If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[patricius79]

According to the Bible it appears that a fetus is not a person until after birth.

In Exodus 21:22‑23 - an attacker who causes a miscarriage only has to pay a fine - they are not charged with manslaughter.

I understand that is the Jewish belief anyway.

That passage doesn't say that a fetus is not a person until after birth. God was working with people where they were at. In the same chapter, it talks about how people would beat their slaves, and says that someone is not to be punished if they beat their slave, as long as the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

It doesn't say that God approves of slavery. Nor does the Bible say that God approves of abortion.

 

[asherahSamaria]

That passage doesn't say that a fetus is not a person until after birth. God was working with people where they were at. In the same chapter, it talks about how people would beat their slaves, and says that someone is not to be punished if they beat their slave, as long as the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

It doesn't say that God approves of slavery. Nor does the Bible say that God approves of abortion.

I guess you could "interpret" it as you say - but that's not what I read

 

[Belk]

The question is, is abortion a sin? If it's a sin, having an abortion will result in guilt because the Holy Spirit will convict you of the sin. What do we see?
Feelings of guilt are among the most common immediate as well as delayed reactions to abortion. Guilt is a normal reaction that usually surfaces after the woman recognizes that abortion is wrong and that she is responsible for committing her own abortion. Guilt is what we feel when we have violated our own moral code. One study found that fully 70% of aborting women expressed general disapproval of abortion, yet tended to rationalize themselves as "exceptions" to the rules. This "exception" clause was enunciated by one girl after an abortion who said: "It's murder, but it's justifiable murder."
source

Abortion is murder, abortion is sin, and no sin is without consequence. It's false teaching to pretend that the Bible condones abortion.

Apparently getting raped is a sin since it normally results in guilt. Same for being an abused spouse. If guilt were the sole arbiter of sin then many things beyond our control are sins.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Actually no, the Exodus passage just indicates that a fetus was not considered to be a person - hence a fine, and not a manslaughter - which would require a life for a life.

You obviously did not read the entire post

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Any part of that you don't understand?

 

[patricius79]

Apparently getting raped is a sin since it normally results in guilt. Same for being an abused spouse. If guilt were the sole arbiter of sin then many things beyond our control are sins.

Guilt and guilt feelings are different. Guilt feelings are not the sole arbiter of sin. True guilt is based on what we decided for ourselves, such as whether to abort. False guilt is based on things outside of our control, like being raped.

As Peter Kreeft says, guilt feelings can be removed through counseling. True guilt can only be removed through Christ.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Its not about "life". Ending a life is not murder, or God would have us be vegetarians. Its about killing a person. And you didnt address how we define a person.

(Oh, wait, broccoli is alive too...)

What a great strawman!!!

 

[asherahSamaria]

You obviously did not read the entire post

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Any part of that you don't understand?

That refers to harm to the woman - not the fetus

 

[PapaZoom]

Are you a doctor?

No, I don't understand the question. The information I provided in my post is from a doctor who testified before congress and has preformed over 1200 abortions. If you're in a second trimester of a pregnancy, you can't just walk in and have an abortion. It can't work that way. The body has to prepare to extract the larger body pieces. It can take time for the woman's body to fully prepare for the extraction of a larger fetus. This according to the specialist. I can dig up that video if you'd like.

 

[Belk]

Guilt and guilt feelings are different. Guilt feelings are not the sole arbiter of sin. True guilt is based on what we decided for ourselves, such as whether to abort. False guilt is based on things outside of our control, like being raped.

As Peter Kreeft says, guilt feelings can be removed through counseling. True guilt can only be removed through Christ.

Thus making guilt as a metric for determining right from wrong useless.

 

[PapaZoom]

In a free society, you can.
Perhaps you prefer a dictatorship.

I don't.

Great. Test your theory this week. Walk around naked all week. You'll be arrested. Because you can't do anything you want with your body. Engage in consuming illicit drugs. Opps. You'll be arrested. You can't use those drugs on your body without the authorities putting you in jail. Try to sell one of your organs. You'll be stopped. But it's your body! Try public urinating for another test. Just pee on a tree like the dogs do. It's your body, you can do what you want.

The U.S. Supreme Court even rejected this argument in Roe v Wade. Justice Blackmun wrote,

“In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” [As examples of this refusal Blackmun lists Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination) and Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).”Roe v Wade 410 U.S.113 Section VIII.]


So you see, you can't do whatever you want with your body in a civilized society. As for abortion and a woman's bodily autonomy, the fetus isn't part of the woman's body. And just because the woman "owns" her own body, that doesn't give her the right to kill the body of another human.

 

[TomZzyzx]

According to the Bible it appears that a fetus is not a person until after birth.

In Exodus 21:22‑23 - an attacker who causes a miscarriage only has to pay a fine - they are not charged with manslaughter.

I understand that is the Jewish belief anyway.

Sorry but you're wrong.

The correct reading of the verse is... "If men fight , and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him...

It not a miscarriage, it's a premature birth. The baby is born alive. Nowhere in the verse does it say that the baby dies.

The fine the man has to pay is for the premature birth.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Is there a difference?

There is no difference, a human being is a person from conception till death.

 

[TomZzyzx]

That refers to harm to the woman - not the fetus

Since the baby is not dead, but born alive, it refers to both the mother and the baby.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Well that's where you and I disagree...at just two weeks it's significantly less human than you or me.

From conception the unborn are distinct, living and whole human beings. They might be different in degree of development but not less human.

 

[TomZzyzx]

If you found a human toe out in a field of grass....would you say, "I just found a person!". Probably not...but why? Genetically it's all human DNA....

A toe is not a person because it is not a whole human being, like the unborn are.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Since the baby is not dead, but born alive, it refers to both the mother and the baby.

I've never actually heard this spin on this passage before. Amazing to think that pregnant women getting involved in fighting during late term pregnancy was such a problem that a law had to be written about it.

 

[Archivist]

Of course I don't deny it. I'm saying that those Christians are wrong.

No, we are right. One can be a Christian and be pro-choice. That is my view and the view of many Christians.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I've never actually heard this spin on this passage before. Amazing to think that pregnant women getting involved in fighting during late term pregnancy was such a problem that a law had to be written about it.

Actually your false translation of the verse would be considered the "spin" since the baby is born alive and not dead. I guess the truth is really an eye opener.

God knew when a law was needed and when one was not.

 

[patricius79]

No, we are right. You are wrong.

Why?

 

[patricius79]

I've never actually heard this spin on this passage before. Amazing to think that pregnant women getting involved in fighting during late term pregnancy was such a problem that a law had to be written about it.

I know there were other laws about women getting involved in fights. I believe one of them says that if a two men are in a fight, an the wife of the first man grabs the genitals of the second man and injures them, she shall be put to death.

In a way, that is a Pro-Life law.