T1B

Let's start out with something totally uncontroversial...


Leaving out the discussions of women's rights, Roe v Wade being a joke of a decision et al, is abortion murder, biblicly speaking?

In Exodus 21 (go to the ten commandments and keep reading):

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

It looks like the life of a fetus is not as valuable as the of the mother here.



'Pro-life' folks, your thoughts?

You kill a man's child what punishment do you think is going to lay upon thee? Seeing as though they leave it up to him I am willing to take stoning on Thursday afternoon 90% of the time. ;) Just sayin'.

But appearantly a fetus isn't considered a 'child'.

Money will suffice.

Diogenes wrote:But appearantly a fetus isn't considered a 'child'.

Money will suffice.

Like I said I'll take stoning on Thursday afternoon. Atleast that is the punishment I would lay if it were my wife and child.

I don't think abortion should be illegal but I also don't think it should be used as a form of Birth controll. In the end either you will have to answer for your decisions to a higher authority or not. I say let him sort it out as I tend to think he will anyways whether we like it or not.

what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

what happens if you dont believe in self respect?

what happens if you dont believe in equal rights?

or condoms? or self control? or responsibility?

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god?

Then you probably don't believe in the Bible and have nothing to say to the topic at hand.

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

because the bible thumpers really don't believe in freedom of choice. they think their inane rules should apply to everyone.

Waz wrote:

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

because the bible thumpers really don't believe in freedom of choice. they think their inane rules should apply to everyone.

That isn't really fair WaZ, see my post and my sigs. Just sayin'

Hope ya stick around. I know you have plenty to offer this forum. :D ;)

Waz wrote:

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

because the bible thumpers really don't believe in freedom of choice. they think their inane rules should apply to everyone.

Leave the Founding Fathers out of this.

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

Dumbest post I've ever read. Being or not being a CHRISTIAN on the RIGHT has no relevance to whether YOU want to CHOOSE to commit CURRENTLY government sanctioned murder. Many Americans love our country enough to not want to see government sanctioned murder. Religion in YOUR context is a red herring. But hey, go jump off a bridge. We won't charge you with suicide since it was your choice.

Why can't I decide for myself whether I wear a seat belt or not?

And your shift button is on the far left, second button up. If you want to interject into a brighter topic, you might not want to make yourself appear to be such a dim bulb.

Dio, your original post, WITH CHILD. How are you interpreting that as the mother being more important and the conceived being referred to as other than CHILD? The no mischief follow part?

Maybe NIV is better...

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

The phrase 'gives birth prematurly' is also footnoted as [a] Or she has a miscarriage


If someone has more insight into the correct meaning of the word, let me know, my concordance is currently in storage but it seems like the text is saying that if a woman is caused to miscarry, it is a matter suitable for financial compensation. However, if the woman, is injured or killed (verse three goes on eye for eye, limb for limb etc.) it is seen as a more serious matter.

Most of the verses quoted by anti-abortion folks of a religious bent (newsflash to pro-abortion/anti-religion wackos- not all who oppose abortion are religious, and not all religious types are anti-abortion) deal with God knowing Jeremiah or others in the womb, which doesn't convince me as God knows all, knows you not only before you are born, but before you are concieved.

This verse on the other hand, seems to say that while a fetus may be a human life (obvious and redundant) it is not as valuable as one who is born.

Nice try to find a scripture regarding abortion, I've never found one.

What I have found is a whole lot of people who think that women deserve better than just a choice to abort.

I study the scriptures and think that what is left out is as important as what is put in. Abortion isn't in there as a strict yes or no, and people can debate as we always will. What comes down the line to the bottom line is what we as people believe in.

I really think that our attitudes as a society toward the unborn reflect our values. Just think about how we got here. The fights for birth control and abortion were both a reaction to limited rights for women in this country and in other countries. Fighting for rights for people who did not have full access to the freedoms that other folks in this country had. Women had a bad road if they were pregnant and did not have access to jobs and education that men in this country had. Fighting for birth control and abortion was a big deal when women did not have access to the same jobs and education as men. That is no longer the case.

I think that in our country, we sold out some values to compensate for the fact that women did not have access. Not a war anymore.

I had a great conversation many years ago with a woman that I worked with. She and I were both in careers that were traditionally male, but we were doing well. She was a conservative Catholic, and at the time I was somewhat liberal. We had a talk about abortion. I told her that I thought it was a woman's right. She told me that it was a larger issue...that relegating a human life to simply a person's choice was making life a lesser choice. That it would make the choice of life a lesser thing in many ways in our society. I scoffed. But she was right.

I came round to stand beside her idea. There are too many ways to make the choice of life and the respect of life a better thing in our society. A better thing for all of us. And I am a big supportor of feminists for life. Women deserve better. I've been a feminist for 25 years and if we are still on the same old page about abortion being the best option...then what good are we? Women deserve better than a choice to abort or lose.

Feminists for Life

Off subject, but have you read Christina Hoff Sommer's "who Stole Feminism", it covers how the struggle for rights became a struggle for ideology.

As for...

The fights for birth control and abortion were both a reaction to limited rights for women in this country and in other countries. Fighting for rights for people who did not have full access to the freedoms that other folks in this country had. Women had a bad road if they were pregnant and did not have access to jobs and education that men in this country had. Fighting for birth control and abortion was a big deal when women did not have access to the same jobs and education as men. That is no longer the case.

The fights for birth control, abortion and the rest of the sexual revolution can be viewed as a fight for the rights of men to get laid more easily.

The biggest message of the sexual revolution was that women had the right and power to be every bit as sleazy, promiscuous and irresponsible as men are, or at least would be if the values and behavior women previously insisted on were unnessecary.

Another thing to keep in mind is the fate of an aborted child, assuming that it has a soul...

A) IMO the idea of prenatal damnation is absurd, a fetus would have no opportunity to sin and therefore would seem to me to be home free.

B) Those who also believe us to be living in the end times might want to consider that the epidemic of abortions is actually God's mercy at work.

And why would anyone of that POV want to bring a child into the world anyway?

Diogenes wrote:Maybe NIV is better...

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

The phrase 'gives birth prematurly' is also footnoted as [a] Or she has a miscarriage


If someone has more insight into the correct meaning of the word, let me know, my concordance is currently in storage but it seems like the text is saying that if a woman is caused to miscarry, it is a matter suitable for financial compensation. However, if the woman, is injured or killed (verse three goes on eye for eye, limb for limb etc.) it is seen as a more serious matter.

Most of the verses quoted by anti-abortion folks of a religious bent (newsflash to pro-abortion/anti-religion wackos- not all who oppose abortion are religious, and not all religious types are anti-abortion) deal with God knowing Jeremiah or others in the womb, which doesn't convince me as God knows all, knows you not only before you are born, but before you are concieved.

This verse on the other hand, seems to say that while a fetus may be a human life (obvious and redundant) it is not as valuable as one who is born.

I haven't hunted down the passage in judaic terms but I would consider pause when quoting Jewish law in a Christian translation of it. Just trying to point out as Lefty did yesterday that many of the translations that just simply accepted in this day and age as correct are not translated very well from their Hebrew and aramaic orgins.

rozy wrote:

peter dragon wrote:what happens if you dont believe in god? how is it that anti-abortion people get to set the rules for every one? if you dont believe in abortion then dont have one. its simple as that. if you do have one then as you said, SCS you may have to answer to a higher authority. I just dont understand why the christian right is trying to force their beliefs on me? why can I make that decison for my self?

Dumbest post I've ever read. Being or not being a CHRISTIAN on the RIGHT has no relevance to whether YOU want to CHOOSE to commit CURRENTLY government sanctioned murder. Many Americans love our country enough to not want to see government sanctioned murder. Religion in YOUR context is a red herring. But hey, go jump off a bridge. We won't charge you with suicide since it was your choice.

Why can't I decide for myself whether I wear a seat belt or not?

And your shift button is on the far left, second button up. If you want to interject into a brighter topic, you might not want to make yourself appear to be such a dim bulb.

Dio, your original post, WITH CHILD. How are you interpreting that as the mother being more important and the conceived being referred to as other than CHILD? The no mischief follow part?

Dumbest post you've ever read? On this board? I think not. So, because I dont believe that aboring a baby is murder I get called names?

No but if you can't stick to the topic you might want to STFU.

It's not murder because of any religion, it's murder because it's killing human life. Rationalize it whichever way you chose, it's no different than snipping to pieces a wailing 1 year old baby to pieces with pruning shears and vacuuming up the pieces with a shop vac while it lies in it's crib. The only difference is time, development, and maturity. If it's okay to shred the quintessential innocence of a zygote in the first trimester, then it should be okay to shred your mother underneath the wheels of a passing semi because her usefulness doesn't fit my current needs.

This is why I don't get involved in the abortion debate.

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:This is why I don't get involved in the abortion debate.

I just present my view. If someone doesn't agree so be it. I am a law abiding citizen and conduct myself in accordence with the morals that I hold dear.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Maybe NIV is better...

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

The phrase 'gives birth prematurly' is also footnoted as [a] Or she has a miscarriage


If someone has more insight into the correct meaning of the word, let me know, my concordance is currently in storage but it seems like the text is saying that if a woman is caused to miscarry, it is a matter suitable for financial compensation. However, if the woman, is injured or killed (verse three goes on eye for eye, limb for limb etc.) it is seen as a more serious matter.

Most of the verses quoted by anti-abortion folks of a religious bent (newsflash to pro-abortion/anti-religion wackos- not all who oppose abortion are religious, and not all religious types are anti-abortion) deal with God knowing Jeremiah or others in the womb, which doesn't convince me as God knows all, knows you not only before you are born, but before you are concieved.

This verse on the other hand, seems to say that while a fetus may be a human life (obvious and redundant) it is not as valuable as one who is born.

I haven't hunted down the passage in judaic terms but I would consider pause when quoting Jewish law in a Christian translation of it. Just trying to point out as Lefty did yesterday that many of the translations that just simply accepted in this day and age as correct are not translated very well from their Hebrew and aramaic orgins.

If I had my concordance, I'd give you it in hebrew. If I get a chance, I'll look up an apropriate site this weekend.

And when pro-'choice' groups like NARAL and NOW decide to (as they claim to) defend the rights of women to control their own bodies (instead of the right to kill inconvenient human life), they'll endorse legalizing prostitution. And if a fetus one week from delivery isn't viable on it's own, neither is a newborn really.

Hypocricy (or myopia, to be charitable) on both sides

Nothing to do with...

Leaving out the discussions of women's rights, Roe v Wade being a joke of a decision et al, is abortion murder, biblicly speaking?

Diogenes wrote:Hypocricy (or myopia, to be charitable) on both sides

RACK

Complicated issue, to say the least. Sorry rozy and the rest of the "I'll view this one in terms of black and white" grayers.

A zygote is not a "person." Nor are sperm and egg cells "half a person," though some in the Orthodox Jewish ('sup mvscal) community may disagree.

That being said, in the construct in which Dio started this thread ... as a "pro-choicer," personally ...

I do believe it is wrong for third-trimester abortions to be conducted, unless the mom is so fucking fat she doesn't know she's pregnant, and it might endanger her health. Second-trimester abortions as well, unless the woman is a complete fattie ... hey, over 1/2 of them are overweight or borderline obese.

First-trimester abortions are different, and fall under key words in Dio's construct. Specifically, woman with child. I don't have the stats handy of how many abortions are performed early compared to late, but what sense would it make for a woman who doesn't want a child to keep a potential one in her?

One of the problems, imo, with the Bible is that it's completely paternalistic, as opposed to maternalistic.

I've never really posted about my views on abortion on this or any board before, but like I said I think it's not the same as some fucking tax or meaningless resolution or even a war powers act. Very complex. And the reason I'm "pro-choice" is that I have my personal views about it, but I don't want the government telling me or my gf what we can or can't do. That only translates to money (those who have it will travel and do what they must, and those who can't must endure someone else's "rules.") Fuck that.

But I'm pro-death penalty too. I'm pretty much pro-death, if that's what people want. I'm not here to judge others, nor to restrict them. And I sure as fuck don't want the government stepping in and doing it for me, at least not on these borderline -- at best -- "safety" issues.

I can live with my decisions with God. Not so sure if I were a lawmaker if I could live with God, while making rules for everybody else.

I'm pretty much pro-death, if that's what people want.

I'm pretty much anti-choice and anti-life.

Diogenes wrote:I'm pretty much anti-choice and anti-life.

Yeah, but at least you're somewhat sane/realistic about both. And you get the whole "hypocrisy" thing, from both sides when it comes to abortion.

You're in Kalifornia though. As a smoker, I could feel the bullshit from the Left, and I witnessed it in Lawrence, Kan. As a human, you should hear some of the radio advertisements for churches here sometime. You'd be scared from the Right, believe me. There are are a significant number of people here who seriously would outlaw living with a woman if you weren't married to her, on the order of + or - 30 percent. I am not kidding. Hell, Pat Robertson won counties in this state, when he ran for president, in '88. And I'm talking about in the city of Tulsa. Hell, it's more "liberal" out in the stix here.

At any rate, I had to reread the quote from Exodus, several times. So many ways to interpret it. The more than likely look on several Tulsa pastors after reading your initial post ---->

Seriously.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:I'm pretty much anti-choice and anti-life.

Yeah, but at least you're somewhat sane/realistic about both. And you get the whole "hypocrisy" thing, from both sides when it comes to abortion.

You're in Kalifornia though. As a smoker, I could feel the bullshit from the Left, and I witnessed it in Lawrence, Kan. As a human, you should hear some of the radio advertisements for churches here sometime. You'd be scared from the Right, believe me. There are are a significant number of people here who seriously would outlaw living with a woman if you weren't married to her, on the order of + or - 30 percent. I am not kidding. Hell, Pat Robertson won counties in this state, when he ran for president, in '88. And I'm talking about in the city of Tulsa. Hell, it's more "liberal" out in the stix here.

At any rate, I had to reread the quote from Exodus, several times. So many ways to interpret it. The more than likely look on several Tulsa pastors after reading your initial post ---->

Seriously.

Living in Oklahoma was the only thing that ever made me doubt being a Republican... Then I moved. The rest is history and I am still registered Republican despite the state of Oklahoma. Weird thing is that Oklahoma is overwhelmingly registered Democrat (or atleast it used to be) but votes heavily republican. I believe the Repubs even took over the state Legislature a couple of years, correct Radio?

At any rate, I had to reread the quote from Exodus, several times. So many ways to interpret it. The more than likely look on several Tulsa pastors after reading your initial post ---->

Seriously.

My target audience there...

Probably more... :x :? :x though.

Incidently I remember in the late 70s/early 80s when the anti-abortion movement was the anti-abortion movement. They decided to become 'pro-life' for propaganda reasons, pro instead of anti.

It was after that the abortion rights movement became 'pro-choice'.

Like I said, anti 'choice', anti-'life' pretty buch anti-bullshit.

As a non-religious person:

I would not ever ask someone to have an abortion. But, I am not opposed to it.
There are 7 BILLION people on this planet. Feel free not to add to this with a child you do not want. And since most religions are against birth control, they are no help in this matter.
I am adopted, so I imagine I could just have easily been aborted under my standards. But then again, I got extremly lucky and ended up with great parents.

And since most religions are against birth control....

What seminary did you get this from?

Oh well, if all of those hostile to religion respect the planet enough not to procreate, and people of faith prefer to be fruitful and multiply, I guess it will all work out in the end.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Living in Oklahoma was the only thing that ever made me doubt being a Republican... Then I moved. The rest is history and I am still registered Republican despite the state of Oklahoma.

'swhatimsayin, Dio. There are serious freaks here.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Weird thing is that Oklahoma is overwhelmingly registered Democrat (or atleast it used to be) but votes heavily republican. I believe the Repubs even took over the state Legislature a couple of years, correct Radio?

Not the Senate, but the House. And right now the House is trying to pass a shitload of "let's try to make everybody pure" / "you can't do that" bills, including the death penalty for second sex offenders.

I'm fairly certain this will be a dry state, literally, in about 2 years, when the GOP takes over the Senate and passes virtual prohibition. And a complete ban on abortion.

OK, sorry. With everybody trying to hijack this thread and distracting me and such. :twisted:

Women? Hell, Oklahoma will be the taliban on them. And proud of it too. Yee fucking ha! C'mon down!

Radio Fan wrote:House is trying to pass a shitload of "let's try to make everybody pure" / "you can't do that" bills, including the death penalty for second sex offenders.

If you're talking about serial rapists, I'm all for it.

Radio Fan wrote:I'm fairly certain this will be a dry state, literally, in about 2 years, when the GOP takes over the Senate and passes virtual prohibition. And a complete ban on abortion.

The second part should go as well for them as it is for whichever Dakota just did that, namely nowhere.

Aren't there too many Indians in that state for the prohibitian thing? Or don't they get to vote?

Radio Fan wrote:Women? Hell, Oklahoma will be the taliban on them. And proud of it too.

XMusch Sympathy, here from Gommorah South.

RadioFan wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:Living in Oklahoma was the only thing that ever made me doubt being a Republican... Then I moved. The rest is history and I am still registered Republican despite the state of Oklahoma.

'swhatimsayin, Dio. There are serious freaks here.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Weird thing is that Oklahoma is overwhelmingly registered Democrat (or atleast it used to be) but votes heavily republican. I believe the Repubs even took over the state Legislature a couple of years, correct Radio?

Not the Senate, but the House. And right now the House is trying to pass a shitload of "let's try to make everybody pure" / "you can't do that" bills, including the death penalty for second sex offenders.

I'm fairly certain this will be a dry state, literally, in about 2 years, when the GOP takes over the Senate and passes virtual prohibition. And a complete ban on abortion.

OK, sorry. With everybody trying to hijack this thread and distracting me and such. :twisted:

Women? Hell, Oklahoma will be the taliban on them. And proud of it too. Yee fucking ha! C'mon down!

They get rid of beer in Oklahoma and there will be a redneck revolution out there, mark my words. Prohibition would be the dumbest thing the repubs could do. They would never get elected in that state again and it would likely start voting democrat in federal elections as well. The fact that Brad Carson was beat in his election (Senate I believe) only give creedence about the the fact that the State of Okahoma doesn't know what is good for itself. I don't often vote for Democrats and I don't like pork but intentionally electing some who going to screw his own state repeatedly is just ignorant.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:A zygote is not a "person."

That's not a zygote, you fucking douchebag. It's a human being.

I agree with you that is definatly a child and not a zygote but just how far along is that child?

Radio specifically said that he didn't agree with second and third trimester abortions unless the mothers life was at risk. I tend to agree and that child definatly doesn't look first trimester to me.

I am definitely pro-choice. I think first-trimester abortion should be available to anyone, of any age, who wants/needs one for whatever reason. But I think once you reach the second or third trimester of a pregnacy, you've pretty much made your choice already.

I would support some limited restrictions on late-term abortions unless the woman's health or life were at risk or if the fetus had some mental or physical defect. But I don't think you should just be able to stroll into an abortion clinic, seven months pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus, and say "Uh, yeah. I changed my mind."

In my view, life begins when a fetus could feasibly survive outside a womb.

mvscal wrote:Life begins at age sixteen?

mvscal wrote:Life begins at age sixteen?

RACK

Leave it be and you shall see.
Life appears where life there was.

tough love wrote:Leave it be and you shall see.
Life appears where life there was.

Rush, "Natural Science?"

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:I am definitely pro-choice. I think first-trimester abortion should be available to anyone, of any age, who wants/needs one for whatever reason. But I think once you reach the second or third trimester of a pregnacy, you've pretty much made your choice already.

I would support some limited restrictions on late-term abortions unless the woman's health or life were at risk or if the fetus had some mental or physical defect. But I don't think you should just be able to stroll into an abortion clinic, seven months pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus, and say "Uh, yeah. I changed my mind."
In my view, life begins when a fetus could feasibly survive outside a womb.

I hate to break the news, but according to the 'pro-choice' types, you're a right-wing bible thumper who wants to force underprivilaged women into unsafe back-alley abortions.

As far as the original post, I guess the answer is a deafening silence.

Which is fine by me. If people want to march around, hold rallies and freak out over this issue, knock yourselves out.

Just don't pretend it is a Christian POV.

Diogenes wrote: As far as the original post, I guess the answer is a deafening silence.

Yeah........uh, sorry about that melting sidetrack, I couldn't have hit the trollbait harder if I had tried.

I believe the bible holds the mother's life in higher regard than the child's, as well as, holding her to a higher responsibilty, of course. However, I'm sure this particular verse you are quoting is not intending to endorse pregnent women refereeing UPC fights, nor birth control by death and dismemberment.

I can't argue Uncle Fester's point made of the arguement actually being about the definition of acceptibility. Between the life of the mother and the life of the child, I feel the life of the mother superscedes that of the child in the case of medical emergency.

I wish we felt as compelled to force the mother and father to either raise their children properly or give it up for adoption, as we do about paying our taxes in this country. It would be a much needed step in the right (and correct) direction.