-
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!
When is shedding the blood of another not murder?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Lol….if you do not know how to answer a question asked of you, then it reflects on you, not me. But I will remember this request of yours.
And? What is the purpose of you linking this article? What are YOU trying to say?
That the way corporate America operates today needs to change…greed and king profits are not the only goal for these corporations. Isn’t that apparent to you?
I believe change is in order.
3
aggreed
It’s my concern that most of these murders of people of power & authority are in fact assignations and are conspiracy. Major fires are also not coincidences… like Maui. How many families & children died? Abortions have reduced the populations significantly….Hmmmm?!?
I am sorry but I could not follow your reasoning. If the child is viable, then the baby can be delivered surgically.. If the baby is not viable, and the mother will die before viability, thus losing both mother and child, an abortion of save the life of the mother would be justified, in my opinion.
You may be arguing a theoretical scenario, where if she carries the baby until viability, she will live that long, but then must die when the baby is taken by surgery. I think that event is "highly unlikely."
There have been quite a few cases (still rare) where the child is viable but under 22 weeks (not viable to survive outside the womb) and the mother's life in danger should she not abort the childI am sorry but I could not follow your reasoning. If the child is viable, then the baby can be delivered surgically.. If the baby is not viable, and the mother will die before viability, thus losing both mother and child, an abortion of save the life of the mother would be justified, in my opinion.
You may be arguing a theoretical scenario, where if she carries the baby until viability, she will live that long, but then must die when the baby is taken by surgery. I think that event is "highly unlikely."
Typically these are due to pre-existing medical conditions. Sometimes this is due to cancer where the mother must decide between treating her disease or allowing the child to mature to a survivable gestation.
My reasoning is if a woman has to decide between her life and a child's life that a value must be placed on each.
I am not speaking theologically but looking at "viability" meaning that the child is viable (surviving inside the womb....not in danger.....but not viable outside the womb) while the mother's life is in danger should the pregnancy continue.
I am using "viable" in a specific and less common manner because I believe that an unborn child is a child (inside vs outside the womb not being the criteria, but potential to develop to and beyond 24 weeks is the criteria).
One common "real life" example is when the mother is undergoing cancer treatment. Pregnancy can decrease the effectiveness of certain treatments while not placing the child in danger. This is rare (percentage) but not insignificant (number of cases).
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
"personal belief" does not determine truth. Regardless of whatever one is taught to believe if it contradicts truth/what God says, then it is false. Whether one believes the unborn is a life is irrelevant, God says it is, and so it is.
Nah, I don't think you are deranged and my reference to TDS wasn't meant to insinuate that.
The TDS adjective isn't always used to literally mean deranged/insane, but more often describes someone that has a predictable extremely negative reaction toward the issues and is seemingly forming opinions and arguments as if they had blinders on or as if they've lost their sense of reason as they set out to criticize Trump, above all else.
There may be some different stages of TDS, but just so you know, I wouldn't think you have anywhere near a Stage 5 TDS infliction, however I can't help to notice a wee bit of bias in your claims, if you know what I mean.
Here is the deal. Your "viable" child is "not yet viable outside the womb, thus most would say not viable. Next, you change "to save the life of the mother" to end the risk to the mother's life. Using that turn of phrase, since pregnancy has a mortality rate, all pregnancies could be terminated.
In the case where the mother is not expected to live long enough for the baby to become viable outside the womb, but the mother would live if the baby is aborted (i.e. the pregnancy is the cause of the mother's impending death) then I think abortion would be a justifiable homicide
Well, I'm not sure why you seem to think that this would be my argument, or that I would need to be reminded of this.
Oh yeah, concerning God's Word I've used the phrase: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." many times. However, logical reasoning determines truth and in your claim you logically contradict yourself in saying "personal belief does not determine truth" and then turn right around and and express your personal belief in God's Words to support your argument as an end-all.
So, my question to you is, do you now have the right dictate your beliefs onto your neighbors who see it differently, because of the way you determine truth (your beliefs), or do you believe that people have the freedom in this country to make their decisions according to the laws the people have established?
Personally, I will logically argue that the unborn is a life and has the right to live, but I also know an Appeal to Authority fallacy, is still a logical fallacy even if the Authority you appeal to is God.
Honestly, you kind of sound like you'd like to be a dictator according to your religious beliefs, where I will argue according to my personal beliefs which are guided by God's Word and use logic to draw out the truth.
Yes. The viable child is not yet viable outside of the womb. Most would say the child is not viable, but most would also say a this unborn child is not a child at all. That is why I clarified my position
But yes, for the sake of argument let's use the real world examples of a mother faced with aborting a baby that is not viable to live outside the womb but is also not in danger of the condition that threatens the mothers life. Use a mother having to choose between a cancer treatment for an aggressive cancer or the life of her child if you wish (this seems to be the most common scenario in real life....about 1 000 cases each year in the US).
There is a probability the mother will die without treatment. There is a probability the child would survive. The mother will probably live with treatment, depending on the response of the cancer treatment, but the child will die.
What method would you use to assign a value to the mother and the child to determine if the abortion os justified?
