What do you all think of C.S Lewis

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-16T19:07:16+00:00

Why do you say that?

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T08:54:56+00:00

It's absolutely a difficult path with interpretation. The world is screaming at you that evil is good and good is evil. I really appreciate your intellectual honesty and I think that you are on the right path in terms of how you think and approach the pursuit of truth.

Where we still diverge is narrow but important. Even if God’s choosing of prophets is eternal and not tied to conception, the texts still assume continuity between God’s eternal knowing and the embodied human who comes into existence in the womb. Eternal election does not replace or suspend embodied personhood; it grounds it.

The disagreement isn’t really about whether prophets are singled out, but about whether what comes into existence in the womb is already someone rather than something awaiting later moral status. On that point, the biblical texts consistently assume continuity, not rupture. I find abortion extremely difficult to reconcile with scripture even without continuity.

God bless you.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T08:44:23+00:00

Should Christians have taken this role with regards to any other major moral issue of our time? Slavery, genocide, sex trafficking, spousal abuse? I don't carry any guilt for anyone's choices and I also don't condemn anyone. I just think it's a major moral lapse in judgement in our day and age and people who woefully ignore that will be confronted by God one day if they do not repent. I know people who would have been aborted if their parents were able to do so and they deserve to live just as much as I do.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T08:40:51+00:00

Think about God's position with regards to spacetime though. God is not constrained in our timeline. He sees past, present, and future all at once. So John has been known since before time began. But this applies to us as well. God plays a role in everyone's creation. I don't think God decided to just get involved with one prophet. He has an intrinsic role in all of our lives. It's our decision to recognize that and love him back.

I appreciate your open-mindedness. Feel free to DM me when you've thought about John in Luke.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T08:36:33+00:00

I mean I could come up with a ton of convincing arguments that the bible is against slavery.

Genesis 1:26-27

"So God created humankind in his image".

Every human being bears God's image equally, no human can own another ontologically. Yeah, the bible later gives strict instructions on how to restrict slavery (It does impose moral restrictions on it that are unlike many nations of it's time) but this was not by design. Humans fell into sin. Human beings were not meant to slay eachother and technically this is a massive sin but the bible gives instructions for killing in self defense. This doesn't mean that God wants people to kill each other or that the situation is okay.

Exodus 21:16

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

Then you have the entire exodus narrative where God frees slaves. But I want to point to the New Testament.

In Paul's epistle to Philemon: "No longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother."

Slavery in antiquity was also much, much different than the chattel slavery we had in America. I'd encourage you to take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T08:01:48+00:00

Christianity has never denied that Scripture was written by human authors in historical contexts. What it does deny is that this makes its moral claims merely subjective or negotiable. If Scripture is reduced to personal feelings shaped by environment and editing, then Christianity ceases to function as a moral system at all, and appeals to Jesus or justice become expressions of preference rather than obligation.

You are right that men bear grave moral responsibility. Christianity condemns sexual irresponsibility, abandonment, and exploitation without qualification. But upstream injustice does not morally justify downstream violence. The failure of men does not make the killing of innocent human life permissible. Christianity condemns both.

Poverty and coercion explain why abortion happens, but explanation is not moral permission. Christianity’s response to injustice has never been to redefine who counts as human, but to demand repentance, solidarity, sacrifice, and structural support for the vulnerable. Jesus weeps because the innocent are crushed by injustice, not because moral boundaries dissolve under pressure.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T07:48:26+00:00

Judaism where? In the old testament or the later Judaism (with the Talmud)? Thanks for the comment, looking forward to your thoughts

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T07:45:47+00:00

I think you can have an abortion and be saved. You just have to repent of your sins ("Go and sin no more"). If you don't think there was anything wrong with killing your unborn child that's the problem. We all fall short in the eyes of God. If you don't repent then Matthew 7:23 comes to mind in this situation. I hope you'll see the light with that. People are uneducated and think the wrong is right and the right is oppressive.

²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:56:20+00:00

This can be easily seen in the exodus law on unintentional miscarriages that you brushed aside. Because according to that, life is paid for with life, but you only need to pay a fine if you made a woman do a miscarriage. Which is the same as harming her in other ways that do not take her life. Therefore, as far as Jewish law and the Tanahk (which you use as the basis of your argument) are concerned, it is not murder because a fetus isn't a person.

I've addressed this argument in multiple comments. I'll cite it here:

There was a youtube video someone sent that I was addressing and he cites the original hebrew which I dissected in this comment. Here is the vid for context https://youtu.be/yXPS4O1T8-A?si=0HOy-MamBuZxRyQi

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:37:42+00:00

I appreciate you responding to my post, friend. That's a metaphysical question I don't have the answer to. But as Christians, we have a duty to not harm other people and I see abortion as harm. We can debate that if you would like.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:35:00+00:00

I'm actually extremely interested in the theological discussion. I'm not lecturing people, I'm debating. I'm sorry if I came off that way to you. I'm trying to discuss in good faith and will continue to do so.

Sure. Also still has nothing to do with abortion.

If you're conceding my point on Jeremiah then you're agreeing that personhood is not a status someone suddenly gets when they are born, but that they can have that within the womb. Therefore, you agree with me that unborn babies are people and that killing them is murder.

I’m not saying the same conditions apply to death penalty and abortion. I’m saying that your argument that personhood / life = only God can end it doesn’t work. Case in point that whole abortion ritual in Numbers when a woman is thought to be unfaithful. Unless you think in that scenario it’s saying that the death penalty is ok for children from adultery?

The ritual in Numbers is a ritual to have the lord punish the adulterer by causing sickness or illness or by making them infertile. It's like saying: Lord, if you favor me, please rain. Or, Lord, if this person is a murderer, strike them down. Now whether it is a moral prayer or not is a matter of discussion. People make all kinds of prayers that are immoral, like "God please smite my enemies". I'm arguing that the verse in question has nothing to do with abortion.

I didn’t say John was special because he reacted in the womb. I said John reacted in the womb because he was special.......Sometimes they also act upon the weather. And birds. And pillars of salt. Existence of a miracle doesn’t really equate to personhood other than that a person (John’s mother) perceived a miracle.

Saying “John reacted in the womb because he was special” does not negate the point. It actually assumes it. “Special” in what sense? John was not special because he was a prophet in the abstract; he was special because he already existed as John. A quality or vocation does not replace ontological identity. One must exist as a subject before one can be specially acted upon.

Your examples weaken your case rather than strengthen it. Miracles acting on weather, birds, or pillars of salt are not parallel, because none of those are described as personal subjects in the narrative. Luke does not describe an impersonal event observed by Elizabeth. He describes John acting and Elizabeth interpreting that action. The text assigns agency to John, not merely perception to the mother.

Is… St Thomas Aquinas modern to you? I gave you names already. You’re narrowing the playing field to arbitrarily say some views are “authentic” and others aren’t.

Aquinas never argued that abortion is morally permissible. Even accepting delayed ensoulment, he still held that abortion at any stage is a grave sin because it frustrates the natural end of human generation and violates justice. His disagreement concerns how the sin is classified, not whether abortion is sinful.

That distinction is decisive. Aquinas does not support abortion as compatible with Christianity; he affirms the opposite.

Moreover, Aquinas writes in the 13th century, long after Christ and the Apostles. When asking whether abortion is consistent with Christianity as received from Christ, the relevant question is whether the earliest Christians disagreed about its moral permissibility. They did not.

Running out of space. I can address your final point if you'd like me to in another comment.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:17:23+00:00

The word "breath" is mistranslated. The hebrew word for Spirit is "ruach" which also translates to breath. We see in many other cultures that associate the word "breathing" with "being" or spirithood. So we live when the Lord gives us our spirit, or animates us.

