So, when does life begin?

[Kokopelli]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-24gc8Hw?feature=share

[Barang]

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]

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...

...Context, context context...

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

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

...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...

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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.

[Barang]

i'm not good in articulating my thoughts so to clarify what i've said regarding "we follow God and not man," i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it.

yes! people are responsible for their actions and the romans verses are good examples of free will and God will not force himself to those who reject Him.
abortion is different from romans because it involves killing of a child that is why the gub (not corrupt) must protect an innocent life.
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,

if abortion was just about proclivity for bed defilement then it will fall under romans but when taking a life of an innocent baby, then it's the gub's role to protect that child.

[BigStiCK]

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.

Never said abortion was created in America. I said the institution of abortion IN America was created by Evil people to eradicate minorities. Please educate yourself on Margaret Sanger, the founder of what is today Planned Parenthood.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

i'm not good in articulating my thoughts so to clarify what i've said regarding "we follow God and not man," i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it.

yes! people are responsible for their actions and the romans verses are good examples of free will and God will not force himself to those who reject Him.
abortion is different from romans because it involves killing of a child that is why the gub (not corrupt) must protect an innocent life.
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,

if abortion was just about proclivity for bed defilement then it will fall under romans but when taking a life of an innocent baby, then it's the gub's role to protect that child.

This is one of the problems I was alluding to when I said that I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. You're going to end up in arguments over it being laws set forth for a specific nation at a particular point in History. Not to mention finding yourself defending other punishments detailed in Exodus 21 as being applicable in today's society.

In short, as I indicated in my previous, long-ish post, imposing what you, personally believe as a societal law or expounding upon it as God's will isn't going to get you too far with anyone who doesn't already see things as you do. That was part of my earlier point; i.e., that you need to get them to see things differently than they already do. If you can do that, then you will have your opportunity to present your testimony and aid them in seeing things 'your' way. Why? Because if you can't get them to see things differently than they already do, you are unlikely to persuade them to see things as you understand them.

Remember, decisions regarding abortion involve more than 'bed defilement' or 'murder.' They typically involve many considerations, some of which many believers would 'sanction' as appropriate and doing so does not make them 'so-called Christians.' But, that's the problem I was speaking to.

Just like... "i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it." There are those who believe that such an attitude is part of the scourge which must be eliminated for it 'allows' abortions to happen. Many of those same individuals would point to Exodus 21 and cry that the punishments cited must be implemented as they were "God's will" in much the same way you are using verses from that chapter to bolster your argument.

That is why we offer testimony which is defined as relating your experience with God. The Holy Spirit takes care of their 'understanding' as it relates to them. As I said earlier...

...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...

...Context, context context...

Such is why we are not the ones who are to make judgment of an individual, for we do not know all the factors in play; but, God knows the heart or 'the factors in play.'

[2761377]

Holy Scripture makes clear the gift of a child is a blessing from God.

even as the result of the sin of fornication. maybe especially so in that case, as a way to be redeemed of that sin.

to kill that child is also clearly condemned in Scripture.

to argue that there are any circumstances where abortion is up to the judgment of an individual is un-Christian.

when standing for my particular judgment I will have answers for my Accuser when he asks my Judge "What did this sinner do to protect the lives of your unborn servants?"

[Barang]

This is one of the problems I was alluding to when I said that I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. You're going to end up in arguments over it being laws set forth for a specific nation at a particular point in History. Not to mention finding yourself defending other punishments detailed in Exodus 21 as being applicable in today's society.

my last post was not to argue or persuade you. from one christian to another, that verse was included to to show where i based my stand. the last post was just to clarify what i meant when i said "we follow God and not man."

In short, as I indicated in my previous, long-ish post, imposing what you, personally believe as a societal law or expounding upon it as God's will isn't going to get you too far with anyone who doesn't already see things as you do. That was part of my earlier point; i.e., that you need to get them to see things differently than they already do. If you can do that, then you will have your opportunity to present your testimony and aid them in seeing things 'your' way. Why? Because if you can't get them to see things differently than they already do, you are unlikely to persuade them to see things as you understand them.

in christian country like america, most know that there's life in the womb (baby) but pro-abort just blow past that common knowledge. even with 3-d and 4-d pictures of babies in different stages, they have no interest in taking a second to look at them and consider.

now, the non-activists and non-political, sure. the can be persuaded with science and Biblical views if necessary. i've seen reports and stories about their conversion from protesters outside planned parenthood as an example so no argument there.

Remember, decisions regarding abortion involve more than 'bed defilement' or 'murder.' They typically involve many considerations, some of which many believers would 'sanction' as appropriate and doing so does not make them 'so-called Christians.' But, that's the problem I was speaking to.

Just like... "i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it." There are those who believe that such an attitude is part of the scourge which must be eliminated for it 'allows' abortions to happen. Many of those same individuals would point to Exodus 21 and cry that the punishments cited must be implemented as they were "God's will" in much the same way you are using verses from that chapter to bolster your argument.

That is why we offer testimony which is defined as relating your experience with God. The Holy Spirit takes care of their 'understanding' as it relates to them. As I said earlier...



Such is why we are not the ones who are to make judgment of an individual, for we do not know all the factors in play; but, God knows the heart or 'the factors in play.'

i am not against mothers who had an abortion to save her life. there's a big difference between killing a baby in the womb due cumbersome/inconvenience or hurdle to their career. the latter are where the pro-abort are coming from, my body my choice except the baby has no choice but to be killed!