[CS-FSLUG] Consider this before you vote!!

[groundhog3000]

What were you smoking?

Aaron Patrick Lehmann wrote:

> Now, before I incite a flame-war for my response, I'd like to explain 
> myself a
>
>bit.  
>
Too late for that.  Let me explain myself.  I've had the pleasure of 
watching 3 of my
own children, born just a little too early, die in my wife's arms.  
Perhaps I see the life
of an unborn child, especially my own, a little differently.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I am anti-abortion (I do not say pro-life, because i haven't yet made a
>decision as to my beliefs regarding capital punishment).  I believe that
>abortion is wrong, because it is a killing of a person for a reason
>unsanctioned by the Bible.  In order to show that I'm right, I'd have to show
>that both the fetus is a person, and that it is not among the classes of
>things the Bible says we can kill.
>  
>
In the case of capital punishment, that is the government's job, as 
sanctioned by the
bible (to punish evildoers; they rightly should fear the government).  
Justice is for
the guilty and the not-guilty, not for the innocent.

You logic is backwards.  The fetus is a person until you can prove 
otherwise.  Your
arguement and thinking are both backwards.  You start by assuming that a 
fetus isn't
a peson.  Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work in courts ... 
atleast not in the
U.S. ... and it won't work with a baby either.  Seriously, were you less 
a person when
you were a fetus?  I wasn't. It was still _me_, _I_ was just a little 
younger and less
developed, that's all.

My problem isn't with you, since you take the correct stance.  It's just 
that your
reasoning starts with what the devil and the world want you to believe 
then attempts
to justify God's position, which is backward reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>What makes a person?  I think that a person is a creature of a type that can be
>reasonably be expected to develop human-normal level intelligence, or has
>human-level intelligence already.  Thus, I am opposed to killing fetuses that
>do not pose an untoward danger to their lives, or the lives of others.  I will
>make an exception to this for fetuses that have committed murder, treason, or
>are soldiers of a country with which mine is at war, because these are the
>current Biblical sanctions our society uses (although I'm not sure about the
>treason one; is it Biblical?).
>
I like the humor here.  Anyway, try to image a life from God's point of 
view.  He doesn't
exist in time like we do.  He's sees the end from the beginning.  So 
what looks like a
fetus to us is, to God, the man or woman who leads that other fetus, the 
one in the woman
sitting next to the mother, to faith is Christ.  If you could see the 
way God does,  I'm sure
it would  greatly simplify things for you.  

Once again, your positions are correct, and I make no arguement against 
them.  It's just
the process of logic used.

The governmet can legally define what deserves death.  That is it's 
job.  On an individual
level, it may be wrong to assinate somone (murder), but for a government 
to kill someone
for murder, like a serial killer, it is it's right under God to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>  In the past, it would have been acceptable to
>abort a fetus for being a witch, and adulterer, a blasphemer, or a Canaanite,
>amongst others.  I am also opposed to killing retarded people, intelligent
>robots and animals, and ETs.  Of course, the aforementioned exception applies
>to these as well.
>  
>
ET's ... intelligent robots ... someone has been watching way to many 
movies ... :P
Anyway, the spirit of the law in the OT was to kill the evildoers before 
you own
society become infected with their ways.  In the NT, the spirit is to 
convert the
evildoers if they will turn to the Lord (which is in itelf the Lord's 
doing) using love,
compassion and the strength of the true Word.
Government's in the modern world, for the most part, are secular 
institutions whose
job isn't to proseletize, but to mete out justice and to protect it's 
citizens.  In this spirit,
the U.S., Britian, the Philipines, Australia  and Poland are choosing to 
deal with terrorists
as enemies of the people and in the spirit of the OT, as a curropting 
influence on the world
which needs to be destroyed.  France embrased the radical islamic 
diversity, and soon
they will have to deal with their own "enemy within".  I wish them luck, 
because their
government and God don't seem to be on speaking terms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Basically, my point is that only the first reason in the list holds any water
>at all, and thus is the only one that should be used.
>
>Aaron Lehmann
>
I just say, "Aren't you glad your mother was pro-life?  I sure am." or
"If you were a fetus, a younger version of youself now, would you
still encourage people to march with signs reading it's a woman's choice?"