Why are Christians generally opposed to abortion?

[rjs330]

Capital punishment is murder, the deliberate taking of a human life. Not like abortion where there is no walking talking seeing breathing life.

The god of the OT enjoyed a bit of mass killing and murder, bit i thought Jesus put that all behind him? Thankfully god now does not intervene in the world to kill the unbelievers, mind you I wish he would intervene in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and other places of conflict but he's given up direct intervention.

Well as you pointed out Christians define murder based upon a foundational document. Whereas you appear to define murder based upon your own whim which is not supported by law in any sense. The law defines murder. The taking of a life in the name of Justice is not murder by any definition of society. It's merely an opinion.

The taking of the life of a baby in a womb is in conflict with God's laws and also the laws of man. How so you might ask. In most states if some kills a baby in a mother's womb without the mothers permission it is considered murder. Then the law contradicts itself and says if the mother gives permission the life of the baby may be taken. It's all very hypocritical. Either the baby is a life or it is not. It cannot be both life and not life at the same time. Would you support a changing of the law to allow someone to kill a baby in a mother's womb without her permission and not have it called murder?

 

[rjs330]

Not true, I've travelled to Africa and to the middle east and I've seen the pressure put in the environment by human population growth, it's a fact.

Now as a liberal I wold not ever suggest mass murder or forced anything and your leap of logic if frankly preposterous. Personal choice and responsibility backed up by education and targeted aid, that's my suggestion.

Mind you Mr. Trump seems to be aiming for a bit of population thinning in korea and surrounding areas.

It's not preposterous at all. You have got to be honest and admit that there is no way that education is going to save the planet when it comes to population. People KNOW it's bad to pollute and kill, but they do it any way. What of the human nature tells you that education will in any way change mankind's propensity to do wrong? We have laws about everything but people still ignore them and do wrong. It's extremely naive to think education will stop this. If things are as desperate as you say then we must do something now. But you know this. That's why you are not willing to do what is necessary because you really don't believe it.

Just like All Gore doesn't really believe we are destroying the planet either.

 

[Dave RP]

Just how long do we have left before we destroy the planet?

I appreciate your sarcasm, thanks for that. Well I would say that in 50 -75 years at the current rate of population growth, climate change and erosion of natural resources the world will look a much worse place than now. I'm not an expert, I just use my eyes and look around me, I use common sense to see what is happening and o don't have belief that god will make it all ok. Only humanity can do that. Perhaps rather than throwing sarcastic barbs, you might look at some independent research and see then what is happening to the planet that the god you follow gave to us for safe keeping. Then you might decide to do something positive. Maybe?

 

[Dave RP]

Well as you pointed out Christians define murder based upon a foundational document. Whereas you appear to define murder based upon your own whim which is not supported by law in any sense. The law defines murder. The taking of a life in the name of Justice is not murder by any definition of society. It's merely an opinion.

The taking of the life of a baby in a womb is in conflict with God's laws and also the laws of man. How so you might ask. In most states if some kills a baby in a mother's womb without the mothers permission it is considered murder. Then the law contradicts itself and says if the mother gives permission the life of the baby may be taken. It's all very hypocritical. Either the baby is a life or it is not. It cannot be both life and not life at the same time. Would you support a changing of the law to allow someone to kill a baby in a mother's womb without her permission and not have it called murder?

Nope. I continue to believe in free choice. The death penalty is state sponsored murder, what happens when someone is executed then exonerated, is that not murder?

On abortion we will never agree, that's fair enough but as a follower of a religion that is all about forgiveness and redemption I'm shocked and saddened that anyone of that faith could justify state sponsored murder.

 

[Dave RP]

It's not preposterous at all. You have got to be honest and admit that there is no way that education is going to save the planet when it comes to population. People KNOW it's bad to pollute and kill, but they do it any way. What of the human nature tells you that education will in any way change mankind's propensity to do wrong? We have laws about everything but people still ignore them and do wrong. It's extremely naive to think education will stop this. If things are as desperate as you say then we must do something now. But you know this. That's why you are not willing to do what is necessary because you really don't believe it.

Just like All Gore doesn't really believe we are destroying the planet either.

Utter rubbish. Education particularly of women has reduced the birth rate in every country where it has been introduced. Education and free contraception will reduce the birth rate to stability. Then the use of renewable energy will help to reduce global warming, finally we need a new economic model which doesn't require permanent growth caused by rising population. If you think any sane human being would want to reduce population growth by genocide, you must be either very naive or just deliberately provocative.

 

[Strathos]

We can't physically destroy the planet.

We can't destroy all life on the planet.

We probably couldn't even kill every last human being on the planet.

But we could kill the majority of them and make life terrible for the rest.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. I continue to believe in free choice. The death penalty is state sponsored murder, what happens when someone is executed then exonerated, is that not murder?

On abortion we will never agree, that's fair enough but as a follower of a religion that is all about forgiveness and redemption I'm shocked and saddened that anyone of that faith could justify state sponsored murder.

No justification here. Just pointing out facts. Pointing out the fact that the Bible does not prohibit capitol punishment. Your argument is with God not me. The NT also does not demand it. There is no command in the New Covenant that we must or should use capitol punishment. The New Covenant is neutral on the subject. And so am I. I have no issue with no capitol punishment. Throwing someone in jail for the remainder if their natural life is plenty in my opinion. Capitol punishment is not necessary.

It still is interesting that you abhor the idea of possibly killing an innocent man, but have no problem with killing an innocent baby.

Whereas I don't want to kill either one.

 

[rjs330]

Utter rubbish. Education particularly of women has reduced the birth rate in every country where it has been introduced. Education and free contraception will reduce the birth rate to stability. Then the use of renewable energy will help to reduce global warming, finally we need a new economic model which doesn't require permanent growth caused by rising population. If you think any sane human being would want to reduce population growth by genocide, you must be either very naive or just deliberately provocative.

Well you are so worried about over population and how that is killing the planet. But yet you have no idea how long we have to do something before we destroy everything due to over population. Since the population growth is lessened by the education you mention we must not be in such dire straights. You made it sound like we had to do something now before it's too late. Yet you never said when too late is or how long we have or how much more growth we can sustain or how much we need to reduce our population.

Population is Not the Problem « Constructing Sustainability

It's all such hooey really. We are not destroying our planet.

 

[Dave RP]

No justification here. Just pointing out facts. Pointing out the fact that the Bible does not prohibit capitol punishment. Your argument is with God not me. The NT also does not demand it. There is no command in the New Covenant that we must or should use capitol punishment. The New Covenant is neutral on the subject. And so am I. I have no issue with no capitol punishment. Throwing someone in jail for the remainder if their natural life is plenty in my opinion. Capitol punishment is not necessary.

It still is interesting that you abhor the idea of possibly killing an innocent man, but have no problem with killing an innocent baby.

Whereas I don't want to kill either one.

Wrong again, I've never advocated killing babies. A baby is a person alive outside the mother.

 

[Dave RP]

Well you are so worried about over population and how that is killing the planet. But yet you have no idea how long we have to do something before we destroy everything due to over population. Since the population growth is lessened by the education you mention we must not be in such dire straights. You made it sound like we had to do something now before it's too late. Yet you never said when too late is or how long we have or how much more growth we can sustain or how much we need to reduce our population.

Population is Not the Problem « Constructing Sustainability

It's all such hooey really. We are not destroying our planet.

Precisely the point I'm making, education and social mobility, health care and birth control are required everywhere. I don't know where you I've or where you've travelled but human populations are doing untold harm to biodiversity in many parts of he world and 3 billion extra people as forecast by the article is a lot. It all might be ok if wealth, technology birth control and education are spread world wide, but still too many countries live in poverty and ignorance. The world is shared, it's not all about humans. That's an astonishingly selfish attitude brought about by this belief that god made us all special as opposed to the thought that everything on the planet has a right to live here.

 

[jayem]

The taking of the life of a baby in a womb is in conflict with God's laws and also the laws of man. How so you might ask. In most states if some kills a baby in a mother's womb without the mothers permission it is considered murder. Then the law contradicts itself and says if the mother gives permission the life of the baby may be taken. It's all very hypocritical.

Legally, it's not hypocritically at all. It's a matter of consent. If a woman consents to have her ears pierced, then the procedure is perfectly legal. But if she's restrained and her ears are pierced against her will, then it's an assault. The outcome is the same in both cases, but one is legal, and one is a crime. I know you're arguing morality. But morality and legality can be entirely different. Another example: Most everyone would agree that the crackpot church that protests military funerals with signs saying "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" is morally abhorrent. But under the law, the Supreme Court ruled it has to tolerated because prohibiting free speech is a greater evil. On abortion, I generally agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than health reasons, rape, or incest is morally suspect. But I also believe that using the police power of the state to criminalize a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor is simply a greater wrong. We don't live in a perfect world. And our laws are secular. Every act that may be sinful according to a particular religious doctrine, can't be made into a crime under civil law.

 

[rjs330]

Legally, it's not hypocritically at all. It's a matter of consent. If a woman consents to have her ears pierced, then the procedure is perfectly legal. But if she's restrained and her ears are pierced against her will, then it's an assault. The outcome is the same in both cases, but one is legal, and one is a crime. I know you're arguing morality. But morality and legality can be entirely different. Another example: Most everyone would agree that the crackpot church that protests military funerals with signs saying "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" is morally abhorrent. But under the law, the Supreme Court ruled it has to tolerated because prohibiting free speech is a greater evil. On abortion, I generally agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than health reasons, rape, or incest is morally suspect. But I also believe that using the police power of the state to criminalize a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor is simply a greater wrong. We don't live in a perfect world. And our laws are secular. Every act that may be sinful according to a particular religious doctrine, can't be made into a crime under civil law.

I see the problem here. I've seen it for sometime now. To you and others who think like you the baby is nothing more than an ear or whatever. Anything but a human being. However the law disagrees when it comes to murdering what's in the mother's womb. Someone who kills the baby could never be charges with murder if the law did not recognize it as a human being. In this case the law DOES recognize it as human. The only time it doesn't is if the mother says it's not. It's hypocritical at best. If it was nothing more than an ear, only the damage done to the mother would be considered. In these cases that is not what happens therefore abortion only panders to mother saying it's okay for her to kill the baby but no one else. It's very messed up.

 

[jayem]

I see the problem here. I've seen it for sometime now. To you and others who think like you the baby is nothing more than an ear or whatever. Anything but a human being.

I'm being redundant, but a human fetus obviously is biologically human. But it's not legally a person. I didn't make that call. The framers of the Constitution did. Nowhere in the original document, or in any of the 27 amendments, is it stated explicitly or even implied, that the unborn are "persons." And that interpretation was confirmed by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. Even the conservative icon, Justice Scalia agreed with that. And even if Roe should be overturned (which I don't see happening--not in my lifetime anyway) the unborn won't be given constitutional rights nationwide. It will be up to each state, and elective abortion will still be legal in at least 12-15 states. The only way to grant Constitutional rights to the unborn nationally is with an amendment. You're entitled to think that's messed up, but that's the law.

 

[Dave RP]

I'm being redundant, but a human fetus obviously is biologically human. But it's not legally a person. I didn't make that call. The framers of the Constitution did. Nowhere in the original document, or in any of the 27 amendments, is it stated explicitly or even implied, that the unborn are "persons." And that interpretation was confirmed by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. Even the conservative icon, Justice Scalia agreed with that. And even if Roe should be overturned (which I don't see happening--not in my lifetime anyway) the unborn won't be given constitutional rights nationwide. It will be up to each state, and elective abortion will still be legal in at least 12-15 states. The only way to grant Constitutional rights to the unborn nationally is with an amendment. You're entitled to think that's messed up, but that's the law.

All true and whilst Americans frequently forget this fact - there are other countries in the world..... not just the USA!

This whole debate will never be resolved, a woman's choice versus the rights of a foetus, it'll forever be a moral dilemma but in my opinion a personal one, not for the state to be involved in.

 

[rjs330]

I'm being redundant, but a human fetus obviously is biologically human. But it's not legally a person. I didn't make that call. The framers of the Constitution did. Nowhere in the original document, or in any of the 27 amendments, is it stated explicitly or even implied, that the unborn are "persons." And that interpretation was confirmed by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. Even the conservative icon, Justice Scalia agreed with that. And even if Roe should be overturned (which I don't see happening--not in my lifetime anyway) the unborn won't be given constitutional rights nationwide. It will be up to each state, and elective abortion will still be legal in at least 12-15 states. The only way to grant Constitutional rights to the unborn nationally is with an amendment. You're entitled to think that's messed up, but that's the law.

Yep it is the law and one I wish was left up to the states. That way if a state did not want to allow the death of babies they could. If others wanted it left as a choice they could. It's a good debate and one that is not going to be resolved forever. I just wish the feds would have stayed out of it, but they didn't. And because of their decision millions of babies have died.

 

[Strathos]

Wrong again, I've never advocated killing babies. A baby is a person alive outside the mother.

'I never killed people, I only killed Jews. Jews aren't people' - says the Nazi.

 

[Dave RP]

'I never killed people, I only killed Jews. Jews aren't people' - says the Nazi.

We have an expression for that kind of pathetic line in England, we would say "wan**r"

You are being deliberately provocative as you know "baby" is a child born from a woman, before birth it is not a baby. But instead of acknowledging a different view you're getting all preposterously argumentative. Fair enough mate, we disagree, but always remember - your revenge is eternal, I'm in eternal damntion.

In England we have a pretty good idea what fighting Nazi's entails and you're a bit wide of the mark.

 

[Strathos]

Just pointing out that it's easy to commit murder if you dehumanize your victims first.

 

[pat34lee]

You are being deliberately provocative as you know "baby" is a child born from a woman, before birth it is not a baby.

There is opinion, and there is truth.

A baby does not become something else because you don't like
to hear it. That is science fact and truth. Just because he or she
is at a different stage in development doesn't make him or her
any less human, or less precious to the mother that wants a child.
A child killed in the womb is no less a dead child than one killed
at any point after birth.

 

[Dave RP]

There is opinion, and there is truth.

A baby does not become something else because you don't like
to hear it. That is science fact and truth. Just because he or she
is at a different stage in development doesn't make him or her
any less human, or less precious to the mother that wants a child.
A child killed in the womb is no less a dead child than one killed
at any point after birth.

Sorry but my opinion differs.