Killing unborn babies -- is it a moral question or just politics?

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are 'sending a soul to God' when killing babies, that is serious, and is the murder of a person.
The baby John the baptist was it? the mother felt he 'kicked out of happiness'? when in the womb.

He was filled with the Holy spirit even before born, so you may see how serious is killing babies.

Truth
We don't kill babies AFTER they're born,
what (or who) would possess someone to kill them
before they're born?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nebuchadnezzar was in charge of the law.
1 Peter 2:13-17
2 Peter 2:10
Titus 3
1 Timothy 2
Psalms 22:28
Daniel 2:20-21
Romans 13
Deuteronomy 16:18-20
Revelation 1
Romans 13
Proverbs 21
John 19:11
Mark 3:24
Proverbs 29
Proverbs 8:15
Psalms 94:20
Deuteronomy 28
Daniel 2:21
John 19:10-11
Jude 1:8
Colossians 1:15-17
Ecclesiastes 10:20
Acts 8:32
Acts 23:5
Matthew 10:38

Gods written laws are obsolete.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

We no longer live by the law but by the Spirit,
MUCh higher bar.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We no longer live by the law but by the Spirit, MUCh higher bar.


Jeremiah 17:10
“I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”


Scripture says my higher bar looks different from yours:

350Wx350H-5242375-1119-px.jpg


Ezekiel 36:26
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.

Jeremiah 31
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,400
786
Midwest
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The claim is made that women in America have a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies. I thought this was a moral question - since we are talking about killing another human being when discussing aborting the unborn baby's life.

Normally law is against murder. So what is this "constitutional right" to murder? Turns out ... they claim it is in the short little "due process" clause of the constitution ...protecting "life, liberty and property".

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the Bible says "thou shalt not kill"

You would "think" that "not depriving the baby of life" would mean "a law against killing unborn babies".

But maybe the ruling was that "protecting liberty" meant protecting the liberty to "kill other humans".
Normally, the Due Process Clause applies only to government interference, saying that the government itself shall not deprive someone of life/liberty/property without due process of law. It doesn't apply to non-governmental actors; laws preventing murder, theft, and kidnapping by non-governmental entities (e.g. random people) are left to the government's discretion and created independent of the Constitution. So using the whole "no person shall be deprived of life" to argue that abortion must be prohibited doesn't really work.

Even if there was merit to it, it's a non-starter to believe this would be convincing to the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was no friend to Roe v. Wade, and he wrote in his Planned Parenthood v. Casey dissent (joined by the other justices who wanted a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade) that "The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so."

As for Roe v. Wade itself, the "logic" in that decision was that the government can't take away your liberty without process of law, and that this guarantee of liberty includes a right to privacy, which "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The problems with this train of thought, and why Roe v. Wade "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be", were elaborated quite well all the way back in the 1970's by John Hart Ely in his classic essay "The Wages of Crying Wolf", so I will not repeat them here--a few parts have been rendered obsolete but otherwise it holds up. I really cannot recommend that essay enough.

However the Bible does not "change" just because someone makes a strained argument of the form "the constitution protects life so that means you should be able to kill an unborn baby".

Are churches and church members so mixed up on this point that they think the constitution trumps the Bible command against murder?

And what sort of rendering is that for the right to life in that "due process" clause, that can spin it on its head to say "the right to life is the right to kill other humans"??
Well, as noted, the argument never was that the "life" portion of the Due Process Clause limited government regulation of abortion, but that the "liberty" portion did.

Setting that aside, I'm confused what this is supposed to be arguing (specifically the "Are churches and church members so mixed up on this point that they think the constitution trumps the Bible command against murder?"). Is this an argument that the moral law prescribed by the Bible should be the highest law in the land rather than the Constitution and judges should judge laws on that basis, e.g. blasphemy should be made illegal despite it obviously defying the First Amendment?
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,400
786
Midwest
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually the commandment is thou shalt not commit murder, which refers to an unlawful killing.
Well, no. It's true that the definition of "murder" is an unlawful killing, meaning whether something is murder or not depends on the laws. But that's not what the commandment says. The commandment says you shall not ratsakh, a Hebrew word that has no perfect translation into English. Modern translations use "murder" because it's probably the word in English that currently best encapsulates the meaning, but it still doesn't fully embody its connotations. The NET Bible in a footnote for Exodus 20:13 writes:

"The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See J. H. Yoder, “Exodus 20, 13: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Int 34 (1980): 394-99; and A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26."
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See J. H. Yoder, “Exodus 20, 13: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Int 34 (1980): 394-99; and A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26."

It really doesn't. Most of the references are to a serial killer type person. There is only one reference to an accident, and nearly all references are to a random victim serial killer who kills for no apparent reason.
H7523 - ratsach - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)
 
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

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Killing unborn babies -- is it a moral question or just politics?
It's both. Killing is always a moral issue. Killing is also almost always a political issue. Especially killing that the law says is legal. Setting up laws is a political matter.

It's an error to drive a wedge between morals and politics on the matter of abortion. It is also wrong to present the issue as if the moral answer ought to settle the question fully and finally.

It seems that political parties that agree with abortion under controlled circumstances pass laws that make abortion easier to obtain yet interestingly the rates of abortion are said to drop when such laws exist. The rates are said not to drop towards zero but it is said that they do drop below the rates reported when laws make abortion very difficult or somewhat more difficult to obtain.

Anti-abortion activists sometimes overlook the "fruits" of their efforts as shown in the statistics on abortions. Pro-abortion activists also sometimes overlook the "fruits" of their efforts in statistics and also in their effects on the moral norms of the nation.

The truth is that in a democracy deciding what conditions and circumstances dictate the availability of abortions is a matter for political debate that does not work well when "moral absolutes" are treated as if they are the final word on the matter.

PS: "In English, the Messiah's name is Yahshua." say some yet in my English language bibles his name is Jesus. He is often called "Jesus Christ" and sometimes is called "Christ Jesus" but "Jesus" is the common and persistent name by which the Lord is known in English language bibles.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
OK, but "mortal sins" is purely Catholic doctrine.
Purely Catholic? My bible talks about sins unto death (mortal sins) and sins that are not unto death (not mortal sins).
(I John 5:16-17) [16] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
[17] All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The claim is made that women in America have a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies. I thought this was a moral question - since we are talking about killing another human being when discussing aborting the unborn baby's life.

Normally law is against murder. So what is this "constitutional right" to murder? Turns out ... they claim it is in the short little "due process" clause of the constitution ...protecting "life, liberty and property".

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the Bible says "thou shalt not kill"

You would "think" that "not depriving the baby of life" would mean "a law against killing unborn babies".

But maybe the ruling was that "protecting liberty" meant protecting the liberty to "kill other humans".

However the Bible does not "change" just because someone makes a strained argument of the form "the constitution protects life so that means you should be able to kill an unborn baby".

Are churches and church members so mixed up on this point that they think the constitution trumps the Bible command against murder? And what sort of rendering is that for the right to life in that "due process" clause, that can spin it on its head to say "the right to life is the right to kill other humans"??
It’s only political if allowing any humans to be murdered is only political. Where should we draw the magic line? At first trimester, second, at viability, at one year of age? Or should it be ok anytime a person is defenseless to prevent their own destruction by another, such as in the womb, or if very sick or very old, or anytime another person’s existence is inconvenient for us IOW?
 
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It’s only political if allowing any humans to be murdered is only political. Where should we draw the magic line? At first trimester, second, at viability, at one year of age? Or should it be ok anytime a person is defenseless to prevent their own destruction by another, such as in the womb, or if very sick or very old, or anytime another person’s existence is inconvenient for us IOW?

Really?? Where are you going with this? If a fetus is already dead or has a defect that will prove fatal at birth, what is your solution? Are you really extending this specific situation to the old and sick or "anytime another person’s existence is inconvenient for us". That makes absolutely no sense, or more properly, it's an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The question is when do they become babies and not a bunch of chromosomes?

That's one question. I don't think it is THE question for everyone though. For instance, as far as I am concerned at conception a unique new being has come into existence that did not exist previously. Some people will say that new being is not a person. They may be correct, but I am not willing to take the chance they are incorrect because if they are incorrect and I decide to take that life I would be killing a person. If they are correct and I do not kill that non person no harm has been done. I prefer the path that leads to me not possibly doing harm. Another example of someone having a different THE question is the argument that unless a being is self aware they are not a person even if they are a born baby. That argument has seriously been put forward in the past in threads on CF so I do not want to hear anyone saying the "no one wants to allow babies to be killed after they are born." because some people would be fine with allowing that.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Really?? Where are you going with this? If a fetus is already dead or has a defect that will prove fatal at birth, what is your solution? Are you really extending this specific situation to the old and sick or "anytime another person’s existence is inconvenient for us". That makes absolutely no sense, or more properly, it's an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.
It's a documented fact that the vast majority of abortions-numbering in the millions-are not performed for medical reasons.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It’s only political if allowing any humans to be murdered is only political. Where should we draw the magic line? At first trimester, second, at viability, at one year of age? Or should it be ok anytime a person is defenseless to prevent their own destruction by another, such as in the womb, or if very sick or very old, or anytime another person’s existence is inconvenient for us IOW?

I agree that taking a knife to someone to kill them is .. "killing them". So whether it is the unborn, or the 2 year old, or the 20 year old or the 90 year old... all the same.

I do not agree with those leftist radicals that claim that "holding to a differing political or religious opinion" is .. "killing them" :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: fhansen
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It's a documented fact that the vast majority of abortions-numbering in the millions-are not performed for medical reasons.
Absolutely fact. What is amazing is that if some Christians find even one or two cases where the mother's life is at risk - that is all the "justification" they need to turn a blind eye to millions upon millions of babies being sacrificed on the altar of politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0