Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Sparko]

While I understand and mostly agree with your point, you should 'give a crap' about a distinction the Bible itself makes. See the post above or read Exodus 21:22

Jim

You were adding in your own commentary there. Saying that the premature birth was a miscarriage and the baby was dead when that was not in the text. They could have said "and the baby dies" if that were the case. And "further injury" you added "to the woman [sic]" when it doesn't say that.

The plain reading is if she gives birth prematurely (not dead) then a fine must be paid as punishment. IF the woman OR the baby dies or the baby is injured, the punishment is life for life, limb for limb.

And while you might think a zygote is just a human cell just like any other human cell, it is not. You can kill some of your cells and survive just fine. But at that stage the cell IS the entire human being. Killing it is destroying an entire unique human life, eliminating everything he will accomplish, every relationship he will have, and all descendants he could have. It isn't just killing a cell.

[oxmixmudd]

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 l, haven’t ever read the Bible, and already came across this verse and found your explanation lacking years before you brought it up here though if that helps.

If you think I am trying to justify abortion pix, you are wrong. I'm not. The distinction is found in the fact that even though accidental, life for a life is invoked for the mother, and not for the unborn child. This means there is a difference in their status as human in this culture. (hint: you'd be better served by pointing out it also doesn't require life for life as regards slaves in the verses above).

Jim

[Cow Poke]

At the risk of interjecting a little levity to a serious subject, I still go back to the wise old Jewish Rabbi who explained, "Life begins when the kids move away and the dog dies".

[Roy]

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?

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that I said foetuses weren't human.

[Cow Poke]

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that I said foetuses weren't human.

I'm having a de javu all over again.

[Roy]

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.

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican posts garbage like that.

[Cow Poke]

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican posts garbage like that.

I'm detecting a theme!

[lilpixieofterror]

If you think I am trying to justify abortion pix, you are wrong. I'm not. The distinction is found in the fact that even though accidental, life for a life is invoked for the mother, and not for the unborn child. This means there is a difference in their status as human in this culture. (hint: you'd be better served by pointing out it also doesn't require life for life as regards slaves in the verses above).

Jim

And again, was it accidental? Was he even aware she was pregnant to begin with? The issue is you don’t seem to want to pay attention to the variables involved and simply go for one view and ignore the rest.

[oxmixmudd]

You were adding in your own commentary there. Saying that the premature birth was a miscarriage and the baby was dead when that was not in the text. They could have said "and the baby dies" if that were the case. And "further injury" you added "to the woman [sic]" when it doesn't say that.

The plain reading is if she gives birth prematurely (not dead) then a fine must be paid as punishment. IF the woman OR the baby dies or the baby is injured, the punishment is life for life, limb for limb.

OK, so you understand the language as saying the baby didn't actually die as a result of being struck. And yet, it would only be in the very last phase, perhaps just the last week or two, of gestation that the baby could survive. And there is not a comment that says "and the baby survives". So I'm not sure you are justified assuming that. But I'm open to any knowledge you have that would show that is a correct understanding of that phrase. It would most likely have to been related to the term 'gives birth' never implying still born. Does such an implication exist? Any Hebrew/Jewish cultural scholars out there that could shed light on this?

And while you might think a zygote is just a human cell just like any other human cell, it is not.

I think if you were reading what I said and not what you presume I'm saying you would understand I don't think think that. In my comment to MM, I made the distinction.

You can kill some of your cells and survive just fine. But at that stage the cell IS the entire human being. Killing it is destroying an entire unique human life, eliminating everything he will accomplish, every relationship he will have, and all descendants he could have. It isn't just killing a cell.

Never said it was 'just a cell'. I said it wasn't (yet) a fully developed human being. A baby 1 week before birth IS a fully developed human being.


Jim

[Christianbookworm]

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican is pretending that I said foetuses weren't human.

Who says I identify as a Republican? The abortion issue is the only reason I vote Republican and I don't agree with either party on lots of other things.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican posts garbage like that.

Still too stupid to understand the difference between natural and purposely caused deaths? I understand, after all, you still claim to not support abortion while defending it at every turn. Troll harder.

[Roy]

I'm detecting a theme!

It's unusual that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican posts something that is both accurate and insightful.

[Roy]

Who says I identify as a Republican? The abortion issue is the only reason I vote Republican and I don't agree with either party on lots of other things.

Good point. I was rather assuming you were a rep not a dem. I should have said non-dem.

Now it's your turn: Who says I think foetuses aren't human?

[Roy]

Still too stupid to understand the difference between natural and purposely caused deaths? I understand,

No you don't.

[Christianbookworm]

Good point. I was rather assuming you were a rep not a dem. I should have said non-dem.

Now it's your turn: Who says I think foetuses aren't human?

Maybe I should have phrased it better. A human life that shouldn't be murdered for convenience? In my worldview, a human organism automatically equals a person. I guess that is not the way it is in your worldview? I'm thinking one reason we all keep talking past eachother is because we have differing worldviews to state the obvious.

And why are you misspelling "fetus"?