The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: DBCowboy

But a weak attempt at moving the goal posts.

So you also advocate for the killing of living human beings.

Own it.

Those are your flipping goal posts set by you. You are the one calling fertilized eggs human beings, not me.

I am an advocate of vasectomy.

You advocate the termination of a living human being.

The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

And we put murderers in prison, or execute them. Growth industry for private prisons and executioners.

MAGA

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dragoon01

The passage you are quoting is in reference to the FIRST man. Its metephorical but its describing the process of changing man from his purely material state "the dust" to a complete being with both life and spirit.

Nevertheless, the concept is embedded in Jewish law and philosophy. A fetus is part of a woman's body, is not counted as a person, and is in fact considered property, that when "taken" in an act of violence, the person responsible is punished with a monetary fine, not life for life.

Numbers 5 offers the remedy of abortion when a man suspects his wife has committed adultery, and that the child she's carrying is not his.

In the Bible, when a pregnant women commits a crime punishable by death, her sentence isn't suspended until she gives birth. Both of them were condemned.

Not quite.

"Exodus 21:22–25 is a favorite of abortion advocates, though it does little to bolster their case. The passage reads in the nasb as follows: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage [“gives birth prematurely” in nasb 1995 update], yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Abortion advocates argue that this Scripture proves the unborn are not fully human because the penalty for accidentally killing a fetus is less than the penalty for killing its mother. This argument, however, is flawed on several counts. First, assuming for the sake of argument that the pro‐abortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e., that the unborn’s death is treated differently from the mother’s), it still does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding verses (21:20–21) present a situation where a master unintentionally kills his slave and escapes with no penalty at all (the lack of intent being proven by the interval between the blow and the death), and yet it hardly follows that Scripture considers the slave less than human. Second, this passage does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child through elective abortion. Nothing in the context supports this claim. At best, the text assigns a lesser penalty for accidentally killing a fetus than for accidentally killing its mother. It simply does not follow from this that a woman may deliberately kill her child through abortion. Third, the pro‐abortion interpretation of this passage (that a lesser penalty applies for accidental fetal death) is highly questionable. When read in the original Hebrew, the passage seems to convey that both the mother and the child are covered by the lex talionis — the law of retribution. According to Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer, “There is no second class status attached to the fetus under this [lex talionis] rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother.”27 Taken together, the cultural, exegetical, philosophical, and scientific considerations we’ve examined prove that the Bible need not explicitly say elective abortion is wrong before we can know it is wrong. Although the Bible does not say “Thou shalt not abort,” it does prohibit the unjust taking of human life, which applies to the unborn as it does to other humans."

Here is a link to the original article.

www.oneplace.com... cott-klusendorf-16687.html


Now I am not a Christian so I am not looking at the issue from that perspective but I think this article provides a sufficient rebuttal of your position which from the reading seems to be a quite common argument put forth by abortion advocates.
For those of the TLDR persuasion, the article basically asserts that just because the bible does not specifically condemn something does not mean it condones it either. The bible was written in the context of its times, and this article asserts that the societies of the bible valued their children, saw them as gifts from god and thus there was no need to address deliberate abortion. It just was not a common practice in that society.

That's not even getting into the fact that abortion at that time would have involved extremely dangerous methodologies and no doubt only the most desperate women would have attempted it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We're not talking about the laws of Israel here. That's all you.

Um, no, that was my point. You are the one mentioning Jewish law, which has absolutely nothing to do with laws in the United States. There are Jewish people all across the globe, but there is only one Jewish country in the world: Israel.

We're talking about the Bible and biblical law.

And I still don't understand why. How many times do I have to explain that my views on abortion are not based on Biblical teachings?

The Bible is not pro-life and doesn't acknowledge the concept of "life begins at conception". The Bible doesn't recognize the fetus as a person, or even a separate life from the mother, until it's born. Even then, in some circumstances, they waited 30 days before they declare "the fetus" a person.

They also stoned gays to death. We don't do that either.

Sookie, you know nothing of the Christian faith. Every post you have made indicates that. In many ways, the Bible is a historical account of the rise of the Jewish people told from a religious viewpoint. That does not mean everyone mentioned in the Bible was doing God's work... the only person canonized in the book is Jesus. Lot sinned; Abraham sinned; Job sinned, King David sinned; Solomon sinned. Moses killed a man in anger; he was on the run from the law when he saw the burning bush. Samson was a womanizer and was easily tempted by lust; it was lust that allowed him to be captured, and he only received his strength back when he asked God for forgiveness.

You are asking me to canonize the people in the Bible because of their traditions, which I will not do. Many of those traditions are antithetical to God's will. Remember, when Moses came down off Mount Sinai, he found the Hebrew people, whom God had just freed from slavery, who God had directly fed with mana from heaven, worshiping a false idol: the golden calf. When Jesus was facing His execution on the cross, as He took a moment to reflect in the Garden of Gethsemane, He asked Peter to help watch for Him so He wouldn't be disturbed. Peter the Apostle, who would become the first Pope, who led the charge of Christianity in the early days of prosecution, could not even stay awake to help watch out for Jesus.

Shall I go and build a false idol? It's in the Bible. Shall I fall asleep when God calls me? It's in the Bible.

Please do not improperly appropriate my faith. It is no more appropriate than a white guy wearing blackface.

And with that said, it's OK Sookie... you're still a good person.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Um, no, that was my point. You are the one mentioning Jewish law, which has absolutely nothing to do with laws in the United States.

You're trying to deflect with off topic tap dancing. What's the title of this RANT? The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

The Bible is Jewish scripture first. Even Jesus was a Jew.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Christians apologists are always trying to tell Jews that they don't really believe what they believe, and how they should be interpreting their own scriptures.

My sources were Jewish sources. They speak themselves.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: eletheia
Ummm... no, it wouldn't depend on my view. A person on life support is alive. Their life processes are functioning. This is even true if they are brain-dead, as in there is no detectable brain function. How they are able to be alive has no relevance in that respect. Their body is still alive.
TheRedneck

Overview - Brain death

Brain death is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness or be able to breathe without support.

A person who's brain dead is legally confirmed as dead. They have no chance of recovery because their body is unable to survive without artificial life support.

Brain death is legal death
If someone's brain dead, the damage is irreversible and, according to UK law, the person has died.

It can be confusing to be told someone has brain death, because their life support machine will keep their heart beating and their chest will still rise and fall with every breath from the ventilator.

But they will not ever regain consciousness or start breathing on their own again. They have already died.

www.nhs.uk...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're trying to deflect with off topic tap dancing. What's the title of this RANT? The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

And I am stating that Biblical support is not required to be anti-abortion. How is that off topic?

I have been embroiled in this debate, across several threads, for several days now. I haven't seen many posts expressing pro-life as "God's will," but I have seen a bunch of anti-abortion people stating the same thing I am: It's a moral belief, not a religious one. Bible verses not required.

The Bible is Jewish scripture first. Even Jesus was a Jew.

And you are taking it completely out of context. Jewish traditions are based on an interpretation of the Old Testament. They are not Christian interpretations. Jesus was a Jew, yes, of course, but Christianity covers a much wider range of religious beliefs than Judaism. Jesus Himself stated on may occasions that he came "first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles (non-Jews)." Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Son of God; they consider Him merely a Prophet as I understand it (similar to the Muslims' belief in that aspect).

Judaist traditions are not "right-wing Christian" traditions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: eletheia

Where did I say that someone who is brain dead can recover? I stated that their life functions are still operating. Their bodies are still alive as long as they are supplied with enriched blood. It's just that they are no longer viable. There is no biological or artificial mechanism known that will return them to a more optimal condition.

But their bodies are still alive. That actually includes the brain, although it is non-functioning despite still continuing life processes. Critical areas may actually be dead.

I find it amazing that, a few posts back, you tried to chide me for using a general term to refer to multiple stages of development, but then you purposely misuse the term "parasite" and now are trying to argue that a person on life support is not technically alive. Hypocrisy much?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Jewish traditions are based on an interpretation of the Old Testament. They are not Christian interpretations.

Jews and Christians have the same God, described within the pages of the Bible. Jesus preached about the Jewish God. It's the same non pro-life God. Even Jesus preached against valuing anyone's life over one's place in the afterlife.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Where did I say that someone who is brain dead can recover? I stated that their life functions are still operating. Their bodies are still alive as long as they are supplied with enriched blood. It's just that they are no longer viable. There is no biological or artificial mechanism known that will return them to a more optimal condition.
But their bodies are still alive. That actually includes the brain, although it is non-functioning despite still continuing life processes. Critical areas may actually be dead.
I find it amazing that, a few posts back, you tried to chide me for using a general term to refer to multiple stages of development, but then you purposely misuse the term "parasite" and now are trying to argue that a person on life support is not technically alive. Hypocrisy much?
TheRedneck

From your post......

Ummm... no, it wouldn't depend on my view. A person on life support is alive. Their life processes are functioning. This is even true if they are brain-dead, as in there is no detectable brain function. How they are able to be alive has no relevance in that respect. Their body is still alive.

According to the medical profession....A person who's brain dead is legally confirmed as dead. They have no chance of recovery because their body is unable to survive without artificial life support.

Brain death is legal death
If someone's brain dead, the damage is irreversible and, according to UK law, the person has died.



Therefor they are no longer considered alive??

a reply to: eletheia

When I say they are alive, I am referring to life in a natural sense. You are using a legal sense. The two are not comparable.

As long as the cells are receiving nourishment from enriched blood, those cells are still operating. They are not dead. That is simple science. Proteins are still being manufactured, chemical reactions are still occurring, cellular transfer is still happening. Life has not ceased.

During the process of death, there's no "light switch" moment. Cells die at different points in time... some almost immediately, and some can literally take hours to stop functioning. That does not mean the person can recover! It simply means their body has not yet completely died. From a legal standpoint there is little difference, because no known mechanism can restore them in any way to a better state.

Can that person who is brain dead feel, think, etc.? I don't know (no one alive does), but my guess would be no. Once the brain ceases to function, I would say it is likely that the person cannot feel anything and knows nothing. In that sense, I understand your point, but you seem adamant about tap dancing around mine.

We're not playing that little game.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to stop with the shifting semantics. They do not help your cause.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: eletheia

When I say they are alive, I am referring to life in a natural sense. You are using a legal sense. The two are not comparable.

There is only one way to be *naturally alive* and that is all organs doing the job

they are intended to mainly the heart and lungs ?

In ANY sense.

As long as the cells are receiving nourishment from enriched blood, those cells are still operating. They are not dead. That is simple science. Proteins are still being manufactured, chemical reactions are still occurring, cellular transfer is still happening. Life has not ceased.

^^^^Artificially^^^^^

As long as they are on *life support* they are NOT (naturally alive) your words!

We're not playing that little game.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to stop with the shifting semantics. They do not help your cause.
TheRedneck

I'm not playing any little game! I do not have a cause ...... as for anyone taking

me seriously, do I care? my beliefs and opinions are as valid as any one else's

a reply to: eletheia

Well, I have explained it as best I can. If you want to live your life in ignorance, that is not a choice I have any say in. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't stop him from peeing in it.

Life is a tightly defined chemical process. You demand that it be a legal definition. Nope, not gonna fly; legality is not science. A baby is alive from sperm and egg until death. A baby is a unique, living human from fertilized egg until death. That's just the way it is, no matter how much you stick your fingers on your ears and go "lalalalalala!"

And Roe vs. Wade is going away, if for no other reason than to wake people like you up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Jesus preached against valuing anyone's life over one's place in the afterlife.

He also preached about false prophets, who have an outward appearance of Godliness, but inward are raving fools.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: eletheia

A fetus is up until 22 weeks gestation is only alive totally at the behest of

the host/carrier/woman.

Until science can replacate a woman's uterus and the ability to attach the fetus

into it successfully , the host/carrier/woman is the only reason it has the

ability to live

The host/carrier/woman breathes for it and provides it with the sustenance it

requires, so without her it is not alive.

And newborns cannot survive without the mother either, or someone taking care of them, which is a type of "life support"... So I guess you will also be in favor of infanticide against newborns?...

originally posted by: eletheia
...
I'm not playing any little game! I do not have a cause ...... as for anyone taking

me seriously, do I care? my beliefs and opinions are as valid as any one else's

Your beliefs and opinions are to devalue human life you don't see fit to live... Like democrats thought about black people and other minorities... I guess history repeats itself and once again many democrats/the left are devaluing human life many of you "don't see fit to live..." Aka "Life unworthy of life..."

But what can you expect of the people who embraced the "nazi ideas of Margaret Sanger"?...

...
The Birth Control Review frequently highlighted the mission of its parent organization: “The American Birth Control League. Its Aim: To promote eugenic birth selection throughout the United States so that there may be more well‑born and fewer ill‑born children ― a stronger, healthier and more intelligent race.”[iii] Sanger neatly summarized the intimate relationship between the eugenics and birth control movements:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. … Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race … Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.[iv]
..

www.hli.org...

The above was written by Sanger "[vii] Margaret Sanger. “Birth Control and Women’s Health.” Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 12 (December 1917), page 7."

When you start devaluing the most innocent human lives it leads to more and more excuses to keep devaluing human life.

That line of reasoning led to one of history's darkest times.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Jesus preached against valuing anyone's life over one's place in the afterlife.

He also preached about false prophets, who have an outward appearance of Godliness, but inward are raving fools.

TheRedneck

LOL...If the shoe fits you, Dude!

a reply to: olaru12

And we put murderers in prison, or execute them. Growth industry for private prisons and executioners.

MAGA

Not just that, Trump is pardoning war criminals, 'cuz they're real American patriot heroes now.

Who Actually Wants War Criminals Pardoned?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

And newborns cannot survive without the mother either, or someone taking care of them, which is a type of "life support"... So I guess you will also be in favor of infanticide against newborns?...

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now..... I addressed that point

many posts ago!!