You have no clue what the founders thought. The fact that such laws were made was due to religious fanatics violating both the spirit and the letter of the constitution. I am not making an argument from silence. What is this nonsense ? I provided a number of specific passages where God not only condones but commands abortion. Not according to the passages I posted. The best you can come up with from here on in is that the Bible contradicts itself. . You have not refuted any of the passages I presented where God condones abortion. The best place you can get to from here on is that the Bible contradicts itself. The scripture says that God knew Job. That's it. It says nothing about generalized abortion. He can infer that God had a plan for Job and so did not want him aborted but this is it. This is Job speaking, not God, and there is no condemnation of abortion in this passage. If this indirect reference to a baby in the womb which makes no comment on abortion is all you have against the numerous passages quoted that directly refer to abortion then your argument is as weak as it gets. You have presented nothing which makes any claims in relation to abortion. Even if we really stretched and tried to extend the comments in the passages you cited to abortion ( and none of the passages were addressing abortion or even had it in mind) .... We are still left with The Bible contradicts itself. We are thus left with no answer from the Bible on how God feels about abortion.
The fact is that abortion is just a common surgical procedure in the vast majority of cases (over 90% of all cases are within the 1st trimester where it is a simple and common procedure) with the only exception being complex cases where the life of the health of the woman are threatened. Whenever a woman's life or health is at risk it is never a simple or common procedure. It can also be noted that a few anacdotal stories do not reflect any statistical evidence that abortion is not a common medical procedure.
It is the only medical procedure in the world that is done purposely to kill a living human being. None other is like it. This common procedure kills....and since 1973....over 55 + million abortions have taken place. Killing for those who condone abortion....is and should be common. It is the solution to all their problems.
A zygote and embryo are not human beings (i.e. persons) and even a fetus at viability is only a "potential" human being. Simply being comprised of "human cells" does not equate to being a human being anymore than an acorn equates to being an oak tree. While I know this is an "argument" presented by a small minority of people (i.e. about 15% of Americans) it has never been the opinion of the vast majority of Americans and certainly has no legal or historical precedent as was well established in the Roe v Wade decision. I would argue that the killing of over 80% of Americans that condone abortion in some or all cases doesn't solve any problems related to abortion. This proposition is slightly more than five times worse than proposing that anti-abortionists should be murdered to end the problem of abortion in the United States.
And, as YOU posted above (bolded in red in case you forgot you posted it), You are now Pro-choice...so why do you go on and on about all this other stuff.
Quite probably because of certain peoples interpretation of a religious work 2,000 years old that was written for that time period, not for our time. They picked and choose the items that best suited them, just like most christians do now, they were a-la-carte Christians abiding by the general opinion of that time . .that opinion has changed and is not longer the majority, hence why laws are changing to match the current ideology. and at the time the bible was written these things were not seen to be as heinous as they are now .. most females were married by 14 (or earlier) in that time .. hence why the bible should have no influence on modern times. The bible does support rape in certain circumstances; This is based on interpretation not on the actually wording. and pro-lifers bend over backwards to try and make the bible verses fit their opinions. Look at the items you have quoted, are any of them actually god speaking .. no .. they are words uttered by men who have assumed this is what god thinks, and if god loves the unborn so much why did he destroy them all in the great flood, after all they were innocent of any crimes.
You claim I run from YOUR posts? Why can't you address your post where you declare in caps: """"NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO""" So you do now agree abortion should be the woman's choice since you do not believe people should be forced to do something like have a baby that they don't want to do......???? Right? YOU posted it
I highly doubt it. Better brace yourself for mocking her. I sense a caps-locked response coming soon!
Giftedone said, Well....that is why you read books....especially the books and the quotes the Founders made. And they did make statements that reflected WHAT THEY THOUGHT. What was he thinking? I could give many many more examples. But then you can't presume to know what God was thinking do you? LOL No at all. Have you read the entire bible and studied it? If you read it thoughoughly there are no contradictions. I think many misunderstandings are due to a lack of study of the scriptures. Why get into that here....not the place. You are not a believer....I am...there lies the difference. So you won't address the passages because why? Because they show that God is the creator in the womb? Why would he kill that which he loves, that which he created? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5). God says here....before he formed us, he knew us. He is specifically talking about Jeremiah and his appointment, God gave him a commission to prophesy. This was a divine purpose....decided by God before he was conceived. Luke 1:15 states that John the Baptist will be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb", which means that the baby in the womb has a soul for the Holy Spirit to fill. So you bring up Job. So while in the womb....the Holy Spirit was present in John. Could a unborn be filled with the Holy Spirit? If so....why would God condone abortion? Killing? Job 10:18, "Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me. " This scripture absolutely demonstrates that Job believed he had a spirit inside the womb. It states also that the unborn child is alive. Since the body without the spirit is dead, then the spirit is essential to life. The unborn child has a spirit so he has life, human life. This discussion is worthless....your not a believer and we can discuss abortion without discussing God. You think that because God did not say.......I DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION THAT HE BELIEVES IN ABORTION. You dismiss Gods character and the entire Bible as a whole. God did not say.....I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PEDOPHELIA IS BAD. Do you think then he would condone it? Yes or no
""""This discussion is worthless....your not a believer and we can discuss abortion without discussing God."""" Then why are you discussing it? You could be addressing other posts, Skippy...and not running from them....
