SCOTUS and Roe - Part 3
- Thread starter dtgreg
- Start date
For those out there who hate God but don’t like killing babies, this is the group for you.
secularprolife.org
Welcome - Secular Pro-Life
secularprolife.org
The timing of abortion and when it's permissible has NOT been debated for millennia. That's a recent invention. The ancient Judaic standard was when the fetus was capable of independent existence and that was accepted by Christians for centuries, until the 70s, in fact...
The Bible makes it clear that a child in its mother's womb is a living human being and has done so for 3500 years but the Bible never addresses the issue of abortion directly. (Infanticide was addressed, it was one of the reasons that Israel drove out the inhabitants of Canaan. God had warned them 400 years prior. They refused to repent, so He destroyed them as He promised.)
Ex 21:22 (1487 BC) "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that her children come out, yet there is no injury, .."
Jer 20:17 (~600 BC) "Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother would have been my grave, and her womb ever pregnant."
In addition, Luke 1 records the meeting between Elizabeth, 6 months pregnant with John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, where John "leaped for joy" when hearing Mary's greeting.
These and a couple more examples make it clear that life begins before birth. Thus, Bible believers are correct to consider abortion as murder.
When all whose sins are not forgiven appear before the Lord to be judged, will there be consideration given to abortion acters who do not believe the fetus to be living? IMO, absolution, no, mitigation, unlikely but possible. Will members of one ethnic or religious group be absolved of murder when they murder members of another ethnic or religious group whom they consider to be less than human? No. Will slave owners be absolved of cruelty, who treated slaves as animals because they thought they were subhuman? No.
Yes, there has been political opportunism and other wrong motives for "standing against abortion" but there are many believers, and others as well, who are very sincere in their view of abortion as murder. The earlier references make it clear that there is a Scriptural basis for that sincerity.
Ex 21:22 (1487 BC) "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that her children come out, yet there is no injury, .."
Jer 20:17 (~600 BC) "Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother would have been my grave, and her womb ever pregnant."
In addition, Luke 1 records the meeting between Elizabeth, 6 months pregnant with John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, where John "leaped for joy" when hearing Mary's greeting.
These and a couple more examples make it clear that life begins before birth. Thus, Bible believers are correct to consider abortion as murder.
When all whose sins are not forgiven appear before the Lord to be judged, will there be consideration given to abortion acters who do not believe the fetus to be living? IMO, absolution, no, mitigation, unlikely but possible. Will members of one ethnic or religious group be absolved of murder when they murder members of another ethnic or religious group whom they consider to be less than human? No. Will slave owners be absolved of cruelty, who treated slaves as animals because they thought they were subhuman? No.
Yes, there has been political opportunism and other wrong motives for "standing against abortion" but there are many believers, and others as well, who are very sincere in their view of abortion as murder. The earlier references make it clear that there is a Scriptural basis for that sincerity.
I've studied the history of it as well. I agree much of the modern 'Christian viewpoint' has been heavily influenced by the push in the 70's, but it's been debated for millennia. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Sure, no problem. I will point out that there is not "Christian Viewpoint" at present. The "life at conception" is not universally accepted among Christians...
If Etowah County sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the place that has jailed multiple pregnant women using chemical endangerment chargesâ€â€basically, they claim the women used drugs and that their fetuses need to be ‘protected.’ In one case they arrested a woman who wasn’t even pregnant. (You also may remember that Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall planned to use ‘chemical endangerment’ charges to arrest women who used abortion medication.)
Texas had over 26K rape-related pregnancies in 16 months after abortion ban, study shows
Texas' abortion law does not offer any exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. The state's total in the 16 months after almost all abortions were outlawed is nearly as many as the next six states combined.
abc13.com
No surprise that the "Christian viewpoint" is unclear or inconsistent, but it is essentially irrelevant to those interested in what God thinks about it. OTOH, the Bible, which reveals HIs thoughts, is quite clear that life begins in the womb.
As an aside, all believers should be very interested in what the Bible says, since it reveals God's knowledge of the subject, which is the truth.
Pro tip: Don't use sentence fragments as the basis of an argument.
The full quote is "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."
You're basing the point on the use of "children", and nothing else. The fact that the penalty is a FINE doesn't really support your position.
The Jerome excerpt is, similarly, a fragment--the full passage is pretty convoluted. Note verse 15: "
Cursed be the man who brought my father the news,
who made him very glad, saying,
“A child is born to youâ€â€a son!â€Â
Cursed?
Taken by itself, it suggests the opposite of your next passage.
A stretch at best. Happiness over an impending birth is proof of joy over an impending birth.
Plus, again, when you read the full passage, Elizabeth's joy stems not from Mary's pregnancy, but by the fact that Mary is pregnant with Jesus.
The fragment was enough to express my point: God has made it clear that life begins in the womb. It was a "child", i.e., a young human being, that "came out. I'm not sure how it can be more plain.
Jer 20:17 (~600 BC) "Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother would have been my grave, and her womb ever pregnant."
Again, the point I was making is that God makes it clear that life begins in the womb. Jeremiah refers to himself as "me". i.e., as a person. He refers to not being killed before birth. Of course, one must be alive to be killed. Etc. I'm not sure how it can be more plain that Jeremiah, inspired by God, regards the entity in his mother's womb to be a person - not the "opposite'.
In addition, Luke 1 records the meeting between Elizabeth, 6 months pregnant with John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, where John "leaped for joy" when hearing Mary's greeting.
Again, John 6 months in his mother's womb "leaps for joy", indicating that he was conscious and had a certain level of understanding. Thus, it is no "stretch" to say that John is a living person in his mother's womb.
But the fact that I have been expressing is that God considers a baby in its mother's womb to be a living person.
I'm not addressing those who reject the Bible as the Word of God. I'm speaking to those who want to know what God, through the Bible, says about this issue. For the believer, that is the primary concern. What Protestantism, the Baptists, Catholicism, Lutherans, the Judeo-Christian ethic or any other group or individual thinks is essentially irrelevant, the only thing that matters to the believer is: What does the Lord say?
He is clear on the subject.
(There's more. For those interested read Psalm 139, especially 13-16, to see that it is God who weaves us in "our mother's womb". "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance." He knows all about each individual, what we are like and what our entire future will be before we enter this world. He made us.)
1. Are there ever exception when abortion is acceptable to you?
2. In those cases who should decide how to proceed?
Not relevant. We aren't a theocracy, for one thing. For another, someone besides you or I may be more correct in its interpretation.
What is relevant is that there are real life situations that don't fit neatly into an "abortion is murder" box at all - situations in which the mother's life and health are at risk due to pregnancy.
I'm willing to bet Jazz' mortgage that you believe there are exceptions to the rule of not killing another human.
So the questions were:
Are their exceptions?
And in those cases who best decides the course of action?
It is relevant. We aren’t a theocracy, but everyone votes according to their values. Those include religious beliefs for many in this country and others.
The other thing is that in the Bible very little outside of prophecy needs interpretation. It just says what it says. We make it way too complex so we can talk ourselves into what we want it to say or not say. Choose to believe what it says or not that should be everyone’s freedom, but the over complication of most topics in the Bible is laughable, and has led to nothing but problems.
You are doing that very thing here. It’s clear that there are moments when taking a human life is the appropriate response. It is all over the Bible. I’ll let him speak for his exceptions. Mine are the life of the mother. A terrible choice has to be made there with a no win situation.
I understand your point about relevancy, but my point is that the Bible is not the law in this country - much less a certain idea of what certain passages mean that might hint vaguely at an underlying meaning, depending on who is reading it. (AKA, one's interpretation)
History is full of examples in which a certain interpretation of the plain text Bible that wasn't prophecy from people who "knew" they were right above anyone else led to nothing but trouble.
