Abortion (again)

[admtaylor]

There is a difference between a child and a fetus; a fetus is a potential child. Do you cry for every sperm cell that falls into a toilet? They are technically potential children that never had the luck of finding an egg, does anyone that says its ok "to let sperm die" then deserve to be called a calloused, cold person who supports the destruction of human life?

The difference between sperm and "foetus" is conception and you know that.

 

[admtaylor]

Usually when they say "humans' they mean "persons" (the two are often times intechangeable) obviously almost everyone, even pro-choicers respect a person's right to life. Whether a fetus is a person and hence human though is a different matter entirely(and lets not forget embryos). That is likewise ultimately a matter of value judgement more then something factual.

A fetus thus is to a human what a seed is to a tree.


In the end then what you are saying is you respect a mindless embryo, more then you do a woman's right to her own life, her future and her privacy. Just because she did what you seem to feel is an act of carelessness(how did you decide btw that the act was careless?).

If I have to choose the future, freedom and privacy of a woman, with actual rights, I choose that over some mindless glob of cells, with only potential rights.

Creating your own truths doesn't negate you from the judgement of real truth. That's the problem with society today. A lack of focused truth, and a clinging to situational ethics.
I guess if it makes you sleep better at night......

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

OK, that's one technical difference but that's not really what I was asking for. I was asking for why we should consider any of those technical differences significant. Obviously mere potentiality is insufficient, unless it is a matter of degree. And that only brings with it more questions, as a matter of degree in regards to potential is itself a questionable claim and even if established is itself a value judgement.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Creating your own truths doesn't negate you from the judgement of real truth. That's the problem with society today. A lack of focused truth, and a clinging to situational ethics.
I guess if it makes you sleep better at night......

So you don't adhere to situational ethics? I must ask you then two things:

1) Is the taking of an innocent human life wrong i.e. murder?

2) Have you ever supported a war?


If yes to both then youa re either contradicting yourself or being situational, as innocent people have gotten killed in every war. When the US attacked Iraq recently many innocent people died in our bombing campaigns and in cross fire. However I as a situationalist can accept that, can you?

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to think like this, but this is hardly a perfect world.

 

[admtaylor]

OK, that's one technical difference but that's not really what I was asking for. I was asking for why we should consider any of those technical differences significant. Obviously mere potentiality is insufficient, unless it is a matter of degree. And that only brings with it more questions, as a matter of degree in regards to potential is itself a questionable claim and even if established is itself a value judgement.

What are your values?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

What are your values?

I have many, many values and would be hard pressed to say what my "very top" value was. Among them are truth, reason, loyalty, honesty, integrity, freedom, privacy, family, knowledge, and justice to name but a few.

 

[admtaylor]

So you don't adhere to situational ethics? I must ask you then two things:

1) Is the taking of an innocent human life wrong i.e. murder?

2) Have you ever supported a war?


If yes to both then youa re either contradicting yourself or being situational, as innocent people have gotten killed in every war. When the US attacked Iraq recently many innocent people died in our bombing campaigns and in cross fire. However I as a situationalist can accept that, can you?

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to think like this, but this is hardly a perfect world.

War, when just, is allowed and sanctioned in Scripture. Since that's the rule of my life that's what I adhere to. There's a difference between murder and war. Two completely different arenas. A society can't have people running around killing each other on whim, of course (it seems) unless it's in a somewhat sterile operating room. Neither can a society allow a threat to exist in contradiction to it, thus war. The reasons we go to war are varied. The main reason for a just war is oppression of basic human rights. IE...food, ability to go about your life without being raped, ability to sleep without worrying about someone storming your house and taking you to a torture session. Murder on the other hand, unless in self defense (and even then a true Christian would feel remorse for taking the life), is one or a group of people taking out their emotional reactions in a violent way on someone elses life.

 

[admtaylor]

I have many, many values and would be hard pressed to say what my "very top" value was. Among them are truth, reason, loyalty, honesty, integrity, freedom, privacy, family, knowledge, and justice to name but a few.

Wow, I would almost think you a Christian if it weren't for the discussion we where having......I guess the aforementioned values are those of the looking glass world..watch out for the Jaborwockey.

 

[admtaylor]

When it comes down to it values are black and white. Unfortunately we live in a society masked by imagined gray, thus the caulosed attitude towards such things as life.

 

[sojeru]

Hi Dialectic,

The Bible is talking about women who cannot have kids, not women who have abortions.

you obviously MISSED what I wrote just before that, didnt you?
And no, it is not talking about JUST women who cannot have children-
I will recall you to what i said

This is exactly how i view it FROM LUKE 23:38-31 aramaic New testament

NOTICE
***ARAMAIC***
as in pehitto and Old syriac bibles- the origin of the language of the New testament is not greek.
(do not continue on this topic here- but else where if you do wish to continue it and provide the link for me.)

the Greek had gotten "barren" / stiros meaning sterile or incapable of concieving, basically barren

Many people fail to realize that Messiah did not speak the Greek language (and if he did, not to the common people or his disciples) and he didnt speak to them in King James English, and Hebrew had dwindles down in its usage to be spoken commonly.

since it was Aramaci that he spoke, probably little hebrew words here and there- it only stands that someone somewhere had to translate those aramaic/hebrew words into greek, whether those aramiac/hebrew words ever saw print is beside the point- the point is some human had to go through the difficult task of translating those aramaic/hebrew words into Greek.

NOW, every word in a language has at least one meaning.
And there are many words that have multiple meanings.
For example- "barren" in English may mean "without children" or it may mean " lifeless" like a desert. Imagine someone of a different language translating , "the desert was barren." into their language as "the desert had no children."
It wouldnt make any sense to the people of his native tongue.
This is exact;y what happened to the aramic word now rendered barren.

THERE IS AN ARAMAIC word rendered TEKHAL and it has the same meaning as the Hebrew Shakhol, It has the meaning of "stiros" BUT GUESS WHAT, it also has the meaning of ABORTION "to cause, or to make abortion" you can check out strongs concordance #7921

the people in the day of Messiah couldnt concieve how or why people would want to terminate pregnancy- and since they could not understand this it led for the translater to translate the aramaic/hebrew word into stiros/sterile meaning "childless/ not able to concieve".
The thought of terminating a pregnancy wasn't concievable to them. They wouldnt have the idea of the future peoples of the world being able to terminate a life in this manner, especially to have the technology to do so. So by translating it as such in the greek- it led to the cutting off of future generations from understanding this prophecy.

What i gave is the correct renderring - it doesnt matter if you recieve it or not.

“Do not weep for me over this great injustice. No doubt, I will will be crucified- Never the less, small, compared to what will be in the future. You should weep for yourselves as the ones that carry and bring forth children- the child bearers, and weep for your descendants. UNdoubtedly, the days will come in which they will say, “Blessed are those who have an abortion, the wombs that conceived but never gave birth; and breasts that were preparing for feeding but had never nursed.
They will murder children by the millions - for this they will be the first of those who will cry out to the mountains, “Fall on us”… and to the hills, “Cover us And hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne”(read Rev.6:15-16) As judgment falls on them for such deeds. If the Injustice done to me can be justified in their lips while there yet remains some love for life- imagine what will be done when this love is gone.”

Now,after reading this again- now go back to the greek or any english translation from the Greek and this will be seen.

shalom u'bracha

AND also,
A FETUS IS ALREADY AND EGG MEETS SPERM- it is a living being.
IF HaShem caused it to not live- then this is His doing because of something we did (remember the case with Melech Daveed(king david) and Bathsheva) even if we think we didnt do anything to deserve it.
however, a sperm is not a fetus, nor is an egg.
However, when they both meet- it quickly becomes one- saying "i am alive"

anyone who terminates this child purposely to rid of it other than Hashem will cry out to the mountains to escape judgement.

shalom u'bracha

 

[TScott]

Where exactly did Peter say this? Is that a literal statement or an interpretation?

