It is not a matter of who has more rights over others, but who has more to lose when those self-evident rights are violated. A pregnant woman at the very least is “forced” to be pregnant, which would be a temporary loss for her. An aborted child is forced to DIE, which is permanent and irrevocable. Pro-choice that protects the legalization of abortion by it’s nature is anti-choice and a threat to Liberty for all.

The law (if it is principled and constitutional) does not exist to say who has more rights, but to protect those who would suffer the most harm when the rights of two individuals are directly conflicted at each other. 

And if we are to bring up the lack of personhood as an excuse to defend legalized abortion, tell me this: when slavery was outlawed and blacks were recognized by law to be persons, did that mean they are less human before the law acknowledged them? How about women, were women less worthy to vote before they were deemed equal to men by the law? 

And now I challenge the phrase “potential life.” Since scientific evidence clearly proves that a human zygote, an embryo, and a fetus is indeed alive and reproducing it’s own cells (quite rapidly, mind you), and is nothing else but human, it would be more accurate to label it as a “life with potential.” To believe in the former is nothing short of delusion.

FYI, our hearts began to beat around 18-22 days after our conception. That’s a good week or two before the mother realizes she is even pregnant! If anything, we should push abortion limits to 3-5 weeks at the very least.

http://www.ehd.org/

^a window to the womb

On a scriptural note, we only need to look at the story of Mary and her cousin Elizabeth during their pregnancies to offer a little peak when a soul enters the body: Elizabeth’s fetus “lept for joy” when Mary, with child (Jesus) approached. I don’t think that had anything to do with consuming juice.

The more I think about it the more this challenge comes to mind -

Mormons can answer your question concerning where the other Gods are if you can tell them the location of God prior to the earth’s creation.

There are lots of sites where that would be appropriate.

God existed somewhere, in some realm prior to creating the heavens and earth spoke of in Genesis. I thought it was understood among most Christians that the place or realm God existed prior to the creation of the heavens and earth would be the actual heaven you are speaking of.

Isn’t the most commonly accepted understanding among both religious teachers and scholars that the heavens referred to in Genesis 1 and 2 is the earth’s ecosystem or atmosphere?

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/heaven.html

The usual Hebrew word for “heavens” is shamayim, a plural form meaning “heights,” “elevations” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1).

I think this interpretation is further confirmed by the following verses -

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

My point with the “translations” is it is very important to go the original language when questions arise. I read and examine all translations whenever possible (such as when a question arises). If I could read Greek and Hebrew I would. Unfortunately I am limited to looking at individual words of Greek and Hebrew, and when there is a question the original language trumps all.

Your pre-existance ideas are flawed. Satan is an angel, a fallen angel. There is a difference between angels/demons and people, they are not one in the same.

Does the bible say God created everything “here”. No.. it says God created “all things”, including heaven and earth. So if there was no heaven at the time of creation where were all these other Gods? Do they live in different heavens? Does each God have his eternal family on seperate planets, yet “families are forever”. If both sides of the family are LDS which family is “forever”? If Mormon men strive to become God and be worshipped. Do their sons and daughters worship them? Do other Gods worship each other? I could go on an on… When you have heresy it opens up all kinds of problems that can not be resolved by your theology.

No.. I will not call you Christian until you abandon the multiple Gods heresy, and admit that Jesus is eternally God (just like the Father). Sorry, but no Christian accepts Mormonism as “Christian”.

A few comments back you were arguing that the bible has no problems with different translations but now you can pick and chose which translation you prefer?

I see there is no use in trying to explain things here since you part from the view that anything a mormon believes is heresy. But I’ll argue a few points anyway

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”. He is saying he knows everything” Nope, he is saying that he knew the guy before the guy was a fetus. Only a preexistence can fit here. Plus, your own definition of Satan points to an existence before mortal life. Plus Job 38:7 ‘sons of God shouted for joy’..etc But you can believe what you want to, I’m not forcing you to change here.

“Please open your eyes. Remove the scales…” Yeap, done that. Now ‘In the beginning’ means when God created man…ie in the beginning. Then ‘in the beginning’ there was another person who wasn’t God but ‘the verb’ who was like God and was [A] God. And because he created everything here, ie everything mortal being earth, plants, animals, man’s bodies or their DNA..he is the Father of this world and ‘Father’ is then one of his titles, as is King of Kings….etc etc. See I only see this after I remove those awful scales from my eyes!! Plus since we agree that the verb was Jesus will you start to now call us ‘Christians’? …please????

And about Satan, well no, there’s a right way and a wrong way. If you think you can never reach that level fine, but Jesus did say that ‘all that the father has’ will be given to the faithful like “inherit the Kingdom of God”, if we are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” wouldn’t we actually be “heirs” as a prince who is a “heir” to become King? or if we “receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away”? ring any bells? they are all from the New Testament but then if you know the sacred book you can find them and explain them away in that extreemists evangelical way….. oops sorry, typo, I meant ‘Jesus Freak’

Now this is the kind of dialogue I am talking about! Both of you have given me loads to research. Thank you!

I must add who Satan is… He is a fallen angel that formerly led worship in Heaven. His sin was he wanted people to worship him. He wanted to be “like God”, or “a God”. This is the same underlying sin of Mormonism. Some day Mormon men stive to become God. Why is this not the same heresy that Satan was cast out of heaven for? I truly do not understand.

