Abortion to prevent increased suffering

[Chriliman]

What does any of this have to do with Christianity? Every verse you’ve quoted here is Judaism not Christianity. And that verse from Deuteronomy has nothing to do with rape it is referring to pre marital sex.

Are you saying Jesus would do away with these and other Judaic teachings? If so, shouldn’t they either be taken out of the Bible, or at least admit the Bible has questionable teachings?

This is off topic so I may not take it any further here, but it is interesting to me.

 

[Chriliman]

By that rational why not kill all babies? Every child that is born could potentially face these struggles. If we start killing all babies then it won’t be long until all Christians are in heaven. My dad was a foster child and didn’t face these kinds of hardships. He was adopted by my grandparents because they weren’t able to have kids of their own and they provided a very loving home for him in which he grew to later getting married and having a loving family of his own. So I’d say that it was probably a blessing that he wasn’t killed before he had the opportunity to receive all those blessings. Furthermore even people who are raised by their biological parents face the kind of struggles in life that you mentioned.

I see your point and agree, I’m just trying to determine in what circumstances is abortion not murder and whether a human who’s not capable of consciousness(not talking about sleep or someone knocked out), can’t feel pain, and can’t live on its own(viability) should have as much rights as a fully capable human.

 

[Chriliman]

Everyone who lives to a ripe old age will face way more struggles in life than you have on this very short list.

True, and I think those who aren’t wanted by their bio parents and haven’t been aborted should try to accept their hardship in life and make the best of it as best they can, because the last thing I want to see is suicides to continue to rise due to people being born into hardship and being neglected, negatively effecting their physical and mental health.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you saying Jesus would do away with these and other Judaic teachings? If so, shouldn’t they either be taken out of the Bible, or at least admit the Bible has questionable teachings?

This is off topic so I may not take it any further here, but it is interesting to me.

Yes according to Jewish law the adulterous woman caught in the act of committing adultery should’ve been put to death but Jesus had mercy on her and pardoned her.

 

[o_mlly]

Okay, let's see how we got here...

Try, as cited, to start at your Post 71 where you began this deflection to the Atheist's Playbook Rule "2".

If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is meaningless.

Well, that shows you do not understand the limits of science. And what Catholics believe.

So how exactly can someone have pallor mortis, algor mortis, rigor mortis, or livor mortis and NOT be dead?

Just more deflection. So how does someone have putrefaction and not be dead? More importantly, a preborn child does not evidence any signs of death. And, if one is suffering then one is alive. Stay on topic, if you can.

But let me guess. You'll say that unique DNA granting the rights of personhood is valid in the case of a pregnancy, but not in the case of cancer, because... reasons.

I'll allow this strawman because it demonstrates the ridiculousness and the futility of your claim. Cancer is not a unique living human being, the preborn are unique living human beings. You've been given the science, what's your real problem?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

No; you quoted what OTHER people believe, not what you believe. Do YOU also believe being vaccinated goes against Christianity?

Absolutely not. While some Christians do believe you cannot vaccinate, I most certainly do not. I’m vaccinated x2, boosted x2, my kids have all their vaccines including COVID boosters, and I have an auto-immune disorder where I get an infusion of meds every 6 weeks and and take pills to manage it between infusions.

So if you’re looking for me to provide scripture that I believe says being vaccinated or pursuing any kind of medical care (preventative or otherwise) goes against Christianity, I can’t help you as I’m literally the last person on earth who’s ever claim such a thing. And if the next question is if I believe abortion should only be between a pregnant person and their doctor, oh absolutely I do believe that as well.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

There’s proof that Jesus existed but no proof that He is God or that He was born of a virgin or that He performed any miracles. So the existence of Jesus is not proof of any miracle. All we can prove is that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans.

So science proves he exists, belief in his works is faith. Welcome to the land of blending faith and science.

 

[wendykvw]

Where does it say mother or child in verse 23?

Here's how I read those verses:

22: If someone attacks a pregnant woman in a way that causes her to miscarry, but the woman survives, then the attacker must pay her husband an amount to be determined by the judges.
23: But if the woman dies, the attacker shall be put to death.

As I've already pointed out, any injury that is sufficient to cause a woman to give birth prematurely is going to be sufficient to kill the fetus. It says, "If the woman gives birth but no harm follows." Even if the baby survives, it's almost certainly going to have some harm done to it by any assault sufficient to cause the mother to give birth prematurely. So how exactly does "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely" not cause any harm? But if we read the verses as I have shown, then it's clear that the "no harm" bit applies only to the woman.

In any case, since this is speaking about Jewish laws, it must be viewed in that context. And according to Jewish laws, life does not begin at conception, and it doesn't consider the developing fetus to be a full person. This only happens at birth. SOURCE

"The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.

The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth."​

So I don't see how you can use a religious text written for Jews by Jews to describe Jewish law to put forward a point of view that Jewish law itself doesn't hold.

Simple my lady, if a woman is pregnant, and she is injured and dies, the child will die also. In the USA, we have laws that are very much the same. If a woman is pregnant, and she is killed, the murder charge would be for both the mother and the child. In the USA, thanks to "feticide" laws" in 38 states which create legal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women.State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

 

[Kylie]

There’s proof that Jesus existed but no proof that He is God or that He was born of a virgin or that He performed any miracles. So the existence of Jesus is not proof of any miracle. All we can prove is that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans.

I've never seen such proof.

 

[Kylie]

Well, that shows you do not understand the limits of science. And what Catholics believe.

Perhjaps you know of some unfalsifiable claim that does actually mean something?

Just more deflection. So how does someone have putrefaction and not be dead? More importantly, a preborn child does not evidence any signs of death. And, if one is suffering then one is alive. Stay on topic, if you can.

Can't help but notice that you can't answer my question. You try to get out of it by saying it's deflection.

I'll allow this strawman because it demonstrates the ridiculousness and the futility of your claim. Cancer is not a unique living human being, the preborn are unique living human beings. You've been given the science, what's your real problem?

You never provided any science to back up your position. What you provided was a scientist's OPINION. An opinion doesn't become science just because it's the opinion of a scientist.

 

[Kylie]

Simple my lady, if a woman is pregnant, and she is injured and dies, the child will die also. In the USA, we have laws that are very much the same. If a woman is pregnant, and she is killed, the murder charge would be for both the mother and the child. In the USA, thanks to "feticide" laws" in 38 states which create legal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women.State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

I don't see where you showed where the phrase "and child" appears in verse 23.

In any case, I'm curious as to your thoughts on that case where the Texan woman was in the carpooling lane and justified it because she was pregnant?

Texas woman says unborn baby should count as a passenger in HOV lane

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've never seen such proof.

Have you looked for it?

 

[Kylie]

Have you looked for it?

Yes. Of course I have. I've been discussion religion on the net for about 20 years now. I've not only had people present what they view as evidence of Jesus, but I have also studied the topic myself. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I haven't just because I disagree with you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes. Of course I have. I've been discussion religion on the net for about 20 years now. I've not only had people present what they view as evidence of Jesus, but I have also studied the topic myself. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I haven't just because I disagree with you.

A Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus in his writing Antiquities of the Jews written around 94AD.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law,

Chapter 9 - The Works of Flavius Josephus

Why would a non christian Jewish writer mention James as the brother of Jesus if Jesus was a fictional character?

 

[Kylie]

A Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus in his writing Antiquities of the Jews written around 94AD.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law,

Chapter 9 - The Works of Flavius Josephus

Why would a non christian Jewish writer mention James as the brother of Jesus if Jesus was a fictional character?

Let's look at a bit more of the passage you quoted.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.​

This passage clearly states that this James fellow was delivered to be stoned (it immediately follows where you stopped the quote from the text), and it took place in the year 62. However, other sources - Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition - all had James the Just dying ca. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen. So, the method of death is different, and the year it occurs is different too. Indeed, Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter, but Peter didn't die until either 64 or 67, which is AFTER the death of the James mentioned by Josephus.

Also, this account doesn't match with other account of James the Just and Acts make no mention of the event at all.

And, the end of the passage makes it clear that they are talking about Jesus, son of Damneus, who was a high priest. "Christ" means the same in Greek that "messiah" does in Hebrew ("the anointed one"), so it could be used in reference to the anointment of Jesus, son of Damneus as high priest.

In short, it seems likely that the reference to this character being the Jesus of the Bible is not justified.

