Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[redleghunter]

Why not? Why is the life of the child lost to spontaneous abortion less noteworthy than that of the child lost to voluntary abortion?

Did I address such? No.

However Rick Santorum did.

 

[Kylie]

I know a valid one when I see it.

Then surely you agree that a fertilized ball of cells is not a person? It is to a person what an acorn is to an oak tree.

 

[Armoured]

Did I address such? No.

However Rick Santorum did.

Dude, I was replying to something YOU JUST SAID.

 

[Kylie]

The Exodus reference is wrong. The word for miscarriage does not appear in the Hebrew.

Hmm, funny.

You might want to check with other Christians, namely, the Christians who translated several versions of the Bible. Because they interpret it as referring to a pregnant woman.

Perhaps it is referring to a woman who is carrying a child in her arms? But then what does it mean when it says, "make her fruit depart"?

I mean, it sure sounds like it is talking about a pregnant woman who is hit hard enough that she loses the baby.

But of course, they're wrong and you're right.

The Talmud is not Scriptures. The Talmud seems to address more about privy demons than abortion.

Are you suggesting that parts of the Bible are irrelevant?

 

[redleghunter]

I tell you what. You get the teams who translated the versions of the Bible which use the term miscarriage to revise their translations and let me know. At that point I'll admit you have a reasonable case for it being mistranslated. But it is kinda hard for me to pretend that some random poster on the internet is a better authority in Biblical translation than people who do the job for a living.

I pointed this out to you on another thread and showed you the various translations and the Hebrew. You shrugged it off. I also pointed out that some English translations fixed the translation as in the NASB. Which I know of as one of the theologians on that board is a personal acquaintance.

So unless you are going to show us some exegesis of the verses involved or at least an expository discussion of such, you are just some internet interloper posting talking points from some website.

 

[redleghunter]

Dude, I was replying to something YOU JUST SAID.

True but you are not a serious poster.

Show some substance in your responses and I may respond to you in kind. You never offered a rebuttal to the exegesis I posted on Exodus 21 so why should I bother responding to your one line inane responses?

 

[Ratjaws]

The problem lies in the questions and selections permitted.

Given these slightly reworded questions...

1. Abortion should never be permitted
2. Permitted to protect the life or physical health of the pregnant woman
3. Permitted to protect the mental health of the pregnant woman
4. Permitted in cases of rape or incest
5. Permitted at the discretion of the pregnant woman

Ecco,
The only morally acceptable option I can agree with is what I articulated before to Archivist. His number two read "lfe and health of the mother" adjusted to leave out the health term. You come closer to it with your 2nd by changing health to physical health but I would ask what does this mean? Can we abort the child if the pregnancy can be proven to cause the mother to have a cold? Or maybe because it causes her morning sickness? I cannot agree with this precisely because the act causes an evil greater than the effect we are trying to avoid. In other words we cannot separate the child from the mother even for physical health reasons because to do so would be to end it's life. Now even if in the future we had a way to keep the child's life safe once separated from the mother's womb, I suspect even this would be immoral since we are interrupting a natural process that by it's very nature should be allowed to run its course as God intended. I think this was Pope Paul VI's main point in his encyclical Humanae Vitae where he dealt with this issue of human sexuality and life.

The only viable option here then, seems to be, if the life of the mother is endangered we can interrupt the pregnancy. Again at this point we must intend not to kill the child but to find a way to continue it's life until it matures enough to live on it's own. This in fact is what we do with premature births. If the window of viability can be moved back more toward fertilization for this situation then it will give us a way out of a bad situation. But again! ...the intent of all involved must be to save both lives or it becomes an immoral act.

Unfortunately this is not what Roe vs Wade intended with its decision to legalize abortion, that in effect, extends all ten months of pregnancy. In fact there has been a push by the anti-lifers to extend this abortive act to beyond the womb with D&X or the more commonly called partial birth abortion. The meant for any and all reason even as thoughout the last 40ish years of Roe we have had some limits put on abortion. Most have subsequently taken from the law books to leave us with virtual abortion on demand.

So only a "life of the mother" claus can clearly eliminate all ambiguity in the law and satisfy the moral requirements.

 

[redleghunter]

Here's another case where the anti-abortion side can either choose to engage honestly in a discussion or they can continue the dishonesty which turns average voters against their cause.

What's honest about using euphemisms for murder?

 

[redleghunter]

Yet over 20,000 of them age out of the system each year without being adopted.

And alive.

 

[Ratjaws]

If.

Vitcome... can we say "moral relativism!" ...I.E.: IF!

 

[redleghunter]

Vicomte13 said: ↑
When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry

ecco said: ↑
Outlawing slavery is committing idolatry?​

Wrong. It was OUR OWN LAWS that abolished slavery in opposition obeying god's laws which encouraged, permitted and gave rules on how to acquire and treat them. (Exodus 21). You defined this a committing idolatry.