But wait… The beginning of the book of John says the following, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

All things were made when Jesus was there! How can you deny this. What part of “all” do you not understand. “All” includes you, “all” includes me. Without Jesus “was not anything made that was made”!

Please open your eyes. Remove the scales… Can’t you see Jesus was with God in the beginning before the heavens and earth and ALL THINGS were created. This is extremely important! Jesus is eternally God, just like the Father.

Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD,
EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace.”

Regarding Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”. I never would say God is talking to a fetus. He is saying he knows everything, including who will be born and what they will do, etc… No talk of pre-existance in that verse.

Regarding Exodus 21:22-25… We’ve come full circle again to the importance of studying the original Hebrew of the Bible. This actually proves that we must study different translations to ensure that the original meaning of the text is not distorted. Why only use the KJV, and assume it is only correct in that it “translated correctly”, when in fact we can go to the original Hebrew and analyze what it says.

Please refer to the following on Exodus: 22-25 from John Piper:

Sometimes Exodus 21:22-25 is used by pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible does not regard the unborn as persons just as worthy of protection as an adult. Some translations do in fact make this a plausible opinion. But I want to try to show that the opposite is the case. The text really supports the worth and rights of the unborn.

This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarreling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace. She is struck, and the blow results in a miscarriage or pre-mature birth. Pro-choice reasoning assumes that a miscarriage occurs. But this is not likely.

The RSV is one translation that supports the pro-choice conclusion. It says,

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay 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.

The RSV assumes that a “miscarriage” happens, and the foetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no “harm,” because it says, “If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows . . .” It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as “harm” which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc.

This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if “harm follows” (to the woman!) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc.

But is this the right translation? The NIV does not assume that a miscarriage happened. The NIV translates the text like this:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .

What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc.

I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew:

And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman (‘ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse’u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, 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.

The key phrase is “and the children go forth.” The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?

In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:

1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, “None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land.” But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

2. Rather the word for birth here is “go forth” (ytsa’). “And if her children go forth . . .” This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children “going forth” or “coming out” from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, “And the first came out (wyetse’) red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau.” (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)

So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Is. 33:3). But these words are not used here.

4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. “Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form” (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).

5. Verse 22 says, “[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . .” It does not say, “[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . .” (NASB). The word “further is NOT in the original text.

The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman (“If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . .”). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.

Likewise in verse 23 when it says, “But if there was injury . . .” it does not say “to the woman,” as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”

Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say,

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . .

George Bush (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said,

If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother.

Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.

. Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135) suggest that the reason for the plural in Hebrew is “for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb.”

. Besides those quoted I would mention Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” Christianity Today 17, 12 (March 16, 1973): 6-9; Wayne H. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 108-123; Bernard S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exodus 21:22-25 (Ius Talionis),” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 273-304

But back to the subject matter here. What does the bible teach about abortion?

1- Genesis 2:7 “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”. So life actually starts when the baby ‘breaths’. Since fetuses don’t breath at all, even in Joe P’s world, that fetus, nor the sperm, is not a “living” being as yet. All abortion does is stop a life from happening and because of that it is still a serious sin.

2- The biblical punishment for causing an abortion is another indication of the fact that in the old testament they did not consider a fetus a human, since the punishment for murder was death (as it was for adultery or homosexuality or bestiality) but the punishment for abortion or the ‘causing’ of a mother to lose her fetus, without further damage to the mother, was only monetary compensation to the husband of that mother (Exodus 21:22-25)

But the problem is with the mindset of evangelical extremists like Joe P here who read all sorts of weired and wonderful things into scripture, like claiming that Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” shows that God is talking about the fetus when in actual fact He is talking about ‘before you even were in the belly’ which points to a pre-existence or life previous to conception, maybe when we saw that angle and one third of heavens host expelled from God’s presence as mentioned in Revelations.

But I don’t think, or know of, the Book of Mormon dealing with abortion. Interesting that it doesn’t.

I appreciate your words, Joe. You at least sound sincere.

The quote you present is very interesting. I knew that some members of the LDS Church believed this, but I had never read a quote from an actual Church leader stating it. As you probably know, a quote from an LDS Church leader is not considered doctrine in the LDS Church. Several Church leaders have made speculative comments that have not been in harmony with accepted teachings. As far as I know, this teaching is not considered doctrine only speculation.

Personally, I don’t agree with the quote. I believe there has been too much research indicating that what a child is exposed to in the womb does have an affect on them post-birth. But I don’t feel I know enough about it to really have an educated opinion.

Much from the truth! God has already declared all I need thru Jesus (a big part of his declaration are in Gods Word)! Jesus lives! I worship and follow Jesus. Am I perfect in doing so? Far from it, but he is my everything.

Please.

So I guess that means we WON’T be receiving the abortion commandment? So I guess we can stop arguing.

Regarding pregnancy as a result of rape. IMHO. Murdering a child will create much more emotional torment on the woman than properly raising the child or lovingly giving it up for adoption.

A member of what?

He can no longer declare anything because you have stuffed Him into a book. You accuse Mormons of giving God human-like qualities, yet you have turned Him into a piece of literature. Your God is not omnipotent. He is bound by your foolish traditions, interpretations and creeds that you try to pass off as divine. They are no more divine than a Calvin and Hobbes comic book. You worship the Bible, not God.