Abortion ISN'T "murder"

[annabenedetti]

koban was brash and obnoxious, some other dude was an attempt to re-invent myself here as a kinder gentler persona. The rest of my user names have marked punctuations in my life when I needed to take a break and burned my accounts. Annabananahead and Rusha (and others of a certain cabal) still harbor ill will toward me from our interactions in the past, many of which were contentious; none of which I wish to revisit.

 

[ok doser]

SObG, to me:

But I'm beginning to know you and you and I seem think alike on the posts I've read so far.

my recommendation is that you retract that statement - it's only going to cause you grief from "those who never forget"

 

[ok doser]

bananahead attempts to smear me:

He recently admitted he enjoyed being abusive ....

doser suggests:

if you linked to it, Saved.One.by.Grace could see it in context and make up his own mind instead of having it poisoned by you

ah - here it is:

I enjoy being abusive to posters who troll this site. I admit it.
I enjoy being abusive to people who support evil. I admit it.

I abhor the evil that is in them, the evil that directs them, the evil that drives them. And I understand that they view this abhorrence on my part as abuse. They come to this Christian site expecting to be coddled, expecting to be treated in a manner that is their warped interpretation of Christianity..

And like Anna they whine about it when they get something different from me and others.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abortion will never be outlawed. These are statements made by the conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, regarding the abortion issue: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land."

The more important issue is if it is the settled law of God's kingdom.

And the answer is "no." It is only the settled law for those who place man's law above God's law.

God knows who is supporting the political party that is doing everything in its power to defend abortion on demand and tax-payer funded abortions. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those who are supporting the Democrat party when they come face to face with Him who will judge the quick and the dead.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I remember you as well. Welcome back, hope all is well. You are correct, you have never said anything inappropriate to me.

Thank you. I was a bit concerned about that because I was battling the side effects from the drug I began taking for epilepsy during my last time here. Once I realized what was happening through online research, I split my daily dosage which gave me a more balanced amount of Keppra XL throughout the day. My neurologist didn't like that but it worked beautifully and I am no longer subject to the side effects, I can still think clearly and the seizures are a thing of the past.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

koban was brash and obnoxious, some other dude was an attempt to re-invent myself here as a kinder gentler persona. The rest of my user names have marked punctuations in my life when I needed to take a break and burned my accounts. Annabananahead and Rusha (and others of a certain cabal) still harbor ill will toward me from our interactions in the past, many of which were contentious; none of which I wish to revisit.

This forum and another forum I pretty much always used the Saved.One.by.Grace name. My personality now, which shows through in my writing, is more thoughtful now than brash. It probably helps that I'm retired now. One other forum I was a regular on I used the name Faith.Man. My testimony is probably on three or four different Christian forums.

I was driven from my first Christian forum because of the tag-team abuse I took from a group of Eastern Orthodox women who seemed to single me out for their own form of pleasure and to justify their traditions as necessary. It's no fun being on the abused end of a conversation. Did Jesus do that?

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

SObG, to me:

my recommendation is that you retract that statement - it's only going to cause you grief from "those who never forget"

I only know what I glean from your posts now. That will have to suffice. Wait until I post more on Creation Science, Viruses, and Abortion. That's when the slings and arrows will show up and the knives sharpened. But I'm not going to resort to name-calling. I've been accused of name-calling when I called someone a liar for posting a doctored picture as truth. When a person spreads a lie and dresses it up as truth, isn't that person a liar? This is not based on anything at Theology Online, but a reference to my previous forum. Also, it in no way reflects on the management of that site or the moderators. I'm glad I'm here though and I have fond memories of my time here. Not sure why I left.

 

[ok doser]

I only know what I glean from your posts now. That will have to suffice. Wait until I post more on Creation Science, Viruses, and Abortion. That's when the slings and arrows will show up and the knives sharpened. But I'm not going to resort to name-calling. I've been accused of name-calling when I called someone a liar for posting a doctored picture as truth. When a person spreads a lie and dresses it up as truth, isn't that person a liar? This is not based on anything at Theology Online, but a reference to my previous forum. Also, it in no way reflects on the management of that site or the moderators. I'm glad I'm here though and I have fond memories of my time here. Not sure why I left.

glad to have you back, hope you find it an enjoyable stay

 

[Lon]

"Murder" vs. "Killing"
in a nutshell: Killing is authorized taking a life, murder is not.
While the 10 Commandments prohibit 'murder' it is clear God commanded Israel to carry out His judgments on the Earth in a lethal manner.

In order to determine if which applies to Abortion, we have to determine the difference between killing and murder (or a third option as some suggest, that the fetus is not a person thus does not fall in either category).

What does scripture say about Murder, Killing, and Abortion?

First: Is the unborn a human being who may be killed or murdered? Consider a few passages of scripture:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Galatians 1:15
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

Scripture indicates strongly and firmly a resounding 'yes.' Other scriptures speak of John the Baptist moving in his mother when near the Lord Jesus Christ, God's specific plans and knowledge of persons, for the conceived but yet 'unborn' etc.

If this is so, then we'd have to conclude that ending the life of the unborn (as they did all the prophets Matthew 23:30 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16), is killing/murdering.

Which of these two, is evident regarding the life of the unborn?

Does scripture answer the question, "is it wrong to kill the unborn?"


Leviticus 24:19 If someone injures his neighbor, what he did is to be done to him - 20 break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth -whatever injury he has caused the other person is to be rendered to him in return.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

While many stop at verse 22, it is important to keep reading in the context. The meaning certainly is given that the 'child' departing (no matter how long ago the abuse happened), if with any harm, the man is to be given the same for causing the harm 'unless' there is no harm given at all. His fate is determined by the condition of the born child.

What is primarily the difference between 'killing' and 'murder?'

We all know, at least in some vague way, that it is okay (not preferable) for someone to protect their home, for a policeman to protect with lethal force, and that soldiers also need to eliminate enemies. We all also know that 'unauthorized' cause of another's death carries stiff penalties.

What is the same, what is different?

Both "killing" and "murder" involve taking a life. Animals are never accused of 'murder' even though they take a life, nevertheless, if they are caught or already in captivity, they are put to death.

Why? Genesis 9:5 says that animals that shed men's blood will be put to death 'because' man is made in God's image.

Briefly, the difference between is "murder" and "killing" is 1) Justified (a very good reason for killing) and 2) authorization and 3)guilt of the one killed

While man does 'authorize' killing everyday, Genesis 9:5 makes certain that God is the ultimate Author we must give account to for any death we cause OR are party to.

While it may be that the government 'authorizes' ending a life, we yet know many wars have caused wrongful death and these are all called 'murders.' It means, regardless if a death is authorized, it also depends on who authorizes it AND whether the end is justifiable on par with ending that life, especially and even so among the unborn. We are in this very discussion as a nation with BLM where we are rightly calling into question whether the ending of particular lives is ever 'justifiable' or 'when' it is deemed so.

How much moreso when we know, for certain, the innocence of the condemned? God upholds the cause of the righteous and the helpless. There can be no other position, then, for His people.

Some have said in thread: Let the dead bury the dead, and let the lawless be lawless as if 'live and ignore' were a mandate. James 1:27, however, says a true and pure faith, 'is to take up the cause for the fatherless (unborn) and the widow. Paul commends soldiers to carry out their duty before God (Jesus too Luke 3:14).


As Christians, we must vote and act on behalf of the helpless and innocent.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

"Murder" vs. "Killing"
in a nutshell: Killing is authorized taking a life, murder is not.
While the 10 Commandments prohibit 'murder' it is clear God commanded Israel to carry out His judgments on the Earth in a lethal manner.

In order to determine if which applies to Abortion, we have to determine the difference between killing and murder (or a third option as some suggest, that the fetus is not a person thus does not fall in either category).

What does scripture say about Murder, Killing, and Abortion?

First: Is the unborn a human being who may be killed or murdered? Consider a few passages of scripture:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Galatians 1:15
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

Scripture indicates strongly and firmly a resounding 'yes.' Other scriptures speak of John the Baptist moving in his mother when near the Lord Jesus Christ, God's specific plans and knowledge of persons, for the conceived but yet 'unborn' etc.

If this is so, then we'd have to conclude that ending the life of the unborn (as they did all the prophets Matthew 23:30 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16), is killing/murdering.

Which of these two, is evident regarding the life of the unborn?

Does scripture answer the question, "is it wrong to kill the unborn?"


