Whose life is more precious to God ?

[Muslim Woman]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)


&&&

Whose life is more precious to
God ?


Babies who have not yet reached at mom’s womb or those lives who have already arrived in this world ?



If u have given one option to save either thousands future unborn babies ( not yet in mothers’ wombs ) or hundreds people living in this world , whom will u save ?



I would love to have answers on religious grounds. What's the stand of Islam & others religions about this . Thanks.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Can you try to explain the question abit more sister? Sorry i never understood. Jazaak Allaah khayr.

[Pk_#2]

If you were given a choice between saving thousands of unborn babies, or thousands of people already living in the World who would you pick?

I think that, THIS IS THE Q

AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

[Malaikah]

:sl:

From what I understand, you should save the people who are already alive, because there is no guarantee that the unborn babies will live, whereas it is already certain that the alive people are alive. Also, the babies have not been established in this world yet- they don't have people who love them or depend on them in the same way living people do, their deaths will not be as traumatic etc.

(The above is just my opinion... not saying that is how it works).

But then again you are stating that there lives are going to be SAVED, which means that the babies will obviously live lol...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

Isn't this sort of like playing the role of God just a little? Who am I to say who should live or die, why not save both the unborn and the living?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

my answer is allahu a'lam

unless Allah has specified it then its impossible to know

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

:salamext:


Can you try to explain the question abit more sister? Sorry i never understood. Jazaak Allaah khayr.

ok , here is the background . In anther thread , I was told that why many Americans supported Bush despite the fact that he lied about Iraq war.

I m giving few lines here :

3542 babies are aborted every day, over 1.2 million babies are aborted every year. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of likewise innocent people in Iraq is terrible.


.......... But there has not been a day in the history of the Iraq War when more people died in Iraq than in the USA's abortion parlors.


In 2004 I had to choose between a President who seeks to stop the murder of babies in the USA but thinks he is justified in waging war in Iraq, and another person who wants to make abortion even easier than it already is and was also willing to wage war in Iraq.




.....I think the death of either is inexcusable. I don't know how to stop both, so I try to figure out how to stop the most total deaths.


As I said, I am choosing the lesser of two evils, and right now 700,000 Iraqi deaths in 4 years is less than 1.2 million American babies in 1 year. So, I pinched my nose over the stink of it, and voted for Bush.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,


[QUOTE=|)431)M1;729096......If you were given a choice between saving thousands of unborn babies, or thousands of people already living in the World who would you pick?

I think that, THIS IS THE Q
[/QUOTE]


almost correct .....thousands unborn babies who yet to come in to mother's wombs vs hundreds living people.

[Keltoi]

Personally I don't think of God as judging one person to be more precious than another. On the issue of abortion vs. war, you just have to look within yourself and decide where your vote can have the most impact. Having more conservative judges on the Supreme Court has already led to the late-term abortion ban.

[Pk_#2]

If Allah (Swt) has decreed that either one or all will survive than it will happen no matter what we do, vice versa?!

AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


I think none of us can answer it since we're not knowledgable enough, and if may Allaah protect us from anything like that coming up.

[Trumble]

I don't really see the point of this; it isn't an either/or. Nobody has, or will have such an option so what's the point in seeking a religious viewpoint regarding it?

[Grace Seeker]

Whose life is more precious to
God ?


Babies who have not yet reached at mom’s womb or those lives who have already arrived in this world ?

I believe that all lives are each equally precious to God. However, how could you have a baby who has not yet reached mom's womb? I suspect you mean a baby that was in the mother's womb and not yet born, unless you are talking about an ectopic pregnancy.

If u have given one option to save either thousands future unborn babies ( not yet in mothers’ wombs ) or hundreds people living in this world , whom will u save ?

If this is my only option, I would seek to save the most number of total lives.


Among the reasons I value unborn life as equal with born life are:
1) John the Baptists recognized and celebrated who Jesus was when both of them were still in utero. (Luke 1:41-44)

2)

Pslam 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.

When I read this passage I see in it that God knows us even before we are born, and that already our life has meaning to him. If it does to him, it does to me as well.

[snakelegs]

fortunately we do not have to make choices like this.
that's god's department. :statisfie

[Grace Seeker]

I don't really see the point of this; it isn't an either/or. Nobody has, or will have such an option so what's the point in seeking a religious viewpoint regarding it?

fortunately we do not have to make choices like this.
that's god's department. :statisfie

Those of us living in the USA make such choices every time we go to the ballot box.

[vpb]

Babies who have not yet reached at mom’s womb or those lives who have already arrived in this world ?



If u have given one option to save either thousands future unborn babies ( not yet in mothers’ wombs ) or hundreds people living in this world , whom will u save ?

I would love to have answers on religious grounds. What's the stand of Islam & others religions about this . Thanks.

one of the most promiment scholars, I can't remember who he was but when they asked him about a fatwa about "what should i do when this happens.. , he said "when it happens come and ask me".

I go with that too, when it happens to be in that position , then I'll tell u :D

[Uthman]

:sl:

I think the fiqh ruling of 'lesser of two evils' applies here. It is because of this ruling that abortion becomes permissible if the mother's life is at risk.

Furthermore, according to the Islamic view, ensoulment would not have occured yet in the womb of the mother so technically the unborn babies would not be classed as 'alive'.

So, if it was one or the other, I would save the people who are already living.

Btw, can I ask the reason why you are asking this question? :) Is it purely hypothetical? It's quite an interesting question.

And Allah knows best

:w:

[snakelegs]

Those of us living in the USA make such choices every time we go to the ballot box.

i meant that only god knows the answer - we do not, though we have beliefs and opinions.
in my opinion, the living are more important than the unborn. in other words, i would never vote for a warmonger of either party. (translation - i will probably not choose between a democrat or a republican).

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

can I ask the reason why you are asking this question?

ya , sure. I already explained this ......the question came in to mind after reading a post in another thread....i gave few lines in post no : ......errrr don't know how to back while typing......ok , it's post 7 :p




here is another line:

You may value the life of an American baby differently than that of an Iraqi family

after reading this logic that many Americans supported Bush because he is against abortion , question came in to mind:

Each life is precious . But , those who have not come in to mothers' wombs yet -------- their lives are more precious to God than those who already arrived in the world ?

sorry if my question is not clear. let me explain 1 more time...if still not clear , then Insha Allah try tomorrow again :)


Bush will make the abortion harder....thus , many women won't be able to abort their babies as many women are doing now. So , though Bush is a proven liar & murderer , it's better to support him as his opponent will make abortion easier & so many women in future will kill their unwanted babies.

I m not talking about political ground ...let's forget about D & R , think that in ur country , 2 independent candidates are there & u have to select 1.


A is against abortion but loves to start war , other u r not sure if he willl go to war but will make abortion easier , thus in future , many unborn babies will surely die. Now , whom will u support ?



yes, it's up to God to decide who will live & who to die but when we have to apply our logic , then we will think what ? To make sure that thousands of babies can born in the future , it is justified to support a killer who have murdered thousands babies in the past & will surely kill in the future ?


To stop the possible killing of future kids , why not then kill those doctors who are killing babies ? Why not murder those sinners who are committing adultery ? At least , they are not innocent persons as those who were brutally killed in wars.


hope ,it's clearer now.

[islamirama]

The Council of Senior Scholars issued the following statement:

1 – It is not permissible to abort a pregnancy at any stage unless there is a legitimate reason, and within very precise limits.

2 – If the pregnancy is in the first stage, which is a period of forty days, and aborting it serves a legitimate purpose or will ward off harm, then it is permissible to abort it. But aborting it at this stage for fear of the difficulty of raising children or of being unable to bear the costs of maintaining and educating them, or for fear for their future or because the couple feel that they have enough children – this is not permissible.

3 – It is not permissible to abort a pregnancy when it is an ‘alaqah (clot) or mudghah (chewed lump of flesh) (which are the second and third periods of forty days each) until a trustworthy medical committee has decided that continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s wellbeing, in that there is the fear that she will die if the pregnancy continues. It is permissible to abort it once all means of warding off that danger have been exhausted.

4 – After the third stage, and after four months have passed, it is not permissible to abort the pregnancy unless a group of trustworthy medical specialists decide that keeping the foetus in his mother’s womb will cause her death, and that should only be done after all means of keeping the foetus alive have been exhausted. A concession is made allowing abortion in this case so as to ward off the greater of two evils and to serve the greater of two interests.


Al-Fataawa al-Jaami’ah, 3/1056

-----------------------------------------

How much Iraqi children are worth?

In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”


To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”


That remark caused no public outcry. In fact, in January the following year Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clinton’s secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said, “We will insist on maintaining tough UN sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.”


Apparently no member of the committee asked her about her statement on 60 Minutes.

[vpb]

that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

maybe she should have said "that is more children than those killed in Hiroshima" to be more correct :)

[Keltoi]

Albright's statement was an unfortunate choice of words, but those kind of questions really won't recieve a good answer. Sometimes you are faced with two bad choices, and you choose one.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I believe that all lives are each equally precious to God. However, how could you have a baby who has not yet reached mom's womb? I suspect you mean a baby that was in the mother's womb and not yet born, unless you are talking about an ectopic pregnancy.

have you thought this belief through?

you think the life of hitler and the life of a saint is equal to God?


seriously im quite interested? :?

[Snowflake]

If u have given one option to save either thousands future unborn babies ( not yet in mothers’ wombs )

'not yet in mother's wombs' means they are not babies. You must've meant unborn babies. I think, we shouldn't be figuring whose lives are worth saving, but instead I believe every human life is worth saving, whether it's the life of an unborn or not.

Also, the babies have not been established in this world yet- they don't have people who love them or depend on them in the same way living people do, their deaths will not be as traumatic etc.

I don't entirely agree. An expectant mother loves her unborn child and it's death can be just as if not more traumatic than a child's that's already been born. Although, I agree, no one is dependant on unborn children save perhaps in the way of emotional fulfilment.

[Grace Seeker]

have you thought this belief through?

you think the life of hitler and the life of a saint is equal to God?


seriously im quite interested? :?

Yes, most certainly.

I think that God loves Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama BinLaden, Joseph Stalin, Pharoah, Atilla the Hun, and me and you and unborn babies too. I don't think that God loves one of us more and one of us less. I think that God sent his son to die for all of us. And I think that any who are willing to turn to him and submit to him receive that love and even be changed by it. Sadly, not everyone makes that choice, and thus some continue to live (and die) outside of the experience of God's love. But that doesn't mean that God didn't love them. As a father, I can tell you that I love all of my children, even those that live lives which disappoint me.

[Snowflake]

Yes, most certainly.

I think that God loves Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama BinLaden, Joseph Stalin, Pharoah, Atilla the Hun, and me and you and unborn babies too. I don't think that God loves one of us more and one of us less. I think that God sent his son to die for all of us. And I think that any who are willing to turn to him and submit to him receive that love and even be changed by it. Sadly, not everyone makes that choice, and thus some continue to live (and die) outside of the experience of God's love. But that doesn't mean that God didn't love them. As a father, I can tell you that I love all of my children, even those that live lives which disappoint me.

Hi Grace Seeker,

It's interesting that you believe that God loves us all, good and bad equally. And I'm sure you believe that God wouldn't let me sacrifice my life to save yours or yours to save mine. But you choose to believe that God would sacrifice His son's life to save yours? Doesn't that mean that God loves you more than His son? :?

[snakelegs]

gs,
would you be able to love your child if he was responsible for the genocidal slaughter and torture of millions of human beings?
if a hitler was baptized and never renounced christianity, he would go to heaven, right?
if a person risked their life saving thousands of people from a hitler's ovens but was not a christian, he would go to hell, right?

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace Seeker,

It's interesting that you believe that God loves us all, good and bad equally. And I'm sure you believe that God wouldn't let me sacrifice my life to save yours or yours to save mine. But you choose to believe that God would sacrifice His son's life to save yours? Doesn't that mean that God loves you more than His son? :?

On the contrary, I do believe that not only would God let someone sacrifice their own life to save another, but has.

I'll go even farther, I believe that God was willing to give his own life to save mine. Does that mean that God loves me more than he loves himself? Not a very Islamic idea is it. But then it wasn't Muhammad who stated:

John10
14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

[Grace Seeker]

would you be able to love your child if he was responsible for the genocidal slaughter and torture of millions of human beings?

Yes, of course. I might hate what they do. I might have to punish them. I might even be embarrassed by them. But I will never stop loving them.

if a hitler was baptized and never renounced christianity, he would go to heaven, right?

No. Not according to my understanding of scripture. There are some Christians who believe that baptism in and of itself saves a person, and that once saved that one can never lose that salvation. I am not among them.

if a person risked their life saving thousands of people from a hitler's ovens but was not a christian, he would go to hell, right?

I can't answer that question. Maybe, maybe not. You didn't give me enough information and probably couldn't as one has to read the person's heart. I can at best speculate. But God knows best.

[snakelegs]

Yes, of course. I might hate what they do. I might have to punish them. I might even be embarrassed by them. But I will never stop loving them.
wow. what can i say? i'm pretty sure that i would find it impossible.

No. Not according to my understanding of scripture. There are some Christians who believe that baptism in and of itself saves a person, and that once saved that one can never lose that salvation. I am not among them.

I can't answer that question. Maybe, maybe not. You didn't give me enough information and probably couldn't as one has to read the person's heart. I can at best speculate. But God knows best.
very true.

peace

[Grace Seeker]

wow. what can i say? i'm pretty sure that i would find it impossible.

Nothing really to go "wow" about. You must not have kids yet. That's all.

[Snowflake]

On the contrary, I do believe that not only would God let someone sacrifice their own life to save another, but has.

I'll go even farther, I believe that God was willing to give his own life to save mine. Does that mean that God loves me more than he loves himself? Not a very Islamic idea is it. But then it wasn't Muhammad who stated:

No. Not according to my understanding of scripture. There are some Christians who believe that baptism in and of itself saves a person, and that once saved that one can never lose that salvation. I am not among them.

If God died for your sins so that you may be saved, then in your second statement why does that not include every christian, good or bad? Why would God make such a huge sacrifice that wasn't going to benefit all christians? Is there a certain criteria for salvation?

(na udhu billah) Not that God can die.

[Malaikah]

I don't entirely agree. An expectant mother loves her unborn child and it's death can be just as if not more traumatic than a child's that's already been born. Although, I agree, no one is dependant on unborn children save perhaps in the way of emotional fulfilment.

:sl:

Yeh, of course it would be devastating for the mum! But I guess way more people would be devastated if the mum died (her husband, mum, dad, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, cousins, friends, neighbours, work mates etc), than if the unborn died. And that is the reason why abortions are allowed if child borth is likely to kill the mother, because her life is already established and the babies isn't.

Not that the unborn baby isn't important! Of course it is. And we hope that Allah gives it jannah because it died to young.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

I think that God loves Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama BinLaden, Joseph Stalin, Pharoah, Atilla the Hun, and me and you and unborn babies too. I don't think that God loves one of us more and one of us less. .....

if God loves sinners equally , why we hard so much to be good then ? Those Doctors who are killing unborn babies for money & those who deny to kill them .....God loves them equally ?????


Thoe who killed Jesus -pbuh ( according to ur belief ) & those who tried to save him , God loved them all ?????? Sounds strange .

If really God loved them equeally , then why Jesus (p) scolded those Jews as .....i forgot the exact words....sons of devil /vampire ....something like that.

Pl. explain the matter a little more.

[poga]

I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)


&&&

Whose life is more precious to
God ?


Babies who have not yet reached at mom’s womb or those lives who have already arrived in this world ?



If u have given one option to save either thousands future unborn babies ( not yet in mothers’ wombs ) or hundreds people living in this world , whom will u save ?



I would love to have answers on religious grounds. What's the stand of Islam & others religions about this . Thanks.

:sl: if your question is to choose between thousand of unborn child and few living
then we should save the living because unborn are not present to be saved yet
even one living men holds more spermatozoon than any sperm bank in the world:w:

[Grace Seeker]

Muslim Woman, Muslim Sis, Maliakah, you all are asking some very good questions. I would love to answer them all, but I don't want to derail this topic from your original intent, Muslim Woman. So, Muslim Woman, it's your thread, I'll let you decide-- start dealing with them here, knowing that they will likely take us down some tangent that will never get back to your original question, or do our best to stay on topic?

[Grace Seeker]

:sl: if your question is to choose between thousand of unborn child and few living
then we should save the living because unborn are not present to be saved yet
even one living men holds more spermatozoon than any sperm bank in the world:w:

As I read your post, that is the same as saying that you place no more value on child a few days from birth than on frozen sperm. Both are at best potential life, that you don't recognize the reality of an unborn infant as actually being a living (even if not breathing) human being yet. Is that correct?

Muslim Woman asked for religious grounds for such an opinion if you have any.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Yeh, of course it would be devastating for the mum! But I guess way more people would be devastated if the mum died (her husband, mum, dad, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, cousins, friends, neighbours, work mates etc), than if the unborn died. And that is the reason why abortions are allowed if child borth is likely to kill the mother, because her life is already established and the babies isn't.

Not that the unborn baby isn't important! Of course it is. And we hope that Allah gives it jannah because it died to young.

Are you saying that one's preciousness to God (the topic under discussion here) can be determined by how many people would grieve over that individual's passing? Is that what the Quran and the Sunnah teach?

Also, what Quranic passage tells us that the baby's life is not established? Or is this personal opinion?

[Snowflake]

Muslim Woman, Muslim Sis, Maliakah, you all are asking some very good questions. I would love to answer them all, but I don't want to derail this topic from your original intent, Muslim Woman. So, Muslim Woman, it's your thread, I'll let you decide-- start dealing with them here, knowing that they will likely take us down some tangent that will never get back to your original question, or do our best to stay on topic?

Ah, OK. I agree. Perhaps we can continue on a separate thread. It would be interesting to hear your views about your beliefs.

[Malaikah]

Are you saying that one's preciousness to God (the topic under discussion here) can be determined by how many people would grieve over that individual's passing?

Of course not! We can't possibly know which life is more precious to God. But the point is that it is more logically to save the life that is already established on earth than to save the life of something that isn't even properly alive yet and might still die in the womb. that doesn't mean the babies life is any less important at all!

Also, what Quranic passage tells us that the baby's life is not established? Or is this personal opinion?

Isn't that just common sense? The baby is still in the womb, it hasn't started LIFE yet, it isn't born... it might have a soul in it, but it hasn't been born yet...

If think you misunderstand... once the soul has been breathed in to the baby, it is alive right? But it just hasn't been born yet, that is what I mean by it's life has not been established on earth, whereas that of the living people has.

That does not mean that the life of the baby is worth any less, it just means it hasn't started life outside the womb yet.

Based on the principle that if one is faced with two evil choices and is forced to choose pone, we must choose the lesser evil. In this case, saving the mother and letting the unborn baby die is the lesser evil, because the mother already has her life established on earth whereas the baby hasn't and for other reasons I mentioned earlier.

But these days it is really rare that one would have to make such a decision anyway, I mean, technology has advanced in such a way that both the mother and the baby can saved...

I don't know of any verses that support this, but I know that this is what the scholars have ruled.

Oh yeh, and abortion is totally forbidden except for scenarios like I mentioned above.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

The baby is still in the womb, it hasn't started LIFE yet

well , actually i meant those unborn babies who will / may come in to mom's womb in future ....

now , they are not nowhere in the earth .....i.e. i m not talking about now a days pregnant women but about those womem who will have abortion in future when they will become pregnant.

I was told that Bush got many votes because he promised to make abortion law harder. Thus , Bush will save many babies in future.

That's the reason , though Bush proved himself as a liar & killer of many Iraqi innocent people , many supported him . The number of killing in Iraq is less than the killing is/will taking place in US abortion clinics .


Grace Seeker :Muslim Woman, it's your thread, I'll let you decide-- start dealing with them here, knowing that they will likely take us down some tangent that will never get back to your original question, or do our best to stay on topic?


---of course , i don't won't want to go off-topic .....mod won't allow that either. I think , u may start a thread on God loves sinners & good people
equally. But don't forget about this thread :)


As an American Pastor , u will be able to explain why so many Americans supported Bush on abortion gruond when they knew that he already killed & will kill many innocent lives in Iraq .

[Grace Seeker]

Isn't that just common sense?

This sounds like personal opinion to me. Maybe it is common sense, maybe it isn't. Whichever it is, it seems to be your sense of the matter, the commonness of it having not yet been established.

The reason I asked you "what Quranic passage tells us that the baby's life is not established? Or is this personal opinion?" Is because in starting this thread Muslim Woman stated: "I would love to have answers on religious grounds. What's the stand of Islam & others religions about this . Thanks." and I think she has gotten mostly personal opinion thus far.




Also, it seems to me as if you have given conflicting answers. In one place you say:

We can't possibly know which life is more precious to God.

And in another you say:

that doesn't mean the babies life is any less important at all!

and also

That does not mean that the life of the baby is worth any less, it just means it hasn't started life outside the womb yet.

If we know that the baby's life is not worth any less, then we know that its preciousness to God is at least equal to that of the mother's (which is the comparison you are making). I was comparing the baby's life not just to the mother's life, but to any other human being.

What is interesting here, is that if the Muslim scholars quoted above are any indication, it seems my views are more in line with Muslim thought on this issue than yours.


As to the issue of saving the life of the mother, that was not the genesis of this thread. If we think of this in terms of the lesser of two evils, then I see it better to save one life, than to lose two. (For most often if you lose the life of the mother, you are likely to lose the baby as well.) However, there are those circumstance when it is possible to save one or the other, but probably not both. I have sadly seen this in the case of a pregnant mom with cancer. Such choices are beyond my ability to make. I would not say that one has more right to life than the other. I confess that we humans are likely to have more attachment to one than the other, but the same could be said of an infant who's life as, in your words, "been established" when compared with the mother. I don't think we would apply that line of reasoning in the case of a new-born, so I don't see how that is applicable in the case of an unborn. You admit that both infants are indeed alive.

Which is another point of conflict you seem to have with yourself. For on the one hand you state:

once the soul has been breathed in to the baby, it is alive right? But it just hasn't been born yet

And then on the other hand you say things like:

The baby is still in the womb, it hasn't started LIFE yet,

and also

But the point is that it is more logically to save the life that is already established on earth than to save the life of something that isn't even properly alive yet and might still die in the womb.

So one moment the baby is alive and has a soul, and the next it isn't properly alive yet. But though it isn't properly alive it might still die.

It is all very confusing to me, and I can't help but wonder if perhaps you yourself are conflicted with regard to your understanding of a conceived but unborn child whether it is or is not a living human being?


If it isn't truly a living human being, I guess we can treat it like just so much living tissue, like an appendictus or tonsils. They have value to us, as long as they don't cause us any problems, but if they do (or even potentially might) take them out and throw them away.

On the other hand, if you consider an unborn child to truly be a living human being, then I have trouble with anyone suggesting that the life of an unborn child is some how not to be considered equally alongside of any other living human being just because of where it happens to be living that life. That's my personal opinion, and I've done as Muslim Woman requested and cited reasons from my religious texts that I believe support my view on this.

I will admit that there are other Christians who would argue that last point with me, though on this I am not prepared to admit that we simply agree to disagree. I actually do think that I'm right and they are wrong. Nonetheless, proving our respective views was not what Muslim Woman requested in this thred. So, I digress.

But, save for a few exceptiosn, I haven't seen many others try to provide the theological responses that she has requested.

[Grace Seeker]

As an American Pastor , u will be able to explain why so many Americans supported Bush on abortion gruond when they knew that he already killed & will kill many innocent lives in Iraq .

I've already stated it, but will do so again if that helps.


The religious right in this country feel very strongly about abortion. They see voting for Bush is a jihad in defense of the unborn. That about sums it up in a nutshell.

If people were not seeking abortions, the issue would probably be important to no one. But the reality is that people have sought, do presently seek, and will continue to seek abortions. There is a large votinig block in this country that desires to keep abortions legal, irrespective of whether it kills an child or not. Those who see these children as truly human beings, desire to protect them. It is an interesting coalition of all different types, some who wish to protect all human life, some who simply wish to protect unborn children and who at the same time have no problems with capital punishment or war, as they see these activities as justifiable for a number of various reasons to long to articulate here.

So, this struggle is fought in the voting both of our country. Now some voters consider this as one among many issues, but for others it is THE single and only issue of any importance.

I've already stated my personal view in response to a couple of different posts, so I have tried to state this as objectively as possible on an issue that carries with it great emotion.

[Malaikah]

Okay, lets see if I can dumb this down some more...

In womb- alive in the sense that it has a soul but has not started life outside the womb. It doesn't have a proper body yet, it still developing... (depending on the stage of pregnancy).

I wasn't giving my personally opinion, this is what the scholars mention.

Another example, in Islam, when someone is murdered, the persons family has the option of accepting blood money from the murderer, or having him sentenced to death.

If they it is an unborn baby that was killed, the blood money t be paid is less than the blood money to be paid on a person who already born, because there is no guarantee that the baby was going to be alive, it was not yet fully developed.

Just because something has a soul, doesn't mean it is alive in the way we understand it. Even dead people have a soul when they are in their grave.. doesn't mean they are alive.

So one moment the baby is alive and has a soul, and the next it isn't properly alive yet. But though it isn't properly alive it might still die.

The soul is blown in very early on in the pregnancy, when the babies body is still undeveloped.

So who do you save, living breathing human being walking n two legs, or an undeveloped lump of tissue that might not even be born alive in the first place?

This illustrates the principle I am talking about:

After the third stage, and after four months have passed, it is not permissible to abort the pregnancy unless a group of trustworthy medical specialists decide that keeping the foetus in his mother’s womb will cause her death, and that should only be done after all means of keeping the foetus alive have been exhausted. A concession is made allowing abortion in this case so as to ward off the greater of two evils and to serve the greater of two interests.

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=42321&ln=eng

I know this is referring to abortion, but the principle is there.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

They see voting for Bush is a jihad in defense of the unborn.

Jihad to save unborn babies is simply wonderful ....may God reward them who are doing this Jihad , Ameen.

But why Iraqi adult people & hundreds of innocents kids need to die to save future unborn babies in USA ? Was not there any other option?
Have Americans tried all other possible options & only one was left ------to select a killer to save lives ?



When we have to choose between lesser evils , we must think about other grounds , too----not only the number of casualties.


To kill an adult means in many cases , u r killing the lone earning person in the family . May be , it's not common in USA but in Asia , it's very common. Mainly dad earns & wife & kids spends / survive on the income.



If only number is imp , then may be ur logic is ok ....... more babies are / will be killed in abortion clinics than in the war field in Iraq; so let's support Bush........but we are human being , we are not numbers only .

And also , why innocent people will pay so much for the sinners ? Those who are committing adultery , those doctors who are killing babies, punishing them should be considered as a Jihad & this Jihad won't hurt any inncoent person.


I think , sis Malikah is trying to say that a lot of people depended on an adult person . So, his death is more tragic to family members in that sense that they not only suffer emotionally but on fianacial ground , family members face a disaster.



How hundreds of Iraqi widows & orphan kids will survive ? Only God knows.

[Grace Seeker]

Okay, lets see if I can dumb this down some more...

In womb- alive in the sense that it has a soul but has not started life outside the womb. It doesn't have a proper body yet, it still developing... (depending on the stage of pregnancy).

