Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your repentance is sincere, then yes - but if your plan is to perform abortions for the duration of your career and then "repent" at the end of your life...no.
Dr. Simmons is not a theologist, he is a medical school professor. The late Rabbi Feldman was not a theologist, he was a bioethicist.
The simple fact is that the Scripture doesn't say that punishment shall be imposed only if harm is inflicted upon one party or the other.
He never condones humans killing a fetus.
Yet you have previously stated that you believe that's exactly what He did to Adam...
You are in denial of science. Anyone with a high school understanding of biology understands that the baby is alive as long as it is exhibiting cellular, not pulmonary, respiration.
And if God's breath really is "the wind, the air around us, what we breathe in through our nostrils," then how is it that we are not God since our breath is God's breath?
When the winds are not blowing, does that mean that God is not breathing? Why do you assume that God engages in temporal activities, such as breathing, in the first place? Do you really think the Holy Spirit is constrained by bodily functions?
Other than your belief that fetuses aren't living human beings, what makes you think that He intended for them to be excluded from His commandments?
So that we can give glory to Him - which abortion certainly does not do.
While He gave us free will, He didn't give us free rein. He expect us to follow the rules He set for us, and allows us to make decisions that do not violate those rules.
What about all the babies who don't suffer while in the womb? What is your justification for killing them, since they're not suffering?
The fact that we have emotions is not the reason why we were "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights," life being one of those rights.
I do. See the previous posts where I mentioned the donations I make to adoption agencies, and the mentoring or fostering I will do once I retire.
So how have those who have had or performed abortions treated Jesus?
Providing birth control to those who are unmarried and sexually active would constitute enabling sexual sin, which He would not do. But He would forgive those who turn from it and seek Him.
Again, you're attempting to set up a false dilemma based upon your own preconceived notions, which is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Strawman.
You seem to be equating helping with enabling.
You're still being literalistic, and also engaging in a logical fallacy knows as "burden of proof."
Thankfully, in this country, you do not get to legislate according to your religious beliefs.
BTW.....my imaginary friend says there is nothing immoral about a woman choosing to abort. Do you care?
I can't believe you are quibbling with me over four to five years of discrepancy. Really? Ok. 1960 if we must. That is even more to my point that the young people of childbearing years NOW, should have better birth control technology than Baby Boomers. Only 1/3 of sexually active women even use BC pills because they have so many risks and remain out of reach financially without health insurance coverage. Something that tens of millions of Americans still do not have. You're ok with that? I am not. As I understand it, Smartphones have made more progress in 5 years than birth control in 50 years. That just should not be.
Oral contraceptives have indeed been improved since the original Pill came out, with different hormones, lower doses, and different dosing schedules. The risks of the pill are lower than the risk of pregnancy for most women.
Walmart has about nine BCPs available for $9 per 28 day pack.
IUDs are safe, effective, and underutilized. The devices have also been improved over the years. The higher up front cost can be a problem for the uninsured, but the cost amortized over the lifetime of the device is actually low.
Some women who are not covered by insurance or Medicaid may be able to get the Mirena IUD free if they meet income guidelines:
The ParaGard device can be ordered directly by a patient and paid for in one or multiple payments. It is shipped to the person who will do the insertion.
I cannot find any patient assistance information for the hormone implant.
It is not correct to say there have been no improvements in female contraception in the last 50 years.
Abortion should remain legal and accessible. Too many women died from illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade.
It's not revenge, it's vengeance. You said so yourself in your next line.
Not my opinion. I merely I quoted a bible verse, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.†Which means the wrath of god will take care of the issue. Which means that humans should stay out of it. Especially considering judge not, lest ye be judged, and cast the first stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
God commanded the governments that He ordained (Romans 13:1-6) to administer the punishment He ordained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
If God believed that executing a murderer was itself an act of murder, He wouldn't have commanded man to execute those who take innocent life.
How did he command them? Via a book that was written by humans, has been subject to hundreds of translations, has been interpreted in varying ways and contains directives that are mostly illegal in this day and age?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
You'd have to ask God, He is the one who would cause it to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Which particular Scriptures are you referring to? Adultery is mentioned several times throughout the Bible.
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
But "other cells in a woman's body" are part of an organism (the woman), whereas a baby is an organism unto itself. The "other cells in a woman's body" carry the woman's DNA, whereas the baby has its own unique set of DNA (genome).
Doesn't matter. The fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival and the woman has the right to decide if she wants to incubate it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Another example of literalism. The Bible is clear that God created life, the human body, and thus the process by which new lives are created.
How do you decide which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Ever found a pro-abortion verse in the Bible? Nope.
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Exodus 21:22-25
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.â€
Jeremiah 1:5
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139:13-16
This doesn't say anything about abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
non sequitur
No. If anti abortionists are attempting to make abortions illegal based on compliance with biblical principal, they had better abide by all of it themselves instead of picking and choosing. Otherwise they'd be hypocrites.
The baby (I won't use the term "fetus" because that is just a linguistic trick to make it easier to kill a human being in development) can't speak with voice, but as they are being executed they often recoil, scream at some stages, have elevated heart rates and make movements that indicate fear, they are communicating that they do not want to die.
The Bible does talk about breathing life into each of us, but it also talks how God knits us together in the womb.
You forgot that verse. Something tells me you miss a lot of a lot of Bible verses when you interpret God's word.
90% don't suffer depression...Maybe lies become truth if you whisper them to yourself often enough. My experience leads me to conclude that this number is false. But I believe in your core being you knew this was false already....
As to my existence, I've done both good and bad. I can't say the world would be the same, but I do know that the good I have done would have been missed if the world was roughly the same.
Fetus is a scientific word, not a linguistic. It is any mammal developing in the womb.
That verse has nothing to do with abortions. It simply means that God had a hand in the making of the fetus and knows its future. It does not make the fetus sacred or holy or human in any way. If it was sacred simply because God made it, then everything from animals, plants, rocks and bugs would be sacred because He has a hand in making everything.
The number is not false, it's been studied. And I was wrong 95% of women don't regret it.
That seems to be your answer for when you don't actually have an answer. God is very specific about sins and punishments, whether you say they are literal or not, yet there is not a single verse that SPECIFICALLY discusses the process of abortions and what happens to a woman who has one or to a person that preforms them. I will keep asking you for one until you show me one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Legally, yes. Biologically, no.
No, a fetus isn't its own entity. It can not continue to develop without constant direct contact to the woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
If your repentance is sincere, then yes - but if your plan is to perform abortions for the duration of your career and then "repent" at the end of your life...no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Dr. Simmons is not a theologist, he is a medical school professor. The late Rabbi Feldman was not a theologist, he was a bioethicist.
The simple fact is that the Scripture doesn't say that punishment shall be imposed only if harm is inflicted upon one party or the other.
The simple fact is that for hundreds of years it has been interrupted that the harm applies only to the woman, but even so, if this is the only example you have of harm being caused to a fetus followed by punishment, it's pretty shaky as you say that you can't verify for sure if He is talking about the woman, the fetus or both. Not a strong argument to equate abortion to murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
He never condones humans killing a fetus.
Um yes he does. He orders the priest, a man, to give her the bitter water. If God didn't want a person involved, He would induce a spontaneous miscarriage. And you didn't answer my question. If God is so concerned with protecting the "life" of a fetus, why does He want her to abort "an innocent," why doesn't He punish her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Yet you have previously stated that you believe that's exactly what He did to Adam...
No I didn't. I never said God came down to Adam and blew into his nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
You are in denial of science. Anyone with a high school understanding of biology understands that the baby is alive as long as it is exhibiting cellular, not pulmonary, respiration.
And if God's breath really is "the wind, the air around us, what we breathe in through our nostrils," then how is it that we are not God since our breath is God's breath?
When the winds are not blowing, does that mean that God is not breathing? Why do you assume that God engages in temporal activities, such as breathing, in the first place? Do you really think the Holy Spirit is constrained by bodily functions?
Ha. I am not in denial of science. You are in denial of the fact that your interpretation is incorrect. You are reaching really hard with this "cellular respiration" thing. I never said that it doesn't occur, but that does not make it alive or a person Biblically, medically, or legally. Cellular respiration is necessary for continued development, but that does not make it a human being.
If a breathe in cigarette smoke, do I become a cigarette? Just because His breathe brings life to us, does not mean we transform into Him. The wind doesn't have to blow, because all the air around us is His breathe.
Now who is being literal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Other than your belief that fetuses aren't living human beings, what makes you think that He intended for them to be excluded from His commandments?
What makes you think He intended to include them? Fetuses are hardly talked about in the Bible and if God thought they were so important He would have made specific laws regarding them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
So that we can give glory to Him - which abortion certainly does not do.
How do you know? As I pointed out God states, it is better to live a life of quality over a life just for the sake of living (which you conveniently skipped over), so if an abortion prevents a life of sorrow and suffering and poor quality, I think God would be okay with causing an "untimely birth" that prevented one from "seeing the light."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
While He gave us free will, He didn't give us free rein. He expect us to follow the rules He set for us, and allows us to make decisions that do not violate those rules.
Tell me the rules regarding abortions. Again, if abortion is a sin, if it is murder, He would say it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
What about all the babies who don't suffer while in the womb? What is your justification for killing them, since they're not suffering?
Again, they will be born into suffering, back to that whole life of quality thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
The fact that we have emotions is not the reason why we were "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights," life being one of those rights.
As well as free will and bodily autonomy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
I do. See the previous posts where I mentioned the donations I make to adoption agencies, and the mentoring or fostering I will do once I retire.
Yes and that's great, but we are talking about abortions. What are you doing to reduce abortions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
So how have those who have had or performed abortions treated Jesus?
Probably just fine, but we are talking about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Providing birth control to those who are unmarried and sexually active would constitute enabling sexual sin, which He would not do. But He would forgive those who turn from it and seek Him.
You are not enabling sexual sin because sex will happen with or without birth control, but birth control can mean the difference between an abortion or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Again, you're attempting to set up a false dilemma based upon your own preconceived notions, which is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
And you live in a fantasy world not reality.
Show me a time and a place where abstinence has worked. If you know that people are going to have sex either way and you are fully aware of the fact that free birth control reduces unwanted pregnancy which in turn reduces abortions, yet you support and vote for legislation that denies women access to free birth control, than you are just as responsible for the abortion as the woman receiving it or the doctor preforming it.
Your putting words into my mouth constitutes a strawman.
Why don't you try rebutting the points I actually stated?
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You said, and I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
No. If she can't afford birth control, then she can't afford to take the risk of becoming pregnant. It's called personal responsibility, without it you will not be able to raise a child.
And if she practices abstinence, then the odds of needing an abortion are 0%.
It's very simple. You don't want women to have abortions. You said: "If she can't afford birth control, then she can't afford to take the risk of becoming pregnant." and "And if she practices abstinence, then the odds of needing an abortion are 0%."
And I asked you a question that seems to be confusing you. Let me rephrase that question because maybe you didn't understand it in the context of your statements: If a woman isn't supposed to have an abortion, and she can't take the risk of getting pregnant, then according to you, in order to avoid an abortion, she needs to practice abstinence (since there is ALWAYS a risk of pregnancy when having sex even if using birth control, since all birth control has a failure rate), so my question to you was: Are you advocating abstinence then for every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, including married women?
I'm asking because the way you spelled it out, that's obviously the only way a woman can never get pregnant. And believe it or not, many, many married couple do. not. want. children. I just want to be clear on what you're saying. If not, maybe you can clarify what you meant.
