Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

Logic Over Emotionalism said:

When we strip the baby of the right to life then we are saying he or she is a subhuman not worth of protecting. The Bible verse used the word baby not a fetus as to give the baby the same dignity of a baby outside of the womb.

Click to expand...

No, Democrats do not say a fetus is subhuman just because they sometimes call it what it is. It's either a human or not human; there is no in-between. Pro-choice voters know fetuses are humans. The difference is constitutional. Where we live, the Bible cannot and should not govern Supreme Court rulings.

ChristianForCats said:

It's either a human or not human; there is no in-between. Pro-choice voters know fetuses are humans. The difference is constitutional.

Click to expand...

That is a nice place to hide.

Sistrin said:

That is a nice place to hide.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Nobody is hiding anything.

ChristianForCats said:

Nobody has ever used rare cases to argue it should be legal for any women or girl to get an abortion.

Click to expand...

That is the exact argument the pro-abortion crowd makes, rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies therefore abortion on demand.

Read this idiotic article and you will find that exact argument proffered.

ChristianForCats said:

No, Democrats do not say a fetus is subhuman just because they sometimes call it what it is. It's either a human or not human; there is no in-between. Pro-choice voters know fetuses are humans. The difference is constitutional. Where we live, the Bible cannot and should not govern Supreme Court rulings.

Click to expand...

There's no fully agreed upon terminology here, but I think there's a difference between human and "a human." A fetus is human. So is a sperm and egg, and for that matter a hair. "A human," however, I'm not so sure of. I know of no reason to think that pro-choice voters "know" that a fetus at all stages of development are humans.

"Sub-human" is intentionally emotional language. While dictionary.com suggests it can be used neutrally for things that are nearly human, e.g. porpoises, in this context the implication is more like a human who is treated as non-human. That is, it is loaded language.

Hence this posting has at least two uses of loaded language.

Sistrin said:

That is the exact argument the pro-abortion crowd makes, rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies therefore abortion on demand.

Read this idiotic article and you will find that exact argument proffered.

Click to expand...

Ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition that affects both the mother and fetus, so it must be included as an exception in any aboriton law. Don't try to convince me just because most abortions are on demand, it is not important to include exceptions for medical and crininal cases.

ChristianForCats said:

Why do you say that?

Click to expand...

Is your position concerning the value of human life based solely on a Supreme Court ruling?

ChristianForCats said:

Ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition that affects both the mother and fetus...

Click to expand...

But it is an outlier, and does not justify abortion on demand. In fact, it does not justify abortion at all.

ChristianForCats said:

No, Democrats do not say a fetus is subhuman just because they sometimes call it what it is. It's either a human or not human; there is no in-between. Pro-choice voters know fetuses are humans. The difference is constitutional. Where we live, the Bible cannot and should not govern Supreme Court rulings.

Click to expand...

First in post #255 shows I support life on the the bases of science not just religion when a religious question came up I answered.

Secondly yes the words liberal use such as "potential human" suggests the baby is not fully human under their view.

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Potential human, potential rights

Revisiting the argument from fetal potential

Sorry but a fetus is not the same as a child

mark kennedy said:

Is that right? What about this?

But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” (Num. 5:20-22)​

Sounds like a divinely induced abortion to me. BTW, it's customary to review the proof texts before you proclaim the uniform meaning of Scripture.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would hang my hat on this one passage, though, Mark. I recommend reading the entire chapter in a few versions. Also, look up the greek words there for miscarriage and womb. I'm not finding any translations that render the passage this way. Virtually all translate it as the thigh falling or wasting away or shrinking. It's a curse basically, which makes sense, as the passage is dealing with punishment for unfaithfulness, not pregnancy. Here's the majority of the chapter in the NKJV (Num. 5:11-31), which follows the rendering of every other translation I checked. Here is the verse in question.

Compare that to the version you cited. The word translated womb (thigh) in the greek is yarek - the area and components of the torso: thigh, hip, breast, leg, side; by extension: side, base, of any object. (KM Hebrew Dictionary)

The word translated miscarries (rot) is naphal, interestingly. fall, fail; to fall; to cause to fall, to cast down, drop; (used of casting lots) to allocate; to fall prostrate (to worship); to fall upon (to attack); by extension: to happen (of circumstance falling on a person). related to the nephilim. (KM Hebrew Dictionary)

It's related to the word nephilim in Gen. 6. Some believe the nephilim of Genesis 6 should be translated fallen ones due to the verb form.

But, I'd definitely refrain from making an abortion exception doctrine out of this passage.

Sistrin said:

Is your position concerning the value of human life based solely on a Supreme Court ruling?

Click to expand...

My position on the value of human life has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. I frequently cite part of the Constitution - the First Amendment, which strictly prohibits using Scripture to make and enforce laws, including the right to life - not the opinion of seven former judges. In fact, one judge wrote it should have been based on the Ninth Amendment (the right to privacy), instead of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is not about how I value human life, but the simple truth that as Americans we cannot claim unborn babies have the right to life because the law is not based on the Bible.

ChristianForCats said:

My position on the value of human life has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. I frequently cite part of the Constitution - the First Amendment, which strictly prohibits using Scripture to make and enforce laws, including the right to life - not the opinion of seven former judges. In fact, one judge wrote it should have been based on the Ninth Amendment (the right to privacy), instead of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Click to expand...

This is going too far. Laws against murder are based on the value of human life.

Sistrin said:

But it is an outlier, and does not justify abortion on demand. In fact, it does not justify abortion at all.

Click to expand...

I never once suggested because exceptions must be made, abortion on demand should be legal.

hedrick said:

This is going too far. Laws against murder are based on the value of human life.

Click to expand...

The reason I keep saying this is other people keep saying God's Word gives unborn babies the right to life even though it is not the basis of man made law, which must be followed. I never said just because man-made laws are what they are they are correct in how to value human life.

ChristianForCats said:

My position on the value of human life has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. I frequently cite part of the Constitution - the First Amendment, which strictly prohibits using Scripture to make and enforce laws...

Click to expand...

That is not at all what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says.

ChristianForCats said:

My position on the value of human life has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. I frequently cite part of the Constitution - the First Amendment, which strictly prohibits using Scripture to make and enforce laws, including the right to life - not the opinion of seven former judges. In fact, one judge wrote it should have been based on the Ninth Amendment (the right to privacy), instead of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is not about how I value human life, but the simple truth that as Americans we cannot claim unborn babies have the right to life because the law is not based on the Bible.

Click to expand...

You can easily use science to support that a baby in the womb is a person who has a beating heart, separate body, own DNA, brain function, sucks his/her thumb, hiccup, cries, opens eyes, feel pains, smiles, plays and new research shows that a baby is capable of even dreaming (as I posted on page 13 post #255). Yes sometimes people try to use scripture to force laws or make it public policy. But on this subject science backs up the pro-life argument against abortion.

When Roe Vs Wade was made in to law we didn't have all the information we have today.

Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost

There are lots of people in the medical field that are also taking a stand against this evil practice as you can watch below:



Many doctors have left this practice and a PP clinic director Abby Johnson made a movie "unplanned" about her experience in the industry. Here is other doctors that also left:

Years later abortion doctors share their horrifying stories.

ChristianForCats said:

Are you saying there should be no exceptions?

Click to expand...

Saying I would not want to be one legislating certain exceptions...God places a high value on life. Men playing God in this determination.

ChristianForCats said:

Ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition that affects both the mother and fetus, so it must be included as an exception in any aboriton law. Don't try to convince me just because most abortions are on demand, it is not important to include exceptions for medical and crininal cases.

Click to expand...

Yet, many mothers would be perfectly willing to give up their life for that of their child...Christ-like love.

Sistrin said:

That is not at all what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says.

Click to expand...

No one can divorce him/herself from their own conscience. Writing law (of any sort) is to try to create Justice in the land which requires drawing upon one's sense of morality and immorality and that stems from ones understanding of God's moral law/conscience in case of Christians especially...is this not true?