The gods behind abortion

[kiwimac]

There is something my pastor brought up in church yesterday that had nothing to do with Abortion but made me think of this thread when he said it. Jesus became flesh at the moment of His conception, not 9 months later when he was born. That's important to note in how the Jews considered life...it was always at conception. Not just a clump of cells.

Actually the Jews measured human life from first breath.

 

[Andrew]

Actually the Jews measured human life from first breath.

A child breathes through it's mother

 

[kiwimac]

A child breathes through it's mother

<sigh> First breath ex utero

 

[Michael]

<sigh> First breath ex utero

We know your stance. I, and most others, don't agree. Personally, I must choose to believe what the Scripture and the Spirit of God declares. Opinions, and man's understanding (even Jewish men) mean very little to me.
What I taught in the video (in which, again, I never state that "abortion" is in the Bible) I spoke as the "oracle of God." Some will receive it. Many will not. Reminds me of the prophets, the disciples and Jesus, Himself. Most refused to believe them and the Truth they brought forth. But there is always a believing remnant.

 

[Andrew]

<sigh> First breath ex utero

The heartbeat also starts at 6 weeks, kind of like a living thing ya know

 

[Albion]

There is something my pastor brought up in church yesterday that had nothing to do with Abortion but made me think of this thread when he said it. Jesus became flesh at the moment of His conception, not 9 months later when he was born. That's important to note in how the Jews considered life...it was always at conception. Not just a clump of cells.

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

A clump of cells does not leap in response to a salutation, nor is a clump of cells described as a babe or baby.

 

[kiwimac]

The heartbeat also starts at 6 weeks, kind of like a living thing ya know

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

There is a difference between law of the land and certain "rights" and I'm glad you agree that infants inside the mother's womb are alive and very human

 

[Lamb]

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Do you feel that way because the baby can't fight for itself? Can't say Please don't kill me?

 

[Josiah]

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

.... this is what happens when morality is replaced by power politics. HUMAN rights become irrelevant, all that matters is who has the POWER to lord it over one with less POWER.

 

[Albion]

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

Apparently, you need to help understanding what is meant by the term "rights." A right is not negotiable, not more or less important than some other right, and not dependent upon what someone else thinks about it.

Sent from my computer using Grey Matter

 

[Particular]

No one is arguing that a zef is not alive just that its' 'rights' are far less important than those of the woman carrying it.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

This argument seems eerily similar to Social Darwinism.



Social Darwinism, the theory that human groups and races are subject to the same laws of*natural selection*as*Charles Darwin*had perceived in plants and animals in nature. According to the theory, which was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the weak were diminished and their*cultures*delimited while the strong grew in power and in cultural influence over the weak. Social Darwinists held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by “survival of the fittest,” a phrase proposed by the British philosopher and scientist*Herbert Spencer.


The social Darwinists—notably Spencer and*Walter Bagehot*in England and*William Graham Sumner*in the United States—believed that the process of natural selection acting on variations in the population would result in the survival of the best competitors and in continuing improvement in the population. Societies were viewed as organisms that evolve in this manner.

This theory was used to support*laissez-faire*capitalism*and political*conservatism.*Class*stratification was justified on the basis of “natural”*inequalities among individuals, for the control of*property*was said to be a correlate of superior and*inherent*moral*attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state intervention or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the “unfit” and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social*Darwinism*was used as a philosophical rationalization for*imperialist,*colonialist, and*racist*policies, sustaining belief in*Anglo-Saxon*or*Aryan*cultural and biological superiority.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism

 

[Josiah]

Human rights CAN come into conflict..... a man comes at me with a gun shouting "I'm going to kill you!" Perhaps I defend myself by killing him before he can kill me. MY right to life is in conflict with his right to life. By this principle, many support abortion IF continuing the pregnancy MUST result in the death of the mother (which of course, likely also means the death of the baby). But as I understand it, this applies to about one-tenth of one percent of all abortions performed in the USA (and some question if all those are actuallly necessary).

What we have is abortion "because I can." It's a POWER issue, a POLITICAL issue, who wields more POWER - perhaps to the extent of even killing one who is innocent and non-threatening (the ultimate power). Someone is unwanted (a Black person.... a Jew....school children....) and the murderer holds that they have more POWER than the potential victim, the POWER to pull this off. And perhaps they are correct. MY issue is: Does that make it RIGHT, moral, good? I don't deny that some people have more POWER than others, even enough to lord it over the other even to the greatest extreme of murdering them, I can't deny that difference in power. But does that make it MORAL? It seems to me, the whole point of civilization is that might does not make right. It seems to me, the whole point of the law is to contain the powerful... to deny that just because you can, therefore you may.



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

EVERY Democrat running for the nomination of that party for President of the USA is very pro-abortion..... supporting such for any or no reason, during all 9 months, AT LEAST up to the time when the last cell of the toe exits.... and that the government pay for this when the mother can't.

IF you view this as a serious moral issue of our time.... if human rights matter to you at all.... then how can ANY of these candidates be supported?

 

[psalms 91]

Maybe if republicans would quit helping the rich and hu
rting the poor they would get more votes

 

[Josiah]

Maybe if republicans would quit helping the rich and hu
rting the poor they would get more votes

IMO, "helping successful people" is less of a moral problem than painfully murdering innocent, defenseless humans - 80 per hour, more each year than have been killed in all American wars combined.

But maybe your morality differs.

You are probably right: To Democrats, the biggest moral issue of our time is rich/successful people (according to these candidates, all of which are very rich, two of which are billionaires).

Democrats like to talk about "rights" (like the right to hate rich people). What human right matters - at all - if the right to BE is denied?

 

[Lamb]

Abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2019. https://decisionmagazine.com/abortion-leading-cause-death-worldwide-2019/ "LifeNews.com, a pro-life website, was among the few outlets to report on the 2019 abortion numbers, which show 42.3 million preborn babies killed worldwide."

 

[Josiah]

Abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2019. https://decisionmagazine.com/abortion-leading-cause-death-worldwide-2019/ "LifeNews.com, a pro-life website, was among the few outlets to report on the 2019 abortion numbers, which show 42.3 million preborn babies killed worldwide."

That's JUST in 2019! 42 MILLION in ONE YEAR, worldwide. In the 6 years or so of WWII, about 12 million died every year of that conflict...... now 42 million die in abortion: innocent, defenseless people.

But our US elections only impact the USA. And EVERY Democrat running for president is passionately pro-abortion, EVERY one defends this mass murder - for any or no reason, at least up to the moment the last cell of the last toe exits the birth canal, paid for by the taxpayers. I realize, there are Democrats who seem to think being rich is the biggest moral problem in our country but I think there's a much, much bigger one - one they actually and passionately support.




.

 

[Lamb]

That's JUST in 2019! 42 MILLION in ONE YEAR, worldwide. In the 6 years or so of WWII, about 12 million died every year of that conflict...... now 42 million die in abortion: innocent, defenseless people.

But our US elections only impact the USA. And EVERY Democrat running for president is passionately pro-abortion, EVERY one defends this mass murder - for any or no reason, at least up to the moment the last cell of the last toe exits the birth canal, paid for by the taxpayers. I realize, there are Democrats who seem to think being rich is the biggest moral problem in our country but I think there's a much, much bigger one - one they actually and passionately support.




.

I always say to my daughter that if we were talking puppies there is no way people would abort them.

 

[psalms 91]

IMO, "helping successful people" is less of a moral problem than painfully murdering innocent, defenseless humans - 80 per hour, more each year than have been killed in all American wars combined.

But maybe your morality differs.

You are probably right: To Democrats, the biggest moral issue of our time is rich/successful people (according to these candidates, all of which are very rich, two of which are billionaires).

Democrats like to talk about "rights" (like the right to hate rich people). What human right matters - at all - if the right to BE is denied?

I am talking social programs that the Republicans love to cut or do away with not morality although I could make a case that helping the wealthy and cutting the poor is a moral issue. Letsa get down to brass tacks, people will always vote their wallet the only thing I dont understand is a poor person voting Republican. I hate noone rich included but I do have a problemn with the government helping them with tax cuts and many rich not even paying taxes, that is my problem and where politics is concerned I hate to tell you but there is not righteous politician