What is inconsistent and illogical is for people to use the Bible for their ethical choices but yet ignore sections that do not jibe with their line of ethics. We raise the red flags when the global warming people do this!
People of Biblical times didn't understand the basic science we have today. One was either breathing or not, and this is probably why the penalty for causing a miscarriage was not the same as for killing or murder.
The Biblical support for life at conception is not there and is consistent with science. No blood, no life, not murder.
Is something permissible just because it is not murder? No. There was still a penalty for causing a miscarriage, just not the same as for killing or murder.
Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions. And there are countless that occur in the first weeks as the egg either fails to implant or is rejected and shed with the monthly cycle.
If abortion isn't murder, it's no different from plastic surgery, or putting you cat to sleep:
I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of us do not.
But I'll repeat myself: There is no reason to oppose abortion, unless you think it's the same thing as murder
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of us do not.
The fact that I have to explain all of this to you makes me wonder whether you are telling the truth about all that pro-life activism.
Sadly, but predictably, when you don't like or agree with the message you have to attack the messanger.
Most of my 'activism' was in Florda, some in Kentucky.
Probably one difference in my attitude and many others is that I do not feel it is up to me personally to stop all abortions. I do not feel the need to control or confine other people. Those others will be accountable to God one day....I am not accountable for what they do and do not feel the need to impose my will on them.
And one thing that most people seem to overlook is that the Bible was written and is for those who want to believe it. The non believers are not bound by it. You can not impose your 'sanctity of life', 'life begins at conception' rules on them any more than you can impose no dancing, no smoking, no drinking, no oral sex, Blue Laws, etc etc ethics that you may volunteer to abide by in your church.
Whether or not abortion is legal, there will be some who seek it out. They and those involved will have to answer for that someday because the legality of it does not alter the morality of it one bit.
Actually Eagle, you can. Blue laws were standard laws in nearly every state at the time of the Constitution and nothing in the constitution or the Bill of Rights interfered with the State's right to impose Blue Laws or general morality laws upon the citizens of the states.
If a State were to make a determination that life begins at conception and that the State's obligation to preserve and protect that life also began at conception, then the State would be perfectly justified in outlawing all abortions except in those situations where the carrying of the pregnacy to full term would likely result in the death of the mother (in which case rules of "justifiable homicide and self defense would fall into play).
So you are wrong that Laws cannot be enacted to protect and preserve the life of the unborn. Indeed, if Life is defined as beginning at conception, then the State would have an obligation to protect that life by outlawing abortion except for a very few exceptional situations.
Where you define life beginning is where you should determine that the State has a duty to protect it. You had earlier argued that the "Life is in the Blood" and therefore unless there was blood, there was no ending of a life in an abortion. You now seem to be arguing that it really doesn't matter when life begins because the State should not have a right to interefere with the right to have an abortion any more than it has the right to tell a business that it must be closed on Sunday.
Your position now is one of fatal inconsistency. If indeed, as you argued so persuasively, the life begins when the blood begins to flow, then you should likewise believe that the state has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect that life once a heartbeat is detectable.
I can therefore only conclude that your prior argument was not serious and that it was merely a straw man argument to counter the biblical position that life begins at conception.
So if you truly believe that life begins at the moment of the first heartbeat, then why would you argue that the State has no obligation to protect that life?
I am going to ignore your whole post and ask you again, if you do not accept that life begins at conception what, in God’s name, is your rationale for opposing abortion.
Please be specific.