Pro-choice vs Abortion

[whirlingmerc]

Verses out of context that show an emotional response are less strong then verses that apply to the death of fetuses. The translation of Exodus 21 22 was changed because its clear interpretation supports abortion. Worse yet, a part that cannot be translated, is the Test of an Unfaithful Wife. Abortion is okay if one's wife cheats and the husband wants the abortion:



Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

I think 'do not boil a kid in its mother's milk' applies to abortion.
Don't destroy life with or in what its meant to nurture life.

Ten Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children

BTW isn't it interesting that people with a low view of scripture are more likely to be 'pro choice'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Verses out of context that show an emotional response are less strong then verses that apply to the death of fetuses. The translation of Exodus 21 22 was changed because its clear interpretation supports abortion. Worse yet, a part that cannot be translated, is the Test of an Unfaithful Wife. Abortion is okay if one's wife cheats and the husband wants the abortion:



Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

According to the Bible, God does not place a value on an infant less than one month old. This should settle it for those that view the Bible as inerrant.

Leviticus 27:6

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think 'do not boil a kid in its mother's milk' applies to abortion.
Don't destroy life with or in what its meant to nurture life.

Ten Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children

BTW isn't it interesting that people with a low view of scripture are more likely to be 'pro choice'

Verses out of context that show an emotional response are less strong then verses that apply to the death of fetuses. The translation of Exodus 21 22 was changed because its clear interpretation supports abortion. Worse yet, a part that cannot be translated, is the Test of an Unfaithful Wife. Abortion is okay if one's wife cheats and the husband wants the abortion:



Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

I often wonder at the value of taking a literal view of 3,000 year old stories about another culture as the sole source of information to apply in making decisions in our very different culture. That the Bible has been used to justify so many historical atrocities never seems to register with those that follow it like a historical account of actual events and not in cultural context or as allegory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think 'do not boil a kid in its mother's milk' applies to abortion.
Don't destroy life with or in what its meant to nurture life.

Ten Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children

BTW isn't it interesting that people with a low view of scripture are more likely to be 'pro choice'

The person that wrote that was largely ignorant of the beliefs of the writers of the Bible. "Life" was not thought to enter the body until the first breath. They made the mistake of assuming that the fetus is "human life" and that is not Biblical. This article lists quite a few of the verses about life entering the body with the first breath:

Bible: Life Begins at Breath, Not Conception

And the band on boiling a kid in it's mother's milk is actually a ban on cheeseburgers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I often wonder at the value of taking a literal view of 3,000 year old stories about another culture as the sole source of information to apply in making decisions in our very different culture. That the Bible has been used to justify so many historical atrocities never seems to register with those that follow it like a historical account of actual events and not in cultural context or as allegory.

I agree. I do not base my morality on the Bible, the point is that it does not even support the beliefs of the anti-abortion crowd. I do not like the idea of abortions myself, but I will not tell others that they cannot have them. I cannot prove when an embryo or fetus crosses the magic line into being a human being. So I cannot force my beliefs upon others. The anti-abortion people need to find a different source than the Bible. Many do not accept it and it does not support them anyway.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Pro-choice is a weighted term.

As if pro-life people don't believe in choices.

Answer this: is it really pro-choice to take away the options (choices) of an unborn fetus, all the options that it may have when it becomes a baby? Rhetorical question. It's not.

People who aren't sure they can raise a baby do have options. They can give the baby to adoption. I don't really understand surrogate pregnancy but it's possible that's an option too. They can even choose to I dunno practice abstinence.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The person that wrote that was largely ignorant of the beliefs of the writers of the Bible. "Life" was not thought to enter the body until the first breath. They made the mistake of assuming that the fetus is "human life" and that is not Biblical. This article lists quite a few of the verses about life entering the body with the first breath:

Bible: Life Begins at Breath, Not Conception

And the band on boiling a kid in it's mother's milk is actually a ban on cheeseburgers.

David said in Psalm 51 his nature went back to conception

and I think the cheeseburger thing doesn't do justice to the command which is actually very pro life
That command is repeated 3 times

You Shall Not Boil a Young Goat

see also
Mother's milk is a life giving fluid. Beyond the mixing of meat and dairy, to boil a kid in its mother's milk is to use the fluid created by a life-giving deity to sustain life, as the means to kill the creature whose life was to be sustained. It doesn't get more messed up than that, and serves as another picture of Torah design.
Cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The person that wrote that was largely ignorant of the beliefs of the writers of the Bible. "Life" was not thought to enter the body until the first breath. They made the mistake of assuming that the fetus is "human life" and that is not Biblical. This article lists quite a few of the verses about life entering the body with the first breath:

Bible: Life Begins at Breath, Not Conception

And the band on boiling a kid in it's mother's milk is actually a ban on cheeseburgers.

No wonder the article you linked was honest and made sense. It was written by a Methodist.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No wonder the article you linked was honest and made sense. It was written by a Methodist.

I have a number of methodist friends

 

[Dan From Smithville]

David said in Psalm 51 his nature went back to conception

and I think the cheeseburger thing doesn't do justice to the command which is actually very pro life
That command is repeated 3 times

You Shall Not Boil a Young Goat

see also
Mother's milk is a life giving fluid. Beyond the mixing of meat and dairy, to boil a kid in its mother's milk is to use the fluid created by a life-giving deity to sustain life, as the means to kill the creature whose life was to be sustained. It doesn't get more messed up than that, and serves as another picture of Torah design.
Cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

He said his sin went back to conception.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have a number of methodist friends

I do too. Maybe they can give you the insight I have failed to provide.

To be clear here, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-rights. We are talking about taking away the rights of women to please the emotions of a group of people that do not seem to much care what happens after birth so long as there is one. Personally, I would prefer that people seek alternative options both prior to conception and after, but that they retain the right to choose. Just because a choice is not the one I would make does not make mine the right one for everyone.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I do too. Maybe they can give you the insight I have failed to provide.

To be clear here, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-rights. We are talking about taking away the rights of women to please the emotions of a group of people that do not seem to much care what happens after birth so long as there is one. Personally, I would prefer that people seek alternative options both prior to conception and after, but that they retain the right to choose. Just because a choice is not the one I would make does not make mine the right one for everyone.

Although the husband gets no rights, the child gets no rights.... of the 3 people most directly involved 2 get no rights

And the women may be subject to breast cancer despite being told there is no correlation as well as depression

It's also interesting that it was popular to say we should make it safe legal and rare in the Clinton years... and then in the Obama years there was talk floated by major abortion leaders that abortion is murder yes, but its justified. Hey 'big abortion; makes allot of money. The head of Planned Parenthood makes about what a President of the US does in a year

In Their Own Words: Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Only Ones Who Call Abortion Killing

and that's sad

 

[Subduction Zone]

David said in Psalm 51 his nature went back to conception

and I think the cheeseburger thing doesn't do justice to the command which is actually very pro life
That command is repeated 3 times

You Shall Not Boil a Young Goat

see also
Mother's milk is a life giving fluid. Beyond the mixing of meat and dairy, to boil a kid in its mother's milk is to use the fluid created by a life-giving deity to sustain life, as the means to kill the creature whose life was to be sustained. It doesn't get more messed up than that, and serves as another picture of Torah design.
Cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

Once again it fails because the people that wrote that believed that life begins with the first breath. That is just an example of someone abusing the Bible. The Bible does not support your beliefs. It is better to find a better source. Besides that if you want to make a legal argument a religious book has no place.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Once again it fails because the people that wrote that believed that life begins with the first breath. That is just an example of someone abusing the Bible. The Bible does not support your beliefs. It is better to find a better source. Besides that if you want to make a legal argument a religious book has no place.

Clearly in Luke, when John the baptist leapt, they believed ore than that

A pregnant women as called 'with child' not 'Will be with a child soon'

 

[Willamena]

Pro-choice is a weighted term.

As if pro-life people don't believe in choices.

Answer this: is it really pro-choice to take away the options (choices) of an unborn fetus, all the options that it may have when it becomes a baby? Rhetorical question. It's not.

People who aren't sure they can raise a baby do have options. They can give the baby to adoption. I don't really understand surrogate pregnancy but it's possible that's an option too. They can even choose to I dunno practice abstinence.

It is a weighted term, it carries the weight of legislation. With legislation made, choice is removed because the State has determined what will be, what will be felt, what will be known, what will be enacted, and what will be right, and what will be wrong.

That's wrong no matter what side of "oh, I want the babies to live" you are on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly in Luke, when John the baptist leapt, they believed ore than that

A pregnant women as called 'with child' not 'Will be with a child soon'

A mother's fetus kicked and she put a spin on it. I am not impressed. You need to do a lot better than that. A study of the Bible reveals what the writers believed. You need to find a better source. You argument fails both biblically and legally.

 

[Willamena]

Once again it fails because the people that wrote that believed that life begins with the first breath. That is just an example of someone abusing the Bible. The Bible does not support your beliefs. It is better to find a better source. Besides that if you want to make a legal argument a religious book has no place.

That's why we have birthdays.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

David said in Psalm 51 his nature went back to conception

and I think the cheeseburger thing doesn't do justice to the command which is actually very pro life
That command is repeated 3 times

You Shall Not Boil a Young Goat

see also
Mother's milk is a life giving fluid. Beyond the mixing of meat and dairy, to boil a kid in its mother's milk is to use the fluid created by a life-giving deity to sustain life, as the means to kill the creature whose life was to be sustained. It doesn't get more messed up than that, and serves as another picture of Torah design.
Cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21)

Interesting that you mention this. I wrote a Quora question on this exact topic (let's see if I can find it) comparing the killing of children prior to Passover, and the many laws of boiling goats, with Israel's government now endorsing abortion. I was basically harassed for my question which (along with discovering that Quora can just decide to revise my questions for "clarity" changing what I actually said) eventually leading to me getting rid of my account.

The funny thing is, so many Jews miss the mark on this. Some of the ways they do this are, like Jesus warned, turning it into a human hygiene rule like washing hands. Another way is to overlook the entire message that it's this sort of mother-child reunion, and instead focus on generic separation between milk and meat, disregarding whether it's even the same type of animal (chickens aren't mammals, they don't produce milk)!

Chicken-egg donburi (Oyakodon (Chicken and Egg Bowl) 親子丼 • Just One Cookbook) should also be taboo, but the Jews often regard eggs as "neutral" food, only condemning eating chicken served with a fertile egg. Meanwhile, the larger law of likewise having a woman with a child inside to not have such sacrificed is overlooked. The larger parallel of not boiling in milk, and not burning children in offering to Molech.

 

[Shiranui117]

Huge distinction between that and a clump of cells in my view, whatever animal that clump of cells might become, humans included. I hope someday the majority of people can recognize that distinction, I feel like it should be very obvious.

You're a clump of cells. A dog is a clump of cells. Literally every plant and animal on this planet is just one big clump of cells.

If you want to argue biology, you should actually do some research into human and animal life cycles. A human embryo will never become anything but a human. It is genetically a distinct human being that checks off all the boxes on the list of what constitutes a life form--engage in metabolic processes, adapt and react to their environment, maintain a state of homeostasis, grow and develop, and are composed of cells. It is, by every definition, a unique human life and a distinct human being.

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia

Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=2ahUKEwjAp52mpqbiAhUEnKwKHagVBsYQFjARegQICBAC&url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/134403/Bogin%20%26%20Smith_2000_Evolution%20of%20the%20Human%20Life%20Cycle%20rd.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&usg=AOvVaw2ezEQcXII3q1E_wHjN8NYG Start reading on page 519 and work your way down.

Climate change deniers deny environmental science, climatology and paleoclimatology. Your subset of the pro-choice crowd denies basic high school-level biology and embryology.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You're a clump of cells. A dog is a clump of cells. Literally every plant and animal on this planet is just one big clump of cells.

If you want to argue biology, you should actually do some research into human and animal life cycles

Well I recently finished 'Chimpanzees and Human Evolution' which is almost 900 pages and probably one of the most comprehensive and difficult books on that subject. I live three houses from a library. I don't claim to understand everything in that book, but I did learn a few things, and there probably aren't even that many people who have read it from cover to cover like I did. I might even read it again.

Yeah I am a clump of cells just like a zygote, but I don't identify a zygote as a human, just as I wouldn't say a tadpole is a frog or a caterpillar is butterfly. My hand is also a clump of cells. Disconnected from my body, I wouldn't say that my hand is a human, though it potentially a part of a human just as a zygote is potentially the precursor to a human. Your view to me simply becomes too abstract, and one thing biologists do not do is to break down boundaries of identification between biological states and parts.