Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[SkyWriting]

Worry about the other 99.99% first. The exceptions can be dealt with
one at a time.

I only worry that you think you are qualified to get involved
when you don't seem to have any experience in the matter.

 

[SkyWriting]

We do it all the time, from forced medical care to forced psychiatric care, to intervention for drug use or attempted suicide. When there is another
life involved, then it gets even stricter

People may refuse both.
There is no "stricter" clause.
It's just that suicide is more
difficult to control than murder.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

Slavery in American was justified by the permission given by god in Exodus.

But that "justification" does not, and did not, stand up to actual Scriptural scrutiny.

Your beliefs, based on your interpretations do not matter. What matters is that people believe the bible is the absolute true word of god. What matters is what people believe based on their interpretations. There is enough stuff in the bible to support almost anything.

American slavery had nothing to do with God. It was American idolatry, of money, leading Americans to brutalize massive numbers of fellow Christians in order to get rich, in this life, and earn themselves the fire of damnation in the next.

It was justified to church going Christian slave owners by the words of god in the bibles they carried with them.

 

[ecco]

The only morally acceptable option I can agree with is what I articulated before to Archivist. His number two read "lfe and health of the mother" adjusted to leave out the health term. ...
So only a "life of the mother" claus can clearly eliminate all ambiguity in the law and satisfy the moral requirements.

If I am reading you correctly, you are OK with aborting the fetus if the life of the mother is in serious danger.

There are cases where doctors can save either the fetus or the mother, either one but not both. Who, in your opinion, decides? Let's complicate it a little more, the mother is in a drug induced coma. Let's complicate it a little more, there is no father in the picture, he died. Also, there are no relatives. Who, in your opinion, decides?

If nothing is done, there is an 80% chance that both will die, a 15% chance that one will die, a 5% chance that both will live.

1. Save the mother
2. Save the fetus
3. Do nothing, let god decide

 

[ecco]

Vicomte13 said: ↑

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

ecco said: ↑

Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?

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.

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.​

What group of people advocated abolishing slavery. Yes ,Christians led the abolishment movement.

Do you realize that you have just confirmed that those Christians who helped abolish slavery by enacting secular laws committed idolatry?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

You are entitled to your opinion. Your views are not shared by everyone. They are not shared by atheists and people of other religions. They are not even shared by all Christians. I realize that you "know truth". However, you may not "know truth", any more than you think I don't. This (excerpted) from the folks at CARM:

No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus that you're a Christian.
1. There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10,44:6, 8).
4.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 3:1-2, 5:1-4).

Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.​

Ecco,
If you are going to make accusations against the Church then why don't you go to it for a source relative to her teaching?

I made no accusations against any church. I pointed out that "your views are not shared by everyone". I pointed out that there are many different opinions between people of different religious views and even big differences within Christianity as exemplified by the excerpts from CARM.

Given that there are all these differences, no single group should try to claim moral authority.
Given that there are all these differences, no person within any single group should try to claim moral authority, such as you have been doing.


The remainder of your post confirms what I just said.

... This is an anti-Catholic misrepresentation. ...the Church does not hold to Martin Luther's erronious teaching ...Catholic teaching agrees with only the latter "sola gratia"

 

[ecco]

I ...showed you the various translations and the Hebrew.... I also pointed out that some English translations fixed the translation as in the NASB..

The Exodus reference is wrong. The word for miscarriage does not appear in the Hebrew.

There's nothing to interpret from the direct words from God.

Apparently there is a lot of interpreting and mis-translation going on. So much for the objective truth of holy scripture.

When will you folks stop arguing about it, admit that it's all about human translations and human interpretations and agree that the other person's beliefs are just as valid as your own?

Ahh, heck. We all know the answer to that one, don't we.

 

[Fusion77]

Somehow my nation, the USA made it through without abortion, until 1973. Basically, it starts with what you think of Gods words. Should humans bend and manipulate His words because they're "outdated"? Or do we adhere to His words with the belief that they take precedence. I wasn't sure if I should vote between 1 or 2, but voted 1.


This is how I see the picture. We need to begin to teach kids right from wrong according to the word of God. Unfortunately, the enemy has/is attacking the family, the basic building block of our society. Very few kids have the opportunity of having a 2 parent family, and that's tough. Now we also have laws which are contrary to Gods word and allow things which are in violation to Gods standard. Now, children will grow up believing these things are good, or at least acceptable. If we outlawed these things, they might be seemed as shameful of wrong.

Look, I don't see too much difference compared with us today and the children of Israel. Engaging in orgies and sacrificing their children to molech. So today we engage in self indulging sexual activity, and there's an unwanted pregnancy and so we abort the baby. Either way, it all starts with a disregard for Gods word, and will bring judgement upon us, and rightfully so.

We must understand that this is God. These are His directives, and because of that, we mustn't rebel, but adhere to His guidelines (it's better for us anyway). That being said, I lived much of my life in Egypt (sin and bondage), and understand many are in the dark. We need some truly Godly leaders in order to turn things around, and to begin to promote family values. unfortunately, I don't see this happening. As a nation, we are going the wrong direction, and it is sad to see.

 

[redleghunter]

The scientific definition of life also applies to gametes and tissue cells. That's what makes this whole thing confusing, because we have no taboo against menstrual cycles or exfoliating.

Your opinion is scientifically in error:


WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.


The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

II. When does a human being begin?

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.



A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

[ecco]

Somehow my nation, the USA made it through without abortion, until 1973.

Are you saying there were no abortions in the USA prior to 1973?

We need some truly Godly leaders in order to turn things around, and to begin to promote family values. unfortunately, I don't see this happening.

Maybe all Christians need to come together and lead us out of temptation.

The Great Awakening was an evangelical and revitalization movement that swept Protestant Europe and British America, and especially the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s, leaving a permanent impact on American Protestantism. ...
The movement was a monumental social event in New England, which challenged established authority and incited rancor and division between traditionalist Protestants who insisted on the continuing importance of ritual and doctrine, and the revivalists, who encouraged emotional involvement. It had a major impact in reshaping the Congregational church, the Presbyterian church, the Dutch Reformed Church, and the German Reformed denomination, and strengthened the small Baptist and Methodist Anglican denominations. ​

Well, that didn't work.

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival movement during the early 19th century in theUnited States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement. ...
The revivals enrolled millions of new members in existing evangelical denominations and led to the formation of new denominations. Many converts believed that the Awakening heralded a new millennial age. The Second Great Awakening stimulated the establishment of many reform movements designed to remedy the evils of society before the anticipated Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[1]​

Hmm, I guess Christians cannot all come together even when they want to remedy the evils of society.

As a nation, we are going the wrong direction, and it is sad to see.

It seems that Christians have believed that we are going in the wrong direction even before we were a nation.

 

[ecco]

Your opinion is scientifically in error:

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?
"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

There are opinions and there are opinions. The article you quoted was originally published in 1999 in the ...

(International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999)

It is not surprising that the philosophical opinions of Dr. Irving are the same as the philosophical opinions of the Catholic Church (my emphasis) ...

http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?ID=irv

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics. ​

 

[redleghunter]

But it's not. I don't believe it's enough. An embryo is alive, yes, obviously. I'm still pro-choice.

Yes the embryo is alive and is a human being. By your statements you would not personally kill that human being but would let others make the decision to do so.

Am I correct in my assessment?

 

[redleghunter]

What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing of the kind.

You seem to be suggesting that merely giving poor women and children food stamps is somehow sufficient. It is not. People need stability. That means housing, health care, good educations and stable food supply. If we just barely keep people alive at the margins we are not doing our Christian duties to them, and what is more, we are guaranteeing that we will have more dysfunction in future generations.

No. To cut off the cycle of dependency, we actually have to provide STABILITY, long term, so that the children of marginal people are THEMSELVES not marginalized by poverty. We have to provide what we would call a "middle class lifestyle" - good nutrition and health care, and clean and safe housing, and good schools. And that means that parents that some consider "deadbeats" or "immoral", or whatever, are in fact going to get a free ride because where the child is, the parents are.

When you properly raise up the children, they are far less likely to bring forward the crime and marginalization to the next generation.

WIC alone does not cut it. We must do a lot more than that.

And that means tax hikes, especially on the wealthy, and it means a rethink of our whole national "security" (really "imperial") military posture. To afford to do it right, we have to get out of the business of empire.

All of this is pretty darned near the opposite of the straw man you set up and knocked down.

I did not demonstrate that I cannot be taken seriously, but you sure demonstrated a major reading comprehension problem (if you actually READ what you commented on - I'm betting you did not and just assumed a bunch of positions).

The more I think about it the Amish are living better than we are. Their lifestyle with modern medical science (which they do take advantage of in serious illnesses).

We would all have to give up internet.

 

[redleghunter]

Managed to find that scripture where God says not to abort yet? Ipsie dixit just lacks... flavor somehow.

He quoted it 4 times by my counting:

Exodus 20:

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Fusion77]

Are you saying there were no abortions in the USA prior to 1973?



Maybe all Christians need to come together and lead us out of temptation.

The Great Awakening was an evangelical and revitalization movement that swept Protestant Europe and British America, and especially the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s, leaving a permanent impact on American Protestantism. ...
The movement was a monumental social event in New England, which challenged established authority and incited rancor and division between traditionalist Protestants who insisted on the continuing importance of ritual and doctrine, and the revivalists, who encouraged emotional involvement. It had a major impact in reshaping the Congregational church, the Presbyterian church, the Dutch Reformed Church, and the German Reformed denomination, and strengthened the small Baptist and Methodist Anglican denominations. ​

Well, that didn't work.

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival movement during the early 19th century in theUnited States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement. ...
The revivals enrolled millions of new members in existing evangelical denominations and led to the formation of new denominations. Many converts believed that the Awakening heralded a new millennial age. The Second Great Awakening stimulated the establishment of many reform movements designed to remedy the evils of society before the anticipated Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[1]​

Hmm, I guess Christians cannot all come together even when they want to remedy the evils of society.


It seems that Christians have believed that we are going in the wrong direction even before we were a nation.

Abortion was not legal before 1973. Therefore, abortion were occurring at a fraction of a percentage compared with today.

Immorality is much more prevelant now, than say, in the 1950's. Children were taught basic moral values and family life was more stable. Homo sexual or abortion acts were not legal in many parts of the USA, and hence less prevalent. Because people now want to live for themselves and their pleasures they've set the things of God aside.


I'll tell you, the first step is to recognize what's going on is sinful. Then to try and legitimately turn away from those sinful acts. From there God will help. Because you're conscience tells you it's wrong, or at least at some point it did. No one is ever exempt from Gods saving grace, as long as there's still a breath of life.


Consider what's going on. Respond to your conscience and turn from your sin. God is awaiting with open arm to receive.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes the embryo is alive and is a human being. By your statements you would not personally kill that human being but would let others make the decision to do so.

Am I correct in my assessment?

I don't believe I've said anything about what I would personally choose. I can't really know, anyway, since there are so many different sets of circumstances that could lead to that.

 

[redleghunter]

The direct "words from God" don't say what you say they say.

Then I await your expository on the passages.

 

[redleghunter]

Then surely you agree that a fertilized ball of cells is not a person? It is to a person what an acorn is to an oak tree.

An acorn if fertilized and germinates is in fact very small oak tree.

Scientists define conception as the point in which a new distinct human being is formed.

 

[Armoured]

An acorn if fertilized and germinates is in fact very small oak tree.

Scientists define conception as the point in which a new distinct human being is formed.

Show me one serious scientific text that makes such a claim?

 

[Cearbhall]

Scientists define conception as the point in which a new distinct human being is formed.

That's not personhood. Scientists are not lawmakers.