|
|
| Is Abortion Wrong |
| yes |
|
75% |
[ 22 ] |
| no |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| I dont know.... |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:21 pm
 |
|
|
|
In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical.
Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side.
Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus.
Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:52 am
|
|
|
 |
From Religious Tolerance:
Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was "nephesh;" it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as "living soul" in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1 believes that the word's root means "to breath." He argues that during Old Testament times, "Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe."
Genesis 25:21-23 "...Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." The passage refers to the twin fetuses of Rebekah as being "nations." They are clearly not nations at that state of development; the word has to be interpreted symbolically. They are rather two fetuses who were later born and whose descendents -- according to the Bible -- became two nations. The passage also refers to the twin fetuses as "banim:" a Hebrew word which almost always means a "newborns" or "infants," or "children." The ancient Hebrews did not have a separate word to describe "fetuses." So they used the same word to describe fetuses that they also used to refer to children. English translations of the Bible use the term "children" here; this would more accurately be translated as "fetuses" except that the latter primarily a medical term. Again, the passage does not address the main question: are the fetuses full persons, or are they potential persons?
Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the man responsible for Tamar's pregnancy.)
Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods. However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony is not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, or a cash donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity. "...the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies." 2 These passages relate to infanticide, not abortion, because the infant would be killed after birth. But it shows the low regard for newborn humans during that era. Other references of human sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures are found at: Judges 11:29-40: Jephthah promises God that he will make a human sacrifice of the first person who comes to greet him when he returns home after a successful battle. He later ritually sacrifices his only daughter.
I Kings 16:34: This passage may refer to the killing by Hiel of his two children during the reconstruction of Jericho. Excavations there have uncovered the remains of persons who seem to have been sacrificed "to obtain divine favor."
II Kings 16:3: Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice.
II Kings 17:17: The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal.
II Kings 21:6: Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal.
Isaiah 57:5: Isaiah, speaking for the Lord, comments on the practice of the people of Israel in sacrificing their children, "down in the valleys, under overhanging rocks."
Jeremiah 7:31: Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, criticizes the people of Judah for burning "their sons and daughters in the fire."
etc.
Exodus 20:13"You shall not murder." This verse is often mistranslated "Thou shalt not kill." Murder is actually being referred to -- the killing of a human person. Since the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures and the tradition of the Jewish people regarded a human person as beginning at birth when the newborn first takes a breath, this verse would not apply to abortion.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
One source comments that because some Bible translations (KJV, RSV) use the phrase "woman with child" that God considers a fetus to be a human child. 3 But other translations render the phrase simply as "pregnant woman" and make no direct reference to the fetus.
This verse describes a situation in which a man, who is fighting another man, accidentally hits a pregnant woman, and causes a termination of her pregnancy. The following verse, 23, explains that if the woman died, the guilty man would be executed by the state. The accidental killing of a woman under these circumstances was considered a capital offense, because she was a human person.
Verse 22 is confusing. The key Hebrew word "yatsa" literally means to "lose her offspring." 4 This has been translated in different Bible versions as: A miscarriage: This would imply that the fetus died immediately as a direct result of the accident. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that the woman does not die), the man responsible would have to pay at a fine. The amount would be set by her husband and approved by the judges. This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.
premature birth: This implies that the fetus is born earlier than full term. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that neither the woman nor the baby dies) then the man would pay a fine. One possible interpretation of this passage would be that if the premature baby died, then the man responsible had killed a human person, and would be tried for murder. The verse is ambiguous at this point.
The New International Version of the Bible uses the phrase: "gives birth prematurely." and offers "miscarriage" as an alternative translation in a footnote. These two translations result in totally opposite interpretations: one supporting the pro-choice faction; the other supporting the pro-life movement.
Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 5 They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear:
Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: "If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior's daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death."
Hittite Laws, (1.17): "If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver..." The phrase "drives out the embryo" appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: "Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death." 4
Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." Many Old Testament theologians believe that this is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews and Canaanites ritually murdered their first son, sacrificing him to their god.
Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female ten shekels. A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.
Numbers 3:15 Take a census...including every male a month or more old. Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human. Another is that the death rate among newborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child would live until it was at least a month old.
Numbers 5:12-31 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water..... This passage describes a ritual that a husband could force his wife to endure if he suspected that she had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.
