Penalty for ABORTION.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The penalty for abortion should be eternity in hell.
Of course.

It won't be THAT severe, but there will be hell to pay in many areas of the murdering parent's life, while still here on Earth.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: daryllyn

So let me get your argument, if a childs life may be tough you have a right to kill it? Or if the child is financially inconvenient you then you can kill it? I mean honestly nothing you are saying justifies murder.

That is not what I said at all. If someone wishes to terminate a pregnancy, it's up to them. My personal beliefs do not give me license to make decisions for people, whom I feel are violating my beliefs. I don't have to like it but it's not up to me.

Let me ask you this...

I have a newborn baby in one hand and a Petri dish in the other.

I am going to drop one, but you have to choose.

If they are in fact, one and the same, it should be impossible to choose. Which will you choose? I bet it's the newborn.

There is a definitive difference between the two.... Whether or not you are willing to admit it, is another story.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Well your English is kind of broken and I've tried to understand what you are saying, but honestly I can't tell.

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: daryllyn
I think one of the problems is that people confuse pro life and pro birth.

If we aren't going to (or don't want to) throw money in the kitty to support these born children, if abortions are banned, or criminalized, then we have no business saying we are pro life.

We already have an overflowing system full of unadopted children, who's chances go down by 14 percent, every year passed age 1. What will happen with more unwanted children brought into this mess? The chances of being adopted drop dramatically every year. Are all these supposedly pro lifers going to step up to the plate and adopt?

How about being pro life to the extent of teaching more respect for the act that creates life. How about pro responsible sex.. and being grown up enough to deal with the consequences if something goes unplanned. Many still want to adopt as well. Nothing wrong with giving a child a loving adoptive home.

Where did I imply that I'm not pro responsible sex?

People should absolutely get it on responsibly, and use preventative measures, if they do not wish to breed.

Your Quote:

"I believe the soul enters the human body at birth when the child takes its first breath, and I have good reason for holding that belief. If you objectively examine the Bible in its original languages, the "pro-life" doctrine begins to crumble away at its foundation. It does not stand when faced with the Word of God."

My Rebuttle:

Religion aside, an objective examination of scripture disagrees with you about life being 'valuable' at ones mere first breath.

Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes even saw me as an embryo;
All its parts were written in your book
Regarding the days when they were formed,
Before any of them existed."

Close examination of this scripture shows that a life held value and had noticeable traits to the Bible God to the extent of him noting the person as an individual with traits that were notable.

a reply to: TheCretinHop

Read through the thread. I've covered those issues already.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No one is born again until they believe in Christ, so how could a baby (let alone a fetus) be born again if the child has yet to hear the gospel and believe it????

Your interpretation of the text is no better on that front. A baby that takes its first breath outside the womb can't do that anymore than a baby practicing breathing with amniotic fluid in the womb. You shifted topics again, because you are getting shut down on the Scripture front, and you won't even touch the biology claims. You aren't being logical because your position is silly. You moved from babies are souless to babies aren't born again. To babies in the womb can't be born again, well neither can the one directly outside of the womb...your point is completely moot....

But lets settle this issue right now.

Oh yes lets swap topics before people realize your position on Luke 1 isn't the best interpretation, and at the very least its not as clear cut as you pretended it was. Lets also ignore all the points I made about Psalm 139 in hope people won't see your horrible failure at justifying baby murder. It is bad when someone can show an argument to be wrong, but an argument that can be conceded and still shown to be wrong is just sad.

The passage says absolutely nothing about the woman being guilty of murdering the fetus as a result of lying under the oath.

Yea that is because the Lord causes the abortion in this circumstance. So the passage says God curses the woman so that she has a miscarriage. Does it follow that if the creator of life takes a baby in the womb, then you have the right to take a life in the womb? No it doesn't. Its a huge nonsequitur. You completely leave logic out of the equation.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TheCretinHop

Read through the thread. I've covered those issues already.

