North Dakota Senate approves "heartbeat" abortion ban

[joko104]

Perhaps you missed the poetic structure of Genesis in which 'yom' the Hebrew word for day does not correspond to a literal day. Furthermore, nephesh is also used to describe animals so that blows away your entire argument right from the start.

It all comes down to beliefs - pro-life or pro-choice. So is there a difference? Yes. Pro-choice is not trying to use government to force their beliefs on others. Pro-life is. I have no problem with pro-life trying to convince others of their opinion. Rather, it is when they want to use MY money, the courts, cops and prisons to force their beliefs on others in the most real ways - ways that can (and do) even lead to horrific physical and psychological suffering, permanent disability and death.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Baptists believe in the "age of accountability." Generally age 13. It is only at that time is a person of mental capacity to intelligently accept or refuse submission to God. Prior to this, the person is innocent. The joke is that on his/her 13 birthday, a child is told "Happy birthday and congratulations! You are NOW old enough to go to hell."

A person does not enter human society nor the external world until birth. Until then, the fetus has no knowledge whatsoever of the external world, is not within the human society, and it's singular reality is the woman herself.

Nor does human development being with "conception." It begins with the formation of the egg and the sperm. Without that there is no conception possible. That TRUE starting point is why it was not that long ago that many states outlawed contraceptives under the EXACT logic pro-life uses now about when human life begins. To have a convenient excuse to not have 10, 12, 15 children, this was redefined to "conception" (except for Catholics) - to give "choice" to having children. Of course, choice means denying people coming into existence who otherwise would.

While I understand your sense of ethics/morality or pick-your-word of aborting a fetus, that actually also is just your belief - and any logic or words you use really don't change that your basis is just how you feel about it. The difference? YOU want to force YOUR feelings and beliefs on other people - and conveniently picking beliefs and feelings that have no effect upon you whatsoever.

Yet, if on the same topic - procreation - if a majority of us decided that only certain people of approved levels of intelligence, wealthy, age, and social status should be allowed to have children - and then also not have sex to not have mandated sterile men competing for sex with approved fertile woman - for which you fall into the category of men who must be castrated - you probably would have a problem with that. If your beliefs can control procreation of a woman to make her have a child, why couldn't beliefs also control your not procreating? Or, alternatively, forcing you to have children even if you don't want to?

Pro-life like to CLAIM science "proves" they are right. But actually it ALL comes down to how people FEEL about it. Then the question is whether pro-life can force women to do what pro-life feels woman should do.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The reason why this is so important to us "pro-lifers" is because it is not an arbitrary determination, rather an actual human life is getting its skull crushed.

The DNA and all of the unique potential of the fetus forms at conception. It is silly to play a reductionist game as many abortionists do where you claim that 'life' begins with the formation of sperm and egg. It is only when they merge that the unique traits from each unite into something with its own integrity.

Scientifically a fetus is human life that is rapidly emerging towards a fully developed human being. That's more than enough for me. However, I am a pragmatist so I advocate for a first trimester cut off at the state level.

And the answer is no, a woman's choice doesn't outweigh the human life growing inside her, except her own mortality. This may seem like the 'old guard' position to you but its actually, for the firs time since RvW passed, the slight majority according to national polls. That is, overwhelming Americans do not want to overturn RvW but they do, In fact, want more restrictions.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

It all comes down to beliefs - pro-life or pro-choice. So is there a difference? Yes. Pro-choice is not trying to use government to force their beliefs on others. Pro-life is. I have no problem with pro-life trying to convince others of their opinion. Rather, it is when they want to use MY money, the courts, cops and prisons to force their beliefs on others in the most real ways - ways that can (and do) even lead to horrific physical and psychological suffering, permanent disability and death.

Those crazy right wingers wanting to put murderers and rapists in jail too. People should just try to convince others that this is wrong instead of using MY money to put them in jail.

 

[joko104]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The reason why this is so important to us "pro-lifers" is because it is not an arbitrary determination, rather an actual human life is getting its skull crushed.

Scientifically a fetus is human life that is rapidly emerging towards a fully developed human being. That's more than enough for me. However, I am a pragmatist so I advocate for a first trimester cut off at the state level.

And the answer is no, a woman's choice doesn't outweigh the human life growing inside her, except her own mortality. This may seem like the 'old guard' position to you but its actually, for the firs time since RvW passed, the slight majority according to national polls. That is, overwhelming Americans do not want to overturn RvW but they do, In fact, want more restrictions.

The polls are not that simple - and of course whoever is on the less than 50% side of a poll will always claim rights make polls irrelevant. For the last decades, polls favored legalized abortion, so do we then conclude THOSE abortions were right, but since a slight majority oppose them abortions are now wrong?

Nor are the polls that simple. What a majority oppose is allowing abortion at any stage of fetal development and merely as a birth control method. When you get into details, the poll shifts pro-choice. For example, a solid majority favor allowing abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother (such poll questions setting no development stage limit) - in fact overwhelming favor legalized abortion. There also is a BIG gap between those who oppose abortion and those who oppose it AND want the woman criminally prosecuted. On the otherhand, a huge percentage oppose "partial birth" abortion.

Another problem with polls is "RIGHTS" should NEVER be determined my majority opinion. I don't think I need explain that, do I? A MAJORITY of people are Christians. A MAJORITY speak English. Thus, under "majority" power, all but Christianity and English should be outlawed.

What people don't like about abortion is 1.) it used for birth control and 2.) destroying fetuses that actually have developed into a baby (in real, not philosophical a one cell human zygote is a baby, terms). Stories of late abortions resulting in a live birth of a sliced up fetus for which then fantically the baby is strangled or it's head cut off or crushed shocks people, as does sucking out its brains in the womb to insure it is dead upon delivery - and that combined with the very clever "life begins at conception" slogan along with some church leaders raging about God's will greatly affects the polls.

Back when abortion was illegal, the shocking stories were about horrific results of illegal abortions. So polls went that way.

There is one other rather disgusting reality (I believe), and that is that all middle and upper income people know inside that THEY could afford to travel elsewhere to get an abortion for their daughter/granddaughter.

So these laws REALLY in fact ONLY target 1.) young teens who lack the mobility and funds and 2.) very poor women and 3.) very ignorant women - as to who REALLY will be forced to have the baby (or try do have/self-do an illegal abortion.) And, of course, you will read many prolife men cheering a 15 year old dying while having or self-doing an illegal abortion because they want the death penalty for any woman who has an abortion.

If prolifers such as J-Mac and JDubya rage in their messages got their way, about 30,000,000 American girls and women would have already been executed. But NEVER a peep about men who abandon an "unborn child" he made recieving so much as a traffic-ticket level charge against him. Revealing, huh?

You are correct, what people want is more restictions, not overturning Roe V Wade.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

I actually agree that animals also are nephesh, but I do not agree that it blows away minnie616's argument. Her argument is basically that the notion of "person" is not a scientific biological notion, but a philosophical or religious one, and philosophers and theologians do not agree on when there is a "person." You cannot establish the personhood of the unborn by reference to biology alone, as there is philosophical and religious disagreement on "personhood," and people have freedom of religion in the US.

It blows away her scriptural argument.

Philosophically I have examined many different positions, some say conception, others after 'twinning,' a heart beat, brain waves, viability, consciousness. I am arguing for what I feel is the most plausible in a secular context.

For that reason, The Supreme Court turned to our Constitution and its application in particular cases to see at what point personhood is recognized there. The answer the Supreme Court gave, and reiterated several times in different cases, was "at birth." The Constitution and its applications did not in any way recognize a fetus as a person, not as a dead person and not as a live person. Hence, the Supreme Court claimed that the fetus had a potential life as a person, i.e., a potential life as a person after birth, and that the state had a right to assert a compelling interest in protecting that potential life after birth from the point of viability unless the presence in the woman's body threatened her life or health.

If you try to assert that the unborn are persons by the definition of the Constitution and its applications, you will face millions of religious people who disagree with you based on the right to freedom of religion. The fact that there is good evidence that, in Biblical times, the unborn were not considered nephesh will be presented as evidence. In the Bible, everyone born is nephesh - including slaves, women, children, etc., but the unborn are not so considered. So this is not a question of discriminating on the basis of anything except the physical relationship of people among themselves - you have to be at least halfway out of your mother's body to be a nephesh according to the oral Torah, the Mishnah redacted in 220 CE. And in Judaism, nephesh can be persons and the unborn cannot. A whole host of mainstream Christian sects disagree about whether and when the unborn should be treated as nephesh - after organogenesis, after viability, or at birth. The Supreme Court made a conservative compromise decision in Roe v Wade - it was not a liberal decision.

1) I am aware of the punishment in the Law for causing an abortion and it is treated like expensive property. The Law, however, is a collection of caustic laws that govern societal functions, priestly duties, sacrifices and the Mishnah (and later Talmud) is her interpreter for Jews. Thus the authority for transposing ancient Jewish law codes today, particularly with regard to abortion, should be no more than regulating hair cuts or stoning gays and adulterers.

It seems that the SC took a similar stance, unfortunately.

Nephesh, though, is nothing special like a soul that distinguishes a human from an animal. Minnie et al see the fetus as equivalent to a 'homo sapien animal' until the first breathe instills a 'nephesh,' which then makes the 'animal homo sapien' a "proper" human. But if animals are considered 'nephesh', too, then there is no evidence to suggest that 'nephesh' distinguishes humans from animals at birth or any point in their lives.

 

[joko104]

It blows away her scriptural argument.

Philosophically I have examined many different positions, some say conception, others after 'twinning,' a heart beat, brain waves, viability, consciousness. I am arguing for what I feel is the most plausible in a secular context.


1) I am aware of the punishment in the Law for causing an abortion and it is treated like expensive property. The Law, however, is a collection of caustic laws that govern societal functions, priestly duties, sacrifices and the Mishnah (and later Talmud) is her interpreter for Jews. Thus the authority for transposing ancient Jewish law codes today, particularly with regard to abortion, should be no more than regulating hair cuts or stoning gays and adulterers.

It seems that the SC took a similar stance, unfortunately.

Nephesh, though, is nothing special like a soul that distinguishes a human from an animal. Minnie et al see the fetus as equivalent to a 'homo sapien animal' until the first breathe instills a 'nephesh,' which then makes the 'animal homo sapien' a "proper" human. But if animals are considered 'nephesh', too, then there is no evidence to suggest that 'nephesh' distinguishes humans from animals at birth or any point in their lives.