Numbers 31:17-18 Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. This occurred at end of the genocidal campaign against the Midianites. Moses, presumably under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin woman. Presumably, a significant percentage of the latter would be pregnant. So, their fetus was killed along with the mother-to-be. The female virgins would be spared, because they were considered to have significent value. The fetuses would be destroyed, presumably because they were perceived to have had no value.
Deuteronomy 2:34 "At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them - men, women and children. We left no survivors." The Israelites tried to negotiate peaceful passage through the land of Heshbon. They were unsuccessful. So, apparently under the instruction of God, they exterminated all of the people, including innocent children. This undoubtedly included killing the fetuses of pregnant women . This is an early example of genocide based on religious belief, not unlike that in Nazi Germany during World War II, and in Bosnia Herzegovina in the 1990s. It demonstrated no regard for the life of the fetuses who were destroyed.
Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." The segment "choose life, that...thy seed may live" at first glance might be interpreted as referring to the choice to not have an abortion. It is even clearer in the Living Bible which says "Choose life, that...your children might live."
It is always important to consider the context of any isolated quotation. Verses 15 to 18 clearly state that the choice referred to in verse 19 is whether to worship either Jehovah, or the gods of the Canaanites, whose land they were about to invade. Verse 20 picks up the same theme. Verse 19 thus relates to religious choices and is unrelated to abortion. However, the "choose life" portion of this verse is often quoted by pro-life groups. Michigan Christians for Life offers a free, 3" x 6" bumper-sticker which says simply "Deuteronomy 30:19." 6 Automobile license plates that carry the "choose life" message are available in several Southern U.S. states, although their constitutionality is suspect.
Deuteronomy 32:23-26: "I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men." God is here describing how he will commit genocide against a specific nation. He will murder of persons of all ages and both genders, from infants to old people. It also involves erasing the memory of them as a nation. Presumably, fetuses would also die during the genocide. But they are not even considered sufficiently important to be mentioned.
2 Kings 2:22-24 This describes Prophet Elisha, a bald man, and his interaction with a group of young boys. They called him by a derisive term: "baldhead." Elisha was angry. In an act of black magic, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Two female bears came out of the woods and mauled (and presumably killed) 42 of the boys. This passage has nothing to do with abortion, but does indicate the low regard that Elisha had towards the life of children (because he issued a curse) and that God had towards the children (because he presumably sent the two bears to kill the boys).
2 Kings 15:16 He [Menahem, king of Israel] sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. He apparently was angry that the people of Tiphsah refused to open the gates of the city. Considering the state of medical sophistication at the time, all of the pregnant women and their fetuses probably died. The king obviously gave no value to the life of a fetus. Yet there was no condemnation of his action.
Job 3:2-4; Job 3:11-19; Job 10:18-19: Here, Job is suffering. God instructed Satan to preserve Job's life while killing his children and destroying everything of value in Job's life, including his health. Job says that it would have been better if he had died at or before birth, so that he would never have experienced such misfortune. This passage seems to imply that a terminated pregnancy is better than bringing into the world a baby who will suffer greatly. It also indicates the low value that God placed on the life of children.
Psalms 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins [formed my inner parts]: thou has covered [formed] me in my mother's womb. Again, this describes Jehovah observing and controlling the development of a fetus during pregnancy. No reference is made to miscarriage or abortion. The passage does not deal with the critical question of whether the fetus is a person. It merely describes how a fetus develops.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 "...But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun." Here, the author talks about acts of oppression and the suffering that this brings to innocent people. The author -- traditionally believed to be Solomon -- appears to refer to an interrupted pregnancy being better than a live birth, if the person born would suffer great injustices and pain.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 If a man begats 100 children...and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say that an untimely birth [a miscarriage] is better than he. The passage implies that a person can have many children and a long life; but if he is not motivated by love and goodness, and if he is not properly buried, then it would have been better if he had not been born alive. The suggestion here is that a terminated pregnancy (one that does not produce a live birth) is better than a pregnancy that produced a life that is empty and miserable.
