Imagine children being trained, taught to believe they should be prepared to die for God! Sounds like something out of our worst fears of radical Islam, but instead it is happening right here in America. Watch this video, and judge for yourself.
Brandon, That's what German Jewish intellegencia said in 1930 Berlin, " these Nazi's are not a great threat to the stability of Germany, why we are the most cultured country in the civilized world"
Brandon...probably the biggest danger to my safety is a two pack a day cigarette habit, a penchant for great Scotch, and a love of high calorie foods of every imaginable type and flavor. That being said, those are of my own design and my own choice. When it comes to outside sources of infringements on my own safety and freedoms, I'd list them as follows.
1. Illegals 2. George Bush and the Republican Party 3. Terrorists (which in my mind is not the wrong war in Iraq) 4. Religious zealots of all types, be they Radical Christians, or Radical Islams. 5. The North American Union
Brandon...can't really argue with your top five either. Mass media today seems more like a propaganda machine for either the left or right than a true media.
I certainly do not condone what I heard on the clip for various reasons, but I still seen no correlation between them and Muslim radicals who are teaching kids to blow themselves up and take as many with them as possible.
What are you teaching your kids? Is there ANYTHING worth dying for? Do you believe in some truth so strongly that you would be willing to be tortured or killed rather deny it? Check out persecution.com to read about many who do think there is something more important than their own life.
Christianity is by nature not a violent religion like islam. I don't like thses people who speak in toungs. I am a hardcore believer, but I never heard or said myself, to any kids to get ready to kill, but I did tell as many to be ready to be killed (prosicuted) for their belief. Christianity has a history of violance, but we Christians condemn all violence. We are not like modrate muslims who don't talk against radicals, we stand before you when it comes to values, freedom, peace and morality. Always!
They were being taught to "kill the warlocks." Literally, male witches, but in their minds perhaps non-believers, although that's just a guess.
What disturbed me was seeing these young minds being methodically converted into non-thinking machines, of which there are already too many in this country...
That is posible with the way the Chrstian church has splintered over the years since the reformation, hundreds of times over to the point where they have only the head pastor to answer to and his interpretation of the bible. Just put your tv on the so called christian chanels and look what has happened to the Church. They broke off the from the corrupt Roman church to become ten times more corrupt in their autotomy to consider anything else but warped unsupervised interpretations of Jesus' commandment to Love Your Neighbor! Anytime they tell you OUR denomination is JUST CHRISTIAN... RUN THE OTHER WAY!
When the Chrictian church en masse rises up and declares a war against all non-believers, then you folks have a valid argument. sure, there are a couple bad apples in the bunch (ones that blew up abortion clinics) but a few bad ones exist in every type of group. Even Ted Kennedy has killed someone.
Yes, there are things worth dying for. Example: the protection of the rights you are currently expressing right now. Many of you posted anti-bush comments. If this nation was run by a real dictator as Iraq was, then you would be hauled out in the street and executed for talking bad about 'El Hefe Grande'
The Cristian community has had a few bad apples, but they are not as a whole comparable to the Jihadist movement. Someday that day may come where they can be compared, but I highly doubt it. Until that day comes, y'all can keep slurping down the buckets of kool-aid.
Way to go Aaron!! "Give me liberty or give me death."
Is there anyone out there who would be willing to die protecting their spouse and kids?
David McGill: You would have to read a lot into this clip to believe the children were being taught to "kill warlocks." A lady in the clip was heard saying that warlocks in the time of the Old testament would be killed. We didn't hear her say how or by whom. I did not hear her tell the children to kill anyone. I did'nt see anyone putting hand grenades in their hands.
Seems to me, we have all kinds of examples of a building vengence and warped mind think in certain Christian Churches. Sure we all remember Jim Jones, David Koresh, and even that Mormon Child Molestor was building a seige camp down in Texas when he was apprehended.
Have we all forgotten ancient history, the Crusades where thousands upon thousands were killed in the name of Christianity, or how about our own Salem Witch Hunts?
I think the point many of us are making is that killing in the name of God happens often and has been a part of our history. The toughest part is to convince the killers that the The god they are doing it in the name of is probably not the God they think they are doing it for! It's always convenient to hide behind "a god" when comitting attrocities or Democracy for that matter!
David T: Those coffee cups must have been a real threat to you. Maybe you should be worried by the flying shrapnel.
The smashing of the cups is symbolic, just as bein baptized is. For example, if you have a problem with lust, you might have written 'porn' on the cup prior to smashing it. Just as kids can use puppets for sharing personal issues, these children are trying to put spiritual issues they have in their lives into a tangible object that they can get rid of.
This is all a spin! The video has nothing provocative and no one is trying to advocate violence. If you have been in a church service atleast once you will know that Churches advoacte giving your life for Christ, but not taking lives. By giving life, we mean getting killed for our belief, not killing our self or killing others. Half truth is the most dangerous thing in the world, that is what we, Christians, call ignorance/darkness. If some one is teaching what you claim, go get them, expose them with clear facts what they are doing and I promise every Christian will be with you condemning them, but stop this spin. Just open your eyes and think ... just for a minute ... think ... ok? ... and you will know truth ... you will see light and darkness. If breaking cups is scaring you, what should we think about killing kids even before they are born in educated professional name of Abortion. Porgie, You are quick to post, slow to think. You are losing all my respect. I thought you are a patriot enough to work hard to take control of our borders, but you sound more like a agenda driven spinner.
I do want to secure our borders, and I want illegals deported, don't take kindly to criminals. That being said, I also do not believe in legislating morality, do not believe the church should be trying to force their morals on the rest of America, and in fact believe that very action goes against the teaching of Jesus and God...after all, God gives us freedom of choice, yet most Christians (so called) only respect freedom of choice if that choice is a choice they think you should be making. If it is not, they are the first to cast stones, the first to label a person SINNER.
'do not believe in legislating morality' I am taking it as ... you don't want any checks against criminal actions. Standards are needed and they need to be strongly observed. I agree that Church needn't make laws. I agree that there are religious zelots, like ACLU on the left ... blacksheep exist. Don't point fingers at everyone. That is what I am saying. Don't blame Christian faith. As I said, if you have all the facts, lets sit and talk. I don't like people make a whole point based on half knowledge. The clip doesn't show the whole video. It is edited to only show those parts that could imply what anti-religious people what to hear. Even after all the editing it is clear that no one is legislating or advocating violence there. Isn't it? Look at your title! It is a major spin. If one have any balance of opinion, he/she will be responsible enough not to say things like that. On the other note, I know what you want. My point is, is it driven by an agenda or facts. If you are agenda driven you spin everything in your favor and ignore or reject without fair judgement everything that don't corelate with your argument. If you are truth driven, you will accept even those that contradict you if they are true. I don't like and/or respect agenda driven people.
Porgie/Anil: Yes, God graced with the gift of reason; to be able to make a choice. If a father raises his children to blow themselves up, then the sins of the father are carried out on his offspring.
However, what choice does the unborn have? By commiting to an abortion, you strip the right s away from that child. The worshippers of Baal also sacrificed their children, and it was viewed as a sin. Not much of a difference in burning your child alive as an offering to Baal as sucking its brains out during a partial birth abortion.
And Jesus said to "suffer the little children to come unto him." You really think you could stand before God and justify abortions?
Sure do...............in fact, think God expects us to be intelligent about our own reproduction....looking at the over population of the world, Christians are failing miserably on that one.
If you really know the facts, only Christian countries have the population growth in control (Excludind latin America). If you really want to control population stop making mistakes. Don't commit a crime to cover up a mistake!
Porgie: so a couple cells magically turn into a person as they pop out of the womb? http://medimages.healthopedia.com/large/fetal-development.jpg 1. 5 Weeks Old 2. 8 Weeks Old 3. 13 Weeks Old Boy, #3 on that image sure looks like a human! Chronological development of a baby
1st week (1st month) sex of baby is determined genetic traits are determined embryo travels from fallopian tube to the uterus. 2nd week (1st month) egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus placenta develops 3rd week (1st month) heart begins to develop, 18-25 days. brain begins to develop intestinal tract begins to develop 4th - 5th weeks (1st month) vertebra begins to develop blood flow begins eye development begins arm and leg development begins the umbilical cord begins to form 6th week (1 - 2 months) fingers and toes appear nose, ears, develop joints are developing 7th week (1 - 2 months) all essential organs are developing eyelids form 8th week (2 months) muscle contraction occurs facial features become more prominent heart has four chambers 9th - 12th week (2 - 3 months) the baby is about 3 inches long the neck develops arms and legs begin to lengthen genitals are well defined 13th - 16th weeks (3 - 4 months) the baby is about 6 inches hair begins to develop the baby moves lungs develop if female, the ovaries contain about 2 million eggs the face is more developed the baby can suck its thumb 17th - 20th weeks (4 - 5 months) the baby is about 8 inches eyebrows form nails on fingers and toes form movement can be felt by mother the circulatory system is working swallowing 21st - 24th weeks (5 - 6 months) the baby is about 11 inches long the baby weighs about 1.5 pounds fingerprints form the baby can hear and react to sounds from outside the womb 25th - 28th weeks (6 - 7 months) the baby is about 15 inches long the baby weighs about 2.5 pounds survivability outside the womb is possible the baby can react to light from outside the womb 29th - 32nd weeks (7 - 8 months) the baby is about 16 inches long the baby weighs about 4.5 pounds all bones are fully developed 33rd - 40th weeks (8 - 9 months) the baby is about 18 - 21 inches long the baby weighs about 6 - 8 pounds the baby is ready to be born sleep patterns are apparent strong movement is very apparent
The baby can suck it's thumb at 13 weeks! but according to Porgie, it's not a life until after it's born? Even if we accept Porgie's view, partial birth abortion still is killing a baby, seeing as how the infant's head must be outside the mothers body before they can cave in the skull and suck out the brains.
If it isn't human, then what is it? check out the following link for the smallest 'embryo' human photographed. :http://www.carm.org/abortion/human_life.htm Or how about the fetus that held the finger of a surgeon during fetal operation:Take a good look at this picture. It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a foetus reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a medical development in the control of the effects of spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate through the on-going abortion debate here..... http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm#hands
Now that we see scientific evidence that the life inside a woman's womb is a baby, not "a couple of cells" as Porgie claims, let's see what the Bible says about life before birth: Bible Defines Life: A. Now where uses phrases "human" or "human being" Uses "man, woman, child, son, daughter, baby etc." Since these terms are used for unborn children, then we have evidence that human life is present before birth The Bible makes no distinction of any kind in the terms used to describe a fetus. Body without spirit is dead: Jas 2:26 The blood is the life: Deut 12:23 fetus has bloodstream at 4 weeks B. "Begat sons and daughters" Gen 5:3,4,28-30
Begat always refers to conception and fertilization C. "children & sons in womb" Gen 25:21-22; 2 Ki 19:3; Ruth 1:11
D. "a man child conceived" Job 3:3
notice the difference: day of birth, night conceived see Rev 12:5 "man child born" E. "mother" of unborn child Num 12:12; Lk 1:43
F. Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad
G. "baby leapt for joy" in mother's womb Lk 1:41,44
conceived a "son" Lk 1:36; Acts 7:29
Lk 1:36 Elizabeth conceived a son Lk 1:57 Elizabeth brought forth a son
H. death of unborn= life for life Ex 21:22-25 There is no indication in the Hebrew that the baby was miscarried Even if miscarriage is what is meant, the intent was not to abort baby but harm woman, Literal translation: "Child brought forth" Notice that the fetus is referred to as a "child" second most common word for child in OT cf: of Moses in Ex 2:3-10
A. God's Terms for the Unborn Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth. The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3 On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.). Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16). Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother." In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born. The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother." Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.) Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.) B. Observations on the Verses That which has been conceived and lives in the mother's womb from conception on is referred to by God as a "child," a "son," an "infant," a "baby," a "man-child," etc. The woman in whose womb it lives is a "mother." No human being anywhere in the Bible is identified by terms that are more distinctly human than these terms. God makes no distinction between born and unborn life. He uses exactly the same terms for both, therefore we should view them as having the same nature. Remember that we established from the beginning that the life in the mother's womb is human life. The only question to be settled was whether it is a distinct individual from its mother or just part of the mother's body. Consider the force of the evidence we have now examined: Does the Bible refer to parts of the mother's body as "child," "son," "baby," etc.? Clearly not. Nor is a woman ever called a "mother" just because she has these body parts. Why is this so? Because the terms "child," "son," "baby," etc., are terms that imply a separate human individual, not just a part of the mother's body. Consider the parallel to the Godhead. We can prove that God the Father and Jesus are two separate individuals by referring to the many passages that mention Jesus as the Son of God the Father. A person cannot be his own father or his own son. A father and his son make two separate individuals (cf. John 8:16-18). Likewise, when a woman has conceived, the life in her womb is her "son" (or "daughter") and she is its "mother." If God the Father is a separate individual from Jesus Christ His Son, then in the very same way and for the very same reasons a mother must be a separate individual from the son or daughter in her womb. C. Respect for Life: Do Not Kill an Innocent Child. Many passages teach us not to deliberately kill innocent human beings. Please read Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16,17; Revelation 21:8; 22:15; Matthew 15:19,20; and Romans 13:8-10. In addition, please consider these specific passages. Psa. 106:37,38 -- Israel was polluted with blood because the people shed the innocent blood of their "sons and daughters." But unborn babies are "sons and daughters." What then is the condition of our land when over 25 million "sons and daughters" have been legally killed? Matthew 2:16 -- Herod is considered wicked because he slew the male children in Bethlehem. Luke 2:12,16 calls such children "babes." But Luke 1:41,44 also calls unborn children "babes," so how can it be acceptable to kill them? Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 8:12 -- When children or infants are dashed to pieces, it is a great tragedy to any nation. Yet unborn babies are children or infants, and in our nation they are dashed to pieces by the millions! Acts 7:19; Ex. 1:16-18 -- Pharaoh commanded that Israelite "sons" or "men children" be killed as soon as they were born. But these same terms are used for unborn babies. Would it have been acceptable for Pharaoh to have had abortions performed to kill the babies? Is it any less wicked if people today do it? Deuteronomy 27:25 -- "Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person." What clearer description could be given for people who operate abortion clinics?
Porgie, the only thing bogus here is your arguement. Game. Set. Match.
Aaron....did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday, know your sides bag of tricks inside and out, have had to walk through your pickets to get into the Planned Parenthood offices. Save your propaganda, I am not buying...it's a question of CHOICE, and people like you need to stop trying to legislate your morality on every one else.
All the aids cases in Africa, yet the Pro-Life movement objected to distributing rubbers.....think that speaks VOLUMES.
Aaron...at 50, I've grown enough to know when to save my breath. I'm not interested in getting into yet another rabid arguement over abortion on yet another board. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, just stop trying to legislate your morals into law. If you and others like you are REALLY SO CONCERNED, go out and adopt some of the millions of unwanted children in the world, and when you have two or three living in your house, when you are giving them a good life, come back and talk to me. Maybe the trip over to said countries will wizen you up a bit.
Porgie: my tome of a message above was in response to your claim of "Anil....I don't buy into the BOGUS arguement that a few cells equate to a person". If you are going to state something as far-fetched as that, then don't be shocked when someone calls you out on it. If you would notice the first 1/2 of my post was scientific evidence refuting your claim. Not suprisingly you have avoided it entirely. You ask me to stop pushing my morals... isn't that what happened in Roe vs. Wade? The pro-choice folks pushed their agenda, but the pro-life can't have their voice heard? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Speaking of R.v.W., I find it very suprising that even Roe now wants the controvercial ruling overturned. "'Roe' in Roe v. Wade Against Abortion
Posted: June 17, 2003 at 3:45 p.m.
DALLAS (AP) -- The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.
"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.
Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.
Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.
"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.
McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.
McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.
McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.
The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)"
I understand you have been through this argument with many people in the past (from your response I know you have.) But if you are going to make claims like earlier, then supply evidence to back them up.... or don't complain if others unload evidence countering your claim.
You can ignore the scientific evidence all you want; but your wishing it was tripe doesn't lessen its validity. I can understand how you would be forced to believe that the life inside a womb is nothing but a few cells if you wish to support abortion. Other wise you would have to accept that you were slaughtering a defenseless child.... And that would really mess with your consience. Thanks for playing!
Anyone who wishes to see whether or not my response to your comments are correct can follow the url's provided.