Actually no. Job clarifies:

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:

8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?

10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

A clear distinction between "every living thing" and "mankind" - for which again "breath" attaches to "mankind" - not other living things.

But again also, even the most militant atheist draws a very hard distinction between homo sapiens and all other species, don't they? (My wife actually doesn't, but her actual true "sprituality" is quite unusual overall as she believes only very few creature - humans included - are or will be "immortal.")

We all (or nearly all) draw an extreme prejudice for our own species. We just assert that. Again, not everyone. But nearly everyone.

Sort of anyway. There are many people who become more furious over abuse of an animal than a person, because the animal is so defenseless and innocent, and cute, while there are SO many people crowding everyone and crowding out some many other species even into extinction. In fact, we URGE people of India to let a few of their children get eaten by tigers rather than killing the surrounding tigers so not to endanger their extinction (and amazingly those Hindus agree! We never would about our own).

However, there also are Christians (small percentage) that do not exclude animals from potential immortality (or going to heaven). Many Christians go futher to the view that God and themselves is a unique relationship, for which it is just nonsense for a person to try to determine anything about God and spirituality for anyone else but her/himself.

As for ancient Jewish codes aplied to today, since those are also peoples' "codes" today - by the 10s of millions - those are NOT just ancient codes. That is just the origins of those. Most of law in the USA is still based on those "ancient Jewish codes." The unique value of human life and that killing a human is wrong ALSO is an ancient code too.

Regardless, though, it does come down to beliefs - and claiming that the "codes" and "beliefs of others is not legitimate basis for law (government force/restrictions against others), then equally the beliefs of pro-life is not a legitimate basis for laws forcing compliance with others beliefs, is it? In this country, for nearly 100 years, contraceptives were illegal on the same principles as now argued against abortion.

Was criminalizing contraceptives correct power of government? If so, why isn't it now? Or just correct to outlaw it then, but to legalize it now - that what is right is fluid and can easily reverse itself? Abortion wasn't moral murder. Abortion is morally murder. Abortion at a certain stage is murder. To know which one you have to look at the calendar to determine morality this year?

It is easy for MEN to debate pregnancy, babies and abortion as a theory, isn't it? BUT this is NOT just theory to women. MANY women on this forum have given recount of extreme physical suffering, life-threatening complications and even permanent medical complications - which actually are VERY common - including permanent health damage - and there is inherent risk of lose of life - plus just how much pregnancy messes up a girl's/woman's life. Would anyone dispute that a pregnant 14 year old's life is VERY messed up - and NOT just the 9 months of the pregnancy (though it greatly is) then labor that rips her apart physically, but likely forever after.

Thus, you don't really read pro-life women RAGING that women who have an abortion should DIE!!! for MURDERING HER BABY!!!! That's men's crap. Convenient since the death penalty (nor any penalty) will ever apply to them.

Thus, society must enter the gray area of "rights" and "laws." This does lead to your first trimester limit unless the woman's life is in danger and possibly other extraordinary situations (I would claim if it learned a fetus is horribly deformed preventing any reasonable life quality abortion is justifed - and even the right thing to do).

 

[minnie616]

Nephesh, though, is nothing special like a soul that distinguishes a human from an animal. Minnie et al see the fetus as equivalent to a 'homo sapien animal' until the first breathe instills a 'nephesh,' which then makes the 'animal homo sapien' a "proper" human. But if animals are considered 'nephesh', too, then there is no evidence to suggest that 'nephesh' distinguishes humans from animals at birth or any point in their lives.

Exactly.
It is the breath of life the spirit of God ( our souls)that separates born humans from born animals.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

The polls are not that simple - and of course whoever is on the less than 50% side of a poll will always claim rights make polls irrelevant. For the last decades, polls favored legalized abortion, so do we then conclude THOSE abortions were right, but since a slight majority oppose them abortions are now wrong?

You mistake my intent. I am not making a fallacious argumentum ad populum. Rather, I am saying that the shift in beliefs is gradually turning in my favor for the first time since RvW which will make moves to act easier, much like gay marriage today.

Nor are the polls that simple. What a majority oppose is allowing abortion at any stage of fetal development and merely as a birth control method. When you get into details, the poll shifts pro-choice. For example, a solid majority favor allowing abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother (such poll questions setting no development stage limit) - in fact overwhelming favor legalized abortion. There also is a BIG gap between those who oppose abortion and those who oppose it AND want the woman criminally prosecuted. On the otherhand, a huge percentage oppose "partial birth" abortion.

1) Even among at least half of pro-lifers, including myself, the exception of rape and mortality of the mom stand firm.
2) support for abortion past the first trimester for reasons other than life of mom and rape drops off dramatically.

Another problem with polls is "RIGHTS" should NEVER be determined my majority opinion. I don't think I need explain that, do I? A MAJORITY of people are Christians. A MAJORITY speak English. Thus, under "majority" power, all but Christianity and English should be outlawed.

Right, that's the problem with the current law. A faux sense of freedom is endorsed over the actual life of the fetus.

