I can see we're going to get far with this sort of argumentation...
Who said anything about human making and inserting the spirit? I didnt. The scripture doesnt.
That's the underlying cause of our divide. Your position assumes that the biological entity growing inside a woman during pregnancy is a "person" from the moment of conception, yes? If so, you believe something about the process of "human making:" that the first step is God granting a spirit to the biological apparatus at the moment of conception. Of course, there's just no biblical text that asserts this is how people are made. If, however, the biological apparatus does not receive a spirit until some time later during the pregnancy, it remains only a cluster of cells different in degree, but not in kind, to the millions of skin cells you destroy without a care whenever you scratch an itch.
First you imply the scripture doesnt speak for itself, and then you add your own ideas to judge what you think the scripture should say.
The fact that you think anyone who disagrees with your idea of scripture is guilty of eisegesis is amusing. Again, you really ought to drop this whole "Me and scripture are always on the same page" routine, as it leads you to assume that your thoughts are always on the same level as scriptural decree. If, however, you realize your potential for error in understanding the text, your accusation here is rendered senseless. So which is it? Do you have a perfect understanding of scripture that necessitates anyone who disagrees with you must therefore not be in line with scripture or is it possible that you can be wrong and others right and your claim here is without basis and counterproductive to a meaningful discussion?
The spirit potentially belonging to the biological apparatus developing in the womb - the "unborn baby" as you conservatives call it.
You are imagining a order
First, there is an order. People don't appear on the earth fully developed and fuctional. Please tell me I don't have to go into the steps of human biological, emotional, psychological, and socialogical development... You know there are steps to human development.
Indeed, I'm open to a number of possible processes by which God creates people. You, on the other hand, seem quite close minded when it comes to how God creates people, supposing they pop into existence all at once at the moment of conception. That's just not what we see biologically and if we see a human being made piece by piece in the biological realm, it's possible that God has a similar process when combining the physical with the spiritual. If so, then a developing fetus does not necessarily contain a spirit or personhood from the moment of conception. If there is no person present at the earliest stages of the pregnancy, then no one is killed by an abortion at that time. If no one is killed, your argument against abortion being inherently evil crumbles to dust. But not to worry! There is plenty of other opportunities later in the pregnancy where there is good reason to believe the entity inside the womb is a person and you can unleash your fire and brimstone at them with much more intellectual support.
Scripture says God forms people in the womb, so He would be forming both the constituent parts you are imagining.
Not necessarily. "I formed you in the womb" does not mean "I formed you all at once at the moment of conception." Two completely different claims. Your assumption here is easily unwarranted when we look at other things that are made. If I were to build a car in my garage, I could say of the final product "I formed you in my garage," but this doesn't mean all the parts were present from the start or that I assembled it all at once. I made it, piece by piece, and that's exactly what we see in biology. What you're suggesting not only lacks any evidence for support but is contrary to what we actually see in human development: that humans are made in a process with steps, not instantaneously.
You have no scripture to claim that before a spirit they would not be them that God was forming.
Not everything needs scriptural support to be intellectually sound. What's the difference between a dead body in a graveyard and a living person? The biological components are essentially the same, yes? And if I shot a corpse, would I be just as morally condemned if I shot a small child? Of course not, but why? Where lies the difference? The answer is simple: one biological apparatus has a spirit and the other does not. We do not condemn crematories for killing people - there is no "person" or "spirit" present in the body to kill. The same reason applies to a biological apparatus that has yet to receive a spirit.
But the if you said is incorrect. God formed Jeremiah in teh womb so God formed the lot, whether you think the biological apparatus and any spirit are separate or not.
There's no debate that God formed him in the womb; you're merely assuming that Jeremiah was "fully formed" as a person at the moment of conception when there's just no biological, logical, or scriptural basis for such an assumption. Indeed, we run into problems if we assume this is true: identical twins. We all know that identical twins result from a cell or group of cells splitting into two separate and identical cells after conception. Let's paint a hypothetical picture to help illustrate the point. Suppose a woman becomes pregnant and, for the sake of the argument, God grants the newly conceived cell a spirit and is now a "person." Let's call this person "Bob." However, in developing and growing, something interesting (but not uncommon) happens to Bob: he splits into two distinct yet identical cells that grow up into two separate human adults. We'll call these two John and Billy. But wait, what happened to Bob? Did he just disappear? Or is there a little bit of Bob in both John and Billy (and if so, what does
that mean)? Surely we don't suppose that the resulting identical twins, John and Billy, are still the same single person (Bob) that came into existence at conception. In the paradigm of everyone who thinks a spirit is granted to the biological apparatus at the moment of conception, there is this glaring problem. Of course, this problem does not exist for those who believe that the spirit or person is bestowed upon the biological apparatus at a later point. To them, the cell dividing into two individual, identical cells is just another preparation of the biological matter God is forming in preparation for when He grants it a spirit (or spirits).
I see. So "If you don't agree with me, you don't believe scripture" is sound logic? No, it's terrible logic; it's blind religious zealotry masquerading as logic. Let me lay out your "logic" in a syllogism to help you understand.
1.) My understanding of scripture is always right
2.) Anyone who disagrees with me theologically therefore disagrees with scripture
3.) You disagree with me
4.) Therefore you disagree with scripture
This is exactly what you're asserting and it's blatant garbage. If you deny premises 1-3, then you have no basis from which to assert conclusion 4.
No, the OP asks for scriptural support for abortion not absence of scripture on other things to absolve the need.
How long are we going to dwell on this? The OP's request is irrelevant to moral value of abortion. He might as well ask that people tap dance in order to prove abortion is morally permissible. Abortion isn't specifically addressed in scripture, and I'm assuming the OP knows this and thought he would get an easy victory because his arbitrary criteria for clearing abortion as morally permissible could not be met. It's a tacky tactic that contributes no meaningful resolution to the discussion of abortion's moral standing.