Many of the founding fathers also thought only rich land owning white men should be able to vote, were pro slavery and racist/sexist by many of today standards, do you really want to claim that these people got all their morals from Christianity? I would say they were men of their time and their views and opinions reflected that. Well in many countries all across Europe marrying girls who just hit puberty was not that uncommon, actually it wasn't until fairly recently from an historic view that age of consent laws were so high, it doesn't really answer your question but much of the world even the Christian one was still very backward from todays standards. Not really going to address this part as I find debates on what God wants to be rather uninteresting, if you base your personal morals on the bible that's fine as long as you're not trying to get laws past or use it as an actual argument instead of just a theological one then I really don't care for it that much.
Skeptical Heretic said, You did not address the quotes made by the Founders who were clearly Christian men who though unless our country was run...by Christians that believed the Word...we would simply not be successful. If what you said is true....then they were within their rights to believe the way they did...because they held the majority. Isn't the majority always right? In this case....slavery was ok. So your for lowering these standards. What....is 10 acceptable to have sex, marry? 11? 12? Or hey, coming from you....8? The verses however show that God forms us in the womb...he knows us before...the womb. He knows what will happen. Of course you find it uninteresting, you are not a believer. You are an atheist right? Well I do have the right to not only voice my opinion...but to try to change society. Our Constitution affords us that right. My pursuit of happiness is much different than yours....but we both have the right to free speech and to convince others that our ways are right. So I do have the right to try to change law.
This is madness. That Adams, Witherspoon and Rush happen to be Christians has zero to do with what the constitution states (or what the founders thought) in relation to laws being made on the basis of religion. None of your posts even mentioned the constitution, or were even about the constitution or the topic at hand. What is up with that ? You say you have many more examples, I would hope that some of them relate to the topic because the previous ones do not. Here are some examples that do relate to the topic. What part "Congress shall not enforce the legal observation of religion by law" Do you not understand ? "legitimate powers of Government" - do not extend to religion There was good reason for wanting separation of Church and State. These men were well aware of the Churches persecution of people. What part of "without pretense of miracle or mystery" is not crystal clear ? Yes .. separation of Church and State is a good thing. Yes John .. You go ! You have no clue what you are talking about and have presented nothing that supports your premise.
Churchmouse :""""This discussion is worthless....your not a believer and we can discuss abortion without discussing God."""" Then why are you discussing it? You could be addressing other posts, Skippy...and not running from them....
And I don't. It is the lifers that do this. What I did to is present numerous quotes from God in the Bible condoning abortion and you have failed to address any of them. ROFL - I have read the entire Bible numerous times and there are so many contradictions it is not even funny. (There are threads on this topic) I did address this. The scripture says that God knew Jeremiah That's it. It says nothing about generalized abortion. We can infer that God had a plan for him and that is it. This does not address all the other passages where God directly commands abortion. Obviously God cares more for some than others. No it doesn't. Just because the Angel tells Zachariah that John the Baptist will be filled with the Holy Spirit from in his mothers womb does not mean all people are ? Get a grip. 1) a believer in what ? Certainly not your man made up version of the truth. 2) I completely destroyed your absurd premise about the science as related to abortion and you have yet to respond to my question "can we agree that experts disagree" So if you do not want to talk about science, and you have not brought up any other ethical considerations, what does this leave other than God as a basis for your beliefs ? I did not say this at all. I do not need to because God says himself in the Bible what he thinks about abortion, both in words and in deeds. I presented numerous examples of God doing this. You have responded to none of them. You do not seem to have any clue about Gods character in the Bible as a whole. That you claim to be a "believer" , and yet know so little about the book that inspires that belief is a joke. Now would you like to address the evidence I presented, as I have done with yours or do you wish to completely ignore what is written in the Bible addressing abortion directly ?
STILL waiting for you to answer my couple of direct questions, is there some reason you cannot honestly answer them?
I didn't dispute the religious beliefs of the founding fathers neither did I dispute their beliefs on what would help society I just stated the relevance of what some founding fathers believed was irrelevant since they all had very different opinions on many issues They did have the right to allow slavery though it didn't make it right they are two very different things, they believed themselves right because they were men of their time and thought that people who weren't rich white men were naturally inferior how they came to their beliefs is relative to each person though I don't see how you think I believe a majority makes something right, I have stated many opinions that are not held by the majority and I can give reasons for my opinions and hopefully they are all backed up by facts. I suggest you re-read my post and show me where I condoned this, from what I can see I said "much of the world even the Christian one was very backwards from todays standards" I would prefer if you didn't make up things I didn't say it's very annoying and doesn't help your side either. Again like I said I find it uninteresting to what the bible says on the matter, since I have no interest in discussing theology in this thread. You get 10/10 for your perception skills... I never said you didn't have the right to change society I mentioned law and if you want to step into the legal arena you're going to need facts and evidence rather than religion. I think you're getting your documents mixed up. You have the right to try and change the law but if you're using your religion as sole evidence don't be surprised to not get anything done.
So you discount evidence taken in recent times as biased and yet accept a 2,000 year old fairy story as fact .. a book written by men, not by god, men who undoubtedly had their own goals and agenda .. what that verse shows is an opinion of the writers nothing more.
Giftedone said, Look at the Founders who professed Christianity and talked about it in speeches and quotes that have been documented....You really think they had no bias when it came to making law? You say religion had no influence? Ridiculous...it most certainly did. If things were so secular....why wasn't abortion legal? Gay marriage? Sodomy? Pornography? Why didn't they embrace premarital sex in the open...people living together before marriage. They certainly would not represent society today. And if Jefferson did the things today that he did back them...such as importing Bibles to hand out to citizens....he would never get away with it. The Democratic Party along with the ACLU would have his head on a platter. And Christianity does not force anyone to adhere to its tenants. No one in America has ever been forced to follow a particular religion. That does not mean the Founders thought that religion should be illegal. You can believe in religious liberty and still be a Christian. If you look at Jefferson...you can really see what a hypocrite he was. When he was president he did not call or set aside days on the public calendar for fasting and prayer...BUT his actions in Virginia where he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving," and, as governor in 1779, he designated a day for "public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God." Obviously he thought that as president he could not do it but the states did have the power to do it. "Whereas the Honourable the General Congress, impressed with a grateful sense of the goodness of Almighty God, in blessing the greater part of this extensive continent with plentiful harvests, crowning our arms with repeated successes, conducting us hitherto safely through the perils with which we have been encompassed and manifesting in multiplied instances his divine care of these infant states, hath thought proper by their act of the 20th day of October last, to recommend to the several states that Thursday the 9th of December next be appointed a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer, which act is in these words, to wit. “Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise, for the wonders which his goodness has wrought in conducting our forefathers to this western world; for his protection to them and to their posterity, amidst difficulties and dangers; for raising us their children from deep distress, to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty Princes in our deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labours of the husbandman, and spreading plenty through the land; that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally, been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory, and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory. Therefore, Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to appoint THURSDAY the 9th of December next, to be a day of publick and solemn THANKSGIVING to Almighty God, for his mercies, and of PRAYER, for the continuance of his favour and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our publick Councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church, the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all Ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his people, and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance, that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection, our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him finally great, as the father of his people, and the protector of the rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispence the blessings of peace to contending nations. That he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon all our sins, and receive us into his favour; and finally, that he would establish the independance of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety.” I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th day of December next, a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending to all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the said day for those purposes, and to the several Ministers of religion to meet their respective societies thereon, to assist them in their prayers, edify them with their discourses, and generally to perform the sacred duties of their function, proper for the occasion. Given under my hand and the seal of the commonwealth, at Williamsburg, this 11th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1779, and in the fourth of the commonwealth." THOMAS JEFFERSON In the YEAR OF OUR LORD. Lord is Jesus Christ. Separation of Church and State? If there was one he abused and broke it time and time again. "There was good reason for wanting separation of Church and State. These men were well aware of the Churches persecution of people." Even so....they did not mean that people could not pray, read their bibles....anywhere in the United States. Free exercise of free speech...EVERYWHERE. So no wall exists in our public schools. If a child wants to acknowledge God...in any way the Constitution backs that right up. The Founders did not want a national church....that is all. The Constitution affords any citizen the right to free speech. If that free speech is seeped in religious talk...then no wall prevents this. A good thing.....well if your a radical left wing humanist pagan you would want a wall. You don't think anyone knows what they are talking about who disagrees with you. LOL
Not all pro lifers are religious, some are athiest, so churchmouse, you don't have to defend your position. Pro life-ism isn't just amongst religious people. Some athiests are pro lifers too. This is also a response to whoever said that banning abortion violates seperation of church and state. It doesn't. Christianswers.net said this as a rebuttal to that common pro choice arguement. "Second, the fact that a particular theory of life is consistent with a religious view does not mean that it is exclusively religious or that it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. For example, many pro-life advocates argue for their position by emphasizing that there is nontheological support for their position,[9] while many pro-choice advocates, such as Mollenkott,[10] argue that their position is theologically grounded in the Bible. Hence, just because a philosophically and scientifically plausible position may also be found in religious literature such as the Bible, that does not mean such a view is exclusively “religious.” If it did, then our society would have to dispense with laws forbidding such crimes as murder and robbery simply because such actions are prohibited in the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures. Furthermore, some public policies—such as civil rights legislation and elimination of nuclear testing—which are supported by many clergymen who find these policies in agreement with and supported by their doctrinal beliefs, would have to be abolished simply because they are believed by some to be supported by a particular religious theory of life. Hence, the pro-life position is a legitimate public policy option and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution." http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life013.html
Did you know you're off topic in your own thread? This is about "abortionists", isn't it? """"NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO"""
So long as children do not disrupt school for other children, you are correct. That is not so. They voted on a form of the first amendment which very simply said this very thing, and it was defeated. The approved form is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Citizens do have free speech, but that opportunity of free speech cannot use government facilities or funds to further religious undertakings. You cannot use a school function, where people must attend, to proselytize.
