When is shedding the blood of another not murder?

[37818]

When is ending the life by shedding the blood of another person not murder?
This is an abortion question.
1 John 3:15, Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Hating the unborn?

Should murders be allowed to vote or even run for a government office?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When is ending the life by shedding the blood of another person not murder?
This is an abortion question.
1 John 3:15, Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Hating the unborn?

Should murders be allowed to vote or even run for a government office?

Yes

 

[Benjamin]

When is ending the life by shedding the blood of another person not murder?

Knowing where you're going with this (abortion), I think you have a Question-Begging issue concerning a conclusion on when life begins. That said, if you believe the unborn is life and you take it away then it is murder, but what about the many that have been brainwashed to believe the unborn is not yet life and, unfortunately, look at it or use it as birth control? Would you claim it is murder even without the intent of taking a life?

This is an abortion question.

Then this clarification that follows leads back to the question of when life begins, if the question were to be directed to a pro-abortion proponent or otherwise it turns into a loaded-question toward your opponent.

When is ending the life by shedding the blood of another person not murder?
This is an abortion question.

IOWs, as an anti-abortion proponent I believe it is the taking of a life, I believe it is a HORRIFIC act! However, I have to ask the question, does murder, if defined with the intent to take a life, apply if the person does not consider it a life?

1 John 3:15, Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Hating the unborn?

Doesn't defining "hate", as well, depend on whether one considers the unborn a life?

Should murders be allowed to vote or even run for a government office?

You're back to question-begging the definition of murder and assigning it to the abortionist which would have to be based on your perspective of when life begins, in order to come to a logically true conclusion after using the premise of "murder".

Anyway, as for your closing question, If I changed your argument to should people who are pro-abortion and/or who have been involved in the act, and are considered a murderer and a baby-hater by your perspective, be allowed to vote or even run for office? What would your answer be to this?

I would say according to the freedoms of our liberty in our country and the Constitutional rights of the people to make laws that we abide by, that currently this atrocity is not considered murder, by law, therefore they (clarified as the pro-abortion proponents) are allowed to have their perspectives and are allowed the citizen rights of the USA to have their views.

As per my house, my vote will be opposition against them and a pro-abortionist will not get my vote for government office. My prayer is that morally true logical arguments prevail on the value and rights of the unborn life and we make laws that reflect these values.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Knowing where you're going with this (abortion), I think you have a Question-Begging issue concerning a conclusion on when life begins. That said, if you believe the unborn is life and you take it away then it is murder, but what about the many that have been brainwashed to believe the unborn is not yet life and, unfortunately, look at it or use it as birth control? Would you claim it is murder even without the intent of taking a life?

Then this clarification that follows leads back to the question of when life begins, if the question were to be directed to a pro-abortion proponent or otherwise it turns into a loaded-question toward your opponent.

IOWs, as an anti-abortion proponent I believe it is the taking of a life, I believe it is a HORRIFIC act! However, I have to ask the question, does murder, if defined with the intent to take a life, apply if the person does not consider it a life?

Doesn't defining "hate", as well, depend on whether one considers the unborn a life?

You're back to question-begging the definition of murder and assigning it to the abortionist which would have to be based on your perspective of when life begins, in order to come to a logically true conclusion after using the premise of "murder".

Anyway, as for your closing question, If I changed your argument to should people who are pro-abortion and/or who have been involved in the act, and are considered a murderer and a baby-hater by your perspective, be allowed to vote or even run for office? What would your answer be to this?

I would say according to the freedoms of our liberty in our country and the Constitutional rights of the people to make laws that we abide by, that currently this atrocity is not considered murder, by law, therefore they (clarified as the pro-abortion proponents) are allowed to have their perspectives and are allowed the citizen rights of the USA to have their views.

As per my house, my vote will be opposition against them and a pro-abortionist will not get my vote for government office. My prayer is that morally true logical arguments prevail on the value and rights of the unborn life and we make laws that reflect these values.

Then what is Trumps current stance on abortion?

 

[JonC]

Difficult question.

The command refers to premeditated murder with malice. In the OT we read that one may kill an enemy if they happen into one another by chance, but not if one lies in wait. And killing in war is excluded.

A man could strike a slave, and if the slave dies be punished, unless the slave lives for a day or two then no punishment because the slave is the man's property.

As far as abortion goes Scripture doesn't spell it out clearly. Exodus 22 has been interpreted various ways.


I believe abortion is murder. It is man playing God over a life. But abortion for convenience, while very common among non-Hebrew people, was foreign to the Hebrew faith (children were considered a blessing, and valued). I think the reason Scripture doesn't spell this out is Scripture is uninterested in the sins of the World and focused on the people of God.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Then what is Trumps current stance on abortion?

Donald Trump is and always has been pro-choice. He doesn't believe, however, up until the time of birth, but he is pro-choice nonetheless.

Melania is AGGRESSIVELY pro-choice. She is a "my body my choice" woman.

 

[Van]

The concept that seems to have eluded the discussion thus far is justifiable homicide. Thus using lethal force to protect others is not murder.
An example would be an abortion to save the life of the mother. And of course those operating under the color of government authority are not committing murder when use lethal force.

 

[37818]

After about the 17th day from conception the unborn has his or her own blood distinct from the mother.

Remember Genesis 9:6, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Donald Trump is and always has been pro-choice. He doesn't believe, however, up until the time of birth, but he is pro-choice nonetheless.

Melania is AGGRESSIVELY pro-choice. She is a "my body my choice" woman.

Well that doesn’t square with me or my Christ…it’s a total cop out to political favoritism.

 

[Van]

When is shedding the blood of another not murder?

The concept that seems to have eluded the discussion thus far is justifiable homicide. Thus using lethal force to protect others is not murder.

An example would be an abortion to save the life of the mother. And of course those operating under the color of government authority are not committing murder when use lethal force.

 

[Benjamin]

Donald Trump is and always has been pro-choice. He doesn't believe, however, up until the time of birth, but he is pro-choice nonetheless.

False, not only did his view change, which he talks about, but he has clearly made his position known to be like Reagan's, which is exceptions for incest, rape and the life of the mother. Trump has done more to combat abortion than any other president, far more, and to label him as "pro-choice" reeks of TDSism.

Melania is AGGRESSIVELY pro-choice. She is a "my body my choice" woman.

Nonsense!~ Show me one example of this "AGGRESSION" - out of her mouth and not some TDS mouth piece.

 

[JonC]

False, not only did his view change, which he talks about, but he has clearly made his position known to be like Reagan's, which is exceptions for incest, rape and the life of the mother. Trump has done more to combat abortion than any other president, far more, and to label him as "pro-choice" reeks of TDSism.

Nonsense!~ Show me one example of this "AGGRESSION" - out of her mouth and not some TDS mouth piece.

False. Trump has not done anything to combat abortion.

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the guy. But he has done nothing to combat abortion.

He was instrumental in overturning Roe vs Wade. But that had no effect on abortions, except perhaps geographical location and method (it didn't decrease the number of abortions performed....they have actually increased slightly).



Christians in the US have largely replaced the gospel of Jesus Christ wirh political parties. Some replace the gospel with the DNC because they see the evil inherent in the GOP. Others replace the gospel with the GOP because they see the evil in the DNC. One is not better than the other. They are just different manifestations of evil that play off one another for a common goal (same power, same god).

 

[JonC]

When is shedding the blood of another not murder?

The concept that seems to have eluded the discussion thus far is justifiable homicide. Thus using lethal force to protect others is not murder.

An example would be an abortion to save the life of the mother. And of course those operating under the color of government authority are not committing murder when use lethal force.

Wait....if the baby would be viable then why would it be justifiable to abort the child to save the mother? When do we get to choose which life is more valuable?

 

[Scarlett O.]

False, not only did his view change, which he talks about, but he has clearly made his position known to be like Reagan's, which is exceptions for incest, rape and the life of the mother. Trump has done more to combat abortion than any other president, far more, and to label him as "pro-choice" reeks of TDSism.

Nonsense!~ Show me one example of this "AGGRESSION" - out of her mouth and not some TDS mouth piece.

~sigh~ I am not deranged. There was a question posed and I answered it.

Google Trump's position on abortion. You'll get inconsistent answers from him. He recently said that there are states with abortion laws that are "too tough". And they should change. The man is not pro-life.

I watched Melania being interviewed a few weeks before the election promoting her new book. She IS a "my body my choice" woman. She said so in the interview and was vehement about it. Google it and watch the interview. She has zero regard for an unborn child if a woman doesn't want it.

I'm out of this thread.

 

[Van]

Wait....if the baby would be viable then why would it be justifiable to abort the child to save the mother? When do we get to choose which life is more valuable?

Wait....

You used the term "we" but did not indicate if the "we" was acting as an individual, or under the color of government authority?

Does the Bible indicate whether the life of the mother is to be saved, or to do nothing and lose both the mother and child? Give me the verse.

I do not know the statistics but I believe abortions to save the life of the mother would be rare, less than .1% of all abortions. Some assessments indicate almost no cases are necessary with modern medical practice. And clearly if the baby is "viable," then the baby could be surgically delivered, because that is much less stressful than an abortion.

Clearly the Bible allows the use of lethal force to save the life of others. The government does not carry the sword for nothing.

 

[JonC]

Wait....

You used the term "we" but did not indicate if the "we" was acting as an individual, or under the color of government authority?

Does the Bible indicate whether the life of the mother is to be saved, or to do nothing and lose both the mother and child? Give me the verse.

I do not know the statistics but I believe abortions to save the life of the mother would be rare, less than .1% of all abortions. Some assessments indicate almost no cases are necessary with modern medical practice. And clearly if the baby is "viable," then the baby could be surgically delivered, because that is much less stressful than an abortion.

Clearly the Bible allows the use of lethal force to save the life of others. The government does not carry the sword for nothing.

By "we" I mean society in general (speaking of abortion laws).

The question I asked was if the child is viable but the mother cannot survive carrying the child until thec22nd to 24th week of gestation. Before anybody asks.....yes....medically abortions are performed on viable babies to save the life of the mother (most commonly due to the mothers underlying medical conditions).


Abort the child to save the mother or have the mother carry the child as long as possible, killing the mother but saving the child?

An automatic "save the mother, kill the baby" is a value statement.

I agree these cases are rare.


How would you choose to use the sword in these rare cases? On the mother or the baby?

 

[kyredneck]

When is shedding the blood of another not murder?​

When the blood that's being shed is not innocent.

6​	Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man. Gen 9

16​	There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
17​	Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
18​	A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
19​	A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. Prov 6

3​	For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:
4​	for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Ro 13

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When the blood that's being shed is not innocent.

6​	Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man. Gen 9

16​	There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
17​	Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
18​	A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
19​	A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. Prov 6

3​	For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:
4​	for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Ro 13

OK so what’s your call about

the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO?​

 

[kyredneck]

Premeditated murder. Period.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Premeditated murder. Period.

Was it justiable?