Why Democrats Can�t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[lilpixieofterror]

No you don't.

[Sparko]

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?

so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

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.



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

Some people would argue it isn't a fully-developed human being until it reaches adulthood. But you were arguing that pro-choice and pro-life needed to compromise their rhetoric. I disagree. It is a fully-developed human being at a specific stage of his/her life. Just as a baby is a fully-developed human at the infant stage of life. And a teenager at the teenager stage of life. A zygote is an entire human being at the beginning of his/her life. Everyone of us discussing this was one at one time. It is not part of the mother, it is not a single cell that doesn't matter.

Even if you could argue that the bible verse being discussed didn't recognize a fetus as a full human being, they had no way of knowing back then.

FYI - an article on Ex 21:22-25 that discusses the Hebrew.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...oice-advocates

[Cow Poke]

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?

Add me to the non-dem list, as it were, please.

[Roy]

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"?

I don't think it's so much differing worldviews as much as a tendency for some reps/conservatives/Christians to assume that all reps/conservatives/Christians are against abortion under any circumstances, and all dems/liberals/atheists are in favour of abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy or even beyond.

That's not only false, it's repugnant and insulting.

[Bill the Cat]

...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.

There is no such thing as "spontaneous abortion". If you are referring to a miscarriage, that's in no way an abortion.

[Christianbookworm]

There is no such thing as "spontaneous abortion". If you are referring to a miscarriage, that's in no way an abortion.

That is what the medical community calls miscarriages.

[Bill the Cat]

That is what the medical community calls miscarriages.

But it isn't though. An abortion is an intentional method of terminating a pregnancy using an outside source, such as forced evacuation or poisoning.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17302920.pdf

https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.

[oxmixmudd]

pix, the entire context is that one of the fighting men hit the pregnant women is accidentally. The men are fighting, the woman is struck accidentally and it forces a premature birth. Yet life for a life applies to the mother, but not the baby.

Now Sparko has a point in that if the Hebrew used there for 'gives birth' is well known NOT to have included still birth, then we could perhaps assume that the only reason for the exception is that the baby survived. But then one still has that nagging matter of why a payment of arbitrary amount is required if the baby was not lost. The general tendency in this culture was to consider wives and children essentially property. But slaves had a certain value, and this is an amount, any amount, as determined by the father, implying something of great value has been lost. And since the women was not lost, that would imply the child was.

Jim

[Christianbookworm]

But it isn't though. An abortion is an intentional method of terminating a pregnancy using an outside source, such as forced evacuation or poisoning.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17302920.pdf

https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.

Maybe it's an old term? Or is it what proabortionists call miscarriages?

[Mountain Man]

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

You talk about a "secular legal construct", and then reference the Bible? Are you under the delusion that the Bible is a secular document?

I'm not sure how Exodus 21:22 helps you out here when you look at it in context:

21 When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

If there is no harm, meaning if the woman and the child are uninjured, then the man who caused the woman to go into early labor is fined in the amount stipulated by the husband, but if there is harm to either mother or child then the guilty party will pay in accordance to the harm done ("life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etc.).

Also, Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

[oxmixmudd]

But it isn't though. An abortion is an intentional method of terminating a pregnancy using an outside source, such as forced evacuation or poisoning.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17302920.pdf

https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.

And sometimes the baby survives the procedure and is then killed outside the womb. It is a horrible thing.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

pix, the entire context is that one of the fighting men hit the pregnant women is accidentally. The men are fighting, the woman is struck accidentally and it forces a premature birth. Yet life for a life applies to the mother, but not the baby.

Now Sparko has a point in that if the Hebrew used there for 'gives birth' is well known NOT to have included still birth, then we could perhaps assume that the only reason for the exception is that the baby survived. But then one still has that nagging matter of why a payment of arbitrary amount is required if the baby was not lost. The general tendency in this culture was to consider wives and children essentially property. But slaves had a certain value, and this is an amount, any amount, as determined by the father, implying something of great value has been lost. And since the women was not lost, that would imply the child was.

Jim

Sparko has already dealt with the Hebrew, but your claim about unborn having less value in the eyes of God seems to be well, at best an opinion. After all, the Bible also points out that God choose prophets and apostles before they were even born and that he forms us in the womb. Do you really want to play the Bible verse game? I can dig up plenty to prove my point if you so desire.

[Mountain Man]

...about half the time.

And people die from accidents and poor health everyday. So what?

[Christianbookworm]

We all die eventually! Does that make murder okay?

[Mountain Man]

so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.




Some people would argue it isn't a fully-developed human being until it reaches adulthood. But you were arguing that pro-choice and pro-life needed to compromise their rhetoric. I disagree. It is a fully-developed human being at a specific stage of his/her life. Just as a baby is a fully-developed human at the infant stage of life. And a teenager at the teenager stage of life. A zygote is an entire human being at the beginning of his/her life. Everyone of us discussing this was one at one time. It is not part of the mother, it is not a single cell that doesn't matter.

Even if you could argue that the bible verse being discussed didn't recognize a fetus as a full human being, they had no way of knowing back then.

FYI - an article on Ex 21:22-25 that discusses the Hebrew.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...oice-advocates

There's also the fact that if this law was only concerned with the welfare of the woman, as oxmix says, then there would be no reason to mention that she's pregnant, or that the act in question caused her go into early labor. Clearly this law applies to both mother and child.