Partial-Birth Abortion

[d'urville]

Conception, then the cells divide.

Makes no sense otherwise, in this state, if I go shoot a woman who'seight weeks pregnant, that's two counts of attempted murder.

Partial-birth abortion is just an easy and efficient way to have a mid or late-term abortion, it ends those oops abortions, that can end with a live birth.

That's a terrible thing your birth mother said, by the way.

[Borgia]

Which goes to show the fallibility of ALL men.


So sorry, but the Bible declares that life begins before conception. Jeremiah 1:4,5 if you question the veracity of that statement.

Been there, seen that. So he knew our soul before our bodies were ensouled. When our sould goes into our body is the question and the Bible does nto answer that. Jews believe it is at birth (and they are no less biblical scholars than you), some Popes have decreed quickening.


Conception is the only answer which is based in reality. Moral relevativism only gets people killed.

Your opinion of reality, that is. Abortion is even discussed obliquely in the bible and the punishment for killing a fetus versus a man is a huge difference. That tells us the value of a fetus is less than a human life, according to the Bible.

[DoctorDoom]

Abortion is even discussed obliquely in the bible and the punishment for killing a fetus versus a man is a huge difference.Chapter and verse, please. Your word is not good enough.

That tells us the value of a fetus is less than a human life, according to the Bible.That tells us that your understanding of the Bible, and of the culture in which it was written, is non-existent.

[Beowulf]

Conception, then the cells divide.

Makes no sense otherwise, in this state, if I go shoot a woman who's eight weeks pregnant, that's two counts of attempted murder.

Partial-birth abortion is just an easy and efficient way to have a mid or late-term abortion, it ends those oops abortions, that can end with a live birth.

Good observation, d'urville. Funny how it's not a child until this happens. Then again, the same people who support abortion rights also think that every criminal in America is the product of a bad upbringing and/or has mental issues.

They also find it OK to slaughter the unborn but find it wrong to execute a convicted serial killer.

[Borgia]

Chapter and verse, please. Your word is not good enough.
Doom, you should know by now I always back up what I say. :)


"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

Note the penalty for accidentally inducing a miscarriage is not as strong as the penalty for killing the mother. Fine versus life.


That tells us that your understanding of the Bible, and of the culture in which it was written, is non-existent.

Are you implying that the words of the Bible are not timeless and are constrained by the time and culture in which it was written?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

According to the King James Version:


Exodus 21:22 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. 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


I don't see how "if men strive" is referring to an elective medical procedure, however makes perfect sense as possibly a disagreement, scuffle, or accident. It seems evidenced from the "no mischief follow" phrase -- I would call the elective killing of one's unborn offspring highly mischievous. Also, the penalty in question says 1) the husband can punish the party according to as he sees fit AND 2) pay as the judges determine. Doesn't say limited to monetary payment. Furthermore, regarding the "if any mischief follow" it says fully that a life for a life shalt be given. It is not unreasonable to deduce the child's life purposefully taken would be compensated by the life of the taker.

[Borgia]

Homes, your interpretation of this passage is erroneoous. Let's look at it again:

so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished

So that her fruit depart from her refers to her losing the child. For that, the punishment is a fine. The "mischief" is damage beyond the miscarriage since that was specifically mentioned in the previous phrase (fruit depart her). So your attempt to tie the life for life to the miscarriage is erroneous.

The life for life is if the mother is killed. The eye for eye, tooth for tooth etc is for the person of the mother, not the fetus since that was already covered in the earlier phrasing (fruit departing her).

[Nutrider99]

Are you implying that the words of the Bible are not timeless and are constrained by the time and culture in which it was written?
Actually, yes. There is a difference between Mosaic laws and the New Covenant which Jesus introduced. Jesus taught forgiveness, not an eye for an eye. Jesus taught that God is love, and offered salvation to the Gentiles. Jesus was the blood sacrifice for man, so no further blood sacrifice was needed, only faith in Him.

Secondly, one has to take into consideration that infant mortality was very high, as was the risk of the woman dying during childbirth. A pregnant woman had maybe an 80% chance of the child surviving birth and maybe a 10% chance that she would not. If she hemorrhaged, she died. Therefore, it was never a sure thing that a fetus would survive to become a child. If it was, particularly if the fetus was male, killing it would have carried the same penalty.

Males were far more valuable to the tribe than females. Males could protect the tribe from its many enemies. The more males, the greater the strength of the tribe. These laws all had their reasoning. They didn't know about trichinosis, they only knew you could get sick from pork. Thus the ban on eating pork. Mosaic laws dealt as much with the survival of the tribe as they did with religion.

[Borgia]

Want more from the Bible showing the lack of value of fetuses?

Try

Numbers 3:15 in which they call for a census. You will note that fetuses were NOT counted. Further, you had to be 1 month old to even be counted. So fetuses and babies up to 1 month old were of lesser value.

Leviticus 27:1-7 has the Lord telling Moses the values of people (monetarily) notably absent are fetuses which are not given any value and babies up to 1 month old are not given any value.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homes, your interpretation of this passage is erroneoous. Let's look at it again:

The passage wasn't referring to abortion, I know that, I was pointing that out. YOU said the Bible referred to abortion "obliquely" -- well this passage, does not. Miscarriage is completely different than an elective abortion -- PBA, for the most part, for all the evidence I've seen (including that provided in this thread), is an elective procedure, NOT a miscarriage.

[Borgia]

Actually, yes. There is a difference between Mosaic laws and the New Covenant which Jesus introduced. Jesus taught forgiveness, not an eye for an eye. Jesus taught that God is love, and offered salvation to the Gentiles. Jesus was the blood sacrifice for man, so no further blood sacrifice was needed, only faith in Him.

Secondly, one has to take into consideration that infant mortality was very high, as was the risk of the woman dying during childbirth. A pregnant woman had maybe an 80% chance of the child surviving birth and maybe a 10% chance that she would not. If she hemorrhaged, she died. Therefore, it was never a sure thing that a fetus would survive to become a child. If it was, particularly if the fetus was male, killing it would have carried the same penalty.

Males were far more valuable to the tribe than females. Males could protect the tribe from its many enemies. The more males, the greater the strength of the tribe. These laws all had their reasoning. They didn't know about trichinosis, they only knew you could get sick from pork. Thus the ban on eating pork. Mosaic laws dealt as much with the survival of the tribe as they did with religion.

You may be surprised that I agree 100% with what you said. The Bible does need to be interpreted with a look at the cultures of the time.

I asked because many conservative Christians balk at the idea of the Bible being interpreted for the time.