As to refuting your points, why? Most of them are about YOUR god and how you want the rest of US to live by the morality YOUR god says is right. As Annie pointed out, her imaginary friend says there is nothing immoral about a woman choosing to abort. Mine says the same. This may come as a shock to you, Slowpoke, but I don't believe in your god, so I couldn't give a happy crappy what his flipping moral values are. Or yours. So don't try to force them on me.
You know, religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and great to be proud of it, but just don't shove it down my throat. Don't even try.
And no, I'm not done yet. Let me ask you another question, and this is for all those who don't believe in abortion: Do you agree in letting a woman or child have an abortion in the cases of rape or incest?
That's also very simple, takes only a yes or no.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 11-19-2015 at 11:28 PM..
Not my opinion. I merely I quoted a bible verse, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.†Which means the wrath of god will take care of the issue. Which means that humans should stay out of it.
Not when God commanded them to get involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Especially considering judge not, lest ye be judged, and cast the first stone.
I love pointing out the hypocrisy of a sinful human quoting Jesus in verse, as if they are sinless like Jesus!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
contains directives that are mostly illegal in this day and age?
I already mentioned the Scripture where God allows humans to form governments to maintain the order He created. This is why it is folly to use man's law as the model for evaluating God's law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Fine by me. If the death penalty were enforced against cheaters, there'd be a lot less cheating going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Doesn't matter. The fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival and the woman has the right to decide if she wants to incubate it or not.
Denial of science & circular reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
How do you decide which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't?
Obviously, the parts that are metaphors, symbolism, etc. aren't to be taken literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
This doesn't say anything about abortion.
More denial. God didn't created life with the intention that humans be allowed to destroy it, save for the allowance he made for executing murderers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
No. If anti abortionists are attempting to make abortions illegal based on compliance with biblical principal, they had better abide by all of it themselves instead of picking and choosing. Otherwise they'd be hypocrites.
You don't seem to be following any logical pattern here.
When you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
The ten commandments and 7 deadly sins are impossible to abide by. They are constantly violated by just about everyone (including most Christians).
that was a non sequitur in light of the fact that I had previously said that your previous conditional statement was false, and that the Christians oppose abortion regardless of the faith of the woman having the abortion.
It simply means that God had a hand in the making of the fetus and knows its future. It does not make the fetus sacred or holy or human in any way. If it was sacred simply because God made it, then everything from animals, plants, rocks and bugs would be sacred because He has a hand in making everything.
You're assuming that because it's not sacred, God doesn't care whether it is killed or not.
A study, with a small sample size, conducted by a group of liberals concluded that most women don't regret having an abortion. Gee, there's no reason to doubt the objectivity of that study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
That seems to be your answer for when you don't actually have an answer. God is very specific about sins and punishments, whether you say they are literal or not, yet there is not a single verse that SPECIFICALLY discusses the process of abortions and what happens to a woman who has one or to a person that preforms them. I will keep asking you for one until you show me one.
You need to ask your pastor to explain to you what literalism is. And you also need to understand that although some sins and punishments are enumerated in the Bible, it is not an exhaustive list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
No, a fetus isn't its own entity. It can not continue to develop without constant direct contact to the woman.
Biologically, it is its own entity. If it was part of the woman's body, it would have her DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
The simple fact is that for hundreds of years it has been interrupted that the harm applies only to the woman
The guys you quoted weren't even theologians, which is VERY shaky ground for claiming that they're any kind of authority on Scriptural analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Um yes he does. He orders the priest, a man, to give her the bitter water. If God didn't want a person involved, He would induce a spontaneous miscarriage.
