NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?

That's a good point. The Bible seems to support the view that a fetus isn't a human being.

This is the same shit I've been trying to tell pro-lifers for years.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?

Doesn't say word about slavery being a sin either. Is that not a sin too?

It does mention slavery dumbass, before persenting an argument do some reading.

And yes, it is a sin, with the exception being wartime prisoners and their familes.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.Surely the woman is dealing with her alleged irresponsibility by having an abortion? To me it's much more responsible to get rid of some mindless foetus than to bring a child into the world that was never wanted.

It does mention slavery dumbass, before persenting an argument do some reading.

And yes, it is a sin, with the exception being wartime prisoners and their familes.

Wrong. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm) Slavery is never condemned as a sin in the Bible.

Doesn't say word about slavery either. Is that not a sin too?

You don't seem to get it.

The majority of people who are against abortion are christains and using the bible as a tool to say "it's immorally wrong to do so"

Yet the bible does not mention a single thing about it. One of the more common arguments I hear from pro-lifers is "It is god's creation", yet the bible says the miscarriage, which goes against what they say.

That's a good point. The Bible seems to support the view that a fetus isn't a human being.

It basicly would say that abortion is diffrent from murder, but still wrong.

Surely the woman is dealing with her alleged irresponsibility by having an abortion? To me it's much more responsible to get rid of some mindless foetus than to bring a child into the world that was never wanted.

My thoughts exactly, I think it would be kinder to get rid of it before it gets born to a single mother crack adict (perhaps im exadurating).

Canada City']You don't seem to get it.

I think I do. You say that abortion cannot be a sin because it doesn't say so in the Bible, yes?

Slavery is not condemned as a sin in the Bible either. Following your argument logically, that means slavery cannot be a sin either. Do you agree?

I think I do. You say that abortion cannot be a sin because it doesn't say so in the Bible, yes?

Slavery is not condemned as a sin in the Bible either. Following your argument logically, that means slavery cannot be a sin either. Do you agree?

If the Bible doesn't mention it as a sin, why should we assume it is?

I think I do. You say that abortion cannot be a sin because it doesn't say so in the Bible, yes?

Slavery is not condemned as a sin in the Bible either. Following your argument logically, that means slavery cannot be a sin either. Do you agree?

Technically, no.

But let's face, not everyone here agrees with the bible says, even the christains themselves.

Let me ask again: Pro-lifers who believe in God use the bible as a weapon to be against abortions, however the bible does not say anything about abortions or even considers the fetus to be a human yet.

So what's the deal? Is it another situation like being against Gay Marriage where they twist the words of the bible yet again to further their own agenda?

If the Bible doesn't mention it as a sin, why should we assume it is?

Because that's the teaching of the Catholic church.

Meh. There's enough contridiction in the bible to leave an argument for just about any position you could choose to take.

Canada City']
So what's the deal? Is it another situation like being against Gay Marriage where they twist the words of the bible yet again to further their own agenda?

No. It is Church teaching that:

1) Abortion is a sin
2) Slavery is a sin.

Even though neither are mentioned in the Bible as sins, both most definatly are. Therefore, to recieve an abortion is a sinful act.

"Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5)

This implies that you have the imagae of God from the moment of conception

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take 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)

The verses appear to teach that if a woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby is not injured, then only a fine is appropriate. However, if the child dies then the law of retaliation (lex talionis) should be applied. In other words, killing an unborn baby would carry the same penalty as killing a born baby. A baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb.
Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.

There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law.

See the link for more.

What is all this 'bible' + 'sin' garbage!

We had to work out how to wipe our backsides on our own why can't we work out moral issues without resorting to god. Each relegion has diffrent rules anyway as to what is moraly right.

We need to start looking at wheather people are being hurt (physicaly or mentaly) by certain actions, if they are then it is not moral.

Relating back to abortion, i think it is much better to abort and have the woman suffer for a while than for an unwanted child to be born into a enviroment where it doesn't get the support it needs in life and ends up having a horrible life.

However I do disagree of using it like a contriceptive after being carless.

Because that's the teaching of the Catholic church.

How does the Catholic church know if it's a sin, if the Bible does not say so?

Slavery is not condemned as a sin in the Bible either. Following your argument logically, that means slavery cannot be a sin either. Do you agree?

Good question. If we take the example of the Hebrews in Egypt, we can definitely see that God has (note that I'm starting this whole argument from the premise that the Bible is 100% accurate and true, just for the basis of argument -- I'm not making any statements about whether or not that is the case) objections to slavery when it's his own people who are being enslaved. However, he does at various times imply or just plain say that it's perfectly fine for them to enslave others.

-- ah, never mind, scratch everything. The SAB does a comparison table: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html

'Do not go to the Bible for counsel, for it will say both yes and no'.

Footnote: That something is not a sin does not make it morally right (er... but that's opinion, not Scripture, I have no idea what God's thoughts on the matter are). Also, some things are sins unless God specifically says they aren't -- contrast 'thou shalt not kill' with 'wipe out everyone in Canaan' -- so an argument could be made that slaves are only okay when God says so.

<snip>

Well sure, and I would be agreeing with you if this was just a straight forward abortion thread. (I'm actually pro-choice)

But it's not. The OP claimed that if something isn't mentioned in the Bible as a sin then it can never be considered a sin ever. This is demonstratively false. So I called it.

How does the Catholic church know if it's a sin, if the Bible does not say so?

God told them.

Wrong. Slavery is never condemned as a sin in the Bible.

Slavery may not be singled out such as other sins such as the taking of anothers life. However it is mentioned when Moses leads his people from slavery! God supported Moses in this and so we can assume that in the bibles eyes slavery IS a sin.

Is there anything in the bible that supports that abortion is a sin? I'm not too knowlageable about the bible being a buddhist.

Slavery may not be singled out such as other sins such as the taking of anothers life. However it is mentioned when Moses leads his people from slavery! God supported Moses in this and so we can assume that in the bibles eyes slavery IS a sin.

There was more slaves than just the Israelites, you know. I don't remember God sending anyone to save them.

Besides, the slavery was a punishment from God in the first place, if I recall correctly.

Okay then bad example, but surly there is not a difinitive list of sins in the bible, how can there be with society and technology evolving all the time opening new moral issues all the time.

Okay then bad example, but surly there is not a difinitive list of sins in the bible, how can there be with society and technology evolving all the time opening new moral issues all the time.

The OP suggested otherwise.

God told them.

Maybe they just took too much LSD.

And if:


Besides, the slavery was a punishment from God in the first place, if I recall correctly.

If slavery was a punishment by God, then God would have made the slavers sin, which would contradict with the whole free will thingie.

Does God make other people sin?

Shouldn't we be descussing abortion?

I think that there must be sins that aren't mentioned in the bible as they were not around when the bible was written.

In the days of the bible i doubt that "abortion" was even a word let alone a procidure. The earlist form of abortion I heard of was a knitting needle and a bottle of gin.

That's a good point. The Bible seems to support the view that a fetus isn't a human being.
Indeed. This once again showshow totally messed up in the head those religious pro-life loonies are :rolleyes:
They only mention the Bible when it fits their purpose, twisting it around however they please.

Does God make other people sin?

Lets count the number of naturally occuring abortions and find out...

Maybe they just took too much LSD.

Maybe. Cardinals are notorious amongst drug-circles for their consumption of narcotics. It doesn't change the fact that it is now church teaching that slavery and abortion are sins.


If slavery was a punishment by God, then God would have made the slavers sin, which would contradict with the whole free will thingie.

Does God make other people sin?

Probably. Since the slavers were all un-baptized, it's irrelevant, because they'll be going to limbo anyway.

Shouldn't we be descussing abortion?

I think that there must be sins that aren't mentioned in the bible as they were not around when the bible was written.

In the days of the bible i doubt that "abortion" was even a word let alone a procidure. The earlist form of abortion I heard of was a knitting needle and a bottle of gin.

I'm surely not an expert, but I think that abortion is a pretty old practise. Certain toxic plants can lead to an abortion.

Surely the woman is dealing with her alleged irresponsibility by having an abortion? To me it's much more responsible to get rid of some mindless foetus than to bring a child into the world that was never wanted.


So what your saying is that orphans/foster children be killed because they
dont have good parents?

A lot of good people who changed the world would be killed if we used this method.

Someone send an e-mail to the pope or something.

Surely the woman is dealing with her alleged irresponsibility by having an abortion? To me it's much more responsible to get rid of some mindless foetus than to bring a child into the world that was never wanted.


To me, it's a matter of a women being intelligent enough to keep her legs closed. If she falls for a man's BS, oh well. Abortion shouldn't be an option for 'oops.'

And men as well should be intelligent enough to know that if you do have a kid, and want nothing to do with the mother, you will be punished with 18 years of incredibly anti-paternal child support payments.

So- maybe if everyone took responsibility, including women and children, maybe there wouldn't be so many unwanted children in this world, and maybe even the STD numbers would go down too.

So- maybe if everyone took responsibility, including women and children, maybe there wouldn't be so many unwanted children in this world, and maybe even the STD numbers would go down too.

And magical fairies would dance in the sky, raining happy fairy dust down amongst the cheering crowds below?

Maybe. Cardinals are notorious amongst drug-circles for their consumption of narcotics. It doesn't change the fact that it is now church teaching that slavery and abortion are sins.

True.




Probably. Since the slavers were all un-baptized, it's irrelevant, because they'll be going to limbo anyway.

Of course the question is still interesting: would God make people sin?

Of course the question is still interesting: would God make people sin?

I assume not. Freedom of will, and all that jazz.

True.




Of course the question is still interesting: would God make people sin?


Na, we can do that just fine on our own.

To me, it's a matter of a women being intelligent enough to keep her legs closed. If she falls for a man's BS, oh well. Abortion shouldn't be an option for 'oops.'

Uhhh.... what about Rape?

To me, it's a matter of a women being intelligent enough to keep her legs closed. If she falls for a man's BS, oh well. Abortion shouldn't be an option for 'oops.'

Indeed. It is so much better for the child to be born to parents who do not want it than to never reach conciousness in the first place.

I remember a case about a 16/17 year old girl that got raped and pregnant and then the pope said he would condem her if she had an abortion.

Personaly that just makes me sick... and glad im not christian.

Uhhh.... what about Rape?


Well she should have told the man to use a condom.

j/k. thats a different story.

Indeed. It is so much better for the child to be born to parents who do not want it than to never reach conciousness in the first place.

But surely if is it does not reach conciousness then it doesn't exist as a sentiant being. So it would be the same as killing a weed.

I remember a case about a 16/17 year old girl that got raped and pregnant and then the pope said he would condem her if she had an abortion.

Personaly that just makes me sick... and glad im not christian.

Source? I doubt the Pope condemned her personally. There's like a auto-excommunication for that so he doesn't have to.

But surely if is it does not reach conciousness then it doesn't exist as a sentiant being. So it would be the same as killing a weed.


How do you know for a solid fact that it isn't concious as a fetus?

It was on the BBC news.

but I do remember someone saying she would go to hell if she had an abortion.

It was on the BBC news.

but I do remember someone saying she would go to hell if she had an abortion.

They all do, apparantly.

How do you know for a solid fact that it isn't concious as a fetus?

As a late stage fetus it is- or at least it responds to stimuli. But how exactly do you imagine an embryo without a neural net and brain can have conciousness ?

theres some information about a few cases on
http://www.newint.org/easier-english/abortion/restrict.html

How can god say that 11 year old girls who have been raped will go to hell if they dont endanger thier life to give birth to a child they wouldn't know how to look after anyway.

It was on the BBC news.

but I do remember someone saying she would go to hell if she had an abortion.



Sorry, not familar with limie news sources.
but only one source?
you need to back it up with at least two man.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?(too tired to read whole thread, so if it was said, then apologies.)
The Bible does not mention Abortion as a Sin. but it does mention that Murder is a Sin.

the real argument is "At What Point Is A Fetus a Living Human Being?"

when it can be defined as a Living Human Being, then aborting it from that point on becomes murder.

As a late stage fetus it is- or at least it responds to stimuli. But how exactly do you imagine an embryo without a neural net and brain can have conciousness ?

Plants respond to stimuli (light, water, heat etc.) Does this mean they should not be killed either?

theres some information about a few cases on
http://www.newint.org/easier-english/abortion/restrict.html

How can god say that 11 year old girls who have been raped will go to hell if they dont endanger thier life to give birth to a child they wouldn't know how to look after anyway.

He's God. He can do whatever he likes.

Sorry, not familar with limie news sources.careful, this can be seen as flamebaiting.
but only one source?
you need to back it up with at least two man.since when?

[and don't forget to back it up with two different statements of the rules declaring the need for two sources.]

(too tired to read whole thread, so if it was said, then apologies.)
The Bible does not mention Abortion as a Sin. but it does mention that Murder is a Sin.

the real argument is "At What Point Is A Fetus a Living Human Being?"

when it can be defined as a Living Human Being, then aborting it from that point on becomes murder.

Good point. It is hard to tell as not everyone spends the same amount of time in the womb, a premeturly born child is still classed as sentiant, would it have been if it had stayed in the womb for longer?

He's God. He can do whatever he likes.

Then why do christians believe that he is pureist of the pure and the most compasinate being ever?

As it was said, but people don't read, the Bible does consider the fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception:

"Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)

Therefore, abortion equals murder, which is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.

As for bringing a child to a miserable life, you can always give him/her in adoption, so that a family in better conditions can raise him/her.

PS: By the way, there's evil in the world because God gave us free will, the ability to do whatever we want.

Good point. It is hard to tell as not everyone spends the same amount of time in the womb, a premeturly born child is still classed as sentiant, would it have been if it had stayed in the womb for longer?
that's what makes it difficult. some say it's murder if the abortion happens only at the third trimester... others say it's at the point of Conception.

As it was said, but people don't read, the Bible does consider the fetus to be a human being from the moment of conception:

"Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)

Therefore, abortion equals murder, which is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.

As for bringing a child to a miserable life, you can always give him/her in adoption, so that a family in better conditions can raise him/her.

PS: By the way, there's evil in the world because God gave us free will, the ability to do whatever we want.

It says "sinner", not "human being".

EDIT: Besides, here's a very different translation of Psalm 51:5

51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As for bringing a child to a miserable life, you can always give him/her in adoption, so that a family in better conditions can raise him/her.

Adoption isn't always an option especialy in third world countries. And the child could still have a poor standard of living due to spending it all in care homes.

It says "sinner", not "human being".
Can you name something that is concieved and is a "Sinner?"

Do you think Animals Sin?

Doesn't say word about slavery either. Is that not a sin too?
Wrong. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm) Slavery is never condemned as a sin in the Bible.
Somehow these two statements do not compute. :rolleyes:

This is the same shit I've been trying to tell pro-lifers for years.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.
Wow using a baby as punishment?

Im sure that kid will grow up just fine:rolleyes:

It says "sinner", not "human being".
Geez... Human beings are the only ones that can be sinners, since only sentient beings can sin.

Somehow these two statements do not compute. :rolleyes:

Edited. Happy now?

To me, it's a matter of a women being intelligent enough to keep her legs closed. If she falls for a man's BS, oh well. Abortion shouldn't be an option for 'oops.'

And men as well should be intelligent enough to know that if you do have a kid, and want nothing to do with the mother, you will be punished with 18 years of incredibly anti-paternal child support payments.

So- maybe if everyone took responsibility, including women and children, maybe there wouldn't be so many unwanted children in this world, and maybe even the STD numbers would go down too.
Another "lets use babies to learn them women" attitudes :rolleyes:
Babies should NEVER be used as PUNISHMENT for a womans (as you percive it) promiscuity

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.


and what about the man responsible for helping to get that woman pregnant. It's pretty damned impossible for a woman to get pregnant alone. If i'm reading your logic correctly, it's the woman's responsibility and she should be forced to have a child against her will because she made a mistake? But the man inevitably gets off scott-free since it's his choice to be involved or not. That makes no sense and just reinforces all sorts of sexist attitudes that still exist in society.

I'm not personally in agreement with abortion as a form of birth control, but I very strongly believe that that is an individual woman's right to choose. Who am I or anyone to tell a woman what she should be allowed to do with her body?

For those of you who think that it's the woman's responsibility and too bad for her... think about this little scenario which I assure you is completely true.

Woman has four children, she's only 25 and her last two children are both under the age of 2. She finds out that she's pregnant again. Her husband is abusive is many ways and keeps her from seeing anyone or doing anything other than cleaning and caring for the kids. He has no income and refuses to get a job. They live every month off of the family allowance cheques that she receives. He is a poor father and is abusive to the four children already in the house. They had been using condoms, but somehow she gets pregnant. Should she be forced to have that child?

Until you have walked in the shoes of a woman who has gotten pregnant by accident, you shouldn't be judging her.

Sorry, this always gets me worked up.

Another "lets use babies to learn them women" attitudes :rolleyes:
Babies should NEVER be used as PUNISHMENT for a womans (as you percive it) promiscuity

couldn't agree more - how about that girl who gets pregnant the first time that she has sex. Wow, what a promiscuous woman eh? I don't personally get the logic behind it.

Another "lets use babies to learn them women" attitudes :rolleyes:
Babies should NEVER be used as PUNISHMENT for a womans (as you percive it) promiscuity
so do you believe that Abortions should be used to allow women (and men, let's keep the responsiblities spread to all responsible parties.) to screw around?

Can you name something that is concieved and is a "Sinner?"

Do you think Animals Sin?

Obviously both fetuses and human beings/persons can be sinners.

Anyways, here is a very different translation of Psam 51:5

51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Geez... Human beings are the only ones that can be sinners, since only sentient beings can sin.

But a fetus is not sentient until very late in its development.

Obviously both fetuses and human beings/persons can be sinners.

Anyways, here is a very different translation of Psam 51:5

51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



But a fetus is not sentient until very late in its development.specified... a Human Fetus.

and that is where most of the arguments are. If a fertilized egg is considered a human, then abortion is murder. if it's a human only after it leaves the mother's womb and lives on it's own, then it's not. (left out all the varying trimesters on purpose.)

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?
Pshaw. You forget the #1 rule of Religion. Everything not specifically approved is a Sin, and its corrolary, nothing approved can be a Sin.

So, if god tells you to Kill, you're golden, but hitting the snooze button is a Sin.

Canada City']You don't seem to get it.

The majority of people who are against abortion are christains and using the bible as a tool to say "it's immorally wrong to do so"

Yet the bible does not mention a single thing about it. One of the more common arguments I hear from pro-lifers is "It is god's creation", yet the bible says the miscarriage, which goes against what they say.

"miscarriage" is not the same as abortion. rofl

Jesus said, "Suffer the little children unto me"

There are numerous passages alluding to how human life is sacred...

specified... a Human Fetus.

and that is where most of the arguments are. If a fertilized egg is considered a human, then abortion is murder. if it's a human only after it leaves the mother's womb and lives on it's own, then it's not. (left out all the varying trimesters on purpose.)

how is a ferti.lized eggt NOT human?

What else is it... a tree? A rock? A pig?

I cannot believe how anti-lifers (hehe) try to make abortion easier to swallow by rationalizing that a human embryo is not human.

Wouldn't it be nice if the anti-choicers had something solid behind their argument? Then we could have a legitimate debate instead of people just screaming at each other unable to make the other side budge an inch.

As for that bit about slavery: no. Slavery is not a sin. Hell, slavery is sanctioned by the bible. But does anyone really think that slavery's a good thing? The vast majority, I believe, think not. So here we have a fine example of people thinking beyond the bible. But for some reason, abortion, WHICH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED, is apparently condemned by the bible? Logical fallacy, anyone?

So tell you what, holy rollers, let's all live by the bible, bring back slavery, and not have abor- oh...wait...hmm, the bible gives you no guidance on abortion. So can we have a legitimate debate with ACTUAL SUBSTANCE to our arguments?

Wouldn't it be nice if the anti-choicers had something solid behind their argument? Then we could have a legitimate debate instead of people just screaming at each other unable to make the other side budge an inch.

As for that bit about slavery: no. Slavery is not a sin. Hell, slavery is sanctioned by the bible. But does anyone really think that slavery's a good thing? The vast majority, I believe, think not. So here we have a fine example of people thinking beyond the bible. But for some reason, abortion, WHICH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED, is apparently condemned by the bible? Logical fallacy, anyone?

So tell you what, holy rollers, let's all live by the bible, bring back slavery, and not have abor- oh...wait...hmm, the bible gives you no guidance on abortion. So can we have a legitimate debate with ACTUAL SUBSTANCE to our arguments?

Biblically speaking, God creates all life. That includes all human life. Every person alive today is alive because

a)God wants them to be alive

and

b)Their mothers didn't murder them

I am against abortion unless it's to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape/incest.

BUT while I disapprove (life should be given a chance), I wouldn't vote to end abortion, because if it becomes illegal, it will not cease... it will simply become far more dangerous.

how is a ferti.lized eggt NOT human?

What else is it... a tree? A rock? A pig?

I cannot believe how anti-lifers (hehe) try to make abortion easier to swallow by rationalizing that a human embryo is not human.
simple, in scientific terms, it can be classified as a cell. oh, and carefull, I'm only giving what I know. I am not an Anti-lifer (as you so quaintly put it.) I am neither for nor against abortion.

As for that bit about slavery: no. Slavery is not a sin. Hell, slavery is sanctioned by the bible. But does anyone really think that slavery's a good thing? The vast majority, I believe, think not. So here we have a fine example of people thinking beyond the bible. But for some reason, abortion, WHICH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED, is apparently condemned by the bible? Logical fallacy, anyone?

It's not condemned by the Bible. It's condemned by the church. Like slavery.

simple, in scientific terms, it can be classified as a cell. oh, and carefull, I'm only giving what I know. I am not an Anti-lifer (as you so quaintly put it.) I am neither for nor against abortion.

...a human cell. Why would anyone want to classify something growing in the womb of a woman as unhuman?

It most certainly is human. But if it makes people feel better about killing it to think of it as a rock, that's okay by me.

hehe

It's not condemned by the Bible. It's condemned by the church. Like slavery.

It is condemned in the Bible, by way of all the references to the sanctity of human life.

how is a ferti.lized eggt NOT human?

What else is it... a tree? A rock? A pig?

I cannot believe how anti-lifers (hehe) try to make abortion easier to swallow by rationalizing that a human embryo is not human.

Strawman.

Most pro-choicers say that a fetus is human, but not a human person.

So tell you what, holy rollers, let's all live by the bible, bring back slavery, and not have abor- oh...wait...hmm, the bible gives you no guidance on abortion. So can we have a legitimate debate with ACTUAL SUBSTANCE to our arguments?

I've already given Biblical examples of where abortion can be said to be opposed. See my earlier post. I'll give you the link again

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html

screw the bible and all the "techings" i mean, what has it taught us that we cant figure out on our own? :sniper: :mp5: :p

It's not condemned by the Bible. It's condemned by the church. Like slavery.

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take 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

The verses appear to teach that if a woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby is not injured, then only a fine is appropriate. However, if the child dies then the law of retaliation (lex talionis) should be applied. In other words, killing an unborn baby would carry the same penalty as killing a born baby. A baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb.
Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.

There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law.

There. Biblical support. The site goes on to give legal and philosophical arguements as well

It says "sinner", not "human being".


In order to be a sinner you have to be a human being, by definition

There. Biblical support. The site goes on to give legal and philosophical arguements as well

That seems to refer to a fully formed baby though, not an embryo or fetus.

But a fetus is not sentient until very late in its development.

True, but we are not arguing about sentience. We are arguing about whether or not the Bible says it is a sinner. If it does then it is logical to assume that the Bible considers a fetus a full human person.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?
you are missing the point where there is only one version of the Bible that translates the verse you are talking about to be a miscarriage, in fact it's a version that has a lot of mistranslations.

here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html), see if this helps you.


btw, before I get jumped all over, that's not the only source for this info, it's just the first one I found.

Yes, I think abortion is a sin, no I don't think it should be illegal.

That seems to refer to a fully formed baby though, not an embryo or fetus.

It says that he was a sinner when concieved. "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

(fun playing the devil's advocate. hehe)

I've done some research to find out if life begins at conception, or anything else to cast a Biblical stance on abortion:

Jeremiah 1:4-5
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

----

Greek Orthodox (hehe... I'm not in the Greek Orthodox church) stances:

The Sanctity of Human Life
A major and overarching concern of the Church arises with its commitment to the God-given sanctity of human life. Some of the develop*ments of the biological manipulation of human life, though promising amazing therapeutic achieve*ments, may also be understood and undermining respect for the integrity of human existence. Others may be seen as providing a new means of healing human illness. Discering the difference is the challenge the Church faces in developing its teaching on these newly appearing issues.

Human Life
The Church's teaching about human life is based on Holy Tradition, including the Scriptures as a primary resource and the ongoing teaching and interpretation of the Orthodox Faith. Life is a gift of God in the formation of the created world. All life is precious, but God uniquely creates human life in the "image and likeness of God." Human life as such is deserving of deep respect and individual human beings are to be treated in accordance to their inherent human dignity.

Abortion
The Church from the very beginning of existence has sought to protect "the life in the womb" and has considered abortion as a form of murder in its theology and canons. Orthodox Christians are admonished not to encourage women to have abortions, nor to assist in the committing of abortion. Those who perform abortions and those who have sought it are doing an immoral deed, and are called to repentance.

It says that he was a sinner when concieved. "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

but wait, fetuses aren't human! They're boxes of Cheerios!

In order to be a sinner you have to be a human being, by definition

Then please quote the Bible saying that only human beings can be sinners.

And please explain the difference between those two translations of Psalm 51:5 and show why the first one (where fetuses are labeled as sinners) is more accurate than the second one.

a) "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)

b) 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Why abortion is right or wrong is the question being asked. Those that say it is a sin have not presented any argument except that God says it is a sin and therefore we should not do it. I find that argument flawed because it offers no practical line of reasoning. Those of you who say well it is not in the Bible so therefore it is not a sin are flawed too because the Bible is not a rulebook with a absolute yes or no to every question of morality. Reason shows us that abortion is wrong.

What gives one person the right to claim that we are equal? That right is the fact that every single person on this planet has human dignity. No person has more or less dignity then the next person. That is the reason that the world can co-exist. Every time human dignity is neglected or forgotten, the world slips into evil. Slavery was and still is allowed to exist in our world because one group of people deny another group's human dignity. The Holocaust was ignored because the Nazis convinced themselves that the Jewish man was less then a man. Abortions are preformed at a rate of 1.3 million babies a year in the U.S. alone because we deny the fact that the baby is alive until he or she takes their first breath of air. How can we deny a baby's human dignity and allow abortion to continue? The facts are all there www.abortionfacts.com.

We must ask ourselves the question of how can we claim things like slavery to be evil and over look abortion and claim that it is a mother's right to abort her child? A slave owner could have ended the life of their slave and no one would have even blinked an eye. Take time to discern this issue because it is more important then people think. Human dignity is always under attack and if we truly value our human dignity and freedom then we must help to protect our neighbors.

simple, in scientific terms, it can be classified as a cell. oh, and carefull, I'm only giving what I know. I am not an Anti-lifer (as you so quaintly put it.) I am neither for nor against abortion.

Big diffrence. A cell can be part of a fertalised egg. Not the whole thing. An embryo itself is made up of cells.

Then please quote the Bible saying that only human beings can be sinners.

It is implicit. There is no quote in the Bible saying animals are sinners. The reason for this is that sin by definition is rebellion against God. God did not give any commands to animals so they have noting to rebel against


And please explain the difference between those two translations of Psalm 51:5 and show why the first one (where fetuses are labeled as sinners) is more accurate than the second one.

a) "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)

b) 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

You'd have to show me where the second one was from. I'll check multiple vertions for you. In either case however my arguement remains. "In sin did my mother concieve me" can only mean one of two things. Either the author of this Pslams birth was illigitmate and it was public knowledge that he was illigitamate (else he would not write it down) or he was marked by sin from conception, thus making him human from conception by biblical standards. Since the author was David, we know he was not born illigamately. And since God specificly commands humans to "be fruitful and increase in number" being concieved itself cannot be a sin.

To those of you on the "pro-life" side. Would you rather a child be raised by people who do not want it than to be aborted? Do you really think this is a life that a careing god would wish for one of his own?

Why abortion is right or wrong is the question being asked. Those that say it is a sin have not presented any argument except that God says it is a sin and therefore we should not do it. I find that argument flawed because it offers no practical line of reasoning. Those of you who say well it is not in the Bible so therefore it is not a sin are flawed too because the Bible is not a rulebook with a absolute yes or no to every question of morality. Reason shows us that abortion is wrong.

What gives one person the right to claim that we are equal? That right is the fact that every single person on this planet has human dignity. No person has more or less dignity then the next person. That is the reason that the world can co-exist. Every time human dignity is neglected or forgotten, the world slips into evil. Slavery was and still is allowed to exist in our world because one group of people deny another group's human dignity. The Holocaust was ignored because the Nazis convinced themselves that the Jewish man was less then a man. Abortions are preformed at a rate of 1.3 million babies a year in the U.S. alone because we deny the fact that the baby is alive until he or she takes their first breath of air. How can we deny a baby's human dignity and allow abortion to continue? The facts are all there www.abortionfacts.com.

We must ask ourselves the question of how can we claim things like slavery to be evil and over look abortion and claim that it is a mother's right to abort her child? A slave owner could have ended the life of their slave and no one would have even blinked an eye. Take time to discern this issue because it is more important then people think. Human dignity is always under attack and if we truly value our human dignity and freedom then we must help to protect our neighbors.

I like to put it this way:


Which is the greater evil?

a) The woman not having the right to end her pregnancy prematurely

or

b) The fetus/baby not having the right to live

?

Geez... Human beings are the only ones that can be sinners, since only sentient beings can sin.

Some would argue that the higher primates are sentient beings as well as humans. And dolphins, elephants etcetera...

To those of you on the "pro-life" side. Would you rather a child be raised by people who do not want it than to be aborted? Do you really think this is a life that a careing god would wish for one of his own?

Absolutely. The CHANCE TO LIVE, no matter how hard life might seem, is better than not having a chance to live.

If you think life isn't worth living in difficult circumstances, why don't we just nuke the impoverished third world?

It is implicit. There is no quote in the Bible saying animals are sinners. The reason for this is that sin by definition is rebellion against God. God did not give any commands to animals so they have noting to rebel against.

This can hardly be accurate, since a fetus has no way of rebelling against God. So either: a fetus is not a sinner or "Rebellion against God" is not a good definition for sin.

You'd have to show me where the second one was from. I'll check multiple vertions for you

It's from the Sceptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm).

