ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Is the God of the Bible Pro-Life?

Updated on September 14, 2014
Source

An Atheist's Bible Study on the Pro-Life stance

The argument over abortion, the right to choose and pro-life rhetoric has existed for decades, and it doesn't show any sign of letting up soon. The religious right claims their anti-abortion, "pro-life" stance stems from their religious beliefs, but are these beliefs grounded on biblical teachings? Is the god of the bible pro-life, or is he indifferent about the lives of unborn children? What does the bible teach on the sanctity of life, and whether it is ever justified for an innocent life to be taken? The religious right clings to the concept of the sanctity of life (while simultaneously a large number of them also support the death penalty, and some even bomb abortion clinics or assassinate physicians that perform abortion procedures). While it's clear that the bible has nothing to say about abortion, what does it say about the value of human life - particularly innocent life that has not yet been born into the world? As a young person growing up in the church, I was pushed forcibly into pro-life rallies, and our youth group actively participated in protests staged in front of planned parenthood clinics. I saw the look on the young women's faces as they approached, and felt heartbroken that an already difficult position was being made even more difficult when confronted with those protesting their right to choose. As a lot of christians continually push for anti-abortion laws or restrict the availability of legal abortions in many states, they neglect the high cost that their actions ultimately have. They oppose complete sex education in schools, and actively oppose teaching condom use or birth control methods. When they successfully restrict abortion, they do not have any plan of action as to caring for the child when it is brought into the world. That's ultimately the mother's problem. Once the child is born, they feel no sense of responsibility for it. While it remains in the womb, however, they believe that they have the ultimate authority to decide that it stays there - whether the woman wants it there or not.


First, let it be said upfront that being "pro-choice" does not make anyone pro-abortion. I'm an atheist, and I support a woman's right to choose, but I am not fond of the concept of abortion. I do not believe that abortion should be a last-ditch effort at birth control once conception has ever taken place, but I realize that I do not have the right to force that belief on others who are often faced with no other choice. In no other circumstance does the government interfere in medical procedures of this magnitude. They do not force parents to donate blood, organ or tissue to a child - even if refusal will cost the child its life. They do not practice obligatory blood donations in order to save lives. The concept of forcing a woman to carry a baby to term even in extreme cases is absurd to me on a fundamental level, but I digress. This hub explores the biblical evidence for a pro-life god, and that's what it will demonstrate from this point forward.



Source

Are These Passages Familiar to You?

See results

Biblical Reference

Hosea 9:11-16
This passage is a prophet calling out to god, begging god to trigger miscarriages within the womb. He pleads repeatedly for the lord to not let their children be born, that the entire tribe perish due to disobedience. Should children be born, he entreats the lord to allow the children to be murdered. He also begs the lord to stop loving this tribe and ensure that, again, they shall have no surviving children due to a plague of god-induced miscarriages among the women so that the line of the tribe eventually ceases to exist.

Hosea 13:16
This passage continues upon the previous passages curse, this time the rage is focused on Samaria. The "prophecy" commands that infants should be thrown onto the rocks, and goes a step further - mandating that the pregnant women among them should be "ripped up" and the unborn child literally ripped from the womb by the sword.

Numbers 5:11-21 -
this passage sounds more like a pagan spell than a passage out of the bible. If a man is jealous of his wife and even suspects that she has been unfaithful to him, he is to drag her to the priest - who then performs a strange and disturbing ritual. First the man brings a jealousy offering for the priest. The priest then mixes a bunch of bitter herbs (and at the time this was written there were known herbs that induced a miscarriage so that a child would not be brought to term) and puts dirt from the temple floor into a glass of water and forces the poor woman to drink it. If she miscarried as a result of this potion - there is really nothing else to call it - then it was a sign that she was guilty of cheating on her husband, and she would surely be put to death. The note-worthy parts of this passage is that is not reserved to husbands that KNOW that their wife has been unfaithful. This passage speaks directly to the fact that the husband has no proof, the woman was not caught in the act. He merely suspects her, and because of that suspicion, she is forced to go through this bizarre ritual that harkens my memory back to the medieval days of "trial by ordeal". If nothing happens, then the person must be innocent. If the natural spell does its work correctly, however, they are surely guilty and must be put to death. I wonder how many truly innocent women were forced to drink this priestly concoction only to have it do what it was supposed to do - and were therefore put to death over nothing more than a simple suspicion.

Numbers 31:17-18
In other words, kill everything that is male or not a virgin. The virgins can live - but only to survive in sexual slavery forever. That sounds like a great deal to me. These verses are direct commands from god to the Israelite people. God allows them to "keep for themselves" all o the virgins - but everyone else from infants to adults is to be put to death.

1 Kings 15:16This is a king that was angry that cities would not submit to him, so he slaughtered everyone inside the city - guilty, innocent or otherwise and ripped open the bellies of all of the pregnant women he found inside.

1 Samuel 15:3
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"

This chapter goes on to say that Saul did NOT do as the lord commanded. He spared some of the animals from the prescribed slaughter, and because of that god removed him from his post as king, for "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" vs 22 I've left the verse intact because it is an edict from god himself. Not only are all the people to be slaughtered (including the infants) but even the animals are not to be spared.

Leviticus 20:9
This is a god-prescribed death sentence for anyone of any age who curses his mother and/or father - and their own blood will be upon their heads - not the people who did the killing.

Leviticus 26:29-30
God's soul will abhor them - and he will force them to do despicable things - like eating the flesh of their own children.

Judges 11:30-40, Jepthah bargains with god to offer the first thing to great him upon his return home as a burnt offering in exchange for god giving him victory in battle. What comes to great him but his only daughter - and after morning her virginity for a brief period of time, Jepthah offers her as a burnt offering to the lord, in accordance with his promise.

2 Kings 2:23-24
The prophet was leaving and going from one place to another place. Along the way, 42 children (the translation in the KJV is very specific) decided to taunt the prophet. They called him "bald-headed". Due to their taunting, the prophet cursed them in the name of the lord (my, wasn't he sensitive). The lord then turned around and sent 2 she-bears out of the woods, and all 42 children were slaughtered and mauled. What does the next verse say? Nothing about the rampant slaughter or injustice of killing children over name-calling. The prophet left - and went somewhere else.

Deuteronomy 22:18-21
If two parents have a child who is disobedient and rebellious and they do not listen to them sufficiently (and obey them, is the inference) then they are to go to the elders of the city, relay the story - and then every person in the city is to drag the child to the edge of town - and stone them to death.

Exodus 12:29
God kills the firstborn of all of Egypt - from the firstborn son of Pharaoh himself to the firstborn of the prisoner inside of the prison - unless you have slaughtered a lamb and smeared its blood all over your door frame first.

Isaiah 13:15-18
This passage consists of a prophet making a predication about people. They are about to be conquered by a foreign power, and the prophet states explicitly that silver and gold are not the motivation for the attack. They will go into the fight wishing to "ravish" the women, slaughter all of the adults by the sword and have their children thrown upon the rocks to their death. The prophet also mentions that the attackers will have no pity for the young or innocent ones - the children will be subject to the same ill treatment of the adults - death, due to the will of a vengeful and angry god.

Jeremiah 11:22-23
This is the lord himself supposedly speaking through the voice (or the pen) of the prophet Jeremiah. Every year, the lord will bring evil upon them and punish them for their misdeeds. He will cause famine, attack and brutality on an epic scale.

Jeremiah 19:7-9
Here, the lord wishes to bring condemnation upon an entire city because of their disobedience and ingratitude. He's going to rain plagues upon the city so great that it will be talked about by everyone who has the misfortune of passing by. The dead bodies will be left to rot, and all of the various animals will pick through the bones and eat the remnants. The lord will force the people into such desperation that they will have no other choice but to eat the flesh of their own children or their friends or family members.

Israel

Source

Conclusion

So is the god of the bible pro-life? It's quite clear from these passages (and many others) that the biblical ideal of god has no regard for life - not the lives of adults, or the lives of children - even children still in the womb. He has no problem ordering the slaughter of children and has no problem with bringing force nature (like bears) or famine to wipe entire peoples out. He orders slaughter on massive scales and when his orders are not obeyed, disaster is the end result. He is a merciless and unjust tyrant who revels in the blood of the victims that disobeyed him.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Joseph041167 profile image

      Joseph Mitchell 3 years ago from Nashville TN 37206.

      Good job, you did great again, sitting here studying some of your material tonight. I was also raised up in the church, in the parsonage actually, of a quite conservative evangelical denomination based upon historical Methodism. My particular denomination, in their Constitution, allow for abortion in certain situations. I guess they were mid. to right, but not real far right, and I guess that is sort of where I am today on these issues, which is pretty much identical to Mitt Romney's postion on it. The Bible never directly spoke up on abortion. The Natural Order allows for abortion. Abortion occurs naturally in the biological kingdom, including homo sapiens, all of the time. Just now, I am reaching a place where I am questioning Naturalistic Morals, and the Natural Order, as problematic and less than Ideal, and the possibility of reaching a higher standard, but I am still working on it. The last 5 years I identify with the Secular Right. I am not a Christian anymore and that is another book coming.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      Re. "No peer review"... Yes. But there's a better one. It's something on the lines of humans not being perfect. (Although, I'm not sure about the rules for Atheists; perhaps you claim you are? ...Anyhow, there is a line somewhere below perfect and above barely any good. I would describe as "Good Enough", and once again, I refer you to the analogy of the parent letting the child be free without strict supervision. The Bible is to be over simplistic stories of peoples accounts, like the neighbours and news items warning that terrible things can happen in cirtain situations, under certain circumstances.

      The Parent to a child, some-one; a psychologist (Gestalt, I think!) wrote/said that to children, a parent is a huge force that knows everything. (though it seems adolescence allows that to start to be questioned. And in adulthood, with a bit of luck, we come to understand the reasons why our parents did or said certain things..)

      The neighbours were teaching, so that I might beware more of the dangers, and know that they weren't making these rules out of cruelty or unfairness.

      Suppose for a minute God ordered the deaths of whoever. If we are more than material beings (ie. The spiritual side) then death is merely 'home time' ("Twilight Years" are said to be old age. Is that an Otracity, or merely a different route home???)

      Finally, there is the school of thought that suggests we choose our own life. In this scenario some-one has considered it necessary to their learning to suffer. To not allow them to know what this is like could be considered more cruel! -Like the child being smacked because s/he put their hand too close to the burning stove. Those who are against smacking seem to think it is better to allow the child to burn their hand! -What do you make of that so far?

    • profile image

      Deepes Mind 4 years ago

      I thought you might like that answer

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      lol something like that.

    • profile image

      Deepes Mind 4 years ago

      No peer review??

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      agreed. If certain parts of the bible are based from man and not from god, how do you differentiate between the god-bits and the human bits? If god is not commanding genocide, then who is - and how did it make its way into a "holy" book that is claimed by millions to be the true, unchanging and infallible word of god?

    • profile image

      Deepes Mind 4 years ago

      That is a slippery slope.

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      I also wrote a hub on Judas that you may find interesting. I believe that it's called "examining biblical villians: Judas" You might want to check it out. We may agree.

      So when the bible says that god is speaking, ordering these specific acts, just to be clear, you are claiming that this is not from god at all?

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      No, people order genocide. If you read again my metaphor. God as a Parent, if you will. Parents have to let their children play out sometimes, it's hard for them to watch us (as children) all the time. Not absent, just allowing us to tend to our own affairs whilst we're out. Neighbours helped to look for me when I was away from where I said I would be, or /and out for too long. If I had not have been lucky that night on the swings. It would not have been my parent/s committing the otrocities -or God for that matter. But the dodgy people who came over and tried to persuade me to go off with them!

      As far as belief goes, there were readers who helped create a very good discussion on my hub. Was Judas Forgiven? I think this may go some way to answer some of your valid question/s. If you wish, we can continue the discussion here on your Hub, or start a forum if you prefer.

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      I've read the new testament numerous times, and I find it just as immoral. The doctrine of eternal hell for finite "crimes" (if disbelief is a crime) and substitutionarry atonement are repugnant to me.

      If you believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, and the god of the bible does not change (Malachi 3:6) his orders are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He saw fit to order genocide on massive scales - unless you're saying that the bible is wrong and that men ordered those atrocities and god was just...absent...when those parts of the bible were added.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      I know what you're saying. But 1. it is more blind trust in leaders who will say anything to keep order. Or at least, I thought that at first.

      It has now occurred to me that As a Parent, you must give your children a certain amount of freedom. Otherwise how will they ever learn to fend for themselves or be themselves etc. I am not a parent, but I remember as a child. The rule for me was come back before it gets dark. So whenever it started getting twilight I had to head home. (A very fair rule. In fact it brought jealousy from peers who said I was spoilt as they had to be in at 9pm etc.

      Having said that there were times when I flouted this rule -for whatever reason. I remember it being instilled that these rules were there to protect me. I was shown news items, neighbours spoke of incidents they knew about of children going out and never coming home. It was the time of the Moors Murders and I have a faint memory which I needn't go into. Suffice to say that I think I was lucky once. Refusing to go home after dark, playing on swings. Suffice to say I was lucky!

      My point is it is not God that is carrying out these otrocities but people. God is merely trying to warn us all that he's put rules in place that are necessary, and we ignore them at our own risk!

      Incidentally, I am wondering. Have you read The New Testament about Jesus etc., or just the Old one?

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      day's leaper - but the Israelite god wasn't smacking his people in the large majority of these verses (although he did so regularly). He gave the Israelites a promised land - but the land was already populated by other people. He then ordered them to slaughter everybody there - and he hardened the hears (according to scripture) of the native people so the Israelites COULD slaughter them. He ordered them to kill every man, woman and child - and rip unborn fetuses from the womb of the pregnant women. the upside, however, is that if a woman was a virgin, sometimes she could be spared in order to become a sex slave. No matter how you try to slice it, these actions are NOT moral. These people worshiped a different god - the only god(s) that they knew. So they were punished for not believing in something that they didn't even know existed?

      If your child misbehaved and didn't come home when they were told to, sure you might punish them. But would you slaughter them? Would you stone your son or burn your daughter alive because they disobeyed you?

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      Hub Author: re. "..not kill unless I say so.", that's a tough one. If it goes beyond interpretation then it's like this. ( I think ):-

      Things have a time to come and go. We none of us can be certain of when we go or how. In many respects it can be reassuring to know that there is one superior, invincible being controlling this that "we" as individuals go back home at a certain time. It's like this. As children we are told as parents what time to come home. If it is 9 o'clock and we aren't back they may be cross, and we can lose privelledges. This discomfort is necessary in order that order is maintained. If we were allowed to return home any time we liked. Our parents would worry, stay up all hours til we returned. Pull their hair out if we didn't etc. There must therefore be an established order of things. As you may know/remember this is hard enough to instill in one child, let alone thousands, millions of children. A smack from a parent therefore could be considered a "necessary evil".

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      Furthermore, You mentioned Hitler - who was a catholic, and was never excommunicated from the catholic church. Stalin was a graduate from seminary. Also "saved' is Ted Bundy - one of the most notorious serial killers of all time. It would appear that these people may just be in heaven after all - unless you're going to claim to be god and determine that they weren't really "saved" after all.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      depends on The Atheist, 2. Is it God or peoples interpretation that makes "God" seem judgemental etc. -By interpretation, even the people of an all be it much darker time could've been tricked -no matter how well meaning they were at trying to get things right. I think, my hub "Was Judas forgiven" may help you see not all are the same. Not all that call themselves Christian are really.

      Ever heard the Les Dawson joke about his Uncle who tried every belief system "He tried being an Atheist, but he gave it up as he was getting no holidays!" -very clever man was Les.

      (sorry, don't know how to make the blue link writing happen..)

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      You don't seem to understand that you can discuss something and have an interest in studying it without needing to believe in it. It happens all of the time. I'm fascinated with history, and if you want to study the history of the west, you are by default required to study the religion that permeated it. I don't have to believe in the bible to be able to reference it. I read the original languages. I still read it to this day, but I don't believe in it.

      As far as personal attacks, you take the bar. "Seems you weren't paying much attention when you were in that Christian college. Seems you have a lot of problems with paying attention and putting words in people's mouths"

      Seems to me like you are unable to come up with sufficient explanations for these horrific and immoral acts, other than to say that these people deserved mass-slaughter because they worshiped a different god. Fine. If you can't have an honest conversation without resorting to assumptions and circular logic and ad hominem attacks, you can feel free to take your comments elsewhere.

      The definition of atheism from the latin, if you were interested is simply "without theism". I lack a belief in a god. Ironically, early christians were called atheists by the romans, since they did not believe in the roman pantheon of deities - they were without theism. I have never in my life made the assertion that I know for certain that there are no gods, and that is an assumption that YOU are making. You seem fascinated with pointing out my "mistakes" while making identical ones yourself. For you to say "and therefore know beyond any doubt there is no God (definition of an atheist)" just proves that, although I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone else, I am at least better at definitions than you are.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      I wasn't addressing you when I referred to name calling - I thought there was a comment by someone else calling me ignorant - did you delete it? If I am mistaken forgive me.

      I made no assumptions at all about atheists and you are just putting words in my mouth - your characterization of what I said is totally false - the definition of atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I said nothing that is inconsistent with the definition.

      I never said that you "have no knowledge with which to base this discussion." You just made that up and then claim I keep saying it. How can you be reasoned with if you don't even hear what I say, let alone make it up.

      My point is this, you trying to define God when you don't even believe he exists is like me trying to define Santa Claus. What part of doesn't exist don't you understand (when it is your own belief)?

      Now if you weren't an atheist but wanted to understand things you read in the Bible that don't seem to make sense but are willing to be objective and to consider all explanations especially from those who have dedicated their lives to serving God there could be some justification to discussing this hub's premise. But to come from the point of view that you have already exhausted all posibilities of investigation into the existense of God and therefore know beyond any doubt there is no God (definition of an atheist) brings into question your motivation for speculating on what a "god" who doesn't exist thinks.

      If God doesn't exist why would any of this even matter to you? As a member of a tiny minority in the US and even the world (Atheists consist of less than 3% of the US population) if there is no God, what would it benefit you to convince everyone that there is no God? What would it benefit anyone that you convert...they're just going to die eventually and disappear from existence as if they never lived a day, same thing will happen to you, so why would you even wish to speculate on what a figment of other people's imagination might believe in? That even sounds nuts! Appears to me you have an obsession with God and are still trying to prove to yourself (and persuade others for their validatation) he doesn't exist.

      Every question you bring up has a viable answer but you choose not to see it. The Bible explains that phenomenon too, but I won't bother to site scripture to you since you have studied it all and deem yourself more knowledgeable than the leading theological scholars of all time. (what looney's they must be). And when I said taking scripture out of context I meant the context of the entire Bible - you can only understand the meaning of a subject by investigating the use of all scriptures throughout the old and new testament relating to it. You did not do that, you even left out the 6th commandment not to mention the scriptures I gave you on babies in the womb. Seems you weren't paying much attention when you were in that Christian college. Seems you have a lot of problems with paying attention and putting words in people's mouths.

      If I were an atheist, I would care less about all those fairytales that other people believe - they have to be nuts to live their lives believing the lie that there is a God, judgement, salvation, and a heaven and hell and even though they out number me billions to one, an atheist is smarter than every one of them.

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      Firstly, I have not called you any names.

      Secondly, you're making a lot of blatant assumptions about atheists, and the irony is not lost on me. You say I have no business discussing things from the Bible because I don't believe in it, when I've told you that I uses to be a Christian and a theology student at a prestigious Christian college. I did not forget everything I knew when I became an atheist. So you continually say that I have no knowledge with which to base this discussion, but then turn around and assert things about atheists when you aren't one. By your own standards, you should not be able to say anything about atheists since you aren't one, and you couldn't possibly understand, right? That is what you're saying about me, isn't it?

      I call divine command to enter into an already populated land and slaughter everything living from adults to infants and unborn children to livestock unjustified murder by your own definition. Your argument fails again.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      If an atheist doesn't believe in God or that the Bible is his word how can he use it to make any argument about what something that is non existent believes? - that is just totally illogical - your only argument is that there is no God so he can't be pro life - he doesn't exist. So don't call me names when I'm simply pointing out the truth.

      The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts. In order to maintain His righteousness, God must judge sin - everything that goes against His character. If God let everyone into heaven, then He would have to allow in people such as Stalin and Hitler. Obviously, heaven would not be a good place to be with the likes of those people there. Therefore, God's righteousness requires the judgment of all sin. Only those people who agree with God and are willing to allow themselves to be changed into sinless beings can enter into heaven.

      You see, and even the Bible tells you, you can'tunderstandthe Bible or God unless you first believe that he is. Of course an atheist cannot even understand that let alone go beyond it (since he doesn't believe in God) but you would think that if an atheist can't believe in a make believe book about a nonexistant "God" he'dhavebetter things to do than analyze a make believe book about a non existent God.

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      tsadjatko -

      your argument fails on another level as well. The bible is clear that striking and killing another person warrants the death penalty (see Exodus 21:12)

      When a fetus is killed in the womb, however, a fine is imposed - not a death sentence.

      "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine." Exodus 21:22

      It's clear by these verses that god views a fetus in the womb differently than he views a born, living breathing person.

    • JMcFarland profile image
      Author

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      How can you possibly say that the god of the bible commands not to murder when he turns around and orders people to slaughter everything living in practically the entire land of Canaan - and then comes out and admits that people fought against the Israelite army in the first place was because he hardened their hearts so they could be slaughtered entirely? Thou shalt not kill - until I order you to, and then it becomes good and moral because it's divine command.

      Here's the thing. You can discount the word of a self-professed atheist all you want, but I wasn't always an atheist. I grew up a christian, went to christian bible college and ultimately learned the original languages so I could read/study the bible for myself. To assume otherwise is nothing more than arrogance. I'm not explaining the "meaning" of these scriptures? I think they're all blatantly clear. I'm not snatching things out of context - I've even included the surrounding verses in many cases. Your argument fails.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 4 years ago from england

      tsadjatko: You have strong views. The choice to kill is different from the guidance / law or ability not to. I think you're right in pointing out the frailties of the original question. And highlight the arrogance of women, and the do what you want /anything goes culture. I don't however, feel that I am qualified to speak any further on this. The bible is interpreted and used in many ways. It gets bashed about or thrashed out all over the place. To my thinking different measures for different situations in time. 'Horses for courses' if you like.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Yeah, an atheist is going to present the meaning of quotes from the Bible - that makes real sense. Only an atheist would try to make a case for something from a book that he believes is make believe to start.

      God, creator of the universe gave us the commandments not the least of which is thou shalt not murder. That is the only scripture anyone needs to know to determine how God feels about abortion which is murder of a human being. If you wish to give a woman the choice to murder a human being in the womb, why not allow anyone to murder - it is their choice isn't it?

      The Bible makes no moral distinction between born children and unborn children. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/biblical_teaching/ If that's not good enough for you look at science.

      Fetologists and medical researchers have long recognized the four behavioral states of the pre-born infant that parallel the newborn: 1F (quiet sleep), 2F (active state), 3F (quiet awake), and 4F (active awake). State 5 for newborns, i.e., crying, has not been considered to have a pre-born correlate. However, in a study assessing the effects of exposure to tobacco and cocaine during pregnancy on fetal response to acoustic stimulation, researchers report what appears to be “crying behavior” by the pre-born infant. These behaviors, seen on ultrasound and captured on video recordings, include: an initial exhalation movement associated with mouth opening and tongue depression, followed by a series of three augmented breaths, the last breath ending in an inspiratory pause, followed by an expiration and settling. Researchers believe that these behaviors suggest the possibility of a state 5F (Gingras, et al., 2005). This research will not be welcomed by the pro-abortion forces of America, since it provides yet another piece of mounting evidence that suggests the pre-born infant is fully human. Fully human, justlike the creator of the universe says in his Word.

    • profile image

      Deepes Mind 4 years ago

      This is an interesting perspective