There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#229845 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
But if it was legal it would be OK?
What would make you think that I want to force a woman to gestate if I never even forced her to have sex or not? The truth is that you just don’t want to give the child a choice to live. You’re anti-choice - I’m pro-choice.
Nice try imbecile, but no. The truth is you are only pro fetus, and pro forced birth. You've said so time and again.
Again, I have attempted to bring EVERY pregnancy I've had to term. That was MY CHOICE. You don't want women to have choice.
Wads of goo are not children, they are not babies. They are incomplete and not persons. Just wads of goo.
Ocean56

AOL

#229846 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born.
Yeah, and many women DON'T want the child any more after he/she was born than they did before. I guess it's just tough luck for THOSE kids who got stuck with a mother who might be angry and resentful enough to neglect or abuse them, huh?

Women who have a strong DISlike of children before they are unlucky enough to get pregnant aren't too likely to change their minds and "fall in love" with a child that they were FORCED to give birth to. Being born a woman doesn't necessarily make that woman maternal.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229847 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let’s see how your commentary compares with somebody who spent most of their life studying the Bible – John Gill.
If men strive
Quarrel and fight with one another.
and hurt a woman with child;
who being the wife of one of them, tries to part them, or help her husband; but the other, instead of striking his antagonist as he intended, gives her a blow.
so that her fruit depart from her;
or, "her children go forth", out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labor, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected.
and yet no mischief follow:
to her, but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them, though now there is none of any sort,
he shall surely be punished;
that is, be fined for striking the woman, and hastening the childbirth.
As you can see, we cannot make any assertions based on these scriptures alone. But when we compare it with other scriptures from the Bible, we see that the preborn child is viewed as having great value.
I want to point out though, that this is not a religious debate, but a debate about the killing of millions of children each year, and the reasons for it. So I’d rather stay on topic, but I still hate to see such false statements just thrown out here without at least saying something.
You may claim that John Gill has spend a long time studying the Bible, yet he has not grasped the simple point that changing the words or adding new words will change the meaning. That analysis was garbage, he added all sorts of things that are NOT part of the text. There is nothing in the rest of the Bible that changes what it says here in Exodus.

In point of fact, Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old. Logical. Harsh logic, to be sure, but logical since the likelihood of death decreases rapidly, the longer an infant manages to live under the circumstances available back then. Premature infants would never survive, even full term infants had a serious struggle just to finish that first week.

If you hate false statements, then YOU need to stop making them. No children are murdered in abortions.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229848 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born. Maybe it is rough for them but there is lots of help out there. But I will also say not all men say they don't want the responsibility,some step up to the plate and are very responsible. I will never in my life say abortion is the most loving thing you could do. And yes I will bring God into it. God created that little baby and knew from the moment of conception what his plans were for that baby.For a woman to interfere with his plan is IMO just pure selfish.
Since the VAST MAJORITY of fertilized eggs NEVER make it to live birth, obviously there is no Divine plan for fetuses. Abortion is not different from miscarriage in any moral sense.

Do you really want to say that God is so feeble that His plans can be thwarted so easily?
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229849 Apr 30, 2013
MURDER/LEGAL ABORTION FOR HIRE: The jury in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has retired for the day and has not delivered a verdict related to the babies he killed in grisly abortion-infanticides.

Gosnell is charged with four counts of first-degree murder for killing babies following delivery in an abortion process that involved “snipping” their necks and spinal cords. He also faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of a woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, from a botched legal abortion. Gosnell, who has been in jail since his January 2011 arrest.

The grand jury report indicated one baby was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

FOR MORE: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/30/kermit-gos...
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229850 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old.
Just show me what you're talking about here. Show me the verses.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229851 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
You may claim that John Gill has spend a long time studying the Bible, yet he has not grasped the simple point that changing the words or adding new words will change the meaning. That analysis was garbage, he added all sorts of things that are NOT part of the text. There is nothing in the rest of the Bible that changes what it says here in Exodus.
In point of fact, Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old. Logical. Harsh logic, to be sure, but logical since the likelihood of death decreases rapidly, the longer an infant manages to live under the circumstances available back then. Premature infants would never survive, even full term infants had a serious struggle just to finish that first week.
If you hate false statements, then YOU need to stop making them. No children are murdered in abortions.
Looked to me like he used the same version you did, but was less subjective in his observation of it. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229852 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Just show me what you're talking about here. Show me the verses.
Actually, I made a mistake. It is not 8 days, it is 1 month.

Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.

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 thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229853 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Looked to me like he used the same version you did, but was less subjective in his observation of it. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.
He might have started out with the same version, but he added a great deal to it to try and get it to say what he wanted it to say. There is nothing in the verse that says the woman is related to either man, Gill invented that. There is nothing in the verse that says the woman tried to interfere, Gill invented that.

And Gill claiming that a premature forced birth had ANY chance of survival is nothing more than wishful thinking. Even if the woman merely went into labor early, the preemie had no chance of survival. Even today, when it happens IN a modern hospital, a preemie has a lot of problems working against survival.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229854 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I made a mistake. It is not 8 days, it is 1 month.
Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.
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 thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
Don't forget that a male is worth more than a female too in this scripture.. Does that mean that you believe a male is more of a person? This is obviously nonsense today, and has nothing to do with the actual worth as a person. But only as a monetary vow to God in those days as more of a worth of their expected future value to the parent.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229855 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget that a male is worth more than a female too in this scripture.. Does that mean that you believe a male is more of a person? This is obviously nonsense today, and has nothing to do with the actual worth as a person. But only as a monetary vow to God in those days as more of a worth of their expected future value to the parent.
Meh, it is what the Bible says on the topic. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. And what it says is that for infants less than a month old, there is no value at all.

For the record, I feel that the infant has value and is a person right from the moment of birth.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229856 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
He might have started out with the same version, but he added a great deal to it to try and get it to say what he wanted it to say. There is nothing in the verse that says the woman is related to either man, Gill invented that. There is nothing in the verse that says the woman tried to interfere, Gill invented that.
And Gill claiming that a premature forced birth had ANY chance of survival is nothing more than wishful thinking. Even if the woman merely went into labor early, the preemie had no chance of survival. Even today, when it happens IN a modern hospital, a preemie has a lot of problems working against survival.
Objectivity means that he looked at every possible meaning of it regardless of any preconcieved belief about it. If the child died, it may have meant "life for a life". There is more than one possible meaning of this scripture. Many honest theologians have admitted that the meaning is inconclusive. On the other hand, the Didache is more direct in stating:“do not murder a child by abortion". Nothing could be clearer.
Expert in all things

Redding, CA

#229857 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, it is what the Bible says on the topic. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. And what it says is that for infants less than a month old, there is no value at all.
For the record, I feel that the infant has value and is a person right from the moment of birth.
So it is all about geography for you?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#229858 Apr 30, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text> So it is all about geography for you?
More like *misinformation*.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#229859 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
MURDER/LEGAL ABORTION FOR HIRE: The jury in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has retired for the day and has not delivered a verdict related to the babies he killed in grisly abortion-infanticides.
Gosnell is charged with four counts of first-degree murder for killing babies following delivery in an abortion process that involved “snipping” their necks and spinal cords. He also faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of a woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, from a botched legal abortion. Gosnell, who has been in jail since his January 2011 arrest.
The grand jury report indicated one baby was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”
FOR MORE: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/30/kermit-gos...
If chance were just Gosnell would have choked to death on his umbilical cord before being born. The Hebrews would have called his a vampiric gestation, one who seeks to consume the lives of the innocent.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229860 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, it is what the Bible says on the topic. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. And what it says is that for infants less than a month old, there is no value at all.
For the record, I feel that the infant has value and is a person right from the moment of birth.
It's not the "value" of itself, but "expected future value to the parent" that it is talking about. It sounds to me like property tax.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229861 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Objectivity means that he looked at every possible meaning of it regardless of any preconcieved belief about it. If the child died, it may have meant "life for a life". There is more than one possible meaning of this scripture. Many honest theologians have admitted that the meaning is inconclusive. On the other hand, the Didache is more direct in stating:“do not murder a child by abortion". Nothing could be clearer.
The fruit was expelled, yet no mischief ensues. Prmature births did NOT survive, which means that the fetus did not become a child, it went from being a wad of goo to being a decaying wad of goo. HONEST theologians do not see any ambiguity here, it is only if their views on abortion are brought into the discussion does it become muddled, and then only by their wishful thinking. While the Didache is clear (at least in that fragment of a quote) it is also meaningless in that it does NOT get to redefine what is or is not a sin in Biblical terms. And, as I posted earlier, Tertullian and St. Augustine both agree that abortion can be an acceptable course of action.

Do try to understand one important fact: I would not have touched Biblical argument unless I felt that it suppored my 100%

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229862 Apr 30, 2013
Expert in all things wrote:
<quoted text> So it is all about geography for you?
No, it is all about the soul. Geography just happens to be part of the process.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229863 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the "value" of itself, but "expected future value to the parent" that it is talking about. It sounds to me like property tax.
In reference to the Exodus passage, yes. Althouogh "property tax" is not the term I would use, since that refers to money paid to the government for civic services related to ownership of land, and Exodus was dealing more with the property rights of the husband and his lost future fruit.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229864 May 1, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say ALL women, nor did I say ALL men. Re-read the post for comprehension.
And those women who think they might fall in love with that baby, more power to them for having the baby.
But just because SOME might, does NOT mean every woman should carry EVERY pregnancy to term. There ARE women with no maternal instinct, and should they fall pregnant, they have to do the most responsible thing for them AND for any possible child. If that is giving it up for adoption, then do that. IF it's having an abortion, then do that.
God is your belief. It applies only to you.
I didn't say you said ALL women. Comprehension isn't your strong point. IMO their most responsible choice of abortion is pure selfishness. You are right God is my belief,after all God did create all of us. If you don't believe in this that is your choice ,just like killing your baby in the womb was your choice. Selfish but your choice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min NoStress4me 882,009
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 7 min WasteWater 8,460
The Christian Atheist debate 8 min emperorjohn 4,215
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 49 min Robert F 603,863
Habesha 1 hr Insta names 1
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 1 hr GOD loves GAYS mo... 68
Has anyone ever heard of the Coudenhoven-Kalerg... 1 hr One Planet One Pe... 11
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr The swamiji 7,718
More from around the web