Again, after 3500-4000 years, the talmud changed. The Jewish people evolved to be even more enlightened. You keep making my point for me. And that point is that we, the *human* race as a whole, have moved beyond the need to have religious texts and archaic laws spelled out therein be the guiding laws by which society continues to slog through the millenia.

Something is terribly wrong when premature babies are nurtured in one wing of the hospital while unborn babies/foetus' of the same age are aborted in another.

''The national EPICure study from 1995 (see paragraph 31) reports that at 20–22 weeks 89% of babies are born dead, while at 23 weeks, 61% of babies are born dead, dropping to 40% at 24 weeks.20

An extract from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045i.pdf

"Because you base your opposition to abortion on OT moral law"

Where did I do this? I responded separately from my responses to abge about your question of OT law regarding miscarriages. To which you attacked the fact that there are multiple translations of the bible that say different things. I doubt I'll ever find a translation you and I could both agree on so I didn't even bother with that argument..

My scriptural basis is the account of the baby leaping in Elizabeth's womb by the influence of the Spirit, and David's description of God knowing him "before" his mother concieved him. If a person has that much importance before conception, why would they have less after conception?

Jesus teachings that I referred to were in defense of the oppressed, the fatherless, and the widows. By extension wouldn't the unborn be defensless and if people therefore oppresssed?

Talmud didn't *change* anything, the talmud was the oral law written down, so the stories and laws written down were already in effect, technically from Sinai but i don't believe that

"Lief is "sparing teen mothers anguish" by calling them greedy, selfish, and immoral - murderers even, and sending money to have propagandists rail against abortion and deliberately misinform them about issues of reproductive health, and force them to listen to heartbeats, etc "

Because the anguish of having taken a life is worse than any other anguish known to humans, yes I would tolerate causing anguish to save a life.

However once again, you characterize my words as you see fit. I don't care for nor support these groups you have left nameless that you refer to, despite your attempts to say that I do.

"Jesus teachings that I referred to were in defense of the oppressed, the fatherless, and the widows. By extension wouldn't the unborn be defensless and if people therefore oppresssed?"

You pick and choose what scripture to follow, and midrash rules where none exist.

"David's description of God knowing him "before" his mother concieved him.

And this isn't from the OT? From the Book of Jeremiah? Evidently the OT is only relevant when you want it to be.

Which groups are you sending money to, then? If we want to name names.

"yes I would tolerate causing anguish to save a life."

Then stop pretending that you're doing pregnant women any favors.

Regarding this point of yours Putin..

""I also am not advocating that everyone has to live by my worldview or interpretation of Scripture."

Except, apparently, women who happen to be pregnant. They're forced to deal with the consequences of your worldview."

Only if they think that killing their baby is a good idea.

The idea that a zygote is equivalent to a fully developed baby is an idea you divined from your bizarre reading of the scripture, so yes you're imposing your religious view on all women. I marvel at libertarians who think it's ok for the government to control vaginas and uteruses without batting an eye, and impose medical decisions on people whose life circumstances you know nothing about.

"Which groups are you sending money to, then? If we want to name names. "

I support a doctor here locally who requests anonimity because he often works with illegal immigrants.

To which I am confident I will get the reply "Sure you do." Good luck asking to see my financial records..

Illegal gun ownership is fueled by the legal gun trade. Shut down legal gun trade & say goodbye to illegal gun ownership. These excuses for unfettered gun ownership just don't work.

Wrong thread.

"You pick and choose what scripture to follow"

I believe all scripture is God ordained, and is truth, I pick and choose all of it.

Do I believe your interpetation, translation, rendering of scripture? No. Will you accept my chosen translation or interpretation of it? No.

Impasse, so your argument on this point has no further value.

I asked you to point out where I used OT Law (not the OT) to support my position.

@Putin: "That's not the only question to consider. False reductions of a complex problem help nobody."

Ok, please tell me the complexities you think I'm not capturing in my reduction and I'll either prove my reduction applies or admit my error.

Sorry when you said "groups", I thought you actually meant "groups", not a single anonymous doctor who berates illegal immigrant women into not getting abortions for fun.

"I believe all scripture is God ordained, and is truth, I pick and choose all of it."

Then why call OT law irrelevant but then harp on other sections of the OT?

"I asked you to point out where I used OT Law (not the OT) to support my position."

