UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Abortion moral?


12/9/09 4:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17620
 
Video: Feinstein Says It's 'Morally Correct' to Force Taxpayers Fund Abortion...

http://www.breitbart.tv/sen-feinstein-says-its-morally-correct-to-force-taxpayers-fund-abortion/

This was the number one issue of the founders…having tax dollars utilized for something they find morally reprehensible (and certainly unconstitutional).

Libs are always concerned about the separation of church (Christian church) and state because of the imposition of the right of their morality. And yet, here Feinstein is not concerned at all about using the power of the state to force citizens to allow their taxes to be confiscated and then sent to pay for something they deem as murder.

Give me stupid if this is brilliant.
12/9/09 5:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8915
I have so much to say but I'm in exams
12/9/09 6:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15451
 Feinstein is a collossal hypocrite.
12/9/09 9:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
OneScoup
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/18/02
Posts: 14855
Feinstein is also a collossal idiot.
12/9/09 11:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/10/09 2:32 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6491
Ridgeback - Feinstein is a collossal hypocrite.
12/15/09 12:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PembrokePinesVillain
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/31/08
Posts: 4311
 wow. this country is literally going to hell piece by piece. it makes me sick to think that my ancestored fought to get here, for what? so it can be taken over and driven into the ground?
12/15/09 2:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2181
 Well, the argument doesn't really lie on whether or not taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion; the real argument lies in whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for someone else's medical care, period.

Once you open the door to saying that taxes should be dedicated to a particular purpose, other than defense of the common welfare,  the rest of it just semantics. If my taxes have to pay for someone else's medical care, food, housing subsidies, automobiles, air conditioning, housing repair, savings account (all bailout items) then why shouldn't everyone have to pay if my family wants or needs an abortion?


12/15/09 11:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17625
amen.
12/16/09 1:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15524
 Tax dollars have been going towards abortions for a long time.  
12/16/09 2:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CupCakeKilla
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/19/09
Posts: 12
God hates hands that spill innocent blood..so yeah abortion is not cool
1/12/10 12:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truthisalive
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/13/10 2:09 PM
Member Since: 3/14/02
Posts: 3188
...
1/12/10 12:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truthisalive
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/12/10 12:12 PM
Member Since: 3/14/02
Posts: 3189
edit
1/12/10 12:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2297
 Do babies who are aborted go to heaven?
1/12/10 12:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truthisalive
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/02
Posts: 3190
Psam 139 13-16

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
1/12/10 12:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2299
 truth, is that supposed to answer the question I asked in the post above yours? That just says God made us in the womb. It doesn't speak to a person's final, eternal destination.
1/14/10 3:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17684
I heard a guy say abortion was a good thing because aborted babies go straight to heaven, no having to get born again, no worries about sinning and losing out with God.

I thought it was convoluted. I know some who think that unless one of the parents are saved, the babies are lost because all have to be born again.

Others I know believe that babies are completely innocent, have never sinned and "such is the kingdom of God".
1/14/10 4:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1162
Freakanomics has an article on this idea:

http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm 
1/18/10 12:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
VC Viking
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/3/06
Posts: 1106
Scott Klusendorf is very good on the subject. I think this is his website.

http://www.prolifetraining.com/
1/26/10 5:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2317
 It could also depend on whether one believes that procreation is essentially up to us, and that God provides a soul to the babies that we conceive; or rather that God has a certain soul that he wants to provide to a particular couple as that soul's earthly parents. Is it random or directed?

Would it matter as much if we didn't have a belief system that insisted that everyone ever born (conceived?)on this planet will spend eternity in either heaven or hell?

What if when we died we just returned to God, reaped what we sowed and that was it? What would be the outcome of the abortion debate? 
1/26/10 6:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17688
what do you mean "returned to God"?
1/26/10 11:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2318
the rooster - what do you mean "returned to God"?

 Good question, bad phrasing on my part.  I was thinking more along the lines of returning to God (where ever he is - spirit world, etc, whatever you want to call it), face judgment, then after that.... really what I was getting at was how and in what way the question about 'what happens to aborted babies' would be answered if we didn't believe that everyone either went to heaven or hell for eternity.
1/27/10 12:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17690
I would view them as going to heaven.
2/10/10 2:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PembrokePinesVillain
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/31/08
Posts: 5044
 my pastor talked about this the other day, in 2nd samuel davids son is taken by god and david says i will go to him one day but he will not come to me.

this is basically stating that babies that die go to heaven to be with god, and that their parents will be reuinited with them when they too die.

2nd samuel 12 and14
2/10/10 10:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1204
 Behind Jewish belief in Torah she-be-al Peh, the "Oral Law", lies a fundamental truth. The meaning of a text is not given by the text itself. Between a text and its meaning lies the act of interpretation - and this depends on who is interpreting, in what context, and with what beliefs.
Without an authoritative tradition of interpretation - in Judaism, the Oral Law -there would be chaos. To be sure, there were sectarian groups within Judaism - Sadducees, Karaites and others - who accepted the Written Torah but not the Oral Law, but in reality such a doctrine is untenable.
The Babylonian Talmud demonstrates this elegantly and with humour. It tells of a certain non-Jew who sought to convert to Judaism, and went to the great sage Hillel to do so. He made one proviso. "Convert me on condition that I accept the Written but not the Oral Law." He was willing to be a Jew, but only a heretical one.
Hillel made no protest, and told the man to come to him for instruction. The first day, Hillel taught him the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: aleph, bet, gimel, dalet. The next day he taught him the same letters in reverse order: dalet, gimel, bet, aleph. "But yesterday," protested the man, "you taught me the opposite." "You see," said Hillel, "you have to rely on me even to learn the alphabet. Rely on me also when it comes to the Oral Law." (Shabbat 31a). Without agreed principles, there can be no teaching, no learning, no authority, no genuine communication.
One passage in this week's sedra shows how differences in interpretation can lead to, or flow from, profound differences in culture. Ironically, the subject concerned - abortion - remains deeply contentious to this day.
The text deals not with abortion per se, but with a fight between two people in which a bystander - a pregnant woman - is hit, with the result that she miscarries. What is the punishment in such a case? Here is the text:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no other fatal damage [ason], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is fatal damage [ason], you are to take life for life . . ." (Ex. 21: 22-23)
The word ason means "mischief, evil, harm, calamity, disaster". Jacob uses it when his sons tell him that the second-in-command in Egypt (Joseph) insists that they bring their youngest brother Benjamin with them when they return, if they are to be cleared of the charge of spying. With Joseph missing, Benjamin is the only son left of Jacob's beloved wife (by then dead), Rachel. Jacob refuses to give permission for Benjamin to leave home, saying: "If you take this one from me, too, and he meets with disaster (ason), you will send my white head down to the grave in sorrow" (Gen. 44: 29).
The meaning of the law about fighting men, then, is this: If the woman miscarries but suffers no other injury, the person responsible must pay compensation for the loss of the unborn child, but suffers no other penalty. If, however, the woman dies, he is guilty of a much more serious offence (the sages, in Sanhedrin 79a, disagreed as to whether this means that he is liable to capital punishment or not).
One thing, however, is clear. Causing a woman to miscarry - being responsible for the death of a foetus - is not a capital offence. Until birth, the foetus does not have the legal status of a person.
At the same time that the sages in Israel were teaching this law, there was a significant Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. A passage in the Talmud describes the great splendour of the synagogue there. The Alexandrian Jewish community - whose most famous member was the first century philosopher Philo - was highly Hellenized. It developed its own traditions, at times quite different from those of the rabbinic mainstream. In one of his works, Philo, explaining the main principles of Jewish law to a non-Hebrew-reading public, turns to the biblical passage under review, and paraphrases it in these words:
But if anyone has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he has committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that, is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world. (The Special Laws, III: XIX)
2/10/10 10:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1205
 
Philo understands the word ason to mean, not "calamity", but rather "form". The meaning of the two verses is now completely different. In both cases, they are talking about damage to the foetus only. In the first case, "there is no ason" means, the foetus was "unformed" - i.e. at an early stage of development. The second verse speaks of a foetus "that has form", i.e. at a later stage of pregnancy. Philo puts this rather finely when he compares the developed foetus to a sculpture that has been finished but has not yet left the sculptor's workshop. On this view foeticide - and hence abortion - can be a capital crime, an act of murder.

Philo's interpretation - and the views of the Alexandrian Jewish community generally - were to play a significant part in the religious history of the West. This was not because they had an impact on Jews: they did not. Rather, they had an impact on Christianity. The decisive victory of the Pauline Church over the Jerusalem Church, headed by Jesus' brother James, meant that Christianity spread among gentiles rather than Jews. The first Christian texts were written in Greek rather than Hebrew. They were, at the same time, intensely dependent on the Hebrew Bible. In fact the one serious attempt to divorce Christianity completely from the Hebrew Bible - made by the 2nd century Gnostic Marcion - was deemed to be a heresy.
Christians were therefore dependent on Greek translations of and commentaries to Tanakh, and these were to be found among Alexandrian Jewry. The result was that early Christian teaching on abortion followed Philo rather than the sages. The key distinction was, as Augustine put it, between embryo informatus and embryo formatus - an unformed or formed foetus. If the foetus was formed (i.e. more than forty or eighty days had passed since conception: there was argument over the precise period), then causing its death was murder. So taught Tertullian in the second century. So the law remained until 1588 when Pope Sixtus V ordained that abortion at any stage was murder. This ruling was overturned three years later by Pope Gregory XIV, but re-introduced by Pope Pius IX in 1869.
This is not to say that Jewish and Catholic views on abortion are completely different. In practice, they are quite close, especially when compared to the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, or the secular West today, where abortion is widespread and not seen as a moral evil at all. Judaism permits abortion only to save the life of the mother or to protect her from life-threatening illness. A foetus may not be a person in Jewish law, but it is a potential person, and must therefore be protected. However, the theoretical difference is real. In Judaism, abortion is not murder. In Catholicism, it is.
It is fascinating to see how this difference arose - over a difference in interpretation of a single word, ason. Without tradition and all the sages meant by "the Oral Law", we would simply not know what a verse means. Between a text and its meaning stands the act of interpretation. Without rules to guide us - rules handed down across the generations - we would be in the same position as Hillel's student, unable even to begin.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.