Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

Don't you think biblical law is a bit irrelevant to this conversation? Not everyone gives it any validity.

For someone claiming to study law and jurisprudence, you seem a bit unaware of biblical law and its relevance to modern law (as well as ancient practice).

PS. How can you be a frequent poster to RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com and question the validity of biblical law? That seems weird to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Safe sex doesn't teach not to be abstinent. Just like teaching workplace health and safety doesn't teach people to be unsafe at work.

It's simply saying hey this, this and this cause STIs. Here's the symptoms of said STIs. Go see a doctor or other relevant medical professional for any concerns. If you are having sex go get regularly tested. Here's where the lines of consent are. Ladies here's how your body works, don't be ashamed. Fellas and ladies if your partner does not want to have sex, be cool and respect their boundaries.
Rape victims may experience orgasm. Here's all the myths about sex you probably have heard by now, here's why they're wrong.
And if you are going to have sex (could be that week, could be 5 years from now) here is how contraception methods work. Here's how to use them correctly.

I mean for Christ's sake man, do you just go out and burn random things down if you are taught about match safety? No you don't. You know how to be safe if you ever need to use it. Same goes for safe sex. No one is telling kids to go have sex, in fact many programs stress abstinence. But they're also realistic enough to realise that unless they have future nuns in their class that everyone will have sex sometime in life. It is then better to teach how to be safe when that time comes. Even if it's 20 years down the track.

I'm young and therefore supposed to be idealistic. What's your excuse?

And just FYI, married couples do need to know about safe sex as well.

Please don't take the Lord in vain. Surely you could have used a different expression.

For MOST married couples who are virgins when they marry, there is no safe sex teaching needed unless they wish to hold off on childbearing for a while. The use of non-abortifacient birth control for married people is not quite needed for 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds who cannot marry in the USA.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am an advanced practice critical care nurse. So I feel qualified to answer your query here. Sometimes having someone on a vent is purposeful, as in it promotes their return to full or at least partial health. Other times, I strongly disagree with continuing to keep people on a vent when there is no reason for it. I have seen way too many people of your faith refuse to let a loved one go because, IMO, they are selfish and wish to believe that God will intervene. I can say that often this mindset results in intractable and horrific pain for the person vented. And IMO, that is the height of unpardonable hubris. And of course, ultimately, the person dies but not after they have suffered horribly. I hope you can see the difference and that I have explained your questions well enough. For me and my whole family, we have DNR, DNI mandates. Meaning we will never be placed on a vent.

What does it have to do with God intervening? It has everything to do with the values, objective and/or subjective, we place on human life. My wife has the legal right to withhold my intubation and artificial respiration. Thank God, you don't!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry you are confused.

Teaching teens to attempt abstinence and also, "Have safe-r sex in case you're an animal who cannot be abstinent" is a mixed message. Mixed messages, not strong stances, are the source of confusion.

Who says that's the message? Have you not been following the posts where myself and several other posters have expanded on this significantly??

Not to mention that you ignored most of what I said.

 

[viole]

No, I do not. Why are you hijacking this thread? Please stop.

I am hijacking it because you seem to delegate all these things to the Bible, which seems to be pretty abortionist too.

If God commands, in the Bible, to tear the womb of pregnant women apart with a sword, I call it a direct command to perpetrate abortion, among other things.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

For someone claiming to study law and jurisprudence, you seem a bit unaware of biblical law and its relevance to modern law (as well as ancient practice).

Ancient biblical law has no relevance to anything modern.

PS. How can you be a frequent poster to RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com and question the validity of biblical law? That seems weird to me.

Well let's see one could be a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a deist, a pantheist, a Wiccan, a Sikh, or a Confucian, just to name a few.

 

[viole]

I'm sorry you are confused.

Teaching teens to attempt abstinence and also, "Have safe-r sex in case you're an animal who cannot be abstinent" is a mixed message. Mixed messages, not strong stances, are the source of confusion.

