-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter C.S. Murphy
- Start date
A
Agape
Guest
Sigh... looks like only those who never, or can never, have an abortion would ever have the idea of supporting, or condoning, abortion. The only exception being some irresponsible men. 
Post-It certainly will never experience an abortion, even if he chooses to. And I do hope he has never been irresponsible.
Post-It started out with limiting others to Scriptural arguments, and ended up justifying himself with Science, Law, and... (mind you!) "being civil"!
I only have one word for those who doubt the inerrancy of the Bible: "Cult".
I only have one word for those who don't believe in the Virgin birth: "Heresy".
I only have one description for those who refer to "babies" as "organs": they must have swopped their "brains" with their "b**s".
[ August 23, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Agape ]
Post-It certainly will never experience an abortion, even if he chooses to.
And I do hope he has never been irresponsible.
Post-It started out with limiting others to Scriptural arguments, and ended up justifying himself with Science, Law, and... (mind you!) "being civil"!
I only have one word for those who doubt the inerrancy of the Bible: "Cult".
I only have one word for those who don't believe in the Virgin birth: "Heresy".
I only have one description for those who refer to "babies" as "organs": they must have swopped their "brains" with their "b**s".
[ August 23, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Agape ]
Well if it is murder, once the laws reflect that, then be prepared to sentence about 1-2 million girl and women to life terms in jail. Because Helen posted 210,000 illegal abortions in a very conservative year of 1961. That number now should be well above the million mark if it is outlawed again.Originally posted by Alex:
World wake up...abortion from any stage OR reason is MURDER in the FIRST DEGREE!
You are saying that women as a collective are more vicious murders in all of history that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tsu Tung combined murdered a small number in comparison to the women.
I believe just the opposite.
Those weren't facts, that was information based on statistics. Anyone can make statistics say anything they wish.
It is important that as intelligent Christians we learn not to be tricked by skewed Stats and politics. Always question "facts and figures" that support an "opinion" of the provider. To examine stats properly you must examine both side's stats on any give issue. I usually add them together and divide by 2 in order to get to even a halfway truthful number. I aways assume both side can support about half of what number they are claiming helps thier side.
Another important thing to examine when viewing stats is what is included and what is left out.
One side claims 37 deaths by coat hanger abortions, does that include death by unsterilized instruments from back alley medical people? No, Does that include all the deaths in which a shamed family denies an abortion was done and the medical examiner writes down "death due to ruptured X body part? Or infection of the X"? NO! The other side claimed 1,000,000 deaths, my method says divide by 1,000,0037 deaths claimed by both sides by 2. About a 500,000 deaths should be about right as the total yearly death by illegal abortion. Then always assume a greater number brought forward 30 years.
Christ wants us to use our brains, not follow "political" sides in an argument and make decisions based on lies from both sides. We must always examine the full evidence before assuming something is correct. Just because a Christian based side puts it out doesn't mean it is right.
Another saying I follow is this: 75% of all "Experts" are wrong. 85% if they are "Professional Experts."
Prayer + Wisdom + Common sense + Scripture = The right Answer.
Folks,
Post-it is refusing facts, statistics, common sense, biology, and the Bible.
When this happens, and someone is defending something against all odds, God's or man's, there is something else going on. I suspected in the beginning that Post-it was responsible for or involved in an abortion at some time and that the guilt must be overwhelming.
If I am right about this, it's time to quit this discussion because only God can deal with that and ONLY Post-it can take it to God to deal with.
There is something highly irratonal going on which is overriding all common sense and Bible and everything else here for him. I have been stunned at his refusal to even reconsider the issue in light of what we know about the unborn (and brain waves do, indeed, start extremely early -- not far, as I recall, into the first trimester).
Simple common sense says that if you are going to err, err on the side of life, not death for a person.
My suggestion is, then, to let this issue drop. As a matter of simple information, however, I do not think that there are more than a dozen 'coat hangar' abortions known to have taken place, and I believe all but one were self-inflicted -- women or teens trying to do it themselves. This is terribly sad, but certainly not worth the lives of over a million babies a year...and each of those babies a gift from God, who is in charge of life.
No, God is not surprised by abortion. He knew about each before it happened, of course. And I think one reason He has allowed us this and so much else is so that the human race might be appraised and shocked at how evil evil can be. And how it can be rationalized by people in a bind or simply having that desire for evil.
What is scary to me is the types of rationalization tht are used, such as post-it's lung thing. There is nothing even rational about that. But he clings to it. That is scary.
I still have an original copy of the book "Silent Scream". That baby fought to live; struggled against his own abortion.
Post-it, all I can do now that I have presented, with some elements of anger and emotion true (you see, all six of my children were 'supposed' to be aborted), Biblical, biological, statistical, and other factual information to you is leave you in God's hands.
But sometimes that, also, is a scary place to be.
"Come, let us reason together," says the Lord,
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
Isaiah 1:18-20
Post-it is refusing facts, statistics, common sense, biology, and the Bible.
When this happens, and someone is defending something against all odds, God's or man's, there is something else going on. I suspected in the beginning that Post-it was responsible for or involved in an abortion at some time and that the guilt must be overwhelming.
If I am right about this, it's time to quit this discussion because only God can deal with that and ONLY Post-it can take it to God to deal with.
There is something highly irratonal going on which is overriding all common sense and Bible and everything else here for him. I have been stunned at his refusal to even reconsider the issue in light of what we know about the unborn (and brain waves do, indeed, start extremely early -- not far, as I recall, into the first trimester).
Simple common sense says that if you are going to err, err on the side of life, not death for a person.
My suggestion is, then, to let this issue drop. As a matter of simple information, however, I do not think that there are more than a dozen 'coat hangar' abortions known to have taken place, and I believe all but one were self-inflicted -- women or teens trying to do it themselves. This is terribly sad, but certainly not worth the lives of over a million babies a year...and each of those babies a gift from God, who is in charge of life.
No, God is not surprised by abortion. He knew about each before it happened, of course. And I think one reason He has allowed us this and so much else is so that the human race might be appraised and shocked at how evil evil can be. And how it can be rationalized by people in a bind or simply having that desire for evil.
What is scary to me is the types of rationalization tht are used, such as post-it's lung thing. There is nothing even rational about that. But he clings to it. That is scary.
I still have an original copy of the book "Silent Scream". That baby fought to live; struggled against his own abortion.
Post-it, all I can do now that I have presented, with some elements of anger and emotion true (you see, all six of my children were 'supposed' to be aborted), Biblical, biological, statistical, and other factual information to you is leave you in God's hands.
But sometimes that, also, is a scary place to be.
"Come, let us reason together," says the Lord,
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
Isaiah 1:18-20
I haven't read much of this thread, only occa-
sionally dropping in to see what was said in
the latest posts. But all through it, I kept think-
ing of the video I bought years ago, Silent
Scream, which shows the child in the midst
of that scream. Let me change that to not just
the midst of the scream, but the building of that
scream as the instruments of abortion do their
work. It is horrifying, and I am glad you brought
it up, Helen.
I also have the beautiful photo of the child still
alive within the embrionic sac outside the
womb. The incident was that the mother had
a tubal pregnancy which, of course, must be
aborted, because both the child and mother
will die. This particular doctor who did the
abortion worked in a university hospital where
his son, a photographer, was going to school.
When the child aborted, s/he came out ALIVE!!
He immediately got his son to come to the
operatory to photograph the child, and the
resulting photo is absolutely beautiful. This
was an eight-week pregnancy, a time at which
some would have us beliefe the child is a "blob
of flesh," but indeed, there are little fingers and
toes and a sweet little face. At the time of the
photograph, the child was making alll the mo-
tions of a swimmer.
Not long after the photograph was taken, the
child died. When the doctor examined her/him
afterward, it did, indeed, look like the "blob of
flesh" we have been told they are. Certainly,
they see a "blob of flesh!" They only see dead
babies at that time! But this doctor was privi-
ledged to see the child alive, vibrant, vigorous.
Since we moved, I have not yet relocated the
photo, but I will. And when I do, I will do with it
what I used to do: drop into various print shops
and ask for a copy of the photo. Invariably,
I am asked, "What is this?" and I tell the story.
The person behind the desk is awed by what
they see. I can see the wonder on their faces.
It is one more chance to help someone under-
stand that these are human beings our society
is murdering.
[ August 23, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
sionally dropping in to see what was said in
the latest posts. But all through it, I kept think-
ing of the video I bought years ago, Silent
Scream, which shows the child in the midst
of that scream. Let me change that to not just
the midst of the scream, but the building of that
scream as the instruments of abortion do their
work. It is horrifying, and I am glad you brought
it up, Helen.
I also have the beautiful photo of the child still
alive within the embrionic sac outside the
womb. The incident was that the mother had
a tubal pregnancy which, of course, must be
aborted, because both the child and mother
will die. This particular doctor who did the
abortion worked in a university hospital where
his son, a photographer, was going to school.
When the child aborted, s/he came out ALIVE!!
He immediately got his son to come to the
operatory to photograph the child, and the
resulting photo is absolutely beautiful. This
was an eight-week pregnancy, a time at which
some would have us beliefe the child is a "blob
of flesh," but indeed, there are little fingers and
toes and a sweet little face. At the time of the
photograph, the child was making alll the mo-
tions of a swimmer.
Not long after the photograph was taken, the
child died. When the doctor examined her/him
afterward, it did, indeed, look like the "blob of
flesh" we have been told they are. Certainly,
they see a "blob of flesh!" They only see dead
babies at that time! But this doctor was privi-
ledged to see the child alive, vibrant, vigorous.
Since we moved, I have not yet relocated the
photo, but I will. And when I do, I will do with it
what I used to do: drop into various print shops
and ask for a copy of the photo. Invariably,
I am asked, "What is this?" and I tell the story.
The person behind the desk is awed by what
they see. I can see the wonder on their faces.
It is one more chance to help someone under-
stand that these are human beings our society
is murdering.
[ August 23, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
post-it said:
A body part...
How can a fetus be a body part when it is not, genetically, part of a woman's body? You just keep asserting this despite all biological evidence to the contrary.
What do you classify a female unfertilized egg as. A body part or a person?
Neither. You have created a false dichotomy.
An ovum is not a body part, but it is the natural product of a body part (the ovary).
Nor is an ovum a person, since it contains only half the required chromosomes to be a human person. If it is fertilized by a male gamete, it becomes a human person. If not, it is naturally expelled.
So, since you assert that a fetus is not a person, and we have established that it is not:
</font>
A body part...
How can a fetus be a body part when it is not, genetically, part of a woman's body? You just keep asserting this despite all biological evidence to the contrary.
What do you classify a female unfertilized egg as. A body part or a person?
Neither. You have created a false dichotomy.
An ovum is not a body part, but it is the natural product of a body part (the ovary).
Nor is an ovum a person, since it contains only half the required chromosomes to be a human person. If it is fertilized by a male gamete, it becomes a human person. If not, it is naturally expelled.
So, since you assert that a fetus is not a person, and we have established that it is not:
</font>
- a body part</font>
- a transplanted body part</font>
- an unfertilized ovum
</font>
Those weren't facts, that was information based on statistics. Anyone can make statistics say anything they wish.</font>[/QUOTE] Really. Go ahead. Demonstrate that Helen or the sources she cited were anything less than fair with the statistics. In fact, if you read the article you would see that the study is determined to be "fair" to the other point of view.
So you don't evaluate the quality of the evidence at all? You just take whatever two opposing sides report and divide by two and this is supposed to be a more reasonable approach? It is a ridiculous approach. Helen presented one view that was based on an objective study and evidence from a participant in the other camp that their numbers were plucked from thin air... to take these numbers together and divide by two then call it "truth" would be stupid.
How do you know that the answer is "no". Further if it is no the cumulative deaths from these other causes would not increase the total by a factor of 27,000!
Based on what? Your desire to believe the obvious disinformation of pro-abortionists. Your divide by 2 method is anything but scientific.
And the obvious place to start out is by honestly, objectively scrutinizing the evidence. On this thread now many pages long, you have persistently refused to do so.
You have yet to establish that our side is not being truthful and intellectually honest.
...then why after having your arguments completely refuted do you keep repackaging them rather than accepting the truth?
...nor does it mean that it is wrong or subject to a higher threshold of scrutiny. Liberals tend to doubt Christian opinion more than secular opinion. In this thread, you have done so to an extraordinary extreme.
