ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 21, 2009 11:02:55 GMT -8
I can relate to the birth certificate caper because I was born in Honolulu and my certificate is not accurate. I was a blonde baby with a half Hawaiian, half Chinese mom and a Filipino father listed as my parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by rose on Jul 22, 2009 10:20:31 GMT -8
So Ben, were you born in Kenya too?  |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 14:50:59 GMT -8
as for abortion, the Tanakh gives us the answer (as well as uncanonized christian writings like the didache and epistle of barnabas): In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." Note the connection between the conception and "children." That which was conceived was called "children" (Heb. BEN) between the conception and the birth. In 2 Kings 19:3 (and Isaiah 37:3), Hezekiah compares himself to an expectant mother who lacks strength for the labor. He says, "the children have come to birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth." The life in the mother's womb is here called "children" (Heb. BEN). In Ruth 1:11, Naomi's husband and her two sons had died. She explains to her two widowed daughters-in-law that she could never provide sons for them to marry after the custom of that day. She asks, "Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?" Again the term "sons" (Heb. BEN) describes the unborn life. Genesis 25:1-4 names the "children" of Keturah. In Genesis 3:16 Eve was told she would conceive and "bring forth children." Surely this means she would conceive and give birth to human individuals. But this same term is used to describe the unborn life in the womb. Why doesn't this mean human individuals too? There is no scriptural reason to distinguish them. The word means the same in both cases: a human individual, separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is a human individual when it has been "conceived," just the same as it is when it has been born. [Cf. 2 Kings 17:31; Ruth 1:1.] Job speaks of babies that die before birth (a "stillborn child" - NKJV) as "infants" who never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted, but the passage refers to them as "infants" (Heb. OLEL). This word always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2 - "babes"). Joel 2:16 lists "children" (OLEL) as "people." there are many other instances of hebrew words that describe a living soul describe also a baby in the womb. and as for rape and adultry and such: Deuteronomy 24:16 says: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Justice is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matt. 23:23). May we kill an innocent baby after it is born, because its parents sinned? No, and killing an unborn baby for his parents' sin is likewise a miscarriage of justice. Rape itself is not rare, unfortunately; but it rarely leads to conception. Consider the following statistics for conceptions from rape in major cities: Chicago - no cases in 9 years; Buffalo - no cases in 30 years; St. Paul - no cases in 10 years (3500 rapes); Philadelphia - no cases in 19 1/2 years. One survey polled doctors who had delivered a total of 19,000 births, but not one of these doctors had ever delivered a baby conceived as a result of rape. (U.S. Congressional Record, 7/25/83; Handbook on Abortion, by Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, pp 38,39). The percentage of abortions that occur as a result of real rape is infinitesimal. It is still wrong to kill the baby because the father sinned - Deuteronomy 24:16. Every passage we have studied that condemns killing innocent humans would still apply in this case. What if we discover after it has been born that it was conceived as a result of rape? Could we kill it? True, the consequence is that the woman must give birth to the child. Unfortunately, in this life innocent people often suffer the consequences of wrongs done by evil people. Drunken drivers kill or injure innocent people. Thieves steal from innocent people. The Bible contains many such examples (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 4:12-16; John 15:18-20; 2 Cor. 11:23-26; 1 Thess. 3:2-4). But none of this justifies harming other innocent people. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, but did not use this to justify doing wrong to others (Gen. chaps. 37,39-41). Jesus suffered at the hands of wicked men, but He did not wrong others because of it. We should imitate His example (1 Pet. 2:19-24). We must do good even when we have been wronged (Rom. 12:17-21). a woman has a right to avoid being preganant- before she actually is. but once she is pregnant, that baby now has [Edited by john: political rights as a human being] as for those who say that the living comditions the baby will be in justifies killing it: if the situation were abuse, are we not commiting the ultimate abuse in killing the baby? if the situation were poverty, why not kill all people in poverty? is it not just as horrible for them to go through it? we must realize that these situations are definitely bad, but this does not justify in killing a human being politcally or morally. two wrongs dont make a right. all we can do is help that person and that baby who is in the situation, and make their lives better to the best of our ability as christians. but we should not put the baby in the situation of death, for that would be the greater evil. hope i helped, and some of the information i copied and pasted from a website becuase i didnt want to type it all: www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.phpshalom- john |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 15:04:19 GMT -8
i agree. some idol worshippers believed that they wouldnt recieve salvation until they heard the scream of a dying baby. it is just like homosexuality. even if it is not morally wrong in any other way, it is connected to idolotry which is one of the three worst sins, the thing Elohim who is echad (God who is the only one) stressed not to do the most.
i realize that i am the most serious person on this thread. sorry if i am ruinung the fun discussion by my seriousness.
the obama nation of desolation thing was pretty funny. i didnt get it until i reached the parentheses.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 15:08:34 GMT -8
woops i realized that this is the place for politics, not scripture on the abortion opinion. sorry. where do people discuss it based on scripture not politics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 15:13:23 GMT -8
No, it's fine. This thread has two dual subject: Abortion in general, and the politics of abortion.
I look forward to reading through your comments when I have a bit more time (and your thoughts on human nature)
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 15:19:12 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak,
I fully agree with you on the issue of rape, though it's a sensitive one. You laid out a great case, imo.
I'd like to add as well that one should look into real stories of people who were born to rape victims and hear whether they were glad they lived or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 18:35:38 GMT -8
thank you and i will see if i can find any stories and say what my thoughts are on them individually.
shalom - john
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 22, 2009 20:10:12 GMT -8
Hi Rose,
If I was born in Kenya, somebody kidnapped me and took me to Honolulu. I guess they thought it was punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 21, 2009 5:45:29 GMT -8
Time for me to catch hell again for my radical opinion. I believe that abortion is an absolute evil and I would welcome either a supreme court overturn of Row V Wade that allows for states to legislate against abortion (though good luck getting right to die Oregon to pass such legislation) or more preferable and permanent a Constitutional amendment that specifically bans abortion. As for the politics of abortion I was deeply disapointed with how little was accomplished under President Bush for the Cause of Life. It seems like he promised the Rich and the Religious Right the world, and he delivered it to the rich, while making token speeches and gestures to appease the religious right. I also note that John McCain used to be pro choice and convienently changed his position to be in line with the GOP mainstream, so I did not expect much actual work to be done for the cause of life under his administration. I believe that President Obama is wrong about abortion. However, I also believe that with better liberal government entitlement programs the prospect of being a single mom, and the general dignity with which many liberals treat single moms (for example calling them single parent households, as opposed to the vile words "broken home." May lead many young ladies to decide to keep their babies. IF they have adequate entitlement programs so that they can work, or continue their education (even higher education) while raising a child, I believe that most women, who feel a natural maternal instinct will choose life over death. I think abortion is and economic convenience that has only been made more attractive during the last two years of Bill Clintons administration (with entitlement cut backs) and under the entire George W Bush administration with major entitlement cutbacks. I value personal responsibility. It is true that these women should have their babies rather or not society chooses to support them. It is their moral duty as a human being to not slaughter the life that they helped create. However, as a realist, I believe that in a society where abortion on demand is a strongly cemented and for now permanent reality, increasing entitlements economically may be the only way to dissuade these women from killing their babies. Another program in its infancy that I like is Obama's responsible fathers program, encouraging the fathers of children to step up to the plate and take some responsibility, I believe that, that to will help reduce the abortion rate. It is a sad reality that we live in a nation where our most inocent citizens can be slaughtered on a whim before they take their first breath, however, in the context of the economic and political reality I feel that as a society we should invest in entitlement infrastructure to make the choice of life more appealing to women who are in difficult situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2009 7:47:04 GMT -8
Not gonna catch hell from me. I agree with you* and think you stated your case quite nicely  *There might be a few points I'd have to verify, but... |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 21, 2009 8:11:38 GMT -8
I realize this topic is been around for awhile, and I just scanned all 6 pages. I also realize that many of the members of this board may be male, but I was disappointed to find that Margot was the only female to post, and only 8-10 times. I find it disheartening to hear males debate abortion, white middle classers discussing poverty, etc. I have no problem with males having an opinion on abortion, but it really is a female issue. As a male, I will never, ever, ever be faced with that issue. Sure, as a man, I could impregnate a woman and perhaps have a role in a decision, but ultimately, the decison is the womans. I think abortion is a despicable act, it is murder, and IMO an irresponsible reaction to another instance of irresponsibility (support more than abstinence-only sex ed in schools! but that is another thread) but as a male I could choose to bail on the whole situation, and would not have to worry about it if I didn't want to. My big problem is with legislating morality. Abortion is different than outlawing slavery or making murder illegal because it has less to do with the affect on society. Look at it this way: a baby that is not born does not affect the community in any way, in fact, it is one less mouth to feed. (I know this sounds cold) Life goes on whether the baby is born or not. I think that legislating morality is a slippery slope. Who decides how I can make moral decisions? Only me. I do not trust a largely un-educated voter pool, or largely white and rich and mostly male lawmakers that the un-educated voters elect. I don't want a law telling me, or especially my mother, sisters, daughters, and female friends weather or not they can make a personal decision, and with abortion, the hardest decision they probably ever have to make. Further, I can still choose with or without a law what decisions to make, since I am an individual with complete free will, and posess the ability to do so. Making a law that tries to limit that is taking away my personal freedoms. The beauty of choosing righteousness is that it is a CHOICE, not imposed on me. Even tho Josh responded, I really like when Moritz wrote: To an outsider, it does seem like moral arrogance. Especially when the majority involved in this discussion about abortion is male. But it's not like I'm ever guilty of arrogance |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 21, 2009 9:21:04 GMT -8
I have a few thoughts here.
Can you explain to me how the color of one's skin, or their economic status can diminish the validity of their arguments? It would seem to me that a statement or position is either valid or not regardless of how wealthy a person may be, or what color their skin is. Poor minorities don't have the market cornered on truth. This is this kind of class warfare that has degraded the political discourse in this country to its current pathetic levels.
By the way, have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm? There is a famous quote from that book that I think applies here.
"All the animals on the farm are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Have you ever, as a man, had a child Aborted? If so, than you and I share this in common. If not, than what qualifies you to make such a statement? I can tell you from personal experience, and from talking and hearing from other men who have been through this, that they are deeply effected. I have no doubt that women who go through this experience carry with them a special burden that I cannot know, but this in no way can diminish what the male counterpart may go through.
Don't be so naive to believe that women don't bail on their children as well. This is a moral issue that is separate from the abortion issue all together, and society needs to address this problem. If a women cannot bear the responsibility of raising a child because that father is not involved, then society should encourage the mother to give the child up for adoption.
Don't you mean, your life goes on. Yes, that statement is cold, and reprehensible. Getting rid of an unborn child is like getting rid of you. One less mouth to feed, and life would go on. But that does not make murder (that is what abortion is as you stated earlier) acceptable even if that living child is still in the mothers womb.
.
However in the case of abortion, your "CHOICE" does not only effect you. If fact the impact on the women is minimal in comparison to the impact on the living child with-in her. Society cannot turn its head and allow individuals to abuse their freedom in such a way, where it takes the life of the innocent. Yes you have that freedom, but society, and the Government is charged with the responsibility of punishing evil, and protecting the innocent.
If this statement is correct, then you have simply invalidated your own (white male) opinion on the issue, have you not?
I'm assuming that you are a white male, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 21, 2009 11:00:46 GMT -8
Most white middle classers have only the understanding of the "theory" of poverty, not it's real life effects. I just don't think you can have a valid discussion without more views represented. I realize I am making a generalization, but the point is, in this discussion about abortion, that males only have an indirect experience with it, and women have direct experience. I was only saying that a well rounded intellectual discussion on this topic would include women with and with out that tragic experience.
As far as your Orwell quote, I agree with what you say. Why is it that minorities, women, homosexuals are often left out of deciding policy? This is why I want to be moe inclusive in discussion. Rich White males tend to hog conversation (like I am participating in now)
No, I have not. I agree that it affects the male, but in a different way then the female. Some males it may not affect at all especially physically, but every female that experiences abortion is affected, physically and emotionally. I have had to think about this a lot. My wife and I do not want to have kids at all, yet in our laziness, we do nothing about it. Pretty irresponsible. If she were to get pregnant, we would face some hard decisions. In my opinion, abortion would be a irresponsible choice as well. But the decision is not at all fully mine, I could only give my opinion, and I would respect what my wife decides, because I trust that she would be fully informed. (WOW! that was pretty personal for a bunch of people I don't know!)
I agree, my point was that we, as males, are having this discussion without females, and as males we could take the irresponsible route with much less affect on our lives than females.
No, I have lived for 35 years, built relationships and invested in my community. My absence would affect a lot of lives. A baby being unborn may cause grief, and affect the immediate family, but not society, unless you want to get into alternate future mumbo-jumbo (i.e. what if Hitler had never been born?)
Very. Sorry to be so harsh.
I disagree. First of all, if you are Christian, can I assume that you believe there is no such thing as the innocent (Romans 3:23)? And that man is not responsible for judging (Luke 6:37 and 39)
Certainly there must be some order in society if we are to live peacefully together, but that that mean imposing morality on me? No. If anything, we need to see the impact abortion has on individuals and in turn, society and educate others on that, and leave the choice to them.
And so, I am not suggesting society "turn its head", but it is an abuse of my freedom to make abortion illegal on moral grounds.
I suupose. But it was fun.
Thanks for the discussion, and making me think. I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2009 11:28:31 GMT -8
kirbstomp wrote:
Don't have time just now to read through the last 3 posts thoroughly. Just wanted to make a quick remark on this.
How is it a female issue when the majority of humans murdered through abortion are males? (you know, since the birth rate for males is ever so slightly higher than for females)
Don't read too much hostility into this- it was just a somewhat tongue in cheek thought that occured to me that I didn't want to forget.
I hope to read yours and Robin's thoughts soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 21, 2009 11:35:02 GMT -8
josh wrote:
It affects the mother, but a dead baby is dead, and regardless about what may or may not be in store for humans after death, I hardly think what happened when they are living means anything to them after they have died.
Gosh, I sound heartless today. I'm really a loving, caring guy. Really!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2009 12:12:20 GMT -8
So if all murderers in general were women would you say that the question of murder is more of a "women's issue" than a "men's issue"? What about rape? Virtually all rapists are men. Does that make rape primarily a "men's issue"?  |
|
