Should Abortion Be Legal ?

[Waggles]

This should clear it up ...

Psalm 139:13-16 [SUP]13[/SUP]For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. [SUP]14[/SUP]I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. [SUP]15[/SUP]My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. [SUP]16[/SUP]Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

That is a wonderful description of biological creation
the stuff of life
yes we are wonderfully and fearfully made
human beings are the pinnacle of the physical creation in our universe
a little lower than the angels

BUT none of the popular verses describing such indicate the creation of
a living soul - being alive by the Spirit of God
Animals and humans become souls after they are born

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7
Look up God of spirits and also Father of spirits
the spirit of man

SOUL

H5315 נפשׁ nephesh From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal
or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or
figurative sense (bodily or mental): - beast, body, breath, creature, ghost, life,
man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person,

H5314 נפשׁ nâphash
A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, that is,
(figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air):

 

[AdolfHipster]

If God is overseeing the process as you say, then how can the Spirit not already be there ? ... Can't you see how absurd your argument has become ? ...

I already posted this scripture, but I feel it's important that I repost it.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Notice how God is overseeing the creation of Adam... yet, there is a process. God formed Adam's body, then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, then he became a living soul. God didn't form Adam and then he became a living soul... Yes, God was forming Adam, but the breath of life is the moment he became a living soul according to the bible. This is explicit... your interpretation assumes the spirit enters at conception.

 

[AdolfHipster]

That is a wonderful description of biological creation
the stuff of life
yes we are wonderfully and fearfully made
human beings are the pinnacle of the physical creation in our universe
a little lower than the angels

BUT none of the popular verses describing such indicate the creation of
a living soul - being alive by the Spirit of God
Animals and humans become souls after they are born

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7
Look up God of spirits and also Father of spirits
the spirit of man

SOUL

H5315 נפשׁ nephesh From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal
or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or
figurative sense (bodily or mental): - beast, body, breath, creature, ghost, life,
man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person,

H5314 נפשׁ nâphash
A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, that is,
(figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air):

Someone deserves rep! lol

 

[Waggles]

19 For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts;
even one thing befalls them: as the one dies, so die the other;
yea, they have all one breath; so that a man has no preeminence
above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all
turn to dust again.
21 Who knows the spirit of man that goes upward, and the spirit of
the beast that goes downward to the earth?
Ecclesiastes 3:

 

[Waggles]

Abortion is tragic and denies life and the hope for
a potential human soul to enter salvation
but by God himself Jesus does not judge a miscarriage by
force as murder
but I do concede that abortion is not accidental but rather
premeditated violence against the unborn child -
deliberate and lethal.
Is abortion the same as accidental miscarriage of a baby?

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.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exodus 21: KJV

And if should do combat two men, and should strike a woman in the womb
having one, and should come forth her child not completely formed,
with a fine he shall be penalized, in so far as should put upon him the husband
of the woman, and he shall give by means of what is fit.
Exodus 21:23 ABP

compare to: Exodus 21:23
(ERV) But if the woman was hurt badly, then the man who hurt her must be
punished. The punishment must fit the crime.
You must trade one life for another life.

 

[AdolfHipster]

Abortion is tragic and denies life and the hope for
a potential human soul to enter salvation
but by God himself Jesus does not judge a miscarriage by
force as murder
but I do concede that abortion is not accidental but rather
premeditated violence against the unborn child -
deliberate and lethal.
Is abortion the same as accidental miscarriage of a baby?

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.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exodus 21: KJV

And if should do combat two men, and should strike a woman in the womb
having one, and should come forth her child not completely formed,
with a fine he shall be penalized, in so far as should put upon him the husband
of the woman, and he shall give by means of what is fit.
Exodus 21:23 ABP

compare to: Exodus 21:23
(ERV) But if the woman was hurt badly, then the man who hurt her must be
punished. The punishment must fit the crime.
You must trade one life for another life.

Also, we can't say it was an "accident" so that's why the unborn isn't covered by the blood law as the mother is. Assuming it was an accident, we clearly read that if a man causes the pregnant woman to die, he must pay with his life.

I'm still hoping Pontiac responds to this passage and how it being accidental or not is irrelevant.

