The Sphere
General Garbage => Tropical Paradise of Hard Shelled Fruits => Topic started by: The D on Aug 23, 2008, 02:57:34 PM
-
This may be a heated subject but you're the moste educated conservative Christian I know...
I'm curious to what verses or paragraphs in the Bible are the basis for the pro-life stance of the Christian church. I mean, if the church has a stance I would assume it would have a firm basis in fact or Scripture and not just "it feels right".
-
I think I read that the bible says something about abortion being ok in the old testament. Well not ok, but it was something strange that pointed out that they knew what abortion was back then. Like if you hit a pregnant woman so hard that she miscarriages you have to give her family 2 plump goats or some such.
-
You are wrong. It's a capital offense under the Mosaic law.
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
You can look up a variety of verses on the sanctity of human life, the fact that God sees a fetus' personhood prior to birth, and the role of Christians with government, but that one passage clearly teaches God's opinion on the fact. If you want more, fine, but Google'll be quicker.
-
My town is getting a Planned Parenthood after having a Right to Life center for almost two years. I saw some raggedy old women protesting PP the other day and would have yelled something like, "Planned Parenthood is not an abortion clinic but a place for women to make a conscious decision as to making their own decision to have children rather than society forcing the decision upon them!" if it wasn't so long to yell on a busy street.
-
You could just yell "Thems where I get me pills bitches!" instead. Lacks the impact I know...but still true never-the-less.
-
See I read that passage somewhere as this:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
Which is different.
and then to back that up...
BEHOLD!
This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.
It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.
Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.
The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.
-
CTRL-C, CTRL-V MEHA MEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAA!
(Now I'll go back and actually read it)
-
Seems pretty compelling.
-
You could just yell "Thems where I get me pills bitches!" instead. Lacks the impact I know...but still true never-the-less.
But it's not where I get me pills. I go to the free clinic where I just have to show them two pay stubs.
-
Even when I'm in a monogymous relationship with a girl whose on the pill I like to pull out anyway. Not to err on the side of caution but rather because I'm like a baby batter bazooka. If I did pr0n they need to film it in bullet time and add in cartoon ricochet sounds to properly capture the experience.
-
You could just yell "Thems where I get me pills bitches!" instead. Lacks the impact I know...but still true never-the-less.
But it's not where I get me pills. I go to the free clinic where I just have to show them two pay stubs.
They don't know that!
-
Planned Parenthood is an abortion advocacy group that is being investigated by multiple state justice systems for not divulging sexual predators of underage victims. Having one of their offices in town is nothing to be proud of.
Get ready for a wall of text.
John MacArthur is widely considered a leading authority on original biblical languages...most certainly not a "novice". Here is what he has said on the subject before (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/ABORT.HTM) (I underlined for emphasis particular segments with regards to IDE's quoted assertions):
I am convinced that the fury of God will someday fall on the murderers of His creatures who have not sought His forgiveness. God is the protector of the innocent. Now to illustrate this Biblically; go back to Exodus 21. This is one of the really important passages about abortion, Exodus 21:22; and here in this section of Scripture following the Ten Commandments, God gives a number of laws that regard life and all of its myriad of circumstances. In Exodus 21 we have a very interesting account; it says to us in verse 22,
If men struggle with each other (now you follow carefully) and strike a woman with child (I don't know what you version says; some say "so she has a miscarriage," some say, "So she has an untimely birth"), yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Now what is this saying? One of the unfortunate translations in the New American Standard is the translation "miscarriage." (This sermon was originally composed in 1993...the NASB was editted in 1995 to be more literal to the original texts, so this caveat no longer applies - ROUS) I don't know why they translated the Hebrew term here "miscarriage." There is no reason, at least in my mind, to believe that verse 22 refers to a miscarriage. There is a contextual support for that as well as linguistic. The literal Hebrew reading is simply this, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child (here's the Hebrew) so that her children come out." That's what it says. In other words, it causes the child to come out. "Yet there is no further injury, then he shall surely be fined as the husband (or the woman's husband) may demand of him; and be paid as whatever the judges or the courts allow." Yalad is the common Hebrew word for child. The only irregularity here in that word is that it is plural. And it is unlikely that it means a developing fetus that has been miscarried.
The verb (Hebrew, yasa) often refers to ordinary childbirth, and so it says the struggle happens: two men are fighting, one gets involved in this fight; and probably a woman steps in (you know, the wife to try to stop the fight) and she gets struck so that her children come out (just looking at it on the plural sense); that is, an ordinary childbirth takes place. By the way, that term (Hebrew, yasa) referring to ordinary childbirth is used in Genesis 15:4 and Isaiah 39:7 of a childbirth generated from the loins of the father and also in Genesis 25 and 26, and Jeremiah 1, about a birth that comes out of the womb of the mother. So from the father's side and the mother's side the term is used to express a child that is born.
In no case does that term (Hebrew, yasa) refer to a miscarriage. Numbers 12:12 uses it but it refers to a still birth—not a miscarriage. The Hebrew word for miscarriage (shakal) used in Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, is not used in this verse. So what you have here is a premature birth.
Now, follow the thought: two men are fighting, the woman probably steps in; she gets hit in the process and consequently the trauma causes a premature birth. If all that happens is that the child comes out and there is no further injury, then there should be a fine for the discomfort, for the problems that might come to take care of the child, and to take care of the woman because of whatever trauma she suffered. If there is any debate about it, then the judges can discern what that should be. "But if there is any further injury. . . ." What would "any further injury" be? Well, it would have to mean something more severe, including the loss of life; "then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
What's the point? The point is: if you are responsible for killing an unborn child you pay with your life. That's the point. It is constituted as murder.
"No further injury," then in verse 22, has been incorrectly taken to mean that there has been some kind of a miscarriage. The equivalent of "further" doesn't appear in the Hebrew text. It simply says (you'll notice probably that "further" is in italics), it just says "if there is no injury." If the child is born and there is no injury—fine. Settle whatever be the medical costs, if there are any, but if there is more than that, if there is injury to the child, if there is injury to the mother then "lex talionis" [Latin], that is, "tit for tat" takes place. If the child has suffered in one area—the penalty is the same. If the child dies then the penalty is life. It is just the idea of appropriate punishment, but what it points out is: if the child comes out and his eye is injured—you lose your eye. If he comes out and his hand is injured—your lose your hand. If his foot—his foot, and so forth, and so forth. Wound for wound—that's justice, but if the child dies you pay with your life. "Lex talionis" the law of retaliation.
So Scripture teaches us then very, very clearly that conception is an act of God; that every person conceived is conceived in the image of God, and that each person is the special care of God. Nothing illustrates that more than if you injure a child that is untimely born and you have inflicted that injury—you pay a just punishment including, if you kill that child—you pay with your life. God has special care for those who are helpless.
A few things to add: if this passage has nothing to do with a penalty for the death of the child, as IDE's quote asserts, then why make a special case out of it? If the case being expounded upon actually centered around the death of the mother, then it'd clearly fall under the general description of murder with no exposition required. Rather, it is in line with God's overall esteem of childen and babies in scripture, most dramatically illustrated with His disgust at the child sacrifice of the pagan peoples in the area. Additionally, Jews did not expose (abandon to the wild) their children, a common ancient practice. Also, biblical prohibitions against many sorts of drugs included those which induced abortions, which were around for many years and certainly during the Hellenistic Age.
-
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
-
*drinks another toast to doc who did my Essure sterilization* :bernie: :raiseroof:
My town is getting a Planned Parenthood after having a Right to Life center for almost two years. I saw some raggedy old women protesting PP the other day and would have yelled something like, "Planned Parenthood is not an abortion clinic but a place for women to make a conscious decision as to making their own decision to have children rather than society forcing the decision upon them!" if it wasn't so long to yell on a busy street.
Yeah, a screeching loonie hit me in the forehead with a rock in the parking lot when I was 20 because I had no health insurance and PP was the only place I could afford a well woman exam - every woman who walks in the door must be going for an abortion. ::)
-
GTFO, AMERICA HATER!!!
-
But don't you know that your baby had fingernails at that point?
-
They apparently didn't help when that needle pierced it's brain.
-
Super Behbee should have come rocketing out the cooch to claw their eyes out!
-
Yes... but the clump in the toliet never was super... a shame.
-
Is there a point past which the egg can be harvested and frozen for IVF? Wouldn't that quell a lot of hostility?
-
Yes... but the clump in the toliet never was super... a shame.
The bigger shame is that human life is so cavalierly destroyed, usually in the name of personal fiat.
Is there a point past which the egg can be harvested and frozen for IVF? Wouldn't that quell a lot of hostility?
An egg is only half the equation.
-
I should have been more specific - fertilized egg harvested and frozen.
-
We destroy human life everyday through our existence. I don't see why abortion is so evil in comparison.
-
That's part of what I'm getting at. One woman doesn't want the egg/zygote/whatever, give it to a woman who does. Isn't that better than putting the woman who doesn't want anything to do with a baby through the agony of pregnancy to birth for adoption purposes?
-
The destruction of human life is tragic, regardless of the circumstances, whether it's an aborted child who dies in a clinic, a neglected child who dies in the gutter, the young who die in accidents, the fighter who dies in battle, the civilian who dies after being mistaken for the enemy, the victim felled by a criminal, that criminal dying at the hands of the state, and an elderly person dying alone in a nursing home. In your estimation, does any of that justify the needless destruction of millions of people by what is largely personal fiat by any stretch of the imagination?
I'm no expert on embryonic donation or whatever, but if no harm comes to it then I see no problem with it. But IIRC it's a compromise since in vitro fertilization techniques require the availability of multiple embryos, many of which wind up destroyed in the end. Otherwise, this would be a particularly attractive solution in the case of the pregnancy being created through a criminal act. But if they're doing it just because they were stupid and got knocked up and don't want the hassle of bearing that child, then it really doesn't solve the root problem, and I see no reason to destroy a human life due to, again, personal fiat.
-
I don't mind abortion if the baby is still a ball of snot with no human shape. After that I get squeamish and uncertain about the whole thing.
-
I say abortions for all.
-
I say abortions for all of the perfectly nice male fan fiction characters that suffer when the writer suddendly goes crazy in the middle of the story and makes them pregnant. :razz:
-
CTRL-C, CTRL-V MEHA MEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAA!
(Now I'll go back and actually read it)
And here I thought you typed that entire thing out of your own head and was in awe. You almost made me think you were extremely smart and scholarly. Now I know you're just good at copypasta.
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
The first part just says if the woman has a baby prematurely due to injury, the father of the baby can take the man who injured her to court and demand compensation, like gold coins or a firstborn calf. I would probably agree with IDE's copypasta and say the second half refers to only the woman, not the baby, but it's possible it refers to the baby as well. However, this law is about if a woman is injured accidently or intentionally by someone else during a fight, not if she aborts intentionally which wouldn't be during a fight. Notice how the first sentence says "If men fight AND", in other word the law only applys to women injured due to deliberate violence, not an abortion, even though they didn't even have abortions during those times.
Oh, and it's true that this is a part of the Mosaic law, but who nowadays actually follows the "eye for an eye" form of punishment. You don't see people being stoned to death for adultery anymore, and those who are Christian and have commited adultery would protest the idea of being stoned. Wether you believe abortion is right or wrong, I would assume you wouldn't think that abortion doctors or the women having the abortions should be killed?
I'd be interested in hearing those other verses, especially the ones on Christianity and Government.
-
What if we could somehow turn an unwanted fetus into a WMD? In Soviet Russia, baby aborts you!
-
You almost made me think you were extremely smart and scholarly.
I has a master's degree, just not in the field of bible interpretation.
-
The first part just says if the woman has a baby prematurely due to injury, the father of the baby can take the man who injured her to court and demand compensation, like gold coins or a firstborn calf. I would probably agree with IDE's copypasta and say the second half refers to only the woman, not the baby, but it's possible it refers to the baby as well.
You'll remember from my previous wall of quoted text where it's not only possible, but the entire point of the passage. As I pointed out following the quote from that same post, if it were merely a reference to the mother, then no clarification was necessary as penalties for personal injury and homicide are plainly presented elsewhere. The focus of this case is not on the mother's welfare, but that of the child(ren).
However, this law is about if a woman is injured accidently or intentionally by someone else during a fight, not if she aborts intentionally which wouldn't be during a fight. Notice how the first sentence says "If men fight AND", in other word the law only applys to women injured due to deliberate violence, not an abortion, even though they didn't even have abortions during those times.
That's completely missing the point of the passage, which states plainly that the life of the child is considered equal to the life of the one who indirectly kills it. The matter of harm coming to it is directly analogous to the prescribed judgment for the offender...if the baby loses an eye due to the trauma, the one who caused it to happen has that coming as punishment. If the baby dies, the punishment is death. Being pictured in this case in the setting of an accident was probably because intentionally killing an unborn child wasn't something that was done among the Jewish tribes, although it was practiced elsewhere. That the modern abortion process isn't accidental only makes it more heinous in my mind.
As for a possible loophole that the sentence only applies to those children being "viable" outside the womb, that goes toward how premature and far along the fetus actually is. And the Bible clearly states that God sees personhood from the beginning of life, as seen in the example of Jeremiah (Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-5, NKJV), and they have a spiritual life, as seen with John the Baptist (He [John] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from ["while yet in", according to the NASB] his mother’s womb. Luke 1:15b, NKJV). Therefore, God recognizes the sanctity of human life from the very beginning, and in former times prescribed dire punishment for those who harmed them.
Oh, and it's true that this is a part of the Mosaic law, but who nowadays actually follows the "eye for an eye" form of punishment. You don't see people being stoned to death for adultery anymore, and those who are Christian and have commited adultery would protest the idea of being stoned. Wether you believe abortion is right or wrong, I would assume you wouldn't think that abortion doctors or the women having the abortions should be killed?
