the truth about abortion

[Brutus]

I have read them. But by all means keep spewing your MORONIC LIES!

Obviously you didn't.

Yes, you tried one argument for your cause and when it flopped, you went to the exact opposite. Pure sophistry, no position. As others have noted.

Not true, at first I was trying to convince the religious crowd that I was right, as soon as I noticed how bullheaded they were, and how unwilling they were to move an inch on their positions I defended what I feel is right.

 

[steen]

Well, everyone should be forced to give blood on a regular basis for those who need it. As for being forced to give up a kidney to save a life, I'm unsure. If having one of your kidney's removed drastically shortens your life, then no, but if it does not, than yes.

Giving a kidney through live donation is safer than giving birth, so you are abviously advocating the wholesale bodily enslavement of all people. Nice going. Obviously I disagree.

I must say, though, that you seem to be the only anti-choicer who have actually agreed to the same kind of duty and removal of rights as he sought to foist onto the woman. Makes you much less hypocritical than the typical prolifers.

 

[Brutus]

Sorry steen, didn't realize I overlooked this.

Indeed. No person should be assigned urdens that no other person bears. hence, women should not be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will unless this applied to EVERYBODY. So until you advocate for ANY bodily use as being enforsable, your argument would be hypocritical. Therefore, unless you also advocate for forced blood donation, f.ex, you would merely be hypocritically working AGAINST justice and fairness when seeking to force women to give of their bodily resources against their will.

Covered above.

But then, your BELIEF that an embryo is a human "being" is merely existing in your mind. I see no being in an embryo.

It is undoubtably human, and life. It is human life. Taking away a human life is murder.

But you want to enslave women while cowardly seeking to excuse yourself from a similar duty of giving bodily resources against your will, right!

Actually no, I go to war (if I must) to protect my family. That is how I give up bodily recources for them. Women bear children, I bear arms. Seems like a fair trade off to me.
And how is making abortion illegal enslaving women? Oh my God, women have to obey laws, that seems unfair to me!

 

[Brutus]

Giving a kidney through live donation is safer than giving birth, so you are abviously advocating the wholesale bodily enslavement of all people. Nice going. Obviously I disagree.

I must say, though, that you seem to be the only anti-choicer who have actually agreed to the same kind of duty and removal of rights as he sought to foist onto the woman. Makes you much less hypocritical than the typical prolifers.

I don't see how giving up your body to help other people is "bodily enslavement," but you can call it what you will. Giving up needless parts of your body (like blood that will be regenerated) shouldn't be a horrible torture upon the whole country, nor even a punishment. It should be an obligation!

 

[steen]

It is undoubtably human, and life. It is human life. Taking away a human life is murder.

Your claim is false, or all wars, capital punishment and killing in self-defense then would be murder. It is plain false.

Actually no, I go to war (if I must) to protect my family.

But you commit murder, per your own definition.

That is how I give up bodily recources for them. Women bear children, I bear arms. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Ani't that nice, you assigning what is a fair burden for another person:2razz:

And how is making abortion illegal enslaving women? Oh my God, women have to obey laws, that seems unfair to me!

You take away the woman's right to control her own bodily resources. That is enslavement. That you are for enslaving everybody doesn't take away from that.

 

[steen]

I don't see how giving up your body to help other people is "bodily enslavement," but you can call it what you will.

It is not the giving up part, but rather the being FORCED to give it up that is the enslavement. It is the starpping you down and forcing a pint of blood from you against your will that is enslavement.

Giving up needless parts of your body (like blood that will be regenerated) shouldn't be a horrible torture upon the whole country, nor even a punishment. It should be an obligation!

Exactly. You will force those who object to doing so. 10-20,000 people die every year from kidney failure that could be treated with a kidney donation. Live kidney donation is safer than giving birth, yet we let these people die because we don't FORCE people to safely give up their extra kidney.

You want to make it an obligation, you want to force people, strap them down and extract that kidney from them. That's enslavement.

And, after all, that is what the prolifers insist happens to the woman. So at least you are conssitant and not hypocritical like the rest of the prolifers who do NOT want to be a risk for having to do what they want the woman to be forced to do. They are hypocrites, you are not. That's the difference.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "The reason abortion is wrong is the same reason that murder is wrong. You are killing a human being without giving them a chance to fight back. Maybe in this case it is even worse than murder--when a murderer kills a victim they are large and can act independently; they have a chance of survival. Abortion is just straight up slaughter. That's basically where I'm coming from."

FutureIncoming replied: "This is where my assumption about Free Will pokes a hole in your argument. (I expect that if you have an alternative/equivalent answer to my question above {{not requoted here}}, then I can use that here to poke a hole, also.) Murder is ACTUALLY the killing of someone who has Free Will, against that persons Will. (Thus killing extraterrestrial intelligences can be murder, too, but swatting flies is never murder.) An unborn human does not have enough brainpower for Free Will; therefore killing it CANNOT be murder."

Brutus responded: "Hmm... so is the killing of the mentally handicapped right, Hitler? But seriously, this is where I disagree with your arguement. Killing someone who does not have the brainpower for free will is still murder (because killing the mentally disabled is murder). Again, I believe that murder is the killing of another human being, regaurdless of mental capacity."

Heh, you can see why it is ESSENTIAL that legal definitions be precise AND make sense AND do not defy Fact. Legally, currently, killing a human is NOT always murder. Sometimes it is merely "manslaughter"; sometimes it is "suicide". Then there is the gray area involving Dr. Kevorkian, in which it can be said he intentionally killed people who wanted to die and were unable to accomplish it themselves -- "assisted suicide". Your last sentence is demonstrably invalid, therefore (your belief does not change the legal facts).

Your question about whether or not killing the mentally handicapped is "right" is somewhat loaded. How handicapped are you talking about? There is quite a range!!! Humans with Downs Syndrome are often quite functional; others are so incapable that they are never able to even crawl across the floor. Here's something related, that I wrote in the "Hey Defenders" Thread, Message #483:
+++
Felicity also wrote: "So should BORN humans be able to be killed up to "as of about three years old" because they ar not "persons?""

LOGICALLY, yes. PRACTICALLY, not likely, but with some exceptions. The brain-dead, of course, are usually unplugged from life-support when it is finally accepted that they are going to stay brain-dead. The severely mentally handicapped are equivalent to pets. A human pet is a BIG animal, 100-200 pounds or so, and requires a lot of care, including diaper-changes -- and may not die a natural death for 90 years. Why shouldn't such a pet be "put to sleep" if proves to be beyond the care-abilities of the keeper? Such is done regularly for ordinary pets in that case, isn't it?

The main thing you are missing, and which I didn't point out in the previous paragraph, is that USUALLY A BORN HUMAN IS WANTED (at least when abortions are availble to remove the unwanted). THAT is why there USUALLY won't be any killing of two-year-olds. Yes, there will be exceptions (RARE!) when a parent suffers temporary insanity or equivalent breakdown; it could be pointed out that offspring-killing then Evolutionarily removes any possible genetic cause from the gene pool. (That's why it's rare!)

Yes, there may also be other exceptions, likely due to extreme stress -- they don't call the toddler stage the "Terrible Twos" for nothing; I know one lady (having previously experienced stresses you wouldn't wish on anyone, like a rape-caused pregnancy at 14, abortion NOT allowed) whose two-year-old boy (a much later offspring than that first one) got into her small make-up kit (all she could afford) and wrecked it, dumping perfume all over the rug and bed, and smearing lipstick all over the walls, and other glorious mess-making -- acts described to me as attacking her fundamental femininity. Ignorant of abstract symbology that he was, the young human animal still came mighty close to a death sentence that day. Well, see above about "rare", and note that extreme stress IS a form of temporary insanity.
+++

The final thing I need to deal here with is this that you wrote: "Killing someone who does not have the brainpower for free will is still murder"

WRONG, simply because swatting a fly, which does not have the brainpower for free will, is not murder. YES, I see that you used the word "someone", but that word is equivalent to "person" --and so far as I recall, you have failed to provide a rationale that would allow nonhuman intelligences to be called persons, while excluding mindless animals from personhood -- and then including equally mindless humans as persons, without being a hypocrite about it.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "... Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist. SO NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE OF THE FETUS, as long as its brainpower is animal-level, there is NO requirement that it must continue to grow."