But people can't even agree on whether women can minister to an at large population, based on the same Bible (non-prophecy).
We have people who say a woman can't protect herself from great bodily harm when a fetus is involved, yet would protect a woman from being beaten by a man with deadly force if need be. Yes, one is less likeable than the other but the threats each pose is similar and yet in one case many would deny the woman the ability to protect her health. That was implied in your post, but I don't want to speak for you.
How is point out a contradiction (and possibly some hypocrisy) over complicating things? Just the opposite, in my opinion.
I grow concerned when going beyond informing general values the Bible is used to force a viewpoint formed from a religious fervor on others, particularly when life and health are in the balance. That's the low hanging fruit in regards to abortion, and we can't even seemingly agree on that.
I have had real conversations with real people who are so stupid as to not want an exception for ectopic pregnancy (yes, it is an abortion even if the fetus is implanted in a location that is nonviable).
There have been several cases in which a woman was forced to carry a nonviable fetus to term even though there was zero chance it would live, but high risk of great bodily harm to the woman.
A woman whose water broke prematurely at 18 weeks gestation was not allowed an abortion even though the pregnancy was no longer viable and she was at high risk of dying from sepsis or becoming infertile.
Is the interpretation of the Bible correct in that women's lives and health are of no value?
Because the same logic that it used to say "that's what the Bible plainly says (even when it's only implied)" can be used to interpret what people are saying today.
You misunderstand my answer and motive for posting. As I've noted in other threads, I agree the US is not a theocracy, nevertheless, it is the prerogative of anyone to base their view on such matters on what the Bible says. My motivation for participating in this thread was not to promote any legal or political point of view, but to make it clear to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God, what God says about the issue. I.e., there is a person in the womb. So, whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God is of utmost relevance.
If you or anyone else believes the Bible is the Word of God and is interested in an interpretation of what the Bible implies about exceptions (afaik, it does not address this matter directly), I will give my interpretation, if not, I won't. If no one believes the Bible is the Word of God or is interested in my interpretation, why waste our time, when what I will say will be based on what the Bible says or indicates?
God says that we can understand His Word. Furthermore, He tells us to "earnestly contend for the faith". If we can't interpret it correctly how can we contend for it? He also says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete prepared for every good work." Your view would render the Scriptures irrelevant, since you believe that because we might misinterpret something, you reject all interpretations. I disagree with your view. The Bible is the basis of what I believe.
Many issues are as clear as day. Others are not. The issue of whether the life in a mother's womb is a person is an example of one that is quite clear.
Do you think that you are more concerned than God about the lives of the mother and the child?
That's a ridiculous question that makes no sense at all.
But it does appear I am more concerned about mothers than many people who use the Bible to justify
So while it would be great if we could solve thousands of years of disagreement on every detail of what God actually is trying to tell us, that's just not happening.
And since that's not happening there's not much use discussing doctrine.
And doctrine is not law.
And the law and the law's impact is what is relevant in a thread about those very things.
I've taken your stance in the past.
I was wrong - legally and morally.
Whether I am wrong religiously or not is between myself and my creator, assuming there is one.
Same goes for everyone else.
Last edited:
What evangelicals ignore is that in this country, we are not just Judeo-Christian. We have a growing number of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs. And many (including myself) agnostics and atheists.
Freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion. In the sense that no religious entity has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on me....when they mean my rights to my own body or my own right to live free from some religious doctrine.
Like I said about same-sex marriage. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.
In the same vane, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
Freedom OF religion should also include freedom FROM religion. In the sense that no religious entity has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on me....when they mean my rights to my own body or my own right to live free from some religious doctrine.
Like I said about same-sex marriage. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.
In the same vane, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ICE Officer Kills Motorist In Minneapolis
- Started by Its On A Slab
- Replies: 2
-
-
ESPN: 'This is one of the big moments in college football': Demond Williams Jr.'s case will test if contracts can be enforced
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-