Abortion and the Christian

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Abortion and the Christian: What the Bible Says

Recently I was given a new scenario by a friend who was attempting to determine how he felt theologically about an issue. The friend was in a relationship with a woman who had been at one point pregnant, and that pregnancy had implanted in a fallopian tube. Knowing that this would certainly kill the woman and the unborn, the woman aborted the pregnancy. The two questions were, did this woman kill her child and, if so, is this child now in heaven? My initial reaction was that this was not a person, so not a child, and there was no “spirit” in heaven. However, the repercussion of this was that my belief that a soul is present at conception was now at issue. I decided to consult the bible, logic, and science. From this point on, we will use the New International Standard version of the bible.

The Biblical “Proofs” for Ensoulment from Conception

I had always grown up with a fully “pro-life” stance. I had been taught that the bible didn’t directly deal with abortion, but that life begins at conception and the principles of the Bible teach against it. Still, I had also seen serious issues with the hard-line approach. These logical gaps were things like the percentage of conceptions which never implant and are never known, the splitting of twins post-conception, and others. However, with this new study, I discovered that these teachings about a non-direct edict from the bible with principles supporting ensoulment at conception were seemingly incorrect. While biological life is certainly present from the point of conception until biological death (and then in various parts of the body after death for various times), I was looking for evidence of a spirit, a soul, a person, from conception. My first discovery was that the verses used to prove ensoulment at conception were extremely weak, with an obvious bias required to see the verses as proof. Let’s take a look at those verses:

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

-- Jeremiah 1:4-5
This was one of the verses that I was presented with repeatedly when I searched for arguments in favor of ensoulment / personhood at conception. Reading the arguments, the “pro-life” supporters used this verse often as a proof-positive of their position. However, as I read it, I absolutely did not see any evidence of personhood or ensoulment at conception – instead I see this as a verse that would require extreme bias to reach that conclusion. First, the verse says “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” which reaffirms God’s omniscience. The verse shows that even prior to conception, God knew Jeremiah, which is totally consistent with the idea that God knows the future, past, and present. The idea that God would have someone appointed as His messenger since the beginning of time is totally consistent with the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. If personhood is established by this verse, it would not only apply personhood in the uterus, but would also establish it prior to conception. The idea of personhood prior to conception is not a mainstream doctrine within Christianity and does not appear to be taught anywhere else. However, I do not believe that the verse is speaking about personhood at all, but instead to God’s knowledge of all events, past, present, and future.
Next, let’s look at a psalm by David:
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

- Psalms 139: 14-16

In this Psalm of David, we see that God has set in place the mechanisms which form a human body in gestation. This verse is contextually poetic, so to take it as meaning that God Himself literally knits together the unborn is rather silly. Just as God doesn’t actually make the moon and the stars rise (obviously the Earth rotates due to gravity, a mechanism created by God), God doesn’t literally knit together embryos. What we can see theologically in this scripture is that God is, once again, omnipotent and omniscient, knowing the future before it happens.
However, there is one important thing to see in this verse. What amazes me is that while this scripture is used to “confirm” that personhood / ensoulment occurs at conception, the last verse definitely places this belief in doubt. The verse says that God saw the author’s unformed body (developing unborn), and then immediately says that all of the author’s days were ordained for him before they came to be. This would seem to say that during gestation, the author’s days had not yet begun. While this may not be the author’s intent or determination, and this is a poetic text, it certainly seems to contradict the purpose of pro-life supporters in using this passage. Taken in context, this verse which is often used to propagate prenatal ensoulment, would very much seem to say the author’s days had not yet begun (or came to be) at the point of God being able to see his unformed body (prenatal).
A more interesting passage also comes from Psalms:

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

- Psalms 51:5

This verse is a strong point for the idea that a spirit exists in the unborn from the point of conception. However, it is not definitive. The question is, how can something be “sinful” without a spirit? And if it is “sinful” from the point of being conceived, does that not mean that the spirit is present from that point? Well, there are a couple of things to look at here. First, this is a poetic text again… it isn’t meant to be taken literally. If you are a total literalist (have fun with Song of Solomon), you’re pretty much left with no other option than to believe that a spirit exists from the point of conception. Of course, that’s going to give you difficulty with the rest of this paper when there will be other contradictory scriptures to counter that. If you take this contextually, you’ll see this is David emphasizing, through poetry, the degree of his sinfulness.
The second thing to look at is the idea of “flesh” which is a persistent theme throughout the bible. The bible repeatedly teaches the concept of a human as consisting of more than one part – just as mainstream Christianity teaches a God in three Persons, mainstream Christianity also teaches humans in the form of a body, soul, and spirit (some combine soul and spirit into one). Here are a few of those passages which reaffirm this division of a human:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life.
- John 6:63

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
- John 3:6

13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
- Romans 18:13-14

With this understanding of the physical / spiritual division established by the bible, and the concept of the body being sinful but the spirit able to overcome, the poetic message of David is better understood. The idea that flesh is sinful at every point, regardless of a spirit is a solid, biblical teaching. So even if David says that from conception he was sinful, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a spirit is there from that point. If we were to take that passage in a literal way, it would indicate that sin is not related to rebellion from God since an embryo / fetus cannot make any decision as to whether or not it wishes to obey or disobey God. That combined with an understanding of the poetic context of the passage, means a verse that we’re about to look at gives us a bit more insight into the question.
The passage that I speak of is used to show that a spirit exists in the developing unborn is found in the gospels. However, I think the opposite is shown in this verse, and quite clearly:

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
- Luke 1:39-41

This scripture is puzzling when I try to determine why it is used. The only thing I can come up with is that people think since the English translation of the bible uses the term “baby” here that it means the fetus is ensouled and fully human. There are a couple of problems here: one, if the fetus had a soul and/or spirit, then why is it not filled with the Holy Spirit rather than just Elizabeth? Two, obviously this is a miraculous event since a fetus (and even a newborn) is not cognizant enough to respond to a greeting of special significance beyond any other type of stimulus. But thirdly, with more study, this scripture is shown to be cherry picked… a few verses prior we see this prophecy about John the Baptist while he is still being formed in his mother’s womb:

13 Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. 14He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.
- Luke 1:13-15

And there we have it, more evidence that ensoulment doesn’t happen prior to birth. In a direct message from God, Zechariah is given the message that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. He is not filled from conception, not before birth, and when the Holy Spirit fills Elizabeth, it does not fill the fetus within her. We also see a common theme in the bible reiterated here – God commands what a name will be once the child is born. If the entity is a person, why does it not receive a name until its birth? If you take the time to study this, you’ll see that this principle is applied over and over in the bible.
Now at this point, we’ve really dealt with the strongest verses against abortion and in favor of a spirit from conception forward. That’s it. We could go through verses such as “You shall not murder,” but using a verse like that presupposes that ending a pregnancy is murder. We could go to verses such as “So God created man in his own image,” but then we have to make a leap of rationale in order to reach a conclusion that because of this a human in gestation should not be terminated. So having looked at the best that the bible has to offer in the way of biblical evidence that a soul exists at conception or from a very early point in gestation, let’s look at what it has to say from the opposite viewpoint:
 

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Biblical “Proofs” for Ensoulment at Birth

Upon realizing that the verses used to affirm that personhood begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder, were at best ambiguous, I looked for biblical evidence to the contrary – that personhood begins at a date after conception. To my surprise, here I found the biblical evidence which I thought I would find on the other side. The first major discovery, and still the most outright proof of delayed personhood (soul / spirit), was a passage in Exodus. Now, before we look at it, we need the context as this is extremely important. If you’re looking for the truth about a dilemma and you’re a Christian, what is the ultimate source for truth? I would say most would think “God.” And the following verse is directly from God speaking to Moses – not a disciple, not an apostle, not an angel, not a prophet, not any human... if we believe the bible, this scripture is purported to be directly, verbatim from God to Moses and then to the ancient Hebrews. We see that in this verse:

22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
- Exodus 20:22-23

The context here is that Moses has just been given the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, and now God is further telling Moses what to tell the Hebrews. The Hebrew people could have heard it for themselves, but they are too afraid to face God directly, and so Moses must act as an interceder. The very first thing God tells Moses is to tell the Israelites that He has spoken from heaven and then He gives them the first of several rules beyond the Ten Commandments. Verse 23 is the first of those commandments. The commandments continue until chapter 23, and then in chapter 23 God begins telling the Israelites where they will go now that they have escaped Egypt, and how they will do so.
So for the Jew or the Christian who believes the bible is divinely inspired, the commandments in this section are directly given, spoken, and authored by God Himself, the Creator of the Universe. And this is where I found a verse that absolutely shows without any doubt that an unborn human is not on any equal level with a born human. That may seem very contrary to what the bible is “supposed” to say, but if we approach the bible without a bias, simply wanting to know the truth and not validate whatever preconception we have, then I think we will reach a similar conclusion when we look at this verse together:

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. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

- Exodus 21:22- 25

Now the first thing to realize when reading this verse is that different translations will translate the first sentence differently. Some translate it as a “premature birth,” while others translate it as a “miscarriage.” The above translation is from the New International Version, and it gives a footnote for the verse which says “or miscarriage.” The reason for this is that the actual Hebrew literally says that “her fruit goes out.” For many people, this is what the whole argument hinges upon… if it is simply a “premature birth,” then the baby survived and the punishment is for causing that premature birth. If the term is appropriately a “miscarriage,” then the unborn life only has a value equal to property loss, and does not have value equal to a person’s life since the woman’s life requires “life for life” but the fetus’ does not.
While the semantics might seem important at first, and we will look at the semantics just to be complete in the study, the historic understanding makes the difference in “premature birth” and “miscarriage” rather pointless. The scripture given does not place a timeframe on the pregnancy that is ended by this act, but rather it is given for any pregnancy which is either premature or miscarried (depending on how it is translated). Yet regardless of whether it is miscarried or prematurely delivered, unless the timeframe is very near the end of pregnancy, there is no way the fetus would live in that historic setting. In our modern age of medicine, a premature birth is a huge risk, but in the ancient world, when even normal births were risky, a premature birth was certain death for the fetus. So even if you view the correct translation as being “premature birth,” it is disingenuous to think that the act being described is anything less than certain death for the unborn.
If we look at the Hebrew wording here to determine what is really meant, we find that “miscarriage” is contextually the most accurate way to translate to English. The verb used for “gives birth prematurely” is “yalad,” which in Hebrew means “to come out.” The form “yalad” takes in this passage is “yasta.” It is used in the bible to describe other births and one other stillbirth (Numbers 12:12). Some point out that two other words should have been used here if the bible is referring to a miscarriage and not the premature birth of a healthy infant. They say that “shakol” – a verb meaning to miscarry – and “nefel” – a verb meaning a miscarried fetus – should have been used. They believe that because these are absent, it must absolutely mean a healthy, premature birth. However, as I studied these two issues, I became aware of two problems. The first problem with the two words is the easiest – the Hebrew doesn’t use a word for a baby or a miscarried fetus in the passage… so whether or not “nefel” is used doesn’t matter because the opposite isn’t used either. It’s expressed totally in verb form (“yalad”), without using a noun. The “shakol” word was a bit trickier, until I learned that “shakol” refers to barrenness – because this act is not related to barrenness, but physical injury, it wouldn’t make sense to use the word “shakol” here. And regardless, the verb “yalad” is used to describe a stillbirth elsewhere in the bible, so it’s not any stretch to use it here in concert with our context.
Another thing to understand is that this verse deals with the termination of a pregnancy throughout all times of the pregnancy. Whether the pregnancy is aborted in the third month, sixth month, or eighth month is not an issue for God in this commandment. In the third and sixth months, there is absolutely no chance for survival in that context, and in the eighth it would be unlikely. Yet, the consequence is the same for God. And if this commandment were only referring to a healthy birth process at an unexpected time, with the caveat that should “further mischief” follow for either the baby or woman, then why is there even a civil penalty for what has occurred? I think at this point it is obvious that the passage is referring to a miscarriage.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
So what does this all have to do with abortion? Well, a miscarriage is a type of abortion. In this case, we have a commandment from God on how to handle either an accidental abortion or a purposeful abortion (if in the struggle the man decides he wants to cause the woman to abort by hitting her). In either case, God allows that the head of the woman’s family (the one with legal decision-making rights in that culture) may assign a monetary value to the loss and apply it as the penalty depending on the court’s approval. The commandment also allows that if any injury should have occurred to the woman, equal punishment should be applied to the perpetrator. So if in this attack the woman is killed, the perpetrator is to be put to death. However, since we’ve already established that the fetus is dead, the bible is differentiating between the very nature of the born life verses the unborn life.

This commandment by God is also the first appearance of the Lex Talionis concept – eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. The concept means that for the ancient Hebrews, if a person purposefully breaks another person’s hand, then the perpetrator’s hand should be broken if a conviction is had. So it is very significant that in a commandment from God Himself, He does not recognize the death of an unborn as being covered by Lex Talionis. Even if a Jewish priest had struck a female beggar and killed her, the priest, once convicted, has a life which is equally valued. Obviously the priest has a higher societal value, has a higher economic value, but he does not have a higher value for his life under the law of God. This concept has continued into the United States’ laws in the form of “equal protection.” Yet the “life for a life” is not given to the unborn, and we can infer from that that God does not view that biological life as the same as the life of the woman. Why? Well, I think it correlates with that life not yet possessing a spirit, but you can draw whatever conclusion you wish at this point.

Now the next passage that I looked to was Leviticus 27, a chapter which deals with the dedication of things to God, and the monetary value applied to those dedications. The basic idea of the chapter is that God commands Moses to tell the Israelites how they are able to dedicate their family, livestock, and property to God. For various reasons, different entities are given different monetary costs for dedication, but we will not discuss those values in this paper as they aren’t pertinent. What is pertinent is that God does not allow a person to be dedicated to Him until they are a month old. While this doesn’t mean that a human isn’t a person until a month old, it does further a biblical pattern of human personhood not being applied until birth or later. While the people are given the ability to dedicate livestock and land to the Lord, they have no capacity to dedicate an unborn or a newborn. In Numbers chapter 3, we see again God not wanting newborns counted in the same way as others when he only allows males a month and older to be counted in a census (this is probably due to a census requiring a higher probability of survival in order for it to be meaningful). The next verse, however, was much more revealing:

7 the LORD God formed the man [b] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
- Genesis 1:7

In Genesis, we find that God has formed Adam from the dust of the ground, but until he breathes in his nostrils, he is not a living being. Now, taken by itself, this verse might be used only to show that God magically breathed an animation into Adam, or that this is uniquely referring to the first creation of a human being. This is what I originally thought. However, there are some things to note here which are very important. One, the breath that Genesis 1 refers to is physical in that it is sent through Adam’s nostrils. Two, as I read the bible, I discovered that breath is seen as synonymous with life. Let’s take a look at passages where this occurs:


And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
- Genesis 1:30

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
- Genesis 6:17

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
- Genesis 7:22

Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people.
- Genesis 25:8

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
- Deuteronomy 20:16
"As surely as God lives, who has denied me justice,
the Almighty, who has made me taste bitterness of soul,
3 as long as I have life within me,
the breath of God in my nostrils,
4 my lips will not speak wickedness,
and my tongue will utter no deceit.
- Job 27:2-4

You have made my days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing before you. Each man's life is but a breath. Selah
- Psalms 39:5

Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?
- Isaiah 2:22

This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.
- Ezekiel 37:5

Now the word for breath in Hebrew is the word “ruach,” and it literally means a type of wind. Those bodies which have “ruach” are called nephesh – living beings. While the case for whether or not the unborn have souls can certainly not rest on this single point about breath, I think it is somewhat significant that an unborn does not have breath. If one reads Ezekiel 37, the bible tells of dead bodies reconstructed, but not living beings until breath enters their bodies. A fetus does stretch its lungs as part of the developmental process, but it certainly does not breathe, and it does not have the “ruach” which the bible sees as synonymous with a living being. Once again, by itself this is not a proof-positive, but it is a point in a series of important points.

Continuing on, I soon found myself making other discoveries about the issue. I found in Genesis 38 a prostitute who is found with child and is condemned to be burned (I should state here that this is not something that is sanctioned by the bible, this is just a historical account of what happened). The people never consider the life of the unborn in the decision… they do not view it as a spirit which they are ending. I also found a passage in Ecclesiastes dealing with an abortion and what happens to it:

3 A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. 4 It comes without meaning, it departs in darkness, and in darkness its name is shrouded. 5 Though it never saw the sun or knew anything, it has more rest than does that man- 6 even if he lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity. Do not all go to the same place?
- Ecclesiastes 6:3-6

Here, the author of Ecclesiastes says that an abortion comes without meaning, departs in darkness, and its name is shrouded. It says that it never knew anything. Now how can anything with a spirit come without meaning? However, there are some important points to be made about this text lest some wrong understandings happen. It could be said that since it says that both the abortion and the rich man go to the same place, then the abortion must go to an afterlife. However, the text is definitively referring to the tomb or “dust of the earth” concept. The reason is that all do not go to the same place if we are talking about an afterlife – but if we are talking about the tomb (“sheol”), then the answer is yes, all do go there. It is also important to note what the name being shrouded means. The Hebrew literally means that its name is covered in darkness, and in that culture it means that the name was never placed in the family register or in the chronicles of Israel. To not be included on the family register or the chronicles of Israel is only done if something is truly not part of the family or Israel. The message here, then, is that a man who fails to enjoy his prosperity and receive a proper burial (a massive disgrace) is worse off than an abortion that has no meaning. And really, doesn’t that match our current attitudes about the unborn when we’re not dealing with the abortion issue? We don’t name a two-month miscarriage, we don’t say we have eight children when only five were brought to term, and we don’t even know the number of conceptions that occur between a couple. We count birth.

And very significantly, it seems that Jesus counts birth as the beginning of a life as well. It may seem blasphemous to some, but let’s go to John 3 for more evidence that a soul comes into play at birth:
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
- John 3:3-7

This passage is part of one of the most important scriptures for the understanding of salvation in Christianity, and so it may seem odd that I’m using it for this paper. However, the important thing to note here is that when Jesus refers to the act of salvation, the starting point for becoming a new creation is being “born again.” The idea is that in order for a person to start a new life in the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the person is re-born. For Jesus, birth is the beginning. Jesus doesn’t say, “You must be conceived again,” nor does he give any other point of time in a pregnancy as His reference point – birth is used as the beginning. Just as physical birth is the starting point for a human being, spiritual birth is the starting point for salvation. And certainly, if Jesus is God incarnate, He would be aware and knowledgeable enough of the pregnancy process to use the correct wording for Nicodemus.

Finally, it is also important to note that the bible features a commandment on how to abort illegitimate pregnancies. Numbers 5:11-31 is quite long, so I’ll refrain from quoting the entire passage here, but I’ll give a brief synopsis. In Numbers 5, a husband is given the option to take his wife to a priest if he suspects that she has been unfaithful. The priest is then to carry out some rituals, one of which is to make her drink water with dust sprinkled into it. If she has been unfaithful, God causes her to abort the pregnancy and declares her a curse to her people.

Now if it is the case that unborn life is ensouled just as born life, then Numbers 5 presents a situation where a child is killed for the sins of its mother. If a zygote / embryo / fetus is not ensouled, then its abortion by God is simply the cessation of its processes as a result of its illegitimate nature. It’s also important to note that nowhere in Numbers 5 does it say “your child shall die,” or give any indication that the result of this sin is death to a person. And if the bible gives miraculous means to acquire an abortion at the behest of the husband, certainly the argument against abortion becomes much weaker for someone determined to know the truth based on scripture.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Applying Logic to the Question

Having looked at the bible extensively for the answer, I was fairly certain that abortion is not intrinsically wrong, though I’m sure it can be wrong depending on the intent (and isn’t that the case with most things). Essentially, if abortion is a method by which an immoral lifestyle is supported, then abortion is being used in an immoral way. If it is being used to resolve a difficult situation, and it is determined to be the best resolution by the woman, then I do not see any wrongdoing. I was confident that the bible did not teach ensoulment at conception, but instead taught ensoulment at birth. I think that at this point, the reader would at least agree that there is a compelling argument for that position. I then began to apply some logical questions to the issue beyond the bible, though related to the soul / spirit / personhood issue.

One of the things that I considered was the issue of consciousness, personality, or at least mentality. Let’s start with the issue of Siamese twins. Siamese twins are two people with one body. You can say that they have two bodies, but the reality is their bodies are intertwined so that they have one body – some share organs to the point that they cannot be separated. Yet with this one body, we have two spirits, two persons. The reason is that personhood and the spirit resides in the mental facilities of an individual, or at least is manifested through this mechanism. So if we define individuality as the existence of a mind of some sort, how can terminating something that has yet to achieve a mind be intrinsically wrong? Do we not allow biological life to end if a person who has had a mind is brain dead and has no chance of ever regaining their mind? Yet if they have some reasonable brain function, we typically try to save their life, even if they are severely handicapped.

So when does a mind exist? When does cognizance begin and self awareness develop? Studying the issue, I saw that the brain systems aren’t even in place for a fetus to detect a painful stimulus until the 26th week of gestation (thalamothortical connections). Whether or not the systems are working and the painful stimulus is detected in the 26th week or at a later point is still in debate. And we’re talking about something just as baseline as detecting pain… we’re not even close to any type of consciousness or mind. Even the newborn past 36 weeks is basically a reactionary, instinctual creature. It cries out in instinct when its brain perceives hunger, but it gives no thought as to what it is doing, nor is it aware of it occurring. Certainly applying higher mental prowess to an unborn is foolish.

