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

[Belk]

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.

A pro-life death penalty law?

 

[patricius79]

A pro-life death penalty law?

The part the law concerning protecting the genitals of men is the pro-life part.

 

[Archivist]

Why?

Already stated. Think you missed my edit.

 

[Belk]

The part the law concerning protecting the genitals of men is the pro-life part.

uh-huh...

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

He knew that we are so misguided that we need laws for pretty much everything. If you look at the number of laws written in the OT and compare their number with how many volumes of law books fill law libraries, it becomes obvious that our need for laws has only increased.

 

[Archivist]

uh-huh...

And the life of the woman doesn't count for very much...

 

[civilwarbuff]

That refers to harm to the woman - not the fetus

22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

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.

The "But if any harm follow" at the beginning of verse 23 indicates that is a continuation of the previous verse. I don't know your definition of "any harm" but to me it means just that. Turn off your willfull ignorance.

 

[Archivist]

22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

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.

The "But if any harm follow" at the beginning of verse 23 indicates that is a continuation of the previous verse. I don't know your definition of "any harm" but to me it means just that. Turn off your willfull ignorance.

The meaning of this verse has been debated for centuries. Just because someone reads it and comes up with a different meaning than you do is not "willful ignorance."

Name calling is the weakest position that one can resort to in a debate.

 

[Aldebaran]

And the life of the woman doesn't count for very much...

Sarcasm? I'll take it that way.
So, what "life of the woman" are we talking about here? The 9 months of pregnancy before giving birth?

 

[Archivist]

Sarcasm? I'll take it that way.
So, what "life of the woman" are we talking about here? The 9 months of pregnancy before giving birth?

I responded to your response to a discussion regarding the he law concerning protecting the genitals of men. Please reread posts 160, 161, 162 and 164. That is what I was replying to.

 

[Aldebaran]

I responded to your response to a discussion regarding the he law concerning protecting the genitals of men. Please reread posts 160, 161, 162 and 164. That is what I was replying to.

Ok, so where's the part about the life of the woman not counting for very much?

 

[Archivist]

Ok, so where's the part about the life of the woman not counting for very much?

Because under the law the women were executed if they injured a man's testicles. Again, reread the posts. You replied so you should have read them to begin with.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The meaning of this verse has been debated for centuries. Just because someone reads it and comes up with a different meaning than you do is not "willful ignorance."

Name calling is the weakest position that one can resort to in a debate.

Not calling her a name, describing her behavior. You can continue to debate it if you want, most of us know what it means.

 

[seashale76]

A miscarriage is a natural means of aborting the fetus.

True. Miscarriages are charted as SAB (spontaneous abortions). When collecting obstetrics history during a prenatal assessment they'll ask how many abortions you've had (that number includes miscarriages and therapeutic/elective abortions with no distinctions).

 

[bhsmte]

True. Miscarriages are charted as SAB (spontaneous abortions). When collecting obstetrics history during a prenatal assessment they'll ask how many abortions you've had (that number includes miscarriages and therapeutic/elective abortions with no distinctions).

Some miscarriages happen, without the person even knowing it, as they just think they may have had a heavy period.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

I guess that depends on what you mean by "whole".

Out of curiosity, would you be in plead guilty to a manslaughter charge in the car accident scenario I described earlier?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Well if you want to get technical, the womb is a part of her body...

So what if she were to just have the person in her womb removed? Not harmed...just taken out via cesarean. Technically then, she wouldn't be killing anyone...they would just be unable to live on their own power. Is that more to your liking?

 

[brinny]

Well if you want to get technical, the womb is a part of her body...

So what if she were to just have the person in her womb removed? Not harmed...just taken out via cesarean. Technically then, she wouldn't be killing anyone...they would just be unable to live on their own power. Is that more to your liking?

How is being taken from the environment that sustains the life of the small baby not harming the baby?

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of placing you or i on Mars without the benefit of oxygen or anything that would sustain our life?

 

[PapaZoom]

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

I understand that. I'm saying you're on the wrong side of the issue. For me it's the same as if you were in favor of a woman killing her newborn up to the third month. For me, and many other Christians, there is no real difference between a newborn and a fetus. I'll go farther, there is essentially no difference between who I am now as an adult male than when I first conceived. So for you to be pro-choice you have to assume that the fetus is not a human being. But it is. It is in the same way a toddler is a human being.

 

[PapaZoom]

Well if you want to get technical, the womb is a part of her body...

So what if she were to just have the person in her womb removed? Not harmed...just taken out via cesarean. Technically then, she wouldn't be killing anyone...they would just be unable to live on their own power. Is that more to your liking?

That would be impossible without killing the human fetus. You know that.