Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Gaunt]

Yes, by man's standards, but not the one who will judge us.

It is man's standards that we are talking about. Let God deal with the consequences for breaking his laws. Judge not lest ye be judged, right?

Regardless of my feelings, "Thou shall not kill" is not an emotion

"Murder" is the most common understanding of the word as far as I know. God kills, and commands people to kill, many times in the OT. Murder is a different thing entirely. Abortion is not murder however so the argument fails.

The "law" granting abortion will be overturned at the Bar of Divine Justice, if not sooner.

So leave it to God to overturn it. It is a law in the eyes of the United States, so I don't know why you have it in quotations. If you do not like it, you do not have to avail yourself of that particular option.

I would disagree with that. Laws governing adultery, murder, theft and perjury all have their foundation in the ten commandments.

There are no laws regarding adultery as I recall, though I think it can be grounds for a divorce. You can't be fined or serve jail time for it though to my knowledge. The other 3 are found in every culture around the globe, and thus is not unique to Judaism. Three out of ten doesn't seem to be a good indication that they are the basis of all the laws on Western society.

If people fully obeyed just these four laws, communites would experience social and civil harmonylike never before.

If people obeyed the Confucian ideal of "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others" then society would experience the same thing. The Confucian ideal has the added bonus that it does not give a go ahead to do something just because one would enjoy it being done to oneself, unlike what Jesus said. No wiggle room for masochists in this one .

They violate these four because they reject the very first commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me."

Atheists don't have any gods before your god, which means that they have not violated that commandment. Thus, they are capable of violating the other 4 without violating the first. Your argument is therefore flawed.

But the time will come when those who made laws that contravene God's laws will be accountable to Him. Please don't take any comfort in thinking that Roe v. Wade may never be overturned.

Considering I do not necessarily believe that God exists, I'm not going to sweat too much about this either. Besides, I doubt people are going to be getting pregnant in heaven.. and even if they did, there wouldn't be any reason NOT to have the child, so Roe v Wade wouldn't matter. It could still be on the books though

If God's law didn't say, "Thou shall not steal," there would be no transgression.

You are trying to tell me that if God didn't tell you not to steal, you wouldn't have any problem with it? wow.

Because the individual is responsible for obeying the civil laws whose source is the Ten Commandments.

Of which only 3 made it into print.

Do you fear having something verbally "imposed" in a forum where you can respond with what you want?

Fear doesn't enter into it. I am only showing that your claim to simply "share a better way" was not true, and that there is a note of imposing your views without any rational justification in your arguments.

If you think killing what God creates and find nothing wrong with same-sex union, then your morality is in strong opposition to God's.

I quite happily kill God's creation every day. I expect you do as well. It is difficult to go through life without killing something that God created, or at the very least benefitting from the death of it.

I find nothing wrong with same sex unions because they do not have any impact on my life what so ever. Considering the golden rule, I do not really see how you can be against it. Would you want to be disallowed from marrying the person that you love? no? then why are you supporting disallowing others to? Either way, I think any further conversation on the homosexual thing should either go to a new thread here, in the politics and religion forum, or into an existing thread in either of those places.

Your liberty is not being revoked when a nation stands up and says "NO" to wrong or immoral behavior.

Technically, yes it is. That is why we require a rational justification for laws, so that we have a good reason to limit our liberty.

Liberty implies adherance and acceptance of traditional morality.

I do not agree with this statement. Glancing over the definition of "liberty" one finds that it is synonymous with "freedom" In fact, the root for both liberty and liberal is the latin "liber" which means "free." There is no mention of adherence, or acceptance of tradition, and in fact it is defined as almost the exact opposite.

there was a time when Americans were far more moral than they are today/

I do not agree with with this at all. There is no evidence that Americans people have been more or less moral in the past than in the present. Some things they might have followed more closely, some things they were patently immoral about. It looks more as though different aspects of moral goodness and badness are supported, rather than moral goodness increasing or decreasing, as time goes on.

