NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

I'd say the contridiction is 'pro-life' but support the death penalty.

Anyone who blindly follows everything their party stands for will find themselves believing in all kinds of contradictory things.

I'm pro-life, against the death penalty, and I support tighter gun control. I wouldn't support an outright ban. Guns actually are used for other things then shooting people, such as hunting. Though I suppose I might support banning handguns, though that would take a constitutional amendment.

Actually what bothers me most is that a lot of my fellow Pro-lifers are against "wasteful government programs" that would help single mothers, and seem to stand against things that would lessen women's preseved need to get abortions. Many even attack those who get pregnant out of wedlock, only encouraging them to secreatly get abortions.

Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few out there that figures if we are going to outlaw abortion we have to make sure that the woman are supported in a way so that the pregnancy doesn't prevent her from finishing highschool/college. We need to do more to prevent businesses from fireing women for getting pregnant. We need to have daycare programs. We need to make the adoption process easier.

We need to love these women, not judge them.

We need to prevent unwanted pregnacies in the first place. We need to teach children that abstinence is important and the only way to prevent pregnancy. But we also need to tell them about birth control. That birth control will significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy but does fail. We need to teach them that the vast majority of failures is do to human error and we need to teach them to be careful to follow directions. Though this has nothing to do with pregnancy. We also need to point out that most birth control methods do not prevent STDs, except for condoms, but that condoms do not prevent all STDs. We need to explain that HPV is a real threat, it is a killer, and that more then half of sexually active women will get it. And that no birth control (not even condoms) will prevent it.

See any contradictions?

Not so long as I believe that those who murder with firearms (or anything else) should be punished for their crime.

I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. Is that enough of a contradiction?

Well supporting gun riughts does not mean that you support using guns on people. I've been shooting for twenty years and to date have killed 1 chicken (tragic accident on a farm with a pellet gun) no people and thousands of peices of paper and tin cans. The contradiction that always gets me is militant vegans who are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice but that's because I personally don't think that a fetus has more rights than a cow.....

I'd say the contridiction is 'pro-life' but support the death penalty.

Lets see one is innocent. The other has been convicted of a severe crime. Hmm see no contradiction here.

Some other contradictions:

Conservatives want every child born but don't want to help care for them after they're born. Liberals are for abortion, but want to provide food clothing and shelter after they're born.

Conservatives are against survival of the fittest in biology, but think only those with money deserve health care. Liberals believe in survival of the fittest but think everyone should have full health care.

Conservatives think God only created so many animals but are willing to make any extinct if it means short term financial gain. Liberals think new animals will be created to fill new eco-openings, but fight to protect the animals that coan no longer survive human eco-changes.

Some other contradictions:

Conservatives want every child born but don't want to help care for them after they're born. Liberals are for abortion, but want to provide food clothing and shelter after they're born.

Conservatives are against survival of the fittest in biology, but think only those with money deserve health care. Liberals believe in survival of the fittest but think everyone should have full health care.

Conservatives think God only created so many animals but are willing to make any extinct if it means short term financial gain. Liberals think new animals will be created to fill new eco-openings, but fight to protect the animals that coan no longer survive human eco-changes.
you are overgeneralizing.

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?
Based on eloquence alone, I can't possibly find a corner from which to debate the matter. Really, why aren't you published?

you are overgeneralizing.
Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).

Sorry, I can't help it. Goddamn those Yanks and their funny language...

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

Sure do. Go visit any American prison and see how many of the guests claim to be a conservative. You'll be hard pressed to fill the fingers on one hand.

Based on eloquence alone, I can't possibly find a corner from which to debate the matter. Really, why aren't you published?

Thanks


To the death penalty. If you have commited a crime, you need to be punished (common sense). The thing is, that there is like a small (very small, but still a chance) that you were falsely convicted. So, you would be killing the innocent. And, not to be blunt, but has less humanlike qualitys that a cow (an animal that most Americans have eaten in the last week, if not day).


