Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Not sure what 'innocent' has to do with it. What does it have to do with it?
No, that would be murder, obviously.
Stuart
Autotransfusion (in a nutshell, taking blood from a wound and putting it back into the patient) DOESN'T, Stuart. An ectopic pregnancy CAN AND DOES end up (when treated correctly) with BOTH MOTHER AND BABY SURVIVING.
The only reason the baby dies SHOULD BE that the ectopic pregnancy wasn't diagnosed in time.
Go back to that fact sheet I linked to. It explains all this in detail.
That's extremely poor logic, especially since it's wrong. The correct logic is: "you're going to die, here's how to save you and attempt to save your baby." (autotransfusion)
Addressing the symptom of a problem does not make the problem go away.
Fornication should be illegal. Those who do should be punished by getting married and never being allowed to separate.
Adultery should be illegal. Those who commit adultery (both the man and woman who committed adultery) should be executed.
Rape should be illegal. Those who rape should be executed. If a child is conceived as a result the crime, the child should be loved, not punished for the crime of his or her father. Incest is a form of rape.
For those who are willing participants in sex (only within marriage), and a baby is conceived as an undesired result of that act, that's when you can say "they should have used their contraceptives properly." But it IS NOT a justification to kill the baby.
For those who are willing participants in sex (outside of marriage, which should be a crime), forcing them to get married and never allowed to divorce) provides a foundation for a home that the child can grow up in. Killing the baby is unnecessary, and wrong.
Stuart, would it be wrong to kill the fetus of a pig?
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
Ok. Then I guess we'll go with: There is no Scripture that says everything we need will be written in the Scriptures. You obviously are gonna just avoid that question. That's ok.
You are mentioning example of warfare again.
I think you are moving in the wrong direction. You are even more light years away from:
Abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman "feels like it."
The examples of warfare, or self-defense, or justice we see in the Old Testament are not the same thing as:
Abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman "feels like it."
And now I am curious. If you think Abortion is justified because of those examples. Answer one question for me:
Do you think any person should be allowed to kill any other person because they feel it is "necessary" and they "feel like it"?
That's not how discussion works, Stuart.
I present a point, you present a counter point. I present evidence, you present counter evidence. That's how discussion works.
If you can't (or refuse to) do that, then that makes you a troll, so why are you on here?
[MENTION=17965]Bard_the_Bowman[/MENTION]
Let's clarify something so this argument makes more sense.
The verse in Exodus does not say "thou shall not kill," it says "thou shall not murder." (yes, some versions say "kill" instead of "murder," but the hebrew word used means "murder."
Killing is not inherently wrong, murder is.
If "killing" were inherently wrong, then it would contradict the commands where God says for the government to kill the criminal guilty of committing a capital crime.
Bard_the_Bowman
New member
You are right. We are not talking about other areas of life. But when we use the same logic in these other areas I think we could see how bad it is and it is equally bad when applied to abortion.
According to your logic...it would be "necessary" to kill me because "you feel like it" and want my liver.
That logic doesn't work here and it doesn't work with abortions either.
Using your logic...you should kill me and take my liver because that is what you would like to happen.
People should own slaves if that is what they want and would like to happen.
People should murder each other, speed, rob, steal, commit adultery, lie, rape, pillage and plunder if that is what they want.
Their wishes necessitate it just like the mothers "necessitate" an abortion. It is what she and they want.
Your logic is still light years away from justifying an abortion being "necessary" because a woman just "feels like it."
Your logic doesn't work.
I would like nothing better than for you to ignore anything and everything else that I have said and respond only to this one question. As a matter of fact, I am not going to respond to the rest of your post here after asking just one question. I apologize that I have to go and I will not be able to respond until very late tonight.
Would you please answer:
Why do you say that an abortion is "not an easy option" and "harrowing"?
Thank you.
Peace.
Numbers 5 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
Bamidbar - Numbers - Chapter 5
I would like to report that I have just now read from my New King James Version and the English from Bamidbar at Chabad.org after your post that I find myself in reply to.
Jacob
My Chumash (from the Torah in specific) in SHEMOS/EXODUS 20:13 of PARASHAS YISRO says You shall not kill. The Hebrew by translation at www.doitinhebrew.com לא תרצח is You will not kill.
Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 20 at Chabad.org
Verse 13
says
You shall not murder.
which agrees with one of the Bibles that I have, the New King James Version
EXODUS 20:15
"You shall not murder.
The English Standard Version says
"You shall not murder.3
3The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence
My Chumash has Commentary. I do not have vowels for the Hebrew.
13. Sixth Commandment: Prohibition against murder.
לא תרצח - You shall not kill. Mechilta notes that the first commandment of the second tablet corresponds to the first of the other one, faith in God. Someone who truly believes in God as the Creator and Sustainer of human life will not commit murder. It is not coincidental that the modern world's accelerating loss of faith has been accompanied by an increasing cheapness of human life.
Many have noted that a prohibition against murder seems to be so obvious that it hardly needs to be included in the Ten Commandments; murder was prohibited to all mankind, long before the Torah was given, and it is in the code of even the most primitive societies. These commentators explain that the Sages regard the Ten Commandments as guideposts to more elevated behavior than the literal translation of the words would indicate. For example, the Sages describe many things as tantamount to murder, although their perpetrators are not liable to the death penalty. Among them are: causing someone significant embarrassment, failing to provide food and safety for travelers, causing someone to lose his livelihood, ruling on halachic matters for which one is not qualified, and refusing to rule when one's wisdom is needed. In this sense, the Ten Commandments are not only very broad, their breadth depends on the stature and sensitivity of the individual.
Shalom.
Jacob
And we can also agree that sometimes analogies turn out to be poor ones.
Why should you object to me taking your liver?
I have no idea what any of that has with a woman making a decision about what happens to her own body, based on her wishes. It's a poor set of analogies.
Well, I cannot know what it is like to go through an abortion, so I have to trust the word of the brave women who have spoken out about the experience.
Stuart
Or indeed where the god character orders the killing of people we should call 'innocent'.
Stuart
No. But I think that a woman has absolute right of medical consent, so there is one 'person' that she should be allowed to have killed, the foetus inside her.
Stuart
Stuart, since God created man to live his life in two stages, stage one in this world, and stage two in the afterlife, He has the right to bring his creation from stage one, to stage two. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. He even gets to choose how to bring them from stage one to stage two.
And, were the people killed really innocent? Or were they wicked, His enemies?
That website is evidence.
What is contained on that website is evidence.
See how this works?
You haven't even read the Wikipedia page on ectopic pregnancy, have you.
When ectopic pregnancies are treated, the prognosis for the mother is very good in Western countries; maternal death is rare, but most fetuses die or are aborted. For instance, in the UK, between 2003 and 2005 there were 32,100 ectopic pregnancies resulting in 10 maternal deaths (meaning that 1 in 3,210 women with an ectopic pregnancy died). In the developing world, however, especially in Africa, the death rate is very high, and ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy#Prognosis
Please link to the specific page, not to a whole page of links. That's just lazy on your part. You might also care to establish that the website you are linking to has reliable information. It looks to me like it is very unreliable.
Please explain exactly what you mean by autotransfusion, and what it does.
Your description of marriage as a punishment is noted.
<SNIPPED> the rest of your spectacularly bigoted rant. Your difficulties with reality are noted also.
Stuart
The woman does NOT have the right to murder her own child. From the moment of conception, her body is no longer just hers, there is a body within her body, a genetically distinct individual.
If a mother tragically dies, often times the baby in the womb will survive. Always, the mother is female, yet half the time, the baby is a boy. Her son's Y chromosome cannot be a part of her.
A comprehensive list of all the glands and organs in a woman's body does not include an embryo or fetus.
The unborn baby’s first cry for food is actually a pheromone signal, from one organism to another.
More from here:
http://americanrtl.org/personhood-talking-points
Is some guy ranting online 'evidence'?
I think the Holy Wikipedia, however reliable or not, has better evidence. At least it cites reputable sources.
Stuart