Show me scripture that supports ABORTION.

[Jedi]

Jedi,
then you can’t say ‘granted’ as my argument is about the process starting at conception.

Then you didn't get the reference of what was granted. "Granted," you and I are the product of conception, but that doesn't mean the chain of events started there. We are also the product of a sperm, an egg, a blastocyst, the zygote implanting itself into the uterus, etc.

I think the issue here is you state a fact everyone agrees on (conception is necessary and no human would develop without it), then assert that because it's an established fact, life must begin at that necessary point; equating "necessary" with "beginning."

Irrelevant, the process started at conception, the individual sperm and egg never lead to a foetus/life.

Sure they do. Just because the sperm/egg require additional steps that may or may not happen does not mean they "never lead to a fetus." Quite often, they do; conception would never happen without them.

Let me break it down in a very simple explanation.

1.) Creation of Sperm/Egg - an event of nutrients joining together that is contingent on past and future steps that may or may not result in childbirth.

2.) Conception - an event of a sperm and egg joining together that is contingent on past and future steps that may or may not result in childbirth.

Both of them are the same in nature; only the materials being joined are different. Both are equally necessary. Both are equally contingent on other things happening in a particular manner to result in childbirth. Why, then, have you (a) chosen conception as something more special than the other necessary steps and (b) insisted that it's the beginning of the chain of events that lead up to a human when there are clearly necessary steps before it, upon which conception is based?

If I die are you looking at who I was or who you were? Obviously it would be me that was dead and not anyone else. Similarly it was me who was a the foetus I was in development.

So when your body dies, you are dead? No spirit? The essence of "you," (your memories, sentience, emotions, will, personality) ceases to exist?

If not, there is not only a difference between you and your body, but we see very clearly how the body can exist without housing a spirit. If this happens near the end of the body's existence, why do you deny it could be the same way near its beginning?

Furthermore a dead body is somewhat different from a foetus, the former is dead and the latter is living, a similarity is when the foetus is aborted, its then dead, which says a lot about your argument.

You've missed the point entirely, then. The point of the observation was to illustrate the fact that the body can and does exist apart from the spirit; something you vehemently deny without cause near the time the body first comes into existence.

You didn't address my question. I maintain that abortion by choice is not acceptable because life, personhood and human being starts at conception. If you are for pro-choice abortion what are the limits you are going to set for abortion which doesn’t destroy personhood, life or human being (whichever you choose) ?

I have made it clear, post after post, in this thread (including the paragraph you quoted here): the limit is the presence of a person as indicated by the capacity for memory, emotions, a will, and sentience. A zygote does not have this capacity. A balstocyst does not have this capacity. A fetus, even, does not have this capacity until about the 8 week point at the absolute soonest when the most basic parts of the brain form, but more likely the 26-week point, when the neurons connect and enable thought.

On the contrary in Adam all are dead in Christ all are made alive, the spiritual life is arguably there at conception or not there until one accepts Jesus Christ. The scripture says God knows us, there is no indication of a separation of physical or spiritual, that’s an assumption you have made, which is clearly faulty.

Are you seriously still saying there is no distinction in scripture between physical and spiritual? If not, Jesus' claim to give eternal life to whoever believes in Him in John 3:16 is clearly false, as plenty of believers have physically died. If you really want to claim there exists no distinction between the spirit and body, then they have completely died and Jesus was a liar. As a Christian, the existence of the separation of the physical and spiritual is paramount; without which, there is no hope for humanity.

On the contrary there is nothing for you to make that assumption on, and see above, in Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive.

Once again, you state something that is clearly true but also clearly has no bearing on the matter at hand. The fact that "all died in Adam" and "all are made alive in Christ" is no indication of whether or not a zygote is a person. If it is nothing more than a shell awaiting a spirit when the capacity for thought is present, then it's not included.

Your might as well say "Person A" is British because all British pay taxes. Saying a fact about Group X does not in any way mean that "Person A" is part of Group X.

Sorry but if I don’t agree with the subjectivity of your argument I don’t agree with it, whether its life as a foetus or not, or life as child under 7 or not.

Pointing out that a 7-year old has cognitive abilities, contrary to your claim, is not subjective. It's observable by anyone. Like it or not, there is good reason to doubt your claim, and because of that doubt, there is reason to doubt your likening the mental capacity of a 7-year old to be synonymous with a zygote with no mental facilities.

As I said, I think justifying murder of life is criminally insane. Are you saying you don’t think it is?

You're confusing the matter now. This is a not a matter of deciding whether or not murder is criminal; this is a matter of deciding whether or not abortion is inherently murder. Two completely different issues.

When you claim someone's opinion is "criminally insane," you've not only lost sight of the debate, but the only point of even making such an accusation is to accuse the other person of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. It is ad hominem - attack against the person, as it adds no value to the discussion and focuses on the character of the opposition. You come to a discussion about whether or not abortion is murder and say, "You are criminally insane because your position is that abortion is not inherently murder!" You've only begged the question that your position is right and defamed the character of the person who disagrees. It is a mindless flame and is completely contrary to your claim at the end of your post that we "reason together." You may appeal to reason elsewhere, but here you do the very thing terrorists and extremists do, as I described in my previous post.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Then you didn't get the reference of what was granted. "Granted," you and I are the product of conception, but that doesn't mean the chain of events started there. We are also the product of a sperm, an egg, a blastocyst, the zygote implanting itself into the uterus, etc.

Absolutely not. We are not the product of sperm, our existence started when the sperm united with the egg, conception. The zygote implanting itself into the uterus followed conception. Conception is the starting point. You keep making the claim such as the sperm, the sperm will never be the start of any foetus/life, unless it unites with the egg which is conception.

I think the issue here is you state a fact everyone agrees on (conception is necessary and no human would develop without it), then assert that because it's an established fact, life must begin at that necessary point; equating "necessary" with "beginning."

Of course, if no foetus/life develops unless there is conception then that is the starting point. You were the one would introduced necessary and confused yourself. Of course it is a necessary step, but the point is it is the beginning.

Sure they do. Just because the sperm/egg

Sorry but you didn’t read the point I made properly. I didn’t say sperm/egg, I said the process started at conception, the individual sperm and egg never lead to a foetus/life.

require additional steps that may or may not happen does not mean they "never lead to a fetus."

Neither the sperm nor the egg require additional steps apart from conception.

So when your body dies, you are dead?

yes it is me that is dead not you or anyone else.

No spirit? The essence of "you," (your memories, sentience, emotions, will, personality) cease to exist?

it will be the essence of me, not of you or anyone else.

You've missed the point entirely, then.

I think I have hit it on the head, abortion destroys life.

The point of the observation was to illustrate the fact that the body can and does exist apart from the spirit; something you vehemently deny without cause near the time the body first comes into existence.

God knows before we are in the womb, that must be spirit, I think it is you who has denied the spirit.

A fetus, even, does not have this capacity until about the 8 week point at the absolute soonest

So as you think it has this capacity at the absolute soonest at 8 weeks then as with most of Europe at 12 weeks some persons are no doubt being murdered.

but more likely the 26-week point,

More likely implies you don’t know for sure.

Are you seriously still saying there is no distinction in scripture between physical and spiritual?

No. I am saying the distinction is either before conception or at the time one accepts Jesus Christ, according to scripture.

Once again, you state something that is clearly true but also clearly has no bearing on the matter at hand.

highly relevant, crucial in fact.

The fact that "all died in Adam" and "all are made alive in Christ" is no indication of whether or not a zygote is a person.

there is no mmention of zygote in the Bible that’s a human classification of a stage of a persons development. If all died in Adam then all people who ever will be born are already spiritually dead in sin.

Pointing out that a 7-year old has cognitive abilities, contrary to your claim, is not subjective.

Nor did I say it was, that’s just you avoiding addressinmg the point again. My point concerned viability as requiring cognitive thought, which is as subjective as valdiity requiring foetal sentience.

Like it or not, there is good reason to doubt your claim,

its not my claim, my claim is life starts objectively at conception, I was merely giving another subjective view.

You're confusing the matter now. This is a not a matter of deciding whether or not murder is criminal; this is a matter of deciding whether or not abortion is inherently murder. Two completely different issues.

I am not confused at all, I am quite clear, my opinion is that abortion is criminal insanity, I have also clearly reasoned why pro-choice abortion is murder.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
A key point from my last post concerns your view that the earliest possible validity could be 8 weeks. I believe you said about 2 months originally, 2 months is usually about 6-7 weeks rather than 8. Nonetheless if you think 8 weeks is the absolute earliest then there must be some foetus at 12 weeks which are persons.
2 points.
How come so many experts dont agree with you and have abortion at from 12 to 24 weeks
and
How come you support pro-choice when none of your side can agree on viability?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
A key point from my last post concerns your view that the earliest possible validity could be 8 weeks... Nonetheless if you think 8 weeks is the absolute earliest then there must be some foetus at 12 weeks which are persons.
2 points.
How come so many experts dont agree with you and have abortion at from 12 to 24 weeks
and
How come you support pro-choice when none of your side can agree on viability?

I think it's clear at this point I'm merely wasting my time here. We're going in circles with what seems to be the same baseless assumptions asserted as arguments by the pro-life camp.

The points that need to be realized by the pro-life camp as represented here by Phinehas are thus:

1.) There is a distinction between body & spirit and they need not be present at the same place and the same time.

2.) Conception is not the beginning of the chain of events leading up to human development. If it was, no prior events or supplies would be necessary. This does not correspond with reality.

3.) God's knowledge of someone before they're in the womb does not indicate when they entered the womb any more than a man who says he knew you before college must therefore mean you started college in the summer.

4.) As evidenced by biblical examples of post-life persons, the essence of personhood is best understood as a combination of memory, will, and sentience. A zygote and blastocyst show absolutely no evidence of possessing the capacity for these things, and even a fetus doesn't possess them until 8-26 weeks after conception. If there is no person present, then murder cannot take place. There is no person to kill.

5.) Numbers do not determine truth. You do not determine the veracity of an argument by seeing how many people agree exactly with that person's view, so saying "since not all pro-choice advocates agree, their position is not viable" is a fallacy.

6.) Insisting your position is true and blasting anyone who disagrees with accusations of moral and intellectual beravement is counterproductive to any discussion. Not only does it display your lack of focus of why you're even talking about the subject (to reach a mutual understanding), it closes you off to the possibility that you may be wrong on some matters and that the differing worldviews you're being exposed to are some times absolutely correct.

I believe you said about 2 months originally, 2 months is usually about 6-7 weeks rather than 8.

This is just an example of how out of touch from reality you can be when you post before you think. Tell me, how many days are there in a month? Looking at a calendar, it ranges from 30-31 days on most months with only one month as the low-end exception (February) with 28 days.

Now ask yourself how many days there are in a week. Last time I was in the U.K., even you guys had 7-day weeks with the same months the rest of civilization has. So do the math: 7 x 4 = 28. That means each month has at least 4 weeks in it. So 2 months is at least 8 weeks. Maybe a tad more. I have no idea where you figured each month only had about 3-3.5 weeks in it. You just cut out about a quarter of the year.

In closing, I'd say this had been fun, but it's really been more disappointing than anything. You come across not as someone who is here to discuss and uncover the truth, but as someone who believes he possesses an unquestionable truth and anyone who disagrees is on a lower intellectual or moral plane. Unfortunately, this is typical of the pro-life camp, and is very evident in your "us versus them" mentality.

With that, I take my leave and have no intention on viewing this thread beyond this point. The circle of repetition in this thread ends here.

 

[Archivist]

Well said Jedi!

BTW, I'm still waiting to see any Scripture that directly forbids or allows abortion. I don't expect that I will see any because abortion isn't directly mentioned in Scripture.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

1.) There is a distinction between body & spirit and they need not be present at the same place and the same time.

This doesn’t address my point, if you think 8 weeks is the absolute earliest a foetus is viable then you must see mass termination of life happening through abortion.
Conception is obviously and logically the beginning of the chain of events which is human development.
God's knowledge of someone before they're in the womb indicates He knows them, not some shell but them!
This is the truth, observable evidence and the word of God, the reality of which the pro-choice argument is unwilling or unable to recognise.
The pro-life position is contesting for justice, when there are millions of innocent lives being murdered one isn’t bother that one’s argument cause offense.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

BTW, I'm still waiting to see any Scripture that directly forbids or allows abortion. I don't expect that I will see any because abortion isn't directly mentioned in Scripture.

