Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

99% or 1% or even .1% it doesn't matter. All it takes for hypocrisy is one action that goes against your stated beliefs...

The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.

It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.

In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.

To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.

The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think it does just that, though.

It is speaking of the woman going into labor prematurely and a live birth - not miscarriage! The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth. Therefore, if the fighting only caused the woman to go into labor early, but there was no injury, they agree on a penalty. If the child or mother is hurt or dies it's limb for limb, and life for life.


http://www.abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/

The Premature live childbirth view of Exodus 21:22-25 does not allow for abortion but defines abortion as murder punishable by death. The text is interpreted to mean, if a woman is accidently struck when two men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely but no injury is sustained by either her or her baby, then the courts shall fine the man who injured the woman and payment shall be made to the husband. But if either the woman or the baby is injured or killed, the law of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life will be enforced.

This view is the best view for reasons listed below.

-The normal Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used in this text but the word for normal live child birth, see Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30.

-Moses knew the normal word for miscarriage for he used it both before and after this text, but he did not use it here which tells us he did not have a miscarriage in mind but premature live birth (see Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26; Job 2:10).

-The word “injury” both in vss. 22-23 is indefinite in that it does not designate either the mother or the child but is left indefinite so that it applies to both mother and child.

-The fact that this is the only place in all of the Bible where the death penalty is required for accidental death is significant. It shows us the value God places on both mothers and their unborn children. The death of either the mother or her child by accident would bring with it the death penalty!

I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

The problem with your premise is that all Christians will turn hypocrite on this issue.

It is nearly impossible for a woman's health to be threatened by a pregnancy during the period that abortion is legal in most states. Therefore this is an irrelevant instance.

In the instances of rape or incest, most of these do not produce children. It is legitimate to say that I have not yet had to face this possibility of making this decision as I am not married. However, I while I might not wish to have the child raised in my home (something that I would need to pray about), I can not justify abortion.

To kill the child who is the result of rape or incest is a violation of Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 both say that the children are not to be executed for the sins of the parents. Aborting a child because of the sin that the father committed is murder when these verses are taken into account. Thus a true Christian will oppose abortion in all circumstances.

The only reason that some of us allow the exception (I do not) is to move eliminate the concept of abortion on demand. After that goal is acheived, we will then be able to finish the job.

That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it

One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?

I found this to be a very interesting. I will need to do some research myself, but I have often figured that this was something that like that. I also remember that judgment is promised against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions' on pregnant women during times of war. This is repeated many times in the Prophets.

I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

John the Baptist lept for joy in Elisabeth's womb. The "potential human being" developed into a human being right there in the womb. But had Elisabeth thought the way you do, John would have been ripped right out from her womb and been called a fetus as if it was a blob of tissue. You are trying to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when you want to twist words around to make it come out like a fetus is just a blob of nothing until it is closer to birth. At 12 gestational weeks a fetus has turned into a human being because it has all it's organs, brain, heart, kidneys, legs, arms, toes, fingers and it moves, kicks and all that is left to progress is it's growth to a normal size. It is only about 3 inches long, but it is a living, viable human being. It stopped being a "potential" human being after it's heart started beating. That means the "potential" to be a human being lasted all of 21 days after conception when blood started flowing through it's circulatory system. Life is in the blood, says God.

You will never get any woman who has been pregnant to admit that the movement and kicking she felt during her pregnancy was just a blob of tissue growing in her belly. Most pregnant women who love the life within think of it as a baby, a human being.

Ah...but I see your wicked stance that it is not human until it comes out of the womb...and even if it comes early, it still is not human. Well...that is just garbage.

What was that fetus before the 12th gestational week? It's turned into a human being after that last week, what was it before it turned into a human being? (use a term other than potential human being please )

Before I tackle that 2nd bolded comment let's deal with the principle that the only way something can turn into a human being is if it was something else to begin with.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That's a very sensible position Jay. I must say, I see nothing hypocritical in it

One question, do you believe abortion if the mother's life is threatened is acceptable?

I found it interesting too. I would also be interested in seeing the verses issuing judgment against nations whose soldiers performed 'abortions'?

It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,

This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Here's a few simple facts:


Medical advancements that can allow a fetus to leave the womb early and still survive don't mean I need to start classifying that fetus as a human just because we found a way to let it leave the womb. It's still a fetus in this case, it's just a fetus living outside the womb. It will still become a human at the same developmental milestones as a fetus living inside the womb.

The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?

Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...

Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

It would depend on how we defined 'threatened'. If we are discussing a case where the baby may be born fine but the mother may perish, then the life of the child is still sacrosact. However, if there is no hope, such as the child is already dead, then it is right to bring the everything to an end. However, the first is infinitely more likely to be than the second,

This then leaves us the gray area of the probabilities of a mother surviving to deliver the baby. It is a known fact that pregnancy is hazardous and carries risk to the lady's health. With this in mind, she has accepted the risks and must protect the child, even at the cost of her own life. People should be careful when a doctor recomends artificially ending a pregnancy by abortion. I would never recommend an abortion.

Becoming pregnant does not mean a woman has accepted that she will carry that child to term NO MATTER WHAT.

Accepting the risks can be as simple of a process as I know some women get really sick during pregnancy. I hope that doesn't happen to me but if it does then I am going to do everything in my power to make sure I stay alive. That's an acceptance of risk that doesn't involve a woman having to protect the unborn NO MATTER WHAT.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

The fact that it is a BABY and not a fetus outside the womb at any gestational age that we can make it live disproves what you are saying... When exactly was the last time you walked up to a mother with a 35 week infant in her arms and said "cute fetus"?

Also if it is a fetus until the normal time of delivery (approx 40 weeks) may we then kill it when it is outside the womb even if it needs no medical interventions to live? Your thinking on this one is scary frog.... very scary and I am not a strict pro-lifer by any means...

Edited to remove snipey comments before anyone reads them.

I would consider a 35 week old whether inside the womb or outside the womb a human being. But I understand the crux of your question and so let me try to answer it. I am against the killing of anything that can live outside the womb whether it be inside or outside the womb. It makes no sense to me to allow the killing of something that either is or will become human which can be born and live without the mother.

[Hoovie]

So Froggy we have made progress. Babies can and have lived outside the womb independent of the mother soon after 20 weeks. We can start there and move toward education of the public on babies younger than that.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

What was that fetus before the 12th gestational week? It's turned into a human being after that last week, what was it before it turned into a human being? (use a term other than potential human being please )

Before I tackle that 2nd bolded comment let's deal with the principle that the only way something can turn into a human being is if it was something else to begin with.

Nah. That's just you splitting hairs again.

You tell me what else it can be? You want to say a human fetus is something other than human? I might say that would be so if it were a tumor.

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT

Hmmm....I am just trying to figure you out, your frame of mind, what makes you tick. If this subject were not so important, I would just drop you like I would all ignorant people who do not want to learn. The kind whose thinking process is all mixed up in concrete and set. But, I think you are smarter than that type of mindset.

The words zygote, blastocyte, fetus are only words to describe stages of development of the human being. I can humor you and say you are correct that it is called a fetus, but calling something a fetus does not make it any less human while it is still in the developing stage. You seem to want to make a big deal out of words. And perhaps I fueled some of your argument here when I said "potential human being". So I will rescind those poor choice of words because you jumped on that one like a hot potato to try to crush the premise of a baby in the womb being something other than a human being. I used the "potential" part not to say the baby is not human inside the womb, but in my mind the context was to be for after the baby was born. You see when we are born, our birthdays are not counted from the time of conception...that's true, but on the day we are born. It is our day of birth. But we would have never gotten the chance to be born if our mothers snuffed us out before that day came simply because they did not want us or have time for us.

Let's see..you've called a baby in the womb a "zygote". That is technically correct because a zygote is a one-celled entity. You used to be a zygote. But you ceased to be a zygote once you divided into more than one cell. So you ceased to be a zygote and became a blastocyte after you implanted in your mother's womb.

After implantation, you developed into an embryo. The next 10 weeks were spent developing all your organs, head, arms, legs, feet, fingers, toes etc until you are a fully formed human. By week 10 after conception, your face had a human profile.

There was a government study released in 2007 declaring that embryos are human.

“Embryos are Humans” Says U.S. Government Report on Stem Cell Research

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report by the United States governments’ Domestic Policy Council admits that embryos are human beings; the only differences between embryos and other human beings, says the report, are accidental differences in levels of development.

“Embryos are humans in their earliest developmental stage,” writes the Council.

“We do not have to think that human embryos are exactly the same in all ways as older humans to believe that they are entitled to respect and protection. Each of us originated as a single-celled embryo, and from that moment have developed along a continuous biological trajectory throughout our existence. To speak of ‘an embryo’ is to designate a human being at a particular stage.”

The Domestic Policy Council, which coordinates the domestic policy-making process in the White House, and which is under the direction of President Bush, made these unequivocal statements about the human embryo in its report on stem-cell research entitled, “Advancing Stem Cell Science without Destroying Human Life.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/emb...-cell-research

But I didn't really need a government report to tell me that because scripture told me that.

Jeremiah wrote that God knew him before he was even conceived.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5


The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity used my choice of words of "potential human beings" but added that: "These frozen embryos are not just “potential” human beings; they are in every way human life".

http://cbhd.org/content/frozen-embry...-or-human-life


So technically, I was not wrong in using the words "potential human beings", but again, because you want to make an issue that a baby is something else other than a human being in the womb, I will rescind those words for this discussion, but not the fact that these words are used in courts and studies.

[AreYouReady?]

More reading on this controversial subject.
Although I know that for every pro-life physician I can find who are convinced life starts at conception, there will be a physician who will support frog’s view of whether “fetuses” are human beings or not.

The website below contains a picture of a baby’s hand coming out of the uterus and holding onto a surgeon’s finger while he was performing an operation en utero to correct his little patient’s spina bifida.

It is awesome.

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm


Then there is the video: The Silent Scream

http://www.silentscream.org/

There is a link to click on to view the video.

WARNING: THIS WEBSITE GRAPHICALLY SHOWS AN ABORTION 11 WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY CHILDREN.

IF YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON AND HAVE ANY DOUBTS ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD VIEW THIS SITE OR NOT, PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER.

IF YOU ARE RESEARCHING THE TOPIC OF ABORTION OR POSSIBLY CONTEMPLATING AN ABORTION WE URGE YOU TO VIEW THE SITE SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING.

WE BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS THE TAKING OF AN INNOCENT LIFE AND VIOLATES GOD'S COMMANDMENT "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" . SO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY, THINK ABOUT, AND PRAY ABOUT ABORTION AND ITS EFFECT ON THE BABY SLEEPING IN IT'S MOTHER'S WOMB.

PLEASE, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE PREGNANT OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE PREGNANT. CONTACT WWW.LIFECALL.ORG FOR ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER.