Are The Democrats Wanton Baby-Killers?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

What would you call it then? It's killing a living being. That's the problem with American and even some Christians. We're so afraid of hurting someone's feelings, so we stop calling things what they are.

It is murder, regardless of the Oprah Winfrey effect.

You know... that's all hard and honest. But I think it's failing to recognize the guilt, pain, and shame of sisters in Christ who have made that terrible mistake.

Hardness isn't holiness.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You know... that's all hard and honest. But I think it's failing to recognize the guilt, pain, and shame of sisters in Christ who have made that terrible mistake.

Hardness isn't holiness.

Paul didn't shy away from naming sin to the church in Corinth, in fact he said "such were some of you." You can recognize the guilt, pain,etc without going the politically correct, seeker-friendly route.

[n david]

Two weeks since promised post, JD, what's wrong? Can't talk against your own party?

[Luke]

Is abortion murder? The dictionary defines murder as:

mur·der/ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled [mur-der] Show IPA
noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation

verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Now although according to the laws of the USA it is permissable to abort a baby (not a fetus) some might argue that it does not fit the definition but no where does God give this permission! However when we look at the definitions under the verb heading there can be no question that abortion is murder.

As to the question of should we call it murder when this may hurt the feelings of some who may have made this choice? If they have repented they it would seem would be among the most ardent foes of abortion. The apostle Paul multiple times spoke of how sinful he had been and he never tried to sofen the blow inorder to spare his feelings. Sin must be named and shown to be horrible and vile as it truely is. If my sin is named but it has been repented of rather than make me mad i joy that i am free and forgiven of that sin. Does it make me feel shame to hear how wicked the sins of my past are, ofcourse but it also feels me with thanksgiving to know that though I was wicked Jesus was willing to save and forgive me! Rather than people feeling anger or humiliation when they hear how wicked sin is they should hope that it is truely shown to be despicable and disgusting so that others do not fall and suffer as they themselves have!

[Aquila]

I'm saying that these situations are very delicate. Many women are tragically scarred emotionally over their choice to abort. To call them "murderers", especially sisters in Christ, is to drag up sin that is under the blood and play the accuser. I know a woman who stopped going to church because during some political season the pastor ranted about "baby killers" with reference to abortion. She made her decision to abort years ago. Hearing this repeatedly drummed up old emotions and memories. It was emotionally abusive to her.

Again... many life and death decisions are made every day in various contexts. Rather it be self defense, war, law enforcement, or medical decisions relating to life, health, and even quality of life. Individuals are often granted the ability to chose life or death as it relates to another in these different contexts due to their unique circumstances. It is the conviction of many that the circumstance surrounding pregnancy leave a woman entirely sovereign regarding her body and the fruit of her womb. This doesn't mean that every choice to abort is morally right. However, it does mean that the right does reside with individual women and that women should be guided and educated as it relates to making such a choice. The government, being what it is by nature, is entirely incapable of both policing and enforcing any anti-choice law without serious violation of personal privacy and personal sovereignty. Therefore, the government is viewed as not being a viable vehicle through which to address the abortion issue.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm saying that these situations are very delicate. Many women are tragically scarred emotionally over their choice to abort. To call them "murderers", especially sisters in Christ, is to drag up sin that is under the blood and play the accuser.

I agree that we should not call a sister in Christ a murder because of past sins that have been repented of. I have not seen anyone on this thread calling out names and saying that this woman or that woman is a murder. Rather we should call the sin of abortion murder because that is what it is. Should we refrain from call homosexuality an abomination because we may offend ex-homosexuals that are now free from that sin or should we stop useing the terms thief because it may offend those who before they were saved stole? If someone has truely repented of thier sin they are no longer guilty of it. This does not mean that they do not still feel shame guilt or even remores for their past sin but they are not condemed of it as though they were guilty of it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again... many life and death decisions are made every day in various contexts. Rather it be self defense, war, law enforcement, or medical decisions relating to life, health, and even quality of life. Individuals are often granted the ability to chose life or death as it relates to another in these different contexts due to their unique circumstances. It is the conviction of many that the circumstance surrounding pregnancy leave a woman entirely sovereign regarding her body and the fruit of her womb. This doesn't mean that every choice to abort is morally right. However, it does mean that the right does reside with individual women and that women should be guided and educated as it relates to making such a choice.

Where in the Bible does God give them this right? I can show you the biblical rpresedent of self-defence, capitatal punishment, and even war but nowhere in the bible is abortion sanctioned.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

I agree that we should not call a sister in Christ a murder because of past sins that have been repented of. I have not seen anyone on this thread calling out names and saying that this woman or that woman is a murder. Rather we should call the sin of abortion murder because that is what it is. Should we refrain from call homosexuality an abomination because we may offend ex-homosexuals that are now free from that sin or should we stop useing the terms thief because it may offend those who before they were saved stole? If someone has truely repented of thier sin they are no longer guilty of it. This does not mean that they do not still feel shame guilt or even remores for their past sin but they are not condemed of it as though they were guilty of it.

This is evidently lost on you. The wise will see and understand.

Where in the Bible does God give them this right? I can show you the biblical rpresedent of self-defence, capitatal punishment, and even war but nowhere in the bible is abortion sanctioned.

I don't see where the Bible directly grants the right to for a woman to abort. However, the trial by ordeal that was mentioned earlier (Numbers 5:11-31) can be imposed by a husband who suspects that his wife has committed adultery. The effect of the trial renders the guilty woman barren and causes her uterus to essentially miscarry, thereby terminating any possible pregnancy resulting from the adulterous affair. So, the implication is that a husband has authority over his wife's body and the right to submit her to a trial by ordeal that would terminate any illegitimate seed.

This does remind me of something unrelated. When I was acting a fool my mother used to say, "Boy, I brought you into this world... I can take you out!!!" I think she got that from Deuteronomy 21 lol :

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (ESV)
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Imagine, parents having the right to have their child publically executed on the basis of rebellion and drunkenness. That's one tough youth rehabilitation program. LOL

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is evidently lost on you. The wise will see and understand.

I guess I must be unwise please elaborate on what you mean otherwiser there can be no discussion.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't see where the Bible directly grants the right to for a woman to abort. However, the trial by ordeal that was mentioned earlier (Numbers 5:11-31) can be imposed by a husband who suspects that his wife has committed adultery. The effect of the trial renders the guilty woman barren and causes her uterus to drop, thereby terminating any possible pregnancy resulting from the adulterous affair. So, the implication is that a husband has authority over his wife's body and the right to submit her to a trial by ordeal that would terminate any illegitimate seed.

The point of the trial was not to abort but rather determine guilt IF a baby ever died as a result of this trial it was not the purpose or intention this trial centered on the woman and her choice. Abortion centers on a baby who made no choice and is guilty of no sin.

Originally Posted by Aquila

This does remind me of something unrelated. When I was acting a fool my mother used to say, "Boy, I brought you into this world... I can take you out!!!" I think she got that from Deuteronomy 21 lol :

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (ESV)
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Imagine, parents having the right to have their child publically executed on the basis of rebellion and drunkenness. That's one tough youth rehabilitation program. LOL

Lol I heard this from my mother as well.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

I guess I must be unwise please elaborate on what you mean otherwiser there can be no discussion.

My point is that the wise will see my point.

The point of the trial was not to abort but rather determine guilt IF a baby ever died as a result of this trial it was not the purpose or intention this trial centered on the woman and her choice. Abortion centers on a baby who made no choice and is guilty of no sin.

Rabbinical authorities have debated over what might have constituted a cause for jealousy. One such cause could be a wife missing her menses when the husband knew he had not been intimate with her for some time. The implication was clearly that this trial was open to a husband who suspected his wife of adultery because he believed her to be pregnant with another man's child.

The purpose of the trial was to determine guilt as it relates to adultery. Guilt brought forth a "miscarrying womb" and barrenness. The intent was manifold: to determine guilt, terminate any illegitimate seed, and to render the wife barren for life. Remember, the law essentially established that a wife and the fruit of the womb was entirely under the husband's authority. Illegitimate seed had no inherent right to live.

So technically, one can argue that according to the Law of Moses a jealous husband had the right to initiate a trial by ordeal that would both determine an unfaithful wife's guilt and terminate any illegitimate pregnancy.

Lol I heard this from my mother as well.

lol

I think we all have. A point can be made here in that according to the law... the circumstances wherein men were permitted to end a human life were more extensive in the OT than they are today.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is that the wise will see my point.

Lol well to make myself feel better i will simply tell myself you didnt have a response or rebuttle to that part of my post

Originally Posted by Aquila

Rabbinical authorities have debated over what might have constituted a cause for jealousy. One such cause could be a wife missing her menses when the husband knew he had not been intimate with her for some time. The implication was clearly that this trial was open to a husband who suspected his wife of adultery because he believed her to be pregnant with another man's child.

The purpose of the trial was to determine guilt as it relates to adultery. Guilt brought forth a "miscarrying womb" and barrenness. The intent was manifold: to determine guilt, terminate any illegitimate seed, and to render the wife barren for life. Remember, the law essentially established that a wife and the fruit of the womb was entirely under the husband's authority. Illegitimate seed had no inherent right to live.

According to the text there was no intentional killing of an unborn child.

Originally Posted by Aquila

lol

I think we all have. A point can be made here in that according to the law... the circumstances wherein men were permitted to end a human life were quite expansive in the OT than they are today.