The thread and OP question is about showing scripture that supports abortion. None has been given and you have seen none. Scripture has been shown that God lknows people before and in the womb, which means abortion is destroying what God knows.

Another case of liberals faith based on what the Bible doesnt say, and assuming what it does say wont apply if they add an assumption.

 

[lux et lex]

Archivist,
The thread and OP question is about showing scripture that supports abortion. None has been given and you have seen none. Scripture has been shown that God lknows people before and in the womb, which means abortion is destroying what God knows.

Another case of liberals faith based on what the Bible doesnt say, and assuming what it does say wont apply if they add an assumption.

Did you forget my post that draws the same inferences you are drawing but towards condoning abortion or are you a selective reader?

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,
Yes but an inference needs to be based on what the texts says or it becomes the realm of unreality.
You said

Because it's from the Bible and talks about the closest thing to what would classify as a fetus.

The closest thing the Bible talks about as a foetus is the same baby in the womb all doctors and nurses at hospitals refer to. Its only when the interests switch to not wanting the baby in the womb does the argument pretend it’s a foetus and not a baby.

Well, as I have pointed out using the "pro life" side, no where in the Bible does the word "abortion" appear.

So we can establish there is no direct support for it. So why would a Christian want to abort?

However, in Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value).

So that infers one could argue the life can be terminated up until the born baby is one month old. I think I will stick with no abortion by choice. But this is not as close a reference as Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 which refer not to a born baby but to a baby in the womb… yet you chose not to get inference from that but from Leviticus 27:6. Same with Numbers 3:15. That indicates one isnt interested in the truth but whatever fits a preconceived idea.

In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath.

Then that would infer one could argue abortion can be carried out up until the baby was born. Your inference doesn’t work at all does it?

In Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe.

new body? I don’t think you have read the text properly. the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God then said to Adam go forth and multiply with Eve, so that’s a different process.

Genesis 38:24, there is a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning.

yes the law punished sin.

Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration.

How do you know? The Jews were intending to carry out the law as they saw it. Tell me, did the law make the consideration and did the Jews interpret it correctly.

If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes?

You are building further assumption on your original assumption. We don’t follow OT law. If God believed the foetus not to be equal to the mother the His word would not say what it says in Jeremiah 1, Psalm 139 and Job 31. So no, your assumption is clearly wrong.

The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder.

The simple truth is abortion is murder, your view is based on assumption of scripture at the expense of other clearer scriptures.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall 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, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

Hardly anything to do with abortion by choice, unless you are condoning men striking a woman and adherence to OT law.

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et Lex,
Yes but an inference needs to be based on what the texts says or it becomes the realm of unreality.
You said
The closest thing the Bible talks about as a foetus is the same baby in the womb all doctors and nurses at hospitals refer to. Its only when the interests switch to not wanting the baby in the womb does the argument pretend it’s a foetus and not a baby.

So we can establish there is no direct support for it. So why would a Christian want to abort?

So that infers one could argue the life can be terminated up until the born baby is one month old. I think I will stick with no abortion by choice. But this is not as close a reference as Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 which refer not to a born baby but to a baby in the womb… yet you chose not to get inference from that but from Leviticus 27:6. Same with Numbers 3:15. That indicates one isnt interested in the truth but whatever fits a preconceived idea.

Then that would infer one could argue abortion can be carried out up until the baby was born. Your inference doesn’t work at all does it?
new body? I don’t think you have read the text properly. the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God then said to Adam go forth and multiply with Eve, so that’s a different process.

yes the law punished sin.
How do you know? The Jews were intending to carry out the law as they saw it. Tell me, did the law make the consideration and did the Jews interpret it correctly. You are building further assumption on your original assumption. We don’t follow OT law. If God believed the foetus not to be equal to the mother the His word would not say what it says in Jeremiah 1, Psalm 139 and Job 31. So no, your assumption is clearly wrong.
The simple truth is abortion is murder, your view is based on assumption of scripture at the expense of other clearer scriptures.


Hardly anything to do with abortion by choice, unless you are condoning men striking a woman and adherence to OT law. [/i]

I'm not going to waste my time and split out your quote, but I will address it.

You've already stated that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be mentally ill. So I realize that you aren't going to listen to anything I say anyway, but I'll humor you for now.

