What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion?

[LAGC]

Could it be that "pro-life" people have got it all wrong?

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7

Wait a minute... is this an admission that a person doesn't have a "living soul" until he takes his first breath outside the womb? That would sure destroy the idea that fetuses are persons, wouldn't it? Seems like the Bible makes it pretty clear that a person is only truly alive (with a "living soul") once he takes his first breath through his nostrils, which doesn't happen until he is actually born and severed from the mother's womb!

Who knew the religious anti-abortion folks had it all so wrong?

[AKTexas]

Your interpretation does not mean shit.It is still just another fucking assumption like any other.

[abpt1]

Could it be that "pro-life" people have got it all wrong?

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7

Wait a minute... is this an admission that a person doesn't have a "living soul" until he takes his first breath outside the womb? That would sure destroy the idea that fetuses are persons, wouldn't it? Seems like the Bible makes it pretty clear that a person is only truly alive (with a "living soul") once he takes his first breath through his nostrils, which doesn't happen until he is actually born and severed from the mother's womb!

Who knew the religious anti-abortion folks had it all so wrong?

WTF get a fucking life already .

[NewbieAKguy]

God breathed life into the first Man. Later on God tells Adam & Eve to be fruitful and multiply....don't recall God telling them to make sure they call upon God to breath life into all children.

There's also the verse, which stated roughly, that God knew everybody even while we were still in the womb.

Seriously dude? This is what you spend your time pondering? Aaaaaaaand I'm done.

[LAGC]

Your interpretation does not mean shit.It is still just another fucking assumption like any other.

Indeed, that's what the Bible all boils down to isn't it? Interpretation. Seems you can justify any view (for or against something) by citing different parts of the Holy Text, while ignoring the others that disagree. That's what makes religion so ubiquitous.

As for which interpretation of abortion is correct, I think George Carlin sums it up quite well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4

[AKTexas]

You are looking at one passage in a narrow perspective.There is nothing there about abortion.

Since you brought it up and I'm in the mood to oblige you a little.Shouldn't your father have pulled rather than pushed?If he had you would not be here to bring up stupid shit and we would not be here to laugh and ridicule you.:punch1:

[LAGC]

Since you brought it up and I'm in the mood to oblige you a little.Shouldn't your father have pulled rather than pushed?If he had you would not be here to bring up stupid shit and we would not be here to laugh and ridicule you.:punch1:

LOL. No, I'm quite happy I wasn't aborted as a fetus. And I have run into one person, an old co-worker of mine, whose mother seriously considered aborting him, and obviously he was quite glad that she hadn't. But that's only anecdotal.

I guess my frustration with "pro-lifers" is just that most of them won't practice what they preach. I mean, if they were truly concerned about the welfare of the child, why not open their homes up to adoptions? I know many expectant mothers would think twice about getting an abortion if they didn't think their child would just end up in an orphanage or tossed around from one uncaring foster family to another, a ward of the state. Why so much concern about the pre-life, and so little about the ACTUAL life once the fetus is forcibly born? Do we really want more unwanted welfare kids on the streets?

[Paladin]

...once the fetus is forcibly born...

Forcibly born?

[LAGC]

Forcibly born?

If abortion was ever outlawed again, what would you call it?

[Paladin]

If abortion was ever outlawed again, what would you call it?

Same they used to call it. Born.

[Richard Simmons]

LOL. No, I'm quite happy I wasn't aborted as a fetus. And I have run into one person, an old co-worker of mine, whose mother seriously considered aborting him, and obviously he was quite glad that she hadn't. But that's only anecdotal.

I guess my frustration with "pro-lifers" is just that most of them won't practice what they preach. I mean, if they were truly concerned about the welfare of the child, why not open their homes up to adoptions? I know many expectant mothers would think twice about getting an abortion if they didn't think their child would just end up in an orphanage or tossed around from one uncaring foster family to another, a ward of the state. Why so much concern about the pre-life, and so little about the ACTUAL life once the fetus is forcibly born? Do we really want more unwanted welfare kids on the streets?

So your saying pregnant women are so concerned about the well being of their child after it's born they decide to kill it rather than risk it ending up in foster care or an orpahanage? Even you must see the ignorace of that statement. Actualy you probably can't given your defect.

If they care that much about the welfare of a child why not avoid an unwanted pregancy in the first place? Wait, that would require personal responsibility and we all know you libs that dog won't hunt.

[Cypher]

I find it amazing and despicable that liberals are A-OK with killing babies, but talk about abstinence or personal responsibility for the choices you make and OH-NO your a evil hypocrite scum bag bottom of the barrel crazy freak that wants to control and enslave people, but kill your baby, sure thing.

I really don't understand how they justify it. Oh, and look at statistic for the type of people that do adopt kids and the waiting list in the USA for adoption.

[old Grump]

Could it be that "pro-life" people have got it all wrong?

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Genesis 2:7

Wait a minute... is this an admission that a person doesn't have a "living soul" until he takes his first breath outside the womb? That would sure destroy the idea that fetuses are persons, wouldn't it? Seems like the Bible makes it pretty clear that a person is only truly alive (with a "living soul") once he takes his first breath through his nostrils, which doesn't happen until he is actually born and severed from the mother's womb!

Who knew the religious anti-abortion folks had it all so wrong?


http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gifGenesis 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."

Some suggest that this passage 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. If a fetus is only potentially human, then 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."

An alternate interpretation is that Adam and Eve were unique creations. They did not start as a fetus, and were not born. They were fully formed as adults. It is not valid to compare a newborn who has not yet breathed to a fully formed adult who has not yet breathed.

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalm 22:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Psalm%2022.9-10))

Go crawl back into your hole until you become human. It isn't us pro-lifers who have it wrong but you liberal abortionists who believe it is right and proper to end a human life because their being born would be an inconvenience to your life style. It is also you liberal baby haters who make it so difficult for people who want to adopt to be able to do so without jumping through miles of red tape and needless expense which would have been better spent on their new child.

[LAGC]

So your saying pregnant women are so concerned about the well being of their child after it's born they decide to kill it rather than risk it ending up in foster care or an orpahanage? Even you must see the ignorace of that statement. Actualy you probably can't given your defect.

If they care that much about the welfare of a child why not avoid an unwanted pregancy in the first place? Wait, that would require personal responsibility and we all know you libs that dog won't hunt.

You know, alot of women get pregnant even though they used contraceptives. Neither condoms or the pill is 100% effective. It's not like abortion is a woman's first choice of birth control -- its more often than not a last resort.

[LAGC]

I find it amazing and despicable that liberals are A-OK with killing babies, but talk about abstinence or personal responsibility for the choices you make and OH-NO your a evil hypocrite scum bag bottom of the barrel crazy freak that wants to control and enslave people, but kill your baby, sure thing.

The problem with the "abstinence-only" crowd is that they often are the ones who fight the hardest against contraceptives being available to teenagers! The desire for sex is a natural drive that begins at puberty, you can't expect everyone to simply abstain from what their natural urges scream out at them to do.

It's not like anyone particularly likes the idea of having to get an abortion, but when prevention isn't available or fails, a woman (or teenage girl) shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her whole life just to be a brood mare for the Religious Right. A child deserves to be wanted and loved. A shitty upbringing does no favor for the child or society as a whole, who has to deal with the likely criminal when he/she grows up. There's a reason why crime rates have steadily fallen ever since abortion was made legal. Its not just a coincidence.


I really don't understand how they justify it. Oh, and look at statistic for the type of people that do adopt kids and the waiting list in the USA for adoption.

I agree, we should make adoption easier and more accessible to more people. Why not let gay/lesbian couples adopt?

[Richard Simmons]

You know, alot of women get pregnant even though they used contraceptives. Neither condoms or the pill is 100% effective. It's not like abortion is a woman's first choice of birth control -- its more often than not a last resort.



That's true but they hardly represent the largest percentage of pregnancies so why hang your hat on the smallest common denominator?

The pill has a failure rate of 5%, Depo 0.3%, condoms 14%. That's a combined average rate of 6.5%. That's not "alot" in most people mind. In other words, 93.5% unwanted pregancies are due to reckless behavior. Before you mention it let me also add that statitics have shown that out of every 1,000 rapes, approximately two result in pregnancy.

[Cypher]

The problem with the "abstinence-only" crowd is that they often are the ones who fight the hardest against contraceptives being available to teenagers! The desire for sex is a natural drive that begins at puberty, you can't expect everyone to simply abstain from what their natural urges scream out at them to do.

It's not like anyone particularly likes the idea of having to get an abortion, but when prevention isn't available or fails, a woman (or teenage girl) shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her whole life just to be a brood mare for the Religious Right. A child deserves to be wanted and loved. A shitty upbringing does no favor for the child or society as a whole, who has to deal with the likely criminal when he/she grows up. There's a reason why crime rates have steadily fallen ever since abortion was made legal. Its not just a coincidence.

That's nonsense, there are too many good contraceptives available and not enough responsibility.

Let me spell it out for you, if a woman does not want to get pregnant and want's to be 100% sure she won't then do not insert penis into vagina. Life is full of choices and repercussions for those choices. If you don't want to deal with a life of raising an unwanted baby then take measures to not get pregnant. Weather it's abstinence or contraceptives.

It blows my mind how anyone can justify killing babies instead of holding someone responsible for what they did. Sick, despicable.

[LAGC]

It blows my mind how anyone can justify killing babies instead of holding someone responsible for what they did. Sick, despicable.

We're talking about parasites here, not autonomous babies. Why don't we hold funerals for miscarriages? If a fetus is a person after all!

Face it: so long as a fetus is part and parcel of a woman, its her body, her choice. It really is that simple.

Once you agree to adopt and take in some inner-city woman's crack babies that she doesn't want and would other-wise just grow up to be neglected gang-bangers, then I'll consider what you say more seriously.

[308]

We're talking about parasites here, not autonomous babies. Why don't we hold funerals for miscarriages? If a fetus is a person after all!

Face it: so long as a fetus is part and parcel of a woman, its her body, her choice. It really is that simple.

Once you agree to adopt and take in some inner-city woman's crack babies that she doesn't want and would other-wise just grow up to be neglected gang-bangers, then I'll consider what you say more seriously.

Perhaps once you stop being such an obvious troll, some here might consider what you say more seriously.
Until then we shall occasionally read your superfluous drivel...'for entertainment purposes only'...*yawn*

[LAGC]

Perhaps once you stop being such an obvious troll, some here might consider what you say more seriously.
Until then we shall occasionally read your superfluous drivel...'for entertainment purposes only'...*yawn*

Of course, its always "trolling" if you happen to disagree with it. :rolleyes:

Its not like this is the Religion forum to discuss religious issues or anything...

[308]

You aren't discussing anything. It's just the usual drivel with the usual come-backs.

Your first post spelled it out clearly...you have no idea what you are talking about, hence there is nothing to discuss.

:whatever:

[Paladin]

...Once you agree to adopt and take in some inner-city woman's crack babies that she doesn't want and would other-wise just grow up to be neglected gang-bangers, then I'll consider what you say more seriously.

I have three children. Two were adopted. My adoptive son (now 31) was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. I was aware of this when I adopted him. His behavior was awful, and I new it would stay that way for a long time when I adopted him. He was 11 before things eased up. He is now successful (business too) and I will attend his wedding in November.

Consider this, seriously; He was a person in the womb. Alive. And waiting for me...

[LAGC]

I have three children. Two were adopted. My adoptive son (now 31) was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. I was aware of this when I adopted him. His behavior was awful, and I new it would stay that way for a long time when I adopted him. He was 11 before things eased up. He is now successful (business too) and I will attend his wedding in November.

Consider this, seriously; He was a person in the womb. Alive. And waiting for me...

I think that's really awesome that you opened your home to children in need. That's what we need more of, is loving parents who will truly give children the attention and upbringing that they deserve.

If some of these "pro-life" people who protest at abortion clinics and the like offered to adopt the off-spring of people seriously considering abortion, I'd have a lot more respect for them than how it usually works: with them merely harassing and shouting Bible verses and the like and just being general disrespectful pricks to young women in need.

Because to me, that's what it all boils down to is: choice. If you can entice prospective mothers to choose to go through with the pregnancy and give their child up for adoption, more power to you. But simply harassing them because they feel they don't have anywhere else to turn, that doesn't earn the "pro-life" movement any brownie points, and only turns more people against them.

[Cypher]

We're talking about parasites here, not autonomous babies. Why don't we hold funerals for miscarriages? If a fetus is a person after all!

Face it: so long as a fetus is part and parcel of a woman, its her body, her choice. It really is that simple.

Once you agree to adopt and take in some inner-city woman's crack babies that she doesn't want and would other-wise just grow up to be neglected gang-bangers, then I'll consider what you say more seriously.

First off many parents do have a funeral for miscarried babies, they don't just throw the body in a trash can.

Secondly, you have no clue what I have done or am involved in, I could have 10 adopted kids and 20 foster kids for all you know. Also, there is a huge waiting list for adoptions in the US and abroad so saying not enough people will adopt shows your ignorance.

Thirdly, the woman's choice starts when she has sex not after there is a baby in the womb attached only by an umbilical cord.

There is no way to morally justify wholesale slaughter of babies. It's not even common practice to abort animals and yet humans kill their own...

[LAGC]

First off many parents do have a funeral for miscarried babies, they don't just throw the body in a trash can.

That's funny, I know several women who miscarried, and none of them held a funeral for their fetus. But maybe that's just anecdotal evidence on my part?


There is no way to morally justify wholesale slaughter of babies. It's not even common practice to abort animals and yet humans kill their own...

When does an embryo become a "baby" in your eye? Conception? 8 weeks? 12 weeks? Third trimester?

[308]

When does an embryo become a "baby" in your eye? Conception? 8 weeks? 12 weeks? Third trimester?
Is something alive the moment the cells begin to divide? Yes or No.

If the answer is no, it's dead, then we have nothing to discuss.

If the answer is yes, something is alive inside the mother's womb, then we have only two choices;
(1) it's is some sort of foreign, non-human parasite
(2) it is a tiny human being formed in the innermost parts of it's mother's body

Interesting how your dogmatic statements about all these 'pro-lifers' being unwilling to adopt when in fact it is the liberal mindset that spends it's time dreaming up ways of justifying the killing of little human beings. How about you lead us all here, and set the example?

If you are so self-righteous, righteous enough to blame 'pro-lifers', then why don't you post something here proving how you have made a difference?

Would it be fair to ask if your contribution towards this issue of abortion boils down to spilling your wad into a Kleenex rather than some poor woman's vagina....just curious.

[FunkyPertwee]

I have three children. Two were adopted. My adoptive son (now 31) was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. I was aware of this when I adopted him. His behavior was awful, and I new it would stay that way for a long time when I adopted him. He was 11 before things eased up. He is now successful (business too) and I will attend his wedding in November.

Consider this, seriously; He was a person in the womb. Alive. And waiting for me...

That is an excellent story paladin.

I'm not sure I could take a child with those issues. You've done a good service for humanity.

[ltorlo64]

There are many portions of the Bible that show that life begins in the womb because God know us there, but that was not your question. You asked what the Bible says about abortion. There are really only two areas that deal with this area.

The first is the 10 Commandments (Ex 20) where we are told "Thou shalt not kill". The word translated to english for kill means to kill without reason. According to the Bible justifiable reasons for killing, again found in Exodus and Leviticus, were for food, self-defense, and punishment for certain crimes. Birth control was not included in the list of justifiable killings.

The second place is Ex. 21:22-25 where is states that if 2 men fight and one hits a pregnant woman so that she loses the baby, the person who did it shall be punished as the husband will direct. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe, LIFE FOR LIFE. This would mean that the unborn child was protected against violence with the same rules that one who had been born was.

[Paladin]

Is something alive the moment the cells begin to divide? Yes or No.

That really is the question. Isn't it? We do not know. How could we. I know that I do not have the answer.

One side says, "Yes it is a human being." The other side says, "No it is not a human being." Neither side can really say with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What do we do as a culture with regards humanity when the two points of killing and reasonable doubt are conjoined. We come down solidly on the side of caution, restraint, and mercy.

My point is this, in the absence of certainty, in the presence of reasonable doubt, let's be honest with ourselves and realize it would be better to err on the side of restraint than on the side of action.

Paladin

[swampdragon]

There are many portions of the Bible that show that life begins in the womb because God know us there, but that was not your question. You asked what the Bible says about abortion. There are really only two areas that deal with this area.

The first is the 10 Commandments (Ex 20) where we are told "Thou shalt not kill". The word translated to english for kill means to kill without reason. According to the Bible justifiable reasons for killing, again found in Exodus and Leviticus, were for food, self-defense, and punishment for certain crimes. Birth control was not included in the list of justifiable killings.

The second place is Ex. 21:22-25 where is states that if 2 men fight and one hits a pregnant woman so that she loses the baby, the person who did it shall be punished as the husband will direct. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe, LIFE FOR LIFE. This would mean that the unborn child was protected against violence with the same rules that one who had been born was.

Hold on there a second.
What about all this stuff?

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”.

[ltorlo64]

Hold on there a second.
What about all this stuff?

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

You have to take into account context when you look at these verses, and remember who controls nature. The orignal question was about what the Bible said about abortion, this would be people killing an unborn baby on purpose, not a miscarriage. Hosea was written as a warning and as a message of hope to the Israelites. Ephraim was living in rebellion to God and as God promised, these things were brought upon them. This would be justice. Killing an unborn fetus for convenience or as a means of birth control is totally different, at least it is in my mind.


Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Not sure how you get that this induces an abortion. First, it is bizarre because we have not done it. I am not sure about the brutal and abusive part. The woman was made to drink water with dust from the temple floor (holy dust if you will) in it. If the woman had been unfaithful her belly would swell and her thigh would rot. If she had not, then nothing would happen to her. So, if she was pregnant by another man, I suppose this malady could cause the unborn child to die. But considering how serious God takes adultery and how serious he wanted the Israelites to take adultery, again it seems more like justice.


Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

In this you need to read the entire story, and even a second story to see why this was required. The Midianites had seduced the Israelites, causing them to sin. God told them to go and take vengance on the Midianites. Since women played prominently in the original seduction, they played a prominent role in the punishment as well. Again, it seems like this is justice. God was teaching the Israelites how abhorent sin was/is.


Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”.

Again, two more stories of God showing justice because of nations willfully either disobeying Him or by acting unjustly towards the Israelites and other countries around them. None of these stories talk about the willful killing of the unborn child as a means of birth control, but they do talk about the nature of warfare at the time. I think that is a big distinction. Even the example I was able to use is of men fighting and accidentally killing the unborn child is not the same as the premeditated murder of the unborn child that abortion is, but I acknowledge that and show how it is similar.

[ltorlo64]

That really is the question. Isn't it? We do not know. How could we. I know that I do not have the answer.

One side says, "Yes it is a human being." The other side says, "No it is not a human being." Neither side can really say with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What do we do as a culture with regards humanity when the two points of killing and reasonable doubt are conjoined. We come down solidly on the side of caution, restraint, and mercy.

My point is this, in the absence of certainty, in the presence of reasonable doubt, let's be honest with ourselves and realize it would be better to err on the side of restraint than on the side of action.

Paladin

Well said.

[swampdragon]

You have to take into account context when you look at these verses, and remember who controls nature. The orignal question was about what the Bible said about abortion, this would be people killing an unborn baby on purpose, not a miscarriage. Hosea was written as a warning and as a message of hope to the Israelites. Ephraim was living in rebellion to God and as God promised, these things were brought upon them. This would be justice. Killing an unborn fetus for convenience or as a means of birth control is totally different, at least it is in my mind.



Not sure how you get that this induces an abortion. First, it is bizarre because we have not done it. I am not sure about the brutal and abusive part. The woman was made to drink water with dust from the temple floor (holy dust if you will) in it. If the woman had been unfaithful her belly would swell and her thigh would rot. If she had not, then nothing would happen to her. So, if she was pregnant by another man, I suppose this malady could cause the unborn child to die. But considering how serious God takes adultery and how serious he wanted the Israelites to take adultery, again it seems more like justice.



In this you need to read the entire story, and even a second story to see why this was required. The Midianites had seduced the Israelites, causing them to sin. God told them to go and take vengance on the Midianites. Since women played prominently in the original seduction, they played a prominent role in the punishment as well. Again, it seems like this is justice. God was teaching the Israelites how abhorent sin was/is.



Again, two more stories of God showing justice because of nations willfully either disobeying Him or by acting unjustly towards the Israelites and other countries around them. None of these stories talk about the willful killing of the unborn child as a means of birth control, but they do talk about the nature of warfare at the time. I think that is a big distinction. Even the example I was able to use is of men fighting and accidentally killing the unborn child is not the same as the premeditated murder of the unborn child that abortion is, but I acknowledge that and show how it is similar.


Wait a second...
So you are saying a forced miscarriage is not the same thing as an abortion? Since when?
It's EXACTLY the same thing...

And you're saying it's wrong to have an abortion, but it's OK if it's done in the Bible by God because people wouldn't worship him?
So that excuses it?

Umm. Yes. I'm not following you here at all.

Was it fine for God to kill every first born son in Egypt just because he was pissed off at a Pharaoh?
Again I'm thinking no.
The Bible is a horrible example to base pro-life decisions on.
It would be better if pro-choice and pro-life people both base their decisions on personal opinion rather than textual mumbo jumbo.

[swampdragon]

That really is the question. Isn't it? We do not know. How could we. I know that I do not have the answer.

One side says, "Yes it is a human being." The other side says, "No it is not a human being." Neither side can really say with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What do we do as a culture with regards humanity when the two points of killing and reasonable doubt are conjoined. We come down solidly on the side of caution, restraint, and mercy.

My point is this, in the absence of certainty, in the presence of reasonable doubt, let's be honest with ourselves and realize it would be better to err on the side of restraint than on the side of action.

Paladin

So no "Shoot first and ask questions later" stance for you then huh?
:lool:

[ltorlo64]

Wait a second...
So you are saying a forced miscarriage is not the same thing as an abortion? Since when?
It's EXACTLY the same thing...

And you're saying it's wrong to have an abortion, but it's OK if it's done in the Bible by God because people wouldn't worship him?
So that excuses it?

Umm. Yes. I'm not following you here at all.

Was it fine for God to kill every first born son in Egypt just because he was pissed off at a Pharaoh?
Again I'm thinking no.
The Bible is a horrible example to base pro-life decisions on.
It would be better if pro-choice and pro-life people both base their decisions on personal opinion rather than textual mumbo jumbo.

I knew we would not agree on this!

[swampdragon]

I knew we would not agree on this!

LOL.....

I'm just saying that only hypocrites use the Bible to justify pro-life stances.
It doesn't mean they are wrong for being pro-life however in general.

[printerman]

Indeed, that's what the Bible all boils down to isn't it? Interpretation. Seems you can justify any view (for or against something) by citing different parts of the Holy Text, while ignoring the others that disagree. That's what makes religion so ubiquitous.

As for which interpretation of abortion is correct, I think George Carlin sums it up quite well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4

....don't follow this clown , a known Satanist and follower of Lucifer !

[Paladin]

So no "Shoot first and ask questions later" stance for you then huh?
:lool:

Swampy, not when I gots a whole lots o' time to make considerations. But if you gonna kick down the door withouts a yellin' "Police" first...well, differnt story. And then it's just shoot. Ain't nobody still breathin' to answer questions...

Paladin.

[FunkyPertwee]

oops

[swampdragon]

Swampy, not when I gots a whole lots o' time to make considerations. But if you gonna kick down the door withouts a yellin' "Police" first...well, differnt story. And then it's just shoot. Ain't nobody still breathin' to answer questions...

Paladin.

I was talkin' about some hot chick sayin' do me right now....lol

[swampdragon]

....don't follow this clown , a known Satanist and follower of Lucifer !

LOL....
GC was a Catholic.
He converted and started worshiping the Sun and Joe Pecsi.

[LAGC]

Is something alive the moment the cells begin to divide? Yes or No.

If the answer is no, it's dead, then we have nothing to discuss.

If the answer is yes, something is alive inside the mother's womb, then we have only two choices;
(1) it's is some sort of foreign, non-human parasite
(2) it is a tiny human being formed in the innermost parts of it's mother's body

Well, first of all, by your definition, even plants and flowers are alive and deserve protection just because their cells divide. Don't you think a more reasonable place to pin-point "personhood" is once the fetus is more developed? I mean, 80% of fertilized human eggs end up being discharged during a woman's period. By your definition, any woman who has had sex and has more than one period is a serial killer! Don't you see how silly that is?

I mean, even if you drew the line at the moment a fetus' nervous system develops and can feel pain, that would be more logical than saying a fertilized egg is a baby. I agree that abortions should be performed as early as possible in the pregnancy, but most of them already are. The only time people have so called "partial-birth" (late term) abortions is when the health of the mother or fetus is at stake. But if a woman has an abortion in the first trimester or by taking a pill? Its just a clump of cells.

Personally? Where I'd draw the line is the moment a fetus is able to live on its own, without being attached to the mother. Which isn't until very late in the pregnancy.


If you are so self-righteous, righteous enough to blame 'pro-lifers', then why don't you post something here proving how you have made a difference?

Would it be fair to ask if your contribution towards this issue of abortion boils down to spilling your wad into a Kleenex rather than some poor woman's vagina....just curious.

Well, I'm not the one forcing women to bear children. Why should it be my duty to raise some kid that some irresponsible woman doesn't want? The onus should be on those who want to force her to give birth. Can we not just agree that some people aren't fit to be parents and shouldn't have kids?

I mean, take the Octomom. Can you really say she wouldn't have benefitted from an abortion? Here she has all these little fucking kids, and now (lo and behold) she's broke, so she's going on welfare. That's YOUR tax money paying to raise this woman's tots. I sure hope you don't bitch about your taxes being too high...

[5.56NATO]

There is said to be, under the altar of YHWH, a storage place where the souls of those who died for their testimony continually cry out asking YHWH to take vengeance upon those who dwell on earth. I can't help but think the souls of the aborted are there asking for the same revenge. 4k babies a day is a commonly heard figure of how many babys are murdered each day in America. I expect YHWH to judge this nation for that alone.

As to the punishment of the parents who abort, I have an (fairly) ancient text that says deceased women (their spirits) who aborted are kept in a lagoon or pit filled with puss and blood and all other vileness, and their children they aborted torment them from above with some kind of ray or light that strikes their mothers in the eyes.

Brothers and sisters, please pray to end abortion.

It is written that in the end times YHWH will turn the hearts of the children towards the parents, and the heart of the parents towards the children. Please pray for this, pray for parents to love their children so as to not murder them.

[Paladin]

...It is written that in the end times YHWH will turn the hearts of the children towards the parents, and the heart of the parents towards the children...

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:6