What is stopping the current government from making abortion illegal in the USA?

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The verse quoted applies ONLY to Jeremiah unless you are asserting we are all prophets to the nations and is a comment on God's fore-knowledge not Jeremiah. The Bible never addresses abortion but from the comments it does make, it is quite clear that human life became so at the first breath drawn outside the womb. Even then, children were not counterd for the purposes of census until they were a month or so old.

Your logic here is just deeply flawed. You are suggesting that G-d ONLY formed the prophet and knew him before his birth. This is a logically deeply flawed line of thought. The principle here is clear, G-d knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was born.

Your view on this is completely contrary to scripture. Exodus 21:22-23 "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. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

G-d considers just the mere fact that a pregnant woman is STRUCK to be a serious enough offense that those that injure the pregnant woman are liable for substantial fines. And if there is a serious injury to either the penalty is very severe up to and including DEATH.

Exodus establishes the fact that G-d considers the baby in the womb to be a LIFE.

Furthermore, your assertion regarding census is factually wrong. Numbers only counts the MEN in their census. And of those, only men age 20 and older. Women and children are not counted at all. Which clearly renders your thesis that children are not considered of value and worth counting utterly and completely void of merit.
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
One can NOT claim to be a believer and be okay with abortion. PERIOD. It is MURDER, the slaughter of babies. G-d makes it UNMISTAKABLY clear that he considers what is in the womb to be LIFE.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5
Well, it appears that you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this topic as I do not believe that early term abortion fits murder ( actually I KNOW it does not as I am going under secular law Moreover, I would rather a legal option for early-term abortion as opposed to a black market which TRUST me there WOULD be if abortion were outright illegal.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I do not believe that early term abortion fits murder
This implicitly implies that you may think late term abortion does fit with the term murder. Is that true? If so, what is it about the human life that changes so that it comes to possess moral worth?
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Your view on this is completely contrary to scripture. Exodus 21:22-23 "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. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

G-d considers just the mere fact that a pregnant woman is STRUCK to be a serious enough offense that those that injure the pregnant woman are liable for substantial fines. And if there is a serious injury to either the penalty is very severe up to and including DEATH.
That verse doesn't say anything about the "mere fact" that she was struck. It says "and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely..."
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
This implicitly implies that you may think late term abortion does fit with the term murder. Is that true? If so, what is it about the human life that changes so that it comes to possess moral worth?
When, if removed the baby would have a shot at life that is when I believe abortion should end. If a woman is say three months along and for some reason she dies there is NO way that baby will make it. IF, however she is towards the end of her second trimester or in her third trimester at that point the baby would have a chance of life if removed. This does not mean that I would consider abortion an option for myself ( as I am a woman of child bearing age NOR does it mean that I would encourage it as an option for such a woman, but I DO believe that that should be an option early if that is what she really wants. If the option is not legally there there will be a black market which is even more dangerous and cannot be regulated.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So what you're doing is creating a distinction between a human being and a human person. We know scientifically that life begins at conception. That isn't debated anymore.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”


Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

What you're doing is you're creating a distinction between a human being and a human person. You're saying that until a human being reaches the age of viability that it is not of moral worth and value, and that therefore, terminating its life is not an immoral action. However, once the human inside the womb does reach viability, they become a morally valuable human person that should be protected.

The problem with this idea is that its simply inconsistent and emotionally based. What is it about viability that suddenly makes a human being morally valuable? Is that the point where they become created in the image of God? On what basis, other than your opinion are you able to grant moral value to a human in the womb at the age of 20 some odd weeks?

It's important to understand that the only reason people attempt to create a distinction between a human being and a human person is so that some action may be taken against the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

And that.... is exactly what you're attempting to do. Problem is that you can't do it objectively, you can't do it scientifically, and you certainly can't do it Biblically.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Your logic here is just deeply flawed. You are suggesting that G-d ONLY formed the prophet and knew him before his birth. This is a logically deeply flawed line of thought. The principle here is clear, G-d knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was born.