Amazingly, what I learned next completely lined up with what the bible had been saying about birth being the beginning and about breath being massively important. Let’s establish first that the brain isn’t even developed to any point of being able to hold a mind until the 20th week or so (and this is generous to the point of fantasy). Declaring that it does hold a mind at week 20 is rather silly considering primal abilities aren’t even developed and the brain is frantically scrambling nerve cells to new locations, but we’ll use week 20 as the very earliest you could possibly even imagine. People who want to assert a 12 week old fetus, with a neural mass the size of a pencil eraser that is still configuring all the parts it will have (and not yet having the parts which are required for perception or thought), can feel pain and have mental functions are not looking at the facts objectively. Okay, so back to the amazing thing I discovered. The fetal brain is apparently awash in chemicals that oxidize with the first breath of air. In other words these chemicals leave at birth. The chemicals are also present in all mammal fetuses that have been tested. So what are those chemicals?

The chemicals are endogenous neuro-inhibitors, such as adenosine and pregnanolone, which are created by the placenta and cause the unborn to be in a constant state of sedation. In the third trimester when a negative stimulus is experienced, the fetus will respond, but in the same way a sleeping person will respond to a painful feeling. So even if a fetus has the neurological structures necessary for a mind, it does not have any awareness until it is born. Literally, the baby taking its first breath is experiencing the world for the very first time. It is the first time it has been aware or conscious of anything. No wonder then that Jesus would use the analogy of being born again to refer to entering into the kingdom of heaven – surely He, being God, would have known that the unborn are in a state of unconsciousness, becoming aware at their first breath of air.

This is important because it affirms that birth is the beginning. Regardless of when birth occurs, the change is dramatic. And while premature births result in aware human beings, they are not the same as the fetus which is of the same age. The difference is that one has gained sentience, while the other has been kept in a state of unconsciousness, not yet gaining any cognizant realization of the world around it. This is the reason that the newborn colt begins to walk, yet does not while in utero. This is why the human fetus will behave according to brain stem functions, but not in anything above. It seems obvious that according to science and according to scripture, the agreement exists that a soul begins at birth, at first breath.

Conclusion

So having looked extensively at the issue of ensoulment during gestation, and having looked extensively at the question of abortion, I have been able to resolve some issues in my mind. For me, the question of whether or not the bible teaches ensoulment at conception is answered. Based on Exodus 21 and Ecclesiastes 6, I see strong evidence to the contrary. Looking for evidence to affirm ensoulment during gestation, I find verses which are not dealing directly with the issue, and which require leaps of logic in order to use them for that evidence. I do, however, see strong evidence for ensoulment at birth. I see it throughout the bible in that naming does not occur until birth, even if the name has already been determined. I see evidence in that Jesus uses birth as the beginning point for his explanation on salvation to Nicodemus. I see evidence in the bible’s understanding of breath as synonymous with being a living being. I see proof that ensoulment doesn’t take place until birth in Exodus 21 and in Ecclesiastes 6.

I can confidently conclude that a fetus becomes both a baby and a person at birth, with its first breath of air. I base this both on the bible, and on strong medical evidence. While this may seem contradictory to mainstream Christianity’s position, it should be noted that the various factions within Christianity have modified their positions through the past two thousand years – the Southern Baptist Association, one of the most staunch anti-abortion denominations, supported abortions in certain situations just thirty years ago. Even the Catholic Church has changed its stance repeatedly, considering it a sin early on until 380 AD, then considering it wrong only past the state of “quickening,” then changing it to murder which results in ex communication in 1869. Still, the bible remains unchanged. As I think I have thoroughly shown, the bible maintains that ensoulment and personhood begin at birth.

Additionally, it would seem to completely contradict the understood reason for humanity’s existence on earth if every conception resulted in a soul or spirit. If this is the case, then the estimated half of all conceptions which never implant receive a free pass to heaven. That would mean that half the world’s souls would go straight to heaven. If that’s the case, then it is also alarming that the 20% of embryos which naturally perish also go straight to heaven. Now we’re at 60% of all individuals would go straight to heaven without any reason. Additionally, all abortions, late-term miscarriages, and stillbirths would go to heaven. Very quickly, the population of heaven would be made up of a vast majority of individuals who never put any trust in anything whatsoever… and frankly, if the vast majority of individuals of heaven were made up of that part of the population, there should be some indication in scripture. Beyond that, however, if that is the case, then why not abort every developing embryo? Surely killing an embryo that neither thinks, feels, nor is aware of anything, yet gets a free pass to heaven, is worth the forgivable sin of murder. I hope the reader can see at this point that the idea of an ensouled or spirit-filled embryo makes for quite a paradigm shift in the faith.

Logically, the idea of a spirit occurring at conception is fallible. While this is the teaching of many Christian organizations, this would require the belief that a spirit can split – after all, identical twins split many days after conception occurs. Logically, it is also difficult to conceptualize a soul or spirit without some sort of mind. If this is the case, then why do leaves not have souls, or trees, or bacteria? While this may be the teaching of a pagan religion, it is not the teaching of the bible.

Still, as I have looked at the debate, I can also see that there is very little reason for an elective abortion in the third trimester. In fact, it is difficult to propose any reason at all. With the fetus then being likely viable outside the womb, and with the possibility of some pain perception, it is not something that I would recommend. However, I did find some remote instances in which it might be necessary, such as outside of a medical facility if the cervix is unable to dilate the necessary amount. I, therefore, have difficulty finding a morally positive reason for terminating a pregnancy in the third trimester outside of some very rare situations.

