So, when does life begin?

[Marauder2003]

I don?t follow the arguments much. First time I have heard this take.

https://share.newsbreak.com/4mns7mt6

[DaveInOroValley]

I read the article. I believe that at the time the Bible was written that those that wrote the passages wouldn’t have even comprehended the act of what we know as abortion. Hence they wouldn’t of had anticipated writing something more in depth than what they did. Just my .02

[Subotai]

Life begins once the egg is fertilized.

[The Gleam]

At the first division of a cell into more than one. That comes after fertilization, but is the first sign of a biological process acting autonomously, being life itself - it doesn't need to be self-aware that it is doing it to be considered life, any more than a tree is self aware from the first shoot out of a seed.

It's obvious life, and destroying anything after that first cell division intentionally is murder.

Just following the science.

---

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by DaveInOroValley

I read the article. I believe that at the time the Bible was written that those that wrote the passages wouldn?t have even comprehended the act of what we know as abortion. Hence they wouldn?t of had anticipated writing something more in depth than what they did. Just my .02

Sure they did - it's noted in the 10 Commandments. Thou shall not kill.

But for more specific references, descriptions of abortifacient medications, pessaries, and the act of abortion are peppered throughout ancient medical literature and about the same time the torah/bible/old testament was written.

Science not withstanding of course, because even from the dawn of time they knew it was wrong to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach as it would likely kill the baby. Now why might an unwilling father punch a pregnant woman in the stomach if he didn't know that he was in fact trying to kill her unborn child?

(As if unwanted pregnancies didn't happen 5,000 years ago. You can bet they did.)

---

[Barang]

Exodus 21:22-23 nkjv
22 ?If men [a]fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that [b]she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman?s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

Psalm 139:16 nkjv
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.

Jeremiah 1:5 nkjv
?Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified[a] you;
I [b]ordained you a prophet to the nations.?

[Kokopelli]

The scientific definition of life is, “cells that reproduce and grow.”

[Garand Hunter]

Great response Barang ! I was almost ready to post those scriptures and others.

Psalm 1

[jorgi23]

We are one Generation from the extinction of liberals through out the USA, lets not stop it, Allow mother nature to takes its course. protect your kids, God Bless

[hermosabeach]

I think we can all agree that we have a much better understanding of science today then when the Book of the Dead was written by another religion or when the Bible was written.


The moral question I have is about education.
If a young girl is tricked / pressured / forced to have sex and gets pregnant, is society better and is the girl better if forced to have a child at 14 year old?



If a woman is raped or if the embryo has signs of a defect - Down syndrome or deformed scull, are they better off being required to have the child?


My cousin was pregnant with her 3rd child and the tests revealed a hole in the scull. Doctors said if the baby made it to birth and did not die before birth, it would be, at best, severely retarded. So they shorted and had another healthy child.

[flyer898]

Culturally there is some variation on when life begins. Some asian cultures put the time as 30 days after birth.

[RandyD]

Originally Posted by DaveInOroValley

I read the article. I believe that at the time the Bible was written that those that wrote the passages wouldn?t have even comprehended the act of what we know as abortion. Hence they wouldn?t of had anticipated writing something more in depth than what they did. Just my .02

Remembering that God is the actual author of the Bible. He knew the future before the beginning of time. He knew ages ago what we are doing now. The Holy Spirit has let us all know that abortion is wrong.

[RandyD]

Originally Posted by DaveInOroValley

I read the article. I believe that at the time the Bible was written that those that wrote the passages wouldn?t have even comprehended the act of what we know as abortion. Hence they wouldn?t of had anticipated writing something more in depth than what they did. Just my .02

Remembering that God is the actual author of the Bible. He knew the future before the beginning of time. He knew ages ago what we are doing now. The Holy Spirit has let us all know that abortion is wrong.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by RandyD

Remembering that God is the actual author of the Bible. He knew the future before the beginning of time. He knew ages ago what we are doing now. The Holy Spirit has let us all know that abortion is wrong.

imagine mary was pro abortion and murdering Jesus in the womb! let that sink in, pro abort "christians."

[Citadelgrad87]

Not for any gotcha moment, but I think it begins at conception.

Any other event other than birth is a construct. "More" alive, like "more pregnant", is stupid.

Either it's the moment of conception, when it's no longer an unfertilized potential, but a complete being, or birth.

But birth seems idiotic, if I cut open a woman in labor on her way to the hospital, removed and killed the contents of her womb, then sewed her up, I certainly killed a human being.

Anything else is mental gymnastics.

[19K]

Originally Posted by DaveInOroValley

I read the article. I believe that at the time the Bible was written that those that wrote the passages wouldn?t have even comprehended the act of what we know as abortion. Hence they wouldn?t of had anticipated writing something more in depth than what they did. Just my .02

I would disagree with that idea. There has always been abortion. People have known about plants and chemicals that could induce it for a very long time. I?m sure this was common enough that some midwife or horticulturist or ?medicine man? in every village/town was capable of providing.

[MrFancyPants]

Originally Posted by Subotai

Life begins once the egg is fertilized.

/thread

[ZapThyCat]

Is this a genuine question about when life begins, or is this an attempt to get a political/religious discussion about abortion?

I think we can all agree that a cell is "alive", which means that "life" begins at conception, when the DNA of a new person is established and they begin growing.

If you're asking, "at what point is it no longer moral to end that life", you'll get
varying answers. Some will say, "never", some will say 1st or 2nd trimester. I don't think that anyone outside of a super-liberal can say that partial birth abortion is moral and should be allowed, there are liberals that will advocate for it, but it's less about partial birth abortion and more about eroding abortion rights as a whole.

[viragoman]

There is a flash of light at the moment of conception. The whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. That's when life begins.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[ZirconJohn]

Life begins at the time of the BIG BANG!

[Wordupmybrotha]

[CVShooter]

When does life begin? I have an answer. You have an answer. Some of us agree and others don't. How about we leave that to each other & mind our own business? Abortion is one of those things that men have no business voting on anyway, in the political sphere. It's a woman's issue. Men need to stay out of it, in my opinion.

But for those who follow the Judeo-Christian traditions, I find it funny how people will quote Jeremiah to say that life begins at conception when Jeremiah wasn't writing a scientific treatise about life beginning at (or before) conception. He had an inspiring thought -- nothing more. And Jeremiah was talking about himself, not anybody else. Context, context context.

Now check out Numbers 5. Here's a prescription for a divinely-induced abortion ritual that couples can do if the husband suspects that the wife has cheated. I think we can all agree that a little bit of ash & dust mixed with some kind of holy water and a special chant isn't going to work as a kind of early Plan B pill. But there's the concept -- the life of the unborn is not always valued. If it's a child of adultery, then here's the recipe to make it go away & forever punish the wife (supposedly). The child that the husband wants is valued. But the one that he doesn't want is not valued. Though I tend to think the ritual is more about publicly shaming the woman who may just have an insecure husband than it is at trying to prove fidelity or inducing a real abortion. There's all sorts of weird stuff in the Bible, especially concerning women, and this is among them.

And let's not forget the there are copious examples of genocide, infanticide & sanctioned rape in the Bible. Sometimes, even God himself is doing it (Exodus, for example) or commanding it (the taking of wives from the conquered, killing the children). It's complicated and uncomfortable -- even for a believer. It's hard to claim any kind of moral righteousness when quoting from the OT. It's proof-texting at best. At worst, it's downright disingenuous.

Seriously, men, leave this one to women to decide. Women, feel free to debate, argue and vote your conscience. Whenever there's a shred of doubt, I think minding our own business & not judging others is a good default response.

[BigStiCK]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

When does life begin? I have an answer. You have an answer. Some of us agree and others don't. How about we leave that to each other & mind our own business? Abortion is one of those things that men have no business voting on anyway, in the political sphere. It's a woman's issue. Men need to stay out of it, in my opinion....

Seriously, men, leave this one to women to decide. Women, feel free to debate, argue and vote your conscience. Whenever there's a shred of doubt, I think minding our own business & not judging others is a good default response.

Yah, its not like the male has any vested interest in a/his child. Why should men care?


From a moral standpoint there is the fact that the institution of abortion in America was created to destroy certain ethnicities. Evil. The resulting multi-billion dollar abortion/baby parts industry is also Evil.

If good men do not stand in the face of this Evil it will prevail. We are the protectors, are we not?

[glassparman]

What Barang said! YHWH knew us before we were knit together in our mother's womb.

The earliest they can detect a fetal heartbeat is around 5 weeks. In my opinion, if it has a heartbeat, it is alive. This makes abortion murder. Plain and simple.

Less than 1% of abortions are to save the mother's life.

[xMAC1x]

Conception.

[Tikka3x]

Originally Posted by Barang

imagine mary was pro abortion and murdering Jesus in the womb! let that sink in, pro abort "christians."

anyone who would support or vote for someone who is pro-baby killing is guilty of sin.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by BigStiCK

Yah, its not like the male has any vested interest in a/his child. Why should men care?


From a moral standpoint there is the fact that the institution of abortion in America was created to destroy certain ethnicities. Evil. The resulting multi-billion dollar abortion/baby parts industry is also Evil.

If good men do not stand in the face of this Evil it will prevail. We are the protectors, are we not?

Maybe you're too young to grasp this but if you conceive a child and your woman is thinking about an abortion, you screwed up somewhere big time long before that moment. Own it & let it go.

Take off your tinfoil hat. Abortion wasn't created in America. It has been around longer than civilization itself.

[2761377]

^^^ it's not the man's or the woman's choice. neither have a right to end a life.

considering the fetus to be a part of the woman's body is incorrect and a sin.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

But for those who follow the Judeo-Christian traditions, I find it funny how people will quote Jeremiah to say that life begins at conception when Jeremiah wasn't writing a scientific treatise about life beginning at (or before) conception. He had an inspiring thought -- nothing more. And Jeremiah was talking about himself, not anybody else. Context, context context.

you conveniently left out psalms and exodus.

Now check out Numbers 5. Here's a prescription for a divinely-induced abortion ritual that couples can do if the husband suspects that the wife has cheated. I think we can all agree that a little bit of ash & dust mixed with some kind of holy water and a special chant isn't going to work as a kind of early Plan B pill. But there's the concept -- the life of the unborn is not always valued. If it's a child of adultery, then here's the recipe to make it go away & forever punish the wife (supposedly). The child that the husband wants is valued. But the one that he doesn't want is not valued. Though I tend to think the ritual is more about publicly shaming the woman who may just have an insecure husband than it is at trying to prove fidelity or inducing a real abortion. There's all sorts of weird stuff in the Bible, especially concerning women, and this is among them.

the consequence of adultery if that was proven. God is not playing games with sin for He is holy. He's not condoning abortion/sin, an adulterer was punished if proven unlike your worldview of abortion where human can kill an unborn child at any stage and the woman has that right.

And let's not forget the there are copious examples of genocide, infanticide & sanctioned rape in the Bible. Sometimes, even God himself is doing it (Exodus, for example) or commanding it (the taking of wives from the conquered, killing the children). It's complicated and uncomfortable -- even for a believer. It's hard to claim any kind of moral righteousness when quoting from the OT. It's proof-texting at best. At worst, it's downright disingenuous.

noah's flood, sodom & gomorrah are good examples why only couple of families survived and rest of mankind died! yes, children, adults and in between.

when God tells you to do this or do that is because He can see the future that all of us don't. He knows how to eliminate israel's enemies but too bad for them because they kept rebelling against God so they also suffer from the consequences of their sins, their enemies enslaved them

Seriously, men, leave this one to women to decide. Women, feel free to debate, argue and vote your conscience. Whenever there's a shred of doubt, I think minding our own business & not judging others is a good default response.

we don't condone killing of babies whether 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd and up to birth! God's word is what we follow and not humans' who knows it all opinion.

[cyphr02]

You can?t say the Bible was literally authored by God, and site the flood. The flood story was appropriated from the Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh. Sodom & Gamora, and many laws from Leviticus were mean to make the People fearful and distrusting of outsiders. Like how people today tell scary tales of the big bad city, full of crime and hate. Don?t go there, stay here in the countryside with us where it is safe.

[Kokopelli]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

You can?t say the Bible was literally authored by God, and site the flood. The flood story was appropriated from the Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh. Sodom & Gamora, and many laws from Leviticus were mean to make the People fearful and distrusting of outsiders. Like how people today tell scary tales of the big bad city, full of crime and hate. Don?t go there, stay here in the countryside with us where it is safe.

The scriptures are indeed the inspired Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version

?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.?

The Biblical flood is not a story. It is a fact. Do your own research and don?t get an opinion from? the internet.

Sodom and Gomorrah are also a fact. Not just a story to scare people.

For thousands of years, people have tried to disprove The Bible. Yet, it still stands on its own merit and is unique unto itself. Nothing in it has ever been found to be untrue, no matter how hard the ?experts? try.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

You can?t say the Bible was literally authored by God, and site the flood. The flood story was appropriated from the Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh. Sodom & Gamora, and many laws from Leviticus were mean to make the People fearful and distrusting of outsiders. Like how people today tell scary tales of the big bad city, full of crime and hate. Don?t go there, stay here in the countryside with us where it is safe.

God and the Bible are the basis of our faith and beliefs. if you're not a believer then you don't know who God is, what is right and wrong according to his standard, what He can do with His unlimited power. to you, they are fairy tales but that is your choice but we choose to believe the God of the Bible.

God clearly defined and condemned what sins are and gave those who want to follow Him a guidance and instructions on how to live a Godly life. the people outside leviticus time and even people at present time are practicing immoral and idolatry which separate us from them. not saying that all christians are sinless but true christian who try to live a Godly life don't live pagans' lifestyle.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

The scriptures are indeed the inspired Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version

?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.?

The Biblical flood is not a story. It is a fact. Do your own research and don?t get an opinion from? the internet.

Sodom and Gomorrah are also a fact. Not just a story to scare people.

For thousands of years, people have tried to disprove The Bible. Yet, it still stands on its own merit and is unique unto itself. Nothing in it has ever been found to be untrue, no matter how hard the ?experts? try.

Plenty has been proven right and plenty has been proven wrong. It's a mixed bag. To date, nobody has found a destruction layer at Tel Jericho to put that event into the confirmed record. Burning limestone rocks to the ground would definitely leave a layer of soot, ash and lots of stuff left behind as the inhabitants were either killed or hastily abandoned the site. Such evidence is found at Tel Megiddo -- that one was confirmed. But not Jericho. Was the author mistaken & got the wrong city? Was it a fictional story? Who knows?

But we both have to acknowledge that it's impossible to prove a negative. Can you really PROVE that Santa Clause doesn't exist? Nope. You can only cite the lack of evidence and then reason from there.

And the Bible is right because it says so? Yea, that's some circular logic. I'm not an attorney but please don't ever try to use that as a basis for any legal defense, should you need it.

Okay, Kokopelli, I have to ask -- what's with your handle/avatar? Kokopelli is a southwestern art motif who usually was drawn with a fully erect penis (edited out for modern sensibilities) -- definitely a fertility god or figure of some kind & not exactly what you find in an American Christian church setting. Not to question your religious devotion here -- I'm just curious since I love the irony.

[Subotai]

I believe in a human zygote's right to choose. It's a zygote. What kind? A human zygote. Is it alive? Yes. So, it's a living human. You'll never beat that fact.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by Barang

you conveniently left out psalms and exodus.



the consequence of adultery if that was proven. God is not playing games with sin for He is holy. He's not condoning abortion/sin, an adulterer was punished if proven unlike your worldview of abortion where human can kill an unborn child at any stage and the woman has that right.



noah's flood, sodom & gomorrah are good examples why only couple of families survived and rest of mankind died! yes, children, adults and in between.

when God tells you to do this or do that is because He can see the future that all of us don't. He knows how to eliminate israel's enemies but too bad for them because they kept rebelling against God so they also suffer from the consequences of their sins, their enemies enslaved them



we don't condone killing of babies whether 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd and up to birth! God's word is what we follow and not humans' who knows it all opinion.

God doesn't play games? Well, the one in the Bible is constantly playing games. What was Job if not a pawn in a divine wager? How about creating people one way and then setting various rules in total opposition? Somebody is obviously having a good time. Or it's a lot of BS. Either way, it really makes me question things. Rather, it used to.

If he doesn't condone abortion (condone means allow, by the way, not bless) then why write a magical incantation (prescription) for it? And let's be real -- people back then weren't any more holy or moral that we are today. If only the men had the power to bring their wife before the priest and the wife was trying to prove through some kind of BS ritual that she was faithful, WTF was really going on in that house? And WTF were the priests actually putting in that drink? Ash & dust? Or did they actually use some of the well-known plant tonics (conspicuously absent in the text) to induce a miscarriage?

Rather than speculate when life begins and what we think others should do, I think it's more important to not judge other people's complicated decisions. Remember, the ones who Jesus condemned the most weren't the adulterers and fornicators (hey, my kind of people!). It was the judgmental a-holes who were part of the lower-middle class religious mainstream who were imposing rules upon everybody and judging them for their choices. Asking when life begins is easy to do from the comfort of a desk chair. Asking what group home needs volunteers or what women need support in raising kids are far better questions. And if we're not prepared to lend a hand, then we certainly can't judge the decisions others make.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

God doesn't play games? Well, the one in the Bible is constantly playing games. What was Job if not a pawn in a divine wager? How about creating people one way and then setting various rules in total opposition? Somebody is obviously having a good time. Or it's a lot of BS. Either way, it really makes me question things. Rather, it used to.

let's start here, Jesus suffered and died for our sin to save us from hell. how is that fair to Jesus? that's what you call love, sacrifice and faithfulness to the Father.
regarding job, he was faithful to God even though he was persecuted by satan. what he showed us is that his circumstances didn't affect His love and faithfulness to God. he didn't worship God for what He can get from him but no matter how bad it got, He knew where his final destiny and that tribulations are temporary.
God picked job to demonstrate what a faithful servant looked like for christian to follow as a model.

If he doesn't condone abortion (condone means allow, by the way, not bless) then why write a magical incantation (prescription) for it? And let's be real -- people back then weren't any more holy or moral that we are today. If only the men had the power to bring their wife before the priest and the wife was trying to prove through some kind of BS ritual that she was faithful, WTF was really going on in that house? And WTF were the priests actually putting in that drink? Ash & dust? Or did they actually use some of the well-known plant tonics (conspicuously absent in the text) to induce a miscarriage?

that was the way back then to determine if she was cheating or not. and unlike today (human gov't.) , God was in their midst so adulterers could not escape what is truth.

Rather than speculate when life begins and what we think others should do, I think it's more important to not judge other people's complicated decisions. Remember, the ones who Jesus condemned the most weren't the adulterers and fornicators (hey, my kind of people!). It was the judgmental a-holes who were part of the lower-middle class religious mainstream who were imposing rules upon everybody and judging them for their choices. Asking when life begins is easy to do from the comfort of a desk chair. Asking what group home needs volunteers or what women need support in raising kids are far better questions. And if we're not prepared to lend a hand, then we certainly can't judge the decisions others make.

there are christian organizations that are helping unwanted pregnancy and helping orphans here and abroad. wife and i are part of those organizations.

an no! we cannot overlook the killing of unborn children when innocent life are taken by human hands. we follow God and not man!

let's not make one class of sinners from the other class because we all are.
Luke 13:1-5 nkjv
There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, ?Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Typically, when I deign to become engaged in such discussions, I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. I start by pointing out that secular science holds that the signal of Life is brain wave activity. Thus, while the exact timing is open to some debate, brain wave activity is generally recognized by the 2nd trimester and, for some, even earlier (though there are some issues associated with that, scientifically speaking). Here's a 2018 piece talking about exactly that... Fetal EEGs: Signals from the Dawn of Life...

...In truth, fetal brain activity may start long before 45 days' gestation. Learning about the life and experience of the young fetus is a scavenger hunt: scientists must piece together clues from observations made during unhealthy pregnancies and emergencies to gain insight into the healthy development of the human child. While, as a mother, I am eager to know when my unborn child starts to have brain activity, I am even more grateful that our society cares more about the safety of the unborn child than the advancement of scientific knowledge. As we develop new technologies, we may learn a great deal more about the in utero experiences of the fetus, but the first priority must always be the safety of mother and child.

While garnering agreement on the timing of brain wave activity is, potentially, a bit problematic, it does use their own science findings against them as it demonstrates, using their own standards, that anything after the first trimester or even the first "45 days" is, logically and by their own standards, the taking of a 'recognizable, individual' Life. As such, a rather substantial number of abortions are, by their own definition, the taking of the Life of a recognized individual.

Arguing based on Bible verses as your evidence turns it into a Science vs. Religious interpretation argument. Why? Even this thread demonstrates a certain lack of definitive agreement over when Life begins. Some say conception, some say pre-conception, some say... Just like arguing over details of what you believe the 2nd Amendment means, precisely, arguing over an exact timing of Life beginning will lead you down a rabbit hole if you are trying to convince others.

That's why I feel it is 'better' to start with their own inconsistency; i.e., their laws don't mate well with what they use as their own basis for support. In other words, turn the argument on them rather than allow them to use your own 'disagreements' against you. Instead, you preoccupy them with their own 'irrationality' and force them to 'defend' it. In doing so, you will garner more avenues by which to undermine or critique what they assert; leaving them to fall back on personal beliefs, something 'Science' does not deal in. This results in the 'removal' of the support system many use to justify or rationalize their beliefs and contentions.

Bear in mind that such was exactly what Jesus often did; i.e., use their own arguments against them, demonstrating their own hypocrisy. It's kinda one of those Matthew 23:12 things...

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[theLBC]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5YB-2...?feature=share

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Typically, when I deign to become engaged in such discussions, I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. I start by pointing out that secular science holds that the signal of Life is brain wave activity. Thus, while the exact timing is open to some debate, brain wave activity is generally recognized by the 2nd trimester and, for some, even earlier (though there are some issues associated with that, scientifically speaking). Here's a 2018 piece talking about exactly that... Fetal EEGs: Signals from the Dawn of Life...



While garnering agreement on the timing of brain wave activity is, potentially, a bit problematic, it does use their own science findings against them as it demonstrates, using their own standards, that anything after the first trimester or even the first "45 days" is, logically and by their own standards, the taking of a 'recognizable, individual' Life. As such, a rather substantial number of abortions are, by their own definition, the taking of the Life of a recognized individual.

Arguing based on Bible verses as your evidence turns it into a Science vs. Religious interpretation argument. Why? Even this thread demonstrates a certain lack of definitive agreement over when Life begins. Some say conception, some say pre-conception, some say... Just like arguing over details of what you believe the 2nd Amendment means, precisely, arguing over an exact timing of Life beginning will lead you down a rabbit hole if you are trying to convince others.

That's why I feel it is 'better' to start with their own inconsistency; i.e., their laws don't mate well with what they use as their own basis for support. In other words, turn the argument on them rather than allow them to use your own 'disagreements' against you. Instead, you preoccupy them with their own 'irrationality' and force them to 'defend' it. In doing so, you will garner more avenues by which to undermine or critique what they assert; leaving them to fall back on personal beliefs, something 'Science' does not deal in. This results in the 'removal' of the support system many use to justify or rationalize their beliefs and contentions.

Bear in mind that such was exactly what Jesus often did; i.e., use their own arguments against them, demonstrating their own hypocrisy. It's kinda one of those Matthew 23:12 things...

that's good advice for those who are seeking the truth but cvshooter already knows there's a life in the womb but believe it's woman's decision to keep or to kill the child.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

that's good advice for those who are seeking the truth but cvshooter already knows there's a life in the womb but believe it's woman's decision to keep or to kill the child.

If someone has already been shown 'the Truth' and still decides on a course of action, as a pragmatic matter, it does become the woman's decision. Whether she receives 'assistance' or not, there isn't much you or I or anyone else is going to do to stop it. Just like suicide. If someone truly decides to "do it," they will find a way and simply 'outlawing' it won't be anymore effective than gun control is on actual crime.

Stopping abortion or, more accurately, slowing the abortion rate (since 'stopping' it is a virtual impossibility) is a matter of persuasion and timing is everything. Your 'duty' is to proffer testimony and aid; yet, both require a certain cooperation from the 'audience' or neither truly works. It's God's duty to do the rest. It's the individual's responsibility to decide, then live with and, ultimately, answer for the consequences. As we've seen throughout History, you can outlaw it, set the Church against it, attempt to restrain women, but the decision to act is between her and God as that is to whom she will be ultimately answerable.

Should men have a 'say?' Absolutely. The laisse faire approach of leaving it solely to the woman is simply abdicating responsibility. However, it is not going to be the man who has control of whether it happens or not. In that sense, CVShooter is partially correct, though he does regularly fail to heed his own advice when it comes to...

Originally Posted by CVShooter

...Context, context context...

Yet, so too do the anti-abortion zealots. Bear in mind that I just said the same thing you did...

Originally Posted by Barang

...but too bad for them because they kept rebelling against God so they also suffer from the consequences of their sins...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...It's the individual's responsibility to decide, then live with and, ultimately, answer for the consequences...

However, what tends to get left off by the zealots is that the consequences are God's purview, not our decision. Just like Romans 1:28-32...

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God gave them over as a result of their choice(s). They endured the consequences, which, ultimately, has been the tale of human history; e.g., an illustration of what happens when God's way is forsaken in favor of something else. When God feels the point has been fully made, it will be His decision and His alone to put an end to it... Matthew 24:36...

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Given that man is limited in terms of his lifespan and, therefore, his experience(s), the best we can do is provide testimony based on our perspective and that doesn't necessarily equate to "the Truth," but, instead, the 'truth' as we understand it. By dint of the nature of humanity, those 'truths' we each understand are likely to differ. To that degree, CVShooter isn't wrong...

Originally Posted by CVShooter

When does life begin? I have an answer. You have an answer. Some of us agree and others don't. How about we leave that to each other...

If stopped there, it could be argued that he's asserting the same thing I am...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...Your 'duty' is to proffer testimony and aid; yet, both require a certain cooperation from the 'audience' or neither truly works...

Taking it as 'our responsibility' to do this or that, stop this or that, etc. is usurping God's authority... Note Ephesians, Chapter 1. In fact, isn't that, essentially, the basis of the temptation which led to mankind's first sin, Genesis 3:5...

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Mankind has been living with the consequences ever since. That is why we offer testimony or as you say about Job...

Originally Posted by Barang

...God picked job to demonstrate what a faithful servant looked like for christian to follow as a model...

It's also why we offer aid...

Originally Posted by Barang

...there are christian organizations that are helping unwanted pregnancy and helping orphans here and abroad. wife and i are part of those organizations.

an no! we cannot overlook the killing of unborn children when innocent life are taken by human hands. we follow God and not man!...

But, bear in mind that to follow God is to also acknowledge that He is the one in control, not us. What we offer and how we offer it is to be done through the Holy Spirit, not necessarily through zealous action (Acts 1:8)...

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

We offer the testimony and aid, God provides the power and authority. That is what serving 'humbly' is about... Galatians 5:13-14...

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Serving God out of zealousness and self-righteousness is an 'occasion of the flesh,' not 'serving one another' out of love. And while God 'forgives' zealousness for His sake and was known to 'reward' it (Numbers 25:10-13)...

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Remember...

Originally Posted by CVShooter

...Context, context context...

Someone will typically interject the question - "What would Jesus do?" - or something akin to it. In other words, "What is the context?" To that, I often point out what Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:51-54)...

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Which brings us back to the idea that God is in control, not us. It also returns us to what you were saying earlier...

Originally Posted by Barang

...when God tells you to do this or do that is because He can see the future that all of us don't... God's word is what we follow and not humans' who knows it all opinion.

It's not just about the 'human perspective' in terms of 'knowing the answer,' but also about the 'human perspective' as to what God's will is and what our role is to be in relation to God working his will. In that sense, one must be cautious of hubris in thinking that we must act beyond testimony and aid for God's will to be worked.

Just some thoughts to consider.