ABORTION.......

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

Good to see you! Ok, check out this link for the slavery issue.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

I think that sums it up pretty well.

Nah, it doesn't sum it up at all. It just glosses over the issue with biblical references to servants among the Hebrew people which is not at all the same thing as the keeping of non Hebrew slaves. The non Hebrew slave keeping described in Leviticus 25 was very similar to the kind of slavery practiced in the US during the 1700's and 1800's, but I think you already knew that.

Ahem. You do know that the Christians weren't even around when the Hebrews were slaves and that it was neither the Jews nor the Christians who had Hebrew slaves, but rather the Egyptians? And was that condoned by God? Not according to the Bible. Moses was the prophet appointed to lead the Hebrews out of that situation. You can read all about it in Exodus in the Old Testament.

For someone that frequently criticizes the reading skills of others, you certainly seem to have your own problems in that area. I was pointing out that MA's link downplayed biblical slavery by referencing Deu 15:12-15 which deals only with Hebrew bondservants in bond of other Hebrews. It conveniently neglected the Lev 25:44-46 passage which deals with non-Hebrew slaves (those that were different) authorized to be held as property by Hebrews.

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:

IMO this quote from your link is nothing short of a bold faced lie.

Quote:

So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

So putting it all into context, where is the lie? The link MommaAngel posted gave accurate information, and her statement that the slavery the Bible allowed for, (i.e. condoned) was exactly as MommaAngel described. I sincerely you owe her an apology for calling her a liar.

More evidence of a reading problem. I DID NOT CALL MA A LIAR! I said that a quote from her link was a lie, and I gave the reason why.

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Leviticus 25

Quote:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

All this is saying is that you can make slaves of those you conquer--this was culturally permitted throughout all peoples and cultures of that time--but you can't make slaves out of each other. All things considered, that doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable rule.

No more unreasonable than say the US slavery of the 1700's & 1800's? Is your point that the Bible condones slavery because it was culturally accepted in THOSE DAYS? If so, that would be a perfect reason to NOT use the Bible as a moral standard.

Your reference to the lie directly followed your post of MommaAngel's comment on the link. If you did not intend it that way, then fine.

As for the rest of your usual diatribe against anything religious, you again are trying to read accounts of an ancient history and perceptions of an ancient culture into more modern times. Though the history is not entirely consistent in every instance, MommaAngel is right that Biblical slavery was often more of a type of caste system or cultural status rather than abducting people and forcing them into bondage though the latter did happen almost always with less than satisfactory results. A conquerer of a region could make slaves of the conquered subjects or not at his choice and whim.

I am reasonably certain that none of the people of the Bible had any thoughts about Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century America since they had no clue it existed. Thus the Bible does not reference American slavery at all thought it was Christian groups who were the most vocal that slavery was wrong and who lobbied to have it ended.

Englishmajor,

Can you tell me who made that statement (that is your signature line)?

This born again isn't getting mad. I love that avatar! Pretty colors!

Want to switch to another thread? The born agains are going to get mad, here.......hijacking their thread.....

Personally I would be satisfied at this point if Roe v Wade was revised so that judges would HAVE to interpret it as it was originally intended. The original intent is that the state would have little or no interest in the baby in the first tri-mester. Practically speaking then, that would allow up to three months that abortion on demand would be legal. Then Roe v Wade cites increased governmental interest in the second trimester and a great deal of governmental interest in the third trimester. In other words a compelling reason would have to be given for aborting a child in mid term and only a life threatening condition would justify a late term abortion.

This would save some. And with at least a modicum of sanctity of life returned to the American psyche, then maybe the pendulum would swing back to the time that women rarely conceived a child they were unable to love, even if the pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted.

I think the debate could be cooled and maybe even become more constructive if two things happened:

--Pro abortion laws people would stop attacking pro lifers as people who want to control others and acknowledge that some restrictions on at least mid and late term abortions could be reasonable.

--Pro life people would be more clear that they do accept there being a valid reasons for abortion and that they are not out to deny women the right to an abortion when an abortion is in fact necessary.

If the two sides could agree on those two principles, then we could have a constructive debate on what is necessary.

mesquite wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Pro-slavery? I own no slaves. I don't think anyone should own slaves. The New Covenant with Jesus Christ abolished the old laws.

Oh? Which ones?

The ones that don't fit in with modern societiy's desires, of course.

Women have a right to choose, yes. But after 2,3,4 abortions, is that still the case? Abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. If the person cannot keep from aborting, she should have her tubes tied and it should be mandatory. Of course, that won't happen (ACLU, etc).

Would've thought the Pill would have solved this problem but seems to be as much a problem now as pre pill.

I guess you'd have to work in a clinic, as I have, and seen babies aborted by vacuum, or worse. It'd make you puke. They look like tiny fully formed humans. It is murder. So, these women either get their plumbing fixed, use the pill, keep their legs crossed - as in use some self restraint. Or they have the child and let some loving couple who can't have kids adopt the child. That'd be in a perfect world. I think if the government has to pay for the abortion then they legally have some say in the matter, don't you? The 'government' is you, after all. Most of these women are medi-cal welfare cases, are they not?

Phoenix
The point is, the pregnant woman did not want to carry the pregnancy to term. Period. It is really none of our business why.

Quote:

Feels unready for responsibility 21%
- Feels she can't afford baby 21%
- Concern for how baby would change her life 16%
- Relationship problem 12%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 11%
- Has all the children she wants 8%

Personally, I think that the above are damn good reasons to abort. If a woman is unable, unwilling, or too immature to raise a child properly, I think that the best thing is to stop the process before it goes too far.

I really become very angry with people who attempt to tell other people how to run their lives.

I wonder how many women are ever actually endangered by having the baby? I was under the impression that a c-section was a non-lethal option?

Every day, at least 1,600 women die from the complications of pregnancy and childbirth. That is 585,000 women at a minimum dying every year. The majority of these deaths almost 90% occur in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa; approximately 10% in other developing regions; and less than 1% in the developed world. Between 25% and 33% of all deaths of women of reproductive age in many developing countries are the result of complications of pregnancy or childbirth.
In addition to the number of deaths each year, over 50 million more women suffer from maternal morbidity acute complications from pregnancy. For at least 18 million women, these morbidities are long-term and often debilitating.

Worldwide, there are 430 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. In developing countries, the figure is 480 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births; in developed countries there are 27 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births.

The highest maternal mortality figures are found in Eastern and Western Africa, where in some countries more than 1,000 women die for every 100,000 live births.

In addition to maternal mortality, half of all perinatal deaths are due primarily to inadequate maternal care during pregnancy and delivery. Each year, 8 million neonatal deaths and stillbirths occur, largely the result of the same factors that cause the death and disability of their mothers poor maternal health, inadequate care, poor hygiene and inappropriate management of delivery, as well as lack of newborn care.

Forty percent or more of pregnant women may experience acute obstetric problems during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period; an estimated 15% of pregnant women develop life-threatening complications.
As many as 300 million women more than one-quarter of all adult women now living in the developing world suffer from short- or long-term illness related to pregnancy and childbirth. Death and disability related to maternal causes account for 18.5% of the burden of disease among women of reproductive age in developing countries. Long-term complications of pregnancy and childbirth include uterine prolapse, fistulae (see below), incontinence, pain during intercourse and infertility.
Up to 80,000 women each year develop fistulae holes in the birth canal that allow leakage of urine or faeces from the bladder or rectum, making a woman permanently incontinent. Between 500,000 and one million women now live with fistulae; many become social outcasts, turned out of homes and rejected by their husbands and families.
Obstructed labour can result in permanent nerve damage and loss of sensation and muscle deterioration in the feet and legs; women worst affected often become crippled. Infections, including sepsis, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), the symptoms of which include chronic pain, damage to the reproductive system, infertility and a range of gynaecological disorders.
Maternal Mortality - World Heath Organization

This report presents data from death certificates compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which indicate that in the United States, the annual maternal mortality ratio remained approximately 7.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during 1982-1996.

In 1930, the national maternal mortality ratio was 670 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The ratio declined substantially during the 1940s and 1950s, and continued to decline until 1982. During 1982-1996, the annual maternal mortality ratio fluctuated between approximately 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births

In this report, maternal mortality ratios are based solely on vital statistics data and are underestimates because of misclassification. The number of deaths attributed to pregnancy and its complications is estimated to be 1.3 to three times that reported in vital statistics records. Misclassification of maternal deaths occurs when the cause of death on the death certificate does not reflect the relation between a woman's pregnancy and her death. In addition, the inclusion of deaths causally related to pregnancy that occur between 43 and 365 days postpregnancy can increase the number of maternal deaths identified by 5%-10%

Primary prevention of maternal deaths, such as those associated with ectopic pregnancy and some cases of infection and hemorrhage, is possible. However, some complications that can occur during pregnancy cannot be prevented (e.g., pregnancy-induced hypertension, placenta previa, retained placenta, and thromboembolism). Nevertheless, more than half of all maternal deaths can be prevented through early diagnosis and appropriate medical care of pregnancy complications. Hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, infection, and ectopic pregnancy continue to account for most (59%) maternal deaths.
Maternal Mortality - United States, 1982-1996

I try to remember that just as hard as it is Anti-Abortionists (like me) to understand just how deeply we believe the fetus is a child and that our Christian beliefs are very sacred to us and we will always stand up for them, it is just as hard for Pro-Choicers to understand that it is the unborn children we are trying to protect and not doing this to take away anyone's rights.

...

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

If the majority of abortions were performed for medical reasons, etc., I could understand it. But, the statistics show it is for convenience of the woman. To me, that is selfish.

A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species and deriving its nourishment from the host.

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

The unborn has a heart beat pushing blood throughout his body before the first month is out and brainwaves that can be measured before 6 weeks. More, much more than "a mass of cells" is present. This is a living human being.

That is true, real life. At six weeks, tiny fingernails are beginning to form. Pro abortionists should be required to be at an abortion during the suction part. They'd really like that.

djjd62 wrote:

i don't think that abortion is the best option, but it should be an option

The option should have been take prior to the pregnancy

Pregnancy due to rape or incest is a very difficult situation and also an extremely rare one. However, the unborn is an innocent victim of this crime, just as the woman is.

Neither the woman, nor the unborn should die for the crime of the rapist. I think most women instinctively understand this and would not want to be the cause of death against one who is defenseless.

I would not expect her to want to raise the child who is born as a result of rape or incest, but you know, many do make this choice. Those who make this choice, I think, validate my view somewhat that women would instinctively move to protect these children who are also victims of the same crime.

However, my view is that we ought to ban the over 90% of abortions that are for convenience reasons (granting exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest) first. Then we can work further on the knottier problems of rape and incest.

How would a person feel knowing that they were a victim of crime at an early age vs. not having the chance to live at all?

I think most folks would choose to get a chance to live rather than to have that chance taken away because their biological father was unfortunately a criminal.