Author Topic: Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’  (Read 2868 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bilo

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,478
A good starting point to discuss abortion is: Exodus 21:-22-25;

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him;....But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

When looking at this verse the "harm" is about the survival of the baby. If the fight causes a miscarriage, or birth before the baby can survive, the perpetrator is to forfeit his life.
A stranger in a hostile foreign land I used to call home

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,353
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Butts appears to not agree with God then.

  Isaiah 43-3

"Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth."
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,353
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
I don't recall ever having read in the bible that life begins at breath or that life begins at conception either.

I see what @PeteS in CA posted, it's interesting, but I don't think it says what Mayor Pete wants it to say.

Abortion should just be up the the person to decide, imo.
If God said it would you believe it?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,374700.msg2050604.html#msg2050604
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,353
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Butt's own brother-in-law does not believe what he is saying.
Brother-in-Law: Pete Buttigieg ‘Misinterpreting’ Bible for ‘Absurd’ Abortion Agenda
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/09/11/brother-in-law-pete-buttigieg-misinterpreting-bible-for-absurd-abortion-agenda/
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,183
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
I saw the pastor, brother of Buttdigger's "wife" on Tucker. It is beyond sickening that the failed mayor is cloaking himself in religion that he maniacally twists for his own political ends.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
Buttigieg is right.  Abortion is a moral question upon which reasonable, moral minds will differ.   The question is who has the right to make that decision.

And the answer should be:  every woman must have the right to decide for herself, on the basis of her own conscience informed by her experience,  her faith and those who love and support her.

It is not a decision to be compelled by government.

Not Biblically, he ain't. You can wax philosofickle all you want. You cannot get that Book to say abortion is OK. Not with any honesty.

When John the Baptist was a child in the womb, he leapt at the presence of his Lord - His Lord who was in the womb too. And yes, the Scripture calls John a child while he is in the womb.

You've got no legs here.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
Abortion should just be up the the person to decide, imo.

Which person? The mother, the father, or the child?

Offline berdie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,521
Would I believe that life begins at conception? No.



Why not?  When does it begin? And on what basis do you have an opinion?

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
A good starting point to discuss abortion is: Exodus 21:-22-25;

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him;....But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

When looking at this verse the "harm" is about the survival of the baby. If the fight causes a miscarriage, or birth before the baby can survive, the perpetrator is to forfeit his life.

Torah is a sharp sword.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236


Why not?  When does it begin? And on what basis do you have an opinion?

When the fetus is realistically viable. With great medical assistance that is around 22 - 24 weeks.

Life definitely begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own.

 


Which person? The mother, the father, or the child?
The mother and father should decide. The mom has final say, though.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
When the fetus is realistically viable. With great medical assistance that is around 22 - 24 weeks.

Life definitely begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own.

The 'fetus' (you know that means baby in Latin, don't you?) is perfectly viable if you leave it alone.
 
Quote
The mother and father should decide. The mom has final say, though.

Why? Does the old man get a say wrt support after the fact? No, he gets to pay his treasure for twenty years. Under coercion. So if it ain't a life, and is part of both the man and woman, how is it that she gets to decide his fortunes (not to mention the child's, of course).

It seems to me that if the man can be coerced for twenty years, the woman should be coerced the same. Or at least the paltry 9 months it would take to deliver the child to his father, and quit claim.

Offline berdie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,521
When the fetus is realistically viable. With great medical assistance that is around 22 - 24 weeks.

Life definitely begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own.

 

The mother and father should decide. The mom has final say, though.




Actually...the "fetus" will be able to survive as soon as it grows... as soon as it is implanted in the mother's womb. If there is a problem...nature will expel it (miscarriage).

You didn't really say what you base this opinion on.  That's o.k....I have to go for the evening.


Offline PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,350
When the fetus is realistically viable. With great medical assistance that is around 22 - 24 weeks. 1

Life definitely begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own. 2
...

1 So, how is a non-living fetus able to grow from a single cell to having limbs that move and internal organs that function when the placenta only passes oxygen and nutrition? The mother's body isn't directing that growth. Reality contradicts "When the fetus is realistically viable". There is no magical point during a pregnancy when the baby goes from non-living to living. The baby is alive, growing according to what amounts to a plan undirected by the mother, is genetically uniquely human, and is genetically unique from the mother.

2 I don't know if you've ever been a parent, but having been one I can guarantee that a baby left "on its own" on a floor surrounded by food, water, and blankets will not survive on its own.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 06:15:33 PM by PeteS in CA »
Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. - David Burge, Iowahawkblog

Think of the Press as Democratic Operatives with Bylines and it All Makes Sense - Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit blog

Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats. - Jim Treacher

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236



Actually...the "fetus" will be able to survive as soon as it grows... as soon as it is implanted in the mother's womb. If there is a problem...nature will expel it (miscarriage).

You didn't really say what you base this opinion on.  That's o.k....I have to go for the evening.



That's not necessarily the case. People are born with terrible medical conditions and birth defects all the time. Those, too, are problems.

I based that on the fact that Naturally the woman is the one who carries, births, and feeds the child.



1 So, how is a non-living fetus able to grow from a single cell to having limbs that move and internal organs that function when the placenta only passes oxygen and nutrition? The mother's body isn't directing that growth. Reality contradicts "When the fetus is realistically viable". There is no magical point during a pregnancy when the baby goes from non-living to living. The baby is alive, growing according to what amounts to a plan undirected by the mother, is genetically uniquely human, and is genetically unique from the mother.

2 I don't know if you've ever been a parent, but having been one I can guarantee that a baby left "on its own" on a floor surrounded by food, water, and blankets will not survive on its own.

If a woman gives birth in the woods to a baby at 16 weeks that's going to be called a miscarriage. It's not going to survive.

At 22 weeks your chances are 50/50 with extreme medical attention. Left alone, those are miscarriages too.

So, in the medical profession Doctors induce births when a woman is well past her 40 weeks. An abortion is an induced miscarriage.



The 'fetus' (you know that means baby in Latin, don't you?) is perfectly viable if you leave it alone.
 
Why? Does the old man get a say wrt support after the fact? No, he gets to pay his treasure for twenty years. Under coercion. So if it ain't a life, and is part of both the man and woman, how is it that she gets to decide his fortunes (not to mention the child's, of course).

It seems to me that if the man can be coerced for twenty years, the woman should be coerced the same. Or at least the paltry 9 months it would take to deliver the child to his father, and quit claim.

See above regarding viability.

Change's in child support laws are a different topic. See above above for my reasoning why the woman gets final say.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
See above regarding viability.

No, as I said, the child is perfectly viable if you leave it alone. In fact is it supremely viable for the environment it is in.

Quote
Change's in child support laws are a different topic. See above above for my reasoning why the woman gets final say.

No they are not. It is the very same thing. The root is the responsibility for the formation of a child. Legally the father is liable from the start. He cannot quit that liability.
Why isn't the woman equally liable?
Why can she act upon the father's liability and/or interests without his consent?
Why can she quit her own liability by murdering the child, but the father cannot?

Surely you can see the inequity in this, even if you can't see the inequity in the murder of the child.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
No, as I said, the child is perfectly viable if you leave it alone. In fact is it supremely viable for the environment it is in.

No they are not. It is the very same thing. The root is the responsibility for the formation of a child. Legally the father is liable from the start. He cannot quit that liability.
Why isn't the woman equally liable?
Why can she act upon the father's liability and/or interests without his consent?
Why can she quit her own liability by murdering the child, but the father cannot?

Surely you can see the inequity in this, even if you can't see the inequity in the murder of the child.

Being a live human being means breathing oxygen and a bunch of other internal processes outside of the womb. In the natural world.

If a fetus is not capable of that, I cannot say they are a live human being.

Okay, what if the woman wants to keep the child and the father wants the abortion? Who makes the final call?
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
Being a live human being means breathing oxygen and a bunch of other internal processes outside of the womb. In the natural world.

No, being a human being is a matter of genetics. That child is a human being without question. A genetically unique individual human. If a pregnant mother is killed two murders are prosecuted. There is no question as to the definition.

As to whether the child is alive - it thinks, it emotes, it has motor control... It reacts to pain, it takes in sustenance and eliminates waste. It is every bit as alive, with more complexity and signature than the bacteria inhabiting the very same space - That bacterium, which you will no doubt recognize as being alive.

Quote
If a fetus is not capable of that, I cannot say they are a live human being.

There are creatures living in your body right now.

Quote
Okay, what if the woman wants to keep the child and the father wants the abortion? Who makes the final call?

Who indeed. A legitimate test would require a trial and a judgement. Even without the interest of the child. The two parents have an equal interest, and either both should be coerce-able, or both should be able to quit claim, or both should be able to do either.

Certainly it is not right that the woman decides alone.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 07:12:40 PM by roamer_1 »

Offline GtHawk

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,100
  • Wake me up when the world is sane again!
The one with a Social Security number.
Oh, so you would discriminate against illegals?

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,874
Oh, so you would discriminate against illegals?

Oh SMACK!
 :beer:

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,509
  • Personal text
This is really really simple. There is no creating life. THE LIFE IS ALREADY THERE. There is only the continuation of life. If the egg is alive and the sperm is alive and they unite all that happens is a new human being is started at conception. Any disruption of that process, after conception, by unnatural causes, like abortion, is MURDER. Murder of a human being.

If the woman chooses to end a pregnancy she is a murderer. Capital murder.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
No, being a human being is a matter of genetics. That child is a human being without question. A genetically unique individual human. If a pregnant mother is killed two murders are prosecuted. There is no question as to the definition.

As to whether the child is alive - it thinks, it emotes, it has motor control... It reacts to pain, it takes in sustenance and eliminates waste. It is every bit as alive, with more complexity and signature than the bacteria inhabiting the very same space - That bacterium, which you will no doubt recognize as being alive.

There are creatures living in your body right now.

Who indeed. A legitimate test would require a trial and a judgement. Even without the interest of the child. The two parents have an equal interest, and either both should be coerce-able, or both should be able to quit claim, or both should be able to do either.

Certainly it is not right that the woman decides alone.

Viability is the true test.

92% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks. A fetus at the stage would never survive in the natural world. Which is to be it's environment.

I never said a woman decides alone. But she certainly has the final call. She's the one that has to show up or not show up to the procedure.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline OfTheCross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
This is really really simple. There is no creating life. THE LIFE IS ALREADY THERE. There is only the continuation of life. If the egg is alive and the sperm is alive and they unite all that happens is a new human being is started at conception. Any disruption of that process, after conception, by unnatural causes, like abortion, is MURDER. Murder of a human being.

If the woman chooses to end a pregnancy she is a murderer. Capital murder.

Would she be charged with manslaughter is she does it w/o prior knowledge? Maybe she miscarries due to heavy drinking and smoking or other drug use. Is that manslaughter?
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,509
  • Personal text
Viability is the true test.

92% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks. A fetus at the stage would never survive in the natural world. Which is to be it's environment.

I never said a woman decides alone. But she certainly has the final call. She's the one that has to show up or not show up to the procedure.

Quote
is to be

BANG!

A human being "at that stage" is surviving in the natural world.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf