Jesus was pro-abortion....

[JLovesUSo]

Lynn,

IMO,I think you get real close to the blasphemy thing when you start stating the "WWJD" part of your statement. 

We have quoted scripture after scripture showing God would not be in favor or support pro-choices issue in any way.  So if you say you want to follow the word, then IMO you're gonna have to present a scripture that supports your thesis. Otherwise, these are your views and beliefs - not God's and/or Jesus'. 

I'd personally love to see you stand before Jesus and make the case to Him that He should be (or is) pro-choice  - I'd pay admission to see for that one for sure!

edit: allthough I do agree with you that Jesus would reach out to the mothers in love to help them and we should too - I totally disagree that he would do anything but tell these mothers that He loves them and will be with them continually to bless this new life.

There are consequences to our sins, and I can never see the consequence being to punish the innocent child for something someone(s) else did wrong.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 05:19 PM JLovesUSo said this in Post #81 IMO,I think you get real close to the blasphemy thing when you start stating the "WWJD" part of your statement. 

Well, then, will you say that to those on the other side of this issue?  If not, why not?  There should not be a double standard.  If they can state they believe their position is based on faith in Christ, why not me?  How dare you apply a double standard?  Political correctness is a cancer.  Shame. 

We have quoted scripture after scripture

Are you more than one person?  If not do not claim to speak for others.  Any attempt to assert you are the majority is mere bullying, which is of course the favorite tactic of clinic protestors when they're not bombing clinics or shooting doctors and staff.

 showing God would not be in favor or support pro-choices issue in any way

I can categorically assert that you most certainly have not done what you claim to have done here.  There is no verse that reads "thou shall not have an abortion" and any conjecturing you do is just crawfishin'. 

  So if you say you want to follow the word, then IMO you're gonna have to present a scripture that supports your thesis. Otherwise, these are your views and beliefs - not God's and/or Jesus'. 

No one else can argue the other position with the alleged authority you claim.  The Bible is deafeningly silent on abortion.  Read it and weep, friend.   

I'd personally love to see you stand before Jesus and make the case to Him that He should be (or is) pro-choice   - I'd pay admission to see for that one for sure!

If your view of an afterlife is one in which that would be a possibility you have more problems than your wrongheadedness on this issue IMO.  Assuming such were so I'd be glad to have my handlers make that happen, but you're rather off in never-never land here, now, aren't you? 

FWIW I believe both those  who support a woman's right to choose and those who do not perform a role in God's plans though it is often as difficult for me to see that regarding one side as it is for you to see the other. 


 

 

[supermagdalena]

[/QUOTE]How dare you apply a double standard?  [/QUOTE]

Sorry...but that cracked me up.

Are you more than one person?  If not do not claim to speak for others.  Any attempt to assert you are the majority is mere bullying, which is of course the favorite tactic of clinic protestors when they're not bombing clinics or shooting doctors and staff.

Um, first of all, your'e making a major generalization there, saying that all people against abortion bomb clinics and shoot people...most of us don't even publicly protest, because we're not into humiliatation.  Some of us do actually care about the women.  Stop generalizing all pro-choice "bigots", ok?  Honestly, it discredits you.

Second of all, I just quoted scripture, which you never responded to.  Doesn't Biblical evidence mean one thing to you?  This time, respond instead of ignoring me.

Exodus 21:22-25:
<I>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. <B>But if there is a serious injury</B>, you are to <B>take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.</B> </I>

&nbsp;

 

[Texas Lynn]

"Some years ago at ameeting of the American Society of Christian Ethics, a workshop was confronted with the case of a three-year-old child and an 18 week fetus, both with a dread disease for which there was only one injection of medicine in Chicago. The Chicago airports had been shut down by a blizzard, preventing the doctors from obtaining more of the medicine. we unanimously concluded that the child should get the injection. The moral difference is that the child is among us in a way that the fetus is not. the child's claim is based on relationship rather than on a legal point of birth." -from Compulsory Pregnancy by Rev. John L. Swomley.

 

[supermagdalena]

You're still ignoring my verse...You're still concentrating on the small percentage of dire cases. No more about Iran, no more about choice between two people, no more about rape cases. let's talk about the majoirty of cases where a woman sleeps around, gets pregnant, and aborts the baby simply because she doesn't want it.

And respond to the scripture, already.

 

[Evening Mist]

let's talk about the majoirty of cases where a woman sleeps around, gets pregnant, and aborts the baby simply because she doesn't want it.

First of all, how do you know that this is the majority of the cases?
Second of all, no case is this simple. You don't know what goes on in these women's personal lives, and it is not you business to judge the gravity of their situation.

 

[jseek21]

Yesterday at 07:19 PM Texas Lynn said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=701803#post701803)



Wow!&nbsp; So was that one of your friends shouting sexual and racial epithets with me and my friend when we went to a planned parenthood clinic where she got a depo-provera shot?



Randall Terry and Flip Benham are proto-fascists;&nbsp; Terry even advocates a return to what he calls "Biblical Slavery".&nbsp; As for the more politically oriented they do not condemn doctor murders and clinic attacks.&nbsp; Indeed, one who's wanted by the FBI for this type of terrorism, Eric Rudolph, &nbsp;is allegedly being hidden by so-called "Pro-lifers".

About birth control and abortion, I have seen anti-aborts state opposition to any form of birth control that prevents fetal implantation, which are a lot of them.&nbsp; They oppose the "Morning-After Pills".&nbsp; They oppose international family planning and condom distribution.&nbsp;&nbsp;



IMO the hatred spewed by anti-abort groups shows they have a long way to go here.



Pro-choice is most assuredly not pro-abortion.&nbsp; There has never been a pro-abortion rally to my knowledge.&nbsp; I am certain when asked 'What would Jesus Do? ' that he would support the pro-choicers cause if he took a position due to the fact it is us and not the other side that honors these troubled women with unwanted pregnancies.&nbsp; I certainly do not doubt that I honor God when I support pro-choice one iota.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Actually I do not know those who were yelling obsenities at you. The groups I work with do not use such tactics, they do not use liberal tactics, nor should any Christian. By asserting that I am aligned with such a person shows much about your character.

Secondly, you once again quote a minority in the pro-choicers. Let me ask you this: Timothy McVey claimed to be working in the name and interests of America when he blew up the Murrah building. Does his assertion align all Americans with him? By no means! Yet you seek to do the same. Here's a better question: Because you are pro-choice does that automatically align you with the minority of pro-choicers who believe that we should force abortions upon couples after their second child? Of course not! I would never accuse you of such, in fact any educated person would not because these do not apply, and by doing such makes the antagonist lose their credibility. Yet this is what you seek to do.

By becoming pro-choice, whether you agree with abortion or not, aligns you with the abortionists and makes you purjure yourself before the world. If I was an accountant and my largest account was a strip club, it does not matter what my views are on it, the world sees me say Christ and take the strip club's money and sees hypocrisy. When Abraham was offered riches from the king of Sodom he did not take them because they were ill-gotten and if he did he would align himself with sinful men. This is the same thing you do when you align yourself with abortionists.

You did not answer my question: it comes down to this, "Thou shalt not murder." Do you support murder?

I pray that God will open your eyes.

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan

 

[supermagdalena]

Do an internet search, sweetie. Sites from both sides and from a neutral viewpoint that have statistics will say that about 1% of abortions are due to rape. It's a rare thing.

Most women just don't want the baby. You seriously believe that the majority of abortions are due to rape or danger to the mother?

SOMEONE REPLY TO THE VERSE. Please. Just because you ignore something odesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Evening Mist]

No Supermagdala, I have a fairly good idea of what the statistics are. What I am saying is that througout this thread you have consistantly undermined and trivialized the experience of motherhood and the seriousness with which women take their decisions. You have painted a characature of a woman, based on sterotypes, who is loose, immature, irresponsible, ruthlessly self-centered, and without remores. And then you are attacking this fictional person you have made. This is a terrific way to attack people, but it is not a useful way to connect with or deal with real people who have real problems. I humbly put forth that Jesus is more concerned about the relationships we establish with people, and the fashion in which we connect with them.

 

[jseek21]

I hope we are reading the same things. Supermagdalena is not painting a stereotype of all women, but showing what happens with some. And men are as much to blame. I think that she says more about our culture than about individuals.

And Jesus did support our relationships. Yet the two greatest commandments, "Love your God with all you heart, and then love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[Texas Lynn]

9th March 2003 at 10:16 PM supermagdalena said this in Post #76 Exodus 21:22-25: 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. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Swomley, op cit., addresses this passage thus:&nbsp; "It is obvious from this passage that the men whose fighting had caused the woman to miscarry were not regarded as murderers because they had not not killed the woman.&nbsp; The woman, undeniably, had greater moral and religious worth than the fetus." (p. 61)

He also addresses another passage, Numbers 5:11-31, which he says "indicates that if a husand suspects his wife is pregnant by another man, the 'husband shall bring his wife to the priest' who shall mix a drink intended to make her confess or be threatened with termination of the pregnancy if she has been unfaithful to her husband."&nbsp; That one is clearly more damaging to the anti-aborts' emotionalistic flight from reality;&nbsp; it clearly states that a husband may impose an involuntary abortion on his wife if he suspects the fetus is not the product of his loins.&nbsp; &nbsp;

 

[seebs]

It is very interesting that miscarriage is not "serious injury".

It occurs to me, in retrospect, that there's a very strong Scriptural basis for treating the start of life as birth - the soul is described as the "breath of life". So, perhaps anything which isn't breathing isn't yet a "person"? Certainly, birth was when life started during Biblical times; no one felt otherwise about it.

I personally think this was a limit of our understanding, and we know now about the formation of babies enough to say with reasonable confidence that a fetus becomes a "person" somewhat before birth, but I can find no Scriptural or scientific basis for putting "personhood" at conception.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 01:45 AM jseek21 said this in Post #87

Actually I do not know those who were yelling obsenities at you. The groups I work with do not use such tactics

I've seen it in person and I've seen videotape.&nbsp; It's well documented as a frequent tactic.&nbsp; It was because of things like this Congress passed The Free Access to Clinics Act.

&nbsp;they do not use liberal tactics

Whatever the heck that is

By asserting that I am aligned with such a person shows much about your character.

Dude, you yourself said you were aligned with these groups, I'm only stating what it has been documented that they do.&nbsp; Read it and weep, friend.&nbsp; It's the truth.&nbsp;

By becoming pro-choice, whether you agree with abortion or not, aligns you with the abortionists and makes you purjure yourself before the world.

??? No Sir, It aligns me with the oppressed women of the world and against their oppressors.&nbsp; A most appropriate place for a Christian to be!

&nbsp;You did not answer my question: it comes down to this, "Thou shalt not murder." Do you support murder?

You cannot, either Biblically or logically, provide evidence abortion is murder except&nbsp;by putting forth irrational emotionalism based on nothing more than "I feel it's wrong", so it's a false syllogism of the 'when did you stop beating your wife' type.&nbsp;

I pray that God will open your eyes.

Remove the log from thine own eye before you worry about the speck in mine, Bro.

 

[jon1101]

Lynn, when did I become a human person? Where do you draw the line and based on what?

-jon

 

[jseek21]

Cultures can be judged in many ways, but eventually every nation in every age must be judged by this test: how did it treat people?

There is a thinkable and an unthinkable in every era, and it's predecessor always believes the provious unthinkable to be thinkable. So is today. What we regard as thinkable and unthinkable about how we treat human life has changed drastically in the West. For centuaries, western culture has held human life and the quality of life as special. It has been common to speak of the "sanctity of life."

It is not the specific issues which cause the whole, but the view which spurs on the degeneration of mankind. It is the humanistic viewpoint; the view that makes man "the measure of all things." It puts man rather than Gid at the center of all things. And not man as a whole, but the individual man's idea, pleasure, and satisfaction.

Recently a generation has arisen that has taken these theories out of the lab and classroom and into the streets. Its members have carried the reduction of the value of human beings into everyday life. Suddenly we find ourselves in a more consistent but uglier world - more consistent because people are taking a low view of man to its natural conclusion, and uglier because humanity is drastically dehumanized.

From this dehumanization comes forth many things: physical and sexual abuse, child abuse, incest, abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, homocide, and the like.

We live in an era of child abuse. Although the popular culture pretends to consider child abuse a terrible thing, the worst form of child abuse is legally and socially acceptable, namely, abortion. It is the vocation of parents to care for their children, not to kill them.

One of the most pervasive parts of the dehumanization of human is the sin of abortion. Consider the following statistic: while 5,000 died in the same hour on Sept. 11, roughly 4,000 abortions per day, totaling 40 million, have taken place in the U.S. since 1973, the year of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Again, lest anyone think I’m being anti-American, the same source reports that in developed nations—consisting primarily of the Western democracies—there are about 27,720 abortions per day.

It is right that we should mourn the deaths that occurred on Sept. 11 in such shocking fashion—but should we mourn less for the great number of babies who are murdered daily?


Ironically, one pro-life writer has said this:

‘Domestic terrorism.’
‘A brutal, cowardly act of murder.’
‘Mass murder.’
‘A national conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism.’
These are perfect descriptions of what abortion is.

Indeed, Western society is guilty of its own brand of terrorism. And I find it strange that oftentimes I hear Christians discussing abortion or other cultural sins, and they won’t hesitate to suggest that eventually God’s going judge our society for such things.

Professor John Noonan summarized a post-abortion culture this way,
"By virtue of its opinions, human life has less protection in the West today than at any time in history."

Also, is it not logical that if one can legally kill a child a few months before birth, one should not feel too bad for roughing him up a bit after he is born? People who are arrested for child abuse must feel that the system is a little unfair that they can be arrested for beating thier child when he is a month old, yet people can kill their children a month before they are born. and go scott free - infact, have society's approval!

At what point in time can we consider a life worthless and a life worth saving? At twenty-one days after conception, the first heartbeats start. At fourty-five, brain waves can be recorded. By the ninth week thyroid and adrenal glands function. The baby can squint, swallow, and move its tongue. Sex hormones are present. By twelve weeks he has fingernails, sucks his thumb, and will recoil from pain (which is why children struggle for freedom during an abortion). His fingerprints, our society's recongnition of an individual human being, are formed. In the fourth month he is ten inches long, and strengthening begins. Hair begins to grow, the mother can feel his movements. In the sixth month the baby responds to light and sound. He can survive outside the womb now.

At which point do we decide this is a child worth saving and this is a child left to die?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 08:22 PM jseek21 said this in Post #95
From this dehumanization comes forth many things: physical and sexual abuse, child abuse, incest, abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, homocide, and the like.

Another unprovable slippery slope argument, useful only in creating confusion.

We live in an era of child abuse.

Actually every era is an era of child abuse.&nbsp; This era is considerably less so than previously but sometimes seems otherwise because of mass media.&nbsp; Except in places like Sudan and Sri Lanka, child slavery is a thing of the past.&nbsp; In America there are all sorts of checks on the safety of post-birth children.

Ironically while organizations fighting child and spouse abuse like the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) are pro-choice, anti-abortion groups often condone physical punishment of children that leaves bruises and various conservative churches encourage members under investigation for child abuse to not cooperate with the authorities.

John Noonan summarized a post-abortion culture this way, "By virtue of its opinions, human life has less protection in the West today than at any time in history."

Ridiculous.&nbsp; By using hyperbole he's making an appeal to emotion, that's all.&nbsp;

Also, is it not logical that if one can legally kill a child a few months before birth, one should not feel too bad for roughing him up a bit after he is born?

See above comment.&nbsp; Another red herring.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 07:02 PM Cancer To Iniquity said this in Post #94

Lynn, when did I become a human person? Where do you draw the line and based on what?&nbsp;

What do you think?

Today's papers had stories re:&nbsp; Congress considering late term abortion ban.&nbsp; I would have no problem supporting such if a provision is included providing an exception for the life and health of the mother.&nbsp; This is what President Clinton had asked for and the Congress refused, so, rightfully, he vetoed it twice.&nbsp; We know the current President is not going to do that, he needs something to shore up his base as the economy's going south.&nbsp; However, the federal bill is using the same language as the Nebraska law that was overturned by the courts due to its vagueness, so if it passes and becomes law there's a good chance the courts will overturn it to, correctly.&nbsp; Without that exception the law is merely a club with which to pummel troubled women.&nbsp; Analysis of the nebraska law proved they couldn't define what they wished to prohibit or define reasonable exceptions such as those President Clinton had asked for.

 

[supermagdalena]

Evening Mist, I noticed that I'm the only one you addressed as doing this. First of all, I am not attacking...I'm debating. This is a debate forum, you know, and no one's forcing you to post your opinions. Second, just because I'm the youngest one here doesn't means I am using immature tactics. Please don't single me out just because I'm a teenager. It's slightly immature to do so.

I am not undermining the pain of pregnancy or birth. Want to know something? I have suffered from conditions since I was a preteen that have caused cramps that are the equivalent to labor. I know what it feels like, dear, I know it hurts (except then there was no goal, just pain). I'm not undermining anything except the screaming call of many feminists that because we go through the pain of birth, we deserve more rights than men. I'm all for equality, I'm all for appreciation. I'm not for no rules.

It aligns me with the oppressed women of the world and against their oppressors.

Another battle call of "Me. Everyone's out to get me." Most pro-choicers don't wake up in the morning and say, "hey! let's go oppress women today." That's not hardly anyone's goal or dream, and you're still generalizing.

 

[jon1101]

Today at 02:45 PM Texas Lynn said this in Post #97



What do you think?

I believe that I as a human person&nbsp;was formed at conception because I do not see a viable reason to draw the line any earlier.&nbsp;Now, please answer the question.

Today's papers had stories re:&nbsp; Congress considering late term abortion ban.&nbsp; I would have no problem supporting such if a provision is included providing an exception for the life and health of the mother.&nbsp; This is what President Clinton had asked for and the Congress refused, so, rightfully, he vetoed it twice.&nbsp; We know the current President is not going to do that, he needs something to shore up his base as the economy's going south.&nbsp; However, the federal bill is using the same language as the Nebraska law that was overturned by the courts due to its vagueness, so if it passes and becomes law there's a good chance the courts will overturn it to, correctly.&nbsp; Without that exception the law is merely a club with which to pummel troubled women.&nbsp; Analysis of the nebraska law proved they couldn't define what they wished to prohibit or define reasonable exceptions such as those President Clinton had asked for.

Before discussing this particular issue, can we mutually agree that a third trimester fetus is a human person?

-jon

 

[Texas Lynn]

Today at 10:12 PM Cancer To Iniquity said this in Post #99 I believe that I as a human person&nbsp;was formed at conception because I do not see a viable reason to draw the line any earlier.&nbsp;Now, please answer the question.

Other than at birth or just prior to it I see no clear unambiguous answer.

Before discussing this particular issue, can we mutually agree that a third trimester fetus is a human person?&nbsp;

You and I cannot.