Leviticus 24:19 If someone injures his neighbor, what he did is to be done to him - 20 break for break, eye for eye, tooth for tooth -whatever injury he has caused the other person is to be rendered to him in return.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

While many stop at verse 22, it is important to keep reading in the context. The meaning certainly is given that the 'child' departing (no matter how long ago the abuse happened), if with any harm, the man is to be given the same for causing the harm 'unless' there is no harm given at all. His fate is determined by the condition of the born child.

What is primarily the difference between 'killing' and 'murder?'

We all know, at least in some vague way, that it is okay (not preferable) for someone to protect their home, for a policeman to protect with lethal force, and that soldiers also need to eliminate enemies. We all also know that 'unauthorized' cause of another's death carries stiff penalties.

What is the same, what is different?

Both "killing" and "murder" involve taking a life. Animals are never accused of 'murder' even though they take a life, nevertheless, if they are caught or already in captivity, they are put to death.

Why? Genesis 9:5 says that animals that shed men's blood will be put to death 'because' man is made in God's image.

Briefly, the difference between is "murder" and "killing" is 1) Justified (a very good reason for killing) and 2) authorization and 3)guilt of the one killed

While man does 'authorize' killing everyday, Genesis 9:5 makes certain that God is the ultimate Author we must give account to for any death we cause OR are party to.

While it may be that the government 'authorizes' ending a life, we yet know many w,ars have caused wrongful death and these are all called 'murders.' It means, regardless if a death is authorized, it also depends on who authorizes it AND whether the end is justifiable on par with ending that life, especially and even so among the unborn. We are in this very discussion as a nation with BLM where we are rightly calling into question whether the ending of particular lives is ever 'justifiable' or 'when' it is deemed so.

How much moreso when we know, for certain, the innocence of the condemned? God upholds the cause of the righteous and the helpless. There can be no other position, then, for His people.

Some have said in thread: Let the dead bury the dead, and let the lawless be lawless as if 'live and ignore' were a mandate. James 1:27, however, says a true and pure faith, 'is to take up the cause for the fatherless (unborn) and the widow. Paul commends soldiers to carry out their duty before God (Jesus too Luke 3:14).


As Christians, we must vote and act on behalf of the helpless and innocent.

The three scriptures you used in this post are the ones I use to support my pro-life beliefs. But I can understand how someone with different beliefs can explain these scriptures away. Look at it from a scientific perspective. The DNA of a infant in the womb is different than the mother's or the father's. Once that spark of life happens, DNA indicates a unique individual has been created. It's not tissue to be discarded. Science and Holy Scripture support the pro-life position.

 

[ok doser]

The three scriptures you used in this post are the ones I use to support my pro-life beliefs. But I can understand how someone with different beliefs can explain these scriptures away. Look at it from a scientific perspective. The DNA of a infant in the womb is different than the mother's or the father's. Once that spark of life happens, DNA indicates a unique individual has been created. It's not tissue to be discarded. Science and Holy Scripture support the pro-life position.

When I used to argue this with feminists, I was very careful with my language - at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created, the first step on the path of development that leads through embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adult, elder and death. There is no point on that continuum at which the living organism ceases to be human.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

When I used to argue this with feminists, I was very careful with my language - at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created, the first step on the path of development that leads through embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adult, elder and death. There is no point on that continuum at which the living organism ceases to be human.

True.

 

[Rusha]

Thank you. I was a bit concerned about that because I was battling the side effects from the drug I began taking for epilepsy during my last time here. Once I realized what was happening through online research, I split my daily dosage which gave me a more balanced amount of Keppra XL throughout the day. My neurologist didn't like that but it worked beautifully and I am no longer subject to the side effects, I can still think clearly and the seizures are a thing of the past.

You are welcome. I feel for you with the anti-seizure medications insofar as the side effects. Years ago my doctor tried me on two different prescriptions ((for migraines) and I couldn’t handle the side effects.

 

[Lon]

Likewise, the mother's right to her body, while the fetus relies upon HER body for sustenance, her rights hold precedence.

As the law sits, right or wrong.

Ginsburg said, “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men."

According to Ginsburg, if women do not have the right to put their unborn to death then they don't have full autonomy and full equality with men.

Since when have men had the power to put to death the unborn which they fathered? To be fair, shouldn't men be given that right? After all, if they don't have that right then they don't have full autonomy and full equality with women.

It is odd that supposed-to-be impartial and supposed-to-be fair judges would remove the man who was certainly involved in the inception choice, and dictate that he would not be included in the decision/choice of that offspring :think: The risk was the same, the effort the same, the fault or purpose, all the same or equivalent.

We do know that there are exceptions, but exceptions aren't supposed to drive the bulk of policy but RATHER reflect when and if such is ever the case as an exception, rather than rule.


I don't think guys get this to a degree, but I don't think women do either, to a degree where neither really gets the problem of the other. It does, in fact, alienate men from that process and especially from that child. I've seen grown men cry that their child was destroyed through no choice of their own and no voice or say. It is very true that he owned half of that life, regardless of the one carrying the developing person.

I know this doesn't persuade you, Quip, but it might another.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

You are welcome. I feel for you with the anti-seizure medications insofar as the side effects. Years ago my doctor tried me on two different prescriptions ((for migraines) and I couldn’t handle the side effects.

There's a website called drugs.com which tells you if some supplements or medications interfere with one another and what side effects might show up. A lot of Christians take supplements but sometimes these might interact with prescriptions. It's amazing how little doctors know about drugs, just the ones the drug reps push. Anyway, I found it helpful. Hopefully your migraines are under control. God bless.

 

[ok doser]

As the law sits, right or wrong.


It is odd that supposed-to-be impartial and supposed-to-be fair judges would remove the man who was certainly involved in the inception choice, and dictate that he would not be included in the decision/choice of that offspring :think: The risk was the same, the effort the same, the fault or purpose, all the same or equivalent.

We do know that there are exceptions, but exceptions aren't supposed to drive the bulk of policy but RATHER reflect when and if such is ever the case as an exception, rather than rule.


I don't think guys get this to a degree, but I don't think women do either, to a degree where neither really gets the problem of the other. It does, in fact, alienate men from that process and especially from that child. I've seen grown men cry that their child was destroyed through no choice of their own and no voice or say. It is very true that he owned half of that life, regardless of the one carrying the developing person.

I know this doesn't persuade you, Quip, but it might another.

Feminism at its core is selfishness. Abortion is the most extreme expression of that selfishness.

 

[Lon]

And what are you going to do about it? Absolutely nothing? That's what I thought.

Kill an abortion doctor? Some have. Generally, Christians go with marching orders and are not supposed to be self-willed. Prayer is effectual. I've seen God already intervene. No faith? I 'can' pray for you. God is not as 'non-existent' or 'helpless' as you imagine? :think:

During Nazi persecution of Jews, many Christians went to concentration camps with their protected. Many Christians give money to 'peaceful' anti-abortion groups that persuade young women that killing a life is wrong.

In a word? You 'thought' wrong, didn't you?

 

[User Name]

 

[User Name]

One of the longest-running cons in American politics is the Supreme Court’s perpetually just-around-the-corner repudiation of Roe v. Wade. Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the court, will be the latest test of whether Republicans can sustain their four-decade-long rhetorical assault on Roe, during which conservatives have dominated the Supreme Court without ever taking responsibility to end abortion rights.

The demise of Roe began under President Ronald Reagan, who appointed four Supreme Court justices. Somehow Roe survived. No matter. Reagan’s anti-abortion successor, George H.W. Bush, added two more appointments to the court, making a total of six new appointments for the anti-abortion movement. Roe was as good as dead.

Three decades later, it’s a credit to Republicans’ appetite for hypocrisy, and to the anti-abortion movement’s tolerance for betrayal, that the game is still going...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[ok doser]

One of the longest-running cons in American politics is the Supreme Court’s perpetually just-around-the-corner repudiation of Roe v. Wade. Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the court, will be the latest test of whether Republicans can sustain their four-decade-long rhetorical assault on Roe, during which conservatives have dominated the Supreme Court without ever taking responsibility to end abortion rights.

The demise of Roe began under President Ronald Reagan, who appointed four Supreme Court justices. Somehow Roe survived. No matter. Reagan’s anti-abortion successor, George H.W. Bush, added two more appointments to the court, making a total of six new appointments for the anti-abortion movement. Roe was as good as dead.

Three decades later, it’s a credit to Republicans’ appetite for hypocrisy, and to the anti-abortion movement’s tolerance for betrayal, that the game is still going...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

What do YOU think?

Should Roe v Wade be overturned?

Should abortion be illegal again?