I wasn't giving my personally opinion, this is what the scholars mention.

Another example, in Islam, when someone is murdered, the persons family has the option of accepting blood money from the murderer, or having him sentenced to death.

If they it is an unborn baby that was killed, the blood money t be paid is less than the blood money to be paid on a person who already born, because there is no guarantee that the baby was going to be alive, it was not yet fully developed.

Just because something has a soul, doesn't mean it is alive in the way we understand it. Even dead people have a soul when they are in their grave.. doesn't mean they are alive.



The soul is blown in very early on in the pregnancy, when the babies body is still undeveloped.

So who do you save, living breathing human being walking n two legs, or an undeveloped lump of tissue that might not even be born alive in the first place?

This illustrates the principle I am talking about:

After the third stage, and after four months have passed, it is not permissible to abort the pregnancy unless a group of trustworthy medical specialists decide that keeping the foetus in his mother’s womb will cause her death, and that should only be done after all means of keeping the foetus alive have been exhausted. A concession is made allowing abortion in this case so as to ward off the greater of two evils and to serve the greater of two interests.

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=42321&ln=eng

I know this is referring to abortion, but the principle is there.

OK. gotcha. And so taking this back to the origin of the thread. What should a good Muslim in the USA do. In 2008 we will have an election.


There will be candidate A who will promise to get the troops out of Iraq someday, but who knows when. It will take at least a year to pullout. During that time, there could be another 100,000 deaths. Probably 10,000-`15,000 as a result of the USA (this includes probably 1,000-2,000 USA soldiers), and the rest as a result of sectarian violence. Whether that sectarian violence increases or decreases after the USA leaves I'll not try to guess, but you should factor in your own opinion.

The other, candidate B also says that we will get out of Iraq, once it is able to maintain the peace for itself, which you think will actually just exacerbate the problem. This probably means 4 more years of USA involved in the affairs of Iraq. Maybe even more deaths, instead of 100,000 more like 150,000 a year.


However there is another difference between candidate A and candidate B:

Candidate A favors unrestricted access to abortion for women at all phases of her pregnancy and without any reason to cite medical need. Simply put, it is her body and her right to choose. The life of the unborn child is inconsequential. With candidate A, expect 1.2 million unborn children to die from abortion in the year to come. Possibly more, for some recently determined illegal abortions would be made legal again. So we return to 1.6 milllion babies killed in a year.

Candidate B favors babies having a chance at life. Now, not all babies will make it to term and there would still be abortions for medical necessity; no mother's life would be put in danger. But if the laws that one once are enacted then the number of deaths would be more like 120,000 a year. (And btw that is a very high number compared to reality.)




So you have Candidate A -- anti-war, pro-Abortion
100,000 Iraqi deaths
1,000 USA solider deaths
1,200,000 unborn children aborted (less than 10% for medical reasons) (yearly)
1,301,000 Total deaths worldwide in one year.

And a grand total of 4,901,000 deaths over the next four years for which elected.



And you have Candidate B -- pro-babies, pro-war
150,000 Iraqi deaths (annually)
2,000 USA soldier deaths (annually)
120,000 unborn children aborted for medical necessity (annually)
272,000 Total deaths worldwide in one year.

And a grand total of 1,088,000 deaths over the next four years for which elected.



And before anyone starts to argue speculation. Of course it is. It all is. We don't know that any of these babies would have lived. We don't know even know that that many women would get pregnant. Of course we don't. But we don't know that any more people will die in Iraq either. But we know that this is the way things have been going in the past, and unless things change radically in the world, we can expect more deaths in Iraq, more women pregnant, and more babies killed by abotions that would otherwise have lived to be healthy and born to healthy mothers.

[Grace Seeker]

How hundreds of Iraqi widows & orphan kids will survive ? Only God knows.

You are right of course. I don't know the answer. I hate both of these wars. And we are not winning either one of them right now. But I feel we are one or two judges away from winning this Jihad against abortion in our country. I know that if we elect Candidate A above, that the war is lost and will be lost forever.

We cannot punish doctors when what they do is considered legal. We must change the law. And for that to change we must change how the law is interpreted. That means changing the judges, and that can't happen if Candidate A is elected.


As for the starving women and children of Iraq. I think that Iraq should send the grocery bill to the USA for the next 20 years.


Can we send the doctor's bill for medical treatment of those in the USA who have become addicted to the product of poppy seeds to Afghanistan?

[barney]

I know this is a badly hidden anti-bush/blair thread, but meh...i'll bite.

You would need to divide your Iraqi death toll by a factor of 8 unless you vote for Troops-out. in which case the death squads would double the figures given.

Regards

[poga]

As I read your post, that is the same as saying that you place no more value on child a few days from birth than on frozen sperm. Both are at best potential life, that you don't recognize the reality of an unborn infant as actually being a living (even if not breathing) human being yet. Is that correct?

Muslim Woman asked for religious grounds for such an opinion if you have any.

:sl: at difficult child birth priority is given to save the mothers live first
i hope this will be enough evidence to end this fitna:w:

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ;

....We cannot punish doctors when what they do is considered legal.

ok , legally u can't punish them , but what about on religious ground ?

According to teaching of Jesus (p) , u believe every life is precious including the unborn babies. So , those who are killing thousands of babies daily , do they deserve punishment or not ?

If yes , then why not kill those doctors ? Give me answer on this religious grounds that they are proven killer , they are not repented & will surely kill many babies.

Can we send the doctor's bill for medical treatment of those in the USA who have become addicted to the product of poppy seeds to Afghanistan?

--- an adult person must be responsible for his/her own decision ........why put blame on others for individual choices ?

Should i kill my baby ...yes or no ..... ; shall i take drugs ...yes or no ? It's upto u / them.......but to be killed in a war or not .......this choice is not upto us.


Drugs are available everywhere now .......we all are not taking these. Those who are drug addicted , must take responsibity for taking the decision to have it. Medi-care is available for them...why dont they try to give it up ?
how & why ordianary , innocent people of other country can be responsible / suffer for US adults own choices ?

to be continued Insha Allah......if like others threads , mod does not delete it for cleaning purpose

[ibrarfaiz]

astaqfirullah this topic should be deleted, we are not allah we cannot decide not even in a small discussion

we cannot compare our power to him and also it is just sick

[Grace Seeker]

astaqfirullah this topic should be deleted, we are not allah we cannot decide not even in a small discussion

we cannot compare our power to him and also it is just sick

No, this topic should not be deleted.

In American and other democratic countries, Muslim and Christians and others who believe in God also have a responsibility to elect their government. Now we can withdraw from the system and let unbelievers decide who should lead the country, or we can participate in it and vote our conscience as we best understand it to be directed by God. To do that one must consider the issues being discussed here. To not consider them is worse than what you are suggesting it is to in effect let unbelievers play God with people's lives.

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

astaqfirullah this topic should be deleted, we are not allah we cannot decide not even in a small discussion

we cannot compare our power to him and also it is just sick

no one is comparing our power to God's power. Let me explain the background in short.


Many Americans supported Bush because he will try to save unborn babies lives by making abortion law harder. That's why they supported Bush & i m asking how logical is this ?



War based on lies are killing hundreds innocent lives in Iraq . So , should we think like that Bush will kill hundreds Iraqi people but will save thousands US babies , so it's ok to
support him ? Must not we think that we human being are not numbers only ?

**


One Day You're Gonna Wake Up, America.

By David Michael Green


One day you’re gonna wake up in a hostile world where your country no longer has any friends.


...... one day you’re gonna wake up fearing for your life as your country is brutally attacked by angry militants deploying weapons of mass destruction against your cities.


Long dormant connections in your brain will resurface, and you will dimly understand why.


On this day – perhaps March 20, 2023 – you might be assisted in your comprehension by the message of one of the attackers, someone whose family your country callously destroyed in its mission accomplished in Iraq, and who spent the next twenty years plotting this day’s revenge.

And you will wonder again why you stood by as your country attacked Iraq on a completely bogus pretext.


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17651.htm

[Kittygyal]

astaqfirullah this topic should be deleted, we are not allah we cannot decide not even in a small discussion

we cannot compare our power to him and also it is just sick

Salamualikum.
Dude. Better to take this by p'ming a mod/admin about it inshallah Allah knows best :)
Ma'assalama

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:



no one is comparing our power to God's power. Let me explain the background in short.


Many Americans supported Bush because he will try to save unborn babies lives by making abortion law harder. That's why they supported Bush & i m asking how logical is this ?



War based on lies are killing hundreds innocent lives in Iraq . So , should we think like that Bush will kill hundreds Iraqi people but will save thousands US babies , so it's ok to
support him ? Must not we think that we human being are not numbers only ?

And we are also not debating either the morality of either abortion or of war. This discussion was premised on the belief that both are wrong. Given that, and that sometimes one has to make choices between two wrongs and no rights are available, should these issues by weighed in a balance against each other, or is that process of considering them using the philospohy of "the lesser of two evils" itself wrong? I think that is really the question before us.

Personally, I think that it is wrong to try to pick between the lesser of two evils, because it means you are still picking evil, and I don't think one should ever do that. But, also personally, I don't have another solution or way to look at the problem that is any better than that. If someone does, please suggest it. This is not, as some have falsely asserted, a theoretical exercise that no one will ever be faced with. Americans have been faced with it at every election, and will be again next year.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace.