--and wrote: "As for your argument, it is very good, if I believed that we shouldn't kill fetuses because they will eventually have the brainpower of a human (which I never stated)."

The argument was presented not because I thought you said any such thing, but to let you see the notion that Biology is a kind of natural Technology. Upcoming Nanotechnology, in fact, is going to be similar in many ways to Biology; Biology is very clearly Natural Nanotechnology. A living organism is not more special than a sufficiently advanced robot, therefore! You are claiming that living things deserve respect, but this means that when those sufficiently advanced robots come along, EQUIVALENT to living things by all criteria except that they are man-made, you will have to respect them, also! Even if they can't do anything more significant than what a rat can do. What say you now?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus quoted: "Well, on what basis should humans place themselves ahead of animals? Why don't you commit suicide so flies can convert your carcass into lots more flies? That's sacrificing one life for the benefit of many, after all!"

--and wrote: "Damn good question. I'd have to say it is out of greed (I enjoy living), and my lack of emotional attachment to flies."

FutureIncoming replied: "OK, you are basically claiming that your selfish desires are more important than the selfish desires of mindless organisms like flies. See how easy it is to apply that to an unwanted/mindless fetus? Do note that if a woman is unwanting of a fetus, an emotional attachment is probably lacking, also!"

Brutus responded: "No, not at all. Your argument is an illogical stretch. My suicide and a woman's pregnancy are not the same at all, unless her life is directly threatened by it. For I still believe that I should not go out and kill flies for no reason at all. I place my own life above them, but that does not mean that I should be allowed to kill them on a whim."

Heh heh heh, your argument still has a huge hole in it. First, you do not deny that your selfish desires are more important than the selfish desires of mindless organisms. This means that you must accept that a pregnant woman's selfish desires are more important than the selfish desires of a mindless fetus. Next, you indicate that you need a reason to swat a fly. DO YOU REALLY THINK A PREGNANT WOMAN SEEKS AN ABORTION ON MERE WHIM?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Brutus wrote: "Err, you missed the point horribly. Free will CANNOT exist without our mindless biology. It CANNOT, no exceptions. If you are dead you do not have free will. The mind cannot exist without the body, but a body can exist without a mind."

AH, SO. Excellent! I might get finicky for a bit, in that our Free Will appears to derive more from Physics than Biology, and therefore, when I was specifying the phrase, "superior to natural mindless biology", I was leaving myself a loophole, heh heh. But I don't need that loophole yet; I'm just mentioning it to see what you might say about it.

Without invoking loophole, keep in mind that Observations reveal that humans frequently act like they have Free Will, while ordinary animals usually don't. So, while we MAY not be superior to natural mindless biology ("may" depends on closing that loophole, and on the nonexistence of metaphysical stuff like souls, of course), we nevertheless choose to see ourselves superior to ordinary animals and other mindless organisms (plants, bacteria, etc). It may be less of a superiority than humans typically egotistically grant themselves, but can you say that having Free Will is NOT any sort of superior type of thing?

Next, there is a certain Natural thing that I haven't mentioned before in this Thread. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO LIFE" IN NATURE. Plants try to grow to shade each other to death; animals eat plants, killing them reasonably often; some animals eat other animals; bacteria consume anything with a defective immune system, and the single biggest thing that keeps bacteria from concentrating on defeating the immune systems of multicellular life is the viruses. Then there are earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis, Ice Ages, giant meteors, nearby supernovae, and so on, for a long long long list of ways in which Nature doesn't care one whit whether or not ANY life survives, including human life. SO, why should humans go out of their way to respect life? Obviously it would be stupid to think we can go on destroying life in the manner currently being done all over the planet (the seas are becoming empty of fish; the forests are being slashed vastly faster than they can regrow, and so on). But why should we adopt a philosophy in which life is sacred? Nature doesn't care! USING THE STUFF OF LIFE IS CONVENIENT (like cutting trees to make your house). We do with life what we will, BECAUSE we have Free Will! I agree that we should respect it to the extent that we needn't stupidly waste/kill it off when later on (like when you sell a tool at a yard sale, and find you need it a month later), we might need it as a source of medicines. Not to mention that we need plants to make oxygen for us to breathe. Respecting life to the extent that we have a sustainable supply of it for our needs is fine. That does NOT mean abortions should be prohibited. This planet could use fewer humans on it, not more, who kill other life to fulfill selfish human desires.


=================
Brutus wrote: "As for the mystic business, it isn't a test of free will realy, more of a test of how much power our brains actually have over our bodies."

The mystic business is DATA. That and other data TENDS to support the POSSIBILITY that there is more to human life than the purely physical. I don't know how much I need to see before becoming a complete Believer in metaphysical stuff, and I don't know how much YOU need to see before deciding that agnostics may be closer to the truth than athiests. But I do know that valid data cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.



Brutus wrote: "And, as for livefree claiming that I never answer any of the fundamental questions posed to me, I couldn't disagree more. I argue EVERY point that you bring up, whereas many of the points that I make are overlooked and not argued at all.

And I think I've done a pretty good job of takling your points. Is there something you have directed at me that I've missed?

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

Jesus never talks about abortion, as it is recorded in the Bible. Yet most modern Christians, particularly Fundamentalists, seem to labor under the misapprehension that the Christian Church has always condemned abortion as murder. Did you know that until 1869, abortion in the first trimester was pretty much OK with the Catholics? They didn't officially think that the 'soul' entered the embryo until later in the pregnancy. A very strange idea arose fairly recently, historically speaking, that said that God throws newly made infant souls down into bodies at conception, when there are only two cells in the body, and if they are not born and don't get to hear about Jesus, then they have to hang out in Limbo for all eternity. This is a sort of comic book version of Christianity and totally perverts the merciful and loving God that Jesus talks about, into a sort of demonic god who arbitrarily condemns little babies for something someone else does. Comic book Christianity. The people who believe that particular superstition don't seem to have actually understood the 'good news' that Jesus taught - the truth that we are all deathless spirit, and that, in our essence, we are all children of that divine spirit, sometimes called God, that is the true being at the heart of everything,. No 'soul' is ever lost through the death of a body. Most cultures, including our own until just recently, have believed that the divine spark unites with the physical body at birth or late in the pregnancy. Most of the wisdom teachings of the world say that souls are old and wise, not newly created whenever a sperm cell happens to meet an egg, and that they don't have to associate with a body that isn't going to come to term. In any case, 'souls' don't die with the death of the body. A tissue cluster the size of your fingernail may be a potential vehicle for a human birth but no one is in the vehicle yet so when one of these zygotes is aborted, no one has been "murdered", as the comic book christians so hysterically claim. Did you know that a large percentage, perhaps more than half, of all fertilized human eggs, all potential human bodies, are spontaneously and naturally aborted and flushed from the womb? Does that make Mother Nature (or God) the biggest abortionist of all? This whole current controversy over abortion is based on bad, politically motivated theology and is being hyped by political power trippers who manipulate the credulous and ignorant among us by claiming that "babies are being murdered". The same people who seem so fierce to protect the "lives of the unborn" are also the ones supporting Bush's illegal war which has killed tens of thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq. Which shows just how much they really care about "right to life". Their whole position stinks of hypocrisy. They are against abortion but they are also against sex education and availability of birth control, two things that reduce the need for abortions. The truth is that, apart from their befuddled belief that a soul is "lost" whenever a fetus doesn't come to term, most abortion opponents are sucked into that position, not because of some great concern for life, but because they were subjected to enormous sexual repression when they were growing up. So now anything to do with sex produces a negative reaction and they are easily manipulated by those politicians who know how to push their hot buttons. Subconsciously they feel that if a woman gets pregnant, indicating that she had sex, then she is guilty and SHOULD be punished by forcing her to bear the child, even, for many of these misguided nutjobs, in the cases of rape and incest.

