Abortion

[Ave Maria]

And you KNOW God hasn't provided a soul at the time of conception?

How do you go about proving that when Psalms directly states that God knows & has "knitted"/formed them in the womb??

Look I'm not going to fight with you about abortion -
you cannot hope to prove when God installs a soul, and since you do not know, you cannot make any emphatic statements of when it is or isn't life yet.

& that doesn't even come CLOSE to helping you where early, mid or late term abortions are performed.
We have PLENTY of pictures of formed fetuses and even partial birth abortion - this is a ploy so that women can continue having sex outside wedlock and conveniently get rid of their consequences.

THE FORNICATION THEY ENGAGED IS WAS THE FIRST SIN -(stats show the majority of all abortion is to unmarried females and not for medical necessity) they only compound it with another to get rid of the result of it.

I do not know when the fetus receives its soul. However, just because we do not know does not mean we should eliminate a woman's rights completely. A woman should not have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months.

 

[Nadiine]

I do not know when the fetus receives its soul. However, just because we do not know does not mean we should eliminate a woman's rights completely. A woman should not have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months.

Ok, then since you don't know when God gives them a soul - or can't know or prove that they DON'T have a soul immediately upon conception (since the bible clearly says God CREATES/forms them inside the womb)..
then how can you or anyone say abortion isn't wrong?

Since it's God who forms/creates them inside the womb, why are WE deciding to kill what He's creating by His own will in the first place?

Is that our call to make or God's?

If we don't know when God puts the soul in (and it's God forming them in there in the first place), then how do we arrive at the concept that we can randomly decide we don't want it & get rid of it?

This makes no sense to me.

 

[Tissue]

This is a tactic Satan used in the garden "hath God said?"....
Did God REALLY say that?? The more you examine and dissect, the further away you veer from the statement.

He didn't, actually. A Psalmist did (David, I believe, but I could be wrong). True, they were writing ABOUT God, but then, so have I, and so have you.

What's sad is that in people's so called "quest" for knowledge, they're dissecting the Bible to a literal DEATH of all meaning. Missing the entire forest for 1 tree that blocks their view.

On the contrary, I consider my understanding of Scripture more fulfilled now then I did before. To fully understand Biblical truth, it is important to know our limitations, and limitations of Scripture.

You take everything collectively into it's proper context. But since so many today choose to be self taught instead of learning under the Teachers God appoints His people, individuals with NO education in scripture are randomly redefining the Bible.

The teachers "God appoints" contradict one another. That's no help.

Go ahead & declare that abortion isn't murder... God's word clearly says it's murder thru several passages - taking human life.

It doesn't clearly say this. It simply uses poetry to refer to a culture's understanding of what life was like. Just because David speaks about a child being knit in a womb doesn't mean that this is what God defines as the beginning of life.

For the record, I am anti-abortion. I agree with you. I do not, however, agree with your reasoning. I'm not suggesting that you are necessarily wrong, I'm simply suggesting you are not necessarily right.

God's word stands forever - our false beliefs have no standing; they are not truth. God judges based on truth, not deception.

The Word might stand forever, but its interpretation constantly changes according to its cultural context.

 

[Ave Maria]

Ok, then since you don't know when God gives them a soul - or can't know or prove that they DON'T have a soul immediately upon conception (since the bible clearly says God CREATES/forms them inside the womb)..
then how can you or anyone say abortion isn't wrong?

Since it's God who forms/creates them inside the womb, why are WE deciding to kill what He's creating by His own will in the first place?

Is that our call to make or God's?

If we don't know when God puts the soul in (and it's God forming them in there in the first place), then how do we arrive at the concept that we can randomly decide we don't want it & get rid of it?

This makes no sense to me.

I'll be honest. I have no idea how to answer you on this. But I will say this. I do not feel that we should try to impose a ban on abortion because abortion should be between the mother, the father, and God. It is not up to us to decide what is right for another person.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'll be honest. I have no idea how to answer you on this. But I will say this. I do not feel that we should try to impose a ban on abortion because abortion should be between the mother, the father, and God. It is not up to us to decide what is right for another person.

I have a question for you or anyone else that wishes to answer.

Q: Isn't pro-choice also about taking away a person's right to life?

I ask this because I see any person, even a person just conceived in the womb, as having a right to life. I also see some hypocrisy in this decision of Wade vs Roe because it does not account for the babies life and was based on the right to privacy and nothing more.

 

[Ave Maria]

I have a question for you or anyone else that wishes to answer.

Q: Isn't pro-choice also about taking away a person's right to life?

I ask this because I see any person, even a person just conceived in the womb, as having a right to life. I also see some hypocrisy in this decision of Wade vs Roe because it does not account for the babies life and was based on the right to privacy and nothing more.

No, it is not. The reason is because the fetus is not a person. It does not have a soul so it cannot be a person with rights.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, it is not. The reason is because the fetus is not a person. It does not have a soul so it cannot be a person with rights.

First, science has proven that at the moment of conception the fetus is a unique human being and is alive. This has been known for 150 years. So do you know something outside of modern science?

Second, how can you or any one prove when a soul is present and when one is not?

Third, the word fetus basically means "unborn child" so why do you think it is not a person?


Thanks for providing answers.

 

[karisma]

I have a question for you or anyone else that wishes to answer.

Q: Isn't pro-choice also about taking away a person's right to life?

I ask this because I see any person, even a person just conceived in the womb, as having a right to life. I also see some hypocrisy in this decision of Wade vs Roe because it does not account for the babies life and was based on the right to privacy and nothing more.

I don't know that I agree that fetus's have a right to life, but even if they did, they would not be able to use that right to violate the right to bodily integrity. No person has any right to violate another person's body without that person's consent. This right to bodily integrity is the same right that keeps the government from taking organs from healthy people and giving them to the sick- the sick people may have a right to life, but they cannot use that right to violate another's right to bodily integrity.

 

[Tissue]

First, science has proven that at the moment of conception the fetus is a unique human being and is alive. This has been known for 150 years. So do you know something outside of modern science?

That is utterly absurd. Science cannot prove a value, or definition. This matter is one of ethics and philosophy, not science.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That is utterly absurd. Science cannot prove a value, or definition. This matter is one of ethics and philosophy, not science.

Please research this in the science community. You will find that the baby has all the signs of life, has it's own dna, and has it's own blood that is not shared with the mother. Come back with evidence against this and I will be amazed.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't know that I agree that fetus's have a right to life, but even if they did, they would not be able to use that right to violate the right to bodily integrity. No person has any right to violate another person's body without that person's consent. This right to bodily integrity is the same right that keeps the government from taking organs from healthy people and giving them to the sick- the sick people may have a right to life, but they cannot use that right to violate another's right to bodily integrity.

Did you know that in the USA the fetus is considered another living human being seperate from the mother?

Proof can be found in a recent case in California where a murder case was treated as a double homocide because the woman was pregnant. Check it out.

 

[karisma]

Did you know that in the USA the fetus is considered another living human being seperate from the mother?

If you would read my post you would see that this is completely irrelevent.

Proof can be found in a recent case in California where a murder case was treated as a double homocide because the woman was pregnant. Check it out.

I agree it's inconsistent. Write your Congress representative. However, it still doesn't change the logic of what I posted.

 

[Ave Maria]

First, science has proven that at the moment of conception the fetus is a unique human being and is alive. This has been known for 150 years. So do you know something outside of modern science?

Second, how can you or any one prove when a soul is present and when one is not?

Third, the word fetus basically means "unborn child" so why do you think it is not a person?


Thanks for providing answers.

What is your point? So what if the embryo has all of it's DNA and all that stuff! There is a difference between being a human being and a person. A person is a human being with rights. The embryo/fetus has no rights.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If you would read my post you would see that this is completely irrelevent.

I was not admonsihing your post. You are correct that babys do not give their consent.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is your point? So what if the embryo has all of it's DNA and all that stuff! There is a difference between being a human being and a person. A person is a human being with rights. The embryo/fetus has no rights.

So you must first have rights to be a person? What kind of logic is that?

So the Jews had no rights for the centuries when they were enslaved, they must not have been a "person" according to you.

Or black people during slavery... I guess they were not people until Abraham Lincoln gave them rights?

Your "logic" has not logic at all.

Maybe we should pray for you to have understanding. I just pray you are not put in jail in a 3rd world country that gives YOU no rights...

 

[karisma]

I was not admonsihing your post. You are correct that babys do not give their consent.

Unborn z/e/f are unable to give consent. Even if they could, their consent is not needed. They are violating someone's right to bodily integrity, something that we in the US (thankfully) value above someone else's right to life. Otherwise, what would stop the government from stepping in and ordering you to give up a kidney to someone dying? They might have a right to live, but they do not have the right to violate your bodily integrity.

 

[karisma]

So you must first have rights to be a person? What kind of logic is that?

So the Jews had no rights for the centuries when they were enslaved, they must not have been a "person" according to you.

Or black people during slavery... I guess they were not people until Abraham Lincoln gave them rights?

Your "logic" has not logic at all.

Maybe we should pray for you to have understanding. I just pray you are not put in jail in a 3rd world country that gives YOU no rights...

Even if a fetus has equal rights to any born person, they still cannot violate another's right to bodily integrity as no born person is allowed to do this. That would be granting extra rights to fetus's and taking away rights from women.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Unborn z/e/f are unable to give consent. Even if they could, their consent is not needed. They are violating someone's right to bodily integrity, something that we in the US (thankfully) value above someone else's right to life. Otherwise, what would stop the government from stepping in and ordering you to give up a kidney to someone dying? They might have a right to live, but they do not have the right to violate your bodily integrity.

Oh... WOW!

I cannot believe you actually follow this logic. So very very sad.

We truly are living in times where self is more important than anything else. How very upsetting this must be to God. He places new life in a mother and she kills that life.

I wonder if Jesus is wounded because scripture says he was in Mary's womb in her 1st trimester. And John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother's womb in her 2nd trimester.

SAD


I will be praying for these babies and their silent screams. I also pray for the people here who have a hardened heart to these wonderful and miraculous childen that are being aborted.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Even if a fetus has equal rights to any born person, they still cannot violate another's right to bodily integrity as no born person is allowed to do this. That would be granting extra rights to fetus's and taking away rights from women.

The woman had sex and got pregnant. Guess what? She violated her rights, not the baby.

 

[Tissue]

Please research this in the science community. You will find that the baby has all the signs of life, has it's own dna, and has it's own blood that is not shared with the mother. Come back with evidence against this and I will be amazed.

Some viruses (virii, strictly) have DNA, yet are not alive.

A zygote does not have its own blood, or many of the supposed "signs of life" (which is remarkably vague). Is it not considered alive, then?

You quote many things that have never been suggested as a viable indication of the state of "alive".

Again, science means nothing on this front. It describes the situation, but does not interpret. It is the interpretation that is important.