ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
in the case of this thread?
to call attention to a new law in my state and my scumbag governor (who probably will run for prez next year)
Last edited:
Why Stop At Birth?
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
in the case of this thread?
to call attention to a new law in my state and my scumbag governor (who probably will run for prez next year)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Good Golly....join the rest of the world.
Or just stop being so quick to judge. You have no answers yourself.
Why don't we just stop discussing anything since we can't do a darn thing? :down:
Big whoop, you expect everyone to martyr their selves over it? I wouldn't bend to a church either whether I believed in it or not, that's not how you govern anything. Even Kennedy told Catholics to back off.
glorydaz
Well-known member
There ya go....an actual reason to have the freedom of speech.
Can't shut us down, Crucifer etal. :banana:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Hey, great advice.....BACK OFF. Shut up. Zip it.
There's a difference between 'advice' and 'demand'. What's in it for the governor, a pat on the back after he loses his office?
And then two years later it's all for nothing anyway
glorydaz
Well-known member
There's a difference between 'advice' and 'demand'. What's in it for the governor, a pat on the back after he loses his office?
And then two years later it's all for nothing anyway
It's called "stirring up the liberal base". Notice how stirred up they are?
Probably not...you thought the old indian guy was calming the seas.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Go ask your job company if they are pro-choice and then quit. Disown any of your friends and family who are pro-choice and go live in a hole somewhere.
There you go. Fixed it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nope. God says it, that settles it:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV
No one claimed it was... What's your point?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
The passage quoted refers only to damage to the woman not the foetus. The Hebrew is quite clear.
Nope. It is referring to the baby in the womb being born prematurely and then dying after.
It's the first fetal homicide law.
You're right, it is.
But it doesn't say what you want it to say simply because you say so.
Here's why it's talking about the baby, and not the mother:
| “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. - Exodus 21:22-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NKJV Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder. This passage, like Exodus 21:33-36, 22:5-6, and others, teaches that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled Unborn Victims of Crime Act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. (And that is exactly how the pagan Code of Hammurabi, section 209, undervalued a child.) However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person. The author Moses (Mat. 12:26) mentions the idea of a baby coming out of the womb twice within three chapters. In Exodus 23:26, he uses the Hebrew word for miscarriage, speaking of barrenness and shaw-kole (miscarriage). But the word at Exodus 21:22 is yaw-tsaw, which means to come out, come forth, bring forth, and has no connotation of death but in fact the opposite. The Hebrew Scriptures use yaw-tsaw 1,043 times beginning with Genesis 1:24 where God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature…” In Genesis and Exodus alone Moses uses this word about 150 times such as in Genesis 25 describing the births of twins Jacob and Esau. Thus the Mosaic law requires the criminal to pay financial restitution to a woman unintentionally injured by a criminal if she "gives birth prematurely." But then if that living being dies (i.e., the baby, soul, nephesh, which Hebrew word is always feminine, e.g., Lev. 19:8; Ps. 11:1) the text then applies the full Hebrew idiom which means that the punishment should fit the crime. If there is harm beyond a premature birth, and the unborn child dies, then the punishment is "life for life." |
From: http://americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion#Exodus21
The US has an advantage in the fight, as the abortion industry there is somewhat a standalone entity. It's visible and can be fought in a manner that draws support. In most other places, childkilling is wrapped tightly into the public-health service. Women go into state hospitals to murder their kids. It would be next to impossible to spot and attempt to save an unborn child on his way to his death, and if you could, it would be in a setting where security would swiftly evict you.
With all we know with today's technology, I'm not sure there's going to be very much mercy for those who endorse the dismemberment of those who deserve the greatest protection.
And I've seen the debate polarize greatly. Those on the side of life are learning that regulations are evil when they end in "and then you can kill the baby." Those who call themselves pro-life, but can't appreciate the sanctity of personhood are being marginalized.
This is a good thing. The debate should be between those who want to allow murder and those who don't. People like you who want the "status quo" — regulated, "safe" childkilling — are worse than those who want abortion at any time.
Right Divider
Body part
Purposefully killing any baby is murder.
Right Divider
Body part
:french:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Before abortion was legalized most pregnant women who had an abortion had it for the sake of convenience.
Now they can do it legally for the same reason and many will.
Now they can do it legally for the same reason and many will.