• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

stvdv

Veteran Member
So, are you saying God is responsible for all abortions, since you say God is responsible for all death? Or is it the woman’s choice?
YES

As per the Bible...God Created ALL...and looked, and "it was GOOD", so not only created he ALL, but He also decided it was good. God does not speak often, and if Truth is God then God is responsible for EVERTHING...all "good" and "bad" is His, and therefore must be GOOD

What a relieve, isn't it?
 

Firelight

Inactive member
YES

As per the Bible...God Created ALL...and looked, and "it was GOOD", so not only created he ALL, but He also decided it was good. God does not speak often, and if Truth is God then God is responsible for EVERTHING...all "good" and "bad" is His, and therefore must be GOOD

What a relieve, isn't it?

I guess, if that’s your truth. I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion, though. When He pronounced it “good,” sin had not yet entered the world.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The “option” that Pro-choice supports is the option for abortion, otherwise one would be Pro-life/Anti-abortion. What other options and choices are there for Pro-choicers to give a woman? Adoption? That’s Pro-life. Childcare? Healthcare? Food? Support? Again, Pro-life. What options do you have to offer besides destroying a tiny little life? A woman either gets an abortion or she doesn’t, it’s completely straight-forward that those are the only two choices available. Pro-abortion and Anti-abortion or Anti-life and Pro-life are very fitting. Pro-choice and Anti-choice don’t fit, since Anti-abortion/Pro-life have 3x as many choices to offer.

Pro-choicers hate a legislative bill being introduced that requires an ultrasound be offered to the woman so she may see the development of the fetus and hear the heartbeat before making a choice. Choicers are also against advising a woman that the fetus feels pain while being destroyed during an abortion, and are against administering pain meds to the fetus beforehand. The “woman” in my example is a healthy woman with a healthy fetus, which most abortion choosers are. Pro-lifers do not expect an unhealthy woman to give up her life for her unborn child.
Do you believe in sex education for school children; free family planning advice; free contraceptives and free education for the unwanted children?
Will the mothers who have been forced to carry unwanted children get financial assistance and counselling?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
I guess, if that’s your truth. I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion, though. When He pronounced it “good,” sin had not yet entered the world.
Who invented the word sin?
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics

Sin, "good" vs "bad", implies duality

God create ALL, also human with the option to "create" duality

KEY here is not "original sin" BUT "original Creator". IF I keep that focus, I can only come to the conclusion "God is responsible for all, and only GOOD exist, all else is illusion, maya, duality"
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I do wish anti-abortionists would stop calling those that are Pro-choice "Pro-abortion"
I am pro-choice but I am NOT pro-abortion. All I ask is that the woman/family of an unborn foetus be given advice and options and that the woman's health is taken into consideration. Additionally the child's welfare and education is guaranteed by the state.

I just don't see it that way. You essentially delineated the difference when you say you are "pro-choice". I also am "pro-choice" and choose to be pro-life and some are "pro-choice" and choose to be pro-abortion.

Pro-life doesn't mean we don't take a woman's health into consideration. On the contrary, are are also Pro-health. If there is a complication and an abortion is necessary - we choose life even when a death needs to happen in the process. If both can be saved, all the better but there are situations that doesn't make it possible.

However, by and large, most people are just pro-abortion.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And that translation was changed to that after Roe v Wade to make it look as if there was a premature birth instead of a miscarriage. I can't find my Bible right now but I do have my housemates New American Bible that was published in 1970:

"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman , so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of judges." <bolding is mine>

A long time ago I noticed that change. Don't trust me, go find Bible from pre Roe v Wade and see for yourself.

EDIT: I just realized that the Bible I quoted from was a Catholic Bible. They were antiabortion long before the evangelicals were. And, at least at that time, did not find a need to print a false interpretation of their holy book.

I don't want to be accused of using a pro-abortion Bible.

So... if it is an accident.. it is a crime if it resulted in death, but if you did it on purpose... it is fine.

Is that what you are saying?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So... if it is an accident.. it is a crime if it resulted in death, but if you did it on purpose... it is fine.

Is that what you are saying?

You missed the point. The interpretation of that verse was changed by the anti-abortionists. Yes, it was an accident according to the verse, but even if it is an accident and the woman dies then the death penalty is applied. If it is just a miscarriage caused by the fight then it is only a fine. In other words at a time when it was "a life for a life" a fetus or embryo was not considered to be alive. That verse demonstrates it. It was a monetary punishment due to the lost investment by the husband/owner.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.
Do you make babies in the womb grow? Can you make the bones form? Or do you know how to make the spirit enter into the child?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.
I'm not sure that I've ever met an anti-choice position that wasn't hypocritical.

Certainly anyone who would impose their religion on another - e.g. by trying to ban abortion - is welcoming non-believers to have a say in their religion. Anyone who fails to do this is a hypocrite, IMO.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I suggest you change seats then. It seems you don't have a very good view of things from there.
You make a reasonable, coherent case for why I should believe that your god even exists and I'll change my perspective.

Edit: since that's probably too high a bar: if you make a reasonable, coherent case for why I should consider your god isn't a ridiculous, foolish idea, I won't automatically dismiss it as made-up nonsense.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have yet to see any anti-abortionists deal with the changing of the interpretation of Exodus 21 -22. Before Roe v. Wade the most common term used was "miscarriage" not "premature birth". Why would Christians do that?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.

With this logic, you should condemn democracy because a democratic country bombed and killed over two hundred thousand human beings were killed with two bombs. That would probably include pregnant ladies too. The day you condemn democracy using the same standard you had set, you will not be a hypocrite using your own title of this thread.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
With this logic, you should condemn democracy because a democratic country bombed and killed over two hundred thousand human beings were killed with two bombs. That would probably include pregnant ladies too. The day you condemn democracy using the same standard you had set, you will not be a hypocrite using your own title of this thread.

That is strange. I thought that God was supposed to operate at higher standards than man, not lower ones.

At any rate, we all know that the Noah's Ark story is myth.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
There are countless verses in the Bible that are not "pro-life." To begin, I'll tell you about Noah's Ark, in which the Bible's God drowns the entire earth in a rage-fueled flood. Given that some of the women were probably pregnant when God drowned them in his wrath, that doesn't sound very "pro-life." That indicates that in just the first book of the Bible, God was responsible for the death of the unborn.

Save fetus, kill soldier.....sense?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
With this logic, you should condemn democracy because a democratic country bombed and killed over two hundred thousand human beings were killed with two bombs. That would probably include pregnant ladies too. The day you condemn democracy using the same standard you had set, you will not be a hypocrite using your own title of this thread.

Japan merged with Hitler's Nazis. They sneak attacked during peace negiotiations, destroying much of the Pacific fleet bottlenecked in a Pearl Harbor. Kamekazis proved that they were a different kind of enemy, one that used propaganda to brainwash their soldiers into never surrendering for fear of torture. Japanese considered it a disgrace to not die for the war effort, and their entire family would be shamed for eternity at the cowardice. Prisoners in Japan were routinely tortured. Healthy young men, who had been thoroughly vetted by doctors were now dying in droves of malaria or pneumonia (having slogged through swamps in the Baaton march, etc). Toward the end of the war, the Japanese refused to feed their prisoners, since food was scarce and they had needs for their own troops. The war had to be ended soon to save the prisoners, and this was the justification for using the atomic bombs.

My mom was under a lifetime oath of silence, having worked in the Prisoner of War department of the War Department, headquarters, Washington, D.C. It was the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency, and many CIA agents came from this department. Later, my mom's role was to communicate with the French underground, because she could speak 7 languages fluently, including French. Even after the war, and for the rest of her life, she could not discuss prisoner's fate. She knew that many lies were told. POWs captured by the US almost invariably claimed to be Shinto priests, seeking favored treatment. Gifts (such as salamis) were routinely stolen, because the terms of the Geneva Convention were not followed.

The decision to build the atomic bomb was by necessity. Nazi Germany had already perfected theirs, but the plans were destroyed in allied bombings. Disdained as Jewish science, atomic research had proceeded in Nazi Germany anyway.

My dad was an atomic veteran, arriving 5 days after the USS Wichita (first US ship in Nagasaki), after rain doused nuclear dust. He was one of 44 who went ahead of the radiation team, without radiation protective garments or training, to make sure that the radiation team was safe from snipers. Then he was one of the first to step foot in ground zero of Hiroshima, as well. Most of the Wichita crew had died of radiation poisoning of the 45 crew members who went ashore. None received medals posthumously.

MacArthur arranged to have 10,000 POWs moved to Nagasaki for pick up by the Witchita and my dad's ship. They moved them to Australia, at first (a grateful son thanked us for saving his dad).

Though God tells us not to kill, many find that the US was justified in opposing Hitler and dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
YES

As per the Bible...God Created ALL...and looked, and "it was GOOD", so not only created he ALL, but He also decided it was good. God does not speak often, and if Truth is God then God is responsible for EVERTHING...all "good" and "bad" is His, and therefore must be GOOD

What a relieve, isn't it?

We can either redefine the word "bad" to be "good," or relabel God to be "sometimes" bad (rather than good).
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
That is strange. I thought that God was supposed to operate at higher standards than man, not lower ones.

At any rate, we all know that the Noah's Ark story is myth.

Dinosaurs, refusing to lose the extra 5 pounds, as requested, couldn't get a seat on the ark (thus extinct). Keep panning the bible, and they won't give you a seat on the next ark. (Joking, of course). I'll sneak you aboard.
 
Top