Pro-Choice IS NOT Pro-Abortion

[Tetra]

Reference, please.

This was addressed by @JackRT in post #23... and I would be in agreement:

Based on Exodus 21:

Exodus 21: 22 If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. 23 But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


If this passage be read in it's complete historical context, what we learn is that in the case of an accidentally induced abortion (the fetus is dead) then the father has a right to financial compensation for future loss of income. However if the mother is killed, it becomes a far more serious offense. The death of the fetus is clearly not regarded as seriously as the mother's death.

Pro-Choice IS NOT Pro-Abortion

 

[Archivist]

Apparently you're not. Laws are made by politicians. Since you're using a "legal" definition (that is found nowhere in God's Word), you're letting politicians decide for you what is moral.

Actually the term I used is an old Common Law principle, not a law made by politicians. Perhaps you should learn your history.

 

[-V-]

Actually the term I used is an old Common Law principle, not a law made by politicians. Perhaps you should learn your history.

Really gotta split hairs there, huh? Fine, you're letting "old common law principles" determine your morality, rather than God's Word.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

First of all I disagree on you with "in being" in regards to how it was used. Existence was a more proper word to use there. Also I like how you finally admit your posistion. You don't believe life happens until birth so you're against the biblical posistion of god knowing us before he formed us. Of god having a purpose for forming everything and declaring the ends at the beginning

Please notice, "before formed," means was/is NOTHING of womb contents.

GOD'S KNOWING is of everything forever - hence that a prophet would be born, etc. etc..
Does not mean something was in fact other than it actually is, has nothing to do with the existence of a person or fetus.

 

[-V-]

This was addressed by @JackRT in post #23... and I would be in agreement:
Based on Exodus 21:

The passage reads:
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,"

First, we have a premature birth, NOT a miscarriage. Second, it says "life for life" - it does NOT say "life for the woman's life", just "life for life". So if the baby is killed, sounds like the assailant is guilty of murder.

 

[Rajni]

1. Adam's creation.This is irrelevant because Adam was a special case of creation. No one else was made by the same method.

It was still breath that kick-started his becoming a living soul. Though part of me is still very open to the notion that souls pre-exist their physical bodies; "Before you were born, I knew you", that sort of thing. I'm of the mind that we are not our bodies; our bodies are just the costumes, so to speak, which we wear for the purposes of a particular term spent on earth.

2. Ezekiel 37.

That's *really* a stretch to claim that has anything to do with when a baby becomes alive. It's a symbolic vision. Do babies form bones-first, and then after that, muscles grow, and then lastly, skin over that? No. That's not how it works at all.

It doesn't negate the breath=life connection, however. The line between the two is (to me, anyway -- you know how these things go ) very clear (which is why I shared it, naturally ).

3. Job 34.First, Job is *poetry*.

I'll have to remember that the next time someone tries to convict me of some moral standpoint using Job as support for their position. I'll just tell them that Job's just poetry, so we can ignore the implications within its passages.

Second, taking someone's breath until they're dead doesn't prove unborn babies aren't alive until they breath.

Hmmm... somehow, I think it does. Again, breath seems to be the deciding factor.

You can also deprive someone of water until they die. Therefore, since water is needed to support life, we can morally kill newborn babies who haven't yet had anything to drink, right?

Well, since the bible is supposedly the final say in these things for many pro-lifers, where does it say that the drinking of water is where life begins, rather than (or even alongside; it says a lot of things, after all) conception and/or breath?

Lastly, unborn babies *DO BREATHE*. They simply do it through the umbilical cord rather than through their lungs.

Eh, perhaps, in that they receive oxygenated blood through it, but it doesn't really illustrate the start of life in the ways the bible illustrates.

 

[Archivist]

Really gotta split hairs there, huh? Fine, you're letting "old common law principles" determine your morality, rather than God's Word.

First, you were the one who initially said that I was relying on laws made by politicians. I am not. I guess you can't admit when you are wrong.

Second, this is an area upon which Christians can and do disagree. Scripture is not clear on the issue; it isn't a matter of not letting God's Word determine morality.

Third, I have already said in this thread that were I am woman I would not have an abortion except in the case of rape or incest or if my life was in danger. However, it isn't up to me to force my views of others.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

Pro-choice is not in any way synonymous with pro-abortion. All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival. It is not advocating for abortion over birth, if it was, it would be called pro-abortion. I'm not going to deny that there are extremist people, or that part of the more extreme side advocate for removing the stigma and shame surrounding abortion, but that is still not the same thing as believing women should have an abortion over giving birth.

A person can be pro-choice and anti-abortion, and many pro-choice people are including myself. In fact, if you personally believe that a woman should be allowed the option to have an abortion only in very specific circumstances, you are technically pro-choice. According to Gallop, while 46% of Americans would identify as pro-life, only 19% think it should be illegal in all circumstances, the majority opinion being "a few circumstances" at 35%. Unless you are in that 19%, you are pro-choice to some degree.

That's one of the many reasons why I don't like talking about this issue, but I felt the need to make this thread because I am tired of being accused of being pro-abortion because I am pro-choice. The reality is yes I'm pro-choice, but I hate abortion and want it to end, or at least become almost non-existent. Personally, I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!". The reason why I have ended up calling myself pro-choice for now is that desperate women with no options and their backs against the wall will go to any length necessary to end her pregnancy. The way it looks to get that done right now is what pro-choice side supports and strives for: better sex education, as well as easier, better, and cheaper access to birth control and other women's healthcare services.

As a Christian, it is not your body. You belong to God. You were bought at a price. We are not allowed to use our bodies for immorality, or murder.
Secondly, if you are for the murdering of children under any circumstance, you are pro-abortion.
What if the unborn child is a female? Where is her right to life?
Exodus 23:7 - Stay far away from a false charge, and do n’t kill the innocent or the righteous, because I won’t acquit the guilty

 

[Tetra]

The passage reads:
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,"

First, we have a premature birth, NOT a miscarriage. Second, it says "life for life" - it does NOT say "life for the woman's life", just "life for life". So if the baby is killed, sounds like the assailant is guilty of murder.

Incorrect, prematurely here also can mean miscarriage... feel free to hop on Bible Gateway and confirm the footnotes:


It seems it's also in line with commentaries on this passage:
From Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
"(22-25) A personal injury peculiar to women—a hurt producing miscarriage—is here considered. The miscarriage might cost the woman her life, in which case the man who caused it was to suffer death (Exodus 21:23); or it might have no further ill result than the loss of the child. In this latter case the penalty was to be a fine, assessed by the husband with the consent of the judge (Exodus 21:22). The death penalty, where the woman died, is clearly excessive, and probably belongs to the pre-Mosaic legislation, which required “life for life” in every case."

 

[Lulav]

This thread is being closed
for Staff review.
Please stand by.....​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a clean.
A great many flaming posts were removed. In particular, please note this CF rule:​

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[-V-]

Incorrect, prematurely here also can mean miscarriage...

Notes from the NET translation:

This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration.

Source: Exodus 21

Note that it says "no serious injury." Again, it does NOT specify injury "to the woman", so why not think it includes serious injury to the baby? Death goes well beyond "serious injury", so there's no reason to view this as being about miscarriage.

 

[Monna]

TX_Matt said: ↑

All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right [to] choose what to do with her body,



How far are you willing to go with this argument?

Apply it to other aspects of a woman's life, and test whether or not you really do want to hold to it. If you conclude that there is even one area of life in which a woman (or a man for that matter) does not have exclusive right to do as s/he pleases with her/his body or any part thereof, then the basis of the entire argument falls apart.

 

[Archivist]

TX_Matt said: ↑

All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right [to] choose what to do with her body,

How far are you willing to go with this argument?

Apply it to other aspects of a woman's life, and test whether or not you really do want to hold to it. If you conclude that there is even one area of life in which a woman (or a man for that matter) does not have exclusive right to do as s/he pleases with her/his body or any part thereof, then the basis of the entire argument falls apart.

However if you have read the Roe opinion you know that it does not give a woman a blank check in chosing what to do with her body. Roe held that the right to privacy must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Hence states can ban third-trimester abortions so long as they allow exceptions for the life or health of the pregnant woman.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This thread will remain permanently closed due to ongoing issues and two mod hats and cleans.

MOD HAT OFF​