Applying God's Word to Politics

[OMC]

But with regards to calling all abortions after that point to be murder I would remind you that killing another person in war or executing someone under a court order is not considered to be murder. That is why I would leave the RARE option of post sentience abortion as an option in cases where there is a plausible cause, such as the fetus is not expected to survive until birth, and if it does it life expectancy is hours, and a maximum life span to date is less than a very expensive week and the parents just want to end the agony (not all parents would make this choice but some will ), or where the mother's life is clearly in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated and for some reason an early birth is likewise not a viable medical option. Both cases can occur, but also both are highly unlikely.

Scripture never treats sentience as the threshold of personhood,
never treats suffering as a justification for killing the innocent, and
never treats rare cases as moral exceptions; the Bible’s categories are fixed:
the unborn are already children (Gen 25:22),
already sons (Luke 1:36),
already babies (Luke 1:41),
already formed by God (Ps 139:13),
already under covenant blessing or curse (Deut 28:4,18),
and the intentional killing of the innocent is always forbidden (Exod 23:7) — no “rare case” clause exists; war and execution are not analogies because both involve just authority acting against the guilty, whereas abortion targets the innocent, which Scripture never permits; his appeal to “ending agony” is emotional utilitarianism, not biblical ethics, because Scripture never authorizes killing the weak to relieve suffering — instead it commands protecting them (Prov 24:11–12);
The “highly unlikely” scenarios are the classic world‑system move: create extreme hypotheticals to justify a principle Scripture never grants; biblically, if the mother’s life is in immediate danger, you act to save both lives if possible, and if only one can be saved, you save the mother because she is the one under direct threat — but you never redefine the child as non‑human to justify killing;
the Bible’s logic is simple: God gives conception (Ruth 4:13), God forms the child (Ps 139:13), God claims the child (Jer 1:5), and man may not shed innocent blood (Exod 20:13; 23:7).

 

[GWH]

Can you be a little more specific, if the untimely birth post sentient is logically murder then are you going charge the mother in cases of miscarriages or stillbirths, whether antepartum intrapartum that occur post sentient?


That kinda contradicts the whole walking by faith and not by sight concept doesn't it?

Do you understand the concept of the Overton window? It refers to the need for sufficient support by people so that we do not have a repeat of the prohibition fiasco. Thus, I am not going to charge mothers, fathers and doctors who abet abortion with murder until everyone is educated about why sentience defines life with civil rights between its beginning until brain death at the end.

There is no contradiction between saving faith and right reasoning/divine logic on any issue.
Truth is One.

 

[ScooterJackson]

But I would simply say that there is no reason to think that those of the faith would arbitrarily abort their own children.

Christians don't murder their babies because the Holy Spirit does not lead anybody to do such a thing.

Abortion (shed innocent blood) is an abomination to the Lord and is grievous sin before the Lord

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

the unborn are already children (Gen 25:22),

Rebekah was barren when she married Issac, the son of Abraham and Abraham's sister Sarah, the daughter of his father.

It wasn't until the 19th year of their marriage the Isaac and Rebekah conceived.

While she believe children struggled within her, the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;

And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

already sons (Luke 1:36),

While the fusion of the male and female gametes result in conception the the two gametes, it doesn't result conception of a living being, it results in a new seed inside the womb of the husband and his helpmate.

already babies (Luke 1:41),

At the time spoken of in Luke 1:41, the Holy Ghost had opened the matrix and placed life in the seed of the Woman.

already formed by God Ps 139:13

And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Ezek 37:3-6

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Do you understand the concept of the Overton window?

Yes, it is also known as the "window of discourse" it is the range of ideas, policies, and public speech that the mainstream population finds acceptable at any given time. You are seeking to be politically correct.

Do you understand the question, How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

 

[ScooterJackson]

While the fusion of the male and female gametes result in conception the the two gametes, it doesn't result conception of a living being, it results in a new seed inside the womb of the husband and his helpmate.

As far as God is concerned, that seed is a live human.

 

[OMC]

While the fusion of the male and female gametes result in conception the the two gametes, it doesn't result conception of a living being, it results in a new seed inside the womb of the husband and his helpmate.

Brother, the statement you just made cannot stand once you let Scripture define its own categories: the fusion of the male and female gametes is conception, and conception is the beginning of a living human being, not “a new seed inside the womb of the husband and his helpmate.” Scripture never teaches a two‑stage model where fusion creates a “seed” and only later creates a “living being”

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Christians don't murder their babies because the Holy Spirit does not lead anybody to do such a thing.

You may want to consider your reading comprehension skills since I said there is no reason to think that those of the faith would arbitrarily abort their own children.

But according to some...

About 70% of women who have abortions self-identify as Christian, according to data from Lifeway Research.

Among n those 70% of women who have had abortions, roughly 27% are Catholic, 26% are Protestant, 15% are non-denominational, and 2% are Orthodox.

 

[ScooterJackson]

About 70% of women who have abortions self-identify as Christian

They are all tares. Fake Christians

Christians don't murder their babies because the Holy Spirit does not lead anybody to do such a thing.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

As far as God is concerned, that seed is a live human.

Brother, the statement you just made cannot stand once you let Scripture define its own categories: the fusion of the male and female gametes is conception, and conception is the beginning of a living human being, not “a new seed inside the womb of the husband and his helpmate.

So you think you actually had a tail?

 

[ScooterJackson]

So you think you actually had a tail?

I'm not a cold blooded reptile so I never had a tail.

 

[OMC]

So you think you actually had a tail?

I wont even indulge that with an answer. Get serious then I might.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Scripture never teaches a two‑stage model where fusion creates a “seed” and only later creates a “living being”

The reason the scriptures never teach the two stage model is because one has to have a teacher first. If your teacher didn't teach man how to read and write the written spoken word then you must believe that man taught himself how to read and write. So did you?

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again John 3:7

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I'm not a cold blooded reptile so I never had a tail.

If you were born before opening the matrix, yes you did....

 

[GWH]

Yes, it is also known as the "window of discourse" it is the range of ideas, policies, and public speech that the mainstream population finds acceptable at any given time. You are seeking to be politically correct.

Do you understand the question, How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

No, I seek to prevent as many abortion murders as possible whereas apparently you approve of the status quo.

 

[rewriter]

Scripture never treats sentience as the threshold of personhood,
never treats suffering as a justification for killing the innocent, and
never treats rare cases as moral exceptions; the Bible’s categories are fixed:
the unborn are already children (Gen 25:22),
already sons (Luke 1:36),
already babies (Luke 1:41),
already formed by God (Ps 139:13),
already under covenant blessing or curse (Deut 28:4,18),
and the intentional killing of the innocent is always forbidden (Exod 23:7) — no “rare case” clause exists; war and execution are not analogies because both involve just authority acting against the guilty, whereas abortion targets the innocent, which Scripture never permits; his appeal to “ending agony” is emotional utilitarianism, not biblical ethics, because Scripture never authorizes killing the weak to relieve suffering — instead it commands protecting them (Prov 24:11–12);
The “highly unlikely” scenarios are the classic world‑system move: create extreme hypotheticals to justify a principle Scripture never grants; biblically, if the mother’s life is in immediate danger, you act to save both lives if possible, and if only one can be saved, you save the mother because she is the one under direct threat — but you never redefine the child as non‑human to justify killing;
the Bible’s logic is simple: God gives conception (Ruth 4:13), God forms the child (Ps 139:13), God claims the child (Jer 1:5), and man may not shed innocent blood (Exod 20:13; 23:7).

Not every person accepts the Bible as authoritative, thus they cannot be expected to comply with its demands just because you choose to. That is a simple fact and one protected by the US Constitution, it is called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. You are not allowed to force your religious views on another person. You may personally hold whatever views you want, but forcing another person to hold your views is anti-American, nor is it loving, which makes it anti-Christian. The Bible never teaches that you should FORCE its teachings on another, you may present them, show by your own life that you live them and hopefully your life is righteous enough that another wishes to follow your lead, but you are not to force them on the other person. Those who attempt to force their understanding on others are called in the Bible Pharisees. Are you a Parisee?

 

[UnoiAmarah]

No, I seek to prevent as many abortion murders as possible whereas apparently you approve of the status quo.

Sorry you live in a State that permits abortions, the State I live in prohibits licensed medical professionals from providing services resulting in an "untimely births" except in cases that the life of the mother is at risk. In such the medical professional are allowed to separate the unborn from the mother's womb in manner that doesn't destroy, damage or mutilate the unborn nor damages the uterus or any other internal organs of the mother.

So yes, I approve of the status quo in my State. But I am a progressive.