• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Alveda King: Trump Is Leading Civil Rights for Unborn

Scrabaholic said:
Proof that the unborn are not considered equal to the born in the Bible.
Click to expand...

No proof necessary because the bible DOES consider both the UNborn and PREborn exactly the same. No difference which means that both and are exactly the same. If you abort one, or the other, in Gods Eyes, it's murder ant way you look at it!
 
Scrabaholic said:
Proof that the unborn are not considered equal to the born in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Correct many Religions including the Jewish Religion and Mainline Protestant religions put the life of the woman ahead of an unborn.
They believe that before birth and unborn does not yet have a living soul. The living soul ( ensoulment ) happens when the infant takes its first breath.

Scientifically an unborn is alive, but spiritually according to the Bible life begins with live birth.
There are several passages I have quoted from the Bible that teach us that spiritually life begins with the breath of life.
It is when God breaths spiritual life into a newborns body. Thats why it is referred to as the breath of life.


Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.

Living soul.



We receive the living soul at birth.

This Wiki link helps explain about a living soul.

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally 'soul', although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] A view is that nephesh relates to 'sentient being' without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh. In Genesis 2:7 the text is that Adam was not given a nephesh but "became a living nephesh." . Nephesh then is better understood as 'person', seeing that Leviticus 21:11 and Numbers 6:6 speak of a 'dead body', which in Hebrew is a nép̄eš mêṯ, a dead nephesh. [4] Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach "spirit" it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality and conscience, as in Job 7:11. [5][6]
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh
 
Last edited:
RamFel said:
No proof necessary because the bible DOES consider both the UNborn and PREborn exactly the same. No difference which means that both and are exactly the same. If you abort one, or the other, in Gods Eyes, it's murder ant way you look at it!
Click to expand...

Then why isn't the punishment the same for a man killing the unborn? Note it says nothing about a woman terminating her own pregnancy.
 
RamFel said:
And that is your Ace in the hole. You can always force my hand. I, at least was able to prove about the bible. The thing is that you can't prove He does not exist, nor that what I said is not true. You say it isn't true. I say it is. Neither one of us can prove our cases. Sounds like an empty win on your part to me.
Click to expand...

Empty win on my part? Interesting.

The burden of proof isn't on me. And we both know that using scripture is impossible to prove that it's origin is supernatural - or actually relevant. I say this because on investigating most posted scriptures, they aren't usually in context to what the story or event is about - when presented in a thread.

In other words people love to pull a sentence out of the Bible to make a point, but when you read the stories around the sentence - it's completely about a different topic and meaning.

My opinion is....

When this topic is discussed in relationship to religions: If a person has a religious convictions then they should be a living example of those convictions, tenets, etc. Nothing has to be said. "It's called walking the walk."
 
joG said:
That is an odd statement. Why should it be impossible to define the human subset of unborns as persons? Why, you could even give them the same rights and protection as other humans much in the same way as was formulated for women, Blacks or LGTBs. Easy, really, just takes time to overcome the bigoted apologists of the old thinking.
Click to expand...

This isn't about bigotry or old thinking. It's about irrational, unrealistic hardships on individuals, communities, and and entire societies.

It's impossible to make personhood an automatic status for the yet to be born because there is a significant number of legal implications that would impact not just those who co-conceived, but entire societies within given jurisdictions. A few years ago I posted about 50 legal ramifications that would potentially bury our court systems.
 
Removable Mind said:
Empty win on my part? Interesting.

The burden of proof isn't on me. And we both know that using scripture is impossible to prove that it's origin is supernatural - or actually relevant. I say this because on investigating most posted scriptures, they aren't usually in context to what the story or event is about - when presented in a thread.

In other words people love to pull a sentence out of the Bible to make a point, but when you read the stories around the sentence - it's completely about a different topic and meaning.

My opinion is....

When this topic is discussed in relationship to religions: If a person has a religious convictions then they should be a living example of those convictions, tenets, etc. Nothing has to be said. "It's called walking the walk."
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I try to live a good religious life but it never lasts very long. I usually fall on my face and all I can do is get up and dust myself off and try again. For the babies.
 
RamFel said:
Yes, you're right. I try to live a good religious life but it never lasts very long. I usually fall on my face and all I can do is get up and dust myself off and try again. For the babies.
Click to expand...

How's that working for you so far - in a YET TO BE BORN forum?

Ain't no babies discussed in these threads. Maybe there needs to be a "Children's Forum" with sub- forums for Infants, Toddlers, Pre-Teen, and Teenagers.
 
Scrabaholic said:
They had cars in Biblical times?

Here, they do not charge if it was something unavoidable and the driver was not under the influence.

If you punch someone and they die, at the least you are charged with manslaughter. In the Biblical verse, the death of the unborn is not treated the same as the born.
Click to expand...

The-Flintstones1.jpg
 
Removable Mind said:
How's that working for you so far - in a YET TO BE BORN forum?

Ain't no babies discussed in these threads. Maybe there needs to be a "Children's Forum" with sub- forums for Infants, Toddlers, Pre-Teen, and Teenagers.
Click to expand...

It's working really well for me, just like it did earlier today. The only thing you won (and I was perfectly willing to let you "think" you won) was the Prove God Exists argument. I just love making you feel superior.
 
RamFel said:
Yes, you're right. I try to live a good religious life but it never lasts very long. I usually fall on my face and all I can do is get up and dust myself off and try again. For the babies.
Click to expand...

That's good.
Since you are religious, try to set a good example and follow your tenets.
What you don't seem to understand is you need to let other religious people follow their religious tenets.

As I posted earlier shortly after Roe v Wade was passed the Baptist Press ran an op-ed praising the ruling:

“Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” read the January 31, 1973, piece by W. Barry Garrett, The Baptist Press’s Washington bureau chief.

Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion if they so choose.

Garrett reassured his readers that the decision had been made not by “a Warren type or ‘liberal’ Supreme Court,” but “a ‘strict constructionist’ court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.”
Click to expand...

When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com
 
Duyourèy
minnie616 said:
That's good.
Since you are religious, try to set a good example and follow your tenets.
What you don't seem to understand is you need to let other religious people follow their religious tenets.

As I posted earlier shortly after Roe v Wade was passed the Baptist Press ran an op-ed praising the ruling:



When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com
Click to expand...

You should never try to change someone's beliefs by trying to lecture them. I really don't like your swooping technique. My basic beliefs are still the same. Shame on you.
 
RamFel said:
Duyourèy

You should never try to change someone's beliefs by trying to lecture them. I really don't like your swooping technique. My basic beliefs are still the same. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

Is that not what you do?

The only difference is that she backs up with verifiable facts and you rely on your beliefs. When you argue points it is more of interpretation of beliefs based on scripture which is subjective .
 
RamFel said:
Duyourèy

You should never try to change someone's beliefs by trying to lecture them. I really don't like your swooping technique. My basic beliefs are still the same. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

I congratulated you on following your beliefs.


You are free to follow your beliefs and I know they are important to you.
My religion is not forbidding your region from following your tenants.

My regions beliefs and tenants are also very important to me.

I just reminded you that the Jewish beliefs ( Jesus was brought up in the Jewish religion ) and other well known religions including Mainline Protestant religions have other tenants regarding reproductive health.
 
minnie616 said:
I congratulated you on following your beliefs.


You are free to follow your beliefs and I know they are important to you.
My religion is not forbidding your region from following your tenants.

My regions beliefs and tenants are also very important to me.

I just reminded you that the Jewish beliefs ( Jesus was brought up in the Jewish religion ) and other well known religions including Mainline Protestant religions have other tenants regarding reproductive health.
Click to expand...

Just remember that life begins at conception, and when lives are ended by proabotionists.
 
RamFel said:
It's working really well for me, just like it did earlier today. The only thing you won (and I was perfectly willing to let you "think" you won) was the Prove God Exists argument. I just love making you feel superior.
Click to expand...

Actually being superior by employing logic, reason, and reality is a tough job, but pto-choice advocates are capable of meeting those challenges. "Superiorly capable!".
 
Removable Mind said:
Actually being superior by employing logic, reason, and reality is a tough job, but pto-choice advocates are capable of meeting those challenges. "Superiorly capable!".
Click to expand...

I think not. Your side still believe it knows what's going on! So many are being given mis-information. I think you have a long way to go!
 
RamFel said:
Duyourèy

You should never try to change someone's beliefs by trying to lecture them. I really don't like your swooping technique. My basic beliefs are still the same. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

download.jpg
 
Removable Mind said:
Actually being superior by employing logic, reason, and reality is a tough job, but pto-choice advocates are capable of meeting those challenges. "Superiorly capable!".
Click to expand...

Exactly.
As year2late has said many times , finger wagging and slut shamming does not help reduce abortion numbers.
Preventing unwanted pregnancies or turning unwanted pregnancies into wanted ones reduces abortions.

Women do not electively abort wanted pregnancies.

Also keeping abortions legal and safe helps to lower abortion numbers.

Countries that ban abortions have higher abortion rates than countries where abortion is legal.
 
Removable Mind said:
Actually being superior by employing logic, reason, and reality is a tough job, but pto-choice advocates are capable of meeting those challenges. "Superiorly capable!".
Click to expand...

[citation needed: the false moniker already demonstrates a lack of logic or reason and a break from reality]
 
RamFel said:
You should never try to change someone's beliefs by trying to lecture them.
Click to expand...
NOT EVEN WHEN A BELIEF (not all of them) IS OBJECTIVELY PROVABLY SO IDIOTIC YOU ROUTINELY BLATHER STUPID LIES? (more below)

RamFel said:
My basic beliefs are still the same.
Click to expand...
WE KNOW. And among them is an Objectively Provable Idiocy, the notion that "human life is special". There is no aspect of biologically human LIFE that is more special than any other type of biological life, like bacteria. Every life-form has the DNA-influenced goal of reproducing as much as possible, and Natural Randomness provides situations in which some life-forms tend to be more successful at doing that than other life-forms. It is possible that dinosaurs would still be overrunning the Earth if it hadn't been for that giant meteor impact. And every life-form that survives is a killer of other life-forms. That includes plants, because they have anti-bacterial immune systems, just as do animals.

The thing that makes a human special is the mind, and that is not a biological thing. The brain is a biological thing, but the mind is something else entirely, and it is possible for a mind to exist entirely independently of biology (otherwise we would cease research into developing True Artificial Intelligences). A living human adult body that is brain-dead and on life-support can accurately qualify as "human life", but is not special. A human hydatidiform mole fully qualifies as "human life" but is not special, Each one of all the cuticle cells that get killed by the hundred during ordinary manicures and pedicures can fully qualify as "human life" but is not special. And every ordinary unborn human qualifies as "human life" but is not special. In every one of those categories/cases each type of human life is, Objectively and Measurably, just a mindless animal, and that is why all those types can be freely killed. And all the idiotic blathering in the world, by "believer" abortion opponents, cannot change those Facts by the slightest iota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom