Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...[W:875,1181]

[choiceone]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Odd that you would say that. There are lots of people, very well educated people that very sincerely believe abortion to be murder; mass murder, in fact. The problem for the logic that contradicts this is that it requires introducing the hypothesis that not all humans are human.

It's actually not as much of a problem as you seem to believe. One reason that the Roe v Wade majority opinion considered religious as well as scientific and philosophical views of the human unborn is that different religions/religious denominations have radically different views on them, and it would be possible to argue that a claim that an embryo is "a human" scientifically and therefore "a person" legally is very problematic for the laws of any country that held freedom of religion to be a basic right of persons.

First, the scientific evidence is ambiguous on embryos being members of the species, because right now, no blastocyst has been shown to be capable of developing organs, i.e., going through organogenesis, without being implanted into a more mature human organism already possessed of such organs.

Without such organs and the capacity for biological autonomy while having them, it is not at all clear that there is a member of the human species, because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature doesn't even rely on genetic criteria alone for determining the species of tissue samples, let alone determining actual membership in a species.

Given that ambiguity, science has not managed to validate any particular religion's view of the status of the unborn. Catholics, of course, claim that a zygote is a human being and should have a human right to life even if a woman has to be forced to continue a pregnancy that has depended on rape for its existence.

However, Jews have always made a distinction between the unborn and the born - birth, or at least being halfway out of the woman's body or having its head out, is and has been for millenia the Jewish criterion for the Hebrew equivalent of personhood. Furthermore, Jews have also always distinguished between the unborn for the first 40 days, which would mean probably 53-60 days or seven-eight weeks of pregnancy using LMP count, and the unborn after that. And this sort of distinction held at a much earlier time in Catholicism, too.

Various mainline Protestant denominations also stress personhood at birth and did so historically, and they made a distinction between the unborn in the first and second halves of pregnancy ( using the term "quickening"), and this was the view of the early Americans at the time of the founding of the US.

So attempting to use science to claim that zygotes ought to be persons, despite all the ambiguities of prenatal human life even from scientific perspectives, means to claim that Catholicism from 1860 is true, even though there is no unequivocal proof to support the claim. That means to discriminate against Judaism and various mainline Protestant denominations, again without unequivocal proof.

And thus, making laws against voluntarily induced abortion on the grounds that zygotes should be legal persons, despite ambiguities in the scientific evidence, would basically result in upholding a religious view that the majority of Americans don't share and discriminating against the various minority religious views accommodated even at the founding of the US, views which are consonant with the majority of Americans.

If we did in the US claim in law that zygotes were persons, I would feel sorry that I was too old to be able to emigrate and change my nationality, because I would no longer really be willing to be an American citizen.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

It's actually not as much of a problem as you seem to believe. One reason that the Roe v Wade majority opinion considered religious as well as scientific and philosophical views of the human unborn is that different religions/religious denominations have radically different views on them, and it would be possible to argue that a claim that an embryo is "a human" scientifically and therefore "a person" legally is very problematic for the laws of any country that held freedom of religion to be a basic right of persons.

First, the scientific evidence is ambiguous on embryos being members of the species, because right now, no blastocyst has been shown to be capable of developing organs, i.e., going through organogenesis, without being implanted into a more mature human organism already possessed of such organs.

Without such organs and the capacity for biological autonomy while having them, it is not at all clear that there is a member of the human species, because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature doesn't even rely on genetic criteria alone for determining the species of tissue samples, let alone determining actual membership in a species.

Given that ambiguity, science has not managed to validate any particular religion's view of the status of the unborn. Catholics, of course, claim that a zygote is a human being and should have a human right to life even if a woman has to be forced to continue a pregnancy that has depended on rape for its existence.

However, Jews have always made a distinction between the unborn and the born - birth, or at least being halfway out of the woman's body or having its head out, is and has been for millenia the Jewish criterion for the Hebrew equivalent of personhood. Furthermore, Jews have also always distinguished between the unborn for the first 40 days, which would mean probably 53-60 days or seven-eight weeks of pregnancy using LMP count, and the unborn after that. And this sort of distinction held at a much earlier time in Catholicism, too.

Various mainline Protestant denominations also stress personhood at birth and did so historically, and they made a distinction between the unborn in the first and second halves of pregnancy ( using the term "quickening"), and this was the view of the early Americans at the time of the founding of the US.

So attempting to use science to claim that zygotes ought to be persons, despite all the ambiguities of prenatal human life even from scientific perspectives, means to claim that Catholicism from 1860 is true, even though there is no unequivocal proof to support the claim. That means to discriminate against Judaism and various mainline Protestant denominations, again without unequivocal proof.

And thus, making laws against voluntarily induced abortion on the grounds that zygotes should be legal persons, despite ambiguities in the scientific evidence, would basically result in upholding a religious view that the majority of Americans don't share and discriminating against the various minority religious views accommodated even at the founding of the US, views which are consonant with the majority of Americans.

If we did in the US claim in law that zygotes were persons, I would feel sorry that I was too old to be able to emigrate and change my nationality, because I would no longer really be willing to be an American citizen.

Yea but your God isn't "good".

 

[joG]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

It's actually not as much of a problem as you seem to believe. One reason that the Roe v Wade majority opinion considered religious as well as scientific and philosophical views of the human unborn is that different religions/religious denominations have radically different views on them, and it would be possible to argue that a claim that an embryo is "a human" scientifically and therefore "a person" legally is very problematic for the laws of any country that held freedom of religion to be a basic right of persons.

First, the scientific evidence is ambiguous on embryos being members of the species, because right now, no blastocyst has been shown to be capable of developing organs, i.e., going through organogenesis, without being implanted into a more mature human organism already possessed of such organs.

Without such organs and the capacity for biological autonomy while having them, it is not at all clear that there is a member of the human species, because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature doesn't even rely on genetic criteria alone for determining the species of tissue samples, let alone determining actual membership in a species.

Given that ambiguity, science has not managed to validate any particular religion's view of the status of the unborn. Catholics, of course, claim that a zygote is a human being and should have a human right to life even if a woman has to be forced to continue a pregnancy that has depended on rape for its existence.

However, Jews have always made a distinction between the unborn and the born - birth, or at least being halfway out of the woman's body or having its head out, is and has been for millenia the Jewish criterion for the Hebrew equivalent of personhood. Furthermore, Jews have also always distinguished between the unborn for the first 40 days, which would mean probably 53-60 days or seven-eight weeks of pregnancy using LMP count, and the unborn after that. And this sort of distinction held at a much earlier time in Catholicism, too.

Various mainline Protestant denominations also stress personhood at birth and did so historically, and they made a distinction between the unborn in the first and second halves of pregnancy ( using the term "quickening"), and this was the view of the early Americans at the time of the founding of the US.

So attempting to use science to claim that zygotes ought to be persons, despite all the ambiguities of prenatal human life even from scientific perspectives, means to claim that Catholicism from 1860 is true, even though there is no unequivocal proof to support the claim. That means to discriminate against Judaism and various mainline Protestant denominations, again without unequivocal proof.

And thus, making laws against voluntarily induced abortion on the grounds that zygotes should be legal persons, despite ambiguities in the scientific evidence, would basically result in upholding a religious view that the majority of Americans don't share and discriminating against the various minority religious views accommodated even at the founding of the US, views which are consonant with the majority of Americans.

If we did in the US claim in law that zygotes were persons, I would feel sorry that I was too old to be able to emigrate and change my nationality, because I would no longer really be willing to be an American citizen.

I knew all that. But that does not change anything. You seem to think that court decisions, power that be or majorities influence ethical value. By that standard the mass murders in history were ethically fine. The implications of the ethics you seem to postulate would probably scare you.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Abortion is unbiblical.

A divinely appointed prophet from the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Other prophets and Biblical personalities ordained from their mother’s wombs:

Samson: Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. “But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'” (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)

John the Baptist: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)

Jesus, the Son of God: Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” – Luke chapter 1

The Apostle Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased…” (Galatians 1:15)

It is clear in scripture that in some way, God creates life in a mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’

Of course, the question for the pro-abortion crowd, is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating?

abortion « The Righter Report

1) Jeremiah was a particular person with a particular destiny. What held true for him does not necessarily hold true for all other persons. Furthermore, the actual Hebrew does not say, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." but rather "Before formed in the womb, knew." The original Hebrew is very different from English, and I'd trust a Hebrew language specialist before I'd trust anyone else's interpretation. And the best such specialists are Jewish rabbis, who all agree that personhood occurs at birth.

2) Your second example is also a particular one. You simply have no right to generalize from isolated particular examples to all of the human species. And once again, the Hebrew is complicated - "from the womb" need not mean "while in the womb."

3) Again a particular example only. And I would add here that so far, all of the women mentioned are married at the time that they become pregnant, and I would add that none of these pregnancies is clearly forced on the woman against her will or conscience.

4) Nothing in the statement on Jesus suggests that Jesus is already a person in the womb, and I would add that the Luke passage clearly gives Mary, a betrothed but not yet married girl, an opportunity to decline the opportunity offered. That is why she does not just say, "Okay," but asks how this will occur given that she has not had sex, and she is answered. And when she answers, she still doesn't say just, "Okay, then," but specifically says, "Be it unto me according to thy word."

Mary said that only after she knew who would be the father, what gender the child would be, what the child's destiny would be, and exactly how she would become pregnant, according to the word of an angel and not a mere human being, and she only said yes to the angel's word. And this was a perfect example of consenting to a particular pregnancy after being assured of all that by a non-human angel as separate from consenting to sexual intercourse with a human guy.

5) The Psalms passage is quite different in Hebrew. I suggest you use the following source for comparison, which contains the original, transliteration, and literal translation with lexical and grammatical notes: Psalms 139 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study.

So I'm really tired of self-proclaimed Christians who have read some English translation of the Bible and think they know it all.

It might be different if you had, for example, repeatedly demonstrated in public the capacity for instantaneous spiritual healing of people's physical diseases and disabilities without any use of materia medica, since Jesus did say that if we believed in him and his works, we could do the same works, and that is one of the works he did. Then, I would say, Oh, I think you really do believe in him.

To be sure, he'll save you if you believe in him on the basis of your word, i.e., if you use words to say you believe. But there isn't any reason at all why we humbler folk should believe you are even a believer on the basis of what you say. Jesus warned people to be careful of those who come making claims and are really wolves in sheep's clothing . . . .

So if you don't mind, I will continue reading the original transliterations and literal translations with expert commentary on lexical and grammatical matters. And I guess that means I will pay attention to what Jewish rabbis say. At least they have a better grasp of the original Old Testament text and Jesus Christ's native language . . . .

 

[choiceone]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Miscarriage Statistics - A Look at the Figures and Definitions
Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages. - See more at: Miscarriage Statistics

Now who says "God" doesn't believe in abortion.

If I remember right from a course in physical anthro, about 50-75% of zygotes never result in established implantations and 15-20% of known implantations result in miscarriage.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Yea but your God isn't "good".

Apparently the Founding Fathers didn't care whether a religion's God was good or not, because they allowed freedom of religion.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

I knew all that. But that does not change anything. You seem to think that court decisions, power that be or majorities influence ethical value. By that standard the mass murders in history were ethically fine. The implications of the ethics you seem to postulate would probably scare you.

Not at all. I am assuming that ethics is not objective yet, because politics is one way of expressing disagreement about ethics and debating them.

All I know as an ignorant person is that, if Catholicism were the only form of Christianity, I wouldn't be a Christian. Catholicism has perpetrated many lies and its clergy has indulged in sexual abuse of minors and rape of women for many, many centuries - it's an ingrained pattern - and that church's highest authorities historically tried to hide that from people rather than admit it and deal with it openly and honestly. To me, that is so unethical that it can't reasonably be considered to be offering the teachings of one who could demonstrate, in public, the instantaneous spiritual healing of people's physical illnesses and disabilities without materia medica.

And I don't think that anything I said in my post implies that mass murders in history were ethically fine at all. We are talking about the distinction between the unborn and the born.

The unborn inside a woman are not perceivable to anyone but the pregnant woman except by very indirect means, and all of the indirect means themselves require her explicit formal consent so long as her rights as a person are respected.

So in many intricate ways, the embryo is a function of the woman unless it's in a petri dish, where it will die before it ever undergoes organogenesis.

That has nothing to to with the born, who are perceivable even if the woman is dead or absent. They exist in their own right, apart from the woman who gave them birth. So if you kill one of them, you are killing a self-sustaining human individual.

And I think it scares you that it is so easy to show how wrong the "zygote personhood" perspective is, and how crucial to the actual creation of a human being gestation in the woman's body is. I think you've been fooling yourself into believing that the man's and woman's contributions are equal in that creation, and they just aren't.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

If I remember right from a course in physical anthro, about 50-75% of zygotes never result in established implantations and 15-20% of known implantations result in miscarriage.

And so? Neither of these have anything to do with induced/elective abortion.

 

[OKgrannie]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Point taken. Actually, I think some anti-choicers may even want to punish me because I, by choice, haven't had sex since my late twenties and am now in my mid-60s. Mine is for them a distasteful example in that sexual reproduction that does not happen via rape depends on women consenting to have sex, but women have the right to refuse to consent to it, and I think the anti-choicers actually dislike that, too. Perhaps anti-choicers just want to punish women who don't do what anti-choicers want.

Exactly. You have dared to defy the convention of marrying and reproducing. A Baptist minister once said that, "When you grow up you get married, and when you get married you have children. Anything else is rebellion against God." Failing to fit into their prescribed roles draws their wrath.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

I do not believe I said that, did I?

Did I say you did?

Do I then take it that you agree that consenting to the risk of pregnancy is not agreement to gestate and give birth if it were to happen?

 

[Logicman]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Miscarriage Statistics - A Look at the Figures and Definitions
Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages. - See more at: Miscarriage Statistics

Now who says "God" doesn't believe in abortion.

Mankind does lots of cra*py stuff. Doesn't mean God approves of it all. So try again.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

1) Jeremiah was a particular person with a particular destiny. What held true for him does not necessarily hold true for all other persons. Furthermore, the actual Hebrew does not say, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." but rather "Before formed in the womb, knew." The original Hebrew is very different from English, and I'd trust a Hebrew language specialist before I'd trust anyone else's interpretation. And the best such specialists are Jewish rabbis, who all agree that personhood occurs at birth.

Nonsense. The Word of Jeremiah has been interpreted by numerous teams of Hebrew scholars, and it holds that he was appointed a prophet BEFORE HE WAS BORN.

2) Your second example is also a particular one. You simply have no right to generalize from isolated particular examples to all of the human species. And once again, the Hebrew is complicated - "from the womb" need not mean "while in the womb."

3) Again a particular example only. And I would add here that so far, all of the women mentioned are married at the time that they become pregnant, and I would add that none of these pregnancies is clearly forced on the woman against her will or conscience.

4) Nothing in the statement on Jesus suggests that Jesus is already a person in the womb, and I would add that the Luke passage clearly gives Mary, a betrothed but not yet married girl, an opportunity to decline the opportunity offered. That is why she does not just say, "Okay," but asks how this will occur given that she has not had sex, and she is answered. And when she answers, she still doesn't say just, "Okay, then," but specifically says, "Be it unto me according to thy word."

Mary said that only after she knew who would be the father, what gender the child would be, what the child's destiny would be, and exactly how she would become pregnant, according to the word of an angel and not a mere human being, and she only said yes to the angel's word. And this was a perfect example of consenting to a particular pregnancy after being assured of all that by a non-human angel as separate from consenting to sexual intercourse with a human guy.

5) The Psalms passage is quite different in Hebrew. I suggest you use the following source for comparison, which contains the original, transliteration, and literal translation with lexical and grammatical notes: Psalms 139 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study.

So I'm really tired of self-proclaimed Christians who have read some English translation of the Bible and think they know it all.

It might be different if you had, for example, repeatedly demonstrated in public the capacity for instantaneous spiritual healing of people's physical diseases and disabilities without any use of materia medica, since Jesus did say that if we believed in him and his works, we could do the same works, and that is one of the works he did. Then, I would say, Oh, I think you really do believe in him.

To be sure, he'll save you if you believe in him on the basis of your word, i.e., if you use words to say you believe. But there isn't any reason at all why we humbler folk should believe you are even a believer on the basis of what you say. Jesus warned people to be careful of those who come making claims and are really wolves in sheep's clothing . . . .

So if you don't mind, I will continue reading the original transliterations and literal translations with expert commentary on lexical and grammatical matters. And I guess that means I will pay attention to what Jewish rabbis say. At least they have a better grasp of the original Old Testament text and Jesus Christ's native language . . . .

Yada, yada, yada...

The Jewish rabbis, for the most part, missed their Messiah, so we should listen to them on abortion? Ha! Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

p.s. Here's why you and the rabbis blew it on Christ.

Why Israel Missed It's Messiah

http://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

In the case of Jeremiah , it is talking about Jeremiah. IN the case of Psalm 139.13, it referring to King David. In both those cases, they were following a destiny for God. That is not the average fetus.

So, things are being taken out of context. As for 'diving insight'.. Somehow I don't think a psychotic blog by a right wing fanatic is divine at all. Narcissistic, perhaps, but not divine.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

In the case of Jeremiah , it is talking about Jeremiah. IN the case of Psalm 139.13, it referring to King David. In both those cases, they were following a destiny for God. That is not the average fetus.

What do you base that on, and how would you know what the divine plan of an average fetus is, or what their godly destiny is?

By the way, here's the translation from the Jewish Tanakh of Jeremiah 1:5 -

"When I had not yet formed you in the womb, I knew you, and when you had not yet emerged from the womb, I had appointed you; a prophet to the nations I made you."

And here's from Isaiah 44:24

"So said the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One Who formed you from the womb, "I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth from My power."

But the real question is, what divine insight do you have to where you even know who that is in the womb? Let's say it is another prophet like Jeremiah? How would you know beforehand that it isn't a prophet of God in the womb? The fact is that you don't know, nor does anyone from the pro-abortion crowd. So you cannot kill the unborn baby because you haven't a clue who it is or what God's plan is for it.

 

[joG]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Did I say you did?

Do I then take it that you agree that consenting to the risk of pregnancy is not agreement to gestate and give birth if it were to happen?

I would agree that killing the human being thus started is a legal option, if you don't feel like having it or not enough money or responsibility or something important like that. In other words, you go get some fun knowing you might have to kill the resulting kid.

 

[Fruityfact]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Mankind does lots of cra*py stuff. Doesn't mean God approves of it all. So try again.

How does that counter his point, Mr. Logic?
God doesn't approve of abortions, yet gives the OK to miscarriages or failed pregnancies

Please don't try to retort with biblical logic, because that's a misnomer.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Mankind does lots of cra*py stuff. Doesn't mean God approves of it all. So try again.

So I can get more replies of bible quotes as answers? No thanks Mr. Logicman.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

What do you base that on, and how would you know what the divine plan of an average fetus is, or what their godly destiny is?

By the way, here's the translation from the Jewish Tanakh of Jeremiah 1:5 -

"When I had not yet formed you in the womb, I knew you, and when you had not yet emerged from the womb, I had appointed you; a prophet to the nations I made you."

And here's from Isaiah 44:24

"So said the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One Who formed you from the womb, "I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth from My power."

