So what are we discussing now, Numbers?
Stuart
Torah.
I saw from the link Exodus 21.
I have read the Torah.
So what are we discussing now, Numbers?
Stuart
Not sure what 'innocent' has to do with it. What does it have to do with it?You are suggesting that is better to kill an innocent person because if I don't I might commit suicide?
No, that would be murder, obviously.Can I do that when my child is 1 year old too? Why or why not?
So you have read Numbers 5 then.Torah.
I saw from the link Exodus 21.
I have read the Torah.
I think you will find that when an ultrasound shows an ectopic pregnancy that is going to end badly, the doctor will know that the only option results in the death of the foetus,
and that procedure will be intentional, whatever the semantics of the description. You are really trying to shift opinion by use of language, in shifting every necessary procedure in the direction of 'regretful'. But that is just an argument from semantics, because it is no different from "That foetus is going to kill you, so we must kill it". That's the reality of it.
I agree. Well, perhaps not light years away, but there are many reasons for having an abortion, and some of them are not great, like failure to understand and use contraception repeatedly.
The reason this is bad is because every medical procedure carries its risk, and this is a risky form of contraception, to put it mildly.
Animals that are in gestation, I guess.
Stuart
It's not really my problem what any of that means. Clearly thou shall not kill does not mean thou shall not kill, when a command is made to slaughter the Amalekites, and in fact almost the entire population of the earth (and many tens of other examples).
But, if you read the title of the thread, it does mention 'God's Law'. So I am wondering how that claim is justified. Can you justify it specifically in regard to abortion, while being consistent with what is described in Numbers, Exodus and elsewhere?
Stuart
That's not how discussion works, Stuart.Well, look on the internet and find all the counter-arguments to yours.
Stuart
...almost any patient.
Stuart
....unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."
Not sure what 'innocent' has to do with it. What does it have to do with it?
No, that would be murder, obviously.
Stuart
Why would that be relevant? We are not discussing other areas of life.
But anyway, I'll play. Let's say I need a liver transplant, and finding a match is proving difficult, but your medical records indicate that you could be an excellent match. So I come round to your house and tell you that unless I have your liver I will likely die. Do you have the right to say no?
Well, the woman's wishes will necessitate an abortion, if that is what she would like to happen.
This is not an easy option, so I don't think you can put any sense of frivolity on it.
It's harrowing, apparently, even without the ethically confused morons ranting outside the clinic.
So you have read Numbers 5 then.
Stuart
[MENTION=17965]Bard_the_Bowman[/MENTION]
Let's clarify something so this argument makes more sense.
The verse in Exodus does not say "thou shall not kill," it says "thou shall not murder." (yes, some versions say "kill" instead of "murder," but the hebrew word used means "murder."
Killing is not inherently wrong, murder is.
If "killing" were inherently wrong, then it would contradict the commands where God says for the government to kill the criminal guilty of committing a capital crime.
And we can also agree that sometimes analogies turn out to be poor ones.But when we use the same logic in these other areas I think we could see how bad it is and it is equally bad when applied to abortion.
Why should you object to me taking your liver?According to your logic...it would be "necessary" to kill me because "you feel like it" and want my liver. That logic doesn't work here and it doesn't work with abortions either.
I have no idea what any of that has with a woman making a decision about what happens to her own body, based on her wishes. It's a poor set of analogies.People should own slaves if that is what they want and would like to happen.
People should murder each other, speed, rob, steal, commit adultery, lie, rape, pillage and plunder if that is what they want. Their wishes necessitate it just like the mothers "necessitate" an abortion. It is what she and they want. Your logic is still light years away from justifying an abortion being "necessary" because a woman just "feels like it." Your logic doesn't work.
Well, I cannot know what it is like to go through an abortion, so I have to trust the word of the brave women who have spoken out about the experience.Would you please answer: Why do you say that an abortion is "not an easy option" and "harrowing"?
Or indeed where the god character orders the killing of people we should call 'innocent'.[MENTION=17965]Bard_the_Bowman[/MENTION]
Let's clarify something so this argument makes more sense.
The verse in Exodus does not say "thou shall not kill," it says "thou shall not murder." (yes, some versions say "kill" instead of "murder," but the hebrew word used means "murder."
Killing is not inherently wrong, murder is.
If "killing" were inherently wrong, then it would contradict the commands where God says for the government to kill the criminal guilty of committing a capital crime.
You presented a website.That's not how discussion works, Stuart.
I present a point, you present a counter point. I present evidence, you present counter evidence. That's how discussion works.
If you can't (or refuse to) do that, then that makes you a troll, so why are you on here?
No. But I think that a woman has absolute right of medical consent, so there is one 'person' that she should be allowed to have killed, the foetus inside her.Do you think any person should be allowed to kill any other person because they feel it is "necessary" and they "feel like it"?
Stuart, since God created man to live his life in two stages, stage one in this world, and stage two in the afterlife, He has the right to bring his creation from stage one, to stage two. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. He even gets to choose how to bring them from stage one to stage two.Or indeed where the god character orders the killing of people we should call 'innocent'.
Stuart
That website is evidence.You presented a website.
Stuart
You haven't even read the Wikipedia page on ectopic pregnancy, have you.An ectopic pregnancy CAN AND DOES end up (when treated correctly) with BOTH MOTHER AND BABY SURVIVING. The only reason the baby dies SHOULD BE that the ectopic pregnancy wasn't diagnosed in time.
Please link to the specific page, not to a whole page of links. That's just lazy on your part. You might also care to establish that the website you are linking to has reliable information. It looks to me like it is very unreliable.Go back to that fact sheet I linked to. It explains all this in detail.
Please explain exactly what you mean by autotransfusion, and what it does.The correct logic is: "you're going to die, here's how to save you and attempt to save your baby." (autotransfusion)
Your description of marriage as a punishment is noted.Fornication should be illegal. Those who do should be punished by getting married and never being allowed to separate.
Adultery should be illegal. Those who commit adultery (both the man and woman who committed adultery) should be executed.
The woman does NOT have the right to murder her own child. From the moment of conception, her body is no longer just hers, there is a body within her body, a genetically distinct individual.No. But I think that a woman has absolute right of medical consent, so there is one 'person' that she should be allowed to have killed, the foetus inside her.
Stuart
Is some guy ranting online 'evidence'?That website is evidence.
What is contained on that website is evidence.
See how this works?