Abortion

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Thank you for the clarification.

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

I responded to a couple of your posts on it above.

 

[columbus]

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.

No, you are adding to scripture. There is nothing in there about killing an unborn child, unless the father felt his property rights were being infringed upon.
If you want to understand scripture you need to understand the context in which it was written. Children were the property of the father, and there is nothing scriptural opposing the father disposing of his property any way he saw fit.
It just isn't in there.
Tom

 

[columbus]

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...

At best, "never entered my mind" is an English translation.
But there is no doubt that Abraham led Isaac to Mt Moriah planning to sacrifice him to God. Are you kidding me? God told him to do that.

Because at the time children were valuable property. So sacrificing your favorite one, the best of everything you owned, was the ultimate sign of submission to God's will.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Well that's a bit sad.

On one hand yes.
On the other, I actually envy their naivety.
Nice to know there are some people who do not see as much of the "bad" in the world as I do.

 

[McBell]

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

My apologies.
I can see where you could get that idea now.

 

[SomeRandom]

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!

No one has abortion for sex. Unless you count contraception methods like condoms and the morning after pill abortion. Or just being on the pill. But yes there are 12 year olds having sex. This is not a new thing even. Happening way before safe sex was even thought of.
Abstinence only teaching fails. It does not decrease the amount of sexually active teens, let alone teen pregnancy.

Safe sex teaching reduces the amount of unwanted teen pregnancy and in doing so reduces abortion.

 

[Revoltingest]

On one hand yes.
On the other, I actually envy their naivety.
Nice to know there are some people who do not see as much of the "bad" in the world as I do.

And naivety is so much better than naivete.
(I don't use the fancy squiggles to make the latter Frenchy word strictly correct.)

 

[McBell]

naïveté

 

[BilliardsBall]

At best, "never entered my mind" is an English translation.
But there is no doubt that Abraham led Isaac to Mt Moriah planning to sacrifice him to God. Are you kidding me? God told him to do that.

Because at the time children were valuable property. So sacrificing your favorite one, the best of everything you owned, was the ultimate sign of submission to God's will.
Tom

I'm not kidding when I write that the omniscient God who made space/time also knew that He would stop Abraham's hand and provide a substitute ram to die instead. Using Abraham and Issac to justify abortion seems a stretch.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you are adding to scripture. There is nothing in there about killing an unborn child, unless the father felt his property rights were being infringed upon.
If you want to understand scripture you need to understand the context in which it was written. Children were the property of the father, and there is nothing scriptural opposing the father disposing of his property any way he saw fit.
It just isn't in there.
Tom

No, you are wrong--a ROMAN could dispense with a child's life--the way some do so today--called abortion or infanticide, but the Jewish father was bound by God's Law, including THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. Stop making stuff up, brother. Please!

 

[BilliardsBall]

My apologies.
I can see where you could get that idea now.

Thank you. I appreciate it and you. I do.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one has abortion for sex. Unless you count contraception methods like condoms and the morning after pill abortion. Or just being on the pill. But yes there are 12 year olds having sex. This is not a new thing even. Happening way before safe sex was even thought of.
Abstinence only teaching fails. It does not decrease the amount of sexually active teens, let alone teen pregnancy.

Safe sex teaching reduces the amount of unwanted teen pregnancy and in doing so reduces abortion.

Correct, no one has abortion for sex, only for pregnancy. So what is a stronger way to prevent pregnancy? Condoms and pills or abstinence? You see, they are linked as abstinent persons care and put their money where their mouth is against REALLY reducing unplanned pregnancies.

 

[columbus]

I'm not kidding when I write that the omniscient God who made space/time also knew that He would stop Abraham's hand and provide a substitute ram to die instead. Using Abraham and Issac to justify abortion seems a stretch.

I am not using anything in the Bible to justify anything.
I am pointing out that the Bible doesn't say anything about a parent choosing the death of their offspring.
It was legal, it was not murder. A child was the chattel of their father, as long as he was an Israelite, so the father had complete control.
What you are doing here is superimposing your worldview and morality on the authors of the Bible. They didn't see things that way. That's why there is no scriptural prohibition against abortion.
There isn't. Abortion is a modern moral problem that is not addressed in Christian scriptures.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct, no one has abortion for sex, only for pregnancy. So what is a stronger way to prevent pregnancy? Condoms and pills or abstinence? You see, they are linked as abstinent persons care and put their money where their mouth is against REALLY reducing unplanned pregnancies.

As are people who use birth control.

Not to mention that this a completely unrealistic view of the world. People have sex. Always have, always will. We can educate each other so it can be done safely and responsibly or we can just tell them "don't do it" and then when they do have sex (because pretty much everyone does at some point in life) they're going to be completely in the dark about how to do it safely and responsibly and we're going to end up with all kinds of STDs and abortions (which is what abstinence-only education gets us).

 

[viole]

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?

The question is when you identify something as a child. For instance, I would say all healthy children have a nose, among other things. If I go around saying that there are perfectly healthy children without legs and a brain, people would probably worry about my sanity. So, your definition of "being a child" is completely arbitrary, and a bit question begging.

Would you call that bunch of duplicating cells of an early embryo in the picture a child? I don't see no legs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MARCELLO]

I am an unwanted child ( mom tried to kill me off by abortion but for medical reasons was not able to)

So, yes for abortion X a billion times. World would be better without unwanted children.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not kidding when I write that the omniscient God who made space/time also knew that He would stop Abraham's hand and provide a substitute ram to die instead. Using Abraham and Issac to justify abortion seems a stretch.

The fact that Abraham apparently thought it was perfectly okay to murder his son, as a commandment from god, is more to the point, in my opinion.

Apparently this god that you worship commands things (thou shalt not murder) then turns around and commands the opposite (murder your child) and it has to be good and moral thing because this god says so. If we're not supposed to murder children, that's an awfully bizarre command to make, no?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not using anything in the Bible to justify anything.
I am pointing out that the Bible doesn't say anything about a parent choosing the death of their offspring.
It was legal, it was not murder. A child was the chattel of their father, as long as he was an Israelite, so the father had complete control.
What you are doing here is superimposing your worldview and morality on the authors of the Bible. They didn't see things that way. That's why there is no scriptural prohibition against abortion.
There isn't. Abortion is a modern moral problem that is not addressed in Christian scriptures.
Tom

I beg your pardon. The Bible DOES say don't murder. You are making one argument from silence and a second argument that is against what the Bible says, in your post.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As are people who use birth control.

Not to mention that this a completely unrealistic view of the world. People have sex. Always have, always will. We can educate each other so it can be done safely and responsibly or we can just tell them "don't do it" and then when they do have sex (because pretty much everyone does at some point in life) they're going to be completely in the dark about how to do it safely and responsibly and we're going to end up with all kinds of STDs and abortions (which is what abstinence-only education gets us).

It may SEEM unrealistic to say 12-year-olds shouldn't have sex. But even in our filthy, degenerate, sex-obsessed, godless, wicked, evil culture, most 12-year-olds aren't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The question is when you identify something as a child. For instance, I would say all healthy children have a nose, among other things. If I go around saying that there are perfectly healthy children without legs and a brain, people would probably worry about my sanity. So, your definition of "being a child" is completely arbitrary, and a bit question begging.

Would you call that bunch of duplicating cells of an early embryo in the picture a child? I don't see no legs.

Ciao

- viole

I don't see a soul, either. But I see legless and armless Thallidomide CHILDREN.