Have you never heard of bedside manner? Of course doctors and nurses refer to the fetus as a baby, because that's vernacular terms that are familiar to. But you can bet that when they are charting or talking amongst themselves the word "fetus" is used, because it is the proper medical term. It is you that is pretending it's an infant (also a proper medical term) and not a fetus. Take a biology class.

It isn't directly mentioned as being against abortion. But you better believe there were abortions going on in Biblical times. Funny that it's not mentioned, when so many other trivial things were. You'd think if abortion were that important and that big of a sin it would be mentioned. And why would a Christian want an abortion? Why wouldn't a Christian want one, for a myriad of different reasons?

A fetus can be terminated up until birth. So there is no argument there.

And lastly, in big font because you don't get it. Abortion is not murder. Murder is an illegal killing with malice aforethought. Abortion is legal and therefore not murder.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

You've already stated that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be mentally ill.

No you are badly mistaken,[/quote] So I realize that you aren't going to listen to anything I say anyway, but I'll humor you for now.[/quote] Which measn its you who isnt listening.

Have you never heard of bedside manner?

are you really trying to tell me you dont acknowledge a human life starts at conception? Surely not.

Of course doctors and nurses refer to the fetus as a baby, because that's vernacular terms that are familiar to.

As I said not in my experience nor in another posters experiece.

Take a biology class.

But hopefully not the one you attended.

It isn't directly mentioned as being against abortion. But you better believe there were abortions going on in Biblical times. Funny that it's not mentioned, when so many other trivial things were. You'd think if abortion were that important and that big of a sin it would be mentioned. And why would a Christian want an abortion? Why wouldn't a Christian want one, for a myriad of different reasons?

because they know God knows people in the womb. Thats why they dont want one.

A fetus can be terminated up until birth. So there is no argument there.

Then you are at odds with just about all nations laws.

 

[Phinehas2]

ABORTION IS MURDER

 

[Archivist]

ABORTION IS MURDER

In your opinion. Not according to the generally accepted definition of murder.

 

[Archivist]

The simple truth is abortion is murder,

In your opinion, but not according to the accepted view of the word "murder."

your view is based on assumption of scripture at the expense of other clearer scriptures.

"Other clearer scriptures" accortding to your interpretation.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

In your opinion, but not according to the accepted view of the word "murder."

Yes, according to the accepted view of murder
“The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.”
That’s what pro-choice abortion does. The pro-choice issue is saying its not a human.

"Other clearer scriptures" accortding to your interpretation.

Other clearer scriptures according to what they say. If I offered you “God is love” as proof that scripture condemned slavery you may likewise wonder how this could be an interpretation.

 

[lux et lex]

Archivist,
Yes, according to the accepted view of murder
“The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.”
That’s what pro-choice abortion does. The pro-choice issue is saying its not a human.

Can you not read what you're typing? "unlawful killing". ABORTION IS LEGAL, therefore LAWFUL.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, according to the accepted view of murder “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.” That’s what pro-choice abortion does. The pro-choice issue is saying its not a human.

No, it isn't an unlawful killing.

Other clearer scriptures according to what they say.

No, according to your interpretation of what they say.

If I offered you “God is love” as proof that scripture condemned slavery you may likewise wonder how this could be an interpretation.

Because it is your interpretation of what Scripture says. Others might disagree.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

Can you not read what you're typing? "unlawful killing". ABORTION IS LEGAL, therefore LAWFUL.

That’s because it assumes the human being it is killing is not a human being but a foetus.
So the issue concerns whether the entity being terminated is a human being or not.
Anyone can make a law and hide behind it, killing Jews in Nazi Germany was ‘legal’ according to the law there. So don’t hide behind a law as though whatever law is in place people must assume its right and without criticism.

And abortion isn’t legal after 12 weeks in many countries whereas in some its legal up to 24 weeks, so don’t be so arrogant and proud to think you know and everyone else doesn’t.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archvist,

No, it isn't an unlawful killing.

yes it is its murder because its a premeditated termination of life.

No, according to your interpretation of what they say.

Which is belief, as opposed to the disbelief that calls it interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

yes it is its murder because its a premeditated termination of life.

But it isn't an unlawful killing, so it isn't murder.

Which is belief, as opposed to the disbelief that calls it interpretation.

No, saying that "God is love" condems slavery is your interpretation of scripture. Others may disagree.