The partisan "You must fit into one of two sets of viewes on many differnt issues, or be expelled from mainstreem politics," is rather stupid. My opinion is that there should be either no parties, or looser set of confines that they have.
This may seem to contradict what I said earlier, but this post was idiolagy, the first one is observations.

Conservatives say they are "super Christians" but vote against anything that helps the poor, weak, sick. Liberals are considered "less religious" but vote to help the poor wead, sick.

Conservatives say they are "strict constructionists", but hate the ACLU which protects the exact wording of first ammendment freedoms. Liberals say the constitution should be "interpreted" but argue against interpretation of the second ammendment.

Wanna see a super-duper christian contradiction?

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

Hmmm... animal sacrifice... paganism... I'm confused by it. How about you?

Wanna see a super-duper christian contradiction?

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

Hmmm... animal sacrifice... paganism... I'm confused by it. How about you?

Nothing contradictory, just because pagan religions also somethimes have animal sacrifices doesn't mean its paganism here. Pagans don't hava a monopoly on the concept.

Conservatives say they are "super Christians" but vote against anything that helps the poor, weak, sick. Liberals are considered "less religious" but vote to help the poor wead, sick.

Conservatives say they are "strict constructionists", but hate the ACLU which protects the exact wording of first ammendment freedoms. Liberals say the constitution should be "interpreted" but argue against interpretation of the second ammendment.

Yes, but that's not all the ACLU does. I also have issues with the ACLU, but agree for the most part with their stance on freedom of speach. It's abortion rights, which are not writen in the constitution, that I have an issue with the ACLU over. That and their sometimes missunderstanding that seperation of church and state doesn't mean government support of atheism. It only means it keeps its fingers out of religion. The ACLU is getting better about that last part and now has been seen to come to the aid of Christians.

I totally agree with the first contradiction. I lean Republican, but can't really fully support them because of their lack of concern for the poor and weak.

I'm extremely pro-choice, but more than that I'm reasonable. Which is why this is so obvious.

Obviously, 'pro-life' people obviously consider killing under certain circumstances (obviously, the idea of deserts plays into this) justified.

Obviously, they do not believe that it is just to "kill" "unborn babies." But that it is just to kill criminals or (obviously) kill people in self-defense, obviously.
Obviously.

Obviously.
Obviously.
Obviously.

Lets see one is innocent. The other has been convicted of a severe crime. Hmm see no contradiction here.

And if the individual is found innocent, but because of great miscarriage of justice during his trial he was found guilty? how about if the person has shown to have repented and reformed - isn't it the duty of the Christian to accept forgiveness and turn the other cheek?

Nothing contradictory, just because pagan religions also somethimes have animal sacrifices doesn't mean its paganism here. Pagans don't hava a monopoly on the concept.

So the church down the street won't have a problem with it if I bring a slaughtered lamb to the altar? Or is it only ok for some faiths and not others?

So the church down the street won't have a problem with it if I bring a slaughtered lamb to the altar? Or is it only ok for some faiths and not others?

Erm. To be perfectly fair, my understanding is that while Orthodox Jews still carry out animal sacrifices, most other Jews and Christians consider that to be a rite not necessary in the modern world- much like forcing a woman who is raped to marry her rapist is no longer required.

On the death penalty: It's a barbaric practice and represents complacency in the system (which is what conservatives purportedly stand against). Not every person brought before a jury is tried fairly, nor are the sentences handed out by the judge always just. Both judge and jury can be influenced through smooth-talking prosecuters, emotional hysterics, racism or some other form of prejudice, and the basic assumption that someone brought before a jury must be there for a reason. Taking all these factors into account, the death penalty seems like too final an end to what may be a mistake.

Winston Churchill once claimed, "It is said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all others that have been tried." In the same way, trial by jury is the worst method of carrying out justice except all others that have been tried- while it is better than all other systems, it is still not infallible. Best to leave some way to correct what may later be found to be mistakes.

Erm. To be perfectly fair, my understanding is that while Orthodox Jews still carry out animal sacrifices, most other Jews and Christians consider that to be a rite not necessary in the modern world- much like forcing a woman who is raped to marry her rapist is no longer required.

