Planned Parenthood Plans 40 Days of Prayer (L)

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I had no intention for privates to mean or imply womb. However, upon second inspection the phrase used in the verse may very well mean womb which was why I made my edit. So yes I am potentially backpedalling into the position that the phrase in question means womb. Once I'm there for sure I will gladly address your post with that in mind

If you insist that phrase means "womb" then you will have to prove this assumption of yours by scripture.

Gee...the more this thread lingers on, the more twists and turns froggy makes to try to prove that an unborn isn't human. He hasn't made his theory believable yet and he has not given any credible facts to support it.

Do you know what happens when one twists something too tight?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. Scottish author & novelist

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

I will give you one thing here. I would think that if a woman was with child by another man who was not her husband, it would be revealed by God through this process of the law of jealousies. Not a process that the priest would use to intentionally abort the baby. If she was guilty and IF she was with child, this most likely would destroy the unborn. And if she was not with child, it will surely destroy all her chances of ever conceiving. Women in those days looked forward to having children, even begging their husbands to "give them a child". But, to imply that this is a method the priest will do for a willful abortion as we know the term today, is not factual and grossly out of context with this passage. Lost of an unborn baby would be the result of her sin.

I would think that this would be more of a punishment to the woman. This would be an act of God, not a willful I-don't-want-this-child type of mentality that drives women today to have abortions.

Question here for you.

With the exception of enemies and war, can you find any scripture in the bible where God condoned the killing of the unborn in the womb for such reasons as women use now?

And just because you say Christian people never had funerals for miscarriages and erroneously think that they did not think the baby was real, does not mean that God does not consider even an embryo is not human.

You see, when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty, it's not about what we think, but it is all about what God thinks. It doesn't matter what our circumstances are , do we have the God-given right to snuff out a life? There are a lot of things that God leaves within our power to choose, but is taking the life of an innocent one of them?

The bolded is an abortion. It matters not whether the abortion was the intent of the procedure or a side effect of it, the point is abortion took place (or if you prefer, the life of an unborn was snuffed out).

Let me ask you this: If it was legal today for a man to force a woman to undergo a procedure that would prove or disprove whether she cheated on him and cause her to have an abortion IF she became pregnant while cheating on him. How would you reconcile the unborn's right to life with that procedure? (I would think you would say the procedure is morally wrong because we do not have the God-given right to snuff out a life even if it was conceived due to adultery... and that the husbands right to know that she cheated doesn't trump the right to life of a human being even if it's unborn)

Further, what does it matter why women kill the unborn unless it's for the only justifiable reason you have, self defense? The right of the unborn to life if it is a human being should trump any and every reason to snuff its life out other than self defense. Numbers 5 describes a procedure which you agree will snuff out the life of an unborn and it is definetely not self defense...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

No...YOU are wrong.

Actually he's right. The "thigh" was considered anything from the knee to the waist, specifically the crotch. A basically the "trial by ordeal" brought on the "curse". Heavy bleeding and a shriveled womb.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

If you insist that phrase means "womb" then you will have to prove this assumption of yours by scripture.

Gee...the more this thread lingers on, the more twists and turns froggy makes to try to prove that an unborn isn't human. He hasn't made his theory believable yet and he has not given any credible facts to support it.

Do you know what happens when one twists something too tight?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. Scottish author & novelist

When I believe I might have been wrong on something what would you like me to do?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Aquilla and jFrog,

How do you feel about Child Euthanasia for those gravely ill and those suffering from significant birth defects? If you are aggressively in favor of leaving the option open (like abortion), do you feel it should be legal only with parental consent or even in the absence of parental consent?

"Child euthanasia is a controversial form of non-voluntary euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or suffer from significant birth defects.
Some critics[who?] have compared child euthanasia to infanticide. Others, such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of situational ethics and a euthanasia proponent, proposed that infanticide be permitted in cases of severe birth defects. Fletcher says that unlike the sort of infanticide perpetrated by very disturbed people, in such cases child euthanasia could be considered humane; a logical and acceptable extension of abortion.[1] American bioethicist Jacob M. Appel goes one step further, arguing that pediatric euthanasia may be ethical even in the absence of parental consent.[2]

Legalization may also have the added benefit of reducing abortion (if that is a positive)

"having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia

It’s definitely a disturbing thought. But this is earth and we have dominion. Therefore we have to address these difficult issues as far as our humanity will allow us.

I have mixed feelings. First, in most cases the pregnancies would have had complications that would have prevented them from being carried full term in biblical times. Also, most of those born with such serious defects wouldn’t have lived but perhaps days in biblical times. One reason why they stand a chance at living at all is because of modern medical science. I worked as a therapeutic programming assistant with the MRDD for two and a half years. I have seen deformities and conditions that placed the individual in considerable physical pain and suffering. If a horse breaks its leg and is suffering, do we let it continue to suffer? If a dog is suffering from a serious condition, do we let it lay there and suffer? Compassion tells us to end the suffering. But a human being of infinitely more value than an animal…and we believe we should preserve them to suffer indefinitely throughout their entire lives. I think those who might advocate this form of euthanasia are considering the suffering condition of a human being and simply desiring to end the suffering.

But we also must ask…is human life of more value than the person suffering? If human life is of infinite value, perhaps it doesn’t matter how badly the person suffers or would desire to die at some point. As long as we keep them breathing, we’ve fulfilled our obligation. Of course…most who advocate this don’t seem to consider the cost to overall society. Most families cannot afford to preserve the life and health of someone who is this severe. And most who advocate this position don’t support universal health insurance. So the fallout is immense. Not only do we condemn a human being to a life of agony, but we financially shatter an entire family unit.

Here’s where I think the real problem is….

Has medical science advanced BEYOND what is reasonable according to nature? Has medical science progressed beyond the will of God? If people who have such serious deformities and conditions would have died within days in ancient times… are those advocating that we allow them to die or to end their suffering more in alignment with nature? Are we preserving the lives of individuals who would have died naturally within days in ancient times for many years that consist of pain and suffering?

It’s a difficult call. What if your child was gravely ill with such serious birth defects, should they survive through the application of medical science she would live a life of intense suffering and pain? It’s your child. Do you ask that medical science not intervene and allow nature to take its course? Do you ask medical science to do all it can to preserve her life, even if it’s a life of constant agony and her mental development would be vegetative or would never be higher than that of an animal? Not knowing or understanding what was happening, extreme pain, fear, terror; do we subject her to that kind of life? I think those who advocate this position are saying that in such cases the parent should decide if it would be best to end the child’s suffering. If it were my child, I’d definitely be tempted to end her suffering and hand her to the one who can wipe every tear from our eyes. But… then my fear of it being murder kicks in. It’s heart rending. What’s worse… working in a facility that cared for the MRDD with profound deformities opened my eyes up to the fact that in many cases the family doesn’t stay involved. Eventually the family leaves them to be cared for, walks away, and pretends they don’t exist.

Maybe it’s medical science that is the issue. We’d not have all these moral and ethical issues if man’s intellect wouldn’t drive him into areas where angels fear to trod. Perhaps that’s what is implied when God states “ye are gods”. We are the most intelligent creature on earth and have been given dominion and authority over life and death in our world. Let’s use that authority and power wisely.

[jfrog]

Aquila it disturbs me that I'm on the same side of an issue is you... maybe I really should rethink my position... jkjk

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The bolded is an abortion. It matters not whether the abortion was the intent of the procedure or a side effect of it, the point is abortion took place (or if you prefer, the life of an unborn was snuffed out).

Oh it is NOT. You are just grasping at straws. The scripture makes no reference to a woman that may be with child or may not be with child. By your definition, if a woman slipped and fell and lost the baby, it would be abortion.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Let me ask you this: If it was legal today for a man to force a woman to undergo a procedure that would prove or disprove whether she cheated on him and cause her to have an abortion IF she became pregnant while cheating on him. How would you reconcile the unborn's right to life with that procedure? (I would think you would say the procedure is morally wrong because we do not have the God-given right to snuff out a life even if it was conceived due to adultery... and that the husbands right to know that she cheated doesn't trump the right to life of a human being even if it's unborn)

Further, what does it matter why women kill the unborn unless it's for the only justifiable reason you have, self defense? The right of the unborn to life if it is a human being should trump any and every reason to snuff its life out other than self defense. Numbers 5 describes a procedure which you agree will snuff out the life of an unborn and it is definetely not self defense...

Frog, you are once again twisting the scriptures and my posts. I did not say it was right or wrong. I conceded that IF...IF...IF there was a baby in the womb, this method would probably have killed the baby. Why can't you read in context of what the posts say? Well I guess I should not be surprised since you take scripture out of context.

Who am I to judge what God handed down as a law of jealousy from thousands of years ago? You are pretty brave to do so yourself. You are assuming that every woman or even one woman is pregnant when the Priest apply the law of jealousy to the woman.
The bible does not say one way or the other. You can quit trying to make out like God is a big bad boogeyman instead of the Just Creator. Man has been trying to subvert His will since Adam and Eve.

And, you can quit asking me stupid questions that have answers only open to speculation. What we have here in this day and age are the majority of women who use abortions as a means of birth control. You can say babies in the womb are not human until Christ returns, but you can be most definitely wrong.

You prove to me by either scripture or by medical science that babies are not human and quit twisting scripture in the attempt to make a point that is not there in the Bible. The burden of proof is on you.

[Hoovie]

This is what I suspected.

Euthanasia is a logical and acceptable extension of abortion. Not desirable in most cases but a very personal option that should be available for family members.

The argument is not really about a woman's body at all. It is about killing people that are unwanted, who we deem as not having the quality of life we determine for them, or have become a burden on society.

Next, can we agree there are certain races that generally burden society more than others? (This question is specifically about euthanasia, as I realize this question has already been determined in the abortion question.)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ght=billboards

[bbyrd009]

I mean, really.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I mean, really.

Is the day of an embryo's death better than the day of its conception?