"Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life"

Which one applies to you?

  • Pro-choice

  • Pro-life-with exceptions for things like rape,health,ect.

  • Pro-life-no exceptions


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trashionista

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2007
6,222
554
The Copacabana
✟9,243.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
You're welcome to move to Russia, China, Cuba, or any other such FORCED-communist regimes,
where people pay like 70-90+% of their income in taxes. - But here in the USA, keep your hands outa our pockets, you democratic thieves!!!

Brush up on your history, there.

a) The U.S.S.R collapsed in 1991.
b) Capitalism - and the shakey establishment and rise of capitalism - is well documented in Russia. Anyone who's paid attention to the tale of Khordokovsky or Berezovsky would be aware of this fact.
c) As per The Putin System, 'no city [Moscow] counts so many millionaires.'

That doesn't exactly scream 'communist paradise', now does it? You are welcome to suggest we all move to Moscow or Novgorod, but expressing a desire to exile us liberals to our 'Commie friends' in Russia - as an insult - just makes you look completely uninformed.

Journalistic freedom? Maybe not a tonne. A blossoming economy? Debateable. Personality cults? Perhaps. But the prescence of these factors does not only suggest communism, nor are these facets exclusive to communism. Putin and Medvedev may have a regime; but calling it out and out communism may not be entirely accurate.

Can you see Russia from your house as well?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YEMHj7sgqs

Scroll to 7:58.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Julina

Veteran
Apr 14, 2008
2,415
163
35
New Joisey
Visit site
✟10,785.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So, you would favor handing a selfish & convenient "death-sentence" :eek: to an Innocent baby?? -
That's pro-rape



That 'sex-education' responsability belongs (not to liberals, with their socialist & Marxist/communist :eek: agendas), but to
EVERY :thumbsup: PARENT of said child, & students.
most parents are not like this.



You're welcome to move to Russia, China, Cuba, or any other such FORCED-communist regimes,
where people pay like 70-90+% of their income in taxes. - But here in the USA, keep your hands outa our pockets, you democratic thieves!!!
Russia is no longer communist
 
Upvote 0

sk8Joyful

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2005
15,546
2,790
✟28,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Brush up on your history, there.
a) The U.S.S.R collapsed in 1991.
b) Capitalism - and the shakey establishment and rise of capitalism - is well documented in Russia. Anyone who's paid attention to the tale of Khordokovsky or Berezovsky would be aware of this fact.
c) As per The Putin System, 'no city [Moscow] counts so many millionaires.'
That doesn't exactly scream 'communist paradise', now does it?

You are welcome to suggest we all move to Moscow or Novgorod, but expressing a desire to exile us liberals to our 'Commie friends' in Russia - as an insult - just makes you look completely uninformed.

Journalistic freedom? Maybe not a tonne. A blossoming economy? Debateable. Personality cults? Perhaps. But the prescence of these factors does not only suggest communism, nor are these facets exclusive to communism. Putin and Medvedev may have a regime; but calling it out and out communism may not be entirely accurate.

Can you see Russia from your house as well?
FYI, I was born & schooled inside a communist country, in the last century.

And insult?: look at your post here
Maybe you couldn't see Russia from your house, while
some of us survived that disastrous social-experiment.

And insult?: look at your post here
I need to brush-up on my history?? NOT.
We couldn't flee that hellish existence fast enough; only to find ourselves around american SOCIALIST liberals, blind as all get out, co-operating with the wrong source.

And insult?: look at your post here
I look completely un-informed? - and what, from only books & Liberal-teachers, could you experientally possibly know?

I, unlike you, tho won't think of your responses as insulting.

But I will tell you this, again: american socialist liberals have NO-right,
to change the USA-constitution, according to utterly selfish whims, including the complete annihilation of humanity, Satan's ultimate aim. - He, & they, have already lost! - tho in the meantime, billions more will perish. - How God can have mercy upon devilish souls, is quite frankly no small miracle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
oh really? - The real truth is that in the USA, the #1 Cause of death, obvious in this thread, is medical-INcompetence, least of all as 'Fortune-tellers'. The fact of the matter is, more often than not, doctors know SQUAT!
I resubmit to you my question about ectopic pregnancy. In such cases, the option is to either have an abortion, and lose only the baby, or NOT have an abortion, and lose both the baby and mother. Is it your opinion that losing both is preferable to saving one?

Those "attending physicans" claimed that only I could live...; bombarding me for 10-days "IT is gonna spontaneously-abort, it's gonna be born dead, it's gonna be born so horribly-deformed, and be forced to exist on permanent-life support equipment, at the expense of society, ALL because of your selfishness, in not aborting this bag of cells now. Think about that!"
You know what I said: "This child WANTS to live, as much as me; and by GOD's grace, she
smile.gif
will be born well-formed, and functionally Healthy; and she will continue developing & growing, and she will become a successfully-contributing
thumbsup.gif
societal-member. - Think about this, you shameful
kawaii.gif
criminals!"


And here the resulting Outcome: True to GOD's word, plus my own, this precious
angel.gif
Beloved child was birthed (danced
clap.gif
into this world by me at 37-weeks), well-formed, and functionally Healthy. - AND homeschooled, this child continued developing & growing, and she graduated college with honors, while she was 17
biggrin.gif
and now as a mom herself, she is doing a good job with the next generation...

Thats a great story.

Is it your opinion that it is representative of most people's experiences?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
But I will tell you this, again: american socialist liberals have NO-right,
to change the USA-constitution, according to utterly selfish whims, including the complete annihilation of humanity, Satan's ultimate aim. - He, & they, have already lost! - tho in the meantime, billions more will perish. - How God can have mercy upon devilish souls, is quite frankly no small miracle.

Could you please show me where this particular limitation on referendum suffrage is spelled out in the constitution?
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
EnemyPartyII
NO ONE was the foetus, because the foetus isn't a person. That is the entirety of my point
That’s the problem you don’t recognise reality. Of course the foetus is someone, the foetus in my mother’s womb wasn’t you or someone else developing, it was me developing, it had all the DNA that was needed to develop me.

How about if I didn’t recognise you as a person; you would probably no more accept the reason than I accept your reason.

No one is saying the foetus isn't ALIVE. It is totally ALIVE, it just isn't a person.
IS anyone saying it is or isn’t alive? Whats your point? Yes it’s a person of course it is.
Um... if there is serious injury to the woman, you are to take life for life. If you cause a miscarriage, you inly have to pay a fine, and even then, only if the woman's husband wishes.

Which is a very different penalty to what you get if you kill a PERSON
Different penalty, but the passage says ‘life’ not ‘person’, so the passage tells us the abortion is terminating a life. You then must be saying a life is not a person. Tap dancing.


The NT doesn't mention abortion,
I thought you have just said it did. Besides you haven’t addressed my question. and by the way I don’t accept your interpretation of this in the light of passages which says God knows us in the womb. If He knows us then we are the people.

Please show me where "God says" abortion is murder? Chapter and verse?
Waste of time you can rarely ever see or accept the scripture I cite and quote you, but I will if you show me the scriptures that say abortion is ok.


I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that the OT and Talmudic tradition say an unborn child, baby, foetus, whatever you want to call it, isn't considered a person.
But they don’t.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That’s the problem you don’t recognise reality. Of course the foetus is someone, the foetus in my mother’s womb wasn’t you or someone else developing, it was me developing, it had all the DNA that was needed to develop me.
No.

It wasn't A-N-Y-O-N-E.

Yes, all the DNA needed to DEVELOP you (your word there, "develop") was there. But There is a lot more to a person than DNA. The sperm and egg that developed you also had all the DNA to develop you. Were you a person when "you" were just a sperm and egg? If not, whats the difference?

Its like an acorn. An acorn might DEVELOP an oak tree, but I don't think many people would believe that an oak tree and an acorn are the same thing.
How about if I didn’t recognise you as a person; you would probably no more accept the reason than I accept your reason.
The problem with that is that I am demonstrably a person. "Personhood" suggests the filling of certain criteria, that both you and I, presently fulfil, but that a foetus does not.
IS anyone saying it is or isn’t alive? Whats your point? Yes it’s a person of course it is.
You brought up "life" in your previous post. I am merely clarifying that yes, I agree that a foetus is alive. I then point out that merely being alive is not sufficient to be considered a person.

Perhaps if you would be so good as to provide a working definition of what you mean when you use the word "person", and we might be able to work out where some of the disagreement lies.
Different penalty, but the passage says ‘life’ not ‘person’, so the passage tells us the abortion is terminating a life. You then must be saying a life is not a person. Tap dancing.
Um... no, that is PRECISELY my point. An abortion IS terminating life. But it is NOT terminating a PERSON.

Now, follow me here... the Bible explicitly tells us what the punishment for terminating a PERSON is, right? Eye for an eye and all that. But it explicitly tells us what the punishment for causing a miscarriage is... a fine, and only IF the father wants it paid, right?

OK... so if the penalty for killing a person is one thing, and the punishment for causing an abortion is something else... then obviously, the person who wrote Exodus considered killing a person, and causing an abortion, to be different things, right?
I thought you have just said it did. Besides you haven’t addressed my question. and by the way I don’t accept your interpretation of this in the light of passages which says God knows us in the womb. If He knows us then we are the people.
If you're not even going to bother reading what I have to say, and merely skim things for the sole purpose of looking for things to disagree with, then we aren't going to have a very productive conversation.

The NT NEVER discusses abortion, and I never said it did.
Waste of time you can rarely ever see or accept the scripture I cite and quote you, but I will if you show me the scriptures that say abortion is ok.
Translation: You can't show me anywhere were scripture, or "God", calls abortion murder.

I've also cited you several verses that support abortion, you seem determined to ignore.
But they don’t.
So... what's this then? A figment of my imagination?
Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.​
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
*snip*
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that the OT and Talmudic tradition say an unborn child, baby, foetus, whatever you want to call it, isn't considered a person.
[Emphasis added]

Query, what is your definition of a 'person' then?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
[Emphasis added]

Query, what is your definition of a 'person' then?

Hi Zeena, thanks for those reps from the other day, I tried to send you a PM thanking you, but your in box was full.

My PERSONAL definition of "person" involves sentience and acceptance within the community.

Now whether or not the ancients who wrote the OT and the Talmud had the same idea is debateable. My understanding is that they quite clearly believed that "spirit" and "breath" were one and the same thing, and that the foetus (baby, unborn child, whatever) wasn't actually a person until birth, because it literally didn't have a soul until it drew its first breath.

My personal theory on "soul" is a bit different again. I don't believe there is a clear demarcation point, where one second there is no soul, and the next there is, rather, I believe a soul grows and develops and is earned with every experience a person has, so it is closely tied o sentience and the SENSE of personhood.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Zeena, thanks for those reps from the other day, I tried to send you a PM thanking you, but your in box was full.
Sorry, and thanks, will make some more room now-lol

My PERSONAL definition of "person" involves sentience and acceptance within the community.
What is sentience in your opinon?

Now whether or not the ancients who wrote the OT and the Talmud had the same idea is debateable. My understanding is that they quite clearly believed that "spirit" and "breath" were one and the same thing, and that the foetus (baby, unborn child, whatever) wasn't actually a person until birth, because it literally didn't have a soul until it drew its first breath.

My personal theory on "soul" is a bit different again. I don't believe there is a clear demarcation point, where one second there is no soul, and the next there is, rather, I believe a soul grows and develops and is earned with every experience a person has, so it is closely tied o sentience and the SENSE of personhood.
You are aware that babies in the womb recieve oxygen from thier mother placenta and umbelica cord?

You conceed, surely, that a growing baby in the womb is experiencing such growth?

The definition of 'person' as per law dictionary @ person legal definition of person. person synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

You also conceed it [the baby in the womb] is a human being?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
What is sentience in your opinon?
Being self aware. Having a concept of "self"
You are aware that babies in the womb recieve oxygen from thier mother placenta and umbelica cord?
Interesting point. This is, of course true. However I don't know that it really constitutes a "breath". Remember, it was the ancient Hebrews who came up with this definition, and I doubt they understood that respiratory gases were passes between mother and foetus via the umbilicus.
You conceed, surely, that a growing baby in the womb is experiencing such growth?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't mean physical growh, I mean mental, spiritual, emotional growth. "personal growth", as it were. I don't believe a foetus displays these forms of growth, certainly not in the first several months of gestation anyay.
You also conceed it [the baby in the womb] is a human being?
Not... really.

The foetus (baby, unborn child, whatever) is certainly human, but I don't believe it is a human BEING. To be a human being, again, requires sentience.

Please understand, this isn't just me trying to split semantic hairs, I'm just trying to relay the fact that the people who wrote the OT had a clear idea of when you become a person, and that this happens at birth. Its even fair to say that this has remained a fairly common position. For example, until quite recently, in some places, even to the last couple of years, a stillborn child was simply treated as clinical waste. The mother was not allowed to even see the child most places, let alone receve the body to give a funeral tom which was purely due to the baby not being considered a person because it had never drawn breath. Nowadays, it is fairly standard practice to treat a stillbirth as though it were a live birth, the midwife and nursing staff will clean the body up, dress it and give it to the mother, the family will be permitted to spend time with the baby, and the body will be released for a burial. Some places even issue a birth certificate, though legally, this is strictly unofficial. But understand, all of this is seen as necessary to the mother and rest of familys' well being. If the family does not want to participate in such a fashion, the body can still be discarded as clinical waste.

All because the idea of personhood starting with the first breath is such a firmly entrenched and universally recognised idea.

I'm not making this up or anything.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Being self aware. Having a concept of "self"
By this same definition, those who are asleep are no longer sentient.

How about those for whom mind functions have ceased, or are unconscious, perchance in a coma? Would they be sentient according to your definition?

As you can see, I find this definition of 'sentient' rather lacking. Most especially in regard to, not only babies in the womb, but our most least fortunate, if I may be so bold as to deem them [disabled persons] so.

Interesting point. This is, of course true. However I don't know that it really constitutes a "breath". Remember, it was the ancient Hebrews who came up with this definition, and I doubt they understood that respiratory gases were passes between mother and foetus via the umbilicus.
Breathing is recieving of oxygen and exhalation of carbondioxide, is it not?

Inhale, exhale?

You are aware that babies in the womb respirate. Very good. praise God!
It took me weeks to scour the web to find that information, but God told me it was there, and I kept searching 'till I found it.

Again, let's look at this from an alternative perspective;

What of those [lets say adults, for the sake of arguement] who are on respirators?

They are not 'breathing' per say, but rather, as is the case with babies in the womb, recieving oxygen through a means and, as well, exhale via alternate means, rather than via the natural functions of thier bodies under thier own power.

Are they [these persons on respirators, unable to breath on thier own], no longer human beings either?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't mean physical growh, I mean mental, spiritual, emotional growth. "personal growth", as it were. I don't believe a foetus displays these forms of growth, certainly not in the first several months of gestation anyay.Not... really.
Just because you don't believe it, does not mean it doesn't happen, surely?

Question is;

Could it?

IS it possible?

You are aware that babies in the womb move around accordingly as to progress thier physical growth as well as to gain a level of comfort for themselves?

The foetus (baby, unborn child, whatever) is certainly human, but I don't believe it is a human BEING. To be a human being, again, requires sentience.
What makes you say it is not being human?

Surely it is being itself, which is human, no?

Please understand, this isn't just me trying to split semantic hairs, I'm just trying to relay the fact that the people who wrote the OT had a clear idea of when you become a person, and that this happens at birth. Its even fair to say that this has remained a fairly common position. For example, until quite recently, in some places, even to the last couple of years, a stillborn child was simply treated as clinical waste. The mother was not allowed to even see the child most places, let alone receve the body to give a funeral tom which was purely due to the baby not being considered a person because it had never drawn breath. Nowadays, it is fairly standard practice to treat a stillbirth as though it were a live birth, the midwife and nursing staff will clean the body up, dress it and give it to the mother, the family will be permitted to spend time with the baby, and the body will be released for a burial. Some places even issue a birth certificate, though legally, this is strictly unofficial. But understand, all of this is seen as necessary to the mother and rest of familys' well being. If the family does not want to participate in such a fashion, the body can still be discarded as clinical waste.

All because the idea of personhood starting with the first breath is such a firmly entrenched and universally recognised idea.

I'm not making this up or anything.
You understand that this universally recognised idea is one of philosophical origins?

You understand as well that it is sometimes quite necessary to 'split hairs'?

Just so there's no offense taken.

God bless you! :amen:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
By this same definition, those who are asleep are no longer sentient.

How about those for whom mind functions have ceased, or are unconscious, perchance in a coma? Would they be sentient according to your definition?

As you can see, I find this definition of 'sentient' rather lacking. Most especially in regard to, not only babies in the womb, but our most least fortunate, if I may be so bold as to deem them [disabled persons] so.
Sleep is certainly an altered state of consciousness, whether it is a loss of self awareness is debateable. I'll certainly agree that someone anaesthetised or in a coma is not self aware. However, you'll note I also mentioned "community acceptance" going into personhood. i.e it isn't just that you yourself consider you to be a person, but that also you presumeably have friends, family, workplace, debts, debtors, responsibilities and so on that continue even when consciousness ceases. Further, a person going to sleep or into a coma has previously experienced self awareness, and their sentience on regaining consciousness is a continuation of what existed before, it is not something new.

