What is the basis for the belief that abortion is murder?

[john2001]

I don't believe that abortion is murder. Why do you think that it is?

[billwald]

Some is, some isn't. If the baby is large enough to live on the outside, then it is.

[firechyld]

"Murder" is a legal term. By definition, legal abortion is not and cannot be murder.

*shrug*

Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's right or wrong. I just have a thing about people misusing words to garner public opinon.

[Lighthouse]

The law of man does not dictate the law of God. And in the law of God any taking of innocent human life is murder. And since life begins at conception, abortion is murder.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

I don't believe that abortion is murder. Why do you think that it is?

Taking an innocent human life is murder.

A human woman can only be pregnant with another human being.

[billwald]

No biblical evidence that human life begins at conception, only life.

You do know that approx 75% of all conceptions are aborted? Half of them by God?

[Nineveh]

Humans conceive and deliver humans, contrary to what evo may try to get you to believe.

[firechyld]

The law of man does not dictate the law of God. And in the law of God any taking of innocent human life is murder. And since life begins at conception, abortion is murder.

No, dude. "Murder" is an English word, and a legal concept. You're simply taking legal lexicon and using it colloquially.

Considering that there is no word in Ancient Hebrew that directly corelates to the legal definition of "murder", your statement is baseless.

You can say that abortion is "wrong" or "sinful" or "evil" or any of those other words that apply to theological constructs, but murder has a very specific definition based on legislation and legal definitions.

[Lighthouse]

:rolleyes:

[firechyld]

Whatever your opinion of the morality of the situation, abortion is not, by definition, murder.

Just like manslaughter is not murder, self-defense is not murder, and the killing of one soldier by another during war time combat is not murder.

[Nineveh]

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The only thing standing between human life and murder is the ignorant idea men can decide what "person" means. Until humans give birth to something other than humans, person means person. I thought "person" isn't supposed to be judged on the basis of race, sex, creed, or age.

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by john2001

I don't believe that abortion is murder. Why do you think that it is? What would you call ripping the arms and legs off of a child?

[Dave Miller]

What about the well being of the woman?

There's biblical precidence for the life and health
and wellbeing of a woman being more important than that
of an unborn child.

I'm not pro-abortion, but the well being of the woman who
carries the child is hardly ever mentioned in these debates.

djm

[john2001]

Originally posted by firechyld

"Murder" is a legal term. By definition, legal abortion is not and cannot be murder.

*shrug*

Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's right or wrong. I just have a thing about people misusing words to garner public opinon.

Not at all. I a book that has death as a penalty for so many things a commandment of "thou shall not kill" only makes sense if "kill" means "murder".

[john2001]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The law of man does not dictate the law of God. And in the law of God any taking of innocent human life is murder. And since life begins at conception, abortion is murder.

Hmm. Of course, I believe that not only did man create the "law of god" man also created god as well.

Interesting that there is no religious tradition of holding funerals for miscarried fetuses.

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Taking an innocent human life is murder.

A human woman can only be pregnant with another human being.

The term "human" is more than genetics, it is something else. So, I don't see we can consider an embryo or a fetus to be "human" out of necesssity.

With the advent of human cloning, which has either been done, or will nearly be done, every cell of the human body is potentially another "person".

I am sure that you have some notion of "souls" or "spirits" that you invoke at this stage.

Yet, there are some interesting philosophical connundrums associated with this notion. For example, an embryo splits and becomes identical twins. Or in the reverse case, two fraternal twins fuse to yield a chimera.

In the first case, splitting an embryo seems to make a soul. In the second case, fusing two embryos eliminates a soul.

And, what about the millions of natural failures of fertilized eggs to attach, natural abortions, and still borns. What of the "souls" in this case? Apparently "god" offs more of the unborn than a million abortionists could do.

In short, the idea is bankrupt.

Ultimately it is we who decide when an embryo or fetus is human.

[firechyld]

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Emphasis on "unlawfully".

As long as abortion is legal, it quite simply does not fit the definition of murder. Plain and simple.

*shrug*

It may still be "wrong", but it's not murder.

Lying is "wrong", but it is not perjury until it's done in a court of law whilst under oath. If you're going to use a legal definition, apply it correctly.

The only thing standing between human life and murder is the ignorant idea men can decide what "person" means. Until humans give birth to something other than humans, person means person. I thought "person" isn't supposed to be judged on the basis of race, sex, creed, or age.

"Personhood" is also a legal construct, at least is our societies.

Not at all. I a book that has death as a penalty for so many things a commandment of "thou shall not kill" only makes sense if "kill" means "murder".

No, it doesn't. The Hebrew word usually translated as "kill" does not literally translate as "unlawfully kill". Hebrew has a lot of words which translate into English as "kill"... this one is ratsach, which is more usually translated as "slay" or "slayer". The implication of the definition is intentional and premeditated, and it is occasionally used to mean "assassin".

In English, the word "murder" refers to a very specific crime bracket in the homicide category. There's a difference.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

The term "human" is more than genetics, it is something else. So, I don't see we can consider an embryo or a fetus to be "human" out of necesssity.

It's still a human embryo and human fetus.

With the advent of human cloning, which has either been done, or will nearly be done, every cell of the human body is potentially another "person".

You mean a human isn't cloned from a sheep? Amazing how, even cloned, we know what we will get.

I am sure that you have some notion of "souls" or "spirits" that you invoke at this stage.

Actually no, I wasn't even goin' that direction, but I'll read your argument against the position I haven't taken anyway.... So don't get mad when my arguments will match my real statements and not the one you hand picked for me, k?

Yet, there are some interesting philosophical connundrums associated with this notion. For example, an embryo splits and becomes identical twins. Or in the reverse case, two fraternal twins fuse to yield a chimera.

In the first case, splitting an embryo seems to make a soul. In the second case, fusing two embryos eliminates a soul.

So? They are still... guess what?

{ drumroll }

Humans!

And, what about the millions of natural failures of fertilized eggs to attach, natural abortions, and still borns. What of the "souls" in this case? Apparently "god" offs more of the unborn than a million abortionists could do.

So misconception means they aren't human? How?

In short, the idea is bankrupt.

It seems most of your ideas are bankrupt, you really should do something about it.

Ultimately it is we who decide when an embryo or fetus is human.

Um... nope. Until human women give birth to tomatoes, that's a human in the womb when she is "pregnant".

[keypurr]

I think that it is a fetus until it is born. However a fetus is a promis of a human and should be held in very high esteem. There may be circustances where abortion would be a altertive to a health problem of the mother. It would then be a choice between a human and a promise of a human. this is not an easy decision for anyone.

Adam became a living soul only when God put breath in his body. I am sure a number of verses can be found to differ from this. We are not smart enough to tell just when we became human, but I think that would be a good place to consider. I am not in favor of abortion for just any reason. Health of Mother is my main concern. Deeply personal decision should be made by partys involved.

[Lighthouse]

john2001-
People do hold funerals for misccaried children.

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

It's still a human embryo and human fetus.



You mean a human isn't cloned from a sheep? Amazing how, even cloned, we know what we will get.



We know that we will get a human when we combine a human sperm and a human egg. Does that make a sperm and an egg human?
Are you now going to claim that wasting sperm or eggs is murder?

I will agree that a fertilized egg is a *potential* human, but it is not obvious a priori
that this constitutes a "human being", particularly since they seem naturally to be disposable in the way human reproduction operates, discarding at least a third of fertilized eggs spontaneously. This is
a vastly larger number of "abortions" than those that women have had voluntarily.



(irrationality of the belief in spirits or soul)
Actually no, I wasn't even goin' that direction, but I'll read your argument against the position I haven't taken anyway.... So don't get mad when my arguments will match my real statements and not the one you hand picked for me, k?


Well, then if there are no "souls" involved, then where is the beef? Basically, a human embryo is indistinguishable in its structure from the embryos of many other species.

Genetically, every cell in your body is capable of producing a "twin Nineva" . With cloning it seems that there is little difference between a body cell and a fertilized egg.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by john2001

The term "human" is more than genetics, it is something else. So, I don't see we can consider an embryo or a fetus to be "human" out of necesssity.

With the advent of human cloning, which has either been done, or will nearly be done, every cell of the human body is potentially another "person".

I am sure that you have some notion of "souls" or "spirits" that you invoke at this stage.

Yet, there are some interesting philosophical connundrums associated with this notion. For example, an embryo splits and becomes identical twins. Or in the reverse case, two fraternal twins fuse to yield a chimera.

In the first case, splitting an embryo seems to make a soul. In the second case, fusing two embryos eliminates a soul.

And, what about the millions of natural failures of fertilized eggs to attach, natural abortions, and still borns. What of the "souls" in this case? Apparently "god" offs more of the unborn than a million abortionists could do.

In short, the idea is bankrupt.

Ultimately it is we who decide when an embryo or fetus is human.

It only took a couple of posts for you to go from "really wanting to know" to "I'm right and you're wrong, so :p ".

You, wiper of other men's bottom, are a :troll: .

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

We know that we will get a human when we combine a human sperm and a human egg. Does that make a sperm and an egg human?

Makes it a human zygote doesn't it? As opposed to a chicken or a fern?

discarding at least a third of fertilized eggs spontaneously. This is
a vastly larger number of "abortions" than those that women have had voluntarily.

"Voluntarily"? Obviously you hvae never seen a mother mourn a spontaneous abortion. The only thing you do by bringing up natural mishaps in conception and gestation is prove just how precious life really is.

Talking to you about souls is about as edifying as talking to a chunk of wood about color. Murder shouldn't matter to you at all, really. Everything is just chemicals.

[billwald]

No one cares about the 50% of conceptions that God aborts?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by billwald

No one cares about the 50% of conceptions that God aborts?

About as much as we care about the thousands (millions?) of people who die every year from natural causes and diseases.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by billwald

No one cares about the 50% of conceptions that God aborts?

Are you a calvinist?

[erethnereh]

I've found only estimates that suggest that 50% of embryos never reach the fetal stage. There are other estimates that spontaneous abortions occur only 15% of each pregnancy.
http://www.medical-library.org/journals2a/rec_spon_abor.htm

[billwald]

Yes, Calvinist.

That's what I was getting at.

OK then to kill embryos?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by billwald

Yes, Calvinist.

Thank you :)

OK then to kill embryos?

I guess it would be best to let another calvinist field your question, as I don't understand the "theology" behind laying miscarriages at God's feet.

[billwald]

The theory is that God is running the show. The Capt is responsible for his ship even while he is asleep in his bunk.

[Nineveh]

Sounds like you have an odd theology...

[firechyld]

Are you now going to claim that wasting sperm or eggs is murder?


There would be some basis to a Christian believing that... the Israelites considered the spilling of seed to be a major transgression.

Of course, they also considered an unborn child to be "property", rather than a human life... and not overly valuable property at that.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by firechyld

There would be some basis to a Christian believing that... the Israelites considered the spilling of seed to be a major transgression.

Passage please.

Of course, they also considered an unborn child to be "property", rather than a human life... and not overly valuable property at that.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

Sounds pretty valuable to me....

[firechyld]

Passage please.

Do I really have to go digging for them? There's repeated mention of spilled seed, and it was considered a source of tum'eh. I'm sure you've encountered the passages that refer to spilling seed yourself.

The story of Onan is one example.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

Not really. The "life for life, eye for eye" refers to the woman. The "husband demands and court allows" is the same as any damage to a possession.

[Lighthouse]

firechyld-
The reason you have to go digging for them is because there are no bverses that say what you said. The story of Onan is about him not having a child with the wife of his late brother, as he should have, so there would be an heir to his brother's possesions...because his brother died childless. And Onan spilled his seed [he pulled out] so that he could take his brother's possesions. He was greedy. That was his transgression. The greed is what was wrong. the spilling of seed was merely an action of that greed. So the spilling in and of itself was not a transgression.

[firechyld]

The reason you have to go digging for them is because there are no bverses that say what you said. The story of Onan is about him not having a child with the wife of his late brother, as he should have, so there would be an heir to his brother's possesions...because his brother died childless. And Onan spilled his seed [he pulled out] so that he could take his brother's possesions. He was greedy. That was his transgression. The greed is what was wrong. the spilling of seed was merely an action of that greed. So the spilling in and of itself was not a transgression.

Spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. It's considered an offence.

Tell you what, I'll go digging for the verses and post them tomorrow. I'm trying to finish a paper, so I can't do it now.

I didn't realise that Ninevah honestly didn't know which verses I was referring to... I apologise.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by firechyld

Do I really have to go digging for them?

Yes.

Not really. The "life for life, eye for eye" refers to the woman. The "husband demands and court allows" is the same as any damage to a possession.


"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

I guess you could twist it to mean that.

[firechyld]

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

I guess you could twist it to mean that.

Twist? How am I twisting?

[Nineveh]

"...hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely ..."

Why bother including that part if it's just about the woman?

Got that verse yet?

[firechyld]

Got that verse yet?


I'll have to dig and post later... I'm in the middle of something right now.

Once I finish this, I'll get right on it.

[DonW]

I agree, "serious injury" and "eye for eye" etc definitely means the woman, not the baby.

[Lighthouse]

It's been seven days, firechyld. Where's that verse?

[erethnereh]

I know the verse that firechyld wanted to find. It exist in the Torah. What it amounts to is that if two men get into a fight and the pregnant women's baby is inadvertently killed(I'm reading manslaughter here) then the pregnant women's husband may demand anything from the.

Since Christians live by the New Testament, the old law really does not hold too much respute.

[cattyfan]

john2001 is starting this discussion from the perspective he doesn't believe in God in the first place:

Hmm. Of course, I believe that not only did man create the "law of god" man also created god as well.


he goes on to make derisive comments about souls:

I am sure that you have some notion of "souls" or "spirits" that you invoke at this stage.



given, then, that he has no affinity for anything sacred, it does no good to try to hold a theological discussion with this intellectual lightweight. He is unable to comprehend anything he cannot see or hold...as that is the basis for faith, it is no wonder he has none.

But to pretend that what is carried within the mother is anything but human is ridiculous. Look at the fetal ultrasounds...what grows within the womb has a heartbeat, brainwaves, and the tiny form of a person within weeks...not months. When then exactly do you think it's a person?

Now take a look at my nephew. Born when my sister was just shy of 6 months pregnant, he was 2 pounds. He is quite obviously a person. (today he's a teenager.) Would he not have been a person for three months then had he stayed in her womb?

I am sorry you are so empty of faith, and in so, are empty of real sustaining life. Perhaps it is you, soul-less and empty, who is not human.

[cattyfan]

"Murder" is a legal term. By definition, legal abortion is not and cannot be murder.



we frequently hear a phrase tossed about when liberals discuss things like gay marriage: "Just because it's the law doesn't make it right...slavery used to be legal, too." Well...let's apply that phrase to this discussion: just because getting an abortion is currently legal doesn't make it any less wrong or any less a murder.

[Lighthouse]

Go catty! Go catty! :bannana:

firechyld-
It's now been 12 days.

[avatar382]

You'll find the answer to the question in the title of the thread when you find the answer to the following question:

Why is human life more precious than other life here on earth? (animals, plants, etc?)

[Nineveh]

erethnereh,
No, the one firechyld can't seem to place is the one supporting this statement: "Spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. It's considered an offence."

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Passage please.



"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

Sounds pretty valuable to me....

Life for life if the mother dies. If the child is not born alive,
its just a monetary compensation. The life of the mother
is more valuable in the eyes of God than the life of the
unborn child. The "injury" in question applies to the woman,
not the child.

Exodus 21
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [1 (note: also translated as miscarries)] but
there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

Gen 38:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The issue here is not the spilling of the seed, its denying the
brother's wife, and the dead brother, continuation of the family. This was important to the woman because without male children
to support them, women were doomed to destitution, as they
were considered property, and could not own land or make a
living.

Hence, prostitution was the only sanctioned income producing
profession a woman could take outside of marriage.

djm

[Aimiel]

If you were to kill a sperm cell or an egg, it would be destruction of tissue. A zygote is an individual, even though it is a one-celled person. To deprive that person of their life, with or without anyone's 'consent' or expressed desire, is murder of a human life.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Aimiel

If you were to kill a sperm cell or an egg, it would be destruction of tissue. A zygote is an individual, even though it is a one-celled person. To deprive that person of their life, with or without anyone's 'consent' or expressed desire, is murder of a human life.

I'm fine with that being your personal conviction, but that's not
what scripture says. The life of an unborn child is not given
equal value of that of the mother. If the mother is killed
or injured during a fight, its life for life, limb for limb. If the mother
miscarries, money or property is exchanged as payment.

Here's another example, from scripture, at least a metaphorical
parallel:

Dtr 22:6
If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.

The life of the mother is sacred, moreso than the life of the
eggs or young.

djm

[Nineveh]

Dave,

v7
"You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life. "

Dave, do you really believe that principal is applied to unborn human children?

[Dave Miller]

As I said, it can be considered a metaphorical example which
supports the idea.

Where else is it said that long life is assured through obedience?
The commandment to honor father and mother. The idea of
honoring the mother bird holds a similar promise, thanx
for bringing it up.

Dave

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Exodus 21
[1 (note: also translated as miscarries)]

What version?
NIV: gives birth prematurely *
NASB: she gives birth prematurely
KJV: so that her fruit depart from her
NKJV: so that she gives birth prematurely

It seems only NIV denotes an alternative interpretation of the words.

Gen 38:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The issue here is not the spilling of the seed, its denying the
brother's wife, and the dead brother, continuation of the family. This was important to the woman because without male children
to support them, women were doomed to destitution, as they
were considered property, and could not own land or make a
living.

Ya know, even though you are absolutley correct about this, I was hoping firechyld would try to gain some wisdom in the matter :)

...but after such a glimmer of brilliance:
Hence, prostitution was the only sanctioned income producing
profession a woman could take outside of marriage.

I still hold out hope for ya, dave...

[Dave Miller]

"I still hold out hope for ya, dave... "

And I for you, Ninevah...

djm

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

As I said, it can be considered a metaphorical example which
supports the idea.

"A metaphorical example" we can apply to human children?

[Dave Miller]

Since we're lacking a direct "Thou Shalt Not have abortions"
commandment, we need to explore everything we can to
understand how ancient Hebrew Theology would have been
applied.

Knowing what I do about scripture, I would summize that
abortion might have been accepted in cases where the
mother's life was at stake, i.e. choosing between the life of
the mother and the life of the child.

djm

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Since we're lacking a direct "Thou Shalt Not have abortions"
commandment, we need to explore everything we can to
understand how ancient Hebrew Theology would have been
applied.

mmhm. "Thou shalt not murder, except the unborn."

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I'm fine with that being your personal conviction, but that's not
what scripture says. I'm fine with your opinion, though, perhaps I take parts of my Bible more seriously than you do:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

That infant is not tissue, whether you believe it is or not, it is a human being, and the life of the murderer of unborn infants should be forfeit for the aborted baby's death.

[Lighthouse]

dave-
I've agreed with you on may subjects, but you've lost it! :kookoo:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Since we're lacking a direct "Thou Shalt Not have abortions" commandment, we need to explore everything we can to understand how ancient Hebrew Theology would have been
applied.Why, because in your limited understanding you don't realize that The Spirit of Truth is even more available to us today than He was to the ancient Hebrews? We need to seek God, so that the people who are lost will fall under conviction, not try to battle against flesh-and-blood, as too many believe is their calling. The Lord will move, but only when His people tell Him to, with their whole hearts. The fact that abortion is covered under, "Thou shalt not murder," has completely escaped you, hasn't it?Knowing what I do about scripture, I would summize that abortion might have been accepted in cases where the mother's life was at stake, i.e. choosing between the life of
the mother and the life of the child.That's not abortion, that's saving the life of the mother, to be able to possibly give birth to more of God's sweetest gifts: babies. Also, there isn't a single case where this occurred in 'ancient' times, except for convenience. There wasn't enough anatomical or medical knowledge to determine this type of case.

[Dave Miller]

Knowing what I do about scripture, I would summize that abortion might have been accepted in cases where the mother's life was at stake, i.e. choosing between the life of
the mother and the life of the child.


That's not abortion, that's saving the life of the mother, to be able to possibly give birth to more of God's sweetest gifts: babies. Also, there isn't a single case where this occurred in 'ancient' times, except for convenience. There wasn't enough anatomical or medical knowledge to determine this type of case.



I think we're in complete agreement here. I'm not trying to build
a scriptural case for abortion here, I'm just trying to say that in the
eyes of OT theology, if the choice must be made between the life
of a mother vs the life of an unborn child, the life of the mother
is more important.

The only thing that really bugs me about the whole modern abortion
debate is the complete lack of discussion of or regard for the
well being of the women who are carrying these babies and
considering abortion.

Tell me that not only is the life of a child lost, but abortion also
affects the long term well being
of women who have abortions, and I'll agree whole heartedly.
Its insensitive and wrong to talk about the well being of a child
without discussing the well being of the mother who, for a time,
is biologically and spiritually tied to the life of the child.

djm

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I think we're in complete agreement here. That sounds nice.The only thing that really bugs me about the whole modern abortion debate is the complete lack of discussion of or regard for the well being of the women who are carrying these babies and considering abortion. The only thing that bugs me about the current debate on abortion is the fact that babies are being murdered every single day.Its insensitive and wrong to talk about the well being of a child without discussing the well being of the mother who, for a time, is biologically and spiritually tied to the life of the child.Yes, but even more insensitive to murder the child, whether it's discussed or not. The mother should have thought about the possible consequences of her activities before she allowed a human life to form in her belly. Life's tough all over, but we shouldn't offer 'no-one-need-ever-know' abortions to children, especially without their parents' consent.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Aimiel

The mother should have thought about the possible consequences of her activities before she allowed a human life to form in her belly.


Nice guy. Really understanding. Glad I'm not your daughter.



Life's tough all over, but we shouldn't offer 'no-one-need-ever-know' abortions to children, especially without their parents' consent.

That I agree with, parents should be informed of the state
of their children's health.

[keypurr]

I am not for aboration however I have a lingering question in my mind.

Where in scripture does it say when a fetus becomes a person and is covered under the law? When does a human become a human? Adam became a living soul after the breath of life was given him. Maybe this should have a thread of its own.

As I said before I do not condone the killing of a promise of a life unless the health of the mother is at risk.

[firechyld]

It's been seven days, firechyld. Where's that verse?

No, the one firechyld can't seem to place is the one supporting this statement: "Spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. It's considered an offence."

Sorry, peeps. I've been home sick for a fortnight.

Gen 38:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The issue here is not the spilling of the seed, its denying the
brother's wife, and the dead brother, continuation of the family. This was important to the woman because without male children
to support them, women were doomed to destitution, as they
were considered property, and could not own land or make a
living.

While I agree with your interpretation of the verse, that doesn't change the fact that Jews consider the spilling of seed to be a source of tum'eh. The belief can be traced to the story of Onan, but is clarified as a specific sin in Maimonides. Bear in mind that, as far as Judaism is concerned, religious instruction doesn't begin and end with Scripture.

So, to answer your question, spilling of seed has been officially recognised as a "bad thing" in Judaism since medieval times, but was clearly regarded as negative prior to Maimonides writings, as he is considered to be an author of clarification.

[Lighthouse]

Sick? :cry:

I was wondering where you were. I'm glad you feel better. :D I missed you.

[firechyld]

Yeah, a particularly nasty lung infection. Decidedly unpleasant.

Thanks for the concern. :) I missed all of you as well. :)

[firechyld]

Come on, lighthouse. You nagged me for two weeks when I wasn't even online about this thread, and you haven't even addressed my response. Can I at least get an acknowledgement?

[Lighthouse]

I'm still waiting for the verse. If you don't have one, then where did you get the information from?

[firechyld]

I gave you exactly what I promised.... the source for the belief in Judaism that spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. Not all Jewish beliefs are based solely on Scripture.

The belief can be traced to the story of Onan, and is clarified as a precept of Judaism in the writings of Maimonides.

[Lighthouse]

And what does tum'eh mean again?

[Redfin]

Originally posted by keypurr

I am not for aboration however I have a lingering question in my mind.

Where in scripture does it say when a fetus becomes a person and is covered under the law? When does a human become a human?

How about Isaiah 44:2 - "Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you..."

Or Jeremiah 1:5 - "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."

Who is the "you" that the Lord formed "in the womb" in each of these instances?

But it's not just a Scriptural question. It is also a scientific one.

A human being is conceived when a human sperm containing 23 chromosomes, fuses with a human egg also containing 23 chromosomes (albeit of a different kind), producing a single-cell human zygote containing, in the normal case, 46 chromosomes that are mixed differently from the 46 chromosomes as found in the mother or father.

Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult.

Assuming that it is not conceived in vitro, the zygote is, of course in a state of dependence on its mother. But independence should not be confused with distinctness. From the beginning, the newly conceived human being, not its mother, directs its integral organic functioning. It takes in nourishment and converts it to energy. Given a hospitable environment, it will develop continuously without any biological interruptions or gaps, through the embryonic, fetal, neo-natal, childhood and adulthood stages, until its death.

That's the "you" to whom the Scriptures were referring. :thumb:

[firechyld]

And what does tum'eh mean again?

Ritual uncleanliness. Basically means that spilling seed is a "sin"... something which renders you ritually unclean.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I'm fine with that being your personal conviction, but that's not
what scripture says. The life of an unborn child is not given
equal value of that of the mother. If the mother is killed
or injured during a fight, its life for life, limb for limb. If the mother
miscarries, money or property is exchanged as payment.

Here's another example, from scripture, at least a metaphorical
parallel:

Dtr 22:6
If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.

The life of the mother is sacred, moreso than the life of the
eggs or young.

djm

I know that this post is a couple of weeks old, but I was just reading through this thread for the first time, and your interpretation of this verse struck me as wrong.
I have heard it said that the ancient rabbis considered this the "least" of the commands in the Torah! When Yeshua referred to the breaking of the "least" of the commands this is probably the one that He meant.
Here is how the ancient rabbis, interpreted and commented on this verse.
"The Torah forbids one to take an ownerless mother bird when it is sitting on its eggs and young. One must send away the mother bird--even many times if it keeps returning to the nest-- and only then is one permitted to take the eggs or young."
Rambam said, "that the reason for this commanment, as for the prohibition against slaughtering a mother animal and its young on the same day{Lev 22:28}, is because it is cruel to do so, especially since animals instinctively love their young and suffer when they see them slaughtered or taken away. Another reason is to symbolize that people should avoid doing things that will destroy a species, for to slaughter mother and children on the same day is akin to mass extermination."
"These commandments are meant to inculcate compassion in people, not as some think, that God himself pities the birds and the animals. It is forbidden to say so because God permits people to use and slaughter animals for their own needs. Rather such commandments teach that people should accustom themselves to act mercifully."


It is apparent that we are teaching young teenage mothers more about sex, than we are about love. Perhaps instead of teaching them all about condoms, we should teach them about the instinctive love of a mother bird, for her unhatched young in their eggs. Perhaps a little field trip, would do more to teach her the worth and value of her young, and of herself, than a clinical analysis of body parts, with no soul.
Why does a bird have more "compassion" for her eggs, than a human mother for her little one inside of her? And why do we permit such a mother to "eat" her own?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by firechyld

Ritual uncleanliness. Basically means that spilling seed is a "sin"... something which renders you ritually unclean.
Well I knew that the law said a man was to be cleansed when he had an emission. But I don't see hw that would make the emission a sin. Just that not cleansing yourself would be the sin. Do you think that the Jews considered a woman to be sinning when she was on her period?

[firechyld]

Well I knew that the law said a man was to be cleansed when he had an emission. But I don't see hw that would make the emission a sin. Just that not cleansing yourself would be the sin.

It's ritual uncleanliness. He was unclean until nightfall.

Do you think that the Jews considered a woman to be sinning when she was on her period?

No, but she was a source of tum'eh. Contact with her was a "sin".

Deliberately causing seed to be spilled was considered a "sin", just like having interactions with a menstruating woman.

I don't like using the word "sin" in this context, as the Jewish interpretation and the Christian interpretation are quite different. Suffice to say that spilling of seed is detailed as a "no-no"... it's something to be avoided, and causing it to happen is considered wrong.

[billwald]

"Why, because in your limited understanding you don't realize that The Spirit of Truth is even more available to us today than He was to the ancient Hebrews?"

Who is "us," Kemosabe?



"How about Isaiah 44:2 - "Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you..."

"Or Jeremiah 1:5 - "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."

Verses teach predestination, not biology. The same information was available to God before he created the universe.


"Who is the "you" that the Lord formed "in the womb" in each of these instances?"

The person who God predestined before the foundation of the universe.

"But it's not just a Scriptural question. It is also a scientific one."

Is God traducian or creationist?

[Lighthouse]

firechyld-
Okay. I got ya. I agree. Sin is transgression of the law, so that would actually have been considered sin, while the symbolic laws were still in effect. Of course, having relations with a woman on her cycle is a little gross.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

dave-
I've agreed with you on many subjects, but you've lost it! :kookoo: You should see what he has to say about homosexuality. :freak:

[Lighthouse]

Is it the same thing that elohiym says, or is it worse?

[wickwoman]

NOTICE TO EVERYONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD:

ON FIRE HAS STOLEN MY FACE! HE IS POSTING ALL OVER THE BOARD WITH MY FACE BY HIS NAME. YOU SHOULD TAKE HIS CHARACTER INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU READY ANYTHING HE POSTS. HE IS OBVIOUSLY A LIAR AND A THIEF.

[aharvey]

Well, after all this fussing and posturing, I still don't see any serious discussion of john2001's original question: what is the basis for the belief that abortion is murder? The question has been reframed, slightly, to "what is the basis for the belief that a human embryo is fully human?", but no insights have emerged here. It doesn't seem to have a Scriptural basis. Nineveh, and probably others, seems to think it follows from first principles: it's a human zygote, right, so what else could it be besides human? Sheesh!. But do you really think that human the adjective means human the noun? By that logic a human toe, a human toenail ,a human egg, a human ego, would also be considered human.

As absolutely convinced as y'all are that a newly fertilized human egg deserves full protection as a complete human, and asvein-poppingly enraged that anyone could fail to see this, I would expect that you could easily defend this position without having to resort to insults. Well, I would have hoped so; I guess my expectations are a little less naive.

And, no, my opinions about abortion don't really matter here. However, in case you're wondering if I'm bringing this up to try to bolster my own despicable baby-killing tendencies, I long ago personally decided that it's not an option I'm comfortable with. But then again I don't try to tell other people how they should think. If you're going to do that, then you should at least be able to defend your position! (For the gradeschool 'gotcha' lovers, I didn't just tell you how to think, I told you what would be expected of someone with that objective in mind. You are of course free to ignore that advice, and even to be surprised and indignant when people ignore your rants!)

[Redfin]

Originally posted by aharvey

The question has been reframed, slightly, to "what is the basis for the belief that a human embryo is fully human?", but no insights have emerged here. It doesn't seem to have a Scriptural basis. Nineveh, and probably others, seems to think it follows from first principles: it's a human zygote, right, so what else could it be besides human? Sheesh!. But do you really think that human the adjective means human the noun? By that logic a human toe, a human toenail ,a human egg, a human ego, would also be considered human.

For a Scriptural basis, see post #73. There's much more, but that alone is sufficient.

Also there, I wrote -

"Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult."

That is also the difference between a human zygote, and human toes, toenails, eggs (gametes), etc.

Objections answered. :D

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Redfin

For a Scriptural basis, see post #73. There's much more, but that alone is sufficient.

Also there, I wrote -

"Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult."

That is also the difference between a human zygote, and human toes, toenails, eggs (gametes), etc.

Objections answered. :D

Sorry, I overlooked this reply. Good effort. Totally subjective, but well thought out. What I mean by subjective is that you are starting with the, er, preconceived opinion that "human" begins with "zygote," and then are calling whatever "zygote" shares with "post-zygote" the smoking gun that proves that "humanity" is complete at conception. Embryos share attributes with post-embryos that are lacking in zygotes; fetuses share attributes with post-fetuses that are lacking in embryos; infants share attributes with post-infants that are lacking in fetuses. Yeah, but the zygote-postzygote attributes are the important ones when it comes to defining a human is not self-evident.

And if you're going to use Jeremiah 1:5 as a Scriptural justification -- "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" -- you might have to explain why this doesn't suggest one's humanity in fact precedes conception.

[Lighthouse]

aharvey-
Could it be because it speaks of before He formed Jeremiah in his mother's womb, that He knew him...not before the sperm and egg connected?

[firechyld]

It does say "Before"...

[Lighthouse]

It says before Jeremiah was formed. It doesn't say before he was conceived. It doesn't even say that it isn't referring to the full formation of Jeremiah.

[firechyld]

I don't think you can draw the assumption that the verse specifically refers to the time between conception and full formation simply from what's written there. It could very well mean before conception. It could mean before his parents even met. We simply don't know.

[Lighthouse]

The truth of the matter is that humanity does not come before conception. Especially not before the parents met.

[firechyld]

The truth of the matter is that humanity does not come before conception. Especially not before the parents met.

You can't infer that from the text.

[Lighthouse]

:rolleyes:

[aharvey]

Originally posted by lighthouse

:rolleyes:

No, this is an intriguing schism that, not being a fundamentalist Christian, I wasn't really tuned into before, but is popping up in a couple of otherwise unrelated threads. Does God know the future? There are apparently some very strong differences of opinion among the "true believers" on this. So it's not necessarily a trivial question as to whether God could know someone before they even exist.

[Lighthouse]

That is not a triviasl question, you're right. But to argue that you can't infer from the text, that it wasn't in reference to before Jeremiah's conception is fruitless, and pointless...because you can't infer from the text that it was, either.

[firechyld]

I'm saying that you can't infer from the text what point in time the author was referring to. All we're told is that it is prior to point A. There's no mention of how far prior to point A we're referring to. To say anything beyond that is reading things into the text that aren't there.

[Lighthouse]

It still doesn't stand that humanity comes before conception.

[firechyld]

I don't care if you believe that. But you simply cannot back that belief up with that verse with any credibility.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by firechyld

I don't care if you believe that. But you simply cannot back that belief up with that verse with any credibility.

Which of course was the point I was making from the start. Thanks for sticking with it, firechyld.

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by firechyld

No, dude. "Murder" is an English word, and a legal concept. You're simply taking legal lexicon and using it colloquially.

No, Murder is a concept that is communicated colloquially.

Considering that there is no word in Ancient Hebrew that directly corelates to the legal definition of "murder", your statement is baseless.


There is certainly a word that correlates to an illegal premeditated act of violence that results in death. That Hebrew word is Ratsach.


No, it doesn't. The Hebrew word usually translated as "kill" does not literally translate as "unlawfully kill". Hebrew has a lot of words which translate into English as "kill"... this one is ratsach, which is more usually translated as "slay" or "slayer". The implication of the definition is intentional and premeditated, and it is occasionally used to mean "assassin".

Actually, that is exactly what Ratsach means! See BDB's entry on Ratsach...

262 Ratsach(page 954) (Strong 7523)
â€_ Ratsach vb. murder, slay

From Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Not to mention the NIV, NAU, NRS, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NET and the JPS Tanach (Both the 1917 and the 1985 translations) translate Ratsach as "murder."

So please, if you will, present us with your credentialing regarding the Hebrew language such that it is so compelling to discount the scholarship of Brown Driver and Briggs and the hundreds, if not thousands of consummate linguistic scholars who have translated the word Ratsach as "murder" in the above translations.


You can say that abortion is "wrong" or "sinful" or "evil" or any of those other words that apply to theological constructs, but murder has a very specific definition based on legislation and legal definitions.

This argument is made devoid of the common sense understanding of the coorelation between legality and morality. Legality is certainly not the same thing as morality but to ignore the correlative (and causative) relationship between legality and morality is foolish. The reason that murder is illegal is because it is “wrong� or “sinful� or “evil.� Furthermore, it is not evil because it is illegal it is illegal because it is evil. For those who have even a modicum of understanding of the historical basis of English common law it is commonly evident that a great deal of Judeo-Christian ethics underlie the legal system as we have it today. So to make your argument that “abortion� can’t be “murder� because it is not currently illegal only begs the question. It should be. And it was, at one point. And may be again (hopefully). Furthermore, the argument merely dances around the point. If God’s standard is such that abortion is evil, then those who engage in its practice are committing evil acts. Likewise, if God’s standard is that human life is formed prior to birth (and there is good scriptural argument to conclude that it is), then abortion is the unjust termination of a human life.

Now why don’t you please define for me what murder is, if it is not the unjust taking of another human life.

Grace and Peace

[firechyld]

Originally posted by BChristianK

No, Murder is a concept that is communicated colloquially.

It rests on a legal defintion.

Actually, that is exactly what Ratsach means! See BDB's entry on Ratsach...
[/color]
From Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Not to mention the NIV, NAU, NRS, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NET and the JPS Tanach (Both the 1917 and the 1985 translations) translate Ratsach as "murder."

So please, if you will, present us with your credentialing regarding the Hebrew language such that it is so compelling to discount the scholarship of Brown Driver and Briggs and the hundreds, if not thousands of consummate linguistic scholars who have translated the word Ratsach as "murder" in the above translations.

This argument is made devoid of the common sense understanding of the coorelation between legality and morality. Legality is certainly not the same thing as morality but to ignore the correlative (and causative) relationship between legality and morality is foolish. The reason that murder is illegal is because it is “wrong� or “sinful� or “evil.� Furthermore, it is not evil because it is illegal it is illegal because it is evil. For those who have even a modicum of understanding of the historical basis of English common law it is commonly evident that a great deal of Judeo-Christian ethics underlie the legal system as we have it today. So to make your argument that “abortion� can’t be “murder� because it is not currently illegal only begs the question. It should be. And it was, at one point. And may be again (hopefully). Furthermore, the argument merely dances around the point. If God’s standard is such that abortion is evil, then those who engage in its practice are committing evil acts. Likewise, if God’s standard is that human life is formed prior to birth (and there is good scriptural argument to conclude that it is), then abortion is the unjust termination of a human life.

Now why don’t you please define for me what murder is, if it is not the unjust taking of another human life.

Grace and Peace


You yourself are focussing on the legality of the word! It's quite simple: In the English language, the word murder refers to a killing that is done in cold blood and against the law. You've emphasised that yourself.

Please note that my argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the action is immoral, unjust, or any of the other emotionally loaded adjectives you've used. I am not arguing that abortion is morally right. But at this point in time, it is not an illegal killing, and as such not murder.

Argue the morality of the question with somebody else, because it simply isn't my debate. My point relates strictly to the defintion of the word "murder".

[erethnereh]

Under our laws abortion may not be murder. Hence an unqualified statement whether abortion is murder or not may be interpreted both ways. But the sphere of what is murder extends well beyond both state and person. In Germany, killing jews was not murder; it was serving the state. In the US, killing slaves was not murder but lost of property. These two case illustrate that the moral compass of countries have been quite skewed and will continue to be so.

[Lighthouse]

:confused:
erethnereh actually said something valuable! I'm dumbfounded!

[erethnereh]

lighthouse, well that was obvious not valuable. The abortion case rests on one side claiming what they do not know--that the fetus is not a human being deserving dignity--and then claiming they do know it. Nevertheless, that one side, so sure that the fetus does not have rights, is oddly uncertain of other issues.

[bigtuna]

Thou shalt not kill, and thats it. There is no passage stating we recieve souls at conception anywhere. They are simply pro-birth or pro birth and anti-post-birth.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by firechyld
I am not arguing that abortion is morally right.

Fine. But that's not gonna stop me from arguing that it's morally wrong. ;)

[Frank Ernest]

bigtuna:
"Thou shalt not kill, and thats it. There is no passage stating we recieve souls at conception anywhere. They are simply pro-birth or pro birth and anti-post-birth. "

FrankiE:
Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 44:24.

[Lighthouse]

I would also say that Genesis 2:7 gives us the information that breathing is a direct sign of life, and that there is a soul.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I would also say that Genesis 2:7 gives us the information that breathing is a direct sign of life, and that there is a soul.

I was unaware that zygotes breathe!

[AtheistsAreGod]

If you don't believe in all that bible stuff are you exempt from everything it says and free to joyfully abort away?

[Sozo]

:confused: