Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,477 Year: 3,734/9,624 Month: 605/974 Week: 218/276 Day: 58/34 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion questions...?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 119 of 403 (601886)
01-24-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Briterican
01-24-2011 5:32 PM


Re: God commanded a very very very late term abortion did he not?
Yeah, he's a real card that way
Psalm 137:9 writes:
Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Perhaps it's only when they are actually in the womb that he wants them protected? Oh wait
Hosea 13:16 writes:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2011 5:32 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-24-2011 9:06 PM Iblis has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 121 of 403 (601894)
01-24-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
01-24-2011 9:06 PM


Re: God commanded a very very very late term abortion did he not?
Na, I'm aware of the context. I've known 137 by heart since I was but little. While it rejoiceth in thoughts of future vengeance, it is indeed a prayer rather than a commandment.
Hosea is rather explicit though: "for she hath rebelled against her God".
My point is that these rock and sword "abortions" are things the Allmighty reserves to himself to bring upon people. Can't have us "playing God", yeah?
BTW, why are you fucking with my little bit of context skew when you have people comparing the Akedat to advanced contraception?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-24-2011 9:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 01-24-2011 9:29 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 133 of 403 (602008)
01-25-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by subbie
01-25-2011 2:39 PM


The third one is a legal issue already in many cases, as well. Most commonly it's seen in charges against crack mamas, but I believe there are some laws on the books about alcohol poisoning too.
But none of those 3 is "murder" by any conception, there's no intent to kill even if the fetus were a person. Alcohol-related vehicular homicide sometimes gets treated like murder, but this is bad law. Attempts to criminalize the incidental termination of a pregnancy in the course of an assault on the mother as "murder" would also be bad law, and are specifically being pursued as a "wedge".
Good law respects the traditional definition of murder as intentional homicide of a living breathing person and does not try to fudge this concept in the course of criminalizing other acts.
And that woman who falls down the stairs, wtf? Is that just there for contrast?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by subbie, posted 01-25-2011 2:39 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024