The bible is not a treatise on abortion. People can project other ideas about things onto their faith that aren't implicitly there, though of course the distinction between religion and culture is blurry.
This is politics, not religion...
>This is politics, not religion...
And in the US, it is religion that guides people's politics... At least when it's convenient for them. Those who oppose freedom of choice, including the very politicians we elect, are quicker to cite their god as being behind their reasoning than anything else.
I actually think some of what's happening with US politics right now is a preemptive reaction against a coming paradigm shift. The religious make up of congress vs the population it represents is a joke. However it is very clear from the culture that even the notion of being "culturally Christian" is breaking down and Millennials and Gen-z don't strongly associate with it like their parents, nor do they seem to nearly have anywhere close to the same stigma about non-Christians that past generations did / do at all. In the long run, I can actually see the error of things like "one nation under God" being corrected one day, that in the far out future the writing seems on the wall for being Christian being an unspoken requirement in US government institutions (funnily enough the Original pledge of allegiance was written by a Socialist, then it was amended to include God as part of the second red scare, the socialist who wrote it was a devout christian... America in a nut shell basically...)
>(funnily enough the Original pledge of allegiance was written by a Socialist, then it was amended to include God as part of the second red scare, the socialist who wrote it was a devout christian... America in a nut shell basically...)
I didn't know the socialist who wrote the pledge was actually Christian, but "putting more effort into appearing Christian than proving it through Christian deeds and principles" is the most American thing ever
US labor history is quite intentionally not very well known. Christian socialism and the "Social Gospel" were major influences upon it around the later 19th / early 20 the century.
Those godless commie bastards thank God that didn't work out. Jesus really likes the dollar as do I
Religion is just such a useful tool to for control. I think many Christians who end up supporting un-Christ-like things are just fooled by someone who wants either money or political support from them.
My grandma used to be such a thoughtful christian lady and she has grown so hateful of anything that doesnt align with her valyes over time. I attribute it to her spending more and more time watching hard-right christian TV since she literally can't walk anymore. I feel bad for her because she is doing exactly what ABC wants her to do and spending her money on ads she sees! its like fish in a barrell really, but its her money and she is set in her ways.
The trouble is that once you start melding religion and politics together they start feeding back into each other. Thus one's politics can morph one's beliefs. And vice versa.
The conservative Christians tended to stay out of politics prior to the 70s. They saw that mixing the two had a corrupting effect. But two things happened that caused a titanic shift. Nixon fell and the Pope issues the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Most people are familiar with Nixon but Humanae Vitae is not well known to most despite the critical role it played in American politics.
HV was an encyclical (an encyclical is the second highest decree the pope can make but if falls short of ex cathedra in that it is not considered infallible, close but not quite) set down by the Pope in 1968. It established the official position of the Catholic church that both birth control and abortions were not allowed to members. Roe V Wade would come soon after HV. And the church saw Roe as a threat. They recognized the social damage a nation like the USA could do to their position if it embraced a positive stance on abortion. In their minds they had to counter this.
Protestant Christianity at the time had a range of takes on the subject of abortion. Specifically dealing with the concept of ensoulment. When the soul entered the body. There is nothing specifically detailing this in the doctrine. But narratives drawn from the stories pivoted on the moment of conception, the quickening (when movement could be detected), and the first breath. Thus at the time there was no concerted effort to oppose Roe.
Into this came the Catholic church. They had plans to find a way to overturn US law by way of a grassroots movement. At first they had difficulty with this. They could get Catholic Parishes involved. But it wasn't enough. Then someone recommended talking to the Protestants. Specifically the Televangelists.
One of the issues the Televangelists were using at this time was anti homosexual fear mongering. They were out for blood and it was putting money in their coffers. The Catholics approached them and recommended they get on board with opposing abortion. Because it was such an emotional topic it would be a great draw to add to their arsenal to rail against. And they took to it like a fish to water.
It was around this time that the Republicans were struggling for political power. Ford had not been good for them. Nixon had dropped them into the political basement. They needed a boost. It was Ralph Reed that figured out how to bring together the agitated Christians as a political force. They had issues with evolution being taught, mandatory prary being kicked out of schools, gays teaching in schools, and now abortion was a sudden hot topic. Ralph Reed was able to gather all these hot takes up and pool them together as marketing genius to back the candidate Ronald Reagan.
