This topic is based upon your personal opinion on whether abortion is wrong or right. I personally believe that it is wrong, and have many reasons for it. You may challenge me if you wish, but please make sense!
Also - Exodus 21:22 states that: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
I'm quoting this from str.org, a Christian Apologist site:
At issue is the phrase translated âshe has a miscarriage.â There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word âmiscarriageâ implies the death of the child. Websterâs New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, âThe expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.â[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.
Hereâs the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word âmiscarriageâ is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.
Are we justified in assuming that the child is dead? The answer is in the original language. Thereâs a history of how these words are used in the Hebrew Bible, and that history is important. Letâs look at it.
In essence, what is asked is, is the phrase used in your translation as "her fruit depart from her" properly understood to mean that the child is dead?
I don't think so, but even if any ambiguity exists, I don't think we can use this verse to argue for abortion. I believe that the Bible argues against the taking of innocent life.
I can't see why people should abolish abortion. Well, abortion is painful because in the mother's eyes, the baby is hers and abortion is just like cutting an arm out. So, I believe, abortion decisions are mostly carefully made.
Also, there's many example that a couple had a defect child, and their economy dropped from the middle class to the poverty line. Then, either the child is not cared good enough because of poverty, or the child is sent to orphanage: no parents for his/her childhood. How sad.
you know what guys...... i tried to read all 11 pages.... i really did, but they all say the same thing. I refuse to read the same garbage over and over again. I'm just going to give my opinion on the matter b/c the first few pages didn't change it, and i'm sure the next 8ish wouldn't have changed my mind either. This is pretty long. if u can make it through than cool... if not... than u prob needed to go to sleep anyway.
I personally believe that we as christians should keep God in our hearts and out of the argument we're in. If you are worthy of taking on someone who doesn't believe in God or just doesn't adhere to their so-called faith's beliefs than you will be able to debunk them on their own terms.
there are many concepts that are just that.... concepts. Even tho you may have a strong faith in something you cannot prove its validity by any other grounds than faith itself.... let me explain.
souls - you can't argue that something has a soul with people that don't believe in souls in the first place. you just end up looking stupid
now onto my opinion.
abortion, by my definition, (yes i'm aware that there are other more professional medical opinions out there and u won't really take mine seriously but ur gonna get it anyway so shut up i don't wanna here ur crap), is the ending of a pregnancy via the ending of the developing creature's life.
i'm not aware of any procedure that transplants the child into a test tube to grow or into another host once development has already started in the original host creature.
the argument i've heard is life doesn't start till the first sentient brainwave at whatever week of development...
i don't agree with that. i say that life begins at the fusion of egg and sperm.
now i know what ur thinking.... christian gonna talk about souls again... not so much :-P .... just sit back a minute
my reasoning is completely based off of science.... the scientific realm first given a face by the two scientists Watson and Crick as you might know their work.
DNA is a neat thing. Each person, unless identical twins/triplets/etc, has their own identical genetic code.
I say that once this unique code has started replication and in doing so started the cell cycle and then the splitting of cells to form the zygote which would eventually become the child that the life of this new being has in fact started. and trying to end it after coupling of egg and sperm is in fact attempting abortion.
that view nullifies any and all statements some people make that certain actions done by males and a certain cycle that the female body goes through is also abortion/murder.... its not abortion till coupling has occurred.
humans and animals (macroscopic or microscopic)are... according to science... nothing but collections of cells that replicate and sometimes form different tissues that work together in order to form functioning beings. i think it is a very biased scientific statement to say that life only begins once a certain type of tissue has developed and begun to function when many other types of tissue and cells are already functioning like they would in a normal human.
If organisms are nothing but cells than life begins when the first cell (sperm/egg hybrid) comes into being.
in my college psychology class my teacher posed the question of "if plan B stops a zygote from implanting in the uterus, is it abortion?" one girl in the class said that "New york doesn't acknowledge a person as being a person until it has taken its first breath." I find it funny that she honestly thought that a government had a say in when a life begins. She is under the assumption that the govt is infallible... but a congregation of individuals who are all fallible.... is still fallible.... although due to checks and balances could be argued to be less fallible.... but still fallible nonetheless.
you want science?... i've given it to you. you will still argue my logic and cite small portions and tear it to pieces w/o acknowledging the other parts that tear you to pieces, but that's ok. I expect it. I also expect that most of the people that reference me will probably try and lessen what i've said...not by debunking the foundation of my response, but by nit picking how i've said it and not really proving me wrong... but just proving that i'm lazy with grammar and free with my opinion.
As for right and wrong... I believe that once the two cells fuse life has begun. I believe that throwing away life is wrong. as for deaths of animals via food, experimentation, etc... its a very poor justification but i justify it as they died for a higher purpose. I would not exist without their sacrifice. The info gathered from the research on them can potentially save millions or even more than that. Am i a speciesist b/c i hold the position that humans are more important than animals.... yea you got me.