But llike I said, Jesus didn't come to stop people from harming or killing themselves through indulgent or immoral behavior. Man must be free to sin in order that he might see it for what it is

You prove my point for me. If Jesus didn't do it, why are you trying to? By legislating a ban on this based only on religious reasoning, as Piper Plexed noted, you are limiting the free will of people. How can man be free to sin if you take away the option? Or is it that man must be free to sin, but woman must be held in check? I don't think you are saying the latter, but really, how can you justify this imposition even with religious grounds?

I will agree, that in debating such things, reason and logic find an unwanted adversary when spirituality is introduced. There is a powerful reason for it.

There is a powerful reason why reason and logic have a difficult time handling spirituality, and that is because spirituality has no grounding in either reason or logic, and thus it can not easily be contested.

Have a nice day,

Why thank you, you have a nice one yourself.

[Piper Plexed]

How would a woman have free will if abortion is outlawed, it would be unavailable....period.

Not true. It would become a black market commodity.

The reason that Roe-v-Wade passed in the first place is that there wasn't a black market for abortion, there was a black market for hangers in a back room and any number of unsafe to the mother procedures that result in her death. Free will is out cause if you wish to survive an abortion then there will be no other choice than to have an unwanted baby. I wonder who takes responsibility for that unwanted baby's fate as it gets shuffled from foster home to foster home. I have worked with neglected abused and unwanted children and they are our prisons greatest resource. It is so easy to remove free will when it comes to bearing children but then to turn around and say to the child well it is all your fault and you had free will as you send it off to jail. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. This is not a perfect world we live in but all of a sudden we ask perfection from women just because they were stupid enough to get knocked up, whatever their circumstances.

How about spontaneous abortion which happens all of the time and sometimes without the woman's knowledge of being pregnant, will there be a menses police and court system to determine if a woman was negligent in the care of her zygote?

If it wasn't intentional I don't see how you could press charges... If I had a child and he died of natural causes I doubt I would be charged for murder.

Intent is a legal term, and yes intent is my slippery slope. I can see it now, woman charged and convicted of not adhering to absolute bed rest, when Dr. prescribed, or not dosing her insulin properly etc.. So if a woman is pregnant her body is the property of the state? Now that is my idea of liberty, woo hoooo.

[Daystar]

Yes, by man's standards, but not the one who will judge us.

It is man's standards that we are talking about. Let God deal with the consequences for breaking his laws. Judge not lest ye be judged, right?

[Day] There are two meanings of "judge." The first is judging others as a person, the second is making disernments about behavior. Judging can be making the distinction between the sin and sinner.

Regardless of my feelings, "Thou shall not kill" is not an emotion

"Murder" is the most common understanding of the word as far as I know. God kills, and commands people to kill, many times in the OT. Murder is a different thing entirely. Abortion is not murder however so the argument fails.

The "law" granting abortion will be overturned at the Bar of Divine Justice, if not sooner.

So leave it to God to overturn it. It is a law in the eyes of the United States, so I don't know why you have it in quotations. If you do not like it, you do not have to avail yourself of that particular option.

[Day] To know the right thing to do and do it not is wrong. Those who claim faith in Christ should speak out against killing babies. That is making a right judgment. When I say that God will overturn abortion, it's another way of saying a person is not right with God if he believes it's OK to kill what God creates.

I would disagree with that. Laws governing adultery, murder, theft and perjury all have their foundation in the ten commandments.

There are no laws regarding adultery as I recall,

[Day] There used to be in that the only means for granting divorce was adultery. Anyone who wanted a divorce had to prove adultery. But America has become so liberal that it scoffs at such laws.

though I think it can be grounds for a divorce. You can't be fined or serve jail time for it though to my knowledge.

[Day] Yes, this is true. But marriage has been put through the wringer. You can get a divorce on the internet and gays want marriage redefined to include same sex marriage.

The other 3 are found in every culture around the globe, and thus is not unique to Judaism. Three out of ten doesn't seem to be a good indication that they are the basis of all the laws on Western society.

[Day] But it is those three which deal with most crimes. I'll bet that most cases that go to court are in some way related to murder, theft and perjury.

If people fully obeyed just these four laws, communites would experience social and civil harmonylike never before.

If people obeyed the Confucian ideal of "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others" then society would experience the same thing.

[Day] It was Jesus who established the golden rule, not Confucious. There has been a lot of confusion over this

The Confucian ideal has the added bonus that it does not give a go ahead to do something just because one would enjoy it being done to oneself, unlike what Jesus said. No wiggle room for masochists in this one .

[Day] The Confusican Ideal does not have power to reveal sin, which is the purpose of the Ten Commandments (Rom. 3:20). God designed the law to show us how impossible it is to keep. (Figure that one out:-) I'll help if you can't.

They violate these four because they reject the very first commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me."

Atheists don't have any gods before your god,

[Day] Sure they do. They are their own gods. Anyone who lives according to his own rules, principles, etc., by default, is his own god. Not only that, things can be "gods." Anyone who lives for the golf course, or the stock market, another person, etc. has a god because they are the object of his time, energy, devotion, practice, etc. Biblically, any person who has anything that has a higher priority in life then the God of Exo. 20:3 has "a god." God says you shall not have such gods.

which means that they have not violated that commandment. Thus, they are capable of violating the other 4 without violating the first. Your argument is therefore flawed.

[Day] Is there anything in your life that has a higher priority than God?

But the time will come when those who made laws that contravene God's laws will be accountable to Him. Please don't take any comfort in thinking that Roe v. Wade may never be overturned.

Considering I do not necessarily believe that God exists, I'm not going to sweat too much about this either.

[Day] I promise you there will be much "sweating" if you don't change your mind.

Besides, I doubt people are going to be getting pregnant in heaven.. and even if they did, there wouldn't be any reason NOT to have the child, so Roe v Wade wouldn't matter. It could still be on the books though

[Day] There will be no marriage in heaven, neither will there be any sin.

If God's law didn't say, "Thou shall not steal," there would be no transgression.

You are trying to tell me that if God didn't tell you not to steal, you wouldn't have any problem with it? wow.

[Day] His Law only identifies it as sin, but our conscience tells us its wrong. The Law plus the commission of sin is supposed to drive us to faith in God because sin separates man from his God. Our fundamental problem is that he we are sinners and need to repent to find favor with God. The Ten Commandments are designed to drive us to faith in God because we cannot obey them as he commands. This is why Christ died for our sins that we might turn to him in repentance and faith.

Because the individual is responsible for obeying the civil laws whose source is the Ten Commandments.

Of which only 3 made it into print.

[Day] Those three, plus the other seven, are still written on the tablets of our hearts, where we know that when we breaks God's laws, we sin against him.

Do you fear having something verbally "imposed" in a forum where you can respond with what you want?

Fear doesn't enter into it. I am only showing that your claim to simply "share a better way" was not true,

[Day] I haven't really shared the better way yet Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6). Because we are all sinners, God sent his Son into the world to do what we could never do for ourselves; and that is pay for our sins. We think that the way to heaven is through religion, morality or good works, but Jesus showed the way through his death and resurrection. All who repent of their sins and believe in him will find eternal life. With that, comes healing in our lives from the damage that sin has taken over the course of our lives. We are broken vessels and need God's healing to experience the life that he intended. The good news is that God loves us and showed that love on the cross. The better way is, "Believe in the name of Jesus and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)

If you think killing what God creates and find nothing wrong with same-sex union, then your morality is in strong opposition to God's.

I quite happily kill God's creation every day. I expect you do as well. It is difficult to go through life without killing something that God created, or at the very least benefitting from the death of it.

[Day] We are talking about abortion. Killing plants and animals for food is not a sin.

I find nothing wrong with same sex unions because they do not have any impact on my life what so ever.

[Day] You find nothing wrong with it because you look at if from sinful man's point of view.

Considering the golden rule, I do not really see how you can be against it.

[Day] I'm not against it. Jesus gave this commandment in his sermon on the mount. Notice that he said the "golden rule" sums up the law and the prophets. When you follow this commandment, you follow the Commandments 5-10.

Would you want to be disallowed from marrying the person that you love? no? then why are you supporting disallowing others to?

[Day] Man, you really need a "knee trip."

Your liberty is not being revoked when a nation stands up and says "NO" to wrong or immoral behavior.

Technically, yes it is. That is why we require a rational justification for laws, so that we have a good reason to limit our liberty.

[Day] Do you think the majority of Americans are irrational over gay marriage?

there was a time when Americans were far more moral than they are today/

I do not agree with with this at all. There is no evidence that Americans people have been more or less moral in the past than in the present.

[Day] In the 30s and 40s, Tinsel Town produced wholesome movies. Back then, you didn't find Adult book stores in the communities. Abortion was rare. Divorce was rare. Drug abuse was rare. There was no internet pornography. Americans were actually shocked when Rhett Butler said, "I don't give a damn."

But llike I said, Jesus didn't come to stop people from harming or killing themselves through indulgent or immoral behavior. Man must be free to sin in order that he might see it for what it is

You prove my point for me. If Jesus didn't do it, why are you trying to?

[Day] There is a big difference between forcing someone not to do something wrong and educating them, according to God's standards, that it is. Jesus, through his own teachings, and that of his Apostles, preached against sinful behavior. They never tried to force anyone to stop sinning. All I, or any believe in Christ, can do is share that abortion, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, drunkeness, drug abuse, etc. is immoral behavior.

By legislating a ban on this based only on religious reasoning,

[Day] What can be said except the majority of Americans have spoken and do not want marriage to be redefined by including same-sex? It is not just a religious reason, but because there are certain moral standards that the people do not want changed.

as Piper Plexed noted, you are limiting the free will of people. How can man be free to sin if you take away the option?

[Day] There are some evils that must be restrained by law.

Or is it that man must be free to sin, but woman must be held in check? I don't think you are saying the latter, but really, how can you justify this imposition even with religious grounds?

[Day] Gay marriage and abortion, in my view, should be restrained by law. One affects human life, the other traditi9onal morality. That people are free to sin in these areas does not mean there shouldn't be civil laws against such evil behavior.

I will agree, that in debating such things, reason and logic find an unwanted adversary when spirituality is introduced. There is a powerful reason for it.

There is a powerful reason why reason and logic have a difficult time handling spirituality, and that is because spirituality has no grounding in either reason or logic, and thus it can not easily be contested.

[Day] Which of the following was Jesus wrong in condemning because he did not use reason or logic? "Theft, murder, adultery, false testimony, greed, malice, deceit, fornication, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly" (Mark 7:19)

Careful, this is a little tricky

[Gaunt]

Those who claim faith in Christ should speak out against killing babies.

You are reverting to emotion based arguments. We've already dealt with this. I do not advocate killing babies either.

a person is not right with God if he believes it's OK to kill what God creates.

It IS ok to kill what God creates. It is not ok to murder. There is a difference. Again, already dealt with.

But America has become so liberal that it scoffs at such laws.

Again with the reverting to already dealt with topics. Liberal does not necessarily mean bad. Jesus was a liberal in his own time .

Yes, this is true. But marriage has been put through the wringer. You can get a divorce on the internet and gays want marriage redefined to include same sex marriage.

Stop bringing up marriage, homosexual or otherwise. It has nothing to do with abortion.

But it is those three which deal with most crimes. I'll bet that most cases that go to court are in some way related to murder, theft and perjury.

And those three are found in Every Culture. That means it is not unique to Judeo-Christian/Islamic belief. That means that the laws are not based exclusively on Christian morality.

It was Jesus who established the golden rule, not Confucious.

Buddhists had a similar ideal long before Christ came around. Besides, Confucius worded it better.

I promise you there will be much "sweating" if you don't change your mind.

If you're wrong do I get a cookie?

There will be no marriage in heaven, neither will there be any sin.

So... we agree that abortion will not be an issue in heaven regardless of whether or not it is technically legal.

We are talking about abortion. Killing plants and animals for food is not a sin.

We are indeed talking about abortion, however, since you have jumped all over the place, it seemed necessary for clarification. If you mean abortion, then say it. Claiming that people are "killing what God creates" or "killing babies" does nothing to further your argument, as it has been recognized as the emotional appeal it is.

Do you think the majority of Americans are irrational over gay marriage?

Yes. Now leave gay marriage out of this thread please.

In the 30s and 40s, Tinsel Town produced wholesome movies. Back then, you didn't find Adult book stores in the communities. Abortion was rare. Divorce was rare. Drug abuse was rare. There was no internet pornography. Americans were actually shocked when Rhett Butler said, "I don't give a damn."

Instead, Anti-semitism was at an all time high, men would leave their wives and families to ride the rails, alcohol was abused, domestic abuse was rampant due to the stress of no work, and civil rights for black people and asian people were customarily curtailed.

All I, or any believe in Christ, can do is share that abortion, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, drunkeness, drug abuse, etc. is immoral behavior.

Sharing that it is immoral is far different from banning it with legislation. The one allows for people to excercise their free will if their beliefs are different from yours. The other does not.

What can be said except the majority of Americans have spoken and do not want marriage to be redefined by including same-sex? It is not just a religious reason, but because there are certain moral standards that the people do not want changed.

Stop bringing up gay marriage. It doesn't matter for this thread.

abortion, in my view, should be restrained by law. {it} affects human life

This is dealt with by the arguments at the top of page nine.

Which of the following was Jesus wrong in condemning because he did not use reason or logic? "Theft, murder, adultery, false testimony, greed, malice, deceit, fornication, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly"

Well, I don't really see any reason for condemning fornication in light of current medical knowledge. The others of course have rational reasons for being condemned in addition to "God said so"

[Corvus]

Yes, this is true. But marriage has been put through the wringer. You can get a divorce on the internet and gays want marriage redefined to include same sex marriage.

Stop bringing up marriage, homosexual or otherwise. It has nothing to do with abortion.

Yes. Gaunt, thank you very much for trying to keep this thread from being derailed, and thank you both for keeping a topic that often gets heated quite civil. My only complaint is for Daystar to refrain from sanctimoniously stating that Gaunt's father should have spanked morality into him. I find that offensive and I do not believe Gaunt approves either. Comments such as:

[Day] Man, you really need a "knee trip."

OR

[Day] You are one sick puppy


OR

You should be ashamed of yourself if you think men should mary men, and women marry women. You need to go see your papa

Or any other statements about learning morality on one's father's knees have no place in this forum. Treat other members with respect and as equals. Debate the concepts with logic without resorting to ad hominems or treating the opponent like a child who failed to learn his lessons.

About continually reverting to gay marriage...

Daystar, you have already been warned about this. Here is your second. A third and you will be sent to the probation room, which is something we do not wish to do, but we must if forced. Though we can understand your passion against gay marriage, liberals, etc, the rules do state that you must remain on topic, and we do not plan on making exceptions. Please debate abortion.

You have stated "Liberty implies adherance and acceptance of traditional morality"

I disagree. Liberty implies responsibility, unless one wants to experience the ramifications of not being responsible for one's actions. This includes on forums.

[Daystar]

Buddhists had a similar ideal long before Christ came around. Besides, Confucius worded it better.

[Day] Christ created Confucious (Col. 1:15,16) I realize you don't like the Bible cited, but it does say that we are all created by God, and Christ is God. He just used his earthly ministry to established a truth that has been around since man first came on earth.

I promise you there will be much "sweating" if you don't change your mind.

If you're wrong do I get a cookie?

[Day] Yes, and an extended apology.

There will be no marriage in heaven, neither will there be any sin.

So... we agree that abortion will not be an issue in heaven regardless of whether or not it is technically legal.

Do you think the majority of Americans are irrational over gay marriage?

Yes. Now leave gay marriage out of this thread please.

[Day] A little elitism here?

In the 30s and 40s, Tinsel Town produced wholesome movies. Back then, you didn't find Adult book stores in the communities. Abortion was rare. Divorce was rare. Drug abuse was rare. There was no internet pornography. Americans were actually shocked when Rhett Butler said, "I don't give a damn."

Instead, Anti-semitism was at an all time high, men would leave their wives and families to ride the rails, alcohol was abused, domestic abuse was rampant due to the stress of no work, and civil rights for black people and asian people were customarily curtailed.

[Day] Yes, and alot of that too. See the nose dive societies take when they reject moral and spiritual absolutes?

What can be said except the majority of Americans have spoken and do not want marriage to be redefined by including same-sex? It is not just a religious reason, but because there are certain moral standards that the people do not want changed.

Which of the following was Jesus wrong in condemning because he did not use reason or logic? "Theft, murder, adultery, false testimony, greed, malice, deceit, fornication, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly"

Well, I don't really see any reason for condemning fornication in light of current medical knowledge. The others of course have rational reasons for being condemned in addition to "God said so"[/quote]

[Day] So, you agree that everything Jesus condemned, except fornication, is evil. Was Jesus being irrational? Was he wrong in condemning fornication? If something passes medical muster, does that mean it's not evil?

[otseng]

Yes. Now leave gay marriage out of this thread please.

A little elitism here?

No elitism is at play. Only the rules are at play. Everyone is expected to abide by the same rules.

If you have any questions and want further discussion on moderators actions, please use PM.

[Gaunt]

See the nose dive societies take when they reject moral and spiritual absolutes?

No, but I do see how morals change over time, so that what was once acceptible becomes taboo, and what was once taboo becomes commonplace. This does not mean that morals have slipped, but rather shows that people are capable of changing their views over time.

So, you agree that everything Jesus condemned, except fornication, is evil. Was Jesus being irrational? Was he wrong in condemning fornication? If something passes medical muster, does that mean it's not evil?

Jesus was not irrational at all for his time and place. His society did not posess the means we do to combat the ill effects of fornication, therefore it was fine to comdemn it. Regardless of if Jesus condemned something or not, he did not try to change the law of the land to suit his condemnation.


It seems we have diverged from the topic somewhat. The question does not ask whether or not abortion should be morally condemnable. It asks whether or not abortion should be legally banned. In light of the arguments presented, I do not see how the answer could be anything but No in a free and democratic society. If this were a theocracy, your argument from God's standpoint might hold weight, but not in the Western World.

Otseng, the elitism he was referring to was my "yes" answer to his question about the irrationality of Americans on the topic of Gay marriage. I apologize for this, as it was entirely outside of the scope of the thread.

[Daystar]

See the nose dive societies take when they reject moral and spiritual absolutes?

No, but I do see how morals change over time, so that what was once acceptible becomes taboo, and what was once taboo becomes commonplace. This does not mean that morals have slipped, but rather shows that people are capable of changing their views over time.

[Day] Yes, people's views may change over time, but God's absolutes don't. We will ultimatley be judged in light of God's laws, not man's. We seem to be content to live with such a proposition because we don't look down through the tunnel of life and realize that there is an end.

So, you agree that everything Jesus condemned, except fornication, is evil. Was Jesus being irrational? Was he wrong in condemning fornication? If something passes medical muster, does that mean it's not evil?

Jesus was not irrational at all for his time and place. His society did not posess the means we do to combat the ill effects of fornication, therefore it was fine to comdemn it. Regardless of if Jesus condemned something or not, he did not try to change the law of the land to suit his condemnation.

[Day] What does any "ill effect" have to do with Jesus' condemnation of fornication? With or without these effects, He would condemn sex outside of marriage. Ironically, man suffers ill effects because he abridges God's spiritual laws.

Jesus didn't come to make government adopt laws to fit his morality. If he were here today, Jesus would not force Congress to overturn Roe v Wade. What he would do is tell them that killing what God creates is sinful. Similarly, Christians should not use force to overturn laws that contravene Biblical morality, rather shoud use whatever lawful or spiritual processes they can to stop killing babies.

It seems we have diverged from the topic somewhat. The question does not ask whether or not abortion should be morally condemnable. It asks whether or not abortion should be legally banned. In light of the arguments presented, I do not see how the answer could be anything but No in a free and democratic society.

[Day] Yes, you make a good point, but in this democratic society man has made some laws that contravene the morality of our Maker, and it is before him that man will stand and give account of himself for such laws. Many people hold to Roe v Wade almost as though it had a sacred status; that killing the unborn was some kind of inalienable right. Yet there was no fear of God in that decision. Man "worships" a law that does not have the Divine imprimatur, yet will ultimately be held accountable for it. God's view of "Thou shall not kill" was not altered because seven Justices ruled that killing the life that he creates in the womb, in their view, was not sinful. Why don't people fear the One whose law will ultimatley prevail, rather than those whom you think want to impose their morality by wanting Roe v Wade overturned?

Otseng, the elitism he was referring to was my "yes" answer to his question about the irrationality of Americans on the topic of Gay marriage. I apologize for this, as it was entirely outside of the scope of the thread.

[Day] I don't understand why you felt this was not acceptable. I was expressing my view of your statement. You feel that such a statement was not fit for this thread??????

[Piper Plexed]

[Day] What does any "ill effect" have to do with Jesus' condemnation of fornication? With or without these effects, He would condemn sex outside of marriage. Ironically, man suffers ill effects because he abridges God's spiritual laws.

Hmmm, seems we agree that man (the individual) is accountable for his actions to God. So why the big push to overturn Roe-V-Wade, especially when it is obvious that whatever our laws are God is well equipped to handle mans sins without man made interventions (our laws).

[Day] Yes, you make a good point, but in this democratic society man has made some laws that contravene the morality of our Maker, and it is before him that man will stand and give account of himself for such laws. Many people hold to Roe v Wade almost as though it had a sacred status; that killing the unborn was some kind of inalienable right. Yet there was no fear of God in that decision. Man "worships" a law that does not have the Divine imprimatur, yet will ultimately be held accountable for it. God's view of "Thou shall not kill" was not altered because seven Justices ruled that killing the life that he creates in the womb, in their view, was not sinful. Why don't people fear the One whose law will ultimately prevail, rather than those whom you think want to impose their morality by wanting Roe v Wade overturned?

Mans ability to delineate differences between man and Gods laws somehow translates to man worshiping mans laws, sorry I am not able to make that jump of logic with you. Mans laws address the needs of a healthy functional society, in a functional society the rights and needs of the individual are weighed against the rights needs of the whole. To protect the individual we require due process of the law before we infringe on his/her liberty and right to self determination. Because a zygote is unable to sustain it's own life separate of the mother, personhood can not be established legally. It is quite appropriate that the mother's legal rights prevail, one of her rights is the control her body. Now when I consider God's laws well that is a whole different ball game, for me they take precedence over man's laws daily. To the best of my ability I follow Gods laws in all that I do, but that's me and I will not speak for or force others to be as me.