Replies

>>Nancy Pelosi comes to her conclusions only by IGNORING what the Bible pretty plainly teaches<<

You're kidding right?
She is ignoring YOUR interpretation of the bible.
No where does it state that a person is a person at the moment of conception. The “I knew you in the womb” does not say, “at the moment of conception”

And how about this...
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)”

That's what I used to rationalized my pro-abort status when I was young and stupid.

You can find what you need when to interpret it yourself.

OH. Were we talking specifically about abortion? I'm talking about her whole philosphy. She clearly, for example, ignores Commandments 8, 9, and 10.

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)”

So, here we have an accident, He is punished as the judges decide?

So what are you saying, and why are you trying to pick a fight? I might agree with something the Pope says, I m ight not. But I think through every response. He is not God. He is not Christ. As a Protestant, I don't even believe that he is Vicar of Christ (where is THAT in the Bible?). So why, other than his learning, which in the current case I admit is great, should I take his pronouncements as Gospel rahter than what I can plainly read in the Bible for myself?

If you're just going into the Bible, or the Constitution, or “The Wizard of Oz” to find what you need to support your predetermined positions, of course you can find something in there that will do it. If you ignore the obvious contradictions with other parts of the text.

On the other hand, if you consider the text to be an organic whole, the range of interpretations that can be considered valid narrows tremendously.