God induced the spontaneous miscarriage when the bitter water is drank by the unfaithful woman. The bitter water has no effect upon the baby of the faithful woman, only upon the baby of the unfaithful woman. The priest doesn't cause the water to have this effect, God does. The priest's job is merely to hand the cup containing the bitter water to the woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
And you didn't answer my question. If God is so concerned with protecting the "life" of a fetus, why does He want her to abort "an innocent," why doesn't He punish her?
The woman's punishment is the miscarriage, and the resulting public knowledge that she committed adultery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
You are reaching really hard with this "cellular respiration" thing. I never said that it doesn't occur, but that does not make it alive or a person Biblically, medically, or legally.
Medically, cellular respiration DOES INDEED indicate that an organism is living. Life cannot occur without cellular respiration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Cellular respiration is necessary for continued development, but that does not make it a human being.
Cellular respiration indicates that it is alive. The presence of a human genome indicates that the organism is a human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
If a breathe in cigarette smoke, do I become a cigarette? Just because His breathe brings life to us, does not mean we transform into Him. The wind doesn't have to blow, because all the air around us is His breathe.
Now who is being literal?
You're finally beginning to understand the folly of literalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
What makes you think He intended to include them?
The fact that He didn't exclude them. When God said "Thou shalt not kill," He then went on to cite a specific instance (the execution of murderers) that was to be excluded from the relevant Commandment. He did not cite abortion as an exclusion from the Commandment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
How do you know? As I pointed out God states, it is better to live a life of quality over a life just for the sake of living (which you conveniently skipped over), so if an abortion prevents a life of sorrow and suffering and poor quality, I think God would be okay with causing an "untimely birth" that prevented one from "seeing the light."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Again, they will be born into suffering, back to that whole life of quality thing.
You think wrong. There are countless examples in the Bible of God using suffering to reveal Himself to people and to teach lessons.
Also, how can one who has not yet been born "see the light?" I don't think you know what "see the light" means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Tell me the rules regarding abortions. Again, if abortion is a sin, if it is murder, He would say it is.
I'm not going to waste my time going over this with you again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
As well as free will and bodily autonomy.
But not the right to impose your will upon another. And I've already explained, multiple times, how a baby is not part of a woman's body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Yes and that's great, but we are talking about abortions. What are you doing to reduce abortions?
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you so dense that you can't see how adoption agencies reduce abortions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Probably just fine, but we are talking about you.
Nice attempt at dodging the question. I knew you wouldn't answer it, because you can't do so without destroying your entire position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
You are not enabling sexual sin because sex will happen with or without birth control, but birth control can mean the difference between an abortion or not.
You need to look up the definition of "enable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Show me a time and a place where abstinence has worked.
It was worked every single time it has been practiced, ever since Adam and Eve were created and placed in the garden of Eden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
If you know that people are going to have sex either way and you are fully aware of the fact that free birth control reduces unwanted pregnancy which in turn reduces abortions, yet you support and vote for legislation that denies women access to free birth control, than you are just as responsible for the abortion as the woman receiving it or the doctor preforming it.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to excuse the woman of any responsibility for her actions while shifting the responsibility for them onto me.
1. The woman doesn't have to have sex.
2. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she should be responsible for ensuring that some form of contraception is used.
3. If a woman gets pregnant, she doesn't have to have an abortion.
4. A woman who chooses to have sex has no right to expect others to pay for her birth control.
5. A woman who gets pregnant has no right to expect someone else to pay for her abortion - especially not those who are morally opposed to abortion.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to excuse the woman of any responsibility for her actions while shifting the responsibility for them onto me.
1. The woman doesn't have to have sex.
2. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she should be responsible for ensuring that some form of contraception is used.
3. If a woman gets pregnant, she doesn't have to have an abortion.
4. A woman who chooses to have sex has no right to expect others to pay for her birth control.
5. A woman who gets pregnant has no right to expect someone else to pay for her abortion - especially not those who are morally opposed to abortion.
The woman has the right to expect that you will not force your concept of morality on her when her view of morality is not the same as yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't seem to be following any logical pattern here.
