Thou shalt not kill our companies regularly discuss the right to abortion or euthanasia. According to biblical law, these laws represent a form of crime and opposing the Divine Will. When this happens, we really are opposed to these laws or these bills when they are debated in the country where we live?
The Bible authorizes conditional kill but whatever I totally fucks the Bible. I'm for the right to abortion obviously I do not think that abortion is something desirable in himself but in some cases it is better. And I'm for euthanasia why let someone suffer who wants to die?
cons and cons but all good .. do not crouaent god ..
I am for the two cases you cite, a part of AC avoids having children unhappy, despite the means of contraception and other .. why let them suffer when you can avoid the
For the legalization of abortion. If you can help it through contraception is better. For the "euthanasia, but true. Defence of stumbling to reach Grandma's legacy. Let's say I'm against aggressive treatment. A fetus, an embryo, This is not life. A bedridden senile is more life.
For and For.
100% cons! .
against abortion, but euthanasia.
Well I'm torn. It depends if you talk about religion or not. If we talk about religion, I condemn both, to that in 2 cases these are lives that deserve to be experienced and this is only the creator can decide who taking of life (ie when it happens by accident …). If we talk about human endowed with reason, free thinker and the only decision maker that will leave both in the most sensitive cases by cons, otherwise it become child's play to kill old people and babies when we feel like it.
@ Ashaverus: shalom not easy questions like, I know that abortion in the country of my ancestors, the very Catholic Poland is prohibited except when there was rape. at the same time I tell myself that if women seeking abortions, they will, and despite a ban, and in conditions of poor hygiene. I believe that we are for or against abortion, keep that right to women . As for euthanasia, I think it may look like a suicide, but when a person suffers horribly, can we remain impassive to his distress, especially if the person specifically requested worry? I cons by cons of aggressive treatment of keeping people alive while they suffer is better to let them go
hello I'm for abortion when necessary after a breach or the child and mother are in danger, because now with all the contraceptives that are how to fall pregnant when it is thoroughly survive (pill, IUD, condoms, videos …. etc) My daughter knows all about contraception …. etc. I am for euthanasia see a person in end of life is suffering is hard to expect them to know without able to help my mom died of acute leukemia and for 1 year she is beaten until his last breath are suffering very hard until leaving I love to end his suffering has a one bite and not as they are done I do not want a person to go through the
I am absolutely against the euthnasie, because when we suffer anything, death is not the best …. It's just from the simplest, but we must fight to be alive, and when believing it is even harder … abortion, I am not for prohibition, but for monitoring abuse: I'm talking about sex in marriage by sleeping … but for the former case Emergency: The wife raped, the woman sick, women have, or in danger, I am not cons … For me, a phoeutus some day, week abortion is easy to accept, but more than 2 months, I think it's a crime! And fortunately the religion are there to prevent people from committing such human error, and bring people to their Creator Noble. @ I also add that I am against a man made maintenire alive through the machine when his brain stops working, it happens in the car accident, concussion brain .. well something like this … but when it is a coma, and that the person has a chance of revinire, there must be this fight for life!
For the right both when used properly, of course.
I would like to be provocative to the punch and the first to say that abortion was to be the God who emerges from the biblical laws … since its gestation punctuated sentence of death. This said after a few thousand years to pass an abortion humanity I'll be fine until the charge of 'failure to assist a person in danger, but hey …. just a cup … she is already so full. On a purely human situation is problematic and deserves to when the cons is that principle a little too terse. As for euthanasia for those who have the courage it is strictly a personal decision in many cases, which is called "dying with dignity itself .." Rest in terms of law a strict supervision while being flexible seems to me necessary
This is not correct to say that abortion, the position of the Halacha is infinitely more complex and nuanced than the Catholic position back to what you say. Moreover, the unborn child is considered a " Member of the mother "and certainly not as a living person. And anyway, even if abortion is morally reprehensible, it is over will agree I think it is not treated civilly but criminally is what called "the law of one price for children" (Exodus XXI, 23). For more information: http://ghansel.free.fr/ivg.html
Give to Caesar and give back to God justice says not to kill and yet consciousness she said she not that what the other takes
According to biblical law, the snake talks, and all species fall into an arch, so you know, the "biblical law" …
It's about a frightening reality. For why we got here, finally? Women in the last century were in silence, bearing children who were not always desired. And the choice for many women, abortion has been in appalling conditions, and multitudes have died after a long illness. If the men had followed the teachings of Jesus Christ to love their wives as our Savior like humans, the massacres have been avoided. Alas, sexual impulses, cravings and uncontrolled desires have caused much suffering. Then, from a good intention, a law was passed authorizing the medical end of life. Today, it is deplorable to see the millions of fetuses that were eliminated despite many means of contraception existing. Our scientists also use the "beginning of life" for medical purposes and also for cosmetics, health say they, or the beauty that many women. Our scientists also use the "beginning of life" for medical purposes and also for cosmetics, health say they, or the beauty that many femmesconvoitent. It's sad, it's unbelievable, inconceivable And yet …. the more distressing is the suffering of those mothers who stay will never forget the irreversible act that their hearts will never cease to remind him … through the body they will eventually hate. Without ever admitting it. As for our elders, who are truly living libraries, whole sections of our history, they already know the look that our society attaches to them, and increasingly, couples are given the death themselves, afraid of being alone, if their partner (wife) were to disappear, facing a ruthless world against them. And what could I say to our disabled, our smaller so weak, that our humanity intoxicated of virtual technology, selfishness above all, surrounded by beauty on-vaunted feel so useless, so miserable that they prefer to give up life, I find that sad we are today forced to accept the ones we identified as such,. And what could I say to our disabled, our smaller so weak, that our humanity intoxicated with virtual technology, selfishness above all, surrounded by beauty on-vaunted feel so useless, so miserable that they prefer to give up life, I find sad that we today have to accept that the ones we identified as such, require the death instead of life … because our eyes have become heartless without pity. What can I say? That says it all … almost.
Cons, and cons. And for the very development enhanced: the first component, responsibility, and support for mothers and relatives (even if orphanages and adoption of abandoned children) on the second, palliative care. Almire For (I understand the positions) for abortion: not only contraception can be done differently is the responsibility, not to risk to develop if we are not ready to s occupy the child, and deal with them if we conceive. For euthanasia, of course it must oppose the aggressive treatment, but this is not the same as euthanasia. Leonetti law that prevails today in France is balanced (accepted death as a result _non voulue_ but very possible treatment against pain.)
In Belgium, although it is not a secular country like France, the two are allowed. Abortion is not so binding in terms of rules to be observed, euthanasia is subject to very strict for non-compliance peuevnt up the radiation of physicians who carried out. I am for the two practices.