally wrong, very, very wrong, that if left as is will result in the sure condemnation of that person.

You will know them by their fruit and if supporting abortion or committing abortion is one of the fruits, that is evidence that the tree is rotten and needs to be reborn.

In the parable of the fig tree Jesus killed the tree when there was no evidence of fruit as a metaphor to what will happen to those of us who do not evidence any fruits of the Spirit. The tree did not hurt anyone, it just negated its purpose for being created, to produce figs. Since it had not produced fruit in harmony with the purpose for which it was created, it was destroyed. The only way a person can bear the fruits of the Spirit is to be connected to the true vine, Jesus Christ. You can't be connected to someone you either don't believe in or are constantly dissing or are denying the true nature of by opposing those who reveal His true nature.

In conclusion, all of us has sinned and fall short of God's glory, which is really the true standard to which we all will be measured against. Because of that, the debt for our sin had to be paid, either by us or by someone who could afford to pay it. Those of us who realize that we are spiritually bankrupt and cannot pay off our debt to a holy God have decided to surrender to His grace.

Because of that, and our understanding of His nature, i.e., a God who expects us to produce life and fruit, we oppose abortion at every turn since it's goal is death and antiGod. We don't hate the sick person, just the disease and symptoms associated with that disease, therefore, we present to them the medicine that will make them whole. They can decide to not take it and reject the One trying to help them or accept the One and be saved. Now there's the true choice of life, not whether to kill or not kill an unborn baby in the womb.

Nice talking, have to go to work now.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 27, 2007 12:17 PM