It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

page: 33
51
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




F the mother is in reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily injury or death caused by the baby.


No deal.

Self defense can be used to kill someone who is in your house stealing your stuff. Why can't it be used to kill something inside YOU stealing stuff?




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Galvatron
This whole discussion is subjective. Everyone is discussing the morality of it. Murder is already legal in certain situations (like defending ones own life, fighting as a soldier, death sentence, etc. etc.).
Whether or not it is murder is moot. If society comes together enough to say "yes, it's acceptable, or not it's a crime" then that's all that matters, murder or not.

How you deal with the morality of it is up to you. Some have stated feeling guilty, other have a clear conscience.

As much as I love debated morality, as a morality that is debated, tested, evaluated, adjusted, tested, and on and on is inherently and logically more moral and ethical than arbitrary morality, in the end the whole question is a societal one. Either society says "yep, that (whatever it is) fits us and it's fine" or society says "no that's not okay, and doesn't represent us or what we want the future to look like". The reasons fall by the wayside.

I will never convince someone else that red is the best color if they think blue is.
edit on 1-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Galvatron,

True, you can't make anyone do anything...but...you can pray to God to change their heart and His grace
will touch them.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
In the news for a few days, a gruesome abortionist dies. It struck me, he died, was found in the same
state as his innocent victims were when he killed them.

www.lifenews.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
ah, beautiful life....

baby twins clinging together during their first bath

12 million views....

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

Dear colbe,

I'd like to offer a quick prayer for his soul. I'm saddened by any death. I hope he finds mercy and forgiveness.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sookiechacha
 

Dear Sookiechacha,

Excellent question and point, thanks.

What you're describing isn't self-defense, it's commonly called the Castle Doctrine. It comes into play when you're in your residence. There are several problems with trying to apply to the case of an unborn. Let's start, if you don't mind, with some words of wisdom from that standard source for lazy people, Wiki.


Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some castle doctrine laws include:

An intruder must be making an attempt (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.

The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.

The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure you can see why Castle doctrine doesn't apply.

There was no unlawful or forcible entry.

There were no unlawful acts.

There is no reason to believe that a felony was contemplated.

And the mother, in almost all cases, was a party to the intrusion.

But there is also a general objection. The unborn baby never entered the mother. The man did, but at the time a baby came into being, it was already inside the mother.

So, if self-defense won't work, and Castle Doctrine doesn't apply, why are we bumping the kid off?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Abortion is human sacrifice.

Michael Card - The Spirit of the Age

I hope you give this a listen. The music is so dark my cats leave the room when I play it. Use to be easy to find it doing a lyric search, not any more.

YouTube -Spirit of the Age w/ lyrics



Every age has heard it, this voice that speaks form Hell: "Sacrifice your children and for you it will be well."



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


I couldn't disagree with your opinion more, about abortion being "human sacrifice". However, along those lines, Jesus was a human sacrifice.

Additionally, the God of the Old Testament outlines a procedure for abortion in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 5.


27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.


God didn't see it as human sacrifice, but a purity ritual and test of purity.





edit on 2-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I will offer a prayer too Charles. Everyone is God's beloved baby, He loved us first.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


I couldn't disagree with your opinion more, about abortion being "human sacrifice". However, along those lines, Jesus was a human sacrifice.

Additionally, the God of the Old Testament outlines a procedure for abortion in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 5.


27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.


God didn't see it as human sacrifice, but a purity ritual and test of purity.

edit on 2-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


This is not in the Catholic Bible. Where is miscarriage mentioned?

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes



[27] And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. [28] But if she be not defiled, she shall not be hurt, and shall bear children.



It sounds like the punishment is infertility not miscarriage.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

You know how I hate to disagree with you. (Chuckle Guffaw Snort. It's fun and I learn a lot) i think sad_eyed_lady is closer to correct than you are on the question of abortion in Numbers 5.

I had to go back and read the thing a couple of times, but what I got from it was something like this:

If a husband thinks his wife has been playing fast and lose with her favors, he is to bring her before the priest. The priest will mix up a batch of stuff including bitter water, and a piece of paper with a curse on it. The woman (pregnant or not) drinks the stuff while asserting her innocence. Then there's more of that kind of stuff.

If she has been a good and faithful wife, nothing happens. If she's been fooling around, she gets really sick to the stomach and won't be able to have anymore children.

That's how I read it, anyway. If you see something else, I'd be happy to know about it. You really should read from the beginning of the chapter though, it makes things much clearer.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





If a husband thinks his wife has been playing fast and lose with her favors, he is to bring her before the priest. The priest will mix up a batch of stuff including bitter water, and a piece of paper with a curse on it. The woman (pregnant or not) drinks the stuff while asserting her innocence. Then there's more of that kind of stuff.

If she has been a good and faithful wife, nothing happens. If she's been fooling around, she gets really sick to the stomach and won't be able to have anymore children.

That's how I read it, anyway. If you see something else, I'd be happy to know about it. You really should read from the beginning of the chapter though, it makes things much clearer.


Charles, what do you think happens "If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her"? She may become pregnant with that man's child!

I know that the Christian routine is typically to deny that this ritual has anything to do with abortion, and that it is a "magic smart water" that knows whether or not a woman is guilty.

This is an extremely naive perspective and smacks of denial. "How could our loving Christian God endorse abortions?" Well, he does, and he does so all through the Old Testament. The Old Testament God is NOT pro-life. To be fair, there are some Christians, here on ATS, that simply say, the Old Testament got it wrong. I wish there were more of them!

New International Version of the chapter makes it clear that we're talking about abortion here. However, even taking the King James Version:


And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.


The fact that an innocent women is free to go forward and conceive, indicates that reproduction is at issue here.

A bitter water that causes a curse, such as bleeding, describes known herbal abortifacients. Occam's Razor would suggest that this was the case rather than "magic smart water" causing a woman to be a curse among her people.

I'm not alone in my interpretation:


We could imagine that over the course of the centuries that the Hebrew culture existed, this trial by ordeal was used many times when men suspected that their wives were guilty of infidelity. We could also imagine that in at least some of those cases, the accused wives were pregnant, either from sexual intercourse with their husbands or from the adulterous relationships they had been accused of, so just think seriously and, if possible, unemotionally for a moment. If pregnant women were subjected to an ordeal that could cause "bitter [abdominal] pain" or "discharge from the womb" or a fallen uterus, they would surely have aborted the fetuses they were carrying.
www.theskepticalreview.com...


Everyone has the right believe what resonates with them, and many people feel abortion is immoral. But, please, don't tell me that God disapproves of abortion (as its human sacrifice) and the murder of innocent children, whether born or unborn, because the Bible says otherwise.



edit on 2-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 




This is not in the Catholic Bible. Where is miscarriage mentioned?


www.biblegateway.com...



It sounds like the punishment is infertility not miscarriage.


If she was pregnant, it sounds like it was both.

If the bitter water makes her bleed, a curse in and of itself, and yet, under normal circumstances, a sign of purity, then the water has proven her to be guilty. Then she will become an outcast of society and no man will ever touch her again.


edit on 2-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Dear windword,

I think we've found a place where there are two possible interpretations. Of course, we each like our own, and I don't think persuasion is possible. I think you're putting your case more strongly than the evidence allows, though, when you say:

But, please, don't tell me that God disapproves of abortion . . . because the Bible says otherwise.
That's the only Chapter where the inducing of a miscarriage, may, possibly, maybe, exist. There are several verses reporting that one thing that made God really upset, was a conqueror slicing open the bellies of pregnant women and killing the kids. Here's one:

13 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Ammon,
even for four, I will not relent.
Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
in order to extend his borders,
14 I will set fire to the walls of Rabbah
that will consume her fortresses
amid war cries on the day of battle,
amid violent winds on a stormy day.
15 Her king[e] will go into exile,
he and his officials together,”
says the Lord.
Amos Chapter 1.

In regards to the opinion supporting yours:

We could also imagine that in at least some of those cases, the accused wives were pregnant, either from sexual intercourse with their husbands or from the adulterous relationships they had been accused of, so just think seriously and, if possible, unemotionally for a moment. If pregnant women were subjected to an ordeal that could cause "bitter [abdominal] pain" or "discharge from the womb" or a fallen uterus, they would surely have aborted the fetuses they were carrying.
We could imagine? In some of the cases?

What we do have is that God gets in the mightily smiting mood when people cut open pregnant women. We also have that if a pregnant woman is accidentally injured when a fight starts, and the unborn baby dies, the person who causes it is put to death. Finally, even in the Middle-East countries, if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, they let her give birth first, then they kill her.

Your interpretation of Numbers 5 isn't even hinted at anywhere else in the Bible. Oh, and the herbal abortifacient? That's kind of surprising based on the verses. The ingredients are holy water, dust, and the ink used to write the curses. No herbs.

I do owe you thanks for stirring up my curiosity. I went here:
Numbers 5:27 translations
It provides 43 different translations of the verse that includes the word "Miscarry." I was surprised. Here's how the translations compare:

Thigh rot, fall away, or shrink: 22 times
Uterus falls: 7 times
Miscarry: 5 times
Private parts shrivel up: 4 times
Unable to have children, or another baby: 3 times
Misc: 2 times

For me, this introduces another source of uncertainty.


"How could our loving Christian God endorse abortions?" Well, he does, and he does so all through the Old Testament.
Since Numbers 5 is so uncertain, could you give me some of the many other places where God endorses abortion in the New Testament? Seeing other examples would clarify things. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 




This is not in the Catholic Bible. Where is miscarriage mentioned?


www.biblegateway.com...



It sounds like the punishment is infertility not miscarriage.


If she was pregnant, it sounds like it was both.

If the bitter water makes her bleed, a curse in and of itself, and yet, under normal circumstances, a sign of purity, then the water has proven her to be guilty. Then she will become an outcast of society and no man will ever touch her again.


edit on 2-12-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


The New International Version you linked is not a Catholic bible.

Choosing and Using a Bible


New International Version (International Bible Society, 1984). This version is intended to be ecumenical and to appeal to a broad range of English-speaking people. The translation is considered somewhat more conservative than the New Revised Standard Version. Its language is suitable for private study and for public reading. There is no Catholic edition.


The New American Standard is:

www.biblegateway.com...

Pregnancy/miscarriage is not mentioned. I checked the other Catholic bibles on Gateway and no Catholic bible mentions miscarriage. (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and the previously mentoned Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition).

BTW I noticed Bible Gateway has removed some Catholic bibles from their list. (St. Joseph and New Jerusalem come to mind).

Throughout the Sacred Scripture one sees that women unable to have children were considered to be cursed and were shamed for their infertility.

IMHO that is what this curse was all about - causing infertility. If you want to claim that maybe preborn babies died because of this I will not argue that. The intent of the curse was to cause infertility as punishment for adultery not to cause miscarriages, but barrenness.

In some non-Catholic bibles The intent of the curse was to cause miscarriages, KJV does not mention miscarriage as well: www.biblegateway.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   


But, please, don't tell me that God disapproves of abortion (as its human sacrifice) and the murder of innocent children, whether born or unborn, because the Bible says otherwise.
reply to post by windword
 


Human sacrifice and punishment are 2 very different things. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, the death of the first born in Egypt were all punishments.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

You know I love a good spar.



Since Numbers 5 is so uncertain, could you give me some of the many other places where God endorses abortion in the New Testament? Seeing other examples would clarify things. Thanks.


Assent by silence! The New Testament doesn't address birth control or abortion at all, even though abortion was rampant at that time.


To try to build a strong Roman state, the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus in edicts in 18 B.C. and 9 A.D. promoted childbearing instead of abortion and infanticide. But he never outlawed abortion. This is because Roman law adopted the view of the Stoic philosophers that an unborn child is not a human. The Roman jurist Papinian (140-212 A.D.) recorded that the Stoic idea that unborn babies were not human beings became a part of Roman law.

Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) was not a Christian but was a Roman with higher moral standards than many who lived during his time. For example, even though in his writing “The Natural History”, he lists some of the
methods by which numerous medical practitioners at the time used to murder unborn babies, he opposed abortion.

Pliny also recorded that the medical practices of the time in the Roman world were able to abort a baby up till the seventh month of pregnancy. This is even though such late abortions nearly always also killed the mother.

internetbiblecollege.net...&%20Jewish%20attitudes%20to%20abortion.pdf

Jesus may have been hinting at the abortion culture of the time when he said:


"But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! (Matthew 24:19


And


but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.


The Old Testament is a Jewish book with Jewish law that was, alledgedly, handed to the Hebrew People by God himself.

Numbers 5 is as clear as the nose on your face!



