Abortion to prevent increased suffering

[Tropical Wilds]

Not according to me according to the definition of the word miracle. We can’t just make up whatever definition that suits us for the word miracle, it’s already been established. Can you name one miracle that’s a proven fact? Proof isn’t necessary to have faith. The Bible is a supernatural, spiritual book that’s filled with unexplainable miracles that can’t be explained by science and they’re not supposed to be. If they were explainable by science then they wouldn’t have the intended effect they were intended to have.

Well, one miracle that is a proven fact is would be the existence of Jesus. According to you, either fact proves he existed and thus he’s not miraculous, or there is no proof that Jesus existed and therefore the Bible is solely speculating and there’s no scientific proof of Jesus.

 

[Ken-1122]

Uhhhh… I’m vaccinated…?

Are you under the impression being vaccinated goes against Christian beliefs? Any particular scripture this is based on?

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, miracles are subjective and broadly defined and often have numerous layers to them.

For example, I’ve had numerous miscarriages with undefined causes and infertility that spanned the better part of a decade. Then, when I wasn’t trying, I got pregnant and carried to term which I define as a miracle. Scientifically this is explained by saying that my body did what it’s supposed to do when you are pregnant. Scientifically, everything went as it should. However, what caused everything to go as it should after numerous failures? Why did my anemia not affect the pregnancy? Why were my hormone levels stable the whole time? Why did implantation work that time but no other time before or after? Science says “that’s how it’s supposed to work.” Faith says “I understand the science and statistics, but there’s a reason why all that worked out this time when it never did before.”

The COVID vaccine… Developing and having it available so quickly was a miracle. Science says that the best minds in the world worked tirelessly to develop it based off of information learned from related diseases that we have fought and studied for years. That early knowledge paired with the combined energy and focus of the smartest people around the world working to solve the crisis is what led to the development of the vaccine. But it’s nothing short of a miracle that the people with the knowledge to create the vaccine were led to their careers, able to complete their education, were in the right place at the right time to research it, and issues like fatigue, stress, etc. did not impact their ability to discern what they needed to in order to advance the progress of the treatments.

Hurricane headed to the states, strongest on record, but at the last moment it shifts and doesn’t make landfall. Science says they didn’t properly predict the hurricanes behavior or the weather around it changed in a way that made sense in hindsight or maybe they did see this outcome but stated it had a 1 out of 10 chance of happening and the last minute shift beat the odds. But beyond that, why did the weather change? Why did the statistically unlikely result occur? That’s faith. That’s the miracle.

The existence of a scientific answer does not preclude the miracle and a miracle does not preclude the existence of a scientific explanation. Both can occur together, and often do.

What you described was not a miracle, those are just examples of fortunate situations.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

First of all, I'd say that the two ideas contradict each other. If it can be shown by science, then it must be objective.

Secondly, if it can be explained by science, then it doesn't require the intervention of God to make it happen - and in that case, why call it a miracle?

Only 2% of people who live more than 20 miles from a hospital who have the infamous “widow maker heart attack” will survive said heart attack. If somebody has a heart attack at said distance, but ended up getting care from a ER doctor who just happened to be there, the ambulance happened to be in the area, and the man doesn’t die, science says the fact that the man received upper level care immediately is what allowed him to beat the odds. The undeniable advantage of care in the golden hour would be held up as the reason why he was luckier than 98% of people in his situation. The ambulance being nearby and giving care during the critical platinum five minutes (or is it diamond?) would be another reason. Maybe something intangible like good veins or cardiac strength or dumb luck will get mentioned too. That’s science. That’s your scientific explanation.

But that the doctor happened to be inspired to go out to where the heart attack victim is? Or that the doctor was an ER doctor and not, say, I don’t know, a podiatrist? Or that the ambulance was out because of another call nearby that cleared early or maybe because they went to lunch nearby? Heck, that both the crew of the ambulance and the doctor had the training (and access to an education in the first place) and clarity-of-mind to apply it? We can call it luck or happenstance or whatever, but the fact is that really dumbs down the fact that a million different forces directed and overseen by the grace of God is what caused it to occur. I happen to believe that level of coordination can only be a miracle directed by God. That’s a miracle. That’s faith. That’s what God does.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Are you under the impression being vaccinated goes against Christian beliefs? Any particular scripture this is based on?

1. it was a joke based off the “I believe science” push by people who say they’re vaccinated.

