Abortions: WWJD? (Page 3): Why would you include men unless the men supported the abortion? If the man does not support the abortion, how could it be included? I’m actually not in...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Triple G wrote:

Then apply criminal law to all abortions as murder tp all women and doctors as defendants plus the men involved as accessories. Without that, your argument doesn't fly.

Why would you include men unless the men supported the abortion? If the man does not support the abortion, how could it be included? I’m actually not in favor of charging women for the murder just the Doctor Who performed the abortion. But again, like I’ve said before, I’ll leave it to the voters of each state, whether I like the law or not.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Racmanaz wrote:

Again, Nobody alive knows what Jesus looked like, I don't pretend I do as you seem to think you know. Only a fool would try to describe the physical features of Jesus. Jesus may have been white skinned, brown skinned or light or dark black skinned. He may have had blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes. He may have been 6 ft tall, 5 foot tall or anywhere between. NONODY knows, well YOU seem to think you know.

The generalized appearance of the external physical characteristics of the population of the time of Jesus, in that area, would have been medium brown-skinned, relatively short, dark-haired, dark-eyed, with (likely) a beard. Wearing clothing common for the period: a tunic, a cloak of coarse cloth, and sandals.

”We DO know Jesus was a jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues.”

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html
~~~~~~~~~~~

What did Jesus look like?

We do not have much written evidence for what Jesus physically looked like. None of the writings that make up the collection now known as the New Testament describe Jesus’s facial or bodily features. This lack of detail is not surprising given what we know of how people in the first centuries of the ancient Mediterranean described themselves. When required to identify themselves on official documents like contracts, people referred to visible scars as a means of differentiating themselves from others, rather than a physical feature like eye color, height, or hair (“Demetrios son of Apollinarus, with a scar on his left cheek,” for instance, rather than “Demetrios with the thick eyebrows” or “Demetrios with the dark brown eyes”).

People were most commonly described in terms of their relationships to other people and places, not as individuals. The relationship of a son to his father, for instance, was much more significant than what that son might have looked like. The same is true about the place the son was from. “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Jesus of Nazareth” are therefore common descriptors for Jesus.

Despite the lack of physical descriptions of Jesus, we can make several essential, foundational statements about his physical appearance. Most importantly, Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jewish man from the region of Galilee in the first century CE. As a Jewish man from first-century Galilee, he would have had dark skin, dark hair, dark eyes, and, likely, a shortish beard.

Jesus’s brown skin should not come as a surprise. It should be a commonly recognized fact. The white Jesus looking calmly, through blue eyes, towards the viewer, arms outstretched in blessing, has and continues to cause untold human damage. That Jesus has serious racist and anti-Semitic consequences.

Writings about Jesus continue to be called upon as sources of authority in the most important and controversial debates of our time. Many people understand Jesus in relationship to God. If humanity is made in God’s image, what does it mean that Jesus is continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? What does it mean that power and authority are continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? Jesus’s teachings about oppression, about the rights of the marginalized, about love and justice, can never be realized, or understood at all, when Jesus is white. White Jesus needs to exit, stage right.

Understanding what Jesus looked like enables us to see that representations of Jesus – representations dating as far back as the fourth and fifth centuries CE – are not concerned with historical accuracy. These representations create and communicate ideas about Jesus that have more to do with their own time and place, not Jesus’s. They say much more about the people who made them and their reasons for making them.

What about his clothing?

The first-century CE Jewish man, Jesus of Nazareth, likely had a spare wardrobe: a tunic reaching down to about his knees or just below, a large rectangular cloak worn over the tunic, wrapped loosely around the body, a belt, and leather sandals. Jesus’s students would have dressed similarly, as Jesus instructs them to spread his teaching with minimal provisions: “He charged them to take nothing for the road except a staff only; no bread, no leather pouch, no money in their belts, but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9). While the cloak is not mentioned here, it should be assumed. To be without a cloak was essentially to be naked, and as it usually doubled as a blanket, it would also mean you would be very cold at night.

As a man who honoured the God of Israel, Jesus’s cloak would have had a hem decorated with distinctive edges, the fringes or tzitzit that marked the corners of a Jewish man’s outer garment, or tallit.”

https://earlychristiantexts.com/what-did-jesus-look-like/#

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Frank T wrote:

A fetus or zygote is not a person. br That is a s... (show quote)

Wrong, The word fetus in Latin means unborn offspring, and offspring means child so therefore the fetus as you call, is an unborn child which is a person. A fetus and zygote it’s just terms to describe the development of the unborn child. Just as an infant a toddler, a juvenile adult and a senior citizen are all terms to describe the development of the bourne human being. They are all human and all a person.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Harvey wrote:

LOL - I started my Bible reading and study when I quit drinking 34 yrs ago so I think I have enough hours of studying and group discussions to stand my ground without being called names and being accused of "stuff"
If you can't carry a decent conversation why don't you gather your marbles and go play some where else.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Racmanaz wrote:

If someone wants to murder someone just because he/she wanted to, then there should be no laws infringing on that right as well, right?

Well, that is a different question, isn't it?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

The generalized appearance of the external physical characteristics of the population of the time of Jesus, in that area, would have been medium brown-skinned, relatively short, dark-haired, dark-eyed, with (likely) a beard. Wearing clothing common for the period: a tunic, a cloak of coarse cloth, and sandals.

”We DO know Jesus was a jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues.”

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html
~~~~~~~~~~~

