Abortion

[McBell]

Life is valuable, even prenatal life.

Some any way.
Others, not so much.

 

[McBell]

It is NOT true that young people HAVE to be sexually active.

Who, other than yourself, has claimed it is true?

 

[McBell]

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

* Don't murder

based upon societal impact and well-being

* Don't commit adultery in marriage

Not illegal.
Merely grounds for divorce.

* Don't steal

based upon societal impact and well-being

* Don't bear false witness in public

based upon societal impact and well-being

I disagree, respectfully.

Feel free.
Has absolutely no impact on the fact that the Bible is not the standard for the law.

 

[McBell]

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."

Do you honestly think your strawmen are helping your position?
I really sincerely hope you do not.
But if you do not, why do you present strawman after strawman?

 

[SomeRandom]

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

YES! It freaking is. I say that as an abused child. Firstly, just because the abuser is locked up doesn't magically make the effects go away. Are you really this freaking naive?
Secondly, sexually abused children might become highly sexually active. For a myriad of reasons. Coping strategies, over stimulated, not knowing proper sexual boundaries due to being taught differently by said abuser etc. And this is a reason for not teaching these children how to protect themselves from STDs because?

Here's what happens in comprehensive safe sex classes which focus on helping sexually abused children, often implemented at younger levels of education.
"These are the boundaries between adult interaction with children. This is normal interaction, this isn't. If someone does this and you think it isn't appropriate it's absolutely a okay to come forward and tell an adult you do trust. It's not your fault. These things are what (the abuser) might say to you. Here's why they're wrong. If you have any medical concerns please speak to a doctor and if you do need to speak to a councilor, do so. Etc"

That is not needed for confused children who might be abused or being abused because?? You don't want to empower children with knowledge which they can use to fight back because????? What freaking perfect magical land do you live in where this is not needed? Because I sure as hell want to live there!!

"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."

That's great. Not everyone will listen, particularly children from affluent families. To pretend they do is wishful thinking at best, and outright stupidity at worse.
And again, not every child has parents/guardians who will either be that understanding and approachable (this includes those who advocate abstinence only) or even parents who care enough about them to even attempt to talk to them. You're just assuming we live in a world that doesn't have neglectful or abusive guardians.

"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."

Yeah, how dare those parents have a fail safe in case they have sex. It's almost like they acknowledge that their teen isn't perfect and is at an age where they will likely rebel or try something they disapprove of. It's almost like they are actually being realistic and being proactive instead of preparing their surprised faces when their teenager with raging hormones comes home pregnant (or with a pregnant girlfriend) because they failed to provide any relevant information on how to prevent that if they succumb to their hormones.
Again, how does having protection equal not being responsible?

Oh and in places where abstinence only is taught the rates for abstinent teens do NOT increase, just FYI.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/20/3310751/abstinence-failures-charts/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129185925.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pu.../409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1195
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2049&context=cmc_theses

 

[leibowde84]

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!

This is counter-intuitive. And, based on pure biased speculation. Can you back this claim up at all?

 

[McBell]

YES! It freaking is. I say that as an abused child. Firstly, just because the abuser is locked up doesn't magically make the effects go away. Are you really this freaking naive?

Based on their posting history, I would have to say that, yes, they are most likely honestly that naive.

 

[SomeRandom]

Based on their posting history, I would have to say that, yes, they are most likely honestly that naive.

Well that's a bit sad.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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..."

Except that isn't the message and that's been pointed out and expanded on several different times by several different posters on the thread. We need to live in the real world where the vast majority of human beings are going to have sexual relations at some point in their lives and so need to be properly educated about it, rather than some rose-colored fantasy land where nobody has sex until they're married and then only for procreation.

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!

What it sounds like you're saying is that comprehensive sexual education leads to increases in abortion rates. Which is flat out wrong. It's actually the opposite.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Hosea 13:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 Samaria shall become desolate;
for she hath rebelled against her God:
they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child shall be ripped up.

 

[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.

With proper sexual education, I do not see why they should not be sexually active.

Ciao

- viole

 

[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.

well, he exterminate basically everyone during the flood. Not to speak of killing first born children and the mass exterminations he commanded all over the old testament.

Is that his concept of life being valuable? Is that your moral role model?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

You're adding to the scripture. Do you have citation for this supposed misogynist, revisionist view? Or is this what you "feel" is the correct interpretation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Very well. Please take some time to explain why Sharia Law in many places is not required to be followed, legally. And in the West. It's affecting any number of local ordinances I'm dealing with now as a citizen!

Regardless, I understand. We are Christians but:

* I think God's laws are helpful and protect us

* You think they should have no bearing on our legal systems

Remember, the Supreme Court has to answer to a higher court! At least, that's what all the Republican candidates say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

The "never entered my mind" was an OT quotation. Also, it is upsetting when skeptics claim Bible insight without reading the Bible. Are you sure God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Issac? Because I read where he only tested him...

...PS. Issac went on to birth several nations and live 100 years after his being "sacrificed". He is a type of Christ, died and resurrected. Read that Bible, brother! Heed it!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

"All the ways/methods/devices" to have safer sex. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

With proper sexual education, I do not see why they should not be sexually active.

Ciao

- viole

Do you have an age or other limitation? I've mentioned 12-year-olds on these last few pages. I'm not easily shocked, but I'm very surprised you feel 12-year-olds are ready emotionally, spiritually, fiscally and regarding abortion for sex!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very well. Please take some time to explain why Sharia Law in many places is not required to be followed, legally. And in the West. It's affecting any number of local ordinances I'm dealing with now as a citizen!

Regardless, I understand. We are Christians but:

* I think God's laws are helpful and protect us

* You think they should have no bearing on our legal systems

Remember, the Supreme Court has to answer to a higher court! At least, that's what all the Republican candidates say.

So you think that Shariah Law should have no bearing on the American legal system but Christian biblical law should? Is that right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

well, he exterminate basically everyone during the flood. Not to speak of killing first born children and the mass exterminations he commanded all over the old testament.

Is that his concept of life being valuable? Is that your moral role model?

Ciao

- viole

God killed a bunch of people in the Flood? Are you SURE? Never heard that before.

The distinction we need to make, seriously, is when God takes life, which is ALWAYS, and when humans take life, which can variously be legal execution, self-defense or murder. If abortion isn't murder, is it self-defense? Will having a baby harm the mother? Then abort--but understand the difference between physical harm and other harm. If it is legal execution, what crime has the child committed, please?

I can go if you all desire, since everyone seems to not want to follow the OP of this thread!

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you think that Shariah Law should have no bearing on the American legal system but Christian biblical law should? Is that right?

No. I didn't say that at all. My point was that just as Sharia Law intersects and affects civil law, anyone who says Bible laws have no bearing on civil Western law have little understanding of the law's roots, the reformation, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, modern law... it's just another (yawn) separation of God and totalitarian state, oops, I meant church and state, of course.

Are we still discussing abortion or has that topic been aborted?