If humans have value, then abortion must be immoral. Here’s why:
Value is either intrinsic (part of the nature of the thing itself) or extrinsic (conferred on a thing by an external source). If value is intrinsic to human beings, then humans are valuable the moment they come into existence. Since it is a scientific fact that human beings come into being at conception, then unborn humans have the same value that you and I have from the moment of their conception. As such, it would be just as immoral to kill an unborn human as it is a born human. So if you believe humans have intrinsic value, then you should be opposed to abortion.
Most thoughtful pro-choice advocates think human value is extrinsic rather than intrinsic, meaning humans are only valuable if someone else finds some sort of instrumental value in them, or if they meet some sort of subjective criteria for value that others have created (such as consciousness, self-awareness, etc.). When applied to the unborn, this means the unborn human only has value and only deserves legal protection from harm if his/her mother wants him/her. If she doesn’t want him/her, then the unborn human has no value and can be killed.
This is problematic. If an individual human being is only valuable if some other human being attributes value to him/her, then every human can be killed – both the born and the unborn. A 20 year old female has no value unless someone finds something instrumentally valuable about her. If we can kill any human that is without value, and if any human’s value is dependent on another person’s valuation of him/her, then any human being can be killed by any other human being (regardless of age or location) so long as the latter human does not value the former. An extrinsic view of human value not only justifies abortion, then, but also the murder of every born human being. So if you hold to an extrinsic view of human value and you wish to be consistent in your thinking, you’ll either have to condemn the killing of both born and unborn human beings, or permit both. Only the morally insane would permit both, so even if you believe human value is extrinsic, you should be opposed to abortion.
Thinking to Believe 
January 8, 2020 at 11:31 am
“Since it is a scientific fact that human beings come into being at conception”
Science does NOT make that claim. The abortion issue all hinges on the definition of “human life” and when it begins. Unfortunately, the term isn’t well defined, since clearly human sperm and ova are both human and alive, but nobody seriously considers them “human life.” Good thing, too, because otherwise women NOT becoming pregnant every time they ovulate would be tantamount to murder. And men having wet dreams or masturbating would be even worse, since there are often hundreds of MILLIONS of sperm cells in each ejaculation. Even sex with the intention of pregnancy results in the deaths of all but one sperm. So clearly sex cells don’t hold much value.
So when does human life begin? Many people—not just many Christians—claim it begins at conception. Well, although that is indeed when one’s genetic structure is determined, the difference between two individual sex cells with HALF the genes each, and a fertilized egg with ALL the genes, is almost insignificant—like the difference between a zipper that is open vs. one that is closed. Both sex cells and fertilized eggs are single cells with the POTENTIAL to become human beings, but possessing NONE of the features and capacity we use to identify humans. So claiming that two sex cells coming together suddenly makes them human makes about as much sense as claiming that someone who eats a banana is eating a banana tree.
On the other end of the spectrum, nobody in our culture would consider a born baby to be anything other than a fully human life, so killing a baby would definitely be murder. That means “human life” is something that happens between conception and birth. Is it when the egg travels down the fallopian tube and implants in the uterus? Is it when the circulatory system forms? Or perhaps when the organs start to develop? How about the appearance of external human features? Or when the senses begin developing? Or when the fetus can feel pain? The thing is, a human life isn’t a singular moment…it’s a gradual process. At each stage of development the fetus becomes increasingly human, and that’s why there are many differing opinions on when “human life” actually begins. Because of this ambiguity, disagreements are inevitable. Those who believe that life begins at conception tend to consider that deliberately ending a pregnancy at any stage of the process is murder, while those who believe it is unreasonable to impose one’s own beliefs on when human life begins tend to believe the decision should be left up to the mother or both parents.
But for those who insist that life begins at conception, there are a few ethical factors to consider—like the fact that half of all fertilized eggs never become implanted anyway, often due to controllable factors such as a woman being underweight. So if human life begins at conception, should fertile women be forced to maintain ideal implantation weight? Or take drugs to ensure implantation? Interestingly, some popular forms of birth control also prevent conception from even occurring, which results in fewer failed implantations of fertilized eggs than using no birth control.
Some people support abortion only in the case of rape or incest, but if discarding an embryo that is the result of rape isn’t murder, then doing the same thing for an embryo that is the result of a consensual relationship isn’t murder either. Similarly, few people have problems with discarding embryos that were fertilized in-vitro, and if that isn’t murder then discarding embryos that were fertilized through sex isn’t murder either. In all these cases, there are no differences between the embryos.
Another thing to think about is that even most people who believe life begins at conception would object to forcing a person to give blood against his or her will, even if it would mean saving someone else’s life. In fact we have legal “bodily integrity” protections preventing forced blood donation—it’s even illegal to use the organs of dead people to save lives unless they are registered organ donors. So what is the justification for forcing a woman to essentially give blood to a fetus against her will?
For guidance on this issue, Christians will of course turn to the Bible. The problem is that even though abortion has existed since at least as far back as 1550 BC, the Bible says NOTHING against it.
Curiously, hundreds of millions of today’s Christians have divorced and remarried, even though Jesus CONDEMNED such behavior:
• Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,”
• Mark 10:11-12 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery,”
• Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Yet many of those same Christians consider abortion to be an atrocity, even though Jesus said nothing against it. However, apologists will often claim that certain passages in the Bible IMPLY that abortion is wrong, such as:
• Jeremiah 1:5 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.
The problem with this claim is that an all-knowing God would by definition know EVERYONE before he even created the universe, so the passage doesn’t really imply personhood while in the womb.
• Exodus 21:22-25 If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The thing is, fetuses don’t have teeth, and it would be virtually impossible to burn a fetus without killing the mother. Thus the passage only makes sense if it refers to the WOMAN’S injury, not the fetus’s.
Apologists often use this passage to imply that a fetus is considered a baby:
• Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
But ancient Hebrew had no separate word for “fetus,” so they used the same term they had for “baby.” Also, it’s not unusual for the Bible to use terms prematurely. For instance:
• Genesis 25:23 The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be separated.”
Here God used the term “nations” to refer to fetuses that clearly hadn’t yet become a nation’s population.
So is there anything in the Bible that can be used to infer whether abortion is considered morally acceptable? Well, for starters there is some evidence that life DOESN’T begin at conception. For instance, Adam wasn’t considered a “living soul” until God put the breath of life into him, implying that a person isn’t fully human until taking his first breath:
• Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
And when a widowed woman was discovered to be three months pregnant, she was accused of being a prostitute and ordered put to death WITHOUT waiting for the baby to be born:
• Genesis 38:24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.” Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”
Indeed, it’s not only fetuses that are not treated as human lives in the Bible, but born babies less than one month old are also assigned NO value and they are NOT counted as family members:
• Leviticus 27:3-7 “Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels.”
• Numbers 3:15 “Number the sons of Levi by their fathers’ households, by their families; every male from a month old and upward you shall number.” So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, just as he had been commanded.
In both cases, the only children who evidently matter are those one month of age and older.
But probably the most convincing evidence that the Bible considers abortion morally acceptable is that God TEACHES priests to use abortion as a form of punishment for infidelity:
• Numbers 5:24-27 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Furthermore, because Christianity shares basically the same Old Testament books as Judaism, Hebrew texts can shed light on early Christian beliefs. According to the Babylonian Talmud, which is a rabbinical discussion of the meaning of the first five books of the Old Testament, the early embryo is not considered human life:
• Yevamot 69b If she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.
More directly, abortions are acceptable if the mother’s life is in danger. And the fetus isn’t even considered “alive” until it is half-way emerged from its mother:
• Ohalot 7:6 (ah-he-lot) If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of the child. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.
Since Christians follow the same God and the same Old Testament books as the scholars, those passages shouldn’t be ignored. Either way, though, the claim that abortion is anti-Christian really isn’t warranted.
As an interesting side note, when Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, many Christian denominations SUPPORTED abortion rights…until Republicans made it a political issue. Even now, most people, INCLUDING most Christians, are pro-choice. In fact, Christians obtain 70% of abortions. The sad truth is, most Christian conservatives who consider themselves “pro-life” are really just pro-BIRTH, since they generally don’t support programs to make birth control easily available, to reduce child poverty, or to provide child care, nor do they typically support the elimination of the death penalty (THAT would be pro-life). Instead they support “abstinence only” education, which has proven to be a resounding failure.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/
https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/when-did-abortion-begin-721090
http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/ohalot-7-6-htm/
http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/70-of-women-who-get-abortions-identify-as-christians-survey-finds-150937/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2019/05/that-georgia-heartbeat-bill-is-worse-than-you-think.html
http://time.com/5589993/alabama-abortion-law-history/
https://time.com/5603194/denied-abortions-physical-health/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2019/09/28/episode-17-what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion/
Further considerations:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2019/05/that-georgia-heartbeat-bill-is-worse-than-you-think.html
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2019/05/the-anti-abortion-movements-split-personality.html
LikeLike
January 8, 2020 at 1:18 pm
I’ll just respond quickly here to all of your recent posts on abortion —
many see the OT does not command death for causing a miscarriage, a monetary penalty is imposed instead.
many see the OT ordeal of bitter water would cause the woman to have a miscarriage if pregnant.
and in the very rare case where the unborn child is threatening the mother’s life the unborn child wouldn’t be innocent.
if a egg is fertilized in a test tube/petri dish and destroyed is that murder ? the embryo has no chance to become a person if not implanted in the womb.
that being said ……. I oppose abortion in the vast majority of cases but we shouldn’t out law abortions in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother is threatened b/c the OT allows this.
LikeLike
January 9, 2020 at 12:34 pm
“Many see” those passages differently is true…but that also means many don’t see it the way you do. And that’s really my point: when some see it one way and some see it another, the solution isn’t to insist on the most conservative position but to make it a personal choice. Some people see abortion as murder based on personal opinion and individual interpretation of scripture, while others conclude the exact opposite for the same reasons. That’s why I think pro-choice is the only fair position here. Those who believe abortion is murder should not have an abortion; those who don’t believe it’s murder may choose to have one.
But the strongest argument, I think, is this paragraph:
“Another thing to think about is that even most people who believe life begins at conception would object to forcing a person to give blood against his or her will, even if it would mean saving someone else’s life. In fact we have legal “bodily integrity” protections preventing forced blood donation—it’s even illegal to use the organs of dead people to save lives unless they are registered organ donors. So what is the justification for forcing a woman to essentially give blood to a fetus against her will?”
Nobody’s saying an abortion isn’t a tragedy, but the evidence shows making it illegal it doesn’t result in fewer abortions; it just results in fewer safe abortions and more women bleeding to death from botched abortions. Better sex education and freely available birth control is the only demonstrated effective way to reduce abortions.
LikeLike
January 9, 2020 at 7:46 pm
derekmathias …….. in the vast majority of cases — the personal choice was consensual sex that lead to pregnancy.
so according to your position should late term abortions be allowed for any and every reason up to birth ? partial birth late term abortions ? no limitations can be placed on abortion at all ?
should we not limit abortion at all because some women will die in botched “backroom abortions ?”
LikeLike
January 10, 2020 at 12:08 pm
“in the vast majority of cases — the personal choice was consensual sex that lead to pregnancy.”
Yes. But so what? Sex is a human need beyond procreation, and in the vast majority of cases people don’t want to get pregnant. It’s often the case that doing something enjoyable comes with some risk. When you go to a restaurant for a nice meal, there’s always the chance you’ll contract food poisoning due to negligence on the part of the cook…but we don’t expect you to just live with the consequences for choosing to do something enjoyable that went wrong; we expect you to get the medical help you need.
“so according to your position should late term abortions be allowed for any and every reason up to birth ? partial birth late term abortions ? no limitations can be placed on abortion at all ?”
I didn’t say that. Perhaps up to the point when the fetus could survive birth without medical help would be a reasonable compromise, since a birth at that point would not impinge on the right to bodily integrity. But that’s just my opinion…which is why I think abortion decisions need to be between the woman and her doctor.
“should we not limit abortion at all because some women will die in botched “backroom abortions ?””
If abortion limits don’t actually reduce abortions, and all it does it make women less safe, then what’s the point to having such laws. There is no statistical difference in the number of abortions between countries that have full abortion rights and those that have no abortion rights ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/ ), and the only thing that really works is sex education and freely available birth control, so it seems to me limiting abortion is only counterproductive.
LikeLike
January 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm
derekmathias …….. “what happened to personal responsibility ?” “two wrongs don’t make a right ?” “you made your bed now …..,” etc…. it would be great to wave a magic wand and have all of the consequences of our bad choices disappear but that’s not reality or even healthy.
so you are also limiting abortion rights ….. so you shouldn’t have a problem with my position.
the point is limiting abortion rights to protect the unborn you stated should be protected. if women choose to disobey the law and have a “backroom abortion” and die that is not the laws fault. they choose consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy and they choose to risk having a “backroom abortion.”
the only thing that works is people behaving responsibly but many won’t. therefore, all we can do as a society is pass laws to punish poor choices.
LikeLike
January 12, 2020 at 1:49 pm
“what happened to personal responsibility? two wrongs don’t make a right ? you made your bed now …..,” etc…. it would be great to wave a magic wand and have all of the consequences of our bad choices disappear but that’s not reality or even healthy.”
I really don’t get the “personal responsibility” argument. We have to make personal responsibility decisions all the time: we take personal responsibility when we drive to work and risk getting in a car accident, we take personal responsibility when we prepare food that has the possibility of contamination by salmonella or some other toxin, we take personal responsibility when we have kids even though there’s a risk of them being kidnapped, etc.
But in all those cases, when things go wrong we do the best we can to CORRECT the situation rather than just live with the consequences: we repair the damaged vehicles and pay for medical bills, we take medication to cure our food-borne illnesses, we do whatever we can to get our kidnapped children back, etc.
Having an abortion is the same sort of issue: we take personal responsibility when we have sex and risk unwanted pregnancy or STDs. But we don’t just have to live with the consequences, we can DO something about it: if we get an STD, we can seek medical treatment; if we have an unwanted pregnancy, we can have an abortion.
There are plenty of unwanted children as it is; why add to the tragedy of another unwanted child being born? And as the saying goes, if you can’t trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a baby?
“so you are also limiting abortion rights ….. so you shouldn’t have a problem with my position.”
I have no problem with your OPINION, no. But just as I don’t think I should seek to force others to live by my opinion, I don’t think you should seek to force others to live by your opinion.
“the point is limiting abortion rights to protect the unborn you stated should be protected. if women choose to disobey the law and have a “backroom abortion” and die that is not the laws fault. they choose consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy and they choose to risk having a “backroom abortion.””
That sounds crazy to me. If there were a law that criminalized, say, blood transfusions, would you be making the same argument? Would you blame people who chose to have “backroom blood transfusions” in order to save their lives, and ended up dying as a result, rather than blaming the law as unjust? Just because a law exists doesn’t make it just. And a law that doesn’t reduce abortions but just ends up killing more women isn’t a just law, because just laws exist to protect citizens, not harm them. I do recognize that fetuses are harmed by abortions, but individual bodily integrity has to supersede the rights of others over our bodies (plus fetuses aren’t yet citizens).
I get the feeling you think of non-procreative sex as a crime more than a basic human need. There’s a lot more to sex than procreation, for instance: https://bigthink.com/Sofia-Gray/sex-depression-anxiety-symptoms. Just like eating is a basic human need that can sometimes result in us getting sick, sex is a basic human need that can sometimes result in an unwanted pregnancy. But the solution in both cases should be to FIX the problem, not force someone to unnecessarily live with the consequences of an accident.
LikeLike
January 12, 2020 at 4:13 pm
you don’t get it because you aren’t being true to your position. didn’t you admit there should be some protection for the unborn ? if the unborn child is not worthy of protection there is no problem — just chop it up/suck it out of the womb. but since you’ve indicated the unborn should be protected under certain conditions comparing an abortion to curing a illness doesn’t make sense.
there’s a huge difference between shooting a home invader and shooting someone you’ve let into your house by your own actions. that’s where the personal responsibility comes in. the person voluntarily had sex and created a life that you admit should be protected under certain conditions. therefore, you have to be inconvenienced until the child is born.
if you don’t have a problem with my opinion why are you arguing against it. there is no problem with passing laws to protect the unborn — especially once the unborn child is developed to where it can live outside of the womb.
of course it sounds crazy to you because your position is flawed. why would there be a law to criminalize blood transfusions ? how are blood transfusions comparable to the type of abortion I’m discussing here. can you crush a premature baby’s skull in while it’s in an incubator that it needs to survive ? no …. that would be murder and the womb is just a natural incubator.
again, another strawman … if the abortion is req’d to save the mothers life it would be allowed as I stated clearly in previous posts. same goes for rape, incest. and if women don’t have a backroom abortion they won’t die from one.
LOL…… that hilarious, for the record ….. have all of the non-procreative sex you want, I do. have a vasectomy/tubes tied, wear condoms, take the pill, take the day after pill but don’t chop up a unborn baby and rip it from the womb and tell me that’s okay.
another strawman from you, it’s about protecting what you admit should be protected. a 9 month old fetus is a person and if the woman doesn’t “FIX the problem” before a certain time too bad soo sad she can be forced to carry the child to term.
“don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
LikeLike
January 14, 2020 at 1:49 pm
“you don’t get it because you aren’t being true to your position. didn’t you admit there should be some protection for the unborn ?”
No, that’s not what I said. What I actually said was: “perhaps up to the point when the fetus could survive birth without medical help would be a reasonable compromise, since a birth at that point would not impinge on the right to bodily integrity. But that’s JUST MY OPINION…which is why I think abortion decisions need to be between the woman and her doctor.” My opinion…as in you prefer vanilla but in my opinion chocolate is better. As in there is no singular right answer.
“if the unborn child is not worthy of protection there is no problem — just chop it up/suck it out of the womb.”
That’s the biblical position:
Numbers 5:24-27 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
That is essentially an abortion. The Bible is not against it. And this rabbinical explanation of the first five books of the OT is even more clear:
Yevamot 69b If she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.
Ohalot 7:6 If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of the child. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.
“there’s a huge difference between shooting a home invader and shooting someone you’ve let into your house by your own actions. that’s where the personal responsibility comes in. the person voluntarily had sex and created a life that you admit should be protected under certain conditions. therefore, you have to be inconvenienced until the child is born.”
I think that’s the wrong analogy, because you’re treating sex like a crime. I gave a better analogy with the risk associated with preparing and eating food. If you get salmonella because you didn’t handle the raw meat correctly, your personal responsibility should be to get medical attention, not simply be inconvenienced until you recover naturally.
“if you don’t have a problem with my opinion why are you arguing against it.”
Because your opinion and mine are irrelevant. The decision should be between the woman and her doctor.
“of course it sounds crazy to you because your position is flawed. why would there be a law to criminalize blood transfusions ?”
Ask a Jehovah’s Witness. They would criminalize blood transfusions for the same reason you would criminalize abortion–because you both believe it’s anti-Christian. So the comparison is quite reasonable.
“can you crush a premature baby’s skull in while it’s in an incubator that it needs to survive ? no …. that would be murder and the womb is just a natural incubator.”
Once again, NOBODY can be forced to give blood or donate organs to ANYONE, even if doing so would save their life. Forcing a woman to provide her blood and nutrients to a fetus would be a violation of bodily integrity rights. It’s not murder to deny someone your body even if they need it in order for them to survive.
“if the abortion is req’d to save the mothers life it would be allowed as I stated clearly in previous posts. same goes for rape, incest. and if women don’t have a backroom abortion they won’t die from one.”
I’m afraid it is you who is not being consistent with his position. Because if aborting a fetus that is the result of rape or incest isn’t murder, then doing the same thing for a fetus that is the result of a consensual relationship isn’t murder either.
“have all of the non-procreative sex you want, I do. have a vasectomy/tubes tied, wear condoms, take the pill, take the day after pill but don’t chop up a unborn baby and rip it from the womb and tell me that’s okay.”
But YOU are saying chopping up an unborn baby is okay…as long as it’s the result of rape or incest.
“a 9 month old fetus is a person and if the woman doesn’t “FIX the problem” before a certain time too bad soo sad she can be forced to carry the child to term.”
Late term abortions are quite rare (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage), and they almost always occur because of late discovery complications. And your claim that a nine-month-old fetus is a person is an opinion, but not even a biblical one. I personally would counsel against an abortion so late in the pregnancy unless there was something wrong with the fetus or a risk to the mother…but that would just be my personal opinion. I would never presume to tell a woman what she can do with her body.
A couple relevant quotes here:
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” — Florynce Kennedy
“I’m against abortion. On the other hand, I believe in a woman’s choice.” — Nancy Reagan
“don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Sex is not like robbery or murder. It’s not a crime. Getting pregnant is not a crime. And getting an abortion is not a crime.
LikeLike
January 14, 2020 at 7:54 pm
LOL ……. that’s what “perhaps up to the point when the fetus could survive birth without medical help would be a reasonable compromise” means — you are stating the unborn child should be protected at that point. b/c once the unborn child could survive outside of the womb it is a person.
why are you being such a chicken ? pick a side. our gov’t, which represents us, passes laws all of the time that restrict rights for the greater good. this is not bad, the rights of the woman in the early days have greater weight and in the later stages the unborn rights are protected.
we don’t let somebody torture their pet to death, make too much noise at certain times, have a camp fire when it’s too dry, drink and drive, have sex with a 12 yr old, etc…..
again another straw man — I’ve taken that argument away from you. abortion would be allowed for rape, incest, when the mother’s life is threatened
and in early stages of pregnancy. why can’t you say — it’s okay for a woman to cut up and suck out her 8 month old unborn child b/c it’s female and she wants a male.
again another straw man — the woman reports she was raped to authorities. a doctor prescribes the morning after pill or she has an abortion in the early days. most incest victims would be kept secret by the abuser I’m guessing. but we are discussing abortions to “fix” a problem that the woman helped create.
I think it’s a good analogy you are free disagree. it’s not treating sex as a crime, it’s differentiating between rape and consensual sex. rape is forced on the woman where she was a willing participant in consensual sex. therefore, the victim of rape can be given consideration and the willing participant can suck it up and take responsibility for her actions.
especially when the unborn child could survive outside of the womb it’s no longer between the woman and her doctor —- society gets a say. this is way different then making some one become a blood or organ donor. did I stab the person that needs a blood transfusion ? did I cause the person’s organ to fail that needs a new one ? probably not ….. but the woman willingly engaged in activity that lead to her becoming pregnant. and that leads to a new person being born under normal circumstances.
my position is consistent and biblically based and only forces the woman to carry the child to term past a certain point. and it’s the only logical and reasonable one. your position is flawed b/c it doesn’t allow any protection for the unborn even when the child could survive outside of the womb and the other extreme forces the woman to risk her life/carry a rapists child’s to full term.
again another straw man — I can say aborting a 9 mo old unborn child is murder b/c it is. if that same unborn child was killing her do a C-section. if earlier and the unborn wouldn’t survive outside of the womb the woman has the right to kill the unborn child to protect herself. while at the same time saying — it’s okay for a woman to use the morning after pill for rape/incest b/c abortion doesn’t have to be defined as murder from conception to delivery to pass laws to protect the unborn. that’s where your argument fails b/c there is 2 lives and in the early stages the woman rights hold greater weight and later the unborn hold greater weight.
again, in rape you should be taking the morning after pill or having an abortion in the early days — but this is just a straw man b/c we are talking about abortions b/c of consensual sex that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.
late term abortions are rare and probably so are abortions for rape, incest and where the mother’s life is endanger. so out law late term abortions and allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and where the mother’s life is in danger just like what I’m saying. the rest are elective and we can pass laws to protect the unborn as we see fit. and if a woman doesn’t like it don’t get pregnant or “fix” the problem early.
if I could get pregnant my position would be identical.
laughable argument …. if you think it’s wrong to abort late term it’s wrong to abort late term — even if some one else is doing it. “if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave.” slavery is wrong so I wouldn’t own a slave or think it’s okay for you to own a slave.
LOL ….. that figure of speech doesn’t mean sex is a crime. however, sex can be a crime under certain circumstances or a sin though. actually abortion isn’t a crime where I live, it used to be a crime but we have no abortion law here as I understand. but I believe it is a sin and in some cases there should be laws against sin and this is one of them. if the unborn are not protected why can’t woman be coerced/forced to have abortions ? gov’t could tell woman okay you can’t support that baby you’ve got to have an abortion or no gov’t assistance.
LikeLike
January 16, 2020 at 2:58 pm
“that’s what “perhaps up to the point when the fetus could survive birth without medical help would be a reasonable compromise” means — you are stating the unborn child should be protected at that point. b/c once the unborn child could survive outside of the womb it is a person.”
No, I’m stating that that COULD be a compromise, not that it SHOULD be. It’s my opinion and nothing more. And YOU may consider a fetus that can survive outside the womb a person, but that’s not what the law says.
“why are you being such a chicken ? pick a side. our gov’t, which represents us, passes laws all of the time that restrict rights for the greater good. this is not bad, the rights of the woman in the early days have greater weight and in the later stages the unborn rights are protected.”
I thought I was quite clear when I said, “I think abortion decisions need to be between the woman and her doctor.” I don’t think men should have any part of the discussion except to give our opinion or advice. The decision should like exclusively with the pregnant woman.
“again another straw man — I’ve taken that argument away from you. abortion would be allowed for rape, incest, when the mother’s life is threatened
and in early stages of pregnancy.”
Sorry, but your position is inconsistent. If aborting a fetus that is the result of rape or incest is NOT murder (since you’ve indicated you support that but not murder), then aborting a fetus that is the result of consensual sex is ALSO not murder (because murder is not defined by how someone was conceived).
I think you should look up the definition of a straw man argument because you’re not using it correctly.
“we are discussing abortions to “fix” a problem that the woman helped create.”
And a person who poorly prepares a meal and gets food poisoning also deserves to have the problem he helped create fixed.
“it’s not treating sex as a crime, it’s differentiating between rape and consensual sex. rape is forced on the woman where she was a willing participant in consensual sex. therefore, the victim of rape can be given consideration and the willing participant can suck it up and take responsibility for her actions.”
Sometimes birth control methods fail, sometimes our sex drive overcomes our good sense, sometimes men can lie (“I’ll pull out, I promise!”), and teens often don’t have the sex education needed to make informed decisions. These aren’t rape but they’re not consensual pregnancies, either. Rape or consensual sex, either way the woman may not want to become pregnant. And why would anyone want a woman to involuntarily carry a fetus to term? Is she likely to take care of the fetus by getting proper checkups and ceasing smoking and drinking? Is she likely to raise the child in a loving home and give it the care it needs to flourish? Why saddle a child with statistically higher odds of failure? Should the pro-life community be required to raise the child they insisted had to be born?
“this is way different then making some one become a blood or organ donor. did I stab the person that needs a blood transfusion ? did I cause the person’s organ to fail that needs a new one ? probably not”
It makes absolutely zero difference if you stabbed the person who then requires a blood transfusion or organ replacement as a result of that stabbing. Bodily integrity rights are absolute–nobody can force you to give blood or organs, even to save the life of your own stabbing victim. This is, I think, the most salient argument against the pro-life position.
“my position is consistent and biblically based and only forces the woman to carry the child to term past a certain point.”
The Bible doesn’t assign a value to babies under a month old:
• Leviticus 27:3-7 “Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; FOR A PERSON BETWEEN ONE MONTH AND FIVE YEARS, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels.”
• Numbers 3:15 “Number the sons of Levi by their fathers’ households, by their families; every male FROM A MONTH OLD AND UPWARD you shall number.” So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, just as he had been commanded.
And don’t forget that God teaches priests to use abortion as a form of punishment for infidelity:
• Numbers 5:24-27 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: WHEN SHE IS MADE TO DRINK THE WATER THAT BRINGS A CURSE AND CAUSES BITTER SUFFERING, IT WILL ENTER HER, HER ABDOMEN WILL SWELL AND HER WOMB WILL MISCARRY, and she will become a curse.
“your position is flawed b/c it doesn’t allow any protection for the unborn even when the child could survive outside of the womb and the other extreme forces the woman to risk her life/carry a rapists child’s to full term.”
Since that’s not my position, that’s a straw man. See how that works?
“I can say aborting a 9 mo old unborn child is murder b/c it is.”
It’s NOT a fact that because a nine-month-old fetus could survive outside the womb, therefore an abortion would be murder. That’s your OPINION. I’m fine with that. You shouldn’t abort a nine-month-old fetus for that reason. But I don’t think your personal opinions should be imposed upon those who don’t share those opinions.
“that’s where your argument fails b/c there is 2 lives and in the early stages the woman rights hold greater weight and later the unborn hold greater weight.”
And who gets to decide where the dividing line is between who gets to hold the greater weight? You’re making up all these “rules” that are arbitrary and by nature subjective. And because the dividing line between human and not yet human is so subjective, that’s why I think the woman should have the right to make any decisions about her own body.
““if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave.” slavery is wrong so I wouldn’t own a slave or think it’s okay for you to own a slave.”
Wait a second…slavery IS biblical:
• Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
• Deuteronomy 20:10-11 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
• Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. [In case you think biblical slavery wasn’t horrific.]
• Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Only virginal girls got to live, but they were forced into sexual slavery.]
• Exodus 21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. [It’s okay to sell your daughter into slavery.]
• 1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
• Ephesians 6:5-7 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people.
And you call MY argument inconsistent??? If you are using the Bible to justify your pro-life stance, then you can’t say slavery is wrong.
I don’t think your position on abortion is all that well thought out….
LikeLike
January 17, 2020 at 10:59 am
LOL ……. my position is well thought out, correct biblically, protects the rights of the mother and unborn as conditions change — the unborn develops.
“No, I’m stating that that COULD be a compromise, not that it SHOULD be.” LMAO …… that is why your position is not well thought out. a 9 mo old unborn child is a person and to abort it for an elective abortion is not only murder it’s evil. it’s identical to killing a premature baby in an incubator. and opens the door to gov’t mandated abortions.
the law is an ass if it does not consider an unborn child that can survive outside of the womb as a person. this is how insane your argument is — 5 minutes before a child is born I can cut it up and suck it out but as soon as it’s born if I do the same I’m a murder.
LOL ….. that’s not picking a side that’s fence sitting. is aborting a 9 mo old healthy unborn child for an elective abortion right or wrong ?
LOL …… more straw man arguments. something doesn’t have to be murder for the gov’t to pass a law to prohibit it. but if I go into a hospital and kill an unwanted child in an incubator, mother gave it up for adoption, that is murder. if I kill some one that’s trying to kill me that’s not murder that’s self defence.
LOL ….. I’m using it correctly …… I’m not saying all abortions are murder. you are arguing I’m “inconsistent” “my position is flawed” b/c I say you can abort under these circumstances but not under these circumstances. that would only be true if I said all abortions were murder but since I didn’t say that/that’s not my position ….. you are using straw man arguments.
LOL …… you are hilarious. I’m not talking about unborn children less than 1 month old. are you even reading what I write. you seem to only have a one track mind. I’m not a once conceived the unborn child can’t be aborted crowd. I’m not ALL abortions are murder crowd. you inability to comprehend is more proof your position is not well thought out.
LOL ….. so your position is NO protection for late term unborn children that can survive outside of the womb ? it’s none of your business, that’s between a woman and her doctor ? fair enough, b/c I understood you thought under those circumstances the unborn should be protected. my mistake I thought you were using common sense.
LOL ….. society gets to decide like we do on many other things — age of consent laws, drug laws, soliciting/prostitution laws, gambling laws, murder/manslaughter/self-defence, etc….. “perhaps up to the point when the fetus could survive birth without medical help would be a reasonable compromise” is definitely the line.
LOL …… “And a person who poorly prepares a meal and gets food poisoning also deserves to have the problem he helped create fixed.” of course, depending on the reason could even be criminal charges, definitely health inspector will probably fine and if damages civil suit.
LOL …… nothing wrong with indentured servitude — in a way I’m a “slave” to my creditors. kidnaping and selling someone (man-stealing) is punishable by death in the bible. so slavery, depending on your definition is punishable by death or okay biblically. so what happened to the African slaves is not permitted biblically and a Israelite selling himself into indentured servitude is.
LOL ….. you are hilarious. I’m using the bible to justify a “pro-choice” stance under certain circumstances and using logic and reason to argue for protection of the unborn “pro-life” under certain circumstances.
LikeLike
January 21, 2020 at 2:16 pm
Your effusive use of “LOLs” is a sure sign you realize your arguments are weak. It’s an attempt to dismiss a person’s arguments with derision, rather than with cogent arguments.
“my position is well thought out, correct biblically, protects the rights of the mother and unborn as conditions change — the unborn develops.”
I spelled out the evidence for why your position is not well thought out, either biblically or consistently. If your only defense is an assertion, rather than to address the evidence, then my points stand.
“the law is an ass if it does not consider an unborn child that can survive outside of the womb as a person.”
And there you go again, another assertion based on opinion.
“this is how insane your argument is — 5 minutes before a child is born I can cut it up and suck it out but as soon as it’s born if I do the same I’m a murder.”
I didn’t say that’s my position…it’s the position of the Talmud:
• Ohalot 7:6 (ah-he-lot) If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of the child. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.
That means that if the fetus is less than halfway out of the mother, the woman’s life matters more than that of the fetus. And as I already pointed out, the Bible doesn’t assign a value on a baby until it is one month old.
“is aborting a 9 mo old healthy unborn child for an elective abortion right or wrong ?”
That’s up to the woman to decide. It’s not up to us. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is a violation of bodily integrity rights. It doesn’t matter how she became pregnant, it doesn’t matter if she can come up with a suitable excuse. It’s her blood and her nutrients, and nobody can force her to give them to anyone else for ANY reason. If you don’t like that fact, you have to come up with a better argument than simply asking questions.
“I’m not saying all abortions are murder. you are arguing I’m “inconsistent” “my position is flawed” b/c I say you can abort under these circumstances but not under these circumstances. that would only be true if I said all abortions were murder but since I didn’t say that/that’s not my position ….. you are using straw man arguments.”
Sorry, but you’re evading the issue by using a straw man yourself. If you claim an abortion is NOT murder in the case of rape or incest, but IS murder in the case of an elective abortion, that is inconsistent because a fetus is a fetus either way. HOW it was conceived does not in any way alter whether it is murder or not.
“LOL …… you are hilarious.”
That indicates desperation. If you resort to that instead of articulating a cogent argument, you’ve lost the argument.
“I’m not talking about unborn children less than 1 month old. are you even reading what I write. you seem to only have a one track mind. I’m not a once conceived the unborn child can’t be aborted crowd. I’m not ALL abortions are murder crowd. you inability to comprehend is more proof your position is not well thought out.”
You claimed your position was biblical. I pointed out that it is not and provided the evidence.
“so your position is NO protection for late term unborn children that can survive outside of the womb ? it’s none of your business, that’s between a woman and her doctor ? fair enough, b/c I understood you thought under those circumstances the unborn should be protected. my mistake I thought you were using common sense.”
Yes, it was your mistake because I made my position clear multiple times. And I am using common sense based on bodily integrity rights.
“And a person who poorly prepares a meal and gets food poisoning also deserves to have the problem he helped create fixed.” of course, depending on the reason could even be criminal charges, definitely health inspector will probably fine and if damages civil suit.”
Read that again. I said the person who prepares the meal gets food poisoning. In other words, HE is at fault, nobody else. Perhaps he left the meat or mayonnaise out too long and was even aware of the fact but ate the food anyway. We don’t say sorry, it’s your fault that happened so we’re not going to treat you. We do whatever we can to remedy the situation.
“nothing wrong with indentured servitude — in a way I’m a “slave” to my creditors. kidnaping and selling someone (man-stealing) is punishable by death in the bible. so slavery, depending on your definition is punishable by death or okay biblically. so what happened to the African slaves is not permitted biblically and a Israelite selling himself into indentured servitude is.”
You are ignoring what the Bible has to say about slavery…and I even provided the relevant passages for you. Hebrew slaves were treated DIFFERENTLY from foreign slaves. You are PERMITTED to buy foreign slaves or to capture them in battle (even little girls), and it’s perfectly fine to beat them so badly they take days to even regain their feet:
• Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
• Deuteronomy 20:10-11 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
• Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
“LOL ….. you are hilarious.”
There you go again.
“I’m using the bible to justify a “pro-choice” stance under certain circumstances and using logic and reason to argue for protection of the unborn “pro-life” under certain circumstances.”
Sorry, but assertions are not evidence, either for your position or against mine.
LikeLike
January 22, 2020 at 12:10 am
no my use of LOL is b/c your arguments are hilarious.
LOL …. no you didn’t you just made assertions. you still haven’t answered the question is aborting a 9 mo old fetus wrong or right ? saying it’s up to the woman and her doctor is passing the buck.
LOL ….. b/c if it’s murder to kill a unwanted premature baby in an incubator. the unborn child that can survive outside the womb can also be protected by society.
LOL ….. I admitted over and over if the mothers life is in danger the unborn child can be killed — that’s self defense.
LOL ….. according to the law a persons role matters a great deal. difference between a accident where no charges are laid and a crime where murder/man slaughter can be charged. so if the mother engaged in consensual sex and didn’t have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy — society can step in and pass laws to protect the unborn child. just like we do in many instances which I previously mentioned and are not murder.
LOL ….. you did not prove that. the evidence was not for an elective abortion it was to protect the life of the mother which was allowed under the old law and should be under a new law. but again another straw man b/c we have advanced medically so it’s very rare the unborn has to be aborted to save the mothers life. and society can pass laws to give more protection to the unborn than the bible allows.
LOL …… you weren’t clear, you were passing the buck. based on what you’ve said — being clear you should say abortion is okay from conception up to birth. there’s no need for a compromise if that is your position. as long as the woman and her doctor agree it’s not your business. so based on that logic we can strike age of consent laws as well as many other laws.
LOL ….. “And a person who poorly prepares a meal and gets food poisoning also deserves to have the problem he helped create fixed.” if you are clarifying that means — a person prepares a meal at home and only that person that prepared the meal got sick. they bare responsibility, they have to get medical attention and if they don’t or go to a back alley doctor and die that’s not anybody’s problem but their own. and public healthcare/insurance company can make them pay their health care bill b/c they acted irresponsibly.
LOL …… I didn’t say ALL slavery is wrong. man stealing is against the bible. so we can pass laws outlawing man stealing slavery as we did and be biblical. if you beat your slave and they were damaged they were to be freed.