Do you think we are not animals? I think we are. Primates and mammals, for instance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

That is a sweeping, general statement. Do you have verses in mind, perhaps?

My point is that there are no verses on the subject.
None.

By the cultural standards of the day, abortion was not a moral issue. Children were the property of the parents and were not alive until they drew a breath. Those people didn't even know where babies come from, really. They believed that a male planted a seed in a vessel, so he owned the progeny until they were officially recognized as a person. Which only happened if they were male, otherwise they remained chattel.

Biblical morality was really primitive. Because the people were primitive and ignorant. Modern people are less so.
Somewhat.

But you cannot find a verse in the Bible against abortion. Not if you put it in the context of the Bible authors and audience.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

For someone claiming to study law and jurisprudence, you seem a bit unaware of biblical law and its relevance to modern law (as well as ancient practice).

PS. How can you be a frequent poster to RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com and question the validity of biblical law? That seems weird to me.

First of all, Mr. Straw Man, I didn’t claim that Biblical Law was not relevant to the US Legal System in general, as that would be an entirely different conversation. I merely pointed out that no US Citizen is required in any way shape or form to adhere to Biblical Law, and, thus, pointing to the Bible in an argument about abortion rights is nothing more than a waste of time. Our laws are in no way based on what certain people believe God’s will to be. They are based upon societal impact and well-being.

Religious beliefs should not be the basis for any legislation, as that would be an endorsement of said religious beliefs and would be unconstitutional. Our laws must be based on verifiable evidence, societal impact, and the protection of civil liberties/rights. We should NEVER look to our subjective beliefs about the will of God when deciding upon legislation, as that is literally forcing our beliefs and the adherence to them on others.

If you want abortion to be made illegal, you have to come up with a sufficient legal argument. You have yet to do this. The Bible has no authority when it comes to the “rights of the mother”, and to consider it would be completely unethical, as legislating morality is always a bad idea. So, forgive me if I get a bit annoyed when people try to change the law to better adhere to scripture. They must remain separate.

Also, why on earth would it seem weird that a frequent poster on Religious Forums would view the Bible as not authoritative when discussing current legislation? Keep in mind, I never said that Biblical Law is invalid in general. I merely pointed out that, when discussing the legal rights of women, the Bible has no authority.

 

[SomeRandom]

Please don't take the Lord in vain. Surely you could have used a different expression.

Uhh, sorry? Did I do that? I thought taking the Lord's name in vain was like asking for very superficial things in prayer. That's where the expression comes from, from my understanding.

For MOST married couples who are virgins when they marry, there is no safe sex teaching needed unless they wish to hold off on childbearing for a while. The use of non-abortifacient birth control for married people is not quite needed for 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds who cannot marry in the USA.

It is however needed for sexually abused children just in case you forgot about them. And since staff are not going to individually ask each child (and self reporting is going to be shaky at best) it's better and more reasonable to teach everyone that way everyone is covered. And being raped doesn't stop people getting married so again safe sex is needed for married couples. How are rape victims supposed to identify STI's, know to get tested, to take the morning after pill if the "pull out method" was used or even to know why their body reacted the way it did if you don't freaking teach them this stuff?
To say that it's better not to teach safe sex before hand is to live in a perfect fantasy world. I don't live there, do you?

Now these are the facts of life. Despite numerous people telling kids throughout the centuries not to drink, the vast majority of people will have their first drink before they turn 18. What's better then? Have someone there to teach children how to drink safely, moderately and how to protect themselves when drinking?
Or have them learn it from their friends doing the kegstands? I know which one I'd pick for kids.

