The Abortion Issue

[Blackbeard]

Which one, the protestant version or the catholic version ..Or the one from 1611 or 1648 after they removed some books. which one are you referring too.. which one is the complete and closed one?

 

Man is the author of all.

Lets not forget the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381).

[Gen]

Lets not forget the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381).

Ja nee aye..

[Blackbeard]

Crucifiction was a well documented and common form of death back then. Political rivals, insurgents, radicals, witches, opponents and all sorts were put to death that way. 

 

But, to answer your question, he was declared guilty and sentenced to death by crucifiction by the Jewish leaders of the time, as a radical, essentially (according to my understanding of the matter) Pilate's proclomation of his innocence (however many times he proclaimed it) does not matter. 

Crassus crucified over 6000 rebels who were followers of Spartacus along the Appian Way between Capua and Rome in 71BC.

[Blackbeard]

I am yes, because what you did was lie to make a moment appear different to was it was. For someone who has studied the bible for 5 years you sure did make a really bad mistake

 

And "predicting death by crucifixion" there was no predicting anything..the most common punishment for blasphemy was death..

 

Leviticus 24:13-16 Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

 

 

He knew what he was doing was breaking the law and if arrested that he would be put to death, death sentence at that time was crucifixion.

The allegation that Christ predicted his death is hearsay.

[MrJacques]

An interesting perspective. Francis Beckwith (Defending Life, p. 106) on the argument for abortion on demand in cases of rape/incest:

 

[Edition 507]

An interesting perspective. Francis Beckwith (Defending Life, p. 106) on the argument for abortion on demand in cases of rape/incest:

 

This is a very misleading piece of text. An embryo or fetus is not a child and neither is a child an embryo or fetus. 

During the first 5 weeks of pregnancy a human embryo is indistinguishable from that of a fish, rat, dog ,pig or any other vertebrate (due to the common evolutionary ancestry of all vertebrates). Abortion during this time frame is most common as it is nothing more than popping a pill. To liken having an abortion during this period to killing a child to save the mother is simply irresponsible. Using the words 'kill a child' and 'murder' in the context of abortion is inflammatory and provocative and is designed to incite a highly emotional and irrational response from the reader.

[Shebeen]

All time classic! for the dancing yes, but well then this:

 

 

https://qz.com/quartzy/1576857/dirty-dancing-started-a-dialogue-about-reproductive-rights/

 

 

 

For Bergstein, including such grim details helped remind women watching in the ’80s how lucky they were to have an option for a legal abortion—and how quickly that right could one day be revoked. “When I made the movie in 1987, about 1963, I put in the illegal abortion and everyone said, ‘Why? There was Roe v. Wade―what are you doing this for?’” she said. “I said, ‘Well, I don’t know that we will always have Roe v. Wade.’”

[Andrew Steer]

I've mulled over all of this quite a lot since last Friday... did some good reading too. The vote in Alabama has really brought this back into the spotlight and there are some great reads and views out there.

First up though, I would like to apologize to Robbie

Robbie, I may sit at the complete opposite end of the spectrum to you, but I should also have shown you more respect in our debates - even if I cannot understand or rationalize your views at times. It was Friday, but I'm not really that kind of guy, so I think a lot of it was out of frustration, but regardless, it was petty of me to ridicule you, and for that I can only apologize. 

I will be back with some good reads and viewpoints when I have a gap, this debate is far from over... and my only wish is we all leave it a bit more enlightened and in tune with the realities of this world.

[Edition 507]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/shocking-child-rape-loophole-put-an-end-to-my-childhood/news-story/c2fe3df2824894dce68e3676b087ba34

 

Laws, hey?

These heinous crimes against woman are a direct result of believing in the misogynistic God of the Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

In this so called 'modern' day and age it seems like discriminatory laws against woman are still firmly entrenched in the legal system whereby woman are being denied the right to make their own decisions with regards their body, their sexual health or their general well being!

[Thor Buttox]

These heinous crimes against woman are a direct result of believing in the misogynistic God of the Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

In this so called 'modern' day and age it seems like discriminatory laws against woman are still firmly entrenched in the legal system whereby woman are being denied the right to make their own decisions with regards their body, their sexual health or their general well being!

As someone said the other day, with the tariffs causing all the drama with Adidas and Nike, etc, and the appalling abortion situation, the religious bigots now have their women exactly where they want them - barefoot and pregnant.

 

Which would just be sad, if it wasn't so pitiful.

[Robbie Stewart]

I've mulled over all of this quite a lot since last Friday... did some good reading too. The vote in Alabama has really brought this back into the spotlight and there are some great reads and views out there.

 

First up though, I would like to apologize to Robbie

Robbie, I may sit at the complete opposite end of the spectrum to you, but I should also have shown you more respect in our debates - even if I cannot understand or rationalize your views at times. It was Friday, but I'm not really that kind of guy, so I think a lot of it was out of frustration, but regardless, it was petty of me to ridicule you, and for that I can only apologize. 

 

I will be back with some good reads and viewpoints when I have a gap, this debate is far from over... and my only wish is we all leave it a bit more enlightened and in tune with the realities of this world.

 

Thanks Andrew. I really appreciate your candid honesty. I am humbled by your sentiment, and I wholeheartedly agree with being allowed to debate, in the midst of disagreement. That shows maturity rarely seen, especially on the hub.  I unconditionally accept your apology.

 

Thank you. 

[Robbie Stewart]

So, last night I watched this clip on Youtube.

 

The views expressed are from both sides of the divide, much the same as on this forum. 

In posting this, I am not attacking anyone. 

 

 

[Stretch]

To me it's simple. Abortion rates don't decrease or increase after legalisation or criminalisation... They are just safer. there are hundreds of reputable studies that conclude this. This is not a religious issue.. It's a statistical issue

[Skubarra]

 

 

 

Nothing on the video, just the title - I so wish for the day when Youtube-posters can move on from "X DESTROYS Y!" titles when posting debate videos (especially since 99% of the times X doesn't...)

 

PS Ben Shapiro recent BBC's interview maybe an exception 

[Robbie Stewart]

Nothing on the video, just the title - I so wish for the day when Youtube-posters can move on from "X DESTROYS Y!" titles when posting debate videos (especially since 99% of the times X doesn't...)

 

PS Ben Shapiro recent BBC's interview maybe an exception 

 

I agree. Stupid titles detract from an otherwise discussion-worthy topic. There is no longer space for name calling, as that reduces any constructive debate into anarchy, where the topic is replaced with an agenda about who "wins".

 

I hesitated in posting the clip since last night precisely because of the stupid title, but I do feel the content far outweighs the OP's reason for naming it such, whatever that may be.

[Skubarra]

To me it's simple. Abortion rates don't decrease or increase after legalisation or criminalisation... They are just safer. there are hundreds of reputable studies that conclude this. This is not a religious issue.. It's a statistical issue

 

To illustrate your point - Romania at one staged banned abortion. As usual it will be the poor and vulnerable that will suffer the most from misguided morality enforcement. 

 

"As a last resort, many Romanian women turned to home and back-alley abortions, and by 1989, an estimated 10,000 women had died as a result of unsafe procedures. The real number of deaths might have been much higher, as women who sought abortions and those who helped them faced years of imprisonment if caught. Maternal mortality skyrocketed, doubling between 1965 and 1989."

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/