Stopping Global Abortions

[HeIsHere]

No, the Hebrew word is thigh, not womb, the verb is swell not miscarry. It is not saying anything that can be denoted as an abortion.

Even if we accept the words are womb and the baby does miscarry under this ritual, it is absolute nonsense argument that @true_believer is making that abortion was "permitted" in certain circumstances.

The goal was not have the baby miscarry but to test the veracity of the woman because there were no witnesses.

This classic case of reading into scripture what is not there.

 

[true_believer]

Even if we accept the words are womb and the baby does miscarry under this ritual, it is absolute nonsense argument that @true_believer is making that abortion was "permitted" in certain circumstances.

The goal was not have the baby miscarry but to test the veracity of the woman because there were no witnesses.

This classic case of reading into scripture what is not there.

So if the woman took the mixture and her child dies, that's a terminated pregnancy. Plain and simple.

 

[ZNP]

So if the woman took the mixture and her child dies, that's a terminated pregnancy. Plain and simple.

yes if the Bible said she was pregnant (it doesn't) and if it said that the mixture will cause her to miscarriage (it doesn't). You have a make believe Bible.

 

[kaylagrl]

So if the woman took the mixture and her child dies, that's a terminated pregnancy. Plain and simple.

No, that is not what happened in that situation. That verse has been misused by abortion supporters and it's wrong.

 

[kaylagrl]

whisperer:

Hello again, CS1! I've not yet set aside the old laptop. What more is there to say?


CS1 (Post #50):

Abortion is a racist program created by the PPH in 1922 by founder Margaret Sanger . . . "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood :

1940s – 1960s

. . . Both Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger are strongly associated with the abortion issue today. [27] [28]

For much of the organization's history, however, and throughout Sanger's life, abortion was illegal in the U.S., and discussions of the issue were often censored. [29]

During this period, Sanger – like other American advocates of birth control – publicly condemned abortion, arguing that it would not be needed if every woman had access to birth control. [29]

Please read Sangers book "The Pivot of Civilization" not Wikipedia which is merely an opinion site. Once you read her book you will know exactly what she believed.

CS1:

" . . . Margaret Sanger . . . with the support of the KKK created Planned parentHood to reduce the population of blacks in NY. 61millon abortions were done and 30% of them were performed on a class of people who make up only 16% of the nation's population."


whisperer:

And on whom were 70% of the abortions performed--with the support and blessing of the KKK?

A black baby is 3x more likely to be aborted than a white baby. I'd say Sanger would indeed be happy her ideals are being carried out to this day.

CS1:

"The founder would be so happy today that PPH has kept its racist origin going. And has done its job in deceiving young women."


whisperer:

Deceiving young women is the job of PPFA? Not "Reproductive health"?

No, not reproductive health, their main work is abortion.

CS1:

The blood of the 61 million cries out to the Living God Just as Abel's blood did.

That should strike great fear in those who support the murder of innocent blood which God hates.

TWO QUESTIONS For Pro-life Christian Conservatives (Post #38):

If all of the women could not be allowed to live, then why did Moses not massacre only virgins, thereby ensuring the survival of any embryonic or fetal life that females who had slept with someone may have been carrying?


All the best to you, CS1!

That part of OT has nothing to do with today. These situations were dealing with judgement before Christ came. God told Pharaoh to let the Jews go, he refused and brought judgement on his people,he was warned and would not relent. The same in the second situation, judgement on the people for coming against Gods chosen people. None of that has anything to do with today.

 

[ZNP]

TWO QUESTIONS For Pro-life Christian Conservatives (Post #38):

If Moses was a fervent believer in the sanctity of human life and a staunch antiabortionist firmly committed to promoting the rights of the unborn and protecting their persons, then why did he order the slaughter of every woman who had slept with a man while sparing the lives of virgins?

If all of the women could not be allowed to live, then why did Moses not massacre only virgins, thereby ensuring the survival of any embryonic or fetal life that females who had slept with someone may have been carrying?

1. My understanding is that Nephilim (a mixture of human and angelic DNA) had to be wiped out.

 

[HeIsHere]

So if the woman took the mixture and her child dies, that's a terminated pregnancy. Plain and simple.

No, not really.

Read the whole text before you try and make some spurious argument that the Old Testament allowed for abortion in some cases and the NIV is not a word for word translation so we can discount it.

1) In the correct word for word translation like the NASB there is no mention of pregnancy.
2) It is completely inconsistent with the rest of scripture that God would ever approve of abortion as a woman's choice if that is your point.
3) Even if we accept NIV rendering, this is still an act of God who has dominion over life and death. And I can tell you that is Who is acting here not some water with dust mixed in.

 

[HeIsHere]

yes if the Bible said she was pregnant (it doesn't) and if it said that the mixture will cause her to miscarriage (it doesn't). You have a make believe Bible.

It is really amazing to me how people will twist scripture to justify something as evil as abortion.

I suppose the response will be that sometimes God leads people to have abortions.
Someone presented that argument to me on Twitter.

 

[true_believer]

No, that is not what happened in that situation. That verse has been misused by abortion supporters and it's wrong.

You keep making that declaration about abortion supporters.
But you're not explaining why this situation isn't an an abortion or unlawful.
Abortion shouldn't be something that one uses for because a pregnancy is inconvenient due to irresponsible behavior or an unplanned pregnancy between a couple.
But in situations of rape, incest or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother it should be permitted without hesitation.

 

[kaylagrl]

You keep making that declaration about abortion supporters.
But you're not explaining why this situation isn't an an abortion or unlawful.

ZNP already proved that it was wrong. It doesn't say abortion.

