Nazi comparisons?

[ProximaCentauri]

You’ve used this point before and it’s a false assertion.

If you believe in God, you know this world is God’s creation to do with at His will. However, I believe God set nature in motion and nature does its thing according to those laws of nature God created. So he’s not up there pulling strings as to who lives and dies. Sure you could argue that he created a cruel nature that would result in miscarriages and is therefore culpable in those deaths. It is His creation not yours, and this is how He created it. If you reject that, then try to change the rules.

But even if you do claim God is the most prolific abortionist in the history of man (which I find ironic that there is no man without God); if God is wrong in this, how does this justify man and their own abortion record?

If you don’t believe in God, then nature is just doing its thing period. No one to blame but nature.

It appears from your argument that you are at Deist and not a Theist.

If God is Omnipotent and asserts his will in the life of humans, then it follows that the world is not random. The world cannot be random if as a Christian you believe in a personal God that asserts his will constantly in the lives of Christians - and non-Christians alike, albeit negatively in view of most Christians.

There are numerous Biblical references indicating that God is in control of everything. So it appears you pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible, if you do at all - if you are a Deist, you do not.

But, if you believe in a personal God that answers prayer, your reasoning that he lets randomness decide the course of events in the world is obviously flawed.

As to the point regarding "man's record of abortion"... I would agree that society should discourage abortion for convenience.

 

[GURPS]

You asked for it.

Where was the 'sanctity of life' thing then? They were our enemy. They 'deserved it'.
How about the bombings of German cities, expressly to kill men, women and child? They deserved it, too. As we saw it.

what do you want [throwaway question] this is a fallen world, and people are in perfect .... Christians are not perfect, just forgiven


and for the record, The bible tells us, we should pray for the redemption of our enemies, not rejoice in their destruction


http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-44.htm

 

[PsyOps]

You asked for it.

If you don't think American's, decent, God fearing American's took great glee when those bombs incinerated 10's of 1,000's in Japan then, you're wrong. Men, women, children. The death of a foe LONG past being ANY threat to the United States. Where was the 'sanctity of life' thing then? They were our enemy. They 'deserved it'.

How about the bombings of German cities, expressly to kill men, women and child? They deserved it, too. As we saw it.

How about slavery? I think our Constitution allowed for it's eventual demise but, were we ever more moral and faithful than at our inception?

We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy trying to keep old, sick people alive, ostensibly, forever. Is that moral erosion or just stupid? If our kid is sick, we want no expense spared (as long as insurance is paying for it) for blood work, tests, what have you, to protect that life. Is that moral erosion or just totally unrealistic?

I think abortion, as you know, is the vilest thing we, as humans, can do; destroy the most innocent of life at its most helpless but, I think that has got to be up to the woman. I'm just trying to offer up some perspective here. Even Hitler wasn't all bad. He was trying to destroy the most evil and monstrous government, ever; the USSR, an evil that starved and destroyed it's own people regardless of ethnicity or real or perceived prior offense. For them, it was as cold and calculating as how to save some on the food bill.

In any event, Adolph was anti abortion.

Our country decided to go to war. War dismisses the ‘sanctity of life’ because it requires killing people; and civilians end up being some of them. We’ve had that discussion before and agree to win wars you have to destroy things and kill people using superior and overwhelming force. We did that in WWII. We won. We killed a lot of people to win. It stopped an attempt at aggression and world domination. I take glee in that; not the death of millions of people. There is a difference between acting on ‘survival of the fittest’ – destroying those who have pledged allegiance to destroying us – as opposed to destroying the most innocent among us – babies – who have no voice.

Hitler decided he was going to eradicate an entire race of people; innocent people that showed no aggression towards anyone; this out of hatred for a race of people. I don’t think that was the intent in incinerating those fetuses. Us going to war to stop Hitler’s march across Europe, and potentially the US, and killing the people that either fought in or supported that war is a necessary part of war. Same is the case with Japan.

In terms of the sanctity of life, I do not see your moral equivalency.

Lastly... If you talk abortion as a concept, then Hitler was anti-abortion, but not on grounds of ‘the right of the mother’. He believed everyone belonged to the state and the state decided. So, regardless, the state decided what happened to pregnant women. If it fell into promoting the Aryan race, Hitler was anti-abortion. He promoted programs where women were sent off to specifically designed farms/camps where women (many of them girls) were forced to get pregnant to grow the Aryan race and his army. I’m not sure I’d really classify that in the same context of being anti-abortion. When it came to the Jews… not at all. When it came to pregnancies that appeared to result in physically or mentally handicapped… not at all. Non-Aryan women were sent away from Germany or sterilized. If a non-Aryan woman or mentally handicapped woman got pregnant, she was forced to have an abortion.

Hitler was most definitely pro-abortion when it served his evil purpose. There was not one ounce of that monster that wasn’t evil.