As I said it is in the Apochalypse of Peter. It was a very popular piece of scripture because it also dealt with what happened to children and infants who had not been saved before they died. It was still being used in churches as late as the fifth c. even though it didn't make the cut at Nichaea.

On edit, if you are interested, here is a pertinent excerpt from what is known as the Akhmim Fragment of the Apochalypse of Peter;

And hard by that place I saw another strait place wherein the discharge and the stench of them that were in torment ran down, and there was as it were a lake there. And there sat women up to their necks in that liquor, and over against them many children which were born out of due time sat crying: and from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were they that conceived out of wedlock and caused abortion.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

War, when just, is allowed and sanctioned in Scripture. Since that's the rule of my life that's what I adhere to. There's a difference between murder and war. Two completely different arenas. A society can't have people running around killing each other on whim, of course (it seems) unless it's in a somewhat sterile operating room. Neither can a society allow a threat to exist in contradiction to it, thus war. The reasons we go to war are varied. The main reason for a just war is oppression of basic human rights. IE...food, ability to go about your life without being raped, ability to sleep without worrying about someone storming your house and taking you to a torture session. Murder on the other hand, unless in self defense (and even then a true Christian would feel remorse for taking the life), is one or a group of people taking out their emotional reactions in a violent way on someone elses life.

Yes but you miss the point: innocent people are killed by troops in a war. Always, in no war was there no innocent civilians lost. But if murder is wrong save in cases of self-defense how can you allow for that?

Merely saying its sanctioned by Scripture is insufficient, for that may merely establish that the Scripture is itself situational(something I suspect).

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

When it comes down to it values are black and white. Unfortunately we live in a society masked by imagined gray, thus the caulosed attitude towards such things as life.

Perhaps though I think there are blacks, whites and greys. There are obvious cases of right and wrong, and not so obvious ones. Cases where things get messy. An example of this would be like something on MASH. In it the enemy takes over a base and it is known that if the people (civilians and US soldiers) are found they will be tortured and executed. So the whole crowd is hiding in the bus, about a hundred people or so.

And the enemy is walking around the area, looking for the slightest sign and listening for the smallest noise. On the bus a woman has a baby that just won't shut up. The woman tries to stiffle the kids cries by covering its mouth but to no avail. The kid simply is too loud. Eventually one of the US soldiers sees an enemy soldier approaching so turns to the lady saying "Shut that kid up NOW!".

All of a sudden the baby stops and the woman looks up with shame. She broke the childs neck.


Now was that act necessarily wrong?

Sure she did kill the kid, but if she hadn't everyone on the bus including the kid would have been found and shot. Personally I think this situation is obviously more white then black, but it helps illustrate my point. Sometimes the right thing is not so easy to know.

Another example would be if your wife and child were sick with a lethal disease and there was a medicine that could save them. The problem is you could never afford it. The dillemma is you know you could easily steal it. Would it be wrong to steal the medicine or not at this point?

I personally would steal it, even if I knew afterwards I would go to jail. But stealing is somewhat wrong.

This somewhat illustrates the difference between situational ethics and relativism. Situational ethics maintains that there is a right or wrong, how best to serve it though depends on circumstances and character for the character.

Relativism maintains morality is just a fiction, something made up and that all moral claims are equal at any time.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hi Dialectic,


you obviously MISSED what I wrote just before that, didnt you?
And no, it is not talking about JUST women who cannot have children-
I will recall you to what i said

NOTICE
***ARAMAIC***
as in pehitto and Old syriac bibles- the origin of the language of the New testament is not greek.
(do not continue on this topic here- but else where if you do wish to continue it and provide the link for me.)

the Greek had gotten "barren" / stiros meaning sterile or incapable of concieving, basically barren

Many people fail to realize that Messiah did not speak the Greek language (and if he did, not to the common people or his disciples) and he didnt speak to them in King James English, and Hebrew had dwindles down in its usage to be spoken commonly.

since it was Aramaci that he spoke, probably little hebrew words here and there- it only stands that someone somewhere had to translate those aramaic/hebrew words into greek, whether those aramiac/hebrew words ever saw print is beside the point- the point is some human had to go through the difficult task of translating those aramaic/hebrew words into Greek.

NOW, every word in a language has at least one meaning.
And there are many words that have multiple meanings.
For example- "barren" in English may mean "without children" or it may mean " lifeless" like a desert. Imagine someone of a different language translating , "the desert was barren." into their language as "the desert had no children."
It wouldnt make any sense to the people of his native tongue.
This is exact;y what happened to the aramic word now rendered barren.

THERE IS AN ARAMAIC word rendered TEKHAL and it has the same meaning as the Hebrew Shakhol, It has the meaning of "stiros" BUT GUESS WHAT, it also has the meaning of ABORTION "to cause, or to make abortion" you can check out strongs concordance #7921

the people in the day of Messiah couldnt concieve how or why people would want to terminate pregnancy- and since they could not understand this it led for the translater to translate the aramaic/hebrew word into stiros/sterile meaning "childless/ not able to concieve".
The thought of terminating a pregnancy wasn't concievable to them. They wouldnt have the idea of the future peoples of the world being able to terminate a life in this manner, especially to have the technology to do so. So by translating it as such in the greek- it led to the cutting off of future generations from understanding this prophecy.

What i gave is the correct renderring - it doesnt matter if you recieve it or not.

Now,after reading this again- now go back to the greek or any english translation from the Greek and this will be seen.

shalom u'bracha

AND also,
A FETUS IS ALREADY AND EGG MEETS SPERM- it is a living being.
IF HaShem caused it to not live- then this is His doing because of something we did (remember the case with Melech Daveed(king david) and Bathsheva) even if we think we didnt do anything to deserve it.
however, a sperm is not a fetus, nor is an egg.
However, when they both meet- it quickly becomes one- saying "i am alive"

anyone who terminates this child purposely to rid of it other than Hashem will cry out to the mountains to escape judgement.

shalom u'bracha

This may be the case, or it may not be. Obviously I cannot test that statement for I do not speak aramiac nor do we have a copy of the original manuscript around. Are you a certified Bible scholar perhaps? If so I would be more inclined to believe you, if not I will require more evidence. I'm not saying you are a liar, only that I need something more solid.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

As I said it is in the Apochalypse of Peter. It was a very popular piece of scripture because it also dealt with what happened to children and infants who had not been saved before they died. It was still being used in churches as late as the fifth c. even though it didn't make the cut at Nichaea.

On edit, if you are interested, here is a pertinent excerpt from what is known as the Akhmim Fragment of the Apochalypse of Peter;

And hard by that place I saw another strait place wherein the discharge and the stench of them that were in torment ran down, and there was as it were a lake there. And there sat women up to their necks in that liquor, and over against them many children which were born out of due time sat crying: and from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were they that conceived out of wedlock and caused abortion.

I have no idea of what this is. Could you please enlighten an ignorant heathen like myself?

 

[TScott]

I have no idea of what this is. Could you please enlighten an ignorant heathen like myself?

It's scripture that didn't get included in the Bible. There is a lot of scripture that didn't get in for one reason or another. Some was felt to be fake, some was just redundant to what was included. The Early Church Fathers claimed that since the Apochalypse of Peter was not actually written by St. Peter, but instead dictated by him to Clement of Alexandria.

 

[sojeru]

This may be the case, or it may not be. Obviously I cannot test that statement for I do not speak aramiac nor do we have a copy of the original manuscript around. Are you a certified Bible scholar perhaps? If so I would be more inclined to believe you, if not I will require more evidence. I'm not saying you are a liar, only that I need something more solid.