I disagree. Scripture+prayer+submission= the right answer/wisdom/common sense/etc.
post-it said:
Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights.
While we're at it, let's equip all bank guards with foam-rubber bullets to make armed robbery safer for bank robbers. It's a travesty that they have to risk death in order to rob banks. Grand larceny should be made safer.
Please refocus your pity for the tens of thousands of women who have to endure back ally abortions due to man's past ignorance on the issue of life and human rights.
While we're at it, let's equip all bank guards with foam-rubber bullets to make armed robbery safer for bank robbers. It's a travesty that they have to risk death in order to rob banks. Grand larceny should be made safer.
Well, this probably won't settle the matter for you post-it, but for anyone else who puts any sort of stock in the bible...this should just about do it.
Last night, while reading my bible I came accross this passage. I read it originally in the NIV so I had to go and grab my KJV just to make sure I wasn't seeing something that was "translated" funny. Ask and you shall receive is the statement.
Some possible responses in italics below. Consider these preemptive posts.
Wait, what? Yup, the pregnant woman is with child.
But I thought it was just a fetus, a non life until it takes its first breath? Nope, the woman is clearly described as being with child.
But you can't say that, because the passage also says we don't know how the spirit enters. Spirit can also mean life so we don't know when or how! 1.) The bible clearly states the woman is with child, this should be enough. If it isn't 2.) If we don't know how or when, then we can never make such a decision because we don't know! So...if we don't know, we have to assume life/spirit enters the moment of conception. If you do not, you could be wrong and then you just murdered a baby. You know, erroring on the side of caution.
But you can't make abortion illegal because:
1. Then millions of women will be murders. No, they are already murders, now we will just legally define them as such. Besides, this is a pointless argument as right and wrong are not defined by our legal system.
2. Women will get back alley abortions then! We must keep it legal to keep them safe! Good idea (Sarcastic). So, by this logic, all drugs should be legal, everthing should be free (people get hurt all the time trying to steal something) and everyone should be allowed to do anything at anytime, no matter what (after all, I could get hurt trying to kill you...so you should not resist because you resisting could cause me harm).
I think another problem you have Post-it is that you don't realize that there are universal rights and wrongs. If you did, you could never make these arguments (unless you want me to call you lazy again). Please reflect upon the undeniable fact that universal rights and wrongs do exist and look at your views.
In Christ,
jason
Last night, while reading my bible I came accross this passage. I read it originally in the NIV so I had to go and grab my KJV just to make sure I wasn't seeing something that was "translated" funny. Ask and you shall receive is the statement.
What do we have with this? The bible clearly states that the woman is with child.
Some possible responses in italics below. Consider these preemptive posts.
Wait, what? Yup, the pregnant woman is with child.
But I thought it was just a fetus, a non life until it takes its first breath? Nope, the woman is clearly described as being with child.
But you can't say that, because the passage also says we don't know how the spirit enters. Spirit can also mean life so we don't know when or how! 1.) The bible clearly states the woman is with child, this should be enough. If it isn't 2.) If we don't know how or when, then we can never make such a decision because we don't know! So...if we don't know, we have to assume life/spirit enters the moment of conception. If you do not, you could be wrong and then you just murdered a baby. You know, erroring on the side of caution.
But you can't make abortion illegal because:
1. Then millions of women will be murders. No, they are already murders, now we will just legally define them as such. Besides, this is a pointless argument as right and wrong are not defined by our legal system.
2. Women will get back alley abortions then! We must keep it legal to keep them safe! Good idea (Sarcastic). So, by this logic, all drugs should be legal, everthing should be free (people get hurt all the time trying to steal something) and everyone should be allowed to do anything at anytime, no matter what (after all, I could get hurt trying to kill you...so you should not resist because you resisting could cause me harm).
I think another problem you have Post-it is that you don't realize that there are universal rights and wrongs. If you did, you could never make these arguments (unless you want me to call you lazy again). Please reflect upon the undeniable fact that universal rights and wrongs do exist and look at your views.
In Christ,
jason
Quote:
You are saying that women as a collective are more vicious murders in all of history that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tsu Tung combined murdered a small number in comparison to the women.
------------------------------------------
Well, murder is murder. Both abortionists and those that you mentioned murdered for selfish reasons. I would say they are in the same boat.
[ August 23, 2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: onevoice ]
You are saying that women as a collective are more vicious murders in all of history that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tsu Tung combined murdered a small number in comparison to the women.
------------------------------------------
Well, murder is murder. Both abortionists and those that you mentioned murdered for selfish reasons. I would say they are in the same boat.
[ August 23, 2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: onevoice ]
I wasn't going to come back, but Jason, that post and the quotes are wonderful, and thank you.
When I saw the mention of bones, I grabbed the book "A Child is Born" which has those incredible photographs by Nilsson taken intra-uterally (is that a word) and looked to see when I first saw signs of bone formation.
5 weeks.
Just about the time the woman is becoming sure she is pregnant (morning sickness generally doesn't hit for another week...), the baby has vertebrae starting to form and the entire backbone is positioned as the process proceeds from there. Now, if bones are beginning to become evident at FIVE weeks, that means they were starting to form BEFORE that...
This is an evolution-oriented book. Nevertheless, here are a couple of quotes from the captions to a couple of pictures:
p. 82: A father-to-be sees his baby for the first time by means of ultrasound in the seventh week of pregnancy. The embryo is then 5 weeks old and appears like a bright dot in its membrane sac. Magnified, in reality, it looks as we see it, right, with head, rudimentary eye, arm and hand, swimming in the fetal sac.
p. 85: Six weeks after fertilization the design for a human being begins to show results. The cells are seething with ilfe, the heart is beating, blood is being pumped through the umbilical cord and the whole embryo is in constant motion. The embryonic heart has 140-150 fluttering beats a minute -- twice as many as its mother's.
p. 89: Every day, a great deal occurs in the embryo's development. Five and a half weeks after conception, the hand still looks like a shapeless little paddle. Three days later we can already see the fingers.
p. 92: Now, as it enters the eighth week after its creation in the Fallopian tube, the embryo reaches an important point in its development. The design work is complete; all its organs have been formed. From now on, the embryo must grow, develop what has been created, refine its functions and test its systems.
p. 111: [At four months] Creation proceeds apace, silently, in the shelter of the placenta...The fetus is becoming more and more lively -- turning its head, moving its face and making breathing movements.
p. 135: Already the hand is a tiny, exquisite work of art. In this 4 1/2 month old fetus, the body's systems are now being tested. It moves and waves its arms. A finger touching its lips precipitates a slight sucking reflex.
It was fun looking at the pictures again, and remembering...
I lost two babies before I was able to have a live one born. He was conceived January of 1973 -- the same month Roe v. Wade was passed. One of the first things the doctor told me was that I should have an abortion because the baby presented a clear and distinct danger to my health and possibly my life.
No way!
I remember the first movements. I remember watching, later, a little foot or hand travel across my belly. He used to hiccup before long, quiet periods when he was asleep. He will be 29 this October and to this day he hiccups when he is tired!
I wonder if post-it or Joshua think there was a time when either of them was NOT human? Interesting thought...
When I saw the mention of bones, I grabbed the book "A Child is Born" which has those incredible photographs by Nilsson taken intra-uterally (is that a word) and looked to see when I first saw signs of bone formation.
5 weeks.
Just about the time the woman is becoming sure she is pregnant (morning sickness generally doesn't hit for another week...), the baby has vertebrae starting to form and the entire backbone is positioned as the process proceeds from there. Now, if bones are beginning to become evident at FIVE weeks, that means they were starting to form BEFORE that...
This is an evolution-oriented book. Nevertheless, here are a couple of quotes from the captions to a couple of pictures:
p. 82: A father-to-be sees his baby for the first time by means of ultrasound in the seventh week of pregnancy. The embryo is then 5 weeks old and appears like a bright dot in its membrane sac. Magnified, in reality, it looks as we see it, right, with head, rudimentary eye, arm and hand, swimming in the fetal sac.
p. 85: Six weeks after fertilization the design for a human being begins to show results. The cells are seething with ilfe, the heart is beating, blood is being pumped through the umbilical cord and the whole embryo is in constant motion. The embryonic heart has 140-150 fluttering beats a minute -- twice as many as its mother's.
p. 89: Every day, a great deal occurs in the embryo's development. Five and a half weeks after conception, the hand still looks like a shapeless little paddle. Three days later we can already see the fingers.
p. 92: Now, as it enters the eighth week after its creation in the Fallopian tube, the embryo reaches an important point in its development. The design work is complete; all its organs have been formed. From now on, the embryo must grow, develop what has been created, refine its functions and test its systems.
p. 111: [At four months] Creation proceeds apace, silently, in the shelter of the placenta...The fetus is becoming more and more lively -- turning its head, moving its face and making breathing movements.
p. 135: Already the hand is a tiny, exquisite work of art. In this 4 1/2 month old fetus, the body's systems are now being tested. It moves and waves its arms. A finger touching its lips precipitates a slight sucking reflex.
It was fun looking at the pictures again, and remembering...
I lost two babies before I was able to have a live one born. He was conceived January of 1973 -- the same month Roe v. Wade was passed. One of the first things the doctor told me was that I should have an abortion because the baby presented a clear and distinct danger to my health and possibly my life.
No way!
I remember the first movements. I remember watching, later, a little foot or hand travel across my belly. He used to hiccup before long, quiet periods when he was asleep. He will be 29 this October and to this day he hiccups when he is tired!
I wonder if post-it or Joshua think there was a time when either of them was NOT human? Interesting thought...
I believe it is time for me to stop my arguments in this thread since I have now been accused of involvement in murder.
This is not what I have come here to do. I have only wanted to determine what scripture says about abortion and its implications of murder if any. I have only asked that scripture be used to support such propaganda and it has failed to materialize. If anyone has any more scripture to look at since nothing present has supported a charge of murder or that life begins before the first breath, email me personally WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME and I will start a new thread with hopes that murder charges not be brought against me there.
These charges have shaken me and I still can't believe Helen could stoop so low.
God bless you all
[ August 23, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
This is not what I have come here to do. I have only wanted to determine what scripture says about abortion and its implications of murder if any. I have only asked that scripture be used to support such propaganda and it has failed to materialize. If anyone has any more scripture to look at since nothing present has supported a charge of murder or that life begins before the first breath, email me personally WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME and I will start a new thread with hopes that murder charges not be brought against me there.
These charges have shaken me and I still can't believe Helen could stoop so low.
God bless you all
[ August 23, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Bottom line: "You shall not murder" (Exod. 20:13).
The question you have not been able to adequately answer: What is the unborn?
If it is, as you have attempted to say, a body part or a transplant or some kind of excretion, then no justification is necessary for abortion.
If it is a human person, then no justification is possible.
The case you have tried to make for the former, however, is almost comical in its ineptness. I am surprised you even believe it yourself - in fact, considering the number of times you changed your mind about what a fetus actually is, I have my doubts you actually do.
[ August 23, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
The question you have not been able to adequately answer: What is the unborn?
If it is, as you have attempted to say, a body part or a transplant or some kind of excretion, then no justification is necessary for abortion.
If it is a human person, then no justification is possible.
The case you have tried to make for the former, however, is almost comical in its ineptness. I am surprised you even believe it yourself - in fact, considering the number of times you changed your mind about what a fetus actually is, I have my doubts you actually do.
[ August 23, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Daniel David
New Member
Post-it, if Mary had had an abortion, would she have killed the Son of God? Would God have had to try again?
Post-It, How does it need to be presented so that you can acknowledge that it has been presented? You have been shown where an unborn child is called a child in the Bible. You have been shown where individual unborn children were considered people in the Bible. The taking of a life without just cause is murder. You have persisted in arguing semantics and definitions (without scripture in context I might add), in some cases to the point of absurdity, without taking a step back and following the logic to its correct end.
It seems you are asking someone to come up with a "Thou shalt not commit abortion" verse, knowing that it does not exist. But there is no verse that says "Thou shalt not beat thy wife" or "Thou shalt not spit in a rude guest's tea" either... I hope we would all agree that principles logically emanate from the Bible that would prevent us from doing these things and more. However, accepting your threshold for proof, we could do these things and worse since the Bible does not specifically address every permutation.