What people don't like about abortion is 1.) it used for birth control and 2.) destroying fetuses that actually have developed into a baby (in real, not philosophical a one cell human zygote is a baby, terms). Stories of late abortions resulting in a live birth of a sliced up fetus for which then fantically the baby is strangled or it's head cut off or crushed shocks people, as does sucking out its brains in the womb to insure it is dead upon delivery - and that combined with the very clever "life begins at conception" slogan along with some church leaders raging about God's will greatly affects the polls.

President Bush already signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. You are right to say that most people are against the brutal murder and dissection of a fetus that resembles a human in its form. Where we disagree is where most people see that resemblance solidifying. You think it's closer to viability and I think it is closer to the end of three full months of development.

Back when abortion was illegal, the shocking stories were about horrific results of illegal abortions. So polls went that way.

There is one other rather disgusting reality (I believe), and that is that all middle and upper income people know inside that THEY could afford to travel elsewhere to get an abortion for their daughter/granddaughter.

So these laws REALLY in fact ONLY target 1.) young teens who lack the mobility and funds and 2.) very poor women and 3.) very ignorant women - as to who REALLY will be forced to have the baby (or try do have/self-do an illegal abortion.) And, of course, you will read many prolife men cheering a 15 year old dying while having or self-doing an illegal abortion because they want the death penalty for any woman who has an abortion.

If prolifers such as J-Mac and JDubya rage in their messages got their way, about 30,000,000 American girls and women would have already been executed.

You are correct, what people want is more restictions, not overturning Roe V Wade.

Here's the thing. I have a great love for human beings. I volunteer with special needs kids and I know better than to assume that 'brain function' determines the dignity of the human person. Some of the kids and adults that I work with have a brain function less than an advanced chimp. There dignity is secured in the fact that they are rational animals by species (Aristotle), regardless of how that potential has or has not been actualized. This same logic is applied to a fetus and that is how I form my position, in part.

Now, as a somewhat benevolent human being, I don't wish any horrors to befall any person, especially a young, scared pregnant teen. But that doesn't mean that I endorse murder and further perpetuate a culture that disregards life in an attempt to try minimize these acts.

What you said is no different than rich people hiring attorneys and getting off cases that poor people cannot. At its root it is an irreducible problem but steps can be taken to minimize abuse.

Similarly, when a first trimester limit is put In place by some states then it will change the general culture of the populace insofar as it will motivate people to be more responsible instead of waiting until more advanced development and maturation of the fetus. Rape and mortality of mom would of course remain exceptions for later term abortions. And more measures to help pregnant teens and getting rid of some of the ridiculous restrictions of adoption.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Exactly.
It is the breath of life the spirit of God ( our souls)that separates born humans from born animals.

Seems arbitrary since 1) nephesh is not isolated to humans 2) the cognitive function or potential thereof for humans is what separates us from other animals. Those are facts.

I could also claim that baptism is what makes one a human when the Spirit of God indwells one. Before that the person is merely a homo sapien animal.

 

[joko104]

You mistake my intent. I am not making a fallacious argumentum ad populum. Rather, I am saying that the shift in beliefs is gradually turning in my favor for the first time since RvW which will make moves to act easier, much like gay marriage today.

1) Even among at least half of pro-lifers, including myself, the exception of rape and mortality of the mom stand firm.
2) support for abortion past the first trimester for reasons other than life of mom and rape drops off dramatically.

Right, that's the problem with the current law. A faux sense of freedom is endorsed over the actual life of the fetus.

President Bush already signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. You are right to say that most people are against the brutal murder and dissection of a fetus that resembles a human in its form. Where we disagree is where most people see that resemblance solidifying. You think it's closer to viability and I think it is closer to the end of three full months of development.


Here's the thing. I have a great love for human beings. I volunteer with special needs kids and I know better than to assume that 'brain function' determines the dignity of the human person. Some of the kids and adults that I work with have a brain function less than an advanced chimp. There dignity is secured in the fact that they are rational animals by species (Aristotle), regardless of how that potential has or has not been actualized. This same logic is applied to a fetus and that is how I form my position, in part.

Now, as a somewhat benevolent human being, I don't wish any horrors to befall any person, especially a young, scared pregnant teen. But that doesn't mean that I endorse murder and further perpetuate a culture that disregards life in an attempt to try minimize these acts.

What you said is no different than rich people hiring attorneys and getting off cases that poor people cannot. At its root it is an irreducible problem but steps can be taken to minimize abuse.

Similarly, when a first trimester limit is put In place by some states then it will change the general culture of the populace insofar as it will motivate people to be more responsible instead of waiting until more advanced development and maturation of the fetus. Rape and mortality of mom would of course remain exceptions for later term abortions. And more measures to help pregnant teens and getting rid of some of the ridiculous restrictions of adoption.

If you would drop that word "murder" I could agree with most of what you said at the end - or at least agree to it without significant objection. However, you really aren't a prolifer at all. 99% of pro-choice agree to limiting when abortion should be allowed (with the usual exceptions). VERY, VERY few pro-choice do not oppose late term and partial birth abortions - and as strongly as pro-life does.

I do NOT see ANY abortion as "murder," but can accept society can draw a line and I can see that as a matter of respecting the dignity of life in an abstract sense. Late term and partial birth abortions are unseemly at best.

No, I don't think you want anyone to suffer and your motives to be good ones.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Actually no. Job clarifies:

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:

8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?

10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

A clear distinction between "every living thing" and "mankind" - for which again "breath" attaches to "mankind" - not other living things.

there is a clear distinction between humans and other animals but it is not the soul according to Job. The 'breathe' here quite simply means the existence of humankind which is held into being by God....Ruah = breathe, wind, spirit.

Accordingly, I would direct you to: Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you

Psalm 139: 13 For it was you who formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

The divine process is initiated by God in the womb. And any subsequent move to destroy what God creates in you is just that, against God.

As for ancient Jewish codes aplied to today, since those are also peoples' "codes" today - by the 10s of millions - those are NOT just ancient codes. That is just the origins of those. Most of law in the USA is still based on those "ancient Jewish codes." The unique value of human life and that killing a human is wrong ALSO is an ancient code too.

I am making the point that if, as some ITT have suggested, one is going to point towards law codes that governed ancient Jews and were specifically applicable to them (see Noahicide laws for Gentiles) then they need to be consistent about what they employ such as, for example, stoning gays and adulterers.

Regardless, though, it does come down to beliefs - and claiming that the "codes" and "beliefs of others is not legitimate basis for law (government force/restrictions against others), then equally the beliefs of pro-life is not a legitimate basis for laws forcing compliance with others beliefs, is it? In this country, for nearly 100 years, contraceptives were illegal on the same principles as now argued against abortion.

Was criminalizing contraceptives correct power of government? If so, why isn't it now? Or just correct to outlaw it then, but to legalize it now - that what is right is fluid and can easily reverse itself? Abortion wasn't moral murder. Abortion is morally murder. Abortion at a certain stage is murder. To know which one you have to look at the calendar to determine morality this year?

It is easy for MEN to debate pregnancy, babies and abortion as a theory, isn't it? BUT this is NOT just theory to women. MANY women on this forum have given recount of extreme physical suffering, life-threatening complications and even permanent medical complications - which actually are VERY common - including permanent health damage - and there is inherent risk of lose of life - plus just how much pregnancy messes up a girl's/woman's life. Would anyone dispute that a pregnant 14 year old's life is VERY messed up - and NOT just the 9 months of the pregnancy (though it greatly is), but likely forever after.

Thus, you don't really read pro-life women RAGING that women who have abortion should DIE!!! for MURDERING HER BABY!!!! That's men's crap. Convenient since the death penalty (nor any penalty) will ever apply to them.

Thus, society must enter the gray area of "rights" and "laws." This does lead to your first trimester limit unless the woman's life is in danger and possibly other extraordinary situations (I would claim if it learned a fetus is horribly deformed preventing any reasonable life quality abortion is justifed - and even the right thing to do).

There are extremes on all sides with both sexes. My wife and I are not 'militant pro-lifers' but we are pro-life. And with all due respect, the position i take isn't made 'lightly' seeing as how I have two daughters for which their well-being is far above my own.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

If you would drop that word "murder" I could agree with most of what you said at the end - or at least agree to it without significant objection. However, you really aren't a prolifer at all. 99% of pro-choice agree to limiting when abortion should be allowed (with the usual exceptions). VERY, VERY few pro-choice do not oppose late term and partial birth abortions - and as strongly as pro-life does.

I am pro-life, I believe that life shouldn't be destroyed at any stage and that it is always immoral. However, the duress that a rape victim endures when forced to make a decision, even though the act of abortion is still wrong, may significantly or entirely remove culpability (on a moral level). Same is true with the mortality of the mother. I would leave these windows open regardless of legislation. The ideal,according to my beliefs, is to expand access to 'morning after pill' and have abortion illegal except for the above cases.

The compromise that I am willing to make and advocate for is the right of the states to restrict abortion after the first trimester if they so choose, with the above exceptions.

 

[joko104]

there is a clear distinction between humans and other animals but it is not the soul according to Job. The 'breathe' here quite simply means the existence of humankind which is held into being by God....Ruah = breathe, wind, spirit.

Accordingly, I would direct you to: Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you

Psalm 139: 13 For it was you who formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

The divine process is initiated by God in the womb. And any subsequent move to destroy what God creates in you is just that, against God.
I am making the point that if, as some ITT have suggested, one is going to point towards law codes that governed ancient Jews and were specifically applicable to them (see Noahicide laws for Gentiles) then they need to be consistent about what they employ such as, for example, stoning gays and adulterers.


There are extremes on all sides with both sexes. My wife and I are not 'militant pro-lifers' but we are pro-life. And with all due respect, the position i take isn't made 'lightly' seeing as how I have two daughters for which their well-being is far above my own.

What the verses you quote support Minnie's and my wife's view actually, doesn't it? Because of the word "BEFORE" in the womb - thus could only be used (and was) to outlaw contraceptions, not abortion.

That ALSO means the person EXISTED before conception - so obviously the person is separate from the person's body - and thus the view that "the real person" in relation to God isn't the physical body at all.

Therefore, my wife's view that abortion can not possibly "kill" anyone because that body isn't the person in relation to God makes exact sense in Biblical context.

Then again, and she would point out, those verses really don't apply to anything, because God knows and decides everything before it happens. Omnipotent, Omniscient and benevolent means just that. Thus, God already "knows" everyone and every creatures and everything that is ever going to exist. And, accordingly, it would be impossible for ANYONE to stop a person from being put into this life - which is the pre-determination by the person's actions/heart/mind that determines their status in "heaven."

Plus, think about it. You are really trying very very hard to convince Minnie and women such as my wife "no, no, you're wrong, you really do have dead babies to mourn. Even the Bible says so!"

Can you find anywhere in the Bible even hinting that a miscarriage is the death of a child?

IN FACT, that absolutely was NOT treated as murder in the O.T. There was a prescribed punishment for causing a pregnant woman to lose a fetus. It was a monetary penalty to the man. Murdering a born child, though, was the same punishment as any murder. I suspect Jews back then understood this better than we do now.

 

[joko104]

I am pro-life, I believe that life shouldn't be destroyed at any stage and that it is always immoral. However, the duress that a rape victim endures when forced to make a decision, even though the act of abortion is still wrong, may significantly or entirely remove culpability (on a moral level). Same is true with the mortality of the mother. I would leave these windows open regardless of legislation. The ideal,according to my beliefs, is to expand access to 'morning after pill' and have abortion illegal except for the above cases.

The compromise that I am willing to make and advocate for is the right of the states to restrict abortion after the first trimester if they so choose, with the above exceptions.

Most pro-choice would be willing to make the same compromise.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Most pro-choice would be willing to make the same compromise.

I agree which is why this should be pushed forward. Arkansas is the first example of this happening since that is exactly what the bill proposes.

It would halve the pro-life lobby and bring other urgent issues to the forefront.

 

[Fiddytree]

Well, a bill for funding early childhood programs targeted toward children with disabilities was rejected yesterday.

On the upside, a bill toward a committee established to help ensure employment for people with disabilities went through the house fine.

I'm becoming more concerned about the increased natalism of my state and their ability to promote life while actually make it incredibly tough for those that they want to protect (especially those with disabilities) to make it tough to get through the other side. Life isn't getting easier for these young people. Vocational Rehabilitation was lately unable to take on any more clients, funding for many non-profits have been removed, programs are being slashed left and right to fill the need for the oil boom....and yet the prolife message is strongly echoed through our Republicans. Many of our Republican brethren have turned back on the progress they were making over the last 20 years....progress I had personally benefited from and witnessed.

This isn't just women's choice on the line. It's the life that comes after that is also in jeopardy. Pro-choicers in the state and across the country need to push back at not only the weakening ability to get an abortion, they also need to call into question the Republican's pro-life standards.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

What the verses you quote support Minnie's and my wife's view actually, doesn't it? Because of the word "BEFORE" in the womb - thus could only be used (and was) to outlaw contraceptions, not abortion.

No it doesn't support your view at all actually. It does, however, support the immorality of contraception based on biblical grounds both of which have been maintained by the earliest church fathers since such practices were prominent in the pagan Roman Empire (and were not in the Jewish context of a nascent Christianity since 'be fruitful and multiply' (much like Catholics and Mormons) was a tenet of the faith and aborting your child would be inconceivable.

That ALSO means the person EXISTED before conception - so obviously the person is separate from the person's body - and thus the view that "the real person" in relation to God isn't the physical body at all.

It means that God is omniscient and knows the person in the womb. The second verse which you have failed to engage is more explicit in saying that God is actually forming people in the womb.

Therefore, my wife's view that abortion can not possibly "kill" anyone because that body isn't the person in relation to God makes exact sense in Biblical context.

No it doesn't. It only makes sense in a Cartesian dualism context. If you follow Protestant biblical scholarship from the 19th-20th century then you will gain a better appreciation for the absolute unity of body and soul in Hebraic thought.

Then again, and she would point out, those verses really don't apply to anything, because God knows and decides everything before it happens. Omnipotent, Omniscient and benevolent means just that. Thus, God already "knows" everyone and every creatures and everything that is ever going to exist. And, accordingly, it would be impossible for ANYONE to stop a person from being put into this life - which is the pre-determination by the person's actions/heart/mind that determines their status in "heaven."

Omniscience being God's knowledge of all future events, including the free acts of human beings. It would be a rather sadistic God if he orchestrated the atrocities in human history as a matter of 'predestination'.

Plus, think about it. You are really trying very very hard to convince Minnie and women such as my wife "no, no, you're wrong, you really do have dead babies to mourn. Even the Bible says so!"

Can you find anywhere in the Bible even hinting that a miscarriage is the death of a child?

I don't need to convince you of that. Didn't you say that your wife mourned the loss of her miscarriage? I know my wife did, I think it is ingrained in biology so why do I need a biblical response to something that is often demonstrable in nature?

IN FACT, that absolutely was NOT treated as murder in the O.T. There was a prescribed punishment for causing a pregnant woman to lose a fetus. It was a monetary penalty to the man. Murdering a born child, though, was the same punishment as any murder. I suspect Jews back then understood this better than we do now.

This was not a philosophical teaching, it was a common law code. I have already addressed this. Why do you pick this one verse to hold as authoritative and dismiss the neighboring codes to stone gays and adulterers? Or the hundreds of other legal codes that I am sure you would take umbrage with.

 

[joko104]

I am pro-life, I believe that life shouldn't be destroyed at any stage and that it is always immoral. However, the duress that a rape victim endures when forced to make a decision, even though the act of abortion is still wrong, may significantly or entirely remove culpability (on a moral level). Same is true with the mortality of the mother. I would leave these windows open regardless of legislation. The ideal,according to my beliefs, is to expand access to 'morning after pill' and have abortion illegal except for the above cases.

The compromise that I am willing to make and advocate for is the right of the states to restrict abortion after the first trimester if they so choose, with the above exceptions.

Most pro-choice would be willing to make the same compromise.

"Immortality" is a curious topic and can go in all manner of directions.

These comments ... are more just chatter. My wife is VERY Christian in practice - and her whole life (until since with me?) - to extremes. She was the perfect Christian behavior child and teen - so much it was increasingly concerning particularly her mother - the wife of a Methodist minister. BUT that is not her actual spirituality. It was out of respect for her parents (who adopted her as an only child) - reverence for them and their religious heritage. She will clearly say if they were Hindus, then she would followed all Hindu rules and her parents rules in general and be a practicing Hindu.

She even can point to that being the Bible. "You God will be my God" and all the verses about respecting our parents. We're talking about a child, adolescent and teen who never swore, lied, was angry, cheated, swore, stole anything, no liquor, never touched a cigarette, never home late, room kept perfect - and of course romance only for the purpose of searching for a husband.

(However, then, via that husband - the new top authority - if she gave him consent and promise he could and should do anything and everything HE decided he or she or both should so do or try, then that was exactly correct for her to do. Curious view and the seeming perfect "sin permission" loophole. I am not a Christian with a history 100% opposite from her.)

She does NOT believe all people are going to be immortal and rather that few are. She doesn't believe that because of the Bible, but claims that is no contradiction - pointing it has such as who does and does not "recieve eternal life" - meaning then not everyone does, right?

Thus, just like all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples, she believes (as absolute fact to her) that all people are the homo sapien animals - no more or less an animal than any other animal - but SOME of those also are immortal beings. Either were before birth and will be after, or some just will be immortal after death. She has believed ("known") this back to the earliest years she could talk - and would explain this to her parents and write of in voluminously in a journal she keeps starting as soon as she could write.

There is a tad relevancy to this actually - in terms of the inherent extreme rights of people to life, freedom, non-violence, respect etc - the the dismally LOW comparitive view of the rights of other animals. Because she believes MOST people are ONLY animals no different from other animals, she has always had to make herself be at least minimally socially polite, when she actually sees those people as no different in value that animals are mostly just like annoying dogs barking at her for no good reason. LOL! Literally, she will look around people talking just chatter-talk like the person is a bush blocking her view - then realize she is doing that and briefly act polite until finding a way to get away from the person!

However, she is absolutely crazy about liking children. A seeming contradiction, but not for other reasons. Children are an amazing novelty to her and far more honest and likeable than most adults. And she will put her life on the line for her child even in pregnancy - and has - but as HER decision.

All assumed values as truisms are only truisms to those who believe them. While probably most people think not killing people is the ultimate high law (unless self defense or war-self defense), not everyone does - including her and I - but we have very different reasons from each other why we don't.

So... what beliefs DO we make restrictive laws on others who may not share those beliefs? That is the philosophical, social and governmental issue to nearly every law proposed.

 

[joko104]

No it doesn't support your view at all actually. It does, however, support the immorality of contraception based on biblical grounds both of which have been maintained by the earliest church fathers since such practices were prominent in the pagan Roman Empire (and were not in the Jewish context of a nascent Christianity since 'be fruitful and multiply' (much like Catholics and Mormons) was a tenet of the faith and aborting your child would be inconceivable.

It means that God is omniscient and knows the person in the womb. The second verse which you have failed to engage is more explicit in saying that God is actually forming people in the womb.

No it doesn't. It only makes sense in a Cartesian dualism context. If you follow Protestant biblical scholarship from the 19th-20th century then you will gain a better appreciation for the absolute unity of body and soul in Hebraic thought.

Omniscience being God's knowledge of all future events, including the free acts of human beings. It would be a rather sadistic God if he orchestrated the atrocities in human history as a matter of 'predestination'.

I don't need to convince you of that. Didn't you say that your wife mourned the loss of her miscarriage? I know my wife did, I think it is ingrained in biology so why do I need a biblical response to something that is often demonstrable in nature?


This was not a philosophical teaching, it was a common law code. I have already addressed this. Why do you pick this one verse to hold as authoritative and dismiss the neighboring codes to stone gays and adulterers? Or the hundreds of other legal codes that I am sure you would take umbrage with.

It was crushing to my wife, BUT not for what you assume. She was severely and in some ways permanently injuried in a very violent assault. It questionable if she can have children and merely trying poises very high odds of miscarriage - and if late term lose of her life too. Since she wanted absolutely as many childen as she can have, a miscarriage is time lost and a limit on how many, plus fears she can't even maybe have one more.

I am writing of my wife's views (and I explained more before responding to this message), not mine. I could not in the slightest care what the Bible or any other religious book says in terms of codes and morality. However, I was raised quite literally devoid of any moral codes whatsoever - I mean that literally - so I often look to her for what is the decent, moral thing to do.

That why, atypically, sometimes when some man/men are killed and others rage or lament it, furiously demanding law involve, my view is so what? It was a man. He knowing got himself into conflict with another man. One of them died. That's what happens. No reason for government to care either way. So I don't "feel" the terrible injustice in technical ending of a homo sapien under construction in a womb somewhere. Why should I possibly care? That's just how I "feel" about it. After birth? THAT is an entirely different matter. I am all but an uncontrolled violent lunatic against hurting a child - a phobic thing from my past. I saw lots and lots of terrible things done routine to children my entire youth - including to me. I would pick being aborted before going thru that again - though I have a great life now. Still, no sane person would go thru that no matter what.

Oh, the punishment for causing a woman having a miscarriage is specifically in the OT, not just a social law.

I'm enjoying a RATIONAL discussion on abortion and will respond further (try not to be too voluminous), but I got some chores to do right now. Later. eace

 

[Libertas-Mors]

Well, a bill for funding early childhood programs targeted toward children with disabilities was rejected yesterday.

This is another debate altogether. I would be interested in discussing it elsewhere though. The problem that some young Republicans rightly recognize is that bills are often passed with innocent names (SOPA and its successor 'Stop online child porn) which include funding for expensive pet projects. I would like to see the actual bill before passing judgment.

 

[Fiddytree]

This is another debate altogether. I would be interested in discussing it elsewhere though. The problem that some young Republicans rightly recognize is that bills are often passed with innocent names (SOPA and its successor 'Stop online child porn) which include funding for expensive pet projects. I would like to see the actual bill before passing judgment.

These are hardly unconnected. Separating these issues makes it convenient for the supposedly fiscally conservative to step away from the moral and economic implications of continuing to funnel these youth down a path of economic woe and dependency. The argument for preventing abortions to be done in the name of eugenics (one of the bills passed) is that these individuals have a life worth living. The problem is that as soon as you come into the world as an individual with a disability, you need services. There has been a large number of budgetary cuts in the past year, grants removed, and so forth, that would have otherwise made their lives better. It's a whole-scale attack on the public policy of disability in the state.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

So I don't "feel" the terrible injustice in technical ending of a homo sapien under construction in a womb

Since you don't share your wife's theological views then we can focus on something than biblical arguments. I was only using theological argumentation to address Minnie's claims.

So, you say that you don't feel an injustice has been committed when a developing homo sapien is killed in the womb. Do you see as an injustice the murder of an infant who just came out of the womb (if the mother wanted it dead).

Oh, the punishment for causing a woman having a miscarriage is specifically in the OT, not just a social law.

Yes. Codified in the Bible are many common and social and priestly law codes that are binding for Jews. The Prophets who came after often criticized some of these codes because the application of them led to injustices.

I'm enjoying a RATIONAL discussion on abortion and will respond further (try not to be too voluminous), but I got some chores to do right now. Later. eace

Sounds good. Peace.

 

[Libertas-Mors]

These are hardly unconnected. Separating these issues makes it convenient for the supposedly fiscally conservative to step away from the moral and economic implications of continuing to funnel these youth down a path of economic woe and dependency. The argument for preventing abortions to be done in the name of eugenics (one of the bills passed) is that these individuals have a life worth living. The problem is that as soon as you come into the world as an individual with a disability, you need services. There has been a large number of budgetary cuts in the past year, grants removed, and so forth, that would have otherwise made their lives better. It's a whole-scale attack on the public policy of disability in the state.

I disagree. You need to demonstrate that the bill offered helps people with disabilities and does so without funding Democratic pet projects. That's all I ask for.

 

[hfd]

Hell, just kill the inconvenient kid at any age and be done with it.

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

I love the twist the supporters of abortion on demand get themselves into. They are so concerned about the welfare of the children and civil rights. But, hey. what's a dead baby now and then.

 

[minnie616]

....
I don't need to convince you of that. Didn't you say that your wife mourned the loss of her miscarriage? I know my wife did, I think it is ingrained in biology so why do I need a biblical response to something that ...

The loss of a miscarriage?

What do you mean that?

Whenever I became pregnant I was hoping to be able to continue my pregnancy and that I would give birth to a healthy baby .
I had two miscarriages.
I never mourned the fact I had a miscarriage. I knew when things are not right with a pregnancy miscarriages happen.
I did mourn the fact that that I was not going to have a baby in the near future like I thought when I first learned of the pregnancy.

My first miscarriage ( which was between my second and third child ) was early on and while I did not expect that to happen I know early miscarriages happen in about 1 our 5 pregnancies so it was not unexpected.

My second miscarriage ( which was also between my second and third child ) was about 20 weeks gestation.
I went to ER with early labor pains hoping the doctors could stop the pains and that my
pregnancy would continue and end with the birth of a healthy child.
They took a pg test ,told me I was no longer pregnant and that the doctor who was taking over my doctor who was out town would be in the next day to perform my abortion and remove the dead fetus.
They took me to my bed and when I transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw how deformed it was. My doctor told me that fetus never would have been viable even if I had carried it longer. It never would have become
a person/ baby/ child. It was just a miscarriage waiting to happen.