Hypothetical question

[highnote]

Let's suppose a U.S. citizen is anti-abortion. This same individual supported going to war in Iraq. The individual knew before the war started that there would be "collateral damage" -- that is civilians would be killed by U.S. troops and bombs. Some of the civilian casualties would be pregnant women and also some pregnant women would abort due to wounds, injuries or stress caused by the war.

So the question is:

Can a person who knows beforehand that military action by the U.S. would cause abortions of Iraqi women still be considered a person who is anti-abortion?

js

[JustRalph]

swetyejohn

what the hell kind of question is that? pretty stupid.......are you just fishing or what?

[cj]

As someone who doesn't believe in abortion, I still consider it a dead issue. Its a losing fight, and Republicans need to move on. Legal or not, its not going away. Even if the law was changed, don't we have more important "criminals" to worry about?

[sq764]

Originally posted by cj
As someone who doesn't believe in abortion, I still consider it a dead issue. Its a losing fight, and Republicans need to move on. Legal or not, its not going away. Even if the law was changed, don't we have more important "criminals" to worry about?

Ok, I'll bite.. CJ, do you believe in exceptions for abortion like rape, the mother having a good possibility of dying if she tries to deliver, etc?

[highnote]

Originally posted by JustRalph
swetyejohn

what the hell kind of question is that? pretty stupid.......are you just fishing or what?

Ralph,
Thank you for your opinion.

I heard a nun make that point on a TV show the other night and it seemed worth exploring. I had never thought of it.

It seemed like an interesting moral question.

Does anyone else have an opinion or thoughts on this question?

Regards,
John

[Show Me the Wire]

Swetyejohn:

The answer is yes. I have no problem reconciling the two hypothetical scenarios. One hypothetical is voluntary and one is involuntary, two separate and distinct scenarios.

By voluntarily, I mean the woman has a choice and aborts the pregnancy by her own free will, while involuntary means the termination is occurs due to external physical factors.

The question is akin to say if a soldier kills during a war to defend his country is should he be considered a murderer? I believe the Catholic Church already clarified this issue, the Church is against war, but a Catholic soldier may kill and maim another human in the context of war. Therefore, a person may believe killing is immoral and still be able to kill due to the circumstances.

The same rationale applies to the hypothetical. A person may believe voluntary abortion is wrong and yet support a war that may cause involuntary abortions.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

The only way I would support any abortion is if it truly was to save the life of the mother. So, if war is the option to save a country and/or countries, it also gets my support.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
The only way I would support any abortion is if it truly was to save the life of the mother. So, if war is the option to save a country and/or countries, it also gets my support.

Not even a rape that led to pregnancy?

[Lefty]

SQ< no. The resulting baby is an innocent and can be placed for adoption.

[Dave Schwartz]

Here is an interesting story about an abortion survivor:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp

Well, it is actually more than an "interesting story," since she is real and the story is 100% true.

I have met this woman personally and I would challenge anyone who is pro-abortion to be in her presence for an the hour or so when she speaks to come away feeling as they did before.

Read the story.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
SQ< no. The resulting baby is an innocent and can be placed for adoption.

Hmm, I am not adament either way.. Not have I really sat down and thought about how I fell.. but...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this one.. It's enough trauma for a woman to go through a rape, but then to go through with having the baby of the person who raped you?? Wow, that would be tough.. And THEN, to have to carry the rapist's baby for 9 months only to give it up for adoption...

No thanks..

[Lefty]

sq, she wouldn't HAVE to give it up for adoption. Only if she wanted to. That's a choice I can live with.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, she wouldn't HAVE to give it up for adoption. Only if she wanted to. That's a choice I can live with.

Well yes... On the other hand, if the mother was going to possibly die, she wouldn't HAVE to abort the baby, she could take her chances and see what happened...

[Lefty]

That would also be her choice.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
That would also be her choice.

and you would support that..

[lsbets]

As an adoptee whose biological mother was 16 years old, I have always been pro-life (if the "pro choicers" got ahold of her before hand they would have convinced her to have an abortion and I would have never been born). But, I read the link that Dave provided, and I have to say, I am sickened. I have been reading different accounts on the site, and I feel like I am ready to puke.

[Lefty]

sq, Why not? If she wanted to take a chance with her life to save the baby then that would be between her, her husb and Dr. Why would I want to argue with it.? In this instance, no innocent is being murdered.

[cj]

My quick take on abortion, though I think it is a silly argument as I said before, because it will NEVER go away.

The person who makes the decision to have an abortion does not have to answer to me. They will have to answer to God. I think abortion is wrong, I would never recommend it as an option, but I'm not going to condemn someone who has one. I've seen many a life brought into this world that the world could have done without.

[Lefty]

cj, then let's quit putting murderers in jail and just let them answer to God. I imagine there have also been some people murdered who didn't deserve to live.

[Equineer]

There are many Abortion Prohibitionists and Pro-Choice Advocates, but there are no (sane) Pro-Abortionists ranting for legislated extinction of the species. Which constituency advocates oppression of the other?

[cj]

Like I said earlier, what's done is done. Murder has never been legal. Abortion is, like it or not. You could fight your whole life trying to get the law changed, as many have. Even if successful, abortions will continue. There are plenty pro life doctors, and a never ending supply of women looking for an abortion. It is a fight that cannot be won.

This country can't police many of the things that are ILLEGAL. Maybe we should start there before adding to the list of crimes that can't be adequately policed.

[highnote]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Swetyejohn:

The answer is yes. I have no problem reconciling the two hypothetical scenarios. One hypothetical is voluntary and one is involuntary, two separate and distinct scenarios.

By voluntarily, I mean the woman has a choice and aborts the pregnancy by her own free will, while involuntary means the termination is occurs due to external physical factors.

The question is akin to say if a soldier kills during a war to defend his country is should he be considered a murderer? I believe the Catholic Church already clarified this issue, the Church is against war, but a Catholic soldier may kill and maim another human in the context of war. Therefore, a person may believe killing is immoral and still be able to kill due to the circumstances.

The same rationale applies to the hypothetical. A person may believe voluntary abortion is wrong and yet support a war that may cause involuntary abortions.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality


Show Me,
Thanks for your reply. That seems like a reasonable answer.

Although, I'm not sure your use of "involuntary abortions" fully covers it. The unborn babies that die in an invasion not only die from an "involuntary abortion" but also from a "forced abortion". The mothers didn't have a choice. It was forced upon them -- and not just be the invading force, but also by their own gov't that is responsible for them.

That is the moral dilemma I have a hard time coming to grips with and I think that is kind of what the nun was saying, too.

I agree that it might be justifiable to kill someone if it's in self-defense.

Regards,
John

[kenwoodallpromos]

involuntary abortion is called miscarriage and is not an issue.

[Lefty]

eq, you have taken my orig simple question far into left field. You know the strategy well.
cj, yes even if the law is changed there will be abortions but prob a few million less. And even if the law is not changed, why should I discontinue trying to change hearts and minds?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, Why not? If she wanted to take a chance with her life to save the baby then that would be between her, her husb and Dr. Why would I want to argue with it.? In this instance, no innocent is being murdered.

My point was that you said you support abortion if it could possibly kill the mother.. This is still a decision for her to make if she aborted the baby, right?

[sq764]

Originally posted by cj
Like I said earlier, what's done is done. Murder has never been legal. Abortion is, like it or not. You could fight your whole life trying to get the law changed, as many have. Even if successful, abortions will continue. There are plenty pro life doctors, and a never ending supply of women looking for an abortion. It is a fight that cannot be won.

This country can't police many of the things that are ILLEGAL. Maybe we should start there before adding to the list of crimes that can't be adequately policed.

abortion is murder in your opinion..

Again, not trying to get into an abortion argument, but murder is killing of a human life. If the actual point of human life is not clear, neither is abortion being murder..

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
Show Me,
Thanks for your reply. That seems like a reasonable answer.

Although, I'm not sure your use of "involuntary abortions" fully covers it. The unborn babies that die in an invasion not only die from an "involuntary abortion" but also from a "forced abortion". The mothers didn't have a choice. It was forced upon them -- and not just be the invading force, but also by their own gov't that is responsible for them.

That is the moral dilemma I have a hard time coming to grips with and I think that is kind of what the nun was saying, too.

I agree that it might be justifiable to kill someone if it's in self-defense.

Regards,
John

Actually, your original point/question could be even more simplified..

What if you were anti-abortion and believed that killing a fetus was murder, but you voluntarily joined the army, knowing you would possibly have to murder another living human being?

[highnote]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
involuntary abortion is called miscarriage and is not an issue.

Ken,

I was thinking the abortion/miscarriage issue on my way to work after I posted my original message to start this thread. That's an important distinction. Thanks for reminding me. I meant to comment on that and almost forgot until you brought it up.

So here's a hypothetical:

If person A knows in advance that his or her actions may harm person B in such a way that person B will lose her baby before it is born and then person A goes ahead with his or her actions anyway and causes person B to lose her baby then is person A guilty of causing a miscarriage or guilty of causing a forced abortion?

Regards,
John

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
Ken,

I was thinking the abortion/miscarriage issue on my way to work after I posted my original message to start this thread. That's an important distinction. Thanks for reminding me. I meant to comment on that and almost forgot until you brought it up.

So here's a hypothetical:

If person A knows in advance that his or her actions may harm person B in such a way that person B will lose her baby before it is born and then person A goes ahead with his or her actions anyway and causes person B to lose her baby then is person A guilty of causing a miscarriage or guilty of causing a forced abortion?

Regards,
John

That scenario brings another distinction though... What is considered a forced abortion? We know that a surgical procedure that is done is a forced abortion, obviously..

Where do those fit that smoke crack while pregnant and they lose the baby? Or drink heavily during pregnancy, causing the baby fetus to die before birth?

Are they guilty of 'murder' as well?

[highnote]

Originally posted by sq764
That scenario brings another distinction though... What is considered a forced abortion? We know that a surgical procedure that is done is a forced abortion, obviously..

Where do those fit that smoke crack while pregnant and they lose the baby? Or drink heavily during pregnancy, causing the baby fetus to die before birth?

Are they guilty of 'murder' as well?

I'm not a lawyer, but maybe they would be guilty of manslaughter?

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
I'm not a lawyer, but maybe they would be guilty of manslaughter?

Who knows.. I can't remember ever hearing a mother charged for this though..

[highnote]

Originally posted by sq764
Actually, your original point/question could be even more simplified..

What if you were anti-abortion and believed that killing a fetus was murder, but you voluntarily joined the army, knowing you would possibly have to murder another living human being?

Did you mean to say "possibly have to kill another living human being", rather than "possibly have to murdern another living human being"?

I suppose you could join the army as a chaplain or a surgeon? How about as a bugler?

I suppose you could join the army knowing it's a possibility, but then not actually fire your rifle. The problem with that though, is that you might put the other soldiers in your troop in grave danger. So that would be immoral also, know that you joined the army but secretly knew that you wouldn't fire your rifle.

[highnote]

Originally posted by sq764
Who knows.. I can't remember ever hearing a mother charged for this though..

Yeah, me neither. However, cigarettes and alcohol have something about it on their labels. People are stupid though -- and also addicts that can't help themselves.

Here's a concept... let's sue the tobacco and alcohol industries. Gotta blame someone, right, we can't possibly take responsibilities for our actions.

[Lefty]

sq, what's your point and what is unclear to you from my posts? I'm against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. In that case there must be a decision on which life to save and which must be sacrificed. The assumption is that both can't be saved. I Can't be any clearer than that.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, what's your point and what is unclear to you from my posts? I'm against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. In that case there must be a decision on which life to save and which must be sacrificed. The assumption is that both can't be saved. I Can't be any clearer than that.

