Abortion Poll

[Exhausted]

If a woman gets raped it’s not her fault either so what exactly is accomplished by torturing her to carry a pregnancy spawned by a monster who violated her basic rights? As far as I’m concerned, people who’d deny abortions to rape victims are telling a woman her basic rights still don’t matter as much as her rapist’s right to use her body for whatever he deems fit.



If I were to get pregnant after a rape, I’d get an abortion without question. If I couldn’t get an abortion, I’d take a flying leap off of a bridge and the fault for it would lie squarely on the shoulders of those people who told me I couldn’t get an abortion. They chose to end my life and the “life of the innocent baby”.

Amen.

 

[humblemuslim]

You can parse the word murder anyway you want but abortion still takes anothers life.

So are you suggesting taking the life of "Another" is always immoral? I guess humans are condemned to be immoral then. To live we MUST by necessity kill "Others" whether it be plants, animals, or otherwise. That is unless of course the position you've stated was either mal-thought or simply stated in such a way as to be easily misunderstood from what you really believe.

In order words, I don't see agreeing that abortion is killing something/someone as helping solve any problems in the discussion. It appears I was correct when I ealier stated the following:

What is murder? (I know for certain the people collectively here don't agree on a single notion)

I have a feeling the concepts of KILLING and MURDER are being used interchangablely and this inconsistent use of the two concepts is causing confusion.

It is murder according to God's laws.


chris

Really? Where in the Bible does God say abortion is murder?

 

[CommonGround]

Abortion is a hard choice for any woman to make - possibly the most difficult decision that she would ever have to make in her life.

Not only is abortion denying God's will to be done, it is making an innocent child pay the price that a mother didn't wish to have.

 

[humblemuslim]

Not only is abortion denying God's will to be done, it is making an innocent child pay the price that a mother didn't wish to have.

I find this notion very puzzling. First of all, by the second part of your sentence I get the notion that abortion is to be considered some sort of punishment towards the child, which is hardly the case. The mother isn't having the abortion to punish or harm the child is she? I thought an abortion was used for the benefit of the mother, it just happens this benefit comes at the cost of harming the child. Correct?

Also you say an abortion is "Denying God's will be done". This is even more puzzling. If God's will is for us to have Free-will and God is supposedly intervening all the time, then how is our will free? Obviously in this circumstance our will is nothing but God's, which isn't free, or is it?

Also I don't quite understand where people get the idea God wills the baby to live, when it is you and your partner who decides to have sexual contact by your (The both of you) free-will. This action then results in a child sometimes and other times not. Then people try to say God has something to do with this? How so? It is fine if God made the process by which we reproduce, but to say he is involved in actually deciding "This fertilized egg shall be a child *BANG*". Where in the Bible does God tell you this is happening?

 

[iluvquotes]

i think its wrong- because its murder.

 

[Exhausted]

i think its wrong

I don't.

 

[iluvquotes]

I don't.

ok..... do you want a cookie?

 

[Exhausted]

ok..... do you want a cookie?

No, I just ate.

 

[GothicGwen]

Not only is abortion denying God's will to be done,

How do you know abortions aren't part of God's plan? People are constantly told that when somebody dies they shouldn't mourn because it's "God's plan" or "God's will". Are we now saying that people dying through murder and accidental death is part of God's design, but abortion isn't despite the fact that more than 80% of conceptions are aborted by God anyway?

it is making an innocent child pay the price that a mother didn't wish to have.

Having a child live where it isn't wanted with unwilling parents is a better price for the child to pay? It's better to live and be miserable then never be born, never exist in the first place?

 

[MortonGneiss]

Abortion is acceptable ONLY when the mother would die if she carried the pregnancy to term. Abortion for any other reason is Murder!!!

For Rape? Kill the rapist...Not the baby!

God doesn't seem to agree. He views it as a civil matter:

Ex. 21:22-5:And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall 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.

This is the closest scripture there is on the matter. But it clearly indicates that as long as no further harm has come to the woman, it's simply a fineable offense at the discretion of the husband and judges. It may not be as cut and dry as 'thou shalt not abort', but it certainly expresses that the unborn didn't have the rights of a person. Otherwise it would have been a capital offense.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

God doesn't seem to agree. He views it as a civil matter:

Ex. 21:22-5:And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall 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.

This is the closest scripture there is on the matter. But it clearly indicates that as long as no further harm has come to the woman, it's simply a fineable offense at the discretion of the husband and judges. It may not be as cut and dry as 'thou shalt not abort', but it certainly expresses that the unborn didn't have the rights of a person. Otherwise it would have been a capital offense.​

There are several things wrong with jumping to that conclusion.

One: Your reference is based on an incident where the loss of life was accidental, NOT intentional.

Two: It is ignoring that there may or may not be "civil" compensation in addition to a moral law ruling or that monetary compensation can be part of moral law (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:13-21) - so it is a major assumption.

Three: The Hebrew word for the child in the womb used in that scripture is:

yeled ~ Strong's
1) child, son, boy, offspring, youth


a) child, son, boy

b) child, children

c) descendants

d) youth

e) apostate Israelites (fig.)



and not referred to as:



pariy ~ Strong's

1) fruit

a) fruit, produce (of the ground)

b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb)

c) fruit (of actions) (fig.)


Four: The reasoning you provide is tainted by the modern day mindset that "rights" equates existence; in scripture and today in various ways, locations, and extents - even an older child is subject to their parents, they have no "rights" as you refer to them.




It is also neglecting to acknowledge other references which reflect God knowing us before we were formed, He being the one that knitted us within the womb, referring to people such as Isaac, Jesus, etc. of doing and/or foretold existence before they are even conceived.

There are other references to children within the womb, but the difference between "our" abortion and scriptural would be that with our abortion, "we" decide to end the life; with scripture, God makes that decision (i.e. Numbers 5:11-31 or 1 Samuel 15:2-4)​

 

[MortonGneiss]

Two: It is ignoring that there may or may not be "civil" compensation in addition to a moral law ruling or that monetary compensation

It's in the context of monetary, actually in this time period the chief currency would be food, reperations paid, the Levitical priests decide the amount to be paid and are given an additional 10% as their portion. Nevertheless, the value being weighed here is the worth of an unborn slave child's life...a few sheckles I guess.

They clearly stipulate the punishment for other damage to the female slave as being life for life, tooth for tooth etc etc. This also would be accidental, as it was an incidental blow. So I'm sorry to tell you, my conclusion is quite accurate.

Stretching to grab other scripture may show changes in tradition, but the Laws of God are eternal...he says so himself.

 

[iluvquotes]

Having a child live where it isn't wanted with unwilling parents is a better price for the child to pay? It's better to live and be miserable then never be born, never exist in the first place?

if you are pregnant with a child you dont want...........adoption is always an option

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It's in the context of monetary, actually in this time period the chief currency would be food, reperations paid, the Levitical priests decide the amount to be paid and are given an additional 10% as their portion. Nevertheless, the value being weighed here is the worth of an unborn slave child's life...a few sheckles I guess.

Actually IIRC, that passage you cited did not give a "fixed amount".

They clearly stipulate the punishment for other damage to the female slave as being life for life, tooth for tooth etc etc. This also would be accidental, as it was an incidental blow. So I'm sorry to tell you, my conclusion is quite accurate.

Slave woman? Are we reading your same post?

Stretching to grab other scripture may show changes in tradition, but the Laws of God are eternal...he says so himself.

There certainly is a tendency here to make statements without a submission of the material. Just to humor me and to make this at least SOMEWHAT equitable for the time and effort spent in our communications, would you be so kind as to provide that which you reference as evidence - for at least most of the assertions?

I would like that very much as a sign of investment and it is, after all, a requirement for this topic - thank you in advance.

 

[MortonGneiss]

Actually IIRC, that passage you cited did not give a "fixed amount".

No it doesn't, that's at the discretion of the Levitical priests.

Slave woman? Are we reading your same post?

Sorry I was referring to a hebrew translation. We can stick with woman and husband rather than woman and master. The entire law is Ex.21:20-25


You want me to cite every place that God says that all of his Laws, Statutes and Commandments are his covenant with man and will exist beyond the end of time? Ok. He says it a lot you know? I'll cite the most important ones.

Jesus says it here:

Mathew 5:17-19
Luke 16:16-17
John 7:15-17

God says it here:

Ex.31:16-17 The Sabbath is the sign of the perpetual covenant that will last forever.

Lv.26:15 says if you disobey the least one of statutes, judgements, or commandments you have broken the covenant.

Dt.4:13 is a reminder of this

Dt.29:21 makes it pretty clear the entire book of the law is the covenant

Dt.29:13-28 Is the covenant established for generations to come.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No it doesn't, that's at the discretion of the Levitical priests.

I think you forgot someone - the husband had some say in it.
Please re-read your reference.

Sorry I was referring to a hebrew translation. We can stick with woman and husband rather than woman and master. The entire law is Ex.21:20-25

I'm disappointed in that statement - the 'entire law' is found in more than just the small portion you cited.

You want me to cite every place that God says that all of his Laws, Statutes and Commandments are his covenant with man and will exist beyond the end of time? Ok. He says it a lot you know? I'll cite the most important ones.

Jesus says it here:

Mathew 5:17-19
Luke 16:16-17
John 7:15-17

God says it here:

Ex.31:16-17 The Sabbath is the sign of the perpetual covenant that will last forever.

Lv.26:15 says if you disobey the least one of statutes, judgements, or commandments you have broken the covenant.

Dt.4:13 is a reminder of this

Dt.29:21 makes it pretty clear the entire book of the law is the covenant

Dt.29:13-28 Is the covenant established for generations to come.

Hmm... perhaps I need to be more specific next time.
You made assertions that were unsupported and thus far seemed to be empty if not error:
~ the Levitical priests decide the amount to be paid
(ignoring the husband's role)
~ other damage to the female slave
(mistaking the wife for slave)
~ my conclusion is quite accurate
(has yet to be shown, especially since you chose to address only one of several of my points)

The only part you DID choose to show reference here is off the topic of abortion and wasn't something I took issue with.
So... I'm still waiting for substantiation.

 

[GothicGwen]

adoption is always an option

Abortion is an option too and that's the option I'd opt for and I don't fault anybody who feels the same way.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Abortion is an option too and that's the option I'd opt for and I don't fault anybody who feels the same way.

Abortion would STILL be an option even without it being legal.
People choose to follow or break the law every day.

 

[GothicGwen]

Abortion would STILL be an option even without it being legal.
People choose to follow or break the law every day.

This post is stupid considering abortion is legal and in little danger of being illegal anytime soom. If I got an abortion today I wouldn't be breaking the law.

 

[MortonGneiss]

~ the Levitical priests decide the amount to be paid
(ignoring the husband's role)

The husband makes a demand of compensation, but there is a hearing in front of the judges, who are Levitical priests, and no money changes hands until after that hearing. Typically, as expressed elsewhere, the Levitical priests get 10%.

~ other damage to the female slave
(mistaking the wife for slave)

The KJV uses the term 'husband', The Jerusalem Bible uses 'master'. You'll notice that Chapter 21 deals mostly with slaves, so I tend to think 'master' is more correct.

But none of this really has no bearing on the discussion at hand. And seems more like you are watering the issue.

Your main contention worth acknowledging was this was an accidental death, and not intentional, which is roundly refuted by the rest of the passage, which makes it clear that accidental murder is treated with death.