Really, so do you hold your God accountable when he supposedly killed all the pregnant women who died during the flood? Do you hold God accountable for commanding Joshua to kill all the women and children of the Amorites?
That is a very sad statement, to call a person/baby an object.
What about the health of the baby? The life of the baby? Why is the babies health not taken into consideration? The reason is because the mother is only thinking about herself. She is not thinking about the baby at all.
This is a very subjective statement. If you are ok with it, then how can you stop anyone from murdering someone who is older than a day old?
Sure, why not?
The person falling from a building is not the same argument. You’re suggesting the person falling is by accident. A woman on her way to get an abortion is not an accident. It is pre meditated.
Why not? If you believe every person should have the same rights, then by your own reasoning, the death of a fetus is either a state-sanctioned killing (like capital punishment) or a murder.
Once you try to wriggle out of the argument by citing current law, rather than what should be the law, you’ve already gone down the slippery slope.
Be consistent. If a fetus has all the same rights as a fully grown adult, then an abortion should merit the same punishment as murder. Otherwise, you are assigning a lesser value to its life.
Further, as some people in this thread have noted, defining a fetus as a person doesn’t change much regarding abortion, unless you add a bunch of other assumptions and values that you have taken for granted. Other people may not accept those assumptions and values.
Try again. He satisfies the requirements according to Christians. Talmudic scholars have their own ideas in what constitutes a messiah, some of which Jesus did not satisfy (like restoration of the Temple).
If you want to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, you’ll need to fulfill the Jewish standard. Telling them that your own personal standard should be good enough for them is insulting.
Define murder.
Murder has a few different uses. One is a legal use that defines murder in terms of the law. By this definition, the death of a fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not necessarily murder. So, abortion would not be “wrong” in the sense of being a murder in the legal sense.
By the more common usage of ‘murder’, it really depends on what you personally consider a murder. Even in this view, the abortion of a fetus is only murder depending on your own personal set of beliefs.
So, yes, murder is wrong. But you haven’t made the necessary connection that this is a murder situation in all cases.
“The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life.”
Those people had sin, just like we do today. Their punishment was just; They earned their wages. God did not do anything to them that they did not deserve.
We all deserve death, it’s the proper wages for sin.
So is someone in a coma no longer a person?
And when God punished David by killing his children for his murder of Uriah, his children got what they deserved for their father’s transgressions?
And the Mark of Cain? For him, the wages of sin are life but under a curse, rather than death.
I think you need to reconsider your position on this one.
In some cases, yes they cease to be a person. That is why we allow them to be removed from life support and harvested for organs.
So then what’s the problem with abortion?
Also, I think I’d have a lot more problems with a God who sent children/babies to hell than I would with a doctor performing abortions.
The ever-famous:
Hitler burned Ann Frank and we call him evil.
God burns Ann Frank for eternity and we call him good.
Your god doesn’t exist, but if it did, it would be an asshole. Your religion is stupid and wrong. Your justifications based on your stupid and wrong religion are likewise stupid and wrong.
And I’m okay with that. In this situation, her rights are in conflict with those of the “baby” (I’ll use your terminology out of politeness, but please don’t take this as an excuse to accuse me of promoting infanticide, i.e. killing someone after they’re born), and overall I see it being better for society if her rights take priority.
How much “consideration” and “thinking about the baby” do you think is required? If a woman spends thirty seconds analyzing the situation and decides on an abortion anyway, is that all right? Would you insist she take a day? A week? A month? and if she says she’s thought about it, how could you prove her wrong? Are you taking her decision to abort as proof she hasn’t thought about it enough?
Well, I’ve recognized a rather significant milestone - born vs. not-born. The recognition may be arbitrary, but the milestone is not. Your question doesn’t impress me.
And actually I am prepared to recognize some leeway in the killing of newborns, in the sense of recognizing the killing of a newborn by its mother as a lesser offense than conventional homicide, because I recognize the existence of situations where the mother might be under the effects of considerable duress, mental illness, or emotional immaturity. It’s unclear to me that restricting abortion will have any effect on such killings (I invite you to explain how this would work in the real world). I’d rather advocate widespread “safe haven” laws, in which a mother can drop off a newborn at a hospital, fire station, police station or similar building, no questions asked.
No, I never suggested the person falling from a building was in that situation accidentally. The person may have been pushed or may have jumped… it doesn’t matter. The law-school hypothetical part is what penalty (if any) might apply to shooting someone who is 99.999% certain to die imminently anyway. As I said, I don’t know of any real-world cases of someone being prosecuted for causing an miscarriage on a woman who was on her way to get an abortion (I suppose there have been cases of assaults perpetrated on women who were on their way to clinics, possibly by pro-life protesters, that may had resulted in miscarriages). I await some real-world examples before commenting further on the inherent unfairness I assume you perceive and are complaining about.
