[JerryLove]

Abortion is not the only option on birth control, although it's certainly one of the more repulsive. We could always institute mandatory sterilizations. Wait, that's repulsive, too. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it wouldn't be justified under any circumstance. Maybe we should just agree to avoid birth control methods that require non-consensual, invasive, destructive procedures. Here's to abstinence, birth control, condoms, etc.

Wait: condoms and tihngs like oral contraception are on many Christians hit-parade. They would be outlawed next by the same people who outlaw abortion.

Let's also remember, oh fans of abstinance, that much of the worlds population comes from married people. They have abortions too. So "abstinance", even if followed to Christian standards, does not resolve the problem.

And no, I have no problem with forced sterilization, depending on the conditions and methods of implamentation.

Which would obviously preclude him from appointing a judge whose opinion leads him or her to believe that abortion is a constitutionally protected right. And, wait a second, did you just say he hasn't appointed anyone to the federal judiciary? Last I heard, he'd appointed nearly 200.

my bad, I misread you and focused on the supreme court.

The lower courts have no power to stop abortion at this point.

Wonderful!

I agree. The cut-off is generally 22 weeks.

Yes, genocide is such a loaded word. Government-approved mass murder would be more appropriate, and is so much easier on the ears.

It's closer. Though "widespread systemic homicide" would be accurate.

I'm going to assume you mean Sudan, unless you're referring to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

It was late.

And I'm not sure how you can say the genocide in Sudan is being ignored by the U.S. We're dragging the UN Security Council forward to do something about it.

The African coilition has voulenteered the troops to the UN. The UN has asked for aid. We have yet to give it.

[Qingu]

"Do not murder" is also secular state law.

Anti-abortion has nothing to do with the Bible. Quit pretending that religion has anything to do with this issue. You may think you're holier than pro-choice, but that's exactly what the pro-slavery people said about their position--and the fact that the slavery debate was inundated with Biblical references is one of the biggest reasons why it took us so long to get rid of slavery in this country.

If you wanted to follow Biblical law, you'd fine people for having abortions ... or technically, you'd fine people who punch pregnant women and make them miscarry:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. (Exodus 21)

[+Donny]

You keep propigating that. Quick Donny, name the race being killed to extinction.

You can't? That's cause there is none. You like "genocide" because it has such a visceral impact, but it's simply not true... not in any form of the word.

What we are ignoring in Ruwanda is attempted genocide.

Fine, "mass murders". I apologize for my butchering of the english language.

I'm sure it would be high on my list... of course, I'd leave the country if that happened. I'd bet you would too. You are still here, so I can only presume that you don't equate the two.

And if the other countries took a similar policy toward Jews?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Qingu

"Do not murder" is also secular state law.

Anti-abortion has nothing to do with the Bible.

"Do not murder" applies to people and the Bible makes it clear that unborn children are people.

Isaiah 49:1 says, "The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me." -- showing that God recognized people as people before they are born.

"The Bible, in fact, uses the same Greek word to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41,44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luke 2:12,16), and the young children who were brought to Jesus for his blessing (Luke 18:15)."

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Isaiah 49:1 says, "The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me." -- showing that God recognized people as people before they are born.

God can see into the future; this passage does not mean the fetus is a human, only a potential human.

"The Bible, in fact, uses the same Greek word to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41,44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luke 2:12,16), and the young children who were brought to Jesus for his blessing (Luke 18:15)."

Is there a Greek word for "fetus"?

If the Bible recognizes fetuses as humans, why does it order suspected adulteresses to drink a potion that will force them to miscarry if they're guilty?

Numbers 5:11
If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the LORD, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,"1--let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman--"the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!" And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen." Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people.

Yeah, the Bible is really clear that fetuses are humans.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Qingu

God can see into the future; this passage does not mean the fetus is a human, only a potential human.

Assertion.

Is there a Greek word for "fetus"?

The point is, the language makes no distinction in regards to humanity. Why should we?

If the Bible recognizes fetuses as humans, why does it order suspected adulteresses to drink a potion that will force them to miscarry if they're guilty?

