What is the most realistic/pragmatic way to significantly decrease abortion rates?

Chezanie said:

That is the first time you asked that question.

I have not heard of any incidences where the mother's life was at risk or was found to be at risk after an ultrasound aboard a stork bus. If it was, I am sure they would tell her to go see an OB/GYN.

This is also a very silly question. They would not be a pro-life organization if they recommended abortions for reasons other then life risk. Furthermore, they do not "recommend" the women anything. They just give her the ultrasound she desired.

I have now answered your question.

You have yet to answer mine.

What agenda does the pro-life side have?

Click to expand...

It's at least the 3rd time I've asked you.

And so your organization fulfills all that I believed. It uses manipulation and preying on women to promote the orgs agenda...not the woman's. It does not serve women's best interests, it serves the unborn ONLY.

Most other counseling services provide all the options to women. I've never once heard of an org that only promotes abortion and suggestions that PP does are lies which can be proven by data.

And I have just answered your question.

Chezanie said:

Indeed they do allow it. And they have free will to do what they please. But what they think, and what is moral, are two different things.
....

Click to expand...

I disagree as does the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

[RCRC is unique in the reproductive health, rights and justice movements, because it draws on the moral power of diverse religious communities.

RCRC has proud roots in the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion, the underground network of religious leaders created before Roe v. Wade. These brave people of conscience took risks to ensure that women could have the spiritual counseling they needed, and, if they chose, referral to a safe abortion provider.

Click to expand...

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Chezanie said:

Her need was to see her ultrasound, goof. They helped her with that.

You have not given me any proof that they prey on women's vulnerability. There is none. They do not manipulate the women. They simply give the women the ultrasounds she desires. How is that preying on her vulnerability?

And for the last time, what is this evil "agenda" that Save the Storks seems to have?

Click to expand...

She didnt need to see her ultrasound, she wanted to...enough to subject herself...possibly unknowing...to an agenda that only wishes to serve her unborn and not her.

They manipulate women by offering only one sided information. Dont act like you are dense, God forbid if you actually are.

Lursa said:

And so your organization fulfills all that I believed. It uses manipulation and preying on women to promote the orgs agenda...not the woman's. It does not serve women's best interests, it serves the unborn ONLY.

Most other counseling services provide all the options to women. I've never once heard of an org that only promotes abortion and suggestions that PP does are lies which can be proven by data.

And I have just answered your question.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. You don't seem to be listening to what I have been saying for the last 3 or 4 posts about Save the Storks. They don't "show" any side to anything. They just "show" her the ultrasound she desired. That's all. Non-judgemental. They don't recommend her not to get an abortion, they don't recommend her to get one. They just give her an ultrasound.

You did not answer my question honestly. You made up a false assumption about Save the Storks and answered the false assumption. You have been completely ignoring the vital information I have been giving you in the last 5 posts about the organization, which is that they do not RECOMMEND the women anything, therefor they cannot be BIASED or JUDGEMENTAL. Is that CLEAR enough for you?

So my question that you did not answer is...What agenda does Save the Storks have when they give women ultrasounds, and do not give her any additional input?

Lursa said:

She didnt need to see her ultrasound, she wanted to...enough to subject herself...possibly unknowing...to an agenda that only wishes to serve her unborn and not her.

They manipulate women by offering only one sided information. Dont act like you are dense, God forbid if you actually are.

Click to expand...

I see you are just going to continue to dig yourself deeper in a pit that you made yourself about Save the Storks, so I will just quit trying to rescue you now and let the dirt cave in on you.

For the last time, they do not offer her any information. Only the ultrasound. Nothing else. If you have a problem with it, take it somewhere else and quit lying about how they "manipulate" women.

Chezanie said:

I see you are just going to continue to dig yourself deeper in a pit that you made yourself about Save the Storks, so I will just quit trying to rescue you now and let the dirt cave in on you.

For the last time, they do not offer her any information. Only the ultrasound. Nothing else. If you have a problem with it, take it somewhere else and quit lying about how they "manipulate" women.

Click to expand...

Chezanie said:

Hmmmm. You don't seem to be listening to what I have been saying for the last 3 or 4 posts about Save the Storks. They don't "show" any side to anything. They just "show" her the ultrasound she desired. That's all. Non-judgemental. They don't recommend her not to get an abortion, they don't recommend her to get one. They just give her an ultrasound.

You did not answer my question honestly. You made up a false assumption about Save the Storks and answered the false assumption. You have been completely ignoring the vital information I have been giving you in the last 5 posts about the organization, which is that they do not RECOMMEND the women anything, therefor they cannot be BIASED or JUDGEMENTAL. Is that CLEAR enough for you?

So my question that you did not answer is...What agenda does Save the Storks have when they give women ultrasounds, and do not give her any additional input?

Click to expand...

They dont talk to the woman at all? No counseling? I call BS. Even the way the image is described can be highly biased. My opinion of their agenda remains the same. Where do they get their funding?

Nevermind, you are lying outright:

REVOLUTIONIZING THE MEANING OF PRO-LIFE

We often reminisce and tell stories of the early days of Save the Storks when we were broke on fundraising tours, pleading with people to believe in our dream.

We survived on $3 per meal and slept in the back of our gutted Mercedes Benz Sprinter van. We wanted people to catch the vision of saving lives through free ultrasounds on a mobile medical unit. This Stork Bus would be owned and operated by local pregnancy clinics across the country, bridging the gap between women and the abundant free resources available to her in her local community. Save the Storks was officially founded in 2012 by Joe and Ann Baker. The journey since has been a crazy one.

Through our partnership with pregnancy centers, we provide the tools and resources they need to get closer to those who need their services. Our Stork Bus minimizes the distance between pro-life professionals and the women who most need them. Additionally, our consulting packages help pregnancy centers understand how to better utilize their staff and resources to reach a greater number of women.

We recognized the need to equip pregnancy centers through more than just mobile ministry. We developed consulting services for pregnancy centers to teach them how to more efficiently and effectively serve their communities.

Our desire is to help pregnancy resource centers equip and empower women to choose life. We want to spread innovation, creativity, and vision to promote a culture of life in the United States.

Create innovative ways to engage and serve women and children
Equip grassroots leaders with strategies and tools to provide love, compassion and action

Our Story - Save the Storks

Joe Baker is the Founder and CEO of Save the Storks. Born in Montana, Joe grew up in Philadelphia, although he says that his heart has always been in the west. His focus in college was on counseling and Biblical studies. Joe and his wife, Ann, started Save the Storks together before moving to Colorado Springs in 2013.

Joe Baker - Save the Storks

Just reading this you can see these people manipulate the truth better than most politicians.

minnie616 said:

The fine was for the miscarriage/stiilbirth.

If the pregnant woman was harmed than it was an eye for eye, a life for her life.

Click to expand...

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."

Let us break this down.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined."

"There is no harm" meaning to the woman or the child - the fine is because he hit her and risked injury to the mother and her child.

"But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life..."

It is obviously talking about harm to either the mother or the child, or both in this sentence, because it referred to both in the sentence before.

People can interpret the verse the way they want to, to fit whatever they think is correct. But what they think is "correct" in this case, which is the assumption that the verse claims that God believes the unborn do not have equal rights to the born regarding their lives - is in contradiction to the rest of the Bible, which clearly states that the unborn child is alive, has a soul, and is important to God.

And it also states that murder is wrong. And abortion falls under every definition of murder by the definitions He gave in the Bible.

Here are some verses about the unborn:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Luke 1:43-44 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

Lursa said:

Nevermind, you are lying outright:

REVOLUTIONIZING THE MEANING OF PRO-LIFE

Click to expand...

I am IMPRESSED. You actually researched them up. Good for you.

"We often reminisce and tell stories of the early days of Save the Storks when we were broke on fundraising tours, pleading with people to believe in our dream."

They were pleading with people who could help them raise money so that they could save lives. This has nothing to do with manipulating women.

"We survived on $3 per meal and slept in the back of our gutted Mercedes Benz Sprinter van. We wanted people to catch the vision of saving lives through free ultrasounds on a mobile medical unit. This Stork Bus would be owned and operated by local pregnancy clinics across the country, bridging the gap between women and the abundant free resources available to her in her local community. Save the Storks was officially founded in 2012 by Joe and Ann Baker. The journey since has been a crazy one."

Nothing about this paragraph claims they manipulate women out of abortions onboard a Stork Bus.

"Through our partnership with pregnancy centers, we provide the tools and resources they need to get closer to those who need their services. Our Stork Bus minimizes the distance between pro-life professionals and the women who most need them. Additionally, our consulting packages help pregnancy centers understand how to better utilize their staff and resources to reach a greater number of women."

They "offer" the pregnancy center services to women if they desire them, I am sure. Not force them on them. Nothing manipulative here.

"We recognized the need to equip pregnancy centers through more than just mobile ministry. We developed consulting services for pregnancy centers to teach them how to more efficiently and effectively serve their communities."

They developed them - awesome. Nothing I see manipulative here.

"Our desire is to help pregnancy resource centers equip and empower women to choose life. We want to spread innovation, creativity, and vision to promote a culture of life in the United States."

That is there desire. They are pro-life. There is no surprise here. But the motives that they may have does not mean that they are judgemental and biased towards the women that come onboard their buses.

"Create innovative ways to engage and serve women and children
Equip grassroots leaders with strategies and tools to provide love, compassion and action"

Is there something wrong with this sentence?

"Our Story - Save the Storks

Joe Baker is the Founder and CEO of Save the Storks. Born in Montana, Joe grew up in Philadelphia, although he says that his heart has always been in the west. His focus in college was on counseling and Biblical studies. Joe and his wife, Ann, started Save the Storks together before moving to Colorado Springs in 2013.

Joe Baker - Save the Storks"


You do realize you just owned yourself? Everything the founders say here proves you wrong about your preconceived notions of how they secretly want to take advantage of women and bla bla bla bla like that. Sounds like they care a lot about women to me.

His focus was on counseling - I am quite sure he will offer the women counseling if they desire. But offering the women that is not manipulation. You have a screwed up definition.

You should be happy they shed themselves in such an honest light. They said exactly what they wanted, why they were doing it, and where they hoped to be, and what their story was.

I was not lying at all. Nothing that the Save the Storks founders wrote here has to do with trying to persuade them out of abortions and exploit their vulnerability. They give them free ultrasounds and offer counseling services to them if they so desire.

But whatever. It doesn't really matter what I say, because you are blind to the truth that YOU yourself just posted right here. ^ But I am sure you will dig through the dregs of the barrel extremely hard to bring up any sort of dirt on them.

You need to let go of your hate for the pro-life side and groups like Save the Storks, and actually try to understand where they are coming from. They care a lot about both women and the unborn.

Chezanie said:

They were pleading with people who could help them raise money so that they could save lives. This has nothing to do with manipulating women. Lursa=:doh

"We survived on $3 per meal and slept in the back of our gutted Mercedes Benz Sprinter van. We wanted people to catch the vision of saving lives through free ultrasounds on a mobile medical unit. This Stork Bus would be owned and operated by local pregnancy clinics across the country, bridging the gap between women and the abundant free resources available to her in her local community. Save the Storks was officially founded in 2012 by Joe and Ann Baker. The journey since has been a crazy one."

Nothing about this paragraph claims they manipulate women out of abortions onboard a Stork Bus.

"Through our partnership with pregnancy centers, we provide the tools and resources they need to get closer to those who need their services. Our Stork Bus minimizes the distance between pro-life professionals and the women who most need them. Additionally, our consulting packages help pregnancy centers understand how to better utilize their staff and resources to reach a greater number of women."

They "offer" the pregnancy center services to women if they desire them, I am sure. Not force them on them. Nothing manipulative here.

"We recognized the need to equip pregnancy centers through more than just mobile ministry. We developed consulting services for pregnancy centers to teach them how to more efficiently and effectively serve their communities."

Nothing I see manipulative here.

"Our desire is to help pregnancy resource centers equip and empower women to choose life. We want to spread innovation, creativity, and vision to promote a culture of life in the United States."

That is there desire. They are pro-life. There is no surprise here. But the motives that they may have does not mean that they are judgemental and biased towards the women that come onboard their buses.

"Create innovative ways to engage and serve women and children
Equip grassroots leaders with strategies and tools to provide love, compassion and action"

Is there something wrong with this sentence?

"Our Story - Save the Storks

Joe Baker is the Founder and CEO of Save the Storks. Born in Montana, Joe grew up in Philadelphia, although he says that his heart has always been in the west. His focus in college was on counseling and Biblical studies. Joe and his wife, Ann, started Save the Storks together before moving to Colorado Springs in 2013.