Before the third trimester, however, if a woman and her husband (or if there is no husband, then just she) determine that a pregnancy is detrimental, I see no biblical or ethical reason to stop termination of that pregnancy. Whether that is because financially a child absolutely cannot be afforded, whether because the pregnancy happened to a young girl who has been gang raped, or whether it is because a severe fetal abnormality is discovered, it really doesn’t matter. Because the bible teaches, and because logic dictates, that a soul cannot exist until at least the third trimester (and the bible teaches at birth), the decision is between the woman and God. My taking this position does not mean that I condone sex before marriage, rape, incest, or any other positions contrary to the biblical teachings which may result in an unwanted pregnancy. Taking this position also does not change my pro-family beliefs, and my values that support family in all ways. I also do not view negatively someone who chooses to continue a pregnancy that is difficult, such as a pregnancy from rape or that places the woman’s life at risk. That is a decision which is between the woman and the Creator. If logic or the bible showed a soul / person is present in the unborn, a Christian might have grounds for societal intervention… but as we have seen, neither logic nor the bible point to ensoulment during gestation.

The issues that have been dealt with in this paper can be very difficult and are ideas in which people invest much emotion. I hope that I have been clear and concise in this paper, and I hope that I have helped, not hurt anyone who reads it. My wish is not to make the bible say what I want it to say, but rather to know truly what it truly says. If, after reading this paper, you feel differently, that is your prerogative and I greatly respect the opportunity to disagree on issues. I am glad, however, to have had the chance to look at both sides. Having looked at both sides, I conclude that a soul is not present until the first breath at birth. I also conclude that late-term abortion is not something which I would recommend or support in almost all cases. On all things, I will support the bible, and if at some point I believe the bible says otherwise, I will modify my beliefs. The bible and the logic derived from it are my modus operandi.




 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Mikecpking said:
Your ideas about a fetus 'getting' a soul does not concur with the Hrebrew idea that they had no seperate soul like Plato teaches. So to use this argument simply is not biblical.

God causing Adam to become nephesh at first ruach is a hebrew idea and does show a separation of soul and flesh. There are inummerable other instances where the idea of a lifeforce separate from the carnal is displayed in the Old Testament. You'll have to provide evidence of your position rather than stating it as fact.

BL
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
59
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟18,099.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
God causing Adam to become nephesh at first ruach is a hebrew idea and does show a separation of soul and flesh. There are inummerable other instances where the idea of a lifeforce separate from the carnal is displayed in the Old Testament. You'll have to provide evidence of your position rather than stating it as fact.

BL
Gen 2:7

The Lord God formed the moulded dust, breathed in the breath of life (ruach) and man became a living soul (nephesh). He became a nephesh (whole being), he did not get one!

There are no references in the OT of 'soul seperation', only dieing at physical death

Numbers 23:10
Judges 16:30 to name 2.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Gen 2:7

The Lord God formed the moulded dust,

Physical body exists.

breathed in the breath of life (ruach)

Ruach means wind / breath / soul / lifeforce / spirit, and it has now been added to the physical body.

and man became a living soul (nephesh).

With the physical body having a wind / breath / soul / lifeforce / spirit added to him, he becomes a nephesh.

He became a nephesh (whole being), he did not get one!

He became one at first breath. This is the same as all human beings, and it is what I expressed in the first few posts.

There are no references in the OT of 'soul seperation', only dieing at physical death

19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” -- Ecc 3:19-21

[c]- "or spirit"

And I thought of that one off the top of my head... Ecclesiastes specifically asks the question of soul separation and where the soul / spirit / lifeforce goes.

Your Numbers 23 passage doesn't adequately define what the "final end" is. It doesn't matter to me, however, if it supports soul separation or not - your proposition was that the "hebrew idea" excluded soul separation yet Ecclesiastes shows that it is (at least) a possibility given in the Old Testament for those who have physically died.

Judges 16:30 says Samson pushed pillars, killed people, and committed suicide. It doesn't give a position one way or the other towards the topic you wish to discuss.

BL
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
59
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟18,099.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Physical body exists.



Ruach means wind / breath / soul / lifeforce / spirit, and it has now been added to the physical body.



With the physical body having a wind / breath / soul / lifeforce / spirit added to him, he becomes a nephesh.



He became one at first breath. This is the same as all human beings, and it is what I expressed in the first few posts.



19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” -- Ecc 3:19-21

[c]- "or spirit"

And I thought of that one off the top of my head... Ecclesiastes specifically asks the question of soul separation and where the soul / spirit / lifeforce goes.

Your Numbers 23 passage doesn't adequately define what the "final end" is. It doesn't matter to me, however, if it supports soul separation or not - your proposition was that the "hebrew idea" excluded soul separation yet Ecclesiastes shows that it is (at least) a possibility given in the Old Testament for those who have physically died.

Judges 16:30 says Samson pushed pillars, killed people, and committed suicide. It doesn't give a position one way or the other towards the topic you wish to discuss.

BL

Both Numbers 23;10 and Judges 16:30 states clearly the 'nephesh' dies. You can google it. I think you mix up 'ruach' with 'soul' as ruach is NEVER translated as soul. For examkple, DT 12:23 literally states the 'nephesh' is the blood and 'ruach' breath is never associated with blood.

Back to your opening post, a fetus is clearly a 'soul' as it has blood within it from a very early stage.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Mike said:
Both Numbers 23;10 and Judges 16:30 states clearly the 'nephesh' dies. You can google it. I think you mix up 'ruach' with 'soul' as ruach is NEVER translated as soul. For examkple, DT 12:23 literally states the 'nephesh' is the blood and 'ruach' breath is never associated with blood.

Nephesh simply means a body with ruach - animals are also described as nephesh because they have ruach. It does not mean "soul" though we often translate it that way because it is a huge umbrella word for various living properties, and at times it does best translate to soul given the context. "Ruach" means wind / spirit / lifeforce / soul / breath. It's easy to see that I don't mix up what "ruach" means since I have already given you the same words that "ruach" means earlier:

Blue Lightning said:
Ruach means wind / breath / soul / lifeforce / spirit

Mike said:
Back to your opening post, a fetus is clearly a 'soul' as it has blood within it from a very early stage.

