Is God pro-abortion?

[Dan From Smithville]

Abortion takes freedom away from a person, that is why I think abortion and giving freedom are not possible at the same time.

Support this claim in the case of a woman that is pregnant due to a rape. She did not freely choose to have sex. She did not intend to get pregnant. If she is forced to have a child she does not want, what about her freedom? It would appear that forcing a woman to have a pregnancy she does not want makes freedom and life not possible at the same time either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You weren't able to post any scripture, as I knew you couldn't. They simply are not in the Bible. Jehovah is not pro abortion.

Did you not read the link that I posted? That was scripture. If you would like I can copy and paste it for you if you cannot follow the link.

 

[1213]

... It would appear that forcing a woman to have a pregnancy she does not want makes freedom and life not possible at the same time either.

Yes, I don’t think anyone should be forced to have sex. However, I don’t think the baby is the guilty one and deserves death penalty.

 

[1213]

Really? What person are you talking about? ...

The baby loses his life and also freedom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I don’t think anyone should be forced to have sex. However, I don’t think the baby is the guilty one and deserves death penalty.

But no one is killing babies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The baby loses his life and also freedom.

Nope. No babies involved We checked.

 

[capumetu]

Did you not read the link that I posted? That was scripture. If you would like I can copy and paste it for you if you cannot follow the link.

No sir, I never look at links, therefore I was unaware it was scripture, I do apologize, I will go back and look at it now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No sir, I never look at links, therefore I was unaware it was scripture, I do apologize, I will go back and look at it now.

Looking at links is part of following a discussion at times.

 

[capumetu]

Did you not read the link that I posted? That was scripture. If you would like I can copy and paste it for you if you cannot follow the link.

I went back through our conversation, and you did not post a link to me, however I did find where you posted a link to the original poser of this thread.

I read it and had to agree with you, however, on further examination from other versions of the Bible, I see the version you used was severely altered. The original Bible did not infer miscarriage, rather infertility for unfaithfulness. You did have me wondering however. Do more research on it.

 

[capumetu]

Looking at links is part of following a discussion at times.

I would have noticed it if you would have posted it to me. I don't usually answer posts made to others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I went back through our conversation, and you did not post a link to me, however I did find where you posted a link to the original poser of this thread.

I read it and had to agree with you, however, on further examination from other versions of the Bible, I see the version you used was severely altered. The original Bible did not infer miscarriage, rather infertility for unfaithfulness. You did have me wondering however. Do more research on it.

Dang, I did not provide a link. I thought that I had. But I did post the title of the passage. One moment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you go

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version

 

[capumetu]

Dang, I did not provide a link. I thought that I had. But I did post the title of the passage. One moment.

Dang, I did not provide a link. I thought that I had. But I did post the title of the passage. One moment.

I think I found your link sir, right under one of our postings Numbers chap 5

 

[capumetu]

Here you go

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version

Yes sir, I saw that, You need to compare versions, that one is altered as I stated, the intent was to render the woman infertile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes sir, I saw that, You need to compare versions, that one is altered as I stated, the intent was to render the woman infertile.

What makes you think that one was altered? Please provide proper evidence for that claim. It appears to be no more altered than any other interpretation.

 

[1213]

But no one is killing babies.

Are you saying the aborted human being is not a baby? The child is so small that you can’t call him/her an adult.

I think Sen. Lankford asks good question on this video. What would your answer be?

I think, if we can say that is not a baby, then we could as well say that for example that “you are not a human and you can be therefore killed”. Please notice, I don’t think humans should be killed, but, if we can draw the line arbitrarily, there is no limit on where it can be drawn. Unfortunately, some have drawn the line to babies and for example to Middle Eastern people. Very sad, in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying the aborted human being is not a baby? The child is so small that you can’t call him/her an adult.

I think Sen. Lankford asks good question on this video. What would your answer be?

I think, if we can say that is not a baby, then we could as well say that for example that “you are not a human and you can be therefore killed”. Please notice, I don’t think humans should be killed, but, if we can draw the line arbitrarily, there is no limit on where it can be drawn. Unfortunately, some have drawn the line to babies and for example to Middle Eastern people. Very sad, in my opinion.

Sorry not wasting my time on a politician's 20 minute video. The problem for you is that if you understood the Old Testament at least you would understand that they did not believe that a fetus was a "person". For believers the boundary was ensoulment. That did not occur until the first breath. And it all goes back to the Adam and Eve myth when God breathed life into Adam.

Here is an interesting article that goes over the history of the beliefs of ensoulment. It also corrects the verse in Exodus translation that so many anti-abortion people abuse:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)71025-4/fulltext

Differences about legal status, and later problems, probably derive from a mistranslation anyway. In Exodus, the Hebrew text reads: “If a man strives and wounds a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then he shall be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then you shall give life for life.” Human life is sacred, but the unborn child does not, for these purposes, count as a life. However, the Septuagint (Greek) translation reads one word completely differently. Where the Hebrew word ason was translated as harm, the Septuagint reads it as “form”. So the Greek translation reads: “if there be no form [yet to the fetus], he shall be fined … but if there be form, you shall give life for life”. And that means applying the “life for life” principle to the fetus, rather than the mother.


When one is in doubt one should go to an older source if possible.

By the way, from your thumbnail it looks as if the senator is relying largely on more developed fetuses. When it comes to abortions they are a small minority of abortions and those abortions would still be likely to occur even if Roe v Wade was overturned. Late term abortions are almost always due to medical need. Not due to convenience. Late term abortions are not cheap and if voluntary are not covered by insurance. Misrepresenting the facts is a dishonest way to debate. Perhaps your senator knew that right was not on his side.

 

[McBell]

Are you saying the aborted human being is not a baby? The child is so small that you can’t call him/her an adult.

I think Sen. Lankford asks good question on this video. What would your answer be?

I think, if we can say that is not a baby, then we could as well say that for example that “you are not a human and you can be therefore killed”. Please notice, I don’t think humans should be killed, but, if we can draw the line arbitrarily, there is no limit on where it can be drawn. Unfortunately, some have drawn the line to babies and for example to Middle Eastern people. Very sad, in my opinion.

The problem here is that "we" did not draw the first breath line.
That is where the BIBLE draws the line....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I don’t think anyone should be forced to have sex. However, I don’t think the baby is the guilty one and deserves death penalty.

That was not the topic of the discussion. You claim one is the death of freedom, but clearly both ways are.

 

[1213]

The problem here is that "we" did not draw the first breath line.
That is where the BIBLE draws the line....

Please show the scripture.