Even Shrinks Are Clueless Without Christ

[BCSpace]

http://www.wnd.com/2...st-tongue-tied/

Lieberman, who apparently had not been fully briefed on the project by her staff, launched into a discussion only to find out that abortion (she’s all in favor) and evolution (she believes in it fully) were being undermined.

“I don’t want to talk about Darwin. I don’t want to talk about abortion,” she exclaimed at one point. “This is not what was …”

“It’s what the book’s about,” Comfort explained to her. “Did you read the book?”

“You have a publicist. I received his press release,” she said.

Comfort asked for the name of his book on which the program was focusing. She responded, “Adolf Hitler, God and the Bible.”

Then, “I should be able to talk about God and the Bible,” Comfort said.

Comfort explained that as part of his book project he interviewed university students on video, finding out that many of them were unaware of Hitler’s extremism and evil.

He explained when he started asking them specific questions, he was able to convince them to take another view of abortion in America. He asked if the students, at the point of a Nazi gun, would use a bulldozer to shovel Jews into a burial pit even if they were alive.

Most said they would refuse.

He then asked a correlating question about abortion: Did they think it’s a baby in the womb, and just when is it all right to kill that baby.

The result was a sensational 30-minute documentary, “180,” which has been viewed online some 2.4 million times and has had hundreds of thousands more sold.

“This is not good. This is not what I thought we were going to talk about,” a surprised Lieberman said.

“You’re censoring me,” said Comfort.

Then the evangelist, who is co-host with actor Kirk Cameron of the popular TV series “The Way of the Master”, started pressing Lieberman for answers to the questions he previously asked the students on the video.

“Do you think it’s a baby in the womb?”

Lieberman said, “At a certain point … it isn’t at the beginning.”

“What point does it become a baby?”

“Well, uh, uh, you know…. I, uh, uh, I, I can’t remember right now. Like five weeks … or some … there’s some point,” she responded.

“You really… I really don’t think we should go into the abortion issue. … I think it is a woman’s choice,” she stated.

“I want to find out why you think that,” Comfort responded, noting it’s good to have discussions on areas of disagreement.

“I watched the trailer for that movie … I didn’t know the movie was online. The movie has you asking who was Adolf Hitler. I had no clue that it has anything to do with abortion,” Lieberman said.

When Comfort explained that many minds have been changed by additional, accurate information, she stated, “I have enough information. You’re not going to change my mind.”

The evangelist explained how Hitler was a great fan of Charles Darwin, who spoke of the survival of the fittest, and Hitler echoed such beliefs. He said it’s likely that Hitler actually determined to kill off segments of society because he would benefit financially by confiscating homes, bank accounts, art work and other valuable resources.

But it wasn’t long before Comfort was able to turn the conversation back to the focus on his book: that evil can be overcome by the grace of an all-powerful God.

“You think you’ve told how many lies?” he asked.

Lieberman wouldn’t quantify an answer.

“Ever stolen something?”

“I’m not going to [go there],” she said.

“Used God’s name in vain?”

“Yes.”

“Looked with lust?”

“As much as possible.”

So, Comfort said, Lieberman is a lying, stealing, blaspheming, lusting woman, and God’s standard for morality is “perfection.” Thus, the need for a redemptive savior.

Lieberman launched then into a long story about a recent movie she’d seen, explaining, “The reason I’m bringing it up is I want to talk about anything except abortion.”

Ray does a good job here though of course I disagree with the notion that evolution is anti God or anti Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

You'll never want for moonshine with the WND around.

[BCSpace]

Then feel free to specify what moonshine you tasted in the OP.

[LeSellers]

You'll never want for moonshine with the WND around.

Pure ad hominem.

It's usually considered better form to address the issue, rather than assailing the messenger.

Lehi

[The Nehor]

Then feel free to specify what moonshine you tasted in the OP.

I have reached the conclusion that most of those that claim life/personhood/civil rights begins at conception are lying.

Think about it. This means that every abortion is a murder. There is a genocide of children. Yet people who believe this is happening go on with their lives anyways. If I honestly believed that children were being massacred by the millions I would have to quit my job and fight this menace until it was gone. This is not something you'd protest when an event occurred like immigration or income taxes. This is something you throw everything you have at. You change the government's mind or you bring the government down by force. Yet these pro-life people, despite being good decent people in general, don't act like good decent people would if what they say they believe is true.

There is another crisis too. If life begins at conception then every miscarriage is a death. Move over cancer. We have a new #1 cause of death in the world. Many miscarriages happen without the mother realizing she is pregnant at all and no one notices this horrific death toll. Why aren't billions of dollars being thrown at this problem to make sure every time conception occurs that the mother can carry the child to term?

Because virtually no one really equates abortion clinics with Nazi death camps and no one considers a spontaneous miscarriage after a one-month pregnancy the equivalent of letting someone die in the streets. Nor does the LDS church for that matter. They consider a medical abortion a bad thing that should be avoided (but no one is really disagreeing with that are they?).

[thesometimesaint]

Life doesn't start at conception. It has been going for over a billion years. So all you are doing is quibbling about when a Supernatural "Spirit" enters a body. Even the LDS don't have a doctrine concerning that. To be clear I don't like abortion I wish to minimize the necessity for them. However these so called "personhood" laws do nothing but allow rich women to get an abortion under good medical care, and poor women a coat hanger.

[The Nehor]

Life doesn't start at conception. It has been going for over a billion years. So all you are doing is quibbling about when a Supernatural "Spirit" enters a body. Even the LDS don't have a doctrine concerning that.

The closest we've come is a quote from Brigham Young about the spirit entering being detectable by the mother.

The LDS Church also clearly does not see abortion as murder as we have VERY strict instructions about murder. When I was on my Mission we had HAPPI (Homosexuality, Abortion, Prison, Prostitution, Incest), the five reasons someone seeking baptism had to interview with mission presidency and the Big One (murder) where we had to write to the First Presidency.

[thesometimesaint]

Yet we have the example from Scripture where Jesus as a spirit speaks to (IIRC Nephi) one day before his birth.

My son served in Zimbabwe where they had to include another P in that list. Polygamy.

[BCSpace]

Because virtually no one really equates abortion clinics with Nazi death camps and no one considers a spontaneous miscarriage after a one-month pregnancy the equivalent of letting someone die in the streets.

Perhaps they should. Have you ever seen an abortion? Now I myself am not bothered by early miscarriages or RU-486 and such things. But there is an obvious line which you know when you see it and perhaps that is why viewing pictures and video of actual abortion procedure should be part of the lawful procedure itself before making that decision.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

http://www.lds.org/s...ortion?lang=eng

Abortion clinics ARE death camps, even without a clear doctrine on when the spirit enters the body.

Yet we have the example from Scripture where Jesus as a spirit speaks to (IIRC Nephi) one day before his birth

And yet we also have John recognizing the mother of the Savior while still in the womb.

[The Nehor]

Yet we have the example from Scripture where Jesus as a spirit speaks to (IIRC Nephi) one day before his birth.

According to President McKonkie that was an angel speaking by divine investiture. If Jesus was developed enough in the womb of Mary at the time to hold conversations with prophets on the other side of the world then we need to revise the gospels quite a bit and take out the bits about Jesus growing up like a mortal child does and growing in favor.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps they should. Have you ever seen an abortion? Now I myself am not bothered by early miscarriages or RU-486 and such things. But there is an obvious line which you know when you see it and perhaps that is why viewing pictures and video of actual abortion procedure should be part of the lawful procedure itself before making that decision.

Then define the 'obvious line' if it is obvious. You admit that miscarriages (which make no mistake are a kind of abortion) don't bother you? Be consistent at least.

Abortion clinics ARE death camps, even without a clear doctrine on when the spirit enters the body.

You believe that and yet you do virtually nothing about it but complain on message boards and vote a certain way? I'm afraid that would make you a morally reprehensible person and I don't believe that of you. If you found out the government was allowing the murder of Hispanics or Quakers or dwarves en masse would you have the same reaction? Just say it is wrong and then vote with the party opposing it? No action beyond that? You should be on the picket lines boycotting it or even bombing the places if you actually believe they are death camps for children. You should quit your job and get out there every waking hour until the horror stops. If it takes armed revolution then you should get on that.....now. Any government that would allow the wholesale genocide of children isn't worth keeping and their leaders should be dragged out in the streets and shot. Are you sure you believe this?

I would also point out that under some circumstances the CHI allows for consideration of and even receiving an abortion. If it is murder do you really think the Kingdom of God would allow it under any circumstances?

All that being said, I am opposed to abortion generally. I think it is usually a vile act but sometimes necessary and it is not murder. The "abortion is murder" rhetoric needs to go away unless the people screaming it are actually going to treat it as they would murder.

[thesometimesaint]

Nehor:

All due deference to Elder McKonkie but I don't believe that can be substantiated from the Scriptures.

[The Nehor]

Nehor:

All due deference to Elder McKonkie but I don't believe that can be substantiated from the Scriptures.

Agreed. However it makes more sense to me then the infant Jesus still in the womb leaving to speak to Nephi. With nothing else seeming logical I'm going to go with it being an angel (or the Holy Ghost) speaking on behalf of Jesus as they often do.

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

Or it could be that the Spirit doesn't enter the body until actual birth. The Scriptures don't support any particular time. I'm fine with anyones beliefs on the subject, other than at conception, but personally I lean towards that it is with the first breath as suggested in the Creation accounts. But it's not a heavy lean. I really don't know.

[Judd]

So why are you ok with any opinion except conception?

[thesometimesaint]

Just a personal belief. I can't imagine a single individual cell as a full human being. Most religions that I know put it at quickening, or time that the mother first recognizes fetal movement.

[BCSpace]

Here's a group which understands there is no difference in status between a newborn and a fetus. There's just one catch:

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

http://www.telegraph...xperts-say.html

Have to agree with their notion on status (except for "person"), but I think we all intuitively know, like the Church does, that abortion is usually infanticide.

[Judd]

Just a personal belief. I can't imagine a single individual cell as a full human being. Most religions that I know put it at quickening, or time that the mother first recognizes fetal movement.

I appreciate that you can't see a single cell as human life, to which I'd agree, and to which point it's nice to highlight that conception is not a single cell.

[thesometimesaint]

Judd.

Yes it is. Basic biology. It takes about a week for that cell to multiply, becoming a blastocyst, going down the fallopian tubes to the piont where it implants into the uterus.

Between 1/4 and 1/3 of all conceptions are aborted before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant. They are simply flushed from her system as part of her cycle.

[Judd]

Judd.

Yes it is. Basic biology. It takes about a week for that cell to multiply, becoming a blastocyst, going down the fallopian tubes to the piont where it implants into the uterus.

When a sperm releases its contents (including nucleus) into the egg, you may arbitrarily define the zygote formed from two individual cells as unicellular, but only in arbitrary terms. While it may be true that it takes a week for a zygote to develop into a blastocyst (unsure why blastocyst was randomly chosen as the comparison) it most certainly does not mean that it takes a week for that zygote to divide, or even that a blastocyst is the first "multicellular" aspect of embryonal development.

All definitions aside, the only thing clinically relevant thus far is implantation, since that's the first place post-fertilization where a mechanism is in place to prevent and/or terminate pregnancy (depending on definition of pregnancy). The other day I saw a physician on TV (not sure what specialty, but in any case irrelevant) who stated, matter-of-factly, that without implantation there is no pregnancy. While I'm open to people having varying beliefs regarding when pregnancy occurs, I tire of hearing arbitrary reference points being tossed out as if it is scientifically defined and not simply subjectively decided (obviously you were expressing your belief when asked and I'm not saying that you are forcing those ideas so this isn't necessarily directed at you).

Between 1/4 and 1/3 of all conceptions are aborted before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant. They are simply flushed from her system as part of her cycle.

This would hold no bearing either way as to whether or not pregnancy begins at conception.

[The Nehor]

This would hold no bearing either way as to whether or not pregnancy begins at conception.

It doesn't but if you hold that a unique human being is created at conception it does mean that this 'natural' abortion is the greatest healthcare crisis that ever existed as hundreds of millions of people are allowed to die every year.

[Judd]

It doesn't but if you hold that a unique human being is created at conception it does mean that this 'natural' abortion is the greatest healthcare crisis that ever existed as hundreds of millions of people are allowed to die every year.

If healthcare crises is defined simply as total deaths, then yes. But you and I know that is not how healthcare crises are defined. Also, you make mentioned to hundreds of millions of people being 'allowed' to die every year, yet failure of implantation is not currently preventable, sans risk factor modification. Whether or not people are consistent in their opinions regarding conception and the beginning of life is also not a factor in whether or not life begins at conception. But again, you and I are discussing two separate things, as I am not quite as interested in the consistencies of people's opinions regarding when life begins.

[The Nehor]

If healthcare crises is defined simply as total deaths, then yes. But you and I know that is not how healthcare crises are defined.

But it is. The truth is that most people don't seem them as deaths and because of that this is not counted as a health crisis.

Also, you make mentioned to hundreds of millions of people being 'allowed' to die every year, yet failure of implantation is not currently preventable, sans risk factor modification.

We also can't cure cancer or AIDS but we are spending a lot of time and money trying to come up with a way to prevent it. Despite spontaneous abortion claiming more lives then either almost no money is spent studying this. Again proving that most people don't believe that life begins at conception or at least don't care much about that life.

Whether or not people are consistent in their opinions regarding conception and the beginning of life is also not a factor in whether or not life begins at conception. But again, you and I are discussing two separate things, as I am not quite as interested in the consistencies of people's opinions regarding when life begins.

I disagree that people's opinions don't change when life begins. We created the word life and we get to define it. Now if you define the beginning of life as when the spirit enters the body then I agree our beliefs about it change nothing.

I am just demonstrating why the rabid "life begins at conception" and "all life is precious" crowd obviously don't actually believe what they are saying. They claim to believe it but it only impacts their actions in one narrow area (medical abortion). An analogy would be if I declared that the rights of all people are of value but in practice only defend or show any interest in the rights of green-skinned purple eyed people. It would be clear I do not mean what I say.

[Judd]

I am just demonstrating why the rabid "life begins at conception" and "all life is precious" crowd obviously don't actually believe what they are saying.

Which is not something I am particularly concerned about (whether or not people's opinions are consistent). What I am concerned about, however, is the notion that people should or shouldn't view conception as the beginning of life because of some arbitrary distinction.

[The Nehor]

What I am concerned about, however, is the notion that people should or shouldn't view conception as the beginning of life because of some arbitrary distinction.

Is there a way to create a non-arbitrary distinction?