Another fact. You could have people drilling it into kids' heads abstinence only all day every day, you will still have people who will have sex. Not everyone is a hardcore Christian (actually the stereotype is that they're usually the more likely to be pregnant before marriage because of ignorance) and the urge to reproduce is quite strong. (Another random fact, being highly sexually active can actually be a sign of previous sexual abuse. Just in case you want to point to sexually active kids and blame them for being "immoral." There are other factors in play here.) The school needs to cover their bases and make sure everyone is informed about puberty, consent, Biology and how to safely have sex. These topics directly affect teenagers, you need to start BEFORE they are sexually active, otherwise it's quite useless.
And I'm sorry but not everyone has a parent or guardian who will tell them these things. It's better then to have professionally trained educators inform students of facts. Not doing so is, quite frankly, irresponsible. You have to have all your bases covered. Not just assume that every kid has the perfect home life and will get proper correct factual information about these things. That's stupid and unrealistic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who says that's the message? Have you not been following the posts where myself and several other posters have expanded on this significantly??

Not to mention that you ignored most of what I said.

I say it's the message of anyone who advocates teaching BOTH abstinence and safe sex. I can't be the only person here who understand that young people can be as influenced by schoolteachers they respect as by their parents. Maybe more so, since my dad was a schoolteacher. We're not saying "Here in Driver's Ed you can learn both automatic and manual transmissions," rather you are advocating "Here I will tell you a bunch about all the reasons not to have sex yet and also all the ways to have sex if you are powerless to help yourself..."

Which naturally leads to "Have an abortion because you couldn't help getting pregnant," when abstinence can do a great job helping with that... really, it can!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am hijacking it because you seem to delegate all these things to the Bible, which seems to be pretty abortionist too.

If God commands, in the Bible, to tear the womb of pregnant women apart with a sword, I call it a direct command to perpetrate abortion, among other things.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

1. He didn't command anyone to do so. The Jewish people were grieved at having it done to their own and the Psalmists said, "Happy are THEY (not we) who do so to your kids..."

2. The Bible here, as before, is consistent. Life is valuable, even prenatal life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you think we are not animals? I think we are. Primates and mammals, for instance.

Ciao

- viole

We are animals and also spiritual beings. The Bible describes our fleshly and spiritual natures. A fruit of God's Spirit is self-control. It is NOT true that young people HAVE to be sexually active. I'm sure you will agree.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My point is that there are no verses on the subject.
None.

By the cultural standards of the day, abortion was not a moral issue. Children were the property of the parents and were not alive until they drew a breath. Those people didn't even know where babies come from, really. They believed that a male planted a seed in a vessel, so he owned the progeny until they were officially recognized as a person. Which only happened if they were male, otherwise they remained chattel.

Biblical morality was really primitive. Because the people were primitive and ignorant. Modern people are less so.
Somewhat.

But you cannot find a verse in the Bible against abortion. Not if you put it in the context of the Bible authors and audience.
Tom

Sorry, but striking a woman had consequences, as well as EXTRA consequences--death--if her unborn baby was killed. Speaking of heathen "making their children pass through fire"--sacrificing children unto death--God said, "Horrible! Such a thing never entered my mind!"

No.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, Mr. Straw Man, I didn’t claim that Biblical Law was not relevant to the US Legal System in general, as that would be an entirely different conversation. I merely pointed out that no US Citizen is required in any way shape or form to adhere to Biblical Law, and, thus, pointing to the Bible in an argument about abortion rights is nothing more than a waste of time. Our laws are in no way based on what certain people believe God’s will to be. They are based upon societal impact and well-being.

Religious beliefs should not be the basis for any legislation, as that would be an endorsement of said religious beliefs and would be unconstitutional. Our laws must be based on verifiable evidence, societal impact, and the protection of civil liberties/rights. We should NEVER look to our subjective beliefs about the will of God when deciding upon legislation, as that is literally forcing our beliefs and the adherence to them on others.

If you want abortion to be made illegal, you have to come up with a sufficient legal argument. You have yet to do this. The Bible has no authority when it comes to the “rights of the mother”, and to consider it would be completely unethical, as legislating morality is always a bad idea. So, forgive me if I get a bit annoyed when people try to change the law to better adhere to scripture. They must remain separate.

Also, why on earth would it seem weird that a frequent poster on Religious Forums would view the Bible as not authoritative when discussing current legislation? Keep in mind, I never said that Biblical Law is invalid in general. I merely pointed out that, when discussing the legal rights of women, the Bible has no authority.

I appreciate your clarification. However, on what basis do you feel laws like these are not relevant to US law?

* Don't murder

* Don't commit adultery in marriage

* Don't steal

* Don't bear false witness in public

I disagree, respectfully.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Safe sex is needed for abused children? I think imprisoning the abusers is more appropriate.

And I do here what you are saying about (fallen, weak) human nature and sex. However, consider these two parents and their different statements:

"Child, do not have sex before marriage. You can come to me anytime with any need, anything, and I will never reject you nor forsake you. I'm always there for you. Learn self-control and try to wait before marriage."

"Child, do not have sex before marriage. You can come to me anytime with any need, anything, and I will never reject you nor forsake you. I'm always there for you so here are some condoms and pills. I know you always try to do the right thing, but if you do something really stupid you will regret for the rest of your life, I'd like to enable you if at all possible."

 

[columbus]

Sorry, but striking a woman had consequences, as well as EXTRA consequences--death--if her unborn baby was killed.

No it didn't, unless the father felt his property had been damaged or destroyed, and he was an Israelite male.
Other than that nobody cared what happened to a baby, born or unborn.
You're making up morals and pretending that they are biblical.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

I appreciate your clarification. However, on what basis do you feel laws like these are not relevant to US law?

* Don't murder

* Don't commit adultery in marriage

* Don't steal

* Don't bear false witness in public

I disagree, respectfully.

Of course they are relevant, as they are part of US Criminal Law, but they didn't originate in the Bible (or, at the very least, we don't know whether they did). But, even if the Old Testament was the first time they were written down, they aren't present in US law BECAUSE they were in the Bible. In actuality, they have been made illegal due to the potential for societal harm. Murder (unjustified killing of another person) is extremely detrimental to society. Adultry undermines the legal contract of marriage, but it is dealt with civilly in Family Law. Theft obviously causes chaos and harms society in general. And slander is the same way. In short, you seem to be confused in thinking that correlation proves causation. Sure, the same laws exist in the Bible, but they also appear in practically every other religious text, and for good reason. They are harmful to societal well-being and peace, and they inhibit prosperity. This is why they were included in US criminal law.

Why would their presence in the Bible be relevant to this conversation? US Law must be adhered to by US Citizens. Some US Laws were also included in Biblical Law, which should be expected. But, none of this should lead anyone to believe that adherence to Biblical Law is required by anyone, legally.

 

[columbus]

Speaking of heathen "making their children pass through fire"--sacrificing children unto death--God said, "Horrible! Such a thing never entered my mind!"

According to Genesis God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his second son, Isaac. It was a different form of sacrifice, kill him first then burn him, but the "never entered my mind" part of your post is ridiculous.
In the most literal sense of the word ridiculous. "Worthy of ridicule".
Tom

 

[McBell]

I say it's the message of anyone who advocates teaching BOTH abstinence and safe sex. I can't be the only person here who understand that young people can be as influenced by schoolteachers they respect as by their parents. Maybe more so, since my dad was a schoolteacher. We're not saying "Here in Driver's Ed you can learn both automatic and manual transmissions," rather you are advocating "Here I will tell you a bunch about all the reasons not to have sex yet and also all the ways to have sex if you are powerless to help yourself..."

Which naturally leads to "Have an abortion because you couldn't help getting pregnant," when abstinence can do a great job helping with that... really, it can!

Now that is a giant leap of strawman.
Who, other than yourself in the above rediculous claim, wants to tell kids, and I quote, "all the ways to have sex"?

Is this because you know your "counter-argument" is so weak?