To those of you on the "pro-life" side. Would you rather a child be raised by people who do not want it than to be aborted? Do you really think this is a life that a careing god would wish for one of his own?

It is not our choice to make. Humans do not have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

Some would argue that the higher primates are sentient beings as well as humans. And dolphins, elephants etcetera...
and since the argument is Sinning, thus a religious nature, it can be countered with the fact that only Man ate from the tree of knowledge even after being told not to.

notice that not even the serpent took a bite from it's fruit.

I like to put it this way:
Which is the greater evil?
a) The woman not having the right to end her pregnancy prematurely
or
b) The fetus/baby not having the right to live
?

That depends on the level of development of the fetus. In the period where 90% of all abortions take place I'd say a).

It is not our choice to make. Humans do not have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

Really ? Which of the 75 billion gods does then ?

The Didache, earliest “how to” Christian document

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

I am against abortion unless it's to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape/incest.

BUT while I disapprove (life should be given a chance), I wouldn't vote to end abortion, because if it becomes illegal, it will not cease... it will simply become far more dangerous.

Indeed. The horror stories of women driven by desperation into having an underground abortion are not something we'd like to return to, I'm sure.

You know guys I have a fix for this whole problem. First we legalize the morning after pill. Then we make available over the counter. Now the only person who has to know about it is the person buying it and the person behind the counter. I know this will not work because then the two major political parties could not stir up the nation over this "great debate". They would have to find some thing new to get your little minds off whatever it is that the spotlight is "on" that they do not want you asking about.:D

You'd have to show me where the second one was from. I'll check multiple vertions for you. In either case however my arguement remains. "In sin did my mother concieve me" can only mean one of two things. Either the author of this Pslams birth was illigitmate and it was public knowledge that he was illigitamate (else he would not write it down) or he was marked by sin from conception, thus making him human from conception by biblical standards. Since the author was David, we know he was not born illigamately. And since God specificly commands humans to "be fruitful and increase in number" being concieved itself cannot be a sin.

Or maybe David knew more than we do.

However it's quite a stretch from "in sin did my mother conceive me" to "he was marked by sin", since "in sin" clearly refers to the act of conception and not to the object of conception.

It is not our choice to make. Humans do not have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

Oh dear ... so all those wars were *really* bad news then? ;)

well are you asking, is abortion a sin...in the eyes of the church? or the bible? or is abortion a sin generally? cause i just think it depends on the circumstances of the abortion.
Plus i don't think the church have a right to say if abortion is right or wrong because it doesn't say anything in the bible, so who are they to judge? (this also includes homosexuality and the likes).
If the mother or child cannot have a good life then i think abortion can be acceptable...in some cases. But theres also adoption, unless lives are at risk. And rape...depends how the mother feels, but i think women shouldn't let it get in the way...unless there are other problems. and you?

notice that not even the serpent took a bite from it's fruit.

The serpent was Satan, right?

You know guys I have a fix for this whole problem. First we legalize the morning after pill. Then we make available over the counter. Now the only person who has to know about it is the person buying it and the person behind the counter.

Unfortunately the morning after pill still results in the termination of a fertilised egg. Of course, the female body does that often anyway - but THAT is because God wills it - so those eggs are clearly not worth saving.

So what your saying is that orphans/foster children be killed because they
dont have good parents?

A lot of good people who changed the world would be killed if we used this method.If the pregnant woman chooses to have it adopted, that's fine, but it's not necessarily a viable option for all people in the situation.

To me, it's a matter of a women being intelligent enough to keep her legs closed. If she falls for a man's BS, oh well. Abortion shouldn't be an option for 'oops.'

And men as well should be intelligent enough to know that if you do have a kid, and want nothing to do with the mother, you will be punished with 18 years of incredibly anti-paternal child support payments.

So- maybe if everyone took responsibility, including women and children, maybe there wouldn't be so many unwanted children in this world, and maybe even the STD numbers would go down too.Firstly, you seem to suggest that women only have sex because a man wants them too. Plenty of women - most, I should imagine - actually like sex and take part in it because they actively wish to do so.

Secondly, not every woman who has had an abortion has behaved irresponsibly. Approximately 60% of abortions in the UK were performed on women who had been using contraception at the time of conception (Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/472564.stm)).

Should a woman 'keep her legs closed' until such times as she's ready to have a kid? Some women (and men, for that matter) will never be ready to have a kid; I for one am a female who doesn't ever want children but actually likes sex (shock horror!). Getting your tubes tied is certainly an option, but unless you're prepared to fork out a lot of money and go private, this option is nigh impossible until you're at least 25 (here in the UK anyway).

For those younger than that, and women wanting children later in life, telling them they can't have sex just because it might lead to pregnancy despite their best efforts is to deny them the opportunity to engage in a perfectly normal adult activity, in which most of the rest of the population would still engage.

Indeed. The horror stories of women driven by desperation into having an underground abortion are not something we'd like to return to, I'm sure.

I do, however, favor the use of guilt trips to deter women from seeking abortions.

hehe

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?

I don't speak for the Bible thumpers, only as one individual who regularly reads the Bible for himself.

My understanding of the Bible is that killing babies, either born or unborn, is a rather unattractive affair. One has to look at the motive behind it, of course, to find the wrong (or right). You are right in saying that the Bible does not speak clearly about the abortion issue. But that was never the purpose of the Bible. It was to help bring us into an understanding of the nature of God, not to give us a list of rights and wrongs. From our understanding of God, Christians are able to discern the difference between right and wrong.

However, while a Christian may hate that which is wrong (while loving the person regardless of their wrongs), that does not mean he has to make a law that bans all wrongs. To put it another way, while I do not like abortion, and believe that it tends to go against Gods intentions, neither am I in favour of voting for a law that bans it. I don't like divorce either, but I don't think it should be banned.

The Bible does not outlaw divorce, but makes a concession, knowing that the 'hearts' of humans are hard. Jesus simply points out the difference between right and wrong, but does not suggest that we make a legislation that enforces it.

With abortion, though, it all gets a bit tricky. Because if the unborn can be considered a human, and that all humans are equal (with regards to rights), then it is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of especially those who cannot protect their own rights.

well are you asking, is abortion a sin...in the eyes of the church? or the bible? or is abortion a sin generally? cause i just think it depends on the circumstances of the abortion.

I agree. It does depend purely on the circumstances. No point blasting the whole process by examining the extremes, such as rape cases, and abortion as a contraceptive. Each case should be assessed on its merits. Of course abortion should not be used as a contraceptive. Of course a rape victim should be allowed to abort. We can't just totally legalise, or totally ban abortions.

Incidentally I also think that a foetus is human from conception, but only a person once it has a fully formed brain. Of course there will always be the debate "how well formed does a foetal brain need to be to function", but I think that's a thread for another time ;)

Of course, the female body does that often anyway - but THAT is because God wills it - so those eggs are clearly not worth saving.

You really think so?

The Didache, earliest “how to” Christian document

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
the earliest? did they have abortion then? and even still ehat says they are right?

I think I do. You say that abortion cannot be a sin because it doesn't say so in the Bible, yes?

Slavery is not condemned as a sin in the Bible either. Following your argument logically, that means slavery cannot be a sin either. Do you agree?

I kind of agree with this statement, if you are going on the basis of the bible doesn't outright condem it it's not a sin.
However it is something society has deemed morally wrong.
I think slavery is wrong, but you don't see me saying "The bible says so. You hear me say because everyone should be equal or because we are advanced enought to know it's not fair"

I'm not an advocate of using abortion as a means of regualr birth control, but I do support the idea of it being a women's choice. It's her body. But again I don't say the bible doesn't condemn it. I think the point the person who started this form is trying to make is that bible thumpers should not be able to tell a women she will rot in hell because abortion is a sin. If you don't agree with it fine, but don't use fake statements to harrass a person who does agree with the practice.

The serpent was Satan, right?
the great corruptor it'sself.

The Didache, earliest “how to” Christian document

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

That's interesting.

Is that part of God's revealed word to mankind or is this just some traditional teaching and/or interpretation?

See the link for more.

You are misquoting. The original words of the Bible implied not just premature birth but miscarriage. The injury discussed was regarding the pregnant woman. It is saying that you if you are fighting with another man and you accidentally strike a pregnant woman and she is uninjured, but has a premature birth or miscarriage, you must pay a fine. If she is injured then you are held accountable for the injury just as if you'd done it on purpose.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=21&version=31

Notice the footnote.

You really think so?

Of course not. But judging from their actions it appears most "pro-lifers" do.

I believe (intentional or not) this thread is a diversion in the abortion debate to characterize pro-lifers as "religious people" that do not have valid reasons to oppose abortion unless they are "religious." Then the strategy is to divide "religious people" over the issue and make the pro-life position seem irrelevant.

Regardless of what the Bible says, there are plenty of reasons to oppose abortion on it's own merits. For example, I have to ask if anyone here would be opposed to abortion after the point medical science (not you or me) has determined the unborn child feels pain?

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

source of these verses and others: http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-cultureandsocietyinfluences/abortionoflifeinthewomb-sinandgodsforgiveness.asp

Of course not. But judging from their actions it appears most "pro-lifers" do.

I just can't understand where hardcore pro-lifers are coming from.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

source of these verses and others: http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-cultureandsocietyinfluences/abortionoflifeinthewomb-sinandgodsforgiveness.asp

One, the first and last verses only show that babies are gestated. We know children reach a stage INSIDE the womb where they can hear sounds outside and can kick and move. We're aware of this. At the stage the third example references we only allow abortion in protection of the life of the mother.

Two, the middle example only shows a child that was born. In the case of my birth, I am quite happy that my mother cared for what would become me inside the womb. Jesus was foreseen and his coming was prepared for long before his conception. Would you then argue that all people that were foreseen by men ALIVE from the moment they are prepared for (men like John and Jesus)?

The point is that God knows not just that a person exists now, but that they will exists and thus can set things into motion before their existence. Your links don't show anything other than this.

For example, I have to ask if anyone here would be opposed to abortion after the point medical science (not you or me) has determined the unborn child feels pain?

I would, yes - since for something which can have experiences life has value.
However, this happens well after the period in which 90% of abortions take place; and most of the remaining 10% is to save the mothers life.

Because that's the teaching of the Catholic church.

That's for God himself to decide.

One, the first and last verses only show that babies are gestated. We know children reach a stage INSIDE the womb where they can hear sounds outside and can kick and move. We're aware of this. At the stage the third example references we only allow abortion in protection of the life of the mother.

Interesting, I'm not sure where you live, but in the United States a woman can have an abortion up to nine months for any reason whatsoever. This is one of the reasons there is a lot of contention over what is called partial birth abortion. I know most people in the United States believe what you said is true here according to Roe v. Wade (Jan. 22, 1973). However, most people are unaware that the companion decisions Doe v. Bolton (Jan 22, 1973) defined "health" in such broad terms that can be applied not only to physical well being but emotional, familial, and psychological as well. This has come to mean that a woman can be 27 years old and believe she is either too young or too old to have a baby and have an abortion. So, your statement may be true where you're from, but not true everywhere.

Quote by The Alma Mater:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
For example, I have to ask if anyone here would be opposed to abortion after the point medical science (not you or me) has determined the unborn child feels pain?

I would, yes - since for something which can have experiences life has value.
However, this happens well after the period in which 90% of abortions take place; and most of the remaining 10% is to save the mothers life.

Medical science vs. abortion statistics do not confirm your statements here. But not getting into that yet, are you stating for the record that you would be opposed to abortion after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?

And how do others feel about this? Would others who are not "pro-life" be opposed to abortion after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Just curious.

This is the same shit I've been trying to tell pro-lifers for years.

Still, Abortion should only be for rape or if her life is in danger, because otherwise the woman will have to deal with it for being so damn irresponsible.

You Chauvanist pig, Its never the mens fault? Men can't be the irresponsible ones?
Fuck you.
Im male btw.

You Chauvanist pig, Its never the mens fault? Men can't be the irresponsible ones?
Fuck you.
Im male btw.


Good point, hard core one, as who knows how many times incest continues as pregnancies are the proof that's so easy to get rid of. The subject of rape makes me incredibly uncomfortable. However, I cannot help but think that if the position is that the unborn is a live human being that deserves the protection of the law - that not even the rapist gets the death sentence.

Interesting, I'm not sure where you live, but in the United States a woman can have an abortion up to nine months for any reason whatsoever. This is one of the reasons there is a lot of contention over what is called partial birth abortion. I know most people in the United States believe what you said is true here according to Roe v. Wade (Jan. 22, 1973). However, most people are unaware that the companion decisions Doe v. Bolton (Jan 22, 1973) defined "health" in such broad terms that can be applied not only to physical well being but emotional, familial, and psychological as well. This has come to mean that a woman can be 27 years old and believe she is either too young or too old to have a baby and have an abortion. So, your statement may be true where you're from, but not true everywhere.

I live in the US. And you're wrong. You try to extend the reasons, but it has already been posted in this thread the reasons why women get late-term abortions. The laws that address abortion are do not permit abortion for any reason at all. And, in fact, the vast majority of doctors would never perform an abortion under the conditions you claim so your argument is specious. Please cite me the percentage of women that are getting late-term abortions for any other reason than the child is dead or dying or the mother is dying or will have severe physical disabilities as a result of carrying the child to term. Hell, cite me a single case of it being other than this.


EDIT: You should also read your case. The case centered around a woman who was 9-weeks pregnant and denied an abortion. Hardly late-term, now is it? At the time the Georgia statute only allowed abortions in specific cases where women were in danger and/or a rape was involved. It had NOTHING to do with late-term abortions, whatsoever.

Medical science vs. abortion statistics do not confirm your statements here.

Wrong - they do. Development and activation of the neural net occurs quite late into the pregnancy; well after most other organs.

I am however even willing to bump it even further back - to the moment the brain is developed. That gives the mother over a month to decide.

The exsitance of a 'god' is null and void.

What is all this 'bible' + 'sin' garbage!

We had to work out how to wipe our backsides on our own why can't we work out moral issues without resorting to god. Each relegion has diffrent rules anyway as to what is moraly right.Not really. Religions mostly agree about morals: murder=bad; stealing=bad; rape=bad; hate=bad; love=good; honesty=good; kindness=good; etc., etc., etc.

We need to start looking at wheather people are being hurt (physicaly or mentaly) by certain actions, if they are then it is not moral.
Really? Why would that be? What is immoral about hurting people if we get to "work out moral issues" on our own. If I get to work out morals, then I think I will make it OK to hurt people that you want to feel pain and who are unable to hurt you back.

It does mention slavery dumbass, before persenting an argument do some reading.

And yes, it is a sin, with the exception being wartime prisoners and their familes.


Before you start slinging derogatory monikers around, you might take your own advice, and read before you make an argument. He/she didn't say that slavery wasn't mentioned in scripture, but that it wasn't mentioned as a sin. If you'd read the text yourself, you'd realize that slavery was recognized as an institution, and Jahweh placed parameters around it to mitigate the human tendency to abuse others.

Not really. Religions mostly agree about morals: murder=bad; stealing=bad; rape=bad; hate=bad; love=good; honesty=good; kindness=good; etc., etc., etc.

Unless we are talking about the tribe with a different religion next door. In that case extermination is a-ok.

Medical science vs. abortion statistics do not confirm your statements here. But not getting into that yet, are you stating for the record that you would be opposed to abortion after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?

And how do others feel about this? Would others who are not "pro-life" be opposed to abortion after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Just curious.

