Is abortion ever acceptable?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What exactly is the scientific evidence only one soul is present?

Romans 9: NASB

10Not only that, but Rebecca’s children were conceived by one man, our father Isaac. 11Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,12not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”c 13So it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (NASB)

Seems God had if all sorted out with Jacob and Esau.

So either you have evidence human beings are soulless up to a certain point or the point fails. And this still evokes the question of Christology.

Jacob and Esau were visible to God for their whole lives from the moment the earth was created and therefore the His ability to choose between them prior to physical birth is not germane to this discussion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You still have not defined what type of brain activity and at what stage of development this magically occurring personhood begins.

Nor have you defined what a soul is and how it magically gets inserted. Look, I know you sense you are losing because you are now resorting to buzz words like "magically" as an argument, but buzz words can work both ways in these cases.

 

[kiwimac]

According the the bible an unborn foetus is of little value. Life, according to the Bible at least, begins at first breath.

 

[redleghunter]

Jacob and Esau were visible to God for their whole lives from the moment the earth was created and therefore the His ability to choose between them prior to physical birth is not germane to this discussion.

It is relevant. You used the example of twins and chimeras as a point we do not have souls early in development. Such situations are not limited to God’s sovereignty.

 

[redleghunter]

Nor have you defined what a soul is and how it magically gets inserted.

With my argument that we are created in the image and according to the likeness of God does not have a problem with when we have souls. As being created in the image and likeness of God there is no point in human development where we are not human.

It is incumbent upon you since you deny we are not human beings before some arbitrary point of brain activity which you have not defined, to present the evidence contrary to conception.

Look, I know you sense you are losing because you are now resorting to buzz words like "magically" as an argument, but buzz words can work both ways in these cases.

It is magical because you have not presented a premise to even support your assertions.

How could I be “losing” when you haven’t even got out of the starting gate?

 

[redleghunter]

According the the bible an unborn foetus is of little value. Life, according to the Bible at least, begins at first breath.

Care to back up your assertion?

 

[kiwimac]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[redleghunter]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Was Adam ever a fetus?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

With my argument that we are created in the image and according to the likeness of God does not have a problem with when we have souls. As being created in the image and likeness of God there is no point in human development where we are not human.

You didn't point out why there is such a connection between the two ideas; you just assert it exists.

And you are confusing the word "human" with the word "person". I have a human toe, my toe is not a person. The words are not the same.

 

[redleghunter]

You didn't point out why there is such a connection between the two ideas; you just assert it exists.

The soul or spirit of a human being does not exist?

And you are confusing the word "human" with the word "person"

No difference. Person is defined as a human being regarded as an individual. If you have a different definition let's have it.

At conception the 23 chromosomes from the mother and father create a distinct (from mother and father) human being. That's settled biology for the past 100 years.

. I have a human toe, my toe is not a person.

You have a toe. Tell me when you beget/father a toe.
Your toe is not a person because it is not its own distinct individual.

 

[kiwimac]

Was Adam ever a fetus?

No, but according to Jewish theology a fetus becomes human at first breath.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

The ones who speak of the functioning brain are the winners.

Please can you provide the Biblical reference that states that a person becomes a person once they have a functioning brain. (And if only those with functioning brains are 'people', would you support the killing of adults whose brains cease to function? Presumably, they lose their soul at this point, according to your beliefs?)

Look at the creation of Adam. First came the molding of his body. Then came the breath of life into the body. If somebody had marred the body before the breath of life Adam could have been made anew with no harm done.

Seriously? And how many others have been brought into the world in the way that Adam has?

According the the bible an unborn foetus is of little value. Life, according to the Bible at least, begins at first breath.

Scripture reference for this please?

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This is referring to Adam who was created as an adult (man), directly by God. I don't see how you can compare this to the conception, development and birth of a foetus.

No, but according to Jewish theology a fetus becomes human at first breath.

I'm not really interested in Jewish or any other kind of theology without Scripture to back it up. 'Theology' has come up with all sorts of ideas, including totally contradictory ones. So, please back up your claim with the Scripture references this theology comes from.

 

[betterorworse]

Some pro-lifers say that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest. But this logic doesn’t make sense because they believe life begins at conception. To kill an unborn baby who is the product of rape or incest is like killing a 2-year-old because his father was a rapist or pervert.

I can start off saying that I personally do not believe in abortion(killing babies). Jesus says do not kill. So that is very easy to understand.

After that I cannot say you know. I can't imagine any child growing up to be so evil that they want to rape or lie for they're own gain.

I suppose I'd have to say that God is The Judge.

 

[betterorworse]

Some pro-lifers say that abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest. But this logic doesn’t make sense because they believe life begins at conception. To kill an unborn baby who is the product of rape or incest is like killing a 2-year-old because his father was a rapist or pervert.

I'm so sorry to hear that you were raped Annie Proclivite if you were and are now having a child.

 

[Zoii]

We live in an age of advanced medical technology. When would the mother’s life be at risk with all our modern tools?

Ectopic pregnancy
Carcinoma
Severe and poorly controlled psychosis
Severe and unresolved depression with high risk of suicide
Non-viable embryo
Placental abruption
Cardiomyopathy with low cardiac index
malignant hypertension
Pulmonary hypertension
uncontrolled preeclampsia
Intrauterine sepsis
Marfans syndrome

The list goes on and on.....AND thats just of you live in a developed nation with great medical services

All the comments criticising women need to remember that in countries with limited medical services, they do not the sophisticated services required to manage a massive array of conditions that are exacerbated during pregnancy which is why the maternal death rate is so much higher in developed nations.

It makes me angry some of the smug comments I hear here judging these women, and I wonder how they would react with a gun against there head.

 

[dreadnought]

You didn’t answer my question.

If it just so happens that the unborn innocent baby does have a soul, is it just to kill the innocent baby because of “how” it came into this world?

We know for a fact that the lady was raped. We don't know for a fact whether or not the baby has a soul, yet. Yes, I say it's just. Would you allow an abortion if the mother might die by giving birth?

 

[dreadnought]

Where’s the Justice in allowing another human being be killed for not doing anything other than live?

We don't know if that human being has a soul, yet. We do know that the mother has been raped. Where is her justice? Would you allow an abortion if the mother might die by giving birth?

 

[Archivist]

Other than asserting carrying a child to term is slavery, I’ve seen absolutely no evidence one is comparable to the other.

Maybe a third wave feminist argument which puts all pregnancies as invasive to women.

Your slavery assertion can be applied to abortion on demand for any cause.

You have failed to attribute who is enslaving the woman.

Among the definitions of slavery is this one: "a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom."

Requiring a rape victim to carry the fetus to term certainly meets that definition.

 

[Archivist]

Please explain the justice of the premeditated killing of the unborn child.

Please explain the justice of punishing a rape victim twice by forcing her to carry the fetus to term against her will.

 

[SPF]

The ones who speak of the functioning brain are the winners.

What I presented was a logical argument with premises and conclusions. What you are presenting is exactly what unsupported pronouncements are.

Look at what happens when development goes wrong. Tragically, some infants form without a cerebral cortex. No possibility of thinking can exist there. There is no soul present in such a case. Abortion would be an innocent way of handling such a case.

Again, another example of an unsupported pronouncement. You're falling prey to "begging the question" fallacy in almost everything you say. You're nakedly asserting that there is no soul. You haven't explained why there is no soul. You haven't logically, or Biblically explained where Scripture teaches that a brain must be present for a soul to be present.

Once again your mere pronouncements don't bend reality your way.

My post has premises and a conclusion. Your refusal to engage with the premises and provide any content to respond to only demonstrates your lack of understanding in this subject.

The evidence of twins from a single fertilization was presented. It proves mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. The evidence of chimera births was presented. It proves the mere fertilization does not set the number of souls to come. Your own assertions are the ones without evidence.

Thanks to science we have a much better understanding of when a new human being comes into existence. The cases of twins and chimeras in no way refute the notion of human beings having souls from their beginnings.

All it means is that in the case of twins for example, one twin had a soul before the other twin as they came into existence at different points in time. That's how God chose to bring them into existence. In the case of a chimera, that's tragic. The entrance of sin into the world has caused so much to go wrong. In that case, you did have two, and one died, and you ended up with one.

But nothing in those cases serve as an argument against a human being having a soul from its beginning.

The simple reality is that you're pronouncing, without any objective support, that there is a difference between a human being and a human person and that only human persons are created in the image of God. You, without support, pronounce you are correct in where you draw the line as opposed to where other people draw the line on when personhood begins.

Until you can provide some sort of logical, supported argument that resides in something beyond your own opinion on why there exists a difference between a human being and a human person, I see no reason why anyone should accept your blind pronouncements.