Originally posted by FreakyKBHcompletly avoiding the question... but o well, i was hoping i could understand you, but you are just restating theory rather than trying to prove this.
Biological life within the womb becomes human life, once imparted with soul life, by God, as the fetus comes away from the womb.
Biological life within the womb has the potential to become human life, once the same departs from the womb. Pets, although we love them, can never become human, therefore there is no comparison.
And, sence you obviously believe in God: "Biological life within the womb becomes human life, once imparted with soul life, by God, as the fetus comes away from the womb." (As do I) then how do you explain cesarean births? They are never born, they are taken out of the womb? What if we put the baby back in during an operation like that? Did it lose it's soul? Is it ok to commit abortion then? Or if you have an easy time with that one, how about test tube babies? once we start cloning people, will they have soul's? cause if God gives a soul after birth, and they are never born, then...where does that leave us?
Originally posted by c guy1completly avoiding the question... but o well, i was hoping i could understand you, but you are just restating theory rather than trying to prove this.
Approximately seven posts prior to this, I offered a thread easily accessed on this very website, wherein the relevant issues are being discussed. Barring this, if you are so inclined, you are more than welcome to read the book from which I am heavily paraphrasing, "The Origin of Human Life," by R.B. Thieme, Jr.
then how do you explain cesarean births?
Same way I explain vaginal births: away from the womb.
What if we put the baby back in during an operation like that? Did it lose it's soul?
You're starting to sound like Nicodemus.
Or if you have an easy time with that one, how about test tube babies? once we start cloning people, will they have soul's?
Let's burn that bridge when we come to it, shall we?
I checked the thread (the day you put the link up), and it never covered the biological difference between baby pre-labor and baby outside of mother, it just discussed when God gave them their soul.
First, you labled an unborn fetus as biological life, and said that when it is born it becomes a living baby. This reasoning sounds alot like what Abraham Lincoln criticized back when he was a lawyer, before he was president: "A sheep has 4 legs. if you call the tail a leg, how many legs does the sheep have?" most people answered 5 when he asked this question, to which Abe simply said, "Wrong, it had 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." It seems your so busy labling to defend yourself, you called a human life biological life so that you can defend yourself, where it seems your whole assumption is wrong.
And, for those of you like FreakyKBH, who claim to believe in God and abortion, look at Psalms 139, i believe there might be some things to think over. and obviously for nonchristians, any point I try to make off of that seems false to you, so I wont try to preach with information you believe to be lies.
And one last question...(seems I argue like Socratese alot, o well) What happens if were wrong? If im wrong, I tried to save lives I believed to be innocent. Which, turned out to be nothing more than empty bodies. If I am wrong, I made mothers take responsibilities for their actions. Maybe they will learn that what they do does effect them later and will make more thought out dicisions.But what if your wrong? In the time it will take for you to read this (assuming it takes only 5 min for you to read AND think over) 16 innocent babies were cruely murdered. Personally, I might be wrong, but you, a believer in God, would you rather sit before Him on judgement day and say you didnt think they were human as you try to protect those you killed.
Two final comments.
One: I found the number of deaths per day, and used that to calculate my number earlier: it's 4400 per day in the U.S. alone. Thats 3 a minuet and 1,606,000 a year.
Secondly, I find it interesting that you claim ignorance over any facts I bring up to try and and convicted with murder of unborn child and mother. Second, the crusaders I mentioned awhile back. Third is the most recent "test tube babies" idea. You never said what I believed, you just shoved my point to the side.
If you can bring up any good points I might continue posting on this thread, but please...make them count
Originally posted by c guy11,600,000 abortions in the US every year? That means that about 1 in 8 women must have an abortion during their reproductive life (I assume 150 million women (should probably be less since most females are NOT reproductively capable presumably, being too old or too young), and reproductive life being the 25 year period from 15 - 40). Probably the number is more around 1 in 4. Seems awfully high. Are you sure?
I checked the thread (the day you put the link up), and it never covered the biological difference between baby pre-labor and baby outside of mother, it just discussed when God gave them their soul.
First, you labled an unborn fetus as biological life, and said that when it is born it becomes a living baby. This reasoning sounds alot like what Abraham L ...[text shortened]... up any good points I might continue posting on this thread, but please...make them count
Biological life is defined by 6 / 7 criteria (depending on who you ask). A fetus does not fail by this definition to be alive, and no-one can deny that an abortion is the termination of life, however it is important to differentiate between terminating a conscious human life (murder), a non-conscious human life (switching off life support / abortion) and all the other possibilities (why isn't killing a dog murder? - it is conscious after all)
Originally posted by c guy1Indeed, the difference is merely (1) the fetus' inability to live independantly of a host (i.e. it is a parasite) and (2) a legal distinction. What is your point? The legal distinction is sufficient for the rest of us, in the same way that there are legal distinctions between murder and manslaughter or between humans and other animals.
still no biological difference mentioned between unborn fetus and living baby, also avoids my, "what if im wrong" question
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzIll deal with (1) first, and then (2).
Indeed, the difference is merely (1) the fetus' inability to live independantly of a host (i.e. it is a parasite) and (2) a legal distinction. [text shortened] The legal distinction is sufficient for the rest of us.
First of all, a baby, while entirly dependant on a mother in the womb, is still entirly dependant on somebody. A baby after birth cannot live on its own.
Your second point really scares me. You say a legal distinction is enough for you. So anything legal is ok? So in the U.S. it is morally wrong to kill someone for their spritual or atheistic beliefs because it the law says it is, but if you were put in a country with religous oppretion, you would have no problem (morally) to kill a Christian or a Jew because it was legally ok? It's called legalism, and that is what you are suggesting.
EDIT: "The reason I'm so keen on hearing the biological difference is that FreakyKBH is so intent on declairing an unborn featus biological life and a baby human life. I want to how he can draw the line in the sand if there is no difference between the two."
1 edit
Originally posted by c guy1Since you bring up scripture...chew on this for a bit.
I checked the thread (the day you put the link up), and it never covered the biological difference between baby pre-labor and baby outside of mother, it just discussed when God gave them their soul.
First, you labled an unborn fetus as biological life, and said that when it is born it becomes a living baby. This reasoning sounds alot like what Abraham L up any good points I might continue posting on this thread, but please...make them count
This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
Seems even the Bible makes a distinction between a fetus and a fully formed human adult. Now run along and check your dogma before I taunt you a second time.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperYes the Bible does make a distinction - but read the passage again. It does not say that killing a fetus is not a crime.
Since you bring up scripture...chew on this for a bit.
This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's h ...[text shortened]... an adult. Now run along and check your dogma before I taunt you a second time.
TheSkipper
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerNor does it say killing a fetus is a crime. For all we know the crime is in the hitting of another man's wife. Since the passage indicates that the killing of a fetus does not invoke the "eye for an eye" rule then we can reasonably conclude that the fetus is not a "life" in any legal way. If it were then I assume "life for a life" would apply at it clearly does not. This being the case, abortion is not murder. If abortion is not murder then how is it illegal...what law is being broken?
Yes the Bible does make a distinction - but read the passage again. It does not say that killing a fetus is not a crime.
I'm not trying to be an ass, i would just really like to know what your typical pro-life person does with this passage in Exodus.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by c guy1(1) Yes, I appreciate that a baby, after birth, still requires help. I was specific in my wording for that reason specifically.
Ill deal with (1) first, and then (2).
First of all, a baby, while entirly dependant on a mother in the womb, is still entirly dependant on somebody. A baby after birth cannot live on its own.
Your second point really scares me. You say a legal distinction is enough for you. So anything legal is ok? So in the U.S. it is morally wrong to kill someone f ...[text shortened]... I want to how he can draw the line in the sand if there is no difference between the two."
