Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[SPF]

But it's not an argument from silence.

Here's what you said: "there are plenty of examples of the Bible saying that we should love the little children. But there are none at all saying that we should value fetuses. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that the Bible sees nothing wrong with abortion..."

Absence of evidence, is not evidence. This is an argument from silence, and is fallacious.

Now, as for your 4 hypothetical situations. I prefer to keep my conversations within the realm of reality. So I'll address your 4th question as that is the only realistic one. And to that question, I would say that a brain dead person has died.

Finally, regarding your last post, I'm not sure what the point of it is. Somehow you seem to think that since Christians disagree on something that it therefore makes your belief true and theirs false. I am quite familiar with what Norm thinks, and we have had many disagreements over the years.

Here is a more accurate view of Geisler on abortion, I'm sure you'll be very interested to have a better understanding (not).

1. "No one knows when human life begins."


Answer: If no one knows when life begins, it might begin at conception. If it does begin at that point, then abortion is murder. Can we justify killing what might be a human being? Should we shoot at a moving object in the woods if we are not sure whether or not it is human? Then neither should we kill babies if we are not sure they are not human.


Actually, we do know when human life begins. It begins at conception. A sperm, with just its 23 chromosomes, is not a human being; nor is an ovum, with its 23 chromosomes. But when they unite into one entity with 46 chromosomes, the result is a human being. This is a medical fact. Genetically, the fertilized ovum is a human being, with its own lifelong, characteristic code and identity. From this point on, it is simply a matter of its growth, not of its kind.


By the seventh day of its life, it is planted in the uterus, its home for the next nine months. By day 17, the blood cells and the heart are formed. By day 24, there is a heartbeat. By day 30, it has grown 10,000 times its original size and has millions of cells. By six weeks, its nervous system is controlling its own body. It now looks distinctly human. By day 45, it has its own brain waves, which it will keep for life. By seven weeks, it has all the internal organs of an adult (though it weighs only one-thirtieth of an ounce and is less than one inch long.) By eight weeks, all external organs are formed. By nine to ten weeks, it can drink and breathe amniotic fluid. From here on, it is just a matter of growth. Before it is born, it can suck its thumb, cry (if it had air), and recognize its mother's voice and heartbeat. In short, it is a tiny, growing human being.


2. "The mother has the right to control her own body."


Answer: First of all, a baby is not part of its mother's body. It is an individual human being, with its own separate body. To be sure, the mother is "feeding" the inborn baby, but does a mother have the right to stop feeding her baby after it is born? This would be murder by starvation, and to cut off the source of life for a preborn baby is also a morally culpable act.


Second, even if the unborn baby were part of its mother's body, it would not be true that she has a right to do just anything she wants to her own body. For example, she does not have a moral right to mutilate her own body by cutting off a hand or a foot. Nor does she have a right to kill her own body (commit suicide).


Seldom do abortionists properly complete the sentence that they so glibly proclaim. "A woman has the right over her own body. . . " A right to do what? A right to murder? This is nonsense. There is no moral right to do a moral wrong. But if the unborn baby is a human being, then the so-called right of the mother turns out to be a "right" to do a wrong: to murder. Of course, it is absurd to say that a mother (or anyone) has a right to commit murder.



3. "The unborn baby is not really human until it is born."


Answer: First of all, if it is not human before it is born, then what is it? It is not a mineral or a vegetable. It is not an animal such as a dog or a monkey. In fact, it is not an animal at all; it is a human being. Cows give birth to cows; horses give birth to horses. No medical person has any difficulty identifying an unborn dog as a dog, or an unborn pig as a pig. Why should there be any question about an unborn human?


Does this statement mean they are human only when they change their location and move outside the womb? Since when does where one lives determine one's humanity? The difference between babies that are born and those that are unborn is not their essential nature; it is simply a matter of size and location. Accidental or circumstantial characteristics such as size or place cannot determine whether or not a being is human.


4. "Unborn babies are not conscious beings."


Answer: This objection assumes that one must have consciousness in order to be human. But if consciousness determines humanness, then sleeping adults are not human. And if consciousness is the test for humanness, then whenever someone lapses into a coma, they instantly lose their humanity. The logical conclusion from this is that it would never be murder to kill an unconscious person. And so all a killer need to do to escape murder charges would be just to knock out their victim before shooting them!


Furthermore, babies in the womb are conscious. By four to six weeks after conception, they have their own brain waves, which they will keep for life. The absence of a brain wave is considered a sign of death; why, then, is the presence of a brainwave not considered a sign of life? And as early as three months after conception, babies react to stimuli. They can consciously sense pressure and pain.


