The horrors of abortion which our governments support

[User]

11 hours ago, Boges said:

The question is what constitutes human life. 

There's no objective standard for that, even if one does believe in God. 

There is no objective standard for what constitutes human life?!

So... you don't know objectively if you are a human or not?

I honestly have no idea where to even begin with such an outrageously absurd claim by you. Yes, there most certainly is an objective standard for what constitutes human life. 

 

7 hours ago, Boges said:

Where is this objective standard to say a Fetus is human life?

How many of those "fetuses" turn out to be Turtles?

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, Boges said:

I think the Bible is a very flawed guide to know what God really wants. Especially when it doesn't outright condemn slavery or summary execution.

When you say summary execution, I assume you mean execution at the drop of a hat without due process through a proper justice system.  I think all Bible believing Christians would oppose that.  Justice must be done within a proper justice system which includes the right to appeal.  I do not believe the Bible condones unjust judgment or unjust actions.  That is not the way God is.

"The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, every sin we commit should result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8).

When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). This should not be used to indicate that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all instances. Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law; they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?) God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Jesus would support capital punishment in some instances. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-7).

How should a Christian view the death penalty? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes."

What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment? | GotQuestions.org

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Instead of shaming women,

This is an obvious smear and a lie.  Trying to save the lives of babies not yet born is not smearing women.  It is showing compassion for humanity and trying to save lives of those who have a right to live.

 

[blackbird]

quote

Verses that critics claim are sexist are usually taken out of their proper historical, cultural, and textual context. Those who insist that the Bible is sexist argue that many events in the Bible promote sexism and devalue women.

However, we need to recognize that just because the Bible records events of sexism does not mean it is advocating for misogyny.

For instance, in the last chapter of the Book of Judges, Scripture records that the men of Israel instructed the tribe of Benjamin to abduct young women since they did not have enough women to marry (Judges 21:15-24).

The Bible records this event as part of the moral decline of Israel. The writer of Judges even includes the ending statement, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 21:25).

In this case and others, Scripture is showing the effects of sin and what happens when people turn away from God.

Other instances of proposed sexism in the Bible stem from the culture of the time. Patriarchal culture reigned during biblical times, and women were not seen as equal to men.

In many ways, they were seen as mere objects in the ancient world. Hence, many men in the Bible are recorded as having multiple wives and concubines (Genesis 4:19; 1 Samuel 1:1-2; 1 Kings 11:4-5).

However, God said from the beginning that marriage is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). The Bible is not supporting a demeaning view of women. Instead, it shows how sinful man has corrupted relationships.

Finally, many of the criticisms of Scripture stem from misinterpretations. For instance, many people who are against the Bible claim that it urges the subordination of women. Their argument is based on misinterpretations of verses like Ephesians 5:22.

Scripture encourages wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. However, a godly marriage involves mutual submission and husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:21, 25). Wives are not subordinate or less than their husbands.

Furthermore, Ephesians 5:22 is about marriage, not about how women relate to men generally. The verse says nothing about women submitting to men in a general sense, but wives submitting to husbands lovingly within the limits of what God teaches in His Word.

2. Emphasize that Salvation Is Offered Equally to All People

Critics argue that the Bible favors men and promotes a patriarchal society. To them, Scripture is a book meant to oppress women and keep them in subordinate positions. Despite these claims, the Bible teaches that women are equal to men and can freely receive salvation.

When God created humankind, He created people with equal worth. As Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

In addition to equality, Scripture says that salvation is offered to all people. Critics point to verses like 1 Timothy 2:15 to argue that a woman does not receive salvation like men.

However, the Bible plainly teaches that all people are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus died for everyone, including women (2 Corinthians 5:15).

Furthermore, God invites everyone to trust in Him. His Word says that anyone who believes in His death and resurrection will receive salvation from sins and eternal life (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-11).

In addition to receiving salvation in the same way, Scripture also says that there is no distinction of worth among believers in Christ.

Paul describes this oneness in the Body of Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Therefore, when addressing people who claim the Bible is sexist, Christians should emphasize that men and women are equal, and salvation is offered to everyone without distinction.  unquote

How Should We Respond When People Call the Bible Sexist? (christianity.com)

 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Trying to save the lives of babies not yet born is not smearing women

Dismissing their rights to their own reproductive systems, is.

