Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

GodLovesCats · May 20, 2019

Maybe you missed it, but you quoted, ". . . except in cases of murdering a pregnant woman."

rboggio1 · May 20, 2019

redleghunter said:
Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

May 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A recent national poll shows a majority of Americans hold that banning abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy is not “too restrictive” and young people are more likely than their elders to judge laws banning abortion after six weeks as “too lenient.”

View attachment 256723

Women and men united in support of greater restrictions on abortion
The poll shows that women (53 percent) and men (57 percent) share approximately the same level of concern about lax abortion laws, debunking hyperbolic claims by supporters of the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry.

Several prominent Democrat politicians seeking their party’s nomination for the 2020 presidential election against pro-life President Donald Trump, such as New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have decried the legislation, asserting that heartbeat bills are an assault on women and that “abortion is healthcare.”

More at link: Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive[/QUOTE Are you really going to believe a poll?

rboggio1 · May 20, 2019

Are you really going to believe a poll?

GodLovesCats · May 21, 2019

Any poll should start with democraphics: if you leave the gender questoin blank you can't continue taking it. Only men voted for Alabama's abortion ban and the reason is self-explanatory.

kiwimac · May 21, 2019

throughfireytrial said:
The word *abortion* does not show up, no, but the Bible does say some things which shed light on the matter of God's watchfulness and concern for the unborn...
Exodus 21:21-26:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NIV 2011)

According to this command we see that the Lord views the death of a fetus via outside interference/trauma as the ending of a life and in those cases the life of the one who causes the trauma resulting in the death of the fetus is to be taken....this is identical to the retribution commanded for the death of those living outside the womb. (life for life).

If our Lord views the unborn fetus as a life to protect then why would one presume that abortion is just fine with the Lord, anything to keep from inconveniencing a woman who MUST have her RIGHT over HER body...even though it is killing a human/murdering a human? Does abortion sound like Biblical wisdom or more like wisdom of the world? Judge it yourself.

This passage may help you make a determination...
Deuteronomy 32:39:
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

The Exodus passage refers solely to harm to the woman not the foetus.

Erik Nelson · May 21, 2019

following was posted on Twitter, may be incomplete, is it accurate?

redleghunter · May 21, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Any poll should start with democraphics: if you leave the gender questoin blank you can't continue taking it. Only men voted for Alabama's abortion ban and the reason is self-explanatory.

Well the Governor signed it into law and appears to be a woman.

redleghunter · May 21, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
following was posted on Twitter, may be incomplete, is it accurate?

That’s close to the national average.

redleghunter · May 21, 2019

kiwimac said:
The Exodus passage refers solely to harm to the woman not the foetus.

No it does not. It’s actually a fetal homicide law. I’ve shown you this several times.

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

The 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

child, son, boy
child, children
descendants
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.

throughfiierytrial · May 21, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
following was posted on Twitter, may be incomplete, is it accurate?

Incredible...the ugly truth of abortion in America.
Thank you for the research results!

throughfiierytrial · May 21, 2019

kiwimac said:
The Exodus passage refers solely to harm to the woman not the foetus.

I disagree

Yekcidmij · May 21, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
I don't think Kiwi or anyone else said just because something is legal it must be moral.

I think it was implied by what he said.

Murder is defined, except in cases of murdering a pregnant woman, as killing a person who is already born.

i like how you try to define away the question, but murder is typically defined as the unlawful, premeditated killing of another person. If this is the general definition we are to use, and I have no reason to accept your definition over the common definition, it would be incorrect to think statuary or common law are the only forms of law. I would suggest that there are other forms of law (e.g. natural law, moral law, divine law..) that could be violated while not violating common or statutory laws of a particular country. Surely everyone would agree with this...or should I start listing examples of where particular states throughout history have allowed certain activities by statutory or common law yet never-the-less those activities were impermissible by natural laws or moral laws? Heck, I could just stick with US history, right?

So just because something doesn't violate statutory or common law doesn't mean it doesn't violate another form of law. This applies to abortion where the argument is usually about whether or not the act violates moral or natural law and would thus be murder since it would be the unlawful taking of a human life in a premeditate fashion by another person.

Yekcidmij · May 21, 2019

Fantine said:
It is interesting that in vitro fertilization clinics, where early stage embryos are created, stored, discarded, or donated for scientific research are not affected.

I can't help but wonder if it's because affluent couples (gay or straight) are more sympathetic and influential than single women who lacked insurance coverage for contraception.

The embryos created are no different than those conceived biologically. Look around. They are probably attending school and playing ball with your children today.

They differ in that their parents have more political clout--and because IVF involves both men and women.

