Discussion-One on One: Abortion (red77 vs. Turbo)
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
I believe I have at some point in the past, can't remember much about it though, did it have poached eggs in it?
It may be a while before I get chance to, but rest assured i'll give you my critical analysis of it when I do get around to watching it.....
I'm still gonna need to see the film again.....I'll try and get it as soon as I can
No
Everyone makes assumptions and judgments according to what is ok by them.
It's worth heeding what is right in God's eyes because we know from Jesus that not everything is EQUAL in the Law (eg tithing mint is less important than showing mercy ... so there are priorities in the Law about degree of importance).
Everyone agrees that killing is wrong.
Does God have priorities regarding the life that is being lost? YES!
Is the born or the unborn a greater priority to God?
(Surely the opinion of God is the most righteous and greatest opinion)
OK ... here is God's opinion so there is no point arguing with me over it. You are welcome to pray and disagree with God about it, but I'm certain that God will not change His mind:
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
To God, the loss of an unborn results in a fine, while the harm of a pregnant woman results in equal retribution to the point of the death penalty!
One is a criminal offense while one is a civil offense!
God does NOT give the same priority to the unborn as He does to the born!
This is God's Law and judgment.
I'm sure people wish to argue with God about that or try to convince others that God's Law does not mean what it clearly says.
It's worth heeding what is right in God's eyes because we know from Jesus that not everything is EQUAL in the Law (eg tithing mint is less important than showing mercy ... so there are priorities in the Law about degree of importance).
Everyone agrees that killing is wrong.
Does God have priorities regarding the life that is being lost? YES!
Is the born or the unborn a greater priority to God?
(Surely the opinion of God is the most righteous and greatest opinion)
OK ... here is God's opinion so there is no point arguing with me over it. You are welcome to pray and disagree with God about it, but I'm certain that God will not change His mind:
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
To God, the loss of an unborn results in a fine, while the harm of a pregnant woman results in equal retribution to the point of the death penalty!
One is a criminal offense while one is a civil offense!
God does NOT give the same priority to the unborn as He does to the born!
This is God's Law and judgment.
I'm sure people wish to argue with God about that or try to convince others that God's Law does not mean what it clearly says.
Glenda, I will not presume to argue with the Lord concerning His Torah. Thank you for posting these scriptures. I do not know how you read them, but I am quite familiar with the two ways in which they are read. One person sees these as applying to abortion and miscarriage, another sees these as applying to premature birth, and or miscarriage, depending upon whether or not the baby, her fruit departed her body alive, and stayed alive. Or whether her fruit departed, stillborn, or died shortly after her premature birth.
Are you aware of this common controversy over these scriptures and, if so, have you made a decision on which is the correct view?
If not, let me explain why I think that these passages do not refer to abortion. Abortion is a deliberate and intentional act. The men who were striving were not intended to hurt the woman and certainly not the baby. Why do I say this? The Torah has just explained the penalties for premeditated murder, and unintentional manslaughter, and the cities of refuge.
If it was the woman who died, from the accidental attack, the husband would become the avenger of blood, and within his rights to kill the man or men involved, unless they fled to the city of refuge in time.
Thus I think the Torah is explaining what to do in the case where men unintentionally cause a miscarriage, or premature birth resulting in death or injury to the baby in the womb. I think these passages are "all" about the baby, and none about the wife. We already know what to do if a man accidentally kills another person, or causes them bodily harm. I don't think the Torah is being redundant here.
The penalty, for the "baby's" person, is also life for life, and eye for eye, etc, just as it would be for manslaughter, except there is no provision for a city of refuge, when you take the life and the heritage of a man and his pregnant wife. Thus it is actually more severe punishment, and not less, as I read it.
In the best case scenario, the baby survives the premature birth, completely healthy, and the husband decides the fine for the traumam and potential danger and extra expense, now needed to survive and "cope"!
Does this make sense to you? You are of course free to disagree, and assume it is only talking about the woman, in the other "regards", as many interpret.
The one thing that seems very obvious to me, is that we can not compare an intentional abortion, chosen by a mother and performed by a "doctor", to this clear case of unintentional, and accidental, premature birth, or miscarriage at worst, as plainly described.
Do you at least agree with me on this point, and see it in a new way perhaps?
Shalom!
Peace to you
Thank you for alternative possibilities.
I'm not assuming anything at all except priorities in the eyes of God.
It is not ok to kill.
Parents and offspring do not have 'equal rights' in the eyes of God right through scripture. People these days try to promote equal rights of parents and children, but that is against God's Law and causes many problems.
Parents are allowed to hit children while children are NOT allowed to hit parents in God's Law.
God prioritises parent welfare in the human and animal kingdom eg
Deu 22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
Deu 22:7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
What God shows us is that God is a parent and parental welfare and rights come first.
The verses about a pregnant woman do not specify anything except fruit departing and financial compensation ... remember financial compensation in Torah is ONLY for loss! Children are the future source of financial benefit for the parent! Jesus clarified this law has not changed.
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
When an animal kills an offspring, compensation fine must be paid (different to servant price)
Exo 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
Exo 21:31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
Exo 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Since God's Law specifies financial compensation for loss of an offspring, it must be assumed that the pregnant woman has in fact lost an offspring if financial compensation is involved.
That is not my concern, but rather the fact that God prioritises the welfare of the parent over the welfare of the pregnancy/foetus.
This does not alter the fact that killing is not permissable and I agree that accidents are different to deliberate, morally and scripturally.
I just wanted people to stop promoting the anti-scriptural errancy that a fertilised egg or foetus and mother are equal with equal rights. In God's eyes, the pregnant woman has priority regarding welfare and all else.
Also there is errancy promoted that all abortions involve tearing up a baby and that is untrue when drugs can expel a fertilised egg. Emotions seem to promote a smokescreen over clear facts and that is wrongful.
Truth matters.
The pregnant woman has priority.
Killing is unlawful and killing also includes words as well as actions.
People often tear each other apart with words while pointing the finger at others who tear each other apart physically. According to God they equally have blood on their hands.
I love truth over traditional emotional errancy. If we stuck with truth and God's Law then nobody would be killed or torn apart by words or deeds. That is the best scenario.
Be blessed
Would anyone here support compulsory adoption? Some government official could just knock on your door, and inform you that you have a new son/daughter who you will have to care for and raise, and you can't refuse it.
It seems like there is a strong parallel to cases of rape.
So, what do you think? For or against compulsory adoption and why?
It seems like there is a strong parallel to cases of rape.
So, what do you think? For or against compulsory adoption and why?
How do you adopt your own child? :idunno:
Not quite the point....Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not talking about adopting your own child, but some child who simply needs to be adopted.
Here's what I mean. If compulsory adoption were legal, you would be essentially handed a child for whom you would have to care, spending your own resources, and compromising your own life. You might have to change whatever plans you have for your life, and instead support someone else, when you have done nothing to deserve such a thing. This is similar in many ways to the situation a woman would be in if she were raped and the rape produced a pregnancy. The question, in either case, is if it is right to expect that people will take on that responsibility and should not be given the option to refuse it.
Does a dependent's need of a guardian automatically trump the rights of a potential guardian?
I'm trying to frame a similar moral dilemma to see if people still answer the same sort of question the same way. The abortion issue is very emotionally charged, and that makes the discussion over it rather difficult to make headway in.
Rape victims can put their children up for adoption if they want to. There is no shortage of parents willing to adopt. There is a shortage of kids to adopt, because so many mothers choose to kill their kids instead.
We are not saying that women cannot forfeit their children to others. We're merely saying that they can't murder them.
Do you realize that a rape victim's child is just as much her biological child as any child could ever be?
Sure, but that's still missing the point. The woman can't put the kid up for adoption until after it's born. She has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, during which she is responsible for all the extra food, extra clothes, doctor visits and the resulting bills, the pain of birth, the physical and emotional changes that accompany pregnancy, and the social consequences. Some of these costs can be recovered or compensated. Some of them cannot.
So I think we're back to the same question: Does the need of a dependant for a guardian trump the rights of the potential guardian?
You're trying to make the issue more black-and-white than it is.
Yes. And so...?
There is no good side to rape for the victim.
I realise that you and your daughter are different to the general population, so I checked statistics from NEUTRAL sources (neither pro or anti abortion) and they are alarming. I'll share some here and links for verification:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/a...y89n1KTnlpM3yb9!-1754492629!181195629!8091!-1
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
Only 19% of rape is reported
Only 2 to 3% of reports are false
22% of raped females are under 12 years old
Consequences 'statistically' commonly include:
Pregnancy (over 5%)
Gynecological and pregnancy complications
Migraines and other frequent headaches
Chronic pelvic pain
Gastrointestinal disorders
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Eating disorders
Substance abuse
Sleep disturbance
Depression
Attempted or completed suicide (13x more likely than general population and 6x more likely than victims of other crimes)
Alienation
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Less emotional support from friends and family
Less frequent contact with friends and relatives
These are just some of the statistics just for the rape!
There is likelihood of suicide simply from the rape, without any pregnancy or statistically LIKELY pregnancy complications.
Statistically it is sad that not many people have the supportive family situation that your daughter has.
All I have been saying, is that the victim needs compassion more than condemnation for any desperate action they may commit.
I wish everyone was blessed with supportive family and love as your family enjoys, but sadly this is a statistical rarity.
It's horrid to think of a child under 12 being violated and COMMONLY lacking support and on top of that being condemned BY STRANGERS for her probable desperate actions. I'd just want to hug her and take her home and not to condemn her!
Peace to you
Thank you for alternative possibilities.
I'm not assuming anything at all except priorities in the eyes of God.
It is not ok to kill.
Parents and offspring do not have 'equal rights' in the eyes of God right through scripture. People these days try to promote equal rights of parents and children, but that is against God's Law and causes many problems.
Parents are allowed to hit children while children are NOT allowed to hit parents in God's Law.
God prioritises parent welfare in the human and animal kingdom eg
Deu 22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
Deu 22:7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
What God shows us is that God is a parent and parental welfare and rights come first.
The verses about a pregnant woman do not specify anything except fruit departing and financial compensation ... remember financial compensation in Torah is ONLY for loss! Children are the future source of financial benefit for the parent! Jesus clarified this law has not changed.
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
When an animal kills an offspring, compensation fine must be paid (different to servant price)
Exo 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
Exo 21:31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
Exo 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Since God's Law specifies financial compensation for loss of an offspring, it must be assumed that the pregnant woman has in fact lost an offspring if financial compensation is involved.
That is not my concern, but rather the fact that God prioritises the welfare of the parent over the welfare of the pregnancy/foetus.
This does not alter the fact that killing is not permissable and I agree that accidents are different to deliberate, morally and scripturally.
I just wanted people to stop promoting the anti-scriptural errancy that a fertilised egg or foetus and mother are equal with equal rights. In God's eyes, the pregnant woman has priority regarding welfare and all else.
Also there is errancy promoted that all abortions involve tearing up a baby and that is untrue when drugs can expel a fertilised egg. Emotions seem to promote a smokescreen over clear facts and that is wrongful.
Truth matters.
The pregnant woman has priority.
Killing is unlawful and killing also includes words as well as actions.
People often tear each other apart with words while pointing the finger at others who tear each other apart physically. According to God they equally have blood on their hands.
I love truth over traditional emotional errancy. If we stuck with truth and God's Law then nobody would be killed or torn apart by words or deeds. That is the best scenario.
Be blessed
Glenda, thank you for your thought-through answer. I certainly agree that parents and children do not have equal rights, and that there is financial compensation, at first, when Oxen gore people. However there are further examples given. There is no scripture that adresses directly....thou shalt not abort a baby in the womb.....if there were, no two "reasonable" Christians would have to debate opposing viewpoints.
There is however a priority given to life, and against intentional murder, which can be extrapolated to cover instances of willful abortion. There is also a case to be made for the 'spirit' of the law, when the written Torah does not cover, each and every, possible scenario.
I can remember that our Church has an excellent teaching on the bird's nest scripture, that may contradict your "reading' of it, but due to my birthdate, listed on my driver's lisence, I suppose that is why I can't remember what it is.
:rotfl:
At any rate I will have to ponder some of the scriptures, in my mind, at work tomorrow, and ask an elder at Church, in our evening study, for "our" take on Deu 22:6.
Sorry i can't give a more complete response now.
Busy busy!BTW is it warming up there in Australia?.......It is cooling off in Colorado?
You be Blessed, as well.
Yes. I know that, Glenda. But, advising a rape victim who finds herself pregnant by her attacker/s is not the best thing to do. That's all I've been saying. I just used my own experience with friends who have had abortions (most of them were not raped) to say what I felt needed to be said.
Oh. I know this as well. I know that one reason my daughter would have such support is because I have been raped and had no one to help me get through it. Because of what I went through, I've helped other women who have been raped and know a lot of what my daughter would need to get through it herself.