Your view on this is completely contrary to scripture. Exodus 21:22-23 "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. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

G-d considers just the mere fact that a pregnant woman is STRUCK to be a serious enough offense that those that injure the pregnant woman are liable for substantial fines. And if there is a serious injury to either the penalty is very severe up to and including DEATH.

Exodus establishes the fact that G-d considers the baby in the womb to be a LIFE.

Furthermore, your assertion regarding census is factually wrong. Numbers only counts the MEN in their census. And of those, only men age 20 and older. Women and children are not counted at all. Which clearly renders your thesis that children are not considered of value and worth counting utterly and completely void of merit.

The Exodus verse applies only to damage to the woman. The verse is very clear, if the woman is harmed the lex talionus applies, if only the foetus then a fine is levied. As for the Census counts ; Numbers 3:15 "Number the sons of Levi by their fathers' households, by their families; every male from a month old and upward you shall number." ; God certainly knew Jeremiah, that does not mean that verses ABOUT Jeremiah apply to anyone else just because you or your church feels that they do.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Exodus verse applies only to damage to the woman. The verse is very clear, if the woman is harmed the lex talionus applies, if only the foetus then a fine is levied. As for the Census counts ; Numbers 3:15 "Number the sons of Levi by their fathers' households, by their families; every male from a month old and upward you shall number." ; God certainly knew Jeremiah, that does not mean that verses ABOUT Jeremiah apply to anyone else just because you or your church feels that they do.


Utter rubbish. Exodus specifically annotates that the woman is pregnant. If it were merely about the woman it would not include the woman being pregnant. Your line of thought here is flawed logically.

Harah is the Hebrew for a pregnant woman. Lex Talionus is not Hebrew and does not appear in the aforementioned verse so why you introduce it is beyond me.

Numbers 1 cites age 20 and up. The bottom line is this DOES NOT prove that G-d does not consider the baby in the womb as anything but LIFE.

You totally fail in your attempt to sidestep Exodus 22. The mere idea that it is speaking just about women is laughable. It is certainly NOT how the Jews interpreted it.

Your reply concerning Jeremiah is equally absurd. The principle none less remains. If Adonai knew Jeremiah and formed him in the womb then the burden of proof is on those who say "it was only speaking of Jeremiah" Last I checked, Messiah's blood sacrifice covers all who repent. Messiah's sacrifice FAR exceeds the importance of Jeremiah. To say that the world had such value that G-d would send his only son to die but then declare that Jeremiah was only important enough to be formed in the womb and know since before is so flawed a line of thinking that to accept it all logic must be cast aside.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Shall I quote the Rabbis on Exodus? The Hebrew is very clear, the lex talionus applies only to the damage to the woman no mention is made in regards to the foetus. Your other comments are simply eisegesis on your part.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
With regards to the OP, wouldn't it have to come from the Supreme Court? And didn't we literally JUST have the newest Supreme Court Justice appointed? I personally suspect we will see the issue come up during Trump's Presidency.
yes and no. The SCOTUS doesn't make law, they would likely review a law enacted at the state level.. . Or with majorities in both legislative bodies, I think it could come from the federal level. Second part, yes the swearing in of the new justice prompted the question. However, the same control of all three branches was a reality for six of the eight W. Bush years. It would appear that the GOP has, again, decided to instigate conflict in the middle east (and now Korea) and ignore the issue. We shall see.
 
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

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The Didache is not normative for Christians. It is not a part of the canon.
and the question on the table is not about the theology/Biblical references around abortion.

It is, rather, what is stopping the political party in opposition to abortion from making it illegal?
It is a political question.
Now that this is the second time in the last 16 years, once for a six year period, that the 'pro-life' party has been in charge of all three branches of government - what is stopping them?
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
and the question on the table is not about the theology/Biblical references around abortion.

It is, rather, what is stopping the political party in opposition to abortion from making it illegal?
It is a political question.
Now that this is the second time in the last 16 years, once for a six year period, that the 'pro-life' party has been in charge of all three branches of government - what is stopping them?
Because most folk recognise that abortions are sometimes necessary.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Shall I quote the Rabbis on Exodus? The Hebrew is very clear, the lex talionus applies only to the damage to the woman no mention is made in regards to the foetus. Your other comments are simply eisegesis on your part.


First its Lex Talinois and not what you spelled. Second, you are spouting latin I prefer to stick with what is in the actual text which is Hebrew.

Ellicott's commentary, Cambridge bible commentary, Benson, Matthew Poole, Gill's exposition, Geneva study bible commentary, Pulpit bible commentary to name a few, all agree with my understanding of this.

The Hebrew (IMO) is pretty clear.... in the event that the pregnant women is injured causing a premature birth but the baby lives and is unharmed then the man responsible is to be fined up to what the husband demands and the court allows.

IF however the woman is injured and it causes an abortion of the baby, the man's life is forfeit.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[a] then you shall pay life for life,

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:23 Or so that her children come out and it is clear who was to blame, he shall be fined as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he alone shall pay. 23 If it is unclear who was to blame…

The key to this is the Hebrew word in vs 22 yatsa Which is Strongs 3318 and is specifically defined as of untimely birth Exodus 21:22
 
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

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Lex Talionis is correct. Mea culpa; as for the rest, allow me to quote:

"... The Jewish discussion about abortion begins with a biblical text. Exodus 21:22-23 discusses a situation in which two men are fighting. During the fight, one of the men accidentally hits a pregnant woman. The Torah says that if the woman is killed then, “a nefesh shall be given for a nefesh (a life shall be given for a life).” The man who struck her is considered a murderer and is punished accordingly. If, however, the woman miscarries but does not die, the man must pay monetary damages.

He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being.

While establishing the status of a fetus, this text tells us nothing about the permissibility of abortion. It is another source—the Mishnah(redacted c. 200 CE), in Tractate Ohalot—that provides us with the underlying principle: “If a woman is undergoing a perilous pregnancy, the fetus may be destroyed since her life takes precedence over its life.” . . ."

Source
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Lex Talionis is correct. Mea culpa; as for the rest, allow me to quote:

"... The Jewish discussion about abortion begins with a biblical text. Exodus 21:22-23 discusses a situation in which two men are fighting. During the fight, one of the men accidentally hits a pregnant woman. The Torah says that if the woman is killed then, “a nefesh shall be given for a nefesh (a life shall be given for a life).” The man who struck her is considered a murderer and is punished accordingly. If, however, the woman miscarries but does not die, the man must pay monetary damages.

He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being.

While establishing the status of a fetus, this text tells us nothing about the permissibility of abortion. It is another source—the Mishnah(redacted c. 200 CE), in Tractate Ohalot—that provides us with the underlying principle: “If a woman is undergoing a perilous pregnancy, the fetus may be destroyed since her life takes precedence over its life.” . . ."

Source

I will side with the sources I supplied in my previous post. The Hebrew is clear here.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think of the old diner skit in SNL with John Belushi. Whoever walked into the diner, no matter what they wanted to order, Belushi would say, "cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi, Pepsi..." because everything else was inedible and impalatable.

Let's think about Republican legislators...the 'cheeseburger' (anti-abortion position) is the only edible thing on their menu. Everything else they say is either toxic or nausea-inducing.

If they end abortion, what can they run on? Ending the minimum wage? Taking away people's health insurance? Poisoning their water and air? Starting unnecessary wars with even more unnecessary tweets?

No. Their pro-business anti-workers platform won't work. So they tinker around the edge with abortion.
 
Last edited:
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

sturgeonslawyer

Active Member
Feb 11, 2005
31
18
65
Directly above the center of the Earth
Visit site
✟12,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If appointing pro-life justices is not proof positive, I don't know that anything will convince you.

Which pro-life justice is that? You mean Gorsuch, who said that Roe is "the law of the land?"
 
Upvote 0