It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
My suggestion is if a baby is not in your future? Stop advocating against what does not concern you. Freedom of speech a right, however who are you representing or being a mouth piece for? If you then that is self serving... if the right of those in the future? Then you are serving them, better to leave an option open in my opinion than to force and issue none of your concern on them due to belief.
I may have a child again, I may not. So the topic concerns me. If you have not had a child or have but do not plan on it? Then it makes no sense for you to be arguing your beief against reality.
The person whom is often LEFT as a parent should have the say... the woman whoms body that is.
hunter leaving bait in a trap, is the corpse his or which ever wild animal gets there first? Does that give the hunter then right to kill what is there when he returns feeding on it? Nature is taking it's course either way right? But life is life... one is born and unborn. One has been imprinted with belief the living, and one has yet to be imprinted. So nothing there to attach too... just cells, if life energy was there? That energy will leave and go elsewhere, form may be destroyed but the energy will not be... the matter then falls in the same intangible place called the mind.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
...These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation...
...Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης...
for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He shall never take wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.
“For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”
כִּי֩ הִנָּ֨ךְ הָרָ֜ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֗ן וּמֹורָה֙ לֹא־יַעֲלֶ֣ה עַל־רֹאשֹׁ֔ו כִּֽי־נְזִ֧יר אֱלֹהִ֛ים יִהְיֶ֥ה הַנַּ֖עַר מִן־הַבָּ֑טֶן וְה֗וּא יָחֵ֛ל לְהֹושִׁ֥יעַ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִיַּ֥ד פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים׃
For behold, as the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby in my womb leaped in exultation.
39Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43“And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44“For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45“And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”
1“Do not judge lest you be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I will not absolve them of their moral obligations towards human life just because they feel inconvenienced.
Jeremiah 1:5 is a simple declaration that God foreknew who Jeremiah was long before he existed. You could even say long before the human race was ever created. So Jeremiah doesn't even apply to this debate in any shape or form, because God is referencing a general time prior to Jeremiah's conception.
I don't see a connection between John 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5. The point at which John was filled with the Holy Spirit, was from the womb. Luke could have said from conception, or in the womb, but he didn't. Luke said ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας, meaning even from the womb. The ἔτι is stressing that John was filled with the Holy Spirit as early as coming from the womb. This is literally what the text says. I don't see a need to read any other ideas into it.
Lets give the Greek preposition, ἐκ, a little context here.
Luke 1:44 is not a sign of soul life in the womb either. A fetus is connected to the pregnant woman, and experiences the same neuro-stimulation as the woman does. How could a fetus with an undeveloped brain (and undeveloped vocabulary) recognize an external voice and derive joy from it. It was the woman's reaction which carried into the womb.
Studies of newborn behaviour show that babies get used to the music and voices they've heard in the womb. When your baby is born, if he hears sounds he's heard before birth, he may respond by appearing more alert and active. Your newborn may also pay more attention to your voice than any other. As your unborn baby can't see or touch the outside world, hearing is the one sense that helps him to prepare for life after birth. Knowing your voice before he's born helps him form that strong bond with you afterwards. In fact, some people think that the reason babies learn to hear in the womb is so that they can bond with their mothers more easily once they're born.
The breath of life is the soul entering the fetus, but there is a reason why it is call the "breath of life", and that is because when the soul enters the fetus, the fetus becomes a human child and begins to breathe. That's why Gen 2:7 says, God "breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person".
1 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Numbers 5 applies to pregnant and non-pregnant women alike. The only difference is, a pregnant woman who fails the test would willingly abort her fetus by lying under oath, with the result of never being able to bear children again, and the non-pregnant woman would simply never be able to bear children again. The point is that a pregnant woman who lies under oath would willingly abort the pregnancy, and God does not call it murder.
It is not up to you to decide where moral lines are drawn for others. I wouldn't choose an abortion personally, if my methods of prevention fail, I guess I would be raising another child, but that's me. I cannot impose my will on others, because, they've crossed a moral line I've drawn in the sand for myself.
Again dude if you concede this test was given to non-pregnant women who underwent the same side effect such as a swelling abdomen or swelling reproductive parts. The swelling of the womb is not the women's choice, that is a curse put on her by God. The context of this passage is God acting as witness in a trial that has none....So the punishment is carried out by God not the women. It doesn't follow that because God induces a miscarriage due to consequence that it isn't a life...
“If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21(then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people by the LORD’S making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; 22and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”
But not everyone believes that abortion is murder, or morally on the same level as murder. There is a lot of debate on when "personhood" begins, so again, your personal moral lines in the sand, cannot be applied to everyone
originally posted by: BlueAjah
The penalty for abortion should be eternity in hell.
originally posted by: Tsubaki
The fact that there are policy makers in my country that belive the same things you do scares the hell out of me.
I really think you over complicate the simplicity of the text by trying to make this a pro-life issue, when it really isn't.
I think its clear that Luke 1:15 uses ETI to emphasize that John would be filled with the Spirit from day 1. The use of EK indicates that it was from the point of birth, not conception. Luke doesn't focus on the issue of life at conception vs life at births, because he expects the reader to know that life begins at birth. Why do you think we celebrate birthdays and not conception days.
A fetus responds to music, because music stimulates the brain, but remember that the brain is the control panel of the body, by which the soul expresses itself overtly. So what when a fetus responds to stimuli, its really a matter of neurological stimulation.
My point is going way over your head, and to be honest, its annoying.
Its the same as in Jeremiah. God is telling him that he was sanctified long before his existence. Its only until people start making it a pro-life issue that the true meaning of the text is obscured by politics.