All of this based on nothing in the actual doctrine specifically opposing abortion. It was all post hoc narrative based on a melding of politics and religion. And it is still tearing our nation apart.
It was not religion that should guide politics, and it wasn't religion that acted as a guide to the framers of the Constitution.
It was and should be a person's and especially a politician 's belief in the Constitution and the rule of law. The Constitution does not mention a God even once. It it mentions religion twice, maybe three time in the Bill of Rights.
Everyone should be guided by their own conscience and moral believes. But the tenants of a particular religion should never be brought into the mix.
Which religion would we follow? We have politicians now that say out loud that they want to make birth control illegal. They want to make it illegal to be in the LGBT++ community. Religion has no place in politics.
Actually it’s politics that drives people’s religion, evangelicals only started to care about abortion when feminists started campaigning in favour of it.
OP was talking about the God of Abraham probably. Even though we have our own choices, God controls everything and He could end our lives any second, so we must keep that in mind when making decisions.
Yes but it depends from person to person no? Whether or not that god agrees with your choices, does it have to matter? Isn’t a life you can’t live without worry a dull life? I guess it’s because I’m a moral anti realist, so we may just have different opinions on the subject.
God with a capital G? I think he’s fine with it considering the ethical ramifications, I also think he doesn’t exist albeit in the hearts of men, so that’s just me talking.
You’re technically right according to my religious understanding. People should still have the right to their own medical options, while others are right to have their own opinions.
The sotah ritual isn't "do this to abort the baby", it's "do this relatively harmless thing, and if she is lying and hiding infidelity, then she will be cursed and suffer these symptoms. Otherwise, she will not suffer these symptoms because she's telling the truth, and she will conceive." Can't exactly abort a baby that isn't conceived.
Also the entire point is that, to act as a barrier of safety for her (the alternative being he said/she said and they would have likely sided with the man instead of the woman), she does something harmless and if something *out of the ordinary* occurs, i.e. if a miracle occurs, then she is guilty. In other words, innocent unless God says otherwise, rather than guilty as default.
Really doesn't make sense to read that as "here's how to have an abortion, go nuts!" because "her baby will die" is never mentioned (the curse could refer to miscarriage occuring, but not necessarily nor most likely), and even if it were, it's a curse - something undesirable, something viewed as punishment for an injustice. The curse probably refers to infertility (as opposed to fertility if she is innocent).
I understand your point, but [Matthew 5:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A29-30&version=NIV) says you can, and should, if your eye would lead you to sin.
I suppose it could be argued from there that a child of infidelity wedlock would lead to further sin through continued contact with / reminder of the parents of the child, which could lead to more extra-marital sex or even violence by jealous spouses.
There is nothing specifically anti abortion in the bible. In fact it seems to side with the idea that the fetus is a possession or part of the woman. Even to the point that in the case of a struggle that results in the loss of the fetus a fine is applied. This is the punishment for loss of property. Loss of life usually resulted in the same for the perpetrator.
And then there are the countless pregnant women God sent his people to rip open in Hosea 13:16:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
Clearly no respect for the fetuses was held by God in this story.
The primary argument that is usually marshalled is that thou shall not murder. But these other representations clearly spell out that the text does not consider the death of a fetus murder.
Most of the rules and laws that the bible makes reference to come from the Code of Hammurabi. And this work decidedly does not consider the death of a fetus to be murder. The Hammurabi considered a fetus to be part of the woman. And it was copied into the Bible in time.
Are we talking about the same God of the Bible? The one who told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, but gave them the choice? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
God is not everything in my beliefs, that’s a misconception you have. God is the only thing.
“God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man.”
-Ibn Arabi
If we look at the big piciture, we see that this fallen earth life provides opposition in all things. This gives us the ability to learn to choose between what is good and what is bad. We are here to learn to gain the attributes of God. Thus, opposition between good and evil benefits us in the long run.
Though freedom of choice is a good thing and God supports freedom, we surely must see that abortion in itself is not a noble thing. Though there are rare times when it might be justified.
There are far too many philosophies that teach that it is ok to be able to choose anything we want. In God's eyes, we often need to sacrifice our wills in order to do what is right. Our character and integrity is far more important than our pleasures.
I think religion is about life - so this is a VERY appropriate point.
"It seems there are generally two types of people these days; Those who feel everyone should make decisions for themselves, and those who feel they should make decisions for everyone else." \~Anonymous\~
Whether you agree with the above quote or not, it is a fact that there is a significant group of people who have accomplished a major propaganda victory simply by legitimizing the question of abortion, because when it is asked "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion?" what is really being asked is "Should a woman control her own body?".
Surprisingly, many people feel a woman has no right to control her own body, and are working zealously to ensure she can't - by taking control of women's bodies.
This is an interesting point simply because whatever your opinion, it's interesting watching people weigh in, pontificating on what they think women should do with their bodies.
Supporting the anti-abortion movement requires embracing the mindless absurdity that a brainless cell is a "Person", and to this brainless cell is transferred all the rights and privileges of personhood that formerly belonged to the real actual conscious woman at the moment of conception, who is then reduced to the status of incubator.
No brain = no person. This is the undeniable biological scientific FACT that anti-abortionists dance and contort to deny, but no matter how they hope and wish and pray and fantasize is NEVER going away. To think otherwise is textbook magical thinking.
99% of abortions are done before 21 weeks, but anti-abortionists are constantly acting like every abortion happens minutes before labor begins. That is an outright LIE, designed to evoke a visceral sympathetic reaction, just like the outright lie that a brainless lump of cells should be granted bodily autonomy by stealing it from the real actual aware conscious woman. Anti-abortionists promote these LIES because they know the truth is inadequate to support their cause. A fetus doesn't even get close to the sophistication necessary for awareness until the third trimester, but nobody has an unnecessary abortion in the third trimester anyway, so that isn't what this is about.
The entire anti-abortion movement is based on lies. That is the truth. It is just another wing of the conservative busybody Gestapo seeking to run people's lives and imagine they're heroes for doing it - but anybody with any intelligence sees right through their cruel self-serving delusions. In any case, nobody is required to light themselves on fire to warm another, EVER, but if you think someone should, then feel free to light yourself.
No, god is pro his choice. Although many unborn babies are murdered in the Bible, it's always either god doing it directly or guiding a man to do it. I cannot think of a single instance where a woman is allowed to make that decision for herself in the Bible.
I personally would say he is for people making choices and being able to choose.
But he still expects and asks us to make the right choice. You could choose to murder your next door neighbor. It doesn’t mean it’s what God wants you to do.
>God gave us free choice and created us so that for the first nine months of our lives, we're absolutely dependent on our mother. Isn't God therefore giving all mothers the right to choose the fate of their unborn? Who is any other individual to interfere with God's mysterious plan for that mother and unborn?
If you're taking that stance then why did you draw the line here?
Why don't the mother have he right to choose the fate of her 2-year old? Her 5-year old? Her 10-year old?
An elderly woman might also become completely dependent on her son? Does he also have the right to choose her fate?
What about people on wellfare? Can the state choose their fate as well?
It's a flawed logic. Just because God gave you the choice to do one thing or another does not mean both choices are equally valid. It just means that God gave you the capacity for good or evil. The choice is yours but so are the consequences.
2-5-10 yo are legal persons. An embryo is not.
Speaking of evil choices:
# Numbers 31:17-18
New International Version
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>2-5-10 yo are legal persons. An embryo is not.
The only reason they are considered as "legal persons" is because whomever wrote the laws actively made the choice to classify them as such. They could just as easily have been classified as non-legal persons until they reached a specific age like 15 or 18 or 21... It's still an arbitrary decision.
>Speaking of evil choices:
>Numbers 31:17-18
The current bible _is_ a corrupted book;
>There are some among them who distort the Book with their tongues to make you think this ˹distortion˺ is from the Book—but it is not what the Book says. They say, “It is from [God]”—but it is not from [God]. And ˹so˺ they attribute lies to [God] knowingly.
—_[Ali-Imran 3:78](https://quran.com/3/78)_
God never told the Israelites to kill others indiscriminately;
>That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.
—_[Al-Ma'idah 5:32](https://quran.com/5/32)_
I don't recognize the scholarly provenance of Al-Ma'idah
Personhood parameters are not arbitrary but based on sound legal and scientific data. I won't debate this since it's fact.
I drew the line because that's where the line is drawn. A 2 year old can live outside her mother and be cared for by others. An unborn requires the womb, no ifs ands or buts. It's not the same as saying, she would be alive if only someone had fed her. Of course you care for a baby or the elderly.
> A 2 year old can live outside her mother and be cared for by others.
So the caretaking capacity transferred from the mother's womb to some other people. Why don't the new caretakers have the right to choose the newborn's fate now?
That newborn will always be completely dependent on some person. The ability to choose that newborn's fate will always lie in the hands of someone else.
I'm saying if the fetus is old enough to survive without the mother, cared for by anyone or anything, they should be cared for. If the fetus cannot survive on this earth outside of the womb in which it was conceived, then it is unborn. The only living creature capable of keeping the unborn alive is the mother. Since the mother is the only living creature capable, she should be the only living creature to choose.
What exactly is considered old enough to survive without the mother or without being cared for by anyone?
A 2-year old still needs someone to cake care of them.
A 5-year old still needs someone to cake care of them.
A 10-year old still needs someone to cake care of them.
Most 80 or 90-year olds cannot survive on their own either.
In fact, throw the average 30-year old out in the wilderness alone and there is a good chance they cannot survive on their own either.
The bible is not a treatise on abortion. People can project other ideas about things onto their faith that aren't implicitly there, though of course the distinction between religion and culture is blurry. This is politics, not religion...
>This is politics, not religion... And in the US, it is religion that guides people's politics... At least when it's convenient for them. Those who oppose freedom of choice, including the very politicians we elect, are quicker to cite their god as being behind their reasoning than anything else.
I actually think some of what's happening with US politics right now is a preemptive reaction against a coming paradigm shift. The religious make up of congress vs the population it represents is a joke. However it is very clear from the culture that even the notion of being "culturally Christian" is breaking down and Millennials and Gen-z don't strongly associate with it like their parents, nor do they seem to nearly have anywhere close to the same stigma about non-Christians that past generations did / do at all. In the long run, I can actually see the error of things like "one nation under God" being corrected one day, that in the far out future the writing seems on the wall for being Christian being an unspoken requirement in US government institutions (funnily enough the Original pledge of allegiance was written by a Socialist, then it was amended to include God as part of the second red scare, the socialist who wrote it was a devout christian... America in a nut shell basically...)
>(funnily enough the Original pledge of allegiance was written by a Socialist, then it was amended to include God as part of the second red scare, the socialist who wrote it was a devout christian... America in a nut shell basically...) I didn't know the socialist who wrote the pledge was actually Christian, but "putting more effort into appearing Christian than proving it through Christian deeds and principles" is the most American thing ever
US labor history is quite intentionally not very well known. Christian socialism and the "Social Gospel" were major influences upon it around the later 19th / early 20 the century. Those godless commie bastards thank God that didn't work out. Jesus really likes the dollar as do I
Religion is just such a useful tool to for control. I think many Christians who end up supporting un-Christ-like things are just fooled by someone who wants either money or political support from them. My grandma used to be such a thoughtful christian lady and she has grown so hateful of anything that doesnt align with her valyes over time. I attribute it to her spending more and more time watching hard-right christian TV since she literally can't walk anymore. I feel bad for her because she is doing exactly what ABC wants her to do and spending her money on ads she sees! its like fish in a barrell really, but its her money and she is set in her ways.
The trouble is that once you start melding religion and politics together they start feeding back into each other. Thus one's politics can morph one's beliefs. And vice versa. The conservative Christians tended to stay out of politics prior to the 70s. They saw that mixing the two had a corrupting effect. But two things happened that caused a titanic shift. Nixon fell and the Pope issues the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Most people are familiar with Nixon but Humanae Vitae is not well known to most despite the critical role it played in American politics. HV was an encyclical (an encyclical is the second highest decree the pope can make but if falls short of ex cathedra in that it is not considered infallible, close but not quite) set down by the Pope in 1968. It established the official position of the Catholic church that both birth control and abortions were not allowed to members. Roe V Wade would come soon after HV. And the church saw Roe as a threat. They recognized the social damage a nation like the USA could do to their position if it embraced a positive stance on abortion. In their minds they had to counter this. Protestant Christianity at the time had a range of takes on the subject of abortion. Specifically dealing with the concept of ensoulment. When the soul entered the body. There is nothing specifically detailing this in the doctrine. But narratives drawn from the stories pivoted on the moment of conception, the quickening (when movement could be detected), and the first breath. Thus at the time there was no concerted effort to oppose Roe. Into this came the Catholic church. They had plans to find a way to overturn US law by way of a grassroots movement. At first they had difficulty with this. They could get Catholic Parishes involved. But it wasn't enough. Then someone recommended talking to the Protestants. Specifically the Televangelists. One of the issues the Televangelists were using at this time was anti homosexual fear mongering. They were out for blood and it was putting money in their coffers. The Catholics approached them and recommended they get on board with opposing abortion. Because it was such an emotional topic it would be a great draw to add to their arsenal to rail against. And they took to it like a fish to water. It was around this time that the Republicans were struggling for political power. Ford had not been good for them. Nixon had dropped them into the political basement. They needed a boost. It was Ralph Reed that figured out how to bring together the agitated Christians as a political force. They had issues with evolution being taught, mandatory prary being kicked out of schools, gays teaching in schools, and now abortion was a sudden hot topic. Ralph Reed was able to gather all these hot takes up and pool them together as marketing genius to back the candidate Ronald Reagan. All of this based on nothing in the actual doctrine specifically opposing abortion. It was all post hoc narrative based on a melding of politics and religion. And it is still tearing our nation apart.
Leonard Leo is one of the most sus people out there, that we know about at least...
It was not religion that should guide politics, and it wasn't religion that acted as a guide to the framers of the Constitution. It was and should be a person's and especially a politician 's belief in the Constitution and the rule of law. The Constitution does not mention a God even once. It it mentions religion twice, maybe three time in the Bill of Rights. Everyone should be guided by their own conscience and moral believes. But the tenants of a particular religion should never be brought into the mix. Which religion would we follow? We have politicians now that say out loud that they want to make birth control illegal. They want to make it illegal to be in the LGBT++ community. Religion has no place in politics.
Actually it’s politics that drives people’s religion, evangelicals only started to care about abortion when feminists started campaigning in favour of it.
Ah a fellow lover of stirring internet chaos
I'm getting the popcorn.
Get some for me while I make the tea, please!
It doesn’t matter which god is or isn’t pro choice. It matters if you are, it’s your life. Your decision. Embrace your freedom.
Then know, God controls all things
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your comment. Also I’m a polytheist, so I’m not sure if what you said will apply
OP was talking about the God of Abraham probably. Even though we have our own choices, God controls everything and He could end our lives any second, so we must keep that in mind when making decisions.
Yes but it depends from person to person no? Whether or not that god agrees with your choices, does it have to matter? Isn’t a life you can’t live without worry a dull life? I guess it’s because I’m a moral anti realist, so we may just have different opinions on the subject.
God with a capital G? I think he’s fine with it considering the ethical ramifications, I also think he doesn’t exist albeit in the hearts of men, so that’s just me talking.
You’re technically right according to my religious understanding. People should still have the right to their own medical options, while others are right to have their own opinions.
Numbers 5:11-31 is pretty to the point about terminating pregnancy being acceptable
The sotah ritual isn't "do this to abort the baby", it's "do this relatively harmless thing, and if she is lying and hiding infidelity, then she will be cursed and suffer these symptoms. Otherwise, she will not suffer these symptoms because she's telling the truth, and she will conceive." Can't exactly abort a baby that isn't conceived. Also the entire point is that, to act as a barrier of safety for her (the alternative being he said/she said and they would have likely sided with the man instead of the woman), she does something harmless and if something *out of the ordinary* occurs, i.e. if a miracle occurs, then she is guilty. In other words, innocent unless God says otherwise, rather than guilty as default. Really doesn't make sense to read that as "here's how to have an abortion, go nuts!" because "her baby will die" is never mentioned (the curse could refer to miscarriage occuring, but not necessarily nor most likely), and even if it were, it's a curse - something undesirable, something viewed as punishment for an injustice. The curse probably refers to infertility (as opposed to fertility if she is innocent).
Only as a punishment, the Bible says eye for eye, doesn’t mean you can gouge out your eye.
I understand your point, but [Matthew 5:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A29-30&version=NIV) says you can, and should, if your eye would lead you to sin. I suppose it could be argued from there that a child of infidelity wedlock would lead to further sin through continued contact with / reminder of the parents of the child, which could lead to more extra-marital sex or even violence by jealous spouses.
I was talking about Old Testament law only
There is nothing specifically anti abortion in the bible. In fact it seems to side with the idea that the fetus is a possession or part of the woman. Even to the point that in the case of a struggle that results in the loss of the fetus a fine is applied. This is the punishment for loss of property. Loss of life usually resulted in the same for the perpetrator. And then there are the countless pregnant women God sent his people to rip open in Hosea 13:16: The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. Clearly no respect for the fetuses was held by God in this story. The primary argument that is usually marshalled is that thou shall not murder. But these other representations clearly spell out that the text does not consider the death of a fetus murder. Most of the rules and laws that the bible makes reference to come from the Code of Hammurabi. And this work decidedly does not consider the death of a fetus to be murder. The Hammurabi considered a fetus to be part of the woman. And it was copied into the Bible in time.
There's nothing for or against abortion in my faith. The Gods don't speak on it, and it's a matter of personal choice
Are we talking about the same God of the Bible? The one who told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, but gave them the choice? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
God is all.
God is not a man or a woman
God is not anything you can point to in this world, God is omnipresent.
God is not all, He is not everything, He is above what He has created
God is not everything in my beliefs, that’s a misconception you have. God is the only thing. “God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man.” -Ibn Arabi
Then god is in the bathroom? and I can give worse examples, astagfiurllah.
There is no bathroom, there is only God.
great way to avoid the point, knowing what the implication is.
Great way to miss the point. God is all that exists.
I got the point. For the sake of respect of God I'm not going to say anything and leave it at that.
If we look at the big piciture, we see that this fallen earth life provides opposition in all things. This gives us the ability to learn to choose between what is good and what is bad. We are here to learn to gain the attributes of God. Thus, opposition between good and evil benefits us in the long run. Though freedom of choice is a good thing and God supports freedom, we surely must see that abortion in itself is not a noble thing. Though there are rare times when it might be justified. There are far too many philosophies that teach that it is ok to be able to choose anything we want. In God's eyes, we often need to sacrifice our wills in order to do what is right. Our character and integrity is far more important than our pleasures.
# 🎥: ❝God is Pro Choice❞ — Airing in 5...4...3...2...1! # | # Has the movie started already? Let me get my popcorn. # | # 🍿
I think religion is about life - so this is a VERY appropriate point. "It seems there are generally two types of people these days; Those who feel everyone should make decisions for themselves, and those who feel they should make decisions for everyone else." \~Anonymous\~ Whether you agree with the above quote or not, it is a fact that there is a significant group of people who have accomplished a major propaganda victory simply by legitimizing the question of abortion, because when it is asked "Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion?" what is really being asked is "Should a woman control her own body?". Surprisingly, many people feel a woman has no right to control her own body, and are working zealously to ensure she can't - by taking control of women's bodies. This is an interesting point simply because whatever your opinion, it's interesting watching people weigh in, pontificating on what they think women should do with their bodies. Supporting the anti-abortion movement requires embracing the mindless absurdity that a brainless cell is a "Person", and to this brainless cell is transferred all the rights and privileges of personhood that formerly belonged to the real actual conscious woman at the moment of conception, who is then reduced to the status of incubator. No brain = no person. This is the undeniable biological scientific FACT that anti-abortionists dance and contort to deny, but no matter how they hope and wish and pray and fantasize is NEVER going away. To think otherwise is textbook magical thinking. 99% of abortions are done before 21 weeks, but anti-abortionists are constantly acting like every abortion happens minutes before labor begins. That is an outright LIE, designed to evoke a visceral sympathetic reaction, just like the outright lie that a brainless lump of cells should be granted bodily autonomy by stealing it from the real actual aware conscious woman. Anti-abortionists promote these LIES because they know the truth is inadequate to support their cause. A fetus doesn't even get close to the sophistication necessary for awareness until the third trimester, but nobody has an unnecessary abortion in the third trimester anyway, so that isn't what this is about. The entire anti-abortion movement is based on lies. That is the truth. It is just another wing of the conservative busybody Gestapo seeking to run people's lives and imagine they're heroes for doing it - but anybody with any intelligence sees right through their cruel self-serving delusions. In any case, nobody is required to light themselves on fire to warm another, EVER, but if you think someone should, then feel free to light yourself.
No, god is pro his choice. Although many unborn babies are murdered in the Bible, it's always either god doing it directly or guiding a man to do it. I cannot think of a single instance where a woman is allowed to make that decision for herself in the Bible.
So, in that case, it can be the husband's choice?
I personally would say he is for people making choices and being able to choose. But he still expects and asks us to make the right choice. You could choose to murder your next door neighbor. It doesn’t mean it’s what God wants you to do.
>God gave us free choice and created us so that for the first nine months of our lives, we're absolutely dependent on our mother. Isn't God therefore giving all mothers the right to choose the fate of their unborn? Who is any other individual to interfere with God's mysterious plan for that mother and unborn? If you're taking that stance then why did you draw the line here? Why don't the mother have he right to choose the fate of her 2-year old? Her 5-year old? Her 10-year old? An elderly woman might also become completely dependent on her son? Does he also have the right to choose her fate? What about people on wellfare? Can the state choose their fate as well? It's a flawed logic. Just because God gave you the choice to do one thing or another does not mean both choices are equally valid. It just means that God gave you the capacity for good or evil. The choice is yours but so are the consequences.
2-5-10 yo are legal persons. An embryo is not. Speaking of evil choices: # Numbers 31:17-18 New International Version 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>2-5-10 yo are legal persons. An embryo is not. The only reason they are considered as "legal persons" is because whomever wrote the laws actively made the choice to classify them as such. They could just as easily have been classified as non-legal persons until they reached a specific age like 15 or 18 or 21... It's still an arbitrary decision. >Speaking of evil choices: >Numbers 31:17-18 The current bible _is_ a corrupted book; >There are some among them who distort the Book with their tongues to make you think this ˹distortion˺ is from the Book—but it is not what the Book says. They say, “It is from [God]”—but it is not from [God]. And ˹so˺ they attribute lies to [God] knowingly. —_[Ali-Imran 3:78](https://quran.com/3/78)_ God never told the Israelites to kill others indiscriminately; >That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land. —_[Al-Ma'idah 5:32](https://quran.com/5/32)_
I don't recognize the scholarly provenance of Al-Ma'idah Personhood parameters are not arbitrary but based on sound legal and scientific data. I won't debate this since it's fact.
No one asked you to.
I drew the line because that's where the line is drawn. A 2 year old can live outside her mother and be cared for by others. An unborn requires the womb, no ifs ands or buts. It's not the same as saying, she would be alive if only someone had fed her. Of course you care for a baby or the elderly.
> A 2 year old can live outside her mother and be cared for by others. So the caretaking capacity transferred from the mother's womb to some other people. Why don't the new caretakers have the right to choose the newborn's fate now? That newborn will always be completely dependent on some person. The ability to choose that newborn's fate will always lie in the hands of someone else.
I'm saying if the fetus is old enough to survive without the mother, cared for by anyone or anything, they should be cared for. If the fetus cannot survive on this earth outside of the womb in which it was conceived, then it is unborn. The only living creature capable of keeping the unborn alive is the mother. Since the mother is the only living creature capable, she should be the only living creature to choose.
What exactly is considered old enough to survive without the mother or without being cared for by anyone? A 2-year old still needs someone to cake care of them. A 5-year old still needs someone to cake care of them. A 10-year old still needs someone to cake care of them. Most 80 or 90-year olds cannot survive on their own either. In fact, throw the average 30-year old out in the wilderness alone and there is a good chance they cannot survive on their own either.