Abortion shouldn't be something that one uses for because a pregnancy is inconvenient due to irresponsible behavior or an unplanned pregnancy between a couple.

Why not? If it's not a baby, just get rid of it. Do whatever you like. But if it is a baby...

But in situations of rape, incest or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother it should be permitted without hesitation.

Rape/incest/ medical are 4% of abortions. C. Everett Koop said "In thirty-five years of medicine I have never seen one case where abortion was necessary to save a mother's life." So that takes us down to 2%. In cases of rape and incest, it's not the babies fault. The baby can be given up for adoption. Why kill a child because of someone else's sin. Either way you have a 2% window. You think abortionists would agree with that?

 

[HeIsHere]

ZNP already proved that it was wrong. It doesn't say abortion.




Why not? If it's not a baby, just get rid of it. Do whatever you like. But if it is a baby...




Rape/incest/ medical are 4% of abortions. C. Everett Koop said "In thirty-five years of medicine I have never seen one case where abortion was necessary to save a mother's life." So that takes us down to 2%. In cases of rape and incest, it's not the babies fault. The baby can be given up for adoption. Why kill a child because of someone else's sin. Either way you have a 2% window. You think abortionists would agree with that?

Do you notice how "pro-abortionists" always use the same old arguments.

Medical science has proven that the child has it's own DNA and is an autonomous human being, rape does not change that fact.

Seems like someone lost one argument trying to use scripture and then went to the secular ... "but, but what about when..."

 

[ZNP]

Do you notice how "pro-abortionists" always use the same old arguments.

Medical science has proven that the child has it's own DNA and is an autonomous human being, rape does not change that fact.

Seems like someone lost one argument trying to use scripture and then went to the secular ... "but, but what about when..."

I looked at Worldometer, total number of abortions so far this year is almost 20 million. Imagine how many babies have been aborted during this generation that began when Israel was returned to the Jews in 1948.

What hit me is that God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians on Passover and then drowned the Egyptian army. Why? Pharaoh had killed the male children of the Jews, many were killed by being drowned in the Nile.

So if that was the righteous response to what Egypt did, then what will God's righteous response be to over 1 billion aborted babies worldwide?

 

[HeIsHere]

You keep making that declaration about abortion supporters.
But you're not explaining why this situation isn't an an abortion or unlawful.
Abortion shouldn't be something that one uses for because a pregnancy is inconvenient due to irresponsible behavior or an unplanned pregnancy between a couple.
But in situations of rape, incest or a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother it should be permitted without hesitation.

Scripture is addressing suspected "adultery" and not even connected to rape or incest.

And it has been addressed fully, you just cannot accept that your attempt to use scripture which is "eisigesis" and essentially malign God who makes very clear in other scripture that He is the author of all life at conception,

"Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."
Psalm 127 3-5

Do not make God the author of evil and abortion is evil.

 

[ZNP]

Scripture is addressing suspected "adultery" and not even connected to rape or incest.

And it has been addressed fully, you just cannot accept that your attempt to use scripture which is "eisigesis" and essentially malign God who makes very clear in other scripture that He is the author of all life at conception,

"Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."
Psalm 127 3-5

Do not make God the author of evil and abortion is evil.

2Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

1st -- They distort the word of God

2nd -- They then hang their entire teaching on this one distorted verse

What this person is doing is what all false prophets do.

2Peter 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Magenta]

So if the woman took the mixture and her child dies, that's a terminated pregnancy. Plain and simple.

That is true. The purpose was to determine if the woman had been faithful to her husband.

 

[HeIsHere]

ZNP already proved that it was wrong. It doesn't say abortion.

More accurate translations do not even state the woman is pregnant.

It is her belly, abdomen, or middle section that will swell. In order to accuse God or the Israelites of condoning abortion, there must be a clear statement or connection to an unborn baby in the text. Needless to say, that connection does not exist. Thus, we can dismiss the accusation that this passage proves that God was instructing the Israelites to perform abortion.

The text never mentions a pregnancy, and the NIV translation of the terms “miscarry” or “miscarries” is unfounded. The punishment for any adultery that took place is directed at the woman. And God’s involvement in the ceremony is necessary for it to have any significance. There was nothing in the water that would or could cause an abortion, cause sickness, or differentiate between a guilty or innocent person. Only the all-knowing God could manifest the woman’s guilt or innocence.
https://apologeticspress.org/bitter...se-does-numbers-511-22-condone-abortion-5663/

 

[true_believer]

Scripture is addressing suspected "adultery" and not even connected to rape or incest.

And it has been addressed fully, you just cannot accept that your attempt to use scripture which is "eisigesis" and essentially malign God who makes very clear in other scripture that He is the author of all life at conception,

"Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."
Psalm 127 3-5

Do not make God the author of evil and abortion is evil.

You have not addressed it. You've been doing the Ravi Zacharias "word salad" technique.

 

[kaylagrl]

You have not addressed it. You've been doing the Ravi Zacharias "word salad" technique.

No, it has been addressed, you've been given the correct answer. It was not talking about abortion. Move on.

 

[true_believer]

ZNP already proved that it was wrong. It doesn't say abortion.




Why not? If it's not a baby, just get rid of it. Do whatever you like. But if it is a baby...




Rape/incest/ medical are 4% of abortions. C. Everett Koop said "In thirty-five years of medicine I have never seen one case where abortion was necessary to save a mother's life." So that takes us down to 2%. In cases of rape and incest, it's not the babies fault. The baby can be given up for adoption. Why kill a child because of someone else's sin. Either way you have a 2% window. You think abortionists would agree with that?

ZNP didn't prove anything.

 

[PennEd]

This opens up the lefts rioting season!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...de-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization