|
Post by vertigo on Apr 3, 2005 13:31:45 GMT -5
If you prefer to pay your own money to support abandoned children, you would surely agree to donate money to a fund that supported that. Everyone who preferred to pay could do so. That would be fair, don't you think?
My point of view is that plenty children die every day without anybody so much as noticing. People are more concerned over fur trading and 'protecting nature' than these deaths. Why not put it to the test and set up a fund.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 4, 2005 10:07:42 GMT -5
If you prefer to pay your own money to support abandoned children, you would surely agree to donate money to a fund that supported that. Everyone who preferred to pay could do so. That would be fair, don't you think? My point of view is that plenty children die every day without anybody so much as noticing. People are more concerned over fur trading and 'protecting nature' than these deaths. Why not put it to the test and set up a fund. My church does fund a crisis pregnancy center, they help young mothers with the things they need to prepare for and care for their babys.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Apr 6, 2005 14:51:50 GMT -5
Ah, your church funds it. As long as the church is open about where its funds are spent that is perfectly fine. The patrons give the money willingly.
I take it that it is expected for members of the church to donate money. Basically it is a payment for what the church provides, access to heaven. As I said, the final word is the pastor's, and salvation is worth paying for.
This activity of the church is not stand-alone. A fund for such a purpose should be stand-alone, with no other benefit than that the money will be used in that way. Your church's funding doesn't qualify, however I do agree that by funding the church you are indirectly funding what the church funds.
I would say rather ditch the church, live your own religion and choose to support the causes yourself.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 15:14:19 GMT -5
Ah, your church funds it. As long as the church is open about where its funds are spent that is perfectly fine. The patrons give the money willingly. I take it that it is expected for members of the church to donate money. Basically it is a payment for what the church provides, access to heaven. As I said, the final word is the pastor's, and salvation is worth paying for. This activity of the church is not stand-alone. A fund for such a purpose should be stand-alone, with no other benefit than that the money will be used in that way. Your church's funding doesn't qualify, however I do agree that by funding the church you are indirectly funding what the church funds. I would say rather ditch the church, live your own religion and choose to support the causes yourself. Vertigo, when you are so far off, so often, it seems you are doing it intentionaly. wich would make trying to correct you a waist of time. but here I go anyway. Christ paid for salvation. donations to the pregnancy center are volentary and we have various fund raisersfor it. All money collected by the church is spent in acordence with a budget that is formally aproved of by the congregation.
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Apr 27, 2005 16:33:28 GMT -5
This may have come up earlier in this thread. I didn't read it all. Keeping with the topic, here's my view on abortion. 1) A woman owns her body and can do with it as she sees fit, period. 2) Anyone who is against abortion had better be prepared to give loving, caring homes to all of those unwanted children; and raise them well. For a fine christian view on why abortion should be allowed, check here.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 28, 2006 9:21:08 GMT -5
i believe in mass sterilzation at birth
screw like little bunnies or save it for marriage (whatever you want)
no little bastard children no supporting welfare mommas no babies in dumpsters
just nip the damn thing in the bud then if you want one later on (18 or older lets say for arguments sake) you get your stuff hooked back up, and your good to go
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 16, 2006 15:46:08 GMT -5
As soon as conception is achieved the genetic matieral is that of a different human being. Life does begin at conception because that is when it is a new and unique human. The problem is with nature. About half of all zygotes are flushed out of a woman's body which is just a matter of protection of unviable zygotes by a natural process. To me this is just another example of inefficeint evidence of intelligent design.
There is a waiting line for adoption and surrogates are paid to have children.
As far as legalization or criminalization of abortion the point is moot. Abortion has been occuring for all of recorded history and will not be stopped by legislation opposing the practice. This is a cultural issue and should be handled accordingly.
I do wonder where our Social Security system would be if we had another 30+ million people around to help support the system.
Being Taoist I am pro-life (but not anti-choice as the survey calls for). In Taoism all life is sacred and should be protected:
Avoid rather than hurt; Hurt rather than maim; Maim rather than kill. It is easy to take a life but impossible to replace a life
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 3, 2007 23:15:55 GMT -5
This may have come up earlier in this thread. I didn't read it all. Keeping with the topic, here's my view on abortion. 1) A woman owns her body and can do with it as she sees fit, period. Yes, a woman can do with her own body what she wishes, but she cannot do whatever she wishes with her baby's body, which is a distinct entity from her and another human life. The fact that it may be inconvenient to refuse an abortion does not determine whether it is right or not! The "rightness" or "wrongness" of something is independent from how difficult or inconvenient it may be.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Jul 4, 2007 20:00:15 GMT -5
Yes, a woman can do with her own body what she wishes, but she cannot do whatever she wishes with her baby's body, which is a distinct entity from her and another human life. Says you. Where I live abortion is quite legal, as it should be.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 5, 2007 10:27:20 GMT -5
Says you. Where I live abortion is quite legal, as it should be. Okay, but the question is, Why "should" it be legal? How can it be morally right if it involves killing human life, no matter what reason you have for doing it?
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 5, 2007 10:34:18 GMT -5
As far as legalization or criminalization of abortion the point is moot. Abortion has been occuring for all of recorded history and will not be stopped by legislation opposing the practice. Just because people will always practice abortion doesn't mean that we as a society should approve of it or allow it. Theft, murder, and rape are also practiced regardless of the laws against them. Does that mean we should just give up and say, "Oh well, people will do those things anyway, so let's not make any laws against it"? The point is, since abortion is wrong and harms innocent people (i.e. unborn children), we as a society should set up a standard and outlaw it, regardless of how many people do it.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Jul 5, 2007 19:59:38 GMT -5
Says you. Where I live abortion is quite legal, as it should be. Okay, but the question is, Why "should" it be legal? How can it be morally right if it involves killing human life, no matter what reason you have for doing it? Of course it will come down to your's/mine/ society's definition of what is or is'nt morally right. At this time society, at least in much of the civilized world, seems to understand the importance of a womans right to safe abortion. I believe the rights of the mother trump those of the fetus, and yes the father as well. Abortion is always a sad unfortunate event, but must remain an option for woman.
|
|