Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Vicomte13]

So you're saying that you have the power, or at least want it, to determine what women do with their bodies?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1445020441508-1'); });
That's terrifying

I am saying that I have the right to intervene to save lives. Abortion is murder. When we intervene to stop abortion, we are preventing murders. Of course the murderesses don't like it. Killers are obviously ok with killing. It's up to the rest of us to stop them from doing what they want to do when what they want to do involves slaying another person.

The woman's body is not the issue. The baby's body is the issue. The woman does not own the baby's body. Pregnant with it, she has the duty to carry the baby to term. If she wants to murder the baby instead, she must be stopped, and punished if she does it anyway.

If she does not want to get pregnant, she has full command of her body and can simply refrain from spreading her legs in the first place. That is the point at which she can exercise full sovereignty. Once that threshold is past and there's a second person involved - a baby - the woman's rights must give way to the baby's right to live until the term of the pregnancy. Then, if she absolutely will not raise the baby, we have adoption and orphanages.

The woman has no right at all to kill the baby. It's not her body she is killing, it's his.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is normally considered polite to answer a question prior to asking one of your own.

You support abortion. You favor murder of infants. Therefore, you are an adversary - a supporter of killers - and I don't care about politesse when dealing with foes.

 

[Dave-W]

The system we use is majority vote of people who represent our views.
It's found in scripture.

A democratic vote? In scripture? This I gotta see. BCV please.

 

[Dave-W]

So you're saying that you have the power, or at least want it, to determine what women do with their bodies?
That's terrifying.

I recently saw an episode of Star Trek NextGen. There was a dying Romulan on there who needed a blood transfusion. The ONLY matching donor was Warf whose parents had been slaughtered by Romulans, so he refused to donate and the guy died.

IMO it should have been legally REQUIRED for him to donate. We should have that law in place here as well.

So yes - I support the idea of the state telling us what we can, cannot, and HAVE to do with our own bodies.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have read a passage that has been mistranslated. What you have read, you have read correctly, but it is not what the Hebrew underlying the translation says.

I tell you what. You get the teams who translated the versions of the Bible which use the term miscarriage to revise their translations and let me know. At that point I'll admit you have a reasonable case for it being mistranslated. But it is kinda hard for me to pretend that some random poster on the internet is a better authority in Biblical translation than people who do the job for a living.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, it is. Abortion is the premeditated murder of a human being.

Not in the vast majority of English speaking countries it isn't. Feel free to try and get the law changed, but the way to do that isn't to write a long post asserting something which is plainly false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I recently saw an episode of Star Trek NextGen. There was a dying Romulan on there who needed a blood transfusion. The ONLY matching donor was Warf whose parents had been slaughtered by Romulans, so he refused to donate and the guy died.

IMO it should have been legally REQUIRED for him to donate. We should have that law in place here as well.

So yes - I support the idea of the state telling us what we can, cannot, and HAVE to do with our own bodies.

Wow.

Repeat that, next time the organ-harvesting-police is at your door to forcefully take one of your kidneys.

 

[Dave-W]

Repeat that, next time the organ-harvesting-police is at your door to forcefully take one of your kidneys.

They would not require any force. I would give up a kidney no problem. Or blood. Or bone marrow. ( I got my 2 gallon pin twice for blood donations to the Red Cross)

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is death.

So is the biblical punishment for working on the sabbath.

Good luck with that.

Hitting people such that they prematurely deliver is a very serious offense.
If the baby miscarries as a result and dies, it is death.

But if you hit a slave so hard that it only dies after more then 3 days as a result of the beating, then all is fine.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Ow, and by the way....... you live in a secular country. Your biblical laws are quite irrelevant (fortunatly).

 

[KCfromNC]

We cannot have compromise on legalized murder

You can't do anything with legalized murder, since the term is a logical contradiction. Murder is defined as some specific types of illegal killings. You might as well say you can't compromise on married bachelors either since that makes just as much sense.

