Death Certificates on Abortions Proposed

[apothanein kerdos]

Forrest, your wisdom is from the world. Read the 2nd, 3rd and 4th verse in my siggy.

If reason and concience were useless, God would have never given them to us.

Your arguments stand against reason and are illogical. That's the problem. To say that a baby inside the womb is any less a human than outside the womb is illogical. The reason is you are defining "human" as "viable outside of the womb." Not all babies born, in fact, none of the babies born are "viable outside of the womb."

Even if we take your argument that a baby is not the same inside the womb, we then look to scripture and see that if a man strikes a woman and kills the baby within her, he is to be put to death. In other words, it carries the same punishment as killing a fully grown adult (Exodus 21:22-23).

[cymba22]

No one, that I have noticed, has actually said where is the actual need for it...how does supporting it go with the fruit of the spirit?

A reminder

Gal 5:22,23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

The post that I have read for it do not show love or joy or any of the above...the only things I have seen from the people who suport it is the attitude of a witch hunt....where does the bible say we have to condem someone if they chose to do something we dont agree with? where does it say these non christian should act like us to make us happy?

I would appreciate sensable answers to the above...not gaurded slurs on my character like last time I gave my opinion on something so strong.

I think for those who see abortion as murder, which I do, the treatment of one who has committed a murder is pretty clear from a church discipline perspective. 1 Corinthians 5:1--13 comes to mind. Particularly this verse,

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may a new lump, as ye are unleavened.

The context is sexual sin, but the application could go as far as to one who has had an abortion. If this woman repents and asks forgiveness, then so be it, she should be restored to fellowship. But for a woman to have an abortion and think nothing of it and have an almost lackadaisical attitude about it, she needs to be confronted by her pastor, in love, for the sake of the church. If she remains unrepentant, then she needs to be cut lose, as Paul clearly teaches. I don't know any other way to read these verses.

You can quote verses about love and acceptance until you're blue in the face, but you cannot ignore the rest of the Scripture for fear of offending someone. As Paul said, a little leaven can work its way through the whole loaf; a little sin can infect an entire church. I think this is what we see happening in the church today. There was a time when an out of wedlock pregnancy was shameful. Now we throw a shower for person in the fellowship hall. I mean, it's all upside down.

Ok the context is sexual sin...as a christian I can see that...what good would these certs do? what is the value of them? will it stop people having abortions? no...why not...not everyone who has one is unmarried.

as for quoting scripture until I am blue in the face...it does not make it any less relivent because people want to ignore it and chose not to use it...yes sin can infect an entire church...I totally agree with you.....you know america and every other country on the face of this plant is a secular country? not everyone goes to church not everyone is a christian...and no I am not ignoring othe rscripture...there is no scripture that tells us to hate and condem...I do infact believe the scripture tells us to do otherwise...from your last sentace it seems you want these certs so that a women can be shamed....

I dare you and all the others to go to someone whose had an abortion...tell them they are jezabels...then have the nerve to preach about Gods love and forgiveness.

No...its much easier to come down on the side of the moral high horse and condem.

I am so glad our father in heaven is much more forgiving...other wise porr sinners like myself and the apostle paul would never get a look in.

Marine...thank you for your response.

[forrestkc]

Forrest, your wisdom is from the world. Read the 2nd, 3rd and 4th verse in my siggy.

If reason and concience were useless, God would have never given them to us.

Your arguments stand against reason and are illogical. That's the problem. To say that a baby inside the womb is any less a human than outside the womb is illogical. The reason is you are defining "human" as "viable outside of the womb." Not all babies born, in fact, none of the babies born are "viable outside of the womb."

Even if we take your argument that a baby is not the same inside the womb, we then look to scripture and see that if a man strikes a woman and kills the baby within her, he is to be put to death. In other words, it carries the same punishment as killing a fully grown adult (Exodus 21:22-23).

This issue though is a legal issue, it has nothing to do with faith. How one feels about the abortion issue many times has everything to do with faith. However, this is an issue of a right to privacy. One has a reasonable right to privacy in this country. Abortion, right or wrong, is legal in this country. Thus, it is a private issue between the woman involved, her spouse or family, and her physician. It is simply no one else

[Emily~Anne]

Forrest, your wisdom is from the world. Read the 2nd, 3rd and 4th verse in my siggy.

If reason and concience were useless, God would have never given them to us.

Your arguments stand against reason and are illogical. That's the problem. To say that a baby inside the womb is any less a human than outside the womb is illogical. The reason is you are defining "human" as "viable outside of the womb." Not all babies born, in fact, none of the babies born are "viable outside of the womb."

Even if we take your argument that a baby is not the same inside the womb, we then look to scripture and see that if a man strikes a woman and kills the baby within her, he is to be put to death. In other words, it carries the same punishment as killing a fully grown adult (Exodus 21:22-23).

Like I said earlier:

Forrest, I see in your profile a picture of you embracing your son Tucker, and you seem very proud of your child and I sense alot of love in that picture. That child you love so much started from nothing but a 'clump of cells'.

[apothanein kerdos]

This issue though is a legal issue, it has nothing to do with faith. How one feels about the abortion issue many times has everything to do with faith. However, this is an issue of a right to privacy. One has a reasonable right to privacy in this country. Abortion, right or wrong, is legal in this country. Thus, it is a private issue between the woman involved, her spouse or family, and her physician. It is simply no one else

[forrestkc]

Like I said earlier:

Forrest, I see in your profile a picture of you embracing your son Tucker, and you seem very proud of your child and I sense alot of love in that picture. That child you love so much started from nothing but a 'clump of cells'.

I stated earlier, but I will go ahead and do so again.

I remember when my wife was pregnant with our son. I remember getting to hear his heart beat for the first time, and seeing the ultra-sounds, and then later feeling him kick, and sometimes even seeing it. At one point, somewhat early on, we had reason to be concerned that she may miscarry. Needless to say, we were very worried about it at the time. It was a difficult time until we were able to see the doctor about it.

Had my wife miscarried, it would be devastating, but it would be nothing, nothing even remotely like it would be if we were to lose him today, I mean it just would be unimaginable. For families, a miscarriage can be devastating, aborting a pregnancy can at times be devastating, but you have children, so you know as well as I do, miscarrying would be nothing even remotely compared to what it would be like to lose a child and that is why I say it is different because it just is. I know that may upset some people and I am truely sorry if it does, but anyone who has a child knows exactly what I mean.

Moreover, I never said that we would ever get an abortion, because we would not. That is not what the topic is about. The topic is about a woman's right to privacy.

[forrestkc]

Then why did we go after Nazi war criminals? It was their right to privacy to kill Jews as was the law at the time.

Now come on, stop and think about this, you are not honestly comparing abortion to the slaughter of over 6 million Jews.

And don't come back and say it's different - as we see from scripture, a baby in the womb is the same as a baby outside the womb.

Exodus 21:22-23

"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges."

"But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life,"

If the baby dies, then he pays a fine, if the woman dies as the result of the miscarriage, then he pays with his life.

[Zceiv]

Now come on, stop and think about this, you are not honestly comparing abortion to the slaughter of over 6 million Jews.

heres a chart I found

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004397.html

[apothanein kerdos]

Now come on, stop and think about this, you are not honestly comparing abortion to the slaughter of over 6 million Jews.

Both involve the slaughter of innocent human life. Both are equally immoral.

Exodus 21:22

"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.

I was waiting for you to do this just so I could show how little you know of scripture.

The next passage says:

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

The reason it says this is that verse 22 is to be translated that, if the man hits the women and it causes a premature birth (not a miscarriage, that is a mistranslation from the Hebrew word yatsa'...it means if she gives birth prematurely) then the man is still to be punished for what he did. This assumes no harm was done to the mother OR the baby upon doing this. This is why verse 23 is there, to state that if any harm, not just death, but ANY HARM is caused to the mother or child, thus a miscarriage, brain damage, etc...the man who struck her is to be put to death.

Oops, looks like you didn't read the context!

[Guest LadyC]

Death Certificates on Abortions Proposed

Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.

Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Republican, said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed. He predicted it would pass in the Republican-controlled Senate but would have a hard time making it through the Democratic House.

"All these people who say they are pro-life _ at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," said Campfield.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/14/D8N9LFT00.html

If it is so hard to access the information in these death certificates, why does the OP state they "likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions"? Why did Stacey Campfield say the bill would "provide a way to track how many abortions are performed"? Why was he quoted to say "we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions." ?

hamburger, obviously you can't distinguish between what the media reports and what the bill's sponsor suggests, so let me help you out.

the MEDIA says it would likely create public records identifying the women who have had an abortion. according to the laws already in place in tennessee, the media has misconstrued the issue.

the SPONSOR says it would identify the NUMBER of abortions.

to attribute the conclusions of the media's speculation to a sponsor of a piece of written legislation (at this point it's only a bill, not legislation at all) would be about the same thing as some of you voicing your OPINION that i'm a radical extremist because i believe life begins at conception. or of me telling people that you are an athiest because you DON'T believe as i do. since neither of those two statements are accurate, then perhaps you should start paying attention to how you treat media garbage as definitive evidence of anything.

saying he wants to know the number of lives ended is not anywhere near saying he wants to identify and publically crucify the mothers. his interest is not in the mothers. it's in the unborn children.

To quote directly from the article:

"All these people who say they are pro-life _ at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," said Campfield.

The number of abortions reported to the state Office of Vital Records is already publicly available. The office collects records _ but not death certificates _ on abortions and the deaths of fetuses after 22 weeks gestation or weighing about 1 pound.

If the number of abortions reported is already publicly avaliable, why did Campfield say what was quoted above? I don't see how adding a Death Certificate would make it any easier or harder to determine how many lives are being ended by abortions. If that isn't the reason Campfield is proposing this, then what is?

The identities of the women who have abortions are not included in those records, but death certificates include identifying information such as Social Security numbers.

Campfield's bill, introduced Monday, would give abortion providers 10 days following an "induced termination of a pregnancy" to file a death certificate.

I don't see how I am misconstruing the situation here. It is taking away the woman's rights to privacy. If the only reason this is being done is to determine the amount of abortions performed, then there is no point in creating this bill. If there is another reason the bill is being drawn out, then what is that reason? The abortions are already being acknowledged, why does the woman's privacy have to be breached as well? I know you have stated reasons why the information CURRENTLY is private, but again, if the woman's rights to privacy will still be maintained after this bill gets passed, what is the point of the bill?

i have to add this.... regarding what you said to AK, asking him not to make accusations about you.

he was right. your VIEW ON THIS is anti-christian. it does not line up with God's Holy Word.

And what about my view is anti-christian exactly? The fact I respect people's privacy? Please, enlighten me.

wait, was it you or someone else (in another thread) that said they don't necessarily believe that the Bible is God's word? i'm not accusing, i'm asking. sometimes i get people confused.

I'm sure you aren't accusing

Long story short, no, I do not believe the Bible as it is today is the exact interpretation of God's word written down, for several reasons that I have given in the past. To say I don't believe the Bible is God's word is untrue, and is taken out of context. The original Bible may very well have been God's exact wording, but through time things have been changed a little bit, even if not by much.

again. nothing in the portion of the senators words that you quoted indicates he wants to identify the women who had abortions.

death certificates may very well include social security numbers, of the deceased. since the infant was not born, the infant has no social security number. the mother's privacy is still not being breached. even if the mother's SS# was included (which to my knowledge, no death cert of anyone includes this information of the next of kin), such would be blotted out on copies provided to the public because of laws protecting THAT information from being distributed.

i don't live in tennessee, do you? find me some information on exactly how that state obtains data regarding the number of abortions before you start making claims as to what info the state already has. i won't argue based on your speculations. i deal with facts. you haven't provided any.

i never said your views on privacy are anti christian. AK and i both have stated that your views on when life begins are clearly unbiblical, therefore anti-christian.

so are your opinions on the authority of scripture though, so that pretty much invalidates anything else.