Finally, it is not consciousness as such that distinguishes a human being from an animal, but rather self-consciousness. For higher animals are conscious too. However, self-consciousness does not occur until a child is about 18 months old. So by abortionist's logic, the killing of anyone under the age on 18 months could be considered justifiable "abortion." (While this view is not yet widely accepted, some noted scientists are already pushing for babies not to be given legal status as human beings until they are several days old. By then, they argue, all the tests for wholeness will have been completed, and it can be determined whether or not this particular baby should be allowed to live.)



5. "Every child has a right to a meaningful life."


Answer: First of all, what are the criteria for a meaningful life, and who decides whether or not a life is meaningful? This kind of reasoning has already gone so far that some courts have convicted parents for giving birth to children that they knew ahead of time, from prenatal tests, would be deformed!


It should be kept in mind that this same logic leads to the murdering of larger deformed human beings who live elsewhere (that is, outside the womb.) The logic of abortionists leads inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia. Even some pro-abortionists (Joseph Felcher, for example) admit that the two issues are logically tied together. In fact, there would be greater logical justification for taking the life of someone already known to be deformed than one which prenatal tests have simply indicated might be.



6. "It is better to have an aborted child than to have an abused one."


Answer: In the first place, this assumes that non-abortion of unwanted babies leads to abuse. Statistics show just the opposite. Child abuse cases have actually increased as the number of abortions has gone up. Apparently, the disregard for human life reflected in the acceptance of abortion is extended from the prebirth to the postbirth attitude toward offspring.


Second, the objection assumes wrongly that abortion is not in and of itself a real abuse. Actually, abortion is one of the worst abuses that can possible be inflicted on a human being. The abortion process itself is horribly abusive. One common process tears the tissue of the tiny, defenseless unborn into pieces, by violent suction; these pieces are then thrown into the garbage can. The D&C method of abortion uses a sharp instrument to chop the little baby into pieces; it is then scrapped from the womb and trashed. The saline method replaces the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby with salt water; the brine into which the baby is immersed then eats it skin off, and when the baby inhales this salt water, it burns up from the inside out. This process can scarcely be called "responsible parenthood," as pro-abortionists describe it.


Besides the abusive and cruel manner in which the baby suffers death, there is the further (and final) abuse of murder itself. Not only is the baby abused in the way it dies, it is abused in losing the privilege of life itself. In view of this, it is twisted reasoning which claims that abortion avoids abuse. Abortion is abuseone of the worst abuses of all.


Finally, if we can murder the unborn to prevent potential abuse, then why not murder the born who are undergoing actual abuse? Or, to put it the other way, if we protect the born who are undergoing child abuse, then should not we all the more protect the unborn, who are even more defenseless? Abortion is child abuse of the worst kind.



7. "We must stop overpopulation, or we will all starve."


Answer: Abortionists propound a false dilemma: We must choose between abortion and overpopulation. There are other alternatives. First, birth control can limit overpopulation without murder. The real choice is whether to control population by killing the innocent or without killing them. Here, as elsewhere, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Furthermore, starvation is not the automatic result of increased population. Starvation is not a simple problem which would automatically disappear if only there were fewer people. Hunger and poverty have not been eliminated in the US, despite all our affluence and agricultural productivity. Nor is the difficulty any shortage of farmable land. Studies have shown that the farmable land of the world can sustain a world population many times the present one. The real problems are social and political, not numerical.


Finally, who would recommend that we kill all our welfare recipients, just because they cannot earn the food that they need? Why then, should we take the lives of people that we think might turn out to be poor? Those who are poor would be more likely candidates for our hit list. It is interesting to note that those who suggest abortion as a means of combating overpopulation, seldom offer their own lives as a means cutting down the population. They are glad, however, to offer a sacrifice of innocent and defenseless human beings so that they themselves will not starve! How noble of them.


8. "We cannot legislate morality."


Answer: First of all, if this is so, then we should get rid of all the legislated morality we now have on the books. We could start by rescinding our prohibitions against murder, cruelty, theft, child abuse, incest and rape. All of these are cases of morals being legislated. We could also eliminate antislavery laws, along with all civil rights laws, for these also legislate moral behavior. It would be clearly wrong to do so, and few abortionists would suggest that we do away with any of these laws. If this is the case, then why should we not have laws to protect the moral rights of the unborn humans.


Further, the present abortion-on-demand law itself is an instance of morality being legislated. For it says, in effect, that it is morally right to take the life of an unborn human being. It is, in fact, impossible (and undesirable) to avoid legislating morality. The aim of all good legislation should be put into law what is just and right. And by no stretch of the imagination can it be deemed right to take away an innocent human being's right to life. For the right to life is the door to all other rights. Without life there is no right to anything else.


Finally, changing a law can help to change public opinion regarding a moral evil. In the United States, for example, the outlawing of slavery helped to change the general attitude regarding the morality of slavery. Today, even most descendants of slave owners believe slavery is wrong.