If its all about choice, anyone can choose to go any where. Who are we to tell anyone that they can't cross borders? Who are we to say that some can't work for less wages? Everyone is entitled to their own choices and we should let them choose their own. Why are we legislating morals in the name of law? Morals are important for harmony in society. If societies are let to follow 'survival of the fittest' rule, ... just imagine it ... low wage get jobs. Just a try to make you understand. Just a couple of cells! Not all couple of cells make a human. If our parents choose to be lazy or thought we are burden to growing population, we wouldn't have been here. Having respect for life makes it more beautiful and enjoyable. Any how I am trying to save a life, if its so hard for you to accept, I am not going to say sorry for it.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
That's what German Jewish intellegencia said in 1930 Berlin, " these Nazi's are not a great threat to the stability of Germany, why we are the most cultured country in the civilized world"
1. Illegals
2. George Bush and the Republican Party
3. Terrorists (which in my mind is not the wrong war in Iraq)
4. Religious zealots of all types, be they Radical Christians, or Radical Islams.
5. The North American Union
What are you teaching your kids? Is there ANYTHING worth dying for?
Do you believe in some truth so strongly that you would be willing to be tortured or killed rather deny it? Check out persecution.com to read about many who do think there is something more important than their own life.
What disturbed me was seeing these young minds being methodically converted into non-thinking machines, of which there are already too many in this country...
Good post, Porgie.....depressing but good...
Yes, there are things worth dying for. Example: the protection of the rights you are currently expressing right now. Many of you posted anti-bush comments. If this nation was run by a real dictator as Iraq was, then you would be hauled out in the street and executed for talking bad about 'El Hefe Grande'
The Cristian community has had a few bad apples, but they are not as a whole comparable to the Jihadist movement. Someday that day may come where they can be compared, but I highly doubt it.
Until that day comes, y'all can keep slurping down the buckets of kool-aid.
Is there anyone out there who would be willing to die protecting their spouse and kids?
David McGill: You would have to read a lot into this clip to believe the children were being taught to "kill warlocks." A lady in the clip was heard saying that warlocks in the time of the Old testament would be killed. We didn't hear her say how or by whom. I did not hear her tell the children to kill anyone. I did'nt see anyone putting hand grenades in their hands.
Have we all forgotten ancient history, the Crusades where thousands upon thousands were killed in the name of Christianity, or how about our own Salem Witch Hunts?
The smashing of the cups is symbolic, just as bein baptized is. For example, if you have a problem with lust, you might have written 'porn' on the cup prior to smashing it. Just as kids can use puppets for sharing personal issues, these children are trying to put spiritual issues they have in their lives into a tangible object that they can get rid of.
If some one is teaching what you claim, go get them, expose them with clear facts what they are doing and I promise every Christian will be with you condemning them, but stop this spin. Just open your eyes and think ... just for a minute ... think ... ok? ... and you will know truth ... you will see light and darkness.
If breaking cups is scaring you, what should we think about killing kids even before they are born in educated professional name of Abortion.
Porgie, You are quick to post, slow to think. You are losing all my respect. I thought you are a patriot enough to work hard to take control of our borders, but you sound more like a agenda driven spinner.
I do want to secure our borders, and I want illegals deported, don't take kindly to criminals. That being said, I also do not believe in legislating morality, do not believe the church should be trying to force their morals on the rest of America, and in fact believe that very action goes against the teaching of Jesus and God...after all, God gives us freedom of choice, yet most Christians (so called) only respect freedom of choice if that choice is a choice they think you should be making. If it is not, they are the first to cast stones, the first to label a person SINNER.
I am taking it as ... you don't want any checks against criminal actions.
Standards are needed and they need to be strongly observed.
I agree that Church needn't make laws.
I agree that there are religious zelots, like ACLU on the left ... blacksheep exist. Don't point fingers at everyone. That is what I am saying. Don't blame Christian faith. As I said, if you have all the facts, lets sit and talk. I don't like people make a whole point based on half knowledge. The clip doesn't show the whole video. It is edited to only show those parts that could imply what anti-religious people what to hear. Even after all the editing it is clear that no one is legislating or advocating violence there. Isn't it? Look at your title! It is a major spin. If one have any balance of opinion, he/she will be responsible enough not to say things like that.
On the other note, I know what you want. My point is, is it driven by an agenda or facts. If you are agenda driven you spin everything in your favor and ignore or reject without fair judgement everything that don't corelate with your argument. If you are truth driven, you will accept even those that contradict you if they are true.
I don't like and/or respect agenda driven people.
However, what choice does the unborn have? By commiting to an abortion, you strip the right s away from that child. The worshippers of Baal also sacrificed their children, and it was viewed as a sin. Not much of a difference in burning your child alive as an offering to Baal as sucking its brains out during a partial birth abortion.
And Jesus said to "suffer the little children to come unto him." You really think you could stand before God and justify abortions?
If killing is not crime, legal or not, I have nothing to say.
1. 5 Weeks Old
2. 8 Weeks Old
3. 13 Weeks Old
Boy, #3 on that image sure looks like a human!
Chronological development of a baby
1st week (1st month)
sex of baby is determined
genetic traits are determined
embryo travels from fallopian tube to the uterus.
2nd week (1st month)
egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus
placenta develops
3rd week (1st month)
heart begins to develop, 18-25 days.
brain begins to develop
intestinal tract begins to develop
4th - 5th weeks (1st month)
vertebra begins to develop
blood flow begins
eye development begins
arm and leg development begins
the umbilical cord begins to form
6th week (1 - 2 months)
fingers and toes appear
nose, ears, develop
joints are developing
7th week (1 - 2 months)
all essential organs are developing
eyelids form
8th week (2 months)
muscle contraction occurs
facial features become more prominent
heart has four chambers
9th - 12th week (2 - 3 months)
the baby is about 3 inches long
the neck develops
arms and legs begin to lengthen
genitals are well defined
13th - 16th weeks (3 - 4 months)
the baby is about 6 inches
hair begins to develop
the baby moves
lungs develop
if female, the ovaries contain about 2 million eggs
the face is more developed
the baby can suck its thumb
17th - 20th weeks (4 - 5 months)
the baby is about 8 inches
eyebrows form
nails on fingers and toes form
movement can be felt by mother
the circulatory system is working
swallowing
21st - 24th weeks (5 - 6 months)
the baby is about 11 inches long
the baby weighs about 1.5 pounds
fingerprints form
the baby can hear and react to sounds from outside the womb
25th - 28th weeks (6 - 7 months)
the baby is about 15 inches long
the baby weighs about 2.5 pounds
survivability outside the womb is possible
the baby can react to light from outside the womb
29th - 32nd weeks (7 - 8 months)
the baby is about 16 inches long
the baby weighs about 4.5 pounds
all bones are fully developed
33rd - 40th weeks (8 - 9 months)
the baby is about 18 - 21 inches long
the baby weighs about 6 - 8 pounds
the baby is ready to be born
sleep patterns are apparent
strong movement is very apparent
The baby can suck it's thumb at 13 weeks! but according to Porgie, it's not a life until after it's born? Even if we accept Porgie's view, partial birth abortion still is killing a baby, seeing as how the infant's head must be outside the mothers body before they can cave in the skull and suck out the brains.
If it isn't human, then what is it? check out the following link for the smallest 'embryo' human photographed. :http://www.carm.org/abortion/human_life.htm
Or how about the fetus that held the finger of a surgeon during fetal operation:Take a good look at this picture. It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a foetus reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a medical development in the control of the effects of spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate through the on-going abortion debate here.....
http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm#hands
Now that we see scientific evidence that the life inside a woman's womb is a baby, not "a couple of cells" as Porgie claims, let's see what the Bible says about life before birth:
Bible Defines Life:
A. Now where uses phrases "human" or "human being"
Uses "man, woman, child, son, daughter, baby etc."
Since these terms are used for unborn children, then we have evidence that human life is present before birth
The Bible makes no distinction of any kind in the terms used to describe a fetus.
Body without spirit is dead: Jas 2:26
The blood is the life: Deut 12:23 fetus has bloodstream at 4 weeks
B. "Begat sons and daughters" Gen 5:3,4,28-30
Begat always refers to conception and fertilization
C. "children & sons in womb" Gen 25:21-22; 2 Ki 19:3; Ruth 1:11
D. "a man child conceived" Job 3:3
notice the difference: day of birth, night conceived see Rev 12:5 "man child born"
E. "mother" of unborn child Num 12:12; Lk 1:43
F. Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad
G. "baby leapt for joy" in mother's womb Lk 1:41,44
conceived a "son" Lk 1:36; Acts 7:29
Lk 1:36 Elizabeth conceived a son
Lk 1:57 Elizabeth brought forth a son
H. death of unborn= life for life Ex 21:22-25
There is no indication in the Hebrew that the baby was miscarried
Even if miscarriage is what is meant, the intent was not to abort baby but harm woman,
Literal translation: "Child brought forth"
Notice that the fetus is referred to as a "child" second most common word for child in OT cf: of Moses in Ex 2:3-10
A. God's Terms for the Unborn
Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother."
