Various Religious Positions On Abortion

Person, human being. Its all the same.

See for yourself!

http://thesaurus.com/browse/human+being?s=t&path=/

 

synonymous doesn't always mean the "same", it can also mean "closely associated with or suggestive of something", I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming person, human being mean the same thing, when they don't.

 

With regard to human beings, synonymous means the same in this context. Human being and person actually do mean the same thing. You have provided nothing to substantiate your claim that they do not. Ironically you screech incessantly about others doing that!

 

Can you link to something that shows your assertion that "with regard to human beings, synonymous means the same in this context", because you just saying so isn't really good enough for me.

Neither have you provided anything to substantiate your claim that they do mean the same thing and are not "closely associated with or suggestive of something"

 

The Evangelicals CHANGED what their religious beliefs are concerning abortion, so perhaps they will change back.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackt...lical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.
Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception........

But back in the day, Dudley notes, Geisler “argued for the permissibility of abortion in a 1971 book, stating ‘The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.’” That was in Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, published by Zondervan. It’s still in print, kind of, as Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. And now it says something different. Now it’s unambiguously anti-abortion.
I don’t mean to pick on Geisler. He’s no different from Packer or Graham or any other leading evangelical figure who’s been around as long as those guys have. They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago.
But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

 

Since there is no such thing as a homogenous group called "evangelicals" your post is PURE NONSENSE.

But everyhting you guys post in support of abortion homicide is wrought with fraud and deception, so why should this be any different?

 

Time to add a little more "meat" to this topic;

Before Roe v. Wade, the United States right-to-life movement consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. The Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today.

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions. During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."

By 1980, conservative Protestant leaders became vocal in their opposition to legalized abortion, and by the early 1990s Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America became a significant pro-life organization. In 2005, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that making abortion illegal is more important than any other issue.

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by Conservative Christian beliefs, especially in the United States, and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of what they believe to be a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates; these groups say that their position is based on human rights and biology, rather than religion. Many holding the pro-life position also tend toward a complementarian view of gender roles.

So again, as I have stated before, the pro-life movement has its roots firmly embedded in religious dogma.

 

The standard of behaviour on this thread from a number of members has been appalling.

This is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.

This thread has been closed, and all of the members involved need to go away and read the forum rules before posting again so that they can make sure that they do not violate the rules in future.

Cenydd
Site Moderator