abortion

Originally posted by bbarr
We don't abort children, that is infanticide. We abort fetuses. Further, why should anybody be concerned about the life of the fetus prior to the third trimester? No harm, no foul.

I was refering to the passage which Frogstomp refered to: "...a woman with child..."

So what do you regard to be different between an unborn fetus and a child, other than the fact that a fetus is still in the mothers womb?

Originally posted by bbarr
First, the question as to when a human life begins is irrelevant to the abortion debate. The right question is: Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill a human organism. It is clear that a human organism begins to exist at conce ...[text shortened]... tus also needs, amongst other things, not to be aborted.

Quite right. The abortion debate has long since passed the point whether the unborn child is human or not. The main point of debate is whether a social issue of an unwanted pregnacy is valid for the taking of human life.

But once you cross that line that you are willing to kill to solve a social problem, what prevents the killing of the mentally insane, or the terminally ill. If the quality of life is the yardstick to measure whether it should be terminated or not, you've hit a slippery slope. Why not make the cut-off date 7 days after birth, to clearly see if the child has defects or not?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I'm afraid you are the one that needs a dictionary.

You still have not answered my question: How do you suggest aborting a child without causing it any harm?

I didn't but you are reading this wrong:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief 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 mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

where do you get the fetus survived ? and since the only way it could have was protected in Roe v.Wade ,, you ought to see how that bible passage actually supports free choice.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I didn't but you are reading this wrong:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon hi ...[text shortened]... to see how that bible passage actually supports free choice.

Frogstomp. You obviously haven't read the Bible completely as you always argue and split hairs over the interpretation of a single verse or sentence, whereas the Bible should be taken in its entirety. Dj didn't just quote one verse. Read em all and weep pal.

Originally posted by Halitose
Quite right. The abortion debate has long since passed the point whether the unborn child is human or not. The main point of debate is whether a social issue of an unwanted pregnacy is valid for the taking of human life.

But once you cross that line that you are willing to kill to solve a social problem, what prevents the killing of the mentally insane, ...[text shortened]... hy not make the cut-off date 7 days after birth, to clearly see if the child has defects or not?

get off that slippery slope.

and the issue is the state not having the lawful power to pass laws purely for religious reasons.

Originally posted by Halitose
Frogstomp. You obviously haven't read the Bible completly as you always argue and split hairs over the interpretation of a single verse or sentence, whereas the Bible should be taken in its entirety. Dj didn't just quote one verse. Read em all and weep pal.

of course I haven't read the OT competely I got tired of reading about God inspired mass murder somewhere in the middle of Joshua.

Originally posted by frogstomp
of course I haven't read the OT competely I got tired of reading about God inspired mass murder somewhere in the middle of Joshua.

which is exacty what that OT god was ,, a distortion of anything good or holy , just like any other stone age false god.

Originally posted by frogstomp

So don't keep argueing about something you know nothing about or haven't even gone to the effort to fully understand. Leave the Biblical perspective to those who are really interested in it.

Originally posted by Halitose
So don't keep argueing about something you know nothing about. Leave the Biblical perspective to those who are really interested in it.

you got a very perverse view of God , and I don't care two whitsthat makes you think you know God, because you obviously don't.
Try again silly man, and you might learn something about that Ox-goad god of yours.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you got a very perverse view of God , and I don't care two whitsthat makes you think you know God, because you obviously don't.
Try again silly man, and you might learn something about that Ox-goad god of yours.

Would you be so kind as to open an "insults" thread of your own. There you can go and post as many insults as you want. At the moment though you are really spoiling a good thread.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you got a very perverse view of God , and I don't care two whitsthat makes you think you know God, because you obviously don't.
Try again silly man, and you might learn something about that Ox-goad god of yours.

What makes you think that YOU know Him?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you be so kind as to open an "insults" thread of your own. There you can go and post as many insults as you want. At the moment though you are really spoiling a good thread.

no as you are spoiling a perfectly good religion.

Originally posted by Halitose
What makes you think that YOU know Him?

I suppose reading half of Joshua gave him the revelation that only he knew God and that everybody else don't know anything. Sigh...

Originally posted by Halitose
What makes you think that YOU know Him?

You ain't gonna find Him in the OT stone age parts.

Originally posted by frogstomp
no as you are spoiling a perfectly good religion.

What religion?