That is absolutely false. At the time that most abortions occur (8 weeks or less) the fetus is just beginning to form synapses. Without synapses you are most-assuredly unable to feel pain. The actual early function of the brain is much, much later. The fetus begins reflex movements at this time as a result of the formation of the synapses, but they are not caused by the brain but the basic function of the newly forming spinal cord.

I live in the US. And you're wrong. You try to extend the reasons, but it has already been posted in this thread the reasons why women get late-term abortions. The laws that address abortion are do not permit abortion for any reason at all. And, in fact, the vast majority of doctors would never perform an abortion under the conditions you claim so your argument is specious. Please cite me the percentage of women that are getting late-term abortions for any other reason than the child is dead or dying or the mother is dying or will have severe physical disabilities as a result of carrying the child to term. Hell, cite me a single case of it being other than this.


EDIT: You should also read your case. The case centered around a woman who was 9-weeks pregnant and denied an abortion. Hardly late-term, now is it? At the time the Georgia statute only allowed abortions in specific cases where women were in danger and/or a rape was involved. It had NOTHING to do with late-term abortions, whatsoever.

1. Are you suggesting the supreme court in 1973 was not determining with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton when abortions can be legally done? You can contradict me all you want, but the fact remains that Roe v. Wade talked of trimesters and Doe v. Bolton described "health" applying to the entire pregnancy. That is why it's legal today. So it is quite relevant to the discussion here.

2. You argue that late term abortions are rare. I care about all life. Are you suggesting that late term abortions should be illegal? As far as laws not permitting late term abortions except in the case of the mother's life - that is where you obviously do not know what is going on. But just to be straight, let's say I'm wrong, at what point do you believe there should be laws making it illegal to get an abortion except for the mother's life?

The exsitance of a 'god' is null and void.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But until you can convince everyone to stop using arguments derived from scripture, it's better to be able to present counter-arguments of your own from the same source. I say this to everyone on both sides of this debate -- having people quoting Bible verses at each other is far more interesting, I feel, than watching them throw insults.

(And no, it doesn't just have to be scripture, if both sides were using legalistic arguments, that too would be interesting. But at the moment, a lot of people use the Bible without even knowing what it says. /That's/ not a good thing, however you look at it)

Also posted in the other abortion thread - but since it is highly relevant to the OPs question...

Pope says embryos have rights from conception
Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:52 AM ET
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Monday reaffirmed Catholic teaching that life begins at the moment of conception, saying embryos are "sacred and inviolable" even before they become implanted in a mother's uterus.

The Pope made his comments in an address to the Pontifical Academy for Life, which is hosting an international congress on scientific aspects and bioethical considerations of "The Human Embryo Before Implantation".

Speaking in Italian, the Pope said the Church had always proclaimed the "sacred and inviolable character of every human life, from its conception to its natural end."

He added: "This moral judgment is valid from the start of the life of an embryo, even before it is implanted in the maternal womb."

In natural conception, implantation of the embryo in the uterus usually begins to occur about a week after the egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube and is usually complete after about 14 days.

By making such a defense of life, the Pope appeared to be trying to cut short any debate that the period between conception and implantation could be seen as a time for legitimate experimentation or manipulation on embryos.

He did not make a distinction between embryos created naturally and those generated outside the womb through in-vitro fertilisation.

The Catholic Church holds that in-vitro fertilisation is morally wrong but scientific advances have presented it with a minefield of ethical issues regarding embryos created outside the womb for artificial implantation.

He made no reference to debates among scientists and ethicists about what to do with the growing number of "surplus" artificially generated embryos preserved in fertility clinics around the world.

Some Catholic ethicists believe that since they are human lives, the Church has a moral duty to give them the opportunity to be born.

This has led to calls within some sectors of the Church to promote so-called embryo adoption, in which embryos generated artificially are "adopted" by women willing to bring them to term.

The exsitance of a 'god' is null and void.

Since we are discussing the Bible and the Chrisitan view, of course you are going to get talk about God.

That is absolutely false. At the time that most abortions occur (8 weeks or less) the fetus is just beginning to form synapses. Without synapses you are most-assuredly unable to feel pain. The actual early function of the brain is much, much later. The fetus begins reflex movements at this time as a result of the formation of the synapses, but they are not caused by the brain but the basic function of the newly forming spinal cord.


Ok, I have 4 children. My wife usually didn't even know she was pregnant until about 5 or 6 weeks along. What do pregnancy tests say is the earliest they can even detect a pregnancy with accuracy? I just have doubts that most abortions are performed at 8 weeks or less.

But that is really not important. We can disagree about when the unborn child feels pain and I have not even attempted to provide that information yet. All I want to know is the answer to the simple question, "Would you be willing to make abortion illegal after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?" Either say you don't care about that for whatever reasons you care to mention or say that you agree that if medical science can prove the unborn child feels pain after a certain time then it should be illegal after that point.

Unless we are talking about the tribe with a different religion next door. In that case extermination is a-ok.

I'd challenge you to find an example of the Bible in the New Testement which supports Genocide by humans.

You are misquoting. The original words of the Bible implied not just premature birth but miscarriage. The injury discussed was regarding the pregnant woman. It is saying that you if you are fighting with another man and you accidentally strike a pregnant woman and she is uninjured, but has a premature birth or miscarriage, you must pay a fine. If she is injured then you are held accountable for the injury just as if you'd done it on purpose.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=21&version=31

Notice the footnote.

No I'm not misquoting. Read the link.

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take 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)

The verses appear to teach that if a woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby is not injured, then only a fine is appropriate. However, if the child dies then the law of retaliation (lex talionis) should be applied. In other words, killing an unborn baby would carry the same penalty as killing a born baby. A baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb.
Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.

There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html

Ok, I have 4 children. My wife usually didn't even know she was pregnant until about 5 or 6 weeks along. What do pregnancy tests say is the earliest they can even detect a pregnancy with accuracy? I just have doubts that most abortions are performed at 8 weeks or less.

But that is really not important. We can disagree about when the unborn child feels pain and I have not even attempted to provide that information yet. All I want to know is the answer to the simple question, "Would you be willing to make abortion illegal after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?" Either say you don't care about that for whatever reasons you care to mention or say that you agree that if medical science can prove the unborn child feels pain after a certain time then it should be illegal after that point.
No because that rules out any abortions done to save the mothers life.

Or maybe David knew more than we do.

However it's quite a stretch from "in sin did my mother conceive me" to "he was marked by sin", since "in sin" clearly refers to the act of conception and not to the object of conception.

That is ludicrous. Since we know that God commanded us to "be fruitful and increase in number". The act of conception cannot be considered sinful.

Oh dear ... so all those wars were *really* bad news then? ;)

Wars are increadably bad things. But even God regonises they are a nessecary evil. See several actions in the Old Testement. See here for a lengthier discussion about Christianity and war.

http://www.carm.org/questions/war.htm

I notice that some of you got somewhat off topic about this so I will attempt to get this back on the best I can.

The view of the Catholic Church (which is the view I have experience in, being one) is that a Baby is human from the moment of conception. If left to its natural devices it will grow into a human being. When you abort a baby, you are physically killing this human being sometimes in a cruel and unusual way (such as half birthing the baby and cracking open its cranium to let the brains drain out). No one can argue about whether or not the baby is human at birth or not, its just the line that the Catholic Church draws. However, you CAN argue on when a baby is truly a baby. The only line i really can see is that it happens at the latest when the brain and spinal column start to develop, which is 7-10 days after conception. Otherwise you always get into the issue of what the "average" development for a baby is, and that not all babies develop at the same speed. However i do like the idea of human at conception the best, it takes away all ambiguity, and it really is true. That fetus will grow into a human being. Does all life not have the right to live? Does every human not have the right to try to make it in the world by itself? The problem is that this is a philisophical debate, and each person has their own different answer.

As to why its a sin, taking for the moment (for the sake of the arguement, the fact that a baby is a human from conception and that abortion is a sin are two differing topics), the idea that the baby is a human from the moment of conception, it falls under the 5th commandment (or sometimes the 6th for Jewish and some Protestant Christian sects) of "Non Interfecit" (I use the Latin here because it removes the ambiguity of the English translation). This means "you shall not kill unjustly" or "you shall not murder" quite obviously, if you kill a human being unjustly, by this rule, it is a sin. Since this fetus is a human (again for the sake of the arguement), it would be a sin to unjustly kill it. There are always exceptions to the rule, and in this case, the Catholic Church defines abortion a sin in all cases except Incest and danger to the mother. I actually do differ in belief from the Church in that it is unfair to put the burden on a rape victim, however, it should fall to the state to create a viable adoption system to give the mother a better choice between either raising it herself unwanted or killing it. I point that one at the polticians on both sides of the aisle.

I noticed some of you started the "dirty whore" arguement. The way i see it, a woman has every right to choose whether or not to have sex. It is a choice, and for those who are not of the Judeo-Christian faith, by all means have sex freely. However, I feel it is your responsibility to remember that sex IS THE METHOD OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION, not a means of pleasure. The government garentees our right to live freely. It does NOT garentee the right that you should not take responsibility for your actions. The plesaure is there to encourage us to reproduce. Actually not just women should keep this in mind, but men too. A baby is equally the man's responsibility as the woman's. If EITHER OF YOU do not want a baby, you should either not have sex, or take steps to prevent it (wear a condom or use birth control). If you do not choose to, you have to face the fact you made a choice to engage in reproduction, and you should face the consequences of it. And sadly, it is the woman who gets left with the center of the responsibility of pregnancy, and more and more often, i see men thinking of women as sex toys, not human beings, much less taking responsibility for their actions. im sure if men had to carry the child for 9 months as well, things would be a lot different.

Id like to conclude with another remark about abortions. An abortion costs 500-1000 dollars in the United States. This fact alone makes it a tool for rich women only. Poor women, especially teenagers, cannot afford to pay this fee by themselves. They need financial assistance to do this. Because of this, abortion has really become a method for the rich to do exactly what it always does, do things and using their wealth to avoid the responsibility of their actions. I actually see very few non-white women fighting for abortion rights. Ive been in Washington DC and New York for several Abortion Rights marches, and always, the vast majority have been white middle to upper class women. Yes, there ARE non white well to do women there too, but im talking about the VAST majority of the people rallying. I dont know, I maybe wrong on that, its just my personal observation.

how is a ferti.lized eggt NOT human?

What else is it... a tree? A rock? A pig?

I cannot believe how anti-lifers (hehe) try to make abortion easier to swallow by rationalizing that a human embryo is not human.
an embryo is human but its not a person its alive but its not a baby.

if GOD who created us all, is content to let upwards of 50% of all fertlized eggs not make it to life outside the womb, who am i to say its wrong for us to do in a few more

1. Are you suggesting the supreme court in 1973 was not determining with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton when abortions can be legally done? You can contradict me all you want, but the fact remains that Roe v. Wade talked of trimesters and Doe v. Bolton described "health" applying to the entire pregnancy. That is why it's legal today. So it is quite relevant to the discussion here.

2. You argue that late term abortions are rare. I care about all life. Are you suggesting that late term abortions should be illegal? As far as laws not permitting late term abortions except in the case of the mother's life - that is where you obviously do not know what is going on. But just to be straight, let's say I'm wrong, at what point do you believe there should be laws making it illegal to get an abortion except for the mother's life?

No, I'm not suggesting that late-term abortions should illegal. I'm suggesting they should be what they are currently, non-elective. They are a medical procedure prescribed by a physician in order to preserve the life or health of the mother or remove a dead or dying fetus.

You make the claim they are elective through out the gestation period, show some evidence of this.

As far as the cases, it is not pertinent at all. There are many states that legislate how and when late-term abortions can be performed, but their control of the process has to be narrow and that is all that has been shown by the cases you cite. They are pertinent but they support my position, not yours. Quote where the case makes elective abortions legal throughout the gestation period?

an embryo is humand but its not a person its alive but its not a baby.

if GOD who created us all, is content to let upwards of 50% of all fertlized eggs not make it to life outside the womb, who am i to say its wrong for us to do in a few more

Quite simple: It is not our place to play God. Trying to play God will only lead to disaster, because we are not omniscient land omnipotent like he is.

Ok, I have 4 children. My wife usually didn't even know she was pregnant until about 5 or 6 weeks along. What do pregnancy tests say is the earliest they can even detect a pregnancy with accuracy? I just have doubts that most abortions are performed at 8 weeks or less.

But that is really not important. We can disagree about when the unborn child feels pain and I have not even attempted to provide that information yet. All I want to know is the answer to the simple question, "Would you be willing to make abortion illegal after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?" Either say you don't care about that for whatever reasons you care to mention or say that you agree that if medical science can prove the unborn child feels pain after a certain time then it should be illegal after that point.

Amusing. So you are uninterested in doing the work and finding out the truth so you choose to speculate and make unsupported accusations. Ridiculous.

Right. I don't have time to read this entire thread but from the looks of things it looks like people are implying that just because it isn't written in the Bible that 'abortion is wrong' it means that it's right, and that Christians who say so are hypocrites. I'm a Christian and I've never heard someone quoting passages of scripture where abortion is specifically adressed. Because it isn't, and if they do so then they're making it up. Just because the Bible doesn't talk about, say, nuclear weapons, doesn't mean that they're right either. That kind of logic suggests that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible is right. Ridiculous.
One thing I do know that the Bible says is 'love your neighbour as yourself'. If you were that foetus would you honestly, really and truly, knowing what you do about life today be killed before you've even had the chance to live? Sure there are horrible aspects of life, but at least the foetus would get the chance to live a little. Honestly, nobody's life is that bad that they have to quit before they're born.

No I'm not misquoting. Read the link.



http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html

I read the link. The original term used in the Bible included miscarriages and allowed for a fine. Abortion cannot be murder if there is a different punishment for murder and causing a miscarriage, now can it? You're failure to recognize this and your ability to quote apologists does not change the FACT that the Bible treats murder and unnatural miscarriage differently. It actually seems like the crime there is not the miscarriage but the fact that it subjugates the will of the parents. Thus the father is allowed to decide the fine.

Since you seem to have difficulty reading the footnote... here it is -

"Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage "

That's added to indicate that the original language included this concept.

Quite simple: It is not our place to play God. Trying to play God will only lead to disaster, because we are not omniscient land omnipotent like he is.
we play god every day.

its not natural to crawl into a can and drive it to work now is it?

just in the realm of reproduction we play god by increasing or decreasing fertility, by using birth control, by invitro fertilization, for intensive care of premature babies, by using surgery to correct birth defects, by using medical care to prevent miscarriages.

do you oppose those too?

Quite simple: It is not our place to play God. Trying to play God will only lead to disaster, because we are not omniscient land omnipotent like he is.

Exactly our position. We will not play God and assume we are in a position to FORCE women to do anything. We are not in a position to determine God's will so we give these women freedom and rights and let them answer to God on God's timeline and not ours.

I read the link. The original term used in the Bible included miscarriages and allowed for a fine. Abortion cannot be murder if there is a different punishment for murder and causing a miscarriage, now can it? You're failure to recognize this and your ability to quote apologists does not change the FACT that the Bible treats murder and unnatural miscarriage differently. It actually seems like the crime there is not the miscarriage but the fact that it subjugates the will of the parents. Thus the father is allowed to decide the fine.

Since you seem to have difficulty reading the footnote... here it is -

"Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage "

That's added to indicate that the original language included this concept.