And a grand total of 4,901,000 deaths over the next four years

----what about the injured persons ? Many people including kids have lost legs , eyes , hands ; thus became physically retarded forever.



Won’t they & their near dear ones curse Americans for the rest of their lives ? Do u think , curse of an oppressed person has some valuse to God ?



If a mom kills her unborn babies , the main victim here is the baby but no one is injured physically & s/he won’t become a burden to anybody.


What about that son who's mom was gang raped by US soldiers ? His dad informed Cindy Seehan that now his son's only aim in life is , when he grows up , he will kill Americans.


Moreover ,I can ‘t understand this point……..why other innocent people of a different country must pay for US sinners ?


Why not punish the sinners instead of killing hundreds innocent lives ? How many doctors are there in abortion clinics ? If u kill them all , then there will be no baby killing in USA ………how about that ?


Sounds illogical ? Why ?

If we have to decide between more & less deaths , then greedy & killer doctors should be killed to stop more killing........murdered Iraqi civilians were not criminals / sinners/ killers & i think , there are not 600, 000 doctors in USA who are killing the babies.


Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War On Iraq - At Least 655,000 + +


I think , many Americans did not support bombing on abortion clinics by some Christians groups. I wonder , how & why then they supported drop bombs on Iraqi civilians ?????

Kerry at least was not a proven killer . So , when Americans ( specially Christians ) had no choice but to select between 2 lesser evils , then how Bush managed to get their support ? It's because , he will kill Iraqi kids but save US kids ?


May God increases me in knowledge to understand this logic - why innocents need to pay for sinners ?

[dougmusr]

What about that son who's mom was gang raped by US soldiers ? His dad informed Cindy Seehan that now his son's only aim in life is , when he grows up , he will kill Americans.

Unless someone who has the right to seek revenge choses not to take it, and as long as revenge is exacted on innocents along with the perpetrators, then killing will continue. The above individual has made a statement which I take to be contradictory. I would reword it thusly, "It was wrong for an American to mistreat my mother because she was innocent. I therefore feel justified in killing other innocents in order that I might commit the same wrong on others."

If a mom kills her unborn babies , the main victim here is the baby but no one is injured physically & s/he won’t become a burden to anybody.

Does this mean that an unborn baby is a "noone" in Islamic teaching?

Moreover ,I can ‘t understand this point……..why other innocent people of a different country must pay for US sinners ?

In Iraq many of the killings are sectarian. While the US troops are often the ultimate target, many of the victims are fellow Muslims. So if The US is wrong, are the Iraqis also wrong?

Why not punish the sinners instead of killing hundreds innocent lives ? How many doctors are there in abortion clinics ? If u kill them all , then there will be no baby killing in USA ………how about that ?

In the US, we can punish murder in many states with death. Murder has a legal definition which has changed over time. If we wish to exact punishment on abortion providers we can change the laws, and many want to do so. However, if we are all free to exact punishment based on a whim, then noone would remain alive except for the killers.

[ibrarfaiz]

To the guy who replied after me:

Look the toic says whos life is more precious to God, we do not know God on that level and we can not know him on that level, we cannot decide who he likes and who he doesnt and the topic title has nothingn to do with politics and also u can elect a government that is good doesnt necessarily have to involve all of this nonsense

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

... The above individual has made a statement which I take to be contradictory.

--u are talking about a young boy whose mom was gang raped in his presence in their home.


U can't expect from him right now that he can forgive Americans.

Insha Allah ( God Willing ) , someday this unfortunate boy will be able to understand that because of Bush & some bad soldiers , we must not hate all Americans.

Does this mean that an unborn baby is a "noone" in Islamic teaching?

--who told u so ? In Islam , killing innocent person including murdering unborn babies are considered as a major sin.


Many US Christians gave much importance on unborn babies who may or may not born in the world in next 2/3/4 years than the today's living human being / people of Iraq. They gave importance on numbers only.

That's why i m trying to say that , we are not only numbers. so , to save unborn babies from possible abortions , how justified it's to support Iraq war ? Specially the war which started on lies.


Not only innocent people are dyeing there , many are becoming physically disabled forever , many children are watching their mom & sisters being raped.....how many future terrorists are creating there ?

In Iraq many of the killings are sectarian. While the US troops are often the ultimate target, many of the victims are fellow Muslims. So if The US is wrong, are the Iraqis also wrong?

------I answered to this question earlier .....if US army can't stop killing / sect violence there , no need to stay for them to watch it.

........... if we are all free to exact punishment based on a whim, then noone would remain alive except for the killers.

--- Killing innocent is justified & punishing sinners is a whim ??????


to many American Christians , number of death was imp & they calculated that electing Bush will save more babies in USA than the war can kill Iraqi people. So , if number is imp to u , killing doctors of abortion clicins should be a more easy way to stop more killing .....why it' s a whim ?


Read ur holy book , u will find many punishments prescribed for the sinners. Instead of punishing innocents , should not US Christians think about punishing the sinners including those who are committing adultery , killing babies outside marriage etc ,etc ?


for God's sake , don't say that Jesus (p) told u to forgive sinners & punish the innocent people including hundreds ( if not thousands ) kids .

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

Look the topic says whos life is more precious to God......the topic title has nothingn to do with politics

may be , the title is not well written & also because of my bad English , i can't express my thought on the issue clearly but it has nothing against Islam .......why are u so upset ?

we do not know God on that level

God sent us holy book & based on it , I can safely say that God does not allow us to punish innocent people to save sinners / let them enjoy their sinful life styles.

[Grace Seeker]

--who told u so ? In Islam , killing innocent person including murdering unborn babies are considered as a major sin.

I think Doug was just asking a question, not making a statement. I do know that murdering unborn babies is considered a major sin in Islam. This statement however -- "the main victim here is the baby but no one is injured physicall" -- makes it sound as if no one is hurt when there is an abortion. But babies are hurt. Babies are injured. Babies die. If "no one" is injured, then babies must be "no one" for they most certainly injured (and worse).

Many US Christians gave much importance on unborn babies who may or may not born in the world in next 2/3/4 years than the today's living human being / people of Iraq. They gave importance on numbers only.

That's why i m trying to say that , we are not only numbers.

You make a strong case there. You have me wrestling with my conscience.

so , to save unborn babies from possible abortions , how justified it's to support Iraq war ? Specially the war which started on lies.

It's not justifiable. But that's just the problem. It isn't justifiable to turn one's back on all of the babies that having been created by God, will have their lives aborted by men simply to put an end to a terrible war. Neither action is justifiable. Give me a way to save everybody, please.

------I answered to this question earlier .....if US army can't stop killing / sect violence there , no need to stay for them to watch it.

That thought, I'm glad you said it again, is the wisest thing I have ever read with respect to the present situation.

to many American Christians , number of death was imp & they calculated that electing Bush will save more babies in USA than the war can kill Iraqi people. So , if number is imp to u , killing doctors of abortion clicins should be a more easy way to stop more killing .....why it' s a whim ?

Please tell me that you are not advocating the murdering of doctors in order to stop abortions. In the 1990s, these things actually did happen in the USA. People were bombing abortion clinics. I could understand the motivation, but it wasn't any more right than the suicide bombings in Iraq are right.

for God's sake , don't say that Jesus (p) told u to forgive sinners & punish the innocent people including hundreds ( if not thousands ) kids .

You know he didn't.

[Keltoi]

This debate is working on the assumption that voting Democratic in the last election would have meant U.S. troops leaving Iraq, which I don't think would have been the case at all. George Bush Jr. was elected on his domestic agenda, which was working fairly well while the Congress was majority Republican. It was well known that Bush was an opponent of abortion, so obviously he would get the bulk of anti-abortion votes. When I voted for Bush for his second term, abortion wasn't really a factor. I just didn't like the idea of changing leaders in the middle of a conflict, no matter how limited. I think the question in this thread is good for a bumper sticker, but it can't be answered on religious or political grounds.

[islamirama]

This debate is working on the assumption that voting Democratic in the last election would have meant U.S. troops leaving Iraq, which I don't think would have been the case at all. George Bush Jr. was elected on his domestic agenda, which was working fairly well while the Congress was majority Republican. It was well known that Bush was an opponent of abortion, so obviously he would get the bulk of anti-abortion votes. When I voted for Bush for his second term, abortion wasn't really a factor. I just didn't like the idea of changing leaders in the middle of a conflict, no matter how limited. I think the question in this thread is good for a bumper sticker, but it can't be answered on religious or political grounds.

when Bush was elected 2nd term, UK made national headlines "how stupid can the public be?"

Was it worth killing extra people for another 4yrs?

600,000 civilians alone dead by the direct actions of the troops. i guess everything is collateral damage with US, and then the public wonders "why do they hate us"

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

..... This statement however -- "the main victim here is the baby but no one is injured physicall" -- makes it sound as if no one is hurt when there is an abortion.

sorry about the bad expression :( -----i did not mean it.

IN war , hundred of babies are dead & also injured & become retarted ( could be mentally & physically both ) but when a mom abort her baby , no other baby & their family members are hurt....

so , if we compare between these 2 evils , abortion is less evil.

You make a strong case there. You have me wrestling with my conscience.

let me know who won.....logic or conscience ?