Isaiah 49:1 "...The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." This apparently means that Jehovah was aware of the author's name before the latter was born. Some people interpret this as implying that God recognizes a fetus as a human person by recognizing its name. Others simply regard this as a indication of God's ability to know future events that have not yet happened.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified [set apart] thee." God is here saying that he knew Jeremiah before he was formed in his mother's womb. That is, God knew Jeremiah before conception, when even the most conservative pro-life advocate believes that human personhood begins. Yahweh appears to be referring to his ability to foretell the future. God had important plans for the adult Jeremiah, a priest of the tribe of Benjamin, even before the latter was conceived. Presumably, an omniscient God would know: when the conception would occur, that a miscarriage would not happen, the time when Jeremiah would be born, the name that the baby would be given, and the important role that Jeremiah would play as an adult. The passage does not appear to be related to the morality of abortion or whether a fetus is human person. But it is often cited in debates over abortion. It merely seems to discuss how God had planned the life of Jeremiah the prophet, before he was even conceived. To say that this passages proves that a fetus is human appears to be faulty logic; the passage would then also say that all ova and sperm are also a human persons before fertilization.
Ezekiel 37:8-10 Ezekiel was taken by the Lord to a valley which contained many dry, human bones. As he was prophesying, the bones came together...tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. After the bodies were reassembled, they looked like humans, but were in fact not alive because they had no breath. He then prophesied and "breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet..." The implication of this passage is that an apparently fully formed human is not a living person until it breathes. This would seem to support the belief that a fetus is not a full human person until it takes its first breath, after birth.
Hosea 13:15-16 I will have no compassion...the people of Samaria...will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open. The people of Samaria had changed their religious belief. God obviously exhibited profound hatred against people who worship another deity, and assigned no value to the fetuses of the pregnant women. Yet those fetuses were innocent of the "crime" of religious conversion. who were obviously not involved in the selection of a new religion.
Matthew 26:24: "...but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." This verse states that it would have been better for any person who betrayed Jesus if he had never been born. The verse might be interpreted as meaning that a terminated pregnancy might be better than a completed pregnancy, if the child's life would be miserable.
Luke 1:15....[John] shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Some translations of the Bible, refer to the time when John was a fetus. Others refer to when John was a newborn; the New International Version uses the phrase "even from birth." The passage in Greek appears to be ambiguous; it might refer to a time during the third trimester when the fetus is viable. At any length, it refers to John' special birth, not necessarily to infants today.
Luke 1:35: "...The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." In this passage, the angels refer to the fetus which Mary will carry as a "thing," not a male person. The gender in the original Greek is neuter. Jesus is only referred to by the title "Son of God" after he is born, presumably after he becomes a person. This is consistent with the traditional Jewish belief that a fetus becomes a full human after it has half-emerged from the mother's birth canal.
This seems to give my position on abortion fairly well. ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:48 pm
|
|
|
|
IcarusDream In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical. Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side. Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus. Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God.
The first arguement is a pretty weak arguement, because, that verse doesn't say God has not problem with abortion.
If God knew us before the beginning of time, does that mean that we were are regarded as NOTHING by him untill the '5th-6th week of pregnancy'?
*Abortion is killing and God DOES have a problem with killing.*
and if abortion is right, then why would God say:
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"
-Deuteronomy 30:19
-"you and your children may live" children both born and not born |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:23 am
|
|
|
|
Icestar03 IcarusDream In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical. Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side. Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus. Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God.
Actually, it does. If God doesn't think fetuses are living persons, abortion is not murder. If abortion is not murder, God would not logically have any problem with it.
Quote: If God knew us before the beginning of time, does that mean that we were are regarded as NOTHING by him untill the '5th-6th week of pregnancy'?
Essentially.
Quote: *Abortion is killing and God DOES have a problem with killing.*
Wait, how do you show that in light of ALLLL the Biblical verses that say he isn't against abortion?
Quote: and if abortion is right, then why would God say: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" -Deuteronomy 30:19 -"you and your children may live" children both born and not born
Eisegesis. God does not say "children born and not born", he says children. To imply he meant fetuses as well is twisting scripture to suit your own ends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:35 pm
|
|
|
|
stopthebanningplease Icestar03 IcarusDream In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical. Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side. Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus. Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God.
Actually, it does. If God doesn't think fetuses are living persons, abortion is not murder. If abortion is not murder, God would not logically have any problem with it.
Quote: If God knew us before the beginning of time, does that mean that we were are regarded as NOTHING by him untill the '5th-6th week of pregnancy'?
Essentially.
Quote: *Abortion is killing and God DOES have a problem with killing.*
Wait, how do you show that in light of ALLLL the Biblical verses that say he isn't against abortion?
Quote: and if abortion is right, then why would God say: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" -Deuteronomy 30:19 -"you and your children may live" children both born and not born
Eisegesis. God does not say "children born and not born", he says children. To imply he meant fetuses as well is twisting scripture to suit your own ends.
Who said that God doesn't think that fetuses are living persons? can you find it in the bible?
and if God regards us as NOTHING untill the 5th-6th week of pregnancy then how come Paul said, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 timothy 1:9)
Not before we were born, but before the world began.
Just wondering... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:41 am
|
|
|
|
Icestar03 stopthebanningplease Icestar03 IcarusDream In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical. Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side. Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus. Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God. Actually, it does. If God doesn't think fetuses are living persons, abortion is not murder. If abortion is not murder, God would not logically have any problem with it. Quote: If God knew us before the beginning of time, does that mean that we were are regarded as NOTHING by him untill the '5th-6th week of pregnancy'? Essentially. Quote: *Abortion is killing and God DOES have a problem with killing.* Wait, how do you show that in light of ALLLL the Biblical verses that say he isn't against abortion? Quote: and if abortion is right, then why would God say: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" -Deuteronomy 30:19 -"you and your children may live" children both born and not born Eisegesis. God does not say "children born and not born", he says children. To imply he meant fetuses as well is twisting scripture to suit your own ends.
Who said that God doesn't think that fetuses are living persons? can you find it in the bible?
Exodus 21:22-23:
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Fines are levied for stealing; not murder. For murder, the law is an eye for an eye. This shows that the fetus was regarded only as property of the woman.
Now, if you want to claim that this refers to giving birth prematurely, please take a look at the Hammurabi code on the same subject:
Hammurabi Code:
209If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
210If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
Hebrew non-holiness laws were based off of the Hammurabi Code. Another law system in the same area and time, also based off the Hammurabi Code, is the Hittite Laws.
Hittite Law:
17. If anyone cause a free woman to miscarry, if it be the tenth month, he shall give ten half-shekels of silver, if it be the fifth month, he shall give five half-shekels of silver.
It doesn't get much clearer.
Quote: and if God regards us as NOTHING untill the 5th-6th week of pregnancy then how come Paul said, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 timothy 1:9) Not before we were born, but before the world began. Just wondering...
That deals with us as a collection of people; it deals with humanity, rather than with humans. All it shows is that God intended for the human race all along, and that He always knew Christ would be needed to save us. It shows God's infinite knowledge, not when a fetus becomes a person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:07 pm
|
|
|
|
stopthebanningplease Icestar03 stopthebanningplease Icestar03 IcarusDream In a society where I cannot force you to give me your kidney, abortion is perfectly ethical. Biblically, there are a few ways to look at it. I focus on two, usually, when arguing either side. Choice - Leviticus 17:11, and multiple other verses, tells us that the "life of a living body is in the blood." The fetus is not alive, for the purpose of the law, until 5-6 weeks after pregnancy. It is living, but it does not have the soulforce of blood. Therefore, God should not have a problem with abortion until there is blood in the fetus. Life - Ps 139:13, and a handful of other verses, tells us that God knits us in the womb. We are in his hands, and still in his possession while there. Therefore, abortion is wrong because we would be stealing/destroying that which belongs to God. Actually, it does. If God doesn't think fetuses are living persons, abortion is not murder. If abortion is not murder, God would not logically have any problem with it. Quote: If God knew us before the beginning of time, does that mean that we were are regarded as NOTHING by him untill the '5th-6th week of pregnancy'? Essentially. Quote: *Abortion is killing and God DOES have a problem with killing.* Wait, how do you show that in light of ALLLL the Biblical verses that say he isn't against abortion? Quote: and if abortion is right, then why would God say: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" -Deuteronomy 30:19 -"you and your children may live" children both born and not born Eisegesis. God does not say "children born and not born", he says children. To imply he meant fetuses as well is twisting scripture to suit your own ends.
Exodus 21:22-23:
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Fines are levied for stealing; not murder. For murder, the law is an eye for an eye. This shows that the fetus was regarded only as property of the woman.
Now, if you want to claim that this refers to giving birth prematurely, please take a look at the Hammurabi code on the same subject:
Hammurabi Code:
209If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
210If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
Hebrew non-holiness laws were based off of the Hammurabi Code. Another law system in the same area and time, also based off the Hammurabi Code, is the Hittite Laws.
Hittite Law:
17. If anyone cause a free woman to miscarry, if it be the tenth month, he shall give ten half-shekels of silver, if it be the fifth month, he shall give five half-shekels of silver.
It doesn't get much clearer.
Quote: and if God regards us as NOTHING untill the 5th-6th week of pregnancy then how come Paul said, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 timothy 1:9) Not before we were born, but before the world began. Just wondering...
That deals with us as a collection of people; it deals with humanity, rather than with humans. All it shows is that God intended for the human race all along, and that He always knew Christ would be needed to save us. It shows God's infinite knowledge, not when a fetus becomes a person.
All the quotes you have are still missing the point, they are supporting your ideas and beliefs, but not necessarily God's. Noone can really speak for God anyway. but if you are going to use the old testament laws only to support your arguement you are a bit off, because a lot of things were changed when the new testament was introduced. An example being burnt sacrifices. But the point is, the information you provided still doesn't state that God views fetuses as nothing (insignificant) beings. The bible never said that God created any insignificant beings. What i know is that destroying something that is forming in the womb that God has placed there is just wrong. You can't excuse that with child sacrificing that took place in the old testament.
*i'm just grateful that my mother didn't abort me, so that i could have a chance to be positing this at all. If i did support it i would be somewhat of a hypocrite for saying anything, because if i had been aborted, i would have had nothing to say. (If it's ok for other's to be aborted, then it should be ok for me to have been aborted, and again, not be here at all). but i don't believe in that. so anyway, long story short. i'll just agree to disagree. xd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:00 pm
|
|
|
|
divineseraph So, that is up to Man when to decide? God CAN'T POSSIBLY have a say on this, simply because it is never mentioned in the many-times translated holy book?
He could have a say in it, but He didn't in said Book, and He seems to be rather silent on the literature front of late.
Quote: And because of his absence, and our take on legality (which states that abortion is not bad simply because the fetus is not currently given personhood) we are to assume that it is fine and dandy?
No, we are not to assume it is fine and dandy. We cannot say for sure whether abortion is right or wrong, and we cannot ban it unless we are sure it is wrong, both in religion AND in secular society.
Quote: The very same thing happened with slavery. They were refused personhood in order to legally justify their enslavement.
Strawman. Refused =/= "does not yet have"
Quote: Legality and personhood is a construct of man. Therefore, it cannot be taken as God's will.
Soooo..... There's no valid reasoning for pro-life then, other than "I think God wants this, based on what I think"?
Quote: All the quotes you have are still missing the point,
Then prove them wrong. Tell me what they really refer to.
Quote: they are supporting your ideas and beliefs, but not necessarily God's.
Wait; I am supporting MY ideas and beliefs by posting Biblical passages, and you are posting GOD'S ideas and beliefs by posting..... nothing?
That makes sense.
Quote: Noone can really speak for God anyway.
neutral Then get out of the debate.
Quote: but if you are going to use the old testament laws only to support your arguement you are a bit off, because a lot of things were changed when the new testament was introduced. An example being burnt sacrifices.
...I didn't talk about burnt sacrifices. The verse I quoted talks about involuntary abortion.
The laws on abortion don't change unless later in the Bible, it is stated that they change. Later in the Bible, this is not stated.
Quote: But the point is, the information you provided still doesn't state that God views fetuses as nothing (insignificant) beings. The bible never said that God created any insignificant beings.
And, your point?
Quote: What i know is that destroying something that is forming in the womb that God has placed there is just wrong.
But, you don't have any evidence for that.
Quote: You can't excuse that with child sacrificing that took place in the old testament.
This isn't child scrificing... O-o
Quote: *i'm just grateful that my mother didn't abort me, so that i could have a chance to be positing this at all. If i did support it i would be somewhat of a hypocrite for saying anything, because if i had been aborted, i would have had nothing to say.
And that would make you hypocritical... how?
Quote: (If it's ok for other's to be aborted, then it should be ok for me to have been aborted, and again, not be here at all).
Yup. ^-^
Quote: but i don't believe in that. so anyway, long story short. i'll just agree to disagree.
Have fun with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[ - Kara - ]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/f2/e9/37534f51e9f2_flip.png?t=1254184853_6.00_01)