Sotah: Abortion-Inducing Potion due to Husband’s Jealousy?

There is overlap here. In the relevant tractate of the Talmud, Sotah, trial by ordeal (by drinking the potion) was expected to trigger a miscarriage / abortion in a guilty party.

Trial by ordeal was (and remains, in some African societies) a widely attested approach to resolving judicial disputes. It needs to be understood from the inside, based on careful ethnographic study.
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com...




What we do have is that God gets in the mightily smiting mood when people cut open pregnant women.


Not so fast!


Genesis 38:24
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.


It seems that burning pregnant whores was a normal punishment.


Isaiah 13:18
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children

Hosea 9:11-16
“Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”

Hosea 13:16
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Psalms 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.




We also have that if a pregnant woman is accidentally injured when a fight starts, and the unborn baby dies, the person who causes it is put to death.



It is not difficult to see that the traditional position has biblical warrant. The position depends on a legal distinction between a mother and the life she carries within her. The two are accorded discrete legal statuses until the event of birth, the separation of the baby from its mother’s body, at which time the baby is granted the status of a person, or nefesh, in the legal sense. The legal inequality goes back to Exod 21:22-25:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Based on reckoning may or may not refer to the gestational age of the fetus; regardless, “halakhic Jewish exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder/
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com...


Perhaps the correct retribution for causing a miscarriage would be to force the guilty man's wife to miscarry? Eye for eye, miscarriage for miscarriage?

There is no uncertainty, the Bible is NOT anti-abortion. Abortion, and infanticide was rampant and a hot issue during the time of the life of Jesus, yet the New Testament makes no moral comment on these things. Assent by silence!



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 





Human sacrifice and punishment are 2 very different things. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, the death of the first born in Egypt were all punishments.


Indeed, they are. The actions of "God's punishing wrath", that you have listed, according to the Bible, were acts of God himself inflicting the punishment. However, when "God" orders others to extract "His" revenge through the hands of men, like stoning adulterers, burning whores, ripping babies from the wombs of the women of Hebrew enemies, etc., etc., that IS human sacrifice, on behalf of their God, in my opinion.

The belief that Jesus, himself was a human sacrifice, follows as additional proof of the fact that this "God" of the Old Testament does enjoy the concept human sacrifice on his behalf, even though those laymen that murdered him weren't aware that they were performing a sacrifice at all.

Your idea that abortion is human sacrifice goes along the lines of the Old Testament mentality that God lusts for human sacrifice, even if you believe that abortion is human sacrifice to a false "God". The concept is still based in the Old Testament concept of trying to appease an angry god by killing something living.

I don't believe that anyone seeking an abortion or any abortion providers, sees it that way. And therefore, like Jesus, these supposed aborted "human sacrifices" would be being performed by people who are unaware that they are offering a sacrifice to some (evil) god, at all.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
not ready yet, sorry

edit on 3-12-2013 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by charles1952
 





To try to build a strong Roman state, the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus in edicts in 18 B.C. and 9 A.D. promoted childbearing instead of abortion and infanticide. But he never outlawed abortion. This is because Roman law adopted the view of the Stoic philosophers that an unborn child is not a human. The Roman jurist Papinian (140-212 A.D.) recorded that the Stoic idea that unborn babies were not human beings became a part of Roman law.

Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) was not a Christian but was a Roman with higher moral standards than many who lived during his time. For example, even though in his writing “The Natural History”, he lists some of the
methods by which numerous medical practitioners at the time used to murder unborn babies, he opposed abortion.

Pliny also recorded that the medical practices of the time in the Roman world were able to abort a baby up till the seventh month of pregnancy. This is even though such late abortions nearly always also killed the mother.

internetbiblecollege.net...&%20Jewish%20attitudes%20to%20abortion.pdf


One small point here on the above information:The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice medicine honestly. It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, often regarded as the father of western medicine, or by one of his students. The oath is written in Ionic Greek (late 5th century BC.)
HIPPOCRATIC OATH: Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art — if they desire to learn it — without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.(wiki)

Hippocratic oath has been around since the 5th century B.C. (revised several times in the 20th century) and, while it's suggested by the oath itself that at least some women (and possibly a few reluctant fathers) requested abortifacients from medical practitioners, it was not considered a healthy practice or one worthy of a true healer.

Carry on.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join