What did Jesus look like?

We do not have much written evidence for what Jesus physically looked like. None of the writings that make up the collection now known as the New Testament describe Jesus’s facial or bodily features. This lack of detail is not surprising given what we know of how people in the first centuries of the ancient Mediterranean described themselves. When required to identify themselves on official documents like contracts, people referred to visible scars as a means of differentiating themselves from others, rather than a physical feature like eye color, height, or hair (“Demetrios son of Apollinarus, with a scar on his left cheek,” for instance, rather than “Demetrios with the thick eyebrows” or “Demetrios with the dark brown eyes”).

People were most commonly described in terms of their relationships to other people and places, not as individuals. The relationship of a son to his father, for instance, was much more significant than what that son might have looked like. The same is true about the place the son was from. “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Jesus of Nazareth” are therefore common descriptors for Jesus.

Despite the lack of physical descriptions of Jesus, we can make several essential, foundational statements about his physical appearance. Most importantly, Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jewish man from the region of Galilee in the first century CE. As a Jewish man from first-century Galilee, he would have had dark skin, dark hair, dark eyes, and, likely, a shortish beard.

Jesus’s brown skin should not come as a surprise. It should be a commonly recognized fact. The white Jesus looking calmly, through blue eyes, towards the viewer, arms outstretched in blessing, has and continues to cause untold human damage. That Jesus has serious racist and anti-Semitic consequences.

Writings about Jesus continue to be called upon as sources of authority in the most important and controversial debates of our time. Many people understand Jesus in relationship to God. If humanity is made in God’s image, what does it mean that Jesus is continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? What does it mean that power and authority are continually imaged – completely incorrectly – as white? Jesus’s teachings about oppression, about the rights of the marginalized, about love and justice, can never be realized, or understood at all, when Jesus is white. White Jesus needs to exit, stage right.

Understanding what Jesus looked like enables us to see that representations of Jesus – representations dating as far back as the fourth and fifth centuries CE – are not concerned with historical accuracy. These representations create and communicate ideas about Jesus that have more to do with their own time and place, not Jesus’s. They say much more about the people who made them and their reasons for making them.

What about his clothing?

The first-century CE Jewish man, Jesus of Nazareth, likely had a spare wardrobe: a tunic reaching down to about his knees or just below, a large rectangular cloak worn over the tunic, wrapped loosely around the body, a belt, and leather sandals. Jesus’s students would have dressed similarly, as Jesus instructs them to spread his teaching with minimal provisions: “He charged them to take nothing for the road except a staff only; no bread, no leather pouch, no money in their belts, but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9). While the cloak is not mentioned here, it should be assumed. To be without a cloak was essentially to be naked, and as it usually doubled as a blanket, it would also mean you would be very cold at night.

As a man who honoured the God of Israel, Jesus’s cloak would have had a hem decorated with distinctive edges, the fringes or tzitzit that marked the corners of a Jewish man’s outer garment, or tallit.”

https://earlychristiantexts.com/what-did-jesus-look-like/#

b The generalized appearance of the external phys... (show quote)

Again, all that is irrelevant to the fact that NOBODY alive knows what Jesus look like. I don’t care about generalizations that doesn’t mean he fell into that category. Your argument is just foolishness.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jaymatt wrote:

Well, that is a different question, isn't it?

Nope, It’s about somebody choosing to murder. Whether the person is in the womb or out of the womb.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Racmanaz wrote:

Nope, It’s about somebody choosing to murder. Whether the person is in the womb or out of the womb.

But it is not the same. I, along with lots of others, do not consider a fetus as a person until it becomes viable to live outside the womb. I understand that you disagree, and that is exactly why I disallowed the subject in my writing classes.

We will just have to agree to respectfully disagree.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

jaymatt wrote:

My opinion about abortion has nothing to do with r... (show quote)

A bit of introspection should reveal abortion is indeed a personal decision.

And should not be dictated by a bunch of mostly aged Ayatollahs in Congress and state legislatures.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Racmanaz wrote:

The person who just responded to my comment is the dumb one. Murder is murder no matter whether the person is in the womb or not

According to the bible, a person is not “alive” until breath is drawn.

”It can be said with absolute certainty that ancient scripture does not consider a zygote or a fetus even to be alive, because it has not yet drawn breath.

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath. Among other biblical verses supporting this truth are these:

Genesis 2:7 — God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being’.
Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Job 33:4 — God formed man, then: ‘The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.’

Ezekiel 37:5&6 — ‘Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live...’.” — C. A. Farrington (Emphasis added)

https://www.news-press.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/10/16/bibles-truth-fetus-abortion/74001632/#
~~~~~~~~~~~

Biblical references to the beginnings of life.

”For a more direct statement on when life begins, we should look to the formation of Adam in Genesis 2—a text that has been at the heart of both Jewish and Christian understandings of humanity and the nature of human life for millennia. The author refers explicitly to the beginning of Adam’s life in verse 7:
‘Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’
When does Adam become a living being? When God breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. On this basis, many strands of Judaism have taught for centuries that life begins at first breath.

“The Bible has more to say about the status of the entity growing in a mother’s womb.
Exodus 21: No death penalty for causing a miscarriage?

“If there’s one law about life we find consistently in the Old Testament, it is that the punishment for taking a life is death. “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6).
God’s law in Exodus expands this principle, assigning the death penalty for premeditated murder, striking a person mortally (second degree murder), killing a slave, kidnapping, striking a parent, or even cursing one’s parents (see Exodus 21:12-21).
However, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is significantly less severe:
‘When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’ (Exodus 21:22-25)
A person who strikes a pregnant woman—causing her to miscarry—is not put to death. Instead, they are fined whatever amount ‘the woman’s husband demands’ (can you say: “patriarchy”) and only punished further ‘if any harm follows.’
This comes directly after the death penalty is assigned to anyone who takes a life.
It would seem, therefore, that God’s law in the Old Testament recognizes a difference between human life outside the womb (once first breath has been drawn) and the potential life status of a developing fetus.

Terminating pregnancies that result from adultery

“This final example is (admittedly) the most bizarre of the bunch.
Numbers 5:11-31 prescribes a procedure for dealing with an unfaithful wife which—in order to be fully grasped—should be read in its entirety.
Essentially, if a man suspects that his wife became pregnant through adultery, he is to bring her before a priest, along with a grain offering. The priest brings the woman before God and forces her to drink a concoction made of holy water and some dust from the tabernacle floor. Before she drinks, however, the priest messes up the woman’s hair, puts the offering in her hands, and makes her swear before God that she has not been unfaithful.
After that, the grain offering is offered and the woman drinks the bitter water. If she has been faithful, nothing happens.
But if she cheated on her husband, her uterus will drop, and the pregnancy will be lost.

“I have never heard a pro-life Christian cite this passage—and for good reason. Aside from the downright zany nature of the ritual, it would seem (based on Numbers 5) that it is (at the very least) lawful to terminate a pregnancy that results from adultery.

“One could argue that the same standard should apply to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest—exceptions that are not found in some state abortion bans, and which often place undue burdens on rape victims to prove they’ve been raped.” — Rev. Dr. Dan Brockway (Emphasis added)

https://christiancitizen.us/when-does-life-begin-reckoning-with-surprising-answers-in-scripture/

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Wyantry wrote:

A bit of introspection should reveal abortion is indeed a personal decision.

And should not be dictated by a bunch of mostly aged Ayatollahs in Congress and state legislatures.

I wholeheartedly agree.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Wyantry wrote:

According to the bible, a person is not “alive” until breath is drawn.

”It can be said with absolute certainty that ancient scripture does not consider a zygote or a fetus even to be alive, because it has not yet drawn breath.

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath. Among other biblical verses supporting this truth are these:

Genesis 2:7 — God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being’.
Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

Job 33:4 — God formed man, then: ‘The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.’

Ezekiel 37:5&6 — ‘Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live...’.” — C. A. Farrington (Emphasis added)

https://www.news-press.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/10/16/bibles-truth-fetus-abortion/74001632/#
~~~~~~~~~~~

Biblical references to the beginnings of life.