Give me a way to save everybody, please.

try to make people more conscious about life hereafter , teach them that God's mercy must not be taken as for granted , try to elect good leaders , try to punish sinners & protect innocents , pray to God etc , etc :)

Please tell me that you are not advocating the murdering of doctors in order to stop abortions.

of course , i m against dropping bombs on clinics or punish doctors without trial .

I was trying to say that if number is imp , then why not kill few killers rather than give options for killing innocents ? If we have to choose 1 option ,Who deserves our sympathy more ......greedy killers or totally innocent persons ?

You know he didn't.

sure i know but do Christians know ? I doubt .

[Grace Seeker]

sure i know but do Christians know ? I doubt .

Why do you doubt it? You have plenty of contact with Christians in this forum. Do we seem like we believe that Jesus told us to forgive sinners & punish the innocent people?

I don't see Christians suggesting that any innocents be punished.

Please don't tell me that all of the Iraqi deaths are as innocent as yet unborn babies, though I am sure some of them are.

[- Qatada -]

I don't mean to cause any controversy, but the concept of cruficixion in christianity seems to be a 'blessing' doesn't it? Since its a common belief amongst the christians that the Messiah son of Mary was innocently crucified for the rest of mankind?

So the killing of innocents is somehow praiseworthy, maybe? Because one of the best examples for mankind is Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them.)


Even though we disagree and don't believe he was crucified, rather he was raised upto Allaah and will return back to the earth when Allaah knows it is best, and he will slay the anti-christ and clarify his position as a servant of God since God doesn't have children of any sort, nor does He have any associates since He is way above that.

[Pygoscelis]

This whole abortion debate is too often stated in black and white terms. There is a lot of grey here. A freshly fertilized egg is not the same as a baby 1 minute prior to birth. The former is no important to me than a strand of hair. The latter is my equal and to kill it is murder.

Either the being in the womb is our equal and deserving of full protection or it is not? Nobody can name the point at which these protections should kick in. Any one we choose would be arbitrary. So this is really the quandry. Do we phase in rights? Should a 1/4 developed fetus have more rights than a fertilized cell but less than a ready to be born baby? Its really a hard call to make.

But that is the question. It is not a matter of pro-choice people wanting to kill babies and it is not a question of pro-life people wanting to control women's bodies. Both positions make perfect sense depending on the status of the unborn being. If it is to be considered our equal then abortion is murder, plain and simple and a woman's right to control her body is secondary to the baby's right to live. And if it is not considered our equal then abortion laws are unfairly restricting women's rights to control their own bodies (so you get those weird arguments like "men shouldnt have a say in this (because they don't have wombs))").

And I think this is where people will turn to religion, almost out of necessity. We're faced with a moral quandry that is simply too complicated, and thus unanswerable and unexplainable by human compassion and empathy, so those who have religious beliefs need to kick them into play. And I don't really have a problem with that.

[Grace Seeker]

This whole abortion debate is too often stated in black and white terms. There is a lot of grey here. A freshly fertilized egg is not the same as a baby 1 minute prior to birth. The former is no important to me than a strand of hair. The latter is my equal and to kill it is murder.

Either the being in the womb is our equal and deserving of full protection or it is not? Nobody can name the point at which these protections should kick in. Any one we choose would be arbitrary. So this is really the quandry. Do we phase in rights? Should a 1/4 developed fetus have more rights than a fertilized cell but less than a ready to be born baby? Its really a hard call to make.

But that is the question. It is not a matter of pro-choice people wanting to kill babies and it is not a question of pro-life people wanting to control women's bodies. Both positions make perfect sense depending on the status of the unborn being. If it is to be considered our equal then abortion is murder, plain and simple and a woman's right to control her body is secondary to the baby's right to live. And if it is not considered our equal then abortion laws are unfairly restricting women's rights to control their own bodies (so you get those weird arguments like "men shouldnt have a say in this (because they don't have wombs))").

And I think this is where people will turn to religion, almost out of necessity. We're faced with a moral quandry that is simply too complicated, and thus unanswerable and unexplainable by human compassion and empathy, so those who have religious beliefs need to kick them into play. And I don't really have a problem with that.

While I don't agree with your thoughts considering a freshly fertilized egg, I do agree with your reason regarding why we have the debate and what the question is. Given that, if I were to think as you appear to with regard to the inability to determine when the being in the womb becomes our equal, I think I should therefore error on the side of caution protecting a not-quite yet equal being in development versus risking aborting one that truly was our equal.

[Pygoscelis]

While I don't agree with your thoughts considering a freshly fertilized egg, I do agree with your reason regarding why we have the debate and what the question is. Given that, if I were to think as you appear to with regard to the inability to determine when the being in the womb becomes our equal, I think I should therefore error on the side of caution protecting a not-quite yet equal being in development versus risking aborting one that truly was our equal.

Fair enough, but how far on the side of caution do we err?

Protecting freshly fertilized eggs would be erring so far on the side of caution as to be ridiculous in my view. I suppose the question is how you balance this erring on the side of caution with the woman's right to control her body.

Surely allowing abortions of babies about to be born would be draconian, but going too far the other way (ie, a freshly fertilized egg - or even further - monty python's famous 'every sperm is sacred') would be equally draconian and oppresive in my view.

As a side note, I've always found it interesting that the pro-choice "woman should have a right to control her body" argument is so frequently accepted in this setting but so rarely accepted in an argument for the legalization of prostitution (where there is no unborn beings life acting as competing interest).

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

Why do you doubt it? You have plenty of contact with Christians in this forum. Do we seem like we believe that Jesus told us to forgive sinners & punish the innocent people?

--- u want my honest answer ? Then , unfortunately ans is yes . I wrote about it earlier.

some Christians i met online stunned me by announcing that they are gays , they don't believe gay people should be punished , some see no problem enjoy close intimacy before marriage , love child is not a problem to them etc , etc.


So , i got this impression from their posts that they believe Jesus (p) taught Christians not to hate sinners & thus they are allowed to commit sin , but no one should condemn them .....no question of punishing.

I don't see Christians suggesting that any innocents be punished.

---- except Iraqi & Afghan people ? If Jesus (p) taught Christians to turn other cheek , why a Christian majority country dropped bombs on Civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan ?


I asked this question in another forum......1 American live = how many Muslim lives ?

How many died in 9/11 tragedy ? Ameicans have killed many more Muslims while taking revenge. Still , time has not come yet to stop war ? How more Muslims must be killed to pay the price of that tragedy ?

Please don't tell me that all of the Iraqi deaths are as innocent as yet unborn babies, though I am sure some of them are.

---ok , let's guess that most of them were criminals . Only 5 thousand innocent people including 1000 babies died.



Now , we can go back to the post title ....Whose life is more precious to God ? The 10,000 babies who may or may not born in the year 2008 in USA or those babies who are now living in this earth right now.


To make sure that 10 thousands US babies can born safely on Dec 2008 , can we kill 1000 Iraqi babies today ?

**

an interesting preaching :


killing terrorists is an ‘act of love for our nation’


By Laura Followell

The Tribune-Star


According to retired U.S. Marine Col. J. Tyler Ryberg, the Bible contains messages about war and capital punishment. God is a powerful soldier.

Ryberg, who served in the Marines for more than 27 years, gave a sermon Sunday morning at Good Shepherd Baptist Church’s Armed Forces Day, where some of the 150 people in attendance often erupted with an “Amen!”

The colonel asked churchgoers if the global war on terrorism was a “just war” and a “God-ordained war,” which he later affirmed.

“We’re killing Islamic jihadists, bloodthirsty killers,” he said. “Peace is not an option. You don’t negotiate with bloodthirsty, jihadist killers.”

.....“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. … Our Lord’s coming back, folks,” he said.

http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_...126235058.html

This line :“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. …" reminds me of another comment . A Christian told me that ( not the exact words ) he feels very sorry for Palestine people but he believes nothing can be done for them as it's a prophecy that they have to die before coming of the Jesus (p).

So , it seems to me that many Christians believe it does not matter if Zionists are killing innocent people in the holy land ' cause Muslims need to die today so that Jesus (p) comes tomorrow.

[dougmusr]

--u are talking about a young boy whose mom was gang raped in his presence in their home. U can't expect from him right now that he can forgive Americans. Insha Allah ( God Willing ) , someday this unfortunate boy will be able to understand that because of Bush & some bad soldiers , we must not hate all Americans.

I can understand his anger and desire for revenge. If he will understand someday, then perhaps American families that lost loved ones in the various terrorist attacks will also understand someday and the killing will stop. The problem is that with each life lost the "someday" clock starts over and therefore the killing will never end.

I asked this question in another forum......1 American live = how many Muslim lives ?

There will never be an equity in lives lost since the answer to your question requires a formula which is calculated differently depending on which side is asking the question. Now if 4 hijackers killed 4000 innocent Americans that would make the ratio something like 1000 to 1 from a terrorist perspective. So using a like computation, for each American we lose we should kill 1000 innocents as well. I personally would prefer forgiveness on both sides since I see that as the only answer.

The colonel asked churchgoers if the global war on terrorism was a “just war” and a “God-ordained war,” which he later affirmed.

Are you going on record to say that terrorist attacks against the US are not "just" and God-ordained"? Are you willing to stand ouside Mosques with a sign which says so?

So , it seems to me that many Christians believe it does not matter if Zionists are killing innocent people in the holy land ' cause Muslims need to die today so that Jesus (p) comes tomorrow.

Jesus will return, and His return is not based on the number of Muslims, Americans, Jews killed. As a Christian, I believe that a living Muslim has a chance to accept the Lord Jesus, but a dead one does not.

By the way, is being a Zionist wrong but being an Islamist right?

[islamirama]

Jesus will return, and His return is not based on the number of Muslims, Americans, Jews killed. As a Christian, I believe that a living Muslim has a chance to accept the Lord Jesus, but a dead one does not.

By the way, is being a Zionist wrong but being an Islamist right?

Jesus will return and we are waiting for him as well. But he will return as Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) and all the good christians and others will turn Muslim as well to follow him, and everyone else will be the other group. He will break your cross and kill the swine, and show all the deviant christians what he truly believes in.

An islamist is one who follows Islam. A jewish is one who follows judaism. A zionist is one who follows zionism, which is not judaism. They are what you call the KKK for christianity.

[dougmusr]

Jesus will return and we are waiting for him as well. But he will return as Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) and all the good christians and others will turn Muslim as well to follow him, and everyone else will be the other group. He will break your cross and kill the swine, and show all the deviant christians what he truly believes in.

So if you will be following Jesus when He returns anyway, why not follow Him now? :D

An islamist is one who follows Islam. A Jew is one who follows judaism. A zionist is one who follows zionism, which is not judaism. They are what you call the KKK for christianity.

Since Islam strives to replace a nations existing laws with Islamic laws, it is more than a religion as Muslims on this forum attest. It is a world view with political ramifications, and thus it is more closely related to Zionism than Judaism.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't see what either of the last two posts has to do with the topic of this thread.

[islamirama]

So if you will be following Jesus when He returns anyway, why not follow Him now? :D

I love Jesus even now as i do all the other prophets before him. Unlike christians, the followers of Paul's religion, i stick with Islam. Islam is the final message to mankind and the only religion acceptable to God (as the latest version). I pray Jesus comes in my life time as he will leads us against the dhajjal (anti-christ) that will be followed by 70,000 jews.

Since Islam strives to replace a nations existing laws with Islamic laws, it is more than a religion as Muslims on this forum attest. It is a world view with political ramifications, and thus it is more closely related to Zionism than Judaism.

zionism is like KKK, an extremist group that wants to kill everyone and that thinks they are better than all humans. Islam is a peacful religion that calls to exist in peace, take care of the earth, and call others to the truth. It is more than religion like judaism and christianity, it is a way of life. That is why you see Islam in every aspect of a Muslim's life, from eating to sleeping to praying to politics to war to everything.

While zionists wants to kill all gentiles who they think are subhuman (you and me both buddy), Islam condemts any innocent killing. Prophet (saws) said if you save a life then it is like you saved all of humankind and if you take a life then it is like you killed all of mankind.

[dougmusr]

I don't see what either of the last two posts has to do with the topic of this thread.

Since I don't know how to delete my post, I will respectfully withdraw from the discussion with one final hopefully related point. Jesus said we must all become as children to enter heaven. Thus the comparison between the worth of babies and adults blurrs in eternity.

God bless all. May we bless each other as well.

[Grace Seeker]

http://www.islamicity.com/graphics/BLRR.gif

:sl:




--- u want my honest answer ? Then , unfortunately ans is yes . I wrote about it earlier.

some Christians i met online stunned me by announcing that they are gays , they don't believe gay people should be punished , some see no problem enjoy close intimacy before marriage , love child is not a problem to them etc , etc.


So , i got this impression from their posts that they believe Jesus (p) taught Christians not to hate sinners & thus they are allowed to commit sin , but no one should condemn them .....no question of punishing.






---- except Iraqi & Afghan people ? If Jesus (p) taught Christians to turn other cheek , why a Christian majority country dropped bombs on Civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan ?


I asked this question in another forum......1 American live = how many Muslim lives ?

How many died in 9/11 tragedy ? Ameicans have killed many more Muslims while taking revenge. Still , time has not come yet to stop war ? How more Muslims must be killed to pay the price of that tragedy ?






---ok , let's guess that most of them were criminals . Only 5 thousand innocent people including 1000 babies died.



Now , we can go back to the post title ....Whose life is more precious to God ? The 10,000 babies who may or may not born in the year 2008 in USA or those babies who are now living in this earth right now.


To make sure that 10 thousands US babies can born safely on Dec 2008 , can we kill 1000 Iraqi babies today ?

**

an interesting preaching :


killing terrorists is an ‘act of love for our nation’


By Laura Followell

The Tribune-Star


According to retired U.S. Marine Col. J. Tyler Ryberg, the Bible contains messages about war and capital punishment. God is a powerful soldier.

Ryberg, who served in the Marines for more than 27 years, gave a sermon Sunday morning at Good Shepherd Baptist Church’s Armed Forces Day, where some of the 150 people in attendance often erupted with an “Amen!”

The colonel asked churchgoers if the global war on terrorism was a “just war” and a “God-ordained war,” which he later affirmed.

“We’re killing Islamic jihadists, bloodthirsty killers,” he said. “Peace is not an option. You don’t negotiate with bloodthirsty, jihadist killers.”

.....“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. … Our Lord’s coming back, folks,” he said.

http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_...126235058.html

This line :“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. …" reminds me of another comment . A Christian told me that ( not the exact words ) he feels very sorry for Palestine people but he believes nothing can be done for them as it's a prophecy that they have to die before coming of the Jesus (p).

So , it seems to me that many Christians believe it does not matter if Zionists are killing innocent people in the holy land ' cause Muslims need to die today so that Jesus (p) comes tomorrow.

It sounds like you are hearing from some Christian extremists. The type that thinks patriotism = Christianity and vice versa. Yes, we have them too. Sadly & unfortunately, but I can't deny that they are out there. They don't represent either all Americans or all Christians.

The best I can figure out to do in situations like that is speak for myself, not all Christians, not all Americans. Then hopefully you will hear a few other voices, and maybe you will hear more voices that make some sense than you hear crazy voices. And when that day happens, then maybe you will come to realize that one or two crazy voices and even regretable decisions does not all America or all Christians make.

First, please understand that the USA is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. There may be more Christians than any other single group living in it, but the government is secular. Our laws are secular, that is they don't represent the values of any one sectarian set of beliefs. Further, the media is secular. The movie industry is secular. The music industry is secular. And the business community is most certainly the most secular of all. And none of these groups care much about what Christians or any other religious group thinks, unless they can figure out how to use them for their own purposes, not out of respect for anyone's beliefs.

Also, Christianity is not a monolithic institution. Just as there are differences among Muslims regarding some beliefs, so there are among Christians. And in the USA, where everyone is "democratically" entitled to their own opinion, many feel the same way about their faith. While something like 90% of Americans claim to believe in God, and maybe as many as 60% are members of a church. Probably only about 25-30% actually bother to practice their faith in any meaningful form. You've already noted in another thread of pitiful Americans are when it comes to knowledge of the Bible's teachings. The two most common statements I hear from people are: (1) I'm spiritual but not religious and (2) there may be only one God, but just like there are many roads up a mountain, there are many ways to God, anything that gets you there is good. People simply don't want to have anything to do with organized, formal religion and certainly not with the dogmas or doctrines that are taught in it. People want to believe what they want to believe, and few are on a search for the truth as much as they are on a search for the feel good and the convenient.

In that environment, the life that is most precious to God is their own life, and their own mores, irrespective of what God really thinks.

This means that people will respond to all sorts of things that effect them, before the actually turn to find out and submit to what God's will might be with regard to something. And once they have figured out how they feel about it, they will label it as God's will and utterly convince themselves that they are therefore righteous in God's eyes.

So, if someone flies a plane into a building it shakes Americans up. They become terrorified, the president too. And they begin to make decisions out of fear. Thus it is that Americans have gladly given up more freedoms in the last 6 years than in the previous 200 years of our history. In that panic mode, they were ready to believe and buy anthing that might give them some peace of mind. When the President came selling his snakeoil cure, invade Afghanistan (which I admittedly agreed with, and still think was justified -- I'll explain later if you want) the country was in nearly unanimous agreement. When later he changed the tonic of choice to invade Iraq (which more than a few actually questioned, and I never did support) he was able to get most people to buy it too. The country did it not to protect babies, but to protect their own skin. There really was a fear that unless the USA took the war to the terrorists, that the terrorists would be back flying more planes into more buildings or committing other acts of terror. And many of those same people are still convinced that this is true, even as they no longer thing the war was such a good idea after all.

Now I have said that I, in my mistrust of Bush's decisions with regard to the war, felt that voting for him in 2004 in the midst of the war, put me in the position of having to choose the lesser of two evils.

First, Bush's opponent, didn't give any better ideas as to what to do to get out of Iraq than Bush did. Kerry had voted for the war. He wasn't willing to commit to any sort of phased withdrawal. So, I wasn't convinced that Kerry would get us out anymore than Bush would. Also, in 2004, our last presidential election, the military campaign looked like it was coming to a close. We didn't have Sadam Hussein yet, but the war was effectively over, we simply needed to clean up our mess, rebuild the infastructure our bombs had destroyed, put Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and get out. And there appeared to be a desire to do just that. The insurgency and civil war that racks the country now had not taken hold yet the way it has now.

