Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[SFTor]

please read the post right above yours. (post # 1207 and the others they posted for you.)

I have read it. It doesn’t change a thing.

 

[allhers]

Abortion is extremely emotional. I am not talking about it like it is cognitive. It is murder. Terrorizing others by shock method is terrorism.

Can you imagine who the real terrorists are to the baby in the womb being aborted?

 

[rlg94086]

This passage does not contradict the fact that in some cases the miscarriage of an unborn child would be the end result of this Sota process. So what’s your point?

In the case of the Sota, God intervenes:

Nachmanides (tinyurl.com/ytgwl) points out that of all the 613 commandments, it is only the sotah law that requires God’s specific co-operation to make it work. **The bitter waters can only be effective miraculously. **The Torah assures guilty adulterers that their horrible deaths will follow the drinking of the waters instantaneously, and it promises the innocent woman who was wrongfully accused and elected to go through the humiliating sotah experience to demonstrate her innocence that she will conceive a child even if she is barren.

As it is God’s intervention, man is not aborting a child. It is not our right to do so. God on the other hand can. As this rabbi pointed out, if the woman is innocent of adultery, then “she will conceive” even though she went through the sota. We live by God’s rules. He does not live by our rules. There is nothing in the sota which is contrary to Christian pro-life beliefs.

 

[allhers]

I have read it. It doesn’t change a thing.

you didn’t read all that they posted for you then, it would have taken you longer to read it. you don’t want to change your mind, you are the kind of person that needs educated by the facts.

 

[SFTor]

Can you imagine who the real terrorists are to the baby in the womb being aborted?

Well, let’s try another passage from the Bible, from Exodus 21:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Does this look like the Bible assigning equal worth to the fetus and the woman?

 

[allhers]

Well, let’s try another passage from the Bible, from Exodus 21:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Does this look like the Bible assigning equal worth to the fetus and the woman?

Gee, must be a BABY afterall that she’s giving birth too, huh?

 

[rlg94086]

Well, let’s try another passage from the Bible, from Exodus 21:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Does this look like the Bible assigning equal worth to the fetus and the woman?

Okay…I agree with the previous poster who said you should take this to the Sacred Scripture sub-forum. If you want to get into interpretation of Scripture, that is the place to go.

 

[carjack]

So you stand by your accusation of terrorism? You actually claim other posters here are terrorists?

I am not looking to fight with anyone. I don’t agree with the pics. That doesn’t make me a pro-abort. Using violence(in this case violent pics) to make a point about abortion is one thing. Calling other people names and still insisting that graphic pics are appropriate for everyone is a form of intimidation. Using violence to intimidate is a form of terrorism. Calling people terrorist is extreme. So if I hurt anyone’s feelings, I am sorry.

 

[SFTor]

Gee, must be a BABY afterall that she’s giving birth too, huh?

Yes, and no fine shall be paid for this baby that is miscarried.

There is passage after passage in the Bible that commands Israelites to “rip up women with child” when they belong to the enemy.

I don’t get it.

 

[carjack]

Can you imagine who the real terrorists are to the baby in the womb being aborted?

Of course the baby being aborted is terrorized.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, let’s try another passage from the Bible, from Exodus 21:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

Does this look like the Bible assigning equal worth to the fetus and the woman?

Indeed it does.

In the first case, " there is no serious injury," the child is born healthy albeit somewhat prematurely.

But in the second case, “there is serious injury,” to either mother or child, the offender is to be punished severely.

And this, of course, is the Old Testament. Under the Old Testament, the Jews could divorce their wives, were commanded to kill their enemies (including women and children) without mercy, and so on.

Under the New Covenant, we are more constrained.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, and no fine shall be paid for this baby that is miscarried.

There is passage after passage in the Bible that commands Israelites to “rip up women with child” when they belong to the enemy.

I don’t get it.

Obviously.

If you want to “get it,” I suggest you post these scriptural questions in the Sacred Scripture sub-form. If your purpose is just to be an atheist pointing out that you believe our faith is disengenuous… :yawn:

 

[SFTor]

Okay…I agree with the previous poster who said you should take this to the Sacred Scripture sub-forum. If you want to get into interpretation of Scripture, that is the place to go.

OK, understood. I give up. I’ll say this though: the Bible does not seem to care much about the unborn, nor the women who carry them (especially when it is the unborn of Israel’s enemies.) It doesn’t seem to care much about the firstborn sons, since it’s apparently OK to kill all the firstborns of Egypt. It doesn’t even confer personhood on the Children of the Israelites until they’re a year old.

It therefore seems fair to ask: exactly where do you take your morals from? They are certainly not provided by the Bible in this case.

 

[rlg94086]

OK, understood. I give up. I’ll say this though: the Bible does not seem to care much about the unborn, nor the women who carry them (especially when it is the unborn of Israel’s enemies.) It doesn’t seem to care much about the firstborn sons, since it’s apparently OK to kill all the firstborns of Egypt. It doesn’t even confer personhood on the Children of the Israelites until they’re a year old.

It therefore seems fair to ask: exactly where do you take your morals from? They are certainly not provided by the Bible in this case.

As Catholics, we receive our instruction from the Bible, the Magisterium and Tradition. As Vern mentioned, we are held to different constraints under the New Covenant than our “older brothers” the Jews.

 

[SFTor]

Indeed it does.

In the first case, " there is no serious injury," the child is born healthy albeit somewhat prematurely.

But in the second case, “there is serious injury,” to either mother or child, the offender is to be punished severely.

And this, of course, is the Old Testament. Under the Old Testament, the Jews could divorce their wives, were commanded to kill their enemies (including women and children) without mercy, and so on.

Under the New Covenant, we are more constrained.

“The child is born healthy albeit somewhat prematurely.” Please, sir, you are insulting my intelligence. Preemies didn’t last for a New York minute in ancient Palestine.

So since the New Covenant, we are no longer bound by the teachings of the Old Testament? Why do we bother with that book at all anymore?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not looking to fight with anyone.

Then take my advice and stop slinging around accusations of terrorism.

I don’t agree with the pics. That doesn’t make me a pro-abort.

Then disagree in a more temperate tone.

Using violence(in this case violent pics) to make a point about abortion is one thing.

Pictures are not violence – they are merely pictures.

Calling other people names and still insisting that graphic pics are appropriate for everyone is a form of intimidation.

Calling people terrorists is a form of intimidation.

Using violence to intimidate is a form of terrorism.

Did someone throw a punch? Did someone throw a rock? I don’t believe that can be done over the internet.

Calling people terrorist is extreme. So if I hurt anyone’s feelings, I am sorry.

Thank you.

 

[carjack]

Thank you.

Your Welcome.

 

[rlg94086]

“The child is born healthy albeit somewhat prematurely.” Please, sir, you are insulting my intelligence. Preemies didn’t last for a New York minute in ancient Palestine.

So since the New Covenant, we are no longer bound by the teachings of the Old Testament? Why do we bother with that book at all anymore?

We are bound by some teachings of the Old Testament (e.g. Ten Commandments), but many of the restrictions (e.g. dietary) and punishments (e.g. stoning) don’t apply. The New Covenant in some ways calls for a stricter understanding of morality.

In the Old Testament Adultery was a sin. In the New Testament it is still a sin, but so is lust; however, we don’t stone adulterers.

Also, as I mentioned in the sota responses, you have to separate God’s just punishment of mankind from His expectations from us. If He commanded the Israelites to do some nasty things to others as part of His justice, we aren’t in a position to say, “well God did it, so I guess it’s okay for us to do it.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

“The child is born healthy albeit somewhat prematurely.” Please, sir, you are insulting my intelligence. Preemies didn’t last for a New York minute in ancient Palestine.

That’s why the pericope is presented in an “either-or” format. If the child dies, the transgressor must pay the penalty.

"
So since the New Covenant, we are no longer bound by the teachings of the Old Testament? Why do we bother with that book at all anymore?

Some but not all of the 613 laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect. Others are not.

For example, we can eat ham. We cannot murder our neighbors.

 

[Nickkname]

One of the reasons pro-choicers support abortion is because society, which follows the spirit of the antichrist, believes that unborn babies are not human beings; they’re just objects, things.

Oh wait, I’m sorry, society dosen’t believe in the spirit of the antichrist or in the devil or in any of that “religious mumbo jumbo”. So I guess I should have said, “Society believes that unborn babies are not human beings; they’re just objects, things”.

No, no, wait, that’s wrong too! Society can’t be wrong. It must be…people! Yes, that’s it. So what I should have said was, “People believe that unborn babies are not human beings; they’re just objects, things.”

Hold on, that’s wrong as well! People aren’t in error. It’s…certain individuals. Ah, yes, that’s it! It’s certain individuals who believe that unborn babies are not human beings; they’re just objects, things.

rolls eyes Man will do anything to get rid of responsibility and guilt. Especially when it comes to innocent life.