Abortion Discussion

[Archivist]

So, because a being has the lacks an ability, they should be denied their rights? That speaks loudly to those who were brought to the US as slaves, doesn't it? They didn't have the ability to fight for their freedom, so they should have been kept as slaves until now, right?

To my knowledge, slaves were not occupying the body of another without permission. Wouldn't you agree that the rape victim/pregnant woman's rights superscede those of the fetus?

Interesting that you raise the issue of slaves. I have asked this before, do you support involuntary servitude in general or only when it is forced upon rape victims?

 

[redleghunter]

Lifenews.com and Students for Life are not exactly unbiased souirces.

Nor is Time Magazine.

Impeaching the reporting source is a usual tactic however both reporting agencies did not do the studies but reported on them.

Go to the source and see.

 

[redleghunter]

They come from sources that I would not use in an argument. Unless I was writing a paper on a topic and I nedded both sides.

Which sources? The reporting agency or the study?

I hope you see they are not one in the same.

 

[redleghunter]

@Archivist

What you asked for on percentages.


http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Lots of data there and even state by state.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Please, please, please stay on topic here guys... I think this is an important discussion for the Body of Christ as a whole along with society at large to have but the last thread addressing it got overrun with an off topic argument and closed... Please stay on topic...

Here are my basic beliefs on the subject of abortion:

Pro-Life

1. Abortion is murder. It is an affront not just to Christian teaching but to the very foundations of modern society. It takes the rule of law and due process and throws both out the window to allow adults, women like myself in particular, to kill their own offspring for even the most arbitrary of reasons. In most cases it's an evil and barbaric practice that in an ideal world should be criminalized outside of extreme circumstances. To clarify what I mean by "Extreme Circumstances" if there's a higher than 55% chance that the mother will die if she gives birth or carries to term, or if there is less than a 10% chance that the child will be born alive. Even at that point abortion is a necessary evil. It is never right, but there are situations in which it is still better than the alternative and any legal sanctions against it MUST provide exceptions to take those situations into account.

2. We do not live in that ideal world. Therefore whether we believe abortion to be right or wrong our time is better spent creating a world in which abortion is as unneeded and uncommon as possible. What will help that happen? Increased access to preventative birth-control, better and more widespread sex education, more resources for pregnant women regardless or age or background, and much needed reforms to the current adoption and foster-care systems.

3. Until the points outlined above in #2 are accomplished criminalizing abortion would solve very little and create more problems than it gets rid of.

4. I do not fly with the "quality of life" "sick kids shouldn't even be born" argument...

Abortion is Murder? Are you repeating a plank of the Political stance from the Pro-life platform, or Scripture?

Gen. 2:7 tells us that Adam did not become a "living soul" until he took he first breath. Certainly, the fetus contains all the Potential for life, but it is not breathing on its own yet in the womb... Also-According to Exodus 21:22-23, Scripture stands in open opposition with your statement...

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

This is telling us that if someone hurts a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, then this individual is to "pay as the judges determine! Whether the man is fined, or guilty of the punishment the woman's husband lays on him, if the fetus were considered a "living soul" then the penalty would not be a fine or lesser punishment, but it would be in accordance with "life for life," as we see in v.23. Obviously, your position is at variance with God's Word in this instance.
If you just want to be "Politically Correct" you are setting your goals pretty low, but if you want to be Correct on Scripture you need to be more exhaustive in your research before your can form a well rounded opinion based on Biblical truth... especially on issues of life and death when you are accusing people of MURDER.

God Bless...

 

[Julie.S]

Which sources? The reporting agency or the study?

I hope you see they are not one in the same.

I am sorry if you do not like my answer I looked over both as much as I could and I see the one is not recent (lifenews) and I could not find a date for the other one. I use sources that are from at least 2013 and on I do this because its how I was taught to while in college.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am sorry if you do not like my answer I looked over both as much as I could and I see the one is not recent (lifenews) and I could not find a date for the other one. I use sources that are from at least 2013 and on I do this because its how I was taught to while in college.

What does the date of the study have to do with anything as long as the study itself is valid?

 

[Julie.S]

What does the date of the study have to do with anything as long as the study itself is valid?

When I was in college I was told that basically using things that are closer to the current year are better for multiple reasons. Such as its more current and up to date. Using something from say 2001-2006 would leave room for changes so using the most current things are good. Of course you can use the old sources along side the new ones but its good to have current ones also.

 

[civilwarbuff]

When I was in college I was told that basically using things that are closer to the current year are better for multiple reasons. Such as its more current and up to date. Using something from say 2001-2006 would leave room for changes so using the most current things are good. Of course you can use the old sources along side the new ones but its good to have current ones also.

That is what I thought...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/milgram_exper.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
These studies are classic especially since they could not be repeated with today's ethical standards in place. So, are you willing to dismiss them simply because they are done in the 60's & 70's or are these still viable studies whose results are still valid?

 

[redleghunter]

Abortion is Murder? Are you repeating a plank of the Political stance from the Pro-life platform, or Scripture?

Gen. 2:7 tells us that Adam did not become a "living soul" until he took he first breath. Certainly, the fetus contains all the Potential for life, but it is not breathing on its own yet in the womb... Also-According to Exodus 21:22-23, Scripture stands in open opposition with your statement...

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

This is telling us that if someone hurts a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, then this individual is to "pay as the judges determine! Whether the man is fined, or guilty of the punishment the woman's husband lays on him, if the fetus were considered a "living soul" then the penalty would not be a fine or lesser punishment, but it would be in accordance with "life for life," as we see in v.23. Obviously, your position is at variance with God's Word in this instance.
If you just want to be "Politically Correct" you are setting your goals pretty low, but if you want to be Correct on Scripture you need to be more exhaustive in your research before your can form a well rounded opinion based on Biblical truth... especially on issues of life and death when you are accusing people of MURDER.

God Bless...

Miscarry is nowhere in the text you quote. In fact Exodus 21:21ff is a basis for fetal homicide laws:

The scholars who used miscarriage or still birth are clearly in error. They form a very small minority and have engaged in eisegesis, the method of interpreting scriptures with a bias.

In order to determine the exact meaning of a word in the Bible you need a literal word for word translation and look back at the Hebrew for Exodus 21. Those trying to use miscarriage or still born are likely using a dynamic equivalent or paraphrase translation and not a literal word for word translation.


The majority of scholars who ascribe to the Hebrew and Greek lexicon.

Here is the passage in question.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

he KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
   
   
2. child, children
   
   
3. descendants
   
   
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren (2x), childless (2x), cast young (2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children (1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.


On the 'breath of life' comment? We know from Leviticus 17 God sees the life is in the blood.

More:

Abortion: Biblical exegesis of Exodus 21:22ff

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098322
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...r-for-the-babies.7922364/page-3#post-68987259
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-34#post-69060024
Abortion: The Mind of God on our humanity; How TaNaKh Jews viewed conception

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69090685

Is abortion Ethical for seculars:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/it-should-be-murder.7925104/page-33#post-69118203

Bitter water explained:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/pro-life-or-pro-choice.7934246/page-98#post-69342499

Kill and Murder:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rs-of-euthanasia.7936568/page-7#post-69372766

 

[redleghunter]

I am sorry if you do not like my answer I looked over both as much as I could and I see the one is not recent (lifenews) and I could not find a date for the other one. I use sources that are from at least 2013 and on I do this because its how I was taught to while in college.

I hope you realize Life Site did not do the study. What in the study do you take issue with. All I see is you are impeaching the source of reporting and not the actual source of the study.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Anyone who is not bothered by the fact that America has aborted 55 million babies since Roe v Wade has certainly lost his soul.

Don't be bothered.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ABORT BABIES. There is never a baby in a womb!

 

[civilwarbuff]

Miscarry is nowhere in the text you quote. In fact Exodus 21:21ff is a basis for fetal homicide laws:

The scholars who used miscarriage or still birth are clearly in error. They form a very small minority and have engaged in eisegesis, the method of interpreting scriptures with a bias.

In order to determine the exact meaning of a word in the Bible you need a literal word for word translation and look back at the Hebrew for Exodus 21. Those trying to use miscarriage or still born are likely using a dynamic equivalent or paraphrase translation and not a literal word for word translation.


The majority of scholars who ascribe to the Hebrew and Greek lexicon.

Here is the passage in question.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

he KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
   
   
2. child, children
   
   
3. descendants
   
   
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren (2x), childless (2x), cast young (2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children (1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.


On the 'breath of life' comment? We know from Leviticus 17 God sees the life is in the blood.

More:

Abortion: Biblical exegesis of Exodus 21:22ff

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098322
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...r-for-the-babies.7922364/page-3#post-68987259
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-34#post-69060024
Abortion: The Mind of God on our humanity; How TaNaKh Jews viewed conception

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69090685

Is abortion Ethical for seculars:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/it-should-be-murder.7925104/page-33#post-69118203

Bitter water explained:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/pro-life-or-pro-choice.7934246/page-98#post-69342499

Kill and Murder:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rs-of-euthanasia.7936568/page-7#post-69372766

nice post. Is the fact that life is in the blood also why Jews are directed to not eat bloody meat?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Don't be bothered.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ABORT BABIES. There is never a baby in a womb!

So when your arguments don't hold up YOU YELL. I believe that was said of the Vulcans once.....

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Expecting Christians who believe the Bible is inspired of God to calmly accept your view when their sacred book condemns it is irrational.

Expecting CHRISTIANS (believers in Truth) who believe the Bible is inspired of God to calmly accept your view when their sacred book does NOT condemn it (what you say it condemns) is irrational.
You quote: "
Jeremiah 10:23
“O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself ...”

The way of man is IN A WOMAN, right? Except it would be wrong to take that to mean THERE ARE MEN IN WOMEN'S BELLY WOMBS. Men live in the world; men (and women) are NOT fetuses.

 

[civilwarbuff]

edit

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So when your arguments don't hold up YOU YELL. I believe that was said of the Vulcans once.....

Sorry about that. Just trying to emphasize.
With "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ABORT BABIES. There is never a baby in a womb!" I was just trying to point out that you should not be so self-contradictory. In case you don't know it, the big lie (repeated at every opportunity) is that the fetus is a baby. That is about the only argument you have, to constantly repeat that basic falsehood in every way possible.

IT IS NOT TRUE, oops, sorry, It is not true that any of my arguments don't hold up. I challenge you to point to one of my arguments and tell me what's untrue about it.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It took me 10 mins to stop laughing.
Jeremiah 10:23
The way of may is in God, not in himself and most certainly not because he starts out in a woman's womb....

Glad I made you laugh. I suppose you think that vague "starts out" is some sort of argument? We are all constructed (from an invisible to the naked eye sperm and egg) in a womb. That does not mean we exist before we are made.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Anyone who is not bothered by the fact that America has aborted 55 million babies since Roe v Wade has certainly lost his soul.

We used nuclear weapons to end WWII.

Would a similar approach be reasonable if it meant ending abortion once and for all?

 

[Julie.S]

I hope you realize Life Site did not do the study. What in the study do you take issue with. All I see is you are impeaching the source of reporting and not the actual source of the study.

I don't like the sites and would not use them myself is all. The articles are fine and a good read.