But the real question is, what divine insight do you have to where you even know who that is in the womb? Let's say it is another prophet like Jeremiah? How would you know beforehand that it isn't a prophet of God in the womb? The fact is that you don't know, nor does anyone from the pro-abortion crowd. So you cannot kill the unborn baby because you haven't a clue who it is or what God's plan is for it.

LM...do you really want to start a religious war in the Abortion Forum?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

How does that counter his point, Mr. Logic?
God doesn't approve of abortions, yet gives the OK to miscarriages or failed pregnancies

Please don't try to retort with biblical logic, because that's a misnomer.

I haven't seen the memo that god doesn't approve of abortion. And LM is trying to shift the abortion debate into a religious debate.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

How does that counter his point, Mr. Logic?
God doesn't approve of abortions, yet gives the OK to miscarriages or failed pregnancies

Please don't try to retort with biblical logic, because that's a misnomer.

I read that the same way at first but I don't think Mr. Logic cared for my opinion that God approves of abortion. As to miscarriages they are "Gods will" and need to be ignored. Anyway God either approves of abortion or is a lousy creator having to kill all those Innocent humans just to get it right. :shock:

 

[RAMOSS]

Wat do you base that on, and how would you know what the divine plan of an average fetus is, or what their godly destiny is?

By the way, here's the translation from the Jewish Tanakh of Jeremiah 1:5 -

"When I had not yet formed you in the womb, I knew you, and when you had not yet emerged from the womb, I had appointed you; a prophet to the nations I made you."

And here's from Isaiah 44:24

"So said the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One Who formed you from the womb, "I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth from My power."

But the real question is, what divine insight do you have to where you even know who that is in the womb? Let's say it is another prophet like Jeremiah? How would you know beforehand that it isn't a prophet of God in the womb? The fact is that you don't know, nor does anyone from the pro-abortion crowd. So you cannot kill the unborn baby because you haven't a clue who it is or what God's plan is for it.

Did you actually look at those passages in context. Those actually support my point, if you read in context. Do you know what 'context' is?

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

So, if I live in a high crime area and someone breaks into my home, it's not being invaded since I knew it *could* happen?

No. Not the same situation.

However, it might be similar enough to say you left your car running in the driveway and it got stolen so you are liable. That is a law in many states.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

She may or may not get pregnant. The chances are higher if she is not using contraception but there is no guarantee. The number of sex acts that actually result in pregnancy is extremely low in relation to the total number of sex acts that take place.

But, given enough time, it will happen. That is the only guarantee.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

1. She consented to SEX. She did NOT consent to pregnancy and birth.

2. You WISH my BC method will let me down at some point. So far, so good; it hasn't. Although I'm well aware that other women haven't been lucky.

3. You might be disappointed that you can't FORCE women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. Many anti-choicers are, apparently, if the content of their posts is anything to judge by.

JoG nailed it. If you take the risk you assume the consequences. The rest is just you trying to impose beliefs on me so you can dismiss my argument without merit.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

The reality is that some girls get pregnant even if they have sex only once, and that a woman can get pregnant if she is raped once and has never consented to having sex, while other girls, and women, can't even get pregnant without IVF and sometimes not even then. The probabilities are based on statistics for populations, not on chances for particular individuals.

All of that is true, but none of it negates my point that commission of an act is assumption of the risk. It doesn't matter if it happens on the first time or the one thousand and first time, it still will happen.

It's not hyper-partisan to say that you have duped yourself into believing something that isn't true. If you ask a woman to have sex or make love, and she says yes, that is completely different from your asking her to make a zygote with you and get pregnant If you asked the latter instead, most women would decline to have sex almost all of the time.

Ah, but the questions are one and the same because, while the woman may not be properly assessing the risk with each individual encounter, she should know that the end result of enough sexual encounters is pregnancy. Even if she isn't properly assessing the risk, she is still liable (as would I be) for the proper care of the life that is created.

So if you want to make the jump from consenting to sex to consenting to pregnancy, you're fooling yourself. In virtually almost all cases of sex, the woman does not think she is consenting to pregnancy - and that's true whether she's single or married.

It isn't a jump. The two are closely tied. Very closely tied.