What if the doctor says "You can try to deliver this baby, but if you do, there is a possibility you may bleed to death and die.. But there's also a chance both of you will survive"?

Is abortion not acceptable in this case?

What would you want your wife to do if she was told this? Or your daughter?

[boxcar]

swetyejohn asks:

So here's a hypothetical:

If person A knows in advance that his or her actions may harm person B in such a way that person B will lose her baby before it is born and then person A goes ahead with his or her actions anyway and causes person B to lose her baby then is person A guilty of causing a miscarriage or guilty of causing a forced abortion?

Very good question, John. If memory serves, I seem to recall an OT passage that deals with this very issue. If or when I find it, I'll post it up here.

I'm sure everyone will rally around God's word. :D

Boxcar

[highnote]

Originally posted by boxcar
swetyejohn asks:

So here's a hypothetical:

If person A knows in advance that his or her actions may harm person B in such a way that person B will lose her baby before it is born and then person A goes ahead with his or her actions anyway and causes person B to lose her baby then is person A guilty of causing a miscarriage or guilty of causing a forced abortion?

Very good question, John. If memory serves, I seem to recall an OT passage that deals with this very issue. If or when I find it, I'll post it up here.

I'm sure everyone will rally around God's word. :D

Boxcar

Thanks, Boxcar. I'd like to read it.

The Bible usually has answers to most questions.

As for rallying around God's word -- I suppose it depends on how all of us interpret God's word.

Should one interpret it literally? If one interprets it literally then can there be any doubt as to what "Thou shall not kill" means?

My literal interpretation is that it means exactly what it says and the Amish, Jesuits, Menonites, etc., have it right. No killing. Period. It doesn't say, "Thou shall not kill, except under certain circumstances."

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[boxcar]

swetyejohn wrote:

Thanks, Boxcar. I'd like to read it.

The Bible usually has answers to most questions.

Yup. If not in the most explicit or unmistakenably implicit terms, then there are guiding principles fer sure.

As for rallying around God's word -- I suppose it depends on how all of us interpret God's word.

Should one interpret it literally? If one interprets it literally then can there be any doubt as to what "Thou shall not kill" means?

This is a whole another matter which I've addressed in the more distant past on this forum, as well as more recently on other threads. Suffice it to say, that apart from applying sound hermeneutical principles to the interprative process, one can easily be led astray. It's a very poor practice to impose arbitraily interprative pressupositions upon any passage -- to presuppose that one kind of interpration (literal or allegorical, for example) is always the right one in every instance. Things just ain't that simple.

For example, in the Decalogue, wherein the 5th commandment is found, the literal translation (not to be confused with interpreation) of the word commonly rendered "kill" is murder. Furthermore, when one does word usage studies, etc., one will find that the bible does indeed make a distinction between "killing" and "murder". But I digress. Now on to the topic at hand...

Here is the OT passage I had in mind:

Ex 21:22-25
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
ASV

There is no reason to believe, as Pro-Abortionists do that the harm that could follow only applies to the woman. From [/b]numerous[/b] other scriptures, it's very clear that from Gods' perspective he considers a child in the womb to be nothing less than a human being.

What the above passage is teaching, therefore, is that if someone were to hurt a pregnant woman and cause her to give birth prematurely and not cause her any lasting harm, or cause any permanent harm to the baby, then that person would be subject to a civil fine under Jewish law. However, if the woman were to suffer a miscarriage or she were suffer death as a result of "men struggling", then criminal penalities would be imposed -- even capital punishment! And judgment would be rendered by appointed judges, not individuals. It was never left to the individual under Civil Jewish Law to avenge wrong for wrong.

Hope this helps.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

sq, don't know why you keep pressing me on this as I have made myself clear. If the mother's life is in question then I find this the only acceptable time to consider abortion. You can frame a 1000 more hypotheticals anyway you want and my answer will always remain the same.

[highnote]

Originally posted by boxcar

Here is the OT passage I had in mind:

Ex 21:22-25
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
ASV

There is no reason to believe, as Pro-Abortionists do that the harm that could follow only applies to the woman. From numerous other scriptures, it's very clear that from Gods' perspective he considers a child in the womb to be nothing less than a human being.

What the above passage is teaching, therefore, is that if someone were to hurt a pregnant woman and cause her to give birth prematurely and not cause her any lasting harm, or cause any permanent harm to the baby, then that person would be subject to a civil fine under Jewish law. However, if the woman were to suffer a miscarriage or she were suffer death as a result of "men struggling", then criminal penalities would be imposed -- even capital punishment! And judgment would be rendered by appointed judges, not individuals. It was never left to the individual under Civil Jewish Law to avenge wrong for wrong.

Hope this helps.

Boxcar [/B]


Boxcar,
Thanks. That was terrific.

Now, applying what you wrote above to my original post -- If one knows in advance that starting a war means some pregnant women will die and some of them will suffer miscarriages either directly or indirectly from the war, then is going to war morally acceptable?

John

[boxcar]

swetyejohn wrote:

Boxcar,
Thanks. That was terrific.

Now, applying what you wrote above to my original post -- If one knows in advance that starting a war means some pregnant women will die and some of them will suffer miscarriages either directly or indirectly from the war, then is going to war morally acceptable?

John

What's your point, exactly? Anytime any nations or groups go to war, the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in. "Innocent people" (men, women, children, the unborn, etc.) will die.

The huge problem in this day and age is that the U.S. seems to be commtted to fighting politically correct wars. For example, during both WWs we dropped an awful lot of bombs on Germany, Japan, etc. Don't you think many "innocent" civilians were killed back them? Did that prevent us from dropping those bombs? No, it did not! And rightfully so, I will boldly add! You can't go to war against a nation and not consider everyone in that nation to be the enemy. But today, for some odd reason, we dare not speak this fact, let alone act upon it!

Bush made it clear from the outset that he wasn't at war with the "Iraqi people" -- but rather with the "Iraqi government" -- "the Iraqi regime". What the U.S. seems hell-bent on doing (to its own detriment, I might add) is dichotomizing "normal everyday people" in countries from their wicked governments. This absurd policy, effectively absolves the "common people" from any and all moral responsibility for either installing wicked rulers, or allowing them to come to power and remain in power. This utterly stupid, politically-correct and extremely dangerous war policy artificially establishes a class of people (commonly referred to as "civiians") who are reduced to nothing than mere "innocent bystanders" -- bystanders who assume not one iota of moral responsibility for the actions or policies of their government.

Believe me when I tell you: If the U.S. were to revert back to common sense war policies, we would not be in Iraq right now -- or at least whatever military presence we might have, it would be a fraction of what it is now...and we would have suffered far, far fewer casualities than we have up to this point.

I'm sure I've shocked you. Sorry for the jolt. But that's the way it is. And also, in case you're interested, the bible knows nothing about fighting politically correct wars. In fact, sir, it might shock your socks off to know what the Righteous Judge of the Universe ordered his chosen people Israel to do when they went in to occupy the land that God had promised to them. Be certain of this: He wasn't (and still isn't!) a God of half-measures.

Boxcar

[highnote]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boxcar
swetyejohn wrote:

What's your point, exactly? Anytime any nations or groups go to war, the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in. "Innocent people" (men, women, children, the unborn, etc.) will die.


That was basically my point. I'm not saying nations should or should not go to war. I'm just asking if going to war is moral or immoral -- from a 10 commandments, thou shall not kill, perspective. I don't have any strong opinion either way at this point. But it is an issue I'd like to understand better.


