Is the Fetus a Human Being?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What's interesting is having children in the times of the OT and NT was a blessing and in some cases a matter of survival. The more children the more hands you had to work the land and livestock.

Life Granted by Yahweh is ALWAYS A BLESSING, TODAY as well as then.

A GREAT BLESSING - an eternal life (hopefully) granted to parents to raise in the way they should, God's Way.

 

[redleghunter]

Prior to the 70's Protestants did not consider abortion a political matter. It was not political until Francis Schaeffer made it political. Before then it was mostly a Catholic issue.

That's because abortion was illegal in most states.

 

[redleghunter]

But giving a Christian burial to things that were once merely alive is not exactly a dignified use of a sacred rite. Some people make fun of how some Episcopalians, for instance, perform church funerals for dogs, and perhaps rightly so.

Ok, that was revealing.

 

[redleghunter]

https://rewire.news/article/2017/05/23/miscarriage-taught-texas-fetal-burial-legislation/

You seem to be the only one politicizing the issue here.

 

[redleghunter]

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

No they are not considered legal persons. They cannot make legally binding decisions. That's your defense a legal term that does not explain what you want it to. Yet a corporation is in fact a legal person with Constitutional rights.

 

[redleghunter]

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

I'm a disabled Veteran. What's your point?

 

[redleghunter]

This isn't even a Christian explanation of the rite so much as modern 20th century folk religion saturated with therapeutic and sentimental language. It lacks anything of sacred character in its description.

Christian burial is about treating the body of a human person in a dignified manner in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It is not a political or philosophical statement about human tissue or animal life, nor is it merely therapeutic.

Miscarried humans won't rise from the dead?

 

[redleghunter]

Emotional manipulation is part-and-parcel of the "pro-life" crowds playbook. I'm just pointing out some of us don't fall for it.

Actually the objective facts are all in the Pro-Life court. This thread is makes it quite evident.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25

Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.

If harm comes to the child or mother, the man who hit the woman pays life for life. However, if she is far enough along that the blow induces labor but the child is born with no harm/'mischief' and the woman is fine, then the man merely pays a fine. That certainly seems like viewing an unborn child as a life to me!

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

A zygote doesn't even resemble what we would recognize as human. Neither does an embryo. In fact during certain stages its very similar to the embryos of other species.

Biologically, a genetically distinct human being begins at conception. What it 'looks like' doesn't matter.

As to your last comment, perhaps you are referring to this long debunked Haekel/Romane embryo drawings (and debunked by other evolutionists, at that)? Despite that Haekel's drawings or Romane's reproductions are a common image used in textbooks, they are not an accurate representation of human embryos compared to other species. Haekel deliberately fudged scale, added 'faces,' removed parts and added others, etc. in an attempt to make the embryos look near identical.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1.summary

A far closer picture than Haekel's of what early embryo's look like is this:

 

[friend of]

Why would a bacteria be considered Life on Mars but a heartbeat not be considered life on Earth?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

If you want to have some religious ceremony for miscarriage that's your option but just the fact its considered unusual is evidence enough that the idea of personhood for fetuses or embryos is highly idiosyncratic, and more subject to individual intuitions.

Women do generally mourn miscarriage because it's about mourning the loss of potential motherhood, and not necessarily a deep statement about personhood of the unborn.

I know many women who have had funerals for their miscarried children. However, how we are buried or who mourns us doesn't matter at all for the sake of our humanity. Jesus was crucified on a cross in the most horrific and humiliating way of the era - treated like a criminal, like trash, mocked. Did that make Him less human? Did that make Him less divine?

There are still areas in the world where parents have no affection for their young children (usually areas steeped in Witchcraft and Voodoo and in extreme poverty.) The first child is often sacrificed (post-birth) to be a 'blessing' on future children. Children are assumed to likely die before they are five so are not given much focus or care unless they survive past that. Children might be sold into slavery, married off to be slaves, or sold to be sacrifices. Does this make any of those children less human? Of course not. The evil of man and our tendency to 'dehumanize' others doesn't say anything to the value of someone's life.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Minors and the mentally handicapped are indeed considered persons in the US. As a disabled American who is pro-choice, don't try to manipulate us into your cause. It won't work. We refuse to personalize and sensationalize this issue.

And you speak for all disabled? No. I'm a disabled adult, but I don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the science that shows human life begins at conception nor as an excuse to decide that I can declare murder 'good' if I deem it personally convenient or OK.

My life as a genetically distinct human began at conception. When did yours begin? Did you speciate at birth? Did you suddenly come alive when you exited your mother's womb? Or do you consider your life as only beginning when you could form memories, or communicate, or walk, or do action X?

 

[Hillsage]

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21: 22 - 25

Apparently, in God's eyes the fetus is not a human being. Therefore, the abortion is not the murder.

Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.

First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.

RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.

NIV EXO 21:22 "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.

Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.

I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.

But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Since I believe thst Jesus is God Incarnate and was formed in the womb, all stages of development of the body in the womb from conception to birth are sanctified human life. Since God was once a one celled zygote I don't understand how a Christian wouldn't recognize the sanctity of any human in the same stages of growth. Abortion is anti Incarnation of God.

 

[ubicaritas]

And you speak for all disabled? No. I'm a disabled adult, but I don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the science that shows human life begins at conception nor as an excuse to decide that I can declare murder 'good' if I deem it personally convenient or OK.

My life as a genetically distinct human began at conception. When did yours begin? Did you speciate at birth? Did you suddenly come alive when you exited your mother's womb? Or do you consider your life as only beginning when you could form memories, or communicate, or walk, or do action X?

I'm a Lutheran, so the answer is easy. I was born dead, made alive in baptism and adopted as a child of God.

In Lutheranism the emphasis is on redemption, not creation. You put creation first you make an idol out of your ideas of God instead of how God has revealed himself in Christ.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.

First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.

RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.

NIV EXO 21:22 "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.

Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.

I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.

But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.

Of course English translations vary. That's why the English isn't considered inspired.

Rather, we have to look at the Hebrew.

The noun yeled, refers to something born (boy, child, fruit, son, etc.) http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3206.htm

This is the same term used of other infants and children, such as Lamech's sons, David's young infant, the boy Elijah brought back to life, etc.

The verb yatsa is to go out or come forth, such as water coming forth from the rock. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3318.htm

Note that nothing in the Hebrew requires that the child is coming out dead (miscarriage.) Nothing in it requires that the child definitely come out alive. The woman's child coming forth as induced by the blow she received could potentially result in the child dying OR the child living.

The rest of the verse deals with those two potential outcomes. If 'ason' happens (harm, mischief) because of this then the man must pay in equal measure. Hence, if the child dies, the man dies. If the mother dies, the man dies. If the child lives but with a foot maimed, the man has his foot maimed. If the mother loses an eye, he loses an eye. Etc.

But if no harm comes to the mother or her delivered child, then the man pays a fine as determined by the husband.

 

[ubicaritas]

Miscarried humans won't rise from the dead?

I don't know. That's not critical for me to have an answer to that.

 

[dqhall]

Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.

First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.

RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.

NIV EXO 21:22 "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.

Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.

I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.

But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.

If someone is driving and rams a car causing the other driver to have a miscarriage, they do not sentence the offending driver to death as it was an accident. States have different fetal homicide laws. One state recommended a 35 year prison sentence.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

If someone was drafted into the military and did not to go to war because he did not believe in killing people, he was imprisoned.

If a woman is raped, she may take a morning after pill within three days of the rape in order to try to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Some states required hospitals to give this information to rape victims.

 

[redleghunter]

Unlike most here, I started studying this subject in the early 70's because my wife had an abortion before we met. She was forced by her parents. She also had to go to Colorado because it wasn't legal in our state then.

First off, if you study the bible translations you see a real politicized shift in what the "infallible" word of God says based upon religious persuasions and indoctrinations over time. I was using the RSV translation at the time and here is what it says.

RSV EXO 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

I'm pretty sure that a "miscarriage" isn't a 'pre mature birth' and yet translators in '1952' felt this "infallible" word was just as valid as the modern '1978' Nearly Inspired Version translators feel a "premature birth" makes sense.

NIV EXO 21:22 "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.

Now that's just a pretty big difference to begin with IMO. I feel like the RSV did a better job of clearing up the vagueness of the KJV, but NIV just wrote indoctrinated opinion IMO.

I tend to agree that if the woman dies it's life for life. But if the woman lives and is hurt, or a miscarriage occurs then there is a fine to be paid. And even then the husband helps in deciding the price. I'm not sure what that's all about either.

But it certainly isn't as cut and dried IMO as most here believe.

Show me the Hebrew word miscarriage is in that passage. It’s not. Has nothing to do with politics. Has to do with the RSV not being accurate in that verse.