The Bible says abortion is NOT murder.

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Ronstar, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OMG, One has to be born to be considered a person with rights.

    See, now think a minute (at least) Since you have no knowledge of what born and UNBORN mean

    I'll try to explain....before a fetus is born it is attached to the woman it's in. No matter how you argue that is a fact that YOU can't change. The fetus is part of her body , it is totally dependent on her body for life.

    It legally becomes a person with rights when it is no longer attached and dependent.

    You firmly believe that an aborted fetus suffered as much as Jews who were BORN people and you can't see how that denigrates what the Jews endured....seems like you sure want to minimize what Jews went through.....which cannot compare to what an abortion is.




    Why?

    By doing what? By making abortion illegal? That IS controlling women...........and won't stop abortion :)
     
  2. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?



    Thanks for showing that you don't pay attention.


    [/quote]
    I'll try to explain....before a fetus is born it is attached to the woman it's in. No matter how you argue that is a fact that YOU can't change. The fetus is part of her body , it is totally dependent on her body for life. [/quote]

    It has it's own DNA and therefore scientifically not apart of the mother. No one is arguing whether or not it is attached.

    I don't care about legally, I care about logically and scientifically.



    Because it's an analogy to show how illogical you are. Also in fact the unborn do suffer their own holocaust.

    Get back to me when you've stopped demonizing the opposition and actually argue logically.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Where in the bible does it mention DNA?


    IF the fetus is separate from it's mother than it should be able to be taken out of her at any time , set on a shelf and grow on it's own.

    It is attached to the mother which makes it part of her just as her heart is attached to her and part of her.

    I stand firm on the following because this is what you did:

    """You firmly believe that an aborted fetus suffered as much as Jews who were BORN people and you can't see how that denigrates what the Jews endured....seems like you sure want to minimize what Jews went through.....which cannot compare to what an abortion is.""""


    ...and NO, you do not use science or logic ...


    ...and they are what contributed to the law which don't believe in...


    No where in the bible does it say abortion is murder....nor does science nor does logic nor does law....


    YOU can ignore law if you choose but it overrules your opinion:)
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2017
  4. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too funny! You blow the hell out of biblical arguments and suddenly it has nothing to do with the bible. LOL!!!

    Fake gospel! Fake gospel!

    No kidding! As many times as I've read the bible and I never caught that. The priests performed abortions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Logically and scientifically the zygote is not a living human.
    According to human taxonomy - branch of science that defines what a Homo sapiens is - the Fetus is not a Homo sapiens.

    There is a whole range of scientific perspectives in relation to when a Fetus could be classified as Human or when human life begins. I tend to favor the Neurological Perspective ... that significant brain function needs to be present in order for the entity to be classified as a living human.

    If someone on life support ceases to have significant brain function the doctor pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins ... the human is no longer considered to be living. It is clinically dead.

    This seems like a logical beginning and end. It is hard for me to accept that something can be a Living human/Person without a functioning brain.
     
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While that is relevant to the thread, it's not revelant to the arguments I raised.



    Then newborns are apart of their mothers because if you leave a newborn on a shelf, it'll die.

    No it doesn't. A parasite is not apart of it's host just because it's attached to it and neither is the unborn. Please back up your claim with a scientific journal.


    To you maybe. But then you believe that abortion is self defense.


    Yes I do.

    Evidence?

    Oh so when you start to lose the diverted argument, you all of a sudden think we should get back on topic. Nice.

    So slavery was ok when it was law.
     
  7. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidence?
    But the brain functions well before birth. Therefore, by your own reasoning, an unborn child at a certain point becomes human.
    Again, the unborn at a certain stage has a functional brain.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then why do you keep harping on about it...DNA is NOT relevant to anything to do with abortion...


    Ya know, I am always amazed at he Anti-Choicers who have no idea what "gestation" means or entails.... their FEAR of science is palpable...

    I'll try to explain that which no one else needs explained:

    The fetus is gestating and needs to be in the woman and attached to her, a part of her....if it is separated it will die, it can't grow on it's own and no one else can grow it.

    . The newborn is NOT gestating and does NOT need to be attached to it's mother because it is done getstating......


    :roll:







    No where in the bible does it say abortion is murder....nor does science nor does logic nor does law....

    Too bad the topic frightens you...


    Don't even you Anti-Choicers get tired of your same old schtick about slavery and your blatant racist attitude that equates black persons with a fetus....


    You may not understand but slavery was wrong (and it was despite what Trump thinks) because blacks were persons and persons have rights....

    YOU wanting to equate them with NON-persons is typical but has no meaning in the abortion debate..
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Take a child in Grade 2. Show them a picture of a man, an chimp, and a single human cell. Then ask them "which one is not like the other.

    Or .. if you want to get scientific .. look up "human taxonomy" see what characteristics are required for an organism to classified as "Homo sapiens" .. and you will quickly learn that the zygote does not qualify.

    There is no such thing as an "unborn child" unless you can show a human exists at what ever stage you are referring to.
    Second... I agree that significant brain function exists around 22 weeks.


    Indeed ... around 22 weeks.
     
  10. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @Giftedone The issue I have found is key is when does the Soul or spirit of the person enter the body, or in secular terms, the "free will" or "consciousness" form. CLEARLY we cannot prove this by science; it is completely faith based:
    1. whether a soul or consciousness exists (you are saying only chemical reactions in the brain can be proven by science, so your beliefs are based on that)
    2. whether the will of a person can exist before birth which is separate from the mother
    3. at what point does this soul or will of a separate individual enter the body of the child, either unborn or conceived or at birth, etc.

    Since this is faith-based, and your definitions by science you have the right to for defining YOUR beliefs; so do the prolife advocates have equal right to define their beliefs based on conception or wherever this occurs "spiritually" WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN BY SCIENCE NOR DENIED.

    Govt can neither establish nor prohibit free exercise or expression of beliefs, much less regulate what the people or public should believe.

    If we AGREE on laws, such as barring abortion after 3 months, then such laws can be passed by consensus, regardless of people's beliefs.

    However to be fair to all beliefs, those who don't believe in govt funding of abortion and policies should be free to defund those and redirect their taxes and tax breaks elsewhere. Same with those who want to fund right to health care, while others do not.

    If we AGREE on policies and what to fund, SURE those can be made public.
    If we AGREE on mandates that touch on areas of beliefs, SURE that can be public policy.

    But if we don't agree on FAITH BASED BELIEFS< then if people object to laws that favor or deny one belief more than another:
    1. either we agree how to rewrite those laws to be NEUTRAL, neither prohibiting or establishing one belief over another
    2. or we agree to SEPARATE policies or funding so both groups and beliefs are equally protected from imposition by the other

    NOTE: another problem this runs into
    1. more conservatives believe in limited govt and minimalizing federal regs while maximizing decisions made by individual people and states
    2. more liberals don't believe in using the Constitution to limit laws this way, but want to maximize govt protections;
    thus keeping policies private and out of govt control appears to favor Conservative beliefs and discriminate against liberal beliefs in using central govt for things like heath care. So this is another area that calls for consensus, so it doesn't favor one approach more than the other. If both sides AGREE that a policy is fair and effective, then it should fulfill both 1 and 2, and neither impose through govt NOR deny access to all people as liberals keep trying to use govt to ensure. If we can achieve that equal protection without overuse of govt, then both sides are satisfied.
     
  11. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Religious beliefs should have nothing to do with federal laws.....

    Oh DO prove there's a 'soul " floating around somewhere......and what has it got to do with abortion...(nothing)

    .Law is for every citizen not just Christians or Jews or Hindus or atheists or Wiccans.


    Conservatives do NOT believe in limited government, they want abortion made illegal and women controlled, that's not limited government.



    You: """However to be fair to all beliefs, those who don't believe in govt funding of abortion and policies should be free to defund those and redirect their taxes and tax breaks elsewhere. Same with those who want to fund right to health care, while others do not. """



    Me: ""However to be fair to all beliefs, those who don't believe in govt funding of WAR, the military, infrastructure, public buildings , the court system, street lights, water service, highway maintenance and plowing, firefighters, police, regulatory organizations that inspect food and products and drugs for safety and policies should be free to defund those and redirect their taxes and tax breaks elsewhere.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good post - you bring up some good issues.

    1) My point in relation to faith based belief is that this is not a legitimate justification for making law (in general).

    For example - the question of a referendum is not "do you like something". The question is "do you have legitimate rational to force your belief on another human through physical violence (Law).

    So - if one does not like alcohol (Don't drink) not liking something personally is not justification to force your belief on someone else. (as per the Golden rule which is the foundation of the social contract)

    The problem with " God says so" - is that there is no way to prove that this claim is true.

    2) Consensus :

    Individual rights and freedoms are supposed to be "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Gov't then is not to mess with liberty of it's own volition. The legitimate purview of Gov't is for protection from direct harm. Gov't can however go outside it's legitimate purview on the basis of "overwhelming majority" - a change to the social contract.

    Law on the basis of simple majority (50+1) is classified both in classical liberalism and republicanism as "tyranny of the majority".
    There would be no point in putting individual liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't on the basis of simple majority mandate - every Gov't has this. (fed, state, municipal). In many cases today we get laws being made on the basis of much less than simple majority.

    The minimum then is some kind of super majority - at least 2/3rds 66% for there to be a "legitimate" consensus.

    The people give power to some authority to punish on the basis of protection from harm. This power however was supposed to be "limited".
    "no man wants to be ruled over by another"

    There are few that think murder, rape or theft should be legal. The bar is no different for any other law - or at least it is not supposed to be.

    We now face the plague of fallacious utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is justification for law that looks only at what will increase happiness for the collective. I can get into this in another post if you are interested.
     
    emilynghiem likes this.
  13. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Sure, would you start a thread and what is this called. Is the issue how do we make policies that serve public purpose and interest WHEN BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED ON BOTH SIDES.

    My question on #1 is what if someone's belief is secular, not necessarily coming from God but they BELIEVE it is universal truth and someone else does not. Like health care or marriage as a right. That belief is relative. I believe these are equal creeds, and neither should be abused to discriminate against the other creeds, whether or not any faith in a God is involved. Beliefs are beliefs. If we had to justify those by law, that's already alienable instead of inalienable free exercise of religion.

    So is the common issue dealing with beliefs?
    should political and secular beliefs be treated like religious beliefs? And what process do we use regarding utilitarian purpose we seek to serve with a law or policy. What is our concern, what issues are we trying to address with a law, and how do we achieve that without stepping on beliefs or creeds so as to treat them unequally?

    @Giftedone whatever you call this topic, yes, please start a thread and we can discuss in more detail. Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can discuss right hear as this is part of the topic in a way. The answer is mostly given in the previous post.

    There is a difference between 1) Having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on another person (whether religious or secular).

    I can go into lengthy detail (as per the tenets of classical liberalism as derived by Locke) and how this was the basis of the main principles in the DOI but, in a nutshell:

    The "social contract" is a construct by which "the people" give an authority power.
    This power however is to be very limited as "no man wants to be ruled over by another".

    Limited to what ? "only acts which are injurious to others" direct harm (murder, theft, rape and so on) I can get into why this is if you like but for now - individual right end where the nose of another begins. This is also where Gov't authority begins and ends.

    Obviously there is overwhelming agreement that people should be punished for murder rape, theft - via law.

    The bar is no different for any other law that messes with individual liberty.

    What you or I think .. what your religious belief or personal opinion is does not matter. If you can get 66% to agree that something is so harmful that the Gov't should be allowed to use physical violence to enforce your opinion on others ... then this law is legitimate. If you can not ... too bad.

    If you do not like alcohol - don't drink. Not liking alcohol is not legitimate justification to force your personal belief on others though physical violence (Law).

    The question of a referendum is not "do you like or dislike something". The question of a referendum is "do you have sufficient justification to force your belief on others though physical violence (Law).

    "God says so" is not a legitimate justification ... prove that God said so ?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    interesting that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is ok with abortions,
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    More importantl,y and the only thing that has real meaning is, the LAW is "OK" with abortion....
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But in the example you gave, the killing of the fetus was accidental.

    And furthermore, just because the proscribed punishment might not be the same as murder of an adult would not necessarily mean it wasn't a form of murder.

    That was God causing the woman to miscarry, not people.
    Very big difference.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  18. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    A zygote is not sentient .It is interesting that you see people on welfare as “pukes” who are in viable. Yet you will put down these mothers who chose not to have an abortion. Perhaps women can’t afford to raise a child for 18 years and will have to go on welfare and be degraded by people saying what you said
     
  19. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    A woman who cannot afford to raise another human being for 18 years has every right to terminate her pregnancy. Who are you to tell a woman that she must breed against her will? You act as though it’s nine months when in fact it’s 18 years. If one feels she cannot fairly support a child, she should not have one and it is not for you or anyone else to decide for her
     
  20. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    We aren’t talking about newborns because they are in fact people. They do not need a woman’s body to survive. Personifying a zygote doesn’t make it a child
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had no way of knowing until Democrats commenced supporting Abortion that my two Daughters and even myself and their mothers had once been just a damned Zygote. Not worth crap. Not even thought of by many Democrats as humans.

    Well my wives were happy and called our kids babies. "Robert, we are going to have a baby as they grinned ear to ear. "

    Democrats teach us the low value they place on life.
     
  22. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy were also zygotes. Your wife called her embryos babies because she was personifying them. She wanted them. I wonder how happy she and you would be if the “babies” came from that night with the guy next-door.
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was not able to impregnate him.
     
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republicans would let those babies starve
     
  25. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,298
    Likes Received:
    3,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well legally she can kill her child. But yes I will call it what it is...killing your baby. And she doesn't have to raise it. It would probably be best if she didn't with the many couples out their looking for a newborn.

    She took part in creating a life. Sex is not without consequences. It's designed to breed human life, offspring, children. Once that life is created then a mother and father are created.
     

Share This Page