So, in a world that is not single issue voting, I had a mixed choice. Both candidates would stay in Iraq a little longer. One candidate would do that while attacking the unborn, the other would do that while trying to protect the unborn. There were no viable third options, not in our system.

When that is the choice, one is not saying that one life is more precious to God, or to me personally. One is saying that one you can do something about, and the other you can't.

Also, there is a difference in how you see the scenario and I in another way. You talk about it as if we are talking only about potential life when speaking of the unborn, and of real children only when speaking of Iraq. I submit to you that at this present time, both are real. That is the children to be born in early 2008 are indeed alive, already conceived right now. And I also submit, that if the civil war would stop, that many of the lives you fear being lost, would not be lost. Indeed, those deaths which you attribute to Bush are only potential deaths, deaths that are not going to be caused by the decision as to who is president of the USA.

As the USA has prosecuted this war, I don't think anyone is trying to come up with a formula that 1 American life is equal to X number of Iraqi lives. And while for some the motivation is revenge, I don't think that is the primary motivator. When called to remember the World Trade Center, it is not to get even -- how can we? killing others is not going to bring back our lost lives, and is costings as many American lives to go about it as were killed in the first place. Getting even is not possible, even if we were to try. No, it as a sincerely belief that doing so makes this country somehow safer. I personally don't buy that argument, never have with respect to Iraq. With regard to Afghanistan, I don't know whether it made the USA safer or not, perhaps if we would have kept our focus there instead of shifting it to Iraq, but even people like Hans Blix (the head of the UN weapons inspector, who has no kind words for Bush) thought that there were the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction buried beneath the sands someplace in Iraq. It was as if Hussein had put up a big sign saying "BEWARE OF THE DOG", when it turns out he had no dog. But having just been bit by small dog like BinLaden, most in the USA were not prepared to take a chance on being bit by one the size of Hussein, for we had seen what he had done in the past to Iran and his very own people. If it came down to trusting our own president, or one who we knew had killed millions, then that was an easy choice for most. At that point in time, saving one American life was probably viewed by most Americans as being equal to all of Iraq if need be. Not that people would have admitted that if asked in a direct question, but that was the emotion of the country at the time. And still is for some.

Perhaps the view would have been different if instead of seeing people dancing for joy in the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Palestine, even our supposed friends like Jordan and Turkey celebrated the humilation of America. If instead of that we would have heard people denounce the acts as betrayls of Islam, proclaim that BinLaden was not a true Muslim, that the use of terror was never acceptable in the eyes of the prophet. Perhaps then we would have thought that this was not some new threat that we had to be prepared to fight. But though there were a few of those voices parade out in the first couple of days following the 9/11 attacks. It was not long before those voices fell silent and only the cry for Jihad against the great Satan America could be heard. Al-Jazeera could be counted on for publicizing one more diatribe by Bin Laden against the USA, but never was there a commentary which denounced his point of view. What were most Americans who personally know little of Islam supposed to think. It was as if moderate Islam thinkers let the extremist elements of Islam take center stage, and that is how Islam came to be understood by many in the west.

And it was to deal with that perceived threat, real or imagined is irrelevant because perception is reality when people are making a decision, that Bush handily defeated Kerry.

The questions that you pose are not questions the majority of the USA struggled with. I did. I never bought the case that Bush tried to sell to the American public, but I still faced other issues so that I could not comfortably vote for the alternative to Bush.

Now , we can go back to the post title ....Whose life is more precious to God ? The 10,000 babies who may or may not born in the year 2008 in USA or those babies who are now living in this earth right now.

I tell you again. Each and every one is precious to God. But it is not 10,000 babies who may or may not be born in the year 2008 in USA. It is 1.2 million that will most certainly die unless we are able to change our laws. According to The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database, reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq as of Monday, 7th May 2007 totals 68,868 for the entire war. If the USA is held accountable for all deaths by virtue of having started things in motion, then the highest reported death tolls were in July 2006, averaging 100 Iraqi deaths a day. (Source: New York Times article) If that continued unabated for an entire year that is 36,500 deaths in one year. So, 36,000+ Iraqis might die if the sectarian violence does not stop in Iraq, or 1,200,000 babies will most certainly die if abortion violence remains legal in the USA, that is the real choice I am faced with.

Now, if you are suggesting that giving up on the life of those 1.2 million American babies would for sure save all of those Iraqi lives, and that the certainty of doing so was worth it, then I guess you are also saying that 1 Iraqi life is worth at least 33 American babies.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace ,

......

first i think , u must invite our sis ( ur wife ) here to find Mr. patience :D

i guess , it will take me more time to read & understand ur post fully.....pl. let me know if i missed any imp point.

......I guess you are also saying that 1 Iraqi life is worth at least 33 American babies.

it's not about US babies , i think , 1 living human being is more precious than any 33 future babies who may or may not come in to this world on Dec 2008. We are not even talking about pregnant women.



Anyway , what's the latest situation ? US mothers have stopped killing babies as u expected ? killing of hundreds babies in Iraq successfully created a safe way to earth for thousands US babies ?




If yes , then i won't blame u anymore.... i think , we all are selfish. Safety of our near -dear ones comes first than who live thousands miles away. So , safety of future US kids got priority to many Americans than the danger '' other '' kids will face today.



Misery of Iraqi people can not possibly touch American's hearts
( except few )......i m not talking about u ....it's a general view.


I think , a proven liar & killer can not be trusted......may be Bush used abortion policy just to gain support from religious Christians groups.


Even if life of a living person & unborn kid is equal to God , i think , when we have 1 option between them , then a living person deserves our support. A living person has many family members including few depended persons on him / her .

If s/he is a believer , s/he praises God daily , remember Him in his/her words , acts & thoughts . Also , killing him/her means u r creating a possible terrorist who in future will want to take revenge of his/her death.




In Islam , killing an innocent person means as if u killed the whole mankind. Of course , future babies are imp but instead of approaching their parents specially mom before Dec 2008 , why kill an innocent person now ?




I guess , when oil will be finished & the country will be almost destroyed & Israel won't think anymore that Iraq is a threat , only then Americans will return home left behind hundreds terrorists they created in Iraq.




May be , on the way , they will invade Syria , Lebanon, Iran etc , etc. Oh my God , i live in a Muslim majority country.....when US will attack us ???? Only God knows.

we simply needed to clean up our mess, rebuild the infastructure our bombs had destroyed, put Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and get out.

---in ur heart , do u really believe Bush wants to rebuild Iraq ?


I think , many ( if not most ) people of the world supported USA when they attacked Afghanistan. But Iraq case is totally different.



If really Saddam had WMD , how wise it was for Bush & Blair to attack him ? What was the solution if Saddam used those weapons ? BB had more powerful weapons to prevent / destroy those ? If yes , then Saddam was not a threat at all as his opponents were more powerful .




I have not heard of any single reporter asking Blair this question : what will u do if Saddam uses his WMD in 45 minutes ? How can u prevent that / protect Britain from that WMD ? If u can protect UK now from that so-called dangerous weapon , then why go to the war ? ? ?



I don't want to ask this question : when US will attack Israel or the vice-versa as both countries have WMD & regularly violating the human rights / a great threat to the world peace.

Perhaps the view would have been different if instead of seeing people dancing for joy in the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Palestine, even our supposed friends like Jordan and Turkey celebrated the humilation of America

Dancing on US tragedy ... western media controlled by Zionists can not be truested .......they can take picture of dancing on one occassion & while telecast the nesw of other tragedy , they can show it at that same time ....who knows it did not happen in that case ?


I also heard that few Jews were seen in a cheer mood after 9/11 .......don't know much about it . Can u tell me , how many jews died on that day....may be , it sounds racist but i read in an article that maximum 4/5 Jews died. I don't understand it .....if Muslims wanted to do hurt non-Muslims , how come they attacked a tower where many Muslims were working ? Was not there any other building of Zionists ?


Also , oppressed people may think like that they ( supporters of Zionists ) deserved that.....pl. don't misunderstand me ......i m against dancing on tragedy .....specially when Zionists did not die but the innocent civilians.

[Grace Seeker]

it's not about US babies , i think , 1 living human being is more precious than any 33 future babies who may or may not come in to this world on Dec 2008. We are not even talking about pregnant women.

On this point I understand that if there is 1 person at risk of being killed today, trying to save that one person is more important than trying to plan how to save a million that might be at risk in a couple of years, especially if they don't even exist today.

Am I right that this is your major point?

If so, I not only understand, I even agree with that way of thinking. My point being, that I can do nothing about today. I can do nothing about any babies being aborted today. I can do nothing about any Iraqis under attack today. I can do nothing about tomorrow either. I can do nothing about anyone until November 2008. And then I can make a decision that will have an effect on who makes those decisions with regard to babies, Iraqis, and lots of other folks from January 2009 through January 2013. That's it. I get one chance to influence decisions for 4 years. And after that I go back to living with the collective decision of the nation, like it or not.

Taking all things into account, I made what I thought was the best decision that I could in November 2004, and will do the same again in November 2008. Beyond that, I just wait to see whether Osama or our more recent home-grown terrorists have figured out where I live or not.