but you feel perfectly ok to let them die after birth since you want everyone for themseleves healthcare, funny how you support more rights and protections for the unborn than the born.....
I am not talking about a "might" condition here, I am talking about what the data shows (and not just one study, the data is linked by each state when the states legalized it earlier and from multiple countries), and that is the case crime rate is directly reduced by allowing abortion
One could probably do a study that shows that more democrats are being aborted than republicans, but even that doesn't justify killing the unborn.
A reading of Ps 1:1 and Eph 5:11 explains why a true believer cannot be a democrat.
So the Bible's position on abortion, like its position on so many other issues, can be described as extremely ambiguous. It treats the death of a fetus as a non-homicide and makes no attempt to punish women who have abortions, nor does it mention the widely-practiced abortion that was contemporaneous to the period during which the relevant texts were written. On the other hand, it does not suggest or imply that personhood begins at the moment of birth. This is why the Judeo-Christian tradition has long struggled with the question of abortion. A theological approach to abortion, if it is to be found at all, cannot explicitly be found in the text of the Bible.
...., so please don't act like your interpretation is the only one.
again, it is not one study, it is a very clear relationship that has been shown to be true, time and time again
but you feel perfectly ok to let them die after birth since you want everyone for themseleves healthcare, funny how you support more rights and protections for the unborn than the born.....
I am not talking about a "might" condition here, I am talking about what the data shows (and not just one study, the data is linked by each state when the states legalized it earlier and from multiple countries), and that is the case crime rate is directly reduced by allowing abortion
Oh, I don't disagree with the studies... I just refuse to believe that murdering children is the only way. And we have fundamental differences as to what is and isn't a "right". I don't think that free healthcare is a right.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
No, the bible is quite clear on this point. It does not say that a fetus has no value. It says that the value of fetus is to be determined by the father.
Exodus 21:22 - "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine."
Exodus 21:12 makes it clear that taking the life of a person is a criminal offense. 21:22 makes it clear that causing a miscarriage is a civil matter.
We've taken some liberties with the biblical position in the past 2000 years. For instance, women are now considered equals to men, not subservient. This worldview suggests that the mother of the fetus now possesses the authority to determine the fine for the miscarriage of the fetus. On the other hand, we've also taken the liberty of adding criminal charges for causing a miscarriage. I would argue that our current system is morally superior to that of the bible.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Proof texting can lead to problems for either side of an issue. Most Hebraic roots scholars prefer to read the whole Bible to get to know the heart of God and at least the whole book or chapter in question to know the context and purpose of a particular passage. In the case of Exodus 21:22 the Hebrew word mistranslated as miscarriage is "yeled", normally used to indicate children rather than miscarriage, and then what does "further harm" mean? The purpose of rule is also to limit excessive retaliation.
Linear Mode
