Abortion Poll

[ChristianCenturion]

[/i]
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%.

Yes, I am aware that I had to point out the inclusion of the husband, which was omitted as being part of the process.

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.

I am not interested in inclinations. I value what the scripture states over opinion and assumption.

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.

You mentioned a WIFE being lost, which is a life and half of the component in a marriage between a man and a woman. That does not refute anything reguarding a child.

 

[MortonGneiss]

You mentioned a WIFE being lost, which is a life and half of the component in a marriage between a man and a woman. That does not refute anything reguarding a child.

I'm not sure how saying that life of the wife is much more important than that of the unborn child hurts my case at all.

Look, The passage taken as a whole says the accidental miscarraige, or death of an unborn child, is not treated the same as the accidental murder of the wife, which is the same as for normal murder, a life for a life. It is treated as a compensatory offense in the form of money, or more likely food. If the miscarraige was percieved as the taking of a life, the penalty would be death.

It seems clear that the Jews believed life began after birth. Or do you think they didn't know where babies come from?

 

[AtheistPerson]

Whats the point of a infant surviving an abortion if they are just going to suffer with teenage (or older) parents that dont want them. A cesarian section is usually used when they want to save the mothers life and sacrifice the "baby"/fetus. Abortion does murder because it kills a living organism, but you know that meat in your refridgerator didnt spare a soul to get from where it came from. Some people think animals dont have souls, but those people believe there is a god and that he thinks we are more usefull than a housefly. In the end we die happy or sad, and it is your choice if you want to have an "accident" baby and have no money to support them or live a live with out a strong mistake that will live with you your whole life. I'm Pro Choice because we have the right to pursue hapiness without regret.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not sure how saying that life of the wife is much more important than that of the unborn child hurts my case at all.

Look, The passage taken as a whole says the accidental miscarraige, or death of an unborn child, is not treated the same as the accidental murder of the wife, which is the same as for normal murder, a life for a life. It is treated as a compensatory offense in the form of money, or more likely food. If the miscarraige was percieved as the taking of a life, the penalty would be death.

It seems clear that the Jews believed life began after birth. Or do you think they didn't know where babies come from?

More assertions strung together and based on only a portion of scripture dealing with an accident (you may wish to reconsider that today's abortions are usually intended to be abortions) and STILL ignoring my original points.

If this portion of scripture is pivotal to reference and IF the child in the womb was not considered of value, why ANY compensation for an accident?

That part of the equation seems to be totally absent from your premise.

 

[MortonGneiss]

If this portion of scripture is pivotal to reference and IF the child in the womb was not considered of value, why ANY compensation for an accident?

That part of the equation seems to be totally absent from your premise.

I never said the child in the womb held no value. I just said it didn't hold the same value as someone who was actually born, as they are clearly handled differently.

If you want to shut me down just say the intelligent thing: That at that point in time the birthrate was extreamly low, in fact miscarraige was a statistical probability, unlike today where in the last 50 years we've enjoyed a birthrate over 50%. This would easily explain why a miscarraige wasn't regarded as a matter of high importance at that time, and certainly not on par with taking of an actual life(as they'd define it).

 

[catmeow82]

Abortion should be ok where pregnancy results from rape etc...

 

[pandg]

Abortion should be ok where pregnancy results from rape etc...

Why?
Why is that child worth less than a child from a non-forced union?
Why is it okay to murder a child because of another person's sin?

 

[Exhausted]

Why?
Why is that child worth less than a child from a non-forced union?
Why is it okay to murder a child because of another person's sin?

So incensitive, my grandkids will be crying.

 

[pandg]

So incensitive, my grandkids will be crying.

Who?

 

[Exhausted]

Who?

You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

 

[pandg]

You'll figure it out someday, I hope.

Keep hoping. I'm not wasting my time asking for clarification again from someone who refuses to give it.

 

[Exhausted]

Keep hoping. I'm not wasting my time asking for clarification again from someone who refuses to give it.

I love you too, pandg.

 

[LoreleiNachtfrau]

I decided other.

Abortion is not murder. Rather, it is a choice between a woman, her doctor, and her Gods. It is better to mourn the loss for a potential life in abortion then to mourn for another family that just can't make it.

Our society is not friendly to unmarried or single Moms and Dads. That needs to change before we start forcing people into such positions.

 

[Salty Tears]

I suppose we can call abortion anything we would want but one thing for sure it is killing.

 

[Dragons87]

Why, oh why, do abortions only concern the lady involved (as it is in contemporary debates)? Why can't the gentleman, the father of the baby, have a say???

All in all, I'm conservative about abortion, and would be against most cases presented to me for decision.

 

[destinyhope]

it is murder!!!

 

[TheGMan]

I think, in a hundred years time, we won't look back on this period in history and say, "Why did we allow all these unborn children to be killed?" We will say, "Why did these women feel driven to kill there unborn children?" That's the real inhumanity.

It's easy to say that it's wrong. I agree in an ideal world there would be no abortion. But it seems to me that a much better way to stop it is educate people so they don't find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, to give them the support they need to bear the child to term, and to find adoptive parents for that child.

At the moment, making abortion illegal isn't going to reduce it. It's just going to make it more dangerous. We need to work on making it undesirable first. But for now I must reluctantly concede that it shouldn't be criminalised.

 

[katautumn]

I voted "other". I do not support any elective abortion after the point where sentience and viability are possible, but I do think late term abortions should remain legal only for women whose lives would be in jeopardy if they carried to term or if there are fetal birth defects that would prohibit the fetus from surviving outside of the womb. Many fatal birth defects cannot be detected until a 28 week ultrasound.

 

[Dirtydeak]

No elective abortions, only those that are nessisary for survival, or as described above by KatAutumn in ref to fatal birth defects.

 

[katautumn]

I do not feel elective abortion should be outlawed up to 18 weeks into gestation. This is one of those issues that is tricky for me to discuss. Back in my "wild days" I always said "if I get pregnant, I'll just abort." Of course, I always made sure protection was used because I honestly never wanted to be in that position. I do have a son, so I know how difficult pregnancy, birth and motherhood can be. I was in an abusive marriage where there was no love. Now I am engaged to a man whom I am very much in love with and fully intend to spend the rest of my life with. He had a vasectomy before we met and it's a decision he now regrets because we both want to have a child together. His friend's niece is strung out on drugs, sleeps around and gets pregnant every time the wind blows. She has four kids, two with her ex-husband and two more who have two different fathers. She doesn't work and lives with her uncle. He takes care of her kids. She has had five miscarriages and two abortions. It upsets me because there are people out there like J and myself who would be wonderful, attentive parents who want nothing more than to have a child and we can't get pregnant and then there's people like his friend's niece who go out and don't even bother to use protection. It's like a slap in the face.

But I know that most women who have abortions were involved in a monogamous relationship and were using birth control. I cannot fault them nor hold them accountable for birth control failure. It's not my place to tell them, "you play, you pay". Having sex should not be a punishable offense. If you don't want to be pregnant you aren't going to take the crucial steps to take care of yourself and your unborn child. If you don't like the idea of adoption because of pride or other reasons, you won't be an effective parent. Frankly, I'd rather see a woman have an abortion and terminate a fetus that cannot feel emotional or mental pain in order to spare a child from being resented and neglected simply because his or her mother never wanted them.