LOL …… your position is open season on the unborn even for elective reasons in late term where they can survive outside of the womb
LikeLike
January 27, 2020 at 5:03 pm
“LOL”
You laugh in a grim discussion. I’m not sure your point in doing this, but it undercuts your arguments by making you seem childish and basing your arguments on emotion, rather than reason.
“no you didn’t you just made assertions. you still haven’t answered the question is aborting a 9 mo old fetus wrong or right ? saying it’s up to the woman and her doctor is passing the buck.”
I’m saying it’s neither right nor wrong. It so depends on circumstances. If she were just about to give birth and decided to abort it, I would personally say that’s wrong. But the same circumstance and she discovers the fetus is brain damaged or has some other serious problem, I would personally say that’s right. You demand digital answers to an analog issue.
“b/c if it’s murder to kill a unwanted premature baby in an incubator. the unborn child that can survive outside the womb can also be protected by society.”
You don’t indicate which paragraphs you’re referring to, so I’m not sure what you’re referencing here. However, once again you’re making a baseless assertion. If we develop the technology to safely bring a 1 month old fetus to term, your argument would imply abortions after 1 month should be illegal. This is NOT about technology, but about bodily integrity.
“I admitted over and over if the mothers life is in danger the unborn child can be killed — that’s self defense.”
Again, you haven’t noted which point you’re referring to, so I’ll just have to ignore it.
“according to the law a persons role matters a great deal. difference between a accident where no charges are laid and a crime where murder/man slaughter can be charged. so if the mother engaged in consensual sex and didn’t have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy — society can step in and pass laws to protect the unborn child. just like we do in many instances which I previously mentioned and are not murder.”
I don’t disagree with that. In fact many states have passed such laws. But opinions run the full gamut between human life beginning at conception to human life not beginning until a month after birth…and that’s only counting Christians. Why do you feel YOUR opinion outweighs all the other opinions?
And what if a woman is raped but thinks her husband is the father, and only finds out the day before birth that the fetus is her rapist’s not her husband’s? What if a woman claims a religious right to an abortion? Is an abortion warranted in those cases? If you agree that there are ambiguous or unforeseen circumstances, how do you write laws to take those into account that everyone will agree on?
“but again another straw man b/c we have advanced medically so it’s very rare the unborn has to be aborted to save the mothers life. and society can pass laws to give more protection to the unborn than the bible allows.”
What if the fetus has a genetic defect that would make its life difficult and isn’t discovered until the ninth month? What if it’s ambiguous whether her life could be at risk? Again…digital thinking for an analog issue.
“you weren’t clear, you were passing the buck. based on what you’ve said — being clear you should say abortion is okay from conception up to birth. there’s no need for a compromise if that is your position.”
Of course I have a right to an opinion without claiming it should be the law! It’s also my opinion that we should have single-payer healthcare, but I don’t claim to know if that’s entirely feasible and thus whether it actually should be implemented.
“as long as the woman and her doctor agree it’s not your business. so based on that logic we can strike age of consent laws as well as many other laws.”
And there are those who have child brides. In fact, 13 states have no minimum age for marriage, which overrule age of consent laws. That’s another issue that has widely varying opinions.
“if you are clarifying that means — a person prepares a meal at home and only that person that prepared the meal got sick. they bare responsibility, they have to get medical attention and if they don’t or go to a back alley doctor and die that’s not anybody’s problem but their own. and public healthcare/insurance company can make them pay their health care bill b/c they acted irresponsibly.”
In most countries, they get free or low-cost medical attention, even if they were negligent. They don’t HAVE to resort to back-alley doctors for a medical issue…which abortion is.
“I didn’t say ALL slavery is wrong. man stealing is against the bible. so we can pass laws outlawing man stealing slavery as we did and be biblical. if you beat your slave and they were damaged they were to be freed.”
Ugh, no. Read the Bible. But I provided the salient passages for you:
• Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
Here the Bible clearly states that you can buy slaves from OTHER countries AND from temporary residents IN your country. They become your PROPERTY, which your children can inherit. They are slaves FOR LIFE.
• Deuteronomy 20:10-11 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
If you conquer a city, you can FORCE its people into slavery.
Also, the more lenient laws apply to HEBREW slaves, not foreign slaves:
• Exodus 21:2 When you purchase a HEBREW slave, he is to serve you for six years.
• Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
As long as the slave can make it to her feet in a couple of days, you can beat her all you want–just avoid putting out an eye or a tooth. THAT is what the Bible says.
“your position is open season on the unborn even for elective reasons in late term where they can survive outside of the womb”
Not exactly. Personally I would suggest by that time the fetus be carried to term. Again, that’s my OPINION, not that I think it should be the law. I wouldn’t want anyone to FORCE me to give up a kidney or even blood to save somebody else, even my own child. That should be my decision and my decision alone. The abortion argument is no different.
Clearly we’re not going to agree on this issue. We surely agree that people have a wide range of opinions about when abortion should no longer be legal. The difference is, you side with the fetus after a certain (although rather arbitrary) point, and I side with bodily integrity rights the entire way. My position is consistent, and I can differentiate between personal opinion and rights. You still haven’t articulated why it’s perfectly okay to have an abortion anytime due to rape or incest, but it’s NOT okay to have an abortion anytime for consensual sex. Again, if one does NOT hold the value of a human life, then how can you say the other does? To me, that is inconsistent. It’s as if you care about HOW the fetus was conceived but not whether it’s a human life. And if you can make an exception for one human life but not another, then clearly “human life” is not the main issue with you. Do you understand what I’m saying?
LikeLike
January 29, 2020 at 6:44 pm
I told you why ILOL.
LOL …… you: “You laugh in a grim discussion.” see this is why ILOL ….. you call it a “grim” discussion but according to your past comments it’s none of your business if a woman chooses to have a late term abortion for elective reasons. my arguments have not been undercut only ignored and again —– that’s why ILOL.
LOL ….. you: “You demand digital answers to an analog issue.” I did not, that is an intentional misrepresentation of what I’ve said. I’ve repeatedly stated late term abortion for elective reasons. finally you admit under certain circumstances it’s wrong. so you do have some common sense — good for you. and don’t be afraid to stand up for your beliefs that the unborn can be protected depending on circumstances. so if under certain circumstances abortion is wrong, by your own admission, why can’t we as a society pass laws to protect the unborn under the circumstances you agree are wrong ? and as I understand that’s what the courts decided also — under certain circumstances the rights of the unborn can be protected.
LOL …… it’s making an equivalency claim. if it’s wrong to kill a 6mo premature baby in an incubator it’s wrong to kill a 6mo in the womb for elective reasons. no problem b/c it is “a confident and forceful statement of fact” based solidly in common sense. that’s no possible now but — if technology advanced to that point it would still be wrong for the exact same reason — it would be wrong to kill a 1mo premature baby in an incubator. again — you’ve not proven it’s wrong to pass laws to make a woman carry a baby to term pass a certain point. b/c we have laws that do limit a persons freedoms. forcing a woman to give up an organ, tissue,eggs or blood is not the same thing as the courts declared b/c they admitted under certain circumstances the unborn child can be protected.
LOL …… you: “Why do you feel YOUR opinion outweighs all the other opinions?” my opinion doesn’t out way all other opinions. I get one vote like the rest of us. but my opinion is correct b/c it’s the best one taking all of the evidence into consideration. and is very similar to the old law but adds some consideration for early term elective abortions.
LOL ….. don’t you see how funny you are ? another straw man — if a woman finds out her 9mo unborn child is the rapists it may be safest for her to deliver the child and give it up for adoption. but why didn’t she take the morning after pill/plan B pill after the rape ? and if for whatever dumb reason she didn’t and kept her fingers crossed all of these months and now wants to have a late term abortion she’d be allowed to under the being raped exemption. again, abortions for — rape, incest, the mothers life is in danger would be allowed. this as I understand is a tiny portion of abortions and common sense would dictate that the abortions performed very early. my understanding is the vast number of abortions are due to birth control failure aka elective reasons.
LOL ….. the cases we are talking about — people did something stupid which is not a disease/medical issue. again if you can’t be good be careful and if you get pregnant you’d better “fix the problem early” or society can intervene. when people can’t behave society passes laws, this proves my position.
LOL …… I have —- “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” there is also other numerous verses proving what I posted correct. “And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” but again “slavery” doesn’t weaken my case biblically it strengthens it. b/c biblically people can be forced against there will into “slavery” so biblically we can force a woman, which would’ve been killed for playing the whore, into bring the unborn child to birth.
LOL …… yes it was exactly that, but now you’ve clarified. b/c before you stated it was none of your business and didn’t deny a woman from having an abortion for any reason at any time, it was up to her and her doctor to decide.
LOL …… again with the straw man. it’s not about forcing a woman to give blood or an organ — I don’t know anybody that would agree with that. the abortion argument is different you just say it isn’t — that’s not an argument. since we already pass laws that limit a persons freedoms you have to make an argument why we can’t do it with abortion and as stated — under certain circumstances the courts agree with me not you.
LOL ….. my position is consistent as the courts have stated. and is neither pro-choice or pro-life which both have problems as the courts have stated. and that’s the correct position as the woman allows the unborn child to grow and develop the rights for the unborn increase. but since we limit those rights with laws in other areas we can do it with abortions too — you never defeated that argument. sure I have and again you misrepresent my position — for rape and incest the child is an invader in consensual sex the child is not an invader — through irresponsibility the child was invited. as most reasonable people agree — personal responsibility plays a major role in your actions. since of your own free will you got pregnant past a certain stage we can intervene to protect the unborn. you are falsely arguing that abortions have to be all wrong or all okay at any time. there is no inconsistency with saying abortion can be allowed here for this reason and not here for that reason. just like if I have consensual sex with a girl the day before her 16th birthday I’ve committed a crime. but if I have consensual sex with the same girl on her 16th birthday I’ve committed no crime. and biblically — abortion is a crime throughout pregnancy. penalized monetarily as I understand but a crime. so either biblically or using common sense there is nothing wrong with my argument.
LikeLike
January 31, 2020 at 12:39 pm
pro-choice people please “ruminate” on this —— b/c this is just common sense.
does a unwanted viable premature baby in a hospital incubator deserve legal protection from being killed ?
if you answer no — wth is the argument proving that’s okay ? b/c that would mean anybody can be killed at any time for any reason.
if you answer yes — why doesn’t that mean the same premature baby in the womb (which is just a natural incubator) that is the product of consensual sex that the mother allowed to grow and develop in her womb be granted legal protection as well ?
if a majority answer yes — as a society we’ve decided that under these circumstances the mothers rights can be limited to protect the child she played a role in creating and allowed to develop. a persons “body integrity” can be infringed upon to protect the innocent and in this circumstance society, which is our right, has granted protection to the unborn.
LikeLike
January 31, 2020 at 4:23 pm
“I told you why ILOL.”
Hey, if you want to sound childish and don’t care that it undercuts your arguments, feel free to knock yourself out.
“according to your past comments it’s none of your business if a woman chooses to have a late term abortion for elective reasons.”
Exactly. It’s none of my or your business either whether she decides to menstruate rather than have her ovum fertilized. That’s destroying potential human life too…yet that doesn’t seem to bother you.
“so if under certain circumstances abortion is wrong, by your own admission, why can’t we as a society pass laws to protect the unborn under the circumstances you agree are wrong ?”
Because it’s my OPINION, not a verifiable fact. I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding that. Furthermore, bodily integrity rights always come first. So even if we all were to agree it’s wrong to have a late-term abortion, it’s EVEN MORE WRONG to violate a person’s bodily integrity rights. Nobody should ever be forced to donate blood or organs or bodily nutrients to ANYONE else, even to save a life. If men could get pregnant, that argument would be crystal clear to you.
“if it’s wrong to kill a 6mo premature baby in an incubator it’s wrong to kill a 6mo in the womb for elective reasons.”
Bodily integrity rights, remember? Incubators don’t have bodies protected by law.
“you’ve not proven it’s wrong to pass laws to make a woman carry a baby to term pass a certain point. b/c we have laws that do limit a persons freedoms. forcing a woman to give up an organ, tissue,eggs or blood is not the same thing as the courts declared b/c they admitted under certain circumstances the unborn child can be protected.”
But WHEN is that “certain point”? WHO decides? Because there is NO and can never be scientific consensus on when “human life” begins, you are NEVER going to get universal agreement on when freedom to do with your body as you wish can be violated.
“I get one vote like the rest of us. but my opinion is correct b/c it’s the best one taking all of the evidence into consideration.”
Thanks for providing the perfect example of why this issue can never be resolved. You are convinced that your opinion is correct…based on YOUR values. But what about MY convinced opinion that bodily integrity rights supersede the right to a fetus to use a woman’s body against her will? THIS is why I support freedom of choice: if YOU believe a late term abortion is wrong, DON’T GET ONE. But don’t force your opinion on others who may have a different opinion.
“don’t you see how funny you are ?”
When you say that, it’s a signal you realize your argument is weak and thus feel a need to resort to an ad hominem. It’s your tell.
“if a woman finds out her 9mo unborn child is the rapists it may be safest for her to deliver the child and give it up for adoption. but why didn’t she take the morning after pill/plan B pill after the rape ?”
And now I see why you realize your argument is weak: instead of trying to EMPHASIZE the problem (which is what any proper stress test should do), you’re trying to DE-EMPHASIZE it. Use your imagination! Okay, let’s say the woman was unconscious and didn’t realize she’d been raped, or she thought (wrongly) that she was ALREADY pregnant prior to the rape, or that her gynecologist secretly injected his sperm into her during an exam. I’ve even heard of women who didn’t even realize they were pregnant until they started having contractions! My point is that it’s EASY to come up with special situations where a woman might not realize until near the end of her pregnancy that she’s having a child as the result of rape. Are you prepared to force her to have that baby? And then are you prepared to take care of it?
“b/c biblically people can be forced against there will into “slavery” so biblically we can force a woman, which would’ve been killed for playing the whore, into bring the unborn child to birth.”
Well, biblically you can make sex slaves of little girls captured in battle, so I suppose you can technically justify forcing women to do almost anything you want. But claiming abortion is anti-biblical is unfounded. Again:
• Numbers 5:24-27 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: WHEN SHE IS MADE TO DRINK THE WATER THAT BRINGS A CURSE AND CAUSES BITTER SUFFERING, IT WILL ENTER HER, HER ABDOMEN WILL SWELL AND HER WOMB WILL MISCARRY, and she will become a curse.
Not a lot of concern about the life of a fetus there.
“it’s not about forcing a woman to give blood or an organ — I don’t know anybody that would agree with that. the abortion argument is different you just say it isn’t”
HOW is the abortion argument different? You haven’t articulated anything that makes sense. If a person cannot be forced to give up anything from one’s body even to save the life of another (INCLUDING their own child), then how is the situation ANY different from an abortion, where a fetus requires blood and nutrients from the mother for it to survive? That’s the CLOSEST comparison we have between abortion and anything else, yet you insist they are so different that in one case the woman’s right is absolute, while in the other case the fetus’ right is absolute. That does not sound like a rational position to me.
“my position is consistent as the courts have stated.”
That is an assertion. You can’t point to an unjust law as an explanation for why your position is consistent. You STILL haven’t explained how a late-term fetus that is the result of rape is NOT worthy of the right of “human life,” whereas a late-term fetus that is NOT the result of rape IS worthy of the right to “human life.” Is it moral to kill someone after their born if it turns out they’re the product of rape? If not, then what’s your justification for allowing that fetus to be aborted, while criminalizing the abortion of a fetus that is NOT the product of rape? This is what I mean about your inconsistent positions.
“you are falsely arguing that abortions have to be all wrong or all okay at any time.”
Incorrect. I’m arguing that whether it is right or wrong depends on the beliefs of the mother. If she thinks abortion is wrong, she should not get an abortion.
“there is no inconsistency with saying abortion can be allowed here for this reason and not here for that reason.”
There IS if the reason for outlawing abortion is scientifically arbitrary. There are people who insist a fetus is human at conception. Others insist it’s when there is a “heartbeat.” Still others insist it is when the limbs have formed and the fetus actually looks human(ish). And still others insist it is when there is neural activity. And yet others insist it is only upon birth. Each one has an argument for why they hold that position, but it’s not “a scientific fact that human beings come into being at conception,” as the author of this article claims.
“just like if I have consensual sex with a girl the day before her 16th birthday I’ve committed a crime. but if I have consensual sex with the same girl on her 16th birthday I’ve committed no crime.”
Now THAT is your best argument so far…for a LEGAL reason why one can arbitrarily limit abortion. But it’s not a moral nor scientific argument, since physical age does not determine psychological and emotional maturity, and we’ve all known 15 y.o.s who were extremely mature for their age, and 23 y.o.s who were extremely immature for their age. There is NO QUESTION the legal system can legislate abortion rights. But this discussion is about what’s RIGHT, and that’s a different issue.
“and biblically — abortion is a crime throughout pregnancy. penalized monetarily as I understand but a crime. so either biblically or using common sense there is nothing wrong with my argument.”
The ONLY credible evidence about abortion in the Bible that I’ve found is the Numbers 5 passage I quoted above. If you have evidence that abortion is a crime in the Bible, I’d love to see it.
LikeLike
January 31, 2020 at 4:26 pm
“does a unwanted viable premature baby in a hospital incubator deserve legal protection from being killed ?”
Sure. An incubator doesn’t have any bodily integrity rights. A mother, on the other hand, DOES.
LikeLike
February 4, 2020 at 9:04 am
LOL ……. that is where your argument fails and you pro-choice people expose the insanity of your position.
legally and logically the bodily integrity of the woman can be infringed upon to protect another innocent person. and in the type of conception I’m addressing the conceived is innocent. since the premature baby by your own admission is a person in the incubator it’s a person in natures incubator (the womb). that’s why any sane person has no problem with legal protection of the unborn under certain circumstances.
LikeLike
February 4, 2020 at 5:17 pm
LOL …… you are the one that’s childish — if you act like an adult I’ll treat you like one. “you are playing the lying retard game.” do you know what that is ?
first you won’t state clearly your position — I had to drag out of you whether it was okay to abort a healthy 9mo unborn child for elective reasons — and you didn’t even clearly state it even then. next you muddy the water with idiotic scenarios that have nothing to do with my position and finally you fail to address the very logical and reasonable argument against late term abortions in my post #20.
LOL ….. a viable premature baby in the womb is not a “potential human life” oh delusional one — it is a human life. and at that point society has a right to step in and protect that human life. this is why you wouldn’t answer my question b/c it makes you look like a fool — same baby in the womb is a thing but in the incubator it’s a human being. that’s delusional and that’s your position.
LOL ….. she gave up her right to body integrity b/c she willing allowed the unborn child to become a human being. if she tried to kill the same child in the incubator — lethal force could be used to protect the child. and you aren’t that smart so I’ll explain it to you — lethal force would infringe on her bodily integrity.
LOL ….. society decides as we do on many laws infringing on a persons bodily integrity.
LOL …… rights of the via unborn premature baby which as a society we can give under our system.
LOL …… at a minimum of when the unborn child is viable. by her own irresponsible actions the woman has created an innocent human being as per the scenario we are discussing.
LOL ….. my position is based on logic and reason you and yours ignore. I don’t bring my morality into that position at all. I don’t argue this point biblically at all and I don’t deny any facts the pro-life or pro-choice position present. of course I’m right b/c I see the holes in both camps. you and yours are blind to the problems with your position. the situation may never get resolved b/c the pro-life and pro-choice camps are delusional.
LOL …… my argument is rock solid that’s why you have ignored it.
LOL …… more stupidity —- what an idiotic example. and what have I said over and over —- the abortion law would allow abortion for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger. and no law could pass a court challenge if it did not allow abortion for any reason in the early stages of pregnancy.
LOL ….. I never claimed abortion was unbiblical oh delusional one. I agreed with all of your biblical points. and I’m not going to go back — but it was you that brought up slavery was it not ? slavery is a diversion but my point was simple — I can use the bible also to show you can force a woman to do stuff against her will — like finish carrying the child she conceived by engaging in consensual sex.
LOL ….. non argument. under certain circumstances abortion is allowed biblically and the water of separation is one. the problem is you have a one track mind.
not all killings are crimes — but some are crimes and they should be
not all sex acts are crimes — but some are crimes and they should be
not all abortions are wrong —- but some are wrong and as a society, we can make them crimes
LOL ….. wrong again that is the facts —- read what the courts have written about abortion laws being struck down — they support my position.
LOL …… yes I have oh delusional one. for rape/incest/when the mother’s life is in danger the woman is the victim and the law allows her to have an abortion. again, you with the idiotic scenarios —- why would the woman wait for a late term abortion for rape and incest ? as for when the woman’s life is in danger —- you can kill the unborn at any time to defend yourself. but we are talking about scenarios when the mother A. engaged in consensual sex B. was irresponsible/didn’t use proper birth control C. didn’t abort in the early stages D. allowed the fetus to develop to become a viable premature baby=a human being. it’s all about culpability which is applicable when discussing crimes and abortion is a crime biblically/used to be a crime under certain circumstances. and b/c of A,B, C and D society can infringe on the the woman’s bodily integrity to protect the bodily integrity of the human life she created.
LOL ….. the mother’s morality is not the determining factor — society can and does have the right to pass laws over riding a persons morality in certain circumstances — sex workers, drugs she can take, body parts she can sell is regulated, surrogacy regulated, etc….. and society can pass laws restricting abortion with the exceptions the court set forth.
LOL ….. another non argument — when a fetus is viable that’s 100% proof that is a human being and can be protected. if a majority can agree the protection can be set at a lesser stage of development under certain circumstances. but if you don’t want to be forced to carry a baby full term don’t get pregnant or have an early abortion. as a society we have the right to restrict a persons liberties when the act irresponsibly.
LOL …… so now it’s what’s about what is RIGHT ? that’s crazy b/c how can it be right to kill a human being just b/c they are inside a natural incubator — the womb ? and if the majority agree, passing laws restricting abortion under certain circumstances is right.
LOL ……. it’s a crime in the bible you just ignore all of the evidence that does not support your position.
“Exodus 21:
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,
24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
LikeLike
February 7, 2020 at 12:23 pm
Okay, Paul. I had hoped to have a serious discussion about abortion rights, but instead you can’t seem to avoid giggling over every topic. If you’re not going to take the subject seriously, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.
But I’ll leave you with one last correction: Fetuses generally don’t have teeth, and it’s virtually impossible to burn a fetus without killing the mother. Thus, Exodus 21 evidently refers to injury to the WOMAN, not the fetus: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1757&context=facultypub (p. 762).
LikeLike
February 7, 2020 at 1:31 pm
LOL …… if you wanted a serious discussion you wouldn’t have said idiotic things like this —– “Sure. An incubator doesn’t have any bodily integrity rights. A mother, on the other hand, DOES.” and what’s hilarious is you can’t see why that’s idiotic.
LOL …… that’s you opinion Exodus 21: 23 only refers to the woman —- and I don’t disagree that’s a possible interpretation. others disagree, but again that’s you playing the “lying retard game” b/c it’s irrelevant that it doesn’t mean it’s murder to kill that unborn child —- what Exodus 21 proves, which you ignore, abortion is that circumstance is a crime.
LikeLike