 

[o_mlly]

Perhjaps you know of some unfalsifiable claim that does actually mean something?

Sure. Here you go:

If I fall [curious word selection] pregnant, carry the pregnancy to term, give birth, raise the child and then ... I have already demonstrated several times over that I want this child in my life. This is not the case if I find that I am pregnant and choose to have an abortion.

Translation: A child's right to life is totally dependent on their mother wanting that child to live.

Can't help but notice that you can't answer my question. You try to get out of it by saying it's deflection.

Did you question my claim that putrefaction is evidence of death?

You never provided any science to back up your position. What you provided was a scientist's OPINION. An opinion doesn't become science just because it's the opinion of a scientist.

That's just adorable.

"Hey, show me the science", the pro abortionist demands. And when presented with the very science demanded, bleats back. "Wait, that just the consensus of scientists."

If pro abortionists claim the evidence that human life begins at conception has not been proven true to argue that they have falsified the scientific consensus that human life begins at conception then pro abortionists make a meaningless statement.

 

[o_mlly]

This is off topic ...

Thank you. The Physical Science forum and the Apologetic Forum seem more appropriate.

I believe you have written that you oppose late term abortions.

Will the life inside the mother left to its normal development be anything else than a human being?

At what exact point in the child's development does the child obtain a right to life? May a healthy mother morally kill her child after that point?

If we are uncertain as to the exact point in the child's development when the child's right to life obtains, may the mother in ignorance kill the child?

May a mother who in uncertainly suspects that bearing the child to term may cause the child to suffer kill the child?

 

[loveofourlord]

Hello @Chriliman, the last time I checked, there were 100+ "qualified" couples looking to adopt a newborn baby for every newborn baby who is put up for adoption (in America anyway). So, foster care and the suffering of mental/physical abuse should be of little to no concern to birth moms who are unable to keep and care for their babies.

And the adoption option will stop the suffering that birth moms feel over killing their babies via abortion.

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green
.​

that's a out right lie or misleading. There are not many people wanting adoptions, the adoption agencies are full of unwanted children. Now this COULD be exasperated by many of these agencies refusing people that are LGBTQ, or not the right religion, and in some cases not the right type of Christian. Maybe before pretending adoption is a alternative maybe make it so everyone that wants to adopt and is qualified can.

 

[Kylie]

Sure. Here you go:

​

Translation: A child's right to life is totally dependent on their mother wanting that child to live.

And why do you claim that is unfalsifiable?

Did you question my claim that putrefaction is evidence of death?

No, I agree that it is evidence of death. But it's hardly the first evidence of death. There are plenty of things that come before it that indicate death just as strongly.

I was asking you to tell me what change marks the transition from living to dead.

That's just adorable.

"Hey, show me the science", the pro abortionist demands. And when presented with the very science demanded, bleats back. "Wait, that just the consensus of scientists."

Where did you get the word "CONSENSUS" from?

I said it was a particular scientist's OPINION.

Once again you resort to strawman arguments (not to mention an immature tone).

If pro abortionists claim the evidence that human life begins at conception has not been proven true to argue that they have falsified the scientific consensus that human life begins at conception then pro abortionists make a meaningless statement.

There you go with that word CONSENSUS again. You just pulled that out of your back pocket. Show me this scientific CONSENSUS. And no, a quote of a scientist stating an opinion is not scientific consensus.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you. The Physical Science forum and the Apologetic Forum seem more appropriate.

I believe you have written that you oppose late term abortions.

Will the life inside the mother left to its normal development be anything else than a human being?

At what exact point in the child's development does the child obtain a right to life? May a healthy mother morally kill her child after that point?

If we are uncertain as to the exact point in the child's development when the child's right to life obtains, may the mother in ignorance kill the child?

May a mother who in uncertainly suspects that bearing the child to term may cause the child to suffer kill the child?

I'd just like to point out that virtually ALL late term abortions are done because the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, child, or both. It's not done because the mother decides, "Oh, I don't want a baby at this time." The decision to have a late term abortion is only reached after heartwrenching agony. It's a baby that has a name, that the parents wanted, they have filled the baby's room with the things they were going to need. And then they are told that the baby won't survive, or that the mother's life is at risk if she continues, and they'll both die.