I think it's an interesting question. What role do you think intent plays in comparing the two processes? And do those intents have different moral or ethical content? For example, couples undergoing IVF typically do so in an effort to further human flourishing by creating and raising a child and have no interest in destroying a human life in the process - they would probably even prefer it work on the first try without having to destroy any at all. In the case of abortion the intent is to destroy a human life. Disregard for a moment the extreme exceptions (rape, incest, etc..) and just consider abortion as a form of birth control. Wouldn't you think that there is some sort of different moral content in the act? And wouldn't you think that the difference could lie in the intent of a couple who unfortunately ends up destroying an embryo while attempting to further human flourishing and fulfill their natural inclination to parenthood and the person who sets out to destroy an embryo for birth control purposes? One may be able to be described as accidental where the other is purposeful.

GodLovesCats · May 21, 2019

redleghunter said:
Well the Governor signed it into law and appears to be a woman.

She is an exception. Every other Republican governor who has signed an anti-abortion bill or plans to this year is a man IIRC.

redleghunter · May 21, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
She is an exception. Every other Republican governor who has signed an anti-abortion bill or plans to this year is a man IIRC.

And that makes them unqualified to put forth laws protecting human beings in the womb?

I guess the Babylon Bee (a satire site) had it right then:

Man Identifies As Woman Just Long Enough To Voice Valid Opinion On Abortion

Fantine · May 21, 2019

Yekcidmij said:
I think it's an interesting question. What role do you think intent plays in comparing the two processes? And do those intents have different moral or ethical content? For example, couples undergoing IVF typically do so in an effort to further human flourishing by creating and raising a child and have no interest in destroying a human life in the process - they would probably even prefer it work on the first try without having to destroy any at all. In the case of abortion the intent is to destroy a human life. Disregard for a moment the extreme exceptions (rape, incest, etc..) and just consider abortion as a form of birth control. Wouldn't you think that there is some sort of different moral content in the act? And wouldn't you think that the difference could lie in the intent of a couple who unfortunately ends up destroying an embryo while attempting to further human flourishing and fulfill their natural inclination to parenthood and the person who sets out to destroy an embryo for birth control purposes? One may be able to be described as accidental where the other is purposeful.

What you are saying reminds me of our nation's drone policy. We use drones to be purposeful, to kill dangerous terrorists before they can strike against us with minimal danger to our troops.

But, as in in-vitro fertilization, where all of a woman's eggs are harvested and fertilized even if only one or two children are contemplated, drones cast a wide net.

Despite their noble purpose, there are frequently innocents who are killed--children, women, civilians.

Part of the intent, both in in-vitro fertilization and drone usage, is the knowledge that, however reluctantly, there will be lives destroyed.

Fantine · May 21, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
She is an exception. Every other Republican governor who has signed an anti-abortion bill or plans to this year is a man IIRC.

We have had patriarchal societies throughout most of recorded history, frequently combined with women having no rights and being regarded as the "property" of their husbands.

Even in the U.S., women have only had the right to vote for 100 years. The vestiges of our patriarchal society have negative repercussions in almost every aspect of our society--secular, governmental, corporate, and religious.

In our society, which is transitioning from patriarchy (more slowly, obviously, in states like Alabama), there are women who embrace patriarchy and have benefited from it. Suburban housewives with husbands who are successful breadwinners, for example, who frequently vote Republican. And now, in patriarchal societies, there are some women "tokens." I believe that this governor is a "token" in Alabama's primarily patriarchal society.

GodLovesCats · May 21, 2019

The U.S. is not a patriarchal society if you mean mostly men having rights and power. Other states have female governors and we almost had a female president. The patriarchy was common 100 years ago, but those days are over. It is a shame that Alabama is not catching up in the Statehouse, as it did with voting for a woman to control the executive branch, because a clear message was sent that they don't care a lot about women when only one woman supported the bill.

HatGuy · May 21, 2019

Fantine said:
We have had patriarchal societies throughout most of recorded history, frequently combined with women having no rights and being regarded as the "property" of their husbands.

Even in the U.S., women have only had the right to vote for 100 years. The vestiges of our patriarchal society have negative repercussions in almost every aspect of our society--secular, governmental, corporate, and religious.

In our society, which is transitioning from patriarchy (more slowly, obviously, in states like Alabama), there are women who embrace patriarchy and have benefited from it. Suburban housewives with husbands who are successful breadwinners, for example, who frequently vote Republican. And now, in patriarchal societies, there are some women "tokens." I believe that this governor is a "token" in Alabama's primarily patriarchal society.

I.e. This woman had an opinion I didn't like, so I needed to find a way to ignore it, by making massive assumptions about her motives, character, upbringing, and the same of those around her.

redleghunter · May 21, 2019

HatGuy said:
I.e. This woman had an opinion I didn't like, so I needed to find a way to ignore it, by making massive assumptions about her motives, character, upbringing, and the same of those around her.

Especially if they are men.

Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Truth-Lover

Truth-Lover

Presbyterian, Polymath

Presbyterian, Polymath

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Dona Quixote

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Some guy in a hat

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads