The Truth About Abortion

[Josheb]

Here is why:

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 2
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

2 Corinthians 2
For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.

Romans 13
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

John 19:11
Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

1 Peter 2
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Titus 3
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

Romans 13
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

1 Timothy 2:2
For kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Do you believe Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews approved of the murder of the apostles?

 

[coffee4u]

Would that change scripture if I did or not?
You're going to let my opinion be that
important that you need my view?

But I will answer your question. If you are a prison guard
or a prisoner, or even a prisoner in charge of
other prisoners lives...follow the rules of your authorities.

Glad I could help!

According to you Rahab should have died.

She defied local authority because there is a higher authority, God.
Joshua 2
So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.”
4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, they left. I don’t know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.” 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.
If the king had found out what she had done he would have her killed. If what she had done had been against God's will she and her family would have died when the walls came down. She didn't, her and her family were saved because she went against the local authority to do God's will.

22 Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, “Go into the prostitute’s house and bring her out and all who belong to her, in accordance with your oath to her.” 23 So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother, her brothers and sisters and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.
Hebrews 11:31
31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

She later married Salmon, one of the two spies whom she had saved and then became the mother of Boaz who is in the direct line to Mary the mother of Jesus.
Matthew 1:5
5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

Under your system of following the local authority at all costs, Rahab should have told the truth to the King, the spies would have been killed and Boaz never born and Mary also never born and Rahab would have died along with the rest of Jerico.
If the local authority goes against the higher authority of God, it is our job to actively go against them not along with them.

 

[redleghunter]

I explained my rebuttal and provided links.

Neither on both. You made issue with the source being a Star Trek fan, which the link I sent says nothing of the kind. And no you did not send any links to help your assertions.

 

[redleghunter]

Would that change scripture if I did or not?
You're going to let my opinion be that
important that you need my view?

But I will answer your question. If you are a prison guard
or a prisoner, or even a prisoner in charge of
other prisoners lives...follow the rules of your authorities.

Glad I could help!

Still beating this hollow drum.

Acts 5: NASB


26At that point, the captain went with the officers and brought the apostles—but not by force, for fear the people would stone them. 27They brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, where the high priest interrogated them. 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man’s blood.”29But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging Him on a tree. 31God exalted Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, in order to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Neither on both. You made issue with the source being a Star Trek fan, which the link I sent says nothing of the kind. And no you did not send any links to help your assertions.

Ok.

 

[RaymondG]

This is the truth. The abortion clinics are sugar coating it, we are removing that.
Vacuum extraction is used between 3 to 12 weeks gestation. The baby has it's body, head, arms and legs by 8 weeks. If someone is going to go for an abortion they need to know exactly what they are removing, not some blob of tissue but a developing human being.

You are doing the same as the clinics. You say they sugar coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is simpler than it is, They try to dull the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the Women. Honest people would not use these tactics.

People like yourself, my friend do the same.....yet the opposite:
They Salty coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is extra egregious and abominable, They try to over excite the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the unborn. Honest people would not use these tactics.

The only one who can really be trusted are those who state the facts without the personal additives....those who do otherwise harm their own credibility and do a disservice to the cause.

I advise against abortion....but never do I try to make others feel that they are better or worse than me if they do not agree.....never do I question another emotional well-being or their intellectual abilities, or understanding of God or scripture.....if they dont agree with my side.

The unborn can do without the one who have personal motives....

 

[SPF]

You are doing the same as the clinics. You say they sugar coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is simpler than it is, They try to dull the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the Women. Honest people would not use these tactics.

People like yourself, my friend do the same.....yet the opposite:
They Salty coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is extra egregious and abominable, They try to over excite the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the unborn. Honest people would not use these tactics.

The only one who can really be trusted are those who state the facts without the personal additives....those who do otherwise harm their own credibility and do a disservice to the cause.

I advise against abortion....but never do I try to make others feel that they are better or worse than me if they do not agree.....never do I question another emotional well-being or their intellectual abilities, or understanding of God or scripture.....if they dont agree with my side.

The unborn can do without the one who have personal motives....

You do realize you accused coffee of being dishonest, right?

"People like yourself, my friend do the same.....yet the opposite... Honest people would not use these tactics."

Would you consider it dishonest for someone to describe abortion as "The intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being". If so, what about it is dishonest and inaccurate?

 

[RaymondG]

You do realize you accused coffee of being dishonest, right?

"People like yourself, my friend do the same.....yet the opposite... Honest people would not use these tactics."

You do realize that you are good at finding the negative and pointing it out right? Then you reply, cutting out all text save what you believe to be negative. Do you find this to be an honest way to make your points?

Would you consider it dishonest for someone to describe abortion as "The intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being". If so, what about it is dishonest and inaccurate?

Only you can say what your own motives are and whether or not they be honest.
I Questioned why you used the extra wordings and descriptions, before, because i knew their had to be some underlining motives for why "abortion" did not suffice as the description of the termination of a pregnancy. Once i found out why, I had no more questions.

Now I see you also resort to attacks on the characters of those who do not agree with you as well. And this I find agreeable, given how you go about supporting your opinions and treat others whose opinions differ from yours. So I find no fault in it.

Continue to point out the negative and evil you see in others....just note that this hinders the ability to improve one's Self.

 

[SPF]

You do realize that you are good at finding the negative and pointing it out right? Then you reply, cutting out all text save what you believe to be negative. Do you find this to be an honest way to make your points?

I consider myself good at finding both the negative and the positive. Part of engaging in a dialogue is the ability to discern what people are saying and draw out the implicit implications of statements and claims.

And from what you said, it sure sounded to me like you were implicitly calling him dishonest. If you weren't intending to do so (which I think you probably were), then you might want to consider how you are formulating your replies.

Now I see you also resort to attacks on the characters of those who do not agree with you as well

Can you demonstrate for me where I attacked your character? I don't recall doing so.

 

[RaymondG]

I consider myself good at finding both the negative and the positive. Part of engaging in a dialogue is the ability to discern what people are saying and draw out the implicit implications of statements and claims.

And from what you said, it sure sounded to me like you were implicitly calling him dishonest. If you weren't intending to do so (which I think you probably were), then you might want to consider how you are formulating your replies.

Yet the thing is, we were not having any dialogue. You replied to at conversation i was having with another and decided to let him know that I you felt I was calling him dishonest. You excluded my reference to him as a friend, and only copied the words you wanted everyone to focus on and view as negative. I believe that, had I been one to support all your claims on this subject, you would not have done this. One would think that you would have a motive for doing such a thing, but i do not mind, and care not what it is.

Can you demonstrate for me where I attacked your character? I don't recall doing so.

I am not as good as you are at finding the negative. I'm sure if I wrote your words, you would be able to find someone wrong with it. So try reading them with the mind that someone, other than you wrote them.....you will be able to find it then.

 

[SPF]

I am not as good as you are at finding the negative. I'm sure if I wrote your words, you would be able to find someone wrong with it. So try reading them with the mind that someone, other than you wrote them.....you will be able to find it then.

I take it that means you don't actually have me saying anything that was attacking your character. Glad we cleared that up.

You replied to at conversation i was having with another and decided to let him know that I you felt I was calling him dishonest. You excluded my reference to him as a friend, and only copied the words you wanted everyone to focus on and view as negative.

This is an astute observation. I did indeed quote the part of your conversation that I wanted to comment on, that's how normal people engage in conversation. And you referring to him as a friend was about on the same level as Christians who call someone dishonest and then say "bless his heart". 1+1=2. In this case 1=accusing Coffee of using emotional appeals to strengthen his argument and 1=telling coffee that honest people don't need to do that. The two is easy to understand.

But anyway, as Christians we ought to be more unified in our position regarding the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons. They are the immoral killing of human beings that possess the same inherent moral worth and value as you and I.

 

[coffee4u]

You are doing the same as the clinics. You say they sugar coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is simpler than it is, They try to dull the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the Women. Honest people would not use these tactics.

People like yourself, my friend do the same.....yet the opposite:
They Salty coat it instead of just stating things as they are... They make it seem like it is extra egregious and abominable, They try to over excite the emotions. And why do they do this? Because they have hidden motives....they wish to get people to believe as they do for their own personal interest, and satisfaction.....even though they say they wish to help someone else: the unborn. Honest people would not use these tactics.

The only one who can really be trusted are those who state the facts without the personal additives....those who do otherwise harm their own credibility and do a disservice to the cause.

I advise against abortion....but never do I try to make others feel that they are better or worse than me if they do not agree.....never do I question another emotional well-being or their intellectual abilities, or understanding of God or scripture.....if they dont agree with my side.

The unborn can do without the one who have personal motives....

Please show me where I did not state the facts?

 

[RaymondG]

Please show me where I did not state the facts?

This is not about you per se....but in general.....i have to clear that up, cause there are some who wish to throw stumbling blocks into this conversation.

That being said....

Both sides State the facts: The possibility of life is ended...a pregnancy is terminated. Now they could stop there and focus on alternative options to choose etc... But they dont....

What I am talking about are the additives, meant to end reason and attack or dull the emotions, to trick the mind into believing everything is ok or they are a terrible person if they go along with, or decide not to go along with, the view of the speaker

For instance, one side would say: Abortion is no big deal, most pregnancies do not work out anyway, the fetus is a parasite, the woman is under no obligation to let something grow in their body etc...

distasteful isnt it? well, only if you arent on that side of the argument. Lets get to the other side.

THe opposite side would say things like this: A mother, who is facing severe complications during pregnancy, is a killer if she opts to terminate the pregnancy. A rape victim who becomes pregnant, becomes a murderer when she decides to take that morning after pill....or terminate 4 weeks in. Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such. etc...

Distasteful? Only if you are not on this side

You see, these extreme arguments, i feel, try to end reason and attack the emotions. Why would one want to end reason? Why is abortion not enough? Why try to make the listener FEEL that they are Good or terrible people IF they agree with the speaker by the adding of the different clauses to the argument?

I just feel that the facts alone is enough. Talks about killing and murder and parasites and grotesque videos are for indoctrination and to add believers and followers of a cause.... And does little to help the unborn.

I believe that talking about alternatives and supporting adoption agencies etc.... would go a lot further than trying to make people feel terrible if they support freedom of choice.

 

[SPF]

This is not about you per se....but in general.....i have to clear that up, cause there are some who wish to throw stumbling blocks into this conversation.

That being said....

Both sides State the facts: The possibility of life is ended...a pregnancy is terminated. Now they could stop there and focus on alternative options to choose etc... But they dont....

What I am talking about are the additives, meant to end reason and attack or dull the emotions, to trick the mind into believing everything is ok or they are a terrible person if they go along with, or decide not to go along with, the view of the speaker

For instance, one side would say: Abortion is no big deal, most pregnancies do not work out anyway, the fetus is a parasite, the woman is under no obligation to let something grow in their body etc...

distasteful isnt it? well, only if you arent on that side of the argument. Lets get to the other side.

THe opposite side would say things like this: A mother, who is facing severe complications during pregnancy, is a killer if she opts to terminate the pregnancy. A rape victim who becomes pregnant, becomes a murderer when she decides to take that morning after pill....or terminate 4 weeks in. Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such. etc...

Distasteful? Only if you are not on this side

You see, these extreme argument, i feel, try to end reason and attack the emotions. WHy would one want to end reason? Why is abortion not enough? Why try to make the listen FEEL that they are Good or terrible people IF they agree with you by the adding of the different clauses to the argument?

I just feel that the facts alone it enough. Talks about killing and murder and parasites and grotesque videos are for indoctrination and to add believers and followers of a cause.... And does little to help the unborn.

I believe that talking about alternatives and supporting adoption agencies etc.... would go a lot further than trying to make people feel terrible if they support freedom of choice.

Out of curiosity, do you think anyone here in this conversation has actually done what you're talking about? I haven't seen any talk like you're describing, and so I have to wonder who you're even preaching at?

Can you show any specific examples of people saying things like, "Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such."

Your personal experience seems to be wildly different in this forum section than mine. I would agree with you that the examples you gave aren't beneficial. I have seen people make ridiculous claims about the unborn being nothing more than parasites, and that's certainly wrong. But it seems like you're more or less talking to the air as I haven't seem, particularly on the pro-life side, people saying things like "Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such." Have you? Where? Coffee certainly hasn't done that.

 

[RaymondG]

Out of curiosity, do you think anyone here in this conversation has actually done what you're talking about? I haven't seen any talk like you're describing, and so I have to wonder who you're even preaching at?

Can you show any specific examples of people saying things like, "Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such."

Your personal experience seems to be wildly different in this forum section than mine. I would agree with you that the examples you gave aren't beneficial. I have seen people make ridiculous claims about the unborn being nothing more than parasites, and that's certainly wrong. But it seems like you're more or less talking to the air as I haven't seem, particularly on the pro-life side, people saying things like "Terminating a pregnancy is the same as shooting up a playground and the mother should face the same sentence as one who does such." Have you? Where? Coffee certainly hasn't done that.

Me and coffee are reasoning together.....which you seem to not be able to do...because of your propensity to look for and find something negative.....Which you, again are trying to get me to do as well.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider one who terminates a pregnancy, a killer? And if not, why have you fought the idea of not using the phrase "killers of human beings" for the phrase "one who has abortions?" If you do view them as killers, than I guess I can understand why you try to find something negative in all my words.

 

[SPF]

Let me ask you this. Would you consider one who terminates a pregnancy, a killer? And if not, why have you fought the idea of not using the phrase "killers of human beings" for the phrase "one who has abortions?"

I would say that it is factually, and unemotionally accurate to call the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience sake the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human.

Now, would I call either the mother or the doctor who performed the abortion a "killer"? No, I actually wouldn't, and I don't think in all my years of participating in this forum you'll find me having done so.

I suppose going purely by defintions, a killer is someone who kills, and because abortions factually are the killing of the unborn, then by definition the doctor would technically be a "killer". But I personally wouldn't use the terminology.

My engagement in the abortion discussion is almost exclusively focused upon drawing out the immorality of the act itself. I'm not interested in pointing fingers at the mother, or the doctor, or calling anyone names. That doesn't help, and it's not necessary for the argument.

In fact, I try to only focus on the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons. I believe these abortions are plainly and clearly immoral.

But I'm not interested in name calling the mother or the doctor. That doesn't help the argument. The argument is about abortion and whether or not it is a moral or immoral act.

 

[RaymondG]

I would say that it is factually, and unemotionally accurate to call the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience sake the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human.

If it is factual and you have no emotional attachment to it nor wish to appeal to the emotions of others. why do you refuse to use the acceptable term used for this act? Why not just say Abortion instead of killing? You do wish to create an emotional tie to the reader to make them feel a certain way if they agree or disagree with you. You are trying to transfer your beliefs to the reader by stating your belief as fact when you write.... and you speak negatively of anyone who disagrees.
How does this help the unborn?

Now, would I call either the mother or the doctor who performed the abortion a "killer"? No, I actually wouldn't, and I don't think in all my years of participating in this forum you'll find me having done so.

I suppose going purely by defintions, a killer is someone who kills, and because abortions factually are the killing of the unborn, then by definition the doctor would technically be a "killer". But I personally wouldn't use the terminology.

Yet you place a subliminal subconscious trigger in the minds of readers that would say "I am a murderer if I abort," by your clever use of the words you use.. It is known that if you say this act is killing, or murder.....the one who commits it, is a killer or murderer. If you cant understand this in my words.....lets see if you can see this in your own:

People are pro-life because they believe in protecting the innocent. Here’s a simple argument for you.

1. Murdering innocent human beings is wrong.

2. The unborn are innocent human beings.

Therefore killing healthy, innocent, unborn human beings is wrong.

are you able to see the link here?

Or how about in this next argument concerning one who is raped but feels they can not carry the child:

Why is it ok to kill a baby because of how it can to exist?

In the case of a rape where a woman becomes pregnant there are two victims. The right answer is never to kill one of the victims.

Can you see the relationship to the rape victim and killing here?

My engagement in the abortion discussion is almost exclusively focused upon drawing out the immorality of the act itself. I'm not interested in pointing fingers at the mother, or the doctor, or calling anyone names. That doesn't help, and it's not necessary for the argument.

In fact, I try to only focus on the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons. I believe these abortions are plainly and clearly immoral.

But I'm not interested in name calling the mother or the doctor. That doesn't help the argument. The argument is about abortion and whether or not it is a moral or immoral act.

You dont have to call name.....because they are implied. How does transferring your thoughts of immorality on others, helpful to the unborn?

Pointing out the killers and the murderers can only make one feel bad about themselves.....or good, if they agree with you.

I feel it better to, instead, suggest alternatives. Tell one who would do this, that they have other better option.....as opposed to "You are a killer if you do this"

 

[SPF]

If it is factual and you have no emotional attachment to it nor wish to appeal to the emotions of others. why do you refuse to use the acceptable term used for this act? Why not just say Abortion instead of killing?

I do use the acceptable term for abortion quite regularly. Abortion is just a word. Stating the fact that 98.5% of abortions is the intentional and purposeful killing of the unborn is simply describing and explaining what the term abortion entails. I think it is important to understand terms and state plainly and clearly what it is we are talking about.

Abortion IS the killing of an unborn human being. If you disagree with that statement, then I need you to tell me what abortion is if it's not the killing of an unborn human being. Correct me, if I'm wrong, and I'll stop saying it.

You do wish to create an emotional tie to the reader to make them feel a certain way if they agree or disagree with you.

No, I wish to be clear and state factually what it is we are talking about. The 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons are immoral because they are the killing of innocent unborn human beings that are created in the Image of God.

You are trying to transfer your beliefs to the reader by stating your belief as fact when you write

Obviously. That's what everyone on the planet is doing when they make an argument for something. I want all Christians to recognize the Truth that abortion is the immoral killing of unborn human beings. Glad you recognize that.

In the same way, I would love to transfer my belief to all the atheistic readers that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and that He desires to have a relationship with them.

Bottom line, I'm very much in favor of dealing with the abortion topic candidly, factually, and unemotionally. Here is my candid, factual, and unemotional argument:

P1. All human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
P2. Killing innocent human beings who have broken no law is immoral and wrong.
P3. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
P4. Abortion is the intentional and purposeful killing of innocent, unborn human beings.

Conclusion: Abortion is the immoral killing of human beings created in the image of God.

The argument is valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. Now, if you disagree with a premise, then we can talk further. But otherwise, the argument is sound.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Tell one who would do this, that they have other better option.....as opposed to "You are a killer if you do this"

Well, is someone commits adultery, they are an adulterer. They feel guilty, if they have a conscience...
Same with murder.

 

[RaymondG]

Well, is someone commits adultery, they are an adulterer. They feel guilty, if they have a conscience...
Same with murder.

Except, Abortion is not legally considered murder. If an adult kills an adult without cause.....it is considered murder.... If an adult kills an adult with legal cause....it is not considered murders.

We are talking about the unborn here....They deserve a topic and a word that , when heard, we know we are talking about them.

If you do not wish that they have their own word and topic.....why not start your own general murder thread?

I like for everyone to know who we are talking about when the topic is the termination of pregnancies, therefore, I use the word Abortion. If you have a problem using this word, or wish to use other words that can be applied to adults and others with choice....I would question your motives.....if I cared about them, that is.