”For a more direct statement on when life begins, we should look to the formation of Adam in Genesis 2—a text that has been at the heart of both Jewish and Christian understandings of humanity and the nature of human life for millennia. The author refers explicitly to the beginning of Adam’s life in verse 7:
‘Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’
When does Adam become a living being? When God breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. On this basis, many strands of Judaism have taught for centuries that life begins at first breath.

“The Bible has more to say about the status of the entity growing in a mother’s womb.
Exodus 21: No death penalty for causing a miscarriage?

“If there’s one law about life we find consistently in the Old Testament, it is that the punishment for taking a life is death. “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6).
God’s law in Exodus expands this principle, assigning the death penalty for premeditated murder, striking a person mortally (second degree murder), killing a slave, kidnapping, striking a parent, or even cursing one’s parents (see Exodus 21:12-21).
However, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is significantly less severe:
‘When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’ (Exodus 21:22-25)
A person who strikes a pregnant woman—causing her to miscarry—is not put to death. Instead, they are fined whatever amount ‘the woman’s husband demands’ (can you say: “patriarchy”) and only punished further ‘if any harm follows.’
This comes directly after the death penalty is assigned to anyone who takes a life.
It would seem, therefore, that God’s law in the Old Testament recognizes a difference between human life outside the womb (once first breath has been drawn) and the potential life status of a developing fetus.

Terminating pregnancies that result from adultery

“This final example is (admittedly) the most bizarre of the bunch.
Numbers 5:11-31 prescribes a procedure for dealing with an unfaithful wife which—in order to be fully grasped—should be read in its entirety.
Essentially, if a man suspects that his wife became pregnant through adultery, he is to bring her before a priest, along with a grain offering. The priest brings the woman before God and forces her to drink a concoction made of holy water and some dust from the tabernacle floor. Before she drinks, however, the priest messes up the woman’s hair, puts the offering in her hands, and makes her swear before God that she has not been unfaithful.
After that, the grain offering is offered and the woman drinks the bitter water. If she has been faithful, nothing happens.
But if she cheated on her husband, her uterus will drop, and the pregnancy will be lost.

“I have never heard a pro-life Christian cite this passage—and for good reason. Aside from the downright zany nature of the ritual, it would seem (based on Numbers 5) that it is (at the very least) lawful to terminate a pregnancy that results from adultery.

“One could argue that the same standard should apply to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest—exceptions that are not found in some state abortion bans, and which often place undue burdens on rape victims to prove they’ve been raped.” — Rev. Dr. Dan Brockway (Emphasis added)

https://christiancitizen.us/when-does-life-begin-reckoning-with-surprising-answers-in-scripture/

b According to the bible, a person is not “alive”... (show quote)

Well, now, these passages are certainly most interesting.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jaymatt wrote:

But it is not the same. I, along with lots of others, do not consider a fetus as a person until it becomes viable to live outside the womb. I understand that you disagree, and that is exactly why I disallowed the subject in my writing classes.

We will just have to agree to respectfully disagree.

I like many others do believe that the unborn is a person. If that unborn is not a person then why can somebody be charged with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman?

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Frank T wrote:

A fetus or zygote is not a person. br That is a s... (show quote)

A nice answer. Rational. Well presented. Non-judgmental. Not dependent on religious orthodoxy.

So what does it really mean to be a person? Is consciousness a determining factor? What about the reaction to external stimuli (e.g. sound, movement, pain)?

At what point does a collection-of-cells become a “person”? And who decides, anyway?

Both Religiously and Scientifically (biologically) many consider “Life” begins when gametes combine and DNA strands combine. Or Conception. Prior to that it is just egg and sperm.

For millenia, in jewish orthodoxy and others, life has been considered as commencing at birth.
From the Talmudic teachings:

”Let us first establish the time that a fetus legally acquires the status equal to an adult human being. The Talmud states in part that if the ‘greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.’
Thus the act of birth changes the status of the fetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh).
Killing the newborn after this point is infanticide.”

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
~~~~~~~~~~

Or “Life” begins when the fetus can survive on its own. Or when the mother detects movement (“quickening”).

A listing of some faiths and their position on abortion is:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/
~~~~~~~~~~

It seems that orthodoxy enforced upon women by a (largely) group of judgmental male-Ayatollahs is wrong.
It should be the personal decision of the woman.
And ALWAYS allowable in cases of incest, rape or to provide for the health of the mother.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

Wrong, The word fetus in Latin means unborn offspring, and offspring means child so therefore the fetus as you call, is an unborn child which is a person. A fetus and zygote it’s just terms to describe the development of the unborn child. Just as an infant a toddler, a juvenile adult and a senior citizen are all terms to describe the development of the bourne human being. They are all human and all a person.

Faulty logic. An unborn child is not a person because a person is born.