ONCE AGAIN.... I will say...IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN WITH A CHILD GROWING IN YOUR BODY, then you have no idea what you are talking about! And I don't give a rat's butt on whatever "scripture" you want to tout to prove your point.
This is the TRUTH....if a mother who is unwed and pregnant, who truly trusts in the REAL CREATOR (and I do NOT mean YHWH), then that help WILL come. How do I know that?? Because HE HELPED ME, beyond what I could even have imagined.
I had EVERY reason to end my pregnancies. But, here's how I knew with out a shadow of a doubt, that those little "cells"
growing inside me, were going to eventually be a human being. It didn't matter if they weren't all formed yet. They were "person's' in the process of being grown. How did I know?? Because every fiber of my being said that it was a PERSON (of their own personality and bent)...growing there in my belly.
So, you can try to wiggle out of that fact all you want, Disraeli.
Point is...every woman KNOWS that the baby growing inside her is just that...a BABY ( a HUMAN BEING).
Many women opt to terminate that human being, because it's "inconvenient" for them. Unfortunately, in todays world, that baby gets no choice.
So just quit it. You have no clue of what you are speaking of....and scripture will never resolve you of what is "right and wrong".
Nope. You need to be a female with that "life" inside you...becoming a true person. But since you are male and not female, you definitely would not get that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I swapped topics, because I don't want to go around in circles with you.

Yea that is because the Lord causes the abortion in this circumstance. So the passage says God curses the woman so that she has a miscarriage. Does it follow that if the creator of life takes a baby in the womb, then you have the right to take a life in the womb? No it doesn't. Its a huge nonsequitur. You completely leave logic out of the equation.

No. You missed the point completely. The Numbers 5 abortion can be completely avoided if the woman would confess her unfaithfulness. Instead, by following through with the procedure while under oath, she willingly aborts the fetus knowing what will happen. So if abortion is murder, then the woman would then be guilt of murder in this case...but Numbers 5 says NOTHING about murder, whether God causes it or not.

So what's the deal? Did God temporarily sanction premeditated murder (on the woman's part) for the sake of making a point, or is pro-life doctrine a fallacy?

You cant have it both ways.

a reply to: daryllyn

Let me ask you this... I have a newborn baby in one hand and a Petri dish in the other. I am going to drop one, but you have to choose. If they are in fact, one and the same, it should be impossible to choose. Which will you choose? I bet it's the newborn.

I've heard this before and the moral atrocity isn't on me its on you in this scenario. I would choose the baby on the basis that it would feel more pain due to its level of development, but it doesn't therefore follow that because you an evil person forced such a choice upon me that I don't think the embyro you dropped was a lost life. Not only that, but this is also a false dilemma, do A or do B. A real dilemma would be posed as do A or do not do A. So the proper form of this that puts the moral responsibility on the chooser would be Drop infant or dish or Drop neither infant or dish. So this is a malformed dilemma, and even if I concede the false dilemma the conclusion you draw is non sequitur.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

1) I'm not Disraeli. Disraeli believes some form of Covenant Theology. I am Dispensationalist.

2) I'm not interested in your personal experiences, or the emotionally subjective conclusion that you draw from them. I'm interested in showing what the scriptures have to say on the topic. So you're really barking up the wrong tree here.

No one addressed my point. Shouldn't conservatives be punished for supporting death of born people in every way possible???

coriginally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

1) I'm not Disraeli. Disraeli believes some form of Covenant Theology. I am Dispensationalist.

2) I'm not interested in your personal experiences, or the emotionally subjective conclusion that you draw from them. I'm interested in showing what the scriptures have to say on the topic. So you're really barking up the wrong tree here.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TheCretinHop

Read through the thread. I've covered those issues already.

ONCE AGAIN.... I will say...IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN WITH A CHILD GROWING IN YOUR BODY, then you have no idea what you are talking about! And I don't give a rat's butt on whatever "scripture" you want to tout to prove your point.
This is the TRUTH....if a mother who is unwed and pregnant, who truly trusts in the REAL CREATOR (and I do NOT mean YHWH), then that help WILL come. How do I know that?? Because HE HELPED ME, beyond what I could even have imagined.
I had EVERY reason to end my pregnancies. But, here's how I knew with out a shadow of a doubt, that those little "cells"
growing inside me, were going to eventually be a human being. It didn't matter if they weren't all formed yet. They were "person's' in the process of being grown. How did I know?? Because every fiber of my being said that it was a PERSON (of their own personality and bent)...growing there in my belly.
So, you can try to wiggle out of that fact all you want, Disraeli.
Point is...every woman KNOWS that the baby growing inside her is just that...a BABY ( a HUMAN BEING).
Many women opt to terminate that human being, because it's "inconvenient" for them. Unfortunately, in todays world, that baby gets no choice.
So just quit it. You have no clue of what you are speaking of....and scripture will never resolve you of what is "right and wrong".
Nope. You need to be a female with that "life" inside you...becoming a true person. But since you are male and not female, you definitely would not get that.

Oh...so sorry, my bad. I actually meant to speak to YOU. I also am not surprised you aren't "interested" in my personal experiences. Not only that, but you are a MALE...not a FEMALE. Which explains a LOT of your attitude.
Going "verbatim" on scripture makes one an ass****. Just saying.
But, hey....you carry on Believerpriest.
You're still dead wrong...not matter how much scripture you try and tie it up in.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

There were no circles to go in. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you haven't been basing your Luke 1:15 passage off of "ek" alone rather than the phrase "eti ek koilias"....because all one has to do is re-read our conversation to see that has been your position. Are you going to sit there and tell me you didn't completely throw out the law of identity out when reading Psalm 139. If so you are so set on being right that even the most basic truth, "something is itself", eludes you.

The one missing the point is you. This is a trial in which there are no witnesses. This is not really about abortion, it's about Jealousy and the Lord acting as a witness in trials that otherwise had none. This passage doesn't even specify that a woman has to be pregnant for this test. This is a test for adultery, where are you reading into the text that she has to be pregnant? I don't see that any where in Talmudic tradition either. You seem to want to think you are sticking with a more scholarly reading of the text but its just not true man.

And by the way, the word used for "abdomen" in Numbers 5 is beten (בֶּ֖טֶן). It means womb.

The word can also refer to the belly. We see it used in Judges 3:21; 22 and 1 Kings 7:20:

21Ehud stretched out his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his belly.

22And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.

And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter.

Your idea the the pro-life case crumbles is silly. You just refuse to accept their interpretations which not only fit the passages better, but they also fit the nature of God better. You just are losing all around here.

Again with all the religion focused arguments. You cannot police other people because you feel they've violated YOUR religious beliefs.

Wasn't it your bible that said "judge not lest ye be judged" and something about the one without sin casting the first stone?

It's funny how relevant the bible becomes when it suits your personal truths.

a reply to: daryllyn

Well with all do respect if you go back to the beginning of my conversation with priest you would see that I have been approaching this with the knowledge that he is another believer. So it is really a conversation between two people who accept the authority of Scripture. Hence the reason you see us discussing Scripture.


I don't have to argue for abortion on the basis of religion. Even if I was an atheist I would stil think it is wrong to end human life. So the question would become is it human life, and on secular level there is no denying that it is a distinct biological life form.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"eti ek koilias"

It simply means "even out from the womb", "at the point of exiting the womb", "upon leaving the womb". You're trying to twist the text into something completely different. I'm using the simplest and most direct definitions for the text. If Luke intended to say in the womb, he would have clearly said, "IN THE WOMB".

And again, we are born again, not conceived again.

Adam was not a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into his flesh.

The trial in Numbers 5 is extremely suggestive of an abortion, but lets say its being ambiguous, for the sake of argument. It doesn't specifically say that the woman has to be pregnant, nor does it say that the woman can't be pregnant. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex, so we have to assume that this applies to pregnant women just as much as it applies to non-pregnant women.

Ask yourself. Why wasn't there a test for men who were suspected of adultery by their wives? Maybe because men can't get pregnant? Just say'n.

The translation of Numbers 5:22 is heavily distorted, and I think it was done for political reasons.

Numbers 5:22 וּ֠בָאוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַמְאָרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבֹּ֥ות בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָמְרָ֥ה הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן ׀ אָמֵֽן׃

And this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach and make your womb gush (with swelling pressure), and your fertility will fall out, and the woman shall say,"Amen, Amen."

Its pretty clear that the pairing of beten and yireq is referencing the womb and reproductive parts of the woman.

Look, I have no problem with you refusing to acknowledge the fact that almost all of the translations of these passages are inadequate at best. That is purely between you and God. My problem is that too many Christians think it's their duty to make abortion a legal/political issue. The relevant passages are open for debate. That means any sort of pro-life legislation is already on a crumbling foundation.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

"eti ek koilias" It simply means "even out from the womb", "at the point of exiting the womb", "upon leaving the womb". You're trying to twist the text into something completely different. I'm using the simplest and most direct definitions for the text. If Luke intended to say in the womb, he would have clearly said, "IN THE WOMB".

Friend, you seem to be implying that my interpretation is not valid. I have not done so to you, because your position on the verse is a valid one. If we are to approach this objectively we must admit that the phrase in question can be interpreted as meaning: (1) from the time of his conception, (2) within his mother's womb, and (3) from the time of his birth. These are all positions at least some scholar somewhere has taken. The majority of scholars and the ones like Origen who were much closer to the Greek culture than you or I take it to mean something closer to 1 or 2. So I am not saying that your interpretation isn't a valid one, but I am saying I don't think it makes much sense with the context of the rest of the chapter. To say that the pro-lifer's aren't make a case just as well founded in the language as yours is simply not true, and I personally think the context makes 1 or 2 more likely than 3.

It seems this is a manifest hebraism that is used to denote a temporal referent. Indicating in the same way as the verse about Jeremiah that they are filled with the Holy Spirit already from the time before their birth, and specifically the point the writers seem to be making here is that the both Jeremiah and John were sanctified, set apart, and ordained to be the prophet of the Highest, before he came out of his mother's womb. John was then under such an influence of the Spirit of God, as to leap in it for joy, at the salutation of the mother of Christ to his. ( Luke 1:41 Luke 1:44 ) I don't really see how rendering that passage as outside of the womb makes a lot of sense with the following context. My main point here is that the pro-lifer's interpretation is just as valid as yours, and far less dangerous on a moral scale.

Adam was not a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into his flesh.

Adam was also made from mud. Eve is taken from living flesh and no mention of a literal breathing is mentioned for her. So maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I mean do you think the breath of life literally refers to a person inhaling and exhaling oxygen? Do you not see the atrocities one could preform on the basis of oxygen entering the lung being what decides right to life? I mean do you really think it is morally acceptable to pull a baby 1 day from delivery half way out of the womb before stabbing it in the back of the head and sucking its brains out to reduce the size of the skull, solely on the basis that the baby didn't inhale oxygen?

It doesn't specifically say that the woman has to be pregnant, nor does it say that the woman can't be pregnant. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex, so we have to assume that this applies to pregnant women just as much as it applies to non-pregnant women.

I agree it would apply to both, but you have no possible interpretation for miscarriage if you concede that non-pregnant women could fail the test just as easily as a pregnant women could fail the test.

Its pretty clear that the pairing of beten and yireq is referencing the womb and reproductive parts of the woman. Look, I have no problem with you refusing to acknowledge the fact that almost all of the translations of these passages are inadequate at best. That is purely between you and God. My problem is that too many Christians think it's their duty to make abortion a legal/political issue. The relevant passages are open for debate. That means any sort of pro-life legislation is already on a crumbling foundation.

I never said these passage weren't open for debate, but you are pretending like they are just totally off base and that is not true in the slightest. That is because most Christians don't argue on the basis of an unverifiable soul test. I would argue abortion should be illegal on the basis that you are ending a biologically distinct human life. By 10 weeks, you have a brain, spinal cord, veins and organs are visible thru the skin, and nerve endings are actually wired up meaning the organism feels pain. I mean simply go watch an ultra sound of 13 week old baby being aborted. You can clearly see it recognize the threat and fight to get to the other side of the uterus. I mean you do realize that if you are incorrect in your assessment of the fetus you are arguing for murder. If I am incorrect in my assessment of the fetus, then I am am simply arguing for the protection of potential human life. You never responded to my point earlier referring to God's position on the potential destruction of life due to the internal workings your mind. One thing that is not clear on your view is when does harming the body of the child become morally atrocious?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Perhaps it is your comprehension that is broken?

a reply to: TheCretinHop

Since people keep bringing religious belief into this; the interpretation of that would say the natural affinities the person has, not those that all try to place on them as a mask or ego self, but the self that is already imbued in the person as a potiential.

If we want or desire to make them wear our ideologies that destroy life here and now? Then what is the point of making more of it? To make all wear the proverbial face of man, in action and ideology? It is apparent everyone has their own "face" or being of experience to bring as an individual... not everyone forcing them to wear a face or mask not theirs as a subject or slave to any ideology, but to study it grow and adapt and learn from living it, once the lesson is learned or the subject is over? Move on, leave the shoes by the door and quit walking all over everyone's life.

Yes there is life underneath your feet too, killing and crunching counless millions but we will call it bacteria and say it is ok, this notion of higher and lower? Life is life, we can evolve and adapt to all forms of it in harmony do we? No... nature balances itself, being a part of nature and yet denying being an animal or a part of nature but devine? Throws all of that out of balance.

Attachment to form prevents life from flowing, growing and adapting naturally. These concepts are all HUMAN made... concepts can grow and advance ALL.

A grain of sand can store more memory in one grain than you ever do in your entire life.

Tumble what you think you know so it takes the edge off... swinging ignorance around CUTS.