Well, one of my friends is getting an abortion (no details out of respect). I was wondering what the communities stances on this issue is. Is it the womans choice, or is it murder. Is it the right of country to protect the child, or would that be communism.

It doesn't affect me personally, therefore it's a blank slate for me. I don't really care; it's that woman's life, not mine, therefore what I say would not have an effect on her unless she let it.

I've always been fairly on the fence, but recently I'm more toward pro-choice, especially after a close pen pal's mother nearly died giving birth last year. If a mother dies in childbirth, along with the child, what was the point of the banter about letting the child live?

No Abortions. None. That is, unless:

A. Rape, or other Teen Pregnacy

or

B. The life of the Mother/Child is in Danger.





It was your fault that you slept with him, Mrs. Woman. Take your responsibility.

(I really like this picture...)

As part my faith, I'd oppose it. Everyone knows the "Thou shalt not kill" in the ten commandments, expanding on I have: (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6) "Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it."

As part of my personal morals/ethical code, I'd still oppose it along the same lines as MantaLord, but I'd include another exception: when the fetus is known by competent/well educated medical authority to have severe defects not allowing it to live much beyond birth. Personally I would never encourage, submit to, perform, arrange, or pay for an abortion unless the situation were to fall under one of these three circumstances.

I will ignore all the scientific and social(if we don't allow it they will find illegal ways to do it.) issues in this for a second and look at this in a Biblical manner:

Leviticus 17:11

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

The fetus doesn't develop blood several months after conception. Is it murder if there is no blood and there for no life?

That... Scripture was talking about Animal Sacrifices.

Nicely put, but that wasn't originally written in English now was it? Interpretations of the bible could have been altered, and the intention of words is often misunderstood. Despise this train of thought if you will, but IMO for every opposition there must be an apologetic view.

"We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly..."

-AOF #8.

None the less it states all life is in the blood and the verse is a direct translation both in word and meaning that has been gone over by the greatest Christian scholars for centuries, it is valid. Unless you want to put the credibility of the whole bible in question but that is simply wasting time to cover up that you currently have no counter argument.

It is the word of god and it is translated correctly. I have every right to use the verse in this thread. Don't bring up the bible in a debate and try to cherry pick what you want to say is valid and what isn't.

I'd have to look that scripture up then, I want to know more about it.

Sorry... Just trying to cite the Articles o' Faith...

>.< can't believe I forgot this... According to the Bible, that Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, making the majority of the first five book's laws and ordinances no longer in effect. (Now to my quick research) Should we to still consider these first five books, I present another scripture in them.

Exodus 21: 22-23 (Look it up in whatever version you want, this is the 21st century KJV)

"If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no misfortune follow, he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any misfortune follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"

This scripture IMO is more credible to the topic of abortion, and if we were still to follow the Abrahamic Covenant, than are we to kill the doctors whom perform such a deed?

Nice try, read the red letters. Jesus said he was here to add to the bible not change it. Unless you want to admit the the bible contradicts itself, even then the red letters would win by default.

Secondly, The Religious Coalition article quotes a 1963 article that supports their interpretation, noting that 1963 is "long before the abortion issue clouded the scene". But the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible -- need I point out that 1599 is well before 1963? -- contains this interesting footnote on the word "injury"4 in these verses:

Or, "death": of the mother or child in the event she miscarries. Also the death of the unborn infant.

Red letters? My bible has no red letters, all black print. Could you reference me to it?

wiki

It is also common slang among religious scholars for words spoken by Jesus only wile he was on earth. Which is what I am referring to in this case.

Miscommunication, reference me to the scripture(s) so I'll know exactly what you're talking about.

But what does that have to do with anything?

Penth and I are reffing the KJV.

Red Letter Christians have been around long enough that isn't necessary and even if they were not, they are the words of Jesus Christ! If you don't know essential verses and/or can't find them yourself... do you have any credibility at all?


Bluntly, I am accusing penth of a non sequitur. This verse hasn't been valid for abortion arguments for over 50 years now with a valid proof supporting my accusation.