In any case, happy new year. Frankly, I’d assumed you were gone forever.
I think you’re missing the point. I really would like for you to understand the gospel, which means “good news.”
The bad news is, we are guilty before a holy and just God.
The Good news is, he made a way for us to be seen a righteouss. It’s like Ray explains in the video…
We are standing before God our judge and our fine is something we cannot repay, say, $50,000. Since we cannot repay it, we are going to prison.
The good news is Jesus stepped in and paid our fine, by dying on the cross (he paid our wage, death). And if we confess our sins and repent from them we will be saved.
Realize our position (guilty) but embrace and thank God the forgiveness and sacrafice he made for us. That’s how much he loves us.
A just and holy Father would not consign His children to eternal punishment for temporal misdeeds, and certainly not for a flaw that He built into them.
Just saying.
I’m sorry, but not for that reason. 
Nonsense. Appearances don’t mean anything, what matters is the mind; and a mind is something a fetus lacks. No mind, no person.
You just switched your argument from “person” to “human”. Being human doesn’t make something a person; my appendix is human, that doesn’t mean I can’t have it removed.
Theology doesn’t hold in the real world; it’s all lies and delusions. And even if it wasn’t, you have no way of proving that yours is any better than that of anyone else. And killing a non-person is not murder.
Once again, a demonstration of how anti-human, how evil Christianity is. It is quite literally the enemy of humanity.
Of course, as has often been pointed out that makes no sense. We aren’t all guilty just for being born - that makes no sense. And since God declared the “crime” in the first place he can just declare it null without some bizarre blood ritual. And, dying for the crime of another is another crime; it doesn’t pay for the first.
My understanding of the gospel:
- God blinks into existence (or maybe has always existed)
- God creates the universe and everything in it
- Man eats naughty (possibly metaphorical) fruit, causing God to fly off the handle and blame all men ever for this (possibly metaphorical) transgression
- God devises a clever plan to forgive everyone so long as they appreciate Him raping a particularly devout woman so His son can eventually be brutally murdered
So, the Israelites were just as sinful. How come God didn’t order them to kill each other while he was at it?
Were the babies God killed sinners also? If they are, the a fetus is a sinner also and you have nothing at all to complain about.
How about people who don’t agree with your original sin nonsense? You understand that Jews don’t believe in a God so vile that he creates everyone fatally flawed, and that atoning for sins we do commit once a year is fine? Execution of false prophets is not required.
In any case, you do not carry your beliefs far enough. Parents are not allowed to put their children at risk; doing so will get them taken away from you. Lots of things mothers do can put their babies in the womb at risk. There is drinking, smoking, drugs, and I’m sure we can come up with a lot more. If you truly believed what you say, you’d advocate for laws banning pregnant women from engaging in this kind of behavior. After all, this is not nearly as much an infringement on their liberty as forcing them to carry unwanted fetuses to term. In fact, I don’t know when the effects start. Perhaps we should enforce these rules on any women who could possibly have a baby, even ones on birth control, since that can fail.
Not to mention that every miscarriage is an unexplained death, and should be investigated like other unexplained deaths. But the two cells on a slab and start the tape recorder! If every fetus is sacred, how come God designed women so that so many of the fetuses don’t make it. Pretty nasty for someone so upset about abortions, isn’t it?
The God I used to believe in said abortion is just dandy. Who are you to say that your God is right and mine is wrong? Who are you to say that your claim that murder is wrong overrides what god says? Kind of presumptuous, aren’t you? If your God really is against it, he can show up and tell us, and not do it through morons like the current crop of Republican presidential candidates and other religious boobs.
Actually in most cases I imagine it is. The mother simply isn’t allowing whatever potential there is in the fetus to be the only factor in making the decision. The mother who chooses abortion rather than to continue a pregnancy has to weigh the effects of that birth on the rest of her already born family and community. The one thing I hate above else about the anti-abortion movement is how they will sacrifice many lives for only the potential life of a fetus. For one baby (that could be mentally or physically disabled vegetable or grow up to be a serial killering drug dealer) the anti-abortion movement is willing to allow generations to be destroyed.
What about the mentally handicapped or someone in a coma?
An individual human. An appendix is just part of an individual human.
No it is because will sin inevitably even if we don’t want to.
Bravo! But you forgot the part about when his son was being brutally murdered by being nailed to a cross, he blessed the thief who stole the fourth nail and declared that for all time (kind of like the way his Dad damned all men for the action of one) the thief’s people could steal and it wouldn’t be a sin. How’s that for a gospel (it’s really good news), lockmat?
Are you under the impression that mentally handicapped people don’t have minds?