And, the difficulty of choosing between the life of the mother and the child does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater on the matter of abortion. You weigh all the issues and make the best choices possible, but to always be critical and unsupportive of a position even if it is an improvement, all or nothing mentality, speaks for itself per the critical thinking skills behind it and it's value.
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
So then is God's word the objective truth, yes or no? Logical reasoning does not determine truth - John 16:13, John 17:17 etc. Aside from the fact that there is no logic outside of God/truth, to try and divorce logic from God is how you get pregnant men.
I don't reason from a godless secular view, which is, by the way, dictated to people. A better question would be, does God have the right to tell people not to murder, rape, steal, kidnap, etc. If not, where do we get that these things are wrong from as a society? "Because they are" isn't an argument, nor can a godless worldview come up with a "logical" reason as to why they are wrong. The Government dictates to me that the above are wrong, but based upon your response that isn't just.
This makes no sense. There has to be an authority to appeal to. And God is THE authority. Your refutation comes across as confused and trying to come from a middle ground, of which does not exist.
This is an incoherent statement when applied to the rest of your response. At the risk of coming across as rude in my response I would say that I think(?) I know where you are coming from, and we probably agree more than we realize. I am not into theonomy (baptists have not historically prospered under such governments), my argument is this - there is no neutral ground, and as Christians we MUST stand on the word of God as our worldview for right and wrong, it is not less valid simply because the other side doesn't believe it. Historically America has walked the tightrope (as good as possible - though not perfect) between church and state: not dictating a religious system, yet governing and writing its law in accordance with biblical truth. Giving up that truth is what has led to the state our country is in sadly.
Last edited:
God is Truth. I’ve help people come to Him through logically arguing that truth. But just saying His Word is Truth isn’t a logical argument. God gifted us with sense, reason and intellect and He logically convinced me of His Truth through His Word. Love of the Truth which God reveals strengthens my faith and understanding but one can not expect a lost person to agree according to my faith in God’s truth.
Apparently, your confusion is in not understanding the Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills 101, of which the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is when you expect your opponent to accept your claim based solely on your belief that it is true because your authority says it is.
“The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it.
The statement itself may be true. A statement’s truthfulness has nothing to do with whether it’s fallacious or not. What makes the appeal to authority a logical fallacy is the lack of evidence provided to support the claim. It follows this format:
Individual, who is an expert in Y field, says X is true.
Therefore, X is true.”
The above is not much of an argument unless your opponent excepts your Authority as true, and we are told to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. To argue something because God said so may be a good final argument for you, or me, but it is a weak and fallacious argument to an unbeliever. Regardless of your belief that there is no middle ground to discuss and the belief that you are on the high ground.
The problem is, although we as Christians know where we stand and why, that this does not equate to a valid argument based on or because of our belief, in any logical sense. BTW, I believe Paul to be a great philosopher who used logic to draw out the truth in the Word as he preached it.
Well, I don’t give up on the fight for truth, I use my God given attributes of sense, reason and intellect to logically draw out the truth in what I say, which is guided by God, and honestly, I don’t have a problem with the imposition of laws that back my beliefs, or for fighting for my beliefs when I think a great injustice is being committed rather or not I’m in the majority or in agreement with my government. I fully understand that our laws and leaders in our country are not perfect, but I am thankful that the laws are tilting in a better direction and I’m certainly not going to insist on perfection or nothing, as some do. I would like to see much more done in protecting the life of the unborn, but I am not going to "throw out the baby with the bathwater", or IOWs refuse to see the good and/or vote for improvement based on the principles that its not perfect, and anything else should not be supported and thrown out.
What Christians need to do is take the truths that are being accepted and logically build on them to draw out more of God’s truth. I place my hope in that people will accept and love the truth while knowing I am otherwise powerless to prevent my despair over the tragedy that people love lies and know not the truth concerning the gift of life that God gives. The leads me to the science of philosophy which is a tool for drawing out the truth that I far too often witness is almost unbelievably unvalued and disregarded in many people’s arguments.
Last edited:
I am unaware that about 1000 abortions a year are necessary to save the life of the mother. My source indicated an abortion was almost never necessary to save the life of the mother. This could be semantics, with treatment likely to kill the child not being considered an abortion.
I assign prospectively, saving the life of the mother over saving the life of the child if its one or the other. But my view may be a tad out of date, as I see a mother as the wife of a loving husband, and mother of other children (or will be), thus the greater harm occurs with the loss of the mother.
The 1,000 abortions were related specifically to pregnant women undergoing cancer treatment. Reading the reports it seems that pregnancy decreases the effectiveness of certain cancer medications. The child is not in danger, but the cancer is not being treated at a time when the cancer itself has a potential to be more aggressive.
The treatment (aborting the child) is killing the child (it is not a result of the cancer medication but an abortion to allow the cancer treatment to benefit the mother.
1000 abortions a year to save the mother is statistically "almost never".
I have a couple of questions:
1. You assign priority of saving the mother over saving the child (in a one or the other case). Why? Also, would the age of the mother matter (killing a baby with a potential life span of 80 years vs killing the mother with a potential lifespan of, say, 40 years)? And does your choice on which one to kill mean one is of greater value?
2. You bring up a seperate issue unrelated to my post but related to this conversation...and one I hadn't considered. Why would giving a treatment that would kill an unborn child (even to save the mother) not be aborting the child?