Nice hairsplitting. So you can ignore OT law or call it irrelevant but harp on other sections of the OT that are not even talking about miscarriages, birthing, or abortions at all.

"I marvel at libertarians who think it's ok for the government to control vaginas and uteruses without batting an eye, and impose medical decisions on people whose life circumstances you know nothing about. "

If left to follow their natural course, the "uncontrolled vagina's and uteruses" you speak of would result in people that the law would protect from being murdered. Its the "control" of such a natural course that results in the termination of a life.

On the flip side, it's "uncontrolled vagina's and uteruses" and I will add "dicks" referring both to the sexual organs and the "men" that they are attached to that get women pregent accidentally.

It's "controlled" sexual organs that prevent unwanted pregnancy. (Leaving aside cases of rape or incest)


As a libertarian I believe abortion should be a state issue btw not a federal issue.

What hairsplitting? I never said I used OT law to defend my position... Nor did I ever say I reject OT law as being from God. I just understand it, scripturally, to be not applicable to today. You won't accept that as a consistent position however so I will concede that from your point of view, I hold an inconsistent position.

I try to will point out that once again, my interpretation is not the same as yours, and thus we can't argue from the same point here..

"Sorry when you said "groups", I thought you actually meant "groups", not a single anonymous doctor who berates illegal immigrant women into not getting abortions for fun."

The ideas you come up with frankly astound me.. Yes that is why I support him because he gets off on people who are having a hard time for his personal entertainment.

By groups, there is a local adoption agency I am looking at supporting, along with several other ministries I already work with and the doctor who volunteers his time, and who all together try to provide opportunites for people to change their lives around completely. Abortion isn't the main focus of any of these, even the doctor. The main focus of all of these outreaches is the people who are being helped..

There may be some kind of grey area, but i would put the suffering of a 3 year old dog above the suffering of a 22 week old foetus.

And this is the problem. While the dog is conscious, knows pain and can likely think about it's own future, if only in a short term way, the foetus only has the potential to do such.

And you haven't addressed, for some reason, that adult skin cells, reverted to stem cell state have the potential to be grown into full human clones of that adult.

on the issue of controlling the uterus' of young girls...

'Plan B prevents ovulation and fertilisation of an egg but is not effective for women who are already pregnant. Medically, pregnancy is said to begin after a fertilised egg embeds itself in the wall of the uterus.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16097627

(again quoting from the above article) 'Critics of the drug have labelled it an "abortion drug" for its role in preventing attachment of an egg to the uterus.'

this is insane, imho. There are, what?, several days per month when the uterus wall presents a hostile environment and will not allow an egg to attach.

Is there a reason why we don't see calls for preventing fertilisation of eggs during this time?

Is it a lack of consistency in the circles which these 'critics' live or is it something to do with the rights which would be infringed more directly that makes such draconian controls more difficult (thus the critics are just biding their time)

A babe in the arms is helpless, unable to speak, drive a car, or engage in financial translations, but I don't think anyone in this forum would argue that a baby is not human and entitled to basic human rights, including protection. And a baby that still needs the protection of the womb to survive is also human, not just an appendage of the mother, not just a piece of tissue.

Unfortunately, girls/women are often not very well protected and can end up with a terrible dilemma. If it happens, only God can wash away sin and guilt and take that terrible burden off of a person's soul. And he will, if asked.

Jesus paid the price.

not according to your religion's source material

'well protected' they are not baby making machines which need to be stored carefully away until appropriate use... They are people with a right to their own body and to make their own decisions.

Education may be useful, but no man has the right to tell a woman/girl what to do with her body. They can support or advise if asked, but no more.

Women are humans, with real health concerns, and is not just an incubator for the fetus to develop at all costs. Women are not your medical guinea pigs from which you, from on high, can determine what she should or should not do with regards to her own body. That's right, *her own body*. Not yours. When pro-lifers are willing to hand over control of their testicles to the State, then I might take them seriously.

As Orathaic pointed out quite clearly, the anti-choice movement is much more about restricting autonomy than preventing abortion, since they even oppose things like HPV vaccines & morning after pills. In many countries they oppose contraception of all kinds. To say that these kinds of policies are about human rights is disingenuous at best.

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body. It is a human life. And there are very few situations that justify the taking of a human life.