One thing, though. You weren't talking about a 12 year old girl being condemned by strangers. You asked me what I would advise my daughter to do. I told you. I would give the same advice to any victim of rape. And, I would offer the same support that I would offer to my own daughter. Knowing what it's like not having any support, I would be more willing to support someone who has to suffer through that. More than likely, aborting the unborn child would add to that woman's problems, though.
Agreed. Sorry I misunderstood and thought victims may be advised what choice they should make. Thanks and I agree with you.
That's fair enough.
You are qualified from personal experience to do this and it's good you use your knowledge and love to help others. Honestly, I'm impressed and wish everyone had access to someone like you. You are rare, so sadly statistics show suffering of the majority in lack of access to someone like you. Even your daughter said that she knows she could not cope alone and would rely on you if this had happened to her so I look at other children who don't have you at home to turn to because these children certainly can't cope.
My apologies ebenz47037, 2 seperate issues got mixed and I agree I asked you about your daughter and you responded and I appreciate your answer.
Here there are 2 seperate issues ... your daughter and then 'any victim of rape'. I'm glad you would offer them the same support as your daughter. It sure wouldn't be easy for you bringing up so many possible babies of victims if they all accepted your offer though, to take care of the baby until the mother was old enough if she could cope by then. You could end up with hundreds of babies if word got out! I don't think I would be game to make such an offer. You are rare.
Sadly statistics show that in lack of support from people like you, coping with and surviving the rape without attempting or managing suicide is hard enough. Aborting or not, is kind of incidental when the pregnant victim is suffering beyond her means of coping and since complications are common in child rape pregnancies, the focus should be on the welfare and survival of the rape victim since she may not even live.
This is general post from here and not personal for you ebenz47037
I think everyone on this thread agrees that aborting is undesirable killing. I think everyone agrees that a child being raped and her welfare suffering is also undesirable. I think the thing that has been overlooked by many, are the clear teachings of Jesus.
Jesus told us to obey God's law. Jesus told us to get logs from our own eyes rather than worry about sight problems of others. Jesus told us to NOT judge or condemn and then we get to see Jesus demonstrate this important command.
A woman caught doing a capital offense (adultery) is brought to Jesus and it is confirmed that Jesus knows and agrees with the law of Moses that adultery is wrong and worthy of death sentence. No disagreement.
OK.
Jesus tells the judgmental religious people that they may only judge her IF they are sinless!
Jesus IS sinless and has the right to judge and condemn!
The non-sinless judgmental religious people walk off because they have no right to pick on anyone else.
Jesus does NOT condone adultery ... but what does sinless Jesus do? He tells the woman that he is refraining from condemning her!
Jesus, who has the right to judge and pick and point the finger, refrains from condemning someone who has broken a serious law of Moses that should result in the death penalty!
Like Jesus, nobody here is denying the righteous law or denying that killing is a capital offense! Nobody is disagreeing with that.
What does matter is that those who love Jesus OBEY him and Jesus said to NOT judge or condemn and yet people who claim to be 'Christ'ian often refuse to obey Jesus and seem to desire to judge and condemn those who commit capital offenses!
All I'm saying is that we should refrain from judging and condemning as Jesus commanded and demonstrated. That is NOT approval of a crime. It IS loving obedience to Jesus! It shows who we follow!
There are many capital ofenses in the law eg breaching sabbath etc and Jesus assured us that we will be judged and condemned as we judge and condemn others. It is time to promote heeding Jesus and show mercy and compassion to broken hearted raped children and to NOT judge or condemn how such a physically, mentally and emotionally damaged child deals with her situation. We are all guilty of death sentence offenses before God. It's time to take log out of our own eye and recognise how compassionate God is to us and share that compassion with others who also breach capital offense laws of God! No more pointing the finger at others, but fix oursleves. Neither God nor our countries made us judges so how dare we even begin to poke the finger at others when we should be on death row in God's eyes! Looking at sins of others simply distracts us from fixing our own sins and gives a false sense of pride in blindly considering others may be worse and more guilty than us! Big mistake ... HUGE! If we cleaned up our own act then we would be the loving compassionate lights in this dark world that Jesus commanded we be. Jesus did NOT say we would be known by our self-righteous finger-pointing! Satan is the accuser and NOT Jesus!
People rejected heeding Jesus in the past, but I hope they begin heeding him now. No harm in hoping.
God bless
- Status