So an insect is a soul as well then, as is a mollusk and a crustacean. Do honeybees go to heaven or hell?

And according to your logic, before the circulatory system appears in the embryo, there is no soul. Thus you have shown you believe in an unborn that gains a soul at a later date.

BL
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
bms said:
BL,
I have rarely seen such a demonstration of disbelief. All the passages you have doubted or rejected describe how God knows people in the womb or even before.
You havent given any scripture to support pro-choice abortion.

Please do not waste my time by posting unspecific, unverified, and non-referenced opinion.

1) I have belief, not disbelief.

2) If you feel the oft-cited passages for a strict anti-abortion stance do in fact make that argument when I have attempted to show how they do not, then please, feel free to explain exactly how I am wrong. Otherwise do not waste the space on someboody's server.

3) I did provide passages that support the option to end biological life before it becomes a person and explained in detail what they say.

BL
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
BL,
I did provide passages that support the option to end biological life before it becomes a person and explained in detail what they say.
The option? I don’t see any evidence of an option to do so, that’s an assumption on your part.

I agree with you about the evidence for your assumption for personhood, yet it leaves contradictions as the passages I gave describe God knowing people in the womb, it doesn’t say God knows who they will become, it says God knows them. Furthermore, you haven’t considered that the flesh leads to sin that leads to death for body and soul, the spirit however gives life to both, and 1 Cor 6 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
The body is not to be destroyed because it is the place the Spirit resides or will reside; abort the body in development and you have destroyed where the spirit can dwell.

There is no option, the act of pro-choice abortion is one humans have to actively take, there is no scriptural support for humans making this decision and you haven’t shown any.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
The option? I don’t see any evidence of an option to do so, that’s an assumption on your part.


In Numbers 5 it is the husband's option to take the wife for an abortion with the priest.

I agree with you about the evidence for your assumption for personhood, yet it leaves contradictions as the passages I gave describe God knowing people in the womb, it doesn’t say God knows who they will become, it says God knows them.

God exists in all places at all times. Of course He knows everyone all the time.

Furthermore, you haven’t considered that the flesh leads to sin that leads to death for body and soul, the spirit however gives life to both, and 1 Cor 6 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
The body is not to be destroyed because it is the place the Spirit resides or will reside; abort the body in development and you have destroyed where the spirit can dwell.


Then have sex like rabbits so you can make sure there are lots of bodies for the Holy Spirit to dwell in. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.

Is destroying a seed killing a leaf?

There is no option, the act of pro-choice abortion is one humans have to actively take, there is no scriptural support for humans making this decision and you haven’t shown any.

Numbers 5 - Husbands choice.

BL



 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
BL,
In Numbers 5 it is the husband's option to take the wife for an abortion with the priest.
Only in the suspected case of adultery, that’s hardly a choice for abortion, and its offered up to God. I am not aware of any abortion practice in the US or UK which does that.
God exists in all places at all times. Of course He knows everyone all the time.
So why would someone want to abort people God knows in the womb?

Then have sex like rabbits so you can make sure there are lots of bodies for the Holy Spirit to dwell in. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.
No idea what you are talking about. The body, however many or few of them, is a temple for the Holy Spirit, the foetus is that body in development.

Is destroying a seed killing a leaf?
destroying a seed prevents flora which has leaves from developing.

Numbers 5 - Husbands choice.
But it isn’t, the husband in Numbers 5 only has the choice to offer the situation up to God if he suspects it is the result of adultery. Abortion in the UK and US doesn’t happen like that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
Only in the suspected case of adultery, that’s hardly a choice for abortion, and its offered up to God. I am not aware of any abortion practice in the US or UK which does that.

But by this, you admit tha the bible supports abortion for adultery, right?

So why would someone want to abort people God knows in the womb?

Would He know a "person" who would never become a "person"? That's like saying "so why would you not have sex, thus stopping people from existing who God knows already?"

No idea what you are talking about. The body, however many or few of them, is a temple for the Holy Spirit, the foetus is that body in development.

The body is only a temple for Christians - a body in development isn't a place the Holy Spirit can dwell and destroying it is no more jarring to the Holy Spirit than an amputation.

destroying a seed prevents flora which has leaves from developing.

So does preventing fertilization. Why is one okay and not the other?

But it isn’t, the husband in Numbers 5 only has the choice to offer the situation up to God if he suspects it is the result of adultery. Abortion in the UK and US doesn’t happen like that.

You must then supports husbands being able to take their wives for abortion if the fetus is the result of adultery. You can no longer be "pro-life" if you follow the bible.

BL






 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
BL,
But by this, you admit tha the bible supports abortion for adultery, right?
The OT covenant supports offering the judgement to God where there has been conception outside marriage. right?

Would He know a "person" who would never become a "person"? That's like saying "so why would you not have sex, thus stopping people from existing who God knows already?"
By asking such a question it shows you didn’t acknowledge what God’s word says in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Job and the psalms. He does know a person who is a person.
The body is only a temple for Christians - a body in development isn't a place the Holy Spirit can dwell and destroying it is no more jarring to the Holy Spirit than an amputation.
God didn’t create just Christians, He created all people for His purposes, Christians just happen to be those who believe God’s purposes.
So does preventing fertilization. Why is one okay and not the other?
Ask God. God’s word says we are more precious than the sparrows etc.
You must then supports husbands being able to take their wives for abortion if the fetus is the result of adultery. You can no longer be "pro-life" if you follow the bible.
You mean you must, you are the one who seems interested in Number 5, I am interested in following all Christ’s teaching, which is for faithful man/woman union.
 
Upvote 0

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
The OT covenant supports offering the judgement to God where there has been conception outside marriage. right?


And the judgment is applied to an innocent party (assuming your belief is correct). So now God isn't just.

By asking such a question it shows you didn’t acknowledge what God’s word says in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Job and the psalms. He does know a person who is a person.

You've already said:

"I agree with you about the evidence for your assumption for personhood, yet it leaves contradictions as the passages I gave describe God knowing people in the womb, it doesn’t say God knows who they will become, it says God knows them."

So you already acknowledge that you believe a fetus is not yet a person.

God didn’t create just Christians, He created all people for His purposes, Christians just happen to be those who believe God’s purposes.

And they're also the only temples of the Holy Spirit. Neither lost people nor infants nor fetuses are. Your argument that destroying a fetus is destroying a temple of the Holy Spirit is untrue.

Ask God. God’s word says we are more precious than the sparrows etc.

That doesn't answer the question. Both abortion and celebacy prevent people from coming into existence - why is one okay and not the other?

You mean you must, you are the one who seems interested in Number 5, I am interested in following all Christ’s teaching, which is for faithful man/woman union.

So you are uninterested in a chapter of the bible that disagrees with your belief. Would you support removing Numbers 5?

BL







 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
BL,
The OT covenant supports offering the judgement to God where there has been conception outside marriage. right?


And the judgment is applied to an innocent party (assuming your belief is correct). So now God isn't just.
By ‘and’ I assume you accept that the OT covenant supports offering the judgement to God where there has been conception outside marriage, right? So is there an innocent party? Remember Christ came because in Adam all die.

So you already acknowledge that you believe a fetus is not yet a person.
No, you are addressing my acknowledgment of how you made an assumption about a particular passage, but I didn’t acknowledge what you assumed. The foetus is only a developmental stage of the person, God says He knew the people He was speaking to when they were in the womb.

And they're also the only temples of the Holy Spirit. Neither lost people nor infants nor fetuses are.
On the contrary, God created all people for His purposes, the lost and infants don’t yet have the purposes of God.
Your argument that destroying a fetus is destroying a temple of the Holy Spirit is untrue.
No, that’s not what I said, specifically I said destroying the foetus, which is the development of the body is destroying what is being created as a temple for the Holy Spirit.


That doesn't answer the question. Both abortion and celebacy prevent people from coming into existence - why is one okay and not the other?
Why pick celibacy, paedophilia prevents people so does any other murder.


So you are uninterested in a chapter of the bible that disagrees with your belief. Would you support removing Numbers 5?
As Christ fulfilled the OT law and prophets, following Christ means I am interested in Numbers 5, but in the context of the Bible as a whole.


So there is only any possible support for abortion in the Bible under OT law, and where there has been sin, such as assault or maritial unfaithfulness, but the Bible also shows God knows people in the womb and has plans for them, to prosper them and not harm them. (read all Jeremiah)
Not sure how that applies to 21st century western abortion clinics, hopefully you can explain.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BL2KTN

Scholar, Author, Educator
Oct 22, 2010
2,109
83
Tennessee, United States
✟18,144.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
By ‘and’ I assume you accept that the OT covenant supports offering the judgement to God where there has been conception outside marriage, right? So is there an innocent party? Remember Christ came because in Adam all die.


What I am saying is that in Numbes 5, if your theory is correct, then a child dies for the sins of its mother. That is truly unjust.

No, you are addressing my acknowledgment of how you made an assumption about a particular passage, but I didn’t acknowledge what you assumed. The foetus is only a developmental stage of the person, God says He knew the people He was speaking to when they were in the womb.

He said "before the womb" as well. If God transcends time, and theology typically teaches He does, then obviously God knows every person throughout history at all times.

On the contrary, God created all people for His purposes, the lost and infants don’t yet have the purposes of God.

And fetuses don't even have the capacity to obtain the purposes of God, any more than a finger does.

No, that’s not what I said, specifically I said destroying the foetus, which is the development of the body is destroying what is being created as a temple for the Holy Spirit.

Then why does God make it okay to destroy it in Numbers 5? Why does it die without meaning in Ecclesiastes 6? Why does Jesus say that life begins at birth in John 3? Why does Adam become a living soul only after he begins to breath?

What about a deformed fetus that will never develop into a person - is it a potential temple of the Holy Spirit as well?

Why pick celibacy, paedophilia prevents people so does any other murder.

You failed to answer the question - I'll repeat it:

"That doesn't answer the question. Both abortion and celebacy prevent people from coming into existence - why is one okay and not the other?"

Let's see if the third time's a charm.

As Christ fulfilled the OT law and prophets, following Christ means I am interested in Numbers 5, but in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Numbers 5 is a direct commandment from God Himself. Is God contradictory, and thus you have to view the bible "in context" rather than accepting what God says in Numbers 5?

So there is only any possible support for abortion in the Bible under OT law, and where there has been sin, such as assault or maritial unfaithfulness, but the Bible also shows God knows people in the womb and has plans for them, to prosper them and not harm them. (read all Jeremiah)

Jeremiah says he knows people before they're in the womb and has plans for them. You are being untruthful when you cite that verse as showing that persons exist in the womb. However, you now acknowledge that the OT allows abortion where there is sin. So would you allow abortion for pre-marital sex, adultery, rape, etc?

Not sure how that applies to 21st century western abortion clinics, hopefully you can explain.

The OT has God act as the abortionist in the temple - if you'd like to apply that to modern times, I suppose we could have ministers beseech God to abort fetuses in the church.

BL







 
Upvote 0