Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Life Granted by Yahweh is ALWAYS A BLESSING, TODAY as well as then.What's interesting is having children in the times of the OT and NT was a blessing and in some cases a matter of survival. The more children the more hands you had to work the land and livestock.
That's because abortion was illegal in most states.Prior to the 70's Protestants did not consider abortion a political matter. It was not political until Francis Schaeffer made it political. Before then it was mostly a Catholic issue.
Ok, that was revealing.But giving a Christian burial to things that were once merely alive is not exactly a dignified use of a sacred rite. Some people make fun of how some Episcopalians, for instance, perform church funerals for dogs, and perhaps rightly so.
You seem to be the only one politicizing the issue here.
No they are not considered legal persons. They cannot make legally binding decisions. That's your defense a legal term that does not explain what you want it to. Yet a corporation is in fact a legal person with Constitutional rights.Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.
I'm a disabled Veteran. What's your point?Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.
Miscarried humans won't rise from the dead?This isn't even a Christian explanation of the rite so much as modern 20th century folk religion saturated with therapeutic and sentimental language. It lacks anything of sacred character in its description.
Christian burial is about treating the body of a human person in a dignified manner in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It is not a political or philosophical statement about human tissue or animal life, nor is it merely therapeutic.
Actually the objective facts are all in the Pro-Life court. This thread is makes it quite evident.Emotional manipulation is part-and-parcel of the "pro-life" crowds playbook. I'm just pointing out some of us don't fall for it.
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25
Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.
A zygote doesn't even resemble what we would recognize as human. Neither does an embryo. In fact during certain stages its very similar to the embryos of other species.
If you want to have some religious ceremony for miscarriage that's your option but just the fact its considered unusual is evidence enough that the idea of personhood for fetuses or embryos is highly idiosyncratic, and more subject to individual intuitions.
Women do generally mourn miscarriage because it's about mourning the loss of potential motherhood, and not necessarily a deep statement about personhood of the unborn.
Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.
Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25
Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.
And you speak for all disabled? No. I'm a disabled adult, but I don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the science that shows human life begins at conception nor as an excuse to decide that I can declare murder 'good' if I deem it personally convenient or OK.
My life as a genetically distinct human began at conception. When did yours begin? Did you speciate at birth? Did you suddenly come alive when you exited your mother's womb? Or do you consider your life as only beginning when you could form memories, or communicate, or walk, or do action X?
Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.
First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.
RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.
NIV EXO 21:22 "If men who are fighting 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.
Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.
I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.
But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.
Miscarried humans won't rise from the dead?
If someone is driving and rams a car causing the other driver to have a miscarriage, they do not sentence the offending driver to death as it was an accident. States have different fetal homicide laws. One state recommended a 35 year prison sentence.Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.
First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.
RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.
NIV EXO 21:22 "If men who are fighting 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.
Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.
I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.
But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.
Show me the Hebrew word miscarriage is in that passage. It’s not. Has nothing to do with politics. Has to do with the RSV not being accurate in that verse.Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.
First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.
RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.
NIV EXO 21:22 "If men who are fighting 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.
Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.
I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.
But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?