God commands death of many people. This doesn't negate their personhood.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Assertion.

Yours is the assertion. You are asserting an equivocation without any Biblical evidence. I am pointing out that your interpretation of the passage is by no means the only interpretation.

The point is, the language makes no distinction in regards to humanity. Why should we?

Many pro-choice people refer to unborns as "children." I refer to my cat as "my son." This is a lousy argument ... like most philological arguments.

Need I remind you that the Bible also refers to pillars of the earth and water above the sky too? You say they're figures of speech.

God commands death of many people. This doesn't negate their personhood.

Even if the fetus is a person, the Bible says it's okay to kill it if the pregnant women is an adulteress.

Support your equivocation of fetus/person with Biblical verses, or stop bringing up the Bible in the abortion debate.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Yours is the assertion.

The fact that God named this person while they were in the womb -- not later on after birth (after you claim they would certainly be human) -- denotes personhood.

[JerryLove]

And if the other countries took a similar policy toward Jews?

There are ountries which do not allow abortions at present.

"Do not murder" applies to people and the Bible makes it clear that unborn children are people.

Actaully, God does not make that clear. What is clear is that the Hittites were people.

Isaiah 49:1 says, "The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me." -- showing that God recognized people as people before they are born.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew [Or "chose"] you" - Jeremiah 1:5

Notice the language... not "when you were concieved", but "before". How are we to use this to discuss fetus's? People are people before they are concieved. How many? Is not having sex murder? Is wearing a condom murder? Should we go the othe rway and say that God has known the outcome and wheather someone will make it to birth or not (in which case, there's no soul attached to the fetuse destined to die... that would at least solve the problem of a hell full of fetuses and infants).

(Deut 28 talks about the practice of eating newborn babies in times of siege ad suffering, and treats is seperately from other children, and does not declare it murder)

The point is, the language makes no distinction in regards to humanity. Why should we?

Because you have to make actual decisions on it.

God commands death of many people. This doesn't negate their personhood.

No, it negates your definition of murder.

The fact that God named this person while they were in the womb -- not later on after birth (after you claim they would certainly be human) -- denotes personhood.

No, before they were in the womb.

And Qingu is quite correct. This problem effects more people that were alive when Jesus was around. Odd God didn't mention it. Doesn't make sense if God wrote the Bible (makes perfect sense if Moses and Paul and John did).

[+Donny]

There are ountries which do not allow abortions at present.

Which ones?
And how would running solve anything?

[JerryLove]

Which ones?
And how would running solve anything?

Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
You made the analogy, I gave you my response to it. I then showed that the analogy was flawed in that your response would not be the same.

are you claiming that, had you lived in Hitler's Germany, and had the chance to get out, you would have stayed?

[+Donny]

Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
You made the analogy, I gave you my response to it. I then showed that the analogy was flawed in that your response would not be the same.

Saudi Arabia has other problems. Is that not like running from Hitler to Stalin?

are you claiming that, had you lived in Hitler's Germany, and had the chance to get out, you would have stayed?

It would have depended. Not merely for the killing of the Jews. Perhaps I would have stayed to help.

[JerryLove]

Saudi Arabia has other problems. Is that not like running from Hitler to Stalin?

They recoognize God, they practice proper modesty, they preven women from positions of authority, they don't have abortions. You should consider it a signifigant step-up.

It would have depended. Not merely for the killing of the Jews. Perhaps I would have stayed to help.

I assume you don't mean that the way it sounds.

[+Donny]

They recoognize God, they practice proper modesty, they preven women from positions of authority, they don't have abortions. You should consider it a signifigant step-up.

You know that isn't going to work.

I assume you don't mean that the way it sounds.

Good assumption. There have been few things I have worded worse than that...

I meant that the killing of the jews, like the abortions, does not endanger a non-Jew. Therefore, it would have seemed a better thing to stay in such a country to try to help rather than run away.

Now, there were other reasons to run from Hitler in the 30's and 40's, of course.