Anti-abortion activists are going to have to up their game and start addressing the real issues here if they hope to win over the middle on this topic. On the other hand, if they're just in it to hear themselves preach, keep it up with the pointless rhetoric.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Our Common Law often departs from the law of God. American abortion law is a good example. We allow killing on demand under Roe. This is forbidden by God's law. When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry, serving a work of our own hands while eschewing service to God.

You really must hate democracy, I guess.

The serpent speaks to us in terms we prefer. God said "don't kill or I'll throw you into the fire." That's what he meant.
Abortion is killing, and if you do it, you burn.
If you don't want to burn, don't commit abortion.

Religious fear tactics only impress those who already buy into it.

Try a real argument instead of trying to scare us with an entity that we don't even believe exists. It's like threatening you that you won't be getting presents from Santa if you do such and such... Clearly you should see how pointless of an exercise that is..

 

[KCfromNC]

I think abortion at least ought to be regarded as "makruh", if not "haram". Meaining disliked, rather than forbidden entirely (in Muslim terms).

This raises an interesting idea. Would the Christians who want to outlaw abortion be OK with that being accomplished through Sharia law?

 

[KCfromNC]

You favor murder of infants.

Here's another case where the anti-abortion side can either choose to engage honestly in a discussion or they can continue the dishonesty which turns average voters against their cause.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

First, I don't see what is special about a blood pump being present or not.
Second, there's an abundance of things (most things, actually) that can go very very wrong after that point that you wish to define as a "point of no return".

In certain cases, abortion is actually the only humane thing to do.

Just the other day, I read an article about a baby that was known to be heavily malformed. The prognose was that it wouldn't live longer then a week.

The parents were very religious and eventhough the doctors themselves adviced to abort, they refused. As it turns out, doctors were somewhat wrong about the prognosis. 4 months after birth, the child was still alive.

Commentators on the article spoke of a "miracle" and how "heart warming" the story was.... I was rather shocked by those reactions.

"Miracle"? "Heart warming"?

I couldn't call it anything but "tragic". It was painfully obvious that the child wouldn't be able to survive that much longer. He requires 24/7 medical assistance or he would die within 24 hours. It's a "life" of nothing but untold misery and suffering.

As far as I am concerned, it is completely irresponsible to carry out a pregnancy if you KNOW that only misery, suffering and death lies ahead. Why would you want to put your child through that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

I could live with that, but only if you also add "life and health of the baby" next to "life and health of the mother".

And off course, these "medical" reasons are not restricted to only the first trimester.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They would not require any force. I would give up a kidney no problem. Or blood. Or bone marrow. ( I got my 2 gallon pin twice for blood donations to the Red Cross)

Blood donations are voluntary.

You are in fact talking about FORCEFULLY harvesting the organs or blood of somebody.
I can't even begin to tell you how shocked I am about this position of yours.

It's one of the most insane things I have ever heared.

Wow. Just......... wow.

 

[Archivist]

You support abortion. You favor murder of infants.

Words have certain meanings, and we are bound by those meanings. Murder means "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." You can say that abortion is murdeer all you want, but you are wrong as abortion does not meet the definition of murder.

 

[Archivist]

People who cannot care for a baby can give it away for adoption, not murder it.

First, no one in this thread is talking about murdering babies.

Second, over 250,000 children enter foster care each year. About half of those ultimately return to their families. Most of the remainder are available for adoption. Yet over 20,000 of them age out of the system each year without being adopted.

 

[ecco]

Vicomte13 said: ↑
When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry

ecco said: ↑
Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?​

Not at all. Outlawing slavery is obeying God's commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Wrong. It was OUR OWN LAWS that abolished slavery in opposition obeying god's laws which encouraged, permitted and gave rules on how to acquire and treat them. (Exodus 21). You defined this a committing idolatry.

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.

So Christians buying heathen African slaves right off the boat was OK since they were not yet Christians. The abolishment of slavery was done in accordance with the Constitution of the US, not in obedience to a god that permitted and encouraged slavery.

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.

Approximately 30% of pregnancies abort spontaneously. God's will.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
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.

With typical religious arrogance you "KNOW" you are right and they are wrong, just as they "KNOW" that they are right and you are wrong.

"Real" Christians (like those at CARM) don't think Catholics are even Christians.