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born.
The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother."
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)
B. Observations on the Verses
That which has been conceived and lives in the mother's womb from conception on is referred to by God as a "child," a "son," an "infant," a "baby," a "man-child," etc. The woman in whose womb it lives is a "mother." No human being anywhere in the Bible is identified by terms that are more distinctly human than these terms. God makes no distinction between born and unborn life. He uses exactly the same terms for both, therefore we should view them as having the same nature. Remember that we established from the beginning that the life in the mother's womb is human life. The only question to be settled was whether it is a distinct individual from its mother or just part of the mother's body. Consider the force of the evidence we have now examined: Does the Bible refer to parts of the mother's body as "child," "son," "baby," etc.? Clearly not. Nor is a woman ever called a "mother" just because she has these body parts. Why is this so? Because the terms "child," "son," "baby," etc., are terms that imply a separate human individual, not just a part of the mother's body. Consider the parallel to the Godhead. We can prove that God the Father and Jesus are two separate individuals by referring to the many passages that mention Jesus as the Son of God the Father. A person cannot be his own father or his own son. A father and his son make two separate individuals (cf. John 8:16-18). Likewise, when a woman has conceived, the life in her womb is her "son" (or "daughter") and she is its "mother." If God the Father is a separate individual from Jesus Christ His Son, then in the very same way and for the very same reasons a mother must be a separate individual from the son or daughter in her womb.
C. Respect for Life: Do Not Kill an Innocent Child.
Many passages teach us not to deliberately kill innocent human beings. Please read Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16,17;
Revelation 21:8; 22:15; Matthew 15:19,20; and Romans 13:8-10. In addition, please consider these specific passages.
Psa. 106:37,38 -- Israel was polluted with blood because the people shed the innocent blood of their "sons and daughters." But unborn babies are "sons and daughters." What then is the condition of our land when over 25 million "sons and daughters" have been legally killed?
Matthew 2:16 -- Herod is considered wicked because he slew the male children in Bethlehem. Luke 2:12,16 calls such children "babes." But Luke 1:41,44 also calls unborn children "babes," so how can it be acceptable to kill them?
Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 8:12 -- When children or infants are dashed to pieces, it is a great tragedy to any nation. Yet unborn babies are children or infants, and in our nation they are dashed to pieces by the millions!
Acts 7:19; Ex. 1:16-18 -- Pharaoh commanded that Israelite "sons" or "men children" be killed as soon as they were born. But these same terms are used for unborn babies. Would it have been acceptable for Pharaoh to have had abortions performed to kill the babies? Is it any less wicked if people today do it?
Deuteronomy 27:25 -- "Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person." What clearer description could be given for people who operate abortion clinics?
Porgie, the only thing bogus here is your arguement.
Game. Set. Match.
All the aids cases in Africa, yet the Pro-Life movement objected to distributing rubbers.....think that speaks VOLUMES.
You certainly have a right to ignore the facts, but that is your right. That in no way, however, changes the fact that the evidence proves you wrong
You ask me to stop pushing my morals... isn't that what happened in Roe vs. Wade? The pro-choice folks pushed their agenda, but the pro-life can't have their voice heard? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Speaking of R.v.W., I find it very suprising that even Roe now wants the controvercial ruling overturned.
"'Roe' in Roe v. Wade Against Abortion
Posted: June 17, 2003 at 3:45 p.m.
DALLAS (AP) -- The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.
"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.
Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.
Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.
"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.
McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.
McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.
McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.
The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)"
I understand you have been through this argument with many people in the past (from your response I know you have.) But if you are going to make claims like earlier, then supply evidence to back them up.... or don't complain if others unload evidence countering your claim.
Anyone who wishes to see whether or not my response to your comments are correct can follow the url's provided.