 

[Pontiac]

God sees EVERYTHING. He knows 100% if a fetus will be fruitful or not. How does God knowing and observing things before/as they are happening indicate to you that it has a spirit? God observes trees growing... He created trees... does that automatically mean they must have His spirit too? Your argument is a bit absurd honestly...

What's even more absurd is that you're okay with "murdering" a child to save the mother when there is a chance BOTH can live. You haven't said one word about why it's murder in one scenario but not in another. Since when is murdering one life okay as long as you save someone elses?

God IS the Spirit ... Everywhere He goes, must the Spirit also go ... They cannot be separated ... I did not know this to be that difficult to understand ...

 

[Pontiac]

Abortion is tragic and denies life and the hope for
a potential human soul to enter salvation
but by God himself Jesus does not judge a miscarriage by
force as murder
but I do concede that abortion is not accidental but rather
premeditated violence against the unborn child -
deliberate and lethal.
Is abortion the same as accidental miscarriage of a baby?

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.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exodus 21: KJV

And if should do combat two men, and should strike a woman in the womb
having one, and should come forth her child not completely formed,
with a fine he shall be penalized, in so far as should put upon him the husband
of the woman, and he shall give by means of what is fit.
Exodus 21:23 ABP

compare to: Exodus 21:23
(ERV) But if the woman was hurt badly, then the man who hurt her must be
punished. The punishment must fit the crime.
You must trade one life for another life.

Can you please show me the verse where the Bible does not declare an intentional miscarriage as murder ? ... Now don't just show me the verse that states a miscarriage must be paid for ... Show me any verse using the words intentional miscarriage ... As the verse many have posted could very well be meant to describe an accident ...

 

[AdolfHipster]

Can you please show me the verse where the Bible does not declare an intentional miscarriage as murder ? ... Now don't just show me the verse that states a miscarriage must be paid for ... Show me any verse using the words intentional miscarriage ... As the verse many have posted could very well be meant to describe an accident ...

I mean, I sound like a broken record... I apologize... If it was talking about an accident, why does the man pay with his life if the mother dies then? Fine, you think it could be talking about an accidental miscarriage so that's why the guy is fined instead of put to death, then why isn't the guy fined if he accidentally killed the mother?

I really hope you are wanting to engage in fruitful and productive discussion. I've answered everything you've asked me to the best of my ability and while you're not obligated to return the favor, I hope you do.

 

[AdolfHipster]

God IS the Spirit ... Everywhere He goes, must the Spirit also go ... They cannot be separated ... I did not know this to be that difficult to understand ...

What does this have to do with your double-standard for murder? You haven't answered why you're for "murdering" an unborn child to save the mother's life when it's possible BOTH could live.

Are you a father? Would you "murder" your own child to save your own life? That is exactly what you're saying is acceptable. Do you not see how absurd that stance is?

 

[Pontiac]

I mean, I sound like a broken record... I apologize... If it was talking about an accident, why does the man pay with his life if the mother dies then? Fine, you think it could be talking about an accidental miscarriage so that's why the guy is fined instead of put to death, then why isn't the guy fined if he accidentally killed the mother?

I really hope you are wanting to engage in fruitful and productive discussion. I've answered everything you've asked me to the best of my ability and while you're not obligated to return the favor, I hope you do.

I cannot answer why God would make any of His certain judgments of law ... I can tell you an accident is anything that is done unintentionally ...

 

[Pontiac]

What does this have to do with your double-standard for murder? You haven't answered why you're for "murdering" an unborn child to save the mother's life when it's possible BOTH could live.

Are you a father? Would you "murder" your own child to save your own life? That is exactly what you're saying is acceptable. Do you not see how absurd that stance is?

I didn't anser you on that because that is not what I said ... You have misquoted me ...

 

[AdolfHipster]

I didn't anser you on that because that is not what I said ... You have misquoted me ...

Here is the exact quote...

Have you not seen that I am not for abortion at any time, other than to save the mother's life ....

You've already stated abortion is murder. So, in other words... you're against "murdering" the unborn child UNLESS you murder the unborn child to save the mother's life. How is this misquoted?

Clearly, you think "murdering" the unborn child is justifiable in that you are saving the mother's life. This is why I asked you, and I'll ask again... Are you a father? Would you murder your own child to save your own life?

 

[AdolfHipster]

I cannot answer why God would make any of His certain judgments of law ... I can tell you an accident is anything that is done unintentionally ...

