Originally posted by rhemalogosThat's interesting. However, correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that the God you talk about, approximately 1,400 years ago, indicated quite emphatically that he wanted the original traditions and beliefs of Abraham, Moses, Jesus (and other prophets) restored, and that Jews and Christians had distorted the revelations He had given to these prophets by either introducing false interpretations or altering the texts. Surely this supersedes the 'Old Testament' that you cite in your post? At the very least, doesn't it mean that this confusion needs to be cleared up first before anybody is put to death for killing an unborn child? And wouldn't atheists and agnostics, or people with other superstitions and belief systems, be exempt from the kind of punishment you mention?
God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.
2 edits
Originally posted by rhemalogosrhemalogos: God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.
God is very scientific. Just lookat the reasoning He used when He created the physical universe. We call that reasoning by names like physics, biology and chemistry. God and faith do not contradict science. God is the creator of it. We are only rediscovering God's ways when we discover the mysteries of science.
A human being is not defined as some on eption. God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.
Cite the chapter and verse.
On the contrary, in Exodus 21:22 the OT clearly states that causing a miscarriage isn't murder:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusDeriving morality from evolution may be ridiculous but it happens nonetheless.
To derive morality from evolution is ridiculous.
"Survival of the fittest" (Actually, to put it more correctly it's "survival and reproduction of the adapted enough" but I guess it's less catchy.)
is the natural state of things - but natural does not mean right.
I mean, falling down is natural but you don't see physicists running around shoving peop ionists (/IDists) want to discredit evolution that way. And, well, that's just stupid.
One word my friend that combines science and morality and that is EUGENICS. We get people throughout history like Margret Sanger who thought that the colored population should be encouraged to practice birth control because they seemed inferior intellectually and we would'nt want to propogate inferior genetics now would we?
Originally posted by whodeyHere we go again ......................................
Deriving morality from evolution may be ridiculous but it happens nonetheless.
One word my friend that combines science and morality and that is EUGENICS. We get people throughout history like Margret Sanger who thought that the colored population should be encouraged to practice birth control because they seemed inferior intellectually and we would'nt want to propogate inferior genetics now would we?
Originally posted by MexicoI in no way tried to imply that you were a holocaust supporting nazi for supporting abortion. I was merely making a comparison about an extreme case such as someone who purposefully impregnats themselves as many times as possible with the full intention of having an abortion and then to top it all off records it as art. No matter you moral position concerning abortion I think it to be morally disturbing to even think about doing this just as the holocaust is morally disturbing to think of as happening.
[b]This is in response to Whodey also.
Darwinisim, (incorrect term but the one you used) says nothing about right or wrong, it simply states the facts as seen by evolutionary science. If PEOPLE choose to take this information further and push the survival, thats the choice of those people nothing more. I resent the implication that just because I firmly support modern science, I lack empathy. does this make me a holocaust supporting nazi?
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoSo your morality states that the woman is a human being but not the unborn child so the woman has the right to terminate the "souless" unborn child.
As to the Abortion issue, its all about what you define as a human being, personally I don't believe a ball of cells smaller than my thumbnail is a human being. Any more than the unused eggs from females are humans or the millions of sperm lost when a male masturbates are humans. They are all potential humans, but until the brain develops and awareness kicks in they become aware they're just balls of organic mush.
Edit: I did not use the term lifeless because this is not an accurate description of the unborn child.
Originally posted by whodeyMaking those two things morally equivalent is demented.
I in no way tried to imply that you were a holocaust supporting nazi for supporting abortion. I was merely making a comparison about an extreme case such as someone who purposefully impregnats themselves as many times as possible with the full intention of having an abortion and then to top it all off records it as art. No matter you moral position concerni ...[text shortened]... ven think about doing this just as the holocaust is morally disturbing to think of as happening.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you have an equal moral problem with terminating the life of the germs that cause bad breath?
So your morality states that the woman is a human being but not the unborn child so the woman has the right to terminate the "souless" unborn child.
Edit: I did not use the term lifeless because this is not an accurate description of the unborn child.
Originally posted by whodeyThanks to Quirk's Exception, you're not going to be able wriggle out of this so easily.
No matter you moral position concerning abortion I think it to be morally disturbing to even think about doing this just as the holocaust is morally disturbing to think of as happening.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe question really is when does life become human or more specifically when does it have a "soul", so to speak. I don't think germs have the capacity for having a "soul", however, if you did think this way you would probably feel the same about them.
Do you have an equal moral problem with terminating the life of the germs that cause bad breath?
Originally posted by no1marauderGlad to see you reading your Bible once again. 😉
rhemalogos: God in the Old Testament stated the punishment for killing an unborn child was death.
Cite the chapter and verse.
On the contrary, in Exodus 21:22 the OT clearly states that causing a miscarriage isn't murder:
22 [b]And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet ...[text shortened]... hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Just as a side note, however, I am not sure that abortion and what is being talked about is equivalent in nature. Specifically, I think what is being discussed Biblically is someone accidentally causing someone to miscarry an unborn child verses harming them in order for them to miscarry. I think the spirit of what is being discussed here is accidental verses purposeful termination of the unborn, however, you may disagree.
I have egg on my face. I read Ex 22:21-on years ago and misunderstood it. Thank you for the correction.
BUT, the punishment given to the man who caused the unborn baby's death shows that killing of the baby was wrong. Since it was ACCIDENTAL death, it was manslaughter, not murder, and was not worthy of death.