Abortion is the BIGGEST civil rights issue of our time

[redleghunter]

I think your definition of justice is not in keeping with God's Law.

Conception is not an invasion. At conception a new human life is formed.

Terminating a human life is murder Biblically.

Therefore taking the life of another human being is an injustice.

 

[redleghunter]

By the way @Super Hotdog Salesman please fix your post as you have your words in the quote box with mine. I would not like to be associated with your eisegesis.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

By the way @Super Hotdog Salesman please fix your post as you have your words in the quote box with mine. I would not like to be associated with your eisegesis.

Ah yes, my mistake. Believe me I wouldn't want to be associated with your attitude either, so I guess everyone wins. Once I figure out how to edit posts.

I think your definition of justice is not in keeping with God's Law.

Conception is not an invasion. At conception a new human life is formed.

Terminating a human life is murder Biblically.

Therefore taking the life of another human being is an injustice.

So all killing is an injustice? Even in war/self-defence/etc.? That's awfully against the Old Testament of you to say. I don't see why conception cannot be an invasion. It involves a human being in someone else's body where they aren't welcome in some cases.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Hi SHS, while I cannot deny how difficult this situation is, I don't believe that a pre-born baby (who is, of course, completely innocent of any wrongdoing) deserves to die because his/her mother was raped. All that seems to do is compound one violent crime with another one.

That said, why is it that these discussions never make it further than a post or two before being quickly turned aside from discussing the 99+% (of the reasons that abortions happen), to focusing solely upon the far less than 1% (of the reasons that abortions happen)?

Tell you what, I agree that there are reasons that abortions need to be performed. So, setting aside any further discussion of the far less than 1% of abortions on that basis, why do you (specifically as a Christian) believe that abortion for the sake of convenience is ok, and how do you go about justifying your position before God?

I apologize if it seems like I'm putting you on the spot (well, I am in a way, of course), but I'm far less interested in debating your POV right now than I am in understanding the reason(s) for it. So I would truly appreciate your help with that

Thanks!!

--David

Hi David, I agree that these conversations are often unproductive, but you seem to have the right attitude of charity and mutual understanding for it. Having recently been the president of a campus pro-life club I know first-hand how crucial that is. I don't mind you asking specific questions I'm here to have a interesting discussion.

I think you've misunderstood me, though.I'll repeat my point:
"What I called justice is a person having the right to consent to someone being allowed inside their body or not, and to defend that right using lethal force if necessary"

Rape is an obvious application of this principle, but unwanted pregnancy can apply too. Both involve someone intruding in a woman's body without her consent. This applies most unwanted pregnancies. Do you have a reason why a woman does not have the right to consent to someone being allowed in her body or not? Or to defend that right using lethal force if necessary?

 

[Locum7]

Abortion goes against the character God wants in us of being responsible for our actions. Abortion undermines this responsibility. Another aspect is confusing a human right and God given free will. A right is something that we should be allowed for right reasons, and is largely definef by people. Free will is the ability to choose to do right or wrong, follow God or reject him. Abortion is using science for wrong, medicine is using science for right.

 

[redleghunter]

So all killing is an injustice? Even in war/self-defence/etc.? That's awfully against the Old Testament of you to say. I don't see why conception cannot be an invasion. It involves a human being in someone else's body where they aren't welcome in some cases.

Perhaps we should look at the TaNaKh and NT and seek God's revelation to us on what not to do with children.

How you compare a military invasion to conception is frankly absurd. What militant intent is posed by a new innocent human life?

 

[redleghunter]

I think you've misunderstood me, though.I'll repeat my point:
"What I called justice is a person having the right to consent to someone being allowed inside their body or not, and to defend that right using lethal force if necessary"

We do have basic tenant and landlord laws in each state. Problem posed with your line of thinking is all parties need to be informed. Who will represent the unborn human life who never gets an eviction notice until the ATF is at the door, so to speak, with the "door knocker?"

That is why David posed his OP so carefully IMO. There IS another life involved. It is human life...a human being.

You mentioned a combat scenario in your post to me. Is a military unit justified in bombing a hospital full of war wounded civilians to root out one terrorist, ten terrorists?

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Perhaps we should look at the TaNaKh and NT and seek God's revelation to us on what not to do with children.

How you compare a military invasion to conception is frankly absurd. What militant intent is posed by a new innocent human life?

I gave you a scriptural basis saying that justice is good. People are owed their own bodies. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I didn't say that an unwanted conception is the same as a military invasion.Trying to put words in each others' mouths is a form of bearing false witness. Seriously, if you can't speak charitably and with understanding then you have nothing worth saying. I was making the point that not all killing is unjust. That fact means your definition of "murder" is inadequate.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

We do have basic tenant and landlord laws in each state. Problem posed with your line of thinking is all parties need to be informed. Who will represent the unborn human life who never gets an eviction notice until the ATF is at the door, so to speak, with the "door knocker?"

That is why David posed his OP so carefully IMO. There IS another life involved. It is human life...a human being.

You mentioned a combat scenario in your post to me. Is a military unit justified in bombing a hospital full of war wounded civilians to root out one terrorist, ten terrorists?

This is not a tenant and landlord situation. It's a parasitically residing within another person's body scenario. Does a woman not have the right to decide who gets to use her body? Does she not have the right to use lethal force to defend that choice?

My argument presupposes that two human lives are involved.

No, I wouldn't say the military has a right to bomb a hospital to root out a terrorist.

 

[redleghunter]

I gave you a scriptural basis saying that justice is good. People are owed their own bodies. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Justice is good, however you never defined your form of "justice." It is clearly not God's Justice as revealed. Show me where eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, burn for a burn applies to a premeditated termination of a pregnancy? Not there, therefore your eisegesis of 'justice' is invalid.

I didn't say that an unwanted conception is the same as a military invasion.Trying to put words in each others' mouths is a form of bearing false witness. Seriously, if you can't speak charitably and with understanding then you have nothing worth saying. I was making the point that not all killing is unjust. That fact means your definition of "murder" is inadequate.

I don't see why conception cannot be an invasion.

Sir, your quote not mine.

There is only one definition of the premeditated taking of human life in the OT and NT. The Hebrew word is murder.


רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).


https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7523&t=KJV

 

[redleghunter]

This is not a tenant and landlord situation. It's a parasitically residing within another person's body scenario. Does a woman not have the right to decide who gets to use her body? Does she not have the right to use lethal force to defend that choice?

My argument presupposes that two human lives are involved.

No, I wouldn't say the military has a right to bomb a hospital to root out a terrorist.

Parasitic? Please explain how a gestating human life is 'parasitic?'

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Sir, your quote not mine.

There is only one definition of the premeditated taking of human life in the OT and NT. The Hebrew word is murder.


רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).

Invasion does not mean military invasion necessarily. I suppose words can be tricky, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your mistake was genuine.

I don't know enough about Hebrew to know if there are different words, but there are certainly different ideas in the definition you gave. Putting to death is different from murder in the Hebrew mind, obviously, since murder is unjust but the death sentence apparently isn't in OT law. Anyway, the point is the same: All actions resulting in the end of a human life are not murder. If you cannot agree with that then there's no sense continuing this conversation.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Parasitic? Please explain how a gestating human life is 'parasitic?'

Here's a dictionary definition of "Parasite" for you:

"An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite

 

[redleghunter]

Invasion does not mean military invasion necessarily. I suppose words can be tricky, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your mistake was genuine.

I don't know enough about Hebrew to know if there are different words, but there are certainly different ideas in the definition you gave. Putting to death is different from murder in the Hebrew mind, obviously, since murder is unjust but the death sentence apparently isn't in OT law. Anyway, the point is the same: All actions resulting in the end of a human life are not murder. If you cannot agree with that then there's no sense continuing this conversation.

Is aborting a human life in the womb akin to a death sentence. If so could you explain the charges against the unborn human life to warrant a death sentence?

 

[redleghunter]

Here's a dictionary definition of "Parasite" for you:

"An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite

Yes, 'another organism' which is alien to the host. A human conceived in the womb cannot be classified a parasite as they are of the same 'organism.' The female body is designed for conception.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Yes, 'another organism' which is alien to the host. A human conceived in the womb cannot be classified a parasite as they are of the same 'organism.' The female body is designed for conception.

You're adding words to the definition. A parasitic relationship does not require two different species, just two organisms. A human growing in a womb fits the dictionary definition of "parasite" that I provided exactly.

Is aborting a human life in the womb akin to a death sentence. If so could you explain the charges against the unborn human life to warrant a death sentence?

No, aborting a human life in the womb is not akin to a death sentence. It's removing a parasitic human from the host it needs to survive. So, back to my original point: Does a woman not have the right to decide who is inside her own body? Or does she not have the right to use lethal force to defend that right?

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Actually, misread your post, sorry. I assumed you meant the rational thing: that they are the same species so one can't be parasitic to the other. A developing human in the womb is most certainly a separate individual organism. Either it's two separate humans involved or the developing human isn't an individual organism yet. You can't have it both ways.

 

[PapaZoom]

You could say, "I have faith in God and it's OK for a woman to decide who does and does not get to be inside her body, and she has a right to protect herself from un-consentual intrusion with lethal force."

protect herself

intrusion

lethal force

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

protect herself

intrusion

lethal force

So I take it you don't have any logical arguments about the two clauses in that sentence either.

 

[PapaZoom]