2. It is common knowledge people are seeking exemption from mandates for the shot on the basis that it violates their religious freedom. Some say (falsely) it has aborted fetal cells. Others say it’s the mark of the beast. Psalm 30:2, Isaiah 53:5, and others about being healed by faith do as well.

 

[Ken-1122]

1. it was a joke based off the “I believe science” push by people who say they’re vaccinated.

2. It is common knowledge people are seeking exemption from mandates for the shot on the basis that it violates their religious freedom. Some say (falsely) it has aborted fetal cells. Others say it’s the mark of the beast. Psalm 30:2, Isaiah 53:5, and others about being healed by faith do as well.

In other words; you are not gonna answer the question; huh?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

What you described was not a miracle, those are just examples of fortunate situations.

I tend to believe it’s God’s hand, not simply “fortunate situations.” Were it to happen to you, I suspect they would very much feel it’s a miracle. Gods influence and reach is all-encompassing, I think diluting down all that had to occur to beat the odds as luck is an oversimplification that misses out on just how much God does for us.

But, again, this is how this discussion will inevitably go. Because a miracle is an intangible, subjective, and personal designation, it all boils down to the impasse that comes when one person says “I think it’s a miracle” and somebody else says “no it’s not.” And back and forth it goes.

I have no interest in splitting hairs as to what constitutes a miracle and what doesn’t because it’s all subjective to one’s faith and beliefs as to what is good enough to be defined as a miracle. The question I was answering when this all started was if one can follow and believe science while still having faith, to which I said yes and detailed my position.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

In other words; you are not gonna answer the question; huh?

Um… I did…? You literally quoted it…? There was even and auto generated link to a passage…?

 

[Kylie]

Only 2% of people who live more than 20 miles from a hospital who have the infamous “widow maker heart attack” will survive said heart attack. If somebody has a heart attack at said distance, but ended up getting care from a ER doctor who just happened to be there, the ambulance happened to be in the area, and the man doesn’t die, science says the fact that the man received upper level care immediately is what allowed him to beat the odds. The undeniable advantage of care in the golden hour would be held up as the reason why he was luckier than 98% of people in his situation. The ambulance being nearby and giving care during the critical platinum five minutes (or is it diamond?) would be another reason. Maybe something intangible like good veins or cardiac strength or dumb luck will get mentioned too. That’s science. That’s your scientific explanation.

But that the doctor happened to be inspired to go out to where the heart attack victim is? Or that the doctor was an ER doctor and not, say, I don’t know, a podiatrist? Or that the ambulance was out because of another call nearby that cleared early or maybe because they went to lunch nearby? Heck, that both the crew of the ambulance and the doctor had the training (and access to an education in the first place) and clarity-of-mind to apply it? We can call it luck or happenstance or whatever, but the fact is that really dumbs down the fact that a million different forces directed and overseen by the grace of God is what caused it to occur. I happen to believe that level of coordination can only be a miracle directed by God. That’s a miracle. That’s faith. That’s what God does.

I'd be curious...

Out of all the people who have heart attacks more than 20 miles from a hospital, what proportion of them can we expect to get help because a doctor just happened to be nearby by sheer coincidence? And then, what rate does it actually happen?

Just remember - unlikely is not the same thing as impossible.

And I suspect you are falling victim to confirmation bias - all the stories about people who survive because the doctor happened to be nearby, or the ambulance was just around the corner, these stories are memorable BECAUSE they are rare. If you heard all the stories of cases where that just didn't happen, you might hold a different opinion.

Finally, even if there was some higher power guiding it all, it's still a reach to conclude it must be the particular god you worship. It could be any of the other gods that humanity has worshipped. It could also be advanced aliens who detected that the guy was about to have a heart attack and then telepathically implanted the suggestion to the ambulance driver to stop for lunch at the take away shop next door.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'd be curious...

Out of all the people who have heart attacks more than 20 miles from a hospital, what proportion of them can we expect to get help because a doctor just happened to be nearby by sheer coincidence? And then, what rate does it actually happen?

Not often enough for it to be a valid treatment option and infrequently enough that when it does happen, questions about faith and God are asked or thought of by more than a few people.

Just remember - unlikely is not the same thing as impossible.

Never would I say otherwise.

And I suspect you are falling victim to confirmation bias - all the stories about people who survive because the doctor happened to be nearby, or the ambulance was just around the corner, these stories are memorable BECAUSE they are rare. If you heard all the stories of cases where that just didn't happen, you might hold a different opinion.

Well, I heard it just two weeks ago in my EMT refresher and the point of the example when it was given was to draw attention to the vast majority of the times it doesn’t happen for various reasons. And again, my point wasn’t that it happens all the time and isn’t worth noting. It’s that it almost never happens and when it does, it’s easy to see the science and the miracle that goes into beating an extreme statistical improbability.

Finally, even if there was some higher power guiding it all, it's still a reach to conclude it must be the particular god you worship. It could be any of the other gods that humanity has worshipped. It could also be advanced aliens who detected that the guy was about to have a heart attack and then telepathically implanted the suggestion to the ambulance driver to stop for lunch at the take away shop next door.

I am not making a statement about which God did it, but that generic faith in any God in the context of Christianity can exist with the ideas of science.

If you’re not Christian and you experience something you believe to be a miracle or similar, that’s great too. If it’s my God, your God, some other God, or aliens, then hurrah that you saw a sign of the divine intervention of your chosen belief structure’s God-equal manifestation and I hope it brings you happiness and gratitude. If you’re an Atheist and think it’s no God and all luck or statistics and science, that’s super too.

I’m only speaking in the context of me, my beliefs, and the questions to me. I don’t pretend to speak for any other issue beyond the original statement along the lines of never seeing a Christian who sided with science.

 

[Kylie]

Not often enough for it to be a valid treatment option and infrequently enough that when it does happen, questions about faith and God are asked or thought of by more than a few people.

I think you missed what I was saying.

I was saying we should figure out how often that kind of thing should happen by sheer chance, and then see how often it actually happens. If it happens about as often as chance would suggest, then there's no need to invoke any intervention by God. It would be like tossing a coin ten times, getting five heads, and then claiming God must have made it happen.

Never would I say otherwise.

Yet it seems you are. "It's very unlikely that it would have happened by chance, so let's assume God did it."

Well, I heard it just two weeks ago in my EMT refresher and the point of the example when it was given was to draw attention to the vast majority of the times it doesn’t happen for various reasons. And again, my point wasn’t that it happens all the time and isn’t worth noting. It’s that it almost never happens and when it does, it’s easy to see the science and the miracle that goes into beating an extreme statistical improbability.

Statistical improbabilities do not require miracles.

I am not making a statement about which God did it, but that generic faith in any God in the context of Christianity can exist with the ideas of science.

If you’re not Christian and you experience something you believe to be a miracle or similar, that’s great too. If it’s my God, your God, some other God, or aliens, then hurrah that you saw a sign of the divine intervention of your chosen belief structure’s God-equal manifestation and I hope it brings you happiness and gratitude. If you’re an Atheist and think it’s no God and all luck or statistics and science, that’s super too.

I’m only speaking in the context of me, my beliefs, and the questions to me. I don’t pretend to speak for any other issue beyond the original statement along the lines of never seeing a Christian who sided with science.

Okay then. It just seems to me you are looking at a God of the Gaps.

 

[wendykvw]

The Bible makes it clear when life begins:


And let's not forget that in Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

The verse you refer to states that if the child dies the person who caused the death of the child is to receive the death penalty.

“ If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Exodus 21:22-23

 

[Kylie]

The verse you refer to states that if the child dies the person who caused the death of the child is to receive the death penalty.

“ If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Exodus 21:22-23

The translation that Christian Forums gives when you click on the passage says, "that her fruit departs."

It doesn't sound like it's a case of a woman being injured severely enough to cause a premature birth, but both mother and baby come through without any harm.

 

[wendykvw]

The translation that Christian Forums gives when you click on the passage says, "that her fruit departs."

It doesn't sound like it's a case of a woman being injured severely enough to cause a premature birth, but both mother and baby come through without any harm.

The translation that Christian Forums gives when you click on the passage says, "that her fruit departs."

It doesn't sound like it's a case of a woman being injured severely enough to cause a premature birth, but both mother and baby come through without any harm.

Vs. 22 the offender is to be fined. Vs. 23 if the mother or child are harmed the death penalty is required. An eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Karma as they say, in other words abortion is not anything to take lightly. Thank you for sharing the verse.

 

[Kylie]

Vs. 22 the offender is to be fined. Vs. 23 if the mother or child are harmed the death penalty is required. An eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Karma as they say, in other words abortion is not anything to take lightly. Thank you for sharing the verse.

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.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I think you missed what I was saying.

