How Can Abortion Be Biblically Defended?

[SPF]

A fertilized egg is a human being? Learn that in Sunday school science?
When Do Human Beings Begin?
I’m educated enough to know you are misrepresenting your own citations by a mashup definition.
Nice try.

I’m very familiar with that article, have you read it? It completely agrees, supports, and demonstrates that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You cited a resource that is at odds with what you’ve claimed.

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovumrefers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

WWJD?

Jesus would show mercy and tell them to "Go and sin no more." Which is why I emphasize the fact that I am not suggesting that women be executed for abortion. But I am not going to say "Go ahead an commit the sin of murder because it is not my place to tell you no." But I will tell a woman who had an abortion or is considering an abortion to "Go and sin no more."

 

[mark kennedy]

That wasn't an abortion. That was a jealousy offering. Some propose that Numbers 5:11-31 refers to God causing an abortion. The 2011 edition of the NIV mistakenly states that the drink will cause miscarriage in Numbers 5:21-22, 27. However, this is not what the passage is talking about. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text. The only thing that even sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated, but even in that instance, it has nothing to do with pregnancy. Further, the passage does not say that drinking the concoction would cause an abortion/miscarriage. While drinking a poisonous mixture of ingredients could very well cause a miscarriage, that is not what this text is speaking of.

If a wife was found guilty, the punishment was death (Leviticus 20:10). If the wife was found innocent, she would be “cleared of guilt” and “able to have children” (Numbers 11:28). So, again, Numbers 5:11-31 does not refer to abortion in any sense. Rather, it is describing a method that God allowed to be used to determine if a wife had committed adultery against her husband.

The passage literally calls it a miscarriage, sounds like a spontaneous abortion to me.

 

[cow451]

I’m very familiar with that article, have you read it? It completely agrees, supports, and demonstrates that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You cited a resource that is at odds with what you’ve claimed.

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovumrefers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species.

Jesus would show mercy and tell them to "Go and sin no more." Which is why I emphasize the fact that I am not suggesting that women be executed for abortion. But I am not going to say "Go ahead an commit the sin of murder because it is not my place to tell you no." But I will tell a woman who had an abortion or is considering an abortion to "Go and sin no more."

Then why criminalize the victim of rape or incest or the Mother whose life is in danger due to pregnancy complications.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The passage literally calls it a miscarriage, sounds like a spontaneous abortion to me.

BITTER WATER (מֵ֥י הַמָּרִ֖ים; LXX το ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ; water of bitterness). A drink consisting of holy water, dust from the Tabernacle floor, and the ink of a written curse and designed to be used as an “ordeal” to establish the guilt or innocence of a suspected adulteress and, if guilty, to mete out punishment (Num 5:11-31). As such it seems to have been peculiar to Israel among Near Eastern peoples, though ordeals of various kinds are common enough in primitive societies.

Source: The Encyclopedia of the Bible

As you can see, this "Bitter Water" was merely water mixed with dirt and ink that gave a "bitter" taste. It absolutely had no ability to induce a miscarriage. It was nothing more than a more serious version of a "Cross my heart and hope to die." Which is why there is no such example found of anyone actually miscarrying as a result of drinking this "bitter water". They called it a "Jealousy Offering" for a reason. It was because the issue was not the woman's alleged adultery, rather, the man's jealousy and unfounded accusations. By performing this ceremony, the priest is telling the man, unless this woman becomes pregnant and miscarries, you need to get over your jealously.

 

[cow451]

I’m very familiar with that article, have you read it? It completely agrees, supports, and demonstrates that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. You cited a resource that is at odds with what you’ve claimed.

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovumrefers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species.

Which requires that you criminalize non barrier birth control if this is the basis for public policy.

And victims of forced impregnation must carry the pregnancy to its end.

Guard to prisoner:
Congratulations, Dad! Your daughter just had your baby! Think she’ll name it after you?

What is Dr. Irving’s position on abortion law?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then why criminalize the victim of rape or incest or the Mother whose life is in danger due to pregnancy complications.

Nobody is calling a rape victim a "criminal" other than you just now. What is being "criminalized" is the murder of an innocent child and I have clearly provided biblical support for this point of view and you have yet to provide any biblical support to suggest otherwise. That is where we see things different.

 

[cow451]

Nobody is calling a rape victim a "criminal" other than you just now. What is being "criminalized" is the murder of an innocent child and I have clearly provided biblical support for this point of view and you have yet to provide any biblical support to suggest otherwise. That is where we see things different.

A rape victim becomes a criminal if she gets an abortion under the heartbeat laws. I didn’t make that up.
Still waiting for that Biblical support for those forcibly impregnated and those Pregnant Mothers whose lives are at risk.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

A rape victim becomes a criminal if she gets an abortion under the heartbeat laws. I didn’t make that up.
Still waiting for that Biblical support for those forcibly impregnated and those Pregnant Mothers whose lives are at risk.

First, according to the heartbeat law, the doctor who performs the abortion is criminalized (up to 99 years). Not the rape victim. Second, if she is criminalized, which the heartbeat law does not do, it would be for murdering her unborn child. She would be facing the same punishment I would receive if I forced her to miscarry. Or was that the Alabama law?
Third, both Alabama and Georgia have made exceptions for women who require abortions for medical necessity.

 

[mark kennedy]

BITTER WATER (מֵ֥י הַמָּרִ֖ים; LXX το ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ; water of bitterness). A drink consisting of holy water, dust from the Tabernacle floor, and the ink of a written curse and designed to be used as an “ordeal” to establish the guilt or innocence of a suspected adulteress and, if guilty, to mete out punishment (Num 5:11-31). As such it seems to have been peculiar to Israel among Near Eastern peoples, though ordeals of various kinds are common enough in primitive societies.

Source: The Encyclopedia of the Bible

As you can see, this "Bitter Water" was merely water mixed with dirt and ink that gave a "bitter" taste. It absolutely had no ability to induce a miscarriage. It was nothing more than a more serious version of a "Cross my heart and hope to die." Which is why there is no such example found of anyone actually miscarrying as a result of drinking this "bitter water". They called it a "Jealousy Offering" for a reason. It was because the issue was not the woman's alleged adultery, rather, the man's jealousy and unfounded accusations. By performing this ceremony, the priest is telling the man, unless this woman becomes pregnant and miscarries, you need to get over your jealously.

The issue definately is the woman's allegeded adultry, that's the point of the curse in the first place. What's more if she was unfaithful and is now pregnant, her abdomen will swell and she will miscarry. If a woman had a child out of wedlock, both her and the child were exiled. Everything was inherited in that day, a child by another man was unthinkable.

Finally the miscarriage is the result of a divine curse, that means God aborted the pregnancy.

 

[SPF]

Then why criminalize the victim of rape or incest or the Mother whose life is in danger due to pregnancy complications.

Why jump all over the place? Let’s establish one thing before moving on. Given the very resource YOU provided, are you willing to acknowledge now that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization?

If not, why not? If not, what’s left for you to use to support your position?

 

[cow451]

First, according to the heartbeat law, the doctor who performs the abortion is criminalized (up to 99 years). Not the rape victim. Second, if she is criminalized, which the heartbeat law does not do, it would be for murdering her unborn child. She would be facing the same punishment I would receive if I forced her to miscarry. Or was that the Alabama law?
Third, both Alabama and Georgia have made exceptions for women who require abortions for medical necessity.

Excellent job of making my point.

 

[cow451]

Why jump all over the place? Let’s establish one thing before moving on. Given the very resource YOU provided, are you willing to acknowledge now that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization?

If not, why not? If not, what’s left for you to use to support your position?

Got no problem with that definition. Just trying to get you to own where that position leads. I still haven’t heard how you decide whether the Mother or the infant lives when the health of the Mother is at stake?

 

[SPF]

Got no problem with that definition. Just trying to get you to own where that position leads. I still haven’t heard how you decide whether the Mother or the infant lives when the health of the Mother is at stake?

ok great, looks like we are making progress. You agree now that scientifically and biologically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization!

As Christians, am I right in assuming that we also agree that Biblically speaking all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value?

And the Truth leads where the Truth leads. Part of having intellectual and spiritual integrity is allowing the principles we establish to then dictate our practices. The practices don’t dictate the morality.

 

[cow451]

ok great, looks like we are making progress. You agree now that scientifically and biologically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization!

As Christians, am I right in assuming that we also agree that Biblically speaking all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value?

And the Truth leads where the Truth leads. Part of having intellectual and spiritual integrity is allowing the principles we establish to then dictate our practices. The practices don’t dictate the morality.

If you want to carry the Life begins at conception into the secular legal system, you get to own the logical consequences.

 

[SPF]

If you want to carry the Life begins at conception into the secular legal system, you get to own the logical consequences.

I don't know what this means. As Christians, we care about Truth, right? We care about honoring and glorifying God, right?

The fact is that life DOES begin at conception. It's not a matter of whether or not we want to bring it to the secular legal system. What's the alternative? To live a lie? To ignore the truth and make laws according to a lie?

We all get to own the logical consequences of whatever the Truth is.

You've now accepted that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. That's a great first step. The next step is that as a Christian, I assume you also recognize that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

The logical conclusion of those two foundational principles is that all abortions for non-medical emergencies are immoral, is it not?

Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion? If you disagree, what do you think the right and moral and truthful conclusion is?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I don't know what this means. As Christians, we care about Truth, right? We care about honoring and glorifying God, right?

It doesn't matter. In order to justify abortion, one must abandon the word of God. As we clearly see demonstrated time and time again on this thread. "Yeah, I believe the Bible is the word of God, but...."