I'm not asking you to speak on God's behalf. I'm debunking the notion that it being accidental is even relevant. Are you familiar with the old covenant law? If the unborn child is NO different than the mother, why is there a separate standard for each? Can you think of any other commandments God selectively gives His children but denies to others? Why would this be the only example?

Maybe it's not as cryptic as you think... If the intentions were so important, I would think the word of God would include the intentions as being the game changer. Manslaughter (accidental/unintentional killing) was treated as a capital offense in the old law... are you unaware of this?

 

[Pontiac]

Here is the exact quote...



You've already stated abortion is murder. So, in other words... you're against "murdering" the unborn child UNLESS you murder the unborn child to save the mother's life. How is this misquoted?

Clearly, you think "murdering" the unborn child is justifiable in that you are saving the mother's life. This is why I asked you, and I'll ask again... Are you a father? Would you murder your own child to save your own life?

Exactly, there is nothing in my statement about both dying ... The baby is only to be sacrificed if that is necessary in order to save the mother's life ... In that scenario the mother lives, the baby dies ... There is no both of them dying in the situation I described ...

 

[AdolfHipster]

Exactly, there is nothing in my statement about both dying ... The baby is only to be sacrificed if that is necessary in order to save the mother's life ... In that scenario the mother lives, the baby dies ... There is no both of them dying in the situation I described ...

The baby is only to be "murdered" if it's necessary to save the mother's life... So would you murder your child if it meant you get to live?

By the way, subtle word change... from "murder" to "sacrifice." Don't think I didn't notice.

 

[Pontiac]

The baby is only to be "murdered" if it's necessary to save the mother's life... So would you murder your child if it meant you get to live?

No, and there is zero comparison there at all ... We are talking about a pregnancy ... A situation that can involve many factors and difficulties ... That is no comparison to killing a 5 year old to save another ... Also, not valid in your comparison is that you substituted myself in place of the mother ... What I might do to save her is something entirely different than what I would do to save myself ... I don't need to live as much as I would prefer for my loved ones to live ... Your comparison has several holes in it making it completely invalid ...

 

[Jasmine80]

The baby is only to be "murdered" if it's necessary to save the mother's life... So would you murder your child if it meant you get to live?

By the way, subtle word change... from "murder" to "sacrifice." Don't think I didn't notice.

You trapped him so he won't ever give you a straight answer. I've seen multiple pages of you using his words against him and he either ignores the question or slyly gives a response, not an answer. It might be time you just move on Hipster.

You've made me reconsider my position on the topic by the way. It's something I'll have to pray and study more on.

 

[AdolfHipster]

No, and there is zero comparison there at all ... We are talking about a pregnancy ... A situation that can involve many factors and difficulties ... That is no comparison to killing a 5 year old to save another ... Also, not valid in your comparison is that you substituted myself in place of the mother ... What I might do to save her is something entirely different than what I would do to save myself ... I don't need to live as much as I would prefer for my loved ones to live ... Your comparison has several holes in it making it completely invalid ...

If you're saying the unborn is the equivalent of the mother carrying it, how is not invalid to substitute the unborn with a living and breathing child?

Given:
A = X

If:
A + Y = Z

Then:
X + Y = Z

A = living breathing human being
X = unborn child
Y = to kill
Z = murder

Maybe if I put it in mathematical terms you'll get it. You're saying X + Y does not = Z when A + Y = Z and A = X. You're saying it's invalid to compare a 5 year old to an unborn child but in the same breath, you're saying they are equal. Do you see the contradiction here? How is it justifiable to "murder" (by your standards) in one circumstance, but not another?

 

[Pontiac]

You trapped him so he won't ever give you a straight answer. I've seen multiple pages of you using his words against him and he either ignores the question or slyly gives a response, not an answer. It might be time you just move on Hipster.

You've made me reconsider my position on the topic by the way. It's something I'll have to pray and study more on.

I gave a rock solid answer to the question ... You want to use "murder" instead of "sacrifice" fine ... My position is clear then ... If the mother is going to die if the baby is born, then you murder the baby to save the mother ... If the mother is not going to die by having the baby, then she must carry the child the full term and have the child ... Sounds pretty simple to me ... Nobody has trapped me into anything and even to suggest that is ludicrous ...