Abortion: an assault on the defenseless

[robocop (actually)]

As stated in the article, its a war on the unborn. That is, someone wants to treat the unborn as enemy soldiers.
The implication is that its someone who wants to win a victory through killing fetuses. Whom would that be?

He claims "Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments." That is not conversational language but accusatory. If it were conversational we could argue on basis of scripture whether his opinions were scriptural. How does he claim to know that governing entities did it without regard for God? Because he considers himself an authority on God. Its there in his language. If he's the authority on God there is no discussion to be had with him. You simply have to accept his word or reject his authority.

"When the controversies about abortion are debated, 'individual right of choice' is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue." -- from the article.

I have to agree its not a great argument. Rights are in my opinion not the way to view this. I view women as governors of their wombs. This seems most natural to me. Rather than rights only they are endowed with authority also. I don't think, however, that a fetus has rights above the mother's authority but rather has privileges granted by the mother or at least through the mother.

Here are some things not addressed in the article that can be deduced perhaps from the typical small protestant canon just going by stories and things: The unborn has value. The unborn is not spiritual until it has breathed. The unborn is a person being made in the womb. The unborn may be stillborn to punish the father (as with David and Bathsheba's first child). The unborn does not inherit. The unborn has no name until it is born.

I will try to respond if I can.

 

[SomeRandom]

He actually operated on a famous Chinese person so he is famous in China now. He is also a religious leader, remember that.

Again, I expect better from both medical professionals and religious leaders. His achievements notwithstanding

 

[robocop (actually)]

As stated in the article, its a war on the unborn. That is, someone wants to treat the unborn as enemy soldiers.
The implication is that its someone who wants to win a victory through killing fetuses. Whom would that be?

He claims "Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments." That is not conversational language but accusatory. If it were conversational we could argue on basis of scripture whether his opinions were scriptural. How does he claim to know that governing entities did it without regard for God? Because he considers himself an authority on God. Its there in his language. If he's the authority on God there is no discussion to be had with him. You simply have to accept his word or reject his authority.

"When the controversies about abortion are debated, 'individual right of choice' is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue." -- from the article.

I have to agree its not a great argument. Rights are in my opinion not the way to view this. I view women as governors of their wombs. This seems most natural to me. Rather than rights only they are endowed with authority also. I don't think, however, that a fetus has rights above the mother's authority but rather has privileges granted by the mother or at least through the mother.

Here are some things not addressed in the article that can be deduced perhaps from the typical small protestant canon just going by stories and things: The unborn has value. The unborn is not spiritual until it has breathed. The unborn is a person being made in the womb. The unborn may be stillborn to punish the father (as with David and Bathsheba's first child). The unborn does not inherit. The unborn has no name until it is born.

So,the first paragraph; irresponsible people don't want to keep from wasting their sexual drives.

Second paragraph; many religions are very similar.

Third paragraph in bold; "When the controversies about abortion are debated, 'individual right of choice' is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue." - I would say that's true... the bottom line is always that a woman has the legal right to her own body.

fourth paragraph; I'd say the same as the third.

fifth paragraph; easy there we are not protestant, but that's OK. That is fair game opinion.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Again, I expect better from both medical professionals and religious leaders. His achievements notwithstanding

Then I'm sorry you don't like my prophet. I feel he is doing a lot to help the world by helping us learn from our own homes about the gospel to share it with the world.

 

[SomeRandom]

Then I'm sorry you don't like my prophet. I feel he is doing a lot to help the world by helping us learn from our own homes about the gospel to share it with the world.

Based on his argument I have no choice but to conclude that he is callous and has no rational, reasonable argument and instead has to resort to emotionality. A great detriment to an otherwise impressive academic. But oh well.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Based on his argument I have no choice but to conclude that he is callous and has no rational, reasonable argument and instead has to resort to emotionality. A great detriment to an otherwise impressive academic. But oh well.

Oh well.

 

[Heyo]

Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless

This is an article from the leader of my Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is a world-renowned surgeon and if I'm not mistaken he even invented open-heart surgery.

So rather than present my own views, I just wanted to see if any of you were interested in this.

Since he is a world-renowned surgeon and a religious leader of 15 million or so, I was just wondering how your views compare to him.

Hopefully we can have discussion.

What is the LDS official stance on killing people who are already born?
(Capital punishment, war, unsanctioned police brutality, failure to assist a person in danger)

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the LDS official stance on killing people who are already born?
(Capital punishment, war, unsanctioned police brutality, failure to assist a person in danger)

Officially they are neutral on it, leaving the matter up to local government:


Capital Punishment

But I found this study snippet that indicates they may think otherwise:

Capital Punishment

 

[Heyo]

Officially they are neutral on it, leaving the matter up to local government:


Capital Punishment

But I found this study snippet that indicates they may think otherwise:

Capital Punishment

Either way, with such an attitude they're not really "pro life", they are simply obsessed and I can't take such a persons opinion serious.

 

[Brian2]

Note that the OT doesn't consider abortion a murder. Killing a women's foetus is considered assault not murder and the victim is the mother. In Jewish scripture, a child gains their soul in their first breath and surrender it on their last one. That's what makes you truly alive vs dead.

Amongst the Greek and Romans, it was when a feotus first gives signs of life through movement which is generally between 16 and 25 weeks. That period was called the quickening, when a child became animated was when it was granted the properly alive status.

Today, higher brain activity and viability outside the uterus is generally favored to establish when a fetus has achieved a level of development considered worthy enough to claim personhood of some sort which places it pretty much around 20-28 weeks of gestation.

Where does the Bible speak of when a unborn becomes a living human?
There are passages which speak of a foetus being alive in the womb and the obvious thing, without any arbitrary lines being drawn, is that the foetus is a living human all the way from conception and all through it's various stages of development.
This is not preaching against abortion per se but just saying that it is plain nonsense to deceive ourselves about when a human life begins. It is a serious matter from conception to old age to kill someone and we should no close our eyes to the facts of the matter.

 

[Heyo]

Where does the Bible speak of when a unborn becomes a living human?

I put that question into duck-duck-go and this is the first hit:
The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being

 

[epronovost]

Where does the Bible speak of when a unborn becomes a living human?

Book of Exodus gives the punishment for killing the fetus of a woman. It's not the punishment for murder. Hell, it's not even a punishment as harsh as breaking one of her bones or making her lose an eye. If killing a fetus isn't murder than it's obviously not considered as important.

Note that in Genesis, God breathes life into human. That's what grants them their soul and animate human from simple matter. That's why air is supposed to be the substance of the soul in jewish mythology. That's why we say "bless you" when you sneeze; it's a formula to make sure you won't expell your soul out of your body and that is you were afflicted by some evil spirit, they don't run off with it.

In Jewish mythology, a man owes his special value to his soul, a gift of God. A man without soul is no better than a mundane animal and we kill animals without a second thought. The goes for the Romans and the Greeks. Today the beliefs in souls has waned and now it's more the presence of consciousness that makes human receive special consideration compared to other animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Book of Exodus gives the punishment for killing the fetus of a woman. It's not the punishment for murder. Hell, it's not even a punishment as harsh as breaking one of her bones or making her lose an eye. If killing a fetus isn't murder than it's obviously not considered as important.

Note that in Genesis, God breathes life into human. That's what grants them their soul and animate human from simple matter. That's why air is supposed to be the substance of the soul in jewish mythology. That's why we say "bless you" when you sneeze; it's a formula to make sure you won't expell your soul out of your body and that is you were afflicted by some evil spirit, they don't run off with it.

In Jewish mythology, a man owes his special value to his soul, a gift of God. A man without soul is no better than a mundane animal and we kill animals without a second thought. The goes for the Romans and the Greeks. Today the beliefs in souls has waned and now it's more the presence of consciousness that makes human receive special consideration compared to other animals.

If you are referring to the verse that I think that you are there is quite a bit of disagreement about that. The killing of a fetus was solved monetarily by that verse. Or at least that is the translation that I have heard more often.

 

[epronovost]

If you are referring to the verse that I think that you are there is quite a bit of disagreement about that. The killing of a fetus was solved monetarily by that verse. Or at least that is the translation that I have heard more often.

Indeed making the punishment far inferior to death for killing someone or eye for eye teeth for teeth employed in case of assault. The amount to be paid isn't even all that important.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Brilliant people can have ignorant opinions. I'm not brilliant by a long shot, I use a litter box, but I know that I sometimes like tuna as much as some people like to spout off nonsense that doesn't involve them personally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed making the punishment far inferior to death for killing someone or eye for eye teeth for teeth employed in case of assault. The amount to be paid isn't even all that important.

But a fetus does not appear to be deemed to be a person in the OT. That punishment does not apply.

 

[ecco]

Their babies are in Heaven and mercy is lovingly sent to each mother.

If "their babies are in Heaven" then what is wrong with abortion?

Religious people lead good lives in order to get into heaven. According to your views, fetuses get a free pass. The mothers getting the abortions are actually ensuring their offspring will get into heaven instead of risking them growing up to become atheists to spend eternity in hell.

 

[ecco]

As for compartmentalization, my Church seeks expert opinion on every issue.

Expert opinion?


Opinions should be ignored. Facts should be used in making decisions.

 

[ecco]

Amongst the Greek and Romans, it was when a feotus first gives signs of life through movement which is generally between 16 and 25 weeks. That period was called the quickening, when a child became animated was when it was granted the properly alive status.

It wasn't just Greeks and Romans, it was also all of Christendom.

From the decision on Roe v Wade...
Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became 'formed' or recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being, that is, infused with a 'soul' or 'animated.' A loose concensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth.22 This was 'mediate animation.' Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide.
...
The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

​

 

[ecco]

I don't suppose what God did has anything to do with abortion.

What God? Which God? Oh, you mean YOUR God.

Perhaps if you were living in a (your particular brand of) Christian Theocracy, your opinion would have some basis for consideration. You don't live in a (your particular brand of) ChristianTheocracy, as much as you may want to.