Joe Baker - Save the Storks"


You do realize you just owned yourself? Everything the founders say here proves you wrong about your preconceived notions of how they secretly want to take advantage of women and bla bla bla bla like that. Sounds like they care a lot about women to me.

His focus was on counseling - I am quite sure he will offer the women counseling if they desire. But offering the women that is not manipulation. You have a screwed up definition.

You should be happy they shed themselves in such an honest light. They said exactly what they wanted, why they were doing it, and where they hoped to be, and what their story was.

But whatever. It doesn't really matter what I say, because you are blind to the truth that YOU yourself just posted right here. ^ But I am sure you will dig through the dregs of the barrel extremely hard to bring up any sort of dirt on them.

You need to let go of your hate for the pro-life side and groups like Save the Storks, and actually try to understand where they are coming from. They care a lot about both women and the unborn.

Click to expand...

You read what you want to read, you seem highly susceptible to that. Based on the religious foundation of the org alone, I know you are not being honest.

There's no hate from me...just calling a spade a spade. I understand exactly where they are coming from: offer a woman anything, tell her anything, as long as she keeps the baby. In other words, her life and her needs and her responsibilities matter less than producing another 'child of God.' Manipulating vulnerable women by producing and providing only one side of the story when it comes to her options.

I'm not remotely lying or owned: I'm willing to bet that Baker and his wife NEVER discuss abortion as an option for women if their lives arent in danger and likely wont fund or work with any pregnancy center that does. That's just plain manipulative and valuing the unborn more than the women. It completely disrespects women's lives in their entirety...just provide resources so she'll produce the kid, it doesnt matter the long term effects on the womens' lives.

I really dont think you understand the meaning of the word 'manipulate.' They are promoting a "culture of life" for the unborn only...certainly not for women.

Lursa said:

I understand exactly where they are coming from: offer a woman anything, tell her anything, as long as she keeps the baby. In other words, her life and her needs and her responsibilities matter less than producing another 'child of God.' Manipulating vulnerable women by producing and providing only one side of the story when it comes to her options.

Click to expand...

If that is where you think they are coming from, you do not know them at all. The organization doesn't have enough money as far as I know to offer her needs like housing, schooling, etc. They can only take care of some of her emotional needs, (the counseling) if she so desires.

And you do realize you are being hypocritical? I don't believe Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics take care of her housing or schooling needs. They also would never refer her to a Crisis Pregnancy Clinic, just like how Save the Storks would never refer her to Planned Parenthood.

Sounds like fairness to me.

They are pro-life. The women know this. They are not being manipulated. Why do you think they would give her the other side of the story - which only has one option. Abortion? They are against abortion. That's the whole point of being pro-life. They clearly say they are against it.

Just because someone is against one option out of several does not mean that they don't care about women at all. You need a reality check.

Just because they can't take care of all her needs doesn't mean they are biased, judgemental, and don't care about women. It just means they can't do it. I am sure if they could do more for women, they would. If you want to see them do that, I suggest you start donating to them.

Chezanie said:

If that is where you think they are coming from, you do not know them at all. The organization doesn't have enough money as far as I know to offer her needs like housing, schooling, etc. They can only take care of some of her emotional needs, (the counseling) if she so desires.

And you do realize you are being hypocritical? I don't believe Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics take care of her housing or schooling needs. They also would never refer her to a Crisis Pregnancy Clinic, just like how Save the Storks would never refer her to Planned Parenthood.

Sounds like fairness to me.

They are pro-life. The women know this. They are not being manipulated. Why do you think they would give her the other side of the story - which only has one option. Abortion? They are against abortion. That's the whole point of being pro-life. They clearly say they are against it.

Just because someone is against one option out of several does not mean that they don't care about women at all. You need a reality check.

Just because they can't take care of all her needs doesn't mean they are biased, judgemental, and don't care about women. It just means they can't do it. I am sure if they could do more for women, they would. If you want to see them do that, I suggest you start donating to them.

Click to expand...

I didnt mention housing or schooling. And of course they are biased. Look at their name :doh

Again: I'm willing to bet that Baker and his wife NEVER discuss abortion as an option for women if their lives arent in danger and likely wont fund or work with any pregnancy center that does.

Lursa said:

I'm not remotely lying or owned: I'm willing to bet that Baker and his wife NEVER discuss abortion as an option for women if their lives arent in danger and likely wont fund or work with any pregnancy center that does. That's just plain manipulative and valuing the unborn more than the women. It completely disrespects women's lives in their entirety...just provide resources so she'll produce the kid, it doesnt matter the long term effects on the womens' lives.

Click to expand...

They don't discuss it with women because they are pro-life. Being manipulative would be luring the women in by telling them they "might offer abortion services" but in reality don't, and then slamming their bibles over her head and making her feel guilty when she comes in. This doesn't happen.

What's wrong with providing her with the emotional resources so that she is ready to be a mother and raise a kid? If that's what she wants, she can have it. If she doesn't want what Save the Storks have, she is FREE to leave. Nothing manipulative here.

Lursa said:

I really dont think you understand the meaning of the word 'manipulate.' They are promoting a "culture of life" for the unborn only...certainly not for women.

Click to expand...

They are promoting a better life for the women and her child by giving her the emotional needs she desires so that she considers giving birth and being a mother instead of killing her baby.

Lursa said:

I didnt mention housing or schooling. And of course they are biased. Look at their name :doh

Click to expand...

LOL. "Look at their name." So you are basically going back to the old argument you had on a different thread - anything pro-life autimatically means they're biased. You realize your opinion is biased?

Nevermind.

Chezanie said:

They don't discuss it with women because they are pro-life. Being manipulative would be luring the women in by telling them they "might offer abortion services" but in reality don't, and then slamming their bibles over her head and making her feel guilty when she comes in. This doesn't happen.

What's wrong with providing her with the emotional resources so that she is ready to be a mother and raise a kid? If that's what she wants, she can have it. If she doesn't want what Save the Storks have, she is FREE to leave. Nothing manipulative here.



They are promoting a better life for the women and her child by giving her the emotional needs she desires so that she considers giving birth and being a mother instead of killing her baby.

Click to expand...

LMAO...manipulation, almost by definition, is much more subtle. And you've been sucked right into it.

I'm willing to bet that Baker and his wife NEVER discuss abortion as an option for women if their lives arent in danger and likely wont fund or work with any pregnancy center that does.

They only consider what's necessary to save the baby, not the circumstances of the woman's life.

Face it...you endorse the same thing. Right?

Chezanie said:

LOL. "Look at their name." So you are basically going back to the old argument you had on a different thread - anything pro-life autimatically means they're biased. You realize your opinion is biased?

Nevermind.

Click to expand...

Er...yes. That's right. Pro-life means valuing the unborn more than the woman.

Lursa said:

They only consider what's necessary to save the baby, not the circumstances of the woman's life.

Face it...you endorse the same thing. Right?

Click to expand...

Nope. You made another assumption, and blinded yourself to half of the vital information in the founder's dreams.

They wouldn't offer the women counseling services if they didn't care about the women. They wouldn't give her free ultrasounds if they didn't care about her. If they didn't care about the women, they would be screaming at frightened young girls as they walk into abortion clinics for her appointment.

Lursa said:

Er...yes. That's right. Pro-life means valuing the unborn more than the woman.

Click to expand...

Ehem. Look up the definition of pro-life. It literally just means "opposing abortion." Nowhere does it state "People who believe the unborn are more important than women," or imply as such.

Pro-life means you don't agree with the practice of abortion.

And if you haven't realized it yet, the whole Save the Storks organization proves that pro-life people care about women too.

Chezanie said:

Nope. You made another assumption, and blinded yourself to half of the vital information in the founder's dreams.

They wouldn't offer the women counseling services if they didn't care about the women. They wouldn't give her free ultrasounds if they didn't care about her. If they didn't care about the women, they would be screaming at frightened young girls as they walk into abortion clinics for her appointment.

Click to expand...

Of course they would...they have no way to force women to have the babies, they need some gimmick, some way to attract women. So they offer FREE ultrasounds and pregnancy center resources which ***are all focused on saving the unborn*** at all costs within the limits of what's legally available to them :doh

They literally lure these women in and then practically bribe them with pregnancy services and information on public services that any other reproductive facility can.

It doesnt matter to them at all if abortion is the right choice for the woman...they only care that it's not what's best for the unborn. Period.

Chezanie said:

Ehem. Look up the definition of pro-life. It literally just means "opposing abortion." Nowhere does it state "People who believe the unborn are more important than women," or imply as such.

Pro-life means you don't agree with the practice of abortion.

And if you haven't realized it yet, the whole Save the Storks organization proves that pro-life people care about women too.

Click to expand...

In any practical sense, since the unborn and born cannot be treated equally under the law or ethically or practically...that's exactly what it means.

If you would deny a woman the free will to have an elective abortion, you are valuing the unborn more than women. You are placing the (imagined) rights and self-determination and bodily sovereignty and life of the unborn ahead of the same exact things women are accorded under our Constitution...and morally as well IMO.

At least I'm honest: I value the unborn but I value all born people more.

Lursa said:

Of course they would...they have no way to force women to have the babies, they need some gimmick, some way to attract women. So they offer FREE ultrasounds and pregnancy center resources which ***are all focused on saving the unborn*** at all costs within the limits of what's legally available to them :doh

They literally lure these women in and then practically bribe them with pregnancy services and information on public services that any other reproductive facility can.

It doesnt matter to them at all if abortion is the right choice for the woman...they only care that it's not what's best for the unborn. Period.

Click to expand...

I predicted this response from you.

Of course they are focused on saving the unborn. They are pro-life. Is that a problem? I don't see any manipulation, gimmickry, or somehow immoral practice going on in the way they do it. They do it in a perfectly reasonable way - give the women ultrasounds, refer her to crisis pregnancy centers if she desires, offer her counseling. Is there a problem with this?

First of all, they don't force women to have babies. They let her see the one she already has.

Second, they do not lure women. The women come willingly. Also, your definition of bribe is screwy.

Here it is: "persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

1. They are not dishonest about it. The women know exactly what the organization is about. 2. It involves no money or gift.

Providing information that the women may desire is not a bribe in any world. You still seem to be stuck in the phase of "They shove their agenda down the women's throats," without ever considering if the women asked for it - or wanted it.

And if they suggested the services to women, that doesn't count as bribery either.

This is turning into a silly rabbit trail. You will never accept anything I have to say, so I will kindly say goodnight to you now.

Chezanie said:

I predicted this response from you.

First of all, they don't force women to have babies. They let her see the one she already has.

Second, they do not lure women. The women come willingly. Also, your definition of bribe is screwy.

Here it is: "persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

1. They are not dishonest about it. The women know exactly what the organization is about. 2. It involves no money or gift.

Providing information that the women may desire is not a bribe in any world. You still seem to be stuck in the phase of "They shove their agenda down the women's throats," without ever considering if the women asked for it - or wanted it.

And if they suggested the services to women, that doesn't count as bribery either.

This is turning into a silly rabbit trail. You will never accept anything I have to say, so I will kindly say goodnight to you now.

Click to expand...

I already addressed that. THey legally cant force her to do so. Can you not read properly?

And you dont understand the actual words I wrote. You dont want to admit they're luring women in with free ultrasounds. You believe that they are offering the women services 'for the women's sake,' but they're not, they're doing it for the unborn's sake, basically as a bribe to the women to have the kid.

If they were honest, they would also discuss the option of abortion with women...and since I bet they dont...they are dishonestly manipulating women...luring them with a free service and using bribery to keep them pregnant. Do the women benefit? Maybe. But that's only a secondary benefit...The entirety of her life and circumstances dont alter the agenda of the Storks. If they cared about the individual women, they would act in her best interests. They dont. They only do what they need to do to get her to produce a kid.

Chezanie said:

....

"There is no harm" meaning to the woman or the child - the fine is because he hit her and risked injury to the mother and her child.

"But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life..."

It is obviously talking about harm to either the mother or the child, or both in this sentence...

....And abortion falls under every definition of murder by the definitions He gave in the Bible.

Here are some verses about the unborn:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

...

Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation of Exodus quote.

The fine was for the miscarriage/stillbirth.

If the woman were further harmed it would be an eye for an eye.
That is way Biblical Theologians have interpreted for thousands of years.

No, the harm is to the woman making her miscarry her pregnancy.

If no further harm happens to the woman than just a fine is given to the husband.

Rendered literally, the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22 reads, "If men fight, and strike a pregnant woman so that her children come out”

In the Hebrew translation the woman is a living soul, the unborn is not.


The Jeremiah quote was about one person , not all fertilized human eggs.

God was talking to/about his prophet [Jeremiah].

In that verse God was speaking to Jeremiah whom he appointed a prophet to the nations.

That passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet.
He was not speaking about all fertilized eggs.

From the Bible:

4Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." 6Then I said, "Alas, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, Because I am a youth."…

Later Jeremiah cursed the day he was born saying...

"Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you', making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb for ever great." (Jeremiah 20:14-17)

Chezanie said:

....

Luke 1:43-44 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

Click to expand...

I love the story of Elizabeth and Mary.

From women in the Bible. Net:

Elizabeth's Story

The two pregnant women met, and at that moment Elizabeth's unborn baby responded by suddenly moving and kicking in her womb.

Twenty-eight weeks, the end of a woman's second trimester, is the normal time to expect an unborn baby to kick in the womb, and this may well have been the first time Elizabeth's unborn baby moved - an exciting moment for any mother.

She took this sudden movement, at this particular meeting, as a sign.

Click to expand...

ELIZABETH, John the Baptist's mother protected her cousin Mary


------------------

Normal, natural occurances and explanations happen in the Bible ...
It does not mean they are not miracles.

Was it not miraculous that at very moment Mary spoke to her cousin Elizabeth ( whom we presume have not spoken together for quite some time ) was the first time she felt her unborn kick?

You have to remember Elizabeth and her husband were old and she was past the usual childbearing age and yet by a miracle she was expecting.

She had to be very worried about her pregnancy and wondered if everything was going well.

When she felt the kicking she must of been overjoyed and relived that all was well with her pregnancy.

---------------

For those interested in the story of Mary and Joseph from their young years growing up , their love for each other , Mary's Holy conception and until just after the birth of Jesus there is a novel I would highly recommend.

It tells their story in a novel form as a love story and gives us a peek into what life must have been like in the times that Mary and Joseph were growing up. Since no one has all the details and the Bible does not tell us all the details it is a novel but it also gives a look into what it the norms and the customs were like in that era . It is wonderful story and so full of hope and love it gives us great hope for the future of mankind and womankind too.

The book is called:

Two From Galilee: The Story Of Mary And Joseph Paperback – February 1, 1982
by Marjorie Holmes (Author)

This book is a best selling novel that tells the story of Mary and Joseph as it has never been told before--
the greatest love story of all.

Chezanie said:

Let us look at what Exodus 21:22-24 actually says.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand..."

ESV translation.

The fine is for the risk of injury to the woman, not if there was actually an injury.

"But if there is harm.." Meaning to the woman or her child, the man accountable has to pay "life for life" this clearly states that if the woman has a miscarriage and the child dies, he must pay the same consequences as if he had murdered someone.

Click to expand...

That injury or death to the child is included in "harm" (elsewise translated as "mischief", meaning 'some serious, or even fatal, bodily injury') is suggested by some Biblical commentaries, but as I (and the majority) reasonably see it, the intent of this law was to shield the man who caused the miscarriage from death, since the law otherwise required a life for a life.

This mitigation surely wasn't because the child in the womb isn't a life, but because the miscarriage "would almost certainly be accidental" (ibid.) when a wife interfered in two men striving each other ("A chance hurt is clearly intended, not one done on purpose.", ibid., as the Pulpit Commentary indicates). Manslaughter--that is, the unintentional taking of a human life--was not to be punished by death under the Law of Moses. Indeed the Law of Moses provided cities for the manslayer to flee to to escape the vengeance of the relatives of the slain until judgment could be rendered.

In short, the law meant to protect the manslayer from the vengeance of the father whose unborn child he'd accidentally killed, although the father was still permitted to exact a fine (no doubt to help quell his hot anger).

minnie616 said:

The Bible clearly teaches life comes with live birth.
The newly born infant breaths the breath of life.

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

Click to expand...

See my reply to Chezanie above. The sparing of the man's life is because manslaughter was not a capital offense, not because "the fetus is not reckoned as a soul".

How do you (or Dr. Waltke) reconcile your view with Job 10:8-12, Psalm 139:13-15, and Isaiah 49:4-5, which all clearly refer to the authors as prophets being formed in the womb? Or with Luke 1:44, "For, see, as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (AKJV), which not only refers to John the Baptist as being alive, but so full of the Holy Spirit that he in fact reacted with joy to Mary's coming with good news? See also Luke 1:15, which refers to John being full of the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb.

I've seen theologians argue that these are all extraordinary cases, but if we take scripture in its entirety for what it actually says rather than what we want it to say for our emotional peace of mind, every verse we can possibly look to regards the child in the womb as a living person, not merely a vessel waiting for occupancy.

Hypothetically, even if Dr. Waltke's thesis were correct (and I'm not for a moment conceding that it is), I fail to see why deliberately destroying the vessel in which a human being imminently will reside should be regarded as any less heinous than destroying this vessel while the being is resident. The aforementioned verses, presuming prophets in the womb somehow weren't actually people yet, would at the very least indicate the vessels are created for specific persons. How, therefore, do we possibly justify destroying a vessel created with Godly purpose to host a specific person?

Any way you look at it, abortion is the destruction of a body we have no moral authority to destroy.

Chezanie said:

"They let her decide after she sees her ultrasound," meaning they do not give her any input or try to convince her to keep her baby.

Click to expand...

They probably do encourage her to keep the baby if the issue of abortion comes up.

What else could be expected? "Yes. See there. There's his little heart. And there are his little hands and legs. Hi, mommy! Yeah, I'm the one kicking you all the time. ... Well, all done. So, you asked about abortion. Kill him. Don't kill him. Whatever. It's all good."

I somehow doubt it.

If they advocate for the child, more power to them.

Lursa said:

Do you deny that the counseling you endorse recommends anything but having the baby unless the mother's life is in danger?

Click to expand...

I'm parsing a triple negative here, but assuming you mean: "'Save the Storks' always counsels mothers to keep their babies: yes or no?", the answer is almost certainly 'Yes'.

Lursa said:

So now your tune changes? What happened to your claim that women regret their decisions? Or was that Chezanie? You also made the claim I believe and now are backpeddling.

Click to expand...

I didn't, and it's really not hard to check.

I'm sure some women profoundly regret aborting their babies; I'm equally sure some can abort ten babies and never give it a second thought. Either way, feelings of guilt and remorse don't determine the morality of an act.

Lursa said:

You place the unborn's life ahead of all women's lives.

Click to expand...

You're misusing the word "lives" here. My priorities are explained in #120 pp1.

Lursa said:

Justified killing is not evil it's not evil in self-defense, war, assisted suicide, abortion, etc. All are subjective.

Click to expand...

Even if moral relativism were a defensible doctrine (it isn't), it's a false doctrine. There is nothing subjective about moral laws, just as there's nothing subjective about physical laws, however long men may contend to determine them.

If you can't see this, it's another 'agree to disagree'.

Lursa said:

SCOTUS has examined blacks &women in the past, found us equal under that foundation, & recognized our rights. Its done the same for the unborn, & not found them equal.

Click to expand...

This would be a legal argument and not a moral one. I'm not here to debate the legality of abortion.

Lursa said:

You havent explained why the unborn is more entitled to bodily autonomy than women are.

Click to expand...

Here you're calling "bodily autonomy" what you earlier called "lives". In both cases, you strive to erase the very meaningful distinction between what is being taken from the unborn child and what is being taken from the mother.

The two are not one and the same. The child's life is being weighed against the mother's bodily autonomy in one very specific respect. We are not comparing life to life, autonomy to autonomy, or culpable party to culpable party.

The fact that you're consistently hiding these distinctions suggests a lack of confidence in your own argument. If you believed it could stand in spite of acknowledging them, you would acknowledge them.

Lursa said:

So? What difference has that made in society? In the world? Just more resources used up. Because you have no idea if those people would be good or bad influences.

Click to expand...

Your belief in the innate and inherent value of human life is overwhelming. :roll:

If you truly don't value the life of the layperson regardless of merit or potential merit, you find yourself in the company of social Darwinists, eugenicists, racists, and all manner of 20th Century despots seeking to create the perfect man and perfect society.

Lursa said:

The 'life' of the unborn is meaningless, it only gains meaning once born and shares in society.

Click to expand...

Hence a newborn who does nothing but sleep in an incubator is worthless and expendable until Mom picks him up and shows him off to her girlfriends at the curling club, at which point he's "shared in society" and suddenly becomes a soulful, precious human being?

I have to believe that if you pulled yourself out of this debate and truly reflected on "sharing in society" as a standard for the worth of a human being, you'd see how arbitrary and nonsensical it is.

That's all I have time for today. I'll get to #138 and later when time permits, since you took the time to compose a thoughtful and detailed reply.