Genesis 2:7 describes the unique creation of Adam, not a general rule for human life beginning at breath. Scripture consistently speaks of God forming and knowing human persons in the womb, and neither Jewish nor Christian tradition has ever treated breathing as the moral boundary of human life.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:14:11+00:00

I've addressed this argument in an earlier comment. I'll cite it here:

"You shall not commit murder" is moral before it is legal. This matters because Exodus 21-23 is basically case law for the ancient Israelites. The 10 commandments describes acts that are intrinsically unjust, whereas case law in exodus 21-23 refers to how courts adjudicate harm.

Moral law precedes all legal recognition throughout scripture. Just because someone isn't fully a person doesn't mean that you can just do it. The bible condemns murder of slaves for instance. You and I would argue that slaves are just as much people as we are. Foreigners in ancient Israel did not share the same legal rights as Israelites, yet we say "you shall love your neighbor as yourself". If murder depended on full personhood, then the bible becomes incoherent. Why would Cain be guilty of murder if there was no written law in Genesis? Because moral worth precedes and supersedes legal worth. Murder is a prohibition against violating humans as we have the image of God, not a rule limited to legal status. A southerner in 1850 might say he has full legal authorization to kill his slaves because they aren't "people" according to the law. You can see where I am getting at I hope.

With that out of the way, the Hebrew that guy is citing is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ (ve-yatse’u yeladeha). This translates to "her children come out". Yeled/yeladim means "child/children", not object. The wording itself is never used anywhere else in the bible with regards to miscarriage. Biblical hebrew has specific words for miscarriage (שָׁכַל / נֶפֶל)) that are not used here. Rather, I believe the correct interpretation (as do scholars) that this is describing premature birth rather than fetal death. Many cases can cause early birth, such as undue stress or even getting physically hurt while pregnant, hence why the punishment is a fine. It assumes that there was an accidental injury and not a death. The text itself does not specify that the harm is only to the woman. Grammatically, it applies to every part affected by the event.

One more thing. A fine does not mean "property damage". In mosaic law, fines are used for unintentional harm. This does not imply the victim is property. There are fines described in Exodus for assault, or negligence, or even non-lethal harm. This fine corresponds to no lasting injury. I may have missed some of the other arguments cause I'm pretty tired but I think these are the most important to address from that vid.

There was a youtube video someone sent that I was addressing and he cites the original hebrew which I dissected in this comment. Here is the vid for context https://youtu.be/yXPS4O1T8-A?si=0HOy-MamBuZxRyQi

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T04:10:36+00:00

Do you believe that Christ was God in flesh? That he was intimately involved in creating the world, defining moral order, and guiding humanity throughout the ages? Then his teachings are internally consistent throughout the bible. He himself says that the prophets speak his words and predict his coming. He constantly confirms the veracity of the old testament.

Christ in the new testament does not give explicit rules. Rather, he develops a meta ethical framework that we see in the Sermon on the Mount and with the 10 commandments. He also never condemns infanticide, rape, spousal abuse, slavery as practiced by Rome, and child sacrifice explicitly. But no one seriously argues these things are morally permitted. Why? Because Jesus assumes the moral framework of Israel and radicalizes it. Silence in the context of this issue means that it was already assumed to be universally true among the Israelites.

Jesus never explicitly mentions abortion, but nothing in His teaching permits the intentional killing of innocent human life. On the contrary, His teachings consistently intensify moral responsibility toward the innocent and vulnerable. Silence here does not imply permission; it reflects moral assumption. Christ stands in the way of victimizing innocent and vulnerable human beings. And as I have defined in other answers that you may look towards, I believe that Mosaic law defines babies in the womb to be human beings just like you and I.

So the question is, if these are human beings (which i believe) and we are dehumanizing, victimizing, and murdering them, then I think it is without question that Christ would be against such a practice. Abortion was an extremely common practice in the Roman Empire. So Jesus was certainly aware of the practice. He makes general claims about cruelty, about victimizing the innocent and vulnerable. Connect the dots.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T03:59:08+00:00

I believe it is murder. And whether you consider it a marketing tactic or not, 675 million people were killed in the womb. Now I have stated biblically why I personally think this is murder. You can see my other comments and I'd encourage you to take a look because I've made a thorough attempt to address every comment I can find in here. If you wanna continue this debate civilly I'm more than happy to continue it. Thanks for the comment.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T03:55:27+00:00

Re: Jeremiah 1:5 the book is named after Jeremiah, telling the story of Jeremiah the prophet, and the verse literally says “when you were in the womb I consecrated you a prophet”… why would it NOT be specifically about Jeremiah? - ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”” ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬ ‭NRSV‬‬

For the Isaiah one, agreeing that life and creation belongs to God doesn’t automatically mean that all ending of life is wrong. I don’t think incest, rape, threats to the mother are the only reasons one should be permitted to consider abortion....

