Is abortion for raped victims allowed ?

[Sower]

9 minutes ago, servant4christ said:

My opinion is that since we do not (and cannot) know, it is better in a vast majority of circumstances to avoid abortion altogether.

That statement above is the complete opposite of what I understood you to say.
Thus the subsequent statement I made. How easily comes the fire.
Slow to speak, quick to listen.

 

[servant4christ]

4 minutes ago, Sower said:

That statement above is the complete opposite of what I understood you to say.

Then it would be better to not make assumptions, and politely ask for clarification, wouldn't it?

[servant4christ]

8 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Last I checked the baby didn't cause the rape so why should the baby be punished for it?

Have you ever known anyone that became pregnant as a result of rape? It is quite easy to stand from afar as a male and tell women what they should do. It is not so easy when it happens to you.

In any case, the two examples that have been specifically raised were in a 10 year old girl and a 9 year old girl. I do not accept that these children should be forced to endure the pregnancy on top of the rape.

[servant4christ]

9 minutes ago, Sower said:

How easily comes the fire.
Slow to speak, quick to listen.

Related to this, you may have missed my earlier question. Is it acceptable forum behavior to claim others are not Christian if they disagree with you - as has been done earlier?

36 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

Well, quite frankly they ain't christians. There is absolutely no doubt that life begins at conception. 

 

[Sower]

1 hour ago, servant4christ said:

Then it would be better to not make assumptions, and politely ask for clarification, wouldn't it?

It was not an assumption, s4c, it is what I understood.
As for politely asking for clarification, I would have liked you to have done the same for my statement.

[Sower]

1 hour ago, servant4christ said:

Related to this, you may have missed my earlier question. Is it acceptable forum behavior to claim others are not Christian if they disagree with you - as has been done earlier?

"Is it acceptable forum behavior to claim others are not Christian if they disagree with you"

Stated as such, no.

[servant4christ]

38 minutes ago, Sower said:

Stated as such, no.

Ok, are you then agreeing that Walter's earlier statement is unacceptable?

[tim_from_pa]

3 hours ago, Jayne said:

Tim, I've seen that "summary" of the 613 commands.  Someone did that and now you can find them copied in a lot of places.

The problem?  I've read the summaries  All of them.  Many are incomplete and some are wrong.

For the truth, you have to look at the actual Hebrew scriptures.  I've found several online in the last hour.  They all say the exact same thing.  No rape in Deuteronomy 22:28.

Here is what the Hebrew scripture for Deuteronomy 22:28 says: 

"כחכִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃"

The Hebrew word for rape is not here.  So where does the "summary" get the word rape?

Here's just one of the Hebrew scriptures of Deuteronomy 22 that I found.  They all say the same thing.

Scroll down to verse 28.  Torah - Deuteronomy - Chapter 22 - The Israel Bible

 

Like I said, there are differing interpretations.  If we want to consider that it's a rape, or forced, one possibility is the Hebrew word וּתְפָשָׂהּ .  Actually that's two because the letter vav is the conjunction "and" thus "and grasped."  That implied a forcefulness.  If we look back to v25, we read about a man who forced himself on a betrothed woman (the Hebrew word is stronger however) and the penalty was death. So perhaps the rapist interpretation comes from the context of this scripture in that this deals with the same act first with a betrothed woman, and then for the situation of a virgin and thus scripture is not broken.  

That said, I have no problem if this deals with fornication.  In this day and age where no woman in the USA knows too much less than what the woman's movement brought to them, such a passage leaves them aghast understandably.  However, the society then was different in that women could not so much as make an oath stand if their father or husband disallowed it.  Their status was determined in the context of the name of the family (tribe) and a woman violated, whether by force or willingly, became a disgrace and perhaps non-marriageable.  That same stigma today is sometimes applied when the raped woman is unjustifiably given the reputation "she brought it on".  So even if this is also for fornication (which I am not opposed) the negative stigma brought by the situation would be at a "cost" to the man.  If he wants to defile her, he takes her on as opposed to her living in disgrace.

I am open to and understanding of different interpretations so I won't say one way or the other.  What is clear is that this improper union must bot be without compensation of some sort.

[Sower]

42 minutes ago, servant4christ said:

Ok, are you then agreeing that Walter's earlier statement is unacceptable?

No. I may have read it but not followed what the statement was in reply of to give an informed answer. I answered your question that nobody on this forum should question someone else's salvation here.  I'm not defending Walter but stating forum rules. If he did state someone here was not a Christian you can/should report it.

Walter said;

"You stated: " I understand many hold this opinion, "

Uh yeah like "Christians",  "servant4christ"?"

May have been a "if the shoe fits" statement. I could be wrong.
I also could take it to mean there are 'Christians' with very liberal views. I don't know.
Why not just ask Walter?    May settle some unnecessary strife.

[teddyv]

With the recent SCOTUS decision, several articles I've come across indicate that in the past (like 1800's), abortion in the US was only not permitted once the baby was felt to move in the womb (i.e. "quickening").

Since natural miscarriage is pretty common, I would assume that reaching this stage would indicate a much more definitive indication of viability.

We obviously have had the technology to understand the entire process much better, but those early weeks continue to be a delicate period of time in the development.

So, I am not convinced that life is at conception, although certainly the potential exists. With the sheer amount on miscarriages over human history, heaven must be absolutely packed with those that were never viable and lost in the womb after a few days to a few weeks.

I've read some that would suggest up to the point on implantation in the womb. I've read that Judaism allows abortions up to 40 days (not sure if that is across all sects though).