User Tag List

Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 480

Thread: Why Stop At Birth?

  1. #76
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,332
    Thanks
    570
    Thanked 13,332 Times in 9,306 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147856
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Oh, I forget you are from New Zealand. Sounds like it's just as crazy there as it is here.
    The US has an advantage in the fight, as the abortion industry there is somewhat a standalone entity. It's visible and can be fought in a manner that draws support. In most other places, childkilling is wrapped tightly into the public-health service. Women go into state hospitals to murder their kids. It would be next to impossible to spot and attempt to save an unborn child on his way to his death, and if you could, it would be in a setting where security would swiftly evict you.

    I'm convinced all babies go to be with the Lord, so I'm left trusting in His mercy instead of any of these laws.
    With all we know with today's technology, I'm not sure there's going to be very much mercy for those who endorse the dismemberment of those who deserve the greatest protection.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    fool (January 31st, 2019),Jerry Shugart (January 30th, 2019),JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019)

  3. #77
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,332
    Thanks
    570
    Thanked 13,332 Times in 9,306 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147856
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucifer View Post
    I've seen this subject go literally nowhere in the past eight years here.
    And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.

    This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (January 30th, 2019),JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019)

  5. #78
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Everything has a bottom line.

    Killing a viable baby is murder.....squirm all you want, that is the bottom line.
    Purposefully killing any baby is murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    fool (January 31st, 2019),JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Rusha (March 20th, 2019)

  7. #79
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post


    i don't have a job company
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),ok doser (January 30th, 2019)

  9. #80
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,009
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 8,758 Times in 5,751 Posts

    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147843
    Before abortion was legalized most pregnant women who had an abortion had it for the sake of convenience.

    Now they can do it legally for the same reason and many will.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Rusha (March 20th, 2019)

  11. #81
    Over 750 post club kiwimacahau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest NZ
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 176 Times in 137 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93534
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.

    It's the first fetal homicide law.



    You're right, it is.

    But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.

    Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:


    “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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV
    Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."


    From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the...rtion#Exodus21
    You are wrong as is the source you are quoting. No reputable exegesis of the passage will come to the conclusion you and your source do.
    "It is in love that we are made, in love we disappear..."Leonard Cohen

    Monsignor Ray McIntyre
    Anglican Church International
    Te Hāhi Katorika Tawhito

  12. #82
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,276
    Thanks
    34,659
    Thanked 8,751 Times in 5,619 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimacahau View Post
    You are wrong as is the source you are quoting.
    Prove it. I dare you.

    No reputable exegesis of the passage will come to the conclusion you and your source do.
    And yet, you won't even bother trying to provide a rebuttal to it.

    Come on.

    Show us why my position (and that of AmericanRTL) is wrong. You won't.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019)

  14. #83
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    16,099
    Thanks
    14,760
    Thanked 22,121 Times in 12,558 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147716

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Prove it. I dare you.
    Don't you realize that you're supposed to just take his/her opinion as fact?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),ok doser (January 30th, 2019)

  16. #84
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,235
    Thanks
    4,628
    Thanked 10,197 Times in 7,580 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Before abortion was legalized most pregnant women who had an abortion had it for the sake of convenience.

    Now they can do it legally for the same reason and many will.
    i can't think of a more glaring example of selfishness


    i wonder if the 1973 Burger supreme court gave any consideration to the role they were playing in promoting selfishness at the expense of selflessness

  17. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 55 Times in 46 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Nope. God says it, that settles it:

    “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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV
    It's likely that it's speaking for the woman's life. There's no evidence to suggest abortions or any sort of killing of a fetus was ever punishable with death. Even when the Church was in full swing they weren't putting people at the stake for it.

    No one claimed it was... What's your point?
    No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.

  18. #86
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,235
    Thanks
    4,628
    Thanked 10,197 Times in 7,580 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucifer View Post
    No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.





    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act
    https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornv...idelaws092302/

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019)

  20. #87
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,235
    Thanks
    4,628
    Thanked 10,197 Times in 7,580 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.

    This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.
    in my time here at TOL, i've seen a much greater recognition in the general public that the left doesn't want what they claim, for abortions to be "safe, legal and rare"

    as well, a coalescing of thought around the idea that a new unique individual is created upon fertilization, and that all the arguments about brain function, heartbeat, etc are red herrings

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019),Stripe (January 31st, 2019)

  22. #88
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 55 Times in 46 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.

    This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.
    Even if it were possible to universally make abortion felonious, you would first need to take necessary steps toward making it so and nothing that you're talking about is of any real effect.

    The first thing to do would be to start talking about the societal problems that come with abortion- it's not solely about the termination in and of itself, but rather the fact that woman do not gain anything from it. Most women will end up with a child regardless often within five years after the abortion, and along with that a huge burden of guilt after beginning motherhood.

    >All 'population control' arguments fail at the simple observation that women will have as many kids as they would have either way.

    >Abortion causes bad parents in that woman are less likely to choose good partners in the first place because of the 'safety net' abortion provides; ironically in these cases women are more likely to actually make the decision to have the child than abort them though they would've likely never ended up in such a situation in the first place if they didn't have the option available

    There's a WHOLE LOT that could be taught about abortion, which would lower the abortion rate and put into society's mind another perception other than what pro-choice advocate have poured into it.
    That's where you would actually start getting some traction- but just shouting that it's murder? No. Been trying that for a half a century and it's gotten nowhere.

  23. #89
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,276
    Thanks
    34,659
    Thanked 8,751 Times in 5,619 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucifer View Post
    It's likely that it's speaking for the woman's life.
    More likely is that you're not reading it carefully enough.

    What do you think of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.

    It's the first fetal homicide law.



    You're right, it is.

    But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.

    Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:


    “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. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV
    Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life."


    From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the...rtion#Exodus21
    Thoughts?

    There's no evidence to suggest abortions or any sort of killing of a fetus was ever punishable with death.
    And why would that mean anything, if the goal was to deter, rather than to prevent?

    Even when the Church was in full swing they weren't putting people at the stake for it.
    And?

    No law has ever truly recognized a fetus as comparable to an autonomous person.
    See Doser's reply.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019)

  25. #90
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,276
    Thanks
    34,659
    Thanked 8,751 Times in 5,619 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucifer View Post
    Even if it were possible to universally make abortion felonious, you would first need to take necessary steps toward making it so and nothing that you're talking about is of any real effect.

    The first thing to do would be to start talking about the societal problems that come with abortion- it's not solely about the termination in and of itself, but rather the fact that woman do not gain anything from it. Most women will end up with a child regardless often within five years after the abortion, and along with that a huge burden of guilt after beginning motherhood.

    >All 'population control' arguments fail at the simple observation that women will have as many kids as they would have either way.

    >Abortion causes bad parents in that woman are less likely to choose good partners in the first place because of the 'safety net' abortion provides; ironically in these cases women are more likely to actually make the decision to have the child than abort them though they would've likely never ended up in such a situation in the first place if they didn't have the option available

    There's a WHOLE LOT that could be taught about abortion, which would lower the abortion rate and put into society's mind another perception other than what pro-choice advocate have poured into it.
    That's where you would actually start getting some traction- but just shouting that it's murder? No. Been trying that for a half a century and it's gotten nowhere.
    Education is important, but it's not the solution.

    Consider that many doctors smoke.

    They have an education which tells them that smoking is bad for one's health, yet being doctors, they still smoke.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    ok doser (January 30th, 2019),Right Divider (January 30th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us