I have no "certificates" but i have done my studies.
there are bible translations out there that you can test.
check out the Hebraic roots version
and the aramaic Pehitta (you can go to www.peshitta.org)
and the OLD SYRIAC BIBLE (in its complete)

either way- for me it is proof enough to know that the GREEK HAD TO BE TRANSLATED from its orginal language and now im in my study.
I studied the luke passage and thats what came out.
You can easily do the same.
So, that should be your task- I some what doubt that you checked out the little bit of reffrences given.

shalom u'bracha

and Tscott, agreed on that- that means Markos shouldnt be in it either.
However, alot of letters should be IN our canon.

shalom u'bracha

 

[Vylo]

Well abortion for me first off is not a question of life or whether or not the fetus is human: everyone knows it is.

What it is to me is a question of personhood. Personhood is basically the definition of one being granted the most basic of state protection.

Cows for example are live, and they can feel pain, but they are not considered agents that have achieved personhood so are not protected by the state.

Unfair comparison. A cow is not human at all, a fetus is.

It seems many pro-lifers wish to draw the line to when the woman is pregant but such is difficult as we cannot really moniter such. Also think of what this entails.

1) A radical alteration in our legal system.

2) Active monitering and rights to a fetus.

Slippery slope.

Usually when they say "humans' they mean "persons" (the two are often times intechangeable) obviously almost everyone, even pro-choicers respect a person's right to life. Whether a fetus is a person and hence human though is a different matter entirely(and lets not forget embryos). That is likewise ultimately a matter of value judgement more then something factual.

A fetus thus is to a human what a seed is to a tree.

Another unfair comparison. Do you really care if your neighbor cuts down a tree in his yard?

In the end then what you are saying is you respect a mindless embryo, more then you do a woman's right to her own life, her future and her privacy.

Yes in the case any women who is careless in such a manner, I would also hold the father responsible.

Just because she did what you seem to feel is an act of carelessness(how did you decide btw that the act was careless?).

This is how:

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% -carelessness

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9% -carelessness

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% -carelessness

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% -carelessness

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% -carelessness

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - In the case of a minor carelessness by parents.

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3%

9. Other: 2.1%



Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online


That's 79.6 % of the cases at minimum. People these days have a habit of trying to avoid their responsibilites.

 

[admtaylor]

"Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% -carelessness (selfishness)

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9% -carelessness (selfishness)

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% -carelessness (selfishness)

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% -carelessness (selfishness)

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% -carelessness (selfishness)

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2% - In the case of a minor carelessness by parents. (selfishness by the parents)

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3% (what? So killing the baby improves the chances of a healthy baby. Oh, I get it, it's that looking glass thinking.)

9. Other: 2.1%"


On the other part is there anywhere that states what types of situations other would fall under?

I'm not ridiculing you Vylo, just adding emphasis to the statistics. Good job.

 

[Outspoken]

1. In regards to personhood I draw the line after birth. This is because A) It is the state that best protects right to privacy, procreation and woman's freedom and B) It's the most efficient place to draw the line.

2. Now if a woman has a miscarriage it doesn't end there, because such is potential murder, manslaughter or at least child "negligence". The woman can thus be legally investigated causing lots of emotional pain and loss to privacy.

3. In the end one must just choose whether one is more favorable towards a woman's freedom, a woman's privacy, sexual freedom and efficient standards or: a fetus. The choice for me was pretty easy.


Miscarriages throw the latter into some question(as it can be asked why does God kill a fetus if he wants it?).

But that can be mainly aknowledged as God's juristiction not man's.

1. A child is before birth compared to after birth are pretty much the same. This line is cleary a bad one. If you adhere to it you must address babies that are not "born". Those taken out by C-section, etc..In your definition they are not "human". This is also flawed in terms of premature births. For those are physically the same as those still in the womb, yet you call one alive and the other not. that's a very poor anaylsis with major holes in it.

2. Just as accideintal death, there is no penilty for it. Check your law books for other examples.

3. I will not limit one person's freedom to over take anothers. I won't do it in terms of religion, business, or anything else.