If abortion was advocated in the bible

1. God's people slaughter countless unborn foetuses in the OT... They are even told numerous times to rip unborn children out of their mothers' wombs with swords. The OT God kills countless unborn children himself in the OT... He clearly doesn't consider unborn children sacred.

2. The Bible states that life begins when God breathes on you, and you take your first breath. The words for spirit are basically breath. In other words, God breathes on you at birth, your spirit enters the body, and you take your first breath.

Fortunately, I am a Catholic Christian... My Covenant is Christ's, the New Covenant of life, the Covenant of the Spirit... Not the OT covenant of death chiselled in stone, that Christ overturned... "Before God, we are confident of this through Christ: not that we are qualified in ourselves to claim anything as our own work: all our qualifications come from God. He is the one who has given us the qualifications to be the administrators of this new covenant, which is not a covenant of written letters but of the Spirit: the written letters bring death, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the administering of death, in the written letters engraved on stones, was accompanied by such a brightness that the Israelites could not bear looking at the face of Moses, though it was a brightness that faded, then how much greater will be the brightness that surrounds the administering of the Spirit!"

Not really, I'm pretty much in tune with His Holiness, and most modern day Catholics 🤷

I look forward to seeing what other Catholics on this board have to say to that.

1. Assuming theses were actually existing Bible verses since you provided no references, you are OK with abortion as long as choice is taken away and war has started? That is a weird set rule set that seems more oppressive than Alabama's law.

2. a. Abortion has never been about when life begins since it's a legal standard. If the law said you could kill newborns it would have no bearing on life starting. The moment you start talking embryos and fetus' you start acknowledging a separating thing within the woman and since there is never a time that thing is not human, when its life starts is wholly irrelevant.
    b. This is incorrect. The Bible does not say life begins with God breathes on you.

lol

Please continue your ravings while I discuss this with smarter people...& maybe even some that are as dumb as you but know how to write a proper paragraph.

It is controversial, but I think many on the left already think abortion is advocated in the Bible and are still pro-choice.  They may be wrong that the ritual for determining whether a woman had been unfaithful was adovcating giving them an abortifactant, but I'm guessing many believe it.

that wouldn’t have been an abortion as we are discussing it but a miscarriage and more likely it was discussing sterility.

Miscarriage and abortion are interchangeable in Scriptural context

So let’s pretend the Bible is all for killing prekids, there is still no context that indicates the woman chose it.

What's the difference between an animal and a right winger?

One measures whether actions are morally good only if they benefit the pack/tribe/herd; doesn't use the concept of personhood to determine a right to life, differentiates between males and female and loves gender-specific roles, and has a concept of "alpha-males" and "beta-males" with being an alpha-male being more desirable.

The other is an animal.

But of course, these similarities are not conclusive enough to say that one group is equal to another.
After all, an old kitchen tables and Captain Ahab both have a wooden leg. This doesn't mean that Captain Ahab is a table.
Note for literature buffs: I'm aware that the Melville character has a leg made of whale bone.

But in the case of right-wingers and animals, we have something else.
I have heard and read plenty of people arguing for stuff like "natural right", or morally condemning behaviours and attitudes because they are supposedly "unnatural". Condemning homosexuality or pretending that there are only two genders are possible manifestations of these beliefs. And who else invokes natural right, not verbally but through actions, and weeds out "unnatural" behaviour? Animals!

Add to this the distrust of many right-wingers of centralized government, and distrust of social welfare programs established by governments. Something also unknown to animal tribes, as far as I know.
As for deeming actions morally good only if they benefit the own pack: Take the example of immigration. Before 1989, when immigrants from East-Germany were helped by people from West-Germany to leave their home country, right-wingers called them heroes. Today, right-wingers would prefer to build a wall between their rich country and immigrants from somewhere else.
The difference between 1961-1989 and 2019 is that the immigrants coming from East Germany were Germans as well; or belonging to the same pack/herd/tribe.

In other words: Not only do right-wingers exhibit behaviours found mostly in animal packs and herds, they (the right-wingers) embrace it, and hold it up as an ideal to attain.

In short: If right-wingers behave like animals, and say that some animal-like behaviours are a good thing, they shouldn't complain about other people calling them animals.

Fetuses aren't persons. That's a fact. If you believe that fetuses are persons, based on the sole fact that fetuses are genetically members of the species "Homo Sapiens", you are not different from animals in that regard, who don't have a concept of persons, and don't use personhood to determine a right to life. In other words: Thanks for proving my point.

These claims about "truth" and things being "clear cut" are just repetitions of baseless claims you have been making on this board for years. Something a bot would write. Did I already mention that you failed the Turing test?