Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Vicomte13]

Anybody disagree with that compromise?

Yes. Life begins at conception. To intentionally kill it is murder. There can be no compromise on murder.

 

[Cearbhall]

I am using proper terms.

We're not going to get anywhere if you make up your own definitions. I'll discuss the matter with other individuals, in that case.

For the purposes of this discussion I am focusing on the only law that ultimately matters: God's, as revealed in Scripture.
There, this distinction between "legal" and "illegal" killing is not made.

Would you approve if someone insisted that Sharia law is what "law" means? I don't recognize those laws as existing, but I'm hoping we can both agree that the government's laws exist.

 

[Belk]

Ok. When I get home and have my copy of the Torah handy, I will give you chapter, verse and words.

But the key to the whole thing is "You shall not kill."
The list you gave is a series of punishment for crimes in Israel, recalling that Israel was ruled directly by God from the time of Moses through the judges, with neither King nor Council - all law came directly from God. Prophets were sent from crises. The Israelites did not like this system and eventually clamored for a human king.

Those laws on their very terms only applied to Israel. And the reward for performing them was not eternal life and salvation - those things are never mentioned in the Torah. It was peaceful enjoyment of a farm allotment in the land of Israel, ruled over and protected by God as king.

Those laws never applied to Gentiles like us. For us, there only has ever been: DO NOT KILL, except in just judgment of killers (part of the original law), or in self-defense (implied by Jesus' authorization of the Apostles to buy and carry swords).

That's nice. How about we stick to the topic of the thread which is abortion?

 

[Ratjaws]

Here's my idea-not taking the Bible into consideration that life beings at conception-abortion should only be legal in the very early stages of the first trimester before there is a heartbeat-and maybe then only in rare situations, because it deserves a chance at life. Anybody disagree with that compromise?

Sam,
Yes I disagree because one cannot intend to kill an innocent person... and even though there may be no heartbeat... even prior to the formation of the heart period... we must protect that person whose life started at fertilization. There is no room to fudge anywhere with human life without opening a floodgate of evil just as Roe vs. Wade did in 1973. Interestingly that "rare situation" you mention here without any definition is called an ectopic pregnancy. It is very very specific and the only situation to my limited medical knowledge that can be considered reason to separate the the mother and child prematurely. Even if there is another medical condition that would require an abortive act the intention of the doctor and others invovled MUST be to save both child and mother. We can never sanction the deliberate taking of any person's life whether in-uteran or after birth. We must have a consistent ethic or we have none at all. Unfortunately moral relativism rules the day right now but this can be changed with proper education and of course, it must be changed or we risk losing all our subsequent freedoms so dependent on life. I mean is everyone one blind to the power grab going on within our government right now? It is due to this fuzzy idea of morality that has been taught in our secular public schools for generations. I was blessed to avoid such miseducation because I was raised in Catholic school until 7th grade. I then was blessed by God with mentors, holy men and women who shaped my adult understanding in these matters and helped keep me from the moral confusion our society is saturated in.

 

[Vicomte13]

That's nice. How about we stick to the topic of the thread which is abortion?

I am, and I have been all along. Abortion is killing. It is forbidden by God. This is why no compromise is possible. I am not going to compromise on the language or on the facts of what this crime is. And you are not going to compromise on your use of the language or on your belief that there is no crime.

The difference is irreconcilable during life.

The issue will be clearly settled after our deaths.

 

[Vicomte13]

We're not going to get anywhere if you make up your own definitions. I'll discuss the matter with other individuals, in that case.

Would you approve if someone insisted that Sharia law is what "law" means? I don't recognize those laws as existing, but I'm hoping we can both agree that the government's laws exist.

Discuss the issue with someone else. I came onto the thread saying that there can be no compromise, and I meant exactly that. There can be no compromise, and there will be no compromise, because there is one right answer, and everybody on earth is going to be held accountable to THAT standard, and not any other, once they are dead and judged.

To the extent that Sharia, or the government's laws, correspond to the law of God, then of course I support them. To the extent they do not, then they are wrong and there can be no compromise. They must be made right. If they command the active commission of evil, then they must be actively broken.

 

[ecco]

They "ruled out" 4 only to the extent that it's not the one they chose to vote for. It represents something of a compromise and answering 5 means to accept no compromises, just as 1 does. Therefore, 5 and 4 are no less incompatible than 1 and 4 are.

Let's see, 1 = no abortion at all for any reason. 4 = abortion in the first trimester, plus in cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the pregnant woman. 5 = abortion at any time. 5 incorporates 4. Neither 5 nor 4 incorporate 1.
To say that 5 and 4 are no less incompatable than are 1 and 4 makes no sense at all.

The problem lies in the questions and selections permitted.

Given these slightly reworded questions...

1. Abortion should never be permitted
2. Permitted to protect the life or physical health of the pregnant woman
3. Permitted to protect the mental health of the pregnant woman
4. Permitted in cases of rape or incest
5. Permitted at the discretion of the pregnant woman

...the options would then be:

1
2 Only
3 Only
4 Only
5
2 & 3
2 & 4
3 & 4
2 & 3 & 4

Timing further complicates the number of choices.

I'm sure others can come up with other options.

Having said that, the original poll served its purpose quite well.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes. Life begins at conception. To intentionally kill it is murder. There can be no compromise on murder.

Does it make sense from a secular pro life standpoint?

 

[Archivist]

For the record, since I have been challenged on bthis, how many of those who picked option 5 (unrestricted access to abortion) would be willing to comproimise with option 4, allowing abortions during the first trimester plus allowing abortions in cases of rape incest and life or health of the mother?

How many of those who picked Option 1 (abortion absolutely prohibited) would be willing to comproimise with option 4, allowing abortions during the first trimester plus allowing abortions in cases of rape incest and life or health of the mother?

 

[Belk]

For the record, since I have been challenged on bthis, how many of those who picked option 5 (unrestricted access to abortion) would be willing to comproimise with option 4, allowing abortions during the first trimester plus allowing abortions in cases of rape incest and life or health of the mother?

How many of those who picked Option 1 (abortion absolutely prohibited) would be willing to comproimise with option 4, allowing abortions during the first trimester plus allowing abortions in cases of rape incest and life or health of the mother?

I chose option 4 because that was not included in option 5.

 

[Archivist]

The problem lies in the questions and selections permitted.

Ecco, I like the way you set this up. Unfortunately, as I learned when putting the poll together, you are limited to a certain number of characters per choice (not to be confused with pro choice) which prevented me for me as clear as I had intended.

 

[ecco]

Here's my idea-not taking the Bible into consideration that life beings at conception-abortion should only be legal in the very early stages of the first trimester before there is a heartbeat-and maybe then only in rare situations, because it deserves a chance at life. Anybody disagree with that compromise?

Yes.

 

[ecco]

When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry

Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?

Also, see post #312.

 

[ecco]

Ecco, I like the way you set this up. Unfortunately, as I learned when putting the poll together, you are limited to a certain number of characters per choice (not to be confused with pro choice) which prevented me for me as clear as I had intended.

As I said... the original poll served its purpose quite well.

 

[Vicomte13]

The problem lies in the questions and selections permitted.

Given these slightly reworded questions...

1. Abortion should never be permitted
2. Permitted to protect the life or physical health of the pregnant woman
3. Permitted to protect the mental health of the pregnant woman
4. Permitted in cases of rape or incest
5. Permitted at the discretion of the pregnant woman

...the options would then be:

1
2 Only
3 Only
4 Only
5
2 & 3
2 & 4
3 & 4
2 & 3 & 4

Timing further complicates the number of choices.

I'm sure others can come up with other options.

Having said that, the original poll served its purpose quite well.

If you put in option 1A: "Only permitted when a panel of medical experts determines that it is necessary to save the life of the mother", that would be the answer I would pick, on a self-defense theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Life begins at conception. To intentionally kill it is murder. There can be no compromise on murder.

When people start printing obituaries for the 50% of pregnancies that naturally terminate in the first month of pregnancy, then I will take you seriously.

 

[Vicomte13]

Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?

Also, see post #312.

Not at all. Outlawing slavery is obeying God's commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It is also honoring the intent of God's law to the Hebrews which forbade any Hebrew from being held as a slave.
When speaking of the enslavement of captives in Africa, it honors God's law to the Hebrews which prescribed death for any man who stole and sold a man.

Christian slavery of other Christians, particularly as it was practiced in America, was a monstrous sin against God and man. Abolishing it was obedience to God.

Likewise, the slaughter of unborn babies is a monstrous sin against God and man. Abolishing it would be obedience to God. Preserving it is an abomination rendering us a nation akin to the Molechites who slaughtered their own children, as do we, legally.

 

[Vicomte13]

When people start printing obituaries for the 50% of pregnancies that naturally terminate in the first month of pregnancy, then I will take you seriously.

You will never take any argument against abortion seriously until you are dead and facing judgment. Then you will take it seriously and realize that I was the best friend you never had.

 

[Vicomte13]

If I'm right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Muslims are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Hindus are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If the folks at CARM are right, your knowledge is wrong.

If.

 

[dogs4thewin]

When people start printing obituaries for the 50% of pregnancies that naturally terminate in the first month of pregnancy, then I will take you seriously.

What are they going to print? If you think about it number one sometimes the woman does not even KNOW, but more over in order to print an obit usually it has information that if someone is not even a third of the way to being born may not even be KNOWN yet.