 

[SPF]

9. "No mentally retarded child should be brought into the world."



Answer: It is worth noting that no organization of parents with mentally retarded children has endorsed abortion on demand. All families I have known with Downs Syndrome children regard them with real joy because of their capacity for unfeigned love.


Retarded children are human, and killing them is killing humans. Just because the unborn are smaller (and defenseless) does not justify killing them. Again, the logic by which abortionists justify therapeutic abortions would also justify infanticide.

Let's take, for example, two babies born in Austria a number of years ago. One was a healthy boy for which the mother was glad. The other was a girl. She had Downs Syndrome, and her mother was grieved. Nevertheless, this mother loved the little girl and taught her to care for herself. One day the mother had a stroke, which left her helpless. Her retarded daughter took over her care for the rest of her life. The boy that day also grew up. The whole world later heard of him. His name was Adolf Hitler. Now, which of these babies would the abortionist have done away with?


10. "Why should a rape victim be forced to bear a child she did not will to have?"



Answer: Rape is one of the worst indignities a person can suffer. One must have great compassion for rape victims. However, several things must be kept in mind. First, there is no way to become "unraped." Becoming "unpregnant" (via abortion) cannot make one "unraped." Second, justice cannot be obtained for the rape victim by punishing the unborn baby resulting from the rape.


Further, two wrongs do not make a right. It will not help the mother to burden her with the guilt of a murder on top of the indignity of rape.


It is noteworthy that conception seldom occurs from rape, so the percentage of babies born of rape is actually quite small. But the few babies who are conceived by rape also have a right to live.


Who has not been blessed by the music of that wonderful gospel singer, Ethel Waters? Yet her mother was, at the age of thirteen, a rape victim. Should we have aborted Ethel? Why should we punish the innocent product of a rape? Let's punish the guilty producer of rapethe rapist!



11. "People are going to have abortions anyway, so we might as well legalize them."



Answer: Should we also legalize rape and child abuse, since people are going to do them anyway? Should we add incest and cruelty to the legal list because people persist in doing them? Legalizing an evil does not make it morally right.


Some argue that anti-abortion laws are as wrong as anti-drinking laws. However, legalized abortion does not fit into the same category as legalized drinking. First of all, legalized drinking, does not necessarily involve a crime against another innocent person. Secondly, legalized drinking does not in itself take the life of another human being, but abortion does. So what argues against prohibition does not argue for abortion.


Further, legalizing an activity does not necessarily curb its abuse. Sometimes it promotes it. Such has been the case with abortion in the United States. On the other hand, changing the law can help change the general attitude toward an activity, as the laws abolishing slavery have shown. Laws cannot in themselves force people to be good, but enforcing good laws can help restrain people from doing evil.


12. "We should not project our morality on others."



Answer: If this is so, then why are the abortionists projecting their morality on the unborn? They are saying, in effect, "It is my moral belief that you should not live." Actually, this is not a projection of morality, but a projection of immorality. What is needed in the case of abortion is that we do project morality into the situation, because certainly it is better to project morality than to project immorality. If those who are able to protect the innocent in this way do not do so, then who will?


Contrary to what the abortionist says, what our society needs most is a projection of morality. People need, for example, to project moral concern on others whenever they get behind the wheel. This would save many lives. In fact, if those who drink would not drive, this would be a greatly appreciated projection of morality for the 25,000 people who will otherwise fall victim to drunk drivers this year.


What is wrong is not projecting our moral beliefs on others, but destroying the moral rights of others, which is precisely what happens with abortion. Someone is taking away the moral right of the innocent to live.



13. "Abortion is the solution to unwanted pregnancies."



Answer: Adoption is a better solution. It is no doubt difficult to give up one's child to a stranger, but it is easier than killing it. On the date an aborted child was due to be born, the mother often suffers depression. This depression sometimes recurs for years thereafter on that day. Sometimes the feelings are so strong, the mother becomes suicidal. The fact is, the baby can be scraped from a mother's womb a whole lot easier than it can be removed from her heart.


Some time ago, CBS ran a program on black-market babies which revealed that some people were willing to pay up to $40,000 for a healthy baby. This is an indication of the great demand there is for babies to adopt. The solution to unwanted babies is not abortion, it is adoption. Most women with unwanted pregnancies only need counseling. Counseling clinics are the solution, not abortion clinics. We should be helping mothers, not killing babies.



14. "No unwanted baby should ever be born."



Answer: First, there is the assumption here that an unwanted conception will automatically result in an unwanted baby. Many an unpleasantly surprised mother changes her mind once the initial shock of her unplanned pregnancy wears off, and she has a chance to reflect more calmly on the situation. And even more of these reluctant mothers feel different once their babies are born.


Further, even if the mother does not want to keep the baby, there are many families out there who cannot have children, and who do want them. As a matter of fact, there are at present more people who want children than there are children to want.


Finally, just because we do not want someone else around does not mean we have a right to kill them. We should never place our wishes ahead of others' rights, especially their right to life itself.


One can easily see how this logic of killing unwanted unborn children could be extended to unwanted, deformed babies, undesired retarded children, and severely ill adults. Hence, infanticide and euthanasia would follow logically from this reasoning. In fact, the argument for infanticide of a deformed baby is more compelling, for there is actual proof that they are deformed, not simply a possibility (or probability). Some top scientists are already arguing in favor of infanticide for the deformed. Newsweek (9/6/82) magazine noted that "biologists say infanticide is as normal as the sex drive and that most animals, including man, practice it."


Let me close by relating the story of a young girl who learn that she is pregnant. She is engaged, but her fiance is not the father of the baby. Her family is poor, so another mouth to feed is just going to add to the family hardship. Her family has a good name in the community, and she does not want to drag it into the mud. An abortion would be a quick solution to her problem. But she doesn't have an abortion. She has the baby. It's a boy. She names him Jesus.

Texans for Life Coalition: FAQs

 

[Rajni]

God, in His omniscience, has the power to foreknow which wombs are abortion-
prone and move to prevent the abortion from taking place by withholding
conception from that womb.

But some would have us believe that He instead stands by passively,
wringing His hands about it until He supposedly reaches some future saturation-
point, where He then goes ballistic on an entire nation over it.

Sorry, doesn’t add up.

-

 

[dad]

So you say, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. There's nothing at all in the Bible that supports your point of view.

I gave a link that had too many verses to be able to fit in a post here actually. There is no doubt that we are still special to God when we are in the belly.

"Happy are they that dash the little ones against the stones" may have been a statement by Israelites dreaming of revenge, but they are presented as the heroes of the story, and it can be assumed that God approved of this. After all, he's certainly happy to kill children in plenty of other places in the Bible.

Not my heroes, thanks. The bible includes the good the bad and the ugly. It is not some glossed over pretend history.

That was underwhelming! I did read it through. They did exactly what you did - they have nothing at all showing disapproval of abortion in the Bible, but whipped up whatever verses they could find about children and babies and then made up their own interpretations.

You may not insert some arbitrary distinction of what is human between young babies and other ages of people. They children who are not yet born have all the rights of being part of mankind as anyone else.

If there are verses in the Bible which say that abortion is wrong, please feel free to quote them.

Abortion is a word invented by man. The proper thing to look for in the bible is people. Little people. The concept of the unborn not being people is simply not in Scripture. All verses about child sacrificial apply as do verses about about murder.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I gave a link that had too many verses to be able to fit in a post here actually. There is no doubt that we are still special to God when we are in the belly.

You may not insert some arbitrary distinction of what is human between young babies and other ages of people. They children who are not yet born have all the rights of being part of mankind as anyone else.

Abortion is a word invented by man. The proper thing to look for in the bible is people. Little people. The concept of the unborn not being people is simply not in Scripture. All verses about child sacrificial apply as do verses about about murder.

Sorry, dad. "What can e asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You are free to believe what you like. In fact, it's clear that that's exactly what you are doing - believing what you wish were true, rather than what the Bible itself says.

"I may not insert some arbitrary distinction"? But it's not arbitrary. I've clearly explained the distinction between preborn fetuses and babies. You just don't like it, so you're ignoring it.
The Bible clearly shows that the people who wrote it - and indeed, God Himself - think of fetuses as unimportant. Unless you can give evidence that the Bible does condemn abortion, you've lost the debate.

I shall pray for you:
"I express the earnest hope that, as dad goes through life, he will encounter circumstances and people to open his mind and his heart to have compassion for people who have abortions, and to understand why abortions are a good thing."

 

[SPF]

I've clearly explained the distinction between preborn fetuses and babies

I don’t recall you clearly explaining the difference. A human beings developmental period lasts about 25 years, with the first part taking place in the womb. But at no point in their development are they not a human being.

 

[dad]

Sorry, dad. "What can e asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You are free to believe what you like. In fact, it's clear that that's exactly what you are doing - believing what you wish were true, rather than what the Bible itself says.

It says John leaped for joy in the womb and that He is our God from the womb, and that our years are in His hands.

"I may not insert some arbitrary distinction"? But it's not arbitrary. I've clearly explained the distinction between preborn fetuses and babies.

How? By mentioning some warning for adulteresses in ancient Israel and a warning to them that maybe was heeded? No. Sorry. The known factors in the equation are that babies are loved by God. Children too. It is also known that God forbids harming them.

You just don't like it, so you're ignoring it.
The Bible clearly shows that the people who wrote it - and indeed, God Himself - think of fetuses as unimportant

Totally false and against Scriptures you were already given, so you can't plead an ignorant mistake here.

. Unless you can give evidence that the Bible does condemn abortion, you've lost the debate.

No such thing as abortion, that is some modern construct. There is only the issue of the wicked murdering children.

I shall pray for you:
"I express the earnest hope that, as dad goes through life, he will encounter circumstances and people to open his mind and his heart to have compassion for people who have abortions, and to understand why abortions are a good thing."

I have plenty of compassion for murderers who repent.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Absence of evidence, is not evidence. This is an argument from silence, and is fallacious.

You've raised this point a number of times, so I shall explain.
In this case, we do have direct evidence that God does not care about fetuses; Numbers 5 shows this. There are a number of other passages in the Bible that also show indifference on God's part towards unborn children. Against this, we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that God cares about the unborn.
Therefore, it's very simple. Evidence from the Bible says God is pro-abortion; no evidence from the Bible says that God is anti-abortion.

I don’t recall you clearly explaining the difference. A human beings developmental period lasts about 25 years, with the first part taking place in the womb. But at no point in their development are they not a human being.

You may have missed the point, on page 3 of this thread, in which I said:
"If you're a person, then "personhood" is merely the consideration of what makes you one. You may wish to check out this debate on whether abortion before a fetus has a functioning brain is wrong (if you're interested, this one was actually put to a vote at the end, and the pro-choice side won).
Debate Issue: Abortion Before a Fetus Has a Functioning Brain is Not Wrong | Debate.org
To paraphrase the opening argument:
1. Where does personhood reside? In the brain. If your brain is damaged, your personality is damaged. If your brain is destroyed, but your body continues working, then you are dead, even if your heart is still beating.
2. Therefore, the qualification for personhood is the capacity for thought (not the presence of thought, but the capacity; you don't cease to be a person if you fall asleep, or even if you are comatose, because the capacity for thought still exists)."
Needless to say, a fetus does not have the capacity for thought; it's brain does not develop sufficiently until at least six months old, well after the point that most abortions take place (with the exception of medical emergencies).

I do hope you understand what I'm saying, SPF, because otherwise it's a waste of your time.

Now, as for your 4 hypothetical situations. I prefer to keep my conversations within the realm of reality. So I'll address your 4th question as that is the only realistic one. And to that question, I would say that a brain dead person has died.

I suspect that you are unwilling to address the three hypothetical questions because they would reveal the holes in your logic. To assist you, I have filled in the answers I suspect you would have to give, if you addressed them. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this.
The first question: if your brain is swapped into another body, then that body is now "you", because personhood resides solely in the brain. Corollary: a fetus is not a person, because it lacks an activated brain.
The second question: there would, of course, be nothing wrong with stopping the activation of a "bring to life machine". The creature in question is not yet alive, and so there is no person to be harmed. In the same way, a fetus is not yet a person, and so stopping it from becoming a person - ie, aborting it - is no wrong.
The third question: if "Bob's" brain survived his body's death, we would of course say that Bob was still with us and alive - even if in rather strange circumstances. Like question 1, this proves that personhood resides in the brain, and so a fetus - which lacks an activated brain - is not a person.
The fourth question, you answered correctly. A body without a brain is not a person, and a fetus is exactly that - a body (if you can call it that, at this stage) without a brain, and therefore not a person.

Finally, regarding your last post, I'm not sure what the point of it is. Somehow you seem to think that since Christians disagree on something that it therefore makes your belief true and theirs false. I am quite familiar with what Norm thinks, and we have had many disagreements over the years.

I made the point on page 3 of this thread - post #53 - when I said:
"Interestingly enough, abortion was not considered immoral by non-Catholic Christians until recently. In 1979, for example, Christianity Today had this to say:
"God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul."
And this was entirely typical of thought at the time, and perfectly sensible as well. You have said that abortion is obviously wrong, and that all Christians agree on this, but until recently you would have been very much on your own on this issue, and the only reason the spokespeople for Christianity changed their minds is for political advantage."
To summarise, the point was this: until quite recently, the general opinion of evangelical Christians was that abortion was not murder. The reason I told you this was to explain that you are incorrect when you say that abortion is a obvious evil, that the Bible teaches it is an obvious evil, and that most Christians agree on this. Until recently, most Christians were pro-choice.

Here is a more accurate view of Geisler on abortion, I'm sure you'll be very interested to have a better understanding (not).

I'm always interested in learning new things, but after reading this list, I think that you would be better advised to read what I am saying so that you can engage my arguments better. We can come back to Geisler's current assertions later, if you like. For the moment, I am interested to see if you have now understood what I said.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It says John leaped for joy in the womb and that He is our God from the womb, and that our years are in His hands.

Since fetuses are incapable of feeling joy, or anything else, this is obviously just poetic license. That's all there is to say on it.

