Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Dear Jacob,

I find your post intriguing and I do mostly or totally agree with you. I must tell you that we Christians do believe that the Old Testament, which includes the Torah, is second to the New Testament.

As a Christian, I tell you that the Old Testament is FOUNDATIONAL to the New Testament.

But I do agree with the Old Testament and the Torah, and know that God's Commandments are 'engraved' there and should be adhered to. Our Jesus tells us to keep His two commandments, and the rest of the commandments shall fall into place within us. I believe you. The only thing I might disagree with is that an adulterer should not be stoned, but instead, be forgiven and given another chance. I would forgive them more than once, as Jesus told us to forgive 70 times 7. God has a HUGE Heart and loves us despite our fallible traits, or our sins and mistakes.

You seem to have fallen into the cliché of "Hate the sin, love the sinner," and that God can only love because He is love.

You probably also think that God is nicer than He really is. More on that later.

You are right about being certain that the correct punishment be given a murderer according to the details of what actually happened. Of course I feel that way. But Jacob, I just do not agree with housing and feeding a proven murderer, who deserves the death penalty by a jury and judge.

What is the correct punishment for a murderer? A rapist? A thief? A fornicating couple?

The Court has been wrong a few times, I must admit, but they are correct for the most part. For someone who is given the death penalty and is later found to be innocent is tragic, but what each prisoner is costing us for room and board, and meals, is not acceptable. They just commit a tragic crime because they don't want to be homeless, or get a job {even if they could}, so they try to get back into jail where they feel more comfortable, and are housed and fed 3 times a day. They don't want to live the life of a homeless person who has to scrape by just to get food and they don't have a roof over their heads, except the sky.

I agree with you, Jacob. It's a refreshing change!!

May God, And Even Jesus, Watch Over You & Your Countenance,

Michael

I'm not sure what you're saying above. Could you clarify?
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Michael

If you live according to the Torah it makes sense that there is a death penalty for murderers and adulterers. Meaning, you understand that it exists and that it is what God wants. There must be witnesses. If there is to be a judge or if there is a judge then the judge should know and or learn everything that needs to be known.

Does the law say that an adulterer should be stoned?

God's law (obviously, the only one that matters) says so. The law here in America does not, unfortunately.

I do not believe that Jesus ever said that the law should not be adhered to.

Correct.
 
Last edited:

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
God's law (obviously, the only one that matters) says so. The law here in America does not, unfortunately.



Correct.

In observing God's Law, Torah, and the New Covenant, as a Jew of Israel a proselyte and a convert here in the United States of America, I have found that United States law is occasionally imposed on me, even with association with that which is not of God. However, in the case of murder I can only think that you are saying that some people do not want to kill murderers.
 

Lon

Well-known member
You're saying that it is arbitrary that a foetus is inside a woman's body in a parasitic relationship (albeit necessarily so) and an infant is outside it, an independent individual?
:nono: Still 'parasitic' (dependent) for life. They cannot live on their own.

It does make the claim a bit pathetic, though doesn't it. In the United States in 2016:

about 12,000,000 conceptions, ending in
about 7,200,000 spontaneous losses (or acts of a god); and
about 893,000 abortions; and
3,945,875 live births
A lot on the table. This thread isn't really 'indictment against God.' You are comparing. It is like saying Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands, so I should be able to kill just this one. You are admitting it is wrong by such a comparison, Stuart.

The actual abortion rate could be higher than that, because not all abortions are legal and reported, but then again you could decrease the abortion rate because maybe one in every three of those aborted would have been lost naturally (or by an act of a god) anyway.
No, that figure is way too high. Virtually no pregnancy carried to term is in danger these days. Regardless, it is a comparison of numbers again and exercising excusing behavior. My point again over this matter is that even if you say 'act of God' it doesn't mean you can do it. People die naturally in forest fires. It doesn't mean you can go light someone on fire, even if the number of other arsonists is decreasing. Stuart, for the most part, I see all these arguments as grasping at straws looking for an excuse. None of them hold up very well. It is why I think critical thinking solves this discussion. Simply: Is it right for you or me to make decisions about living and dying for another human being? We can vote, but that doesn't mean 'right.' We've given ourselves the right. Oregon passed a death with dignity bill. Just because they say "you can" doesn't mean we actually have the right. There are all kinds of complications with granting the power of death over life and it is never ever ever considered 'good.' Again, when Regan passed the bill, it was to make 'the best' of a desperate situation. While I personally think best is different than most, saving life should be the ultimate goal, not convenience from bad choices.

In any case, rather than objecting about the less than 1,000,000 abortions, shouldn't you spend your time in prayer, asking your god not to kill over 7,000,000 children?
Again, this is like asking me to be more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Jeffrey Dahmer.
In general, diet and exercise, and all kinds of reasons cause these and I do pray we'd be wiser than we are. In a nutshell I DON'T see it as an act of God as much as consequences for our own choices. David prayed for his hidden sins/faults. We sometimes don't even know what we are doing that will cause harm in the future. We can start by sending in a few dollars to the rainforest foundation that will keep trees, that might affect global warming that might be causing the death rate associated with hurricanes. So yes, I'm concerned about not just the unborn, but all life we affect by inadvertent exploitation. It is always a good day to do the right and better thing, if we can. I guess I'm a 'little' bleeding heart with you, I just want to do the most expedient and effective. It means while my heart indeed bleeds, I'm not going to give the guy on the street my five dollars. I 'think' you can and hopefully do appreciate all I am saying. Let's not make excuses when 'we' can and SHOULD do better. When you make that call (to do better), I'm with you. I just say on Facebook from a teacher: "These kids need to know someone cares. Forget about guns and volunteer some of your time! THAT is what they need! (to my best recollection)." I didn't put a like because I'm too busy doing other volunteer work at the moment. Maybe I should have, but I don't want to look like a hypocrite to anybody. Not to get lost in details, but again, we should be concerned AND applying ourselves to your suggestion of quality as well. I agree with you but I see inconsistency where you too are playing numbers and really, they don't add up to removing our personal responsibility. I want to say, however, right now, thanks for being this concerned about the topic. It is really important and so whichever side we fall on, I appreciate your interest in people over this topic. Even if you've been involved in an abortion, it would be water under the bridge. This is somebody else's water so I appreciate you talking about it and being concerned over lives. I believe the 'right' answer is 'sustain as many lives as we can.' A rescue effort is ALWAYS more noble than accommodation.


Only because you insist on counting as a means of argument.
▲Look at your post, Stuart. ▲ You posted the numbers. :)

What does the question mean?
Whenever atheists bring up God in threads, the conversation gets complicated because you are carrying your whole worldview into the conversation. Now I do as well so I'm accommodating, but it carries us off a bit on a tangent. This particular is about the value of life, by extension. If we are God's, we have no right to decide for one another who lives and who dies barring desperate circumstances. However, even without God in the pictures, we still have to meet that 'desperate' bar. We shouldn't be ending pregnancies barring a genuine demonstrable need. Desire isn't good enough. We need to be responsible.

I can't find anything scientifically coherent in there anywhere. Do you know any science?
Yes. One of the MOST important science employments is discovery and actually questioning via the scientific method. Generally, if you DON'T employ it nor ever question, you aren't doing good science. I posit that many on TOL are better scientists SIMPLY because they keep looking.

But since you mention 'common library', let me ask you this: given that you are implying that there is DNA code ready to be 'called' into the applications represented by the different species, would you predict that the same job would be done using the same code in different species?
In a nutshell, it is like Legos. You can build a Millennial Falcon or a Batmobile but not out of the same package. God can use similar building blocks but my cells look and are made largely different than the cells of an onion.

But, since 1869, complexity in biological systems has been completely explained in terms of entirely natural forces, so the specific need for a biological designer is out of date by as much as 149 years. And so far there is nothing in principle that demands a designer in any aspect of our existence.
No, I disagree with this. I mean, perhaps where some are concerned but it does not meet my higher critical thinking standards to be viable. Who am I that that should be a function? One of the over 70% of America that calls that figure into question. It means it is ENTIRELY assailable as a proposition where kids in high school science class simply aren't buying it.

It sounds like such a tedious and irrelevant question that no curious human should ever detain himself with it.
Very politely stated but you know, as well as I do, that you couldn't even type that without fingers that you take for granted but have NO power to have attained. You use what you did NOT provide for yourself, but were given (be it nature or God between us). IOW, you 'can' take it for granted, but it would be incredibly arrogant to take credit for what is COMPLETELY out of your purview to have accomplished.

Sorry, what virtually doesn't exist?
Another rabbit trail from here so I'll let this one slide. We are covering it in the rest of our conversation anyway.

Still looks more like counting to me. Many women choose abortion because they know that it is the wrong time in their lives to have a child.
...which is a horrible excuse for ending a life.
They know that later in life, or in circumstances where they have had the opportunity to have a career, gain some life experience and put themselves on a more secure financial footing, that there will be a time when having children is the right thing for them. The environment of the upbringing of the child will be richer, and the experience will be more rewarding for all involved, with an increased quality of life all round.
You'd shoot her if she said and did that with a four year old. :plain: When abortion was made 'legal' it was never intended for this poor reason.
Now, you would step in and say no, none of that is allowed. Well, I can't see any basis for you doing that, especially given the facts above. Instead of making life more difficult for women you don't know, get praying, get those rates of chromosomal abnormalities down, and so forth.
Again, you'd shoot the mother that did this to a four year old. :plain:
None of that is intended to diminish the experience of a woman who takes her pregnancy to term at an early age or in impoverished circumstances. The point is that the only person who should be allowed to make these decisions is that woman. Not even her husband should have any right to decide on her medical consent for her. I know that will startle the religiously conservative, who have railed against the rights of half the population for a very long time.
:nono: On the premise that you'd shoot her for killing her four year old, this is put to rest. YOU have the right and power to stop that atrocity.

Maybe, but why would anyone in their right mind bother wasting their life with such fantasies?
:chuckle: You are the one playing with theological ideas. Because you've spent so much time on a theology board, your complain looks benign or impotent.

But if you don't love the god back, then it's burning in sulfur for you. The totalitarian dream. Compulsory love, like they must show for Kim Jong-Un in North Korea. It seems to me you can't bring yourself to even wonder if this particular god of which you write is actually incompetent. The problem of evil, failing to vanquish satan except by human sacrifice, apparently needing to commit genocide against the Amalekites, and indeed having to drown almost the entire population, and even then continuing to view humanity as inherently corrupt after all that purging.
See? You can't help yourself :chuckle:

It's almost as if someone has made all of that up in order to effect a con on as many people as possible. It's exactly like that, in fact.
It is why I suggest further study. You are delving into theology speculation and need the theology background to carry the conversation.


Well, she has set a good example the hard way. That deserves only respect.
Thanks. I think so too. In the end, almost always from a parent, 'do as I say, not as I do' IS good parenting, at least for the child's welfare. It is a mindset change and I think you can acquiesce that. Do as I say may not 'look' fair, but it is more than fair, and in fact loving. This too is a bit of an extended trail, but it points back to God having those same rights over us. Again, you are more interested in theology than you realize because you've been here on TOL a very long time and you ask a lot of theology questions. There is no possible way it then, isn't important to you. Again, some of this would be fast-tracked by some theology education for you. You ARE interested whether you admit that to yourself or not.

I think anger is an appropriate response to the claims and excesses of christianity. If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned under hazardous substances regulations, and likewise if christianity was invented today it would be ridiculed out of existence, before it had a chance to lead to so much persecution and misery.
No it wouldn't because "Christ" invented it. Nice try, but it is NOT toxic. It is the cure for all who need a physician. I wouldn't have been nearly as nice or a viable citizen without it, so even by world standards, it is to be embraced. It is much more than that, but for you, outside looking in, it would be your first concern. It kept me out of a lot of trouble taxpayers would be incarcerating me for. This too is a long trail from the topic. As I said, you are very interested in theology.

Yes, you will always need a lingua franca. Although, ironically, the lingua franca used in Europe was a mixture of Italian with French, Greek, Arabic, and Spanish,and the expression translates as everyone speaking French (which also nearly happened in the US).

Stuart
:up:
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
It is not just that abortion is not okay. It is against God's law. Meaning, this is not about feelings, feeling something is not okay or believing something is not okay. It is genuinely not okay. It is genuinely wrong. It is not okay. It is wrong. Do not do it.

Do not have sex unless you are married.

Never get an abortion.

There are crimes for which you can die. Sex outside of marriage is one of them.

If a person is raped, they may have the child or get married and have the child. Otherwise for incest and the rape of an engaged woman or for adultery it is the death penalty.

Now, what does the law say about if the woman cries out in the city or not? Someone may be able to rescue her. Otherwise she was complicit and should be punished may die. To allow something to happen, to allow someone to rape you, or to go along with it, to save your life, if it is an excuse you die. If it is not then you should have been married and you will either die, live, or live and get married to the rapist should he provide your father with the necessary money according to Torah law. You may die for what you have done.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Stuu

New member
It is not just that abortion is not okay. It is against God's law.
How do you know? Do you make up 'god's law', given that abortion is not mentioned in scripture? Your god caused the deaths of every foetus gestating at the time of the alleged flood, and the some in the case of the slaughter of the Amalekites. If the killing of foetuses is against 'god's law', then this must be a god that breaks its own law.

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
How do you know? Do you make up 'god's law', given that abortion is not mentioned in scripture? Your god caused the deaths of every foetus gestating at the time of the alleged flood, and the some in the case of the slaughter of the Amalekites. If the killing of foetuses is against 'god's law', then this must be a god that breaks its own law.

Stuart
Shalom.

Today is Sheni, Aviv 10.

Murder is mentioned in scripture. I do not know what to make of the rest of your post. You mentioned the flood and the Amalekites. In the Bible it says that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. However, that the wicked die is completely in God's hands. I do not see what you are saying mentioned in scripture.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Stuu

New member
Shalom.

Today is Sheni, Aviv 10.

Murder is mentioned in scripture. I do not know what to make of the rest of your post. You mentioned the flood and the Amalekites. In the Bible it says that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. However, that the wicked die is completely in God's hands. I do not see what you are saying mentioned in scripture.
In the 'flood of Noah', there would have been large number of pregnant women. Your god killed all their foetuses by drowning the pregnant women. In the slaughter of the Amalekites, there were plenty of pregnant women, all of whose foetuses were killed as they died.

Does it make a difference that your god takes no pleasure from all this killing of foetuses? Can you say those foetuses were wicked?

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
In the 'flood of Noah', there would have been large number of pregnant women. Your god killed all their foetuses by drowning the pregnant women. In the slaughter of the Amalekites, there were plenty of pregnant women, all of whose foetuses were killed as they died.

Does it make a difference that your god takes no pleasure from all this killing of foetuses? Can you say those foetuses were wicked?

Stuart

You are not saying unborn child, unborn, baby. However, if you are asking if the unborn are wicked no they are not but they may die as the result of their parent's wickedness. One might say they would be or become wicked or that they are wicked but the point is that yes they are unborn. No they have not done anything wrong, they are innocent. Yes, a person should be judged for their own sin and not that of their mother father or parents. But that does not mean they will not or do not die as other innocent people in the world. Then all that is left is if an unborn can ever be considered to be wicked, which is another moral and philosophical can of worms, and I am not into philosophy or Theology or immorality.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Er, huh?

Stuart

Some Christians believe that this passage about Molech applies to abortion, since the passage is about killing your own children.


Leviticus 201:5
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.​

 

Stuu

New member
You are not saying unborn child, unborn, baby. However, if you are asking if the unborn are wicked no they are not but they may die as the result of their parent's wickedness. One might say they would be or become wicked or that they are wicked but the point is that yes they are unborn. No they have not done anything wrong, they are innocent. Yes, a person should be judged for their own sin and not that of their mother father or parents. But that does not mean they will not or do not die as other innocent people in the world. Then all that is left is if an unborn can ever be considered to be wicked, which is another moral and philosophical can of worms, and I am not into philosophy or Theology or immorality.
Right, so your god has killed 'innocent unborn children'.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Some Christians believe that this passage about Molech applies to abortion, since the passage is about killing your own children.


Leviticus 201:5
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.​

...and others see it as a much broader, more allegorical piece of writing about 'the children of Israel'.

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Right, so your god has killed 'innocent unborn children'.

Stuart

That is an interesting perspective. On the one hand everything is in God's hands. On the other hand innocent people die. It is my belief that a child may or may not only be able to sin after leaving the womb. But that is not why these unborn children died. God knew what He was doing with the flood, even if there were pregnant women. As for the Amalekites, I am a Jew who believes what the Torah says, the TaNaK. I have also grown up as a pacifist Christian. I believe that there is such a thing as wicked people in the world. Does that mean that they or their children with them might or will die?
 

Stuu

New member
That is an interesting perspective. On the one hand everything is in God's hands. On the other hand innocent people die. It is my belief that a child may or may not only be able to sin after leaving the womb. But that is not why these unborn children died. God knew what He was doing with the flood, even if there were pregnant women. As for the Amalekites, I am a Jew who believes what the Torah says, the TaNaK. I have also grown up as a pacifist Christian. I believe that there is such a thing as wicked people in the world. Does that mean that they or their children with them might or will die?
You say the innocent may die. This is a case where the innocent would have been born and lived, had they not been killed by your god.

If everything is in your god's hands, why does it cause 7,000,000 fertilised eggs to be aborted as zygotes, embryos or foetuses in the US every year?

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
You say the innocent may die. This is a case where the innocent would have been born and lived, had they not been killed by your god.

If everything is in your god's hands, why does it cause 7,000,000 fertilised eggs to be aborted as zygotes, embryos or foetuses in the US every year?

Stuart

Sir,

I imagine that you are saying that you are innocent, but my saying so does not mean that you intended to say this though I do not see you saying this and this thread is not about your innocence. The point is that once sin entered the world, and people do sin, people die.
 

Stuu

New member
Sir,

I imagine that you are saying that you are innocent, but my saying so does not mean that you intended to say this though I do not see you saying this and this thread is not about your innocence. The point is that once sin entered the world, and people do sin, people die.
Your god kills 'unborn chldren'. So how can this be 'god's law', if your god breaks that law?

Stuart
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your god kills 'unborn chldren'. So how can this be 'god's law', if your god breaks that law?

Stuart
God has the right to bring Man, whom He created to live life in two stages, from stage one (life here on this earth) to stage two (life in heaven with Him, or life in hell without Him). We as the creation do not, as individuals, have that right.

Governments have the right (given to them by God) to execute criminals who are guilty of committing crimes worthy of death. They do not have the right to take the life of innocent people.

Individuals only have the right (when there is no other option) to take the life of criminals who are threatening other individuals. Individuals do not have the right to take the life of the innocent, for when we do, we become the criminals, because taking the life of the innocent is called murder.

If God takes the life of an innocent person, He has that right because He is our Creator, and He probably has a good reason for it.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Your god kills 'unborn chldren'. So how can this be 'god's law', if your god breaks that law?

Stuart

I see the difficulty that you are encountering. Let me assure you that God is good and just. All His ways are perfect and right. That you invented or repeated the notion that God kills unborn children is distressing, because as I can see it reveals the underlying assumption that you have here revealed, namely that God breaks His own Law or my God is not the one and only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of the Torah, the TaNaK, the God of the Bible. God's law prohibits murder. Some people say this is Old Testament only, but God does command the killing or death of those who live contrary to His will. Meaning, because God is just He punishes as a good Judge should, those who transgress His Law. A study of the mercy of God would be in order. For, we have all sinned and are all worthy of death. Your argument is that God is killing the innocent, which I am saying is unfounded. However, I must say, that though God commands this (not the explicit way you are saying, but I recognize the existence of such passages) these people are either not innocent or the other plea that innocent people die in the world is either unfounded or not a direct result of God's command, even to suggest that there may be as a factor the idea of direct influence or action. That is, or, meaning, people die sometimes and God allows it though He doesn't want it. The question is if this is true or not. We do know from scripture that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. This does not mean that God does not desire or accomplish the death of the wicked.
 

Stuu

New member
I see the difficulty that you are encountering. Let me assure you that God is good and just. All His ways are perfect and right. That you invented or repeated the notion that God kills unborn children is distressing, because as I can see it reveals the underlying assumption that you have here revealed, namely that God breaks His own Law or my God is not the one and only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of the Torah, the TaNaK, the God of the Bible. God's law prohibits murder. Some people say this is Old Testament only, but God does command the killing or death of those who live contrary to His will. Meaning, because God is just He punishes as a good Judge should, those who transgress His Law. A study of the mercy of God would be in order. For, we have all sinned and are all worthy of death. Your argument is that God is killing the innocent, which I am saying is unfounded. However, I must say, that though God commands this (not the explicit way you are saying, but I recognize the existence of such passages) these people are either not innocent or the other plea that innocent people die in the world is either unfounded or not a direct result of God's command, even to suggest that there may be as a factor the idea of direct influence or action. That is, or, meaning, people die sometimes and God allows it though He doesn't want it. The question is if this is true or not. We do know from scripture that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. This does not mean that God does not desire or accomplish the death of the wicked.
You don't sound that happy about the facts of your scripture.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
God has the right to bring Man, whom He created to live life in two stages, from stage one (life here on this earth) to stage two (life in heaven with Him, or life in hell without Him). We as the creation do not, as individuals, have that right.
Sounds arbitrary. Aren't you just making excuses?
Governments have the right (given to them by God) to execute criminals who are guilty of committing crimes worthy of death. They do not have the right to take the life of innocent people.
There are some places where that 'right' doesn't appear to have been granted to the government, so it's pretty clear the right to kill criminals is granted by the people. What crime did the Amalekite foetuses commit that was 'worthy of death'?
Individuals only have the right (when there is no other option) to take the life of criminals who are threatening other individuals. Individuals do not have the right to take the life of the innocent, for when we do, we become the criminals, because taking the life of the innocent is called murder.
If God takes the life of an innocent person, He has that right because He is our Creator, and He probably has a good reason for it.
Doesn't sound like something that should be worshiped, this god, does it. If you can't make sense of the apparently arbitrary decisions it makes to kill foetuses, then I don't think your religion provides any moral basis for opposing elective abortion.

Stuart
 
Top