You have a very valid point and I will concede. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that I feel most pro-life advocates base their opinions on religious views. Albeit, I tried to make my point in a rather assinine way (sometimes I lose myself in the moment) I still feel that the bible should not be used as a steady reference for pro-life advocates.

Conservatives say they are "super Christians" but vote against anything that helps the poor, weak, sick. Liberals are considered "less religious" but vote to help the poor wead, sick.

Conservatives say they are "strict constructionists", but hate the ACLU which protects the exact wording of first ammendment freedoms. Liberals say the constitution should be "interpreted" but argue against interpretation of the second ammendment.


And this is just one reason why I do not vote nor support the Republicans and Democrats. They are wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

So the church down the street won't have a problem with it if I bring a slaughtered lamb to the altar? Or is it only ok for some faiths and not others?

Actually they would. So a little bit of Biblical history:

In the times before Jesus Christ, people sacrificed animals for forgiveness of their sins. Christianity teaches this was a temporary thing to prepare us for the slaughtering of Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Christ is the only sacrifice great enough to cover our sins. Yes, it may sound funny but since Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity (making him God), it can be said that God voluntarily let himself be sacrificed. Christ's death and resurection makes animal sacrifice no longer necessary.

Now the Jews say they no longer sacrifice because the temple has been destroyed. Without the temple they have no place they feel is worthy to do the sacrifice. This explanation doesn't make complete sense to me because they sacrificed before the temple was built and God blessed that, but then again I'm not Jewish so maybe I'm not understanding the reasoning quite right.

Conservatives say they are "super Christians" but vote against anything that helps the poor, weak, sick.
not true, at least, not ALL conservatives are like that. You should really stop speaking as if every single conservative believes the way that you think they do.


Now, as far as some of my own contradictions, it can be explained pretty simply.
There are two of me, the Christian, and the American. They fight, over every single isssue almost.

Abortion- As a Christian, I believe that it is very very wrong. As an American, I know that I shouldn't force my beliefs on the rest of the country.

Homosexual Marriage- As a Christian I think it is wrong, again as an American, I shouldn't push my beliefs on others.

Helping the poor- As a Christian, I want to reach out to the poor and weak. As an American, I realize that the government screws up thier efforts to do so and wastes money, and that people who really do need help slip through the cracks.

Separation of Church and State- As a Christian, I don't want the state involved in my church at all. As an American, I want the same free speach rights as anyone else. (even if that includes my daughter being able to invite her friends to church at school.)

See any contradictions?
Republicans want firearm ownership as a MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE.
A fetus, for all intents and purposes, has no way to defend itself.

So (as much as I hate the Republicrats in office, I'm actually libertarian) Republicans stand for DEFENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

There are two of me, the Christian, and the American. They fight, over every single isssue almost.

Not touching this...

Abortion- As a Christian, I believe that it is very very wrong. As an American, I know that I shouldn't force my beliefs on the rest of the country.

Good. Out of curiosity, when do you think that a soul first arrives withing a child? At conception? When the brain or heart develops? I, for one, would think that it'd be when the child takes his/her first breath.

Homosexual Marriage- As a Christian I think it is wrong, again as an American, I shouldn't push my beliefs on others.

Good. In the meantime, I'll be pushing to convince people that homosexuality isn't wrong, in the same way that interracial marriage wasn't wrong.

Helping the poor- As a Christian, I want to reach out to the poor and weak. As an American, I realize that the government screws up thier efforts to do so and wastes money, and that people who really do need help slip through the cracks.

While I prefer to try to fix those efforts and patch up the cracks. One cannot rely upon private charities to fix the problems of poverty, starvation, and disease, as they have proven inadequate thus far.

Separation of Church and State- As a Christian, I don't want the state involved in my church at all. As an American, I want the same free speach rights as anyone else. (even if that includes my daughter being able to invite her friends to church at school.)

So long as she is not using school resources (except time; I don't consider time to be anyone's resource), I agree. So, she should be free to invite her friends, but not invite people over the PA (unless a student who, say, wants to invite people to their mosque or synagogue are allowed to use the PA as well). The school should let religions operate on campus freely, not prop any up- thus, allowing the local Christians in Action club to meet on campus, but no holding school prayer sessions.

So the church down the street won't have a problem with it if I bring a slaughtered lamb to the altar? Or is it only ok for some faiths and not others?
They would mind because, while YHWH demands animal sacrifices from time to time, I don't think that Jesus ever encouraged. Christians are supposed to give to God by giving to others, sort of thing.

Good. Out of curiosity, when do you think that a soul first arrives withing a child? At conception? When the brain or heart develops? I, for one, would think that it'd be when the child takes his/her first breath.
I am not sure, I don't think I will ever know. I just think it is wrong.



Good. In the meantime, I'll be pushing to convince people that homosexuality isn't wrong, in the same way that interracial marriage wasn't wrong.
okay.

One cannot rely upon private charities to fix the problems of poverty, starvation, and disease, as they have proven inadequate thus far. only because of too much government interference.



So long as she is not using school resources (except time; I don't consider time to be anyone's resource), I agree. So, she should be free to invite her friends, but not invite people over the PA (unless a student who, say, wants to invite people to their mosque or synagogue are allowed to use the PA as well). The school should let religions operate on campus freely, not prop any up- thus, allowing the local Christians in Action club to meet on campus, but no holding school prayer sessions.
she isn't.

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

No. Guns are used for sport as in hunting and target shooting. Guns are also used for self protection, so you don't kill anyone unless you feel yur life is threatened. There are no contradictions in what you stated.

only because of too much government interference.

I'm aware of no laws detailing government interference with private charities. My main thoughts on this go back two or three centuries, to the time when all the government did was fight wars and maintain police forces. However, there was still poverty, and there were charities fighting it. These charities proved to be inadequate; why would they be more adequate now?

she isn't.

Then there's no problem- she should be allowed to discuss religion with her friends as normal. Not sure where the problem came from.

I'm aware of no laws detailing government interference with private charities. My main thoughts on this go back two or three centuries, to the time when all the government did was fight wars and maintain police forces. However, there was still poverty, and there were charities fighting it. These charities proved to be inadequate; why would they be more adequate now?

Well we're pouring money into public charity now and it's not stopped poverty yet. And on that the living conditions of the 'poor' today are comprable to the richest a few centuries ago in terms of hygene diet and creature comforts. Why? Advances in the markets and availability of goods.

I'm aware of no laws detailing government interference with private charities. My main thoughts on this go back two or three centuries, to the time when all the government did was fight wars and maintain police forces. However, there was still poverty, and there were charities fighting it. These charities proved to be inadequate; why would they be more adequate now?
there are government constraints on who they help and why, a lot of red tape to go through, I do reports for a few non-profits and believe me, there are a lot of government hoops that they have to jump through just to be able to help people.



Then there's no problem- she should be allowed to discuss religion with her friends as normal. Not sure where the problem came from.
she was told thursday (for the 9th time this year) not to talk about God, or church at school because she may 'offend' an athiest student, she was also not allowed to pass out tickets (after school) to her friends for a church event. I am pulling her out of school next year though so it won't be a problem for long.
I tried to explain to the teachers that if she is doing this on her own time (before, after school) and isn't forcing anyone to listen, and isn't asking for thier help that they really can't stop her, but it is a lot to put on a 4 year old for her to have to fight for her rights like this. :(

Sure do. Go visit any American prison and see how many of the guests claim to be a conservative. You'll be hard pressed to fill the fingers on one hand.
So the Aryan Nation don't have much of a presence in the American prison system then? I was always led to believe they were a fair chunk of the WASPs who'd been locked up.

I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. Is that enough of a contradiction?

No.

I say we just issue guns to every fetus and if they don't want to be aborted, they will know what to do.

Makes about as much sense as any pro-life argument I've seen to date.

Sure do. Go visit any American prison and see how many of the guests claim to be a conservative. You'll be hard pressed to fill the fingers on one hand.

Are you claiming that conservative criminals somehow evade prison? :eek:

I say we just issue guns to every fetus and if they don't want to be aborted, they will know what to do.

Makes about as much sense as any pro-life argument I've seen to date.
"Any of you liberals come near me with a scalpel, the bitch gets it!"

Are you claiming that conservative criminals somehow evade prison? :eek:
Oh, I see: I thought he was suggesting that nobody who'd been locked up leaned to the right, which sounded a bit odd...

Wanna see a super-duper christian contradiction?

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

Hmmm... animal sacrifice... paganism... I'm confused by it. How about you?

Not to speak of the human sacrifice... :rolleyes:

Republicans want firearm ownership as a MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE.
A fetus, for all intents and purposes, has no way to defend itself.

So (as much as I hate the Republicrats in office, I'm actually libertarian) Republicans stand for DEFENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Except women.

she was told thursday (for the 9th time this year) not to talk about God, or church at school because she may 'offend' an athiest student, she was also not allowed to pass out tickets (after school) to her friends for a church event. I am pulling her out of school next year though so it won't be a problem for long.
I tried to explain to the teachers that if she is doing this on her own time (before, after school) and isn't forcing anyone to listen, and isn't asking for thier help that they really can't stop her, but it is a lot to put on a 4 year old for her to have to fight for her rights like this. :(

Sorry it's gotten to the point of taking such an extreme measure as changing schools.

I say we just issue guns to every fetus and if they don't want to be aborted, they will know what to do.

Makes about as much sense as any pro-life argument I've seen to date.

Good one. But, uh... how are we gonna get those guns to the fetuses?

Oh, I see: I thought he was suggesting that nobody who'd been locked up leaned to the right, which sounded a bit odd...

Pshaw, he'd never say such an absurd.

Except women.
Talking about abortion rights? As long as no one uses the Dirty Whore (tm) claim, I could care less. :p

I say we just issue guns to every fetus and if they don't want to be aborted, they will know what to do.

Makes about as much sense as any pro-life argument I've seen to date.


Is Islam pro-life, pro-choice, or silent on the matter of abortion? Thanks in advance for your answer.

Is Islam pro-life, pro-choice, or silent on the matter of abortion? Thanks in advance for your answer.
It depends which flavour of Islam you're dealing with.

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

I do not affiliate myself with any political party.
All abortion except in extreme circumstances should be illegal.
Handgun ownership should be mandatory for all adults never having a violent crime conviction. Of course they would have to take firearms safety courses, pass a background check and be licensed.
Death penalty only when there is 100% proof that the convicted commited the crime (murder, treason, etc...). Example: Man shoots and kills his wife in shopping mall in the presence of many witnesses.

And as it has been stated so many times before: guns don't kill, people do.
Someone stabs someone to death, the knife is never blamed for the death.
People go on trial for murder, not guns. Put the blame where it belongs. On the people that use tools to kill.

Talking about abortion rights? As long as no one uses the Dirty Whore (tm) claim, I could care less. :p

I'd say there's more than enough threads about that.

I do not affiliate myself with any political party.
All abortion except in extreme circumstances should be illegal.
Handgun ownership should be mandatory for all adults never having a violent crime conviction. Of course they would have to take firearms safety courses, pass a background check and be licensed.
Death penalty only when there is 100% proof that the convicted commited the crime (murder, treason, etc...). Example: Man shoots and kills his wife in shopping mall in the presence of many witnesses.

And as it has been stated so many times before: guns don't kill, people do.
Someone stabs someone to death, the knife is never blamed for the death.
People go on trial for murder, not guns. Put the blame where it belongs. On the people that use tools to kill.

O...kay. That's a first. :eek:

I do not affiliate myself with any political party.
All abortion except in extreme circumstances should be illegal.
Handgun ownership should be mandatory for all adults never having a violent crime conviction. Of course they would have to take firearms safety courses, pass a background check and be licensed.
Death penalty only when there is 100% proof that the convicted commited the crime (murder, treason, etc...). Example: Man shoots and kills his wife in shopping mall in the presence of many witnesses.

And as it has been stated so many times before: guns don't kill, people do.
Someone stabs someone to death, the knife is never blamed for the death.
People go on trial for murder, not guns. Put the blame where it belongs. On the people that use tools to kill.

Do I have to still pay for the safety courses? Isn't that sorta like a one-time tax to force us to take them?

I'd like some pro lifer to explain why abortion is bad, but thawing out and throwing away 10 eggs for every "test tube" baby is right. But, using those wasted eggs to do stem cell research which could save countless lives is wrong? Why it is necessary to have "test tube" babies (or any other fertility therapy) in the first place, when children are wasted for lack of adoption? You would think a conservative would say "Waste not, Want not."

I'd like some pro lifer to explain why abortion is bad, but thawing out and throwing away 10 eggs for every "test tube" baby is right. But, using those wasted eggs to do stem cell research which could save countless lives is wrong? Why it is necessary to have "test tube" babies (or any other fertility therapy) in the first place, when children are wasted for lack of adoption? You would think a conservative would say "Waste not, Want not."

Actually, I and most of the pro-lifers I know agree with that. They are either against fertility clinics or against fertilizing more eggs then will be used.

Ok, despite the fact that I conceded to Penterra's point that my reference to sacrifice was arcane, I can see that it got a varied response. The most interesting one was the "sacrifice" of Jesus making all of that Old Testament sacrificing obsolete (yes, I'm paraphrasing). If I misunderstood, correct me. I did go to Catholic School and have read most of the bible, though I've chosen to forget most of it. I know much of the bible is meant to be interpreted or taken metaphorically.

My questions: How do you decide? Which parts of the bible do you decide are valid and which ones do you decide have no importance at all? Do you just pick and choose as it suits you or do you go by historical reference?

My understanding is that Jesus tried to teach us to accept all people. I also thought that everyone reckons with God for their own sins not everyone else who thinks they are responsible for everybody else's sins. I don't have a problem with Christianity in general. More or less, I have a problem with the Christians who try to force-feed their personal views of morality down the throats of anyone trying to live their own life. If abortion is legal and gives women the option to seek a professional medical solution to a personal issue rather than resort to, say, a knitting needle let them be! IF it is a sin in God's eyes then that woman will have to take it up with God and not anbody else.

Ok, despite the fact that I conceded to Penterra's point that my reference to sacrifice was arcane, I can see that it got a varied response. The most interesting one was the "sacrifice" of Jesus making all of that Old Testament sacrificing obsolete (yes, I'm paraphrasing). If I misunderstood, correct me. I did go to Catholic School and have read most of the bible, though I've chosen to forget most of it. I know much of the bible is meant to be interpreted or taken metaphorically.

My questions: How do you decide? Which parts of the bible do you decide are valid and which ones do you decide have no importance at all? Do you just pick and choose as it suits you or do you go by historical reference?

My understanding is that Jesus tried to teach us to accept all people. I also thought that everyone reckons with God for their own sins not everyone else who thinks they are responsible for everybody else's sins. I don't have a problem with Christianity in general. More or less, I have a problem with the Christians who try to force-feed their personal views of morality down the throats of anyone trying to live their own life. If abortion is legal and gives women the option to seek a professional medical solution to a personal issue rather than resort to, say, a knitting needle let them be! IF it is a sin in God's eyes then that woman will have to take it up with God and not anbody else.

Yep. Pretty much.

My questions: How do you decide? Which parts of the bible do you decide are valid and which ones do you decide have no importance at all? Do you just pick and choose as it suits you or do you go by historical reference?
In my opinion the whole Bible is important.

I use my own method of study to decide why it is important.

who-who is talking? who are they talking to?
what- what are they saying?
where- where does this take place? what is the cultural difference there?
when- when in history was this written? what was going on then?
why- why is this in the Bible? why is it important?
how- how can I use this? Is it a lesson to learn? Is it historical? does it help me understand things that happen later?

