It should be Murder?

[joshua 1 9]

The Nazis were extremely evil, regardless of what they felt about it.

What should have been the solution? The Hebrews were no longer welcome in Germany. The people did not want them there. No one else wanted them. In fact why not answer the issue we have today with the Syrian refugees, sense it is the exact same situation. We do not want them here in American because some of the refugees are terrorists and people who want to bring about Armageddon. We are talking about problem people from other areas of the world. What about our own problem people here in this country. Perhaps your answer is to do NOTHING. But according to the Bible sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission. If you think your safe to do nothing, then your wrong and your just as guilty as the people who get out and try to do something to solve the issues and the problems. I assume your answer is to just let them die from starvation at the train station and take them out and bury them from there.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't think anyone is addressing the real issue here. The issue is not whether or not the fetus is alive. it vey clearly is alive, period. The question is when does that fetus become a human person, when does it become you?

I answered that question, when the egg is fertilized and contains all the DNA for a human being. It took two individuals a male and a female to come together to fertilize that egg and to produce that baby. If anything goes wrong so the baby dies, then the baby goes to Heaven and will grow and mature there. There are going to be a LOT of children in Heaven. So if people do not like babies then Heaven may not be the place for them. This is a place for people that like children and want to help to nurture them and to help them to develop and grow.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, the Nazi's were human. Some of whom did some incredibly evil things.

In High School I had a dorm father that was in the Nazi Youth group. Toward the end of the war he was commissioned at a very young age and sent to the Polish front. There he was captured and put in a prisoner of war camp. He got into it with one of the guards in the camp and the guard smashed him with the butt of his rifle and knocked one of his eyes out. He always wore a patch on that eye. Yet here he was working in a school that had more then their fair share of Jewish people. So I do not think he was really anti Jewish. I use to wonder about him because he would practice pole vaulting. The story I heard was that he escaped from the prison camp when he got a small tree and made a pole vault and he vaulted across the fence. After the war there was a lot of repentance in Germany. Corrie Tan Boon talks about it in her book. A lot of the German people had been deceived and did not know what they had been supporting.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think all this Nazi talk is insensitive and irrelevant to the discussion.

Why is it irrelevant? What is the difference between the final solution and abortion? Looks the same to me.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

How many times do I have to correct you on the history of abortion? I can understand missing one post, but we've been over this multiple times, and other people have added to what I said. Legal abortion did not begin in 1973, even in the United States.

You need to read what I write with a little bit more care. What I said is that the Hippocratic Oath was held in high esteem until it was thrashed in 1973. I did not say that 1973 was the first time abortion had been legal in some countries. The following statements I copied for you suggest that I was right in what I stated:

Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version

“I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. …

Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”

Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version

“If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life”

Ref.: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html

Declaration of Geneva

“The Declaration of Geneva (Physician's Oath) was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948, amended in 1968, 1983, 1994 and editorially revised in 2005 and 2006.[1]”

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;”

“The original declaration stated that a doctor would respect human life "from the time of conception," and the 1994 revision stated "from its beginning." which was removed altogether in the editorial revisions in the English version but is still found in other language versions that have not followed the editorial changes such as the German Handbuch der ärztlichen Ethik.[“

Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't think anyone is addressing the real issue here. The issue is not whether or not the fetus is alive. it vey clearly is alive, period. The question is when does that fetus become a human person, when does it become you?

When do I become me? I am still developing, and working on being perfected.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I find the idea of hell totally incompatible with the concept that God is a God of love. When you truly love someone, you do not seek to coerce them by threats of terrible punishment. There has been enough misery in the world already. We certainly don't need any more in the hereafter. I believe in a universal salvation. I feel that is the only way toward any real sense of justice. In the Hereafter, we are free of the need and worry about our survival. Hence, it is no longer a matter of us against them. In turn, this means all barriers, all boundaries between the self and others are lifted and transcended. This leads to every single soul entering into an empathic relationship with every other. Each shares in the feelings of the others. The perpetrator comes to directly experience the feelings of the victim. The perpetrator does suffer, as he or she shares in all the pain and sorrow they caused. Hence, this is not cheap grace. Yes, Hitler, too, is saved. But remember, he will experience all the pain and suffering he inflicted on the Jews. And the victims will be able to discharge their negative feelings, by projecting them into the perpetrators. Also, the victims will enjoy an empathic relationship with the feelings of the perpetrators. In this way, everyone exists in an empathic bond; and since empathy is that basis for all love, all fall into a loving harmony with one another.

I think about this all the time. Do not do anything to others that you would not want them to do to you. Universal salvation does sound good, but the Bible does mostly teach annihilation or total destruction. They will be remembered no more. God has impressed on me that He is a God of absolute Justice. Only with Jesus can we be forgiven. Because He paid the price for us. Even that Jesus had to die a painful death on the cross shows that God is a God of Justice.

 

[redleghunter]

Comparing fetuses and Jews in WWII is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Perhaps using Nazi Germany as a comparison is not good internet manners.

However the point came across quite clear which some here are not 'getting.' If there is no firm absolute on personhood then any despot, theocracy, etc. can define at will based on their ideology. We have many more examples of the evil application of selective eugenics throughout history. Hitler does not need to be used to make the point.

 

[Hoghead1]

True, the Bible is often seen as preaching annihilation. However, I do not think the Bible is exactly a credible witness here.
Also, it would considerably help here if you would state the pro-abortion arguments, one by one, and then run through them, showing why you consider them irrational, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

I think all this Nazi talk is insensitive and irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps. Yet when discussing subjective moral sets, Hitler's Germany (not just the Nazis) is a valid comparison. But there a quite a few more in history that could be used too.

The issue at hand since you joined the party later, is that if we don't have an absolute definition of 'person' and when exactly that begins, then what we are left with is subjective morals/ethics, particulars, which could be in the hundreds or thousands or just about any individual opinion.

Most of the advocates for allowing abortions here believe it is a personal liberty of the woman to decide. I think we all know that given the arguments in Roe v. Wade. However, what about the distinct human being or life the woman is carrying? Does their right to Life trump the Liberty of the woman? Many here say 'no' and that abortion should be a case by case, woman by woman decision. That would be a most subjective situational moral/ethical approach to life.

Some posters are saying 'wait a minute, if such a subjective situational ethics/morals applies to abortion then what happens when people decide an infant is not a 'person' because they do not have the same awareness as a 2 year old. Or an older person who has Alzheimer's. There are so many philosophical opinions on 'personhood' that some beliefs would curl your hair. One such is Peter Singer. He believes a newborn is not person. He believes infanticide is allowable in some cases. Yes an extreme position, however that extreme position was taken the maximum extreme with nations using genocide to eradicate races, ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations etc. to make a more 'pure' nation or people. All of which can be pointed back to some subjective philosophical position on what constitutes a 'person' a 'human being' and thus conclude some are 'sub-human' or not persons at all. Or are lesser persons but don't deserve to live for the better of society as in population control or inferiority of genetics, health, race, creed, color etc..

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think anyone is addressing the real issue here. The issue is not whether or not the fetus is alive. it vey clearly is alive, period. The question is when does that fetus become a human person, when does it become you?

Indeed and there can be only one answer and not 1,000s to billions.

 

[redleghunter]

True, the Bible is often seen as preaching annihilation. However, I do not think the Bible is exactly a credible witness here.
Also, it would considerably help here if you would state the pro-abortion arguments, one by one, and then run through them, showing why you consider them irrational, etc.

The Bible is not a credible witness for what exactly?

 

[Hoghead1]

Certainly it is true we could have much debate over when do you become you. However, there should be no debate over the fact that the Nazis were not carrying out some subjective moral agenda, but acting in accord with the Reformations principles laid down in Germany by Martin Luther and other raging Christian anti-Semitics. As I said before, everyone should read Luther's "The Jews and their Lies," which makes it very plain that the only difference between Luther and Hitler was that Hitler had the technical means to carry out Luther's ideas.

 

[rjs330]

Certainly it is true we could have much debate over when do you become you. However, there should be no debate over the fact that the Nazis were not carrying out some subjective moral agenda, but acting in accord with the Reformations principles laid down in Germany by Martin Luther and other raging Christian anti-Semitics. As I said before, everyone should read Luther's "The Jews and their Lies," which makes it very plain that the only difference between Luther and Hitler was that Hitler had the technical means to carry out Luther's ideas.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I haven't read Luther's writing you suggested. Does he call for killing all the Jews? Did he kill any Jews?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Indeed and there can be only one answer and not 1,000s to billions.

What's the objective age that you're an adult?

 

[rjs330]

Perhaps. Yet when discussing subjective moral sets, Hitler's Germany (not just the Nazis) is a valid comparison. But there a quite a few more in history that could be used too.

The issue at hand since you joined the party later, is that if we don't have an absolute definition of 'person' and when exactly that begins, then what we are left with is subjective morals/ethics, particulars, which could be in the hundreds or thousands or just about any individual opinion.

Most of the advocates for allowing abortions here believe it is a personal liberty of the woman to decide. I think we all know that given the arguments in Roe v. Wade. However, what about the distinct human being or life the woman is carrying? Does their right to Life trump the Liberty of the woman? Many here say 'no' and that abortion should be a case by case, woman by woman decision. That would be a most subjective situational moral/ethical approach to life.

Some posters are saying 'wait a minute, if such a subjective situational ethics/morals applies to abortion then what happens when people decide an infant is not a 'person' because they do not have the same awareness as a 2 year old. Or an older person who has Alzheimer's. There are so many philosophical opinions on 'personhood' that some beliefs would curl your hair. One such is Peter Singer. He believes a newborn is not person. He believes infanticide is allowable in some cases. Yes an extreme position, however that extreme position was taken the maximum extreme with nations using genocide to eradicate races, ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations etc. to make a more 'pure' nation or people. All of which can be pointed back to some subjective philosophical position on what constitutes a 'person' a 'human being' and thus conclude some are 'sub-human' or not persons at all. Or are lesser persons but don't deserve to live for the better of society as in population control or inferiority of genetics, health, race, creed, color etc..

Yes and this is why I turned this debate into whether or not the baby in the womb is a human being. And if not when does it become a human being? If it is a human being then abortion is midweek and all the arguments of what if the mother was raped or what if the,mother was victim of incest or what if the mother was 10, go by the wayside. All those arguments are irrelevant. If the baby is a human then killing it is murder regardless of the what ifs. If it is murder then the mother and doctor should be tried for it.

Now one could argue for the mental state of the mother at the time. A 10 year old really doesn't have the mental state prerequisite. A woman who was raped may not be in the proper mental state to make such a decision. Mitigating circumstances according to the law. The doctor however has no such excuse.

 

[Desk trauma]

Does he call for killing all the Jews?

In his book On the Jews and Their Lies he laid out a seven point plan:

• to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;

• to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;

• for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;

• for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;

• to offer no protection to Jews on highways;

• for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and

• to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I believe there is. Personally I believe that the developing fetus becomes a person only when it is able to survive outside the womb.

My view is that a developing fetus becomes a person when it is able to survive inside the womb!

 

[Dokkush]

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 

[JoeP222w]

What should have been the solution? The Hebrews were no longer welcome in Germany. The people did not want them there. No one else wanted them. In fact why not answer the issue we have today with the Syrian refugees, sense it is the exact same situation. We do not want them here in American because some of the refugees are terrorists and people who want to bring about Armageddon. We are talking about problem people from other areas of the world. What about our own problem people here in this country. Perhaps your answer is to do NOTHING. But according to the Bible sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission. If you think your safe to do nothing, then your wrong and your just as guilty as the people who get out and try to do something to solve the issues and the problems. I assume your answer is to just let them die from starvation at the train station and take them out and bury them from there.

You don't murder people because you don't want them in your country. If you believe that, you are just as evil as the Nazis.

I have no problem with refugees coming to the USA, but with proper screening, examining what they have with them. Not all Syrians are terrorists. And if they break the laws of the USA, they go to jail under US laws.

And it is not comparable (the Syrians) to the Jews in the 1930's and 40's. Many of the Jews were citizens of Germany. They were not refugees.