The abortion issue-

[bonnie]

If those that are anti-abortion use as their guideline Exodus 21:22 to sanction abortion on demand for any reason as long as it is the woman's choice, accepting this is biblical, what do you do with the rest of Exodus 21 and 22.

Many of you are opposed to slavery and the death penalty.

1. Verse 2- I can purchase a Hebrew slave, only stipulation to my ownership is releasing him in the seventh year.

I could really use a slave some days

Would you have a problem with me having a slave.

2. Verse 12- God gives the death penalty as a consequence. "He who strikes a man so that he dies, shall surely be put to death"

Enforcing the death penalty is biblical

3.Verse 16-"He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand shall surely be put to death.

Death penalty for a crime

4. Verse 17 "He who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.

Not maybe, not can if you choose, but surely.

Exodus 22

5. Verse 16- "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her,he shall surely pay the bride price for her to be his wife.

This says again SURELY, not marry her if you want, God says you shall surely.

How many that take Exodus 21:22 as permission to end a pregnancy, would be willing to step right up and follow and endorse this one as stridently? If not, why not?

6. Verse 18-"You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

This doesn't say use your judgement, make a choice it says, NOT PERMIT.

How many would like a rerun of the Salem witch hunts?

7. Verse 18-"Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death"

Death penalty again advocated by God and a very definite "SURELY", leaving no doubt as to what we are to do.

Shall we put to death all those that have engaged in this?

If I accept the wisdom of those that use the couple of verses referring to the loss of a child, miscarriage, whatever you wish to call it, as my right to terminate a pregnancy on demand, what am I to do with the rest of this.

God endorses and demands the death penalty according to this chapter.

[Dr. Shane]

You make many good points, Sister Bonnie. However most that use Exodus 21:22 to justify abortion are not Christians. Most are humanists trying to get Christians to leave them alone. That is why it surprises me so much that some of us that believe in letting the Bible interpret the Bible would take the humanist position on this portion of Scripture.

The Bible is clear regarding the death penalty for criminals. It is also clear about the value of the unborn's life. If I vote for a politician that is pro-abortion will I be any less guilty than a man 150 years ago that voted for politicians that were pro-slavery? I know slavery was approved of in the Bible but it was NOTHING like what was practiced in the US. I do not believe a true Christian could support slavery, as it was practiced in the US. Nor do I believe a true Christian can support the right of fellow Americans to heartlessly murder their children.

[Peter]

The basic argument here is this.

Who has the greater rights,

The fetus or the woman who is pregnant?

This is all about choice. Do we allow conservatives to dictate morality to america or do we allow free choice to the woman. The courts have taken the position that the greater rights goes to the woman over the fetus. The courts have struck down every law that violated the free choice of the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

The same argument could be used as to gay marriage. Do we allow free choice here or not. These two issues are going to be fought in the coming elections for a very long time to come.

[SteveB]

Peter

Who has the greater right, the bully or the sissy?

Why not just go ahead and allow pedophelia as well? How far are you willing to go with the pro-choice movement Peter? It's NOT religious liberty we're talking about here, It's common sense morality! If you don't want anyone setting moral standards in government then move to France or Spain for crying out loud.

When a nation as a whole departs from morality, God will not hesitate to visit them with judgement. God says this in His Word. Read your history books and you will see where it has already happened many times in the past. Before every great nation fell, the rot and decay of immorality stunk to high heaven. You folks seem to be in favor of "choice" over "law". Lets shoot the lawyers and judges and have a free choice for all. Without law, there is only chaos. Christian people should be well aware of this and should NOT be opposed to good sound moral laws.

It would be well fitting, for all those in favor of allowing innocent human beings to be put to death with the simple up or down motion of a mammas thumb, to be first to be robbed, murdered, raped and plundered just because someone chooses to.

The chaos that would ensue from having no law in society would be much the same as the result of a moraly bankrupt nation voting in favor of killing innocent babys. Billions have been murdered since.

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

The basic argument here is this.

Who has the greater rights,

The fetus or the woman who is pregnant?

This is all about choice. Do we allow conservatives to dictate morality to america or do we allow free choice to the woman. The courts have taken the position that the greater rights goes to the woman over the fetus. The courts have struck down every law that violated the free choice of the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

The same argument could be used as to gay marriage. Do we allow free choice here or not. These two issues are going to be fought in the coming elections for a very long time to come.

---

Peter,

It is not about conservatives dictating morality.

Nor is it whether the courts are always right. Or do you feel the courts always make the right decision?

That sanitized word "choice" is still being used to duck a blunt answer.

Do I have a right as a woman to have a child artifically pulled from my body, a scissors stuck n his brain and sucked out, because I have the greater right? Do I have that same right minutes later to do the same? If not, why not? When did this "choice" gain importance gain rights that I have. This is part of my choice. I don't like the gender, well let's stop this one and try again. I am a little stressed right now, get rid of the stress.

Not a problem, Christ will resurrect my little choice and give it eternal life.

Nor have you explained the following

(5. Verse 16- "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her,he shall surely pay the bride price for her to be his wife.)

If God endorses, approves or condones my "choice"

so that I may become fully human, (forgot the actual phrasing) I find out that in the following verse he takes all my choices away.

Now for a moment of foolishness, I am forced to

accept marriage to a man I may find I don't even like. Possibly an abusive man. This is certainly going to create a great deal of stress or worse. What happened to my right to choose?

This doesn't say the man is to marry her if she chooses, it says a very definite "SURELY"

"5. Verse 16- "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her,he shall surely pay the bride price for her to be his wife."

Or does choice really mean that I get to go thru the bible, pick the passages I choose, and use them like silly putty, to pull out, stretch and make it say what I like?

This isn't about the woman's life VS that of a unborn child.

Theraputic abortions have been around for a long time. I could have had one in 1964, it was strongly advised. No one did or could have forced me to sacrifice my life for that of my unborn son.

No one is talking about forcing women to become pregnant. We have that choice.

No one is demanding a woman raise a child and be condemned to motherhood for the next 18 years for a child she doesn't want.

If "choice" is not talking about a child, I could care less what is done with it. No more than a animal that gives birth to early, or to one maimed or deformed.

If that choice is a child and expecially when biblical references are given to approve or condone my "choice" then it becomes something different.

What part of Exodus 21 and 22 do you take as biblically correct? Only those couple of verses that are made to promote the acceptability of "choice"?

As a man will you fight as stridently for the implementation of NO 5 above?

If not, why not?

I wonder how many women would champion that one?

All thru both chapters, the word SURELY is used, not maybe, not you get to choose, but SURELY?

If this is to be used as biblical approval for choice(abortion) how do you get around all the other verses?

Those that believe it is not a child at least have a leg to stand on. Those that believe it is a child, a child to be resurrected in the second coming, a child to have eternal life don't.

IMO, they are simply parroting what they think sounds very enlightened and carryng the water for those that believe or claim it is not a child.

For those that claim to have really thought it thru and come to the conclusion that "choice" based on this scripture, have to accept the rest of what it says, or show where it says only a couple of these verses apply to "my choice as a woman"

So far it seems that most that claim to being pro-choice are oppossed to the death penalty

The death penalty is biblical as far as I read Exodus 21

Are those opposed to the death penalty going against God's instructions of SURELY, Not PERMIT, while accepting one "SURELY" as a right or choice?

That also has another interesting phrase to it. While being championed as a right of a woman, it seems to champion the rights of the father as well.

vers 22 says-"he(who causes the abortion) shall be punished accordingly as the husband imposes on him and he shall pay as the judge determines"

If I am using this text to prove God's jugement on my right, the second half of the same verse gives me a problem.

What if my husband doesn't care? What if he wants the child? Why would my husband be the one to be able to demand punishment? It is my body to do with as a please. What's it to him?

Biblically he is given rights it appears. Yet, all those that are pro-choice( abortion) claim he has no rights, "IT IS MY BODY, MY CHOICE"

What happened here? Man says a father has no rights, till after birth. Choice says I can destroy it while he stands helplessly by. God says he is important enough to be the one to determine punishment.

Man says- He can be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want based on my choice to bring it into the world. He has no choice concerning the same act. He has nothing to say abut being forced into unwilling fathehood, paying and accepting responsibility for that child till adulthood.

Secular law states- My body, my choice, I should get to demand punsishment. Not my husband.

He should have nothing to say or be able to stop me from having an abortion. My body, my choice.

As a christian, using this verse to prove it is biblically sound to exercise "my choice, whether my unborn child lives or dies", you need to take all of God's instructions, no matter how you like them.

You need to heed the SURELY and NOT PERMIT TO LIVE, or you need to find other biblical instruction that gives me the right to end my unborn child's life on demand.

You need to champion the death penalty and work as hard to enact that as you do to enact "my choice"

This text is a champion for woman's rights? Not to me it isn't.

My husband gets to decide and demand punishment for what happens to my body. Further on, having sex with a man forces me into a marriage I may really object to. All stated with this is what you will SURELY do

[Dr. Shane]

The position against abortion and for the death penalties both champion the cause of life. Many that are agasint these things love to point out what they believe to be hypocracy. They point out that while pro-lifers value the life of an unborn fetus we do not value the life of a living, breathing criminal.

Yet they fail to grasp the value placed on the victem of a crime. When a man takes the life of another man, administering the death penalty elevates the value of the victem's life. It, in fact, makes the victems's life of equal value as the criminal's life. Life is given for life. This is consistant to the pro-life position against abortion.

[SteveB]

Those of you who think the life of the unborn ought to be mammas choice need to take a closer look at what that choice actually involves. As they say, "ignorance is bliss."

[:"blue"]photos moved by Gail[/]

[SteveB]

Here is an interesting resource:

Slain by choice

Democratic hopefuls, John Kerry and John Edwards are leading the charge in the battle to keep this baby killing legal.

A vote for them on November 2nd, is a vote for this murder to continue.

George W. Bush is the only candidate that stands against abortion.

Vote well.

[Robert]

That's a bit graphic for me....I know abortion is wrong, yet those who insist it's okay I doubt if these pictures will change their minds....In fact they'll just insist it's propaganda...even made up.

The problem isn't abortion....It's "self-love". It's capitalism at it's finest....It's namely about "money" and "vanity"....Listen to the excuses:

"I need an education, I'm not ready for this child."

"It would interrupt my life."

"Having a child will cause me to get ugly stretch marks."

"It cost too much money to raise a child....I want my child to have everything and since I am not ready financially I chose to abort."

Etc, etc, etc....

[Neil D]

[]http://www.electoral-vote.com/cartoons/stem-cell.gif[/]

[bonnie]

This is how you began this thread.

(quote)For fear of side tracking the democratic convention thread, I place this into it's own thread.

I want this to be as fair to the issue as possible.(/quote)

Now we have you with political cartoons making light or worse of those that are anti-abortion. Seems like it is inconceivable that any stance except being for abortion on demand is anything but self-centered posturing.

Glad to see the old strawman is at least alive and well. When we choose to duck a question what on earth would we do with out him.

By this, I will assume you have no answer for......

Exodus 21, the whole chapter. Even the whole verse of 22 would be a start.

You have claimed the first portion of the text gives me a right to abortion on demand and elevates me from being a baby making machine.

Last portion of the text gives my usband the right to impose punishment and collect a fine. Seems God made a little oops here.

If I desperately wanted this child, my wishes are of no concern, only my husbands. He has to be paid when I can not fulfill my role of providing him with a child. Baby making machine??

Nor did you explain where anyone gets the right to draw a couple of sentences to use as proof of my right to abortion on demand and yet ignore the rest of that very text and those that precede and follow.

Nor did you give your response to the demand that all men that have enticed a young girl into having sex marry her. This says SURELY, not the woman gets a choice

Are you opposed to the death penalty? God demands it in this chapter. Not maybe, not you can if you choose, but SURELY. God demands the husband be paid for the loss of a child. You say the man has nothing to say, it is the woman's choice.

The only thing you have done is to try to turn the conversation into medical research.

In doing so, you have answered far more eloquently than you know.

"

[Peter]

Bonnie

Even God himself allows peoples to make choices for themselves whither that choice is right or wrong. Do we always make laws to comply with our own sense of morality? If we allow that here, sooner or later people will be dictating what day we worship on because the majority of Christians morality dictate that.

As I said before the courts have decided that the choice of the woman gets precedence over the fetus. Right or wrong this is the decision. That is unlikely to change unless the courts change and that is unlikely with the democrats poised to get a possible majority in the senate this election.

Even within our own church as this discussion is proving half are pro choice and half are pro life. I myself tend to be on the side of pro choice simply because I do not like the idea of a minority putting their morality on the rest of the country. If that happens what is next? Sunday Laws?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

This is how you began this thread.

Quote:

---

For fear of side tracking the democratic convention thread, I place this into it's own thread.

I want this to be as fair to the issue as possible.

---

---

Thanks for reminding me of how I really wanted this discussion to be. Not emotional, more of a discussion...and now we have pictures of dead babies [Thanks Steve] and some accusatory people making sad comments on thier christianity....If I was moderator, I would close this thread as I believe it is no longer a rational dissucssion, but a springboard for hystarical[sp] prolifers condemning any other rational thought, either for or against women's right to choose abortion or for fetus rights.

Yes, it is becoming out of hand and if I had a request of the moderator's it would be to lock this thread up before it really got out of hand.

Quote:

---

Glad to see the old strawman is at least alive and well. When we choose to duck a question what on earth would we do with out him.

---

Given the situation that you wrote about, I have given you the best answer that I can give to you. By your asking personal questions that I really have no answer to, I am begining to feel that you are looking for some sort of justification in what you have done. I can not give that to you[ and not because I am not willing], no matter how I put it. As such, it would be a waste of bandwidth for me to address your delemma to your satisfaction. Perhaps someone else with more wisdom than I can do that, but as for me, I am sorry, but I will not be discussing this issue with you anymore...

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Even God himself allows peoples to make choices for themselves whither that choice is right or wrong.(/quote)

Agreed, (not the question.) God does not prevent me by force from making any decision I may be foolish enough to make. Neither does a secular law If they don't know I am about to committ a crime.

Exodus was used for promoting abortion as a choice of a woman on demand. Plain and simple.

Somewhere in a couple of sentences a unborn child was reduced to my whim as a woman.

What I asked is what do we do with the rest of the instruction in that chapter and the following one.

When it is my husband according to the chapter in Exodus, to determine punishment and payment, what has just happened to my right as a woman in the very text being used to promote my choice and rights?

(quote) Do we always make laws to comply with our own sense of morality?(/quote)

My own sense of morality involves my personal conduct.

I do not believe in nor can I can condone or sanction premarital sex. That is different than trying to pass a law that says all must abide by my personal conduct. I simply can't say God gives consent for that.

I do not believe in living together without the benefit of marriage. My personal morality, one which others are not required to abide by.

I do not believe in gay marriage. Personal morality.

I believe that homosexual partners deserve the same protections I have, but I do not believe marriage as ordained by God is biblical. Protections needed can be obtained in civil ways.

I don't have the right, moral or otherwise to insist any woman have children, or to raise a child she does not want.

I have a moral, christian and ethical right to object to the destruction of a child if it is in fact a child.

I also think I am within my rights to question how as christian adventists, (not dictate whether they can or not), but question what they make the bible say. Only when it concerns something of a sexual nature does that seem prohibited.

The main topic of dissention here was on this chapter, dicing and slicing nuances to see what it could be made to say.

All the other texts are clear, no one has to search and slice the nuances. What about the couple of sentences that a childs life hangs on is different.

Can you explain?

(quote) If we allow that here, sooner or later people will be dictating what day we worship on because the majority of Christians morality dictate that.(/qoute)

I have never read anything to indicate that abortion and the Sunday law are related. Please show me.

But in any case, don't really follow the reasining you posted. Let's slice and dice this one to see if I get your meaning

"If we allow that here"

Are you opposed to overturning the abortion law because you champion the woman's right to choose, or because you fear it will usher in the Sun law if repealed?

"sooner or later people will be dictating what day we worship on because the majority of Christians morality dictate that."

Keeping the abortion bill in place will prevent this? Where do you find this??

"As I said before the courts have decided that the choice of the woman gets precedence over the fetus. Right or wrong this is the decision."

Because a court makes a decision, does not indicate to me that I should fall into step behind that and compromise what I believe.

With or without a abortion law, the courts will decide on a Sun law, right or wrong. Does that mean I go quietly along with it as they have decided?

"That is unlikely to change unless the courts change and that is unlikely with the democrats poised to get a possible majority in the senate this election."

In terms of what I personally believe I could care less. What they decide does not dictate to me that I must compromise with a majority I believe is wrong.

"Even within our own church as this discussion is proving half are pro choice and half are pro life. I myself tend to be on the side of pro choice simply because I do not like the idea of a minority putting their morality on the rest of the country. If that happens what is next? Sunday Laws?"

So then the minority should enjoy the morality or the lack of it as they see it on the rest of us?

The Sun laws were not in effect during the time abortion on demand was illegal.

I would very much like to see how the connection between abortion and the Sun law is explained by the church or any member for that matter.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If we allow that here, sooner or later people will be dictating what day we worship on because the majority of Christians morality dictate that.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This shows me that you don't grasp the issue at hand. The exact same thing was said of slavery. You are saying that making murder illegal will lead to the Sunday law. THAT IS PARANOIA. If it were up to men like you blacks would still be slaves in this country.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

now we have pictures of dead babies

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Are you sure they are babies? I do agree the pictures are a little too much. I will ask Stan to remove them.

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is how you began this thread.

(quote)Thanks for reminding me of how I really wanted this discussion to be. Not emotional, more of a discussion...and now we have pictures of dead babies [Thanks Steve] and some accusatory people making sad comments on thier christianity....If I was moderator, I would close this thread as I believe it is no longer a rational dissucssion, but a springboard for hystarical[sp] prolifers condemning any other rational thought, either for or against women's right to choose abortion or for fetus rights.(/quote)

Very odd definition of hysteria. I simply asked you to explain away the rest of this chapter being used.

After all the dicussion about the nuances used, it

seemed very important to make the case for abortion on demand. I am sure it would be easier to close than to explain.

Many times thru many threads on this forum people's intelligence integrity, spiritual condition are called into question. Do you make it a practice when that happens to require the thread to be closed?

With your cartoon you yourself made it very obvious that those that are opposed to abortion have less than christian motives.

(quote)Yes, it is becoming out of hand and if I had a request of the moderator's it would be to lock this thread up before it really got out of hand.(/quote)

What is out of hand, questions, what this chapter, and specifically this verse mean. Pictures of aborted babies. Abortion, the right to or why the not the right is what is under discussion. Choice, abortion in this case ends something, something that is being endorsed here. What was shown is what is being endorsed as choice on demand. It is reality.

(quote)Given the situation that you wrote about, I have given you the best answer that I can give to you. By your asking personal questions that I really have no answer to,(/quote)

If you are talking of my questions as to what Exodus 21 means, you should have thought something this important thru enough to have an answer.

(quote) I am begining to feel that you are looking for some sort of justification in what you have done. I can not give that to you[ and not because I am not willing], no matter how I put it.(/quote)

I take it we are talking of my son's birth in what I have done. Sorry, your justification for making a decision to give my son life isn't even in the running. His live birth, free of anticipated handicaps, having him for forty years leaves anyone's opinion on that totally unimportant.

The christian man he turned into, the beautiful christian family he is raising is all the justification I am interested in.

(qoute) As such, it would be a waste of bandwidth for me to address your delemma to your satisfaction. Perhaps someone else with more wisdom than I can do that, but as for me, I am sorry, but I will not be discussing this issue with you anymore...

---

Exodus 21 is not a dilemma for me in the least. Those that use it to prove the choice of abortion on demand have the dilemma.

In the end, I don't expect to change anyone's mind.

However I would anticipate when such lengths are gone to, to prove this is biblical, you have read, thought about and studied, not just a couple of sentences but the whole ball of wax. Instead of posting cartoons designed to insult the integrity of those that do not agree with you.

That is all I asked, "What do you do with the rest of the chapter" Not do you approve of the steps I took or giving me justification for making the decision I did concerning my son.

Maybe that is reason in your eyes to close this thread. We shall see

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Exodus 21 is not a dilemma for me

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Exodus 21: 22, 23 are not a dilemma for anyone who is pro-life. When Exodus 21: 22, 23 is properly understood, it actually supports the pro-life position and is often used by pro-lifers.

Romans 14:5 presents a bigger problem for the seventh-day Sabbath than Exodus 21:22, 23 does for anti-abortion. Yet in proper context Romans 14:5 does not conflict with God's fourth Commandment. It all comes down to letting the Bible interpret the Bible - here a little and there a little.

[Peter]

How far will anti abortion people go.

Some are posting wanted style posted on Abortion doctors and their families.

"The Planned Parenthood suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon on October 26th 1995. The complaint alleges that the defendants, including the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), have waged a campaign of terror and intimidation and have distributed ?wanted? style posters that target specific abortion providers in a violent life-threatening manner. Along with the posters, there is a Web site listing personal information about the doctors and their families. The issue that is of interest to the on-line community is the following question: Does publicizing the names of doctors violate a federal law designed to protect access to abortion clinics? The answer to this question has widespread implications for anyone posting material to the World Wide Web, since it attempts to draw the line between protected and unprotected free speech.

Wanted style posters had been distributed by the ACLA containing a large heading that states: ?GUILTY of Crimes Against Humanity.? The posters list the names, addresses and phone numbers of twelve people, labeled ?THE DEADLY DOZEN,? including a few of the plaintiffs. The posters offer a $5000 reward for ?information leading to arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine.?2 When they were brought to the attention of the FBI in 1995, the listed doctors were offered around-the-clock federal marshall protection and were advised to wear bulletproof vests and take other precautionary measures. Similar posters were created and distributed that targeted single individuals. In January 1997, Neal Horsley created the ?Nuremberg Files? Web site. This Web site became one of the central issues of the court case. It brings to light the potential problems of free speech on the Internet, which is a medium unlike any in the past. The Internet can disperse information to millions of people very quickly and very easily. See our section about extremists on the internet for more information about the changes the Internet brings about for extremist groups. The Nuremberg Files started as a project of the ACLA, but it was Horsley who put the information onto the World Wide Web. The site distributes personal information about over 200 abortion providers, including names, family members, addresses, photos and in some cases criminal and civil suit records. ?????.The Nuremberg Files Web site does not explicitly threaten violence to any one person, but it does provide potentially life-threatening information to any radical anti-abortionists looking for a target. "

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-98-99/nuremberg-files/background.html

History of violence against pro choice doctors

Anti-abortion extremists perpetrated an unprecedented level of violence in 1993 with the first murder of an abortion provider. Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed by a zealot in Pensacola, Florida. Since that time, anti-choice extremists have murdered or attempted to murder numerous other individuals who were involved in reproductive health care.

A chronology of abortion related murders and shootings follows:

DATE STATE CASE STATUS

3/1993 Florida Dr. David Gunn was shot to death by Michael Griffin in Pensacola, Florida. Griffin is serving a life sentence for murder

8/1993 Kansas Dr. George Tiller was shot and injured by Rachelle Shannon at his clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Shannon is serving an 11-year sentence for attempted first-degree murder. She is serving additional prison time for six arsons and two butyric acid attacks

7/1994 Florida Dr. John Bayard Britton and his escort, James H. Barrett were shot and killed in front of a clinic in Pensacola, Florida by Paul J. Hill. June Barrett was also shot and injured in the incident. Hill was executed by lethal injection on September 3, 2003.

11/1994 Vancouver Dr. Garson Romalis was shot and seriously wounded in his home in Vancouver, British Columbia. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.

12/1994 Massachusetts Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols were shot and killed by John Salvi at two clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts. Five others were injured in the attacks. Salvi was sentenced to two life terms but committed suicide in prison in November 1996

11/1995 Ontario Dr. Hugh Short was shot and injured in his home in Ancaster, Ontario. James Kopp has been charged with attempted murder in the shooting.

10/1997 New York An unnamed physician was shot at in his home in Rochester, New York. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.

11/1997 Manitoba Dr. Jack Fainman was shot and injured in his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.

1/1998 Alabama Officer Robert Sanderson was killed during a clinic bombing in Birmingham, AL. Emily Lyons, a nurse at the clinic was severely injured in the blast. Eric Rudolph has been charged with the bombing and is in police custody awaiting trial.

10/1998 New York Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot and killed in his home in Amherst, New York. James Kopp was convicted of second-degree murder in state court and received the maximum sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison. He still faces federal charges of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Click on Clinic Violence and read on.

http://www.prochoice.org/

What do the courts say on prochoice vs pro life.

Court decisions

Supreme Court Decisions

Legal Abstracts

§ Roe v. Wade

§ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

§ Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

§ Stenberg v. Carhart

[Peter]

Quote:

---

Who has the greater right, the bully or the sissy?

Why not just go ahead and allow pedophelia as well? How far are you willing to go with the pro-choice movement Peter? It's NOT religious liberty we're talking about here, It's common sense morality! If you don't want anyone setting moral standards in government then move to France or Spain for crying out loud.

---

See my previous post

Why should I move. The courts our on our side of this issue. And who is doing the bullying here. Read the violence against abortion doctors in my previous post.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

How far will anti abortion people go.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

How far will pro-abortion people go? Do you know how Planned Parenthood and other like organizations actually encourage single pregnant women to have abortions? Do you know they do not discuss the physical risks? I suspect you wouldn't be surprised to know they don't inform them of the emotional trama most women have to deal with after an abortion? Did you know that most women that have abortions later seek counseling to deal with it?

Now the matter of the courts. Isn't it odd that pro-"choice" folks actually fear the ballot box? Why are they afraid to let the people decide? If the Constitution actually protected abortion a conservative court couldn't change it. Case in point: slavery. The Constitution abolished slavery and regardless how conservative the court becomes slavery will always be illegal (unless the Constitution is ammended).

Pro-"choice" folks know that there is no such protection for abortion. The Constitution is silent on abortion. It should be a state's rights issue. This election is the most important for abortion that there has been since Reagon left office. Two to four Supreme Court justices will retire during the next President's term.

[bonnie]

Let's let the strawmen get some rest tonight. As to how far the anti-abortion people will go, what has that to do with whether or not abortion is biblical.

Has anyone here advocated violence, destroying abortion clinics, murder as part of their stance against abortion.

Should be a pretty simple concept for a christian SDA forum.

Is abortion destroying or killing a child?

Is it biblical to do so on demand and call it choice?

Do I have the right as a woman to determine when it becomes a child?

Is it a child when artifically pulled from the woman's body up to it's neck. Full birth prevented so as to be able to stick a scissors in the base of it's skull?

If at the same gestation period it comes head first, can you still stick a scissors into it's skull.

What magic do I have as a woman to declare one a child and one not?

Please give me the bible text that says this is so.

If using as has been done for days now Exodus 21, explain how you deal with all of that chapter.

If you can't or feel it now longer does the job of proving the valdity of your claims, give me others that do.

Let's not shift to what someone else is doing wong in hope's of not answering.

"What do the courts say on prochoice vs pro life.

Court decisions"

Maybe the concern should be more along the lines of what God might have said.

As frequently happens, a direct question has been dodged.

The Supreme Court. with or without the help of the abortion issue will have much to say on the Sun law.

Will you consider that as final and as authoritative

as you do their decision on abortion.

If not, why not?

[Peter]

Quote:

---

Has anyone here advocated violence, destroying abortion clinics, murder as part of their stance against abortion.

---

Not here but it has on the internet and applauded by ministers. A former pastor of mine was pro life and went to protests against abortion until a pastor murdered an abortion doctor. Ministers who were protesting abortion applauded the action of this minister in private. This shocked my pastor and he left this crowd.

My point is this. People who feel very strongly against abortion will feel that it is God's will to stop the killing of the unborn by ANY MEANS necessary and feel God will reward them in the afterlife for their acts of violence.

The Islamic extremists feel the same way.

Already feelings are hot on both sides of this issue. Each one of us has to ask themselves this question.

How far are you willing to go?

Post the addresses of abortion doctors and where they work on the Internet?

Post the school address of the abortion doctors kids on the Internet? This has been done.

Bomb abortion clinics in the name of God?

Kill abortion doctors in the name of God?

Intimidation, Murder all these tactics has been used by anti abortion forces.

Now for this question. I do not expect or want an answer here on the forum. Just answer it in your hears.

When you hear of an abortion doctor being murdered how do you feel about it?

Do you Rejoice?

Do you feel horror?

Do you not care?

[Peter]

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court. with or without the help of the abortion issue will have much to say on the Sun law.

Will you consider that as final and as authoritative

as you do their decision on abortion.

---

It is a matter of freedom of choice. If so called Christians will intimidate and murder to get their way. How far will they go to pass Sunday laws if they feel just as strongly about that?

In my mind a victory here will lead the Christian moral minority to look for other fights. What will they fight for next? Is it in our best interests? I know others will not see it that way. Shrug.

Time will tell if I am right or wrong about this.

[bonnie]

1. My point is this. People who feel very strongly against abortion will feel that it is God's will to stop the killing of the unborn by ANY MEANS necessary and feel God will reward them in the afterlife for their acts of violence.

Really?? I feel very strongly about abortion, never even contemplated the fact that God would reward me for violence on this issue

2. Already feelings are hot on both sides of this issue. Each one of us has to ask themselves this question.

The following have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the aborton bill or is it biblical.

3. How far are you willing to go?

Post the addresses of abortion doctors and where they work on the Internet?

Not unless I intended to see them harmed.

4.Post the school address of the abortion doctors kids on the Internet? This has been done.

Many acts have been committed that never should have been, that has what to do with whether or not abortion is biblical??

5.Bomb abortion clinics in the name of God?

Never considered it. Asked some questions mainly, ones that remain unanswered

8 Kill abortion doctors in the name of God?

Nope and not part of this discussion

9. Intimidation, Murder all these tactics has been used by anti abortion forces.

Meaning what as it relates to the biblical rationale for abortion?

10.Now for this question. I do not expect or want an answer here on the forum. Just answer it in your hears.

When you hear of an abortion doctor being murdered how do you feel about it?

Do you Rejoice?

Do you feel horror?

Do you not care?

About the same way I feel at any needless loss of life.

"It is a matter of freedom of choice. If so called Christians will intimidate and murder to get their way. How far will they go to pass Sunday laws if they feel just as strongly about that?"

We maintain the abortion law, abortion on demand in exchange for not having the Sunday law??

Didn't know we had found a way to avoid that