Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PJr who wrote (421149)	4/11/2011 2:27:10 PM
From: Gersh Avery	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793838

" I've always wondered how pro-abortion people rationalize a charge of murder when some goon kicks his wife/girlfriend in the stomach and kills their unborn baby. Why not just invoke Roe v Wade as a defense? Unborn children would have no right to life if life begins at birth, no? Assault on the mother, sure, but murder for the death of the unborn baby? Selective morality at work here? Pat My government does a very poor job determining moral issues. When they do they should agree with God and His Word. Men (governments) attempt to add to the Word. What results is a mess. Like the war on drugs. Paul warned about the useless nature of laws intended to force people into godliness. He told us 2000 years ago that such laws only serve to make the person making such rules appear "Holy." Puffed up. (Col2:21) Look up Ex 21:22. In the section where God talks directly to Moses expounding on the ten commandments. God tells Moses how to deal with a situation where someone hits a woman and causes her to miscarry. It seems an odd section. The section just before talks about someone working on a hillside, dislodging a rock, that kills someone below. That results in a suspended death sentence. Yet the next section, talking about the woman, has a civil penalty IF THE HUSBAND CHOOSES TO ASK FOR THE FINE. Very different than the manslaughter suspended death penalty. Then there's the section where the angel Gabrial tells Mary the good news. "The Holy THING you carry, when IT is born will be called the Son of God." Perhaps the angel had it wrong. It wasn't a "thing" is was a child .. right? Hurry .. tell God he had it wrong. It serves a higher purpose to say "child" instead of "thing." Bottom line is that the line, drawn by the Word of God, is the moment that the potential child takes its first breath. You can talk about "quickened" or "viable" and I see some merit to the argument. Some .. As for the Word, life begins with breath. Trying to claim a higher moral ground than the Word does is dangerous and likely to lead to evil abuse. You asked where the line is .. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.