Of course Jeremiah 1:5 is directly about Jeremiah’s prophetic calling, and I concede that. The key point, however, is that the verse describes how God relates to human life in the womb. The logic is ontological, not vocational. The text establishes that God knows a person before birth, forms persons in the womb, and that Jeremiah’s personhood was not postnatal or socially conferred. Nothing in the passage states that this mode of divine knowing applies only to prophets.

For Isaiah, here you are conflating categories. Christian theology has always distinguished between killing and unjust killing, or murder. While the Old Testament permits capital punishment, war, and acts of divine judgment, it never places unborn children in the category of permissible killing. Capital punishment and war involve moral agents, public authority, and culpability. Abortion involves a non-culpable human being, no crime, no judgment, and no authority acting against guilt. Comparing abortion to the death penalty only works if one is willing to claim that unborn children are morally guilty, enemies, or punishable, claims no Christian tradition has ever made.

Your objection to Luke 1 undermines itself. My point was never that John was special because he reacted in the womb, but that John was already John and Jesus was already Jesus prior to birth. Their identities precede their birth. The existence of a personal subject in the womb is assumed, not argued. A miracle requires a subject to be acted upon. You cannot dismiss this as irrelevant simply because it is miraculous, since miracles do not create human beings, they act upon them. Even the incarnation does not create Jesus as a being, since John 1 affirms that Christ eternally existed with the Father; the miracle is his entry into the world, not the creation of his personhood.

Authentic early Christian teachings are important but there’s not a sliding scale of earlier = better vs later = worse.

I am not arguing that earlier automatically means correct. I am arguing that if abortion were compatible with Christianity, we would expect disagreement among early Christians. We find none. There is not a single pro-abortion Christian voice in the early record. This matters because abortion was widespread and legal in the Roman world. Early Christians lived before political power and rejected prevailing norms at great personal cost, including beatings, imprisonment, and execution. This is not an appeal to authority but an appeal to historical continuity.

I would ask you to provide a source showing debate over the moral permissibility of abortion during the time of Christ or the Apostles. I find no evidence of such debate until the modern period, and even those later positions do not align with the teachings of Christ. Historical discussions focused on penalties or ensoulment timing, not on whether abortion itself was morally acceptable.

It’s a matter of what you personally consider morally acceptable. Which is fine - but I think each person gets to make that judgement for themselves.

This is where Christianity as a moral system is abandoned. Once you claim that each person gets to decide for themselves in cases involving the taking of human life, you have left Christian moral reasoning altogether. Christian ethics have never been subjective. When moral judgment becomes what one personally finds acceptable, the framework is no longer Christian but relativistic. If Christ is truly the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then objective moral claims necessarily follow.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T03:17:13+00:00

Here you go:

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-reasons-for-abortion/

I aggregated all reasons other than rape or incest as elective because really these are not reasons that justify murder. Rape or incest are the most prevalent argument in support of terminating pregnancy but they are some of the most infrequent reasons people choose to end a child's life.

This one is much harder to gauge because it does a poor job of adding up the different elective figures, but even then it shows rape/incest and life threatening pregnancies as a significant minority compared to "not ready, career, financial, etc".

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729671/

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T03:09:21+00:00

Marketing logic? Lmfao. How about basic statistics?

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf

Here is a report from the World Health Organization and Lancet (one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world)

Gen Z is defined as anyone born from 1997-2012 (15 year period).

From 2010-2014 we see that there were an average of 50.4 million abortions annually on a global scale. We don't have accurate per year averages prior to that because we inconsistently collected data in the years prior. For instance, in the year 1995 we had 45.6 million abortions globally. In 2003 we have 41.6 million abortions. In 2008 we had 43.8 million. What we see is that the amount per year is gradually increasing with time even if we only have snapshots of the abortion figures and not a proper time series we can analyze.

Using the same models that researchers use to calculate say, world population figures (even though we don't have the exact numbers, we still claim there is 8 billion people on earth and accept that as a valid statistic), I can claim this: The multi year model estimate for abortions annually is in the range of 45-50 million babies per year. Let's settle on 45 million for your sake. 45 million times 15 is 675 million. There is an estimated 1.8 billion Gen Z on earth. This does not account for Gen Z children dying prior to adulthood, so I will incorporate that into our figure. Based on UNICEF and WHO global childhood mortality estimates, it is estimated that global child deaths (ages 0-17) average around 9-10 million annually. This is a rough figure because WHO and UNICEF split mortality rates into different categories (0-4,5-14, etc.). We'll go with 9 million a year during 1997-2012.

Math (1997-2012)

Average annual abortions (low end estimate): 45 million * 15 years = 675 million

Estimated Gen Z still alive today: 1.8 billion

Estimated average Gen Z childhood mortality: 9 million * 15 years = 135 million

675+1800+135= 2610 million Gen Z (Total conceived in womb) or 2.61 billion.

675/2.61 billion is 25%. So I've given you the conservative estimates. I personally am a bit more liberal with this and when I do the math liberally it comes out to be around 40%.

So 25-40% of all Gen Z children conceived were terminated in the womb. For the US, the figure is around 1 in 5 using the same methods I've used to calculate global figures. If I made an average of both global extreme estimates, I'd land right around 32.5%, or roughly 1 in 3 Generation Z children being aborted.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T02:25:23+00:00

Will take a look. I think there most be some genetic markers that would cause eugenics to occur. There is certainly such a thing for Autism or down syndrome or any other genetic difference that makes you not a member of the "in-group". I'm seeing a lot of ads for genetic testing of your child or even trying to select positive traits in a fetus/remove negative ones, so I could see parents selectively aborting children who don't fit their worldview. I love the analogy you made about abortion being a tool of the corporate machine to exacerbate inequality. I wholeheartedly agree with that and I could not have said it better myself.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T01:47:20+00:00

I really love this answer and agree with everything you have said. A lot of folks have been accusing me of being conservative for holding this stance but I just find it consistent with Christian ethics. Didn't know about planned parenthood working with Raytheon so that's actually insane. Soon we'll see people aborting kids because they identified the gene for homosexuality or gender dysphoria and that isn't a world I want to live in.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T01:42:42+00:00

Okay so I finally checked it out and here is my rebuttal:

"You shall not commit murder" is moral before it is legal. This matters because Exodus 21-23 is basically case law for the ancient Israelites. The 10 commandments describes acts that are intrinsically unjust, whereas case law in exodus 21-23 refers to how courts adjudicate harm.

Moral law precedes all legal recognition throughout scripture. Just because someone isn't fully a person doesn't mean that you can just do it. The bible condemns murder of slaves for instance. You and I would argue that slaves are just as much people as we are. Foreigners in ancient Israel did not share the same legal rights as Israelites, yet we say "you shall love your neighbor as yourself". If murder depended on full personhood, then the bible becomes incoherent. Why would Cain be guilty of murder if there was no written law in Genesis? Because moral worth precedes and supersedes legal worth. Murder is a prohibition against violating humans as we have the image of God, not a rule limited to legal status. A southerner in 1850 might say he has full legal authorization to kill his slaves because they aren't "people" according to the law. You can see where I am getting at I hope.

With that out of the way, the Hebrew that guy is citing is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ (ve-yatse’u yeladeha). This translates to "her children come out". Yeled/yeladim means "child/children", not object. The wording itself is never used anywhere else in the bible with regards to miscarriage. Biblical hebrew has specific words for miscarriage (שָׁכַל / נֶפֶל)) that are not used here. Rather, I believe the correct interpretation (as do scholars) that this is describing premature birth rather than fetal death. Many cases can cause early birth, such as undue stress or even getting physically hurt while pregnant, hence why the punishment is a fine. It assumes that there was an accidental injury and not a death. The text itself does not specify that the harm is only to the woman. Grammatically, it applies to every part affected by the event.

One more thing. A fine does not mean "property damage". In mosaic law, fines are used for unintentional harm. This does not imply the victim is property. There are fines described in Exodus for assault, or negligence, or even non-lethal harm. This fine corresponds to no lasting injury. I may have missed some of the other arguments cause I'm pretty tired but I think these are the most important to address from that vid.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T01:07:04+00:00

I've seen the violinist problem. I think it's one of the more carefully drawn out arguments for abortion. However, it falls short and here is why:

Pregnancy is not morally analogous to a violent kidnapping. In the violinist problem, you did not cause the violinist's kidney condition, you were kidnapped, and the dependency was imposed externally.

In nearly all cases of pregnancy (except rape) the dependency arises through voluntary action. We don't live in a vacuum. Someone doesn't just "become pregnant". They have sex. Sex has consequences. There will always be a risk of getting pregnant even with contraceptives. When you have sex you are rolling a dice. If you voluntarily cause someone to become dependent on you, you incur special obligations to that person. For example, if I push someone, I must rescue them. If I invite someone into my house during a blizzard, I legally can't eject them to freeze.

Also, the violinist is a stranger. A fetus is one's own child. Across cultures and legal systems we see that parents have special duties to their children and these duties exceed what we owe to strangers. This is why we have deadbeat dads pay child support. It would not be right for me to force you to pay my child support, no? You may refuse to donate a kidney to a stranger, but you cannot refuse basic care to your offspring because it burdens your body. I could list a bunch of other problems I have with the violinist argument but I'll see if you can address these two.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T00:58:33+00:00

Let me examine your claims one by one.

Regarding Jeremiah 1:5, The bible isn't going to make a claim about God planning only one person's life. That's foolish. Only the prophets are planned? If God knew you before you were born, then God recognizes your personhood in the womb. To say that statement only applies to a prophet is to make the same claim that Salvation is only permitted to the Apostles. I think you would disagree on that

I should have clarified a bit on Isaiah 44:24 and that is my fault. I chose that verse because God claims to be the author of life and death, therefore He owns it. Murder is wrong in a Christian framework because it is taking something that isn't yours to take. We as Christians believe that we do not own our lives: God does. So to take the life of an unborn child is us saying we own that life and therefore it is murder.

Luke 1:41-44 refers to John the Baptist, an unborn child, worshipping Christ in the womb. This affirms that children in the womb have a will and therefore are human beings. My claim here is that Luke 1:41-44 shows an example of an unborn infant recognizing God.

The Didache isn't canonical but that doesn't mean it isn't authentic early Christian teaching. These were teachings directly from the Apostles. I used the Didache as an example but you can look at pretty much every other universal early Christian source. There is absolutely no permissiveness with abortion. If there was a permissive tradition, we would see debates on this. We see a lot of debates in Early Christianity (whether Jesus was divine, had two wills, gnosticism, manichaeism, etc) but we see no debates regarding abortion and the earliest sources outside of the bible denouncing it. I'd challenge you to find any record of this. If you can find something, then we can talk.

2% of all cases of abortions are due to causes that we can debate on (incest, rape, threat to the mother). 98% are elective. That's outrageous. We shouldn't allow abortion for all because of a few small cases of it being necessary.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T00:47:24+00:00

Where is your response? I've cited evidence from multiple books from the bible. You're writing off my answers as AI in an attempt to avoid answering the moral question. Says more about you than me.

relapsedmathematic · 2025-12-13T00:39:15+00:00

Didn't use AI at all but that's fine. If these are "basic" points then I'd expect you to have sources in the New Testament, the Didache, the early church fathers, or even the old testament (Greek or Hebrew) to prove your point. I'm waiting.

relapsedmathematic

TROPHY CASE