Search results

I was using "deliver" in the broader sense of "removing baby from mom's body." So yes, "delivery" is the only valid option. Chemical abortion is still the killing of a baby, and should NEVER be used. The correct option (and only moral one) is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube to...

Yup. Which is why you deliver the baby and love the baby, not kill the baby.

I may or may not get to the other stuff from this post, but I wanted to address this: No. Here's why: The goal is not to kill the child, but to save mom and if possible the baby. Abortion is always wrong, without exception, and should be abolished. If delivering the baby in an ectopic...

Alright, perhaps I overstated my case, depending on how you took my above statement. However, this does not mean that abortion is the only solution. 1. The claim that termination of an ectopic pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother a. The actual danger that an ectopic...

From the bottom of the page: Are these not scientific enough for you?

http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/fact-sheet-on-ectopic-pregnancy.html

That's false. And I just showed you proof. Don't just dismiss the evidence because it doesn't fit the narrative you've been told.

My favorite "strong delusion" that God gave His enemies is when He gave the army of Midian a nightmare that they were being attacked by, hilariously, a loaf of bread!

A river of water is VERY animated, it is NOT inanimate.

This is called question begging. My claims do not "destroy the plan of salvation." He didn't deceive people. Manipulation =/= deception To save mankind from their sin. To do that, He came to earth with a plan. To accomplish that plan, he needed certain things to happn. And just like...

What about them? If the baby dies, that's tragic. But there's no reason to stop treatment of either the mother or child in order to kill the baby. Ectopic pregnancies are survivable by both mother and child. Usually all it takes is to relocate the embryo to the uterus...

There's nothing hypocritical about it. We want the baby to live. The best way to do that is 1) don't kill the baby in the womb, and 2) have the parents be responsible and care for the baby, both before and after birth. Social safety nets take away the responsibility of the parents to be...

Needs are not rights. Agreed. Parents should be responsible and care for their children. "he's" The child has the right to life from conception to death by old age. He does not have a right, at any time, to the things you keep calling "essentials." WhY? How often do you think this...

Taking a child away from his parents is, by definition, kidnapping. Appeal to the stone. False. It provides justice for his death, and deters other parents from neglecting their children. Nice straw man. Duh. Needs are not rights. A childs needs should be met by his parents. The...

To protect the dignity of the woman. From reality. False. Yes, they do, generally speaking. False. So what? No one is saying this. In fact, we're saying the child has the inalienable right to life, from which all other (actual) rights extend, and from conception, not just birth...

He's quite a hypocrite, isn't he?

Under a righteous law What I believe has nothing to do with it. Yes, only the government has the right to impose laws. Again, my beliefs have nothing to do with this. No one has said anything about religion but you, Arty. "Personal freedom and liberty" does not include murdering the...

So God does things that don't make any rational sense at all? Speaking in parables that can't be understood to dead men that cannot hear doesn't make any sense.

So if the spiritually dead man cannot hear, then why does God need to speak in parables that he can't understand?

False. Wrong. The double standard was implemented by God to protect women. Sure it does. It's how God made man.