I would look them up, and I probably should, but I'm multi-tasking right now. I've got little siblings to take care of, I promised my little brother I'd help him write up his first post, and I have to maintain discussions like this one among the forums. I don't have the time, though I am willing when I am done and do have the time.

Again... Was just trying to cite an Article o' Faith.

Yes, I know, but Carcer won't take that. Wait... wasn't... Carcer, weren't you nondenominational/undecided? If I remember correctly from the "Do you pray?" thread, you had no specific religion, right? Than why would it matter if I presented Biblical scripture in place of other(s) that's more on the topic?... Or... are you play devil's advocate again?

lol, now I'm left hanging putting things together.

Okay, I may seem a little contradictory because I support a couple of things on both traditional sides of this argument.

YES, the government has every right to forbid the killing of any thing, plant or animal, within its geographical borders. It is within the government's purview to forbid abortion in the same way it's within the government's purview to allow or forbid death penalty or weigh in on where you can grow wheat. The government has every right to restrict the freedoms of the civilians because that's what the government is for.

On the other hand, I also think abortion should be legal. Allowing the choice leaves people free to make their own decisions with the fewest dangers (back-alley abortions are a lot more dangerous and damaging in a physical and emotional sense) as well as opening avenues to allow for counseling for those who need it. Petty freedoms like the right to abortion mean a lot to people, meaning a happier populace. After all, if you don't think you ought to have one you aren't forced to have one.


I refer you to Matthew 22:21.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's."

If we're talking ethics, you have a right to choose how you act in accordance with your faith. After all, your covenant with your particular Sky-man is between you and him. However, if you are saying that abortion ought to be illegal then you are rendering unto God what is Caesar's.

Man's laws are the province of man. Men have every right to set themselves laws as they see fit. Attempting to use God's guidance to set your laws is attempting to give to God what the almighty Himself has given to Man.


Neither was Thou Shalt Not Kill but you seem pretty certain on the meaning of that.

Of course, if we're going with blind literalism, that commandment makes eating impossible. Unless, perhaps, the Commandments aren't as simple and absolute as is commonly suggested.

I think he also mentioned thst he shared his account with many others, so this must be one of his personalities.

I can't confirm or deny that.

to the first paragraph, I have nothing to say. You're on both sides, I can't agree with and/or oppose both sides without sticking on the fence o.O

-----

The Doctrine and Covenants were revelation given to LDS prophets, primarily Joseph Smith, Jr. Technically, they're modern day scripture. This is what I beleive, and if it is so, than it wouldn't be 'Caeser's'.

----

Surely, different translations leave it as simple as 'thou shalt not kill' or something along 'thou shalt not kill your fellow man' in my opinion, IMO if it's so simple, that's why I'm pretty sure. There's several scriptures promoting the use of animals as food, and in some, guidelines on which animals are/are not to be eaten. Certainly, it would be referring to the killing of people.

How short is your memory? We already discussed that if the bible is being brought into the debate you can't cherry pick what is valid and what isn't. Taking advantage of verbose's weaker argument is foul play.

:0 Verbose doesn't make a weak arguement, it's as strong as it needs to be to exploit it to his pleasure.

And if we can't 'cherry pick', than let's all learn Hebrew and come back later.

Amen to that, brother.

That is unreasonable penth and you know it. We have been over this, the translation is valid. Circular debating has earned you the prize of being put back on my ignore list permanently.

Mantalord, I expect better of you, if you are going to be a "me-too" pick a stronger flame warrior.

That's irrelevant.

Each of us takes full responsibility for all things posted under our account. I could be fifteen people, doesn't matter. I have one face (motivated by spite and porn) and all comments, questions, rewards and punishments are directed at that face. If some of my fifteen users don't agree then my face is simply self-contradictory and therefore less compelling in arguments.


I'm not on both sides. I think both sides are wrong. I don't believe in personal liberties being inherent rights like the "pro-choice" people do and I don't think abortion should be legal like the "pro-life" people do. Of course, if you want to disagree with me then you're perfectly free to disagree with whatever parts of my argument you like. I will then defend my arguments and you will attempt again to disprove them. After a short while it will become apparent that we have debated an issue.