So Christians buying heathen African slaves right off the boat was OK since they were not yet Christians. The abolishment of slavery was done in accordance with the Constitution of the US, not in obedience to a god that permitted and encouraged slavery.


Approximately 30% of pregnancies abort spontaneously. God's will.

What group of people advocated abolishing slavery. Yes ,Christians led the abolishment movement.

 

[Armoured]

And alive.

goal post shift.

 

[Armoured]

What group of people advocated abolishing slavery. Yes ,Christians led the abolishment movement.

Christians led the opposition to it, too. Don't cherry pick your forebears.

 

[redleghunter]

Jewish religious thought continues to hold that human life begins with the first breath.



The Founding Fathers accepted the Common law view that abortion was acceptable until the time of quickening, approximately the fourth month of pregnancy. In 1821 Connecticut criminalized abortion, however that law only applied to cases where quickening had occurred. It was not until 1840 that Maine became the first state to pass a law that made abortion illegal "quick or not."

You keep spreading the inaccuracies:

The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction.

In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/05/abortion-was-illegal-in-all-13-american-colonies-in-1776/

 

[Ratjaws]

When people start printing obituaries for the 50% of pregnancies that naturally terminate in the first month of pregnancy, then I will take you seriously.

Loudmouth,
So let me see if I understand you correctly... we need to publish all deaths that occur both naturally and those caused by man before you will acknowledge that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life???

 

[SkyWriting]

Worry about the other 99.99% first. The exceptions can be dealt with
one at a time.

I don't feel you are qualified or even have
the needed interest to make the decision.

 

[SkyWriting]

Any person who says "I have the right to murder a baby" is a monster.

People don't say that, because those are not the circumstances.

 

[SkyWriting]

A fetus isn't any closer to being a person than an adult cow. There's no significant moral attribute.

There is. "Fetus" means small baby. In this case a human baby.
Rarely do they pop out as cows. And with cows, we sink a hammer
into the forehead when we are ready to eat them.

 

[Ratjaws]

You are entitled to your opinion. Your views are not shared by everyone. They are not shared by atheists and people of other religions. They are not even shared by all Christians. I realize that you "know truth". However, you may not "know truth", any more than you think I don't. This (excerpted) from the folks at CARM:

No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus that you're a Christian.
1. There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10,44:6, 8).
4.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 3:1-2, 5:1-4).

Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.

​

​

Ecco,
If you are going to make accusations against the Church then why don't you go to it for a source relative to her teaching?

The Catholic Church in no official doctine teaches us to worship Mary. This is an anti-Catholic misrepresentation. The Church does teach Mary is an intercessor and we can pray (talk) to her in order to apeal to Christ (God). Even St. Paul exhorts us in scripture to intercede for one another through prayer and fasting.

Also the Church does not hold to Martin Luther's erronious teaching as do the separated denominations. Luther taught the Four Solas: sola fide, sola scriptura, sola spiritus and sola gratia. Of this list Catholic teaching agrees with only the latter "sola gratia" or salvation by grace alone. The Church teaches we must exercise faith (with love so it is not alone), accept scripture as part of divine relvelation (written and oral tradtion are the whole of revelation St. Paul refers too), and accept the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, as necessary for our salvation.

No! We are saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Perons of the Blessed Trinity, and are endowed with the Holy Spirit who guides us in understanding both sacred scripture and oral tradition. This is official Catholic teaching and I must inform you that the Church was instituted by Christ when he set St. Peter as it's visible head to represent Christ (the Church's soul or invisible head) in his absence here on earth:

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it."

 

[SkyWriting]

Ecco,
If you are going to make accusations against the Church then why don't you go to it for a source relative to her teaching?
The Catholic Church in no official doctine teaches us to worship Mary. This is an anti-Catholic misrepresentation. The Church does teach Mary is an intercessor and we can pray (talk) to her in order to apeal to Christ (God). Even St. Paul exhorts us in scripture to intercede for one another through prayer and fasting.
Also the Church does not hold to Martin Luther's erronious teaching as do the separated denominations. Luther taught the Four Solas: sola fide, sola scriptura, sola spiritus and sola gratia. Of this list Catholic teaching agrees with only the latter "sola gratia" or salvation by grace alone. The Church teaches we must exercise faith (with love so it is not alone), accept scripture as part of divine relvelation (written and oral tradtion are the whole of revelation St. Paul refers too), and accept the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, as necessary for our salvation.
No! We are saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Perons of the Blessed Trinity, and are endowed with the Holy Spirit who guides us in understanding both sacred scripture and oral tradition. This is official Catholic teaching and I must inform you that the Church was instituted by Christ when he set St. Peter as it's visible head to represent Christ (the Church's soul or invisible head) in his absence here on earth: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it."

That's a whole lot of results for one, optional, passage of scripture.

Berean Study Bible
For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood from His workmanship,
so that men are without excuse.