Is Islam pro-life, pro-choice, or silent on the matter of abortion? Thanks in advance for your answer.

Like Judaism, Islam says that a baby is not a baby until it is born. Abortion should only be done in cases of danger to the mother.

Islam also says not to impose your religious views on others. So, I'm pro-choice 110%.

Ok, despite the fact that I conceded to Penterra's point that my reference to sacrifice was arcane, I can see that it got a varied response. The most interesting one was the "sacrifice" of Jesus making all of that Old Testament sacrificing obsolete (yes, I'm paraphrasing). If I misunderstood, correct me. I did go to Catholic School and have read most of the bible, though I've chosen to forget most of it. I know much of the bible is meant to be interpreted or taken metaphorically.

My questions: How do you decide? Which parts of the bible do you decide are valid and which ones do you decide have no importance at all? Do you just pick and choose as it suits you or do you go by historical reference?

My understanding is that Jesus tried to teach us to accept all people. I also thought that everyone reckons with God for their own sins not everyone else who thinks they are responsible for everybody else's sins. I don't have a problem with Christianity in general. More or less, I have a problem with the Christians who try to force-feed their personal views of morality down the throats of anyone trying to live their own life. If abortion is legal and gives women the option to seek a professional medical solution to a personal issue rather than resort to, say, a knitting needle let them be! IF it is a sin in God's eyes then that woman will have to take it up with God and not anbody else.

One should try to follow God's OT comandments unless told otherwise. In the NT we are told that we no longer have to follow dietary guidlines or sacrifice animals, amoung other things. Christians aren't allowed to pick and choose what they follow. Most do this anyway, but that is a violation of their own religion. (One must also take into account the reasoning and if it makes sense in modern times). I can't think of any offhand examples of something that only applies to a certain time/situation, but I'm sure their are probably some obscure OT things to which that might apply.

I agree Christians should not force their religion on others. Again doing so is in opposition to the Bible in which these Christians claim to believe.

But being pro-life is not about forcing others to believe in the Christian God. Most pro-lifers truely feel that the unborn are fully human beings. That their life is as valuable as an adult. And most believe that they contain a soul. Because of this they stand up against abortion to protect them just as someone stands up against murder or unjust war.

I suppose you could say that thinking murder is wrong is a religious belief that is forced on others. I would argue that in most cases moral beliefs shouldn't be forced on others, but that their are cases where they need to be (such as the wrongful killing of a person).

Its rather or not a fetus is a person that is up for debate. But if you believe that the fetus is a person, the pro-life position is completly logical.

I know its off topic and I know the point wasn't brought up to start a religous debate. I wanted to post this so people don't think I'm just making up excuses. It clearly says that Jesus was the sacrifice "once and for all."

Hebrews 7:27 (NIV)

24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

Allowing people to have guns does not condone murder.

OK, first, let me say that this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE

In general, people who are "Pro-Life" tend to be in favor of allowing people to have guns.

Pro-Lifers are opposing abortion. They feal to kill an unborn baby is wrong. They also are usualy conservative Republicans.

Many American Conservatives also feal that people should have the right to own (and most often, shoot) guns. Which kill people.

See any contradictions?

It all comes down to personel responsibility. I've been around guns all my life, and outside of combat have never needed to kill anyone with them. I don't need a gun to kill. Dead argument. However, with my training, I know I have to be responsible for my actions. I carry that into all areas of my life.

The Pro death crowd wants no responsibility. Thats ok, we'll just get rid of the fetus. The pro death crowd wants to do what it wants with no consiquences.

While I hate abortion, I wouldn't see it banned. However I don't think that it should be as easy as it is.

If the question of soul is not a spiritual one, please show me the scientific evidence for a soul. So far the definitions I've found for a soul only relate to viable life, which does not include the fetus until a certain point of development. The only references I've seen that claim a soul begins at the time of conception are religious ones.