...

Unless you're suggesting that the Lord, your God, the Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth and all around Good Guy, changed his mind and actively disagreed with Jesus Christ then the law is "Caesar's".

You are a Christian (nominally). Christ himself made a clear distinction between the laws of Man and the laws of God. He said that one ought to follow the laws of Man unless they directly cross paths with the laws of God. Now, as your religious perspective means that you do not personally support abortion, you won't be getting one. Also you are a dude. However, at no point did Jesus (remember, he is God Incarnate) say that believers ought to make the laws of Man be the same as the laws of God. He pretty clearly implied that Christians ought to follow God's Law first and foremost, following Man's law second.

Since abortions are not mandatory, you do not have a theological leg to stand on to ask that abortion be abolished. You can disagree with it (and you do) all you like. But God's message is relatively consistently one of peace and love and acceptance, victory through passivity. Forcing people to obey your opinion is a world view that belongs to my kind.

...

Hey, if it's as simple as Thou Shalt Not Kill in most versions, which it is, then that's basically it. Of course, aside from the Commandments being the Jewish covenant with God (Jesus gave a single Commandment), according to the Commandments it's entirely okay for me to torture you.

You know, so long as it's not fatal. After all, I'm sure that God would have Commanded Thou Shalt Not Harm if that's what He meant.

*snickers*


The Bible has gone through more translations and retranslations than you can count, all of them different, all of them changed to suit the needs of the translator. It is impossible to take it word- for- word. In overall message, it is a correct book. But not, however, in the fine details.

And yet it is the perspective you champion that quotes the Bible first and most often.

That only supports me since I was pointing out a detail. A specific verse even! Saying "If the bible was a place it would be a smoke filled room where you only see what you want to see." is a strong argument is a strong argument when someone is talking about it in general but I am sighting specific verses my case down to a small handful of verses and you can't even get past the weakest one in my artillery.

The reason I decided to fight fire with fire by taking the thread to a purely religious argument. Logic, reasoning, scientific evidence, social studies, and common since won't work on religious people, other wise they wouldn't be religious people. The religious card is just as powerful and twice as cheap as the race card however there is nothing for them to fall back on if someone can beat them at their own game.

I can beat them at their own game well. Another weakness is that their arguments range from centuries to thousands of years old and (in most cases) so are the counter arguments to what they say. Simply put you can know what they are going to say before they say it.

The only thing they can do now is use circular logic and hope an inexperienced pro choice debater fall into it.

...



What?



That's a brain twister.

(This is question format, not rhetorical) You're saying that it's only God's law if God says it? (now rhetorical) Wouldn't a revelation be directly what God said?

edit:


that's kinda definite, i don't have any theological studies in my background other than what I've learned from church and from the internet, which is incomparible to what you have. I can only go by what I do know.

Wow, I really dont like religion, but i do...... I HATE TO DEATH the people who try to push it or constantly quote it, but i follow it. I think its choice, i mean YOU arnt the one getting an aborshon, yes i spelled it wrong, so why do you care, it's THE PERSONS CHOICE! you can cry and fight all you want, the only way to change it is to take over the country, make it a Dictatorship, and make it a law that you cant.

It's a question over whether infants should be killed by medical proceures.




And why are we arguing again? I think we all agree that Aborton is bad...

Why, hello, Doctor House. How are you today?

Jokes aside, it's not the religious that those things don't work on. It's humans. For every single human being capable of conceiving that somebody who disagrees with them might still have value in the different opinion, there are ten who falsely claim that to be the case and a hundred who flatly refuse to entertain the idea.

Of course, with the fact that very few people even read the Bible for themselves (only reading verses they have been directed to) a general and specific knowledge of scripture is a fun way to make theological arguments awkward.


I am saying that all of the moral lessons you hold to be dear to you are, directly and indirectly, God's Law. You believe that your particular code of ethics is what God has set out, correct? The problem, Paracetamol, is that God Incarnate, Jesus himself, the foundation for a really large part of God's Law, directly stated that God's Law is not Man's Law and that Man's Law is not God's Law.

If you ever come to a situation where Man's Law demands you break God's Law, you are told to ignore Man's Law. Conscientious Objectors are an example of this at work - they refused to serve in the armed forces because it compromised God's Law. HOWEVER, you have no right, from Man or God, to make Man's Law the same as God's Law. Man's Law belongs to "Caesar", to the government.

So while you can freely debate the morality of abortion, you have no grounds to debate the legality of abortion.

...

As can we all, little pain-killer. As can we all. The problem isn't that you don't know the scriptures we bring up (although that is a problem in terms of your faith, a lot of the stuff we use isn't very obscure but that's between you and your priest I guess), it's that you deny any part of the Bible that doesn't fit with the view you already have. When one does this, one isn't quoting scripture to guide their actions. Instead, they're cherry-picking the Bible to match up with their baseless prejudice.

I think it depends on the mother and predicament, if it's a baby who will die after birth anyways or something. but yes i am against it.

No one ever argues that abortion is good. Most pro coat hanger people base there arguments around pro death people being nonreligious. For example both Mantalord and penth did and you all see what happened. *flexes*

I am going to make a bold move here venturing out from behind my shield of unlimited knowledge of all things related dogma (he is playing oblivion right now) and propose that it doesn't matter if abortion is good or bad but it is necessary to make it both available and legal for all woman so that it can done safely.

Great job Verb, I think you put this argument to rest.

okay, now to the next topic, war.

No, we should just let this topic die in peace.

I don't.

I am pretty much indifferent to all kinds of killing. I oppose some types (murder) and support other types (abortion) based solely around what is good for the community. The whole point of a system of laws is to provide a list of things you are, ostensibly, safe from. Murder is illegal so you are [in theory] safe from murder. Any people who cross these lines are contrary to order and are punished as such.


I've tried it before. You basically get called a monster and next to nobody will listen to you. It doesn't help that I'm not in favour of it [although I'm not opposed, either] so my heart isn't in it.

...

And that's why I support the legality of abortion! Nobody has suggested mandatory abortions [yet] so making legal the option is fine and good and important. You lot all like freedom, right? So take what freedoms you get!

I don't recall suggesting to make it illegal...

--

I don't like ignorance, and I can tell if I'm bordering it. I am.
I really have to research this topic a bit more if I was to continue... Quite a bit more...

Only if you put,"My dogma challenged carcer's dogma and got pwned" in your signature otherwise I will make it my duty to keep it alive by switching sides anytime I see an imbalance. As an open minded unbiased individual I can persuasively argue both sides of anything.

For the record I am not Christian, In fact i am not of any religion. However I am not atheist because I do have beliefs and I am not agnostic because I know what I believe. I would like to think of myself as an independent philosopher.

And if you'd all learn to just accept my opinion at face value, we could get through all of this a lot more efficiently.


I was making clear my position and pointing out the limitations of your own. While you never suggested that it be made illegal, the way in which you presented your case was as if all people had to live by your ethical code. We all do that, the difference is that you're not supposed to.

...

That's a healthy attitude but make sure you research both sides of the argument. Neither side is very willing to concede even the most obvious merits in the other side and as such their "logical" assessment is very flawed.

I'm sorry, Verb, I was reffing me, Penth, and Carcer, as we were the main conservative arguers (even though I don't consider myself conservative.. But what the hay).

One of the quotes I used in my sig a while ago,... "If I knew what I was doing it wouldn't be called research, would it?' (from memory)

Oh, it's easy to put to bed the arguments of both Conservatives and Liberals.

Mainly because they both make a lot of really severe errors, forcing you to choose whichever you think is the least wrong.

In general, the Liberals have the right answer for the really wrong reasons and the Conservatives have the right reasons and somehow ended up turning left at Albuquerque and are now in The Wrong.

Of course, there are a broad selection of exceptions to this general guide.