APL Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Bonnie - is it not interesting that some Adventists consider the unborn child to not be human? That only a child that breaths air is human? Fits exactly with the Opening Post. 5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said: Yes, I have a response to Bonnie. I do not normally publish them here in C.A. And Gregory, am I still wrong? Or don't you publish that on CA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Bonnie, You asked the question relative to the MN law more than once, fishing for responses from anyone, then specifically me--as stated in your post to Gregory. It would appear to have been a question of grand importance to you. That you "left it alone for 2 1/2 days" was simply due to the fact that I did not respond to you during that time. However, your subsequent response to Gregory specifying that you had asked me that question made it rather clear you still looked for an answer. In any case, I have now answered, and see no need of further elucidation on your law. I do not live in any of those 38 states you bring up, nor in any of the 50. Where I live, women get illegal abortions at the risk of their lives (sanitation/safety, not death penalty). The matter is very "hush hush" around here, but some do so anyhow. I am NOT pro-abortion. I do not see abortions as being a good thing except in limited cases. I personally would have no criticism for anyone involved (doctor, woman, etc.) who chooses to perform an abortion in cases of rape, incest, known severe birth defects, or where the life of the mother is in danger. These cases would represent by far the minority of abortions which are performed, likely less than 1%. However, I do not feel, based on the Bible alone, that I have a good medical reason or ethical reason to desire to deny people this option by force of law. To illustrate, let us look at something that is far more clear in the Bible: blood. The Bible forbids the eating of blood in no uncertain terms (see Lev. 3:17). It was "unclean," even from a "clean" animal. Humans, of course, are not "clean" animals either. Based on the Bible, I cannot deny the right of a Jehovah's Witness adherent to refuse a blood transfusion. It does appear to be against God's law. On the other hand, I would not support a law banning blood transfusions either. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, as the Bible says. Why should my conscience become conscience for anyone else? (See 1 Corinthians 10:29.) So, instead of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" I am "anti-legislation" on the matter. This, again, highlights some of the reasons I feel no need to defend the Minnesota legislation on the matter. Blessings, Green Cochoa. rudywoofs (Pam) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, APL said: Bonnie - is it not interesting that some Adventists consider the unborn child to not be human? That only a child that breaths air is human? Fits exactly with the Opening Post. And Gregory, am I still wrong? Or don't you publish that on CA? Abortionists deny the humanity of the preborn Adventists deny the humanity of the preborn. Not a shred of difference. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 30 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: Bonnie, You asked the question relative to the MN law more than once, fishing for responses from anyone, then specifically me--as stated in your post to Gregory. It would appear to have been a question of grand importance to you. That you "left it alone for 2 1/2 days" was simply due to the fact that I did not respond to you during that time. However, your subsequent response to Gregory specifying that you had asked me that question made it rather clear you still looked for an answer. Actually my response to Gregory was just that not making it rather clear you still looked for an answer. The non answer was sufficient. I made it clear I was not asking Gregory to respond. I am NOT pro-abortion. I do not see abortions as being a good thing except in limited cases. If what the woman is carrying is non-human and she doesn't want it,abortion should be a good thing.Not something to regret. I personally would have no criticism for anyone involved (doctor, woman, etc.) who chooses to perform an abortion in cases of rape, incest, known severe birth defects, or where the life of the mother is in danger. These cases would represent by far the minority of abortions which are performed, likely less than 1%. However, I do not feel, based on the Bible alone, that I have a good medical reason or ethical reason to desire to deny people this option by force of law. You are using that word force again as if that has been suggested. I asked a question,nothing more or less.Abortion on demand for any reason is here to stay. You stated it is a non-human until "it" takes that first breath. I questioned that,did not demand or try to force you. I was not rude or sarcastic. Maybe questions should not be allowed by those that disagree or ask and they should simply remain quiet To illustrate, let us look at something that is far more clear in the Bible: blood. The Bible forbids the eating of blood in no uncertain terms (see Lev. 3:17). It was "unclean," even from a "clean" animal. Humans, of course, are not "clean" animals either. Based on the Bible, I cannot deny the right of a Jehovah's Witness adherent to refuse a blood transfusion. It does appear to be against God's law. On the other hand, I would not support a law banning blood transfusions either. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, as the Bible says. Why should my conscience become conscience for anyone else? (See 1 Corinthians 10:29.) So, instead of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" I am "anti-legislation" on the matter. This, again, highlights some of the reasons I feel no need to defend the Minnesota legislation on the matter. Again where was it said that your conscience should become the conscience of others? I asked your opinion.There is a difference. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Bonnie, Regarding the use of the word "force," whether you like it or not, that is what the "pro-life" camp is trying to do. They are trying to force their own sensitive consciences upon others. I made it clear in my post that I am against this use of force. I am unsure what disagreement you have on this point with me, considering you seem to also be against the concept of force. At some point, we know that the law will try to force people to keep Sunday in place of Sabbath. I am against such a use of force. I would also be against making a law that everyone must keep the Saturday Sabbath, even though I believe that is correct and in accordance with God's own law. It should not be a great leap, then, to see why I would be consistent within my belief system to take an "anti-legislation" position on the abortion question. Again, let each be fully persuaded in his or her own mind, and this without becoming conscience for somebody else. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 12 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: Bonnie, Regarding the use of the word "force," whether you like it or not, that is what the "pro-life" camp is trying to do. They are trying to force their own sensitive consciences upon others. I made it clear in my post that I am against this use of force. I am unsure what disagreement you have on this point with me, considering you seem to also be against the concept of force. Because you seem to want to make it an issue of force,either me or those that are pro life.Simply asking you a question is demand and force. Sorry that you see a question concerning a opinion you voluntarily posted an attempt at force and controlling your conscience That was not the intent of the topic was it? You voiced your opinion. It is the same as abortionists as far as I can tell. What is a pregnant woman carrying? You believe it is non human until it breathes on it's own. After carrying four little non humans I disagree/ Obviously that disagreement to you is trying to force my conscience on you. 12 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: At some point, we know that the law will try to force people to keep Sunday in place of Sabbath. I am against such a use of force. I would also be against making a law that everyone must keep the Saturday Sabbath, even though I believe that is correct and in accordance with God's own law. It should not be a great leap, then, to see why I would be consistent within my belief system to take an "anti-legislation" position on the abortion question. Again, let each be fully persuaded in his or her own mind, and this without becoming conscience for somebody else. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Bonnie, You are not in a position to tell me what I believe. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: Bonnie, You are not in a position to tell me what I believe. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Absolutely right,I can only accept your word. 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). I don't believe there is this never never land. It is a child or it isn't. If it isn't a child until he is born breathing there shouldn't be any restrictions on getting rid of it,any more than putting down a puppy you don't want. As long as taking that first breath can be manipulated it should be allowed. My opinion,you are entitled to 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). Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 38 minutes ago, bonnie said: What is a pregnant woman carrying? You believe it is non human until it breathes on it's own. 31 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: You are not in a position to tell me what I believe. 13 minutes ago, bonnie said: Absolutely right,I can only accept your word. 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). I don't believe there is this never never land. It is a child or it isn't. If it isn't a child until he is born breathing there shouldn't be any restrictions on getting rid of it,any more than putting down a puppy you don't want. As long as taking that first breath can be manipulated it should be allowed. My opinion,you are entitled to 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). Thank you for essentially admitting that you had expressed your opinion as being my belief. Do you still want to talk about force? Just because you do not see any other way to believe something does not mean others do not. I stand by what I said, as underlined in your quote above. I will, nonetheless, differ with you on the conclusion you made from it. Your logic is not my logic on the matter. Thank you for allowing my entitlement to believe as I have stated. I will anyway, of course. Blessings, Green Cochoa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 34 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: Thank you for essentially admitting that you had expressed your opinion as being my belief. Do you still want to talk about force? Just because you do not see any other way to believe something does not mean others do not. I stand by what I said, as underlined in your quote above. I will, nonetheless, differ with you on the conclusion you made from it. Your logic is not my logic on the matter. Thank you for allowing my entitlement to believe as I have stated. I will anyway, of course. Blessings, Green Cochoa. You misunderstood what I meant . I am not allowing you anything.It is your right to believe as you choose. My opinion on 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). is that unless the child had drawn that first breath to destroy it is not wrong or murder.MY OPINION . I don't believe drawing that first breath magically transforms the non-human into a human. If it is not a living soul I can't see anything wrong with disposing of it. "Once that baby is breathing"along with other statements is a strong indicator of belief. However I am not going to protest at the nearest abortion clinic,tar and feather the young woman getting a abortion or push to have her kicked out of church. Hopefully we have a similar understanding of My Opinion Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, bonnie said: Hopefully we have a similar understanding of My Opinion I think perhaps I may understand your opinion. However, I disagree with it. It boils down to differing definitions, as is usually the case. You appear to have defined the concepts of "human" and "soul" and "murder" differently than I have. It might take many, many posts before you could understand my positions on these matters, not because they are difficult to explain, but they are difficult to understand when one is already predisposed to not understand them owing to already having a much different understanding. In short, however, here is the essence of my belief. 1) Humanity is a consistent chain going all the way back to Adam. A zygote is human. A fetus is human. A human corpse is still…did you notice that adjective? 2) The soul is separate from the body. A human body can possess a soul. It can lose its soul. Satan tries to steal the soul: is he trying to steal the human body too? 3) "Murder" is not the same as "kill" in the Bible. This is the most difficult for most people to grasp. Murder is carefully defined, however, in the Bible, and does NOT include such acts as the lawful stoning of a properly convicted murderer by the people at the mouth of at least two or three witnesses, the killing of an enemy as an act of war, or the accidental killing of a person for any reason other than criminal negligence (such as not keeping one's known-to-be-dangerous bull confined and it kills someone). In other words, not all cases of a human killing a human properly fit the definition of murder. 4) Abortion, as we know it today, is not addressed clearly in Scripture. Therefore, it behooves us to be the more cautious about pressing our private views/opinions about it upon others and requiring that they conform to them. In keeping with all of these points, I am "anti-legislation" on the matter--"pro-choice" if you wish, albeit I do not have the liberal mindset of promoting abortions for any whimsical reason one might have, e.g. birth control. While I may feel strongly that it is wrong to have such an abortion, I feel even more strongly that my conscience should be no measure of another's liberty on the issue. As pertains to the title of this thread, I am neither an "abortionist" nor do I deny the humanity of the pre-born. Blessings, Green Cochoa. rudywoofs (Pam) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 22 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said: 3) "Murder" is not the same as "kill" in the Bible. This is the most difficult for most people to grasp. Murder is carefully defined, however, in the Bible, and does NOT include such acts as the lawful stoning of a properly convicted murderer by the people at the mouth of at least two or three witnesses, the killing of an enemy as an act of war, or the accidental killing of a person for any reason other than criminal negligence (such as not keeping one's known-to-be-dangerous bull confined and it kills someone). In other words, not all cases of a human killing a human properly fit the definition of murder. However you choose to define it,To me the deliberate destruction or killing for convenience of the innocent is murder. Quote 4) Abortion, as we know it today, is not addressed clearly in Scripture. Therefore, it behooves us to be the more cautious about pressing our private views/opinions about it upon others and requiring that they conform to them. In keeping with all of these points, I am "anti-legislation" on the matter--"pro-choice" if you wish, albeit I do not have the liberal mindset of promoting abortions for any whimsical reason one might have, e.g. birth control. While I may feel strongly that it is wrong to have such an abortion, I feel even more strongly that my conscience should be no measure of another's liberty on the issue. As pertains to the title of this thread, I am neither an "abortionist" nor do I deny the humanity of the pre-born. I must have missed the part about requiring others to conform to my private opinion. As well as the part about your requiring your conscience to be a measure of another's liberty. OPINION,which I am entitled to hold. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 There seems to be a large number of SDA's that believe abortion/destruction of a baby should be a right. That is their choice. I do not believe God granted us that right. If a baby isn't a living human being prior to that first breath,they are correct. So accept that fact that I believe abortion on demand is totally wrong. Abortions should be very limited as the reasons for them. That does not require you or anyone to agree. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted March 4, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 4, 2016 I have placed a comment into the post that Green made earlier. It expresses my thoughts on it. You can read it there. Well, it seems that someone has removed my comment, in which I stated that Green had it right. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APL Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Green Cochoa said: 2) The soul is separate from the body. Ah - so the human body does not get this "separate soul" until it breaths air. Magical stuff, AIR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Cochoa Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said: I have placed a comment into the post that Green made earlier. It expresses my thoughts on it. You can read it there. Well, it seems that someone has removed my comment, in which I stated that Green had it right. Maybe your comment looks so much like my own voice that I cannot recognize it. Which post was it? Blessings, Green Cochoa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted March 4, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 4, 2016 It was the post where you listed four (4) aspects of your belief. I enclosed it in [ ]s and directly addressed you. I supported what you had stated in that post and suggested it had value that others should consider. Someone has removed. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.