Abortionists deny the humanity of the preborn

[Stan]

Since the pro-life movement is usually the one accused of always using religious arguments, it seems surprising that some abortionists use such a religious, even metaphysical argument when faced with a pro-lifer’s questions.

The post Abortionists deny the humanity of the preborn appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[Aliensanctuary]

Although I'm against abortion, it may be an act of mercy to abort an unwanted, unloved, inconvenient little human person.

[bonnie]

Our 4th son was due to be born in a couple of months when Roe Vs Wade was passed.  My dad remarked to me that the flood gates had now been opened. Saying he expected the time would come that a "fetus" could be aborted at anytime for any reason. 

I didn't believe him at that time. Our second son was born two months early and his survival was iffy at best. He was definitely a little human being.I could not get my head around aborting him willingly at that time and if born alive just let him lay there and die. Or aborting the son I was carrying when that law went into effect.

There are now many discussions on the possible reasons for "after birth abortion" Or legalized murder

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, bonnie said:

There are now many discussions on the possible reasons for "after birth abortion" Or legalized murder

Once that baby is breathing, to kill him or her would definitely be murder.  The "breath of life," according to the scriptures, defines the soul (cf. Gen. 2:7; Job 12:10).

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

 

[APL]

Green ignores the fact that all human life today received their life from the creator via Adam and Eve.  It is the breath of life that sustains the growing child in the womb.  Does green denies the humanity of the unborn child?  The humanity of Christ was demonstrated by the interaction between Mary and Elisabeth, unborn John and Jesus.  

[LifeHiscost]

It seems inconceivable that the Creator God Who is Love, yet brought severe consequences to the person who "spilled his seed", that He would take lightly the taking of the life of one recognized by God as a person from the womb.

The full story is found very explicitly in Genesis 38, NLT.

Children conceived but as yet not born are recognized by God, as seen from this verse.

…5For You are my hope; O Lord GOD, You are my confidence from my youth. 6By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You. 7I have become a marvel to many, For You are my strong refuge.…Psalm 71

13For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…Psalm 139

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green has it right.

[Gregory Matthews]

APL has it wrong.  Green does NOT ignore what APL alleges.

 

[LifeHiscost]

 

But the argument “the preborn baby has no soul, so it’s okay to kill her” is one that should be rejected by anyone with a basic grasp of biology and logic.

  [[/quote]

And especially the logic of Love.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[bonnie]

The humanity of the unborn is a moving target.  More than one has been prosecuted for vehicular homicide/manslaughter or a "fetus' that was killed in a assault on the mother.  The same 'fetus" could be destroyed by the mother at the same stage of development is simply "choice"

So can someone that is pro-choice please explain

Minnesota: Since 1986 the killing of an “unborn child” at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an “unborn child” during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an “unborn child” through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

[Green Cochoa]

15 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

It seems inconceivable that the Creator God Who is Love, yet brought severe consequences to the person who "spilled his seed", that He would take lightly the taking of the life of one recognized by God as a person from the womb.

Mrs. White says not a single word about that entire incident in the Bible, never appears to have mentioned the name of "Tamar," ever, nor Onan.  However, the sin appears not to have been that of spilling his seed, but rather his injustice to Tamar in not giving her an heir to inherit her late husband's property.  Onan, perhaps, coveted that property for himself, and thought his own children could have it if Tamar had no son.  In any case, his heart was not right before God, and he did not last long on account of it.  There is no specific sin singled out by scriptures as having been the cause of his punishment, if indeed his untimely death was an act of God, but the idea that God would kill a grown man because he wasted an opportunity to create a new baby seems to point a hypocritical finger at a God of love, making Him out to be rather fickle.  That this cannot be the correct interpretation seems evident from other parts of scripture where the "seed" is mentioned.  Consider the following from Leviticus:

 15:16    And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.  
 15:17    And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.  
 15:18    The woman also with whom man shall lie [with] seed of copulation, they shall [both] bathe [themselves] in water, and be unclean until the even.  

...

15:32    This [is] the law of him that hath an issue, and [of him] whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith; 

 

No "death penalty" is handed out for a loss of "seed," whether with a woman or otherwise.  If the "seed" were so precious, and one could be punished with death for spilling it, wet dreams would be sinful, yet God seems to have programmed that in.  Thus, I cannot accept the Catholic interpretation on this point that seems to "personify" a "pre-person."

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[LifeHiscost]

I'm more disposed to accept or at least lean toward Bonnie's examples of societies mores according to their judgement call/s.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[APL]

13 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

APL has it wrong.  Green does NOT ignore what APL alleges.

 

Ask him.  And ask him when he thinks Christ came to earth.  It is related. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Again, Green is correct as to Onan.

[APL]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Again, Green is correct as to Onan.

Not the subject of my comment.  What about the humanity of the unborn  child which is the subject of this thread?  That was the point I was addressing.  The implications of Green's comment is that the breath of life only comes to a child after it is born, so killing it THEN is murder.  But the unborn child also has the breath of life from its parents and thus is also human.  We all derive our life from Adam to which God gave the breath of life.  The unborn child is just as much human as it is after it is born.  

Read again what Green wrote:

Quote

Once that baby is breathing, to kill him or her would definitely be murder.  The "breath of life," according to the scriptures, defines the soul (cf. Gen. 2:7; Job 12:10).

His definition is that only when a child is breathing air itself, and not from its mother is it a soul.  Is then an unborn child not human? Is killing the child before it is born not murder?  The implication of Green's comment is that it is not murder because the child has not breath air on its own.  

[bonnie]

As long as that can be manipulated it is not murder apparently. My son was born not breathing so at that point he was not human I guess. The Dr's almost superhuman effort and my desire for him to live made him a human being? At the same stage of his  development many babies have been aborted. Prevented from taking that first breath by the Dr and the manner of abortion.

[Green Cochoa]

On February 28, 2016 at 9:52 PM, bonnie said:

As long as that can be manipulated it is not murder apparently. My son was born not breathing so at that point he was not human I guess. The Dr's almost superhuman effort and my desire for him to live made him a human being? At the same stage of his  development many babies have been aborted. Prevented from taking that first breath by the Dr and the manner of abortion.

That sword cuts two ways.  Wherever one chooses to define the beginning of a human soul (and no, my soul has not always existed from the time of Adam, because the Bible tells us that eight souls were on the ark--not billions), one accepts responsibility in terms of "murdering" that soul if it is in his or her care and dies due to neglect.  So, if mothers wish to believe that the "soul" began with the zygote, then they have murdered their own children when a miscarriage (a natural pre-viability abortion) occurs.  In such a case, 25% of women would be "murderers," according to statistics.  

To help establish this point, reflect on what Mrs. White has said in the following statements about parental murder.

Quote

 

Mothers are slow to learn that the suffering and death of their children is the result of their own course.  They do not become intelligent upon the subject of how to live to prevent disease and premature death.  What a thought!  Mothers are the murderers of their own children, and are mourning over their death, and are trying hard to be reconciled to Providence, which they think has bereaved them.-- H. R.  {HL 53.6}  

The mother too often meets with cold reserve from the father. If everything does not move off just as pleasantly as he could wish, he blames the wife and mother, and seems indifferent to her cares and daily trials. Men who do this, are working directly against their own interest and happiness. The mother becomes discouraged. Hope and cheerfulness depart from her. She goes about her work mechanically, knowing that it must be done, which soon debilitates physical and mental health. Children are born to them suffering with various diseases, and God holds the parents accountable in a great degree; for it was their wrong habits which fastened disease upon their unborn children, under which they are compelled to suffer all through their lives. Some live but a short period with their load of debility. The mother anxiously watches over the life of her child, and is weighed down with sorrow as she is compelled to close its eyes in death, and she often regards God as the author of all this affliction, when the parents in reality were the murderers of their own child.  {2SM 428.1} 

If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations, and his responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. They nurse these children through their suffering life, and often lay them prematurely in the grave, little realizing their wrong course has brought the sure result. How much better to have shielded the mother of his children from wearing labor, and mental anxiety, and let the children inherit good constitutions, and give them an opportunity to battle their way through life, not relying upon their father's property, but upon their own energetic strength. The experience thus obtained would be of more worth to them than houses and lands, purchased at the expense of the health of mother and children.  {2SM 429.3} 

Nature has provided means for the mother to perform this delicate and highly important office for her children. But in order to keep pace with fashion, nature has been abused, instead of being consulted. Mothers sometimes depend upon an hireling, or a nursing bottle must be substituted, for the maternal breast. And one of the most delicate and gratifying duties a mother can perform for her dependent offspring, which blends her life with its own, and which awakens the most holy feelings in the hearts of women, is sacrificed to fashion's murderous folly.  {HR, September 1, 1871 par. 5}  

 

Mrs. White never called a miscarriage/abortion murder, as far as I am aware.  In each of the above, she clearly speaks of children who have been born, are breathing, and no longer depend upon their umbilical cords for survival.  However, the things she outlines make clear that both parents can be considered murderers if their little one dies.  In that case, any mother (25% of women) who miscarries would also be a murderer by definition if indeed that "little one" were defined as having a soul.

Again, the Bible does not so define the soul.  Souls are defined, biblically, by their "breath."  Nature causes natural abortions for a variety of reasons, including toxins, genetic problems, hormonal problems that prevent the woman's body from continuing its natural purging cycle, etc.  I do not go around calling women who have miscarried "murderers."  Do you?

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[bonnie]

5 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

That sword cuts two ways.  Wherever one chooses to define the beginning of a human soul (and no, my soul has not always existed from the time of Adam, because the Bible tells us that eight souls were on the ark--not billions), one accepts responsibility in terms of "murdering" that soul if it is in his or her care and dies due to neglect.  So, if mothers wish to believe that the "soul" began with the zygote, then they have murdered their own children when a miscarriage (a natural pre-viability abortion) occurs.  In such a case, 25% of women would be "murderers," according to statistics.  

Let's back up to what I actually said.You seem to be carrying on a one sided conversation.

So can someone that is pro-choice please explain

Minnesota: Since 1986 the killing of an “unborn child” at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an “unborn child” during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an “unborn child” through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

 

If a woman is on her way to a abortion clinic and is involved in a accident ,the child or whatever you wish to call it dies the person responsible can be charged murder/manslaughter. Her intention of destroying her child was simply a woman's right to choose. That same child destroyed by the deliberate act or carelessness of another is murder,both a part of civil law.

What was my son at the time of his birth? He was capable of breathing but needed a Dr's intervention to take that first breath. If I had not desperately wanted him and felt I could not care for a baby with the list of possible health issues we could be facing it would be my choice to have the DR lay this little non-human on a table somewhere until I was sure he was dead. Did the fact I wanted him make him a human being? What magical transformation takes place?

He definitely caused a lot of stress and took a toll on my health at the time. Did this make him a non-human that could be destroyed as a matter of choice?

A woman that has a baby born addicted to drugs can and is usually charged with a crime. Why?  Unless she is responsible for the baby's addiction after birth,it was not a human being that became addicted. Her right to do what she wants with her body,isn't it?

 

Spontaneous abortion is not a deliberate act defined as a woman's choice and right to do with her body as she chooses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

[APL]

On 2/27/2016 at 8:25 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

APL has it wrong.  Green does NOT ignore what APL alleges.

 

So Gregory - after Green's last reply, am I still wrong?  Do you have any answer for bonnie?  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I have a response to Bonnie.

I do not normally publish them here in C.A.

 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, I have a response to Bonnie.

I do not normally publish them here in C.A.

 

Just out of curiosity where would you publish such a response?

The title of this article could just as accurately been Adventists Deny the Humanity of the Unborn

I fail to see what is so private about explaining why it is not a child on the way to a abortion clinic but becomes one if the mother wants the child and it killed by another?

Why be against abortion at any time if it is not a little human being?

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie:  I Don't publish responses to you anywhere, unless I decide to send you a message privately.  At least, that is my general rule.  so, perhaps someone can dig up a recent response to you posted on CA?  I Do not know.

 

[bonnie]

More and more curious. I did not ask you specifically for a answer. I asked  Green Cochoa. 

APL asked you for a answer to the question I asked Green Cochoa. 

I assume because you were quick to correct her with your opinion and defend Green Cochoa. 

I can live with that fine.It is fairly obvious that there must be a magical transformation that takes place,depending on the wishes of the mother. She holds the key as to when and under what circumstances that whatever she is carrying becomes a human life

 

 

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

Bonnie,

I'm surprised at your stout adherence to a law in Minnesota here in this topic.  Perhaps a few things should be straightened out.  

 

1) I do not live in Minnesota.

2) I am not under the law that you specify.

3) I do not agree with it, nor adhere to it.

4) It is not a law of God.

5) It is not a law of the Adventist church.

6) It is not widely publicized, nor voted upon by "we the people."

7) It is foolish to base a moral or ethical decision upon a manmade law.

 

For the reasons above, and more, I have hitherto held my peace in terms of your demands that I give a response to said law.  I owe you no such response.  You have no grounds upon which to attempt to force such from me.  I have no obligation to defend a law with which I myself do not agree and which does not concern me.

I would prefer to go by God's Law.  The Book tells us that if men cause a woman's "fruit" to depart from her, they must be fined according to the judges' determination.  This differs from the law of murder in which the murderer was to be put to death.  Evidently, then, there is a distinction between causing an abortion and murdering that the Bible makes.  I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the interpretation of these texts.  However, the Bible never once speaks of an abortion (untimely birth) in a manner in which it would clearly make it equivalent to murder.  In fact, every one of the times this is mentioned, apart from the example I have already given, it appears to be the desirable outcome. For example, at one point, Job wishes he had been aborted, and not lived.  Jesus says it would be better if some had not been born.  Etc.

I'll give you some of the texts, and you can check out what I am saying for yourself.  They are Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8, and Ecclesiastes 6:3.  In the KJV, the phrase "untimely birth" appears in each of these.  I do not know what other versions might call it, but the texts are clear enough as to what it refers, I believe.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[bonnie]

11 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Bonnie,

I'm surprised at your stout adherence to a law in Minnesota here in this topic.  Perhaps a few things should be straightened out.  

 

1) I do not live in Minnesota.

2) I am not under the law that you specify.

3) I do not agree with it, nor adhere to it.

4) It is not a law of God.

5) It is not a law of the Adventist church.

6) It is not widely publicized, nor voted upon by "we the people."

7) It is foolish to base a moral or ethical decision upon a manmade law.

Actually I think it is either 38 or 40 states that have same or similar law. I don't adhere to that law or the abortion law We had a local man beat his pregnant girlfriend .She was 5-6 months pregnant and the baby was stillborn . He was charged I believe with second degree murder of this non-human along with assault of his girlfriend. If this non-human can be destroyed on the mother's whim,it is ludicrous to try this man for murder. What did he murder?  Altho I am glad he was held accountable for both,it is convoluted reasoning. 

For the reasons above, and more, I have hitherto held my peace in terms of your demands that I give a response to said law.  I owe you no such response.  You have no grounds upon which to attempt to force such from me.  I have no obligation to defend a law with which I myself do not agree and which does not concern me.

I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "demand"

I didn't demand,I asked once and left it alone. 2 1/2 days ago. PLease indicate where I attempted to force you to do anything.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

I would prefer to go by God's Law.  The Book tells us that if men cause a woman's "fruit" to depart from her, they must be fined according to the judges' determination.  This differs from the law of murder in which the murderer was to be put to death.  Evidently, then, there is a distinction between causing an abortion and murdering that the Bible makes.  I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the interpretation of these texts.  However, the Bible never once speaks of an abortion (untimely birth) in a manner in which it would clearly make it equivalent to murder.  In fact, every one of the times this is mentioned, apart from the example I have already given, it appears to be the desirable outcome. For example, at one point, Job wishes he had been aborted, and not lived.  Jesus says it would be better if some had not been born.  Etc.

I'll give you some of the texts, and you can check out what I am saying for yourself.  They are Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8, and Ecclesiastes 6:3.  In the KJV, the phrase "untimely birth" appears in each of these.  I do not know what other versions might call it, but the texts are clear enough as to what it refers, I believe.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes,I have read all the texts you provided .I would prefer to go by God's Law.  The Book tells us that if men cause a woman's "fruit" to depart from her, they must be fined according to the judges' determination

 

I would have to go back and reread but I don't recall this referring to the deliberate decision to abort at any mid-late stage of pregnancy.

Again,if you would be so kind and considerate as to show me where my question to you indicated force of any kind.

Many late term abortions have been performed for various reasons. I don't really expect an answer but if a DR prevents that first breath by the manner he destroys that non-human or a Dr does everything he can to aid that non-human to take it's first breath,is there a big difference in your mind?