Not at all. That was the law for the Jewish nation, not a Gentile one such as ours...and no matter what anyone says, this has never been nor ever will be a Christian nation. But that doesn't make it any more right than it was in ancient Israel.
Remember, you brought it up to because, "I'm curious to what verses or paragraphs in the Bible are the basis for the pro-life stance of the Christian church. I mean, if the church has a stance I would assume it would have a firm basis in fact or Scripture and not just 'it feels right'." Remember Exodus 21:22 next time you start believing America's turning into a theocracy or whatever :P
I'd be interested in hearing those other verses, especially the ones on Christianity and Government.
Again, Google is your friend, but I can give you a few references.
First, government was originally instituted by God (in Genesis 9:6, with the death penalty for capital murder) to preserve the sanctity of human life and to restrain evil.
Secondly, government is a representative of His authority, which is why Christians are to pray for their government and leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2) and are to respect its authority as God's own (Romans 13:1-7; see also Daniel 2:21 and 5:21).
Lastly, God also requires a proper response by Christians to hostile governments...for instance, Paul wrote Romans while Nero was emperor and later awaited his execution patiently, Daniel submitted to being thrown in the lion's den, and the three Hebrew children walked willingly into the fiery furnace. But where obeying government contradicts God's commands, we obey God instead (Acts 4:19, 5:29; 1 Peter 3:14, 17).
BUT, because we do live in a republic and have votes and right to petition, Christians have a right to protest when they perceive the government to be wrong and attempt to change the offending statutes. The reason for this is due to the longstanding and oft-repeated Biblical injunction to pursue justice in all things.
-
WALL OF TEXT!
Seriously, by enforcing your will upon anyone automatically destroys the American spirit, especially religious rules. Murder is a universal sin, though law should never be backed up with scripture. If you really want that... go to Saudi Arabia.
-
This thread isn't about me enforcing anything on anyone. The religious reasons for the pro-life position were asked for, and there they are, whether you like them or not. Yet, it's somehow okay in your view that those pro-abortion may enforce their will, both on those highly offended by them and those completely unable to defend themselves from the consequences of such mores. And you can't deny what I believe on the matter, because you plainly don't know, nor can you.
What do you know of the American spirit? Ever heard of "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? So much for the first one, just kill them before they can protest. That's the spirit!
And since you dare compare my quite reasonable beliefs to that of Sharia-loving neanderthals in the Middle East, then that relaxes me from the inclination not to compare your support for mass-murder of the innocent to that of the Nazi holocaust magnified approximately 9 times. Maybe you should go to China, with their laws restricting the number of children a family may have to the point of forced abortions.
-
Pro-Abortion is a funny way to put it. You're polarizing an issue that is way more complicated. Same as the gun debate, it's alot more complex than black or white.
-
At least we're almost past the Little Sizzler season (police phrase, not mine), which seems to be the most popular post-natal abortion method. Tired of the responsibilities of parenthood? Just "forget" the kid in the hot car! No charges are ever filed because the parent "has suffered enough". I don't believe that all of these horrible deaths are accidents for one second - I can keep track of 8 cats and 4 dogs on 8500 square feet of house and yard and someone can't remember that they have A CHILD IN THE CAR WITH THEM??? My ass.
I think there are a number of ways to decrease the number of abortions and child murders after the fact. Let's start with birth control, birth control, birth control....should I say it again? Texas has taught abstinence only in schools for almost a decade - guess which state led the nation in teen pregnancies as of 2007?
Children are not fashion accessories, a way to get parties, gift cards and attention, membership to the Mommy Club, a ticket to get out of working a paid job by either being a stay-at-home mother or getting on the government tit, an old-age hedge fund, cement for a failing marriage or a way to trap a guy, yet they are exploited for all of the above every minute of the day. Smartest thing Dr. Phil ever said: "No child should be born with a job."
One of the best school programs around are the variations of the "fake baby for a week" in which teens have to be completely responsible for an inanimate device of some sort to underline that parenting is a 24/7 job. Having children has been turned from a natural part of life to a freaky competition with the experience portrayed as nothing but Kodak moments and angel farts. I can personally attest to how frantically people will try to convince someone who doesn't want children to have them. "Oh, have just one!" "You'll love it when it gets here!" I don't allow someone on the fence to adopt a kitten on my rescue watch, and the trouble and responsibility ratio comparison is too silly to even mention. NO ONE, male or female, should be under the impression that pregnancy, childbirth or parenting is anything like Brad & Angelina are able to portray it.
Does every parent love the child once it arrives? Well, not according to CPS which investigated nationally over 900,000 reported cases of abuse/neglect in 2006. Does the name Riley Ann Sawyer ring a bell? Or perhaps "Baby Grace"? Yep, her mom loved her soooo much that she allowed her boyfriend to give the poor little thing children's Tylenol for the pain while he took six hours to beat her to death. Loved her so much that the body was kept in a storage tub in the garage for over two months before it was thrown into Galveston Bay. What a sweetheart.
And if I see one more of those idiotic "Life - what a beautiful choice!" commercials featuring an angelic Caucasian woman with a babydaddy hovering nearby and the shiny new crib in the background, fluffy white curtains fluttering.... :goddammit: How about something a little more realistic for the situation over half of unmarried women wind up in, like a room in a shelter or a ratty apartment, listing everything she's up against and how difficult it will be, but saying that she will fight for the best life she can for herself and her child?
The number of abortions decreases when the economy is stable - plenty of stats one can pull up for that. Thankfully, being childfree by choice is also being seen as a little less than Satanic nowadays, so the people who really should not be parents don't feel the social pressure of the past, and doctors are becoming more copacetic with sterilizations, even if the patient has never had a child. That's another comedy I starred in - I had to save up for my procedure because my insurance (private plan controlled by my company) wouldn't cover it for an unchilded person - he/she "might change their minds". Well, isn't covering a reversal better than an abortion? Guess not. Amazed me that I was a certified professional capable of advising clients on protecting multi-millions in personal assets, yet when I got uppity and wanted to make my own health care decisions, I became a lip-chewing little flibbitygibbet who needed to be told what was in her own mind.
So, what can decrease abortions? Some are easier to achieve than others:
Parental involvement while a kid is growing up and proper sex education to help prevent teen pregnancies.
Access to birth control
REAL information about what's involved with getting pregnant to emphasise how important preventing a pregnancy in the first place is.
Economic stability doesn't hurt!
More education on/access to Plan B birth control. If the woman is already pregnant, it has no effect. Let's get that out of the way right now.
-
Plus statistically women in religious households tend to have the greater amounts of abortions. My brother paid for one when his religious girlfriend ended up lying to him about taking birth control. Why? Because she didn't believe in it. She sure warmed up to the abortion, though, right? She ended up dumping him because 'he cursed her'. HA! She's apparently now a lesbian.
-
In other words, if idiots would keep their pants zipped or use birth control, they wouldn't be killing babies.
Pro-Abortion is a funny way to put it. You're polarizing an issue that is way more complicated. Same as the gun debate, it's alot more complex than black or white.
If you believe the child is a human with associated rights at conception, it is that black and white. Then the burden is on you to say when they do have those rights, and you simply have no means of knowing. You are just too comfortable sitting in your many shades of gray.
As for guns, I'll just say any would-be criminal would have a high price to pay in holding me up or breaking in my house. Can you say the same? Can you even argue with that?
I think there are a number of ways to decrease the number of abortions and child murders after the fact. Let's start with birth control, birth control, birth control....should I say it again? Texas has taught abstinence only in schools for almost a decade - guess which state led the nation in teen pregnancies as of 2007?
I'm not Catholic, so I have absolutely no qualms against promoting birth control. Lots of kids are going to screw around, despite Mama and Daddy not believing their little angel would so something like that.
I actually agree with a lot of what you said, Bernie...too many teens don't know anything about the subject except what they experience. That's dangerous, both to them and the babies they spawn. I really liked your example about the "fake baby for a week", but the sad thing is that most of them probably clue in rather quickly that they can hand off the child to their mamas (like a cousin of mine did with her first one at age 15...and the other three she's had since 27, even though she's married now with a stable job) and not worry about it. And enablement is a big reason why they do such things: they know they won't have to deal with it. That applies to both the act of abortion to the choice to keep the child and only half-rear it.
Plus statistically women in religious households tend to have the greater amounts of abortions. My brother paid for one when his religious girlfriend ended up lying to him about taking birth control. Why? Because she didn't believe in it. She sure warmed up to the abortion, though, right? She ended up dumping him because 'he cursed her'. HA! She's apparently now a lesbian.
I think you of all people would agree with me that "being religious" and "stupidity" aren't mutually exclusive. Having beliefs doesn't mean you can turn your brain off, and it certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't educate your children. Again, though, I think the birth control thing is insane. I'm not sure, since I try not to keep up with RCC dogma, but I'm thinking this has a spurious reading of the account of Onan in Genesis 38:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:8-10;&version=51;) as well as what some dull old men had to say in the early goings of that church as a basis.
-
How long does this board allow you to go back and fix spelling errors? A whole minute? I really hate that.
-
Man this thread is like a present from Jokey Smurf. You know as soon as you open it, it's going to blow up in your face.
-
My pants are like Jokey Smurf, also. :tom:
-
I drove by the Right to Life building and on their marquee they said that women who give birth have a lower chance of breast cancer. All the more reason to get knocked up!
-
Statistics don't lie, but people tend to use them as a hammer to pound their opinions into people.
-
How long does this board allow you to go back and fix spelling errors? A whole minute? I really hate that.
Hey at least you can go back. Not me man, I'm out there doing it with only one shot. There's no safety net.
Snake kills Dumbledore!
-
Back to the Lil' Sizzler thing, if I had a baby, I'd certainly stand a very good chance of spacing out and forgetting it in the car. Not that the idea that many of these cases are post-natal abortions in disguise isn't completely feasible. (Tho' it certainly beats selling them to a dirty pedo for a shitty apartment and a fucking used car. (http://www.ksat.com/news/17258686/detail.html)) A baby can be pretty quiet asleep and all, but when they can start to talk and shit, I don't know how you forget about them then other than being completely stoned off your ass.
I didn't know it took a minute to edit. I'll have to look at that later.
-
still though, you'd expect your child to be significant enough to remember, especially something like 'did i bring my child in the car or not?'
-
I still find it completely plausible someone can be so preoccupied or distressed about something to forget their kid, myself included. And it only takes a short amount of time and the right conditions for a tragic accident.
-
it's just so weird. it seems like people would be less likely to forget their cell phone than their child. they're certainly aware where the former is almost without fail.
-
I wish people would forget their cell phones.
-
especially in the library. goddamn.
i'm doing research, and there's nothing more annoying than someone sitting near you in a library blabbing about nothing. actually, blabbing about something doesn't make it any better.
-
Funny you should mention that - the recommendation from child care experts is for parents to put something "important" in the carrier with the child, like a wallet or cell phone.
I'm not even going to comment. :poo:
-
:laugh: Awww, that's sad.
especially in the library. goddamn.
i'm doing research, and there's nothing more annoying than someone sitting near you in a library blabbing about nothing. actually, blabbing about something doesn't make it any better.
99% of the phone calls I've been victim to overhearing have been about nothing. These people need to STFU and recognize they have nothing important worth saying.
-
I'll take a cell phone over the #!%#()!@_(#^@ speaker phones every fucking golf-shirt bozo producer in the office just HAS to use to convince management that they're "doing something" and their $150K+ salary is justified. :goddammit:
-
yes. nothing says 'sociopath asshole' quite like a speakerphone
-
I think I'm the only person in this infernal state that turns the cell phone ringer off in a restaurant, church, school, etc.
-
Funny you should mention that - the recommendation from child care experts is for parents to put something "important" in the carrier with the child, like a wallet or cell phone.
I'm not even going to comment. :poo:
Where's my phone? Aw crap, my damn kid has it!
I work in a restaurant that serves a lot of business people at lunchtime (downtown businesses and it's slightly more expensive menu appeals to the business type). I thought screaming children were annoying, but 8000 cell phones all set on "LOUD AS HELL" ringing non-stop is enough to force me into a nervous breakdown. Vibrate, anyone?
-
it's particularly annoying at orchestra concerts, before which they specifically ask you to turn your phone off, because you just know that, regardless of what happens, some asshole's phone will play that stupid verizon theme in the middle of the symphony.
-
You'll remember from my previous wall of quoted text where it's not only possible, but the entire point of the passage. [ect ect...]
That's completely missing the point of the passage, which states plainly that the life of the child is considered equal to the life of the one who indirectly kills it. The matter of harm coming to it is directly analogous to the prescribed judgment for the offender...if the baby loses an eye due to the trauma, the one who caused it to happen has that coming as punishment. If the baby dies, the punishment is death.
First and foremost, I'll state again that I believe this bible verse is NOT specifically against abortion. The verse is about how to deal with a woman who has a premature birth due to being injured during assault. (I find it ironic that the verse states "if two men fight and hit a woman" and mention nothing about a man deliberately hitting a woman and causing her to premie, but I guess a husband striking his woman might have been normal back then). In other words, it's if a woman gives birth to a baby accidentally due to being struck violently. Abortion is the deliberate removal of the baby, and has nothing to do with two men quarreling, or the woman being struck (unless that's how they aborted fetuses back in the day, by hitting the woman).
Whether the verse shows God's position on how he feels about unborn fetuses is debatable. I still think the eye for an eye part (21:23-24) may very well only refer to the mother. Reading it again it's vague much like the rest of the Bible. It only says "But if there is serious injury, you are to take an eye for an eye...", it doesn't say "if there is serious injury to the mother" or "if there is serious injury to the baby" or "if there is serious injury to both the mother and baby". So I'm still not 100% sure that 21:23-24 refers to the baby as well as the mother, but if you believe that it does, and shows God's stance on unborn babies, I can't do much to sway you any other way.
And the Bible clearly states that God sees personhood from the beginning of life, as seen in the example of Jeremiah (Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-5, NKJV), and they have a spiritual life, as seen with John the Baptist (He [John] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from ["while yet in", according to the NASB] his mother’s womb. Luke 1:15b, NKJV). Therefore, God recognizes the sanctity of human life from the very beginning, and in former times prescribed dire punishment for those who harmed them.
I have trouble with these quotes as well. The main reason is because they refer to specific people, people that God created specifically for very important reasons, and not the masses. Just because God knew Jeremiah or John the Baptist in the womb or created both specifically doesn't mean he does that for everyone. Also, I noticed that the first part of the Jeremiah says "Before I formed you in the womb", which means he knew Jeremiah before he was conceived, but when he was still a spirit perhaps, which may mean that we start as spirit and then our spirit is placed into our bodies when we are in the mother's womb. Now that may be a viable argument against abortion right there.
Now I've also heard Psalm 139 used as well against abortion, about God forming a baby in it's womb. That one's easy to argue. Psalms was a book of song written by people in ancient Israel to celebrate and praise God. Note I said that people wrote the Psalms, and this is something even the church doesn't debate. Psalm 139 is just poetry. Anyone trying to find deeper meaning in simple and creative poetry is mad.
Secondly, government is a representative of His authority, which is why Christians are to pray for their government and leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2) and are to respect its authority as God's own (Romans 13:1-7; see also Daniel 2:21 and 5:21).
I'd be curious if a government that encouraged torture, abortion, murder, or some other horrible shit would truly represent His authority. To me such a government would probably not represent God, and He would probably be saddened by the government's behavior.
Do realize the reason I'm arguing this with you was because I wanted to figure out the basis of Christianity's almost violent opposition to abortion. Why do I debate it? Because it's like an essay... when you have a point you're trying to prove, you have to expect people to pick it apart and find fault with your argument, and be able to explain those faults. I'm also trying to show that you can find different meanings and views in any argument.
Of course, I'm not willy nilly "Let's all abort our fetuses!" I would prefer that all humans would do the smart thing and use planning, birth control, and abstinence to decide the right time to have babies. And if they do have a baby when they're not ready, they they would give that baby up for adoption.
However, I also believe in people's right to choose what to do with their lives and their own bodies without the government controlling every aspect of their lives, which is why I don't agree with anti-abortion laws. Also, people are stupid and irresponsible when it comes to sex and having kids and raising those kids. And not enough people adopt either, leaving some kids to spend their whole lives in foster care. During my deliveries into ghetto neighborhoods, I have seen kids screamed at, cussed at, and almost scared to death, and there were times I wanted to call child protective services.
I would prefer people have kids responsibly, and adopt when they can, but I'd rather abort a fetus than have that child grow up in an environment where the child is beaten, abused, or raped.
-
In light of the passage, whether you see it as a direct reference to abortion doesn't matter. It clearly imputes to the child (who, in other circumstances would be as yet unborn) the full legal rights of a regular citizen. It doesn't refer to the mother, whose welfare is covered in the general case. I ask that you re-read the exegetic passage I quoted in response to IDE, which shows that "harm" was in reference to the child.
You could assume that those passages referred only to specific persons, but there's another scripture reference that torpedoes that assumption: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said: 'In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.'" ~ Acts 10:34 Attributing personhood to one fetus while not recognizing that of another is not just, and goes against His character. Of course, God knows them before they're even conceived, being that He's God and therefore not subject to the limits of time and resides in eternity.
As for Psalms being "just poetry and songs", important Messianic prophesies were made therein that were fulfilled by the life of Christ around 800 years beforehand. It's not wise to discount what it has to say.
Your assessment of government misusing the authority invested in it is the very reason why Christians seek to change it wherever possible, such as in America. This is why Christians hate abortion and want it changed, but also why clinic bombers are outside of both God's will and government statute and above neither.
I do appreciate your honesty in trying to see the POV of those with whom you disagree. I don't see it so much as arguing as I do actual debate, which unfortunately doesn't happen much these days on message boards in preference to dog-pile style rhetoric and pursuit of the zing. I can see and understand why you'd believe that people should have the right to choose rather than bring another unwanted child in the world. But I believe, and it can not be scientifically disproven, that personhood does not begin once the child emerges, and prenatal people have the right to the attempt at making something of their lives, no matter what. It's too bad that the efforts expended in fighting for and against abortion weren't spent to give those unwanted children the best shot they could get.
-
This is why I have no problem with and respect your viewpoint, Squirrel - it's essentially the same as my sister's. Neither of you would pull any "abortion is wrong, except when someone in my family feels they need one" crap.
My personal criteria is presence of a central nervous system capable of transmitting pain signals, which is why I don't draw a line between humans and animals in many situations and am not comfortable with abortions past a certain point. This has no basis in faith, which brings an entirely different aspect into the situation; however, to me any non-choice birth scenario carries too high a chance of revenge against the innocent child. A 10-week-old embryo will not feel what a newborn or small child will, and I'd rather hear about 100 first-trimester abortions than one more Riley Ann Sawyer. True, it might not happen, but it could. An equal number of angels dance on those pinheads.
I told my sister to get the stray cat she coaxed inside spayed as soon as she heard the yowling outside - in brief, abortion. True to her sentimentality, she couldn't do it, and they now have six cats (rookies....), which thankfully, having a daughter-in-law who is a vet technician and gets clinic discounts, they can afford. Of course, very few people would understand that we both make every effort to walk the walk with our logic and not write me off as a child-hater and us both crazy old cat ladies (which the presence of dogs negates anyway :P ).
-
I thought my darling cousin had an interesting take on the subject, and asked if I could quote him. This is how we can and have indeed talked until sunrise in the past:
Certainly, and I am honored. Just make sure to point out that I am not advocating that abortion be made illegal. I am just making sure we are all honest with one another, and accept the science that applies. If your position is that there is an absolute "right to life," which begins at conception, for either secularly moral, religious, or Constitutional reasons, any exception involving an otherwise viable fetus is inconsistant, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, and moral cowardice.
What both sides have to acknowledge, regardless of where the subsequent logic of their beliefs leads them, is that life is a continuum, rather (as I believe I have said before) like sourdough starter, which includes the following unassailable scientific facts:
1. Sperm and ova are living cells, but have no viability outside the host system. Regardless of how advanced a support system you build ("I have cloned Gwen Stacy!"), neither will develop into a person on their own. They are, however, "alive."
2. The only point currently knowable at which the two become a distinct, unique, thing, is when they fuse at conception. This zygote is also "alive."
3. There is no current ability to define, isolate, quantify, show any effects of or to, any thing or energy called the soul. Therefore, discussions of when it enters the body are meaningless. Likewise, any talk of what happens to a soul that enters a body at whatever time only to have that life terminated is sheer speculation.
4. Beyond broad timeframes that are the accumulation of medical history, there is no discrete, absolute point of gestation when a fetus becomes viable outside the mother.
5. Ceterus paribus, a fertalized ovum will, without any other external influence (other than fuel, water, and oxygyn), develop into a fully viable, biologically independant, sample of Homo sapiens sapiens.
These facts lead to unassailable conclusions:
1. Terminating a pregnancy ends the life of a unique (not a component of the mother) organism, albiet at an indefinable stage and with, currently, unknown relationship to a soul, if any.
2. There is no equivalence between rendering an organism incapable of producing these cells and terminating a pregnancy.
3. There is no equivalence between stopping these cells from fusing and terminating a pregnancy.
4. To both sides: deal with it. Base your positions on what you consider the most important issues, but deal with those facts and conclusions before you even begin to state an opinion.
You don't get to pretend that allowing a pregnancy to come to term will mitigate any of the difficulties that made termination an attractive option.
You don't get to pretend life doesn't begin until it's gurgling in a crib just to avoid the moral issue.
You don't get to pretend that all people who chose termination are all callous and cavalier about life and the seriousness of the moral questions.
You don't get to pretend that some aren't.
-
Eh, people die all the time. There's so many other issues in our society that focusing on this one really makes you think where the outrage came from. Chances are, governments were upset white people who could afford the abortions which would let the darkies breed faster. Not to mention our population isn't as large as some competitors, which puts us at a 'disadvantage'. But hey, why should we look beyond the issue and just automatically see a baby getting a needle to the brain.
-
If sperm is alive then someone should be advocating to stop the senseless murders of millions...no billions...actually there isn't a named number big enough to gauge this holocaust.
-
Nah, it only counts if they're implanted, because after that there's no risk whatsoever of the baby dying. I think antiabortionists just fear death.
-
If sperm is alive then someone should be advocating to stop the senseless murders of millions...no billions...actually there isn't a named number big enough to gauge this holocaust.
Think of all the babies you've thrown away!
-
I throw 2 batches daily.