[jlisenbe]

As opposed to your idea of just killing them? You don't want to be bothered with them, so you just want them killed? How sad.

Relatively few babies are born to a woman not wanting to raise the child. Those children go into the foster care system, not a perfect system but far better than most of the rest of the world.

[Wondergirl]

Love that foster-care system! And the absence of love that unwanted baby grows up in. I personally would rather be dead.

[jlisenbe]

You would rather be dead, so you think that justifies the killing of innocent, unborn children? Are you then in favor of finding foster kids in unloving homes and killing them as well? Where does your desire for death end? Please help me understand your point of view.

[Wondergirl]

No, you're the one who wants born kids dead because there will be no good and helpful offering of financial or family support.

No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.

[jlisenbe]

No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.

So should we go into the orphanages and foster homes, pull those kids out, and kill them? After all, what real difference is there other than age?

No, you're the one who wants born kids dead because there will be no good and helpful offering of financial or family support.

Oh please. That's a preposterous lie and you know it, spoken by the one who actually DOES advocate for killing. Please learn to be honest.

[Wondergirl]

So should we go into the orphanages and foster homes, pull those kids out, and kill them? After all, what real difference is there other than age?

Jesus said, "let the little children come unto Me, not "let the little fetuses come unto Me". Then also, the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7, KJV). The word soul in Hebrew is nephesh, meaning “an animated, breathing, conscious, and living being.” Man did not become a living soul until God breathed life into him. As a physical, animate, rational, and spiritual being, man is unique among all living things upon the earth. A fetus is not that.

[jlisenbe]

1. Jesus did not suggest the unborn come to him since...they can't. But that unborn children are living souls is plainly obvious from a number of passages. Luke 1:43 for instance says, "43 Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? 44 When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy." Note that Jesus is already referred to as "Lord", and the baby John "jumped for joy" in his mother's womb as he somehow recognized the holy presence of Jesus. That would certainly not be the behavior of dead, soulless bodies.

2. Your handling of the Genesis quote is in error. Most translations render it as "living being". In other words, he was dead dust. He was not breathing, he had no heartbeat, no brainwaves, and no ability to move, but then the "breath of life" gave him life. That is, of course, not true of the unborn. Even worse for your cause, Adam was never a fetus, never in his mother's womb, and was a fully grown adult his first second of life. So do you also take that any person prior to adulthood is not a living soul?

Why are you dodging this question? "So should we go into the orphanages and foster homes, pull those kids out, and kill them? After all, what real difference is there other than age?"

[Wondergirl]

You've never been pregnant, have you. Fetuses jump for joy often, especially by the fourth month of pregnancy and until birth. It's called quickening. And we pregnant moms and our sisters and cousins will talk to the fetus and even call it by the name the parents have possibly already picked out.

Adam was a handful of dirt before God gave him the breath of life.

Unborns don't breathe and don't become a living soul until they're born.

My handling of the Genesis verse is just fine. I was quoting my very with-it pastor from a two-year special Bible study program with him.

Prior to birth and a first breath, the fetus is not a living soul, not cognitive and not able to survive in the world without breathing.

What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.

[jlisenbe]

You've never been pregnant, have you. Fetuses jump for joy often, especially by the fourth month of pregnancy and until birth. It's called quickening.

You've not read the passage, have you? The baby jumped for "joy" when in the presence of Jesus. He wasn't just kicking. He was aware in some way of the presence of Christ and experienced "joy" because of it. You are greatly mistaken.

You are also mistaken in suggesting that unborn children do not have cognitive functioning. That has been shown to you before, but your ideology of death keeps you from acknowledging it.

Adam was a handful of dirt before God gave him the breath of life.

Yes! You finally have it. He was lifeless dust. A fetus is neither lifeless nor dust. It is exactly why the rest of your comments are wrong. It is also why you NEVER read in the Bible, "And so and so was born and became a living soul." It is an idea foreign to the Bible.

You can be certain that I will hold on to that quote. I'm sure you already regret posting it.

What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.

But that's what I'm asking you. Why not go ahead and kill them now?

Do you go to foster homes and orphanages and make your case that those kids should be dead??? Have you stood on a street corner and "preached" that message? Have you told any of those children, "You would be better off if we ended your miserable life right now."

[Wondergirl]

You've not read the passage, have you? The baby jumped for "joy" when in the presence of Jesus. He wasn't just kicking. He was aware in some way of the presence of Christ and experienced "joy" because of it. You are greatly mistaken.

Oh c'mon! You know all that description was written much later, a visual for the reader.

You are also mistaken in suggesting that unborn children do not have cognitive functioning. That has been shown to you before, but your ideology of death keeps you from acknowledging it.

Deliver that fetus during pregnancy and tell me about cognitive functioning and cost of keeping the unfinished baby alive.

Do you go to foster homes and orphanages and make your case that those kids should be dead??? Have you stood on a street corner and "preached" that message? Have you told any of those children, "You would be better off if we ended your miserable life right now."

I don't have to. They've told me.

[jlisenbe]

Oh c'mon! You know all that description was written much later, a visual for the reader.

I guess if that passage worked against my point of view, then I might be tempted to go that direction as well. It's just a foolish argument.

Deliver that fetus during pregnancy and tell me about cognitive functioning and cost of keeping the unfinished baby alive

.This is what people say when they have nothing rational to post. "Unfinished baby"?? Wow. What an attitude. "Hey everyone. I want to show you pictures of my unfinished son!! Come and look. We think we will keep him, but since he's unfinished, then we might decide to do away with him." Good grief.

I don't have to. They've told me.

As a school principal, I dealt with many foster/adopted children, but I had a different approach from you. I felt they were all valuable and treated them in that way. It never occurred to me to suggest that they go out and kill themselves since their life was not worth living. I didn't believe that, and I don't think they did either.

[Wondergirl]

I guess if that passage worked against my point of view, then I might be tempted to go that direction as well. It's just a foolish argument.

Of course it's foolish because you didn't think of it and it's the truth.

This is what people say when they have nothing rational to post. "Unfinished baby"?? Wow. What an attitude. "Hey everyone. I want to show you pictures of my unfinished son!! Come and look. We think we will keep him, but since he's unfinished, then we might decide to do away with him." Good grief.

No, doing away with it after it's born is murder.

As a school principal, I dealt with many foster/adopted children, but I had a different approach from you. I felt they were all valuable and treated them in that way. It never occurred to me to suggest that they go out and kill themselves since their life was not worth living. I didn't believe that, and I don't think they did either.

No, you aren't comprehending. The topic is the feelings of kids housed in orphanages and in foster care.

[jlisenbe]

Of course it's foolish because you didn't think of it and it's the truth.

I didn't think of it because it's absurd. It's basically saying, "It can't possibly mean what it says since that would not agree with my statements, so it would just have to be incorrectly transmitted."

No, doing away with it after it's born is murder.

Ahh, but according to you it is "unfinished". I'm just going along with your twisted belief.

No, you aren't comprehending. The topic is the feelings of kids housed in orphanages and in foster care.

I was referring to these comments of yours.

What have you done to help those parentless kids in orphanages and foster homes? They probably should have been aborted.

No child should be put into an orphanage or foster home. If parents can't or won't do right by the child to be born, it's best that it not be born.

You're about as pro-death as anyone I've ever met, and I've met some real whoppers. You have flatly stated that those kids should have been killed long ago.

[Wondergirl]

You're a little kid in an orphanage or foster care. And if no one loves you or wants you? How would you feel? What would you do?

[jlisenbe]

There are many children in foster care who feel loved. There are many adopted children who feel loved. There are many kids from two parent families who do not feel loved. So I don't really know what your point is. Is it bad to feel unloved? Yes, but does that mean we should kill those children? Good grief no. It is always wrong to take an innocent human life.

[Wondergirl]

It is always wrong to take an innocent human life.

Then let's ban guns of all kinds.

[jlisenbe]

You can't make any ground in what we were talking about, so you just change the subject. Why am I not surprised?

At any rate, cars kill people, so let's ban cars. Doctors kill people, so let's ban doctors. Knives kill people, so let's ban knives. Alcohol kills people, so let's ban alcohol. And on and on it goes. It's just senseless and ridiculous.

[Wondergirl]

You can't make any ground in what we were talking about, so you just change the subject.

This is a discussion which I enlarged, not changed the subject.

At any rate, cars kill people, so let's ban cars. Doctors kill people, so let's ban doctors. Knives kill people, so let's ban knives. Alcohol kills people, so let's ban alcohol. And on and on it goes. It's just senseless and ridiculous.

Now you're being silly.

[jlisenbe]

Now you're being silly.

How's that? You want to ban guns because a small, small sliver of people misuse them. You would punish the law-abiding in order to deal with the law breakers. Why not do the same thing with cars, alcohol, etc.?

[Wondergirl]

Guns would be the start. When your child misused a tool, you taught him the correct use. You didn't allow him to continue the misuse. Same with guns. When a car pulls into the wrong driveway and the driver is in the process of backing out, why does the homeowner let loose and shoot (and kill!) one of the four passengers? When a teen goes to the wrong address to pick up his two younger brothers, why does the homeowner open the door and shoot him without even asking what he wants? No reason to shoot, no threat. No guns, no problem. And no, the Second Amendment doesn't give individual citizens the right to own a gun.