I was saying we should figure out how often that kind of thing should happen by sheer chance, and then see how often it actually happens. If it happens about as often as chance would suggest, then there's no need to invoke any intervention by God. It would be like tossing a coin ten times, getting five heads, and then claiming God must have made it happen.

If that’s what you believe a miracle is, then ok.

Yet it seems you are. "It's very unlikely that it would have happened by chance, so let's assume God did it."

Well, that’s what faith is. Belief in a God and their power or influence.

Statistical improbabilities do not require miracles.

Never said it did.

Okay then. It just seems to me you are looking at a God of the Gaps.

Except that I’m not saying that when something improbable happens it’s proof of God. I’m saying that there can be a science to why something occurred, but also room for God to allow those variables to exist. I’m not saying that proves there is a God and that wasn’t the question I was answering. I was answering how science and faith can co-exist.

If you want to say that all unlikelihoods or grand events are solely caused by science we don’t understand, statistical anomalies, and randomness, I’d say you’d be 100% right. That is what is supported by science. I’m saying because of my faith, I believe God is behind the intangibles to those anomalies. I’m not saying that’s what you have to believe, what everybody has to believe, that it’s proof of God, or that it’s what science supports. I’m saying that’s the aspect that is behind faith. That’s all.

 

[o_mlly]

Because if you did, I doubt you would claim that an unfalsifiable claim means that one has to recant some claim because it doesn't contradict a particular viewpoint.

Trying to float another strawman, I see. I would never use such clumsy language so kindly cite my post.

Yes, we were having a discussion about Catholic beliefs, since you brought them up in post 147 when you asked me if I could cite a Catholic Article of Faith that is contradicted by science. Prior to that I had not mentioned Catholicism at all in this thread.

Nope. Newsflash: All Catholics are Christian. Go back much farther in the thread. I called out the hypocrisy of an atheist citing the bible as authoritative (as you did in this thread):

Post #71:

The Bible makes it clear when life begins:...

So you are saying that we should not assume that a person is dead until the rich the fifth stage, despite the fact that you also admit that the stages BEFORE that also indicate death.

"So you are saying ..."! Please stop with the strawmen, Those symptoms of death are indicative but not conclusive and as they may have other causes. Putrefaction, on the other hand, is more certain that death has occurred as the body's autonomous immune system and cell repair/replacement functions have ceased to function.

Very well, please tell me where I claimed that a embryo/fetus is a disease.

OK. What was your point in alerting us that cancer, a disease, anything to do with demonstrating that a unique DNA is evidence of a new human being?

 

[Kylie]

Trying to float another strawman, I see. I would never use such clumsy language so kindly cite my post.

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

o mlly, post 147: Faith and right reason do not contradict. Science is always provisional Faith is not. So, can you cite a Catholic article of faith that science contradicts? Nope.

Kylie post 149: No, because they went out of their way to make those unfalsifiable, scientifically speaking.

o mlly post 151: Translation: "I could not find any contradictions between Catholic beliefs and science so I recant my claim."

Kylie post 152: Do you actually understand what "unfalsifiable" means?

If a claim is unfalsifiable, it is meaningless. You could just as well say that "there's an elephant in your kitchen that is completely undetectable" doesn't contradict science. The existence of such an elephant is unfalsifiable, so anytime someone tries to show how the elephant can't exist, there's so way to make up an excuse as to why that reason doesn't work.

So you give me a list of unfalsifiable claims and claim that they don't contradict science, but the only justification that you have for saying that is that they are unfalsifiable in the first place.

Nope. Newsflash: All Catholics are Christian.

So what? Not all Christians are Catholic.

"So you are saying ..."! Please stop with the strawmen, Those symptoms of death are indicative but not conclusive and as they may have other causes. Putrefaction, on the other hand, is more certain that death has occurred as the body's autonomous immune system and cell repair/replacement functions have ceased to function.

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

OK. What was your point in alerting us that cancer, a disease, anything to do with demonstrating that a unique DNA is evidence of a new human being?

I was pointing out that if "It has unique DNA, so we must give it the rights of personhood," is a legitimate argument against abortion, then the same argument shows that it's wrong to treat any cancer cells with unique DNA, since having unique DNA means we must give it the rights of personhood.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

Um… I did…? You literally quoted it…? There was even and auto generated link to a passage…?

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

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, one miracle that is a proven fact is would be the existence of Jesus. According to you, either fact proves he existed and thus he’s not miraculous, or there is no proof that Jesus existed and therefore the Bible is solely speculating and there’s no scientific proof of Jesus.

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.