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It is showing compassion for humanity and trying to save lives of those who have a right to live.

That's woke policy in a nutshell. Like getting offended on the behalf of others. You're trying to project what you would do, onto women you have not walked a second in the shoes of. Add to it, using God's name to justify it all.

Outlawing abortions don't stop them from happening. It just puts women at a greater risk. Do yourself a favor. Look at the death toll of women in countries where abortions are unlawful.

Your "saving lives", is almost ironic, with that considered.

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Dismissing their rights to their own reproductive systems, is.

What right is that?  If one becomes pregnant, the mother has no right to kill the baby.  

Would you say a mother with a one year old baby has a right to take it's life if having it is not convenient?

The right to life for a baby begins the moment it comes into existence, that is, the moment of conception.

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

you have not walked a second in the shoes of.

You have not walked in the shoes of an aborted baby who may have suffered unimaginable pain as it was being killed.

 

29 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

using God's name to justify it all.

Yes, God is Lord over all humans including the pre-born babies who have a right to life.  This is God's world, humans belong to God.  He created mankind and said "thou shalt not kill".  

It is wrong to kill children, babies, and pre-born babies.  There is no difference between them as far a being human beings.

[blackbird]

32 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Outlawing abortions don't stop them from happening. It just puts women at a greater risk.

Much like decriminalization of hard drugs and safe supply.  The answer is not to make evil or immoral things legal.  The answer is rehabilitation, counselling, and support systems for people who need it.  Also, adoption for those who don't want their babies or can't care for them.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What right is that?

Her right to choose, free of legal hurdles and discrimination.

Again, if done abiding to expert medical knowledge and within that time frame only, she should be entitled to make that decision without state intervention.

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Would you say a mother with a one year old baby has a right to take it's life if having it is not convenient?

That's a horrible argument. Lazy, even.

A fetus before a certain point isn't developed enough to feel pain. This is medically proven. You have yet to present evidence that is medical (meaning not only evidence based, but more importantly--highly objective), to the contrary.

That would be the quickest means to silence my argument.

A one year old, or even a late stage abortion beyond the point where they cannot feel pain, is not the same argument.

You'd have a better argument at stating whether its inhumane to pull the plug on a person in a coma, when it is impossible for them to awaken from it, let alone live a normal life due to the vegetative state they would be in if it were possible.

This is morally equivalent.

Not the sensationalist options you're peddling.

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You have not walked in the shoes of an aborted baby

Your arguments are sloppy at best. Using sensationalist jargon, doesn't make a lawful abortion in Canada, murder. It doesn't remotely come close to the same moral equivalency. It does to you, but that is your opinion. You have yet to post objective and medical facts to support your stance.

Your logic, is like those who state you would need a baby's consent as a parent to change their diaper.

Like them crying after pooping wasn't enough. 

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

who may have suffered unimaginable pain as it was being killed.

 

Am still waiting for your medical data that shows a legal abortion in Canada subjects the fetus to unimaginable pain. You're otherwise lying. Trolling, even as you refuse to support your opinions with any evidence that is objective and medical.

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is no difference between them as far a being human beings.

The difference is their ability to feel pain, and how developed that they are. Prove me otherwise.

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The answer is rehabilitation

Rehab is a choice. Abortion should be no different, in any democratic and free country. 

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Also, adoption for those who don't want their babies or can't care for them.

So, you'd prefer the state to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

There literally isn't a country out there where this is the case, where that ends well for women.

Am all ears if you know of any. Then at least we are talking facts.

[Boges]

11 hours ago, User said:

There is no objective standard for what constitutes human life?!

So... you don't know objectively if you are a human or not?

I honestly have no idea where to even begin with such an outrageously absurd claim by you. Yes, there most certainly is an objective standard for what constitutes human life. 

How many of those "fetuses" turn out to be Turtles?

It's a human fetus, or human embryo. But it's not a human. Well you believe it's a human but it's not universally thought of as murder. 

Some believe it is, but that's based on their religious belief system not an objective standard of what defines the term murder. 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Then at least we are talking facts.

Your problem is you don't talk facts.  What God thinks is the bottom line.  Yet you reject that because of your blindness to the reality of God.

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

A fetus before a certain point isn't developed enough to feel pain.

Says who?  Since nobody can get inside the fetus' body, they cannot say what it feels.  It is pure speculation.

Common sense should tell you if you stab a living being with an object to try to kill it, it is going to feel something pretty terrible.  It cannot escape that.  It is trapped and it is a human.

Pre-born babies are given a name such as a fetus as a technical term because they are at a certain stage.  It does not take away their humanity or the fact they are human beings.  They are just an early stage person.

It is a terrible lie to say they are not human.  People that have no conscience use some technical term to try to hide the fact they are human beings.

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Rehab is a choice.

Of course it's a choice.  Why shouldn't it be?  Abortion is killing a human being.  There should be no choice to do that.  Comparing rehab with abortion and saying both should be a choice is ludicrous.  Apples and oranges are not the same.

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Her right to choose,

In Canada is is not illegal to have an abortion.  You claim this is a right.  But we are talking about what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, evil or good.  What is the historical Judeo-Christian view which is ultimately how does God view this.  The answer is in the Holy Bible.

God created man and woman.

God owns our bodies and has said "thou shalt not kill".

God says in his written revelation that he recognizes a person from the moment of conception as a person.  

So regardless whether they would be pain or no pain, God says it is murder to kill a person.

The fact you don't accept what God says doesn't change the fact there is no such right to take a preborn baby's life.

Edited August 8, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

It's a human fetus, or human embryo. But it's not a human.

That's not correct.  The words embryo and fetus are only technical terms to describe the stage of a human being in the pre-born stages.  These terms do not deny it is a human being.  Human life begins at the moment of conception.  That is denied by many abortion supporters for the obvious reason of trying to escape the allegation they are killing a person.   Not everyone is buying that argument.  God in his written word recognizes the pre-born as human beings.  What you believe doesn't change that.  It only exposes your lack of faith in God and his word.

Edited August 8, 2024 by blackbird

[User]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Dismissing their rights to their own reproductive systems, is.

Here you go again... you said to me earlier:

"I think you are smart enough to understand the expression I was using..."

I think you are smart enough to understand the pro-life position here regarding the unborn being a human life with a right to life... those that are working to save those children are not doing this to attack women or their rights. Rights are conflicting here and the life of a child > "rights to their own reproductive systems" once they put that child in there. 

Only in cases of rape can you say a woman didn't have any control over her own reproductive system BEFORE they got pregnant. 

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Outlawing abortions don't stop them from happening. It just puts women at a greater risk. Do yourself a favor. Look at the death toll of women in countries where abortions are unlawful.

No, outlawing anything doesn't completely stop it, but it most certainly will drastically reduce it. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

It's a human fetus, or human embryo. But it's not a human. Well you believe it's a human but it's not universally thought of as murder. 

Some believe it is, but that's based on their religious belief system not an objective standard of what defines the term murder. 

Again... the unborn child certainly is not a turtle. It is a human. Human egg combined with human sperm, resulting in unique human DNA. 

The Pro-Life movement is diverse. It is not solely comprised of religious people and the general religious principles by which they say killing unborn children is wrong is the same for why they think killing 5 year olds is wrong. The logic, science, and reasoning applied to why the unborn child is a human life is not religious based. 

 

[User]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That's a horrible argument. Lazy, even.

No, what is lazy is that you are ignoring my challenges to this point I already made to you. I asked you this question to get at the morality being discussed here, did you ever answer? No. 

You are trying to get out of answering it now by saying killing a one year old is different because of pain. So... you are just fine with a mother killing her 1 year old for the convenience of it as long as it is painless?

 

Edited August 8, 2024 by User

[Five of swords]

47 minutes ago, User said:

Again... the unborn child certainly is not a turtle. It is a human. Human egg combined with human sperm, resulting in unique human DNA. 

The Pro-Life movement is diverse. It is not solely comprised of religious people and the general religious principles by which they say killing unborn children is wrong is the same for why they think killing 5 year olds is wrong. The logic, science, and reasoning applied to why the unborn child is a human life is not religious based. 

 

So what logic determines that killing an unborn child is unethical?

[User]

6 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

So what logic determines that killing an unborn child is unethical?

That is a bit of a fallacious question. 

You might as well ask what logic determines killing a 5 year old is unethical. 

The logic is regarding the unborn child being a human life. Whether or not you think killing anyone is ethical or not is a different argument. 

 

[Five of swords]

6 minutes ago, User said:

That is a bit of a fallacious question. 

You might as well ask what logic determines killing a 5 year old is unethical. 

The logic is regarding the unborn child being a human life. Whether or not you think killing anyone is ethical or not is a different argument. 

 

You don't think killing anyone is necessarily unethical. It depends. If there are only enough resources for 1000 people to survive but the birth rate is such that there will be 2000 people...do you still let 1000 people survive? Or should everyone perish?

Edited August 8, 2024 by Five of swords

[User]

5 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

You don't think killing anyone is necessarily unethical. It depends. If there are only enough resources for 1000 people to survive but the birth eate is such that there will be 2000 people...do you still let 1000 people survive? Or should everyone perish?

We are not talking about some oddball hypothetical trolly question. 

We are talking very specifically about killing 1 unborn child vs killing any other 1 person or 5 year old. 

 

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, User said:

We are not talking about some oddball hypothetical trolly question. 

We are talking very specifically about killing 1 unborn child vs killing any other 1 person or 5 year old. 

 

It isn't oddball or even hypothetical at all. I am sure that a primary reason people get abortions is because they simply do not think they have the resources to raise a child.

[Boges]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That's not correct.  The words embryo and fetus are only technical terms to describe the stage of a human being in the pre-born stages.  These terms do not deny it is a human being.  Human life begins at the moment of conception.  That is denied by many abortion supporters for the obvious reason of trying to escape the allegation they are killing a person.   Not everyone is buying that argument.  God in his written word recognizes the pre-born as human beings.  What you believe doesn't change that.  It only exposes your lack of faith in God and his word.

Cite the word. 

And if this is the case, that embryos are human life, then what of birth control that prevents fertilized embryos from implanting in the placental wall? Or IVF which creates many embryos that are not destined to ever becomes a human. 

Is this also murder? 

Ultimately, the point I'm making is that most agree what murder is. There is less agreement that abortion at certain stages of development is murder.

2 hours ago, User said:

The logic, science, and reasoning applied to why the unborn child is a human life is not religious based. 

I think the debate about when human life begins is quite lively and certainly not settled. Especially if scripture is used as the basis. 

Edited August 8, 2024 by Boges

[User]

38 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

It isn't oddball or even hypothetical at all. I am sure that a primary reason people get abortions is because they simply do not think they have the resources to raise a child.

So... you think that is cool for 5 year olds too?

 

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think the debate about when human life begins is quite lively and certainly not settled. Especially if scripture is used as the basis. 

What do you use as the basis then? 

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, Boges said:

Cite the word. 

"13  For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14  I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.  15  My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.  16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16 KJV

39 minutes ago, Boges said:

And if this is the case, that embryos are human life, then what of birth control that prevents fertilized embryos from implanting in the placental wall?

Then of course that type of birth control would be causing an abortion and would be killing the pre-born person.

39 minutes ago, Boges said:

Or IVF which creates many embryos that are not destined to ever becomes a human. 

I understand from the verses I quoted and others that human life begins at conception.  So that is not something that man should interfere with.  Man is not God.

Edited August 8, 2024 by blackbird

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Then of course that type of birth control would be causing an abortion and would be killing the pre-born person.

I understand from the verses I quoted and others that human life begins at conception.  So that is not something that man should interfere with.  Man is not God.

I respect your views. But just so you know, these opinions are far outside the views a majority of people in the western world. 

There's no logical reason for governments to ban such practices claiming its murder. 

[Boges]

31 minutes ago, User said:

What do you use as the basis then? 

Not being dependent on the mother to live. 

Though I think many believe if a fetus is viable outside of the mother's body, an abortion at this point is immoral. 

In the US they quibble at weeks where an abortion could/should be banned. In Canada we don't put a limit in law. As mentioned in this thread there is no law. 

That being said, late-term abortions in Canada are rare. 

https://theconversation.com/less-than-1-of-abortions-take-place-in-the-third-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

Edited August 8, 2024 by Boges

[User]

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

Not being dependent on the mother to live. 

A newborn baby is dependent on the mother to live. 

If you leave it lying on the ground, it will die without support. 

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

Though I think many believe if a fetus is viable outside of the mother's body, an abortion at this point is immoral. 

I asked you what you think. 

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

That being said, late-term abortions in Canada are rare. 

Murder is more rare. Should we make murder legal?