gadgetlady

Why? When spanking is necessitated in our family, either my husband or I might be the ones to spank. All spanking is pre-pubescent, so I don't see a problem with it.

It's the same option. One just happens a few months earlier. I am not being glib when I say this. One of the arguments of those in favor of infanticide, or infant euthanasia, is that children (infants) don't know what it means to be alive, and therefore it doesn't violate any moral code to kill them. This philosophy of valuing human life for utilitarian reasons (only if it serves our purpose to do so) rather than valuing all human life simply because it is human life comes straight out of the abortion playbook and is the natural conclusion of a society that doesn't concern itself with the degradation of human life.

I agree that they are appalling and selfish. The reason I compare the two (this scenario and abortion) is because they both speak to the general devaluing of human life. When the baby in the womb is valueless and easily discarded, it doesn't take much to transition to the idea that the baby outside the womb is equally valueless and easily walked away from. It is for this very same reason that we have proponents of infanticide, arguing that the parents should have the "choice" to withhold sustenance from their newborns if those newborns don't meet certain standards. These voices in favor of infanticide have already been discussed on this thread, with notables such as bioethics professor (at Princeton) Peter Singer supporting the idea. If you would like more information on the people who support such a thing, whose credentials include Nobel Peace Prize winners, lmk and I will post more info.

What's the difference between an "unborn baby" and an "undeveloped fertilized egg"? When does an "undeveloped fertilized egg" become an "unborn baby" in your mind? At what stage of development would you support the limitation or cessation of abortion? LOL! You just love putting words in my mouth, don't you? No, any joining of an egg and sperm doesn't have 100% chance of developing into a "human being" (which I take it you mean a born human being, because a fertilized egg is human and it is a being). There are such things as spontaneous abortions (aka miscarriages), fetal deaths, and failures to implant. Furthermore, I don't attribute the transition from fertilization to birth to God's will in the sense that you're talking about. I do attribute it to basic biology. As I have said before, my position on abortion has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

You're pretty mixed up yourself. If you cared about unborn babies, you would care when they're violently dismembered. Furthermore, I didn't say the article "made sense" -- it is the reporting of something that happened. I see the rejection of born female babies as a natural extension of the devaluing of human life that abortion leads to. If they could have aborted them 2 months prior to the birth, why not simply abandon them the day after birth? After all, they're the same babies they were 2, 4, 6, 8 months ago! Ahhh, but I don't. I value both lives equally. It is you who places value on one life to the detriment, or in this case death, of the other.

This is what happens when we don't value life in utero: Newborn Birmingham IVF twins 'abandoned because they were girls' - Mirror.co.uk A Birmingham couple have abandoned their healthy newborn IVF twins because they were girls, it was claimed today. The children were born in Wolverhampton's New Cross Hospital two weeks ago – but soon afterwards the pair are said to have told doctors they did want the “wrong sex” babies. The mother, aged 59, is said to have had fertility treatment in India, where both parents originally hail from. The father, aged 72, is alleged to have asked doctors how long it would take before his wife could return to the country to have more IVF treatment so the couple could try for a boy. It will continue to astound me that the "feminist" movement doesn't care about discrimination against unborn baby girls.

When I was spanked, I absolutely, unequivocally deserved it. I also knew and know that my parents absolutely, unequivocally love me unconditionally. As an aside, my father (who was the one who did the spanking in my family) was whipped with a belt when he was a child, among other things that I would call physical and mental abuse. He never carried any of that into our family.

I've heard tell from people in the industry that Dr. Phil is one of the ugliest, nastiest, angriest people (off-camera) around. "Physician", heal thyself!

There are often no easy solutions when an unplanned pregnancy happens, but it always amazes me when people say it is easier and better for a mother to brutally kill her child rather than undertake the difficult but wholly unselfish act of giving her child life and placing that child for adoption. It is equally amazing to me that people believe it acceptable to surgically dismember a child at any time prior to natural birth, but it is not acceptable to discipline that child through spanking. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

Human beings don't have two separate sets of DNA and they don't have two brains. There's no other way to interpret it. The place of residence is inconsequential to the baby's humanness. No, it has a separate circulatory system -- which is why there are sometimes medical issues when a mother has a different blood type from the baby. It's your choice to keep answering.

I never said we agree. You said: I said: In other words, you ascribed to me the sentiment that women should not have the right to choose what happens to them or their babies. I said you are partly correct about what beliefs you ascribe to me: I believe women should have the absolute right to choose what happens to themselves, except for when that right interferes with the life of another human being. The baby is not your body. Unless, when pregnant, a mother has two brains, two hearts, four arms, for legs, and two sets of reproductive organs (one of which, approximately 50% of the time, is male).

Interesting -- you won't debate because BandedMom is a Christian, or you perceive her to be one? And yet she posted a link to a pro-life, feminist, athiest webpage. Hmmmm.

You are almost correct. I do believe women have the right to choose what happens to themselves, so long as that "choice" does not involve another human life. I do not believe a mother has a right to kill her child, regardless of physical location of that child.

Why is the accuate description of a medical procedure propaganda? Do you consider the factual discussion of what happens in a lap band surgery propaganda? Probably not -- because it doesn't involve the dismemberment of another human being and therefore doesn't offend your sensibilities or lead people to a better understanding of exactly what this "choice" is.

Nothing BandedMomX6 said was biased or could be considered propaganda. It was all factual. You may consider it inconsequential -- or you may not WANT to see it at all -- but it's the truth.

What about it is scary? Have you read Ezzo or Dobson, or just read what critics say about Ezzo or Dobson?

I'm putting this in R&R because I have a feeling it's going to need to be there http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf I'm putting the movie release date on my calendar. Can't wait!

No, it isn't "taken" to be disrespect; you stated that you had disrespect. Specifically, you said There is a big difference in the fact that roughly 1/3 of the world's population consider themselves Christian. I understand that you still believe their beliefs are "utterly ridiculous", but certainly you must concede that all 2.2 billion of these don't all have "a fault in their logical reasoning ability". If you truly believe they do, I doubt you have sincerely studied Christianity. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying if you study it you will of course become a believer. I'm simply saying it's a legitimate discipline that has survived over thousands of years despite critics who have posed the same questions as have you.)

I think this is precisely the anti-Christian sentiment that Gloucester was trying to pinpoint earlier. I don't disrespect you because you don't believe in God or a god or gods. I don't agree with you, but I certainly don't tell you you're an idiot or have no logical reasoning ability . . . Interestingly, I actually see this debate as having cooled down of late, rather than being heated. However, accusing people of having "a fault in their logical reasoning ability" isn't an altogether terrific way of proving -- or even stating -- your point.

Thank you, willbefine. I appreciate it. I knew what I was getting myself into by posting (some in this group are fairly predictable) it but I needed to say it because I believe there might be someone out there on whom it will have a profound impact -- either now or in the future.

I never said Anthony Flew became a Christian. I know he did not. He went from atheist to theist, becoming convinced that the world around us had to have a designer. I did discuss this in a previous post as well. Specifically, what I said tonight was (emphasis added): Anthony Flew did indeed change his opinion about the existence of a deity. He is not a Christian, and I never claimed he was.

I wasn't a Christian . . . until I grew up.:thumbup:

As I said, . Nevertheless, I'm sorry you felt my statement an insult, worthy of loss of credibility, worthy of my being blocked, etc. Those are the decisions you choose to make and are wholly up to you. I stand behind my statement and will continue to do so. And if you wrote that you would welcome me into atheism with open arms, I certainly wouldn't denigrate you or block you. I would accept them as the feelings of a person who truly believes what she believes. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't condemn you for your beliefs, challenge your credibility, or deem you not worthy of respect.

I really feel God has laid it on my heart to let the atheists posting here know that He loves you very much and will welcome you with open arms at any point in your lives. I know by saying this right now, it is likely that none of you is interested, and you even think me foolish, but I need to put it out there in case at any time in your lives you have a change of heart. There is nothing God wants more than to have a relationship with you and have you in His family and there is nothing you have done or could do that He won't forgive. Again, I say this knowing I am opening myself up to ridicule, but also knowing that there are many famous (and not-so-famous) former atheists (like Anthony Flew mentioned above) who have changed their opinions about the existence of a deity or of God Himself. So I know change is possible, even if not right now, at this point in your lives or at this point in this thread :tongue2:. You are loved more than you could possibly know.

You're not wrong, but it isn't well enforced, especially in R&R. The response I have heard in the past from moderators is "well, you're in R&R, what do you expect?"