How? By mentioning some warning for adulteresses in ancient Israel and a warning to them that maybe was heeded? No. Sorry. The known factors in the equation are that babies are loved by God. Children too. It is also known that God forbids harming them.

A fetus does not have the capacity for thought. It has no brain, and hence is not a person.
Before you respond to this, please do me the courtesy of reading the arguments I have made, and then respond to them, if you are able to.

Totally false and against Scriptures you were already given, so you can't plead an ignorant mistake here.

The scriptures you gave me all concerned children, not fetuses. Numbers 5 shows that God is happy for fetuses to be aborted.

No such thing as abortion, that is some modern construct. There is only the issue of the wicked murdering children.

In Biblical times, people were quite familiar with the concept of certain herbs that could be used to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term. They knew all about abortions.

I have plenty of compassion for murderers who repent.

For now, you see as through a glass darkly. But it may be that one day, you know the truth in full.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'd like to post this short essay, as I hope to make my position clear.
On the Morality of: Abortion
I do hope you will respond to the actual arguments made here.

Here are some quotes, which summarise the main points:
"I submit that there is one and only one defining characteristic of a person, one thing which sets us apart and gives us our unique moral worth. That thing is consciousness – the facility for self-aware thought. That is what most clearly differentiates us from all other species on this planet, and it is also what gives us the uniqueness and individuality that is rightly viewed as a key component of moral worth.

Taking consciousness to be the defining characteristic of humanity gives us a clear dividing line to use in deciding whether abortion is immoral. Ending the existence of something which does not possess the ability for conscious thought – whatever else it may be – is not the destruction of a human being. Ending the existence of something which does possess that ability is the destruction of a person. This is a solid, rational standard. It’s a good sign that this position also neatly mirrors the common position on end-of-life care and euthanasia: once a human being has suffered brain death, or any other injury that results in the irreversible cessation of consciousness, they no longer possess moral personhood and we are under no obligation to ensure their physical continuance."

...

"Until the capability for conscious thought exists, a fetus cannot have the same moral status as a person. Doubtless, the fetus is a potential person. But potentiality is not the same as actuality, and a person who only potentially exists cannot claim moral rights which match or supercede the rights of an actual, living, conscious person. (The language is imprecise here; in truth, a person who only potentially exists does not exist, and a non-existent person cannot claim anything. There is no one to make the claim.) Therefore, no harm is done when a woman aborts a pregnancy before this point. There is no person for harm to be done to."

 

[dad]

Since fetuses are incapable of feeling joy, or anything else, this is obviously just poetic license. That's all there is to say on it.

You are in no position to tell us what babies are capable of. John had something that science could not see even when in the belly. That was the spirit of God. I would not expect those condoning child sacrifice to care or realize much about the true nature of what is going on.

A fetus does not have the capacity for thought. It has no brain, and hence is not a person.

Your definition of a person seems to be a good brain. I guess next on the hit list are those who are mentally ill?

The scriptures you gave me all concerned children, not fetuses. Numbers 5 shows that God is happy for fetuses to be aborted.

The water test was about adultery and lying to God. Zero to do with man killing babies. The fruit of the womb are children. They are no less human than old people. Those who want child sacrifice simply chose to call their victims something other than human. That itself is inhuman! The reason such bloody mass murder is inhuman is because it is actually inspired from evil spirits. Hence, God hates it and will deal with it.

In Biblical times, people were quite familiar with the concept of certain herbs that could be used to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term. They knew all about abortions.

Meaningless. In biblical times (now is the most biblical time in history) people did all sorts of things, that has nothing to do with God's word.

For now, you see as through a glass darkly. But it may be that one day, you know the truth in full.

I call good, good, and evil, evil. Human sacrifice is evil. What they have called abortion is human sacrifice.

 

[SPF]

I suppose further discussion is meaningless at this point as you have displayed no ability to learn from this conversation.

I reject your interpretation of Exodus 5, and suggest that there is nothing in Scripture that supports or condones a human choosing to have an abortion as morally acceptable. The fact that you keep barreling along as if we all agree with your flawed misinterpretation has grown worthy of a good eye roll.

Second, you’re failing to recognize (still) that there is no such difference between a human being and a human person. All arguments to define personhood are 100% subjective and arbitrarily determined by the argued.

Since fetuses are incapable of feeling joy, or anything else, this is obviously just poetic license. That's all there is to say on it.

How do you know this? What is this assertion based upon? Babies in the womb often respond to outside sounds as they develop. Can a newborn experience joy?

A fetus does not have the capacity for thought. It has no brain, and hence is not a person.

Except for 100% of fetuses that are viable.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Since neither of you seem to have either read or understood the argument, here it is. Please read it, and then explain to me why it's wrong, if you can.
On the Morality of: Abortion

"Pared down to its essence, the moral question posed by abortion is a simple one: is an unborn fetus a human being, with all the moral rights and protections that pertain thereunto; or is it a non-human, an assemblage of cells, the existence of which may be terminated without wrongdoing?
...
I submit that there is one and only one defining characteristic of a person, one thing which sets us apart and gives us our unique moral worth. That thing is consciousness – the facility for self-aware thought. That is what most clearly differentiates us from all other species on this planet, and it is also what gives us the uniqueness and individuality that is rightly viewed as a key component of moral worth.
...
Taking consciousness to be the defining characteristic of humanity gives us a clear dividing line to use in deciding whether abortion is immoral. Ending the existence of something which does not possess the ability for conscious thought – whatever else it may be – is not the destruction of a human being. Ending the existence of something which does possess that ability is the destruction of a person. This is a solid, rational standard. It’s a good sign that this position also neatly mirrors the common position on end-of-life care and euthanasia: once a human being has suffered brain death, or any other injury that results in the irreversible cessation of consciousness, they no longer possess moral personhood and we are under no obligation to ensure their physical continuance.
...
Until the capability for conscious thought exists, a fetus cannot have the same moral status as a person. Doubtless, the fetus is a potential person. But potentiality is not the same as actuality, and a person who only potentially exists cannot claim moral rights which match or supercede the rights of an actual, living, conscious person. (The language is imprecise here; in truth, a person who only potentially exists does not exist, and a non-existent person cannot claim anything. There is no one to make the claim.) Therefore, no harm is done when a woman aborts a pregnancy before this point. There is no person for harm to be done to."

I'm going to guess that dad will respond to this by telling me that child sacrifice is evil, and that SPF will respond to this by saying that I obviously don't understand what I'm talking about, without making any attempt to prove it. What neither of you will do, I would imagine, is point out any error in the arguments and explain why they are wrong.

Prove me wrong, either of you?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Also:

I reject your interpretation of Exodus 5, and suggest that there is nothing in Scripture that supports or condones a human choosing to have an abortion as morally acceptable. The fact that you keep barreling along as if we all agree with your flawed misinterpretation has grown worthy of a good eye roll.

You can reject it if you like, but since you have shown absolutely no justification for your rejection in this whole thread, your argument falls flat. It's not enough to say "you're wrong." You have to show why, and you haven't.

How do you know this? What is this assertion based upon? Babies in the womb often respond to outside sounds as they develop. Can a newborn experience joy?

It's fairly basic, really. A fetus develops, becoming capable of more and more as it grows. Abortions are performed before it is capable of "jumping for joy", and long before they are "newborn". Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with what happens in the nine months between an egg being fertilised and a baby being born?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You are in no position to tell us what babies are capable of. John had something that science could not see even when in the belly. That was the spirit of God. I would not expect those condoning child sacrifice to care or realize much about the true nature of what is going on.

Of course I am. It's quite easy to tell what "babies" are capable of. And your ideas about "the spirit of God" are merely your own opinions.

Your definition of a person seems to be a good brain. I guess next on the hit list are those who are mentally ill?

Obviously you have either not read what I said, or not understood it.

The water test was about adultery and lying to God. Zero to do with man killing babies.

The bible says "Do this ceremony and, if your pregnant wife was unfaithful, she will miscarry". It's really as simple as that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

In summary, you're both simply wrong.

1. The fact is the Numbers 5 supports the aborting of fetuses. 1 pro-abortion example from the bible, and no anti-abortion verses. I win.
2. It's self-evidently true that Christians, until recently, were generally pro-choice, and supported abortion. Therefore, SPF is wrong; anti-abortion is not an obviously Christian stance.
3. I've made my case for why abortion is a morally neutral act before the fetus attains personhood, which you have been unable to address.

 

[Kaon]

In summary, you're both simply wrong.

1. The fact is the Numbers 5 supports the aborting of fetuses. 1 pro-abortion example from the bible, and no anti-abortion verses. I win.
2. It's self-evidently true that Christians, until recently, were generally pro-choice, and supported abortion. Therefore, SPF is wrong; anti-abortion is not an obviously Christian stance.
3. I've made my case for why abortion is a morally neutral act before the fetus attains personhood, which you have been unable to address.

Numbers 5 in no way supports abortion. My goodness.

Doctrinally, the procedure of drinking the bitter water, especially when infidelity is in question, was to expose adulterers, not kill a baby inside the womb.

Adultery, depending on fertility, lead to a CHILD - which we know today is tantamount to a medical issue. The Hebrews didn't use condoms, so adulterers would conceive after adultery. Drinking this "bitter water" was a way to root out the reality of accusation of adultery - that a guilty party's belly would swell, and cause a "miscarriage" of the ILLIGETIMATE child born out of sin. An innocent woman would have no problem drinking the water, and would actually get a child.

Now, scientifically this makes perfect sense. Do you know the procedure? The priests take the offerings, burns them and pours it into water. This "soot" the priests were ordered to put in the water is a chelator, which would electromagnetically separates impurities, and carries them out of the system. This is why I mentioned pregnancy as a medical condition - the chelation drink would seek and destroy any foreign, new impurities not recognized by the body (i.e. newly conceived baby). Your belly would swell from the fluid needed to flush out the impurities - including the cells of the ILLIGETIMATE conception.

For an innocent woman, chelation helps to detoxify the body in general. A healthy body promotes healthy conception and birth, even increases the probability of pregnancy and multiples.

You have to read the entire chapter, and know a bit about Hebrew culture. Otherwise, you get the superficial understanding that God is giving peoole abortion Kool-Aid and justifying it as O.K.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hello, Kaon. Thank you for proving me right! I especially like the way you make a claim and then contradict yourself in the same post.
When you ingest something that causes a miscarriage - by ensuring that the "guilty party's belly would swell, and cause a "miscarriage" of the ILLEGITIMATE child born out of sin" - that's an abortion. That's what an abortion is - take a medicine which causes the embryo to be flushed out of the body.

Now me, I'm fine with the idea of "flushing out the impurities - including the cells of the ILLEGITIMATE conception." But that's because a fetus isn't a person. If you think it is of course, then you've got a problem.

Goodness me, what are you people thinking? Well, you're probably desperately looking for a way to avoid the fact that this ridiculous bit of sympathetic magic is supposed to end up with the fetus dying...

 

[Kaon]

Hello, Kaon. Thank you for proving me right! I especially like the way you make a claim and then contradict yourself in the same post.
When you ingest something that causes a miscarriage (by ensuring that the "guilty party's belly would swell, and cause a "miscarriage" of the ILLEGITIMATE child born out of sin" - that's an abortion.

No, it is not an abortion.

Re-read the bold you quoted from me. Then, go back and Re-read what you said about God supporning abortion. After that, go back and read Genesis and Exodus. Then, after that use etymological research for each word in Numbers - if you care.

Or, continue to say that God supports abortion. But, before I even responded to you @SPF eviscerated your entire argument without you realizing it. I know this, because instead of retreating to another thread out of embarrassment, you are still here arguing your erroneous point.

Now me, I'm fine with the idea of "flushing out the impurities - including the cells of the ILLIGETIMATE conception." But that's because a fetus isn't a person. If you think it is of course, then you've got a problem.

This is your opinion - even down to "how you feel," which is where you seem to be basing your arguments. Feelings lie, especially when you do not know the cultural history of the people, or the etymological origins of the canonical texts.

Goodness me, what are you people thinking? Well, you're probably desperately looking for a way to avoid the fact that this ridiculous bit of sympathetic magic is supposed to end up with the fetus dying...

As I said, go back and actually read Genesis, and Exodus. Then, look up the etymological origins of the words in Numbers.

You may also want to pick up a chemistry book on transport phenomena, and biochemistry to understand what the Hebrews knew. If you go around expressing your feelings as fact, you will be identified very easily on these forums. You will be intellectually and spiritually smoked out for your superficiality, and it will be up to you to keep defending a point that is misplaced (at best) according the same text used to make the point. @SPF has already eviscerated your argument with references, but you still try - which is admirable. But it can be dangerous for YOU, spiritually (if you care about your spirit or believe you have one).

 

[SPF]

You can reject it if you like, but since you have shown absolutely no justification for your rejection in this whole thread, your argument falls flat. It's not enough to say "you're wrong." You have to show why, and you haven't.

I did show why, and so have others. You’re welcome to disagree with the explanation, but proper interpretations have been presented.

1. The fact is the Numbers 5 supports the aborting of fetuses. 1 pro-abortion example from the bible, and no anti-abortion verses. I win.

It doesn’t, you’re only found wanting. This fact is also emphasized that with the entirety of Scripture before you, the only passage you can come up with to argue for abortion is this passage. You weren’t even able to provide a single commentary that agreed with your outlandish assessment. Nobody is taking it seriously, nobody. It’s that bad.

2. It's self-evidently true that Christians, until recently, were generally pro-choice, and supported abortion. Therefore, SPF is wrong; anti-abortion is not an obviously Christian stance.

I provided quotes from early Church fathers that demonstrate that the original view of the early church was that abortion is immoral. Sure, people have disagreed and formed other opinions over the years, but if you want to talk about what the church originally believed, I can provide dozens of early church references on top of the ones I already have.

3. I've made my case for why abortion is a morally neutral act before the fetus attains personhood, which you have been unable to address.

Your case is based upon an entirely subjective and arbitrary position, which even other pro-abortion atheist proponents disagree with. Any attempt to argue personhood will necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.