respect77;4204241 said:
^ I am sure you will read that "science has proven that life begins at conception" at many anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian websites, but in reality there is no consensus in science as to when life begins, so that stance can hardly be defined as THE TRUTH.
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
That article is mainly about the so-called definition of "personhood", which is currently being treated as an excuse to get away with as many murders as possible under the illusion of "a woman's right to choose". the fact of the matter is that unless she was raped, the woman already made her choice by having consensual sex. And while I truly have compassion for rape victims, even the horror of that violation does not excuse murder. The plain simple fact is that from the moment of conception, a so-called "zygote" is 100% genetically identical to a grown human adult. All that's needed is air, food, water, and time to grow. Those facts have always been true; they didn't change just because we suddenly had the technology to see it.
BTW, I have always found the extreme Christian obsession with abortion weird, since the Bible does not make any mention of abortion. The verses that are used for supporting the Christian churches' extreme obsession with abortion are extremely weak in actually supporting such a strong anti-abortion stance.
There's lots of other words not explicitly stated in Scripture either, like "computer" or "dinosaur". That's where the application of Biblical principles come in. In the 18th chapter of Matthew's gospel, Jesus said that it was better for someone to be thrown into the ocean with a stone around their neck, than to hurt a child who trusted in Him (verse 6). Given such a bold stance on how kids are treated after birth, its more than reasonable He would have an even harsher one against abortion. He also said, "“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven" (verse 10). So clearly, Jesus cares very much about the safety and proper treatment of children.
(Exodus 12:29)
Now THAT is what I call evil!
While that specific incident is emotionally disturbing, it illustrates perfectly God's rights as Creator. Humor me for a moment, and ask yourself a few questions. First, how do we recognize evil in the absolute sense, without an ultimate standard of goodness? Just because something bothers our feelings, does that automatically make it wrong for everyone? There's plenty of things which happen in the world every day, that others find sickening while we may enjoy them. So without an ultimate standard, morality is based completely on preference...even with terrors such as the Holocaust or the 9/11 attacks. Secondly, if God is the Creator of all life, why would He not have the right to take it back at His own discretion? Ultimately speaking, parents don't even create their own children; they simply unite the DNA necessary to complete their genetic code in the mother's womb. From a Biblical standpoint, the reason humans are banned from taking life on a whim is because we're not God, and we didn't create it. He did, so He can.
Women are condemned for abortion but then what about the story of Onan? The guy who refused to impregnate the widow of his dead brother and wasted his sperm on the floor and God struck him with death for that. So does that mean every guy who ever masturbates without impregnating a woman also commits a deadly sin against life? If we are going to be consistent.
The account of Onan is not about masturbation, but rather disobedience of God's command to continue his brother's bloodline. The verses make it very clear that Onan had sex with Tamar...but he removed himself from her before climax because he wanted his own way more than God's.
I don't care who believes in what and who applies what religious rules in their own lives, but the churches have no right to force those religious rules and convictions into state laws and on people who do not buy into their religion.
The Constitution disagrees, with the First Amendment's only restriction being Congress can't make any one faith legally binding across the whole country. That's as far as it goes, though; the rest of the Constitution makes no reference to a "separation of church and state". Instead, the phrase comes from an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, written to the Danbury Baptist Association from Connecticut. I made a video on it a couple of years ago, where I read both letters on camera...
[video=youtube;uD5GsY2vNsg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5GsY2vNsg[/video]
I think it is time for the church to shut up and get out of women's wombs. Especially when they are hardly the epitome of good morals themselves (pedophilia scandals, corruption etc.).
That is what's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". In other words, the abuse of a standard does not automatically warrant its abandonment. Should we get rid of laws against murder, rape, or theft, since they're also consistent with Scripture?