Originally posted by KellyJay“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.” - California Medical Journal
"Strictly third trimester. Not a fetus in the sense of the abortion debate. "
What is this supposed to mean? A human fetus is still a human
life in one of its early stages of development.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitHi gambit, i do not have the full details of these accounts, but they bear some modern relevance to the debate,
Interesting ... look this up in Young's Literal Translation and you get:[quote] 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;
23and if there is mischief, then thou hast give for whom? Is it possible that the 'life' in 'life for life' is the [b]mother's life?[/b]
Winfield Anderson shot a woman pregnant with twin sons. By cesarean the twins were removed. One, struck by a bullet, died after three-and-a-half hours; the other died in 15 hours. The mother survived. The defense attorney said the fetuses were “nonpersons,” but Judge Wingate, Jr., ruled that fetuses wounded by a blow on the mother were, if they later died, murder victims. The jury convicted Anderson on two counts of murder.
it appears to be in the verse, that yes, the life of the mother could be in question, but the point is ofcourse, so is the life of the yet unborn.
i apologise for the scant details of the above, i have not the time nor the resources to fully search them out, to my own satisfaction, for they appear to me to be like sensationalistic journalism, without the proper references.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd this happened in a country where abortion is legal, and where legions of Christians call the abortions that take place legally a holocaust. And when I note the absence of scriptural support for their position, I am offered a verse about a slave that is near full term.
Hi gambit, i do not have the full details of these accounts, but they bear some modern relevance to the debate,
Winfield Anderson shot a woman pregnant with twin sons. By cesarean the twins were removed. One, struck by a bullet, died after three-and-a-half hours; the other died in 15 hours. The mother survived. The defense attorney said the fetus ...[text shortened]... on, for they appear to me to be like sensationalistic journalism, without the proper references.
I'll grant that the Bible addresses the unborn. But it does not address conception as the beginning of life. It does not address the nonviable fetus. I should have been more clear from the beginning.
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrLet me offer a scripture for you to ponder than, that does suggest
And this happened in a country where abortion is legal, and where legions of Christians call the abortions that take place legally a holocaust. And when I note the absence of scriptural support for their position, I am offered a verse about a slave that is near full term.
I'll grant that the Bible addresses the unborn. But it does not addr ...[text shortened]... ife. It does not address the nonviable fetus. I should have been more clear from the beginning.
scripturally that God addresses this.
Jeremiah 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think this addresses the issues at all. It does however bring up interesting new questions. It appears from the verse that either God is saying he knows the future, or that there is some entity (called the soul I suppose) that exists before conception and is inserted at some point and God considers it to be 'you'. I personally think the intention was to imply Gods ability to see the future or more generally his independence from time.
Let me offer a scripture for you to ponder than, that does suggest
scripturally that God addresses this.
Jeremiah 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Kelly
The question then is that if God knows the future and a fetus is aborted in the second week, does that fetus have soul? Of could God deliberately withhold giving it a soul since he knows its future?
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo me it suggests that our lives all have purpose, and even in the
I don't think this addresses the issues at all. It does however bring up interesting new questions. It appears from the verse that either God is saying he knows the future, or that there is some entity (called the soul I suppose) that exists before conception and is inserted at some point and God considers it to be 'you'. I personally think the intention ...[text shortened]... tus have soul? Of could God deliberately withhold giving it a soul since he knows its future?
womb we are who we are.
Kelly
Originally posted by Wulebgrsee Kelly Jays text, whether it is legal or not, is neither here nor there, simply because it is legal does not make it morally acceptable. The verse that was quoted to you, which you have failed to address, primarily because it refuted your assertion, is clearly made with reference to the unborn, but because of, one can only imagine, an unwillingness to accept it, you have dismissed it on the grounds that in the context it mentions another issue, sorry, but were not convinced by such reasoning, would you be?
And this happened in a country where abortion is legal, and where legions of Christians call the abortions that take place legally a holocaust. And when I note the absence of scriptural support for their position, I am offered a verse about a slave that is near full term.
I'll grant that the Bible addresses the unborn. But it does not addr ...[text shortened]... ife. It does not address the nonviable fetus. I should have been more clear from the beginning.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt doesn't address it at all.
Let me offer a scripture for you to ponder than, that does suggest
scripturally that God addresses this.
Jeremiah 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayRight. Hence the third sentence in my declaration that it is silent:
Let me offer a scripture for you to ponder than, that does suggest
scripturally that God addresses this.
Jeremiah 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Kelly
Originally posted by Wulebgr
The Bible equates breath with life, not conception. The Bible fails to address protection of the unborn in a way that limits future humans to those already conceived. It does make provisions for the unborn that will be born centuries from now. Only creative misreading can locate a clear anti-abortion position in the Bible.
In other words, my original assertion stands unchallenged (with the modification I offered to clarify that I was not referring to the viable unborn that can survive the death of the mother without excessive laboratory support).
2 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr[/i][/b]It’s interesting: FreakyKBH (pretty much what one would call a conservative, evangelical Christian) presented an exhaustive Biblical study on here a few years back, pretty much presenting the conclusions you have stated here (you might remember). It was a strenuous and detailed presentation. And, as Freaky said at the time, it was a close examination of the Bible that changed what had been his strong position—nothing more (or less) than the Biblical texts.
Right. Hence the third sentence in my declaration that it is silent:
Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]The Bible equates breath with life, not conception. The Bible fails to address protection of the unborn in a way that limits future humans to those already conceived. [i]It does make provisions for the unborn that will be born centuries from now.[/ ...[text shortened]... he viable unborn that can survive the death of the mother without excessive laboratory support).
At the time, most of the other “Bible-believing” Christians on here decided to simply ignore his presentation; a few said something like: “Well, I still believe the fetus is a human being from conception, anyway…” etc., etc., etc. (in other words, regardless of what the Bible actually says). Maybe today, with a new crop of Christians on here, we would get some different responses (but some of those Christians who essentially ignored Freaky’s work are also still here, and do not seem any more willing to examine their a priori positions).
The lesson: there is nothing in the Biblical texts that cannot be overcome with artful eisegesis.
Originally posted by vistesd"The lesson: there is nothing in the Biblical texts that cannot be overcome with artful eisegesis."
[/i]It’s interesting: FreakyKBH (pretty much what one would call a conservative, evangelical Christian) presented an exhaustive Biblical study on here a few years back, pretty much presenting the conclusions you have stated here (you might remember). It was a strenuous and detailed presentation. And, as Freaky said at the time, it was a close e ...[text shortened]... there is nothing in the Biblical texts that cannot be overcome with artful eisegesis.[/b][/b]
Isn't that just another way of saying that the truth can be used to tell a lie?
Originally posted by josephwWell, eisegesis only becomes dishonest when one pretends that's not what they're doing.
[b]"The lesson: there is nothing in the Biblical texts that cannot be overcome with artful eisegesis."
Isn't that just another way of saying that the truth can be used to tell a lie?[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr[/i][/b]I just showed you verse that tells us God was speaking about knowing
Right. Hence the third sentence in my declaration that it is silent:
Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]The Bible equates breath with life, not conception. The Bible fails to address protection of the unborn in a way that limits future humans to those already conceived. [i]It does make provisions for the unborn that will be born centuries from now.[/ ...[text shortened]... he viable unborn that can survive the death of the mother without excessive laboratory support).
the prophet before he was born, didn't you get that? I'm not sure why you
you think surving outside of the womb matters with our laboratory support.
Kelly
How does the un-born child (Human) not being able to live out side of it's mothers womb make it any less Human? I think the law of the land allows for abortion but as RC said just because something is legal does not necessarily make it morally right. I never been hardcore on this issue (my Shame) but I think having a little one has changed my view and made me feel much stronger on this. Seeing an ultrasound at about 19 weeks my son was bouncing around in there that's life. I know there are some special circumstances which some can argue but abortion kills the unborn human. I was reading about this young women who was an aborted child and she lived. It disturbed me! but I also read her testimony and she said she was there by God's power & grace to testify about abortion.
Manny