Please Define sentience Lets go to the Good Book instead of the dictionary
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5
The Lord Knew us even before we were in the womb. Sentience

"...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15;
How could the Holy Spirit ever fill anything but a person?
Again Sentience

"This is what the Lord says- He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you" --Isaiah 44:2
The Lord recognizes the baby in the womb and helps it survive. Sentience.

"For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." --Psalm 139:13-14
Sentience Made in the image of God and being recognized as one of God's children. My definition back up by no dictionary man made but by the Word of God.

"Before I was born the Lord called me...from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." "And now the Lord says-He who formed me in the womb to be His servant..." --Isaiah 49:1,5
When we abort we take a servent from the Lord.

"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" --Job 31:15
Yes The same God that form you in your mothers womb form the thousands of babies being aborted everyday.

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by His grace..." --Galatians 1:15
I guess God is recognizing The Baby in His or Her"s Mother's womb as Sentience Why would he call?

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." --Psalm 51:5
Oh yes The sin that Adam and Eve commited for which we are saved by Jesus's shed blood. I guess God knows even in our Mothers womb we were charged with this sin until Jesus saved us. I guess we were sentience

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." --Exodus 21:22-25
The Good Lord Knows the baby inside the Mothers womb is protected by the 6th commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

The Bible passages were taken from abortioninfo.net the comments after are by me. I was setience in my Mothers womb and so were you? Why destroy a Baby created in the image of God.
God Bless,

Proudly Pro Life JP Freeman

 

[steen]

....The Bible passages were taken from abortioninfo.net the comments after are by me.

Yeah. Subjective "because I say so" postulations without gounding in reality. So what?

I was setience in my Mothers womb and so were you?

None of us were, your false claim none withstanding.

Why destroy a Baby created in the image of God.

Nobody are talking about "destroy a baby" your false claim and hyperbole none withstanding.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "Please Define sentience Lets go to the Good Book instead of the dictionary
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5
The Lord Knew us even before we were in the womb. Sentience

WRONG. If nothing else, sentience is defined more by YOUR ABILITY TO KNOW THINGS, than your abilty to be known. In other words, try this on for size:
"The Lord knew ants even before they left the anthill."
So ants are sentient too? IT DOESN'T WORK.




Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15;
How could the Holy Spirit ever fill anything but a person?
Again Sentience

NOPE. In the womb there is the body of an unborn human. Just because Spirit might fill it, that does not mean the body is sentient. Not to mention that the Holy Spirit supposedly encompasses EVERYTHING: rocks, trees, oceans (the water AS WELL as the life-forms in the water). While the Holy Spirit may be sentient, just because it fills something does not mean the thing it fills is also sentient.




Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "This is what the Lord says- He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you" --Isaiah 44:2
The Lord recognizes the baby in the womb and helps it survive. Sentience.

NOPE, AGAIN. The existence of the body in the womb does NOT automatically imply sentience. Also, if "help it survive" was true, then why does something like 20% (maybe more) of all pregnancies naturally miscarry? Your intrepretation does NOT make the Lord look very competent!




Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." --Psalm 139:13-14
Sentience Made in the image of God and being recognized as one of God's children. My definition back up by no dictionary man made but by the Word of God.

NOPE, AGAIN. There are two separate statements there, which can be interpreted in very different ways. The first, for example, looks to me more like a reference to the soul than anything else. Which brings me to the logical consequences: If after death a soul is condemned to Hell, then what good is such a punishment if it can't UNDERSTAND the punishment? The soul therefore MUST, if it exists at all, relevant to a consistent theology, encompass a significant degree of sentience. NOT THE BODY, which the second of the two separate sentences is describing. REMEMBER THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN LONG BEFORE THE MECHANISMS OF BIOLOGY WERE KNOWN. Blaming stuff like "knitting together a body" on the Lord was a common way to sidestep ignorance. Today we know better than to blame God for stuff that is easily explainable by physics, chemistry, biochemisty, and biology. Next, THE VERSE DOES NOT SAY BODY AND SOUL WERE MADE AT THE SAME TIME. There is actually good reason to think that body and soul AREN'T made at the same time:
+++
The preachers might CLAIM that souls come into existence when an ovum is fertilized, but there are logical problems. For example, fertilization is a purely physical process involving lots of molecular biochemstry -- and ANYTHING that can be created by purely physical means can also be destroyed by purely physical means. It is logically impossible for an immortal soul to be created by the fertilization process. Well, then, some preachers know this, and claim that God creates the souls when fertilization happens. Really??? What about the significant percentage of fertilized eggs that just happen not to implant in a womb? What about the eggs that divide for a time, and then split into separate cell-clusters that eventually become identical twins? What about separate clusters of cells (including fraternal twins!) that actually merge together, forming a "chimeric" human (a relatively recent discovery in human biology)? What about the ones that contain genetic flaws so severe that the fetus dies after a couple of months, and then gets miscarried? Is God so mechanical as to mindlessly create souls for ALL fertilized human eggs, just because fertilization happens to have occurred? Is human biology/biochemistry so unlike that of all those soulless insects out there that a zygote/embryo/fetus cannot live without a soul for a while, say until long after fertilization (and any twinning/subtwinning/chimerism)? And have you ever heard about "sensory deprivation chambers"? A full-fledged soul jammed into an embryo is going to spend months without a sense of touch, smell, hearing, taste, sight, or even proprioception. No nevous system will exist for months, that is! It is well documented that humans spending more than a week in a sensory deprivation chamber can go stark staring mad. What kind of God would do that to an innocent soul, anyway? Finally, does God love a mindless soulless fetus so much more than a mindful ensoulled adult pregnant Free-Willed woman that, even while omnisciently knowing the woman is likely to seek an abortion, God will create a soul for that fetus anyway, JUST so the woman can then be condemned if the abortion is done?
+++
ALSO, BEWARE OF ASSUMING THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE TOLD SINCE BIRTH TO BELIEVE IT:
The fundamental problem with the Bible is that it was written by humans.
God did NOT sit down and write it.
Humans CLAIMED to have been inspired by God, to write it.
Humans are often liars, however. Why should those claims be believed?
Sure, you can point to descriptions of miracles in the Bible, but humans who might be lying wrote those down, too!
EVERY objective analysis of the Bible notes that the early books, supposedly written by Moses, define the creation of a "theocracy", government of the people by the preachers for the preachers -- and Moses was the chief preacher, of course. This is actually admitted and spelled out in Deuteronomy 17:12 (KJV), "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel."

From the preceding, it is easy to conclude that the preachers who wrote the Bible put in as many self-serving things as they wanted. Even the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325AD, which had the task of assembling the modern Bible from the many Books that had been written in prior centuries, was a bunch of preachers who VOTED on what to include and what to exclude.

And so a number of things are easily explained as consequences:
Kill the unbelievers/heretics: They do not tithe to the preachers, of course.
Be fruitful and multiply: Make lots of babies who will grow up to tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit abortion: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit homosexualtiy: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit mast_rbation: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit contraception: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.

(As a result, for centuries the wealthiest organization in the world was the Roman Catholic Church.)

What God, if exists, ACTUALLY thinks about such rules may be an entirely different thing, altogether. But how to find out?

OK? NO MATTER WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BIBLE, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, unless other evidence comes along to back it up. Only God can tell us to what extent the Bible is full of lies. Some lies we know about from archeological reasearch; not so long ago, for example, a National Geographic article reported on what had been discovered about the Philistines; MORE artistic than the Israelites, they were. Not brutes. Remember that Truth is always the first casualty in war, and that the first truth to be denied is that the Enemies are people, too -- and that the histories (such as the Bible) are always written by the victors.

========================



Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "Before I was born the Lord called me...from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." "And now the Lord says-He who formed me in the womb to be His servant..." --Isaiah 49:1,5
When we abort we take a servent from the Lord.

NOT CERTAINLY. If the soul is sentient, then the soul is the servant, not the body. If the soul isn't made until the body is ready for it, then aborting the empty body is NOT depriving the Lord of a servant that doesn't exist yet! Not to mention another oddball factor altogether; I've been told that the Lord only claims first-born children as His servants (does it say in the Bible if the writer of that passage in Isaiah was a first-born?) --if true, then what you wrote would be completely inapplicable to abortions of any pregnancies after the first-born.



Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" --Job 31:15
Yes The same God that form you in your mothers womb form the thousands of babies being aborted everyday.

WRONG. God is not to blame for things that biology can easily explain.

{{continued next message}}

 

[FutureIncoming]

{{continued from previous message}}

Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by His grace..." --Galatians 1:15
I guess God is recognizing The Baby in His or Her"s Mother's womb as Sentience Why would he call?

DUH, "set me apart from my mother's womb" MEANS BIRTH. After which you definitely can be considered sentient.




Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." --Psalm 51:5
Oh yes The sin that Adam and Eve commited for which we are saved by Jesus's shed blood. I guess God knows even in our Mothers womb we were charged with this sin until Jesus saved us. I guess we were sentience

WRONG. Remember that the preachers want you to pay them for running your life. "Sin" is something they made up as a whip to acquire social power. ESPECIALLY was "Original Sin" made up to give men an excuse to think they could boss women around. Sex is NOT sinful; a flower, the sex organ of a plant, is God's way of telling you that sex is beautiful. The beauty of flowers is fact; claims of sin is just propaganda. Which is more believable? (And with "sin" thrown out of court, sentience is no longer a factor.)




Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." --Exodus 21:22-25
The Good Lord Knows the baby inside the Mothers womb is protected by the 6th commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"


CONFLICT IN TRANSLATION: What version of the Bible are you referencing?
--From New American Bible: "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. 23 But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life"
--From New KJV: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life"
--From New Living Translation: "Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results, then the person responsible must pay damages in the amount the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if any harm results, then the offender must be punished according to the injury. If the result is death, the offender must be executed."
--From New Revised Standard Version: When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life"
--From Young's Literal Translation: And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges" 23 and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life"

That last one seems closest to what you quoted. BUT WHAT ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT THE WOMAN IS HIT. AND, miscarriage in those days was ALMOST ALWAYS death for the prematurely born. THE FINE IS FOR THE MISCARRIAGE. The "if any harm follows", THAT REFERS TO HARM TO THE WOMAN BECAUSE OF THE HIT. She could die in the labor of that miscarriage, after all. Your conclusion, therefore, is WRONG.



==================
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem wrote: "The Bible passages were taken from abortioninfo.net the comments after are by me. I was setience in my Mothers womb and so were you? Why destroy a Baby created in the image of God."

BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. Only a soul can be the image of God; both God and souls are immaterial. Abortion destroys a human body; ONLY if a soul is present in that body can it be wrong to kill it -- and you have NO evidence showing that this is the case when an abortion is done!!! NOTE THAT THE FINE IN PREVIOUS SECTION IS REQUESTED BY THE PERSON WHO, IF AN ABORTION WAS DESIRED, WOULD PROBABLY BE PAYING FOR IT TO BE DONE. That is, the value of the unborn is NOT determined by God!