Steve Im commenting on a (equivocation) who am I decieving here? you commented on if your christain a fetus of a child is not equated of thats of a unborn animal... Did you know in the real world you kill a protected species thats preg you could be held accountable on different counts for whats in her stomach in a court of law? Because if you did that comment wouldn't have come up! but I guess its different in the christain world not the real world.. so I guess its closer then you think.
Im a simple person that has learned alot from people in this forum I have posted things that others have shed new light on the suject that got me to rethink my thinking on matters.. but like you said it will not be resolved here thats a give me...
Its in your religion to kill unborn things then? As long as a man behind a desk makes a law to ok it? Then by all means no one should object to a abortion then either right?
No, that doesn't follow. With all due respect to you, you're committing the logical fallacy called equivocation here. Hinduism may equate the value of a human being with the value of an animal (actually, it could be argued that Hinduism places a higher
value on animals), but Christianity and most other religions do not. Therefore, the value of a human fetus is not equated to the value of an unborn animal.
Besides that, we kill pregnant animals all the time for many reasons. Here's one -- if I catch a mouse in my mousetrap, I consider it a very good thing if that mouse is female and pregnant. Even if I feel badly about it, I consider it a good thing.
BTW IF A PERSON CALLS HIMSELF RELIGOUS ETHICS SHOULD FOLLOW RIGHT BEHIND.
That is absolutely correct. Most of us would agree that a religion is worthless if it doesn't teach ethical behavior. There should be a connection between the ethical stance of a religious person and his religious views. However, I don't how a teaching against the killing of a pregnant animal can be drawn from the Christian's ethical sourcebook, the Bible.
Everyone has danced around this subject YES or NO
Answer The simple ???? IS IT ETHICAL TO KILL A PREG DOE OR ANIMAL FOR THAT MATTER, AND DON'T USE THE LAW TO JUSTIFY IT BECAUSE A 5 YEAR OLD KID ON THE STREET KNOWS RIGHT FROM WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SUBJECT!!!lololololol
Highlander your preaching to the choir here, and its still killing of a unborn no matter how you look at it.. But I know your trying to make a point like I am...
JPH When in church walk up to the podium and ask this simple ?? to your congregation "Is it ethical to kill a preg doe", and only that ???????. See what replies might follow, or try it with people you don't know lolol
If you have the good lords phone # to prove me wrong JPH please by all means call him so I could be set in place here! because if you show me where it says you can kill a preg anything in your bible its time for me to go to the darker side
In answer to the first question -- No dancing. Everyone seems to have expressed himself or herself pretty clearly.
Second question -- it's definitely not clear that the view of a 5-year old kid on the street has any bearing on this subject. Despite the innocence of a child, a child's moral sense is not superior to anyone else's.
In general, this conversation illustrates two things:
(1.) that ethics cannot be based on personal opinion or strong feelings.
(2.) that the debate over "legal vs. ethical" will not be resolved on an Internet discussion board.