Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[oxmixmudd]

Well, mom is a lot more obvious. Voluntary manslaughter vs. involuntary manslaughter.

The strike against the women is accidental, they are two men fighting each other - not the women. Read the text.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

The point is that it doesn't treat the killing of the unborn, inviable child as murder. If they accidentally kill the mother, it is life for a life, even though it was accidental. So the distinction is not it being accidental (And why I also quoted vs 23), but it being an inviable child in the womb.

Jim

The Bible doesn’t treat accidental death as murder. It very specificly says, ‘if men struggle...’. Again, I think your interpretation is off and you’re simply looking for justification and trying to make this verse work in the way you want.

[Cow Poke]

Yep we're good. However, I'd like to point out that even the Bible makes the sort of distinction I'm talking about:

Source: Exodus 21:22

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely [in this time, that mean this causes the baby in the womb to die(sic)], he shall surely be fined as the wonman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the woman (sic)] then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, the law of God itself does not equate the killing of that unborn and non viable child with murder.


Something to think about.


Jim

Just for the record, I disagree with your handling of that verse - that you have to add those 'explanations' is troublesome.

Youg's Literal Translation, for example, simply says "`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges..."

But I wasn't looking for an argument - just an explanation - I think we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

[lilpixieofterror]

The strike against the women is accidental, they are two men fighting each other - not the women. Read the text.


Jim

And was the purpose to cause an abortion?

[Roy]

It is human life that if allowed to develop as God and nature intended will emerge into the world as a fully functioning human person

...about half the time.

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that spontaneous abortion doesn't exist.

[Christianbookworm]

...about half the time.

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that spontaneous abortion doesn't exist.

And in ancient Rome, half of all the children born died before the age of ten. Does that make them not human?

[oxmixmudd]

The Bible doesn’t treat accidental death as murder. It very specificly says, ‘if men struggle...’. Again, I think your interpretation is off and you’re simply looking for justification and trying to make this verse work in the way you want.

I know it is hard to accept pix. I couldn't believe it was saying what it was saying when I first came across it many years ago. I am not looking for any sort of justification. Back up and read the text. These are men struggling and they've hit a women nearby that was pregnant. If the woman dies, it is life for a life. If the baby dies, it is not. ANY other injury it is life for life. You need to read around this for a better context. And you also need to understand I'm not trying to justifty abortion, not am I suggesting we adopt the laws for ourselves that are written there. The point is simply that an unborn baby is not treated the same as a living child in the word of God. The Bible makes a distinction between an unborn child and a living child in terms of assigning capital punishment for the act. It makes a distinction between the value of the life of the mother it she is killed, and the value of the life of the unborn child. And if we are going to argue based on what the Bible teaches, I think we need to understand it does in fact make a distinction.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

...about half the time.

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that spontaneous abortion doesn't exist.

Or Mr. ‘I don’t support abortion, but I’ll defend it at every turn’ Roy doesn’t understand the difference between natural deaths and purposely caused ones.

[oxmixmudd]

And was the purpose to cause an abortion?

I know you are angry about learning that is in the Bible. But I am just the messenger. If you are going to claim there is no distinction between an unborn, unviable fetus and a viable fetus or newly born baby when talking about whether or not abortion is murder, then the Bible disagrees with you. And that is ALL I'm saying. I'm not justifying abortion, and I don't think abortion is ok. But I would be remiss not to mention the fact the Bible in the law of moses does in fact differentiate the two, and it does not ascribe in this case as worthy of a life the accidental killing of the unborn child, even though it DOES ascribe as worthy of a life the accidental killing of the pregnant mother.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

I know it is hard to accept pix. I couldn't believe it was saying what it was saying when I first came across it many years ago. I am not looking for any sort of justification. Back up and read the text. These are men struggling and they've hit a women nearby that was pregnant. If the woman dies, it is life for a life. If the baby dies, it is not. ANY other injury it is life for life. You need to read around this for a better context. And you also need to understand I'm not trying to justifty abortion, not am I suggesting we adopt the laws for ourselves that are written there. The point is simply that an unborn baby is not treated the same as a living child in the word of God. The Bible makes a distinction between an unborn child and a living child in terms of assigning capital punishment for the act. It makes a distinction between the value of the life of the mother it she is killed, and the value of the life of the unborn child. And if we are going to argue based on what the Bible teaches, I think we need to understand it does in fact make a distinction.

Jim

There is also a long history, both within and without religions, of using the moment of "quickening" as the point when the unborn child is treated as a person.

My struggle with choosing any time between implantation and actual birth is that it seems arbitrary to me. There is no clear, distinct, unambiguous moment to be used as a "before no, after yes" that signals the presence of something that is unique to a "person." Whatever is picked, there are examples of people outside the womb who lack that characteristic and are stilled considered "human" or "persons." At least - that's what I ultimately arrived at, and why I cite fertilization and implantation as the metric.

[lilpixieofterror]

I know it is hard to accept pix. I couldn't believe it was saying what it was saying when I first came across it many years ago. I am not looking for any sort of justification. Back up and read the text. These are men struggling and they've hit a women nearby that was pregnant. If the woman dies, it is life for a life. If the baby dies, it is not. ANY other injury it is life for life. You need to read around this for a better context. And you also need to understand I'm not trying to justifty abortion, not am I suggesting we adopt the laws for ourselves that are written there. The point is simply that an unborn baby is not treated the same as a living child in the word of God. The Bible makes a distinction between an unborn child and a living child in terms of assigning capital punishment for the act. It makes a distinction between the value of the life of the mother it she is killed, and the value of the life of the unborn child. And if we are going to argue based on what the Bible teaches, I think we need to understand it does in fact make a distinction.

Jim

I first read the Bible back in my late teens and have already seen this argument and found it as weak sauce justification even than and haven’t found anything to change my view now. It’s pretty specific in pointing out it was a accident and not purposely done. Believe than I’m stupid, haven’t ever read the Bible, and haven’t already came across this verse and your explanation and found your explanation lacking years before you brought it up here though if that helps.

[Cow Poke]

I know you are angry about learning that is in the Bible...

This is really not necessary, Jim. It is condescending and assumes facts not in evidence. As far as I can tell, the rest of us are having a very civil discussion on this with you.

[oxmixmudd]

There is also a long history, both within and without religions, of using the moment of "quickening" as the point when the unborn child is treated as a person.

My struggle with choosing any time between implantation and actual birth is that it seems arbitrary to me. There is no clear, distinct, unambiguous moment to be used as a "before no, after yes" that signals the presence of something that is unique to a "person." Whatever is picked, there are examples of people outside the womb who lack that characteristic and are stilled considered "human" or "persons." At least - that's what I ultimately arrived at, and why I cite fertilization and implantation as the metric.

I accept that. And I don't disagree with it. But as you say, it is a progression and there is no hard line that says at day X this is now a human being. I would think that we need to regard it from zygote as alive and personally I would never abort any pregnancy unless we were almost completely certain my wife would die with the birth. But there is this technicality around the word 'murder' that we've already discussed, and the Bible is saying this unborn child can't invoke life for a life if killed accidentally during this fight, but the mother can. And I don't think that is trivial, or without meaning in this debate, if we are basing our thought and beliefs on what the Bible teaches.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

This is really not necessary, Jim. It is condescending and assumes facts not in evidence. As far as I can tell, the rest of us are having a very civil discussion on this with you.

The rest of you are CP. And perhaps I was too hard on pix. Sorry pix.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

The rest of you are CP. And perhaps I was too hard on pix. Sorry pix.

Jim

Thanks... I know we can get heated about topics like abortion, but....

thanks.