It already states the problem with calling it a misscarriage. The original text does not use the same word here as the other cases where we know it is a miscarriage. And even if it was miscarriage, there is a significent diffrence between an accidental miscarriage and an intentional one.

That is ludicrous. Since we know that God commanded us to "be fruitful and increase in number". The act of conception cannot be considered sinful.

Who knows how he was conceived? Maybe there were more people involved than just mother and father? Like men lying with men?

It does not say that the conception itself was "sinful" but merely that something sinful happened DURING the conception.

But it does not matter. Whichever interpretation or translation is right, it does not tell us wether a fetus can be considered a human being. At best it could tell us that (for reasons we do not know) David was already a sinner at the moment of conception.

Exactly our position. We will not play God and assume we are in a position to FORCE women to do anything. We are not in a position to determine God's will so we give these women freedom and rights and let them answer to God on God's timeline and not ours.

We know God's will is not to allow things to die. We already force people not to kill by having muder laws.

Who knows how he was conceived? Maybe there were more people involved than just mother and father? Like men lying with men?

It does not say that the conception itself was "sinful" but merely that something sinful happened DURING the conception.

But it does not matter. Whichever interpretation or translation is right, it does not tell us wether a fetus can be considered a human being. At best it could tell us that (for reasons we do not know) David was already a sinner at the moment of conception.

We know of David's family background. Jesse was his father and Nitzevet was his Mother. It tells us a fetus can be considered a sinner. If David can be considered a sinner, it does not mean that all fetus's are sinners, but that it is possible for fetus's to be considered sinners. The only things capable of being considered sinners are humans.

We know God's will is not to allow things to die. We already force people not to kill by having muder laws.
And yet people like you are the ones that are for the death penalty. A bit a hypoctrical, no?

And yet people like you are the ones that are for the death penalty. A bit a hypoctrical, no?

People "like" me, or me. I am not in favour of the Death penalty and never presume anything about my ideological leanings thank you very much.

It already states the problem with calling it a misscarriage. The original text does not use the same word here as the other cases where we know it is a miscarriage. And even if it was miscarriage, there is a significent diffrence between an accidental miscarriage and an intentional one.

It is talking about men fighting and accidentally hitting a woman and CAUSING a miscarriage or premature birth. If the miscarriage or premature birth happens there is a fine.

Same action but the woman dies the perpetrator is put to death.

One punishment for the loss of the fetus and another for the death of a woman. Seems like in the Bible a fetus does not have the value of a person no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

You're goldfishing. You clearly claimed that the Bible was talking about the death of the fetus when it said an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. I proved otherwise and now you act like you never said that. Face it. You were wrong about what it means. PERIOD.

We know of David's family background. Jesse was his father and Nitzevet was his Mother. It tells us a fetus can be considered a sinner. If David can be considered a sinner, it does not mean that all fetus's are sinners, but that it is possible for fetus's to be considered sinners. The only things capable of being considered sinners are humans.

... and human fetuses, obviously.

We know God's will is not to allow things to die. We already force people not to kill by having muder laws.

Yes, except nothing dies here. You don't stop people from having their tonsils out. Tonsils are as much a life as an embryo is. The Bible does not consider induced miscarriage to be murder as I've already shown. Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

We know of David's family background. Jesse was his father and Nitzevet was his Mother. It tells us a fetus can be considered a sinner. If David can be considered a sinner, it does not mean that all fetus's are sinners, but that it is possible for fetus's to be considered sinners. The only things capable of being considered sinners are humans.

You don't seem to get it. The act that results in conception is considered base and sinful by those that argue such. What's the evidence? Why was it important that Jesus was born of a virgin? Because she was not sullied by sexual acts even though she did have a husband.

I almost forgot this part!

Lets hear the opinion of Roe v. Wade from Roe herself! Norma McCorvey has been very vocal about this issue, especially in the last 10 years. Its funny though, a lot of news media organizations try to bury this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/


Sadly, even CNN tries to distort things. The reason why Miss McCorvey is against abortion now is the extreme psycological damage an abortion can do to the woman. Apparently this damage happens in more than half the cases.

It is talking about men fighting and accidentally hitting a woman and CAUSING a miscarriage or premature birth. If the miscarriage or premature birth happens there is a fine.

Same action but the woman dies the perpetrator is put to death.

One punishment for the loss of the fetus and another for the death of a woman. Seems like in the Bible a fetus does not have the value of a person no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

You're goldfishing. You clearly claimed that the Bible was talking about the death of the fetus when it said an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. I proved otherwise and now you act like you never said that. Face it. You were wrong about what it means. PERIOD.

I was not wrong

Read the passage again

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

So if the men are fighting and they hit the woman and she gives birth prematurely but the baby is fine, there is only a fine. But if there is serious injury then the rule of retrebution comes into play. And if the baby dies, I think that means the person who caused it dies. And I have already explained that it is not miscarriage being discusses, thus it is not a diffrent punishment policy. The word for miscarriage is not used here. Hence we can presume it is not discussing miscarriage. A premature birth where the baby suvives is diffrent from a misscariage.

We know God's will is not to allow things to die. We already force people not to kill by having muder laws.
and yet god allows massive numbers of fertilized eggs to die. kinda hypocritical of him isnt it?

Yes, except nothing dies here. You don't stop people from having their tonsils out. Tonsils are as much a life as an embryo is. The Bible does not consider induced miscarriage to be murder as I've already shown. Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

Firstly, I have already proven it is not miscarriage being discussed in that passage

Secondly, tonsils are not as much a life as an embryo. Tonsils are part of a whole. An embryo is a whole. The only simalarity is the size. The rest is diffrent. The embryo is growing and developing, the tonsils are not.

and yet god allows massive numbers of fertilized eggs to die. kinda hypocritical of him isnt it?

Not really. God has the right to decide when things die. His will for us is that we dont.

and yet god allows massive numbers of fertilized eggs to die. kinda hypocritical of him isnt it?

its not our place to judge this. sometimes, God just knows better. Have you ever had something happen to you which you thought was really bad, but in the end it turned out to be a hugely beneficial thing down the road? I can give an example. I got rejected from my top choice of schools. I was unhappy and bitter for sure, so i went to my second choice. It turns out, that i ran (quite literally) into a woman who would eventually become my standing girlfriend for about 3 years now. If i had not been rejected from my top choice of school, I would not have met this wonderful woman

I was not wrong

Read the passage again



So if the men are fighting and they hit the woman and she gives birth prematurely but the baby is fine, there is only a fine. But if there is serious injury then the rule of retrebution comes into play. And if the baby dies, I think that means the person who caused it dies. And I have already explained that it is not miscarriage being discusses, thus it is not a diffrent punishment policy. The word for miscarriage is not used here. Hence we can presume it is not discussing miscarriage. A premature birth where the baby suvives is diffrent from a misscariage.

You are wrong. I pointed out the footnote and you're ignoring it. The original language including a miscarriage. Yes, the word for miscarriage is used here and that is the reason for the footnote. Care to explain the footnote, friend? What was the original word used? What is the translation of that word? What was the language this passage was written?

Admit it. You don't know what you're talking about. You're accepting the translation. You have no idea what the original word was. You have no ability to read the original language. You have no idea that the original word included the concept of miscarriage. You don't understand that the injury that was discussed was to the mother and not the fetus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22;&version=31;

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

I take it your bible allows you to misrepresent the truth. See the footnote you keep pretend like isn't there. This is put there because the translator recognized that the concept was included in the original wording. Wording you've never read. It includes allowing for a fine if the hit to the woman causes a miscarriage. The reference to injury is for the woman. Now quite bearing false testimony.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?


If the Bible thought abortion was a sin, it would have named it a sin


I suppose Christians cannot consider acts committed with a modern handgun as sins either, considering that modern handguns are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument. The Bible may not specifically mention abortion, so the Bible may not specifically forbid it. But then, the Bible need not specifically mention each and every possible sin, or there are all kinds of vile and immoral things I can do and still be considered a perfectly good person. And neither does silence necessarily indicate that the authors of the Bible would have ignored or allowed the practice of abortion. The author has demonstrated nothing more than that the Bible was written in the past. ( :eek: !!! )

At any rate, religous beliefs are not necessary in order to oppose abortion. (http://www.l4l.org/)

Firstly, I have already proven it is not miscarriage being discussed in that passage

You have? Explain the footnote. You've proven nothing. You've not even addressed it. You acted like the footnote wasn't there.

Secondly, tonsils are not as much a life as an embryo. Tonsils are part of a whole. An embryo is a whole. The only simalarity is the size. The rest is diffrent. The embryo is growing and developing, the tonsils are not.
The embryo is not a whole. My tonsils were growing and developing when they were removed. You are attempting to argue potential, but the problem is potential makes the line arbitrary. Do you feel six-year-olds should be permitted to marry, they are going to be adults one day?

To me, there's no argument about whether it's a sin or not. I'm not Christian, so the concept of "sin" is somewhat irrelevant in my belief structure, but I do think abortion terminates a life or a potential life and is therefore "morally wrong" under almost any circumstances (with the possible exceptions of fetal conditions that are incompatible with life and to save the life of the mother).

I do not, however, think that it's the government or society's job to impose those moral decisions. The morality or immorality of it varies with the belief structure of the individual, and so I perceive it as an issue between the woman considering an abortion, the father of the fetus if he's responsible enough to give a damn, and her/his/their Divinity or construction of right and wrong.

Also, for the record, I don't think banning abortion would cut down on the number of people who conceive thoughtlessly. Nobody really WANTS to have an abortion; if they were going to think first and ejaculate later, they'd do so whether abortion was available or not. Putting forethought ahead of the desires of the moment is not, never has been, and sadly probably never will be a dominant human trait.

so do you believe that Abortions should be used to allow women (and men, let's keep the responsiblities spread to all responsible parties.) to screw around?
Idealy protection would allow them to do that

But I dont think it should matter to you either way the reasoning they are geting an abortion. That should not be a factor on their ability to do such. The attitude that babies are punishments for sex is a horrible one. I find it rather disgusting personally

But thats just my opinion

I suppose Christians cannot consider acts committed with a modern handgun as sins either, considering that modern handguns are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument. The Bible may not specifically mention abortion, so the Bible may not specifically forbid it. But then, the Bible need not specifically mention each and every possible sin, or there are all kinds of vile and immoral things I can do and still be considered a perfectly good person. And neither does silence necessarily indicate that the authors of the Bible would have ignored or allowed the practice of abortion. The author has demonstrated nothing more than that the Bible was written in the past. ( :eek: !!! )

At any rate, religous beliefs are not necessary in order to oppose abortion. (http://www.l4l.org/)

Two things:

One, the views on that site are not supported by science despite their claims. They chose an arbitrary line for declaring life. That act in and of itself is unscientific.

Two, the Bible does address induced miscarriage (non-spontaneous abortion) and it treats it differently than murder. The punishment is for the loss to the parents rather than the loss of 'life'. In the specific passage as quoted recently it says that the same act if it results in the death of the pregnant woman should result in the death of the perpetrator with no such consideration for the miscarriage. It's clear that this does not treat the fetus as a life.

Two things:
...
Two, the Bible does address induced miscarriage (non-spontaneous abortion) and it treats it differently than murder. The punishment is for the loss to the parents rather than the loss of 'life'. In the specific passage as quoted recently it says that the same act if it results in the death of the pregnant woman should result in the death of the perpetrator with no such consideration for the miscarriage. It's clear that this does not treat the fetus as a life.

Do you agree with the author of the article linked in the original post that the Bible is silent on the matter of abortion? If so, this line of reasoning, and that premise stated in the article, are in conflict. One cannot claim that the Bible is silent on the matter of abortion, and then turn around and claim that the bible "does not treat the fetus as a life," presumably in order to argue that abortion is permissible.


Even if one does not agree with the author of the article, the scriptures I see being (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10503957&postcount=172) quoted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10504010&postcount=177) seem to describe an accidental act; two men are fighting with each other and the woman seems to be suffering indirect injury. Obviously, accidental or indirect injury is not morally equivalent to a direct and purposeful act deliberately intended to terminate the pregnancy. At most, what is being demonstrated is that the Bible varies the severity of the punishment based on intent and the amount of harm done. Yes, the men face death if the woman dies. But if the woman dies, the fetus will necessarily die as well. So, I can easily intrepret the Bible as warranting death in even an accidential case because the irresponsible behavior of the men resulted in two deaths. One may consider the jump from fines straight to death strange, but this is a possibility nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Bible are no longer around (and God does not appear to be very talkative) or I would ask them what exactly it is they intended. Short of that, whatever conclusion we draw, pro- or anti-, is speculation. Edit: 'Tis the nature of basing one's arguments, pro- or anti-, on religous documents.


One, the views on that site are not supported by science despite their claims. They chose an arbitrary line for declaring life. That act in and of itself is unscientific.


That may very well be true. But I did not claim that the views presented were scientific. What I intended to claim was that they were not based on religous beliefs. Edit: Contrary to a very common strawman argument, one need not necessarily accept Christian morality or scriptures as truth in order to find fault with the practice of abortion.

Do you agree with the author of the article linked in the original post that the Bible is silent on the matter of abortion? If so, this line of reasoning, and that premise stated in the article, are in conflict. One cannot claim that the Bible is silent on the matter of abortion, and then turn around and claim that the bible "does not treat the fetus as a life," presumably in order to argue that abortion is permissible.


Even if one does not agree with the author of the article, the scriptures I see being (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10503957&postcount=172) quoted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10504010&postcount=177) seem to describe an accidental act; two men are fighting with each other and the woman seems to be suffering indirect injury. Obviously, accidental or indirect injury is not morally equivalent to a direct and purposeful act deliberately intended to terminate the pregnancy. At most, what is being demonstrated is that the Bible varies the severity of the punishment based on intent and the amount of harm done. Yes, the men face death if the woman dies. But if the woman dies, the fetus will necessarily die as well. So, I can easily intrepret the Bible as warranting death in even an accidential case because the irresponsible behavior of the men resulted in two deaths. One may consider the jump from fines straight to death strange, but this is a possibility nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Bible are no longer around (and God does not appear to be very talkative) or I would ask them what exactly it is they intended. Short of that, whatever conclusion we draw, pro- or anti-, is speculation. Edit: 'Tis the nature of basing one's arguments, pro- or anti-, on religous documents.

The fact is the accidental act warrants death if it causes the death of the mother (the typical eye for an eye mentality) but not death when there is a miscarriage. The fetus will not necessarily die as well. If there is a premature birth it is very possible the fetus will survive and the woman will perish. It's not death for two deaths and you're really stretching to try rationalize what cannot be found in the text. The fact is they think nothing of the loss of the fetus other than how it affects the parents, while they consider the death of a person to be an offense punishable with death. Your failure to recognize this doesn't change that it was their attitude.


That may very well be true. But I did not claim that the views presented were scientific. What I intended to claim was that they were not based on religous beliefs. Edit: Contrary to a very common strawman argument, one need not necessarily accept Christian morality or scriptures as truth in order to find fault with the practice of abortion.

I was just pointing out they are not actually basing their opinions on science but on their own biases. Also, one should note that simply because they don't admit to be religious people does not mean that they aren't.

What is the Bible, anyway? It's historical fiction. It's several person's opinions. Who says the Bible's the truth? And don't say the Christians, because there's very little evidence to support that. It all goes back to "The Bible says so!" Who says we have to follow the Bible?

Erm I dont use the bible so as to justify my anti-abortion views. I just think its wrong in most circumstances.

The bible DOES, however, state quite clearly and unequivocally, DO NOT KILL. Abortion is killing the foetus. QED.

As a pregnant woman, I can tell you that when you first hear your baby's heartbeat (starts beating around the 6 week mark, that's 4 weeks post ovulation), you see it as a human because of it's potential to be so. I won't use the bible to justify my pro life arguement, there's lots of things the Bible omits from it's list of sins - fornication which is looked down on by the Catholic church is another one I can think of off hand. Maybe in the time that the Bible was written, active abortion was never considered by the people of the time, maybe it was something that concerned women only, and well, men wrote the Bible, would they have known what happens between women behind closed doors?

This is not an arguement, BTW, I'm just rambling, so no point in telling me how wrong I am...

The bible DOES, however, state quite clearly and unequivocally, DO NOT KILL. Abortion is killing the foetus. QED.
"DO NOT KILL" what, exactly? Can I kill animals?
If so, why can't I kill a fetus which is displaying even less of the characteristics of personhood?

If a pregnant woman were to hit a second pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, can the second woman do the same back? - eye for an eye and all that...

The bible DOES, however, state quite clearly and unequivocally, DO NOT KILL. Abortion is killing the foetus. QED.

Someone had to kill that steak I at the other night too. And when I just scratched my arm, I probably killed some skin cells and some bacteria.

Somehow, I don't think that commandment was meant to apply to everything - not to mention that, in the OT at least, if you believe it to be literal truth, God orders the ancient Hebrews to commit genocide.


I suppose Christians cannot consider acts committed with a modern handgun as sins either, considering that modern handguns are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

If the Bible did specifically mention handguns, but placed the punishment of using one against another person only as a fine, and not as murder or attempted murder, would you assume it was murder?

Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument. The Bible may not specifically mention abortion, so the Bible may not specifically forbid it. But then, the Bible need not specifically mention each and every possible sin, or there are all kinds of vile and immoral things I can do and still be considered a perfectly good person. And neither does silence necessarily indicate that the authors of the Bible would have ignored or allowed the practice of abortion. The author has demonstrated nothing more than that the Bible was written in the past. ( !!! )

Abortion has been around as long as human beings have been having babies - simply in different forms. The ancient Egyptians had methods of aborting pregnancies. We aren't talking about something like handguns - which were completely a thing of the future.

At any rate, religous beliefs are not necessary in order to oppose abortion.

Actually, they are - to a point. One must place some sort of signficance on the potential life - a significance that can only be placed subjectively. It may not directly relate to a view on God, but is a philosophically subjective viewpoint much like religion, one way or another.

As a pregnant woman, I can tell you that when you first hear your baby's heartbeat (starts beating around the 6 week mark, that's 4 weeks post ovulation), you see it as a human because of it's potential to be so.

Just to be clear, you mean that is the way you look at it. I think I would look at it the same way. But a woman who absolutely does not want to be pregnant may not look at it that way. You can only relate your own experience.

Just to be clear, you mean that is the way you look at it. I think I would look at it the same way. But a woman who absolutely does not want to be pregnant may not look at it that way. You can only relate your own experience.

Well I suppose that is true. But I've known a whole rake of young girls who considered abortion when they first found out they were pregnant, and changed their minds when they heard their baby's heart beating for the first time. Yeah, suppose it's different for everyone, but hearing your baby's heat beat makes it seem more human, it's not just a pink line on a stick covered in pee anymore, it's a real tiny person. Then again, if you really don't want it, why would you go get checked out by an OB in the first place...
I think knowing that my baby's heart was beating from so early on makes it even more amazing and almost incredible to see it happening

Idealy protection would allow them to do that

But I dont think it should matter to you either way the reasoning they are geting an abortion. That should not be a factor on their ability to do such. The attitude that babies are punishments for sex is a horrible one. I find it rather disgusting personally

But thats just my opinion

its not that pregnancy is a "punishment" for sex as much as it is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of sex. What is sex used for? Procreation. It is NOT an entertainment form. A woman's body is not a play station, and a man's **** is not a joystick (to use a flying aphronism). One is a consequence of the other, one is the cause, the other is the effect. Abortion is just another way for both men AND women to get out of the responsibility of facing the consequences of their decisions. Yes, you can say "no" to sex. It is your choice if you choose to or not. Once you choose, thats it. Either you have taken the neccisary percautions before hand (birthcontrol) or you risk activating a natural biological function.

its not that pregnancy is a "punishment" for sex as much as it is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of sex. What is sex used for? Procreation. It is NOT an entertainment form. A woman's body is not a play station, and a man's **** is not a joystick (to use a flying aphronism). One is a consequence of the other, one is the cause, the other is the effect. Abortion is just another way for both men AND women to get out of the responsibility of facing the consequences of their decisions. Yes, you can say "no" to sex. It is your choice if you choose to or not. Once you choose, thats it. Either you have taken the neccisary percautions before hand (birthcontrol) or you risk activating a natural biological function.


Well said. But what about the Catholic Church's view on the use of birth control? Should all of us Catholics abstain from sex until we wish to procreate? Why is sex so damn pleasurable then if we weren't supposed to enjoy it? Did you know that humans and dolphins are the only specias on the planet to have sex purely for pleasure?

its not that pregnancy is a "punishment" for sex as much as it is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of sex. What is sex used for? Procreation. It is NOT an entertainment form. A woman's body is not a play station, and a man's **** is not a joystick (to use a flying aphronism). One is a consequence of the other, one is the cause, the other is the effect. Abortion is just another way for both men AND women to get out of the responsibility of facing the consequences of their decisions. Yes, you can say "no" to sex. It is your choice if you choose to or not. Once you choose, thats it. Either you have taken the neccisary percautions before hand (birthcontrol) or you risk activating a natural biological function.

Sex should be solely for procreation huh?

Is it safe to assume that you also oppose dancing? Afterall the legs are intended for movement, not just for pleasure...

Incidently you do realise that 60% of women who seek abortions were using contraception don't you?

its not that pregnancy is a "punishment" for sex as much as it is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of sex.
The "It's a consequence" argument is a non sequitur. (Explained further down in the post)
What is sex used for? Procreation. It is NOT an entertainment form. A woman's body is not a play station, and a man's **** is not a joystick (to use a flying aphronism).
That's interesting, I didn't know that you had the authority to determine what I'm using it for.
One is a consequence of the other, one is the cause, the other is the effect.
Of course sex can cause pregnancy. But where the hell are you getting the "This means abortion is bad!" bit?
Example: A man smokes for a few years. As a direct consequence of that, he gets lung cancer. Is it then an "irresponsible" thing for him go to the hospital and pay for it to be treated? I mean, it is a direct consequence and all...
Abortion is just another way for both men AND women to get out of the responsibility of facing the consequences of their decisions.
On the contrary, in many cases abortion is the most responsible choice, rather than someone birthing a child that they can't take care of or that they'll abuse and fuck up the life of.
Yes, you can say "no" to sex. It is your choice if you choose to or not. Once you choose, thats it. Either you have taken the neccisary percautions before hand (birthcontrol) or you risk activating a natural biological function.
And you have no rational reason to stop anyone else from stopping that natural biological function.

Did you know that humans and dolphins are the only specias on the planet to have sex purely for pleasure?

Not technically true. All sorts of apes do as well, as do some birds (homosexual sex certainly isn't about procreation, now is it?), and other mammals. In birds, a male trying to attract another male will sometimes have a completely different mating dance to be used.

Dolphins, IIRC, were the first animals we noticed having sex for purposes other than procreation, but they are hardly the only other ones. =)

Well said. But what about the Catholic Church's view on the use of birth control? Should all of us Catholics abstain from sex until we wish to procreate? Why is sex so damn pleasurable then if we weren't supposed to enjoy it? Did you know that humans and dolphins are the only specias on the planet to have sex purely for pleasure?

yes actually i did know that interesting little tidbit. And as a Catholic, yes i know the church's view on birth control. That does not mean its my right to attempt to impose personal beliefs on you. However, in the case of abortion, it is defending the weak and innocent, which every Christian learns must be done, because that is what Jesus did himself.

its not that pregnancy is a "punishment" for sex as much as it is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of sex. What is sex used for? Procreation. It is NOT an entertainment form. A woman's body is not a play station, and a man's **** is not a joystick (to use a flying aphronism). One is a consequence of the other, one is the cause, the other is the effect. Abortion is just another way for both men AND women to get out of the responsibility of facing the consequences of their decisions. Yes, you can say "no" to sex. It is your choice if you choose to or not. Once you choose, thats it. Either you have taken the neccisary percautions before hand (birthcontrol) or you risk activating a natural biological function.
You can also choose to ignore your middle-age views on sex and have sex just for your own enjoyment. Why do we have pleasure areas if we were not meant to have sex for fun? And how is having an abortion getting out of responsibility. I think it's very responsible not bearing an unwanted child to place it in an already overburdened adoption industry?

It does mention slavery dumbass, before persenting an argument do some reading.

And yes, it is a sin, with the exception being wartime prisoners and their familes.

hey, i wrote my thesis on slavery this year, and your right, it was mentioned in the Bible. the Bible presents numerous PRO-slavery arguments, dumbass. way to do YOUR research before presenting it.

The "It's a consequence" argument is a non sequitur. (Explained further down in the post)

Actually it follows very succinctly. You have sex, you get pregnant. What else happens when you have sex? what else is the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION of having sex?



That's interesting, I didn't know that you had the authority to determine what I'm using it for.

Of course, you CAN use a woman's body as a play station, or a mans whatever as a joystick, however, it is denegrating to the person to reduce them to an entertainment method. How would you feel if you were reduced to property? how do you think the black slaves felt 200 years ago? and yes it is the SAME exact thing. those poor souls were reduced to a method of doing work while others sat and watched. You are reducing a woman or man to a form of entertainment.

Of course sex can cause pregnancy. But where the hell are you getting the "This means abortion is bad!" bit?
Example: A man smokes for a few years. As a direct consequence of that, he gets lung cancer. Is it then an "irresponsible" thing for him go to the hospital and pay for it to be treated? I mean, it is a direct consequence and all...

No im not saying that. Im saying his lung cancer is a consquence of his smoking, and that he needs to take responsibility for smoking. Yes he can seek treatment, but that doesnt mean hes allowed to pick up a homeless man off the street and order the doctor to perform a lung transplant. It would kill the homeless person. Again, a more extreme example but very applicable.

On the contrary, in many cases abortion is the most responsible choice, rather than someone birthing a child that they can't take care of or that they'll abuse and fuck up the life of.

That is very true, and people need to take that into consideration too. Having sex DOES cause pregnancy. Even with contraceptives. You have to make a choice to risk it or not.

And you have no rational reason to stop anyone else from stopping that natural biological function.

funny... you say i have no rational reason to stop anybody, id say the same about you. You have no rational reason to stop a baby from naturally developing into a human being. But lets not talk about that. I have no desire to stop a man and woman from giong and having sex. Im saying there should be responsibility from BOTH parties about the consequences of that act.

yes actually i did know that interesting little tidbit. And as a Catholic, yes i know the church's view on birth control. That does not mean its my right to attempt to impose personal beliefs on you. However, in the case of abortion, it is defending the weak and innocent, which every Christian learns must be done, because that is what Jesus did himself.

Very true, I certainly don't believe that abortion should be legal. Yes, I think that a fetus is a person, who should be allowed all the rights and privileges of anyone else. If a woman wants to have an abortion though, I don't feel that I'm in the right by standing in her way. I believe abortion can be justified if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - if the mother dies, both die, so sacrificing one to save one is OK if both would die without, and it can be justified in cases of rape or incest, or where the baby is diagnosed with defects so severe that there is no way the baby can survive outside the uterus. One example of this is the most severe dorm of spina bifida that can happen - when part of the skull and the brain and spinal cord fail to form. These babies are usually born unconcious and die within a few hours, with a 100% mortality rate. Personally, if I find out that my baby has a defect, unless it's so severe that the chances of survival are zero, I can't ever imagine killing her/him. So touch wood that everything will be alright...

Canada City']]

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?

now, i didnt do much research on this, but i believe abortion wasnt readily available during the time in which the Bible was written. so, to expect it to say straight out, abortion is a sin, would be somewhat unrealistic

You can also choose to ignore your middle-age views on sex and have sex just for your own enjoyment. Why do we have pleasure areas if we were not meant to have sex for fun? And how is having an abortion getting out of responsibility. I think it's very responsible not bearing an unwanted child to place it in an already overburdened adoption industry?

the pleasure areas were developed to encourage us to reproduce quite obviously.

As for the responsibilities.... It generally is the parent's duty to take care of the child, do you not agree? most children are raised by parent(s). At the point of conception, it is the parents' duty and responsibility to care for the child as best they can. If the adoption system is overburdened, its their responsibility. if they cant afford another child, its their responsibility to not try to bring one into the world.

Actually it follows very succinctly. You have sex, you get pregnant. What else happens when you have sex? what else is the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION of having sex?

Considering that pregnancy rarely happens when you have sex, this doesn't make much sense. Let's see - functions of sex - physical exertion (exercise is always good for you), release of endorphins - especially at orgasm, a sense of closeness helping bond the human beings participating together. That last one probably has a lot to do with it, considering the way sex is used in the most closely related species to humans.

Of course, you CAN use a woman's body as a play station, or a mans whatever as a joystick, however, it is denegrating to the person to reduce them to an entertainment method. How would you feel if you were reduced to property? how do you think the black slaves felt 200 years ago? and yes it is the SAME exact thing. those poor souls were reduced to a method of doing work while others sat and watched. You are reducing a woman or man to a form of entertainment.

Hardlly. The man or woman are choosing to use their bodies as they see fit - and to share that experience with another.

When I decide to use my body to make a blanket, have I reduced myself to a sewing machine?

No im not saying that. Im saying his lung cancer is a consquence of his smoking, and that he needs to take responsibility for smoking. Yes he can seek treatment, but that doesnt mean hes allowed to pick up a homeless man off the street and order the doctor to perform a lung transplant. It would kill the homeless person. Again, a more extreme example but very applicable.

But he can have the cancer removed from his own lungs, a form of taking responsibility for his actions.....

You can also choose to ignore your middle-age views on sex and have sex just for your own enjoyment. Why do we have pleasure areas if we were not meant to have sex for fun? And how is having an abortion getting out of responsibility. I think it's very responsible not bearing an unwanted child to place it in an already overburdened adoption industry?


Overburdened?!? I thought childless couples were fighting tooth and nail for a place on the adoption lists! OK, no one wants an older child, it's more difficult to place them, but babies are in big demand, and people will pay thousands of dollars to adopt one through illegal practices. People go overseas at great expense to adopt from countries like Russia, China, etc, etc, simply because the living conditions and rate of pay for a lot of less well off people doesn't allow them to support anyone but themselves or illness or addiction does not provide a suitable home for a child to be raised in. Seriously, if I were to have an unwanted pregnancy, and knew that I really didn;t want a child, I would have it and put it up for adoption rather than kill it like an unwanted litter of pups or kittens on a farm.

now, i didnt do much research on this, but i believe abortion wasnt readily available during the time in which the Bible was written. so, to expect it to say straight out, abortion is a sin, would be somewhat unrealistic

Actually, forms of abortion have been around as long as any written history exists (and we can presume even before that). The methods before medical abortion were generally much more risky to the mother, but they were certainly there - everything from midwives using sticks to mothers drinking poisons of sorts that caused miscarriage.

Actually, the Bible does mention (check Deuteronomy) that if a person throws a stick and kills a pregnant woman, but the baby is delivered and lives, than the person is guilty of one murder, but if it kills the UNBORN baby as well, than the person is guilty of two murders.

Check your facts before you start stating falsehoods about Scripture.

Considering that pregnancy rarely happens when you have sex, this doesn't make much sense. Let's see - functions of sex - physical exertion (exercise is always good for you), release of endorphins - especially at orgasm, a sense of closeness helping bond the human beings participating together. That last one probably has a lot to do with it, considering the way sex is used in the most closely related species to humans.

Correct me if im wrong, but with a fully healthy woman age 16-30, on the exact most fertile point of her monthly cycle, there is a 60% chance of pregnancy correct?



Hardlly. The man or woman are choosing to use their bodies as they see fit - and to share that experience with another.

Yes a woman or man does have the right to use THEIR OWN body the way they see fit. What i was talking about, however, was another person, reducing that man or woman to an entertainment system.


But he can have the cancer removed from his own lungs, a form of taking responsibility for his actions.....

sometimes, the cancer is too advanced and spread to be able to be removed from the lungs, not without physically destroying them. Those are the kind of situations i was talking about in the example. My apologies for not being clear

Overburdened?!? I thought childless couples were fighting tooth and nail for a place on the adoption lists!

Yes, so long as the baby is white, perfectly healthy, with a mother with no known drug use, and is, well, an infant.

OK, no one wants an older child, it's more difficult to place them, but babies are in big demand, and people will pay thousands of dollars to adopt one through illegal practices.

And if that baby isn't snatched up right away because it is the wrong color, or is sick, or is going through drug withdrawal, it becomes.......an older child!

Seriously, if I were to have an unwanted pregnancy, and knew that I really didn;t want a child, I would have it and put it up for adoption rather than kill it like an unwanted litter of pups or kittens on a farm.

How irresponsible of you. You would intentionally bring a child into this world simply to abandon it to the possibility of adoption - with no personal responsibility in the matter? How dare you shirk your responsibilities that way? Hell, if having an abortion is "not taking responsibility for your actions," putting a child up for adoption is "not taking responsibility for your actions" times 3. There is an actual child there and you are just expecting someone else to take care of it for you.

Actually, forms of abortion have been around as long as any written history exists (and we can presume even before that). The methods before medical abortion were generally much more risky to the mother, but they were certainly there - everything from midwives using sticks to mothers drinking poisons of sorts that caused miscarriage.


It still wasnt READILY availible for all to use. Those potions were extremely rare and pricey, and using a stick was very dangerous on the mother.

Considering that pregnancy rarely happens when you have sex, this doesn't make much sense. Let's see - functions of sex - physical exertion (exercise is always good for you), release of endorphins - especially at orgasm, a sense of closeness helping bond the human beings participating together. That last one probably has a lot to do with it, considering the way sex is used in the most closely related species to humans.

I'd hardly say rarely. You've got an approximately 25% chance of conceiving during every cycle if sex is timed correctly. Admittedly, considering the egg is around for 24-48 hours at most, this timing had to be excellent. But knowing when to avoid sex is a whole other issue, and sperm can survive for days (some say 2-3, some say up to 7, I really don't knowwho to believe) but when I got pregnant, I thought I was a week too late, and turns out I was a couple of days too early. Getting pregnant for a sexually active and fertile couple is actually easier than even I originally thought!

And yeah, I agree with all the rest of the sex stuff, a sexually active couple are much closer to each other, are much happier, healthier and more balanced than a couple who are celibate unless sex is for procreation.

Correct me if im wrong, but with a fully healthy woman age 16-30, on the exact most fertile point of her monthly cycle, there is a 60% chance of pregnancy correct?

I'm not sure on that, but how much sex do you think actually occurs at the exact most fertile moment of her cycle vs. how much sex occurs in normal human activity?

And by "pregnancy", do you mean actual pregnancy, or "fertilized egg"? Because most fertilized eggs never make it to birth...

Yes a woman or man does have the right to use THEIR OWN body the way they see fit. What i was talking about, however, was another person, reducing that man or woman to an entertainment system.

Then you are talking about non-consensual sex? I think we're probably all opposed to that.

sometimes, the cancer is too advanced and spread to be able to be removed from the lungs, not without physically destroying them. Those are the kind of situations i was talking about in the example. My apologies for not being clear

That doesn't really apply much to this then, does it? The embryo can be removed from the woman without physically destroying her womb - leaving her to use it as she likes in the future.

Actually, the Bible does mention (check Deuteronomy) that if a person throws a stick and kills a pregnant woman, but the baby is delivered and lives, than the person is guilty of one murder, but if it kills the UNBORN baby as well, than the person is guilty of two murders.

Check your facts before you start stating falsehoods about Scripture.

Verse?

Meanwhile, if that verse is there, all it demonstrates is an inconsistency in Biblical law. So if it says that killing a fetus is only a fine in one case, but is murder in another, how do we know which is actually correct?

It still wasnt READILY availible for all to use. Those potions were extremely rare and pricey, and using a stick was very dangerous on the mother.

...which is rather irrelevant. I never said that it was safe (in fact, I said the opposite) or available to everyone (not that medical abortions really are now). The fact remains that it was known - midwives or alchemists of sorts would provide the service, albeit at a high price. To state, "abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible because they didn't have it," would simply be incorrect.


I'd hardly say rarely. You've got an approximately 25% chance of conceiving during every cycle if sex is timed correctly.

And how much sex occurs "timed correctly" compared to how much a normal human couple will have sex?

How irresponsible of you. You would intentionally bring a child into this world simply to abandon it to the possibility of adoption - with no personal responsibility in the matter? How dare you shirk your responsibilities that way? Hell, if having an abortion is "not taking responsibility for your actions," putting a child up for adoption is "not taking responsibility for your actions" times 3. There is an actual child there and you are just expecting someone else to take care of it for you.

Shirking away from responsibilities? Going through the whole adoption process and then giving birth to a child for someone else is an extremely emotional process. I'm fit, healthy, no drug abuse, yes, I'm white, being Irish, for me to give my baby to some desperate couple would be the best choice for me. I believe that every person on this planet has a reason to be here, and what if the reason my baby came into existence was important - he/she makes an important scientific/medical discovery, or writes a classic novel that will be studied by english majors for generations to come, or is President of the US and comes up with a fantastic public health plan (badly, badly needed here BTW)? OK, chances are he/she never will do any of these things, but anything's possible.
Regardless, I would prefer to give my baby, who isn't responsible for my stupidity in forgetting birth control, etc, etc, a chance at life with someone who loves them, rather than having someone cut them up, vacuum them out of my uterus and through the body parts in a clinical waste bin for incineration like removed diseased body parts.

BTW, the baby I'm carrying now was planned, is wanted and we will be keeping it. And that goes for all other children I might end up having in the future

Shirking away from responsibilities? Going through the whole adoption process and then giving birth to a child for someone else is an extremely emotional process. I'm fit, healthy, no drug abuse, yes, I'm white, being Irish, for me to give my baby to some desperate couple would be the best choice for me. I believe that every person on this planet has a reason to be here, and what if the reason my baby came into existence was important - he/she makes an important scientific/medical discovery, or writes a classic novel that will be studied by english majors for generations to come, or is President of the US and comes up with a fantastic public health plan (badly, badly needed here BTW)? OK, chances are he/she never will do any of these things, but anything's possible.
Regardless, I would prefer to give my baby, who isn't responsible for my stupidity in forgetting birth control, etc, etc, a chance at life with someone who loves them, rather than having someone cut them up, vacuum them out of my uterus and through the body parts in a clinical waste bin for incineration like removed diseased body parts.

BTW, the baby I'm carrying now was planned, is wanted and we will be keeping it. And that goes for all other children I might end up having in the future
That's all fine and dandy that you believe it all that, but you shouldn't be imposing that belief on others by wanting to outlaw abortion.

And how much sex occurs "timed correctly" compared to how much a normal human couple will have sex?

Well, I went to a school called, in English, College of the Virgins - Presentation, nicknamed Pregnant Nation. For good reason. My class went form 128 people starting to 76 at graduation 6 years later, over 80% of drop outs were due to pregnancy. Obviously considering the large number of unwanted and accidental pregnancies that happen, quite a lot!
If you read up on stuff, a few of the websites on about conception will recommend that you and your partner have sex 2-3 times a week in order to conceive, if you're not tracking other signs of fertility - BBT, ferning, mucus, etc. It takes a bit longer, but it happens!

Shirking away from responsibilities?

Yes. If you choose to bring a child into this world, you are responsible for that child until such time as that child can be responsible for himself - adulthood. To pawn that off on someone else isn't responsible - it is shirking the responsibilities that should be your own.

Going through the whole adoption process and then giving birth to a child for someone else is an extremely emotional process.

So is having an abortion. So is giving birth to a child that you will raise yourself. So is having a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Pregnancy itself entails all sorts of emotional processes and decisions. That doesn't make any given choice responsible - simply emotional.

I'm fit, healthy, no drug abuse, yes, I'm white, being Irish, for me to give my baby to some desperate couple would be the best choice for me.

Maybe it would. Would it necessarily be the "best choice" for everyone?


I believe that every person on this planet has a reason to be here, and what if the reason my baby came into existence was important - he/she makes an important scientific/medical discovery, or writes a classic novel that will be studied by english majors for generations to come, or is President of the US and comes up with a fantastic public health plan (badly, badly needed here BTW)? OK, chances are he/she never will do any of these things, but anything's possible.

That argument doesn't really go anywhere. I could just as easily say, "What if he/she was going to be the next Hitler/Jeffery Dahmer/BTK killer and you just aborted them instead?"

BTW, the baby I'm carrying now was planned, is wanted and we will be keeping it. And that goes for all other children I might end up having in the future

Congratulations. A big part of me can't wait to have children - but it isn't happening until my fiance and I are married, settled, and financially secure enough to plan for it, well, unless it happens accidentally, in which case we'll simply move up the schedule a bit.

That's all fine and dandy that you believe it all that, but you shouldn't be imposing that belief on others by wanting to outlaw abortion.

Never said I wanted to outlaw abortion - I don't agree with it, but I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of a woman who wanted one. I don't agree with placards showing dead aborted babies, it's for shock value more than anything else. So I'm prolife, my choice, and you're obviously pro choice, your choice. Neither of us are right, just differing in our opinions.

Well, I went to a school called, in English, College of the Virgins - Presentation, nicknamed Pregnant Nation. For good reason. My class went form 128 people starting to 76 at graduation 6 years later, over 80% of drop outs were due to pregnancy. Obviously considering the large number of unwanted and accidental pregnancies that happen, quite a lot!
If you read up on stuff, a few of the websites on about conception will recommend that you and your partner have sex 2-3 times a week in order to conceive, if you're not tracking other signs of fertility - BBT, ferning, mucus, etc. It takes a bit longer, but it happens!

Once again, you aren't actually thinking in mathematical terms. If it takes 2-3 times a week for "longer" then, on average, most sex does not result in a pregnancy. Most of that sex didn't get the person pregnant, or it would only take once or twice to get pregnant. Statistically, even with no protection, the majority of times that your average sexually active person has sex will not result in a pregnancy. When you start adding in contraceptive measures, the percentage of sex that results in a pregnancy goes down even more.

Canada City']http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/artsculture/art-060224-bible-abortion.xml

Why wasn't it mentioned in the bible? Hell, if there is a miscarriage, the man just has to pay a fine.

So bible thumpers, what's the deal?

You're asking the wrong question.

Anyone that believes abortion is wrong, generally believes so because they believe that it is taking the life of a person, and is therefore murder. Murder is obviously a sin to pretty much any religious person.

So, you should be asking "bible thumpers" believe the fetus is a person, not why abortion is a sin.

Since the thread is 15 pages long, has somebody already explained why it's sinful by now? I'd just like to know, if I start ranting I don't want to learn i've just wasted my fingers if the question has been answered :/.

Never said I wanted to outlaw abortion - I don't agree with it, but I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of a woman who wanted one.

This means you are pro-choice.

I don't agree with placards showing dead aborted babies, it's for shock value more than anything else.

Especially since the placards nearly always show late-term abortions, which are not available in elective circumstances - a medical reason must be provided.

So I'm prolife, my choice, and you're obviously pro choice, your choice. Neither of us are right, just differing in our opinions.

Actually, you are, as I am, pro-life (as it were) or anti-abortion and pro-choice, as you favor allowing a woman to make the decision herself.

Actually it follows very succinctly. You have sex, you get pregnant. What else happens when you have sex? what else is the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION of having sex?
First off, I didn't say that you didn't get pregnant, I said it was a non sequitur. But if you're going to go down the biological funcction ruote, another thing which is a biological function of sex is the pleasure, correct? Or is everybody just imagining that it feels good?
Of course, you CAN use a woman's body as a play station, or a mans whatever as a joystick, however, it is denegrating to the person to reduce them to an entertainment method.
What does sex for pleasure have to do with 'reducing someone to an entertainment method'?
How would you feel if you were reduced to property? how do you think the black slaves felt 200 years ago? and yes it is the SAME exact thing. those poor souls were reduced to a method of doing work while others sat and watched. You are reducing a woman or man to a form of entertainment.
You are saying that, in having voluntary sex with someone else who enjoys it, I am doing the same thing to them as slavemasters did to their slaves?
That's a bit absurd, don't you think? Must I explain it?
No im not saying that. Im saying his lung cancer is a consquence of his smoking, and that he needs to take responsibility for smoking.
You keep on talking about responsibility, but you aren't letting us now what exactly responsibility is supposed to be. What would the responsible thing to do be?
Yes he can seek treatment, but that doesnt mean hes allowed to pick up a homeless man off the street and order the doctor to perform a lung transplant. It would kill the homeless person. Again, a more extreme example but very applicable.
A homeless person can disagree with being kidnapped and killed. Somehow I doubt that something without a functioning brain can do so.
That is very true, and people need to take that into consideration too. Having sex DOES cause pregnancy. Even with contraceptives. You have to make a choice to risk it or not.
Umm, I don't see the relation of that to the quote.
funny... you say i have no rational reason to stop anybody, id say the same about you. You have no rational reason to stop a baby from naturally developing into a human being.
Perhaps because someone doesn't want kids? Just a thought...
But lets not talk about that. I have no desire to stop a man and woman from giong and having sex. Im saying there should be responsibility from BOTH parties about the consequences of that act.
And the responsible thing to do is in many cases to abort.

I'm not sure on that, but how much sex do you think actually occurs at the exact most fertile moment of her cycle vs. how much sex occurs in normal human activity?

And by "pregnancy", do you mean actual pregnancy, or "fertilized egg"? Because most fertilized eggs never make it to birth...



Then you are talking about non-consensual sex? I think we're probably all opposed to that.



That doesn't really apply much to this then, does it? The embryo can be removed from the woman without physically destroying her womb - leaving her to use it as she likes in the future.



Verse?

Meanwhile, if that verse is there, all it demonstrates is an inconsistency in Biblical law. So if it says that killing a fetus is only a fine in one case, but is murder in another, how do we know which is actually correct?

I just wanted to point out that a year of sex only has a 85% chance of pregnancy with no birth control. There is pretty much no time in the cycle where pregnancy is likely and it takes a combined year to make pregnancy likely, while birth is still fairly less likely than no birth.

Got a problem with using biblical verses.

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." -- Numbers 3:15-16

According to the WORD of GOD, which says specifically, don't bother numbering male infants under a mont of age? (and forget females, they don't count anyway.... grrrrrrr)

"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." -- Genesis 38:24

uhm, if the fetus is sooo important, uh, shouldn't the thing be to 'pled the belly? and wait until AFTER the birth to murder her? hmmmm.

"The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Oh,? this sounds an awlful lot like an abortion receipe. Drink a special brew that the priest has made, and if you're preggo by someone other than jealous- spot hubby, instant and painful abortion and being made into a 'curse amoung her people, (i.e, for those who are too innocent to realize it, a death sentance to boot... Also, why not a equal and fair turnabout for the wife if the hubby has been an unfaithful SOB?

Yes. If you choose to bring a child into this world, you are responsible for that child until such time as that child can be responsible for himself - adulthood. To pawn that off on someone else isn't responsible - it is shirking the responsibilities that should be your own.

If I delegate that responsibility to a loving couple desperate for a child, and who can provide a loving, stable home for my offspring, then I feel as though I have done my duty. It would be worse to keep the child, if I had no father figure to help me, and no money to give it all it needed in life. Adoption for some people is the best choice because overall, everyone wins - birth mother does not have a child she can't support, adoptive parents finally have a child of their own, child had a loving stable home.


Maybe it would. Would it necessarily be the "best choice" for everyone?

I certanly can't speak for everyone, I can only speak for myself. As I've said, to put a child I didn't want up for adoption would be the best choice for ME - I could not live with the guilt of aborting a healthy, viable fetus for no reasons other than for my own benefit (trying to be careful about my wording here)

That argument doesn't really go anywhere. I could just as easily say, "What if he/she was going to be the next Hitler/Jeffery Dahmer/BTK killer and you just aborted them instead?"

OK, you do have a point, no one knows what a child will make of his/her life at the moment of birth, but a good upbringing, good eduation, and a stable family life can all lead to a productive member of society.


Congratulations. A big part of me can't wait to have children - but it isn't happening until my fiance and I are married, settled, and financially secure enough to plan for it, well, unless it happens accidentally, in which case we'll simply move up the schedule a bit.
Cudos to you, and congrats on having the maturity to know what you want and when it's right to do it. I'm married, happily, we're both college graduates, with good incomes and good quality of life. We know that now we can give our child the best in life, so now is the right time for us. You'll know when the right time is for you, and if it happens sooner, it's just the way it's meant to be.

Actually, the Bible does mention (check Deuteronomy) that if a person throws a stick and kills a pregnant woman, but the baby is delivered and lives, than the person is guilty of one murder, but if it kills the UNBORN baby as well, than the person is guilty of two murders.

Check your facts before you start stating falsehoods about Scripture.
is there some reason you didnt tell us the chapter and verse?

next time perhaps you would quote the scripture yourself or provide a link for those of us who dont sit at the computer with a bible in our laps

If I delegate that responsibility to a loving couple desperate for a child, and who can provide a loving, stable home for my offspring, then I feel as though I have done my duty. It would be worse to keep the child, if I had no father figure to help me, and no money to give it all it needed in life. Adoption for some people is the best choice because overall, everyone wins - birth mother does not have a child she can't support, adoptive parents finally have a child of their own, child had a loving stable home.

It certainly would be better to give a child up for adoption than to keep one that you cannot (or will not) take care of. I just don't think that adoption is really the "repsonsible" choice, as it involves taking a responsibility that should be yours and giving it to others. And all adoptions aren't set up before birth - the birth mother doesn't necessarily know that there will be any loving home in the future of her child.

Meanwhile, I have to admit that I don't put much stock in those "loving couples" who say they want to give a child a loving, stable home, but wait for years for an infant when they could adopt a child who needs a home *now*.

Cudos to you, and congrats on having the maturity to know what you want and when it's right to do it. I'm married, happily, we're both college graduates, with good incomes and good quality of life. We know that now we can give our child the best in life, so now is the right time for us. You'll know when the right time is for you, and if it happens sooner, it's just the way it's meant to be.

Thanks. =) I get what we call "baby urges" all the time. Basically, I see someone with a baby or young child, and I get a yearning for a child of my own, but I know it isn't time for us to plan that yet.

It's not death for two deaths and you're really stretching to try rationalize what cannot be found in the text.


But this is essentially my point. The words of religous texts can be twisted in whatever way I wish, to suit whatever purpose I want. Especially when the issue at hand is of a highly contentious political nature. This is why religously based arguments, pro- or anti-, are highly suspect and should be avoided. Edit: Arguing over what God/"Bob"/Flying Spaghetti really meant is the textbook definition of "futility."


Also, one should note that simply because they don't admit to be religious people does not mean that they aren't.


Does this include people who take a pro-abortion stance?

Why do we need to base our laws on faith? Not everyone agrees with it. The Amish ban electricity among themselves, should we ban electricity just because they do?

All I'm trying to say is, if YOU don't want an abortion, YOU don't get one.

(One thing I don't get is why a bunch of MEN in congress/courts are debating about things that don't apply to them.)

Does this include people who take a pro-abortion stance?

You know, I've only ever talked to one "pro-abortion" person in my entire life, and she isn't religious and is, in fact, rather opposed to all religion. Considering how hard such people are to find, I don't think we can really say much about them as a group at all.

The fetus will not necessarily die as well. If there is a premature birth it is very possible the fetus will survive and the woman will perish.


Possible, yes. Considering the state of medicine that likely existed at the time that the relevant scripture was written, however, I'd say unlikely.

The fact is the accidental act warrants death if it causes the death of the mother (the typical eye for an eye mentality) but not death when there is a miscarriage. ...The fact is they think nothing of the loss of the fetus other than how it affects the parents, while they consider the death of a person to be an offense punishable with death. Your failure to recognize this doesn't change that it was their attitude.


Simply restating your argument does not prove it's truth.

Simply restating your argument does not prove it's truth.

No, but reading the text does. It very plainly states that the accidental death of a fetus = a fine (if the father wants one) and the accidental death fo the woman = an eye for an eye.

You know, I've only ever talked to one "pro-abortion" person in my entire life, and she isn't religious and is, in fact, rather opposed to all religion. Considering how hard such people are to find, I don't think we can really say much about them as a group at all.

Excuse my imprecise words and allow me to attempt to restate: Does this include people who are pro-choice, who would allow abortion to remain legal? Is it not possible that the beliefs of these people can be or are arbitrary or unscientific, or does such a designation only apply to those who take the pro-life position?

But this is essentially my point. The words of religous texts can be twisted in whatever way I wish, to suit whatever purpose I want. Especially when the issue at hand is of a highly contentious political nature. This is why religously based arguments, pro- or anti-, are highly suspect and should be avoided. Edit: Arguing over what God/"Bob"/Flying Spaghetti really meant is the textbook definition of "futility."

Yes, if you don't actually read the text it can mean anything. However, what you claim to get from the text isn't stated anywhere in the text and actually belies the actual text itself.

Does this include people who take a pro-abortion stance?

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. However, I'll tell you that I am religious and I am pro-choice.

Excuse my imprecise words and allow me to attempt to restate: Does this include people who are pro-choice, who would allow abortion to remain legal? Is it not possible that the beliefs of these people can be or are arbitrary or unscientific, or does such a designation only apply to those who take the pro-life position?

It is possible for anyone's beliefs to be arbitrary or unscientific, although the arbitrary and unscientific often seems to fall much more to one side or another. For instance, it would be possible for someone to believe, due to unscientific reasons, that the Earth revolves around the sun. Perhaps they believe it because Bob the preacher told them to, but have no evidence of it. However, *everyone* who believes the opposite does so unscientifically...

The thing is that we are talking about people who want to legislate something vs. those who do not. The default in our system for any action is that it is legal until a law is made to the contrary. Thus, it is those who wish to make it illegal that must support their case, as they are the ones trying to legislate upon others.

Possible, yes. Considering the state of medicine that likely existed at the time that the relevant scripture was written, however, I'd say unlikely.

It doesn't matter. It's clear that they didn't look at the miscarriage as even harm, since they stated that a miscarriage could occur and their be no harm. They simply ignored harm to the fetus and discussed the effect on the parents. This is also clear in the penalties. Keep torturing the facts, perhaps one day it will confess to what you want it to say.

Simply restating your argument does not prove it's truth.

No, the evidence is what shows the truth of my argument. One has to ignore the actual text to arrive at your stance (which incidentally has changed several times). Simply admit that you didn't know the original language included a miscarriage and the harm referred to is to the woman. It's okay to be wrong. It's sad to be unwilling to admit it.

Excuse my imprecise words and allow me to attempt to restate: Does this include people who are pro-choice, who would allow abortion to remain legal? Is it not possible that the beliefs of these people can be or are arbitrary or unscientific, or does such a designation only apply to those who take the pro-life position?

Some are, but the point is there are lines we've drawn and already agreed to for rules outside of abortion (death as a result of the stoppage of brain function). There are rules that we have to describe life that were created to describe all life and not made up solely to support a stance on abortion. So those rules when used as evidence are far less arbitrary than an argument made up solely to outlaw abortion, particularly one that with changing a word could apply to outlawing all birth control or making it okay to kill infants. See the difference?

I almost forgot this part!

Lets hear the opinion of Roe v. Wade from Roe herself! Norma McCorvey has been very vocal about this issue, especially in the last 10 years. Its funny though, a lot of news media organizations try to bury this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/


Sadly, even CNN tries to distort things. The reason why Miss McCorvey is against abortion now is the extreme psycological damage an abortion can do to the woman. Apparently this damage happens in more than half the cases.

Shock news! Woman who once had an abortion is now against abortion! :eek:

Wow, this is really relevant to the debate...

No, but reading the text does. It very plainly states that the accidental death of a fetus = a fine (if the father wants one) and the accidental death fo the woman = an eye for an eye.

What it states is that the premature birth or death of a fetus means a fine, while the death of the woman merits capital punishment. Considering that the state of medicine that existed at the time is probably not likely to rescue a fetus from a dying mother, the second case is likely to result in two deaths. As such, what I read is: probably causing one death - a fine. probably causing two deaths - capital punishment. The mitigating factor, therefore, is not necessarily a matter of "person" vs. "fetus" but could be a matter of how many human lives are lost.

And, at any rate, the scripture quoted deals with an accidental harm, not a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy. As such, any conclusions drawn vis-a-vis a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy are tenuous at best

(And yes, I have essentially restated my argument. Because of the nature of the issue being debated, a religious text, this is probably the best I can do. We can continue to go around and around until "Bob" returns in Glory, or we can conclude that religious arguments, including the one presented in the original post of this thread, are acts of futility.)

Abortion is a sin?
I didnt know that...i just thoguht those catholic groups were bored...
Proves me wrong...

What it states is that the premature birth or death of a fetus means a fine, while the death of the woman merits capital punishment. Considering that the state of medicine that existed at the time is probably not likely to rescue a fetus from a dying mother, the second case is likely to result in two deaths. As such, what I read is: probably causing one death - a fine. probably causing two deaths - capital punishment. The mitigating factor, therefore, is not necessarily a matter of "person" vs. "fetus" but could be a matter of how many human lives are lost.

Not if you read it in context, as it is clearly stated in other laws that a single death warrants death from the offender. In fact, considering that the rule of the time was "an eye for an eye," if a person murdered a woman *and* her child, then that person and *his* child would most likely be killed.

Thus, the only logical conclusion (unless you assume a great deal of inconsistency) is that the difference here was in the value of the life of the fetus vs. that of the born person.

And, at any rate, the scripture quoted deals with an accidental harm, not a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy. As such, any conclusions drawn vis-a-vis a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy are tenuous at best

We aren't drawing conclusions about willful termination. We are drawing conclusions about the attitude toward the fetus. The entire argument of many anti-choice persons is "The Bible says the fetus is a human being and therefore it is murder to kill it." This passage makes an incredibly clear distinction between the value of a fetus and a born person.

Since the thread is 15 pages long, has somebody already explained why it's sinful by now? I'd just like to know, if I start ranting I don't want to learn i've just wasted my fingers if the question has been answered :/.

Currently people are arguing over translations and interpretations of the Bible. I'd just wait until it all blows over if I were you, these threads never go anywhere.

is there some reason you didnt tell us the chapter and verse?

next time perhaps you would quote the scripture yourself or provide a link for those of us who dont sit at the computer with a bible in our laps

On the injury of pregnant woman and child issue, Biblical support:

Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

On the issue of taking a baby's destiny into our own hands (ending the life):

Jeremiah 1;
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

and

Psalm 139:
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

So God has a plan for each individual, even before they are formed in the womb.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned original sin, as it is very relevant to this topic.

You don't seem to get it. The act that results in conception is considered base and sinful by those that argue such. What's the evidence? Why was it important that Jesus was born of a virgin? Because she was not sullied by sexual acts even though she did have a husband.

she wasn't a virgin. in the snese of the virgin mary, it means she was born without Original Sin, and thusly pure. It never says outwardly that she didn't concieve by having sex with her husband(and act that there is absolutely nothing sinful about according to the bible or the church)

I'm surprised no one's mentioned original sin, as it is very relevant to this topic.



she wasn't a virgin. in the snese of the virgin mary, it means she was born without Original Sin, and thusly pure. It never says outwardly that she didn't concieve by having sex with her husband(and act that there is absolutely nothing sinful about according to the bible or the church)
Mary herself was born without original sin?

If thats what you meant to say I have NEVER seen that supported by scripture ... care to now?

Well said. But what about the Catholic Church's view on the use of birth control? Should all of us Catholics abstain from sex until we wish to procreate? Why is sex so damn pleasurable then if we weren't supposed to enjoy it?

the pleasure is so that species will procreate. If there were no pleasure in it, species especially like humans who are in no threat whatsoever of extinction would have no reason to continue procreation.

What it states is that the premature birth or death of a fetus means a fine, while the death of the woman merits capital punishment. Considering that the state of medicine that existed at the time is probably not likely to rescue a fetus from a dying mother, the second case is likely to result in two deaths. As such, what I read is: probably causing one death - a fine. probably causing two deaths - capital punishment. The mitigating factor, therefore, is not necessarily a matter of "person" vs. "fetus" but could be a matter of how many human lives are lost.

And, at any rate, the scripture quoted deals with an accidental harm, not a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy. As such, any conclusions drawn vis-a-vis a purposeful act to terminate a pregnancy are tenuous at best

(And yes, I have essentially restated my argument. Because of the nature of the issue being debated, a religious text, this is probably the best I can do. We can continue to go around and around until "Bob" returns in Glory, or we can conclude that religious arguments, including the one presented in the original post of this thread, are acts of futility.)

It doesn't matter it exposes the view of a fetus not being a person which is all it needs to do. You keep trying to obscure the issue. And if you had any knowledge of the culture you would know that they eye for an eye very clearly refers to a death for a death even accidental, if there is responsibility. You have to pretend like they don't say eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and the rest of that jazz to get your interpretation. Seriously, it's not an interpretation, it's just a denial of what's plainly written. If it's a fine for 1 life and death for two then why write an eye for an eye. More importantly it doesn't require death for the second part only injury to the mother.

Basically, I can cause a miscarriage. A fine.

But if I burn the mother, then I get burned.

If I kill her, I get killed.

If I bruise her I get bruised.

If she loses her leg, I lose mine, and so on. The message is clear unless you don't read it.