My best friend (she's graduated from college)... got pregnant her freshman year. she had the child and gave it up for adoption. you would've never guessed she had a kid. I believe there are alot of great homes out there that would love to have ur kid (yes.... there are some crappy ones too... i know that... thanks for your input) i believe that is the path that should be taken instead of abortion. before that path is taken i believe that people should use contraceptives if they're consumating their relationship w/o the desire for a child. I believe most of all that people shouldn't do this out of marriage so that they not only lessen the risk of an undesired child, but also they lessen the risk of getting bored w/ their spouse once they do get married. (helps w/ cheating and stuff like that).
however some instances like "carrying your own coffin" where the child is actually killing the mother and/or itself in some way shape form or fashion. my logic only presents a gray area for such an event. I don't think that, unless the mother is wanting to go with her child, 2 should die when only 1 has to. If the mother is going to die and the child is too than abortion is acceptable. If the child is just killing the mother and there is no way to save both than if the mother so chooses she should be allowed an abortion.
there are other topics i have yet to address but i'll let you guys point out my errors so that i can come back later and fill those empty parts in.
the last 2 sentences of the 2nd to last paparagraph about "carrying ur own coffin" are pretty much meant to say the same thing... its late... sorry for my mistake
AVORNE - the amount of imprint on the world is irrelevant. if you were to die right now than all those that loved you would be sad. Your community would mourn you for days... ur family for longer. But the ripple your death would cause in the figurative ocean that is the world would be so insignificant that it would be almost equivalent to that of the "ripple" of an aborted fetus.
The fact of the matter is that they did in fact exist just as much as yourself. you would argue that your life has influenced more lives than a fetus.... abortion cases that are on national news are viewed by millions of people over the nation. I doubt that i'll ever have half a million people know i existed throughout my entire life. I can bring up other examples if you like. The collective case of all fetuses that have ever been aborted have caused such a large ripple that millions of people debate their case... Sounds like a greater imprint on the world than i have ever or ever will make. Your argument about no imprint is invalid and useless. Please find another.
AVORNE - the amount of imprint on the world is irrelevant. if you were to die right now than all those that loved you would be sad. Your community would mourn you for days... ur family for longer.
No. They are not actually living fully yet, still developing, they have no idea where they are, they don't know their family, and vice versa, a foetus has no clue he/she even exists. So infact, if the mother can't take care of it and agrees to kill the foetus (not baby) and wait until it is suitable for her to have a child and be able to care for it properly, then she can do so. Who are you to dictate peoples lives? please don't tell me your Christian...
Your argument about no imprint is invalid and useless. Please find another.
Your argument about 'ripples', whatever the hell they are, and what 'could have been' are more so invalid. If the mother can't take care of the child, doesn't have a steady job where she can take maternity leave, has no (known) father, not enough money to supply the child with a room, or clothes, or a cot, or food etc. etc. etc. Then why the hell should she HAVE to have the baby, which is turn, will most likely suffer or not have a great childhood. Use your brain, not your heart.
There is no such thing as notability - in time everyone will be forgotten. The only reason we remember some people for longer is that we choose to pass on valuable teachings and associate them with that person. Whether you're forgotten in 6 weeks or 6 thousand years it doesn't matter. The 'ripple' of a foetus is non-existent because it doesn't have a name nor does it have any interactions with anyone or anything besides the womb. I have friends and family yes but in time both I and them will be gone and forgotten and so the 'ripple' is small.
There is no such thing as notability - in time everyone will be forgotten
Disagree with you on that- Any one here heard of Gilgamesh? He was probably a real person, and we still remember him all these years latter.
he only reason we remember some people for longer is that we choose to pass on valuable teachings and associate them with that person.
We remember a few people(Such as Gilgamesh) from back when writing was primitive. It is safe to say that the memory of some people, Gilgamesh, Eisenstein, etc will last as long as the human race is intact.
Fair point - I should probably change that to 'notability for the common man'. If you don't get famous then you don't get remembered - and I ain't met no Foetuses on the hollywood carpet, you dig?
Fair point - I should probably change that to 'notability for the common man'. If you don't get famous then you don't get remembered - and I ain't met no Foetuses on the hollywood carpet, you dig?
Ya, I "dig"...I am on your side remember?
I would also point out that the chances of them becoming "bad", like the next Hitler or a gang member, would be far more likely. Not only would the chance increase of them becoming so do to there poor child hood, but there are far more gang members than presidents...
Yeah sorry - I got caught up reading a terrible fanfic with a lotta 'dawgs' and 'digs' in it - heh, sorry.
Also, if the foetus is aborted because the parents can't afford or are unable to raise it properly then 314's point is even stronger and harder to argue against.
