Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

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] Why the big push? "Thou shall not kill." (Ex. 20:13). Just because God can handle our sins, is no excuse to commit them. Indeed, he will handle them, in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8)

[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.

[Day] This election showed me more than ever how important Roe v Wade was to those who support abortion rights. I'm serious when I say it is has attained the status of a golden calf. You can see the rage in the faces of some people when it is suggested that a woman's right over her own body does not include killing what God created inside of her. I don't think anything lights the fuse of feminists more quickly than the comment that her body is not her own, but belongs to God. We all belong to him because he created us; and he created us to be good stewards of our bodies. Killing unborn babies is not what I call good stewardship.

Mans laws address the needs of a healthy functional society,

[Day] If you want a healthy and functional society, post the Ten Commandments around our public institutions where the unchurched can read them.

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.

[Day] Never in a million years would the founders have thought that the "due process" clause would be used to kill unwanted babies. To claim they aren't human beings at conception is to miss the nature in which we are created. Man is body, soul and spirit. Without soul and spirit, all you would have is a conglomeration of mindless cells. At what point the Creator puts the soul and spirit of a person into the body is debateable. Certainly they are there early in the pregnancy as brain waves are recorded and there are responses to stimulus. Destroying what we were created for is not something the courts or scientists care about because there is no fear of God. (It's interesting to note that the fear of God is the leading qualification for judging over men - Exo. 18:21). But who cares what the Bible says? God created you and me for a specific purpose, and the same applies to all those babies that have been destroyed.

It is quite appropriate that the mother's legal rights prevail, one of her rights is the control her body.

[Day] Where does this right come from? Again, the courts and scientists don't understand that it's not 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.[/quote]

[Day] If you really follow God's laws, and are trusting in your faithful observation of them, may I say that is most condemnable. That was not a slip May I tell why I said that?

[Gaunt]

Just because God can handle our sins, is no excuse to commit them.

Just because God condemns it is no excuse to ban it for everyone.

I don't think anything lights the fuse of feminists more quickly than the comment that her body is not her own, but belongs to God.

I don't think anyone likes the idea that the state owns one's person, rather than the individual.

how important Roe v Wade was to those who support abortion rights.

and yet you still have two arguments that disregard Roe v Wade AND grant that the fetus is a person.

would be used to kill unwanted babies.

No one is arguing that we should be able to kill unwanted babies.

Where does this right come from? Again, the courts and scientists don't understand that it's not her body.

The woman wants control of her uterus. the baby requires connection to it to survive, but in no other situation is a person's right to control their own body subject to another person's need. If I am hooked up to someone and giving them a blood transfusion, it is my right to have the connection broken at any time, even if that would result in the death of the other person. it is EXACTLY the same for the fetus. If it is incapable of surviving independent of another's body, it is still not murder to sever that connection.

The right comes from at least 2 amendments of the constitution, if not from an implicit understanding that we are to be in command of, and responsible for, our own body.

God's will does not circumvent the law for everyone. You obviously would not like it if beef eating were banned simply because of the religious beliefs of Hindus (hey, they are living beings too! what right do you have to kill them? your god says it is ok, My god might not.)

At what point the Creator puts the soul and spirit of a person into the body is debateable.

Whether or not a soul exists at all is debateable.

God created you and me for a specific purpose, and the same applies to all those babies that have been destroyed.

Perhaps their purpose was to be destroyed via abortion.

[bernee51]

[Day] Why the big push? "Thou shall not kill." (Ex. 20:13).

so why does god kill?

[Day] If you want a healthy and functional society, post the Ten Commandments around our public institutions where the unchurched can read them.

which version?

[Day] Never in a million years would the founders have thought that the "due process" clause would be used to kill unwanted babies.

you continue to use emotive and unsubstantiated language.

Man is body, soul and spirit. Without soul and spirit, all you would have is a conglomeration of mindless cells.

this is your opinoion? Or verifiable fact? What, IYHO, is the soul? What is spirit?

[Day] Where does this right come from? Again, the courts and scientists don't understand that it's not her body.

ah, but it is her body. That is what a secular court decides. What a god whio exists in your version of reality might or might not have to say about it is irrelevent

[Daystar]

Just because God can handle our sins, is no excuse to commit them.

Just because God condemns it is no excuse to ban it for everyone.

[Day] While I would support overturning Roe v Wade, along millions of others, I'm trying to get you to consider the Divine position.

I don't think anything lights the fuse of feminists more quickly than the comment that her body is not her own, but belongs to God.

I don't think anyone likes the idea that the state owns one's person, rather than the individual.

[Day] Huh??

how important Roe v Wade was to those who support abortion rights.

and yet you still have two arguments that disregard Roe v Wade AND grant that the fetus is a person.

would be used to kill unwanted babies.

No one is arguing that we should be able to kill unwanted babies.

[Day] Sorry, unwanted unborn uman umbryos

Where does this right come from? Again, the courts and scientists don't understand that it's not her body.

The woman wants control of her uterus. The baby requires connection to it to survive, but in no other situation is a person's right to control their own body subject to another person's need. If I am hooked up to someone and giving them a blood transfusion, it is my right to have the connection broken at any time, even if that would result in the death of the other person. it is EXACTLY the same for the fetus. If it is incapable of surviving independent of another's body, it is still not murder to sever that connection.

[Day] You can apply all the spin you want. Abortion is still the willful killing of a human being.

The right comes from at least 2 amendments of the constitution, if not from an implicit understanding that we are to be in command of, and responsible for, our own body.

[Day] I agree that we are to be responsible for what God has given us. such responsibility includes bringing into the world what God creates. What the Roe v Wade justices did with the Constitution is exactly what Jefferson and Madison said not to do:

Thomas Jefferson:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be SQUEEZED out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Emphasis added

James Madison:
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the LEGITIMATE Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers.” emph. added

Roe v Wade was the SQUEEZE of the century.

God's will does not circumvent the law for everyone.

[Day] Part of God's will is embodied in The Ten Commandments which are binding on all people. The sixth commandment says, "thou shall not kill."

You obviously would not like it if beef eating were banned simply because of the religious beliefs of Hindus (hey, they are living beings too! what right do you have to kill them? your god says it is ok, My god might not.)

[Day] If Jesus Christ is not your God, and you say "My God might not," you just broke the first commandment. And there is no commandment banning beef

At what point the Creator puts the soul and spirit of a person into the body is debateable.

Whether or not a soul exists at all is debateable.

[Day] Well, at least Webster's defines both soul and spirit. But who are they The Bible, of course, reveals that man is body, soul and spirit. It says, "The soul who sins will die." (Ezek. 18:4). It doesn't say the "body" that dies.....

God created you and me for a specific purpose, and the same applies to all those babies that have been destroyed.

Perhaps their purpose was to be destroyed via abortion.

[Day] While God foreknew their destruction, that doesn't mean he approved of it. Yes, God could step in and stop abortion if he chose to, and abortionists should thank their lucky stars that he doesn't. But then he would interfere with the free will that he gave us. As much as he hates sin, he does not stop us from committing it. What he does is show us a better way. That is, repentance and faith in him. When someone does that, he sees what sin is and turns from it. I know a doctor that used to perform abortions, but when he found God, his view of abortion changed, and he deeply regrets what he did. You can say that he only had a guilt trip, but he will tell you otherwise. When Jesus Christ saves someone, he or she becomes a radically different person: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things pass away, and all things are new." (2 Cor. 5:17)

God bless,
Day

[Daystar]

[Day] Why the big push? "Thou shall not kill." (Ex. 20:13).

so why does god kill?

[Day] You ask a great question. Frankly, I would say that if it is his will to have some people destroyed, than who is to argue against his will. One characater trait of God is his wrath which is as immutable as his love. His divine nature demands the punishment of sin and in many cases that punishment requires death. Judgment, or punishment, can take the form of taking a life, or commanding his people to destroy the lives of all inhabitants of a land, as he did in Caanan.

OTOH, if God gives his creation a law that says "Do not murder," then we are guitly if we break it, even though he was not guilty of having certain peoples put to death.

[Day] If you want a healthy and functional society, post the Ten Commandments around our public institutions where the unchurched can read them.

which version?

[Day] 1. Thou shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make any idols.
3. You shall not take the Lord's name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. Thou shall not murder.
7. Thou shall not commit adultery.
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shall not give false testimony.
10. Thou shall not covet.
(Exo. 20:1-17)

[Day] Never in a million years would the founders have thought that the "due process" clause would be used to kill unwanted babies.

you continue to use emotive and unsubstantiated language.

[Day] When Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing." (Luke 23:34). Why would Jesus say they didn't know what they were doing. It should have been perfectly clear to them that they were murdering an innocent man. When abortion doctors kill the unborn, likewise, they know not what they do. Like the soldiers, Jesus asks His Father to forgive them, which he will do if they repent.

Man is body, soul and spirit. Without soul and spirit, all you would have is a conglomeration of mindless cells.

this is your opinoion? Or verifiable fact? What, IYHO, is the soul? What is spirit?

[Day] Well, it's a lot more than my opionion. I take from the dictionary and the greek and hebrew lexicons. As I understand it, the soul is who we are in the frame we live. There is no other person who exactly shares your emotional, intellectual, philosophical, and ideological being. You are one of a kind; the sum and substance of all that you are in these (and probably others) areas.

The spirit is that part of us which God connects with God's Spirit. When we pray, we talk to God in Spirit and truth, if indeed our spirit has been born again. We are created in his image, and because God is Spirit (John 4:24), we too have this dimension. So I believe that we are invisible souls and spirits housed in bone, muscle and skin.

[Day] Where does this right come from? Again, the courts and scientists don't understand that it's not her body.

ah, but it is her body. That is what a secular court decides.

[Day] Secular courts and God have this ongoing battle over who owns the body. God says he does; the courts say we do. I wonder who will win this one Again, because we are sinners, "we know not what we do." Let me say it this way. God created man NOT to sin. Without sin, our will would be perfectly conformed to the will of God and there would be no killing, lying, stealing coveting, rebellion, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, fornication, slander, hate, anger, etc. When Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't know (understand) what they were doing, just as the soldiers crucifying Jesus didn't. They didn't believe God when he said, "Surely you will die if you eat of this tree." Literally, they were "out of their mind, " the mind that God originally gave them. Yes, he gave them free will, and they used it to sin against their Creator. Without God in our lives, we are "out of our minds," that is, the mind he gave us in Adam.

What a god whio exists in your version of reality might or might not have to say about it is irrelevent

[Day] I just believe the Bible is God's word to his fallen creation. He has shown us the way back to him if we are willing.

[Piper Plexed]

Carl Sagan's Take on abortion.
A very interesting read.  I urge you all to read it.  It takes the argument of both sides to the extremes to test their limits.

“Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?”

Oh yeah and as for the founding fathers well abortion was quite common then too.

excerpt...
From colonial times to the nineteenth century, the choice in the United States was the woman's until "quickening." An abortion in the first or even second trimester was at worst a misdemeanor. Convictions were rarely sought and almost impossible to obtain, because they depended entirely on the woman's own testimony of whether she had felt quickening, and because of the jury's distaste for prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to choose. In 1800 there was not, so far as is known, a single statute in the United States concerning abortion. Advertisements for drugs to induce abortion could be found in virtually every newspaper and even in many church publications--although the language used was suitably euphemistic, if widely understood.

Seems the pro-life movement is quite a new thing, ironically it get stronger as woman move on from the days of suffrage.

[Piper Plexed]

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).

Why the big push? "Thou shall not kill." (Ex. 20:13). Just because God can handle our sins, is no excuse to commit them. Indeed, he will handle them, in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8)

For Christians it may be murder though we have discussed at length the varied points of view and well what can I say other than it is certainly your place to believe this and I am quite sure you are free to share these beliefs with females in your life.

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.

[Day]I don't think anything lights the fuse of feminists more quickly than the comment that her body is not her own, but belongs to God. We all belong to him because he created us; and he created us to be good stewards of our bodies. Killing unborn babies is not what I call good stewardship.

Feminists most likely feel this way as they are not all Christians, I guess if all Americans were Christian then well there would not be an issue here as we would all agree. Fortunately and Unfortunately for many this is America and we base our laws on the earthly realm and not on faith.

Mans laws address the needs of a healthy functional society,

[Day] If you want a healthy and functional society, post the Ten Commandments around our public institutions where the unchurched can read them.

I am quite sure most people are aware of them, it is their free will to not abide by them.

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.

[Day] If you really follow God's laws, and are trusting in your faithful observation of them, may I say that is most condemnable. That was not a slip May I tell why I said that?

I may regret this... sure go ahead

[Daystar]

Carl Sagan's Take on abortion.
A very interesting read.  I urge you all to read it.  It takes the argument of both sides to the extremes to test their limits.

“Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?”

Oh yeah and as for the founding fathers well abortion was quite common then too.

excerpt...
From colonial times to the nineteenth century, the choice in the United States was the woman's until "quickening." An abortion in the first or even second trimester was at worst a misdemeanor. Convictions were rarely sought and almost impossible to obtain, because they depended entirely on the woman's own testimony of whether she had felt quickening, and because of the jury's distaste for prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to choose. In 1800 there was not, so far as is known, a single statute in the United States concerning abortion. Advertisements for drugs to induce abortion could be found in virtually every newspaper and even in many church publications--although the language used was suitably euphemistic, if widely understood.

[Day] From day one, man has been pro-choice in that he chooses to disobey his Creator. God has given us laws by which to live; laws which, at times, have nothing in common with civil law. For example, God would say that "Thou shall not murder" would encompass that life in the womb which he created. From conception to delivery, God loves what he creates even more than the mother who looks forward to having her baby to love and nourish.

But he has also given us free will. And that's the way it must be because he wants us to choose to love and follow him. Man comes along and decides that a woman should have the freedom to kill what God creates. This is a simple thing for many because they believe an abortable fetus is not human, being in a stage of evolution. It is also simple for them because they don't believe there is a personal God who is deeply involved in what he creates (Ps. 139:13-16, Eccl. 11:5, Job 33:4).

From the POV of many, it only seems right and just that a woman should not have to suffer the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy, for which, most of the time, she was acting irresponsibly and against the will of God, who designed sex only for marriage. So man feels that he must improvise and create circumstances that will pardon the sinner and displease the Creator. Abortion is only one example of man's failure to trust God to work all things together for good. IOW, he can take the worst case scenario of an unwanted pregnancy and turn it into a blessing if the mother would only trust in him. Now I realize that is a hard thing to do for someone who has no more idea who God is than the man in the moon. So how does one trust in someone they don't know? An unwanted pregnancy could be one of the best examples because, throughout history, man has turned to God when circumstances go south. What better time to cry out to God, even though you don't know him and ask for help? He will help those who are broken over their circumstances and desperatley want help. Many have been answered, many have not. The have nots will seek abortion because they couldn't find the heart or way to trust God. This is where pro-life abortion counseling is so important. If women who are inclined to abort discover there are people who really care and are willing to walk through the pregnancy with them, they will see the hand of God at work.

Seems the pro-life movement is quite a new thing, ironically it get stronger as woman move on from the days of suffrage.

[Day] Whether abortion was practiced back then is no reflection of the higher law before which all men will be held accountable. God has never "zapped" anyone for abortion because he has a better way. Rather than instant judgment for sinning against him, he calls the sinner to repentance. And he is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all come unto repentance. While the sixth commandment was and will always be the higher law, "God declares to all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). God's love for sinners is so strong that he gave his one and only son to die for breaking his laws. Through repentance and faith in God, any woman can find the strength and encourgement to deliver her baby, even up for adoption.

[Gaunt]

You are just repeating the same things over and over again: "Abortion is murder!" "God says it's wrong!" "God's laws are higher!" without giving any reason why, in a secular society, we should be subjected to the laws of a theocracy. Quotes from your book don't impact at all on whether or not laws should be passed in a secular society, unless there is a good reason beyond "God said so".

Abortion is not murder. You have not shown how it could be considered such in light of the arguments presented you. I don't care what you interpret God as saying. It doesn't have any meaning in the secular court system.

We are a secular society, therefore we need secular reasons to ban activities for everyone.

You will not be judged by God on the laws that society passes, only on those sins that you yourself have commited. Feel free to share your views and be the light for people in darkness, but realize that Lights are only a guide. Once you force your views on others, you are no longer a guiding light, but a shackle around the neck of society.

If Jesus Christ is not your God, and you say "My God might not," you just broke the first commandment. And there is no commandment banning beef

Not a Christian commandment, but a Hindu one exists. What right do you have to legislate your religious values, and yet disallow others from doing the same?

Spin it however you like, what you are proposing is to take the Western World into a Christian Theocracy.

[Jose]

Whether abortion was practiced back then is no reflection of the higher law before which all men will be held accountable. God has never "zapped" anyone for abortion because he has a better way. Rather than instant judgment for sinning against him, he calls the sinner to repentance. And he is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all come unto repentance. While the sixth commandment was and will always be the higher law, "God declares to all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30). God's love for sinners is so strong that he gave his one and only son to die for breaking his laws. Through repentance and faith in God, any woman can find the strength and encourgement to deliver her baby, even up for adoption.

It is an interesting observation that no one has been "zapped" for abortion. There are a couple of possible interpretations. One, which you suggest, is that God has other plans for the sinner. Another interpretation, which is entirely consistent with the data, is that God is a human construct (not the other way around), and therefore cannot do any zapping.

Feel free to share your views and be the light for people in darkness, but realize that Lights are only a guide. Once you force your views on others, you are no longer a guiding light, but a shackle around the neck of society.

Not only a profound statement, but eloquently put! I am glad of these discussions, because each of us can do our best to guide the others to our viewpoint. But coercion? Passing laws that match just one view of morality? They did that in Afghanistan, and it was, indeed, quite a shackle. It still is, really, with women getting the short end of the stick. A ban on abortion, based on Christian Dogma, would be much the same.