Disabled people are a bit of a grey area in my own mind. They are the reason my beliefs changed from personhood depending purely on self awareness to the community recognition bit. A severely disabled person may not have any sense of self, however, if their family, friends, associates, or whatever consider them a person, and value them accordingly, then that still counts for something.

I contend that a foetus lacks these elements, at least an early stage foetus. Now, I know you are about to say that many parents and families feel they are bonding with the unborn before its born, and that is true. But I would contend that the people who feel they have a bond with the unborn are not the same people likely to seek an abortion.
Breathing is recieving of oxygen is it not?

Inhale, exhale?

You are aware that babies in the womb respirate. Very good. praise God!
It took me weeks to scour the web to find that information, but God told me it was there, and I kept searching 'till I found it.

Again, let's look at this from an alternative perspective;

What of those [lets say adults, for the sake of arguement] who are on respirators?

They are not 'breathing' per say, but rather, as is the case with babies in the womb, recieving oxygen through a means and, as well, exhale via alternate means, rather than via the natural functions of thier bodies under thier own power.

Are they [these persons on respirators, unable to breath on thier own], no longer human beings either?

OK... first of all, allow me to get technical for a minute.

"Breathing", is PART of the respiratory process. Breathing is, specifically, the inhalation and exhalation of gasses by the lungs to facilitate oxygenation, waste disposal and pH buffering of the body by the lungs. In utero babies don't, technically, do this. A foetus does, of course, "respire", as do all aerobic organisms, but in the case of an in utero foetus, all respiration is enabled by blood exchange with the mother, so technically, while both mother and baby "respire", it is only the mother who "breaths".

OK, thats the technical bit out of the way...

Now... personally, I think it quite likely that a foetus has some basic level of self awareness, and thus can be considered a person, from about 24 weeks gestation onwards. I didn't make up the "not a person until it draws breath" thing, as I've been saying all along, that is an ancient belief of the Jewish people, built on the foundation of a passage in the book of Exodus. I'm not arguing that a foetus isn't a person until it draws breath, because I don't actually believe that. What I am arguing, is that the "God" or "the Bible says abortion is murder" argument is false, because it quite plainly doesn't, as evidenced by the "not a person until a breath" thing. Sorry, I know it sounds trite, but I'm not the person to argue this point with here... its sort of one of those things you need to take up with the author of Exodus.

As to people on respirators, thats a really good question, I'd be interested to know what the strict position of orthodox Jewdaism is on that point. However, since people on a respirator can and frequently do maintain their sentience (and their community recognition) I fully believe they are a person.
Just because you don't believe it, does not mean it doesn't happen, surely?

Question is;

Could it?

IS it possible?
Sure it COULD happen. I fully admit that my beliefs about when, where and how we get a soul is just that, my belief. It is not based in any way on any sort of empirical evidence. I have what I believe is a sound basis for believing as I do, but I also freely admit may be mistaken. You will notice I never actually state that a foetus/embryo/fertilised ova DOESN'T have a soul, merely that I don't believe it does, and that the authors of the Bible seem to agree with me. Finally, I might ask others why they believe that something that is less self aware than a goldfish has a soul, and how that works, exactly, but I almost never get a direct answer to that question.
What makes you say it is not being human?

Surely it is being itself, which is human, no?
This is one of those times when the English language is a little less than precise, but I'll try.

In this case "human" means "human material, biologically something that is generated by or part of an human organism". "Human BEING" means a person, a self aware entity. If you can see the distinction.

So, a foetus (especially an early stage one);

Human? Check. Definitely something generated by an human organism.
Living? Check. Metabolic processes going on, respiring, producing waste, growing, consuming, doing all the things necessary to be considered alive. No question.
Human being/person? No. Until it has at least a basic awareness, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the idea that a thing that simply has no sense of "self" as being a person.
You understand that this universally recognised idea is one of philoshopical origins?
Absolutely. And like I just said, I don't actually believe this idea, I believe a foetus can and should be considered a person LONG before birth and the first breath. The only reason I'm including this whole bit about the first breath in the discussion is to show those people who want to say "God calls abortion murder" that it just ain't so. I believe it's important to be precise about serious issues, so thats why I'm going so all out trying to explain this point. I have no problem with people thinking abortion is wrong, evil, bad, wicked, selfish, arrogant or a whole bunch of other negative words. But when someone says something I know is mistaken, well, I have this incredible urge to try to show them their mistake.
Just so there's no offense taken.
Absolutely none taken! And I sincerely hope you aren't taking offence at anything I'm saying either! Having a contrary point of opinion should never offend anyone, when I get offended is when people refuse to listen to another person's POV, or are straight out rude, offensive or dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them, purely BECAUSE they disagree with them.
God bless you!
And also you, sister :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
To EnemyPartyII

It wasn't A-N-Y-O-N-E.
Yet it had all your DNA. This is the problem I have with your response, of course there is more to a person than DNA but DNA is needed distinguishes you and I.


Were you a person when "you" were just a sperm and egg? If not, whats the difference?
Yes of course, who else and what else could I have been if the sperm and egg hasn’t developed into me?


Its like an acorn. An acorn might DEVELOP an oak tree, but I don't think many people would believe that an oak tree and an acorn are the same thing.
What is your point as I can see the difference in the developmental stage of an acorn and an oak and a baby in the womb (foetus) and a born baby and a fully grown adult. But the acorn will develop into an oak, and the specific oak it is destined to develop into.


The problem with that is that I am demonstrably a person.
Ah now we are getting somewhere, according to you but for someone who doesn’t recognise that reality how would you convinced them by demonstration?

"Personhood" suggests the filling of certain criteria, that both you and I, presently fulfil, but that a foetus does not.
Ah but the foetus is still a life in development whether it is sentient or not, I guess you are arguing trying to separate ‘personhood’ as opposed to ‘life’. I would say the ‘person’ still exists in development as a foetus, but even if you don’t the issue is it’s a life, destroy the foetus life and the issue of personhood is irrelevant.


You brought up "life" in your previous post. I am merely clarifying that yes, I agree that a foetus is alive. I then point out that merely being alive is not sufficient to be considered a person.
So why not use the words ‘life’ rather than alive?
If the foetus is alive it is a life, yes?

Um... no, that is PRECISELY my point. An abortion IS terminating life. But it is NOT terminating a PERSON.
Well the scriptural passage says ‘life’ and other passages say God knows us in the womb, who are we if not persons? And why terminate the life of a person in the making?


OK... so if the penalty for killing a person is one thing, and the punishment for causing an abortion is something else... then obviously, the person who wrote Exodus considered killing a person, and causing an abortion, to be different things, right?
The person who wrote Exodus is saying these came from God. What are you saying, they didn’t? If they didn’t why are you bothered with what Exodus says? Besides what you are referring to is the penalty not the life which is the issue here, not the penalty for abortion but the fact it’s a life, something the NT makes clear we shouldn’t take by choice.


If you're not even going to bother reading what I have to say, and merely skim things for the sole purpose of looking for things to disagree with, then we aren't going to have a very productive conversation.
Well I have read what you wrote otherwise I wouldn’t be able to say I don’t accept the interpretation.

Translation: You can't show me anywhere were scripture, or "God", calls abortion murder.
No, that doesn’t help, for example can you show me anywhere in any translation where paedophilia is condemned?

If scripture says it’s a life and God knows us in the womb how would abortion by choice not be murder? If God knows us in the womb I cant see how you can hold your position, who or what do you think God knows in the womb if it says us?

So... what's this then? A figment of my imagination?
No, I addressed them so ho can it be a figment of your imagination?

Now I fail to see what authority you can give interpretation from the Babylonian Talmud (or the Jerusalem for that matter) over the rest of the Bible. Jesus corrected the Pharisees’s and scribes understanding of the written and oral law. You also say the interpretation is based on Exodus 21. You seem to be using extra Biblical sources against other scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint
Jul 30, 2004
5,811
691
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I really enjoyed your post EnemyPartyII, for the Spirit in which it was writ :)

I do believe that each man [mankind] has the choice to with his body as he see's the Lord moving him. To do otherwise is sin.

I take no contention with those so convicted as to the Spirit of God in thier own, personal choices. So long as another is not harmed by such choices.

Ergo, I do perceive abortion as sin.
For I construde a baby, who is in the womb, as a person from the moment of conception.

I know this to be the case, for I, too, am convicted of my belief.
As such, I have sought out many measures to disaude people from harming innocent children, babies in the womb, as i perceive them.

I don't think anyone can blame me for this, seeing as it is my conviction.
But in the same token, I do not blame anyone else, for the Blood of Christ is sufficient.

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Thank you, again, for speaking with me on equal terms, in a non-derrogatory manner, it is much appreciated. :)

God bless you too, my sister :kiss:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
P

Phinehas2

Guest
The concept that a human being requires sentience is subjective. Not everyone agrees. What about puberty? Why not draw the line there? Sure the organism just before puberty is sentient and can feel pain but who are vyou to say thats the subjective criteria if others disagree with you?
Anyway the whole issue can be solved by saying dont have sex unless one wants the responsibilty of conception. And isnt that what its all about sexual license? Of course it is. The next question will be so am I saying do with out sex, and the answer is yes! thats what it says in the Bible its for procreation. If people can't do without sex, and one doesn't need it, then sex must be their god.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
To EnemyPartyII

Yet it had all your DNA. This is the problem I have with your response, of course there is more to a person than DNA but DNA is needed distinguishes you and I.

Yes of course, who else and what else could I have been if the sperm and egg hasn’t developed into me?

What is your point as I can see the difference in the developmental stage of an acorn and an oak and a baby in the womb (foetus) and a born baby and a fully grown adult. But the acorn will develop into an oak, and the specific oak it is destined to develop into.

Ah now we are getting somewhere, according to you but for someone who doesn’t recognise that reality how would you convinced them by demonstration?

Ah but the foetus is still a life in development whether it is sentient or not, I guess you are arguing trying to separate ‘personhood’ as opposed to ‘life’. I would say the ‘person’ still exists in development as a foetus, but even if you don’t the issue is it’s a life, destroy the foetus life and the issue of personhood is irrelevant.

So why not use the words ‘life’ rather than alive?
If the foetus is alive it is a life, yes?

Well the scriptural passage says ‘life’ and other passages say God knows us in the womb, who are we if not persons? And why terminate the life of a person in the making?

The person who wrote Exodus is saying these came from God. What are you saying, they didn’t? If they didn’t why are you bothered with what Exodus says? Besides what you are referring to is the penalty not the life which is the issue here, not the penalty for abortion but the fact it’s a life, something the NT makes clear we shouldn’t take by choice.

Well I have read what you wrote otherwise I wouldn’t be able to say I don’t accept the interpretation.

No, that doesn’t help, for example can you show me anywhere in any translation where paedophilia is condemned?
If scripture says it’s a life and God knows us in the womb how would abortion by choice not be murder? If God knows us in the womb I cant see how you can hold your position, who or what do you think God knows in the womb if it says us?

No, I addressed them so ho can it be a figment of your imagination?
Now I fail to see what authority you can give interpretation from the Babylonian Talmud (or the Jerusalem for that matter) over the rest of the Bible. Jesus corrected the Pharisees’s and scribes understanding of the written and oral law. You also say the interpretation is based on Exodus 21. You seem to be using extra Biblical sources against other scripture.

At this point, I would take it as a minor victory if you would acknowledge that Jewish people and Jewish tradition holds that a foetus isn't a person until it draws breath. Can you do that?

I'm not asking you to AGREE with it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that thats what the people who wrote the OT believed.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The concept that a human being requires sentience is subjective. Not everyone agrees. What about puberty? Why not draw the line there? Sure the organism just before puberty is sentient and can feel pain but who are vyou to say thats the subjective criteria if others disagree with you?
Anyway the whole issue can be solved by saying dont have sex unless one wants the responsibilty of conception. And isnt that what its all about sexual license? Of course it is. The next question will be so am I saying do with out sex, and the answer is yes! thats what it says in the Bible its for procreation. If people can't do without sex, and one doesn't need it, then sex must be their god.

Aha! The truth comes out!

I very much suspect that a great many of the people who engage in "abortion is murder!" rhetoric and would deny women the option, aren't actually that concerned about all the sweet little baby foetuses. What they really care about is trying to stop people having sex. This post further reinforces my point.

Can you do without your car? Your computer? Money? No?

But do you need it? Of course not. So does that make your car/computer/money your God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To EnemyPartyII,
No I dont agree that all Jewish people or Jewish tradition holds that a foetus isn't a person until it draws breath. Can you do that? Some certainly does and you have proved that.

Judaism does not forbid abortion, but it does not permit abortion on demand. Abortion is only permitted for serious reasons. - BBC - Religions - Judaism: Abortion
Abortion in Jewish Law

Abortion in Judaism
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.