Scriptures Re: Abortion

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Good.   We agree on that.

Just because someone has an opinion on what they think a scripture may mean does not mean that they are right.  I haven't rejected it out-of-hand.  I have only stated that in my opinion they are trying to make scripture fit their opinion on abortion.  This is one of those "hobby commandments" where because God has not made something clear, they take it upon themselves to make the will of God clear.  Perhaps it is for them.  But it certainly is NOT the only interpretation of those scriptures.  Others have different opinions and different interpretations .  

I am very happy Mormon theology works for you and you believe church leaders speak for God.  I once thought the same thing when church leaders promised me that they were speaking for God.  As it turns out, they do not. 

Once again, you make my point.  Yes the Bible PLAINLY condemns theft.  It does not plainly condemn abortion.  Those that want to condemn abortion by using the scriptures to do so have to strain meanings of words and verses that can be interrupted in numerous ways.  It is their opinion on how those verses could be interrupted. That is not the case with theft.  The Bible is perfectly clear.

 

Ah no, not everyone relies significantly on "pronouncements of fallible men".  I learned that lesson quite clearly. I have reached my opinion on the evils of abortion through the Spirit with no need to convince others of my belief.  I make no claims to be infallible.  Nor do I feel the need to impose my beliefs on others.  Each person should rely on God to guide them on this and all other issues when it come to the claims of religion.  

This is what I actually said.

 

Do you see anywhere in that quote where I stated you said anything?  I wasn't quoting you when I wrote  "everyone else should have the same opinion as me?" was I.

 

I never said Wilberforce wasn't Christian. This is what I wrote.  

Now do you see anywhere that I stated William Wilberforce was not a Christian or didn't believe in the Bible? Yet you give 6 references stating his belief in Christianity and the Bible.  Why?  And no I did not accuse Wilberforce of trying to force scripture to fit his beliefs.  The reference was to the OP.  

Why did you not include the rest of my post.  I think it addressed many of the things you seem to be having problems with in my response.  Here it is for you to ponder again.  

What I find most odd about your posts is that you are trying to pick apart what I have stated when I actually hold the same view on abortion as you and the church does.  You read into what I have actually stated and then demand an explanation for something I never said.  What are you trying to do here?  If I am stating something you disagree with then fine.  I would love to hear your opinion.  But there is no need to try and make up things that are not in what I wrote. 

 

The Bible isn't all that clear on theft either.

[thesometimesaint]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's a dead prophet who had some wise words about calling good things "evil", at least.

Abortion isn't good, but it is permissible under some rare circumstances. 

[Bob Crockett]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Another question we might want to consider is why the Republican Party is so opposed to spending public monies on prenatal medical care, or on neonatal and well-baby care -- so as to get the baby through the most dangerous early period.  It is no accident that the USA has an infant mortality rate (5.82 per 1,000 live births) higher than most civilized countries -- such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Israel, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  What happens to so-called "pro-life" people when the rubber meets the road?

 

 

It is a political issue.  I'm not a Republican but there are plenty of folks who say that my taxes should not be used to pay for your baby.  Actually, that is incorrect.  I just recently registered for the Republican party.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is a political issue.  I'm not a Republican but there are plenty of folks who say that my taxes should not be used to pay for your baby.  Actually, that is incorrect.  I just recently registered for the Republican party.

SEE https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029064544

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

.........................there are plenty of folks who say that my taxes should not be used to pay for your baby.  ...................

...............................

That is all well and good, as long as we make the conscious political decision to accept the consequences of our insistence on no money for this or no money for that.  Should Republican Pres Eisenhower have spent public monies (your and my dad's tax money) on a vast new highway system, for example?  Since it was a legislative decision, would the answer be "yes."  That is presumably how we make such decisions, collectively, regardless of a minority desire to not spend that money.

This needs to be considered consciously, since it appears to be entirely hypocritical for pro-life people to be opposed to good prenatal care for the poor.  The question must be asked:  Are they in favor of saving babies, or not?  If not, they need to own the consequences.

[thesometimesaint]

Unfortunately it is the babies that pay the price.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is all well and good, as long as we make the conscious political decision to accept the consequences of our insistence on no money for this or no money for that.  Should Republican Pres Eisenhower have spent public monies (your and my dad's tax money) on a vast new highway system, for example?  Since it was a legislative decision, would the answer be "yes."  That is presumably how we make such decisions, collectively, regardless of a minority desire to not spend that money.

This needs to be considered consciously, since it appears to be entirely hypocritical for pro-life people to be opposed to good prenatal care for the poor.  The question must be asked:  Are they in favor of saving babies, or not?  If not, they need to own the consequences.

 

And then again, legalized abortion is a conspiracy to winnow the ranks of the poor.    

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Another question we might want to consider is why the Republican Party is so opposed to spending public monies on prenatal medical care, or on neonatal and well-baby care -- so as to get the baby through the most dangerous early period.  It is no accident that the USA has an infant mortality rate (5.82 per 1,000 live births) higher than most civilized countries -- such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Israel, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  What happens to so-called "pro-life" people when the rubber meets the road?

Indeed, if I viewed abortion as the same as murdering babies (I do not), I would be spending money not just on prenatal care, but on making adoption much easier and more attractive, making effective birth control free, teaching comprehensive sex education etc, and increasing welfare and aid to poor families who feel like they can't afford another child...

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Hey 3DOP, I have a question about Catholic theology.  If Jesus was in the womb of Mary for 9 month, who governed heaven during that time period?

Hi CB, thanks for the good question.

You could ask the same question about the period after His birth. Catholics affirm that Jesus divine knowledge was always present while He was human. He was God in the womb. That never changed. Mary was the Mother of God. She in a sense contained the infinite God in her womb, a paradox, which explains partly why we think she is worthy of veneration, that Joseph would have behaved differently towards her than other husbands, and so on. Holding those things to be true we also hold that the world itself cannot contain God. God is infinite, and there are no geographical limitations. The King of Creation can reign from the womb as easily as from Heaven.

Of course we know that Jesus gained experiential human knowledge during His time on Earth. The divine knowledge, omniscience, cannot be increased. Before I became Catholic, I never appreciated the ramifications of believing that God became man. It was a book called Bethlehem, by Father Frederick Faber, that opened my eyes to how Catholics at least, cannot believe that Jesus was just this ordinary unborn human baby, with no knowledge inside the womb. I am now less troubled at the paintings that depict a Mother and Child where the Baby seems to be a little more in the know than what is usually associated with babies.

3DOP

Edited May 16, 2017 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Just another Catholic theology question.  What happens to the souls of all those aborted fetuses?  Since they weren't baptized, what is their fate?

It is not defined. At best, they all contemplate God forever in the Beatific Vision which many do not consider a very desirable heaven anyway. The Limbo of the Children is the teaching to which I adhere. It is the worst case scenario that the Church can allow. If true, they live forever enjoying a natural bliss commensurate with their natural desires. They live a life free of the anxieties of this life that resembles what I used to think Heaven would be like before I became a Catholic.

In February, there was a fairly lengthy blog thread that covers the possiblities within Catholic guidelines. I don't think the participants would mind my saying that the thread involve David Waltz, Tom Rosson, and me. All of us have participated here at different times and maybe you or others know them from here. Dave is no longer Catholic. Tom is LDS. The blog site is Dave's, Articuli Fidei. Here is the link in case you are interested: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/02/infant-salvation-and-catholic-tradition.html

   

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And then again, legalized abortion is a conspiracy to winnow the ranks of the poor.    

Yes, and even Hitler greatly admired the American forced sterilization and eugenics program -- which lasted into the 1970s.  Hitler said of it:

Quote

“There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of citizenship] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”  Mein Kampf (1925),  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0306-bold-forced-sterilization-compensation-20150306-story.html .

 

[thesometimesaint]

It is not a good idea to invoke Hitler in your arguments.

[whirlingmerc]

Moses said  'do not boil a kid in its mother;s milk'    seems to me if we should respect life by not boiling a baby goat in its mothers milk 

meant for its nurture  a baby should be safe in its mothers womb

 

Some have noted when the fetal Johb the baptist leapted for job in Elizabeth's womb in the pressense of fetal Jesus.   Jesus was at or before the time of more abortions in the US

and first trimester

[USU78]

Why has nobody brought up all of that contra Moloch stuff in the OT?

[Anijen]

My opinion abortion is very wrong:

A pregnancy that will threaten the life of the mother may justify the abortion to save the mothers life. I agree with this.

However, I believe if the mother was impregnated due to rape or incest then adoption should be the choice not abortion. Although I very much agree with USU78's brilliantly edroit analogy given at one of the earlier posts of this thread. My reasoning for this is simple;

• In the cases of most rape or incest, abortion is still the taking of a life that will not threaten the life of the mother.
• Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. The moment Roe v. Wade was passed abortion become legal nationwide, as the night before Roe v. Wade was passed only four places in the U.S. you get get an abortion legally, (it shows that most states did not agree with today's abortion laws).
• Advances in medical technology has clearly shown that the fetus feels pain. This technology did not exist when Roe v. Wade was decided.
• Partial Birth Abortions is downright murder (IMO). To allow a mother to give birth partially (i.e. where the head only is birthed and then the abortion takes place). This is just sick and wrong. The defense used to justify partial birth abortion is so that the doctor wont nick or injure the mother while the baby is inside her is also disturbing to me.
• Abortions is killing the baby not the mother. If the baby was a part of the mother then killing the baby would kill the mother (or part of her). The mother is the host. IOW the mother can survive with or without the baby the baby cannot survive without the mother (until viability). This still does not make the baby a part of the mother if she was killing the baby would kill the mother. The mother is the host wanted or in the case  of incest or rape unwanted, but she is still the host.

I consider myself open minded, but have yet to be convinced that killing a fetus is not a killing or that a fetus is not a baby. Perhaps you can convince, I doubt it, but I will listen to intelligent arguments against my opinion.

[Calm]

• Quote

  Advances in medical technology has clearly shown that the fetus feels pain. 

  At what age?

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Anijen said:

My opinion abortion is very wrong:

A pregnancy that will threaten the life of the mother may justify the abortion to save the mothers life. I agree with this.

However, I believe if the mother was impregnated due to rape or incest then adoption should be the choice not abortion. Although I very much agree with USU78's brilliantly edroit analogy given at one of the earlier posts of this thread. My reasoning for this is simple;

• In the cases of most rape or incest, abortion is still the taking of a life that will not threaten the life of the mother.
• Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. The moment Roe v. Wade was passed abortion become legal nationwide, as the night before Roe v. Wade was passed only four places in the U.S. you get get an abortion legally, (it shows that most states did not agree with today's abortion laws).
• Advances in medical technology has clearly shown that the fetus feels pain. This technology did not exist when Roe v. Wade was decided.
• Partial Birth Abortions is downright murder (IMO). To allow a mother to give birth partially (i.e. where the head only is birthed and then the abortion takes place). This is just sick and wrong. The defense used to justify partial birth abortion is so that the doctor wont nick or injure the mother while the baby is inside her is also disturbing to me.
• Abortions is killing the baby not the mother. If the baby was a part of the mother then killing the baby would kill the mother (or part of her). The mother is the host. IOW the mother can survive with or without the baby the baby cannot survive without the mother (until viability). This still does not make the baby a part of the mother if she was killing the baby would kill the mother. The mother is the host wanted or in the case  of incest or rape unwanted, but she is still the host.

I consider myself open minded, but have yet to be convinced that killing a fetus is not a killing or that a fetus is not a baby. Perhaps you can convince, I doubt it, but I will listen to intelligent arguments against my opinion.

The mothers know it is killing. Everyone knows it is killing. The disagreement is over when the killing becomes a crime.

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:35 PM, smac97 said:

I came across an interesting article today which discusses biblical passages that may refer to scriptural exhortations against abortion: No, New York Times, Christianity's Opposition to Abortion Is Anything But New

Some excerpts:

In D&C 59:6, we are commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I have always understood the "like unto it" to be a rather unequivocal (though not necessarily exclusive) reference to abortion.  There is also rather clear guidance from prophets and apostles.

It can also be surmised the "anything like unto it" can be a condemnation of Nephi killing Laban, or OT God commanding to slaughter the Canaanites.  Indeed, those seem like more likely as unequivocal candidates of what God had in mind here.  But, then again, if we treat the scriptures in such a way, then we'd be all over the map (ok, so we kind of are). 

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:35 PM, smac97 said:

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

Thanks,

-Smac