(2) I agree that legal things are all a bit arbitrary. I never stipulated whether I, personally, believe this to be a good or bad thing. It just is, really. That's why I brought up the killing of animals thing. Species-ism. I would still not kill infants in countries where it may be deemed legal to do so, but that is my own choice. I'd, in fact, oppose any government that mandated the killing of sentient infants; however, th termination of a ball of cells, or even a fetus, before it become self-aware, is not, in my book, and, indeed, legality (in most countries), not a tremendously bad thing if there is a good biological (i.e. welfare of the mother) or socialogical (i.e. mother was raped or child will be born into excessively bad circumstances) reasons. I will repeat, and make this very clear, the termination should be caried out pre-self awareness.
Originally posted by TheSkipper1. If the crime were solely in the hitting of another man's wife, then there would be no need to differentiate between pregnant and non-pregnant wives.
Nor does it say killing a fetus is a crime. For all we know the crime is in the hitting of another man's wife. Since the passage indicates that the killing of a fetus does not invoke the "eye for an eye" rule then we can reasonably conclude that the fetus is not a "life" in any legal way. If it were then I assume "life for a life" would apply at it clea ...[text shortened]... o know what your typical pro-life person does with this passage in Exodus.
TheSkipper
2. The non-invocation of "eye for an eye" is not proof that the fetus is not a life. For instance, in v.20, the implied punishment for the death of a slave is not death.
3. You are making a number of assumptions about "typical" pro-life supporters. For instance, you're assuming that they're Christian. This may be true in the United States, but it wont be true in Muslim countries or India (both of which are culturally pro-life). Even in the US, there are plenty of non-religious pro-lifers who take the pro-life position for purely philosophical reasons (e.g. Nat Hentoff[1]). Even in this thread, cguy1 is arguing purely from a philosophical perspective against abortion (he's only raised Scripture against FreakyKBH - who claims to be Christian).
So, how would a Christian respond to this passage in Exodus? He doesn't have to. He would point out simply that Christ came to establish a higher level of morality than God previously permitted the Israelites because their "hearts were hard" (Mt 19:8). In Christ and Christianity, the true purpose of the Mosaic Law (C.f. Mt. 5:17) is revealed. He would point out that the Christian Tradition has consistently denounced abortion right from the very beginning (C.f. Didache 1:1-2, Letter of Barnabas 19 etc.)
---
[1] http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060205-100347-3373r.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperActually, it would be more correct to say that the NAS translation (going by your quote - I do not have this version to verify, but certainly some other modern translations do this too) makes this distinction. Remember that the process of translation invariably introduces interpretation. This translation asserts the term miscarriage and limits the penalty to the death of the woman, but the text only reads this way as this is how the translators believed it SHOULD read, not because this is actually what the text reads. Perhaps these translations read this way, because the translators have allready decided that there should be a distinction.
(NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
Seems even the Bible makes a distinction between a fetus and a fully formed human adult. Now run along and check your dogma before I taunt you a second time.
The text can also read as the woman being caused to give birth prematurely. If no complications arrise, then a fine is institituted, but if any harm follows, then the retribution law enters. This is not limited to the woman only.
Young's literal translation:
"Exo 21:22 `And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
Exo 21:23 and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
KJV:
"Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. "
fruit Strong's 3206
something born, that is, a lad or offspring
depart Strong's 3318
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate
follow Strong's 1961
to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)
Originally posted by scottishinnzDefine "self-aware". This smacks of the "personhood" debate I had with LJ a while back.
(1) Yes, I appreciate that a baby, after birth, still requires help. I was specific in my wording for that reason specifically.
(2) I agree that legal things are all a bit arbitrary. I never stipulated whether I, personally, believe this to be a good or bad thing. It just is, really. That's why I brought up the killing of animals thing. Species-ism ...[text shortened]... eat, and make this very clear, [b]the termination should be caried out pre-self awareness.[/b]
Why does it have to be self-aware to merit life? Are you self-aware during your sleep? Why make self-awareness a once off boundary to cross?