Luchito Prays
Member
People were called to joint Noah, and people didn't pay any attention, those people died.
End of the story.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.
- Thread starter fujitora48
- Start date
End of the story.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I agree 100% with that
Where I cone from, even the mothers wanting the child, usually abort the embryo if it has been screened for genetic defects. Does that count as medical reason?
ciao
- viole
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Firelight said: ↑
I guess, if that’s your truth. I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion, though. When He pronounced it “good,” sin had not yet entered the world.
This is what I was replying to.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes, sanctioned by god.
Doesn't sound very pro-choice either as God took any choice out of their hands.
people die consistently at any given moment.
aborting a fetus doesn't mean the woman can't have more babies. nor does it mean that the spirit can't incarnate in a different place/time
Luchito Prays
Member
Your point was that God in purpose caused the dead of unborn children with the flood.
Your point is invalid since people received a 120 years warning.
Heyo
Veteran Member
The unborn received a 120 years warning? How long were gestation periods then?
Luchito Prays
Member
The mother...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Jointing Noah sounds awfully painful for Noah. Have you ever jointed a chicken?
no, the point is people die at every moment and at different stages of development, age.
your argument is moot.
people die all the time.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
'moot'
Please show the scripture that says so? And why do you think you are a person but a fetus is not?
when we see a pregnant person, we don't use the plural for a reason.
when we say chicken egg, we don't say chickens.
when a person isn't breathing, they aren't alive; unless they are on some support system because their lungs don't function.
when a woman has a spontaneous abortion, most people don't get upset over the loss; except sometimes the person carrying the fetus. it never really existed as anything more than a potential. a person has been born and will develop charateristics that identify it from being just a body to being a unique individual separate from it's parent. not only physically separate but psychologically separate.
but then again, the mother can usually produce dozens, if not hundreds of more eggs for potential living/viable babies.
you're feel good about something really says something more about you, than it does reality. trying to control another's autonomy is not in alignment with serving self and other as self. unborn babies are not other as self.
so you see the gist of the problem? children aren't adults. trying to use word acrobatics, doesn't make things so.
you're trying to make a person out of an unborn something. the potential is there. the existence isn't
you're trying to build a bridge to nowhere concrete. possible but not really realistic
finally if a person decides/chooses to have a child, they should also have the right to choose not too; even if you, or someone else doesn't like it. potential, what is possilbe, is not what is present.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is of course Exodus 21 22. Though I used an older Catholic bible to show that. For some reason the Bibles that are printed in the US changed their interpretation of that verse after Roe v Wade. The older Catholic source, and I have to emphasize that because the Catholics have been anti-abortion long before the other Christian groups were, used the word "miscarriage" to describe the loss of the fetus. That was only a monetary fine. If the woman died, who was a person, then the penalty is death. And of course there is the chemical abortion in Numbers performed by priests. And God's willingness to kill any pregnant women at any time if it suited him.
Meanwhile, when even wearing polyester and other bad fashion choices were clearly banned there is no clear ban on abortion. That indicates that it was not a crime then and that the fetus could not be a person.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
That is what the Bible asserts as fact, yes? All those people were corrupt.
Do you have an argument that modern day fetuses are corrupt?
You say "because one is not happy" but the clear implication in the Bible is that God was regretful because he saw how wicked people had become. Is God supposed to be happy that every thought in the hearts of people is evil?
The heart of your argument is that you can't imagine that the unborn of Noah's time were also corrupt. Really you just don't accept what the Bible has clearly stated: they were all corrupt.
By what I know, many who lose baby that they wanted get upset. But, I can believe you would not. It is interesting that pro death group don't seem to understand that all arguments they use against the young children could be used as well against them.
Ok, so the person claim was just you interpretation, not something that Bible says. But, that scripture is interesting, because I understand it means, if one causes miscarriage, he should be punished.