The huge problem in this day and age is that the U.S. seems to be commtted to fighting politically correct wars. For example, during both WWs we dropped an awful lot of bombs on Germany, Japan, etc. Don't you think many "innocent" civilians were killed back them? Did that prevent us from dropping those bombs? No, it did not! And rightfully so, I will boldly add! You can't go to war against a nation and not consider everyone in that nation to be the enemy. But today, for some odd reason, we dare not speak this fact, let alone act upon it!

I agree that we needed to go to war in WWII. Hitler had to be stopped. Choosing to go to war is often a choice of lesser of evils. If we didn't help to stop Hitler the world probably would have been worse off. You can't know for certain. If we hadn't gone to war, maybe Hitler would have been killed by an assassin or something and we would have been spared. Waiting for Hitler to die rather than going to war would not have been an acceptable choice at the time.



I'm sure I've shocked you. Sorry for the jolt. But that's the way it is.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. You've obviously given this more thought than I have. I'm always trying to learn more.


And also, in case you're interested, the bible knows nothing about fighting politically correct wars. In fact, sir, it might shock your socks off to know what the Righteous Judge of the Universe ordered his chosen people Israel to do when they went in to occupy the land that God had promised to them. Be certain of this: He wasn't (and still isn't!) a God of half-measures.

I'm not a student of the Bible, but I seem to recall lots of death and destruction in the Old Testament.

Thanks again.

Regards,
John

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, don't know why you keep pressing me on this as I have made myself clear. If the mother's life is in question then I find this the only acceptable time to consider abortion. You can frame a 1000 more hypotheticals anyway you want and my answer will always remain the same. Lefty,

I am still unsure where you stand.

Can we run through SQ's questions again, but let's also say dad is on deathrow and mom is French? Now what?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
[QUOTE]Originally posted by boxcar
[B]swetyejohn wrote:
That was basically my point. I'm not saying nations should or should not go to war. I'm just asking if going to war is moral or immoral -- from a 10 commandments, thou shall not kill, perspective. I don't have any strong opinion either way at this point. But it is an issue I'd like to understand better.
As boxcar noted above, "Thou shalt not kill" is NOT one of the ten commandments, despite it being pretty much universally translated that way into English. "Thou shall not murder" is the actual commandment. Murder means the killing of an innocent. Killing is OK! There is no biblical basis for opposition to the death penalty, for instance. And killing in a (justified) war would not be considered murder.

The ten commandments are actually pretty absurdly interpreted in this country. For instance, I bet most of you think that "cursing" breaks a commandment (taking the Lord's name in vain). In other words, it is taught that God is peeved at you if after smashing your thumb with a hammer you explain "God dammit!" [ <-- a sin! ]. This is the sort of thing that turns people off of religion (not that they should neccessarily be turned on) as it makes God seem awfully petty. When of course what "taking the Lord's name in vain" really means is what terrorists do when they claim they are blowing up innocent people in the name of God, or in this country when an evangelical says something stupid like, "AIDS is God's punishment on gay people" or "God will kill me if you don't send me your money". i.e. Invoking the name of God in a corrupt or evil way.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, don't know why you keep pressing me on this as I have made myself clear. If the mother's life is in question then I find this the only acceptable time to consider abortion. You can frame a 1000 more hypotheticals anyway you want and my answer will always remain the same.

why is that the only acceptable time to consider abortion?

God forbid if your wife or daughter was raped and was impregnated, you would want them to keep the baby??

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
Lefty,

I am still unsure where you stand.

Can we run through SQ's questions again, but let's also say dad is on deathrow and mom is French? Now what?

Have you ever actually written anything remotely intelligent? I thought it was just my imagination..

[highnote]

Originally posted by GameTheory
As boxcar noted above, "Thou shalt not kill" is NOT one of the ten commandments, despite it being pretty much universally translated that way into English. "Thou shall not murder" is the actual commandment. Murder means the killing of an innocent. Killing is OK! There is no biblical basis for opposition to the death penalty, for instance. And killing in a (justified) war would not be considered murder.

You and Boxcar may be correct. I've actually seen the "murder" interpretation pointed out in several places recently -- maybe on PA?

I'll look around the net to see what I can find.

I find it odd that for as long as I can remember it has been "Thou shalt not kill" and no one ever mentioned any different interpretation.

[highnote]

The link below does a nice job of explaining the 6th commandment -- Thou shalt not kill.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/notkill.html

They go on to say that under the New Testament killing is treated differently than under the Old Testament; that we should be peacemakers and not go to war even when we are attacked.

They also give a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying not to take their word for it. Take the Bible's word for it. And also that what the Bible says is a matter interpretation. Each must decide for him or herself.

Thoughts about the New Testament vs. the Old Testament interpretation?

[highnote]

I'd like to add one thing...

I was given a wristband once that had the initial WWJD -- "What Would Jesus Do".

When I think about waging war and I ask "What would Jesus do?" The one conclusion I come to is that Jesus would not wage war.

Also, any thoughts on that?

[Lefty]

sq, I am firmly against abortion and that's the only exception my personal conscience would allow. As far as my wife or daughter being raped and getting pregnant: I would encourage them not to take the innocent life. No doubt, it would be a tough and trying time but following what one thinks is right is not always the easiest path.

[boxcar]

swetyejohn wrote:

The link below does a nice job of explaining the 6th commandment -- Thou shalt not kill.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/notkill.html

They go on to say that under the New Testament killing is treated differently than under the Old Testament; that we should be peacemakers and not go to war even when we are attacked.

They also give a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying not to take their word for it. Take the Bible's word for it. And also that what the Bible says is a matter interpretation. Each must decide for him or herself.

Thoughts about the New Testament vs. the Old Testament interpretation?

I didn't bother to clink on the line because of time constraints -- but really I don't have to, since I'm familiar with these kinds of arguments or approaches to scripture. (This group must be one of those funnymentalists.) :)

But seriously there are folks out there who like to pit the OT against the New and argue that the latter always trumps the former. But I see no support for this theory in scripture. However, under the New Covenant, there are some things under the Old Covenant that have been very specifically abrogated by divine decree in the NT, such as all the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, e.g. animal sacrifices, the priesthood, etc.

Jesus even himself said that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. How do I know, then, when there is legitimate continutity and discontinuity between the two Covenants? Simple. Unless the New specifically states that this thing or that thing in the Old has been done away with , then we should assume that everything else continues right over from the Old (such as the moral aspects to Mosaic Law). Anything less than this test would amount to a specious argument from silence.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

sq, I am firmly against abortion and that's the only exception my personal conscience would allow. As far as my wife or daughter being raped and getting pregnant: I would encourage them not to take the innocent life. No doubt, it would be a tough and trying time but following what one thinks is right is not always the easiest path.

Well stated, Lefty. Well stated.

Boxcar

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, I am firmly against abortion and that's the only exception my personal conscience would allow. As far as my wife or daughter being raped and getting pregnant: I would encourage them not to take the innocent life. No doubt, it would be a tough and trying time but following what one thinks is right is not always the easiest path.

My point is that it's easy to stand by what's right until it hits home... We can say anyone raped should just have the child and put it up for adoption.. But we (as men) will never know the emotional trauma the rape causes, the emotional attachment of carrying the baby for 9 months and the emotional trauma to hand over the baby to another..

I respect your opinion on what you think is right, I truly do.. I was just trying to point out that there are exceptions to every rule..

[Lefty]

sq, no doubt, it's easier to theorize than to actualize. No argument. There's an exception to every rule you say and that's what I have exhaustively done: stated the one exception I would allow when it comes to abortion. I was asked, I stated.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, no doubt, it's easier to theorize than to actualize. No argument. There's an exception to every rule you say and that's what I have exhaustively done: stated the one exception I would allow when it comes to abortion. I was asked, I stated.

Well, I guess until one has been there, it's all heresay and conjecture..