my take on abortion:

[SPF]

No! Read it again, it's life for life, eye for an eye if the MOTHER dies, if ONLY the child dies, but the mother is fine, there's a fine to be paid, and ONLY if the father so deems. Execution =/= fine.

Since you're still not understanding the passage again, I'll help clarify it better for you.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury [to the baby], he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

There, I hope that helps clarify the passage for you.

Now, as for everything else, you haven't actually contributed anything of substance to this conversation. My Reply #38 actually did a great job of setting you up to present an argument or provide something of substance to respond to.

 

[RaymondG]

Since you're still not understanding the passage again, I'll help clarify it better for you.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury [to the baby], he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

There, I hope that helps clarify the passage for you.

Now, as for everything else, you haven't actually contributed anything of substance to this conversation. My Reply #38 actually did a great job of setting you up to present an argument or provide something of substance to respond to.

It seems to me, as well, that this passage is talking about injury to the woman. E.g. If the only injury is that she gives birth, pay a fine, But if striking the woman leads to further injury..or death , the other judgements occur. Foot for foot. Wound for wound, eye for eye...burn for burn...etc...can only applie to the woman being hit.....as it is unlikely for these types of individual injuries to occur in the wound..... This is, of course, if we are taking these passages to be literal.

 

[Armoured]

Since you're still not understanding the passage again, I'll help clarify it better for you.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury [to the baby], he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

There, I hope that helps clarify the passage for you.

What translation is that from?

Now, as for everything else, you haven't actually contributed anything of substance to this conversation. My Reply #38 actually did a great job of setting you up to present an argument or provide something of substance to respond to.

Your refusal to address or acknowledge my points doesn't make them invalid.

 

[Armoured]

And it is genocide, according to how I see that we can apply > Genesis 25:22-24. And in this scripture the unborn are called "children", in my Bible translation.

God is the One who knows and has the say about who is in a person's womb. And He has been forming the unborn person; so the unborn person first is His, I would say

By what possible definition of "genocide"??

 

[com7fy8]

By what possible definition of "genocide"??

By the definition which I understand God would mean through Genesis 25:22-24.

He says there are "two nations" in Rebecca's womb. So, to me this means God is saying each of the unborn was a nation. So, if you killed one of them, you would be killing the whole nation which could have descended from the one you killed. And killing off a nation of people, I understand, is or can be a form of genocide.

What word would you use for killing a whole nation of people . . . or aborting a whole nation from arising from an individual, for that matter?

 

[One Of The Elect]

I Study Biotechnology , so i know some stuff about embryons.
I am against abortion because it is considered murder, and since the baby has no choice, but to have a parasitical relationship to the mother until it is born, the baby could be considered sort of an Hostage to the mother. So not only she is killing a baby, she is also killing a hostage on life support.
Anyway.
The moment a Blastocyst is formed, it is just a multicelular "egg" or capsule . A Blastocyst is a mass of cells composed of 2 layers, a inner mass of stem cells, and a outer mass of cells that will transform into the placenta later.
A Blastocys is not a embryo yet, it is still a mass of stem cells, which are cells that have no specific function yet. The Blastocyst will have to go trough a brief stage of growth so the Embryo can be formed from 3 types of Stem Cells that will originate 3 base types of tissues.
During this stage, i cannot consider this to be murder, because it is not yet an human being. It HAS the potential of becoming one, but it is still a ball of cells.
HOWEVER, once the blastocyst transforms into a embryo , which happens 4 weeks if not mistaken ( I can be, because i dont know the numbers by head), it is already considered a human creature, and it is a human creature in a "Hostage" relationship with the mother. Anything that enters the mother will also be absorbed into the child. So, by definition of MURDER, if the embryo stops living (which is already living, has a circualtory system already,etc), then it is dead. Now it can be considered murder if it was intentional ofcourse. There are many abortions that happen by accident, like falling ,etc.

Now the best way to not abort is not getting pregnant, simply.
And in case of rape, just have the baby and give it up to adoption, simple.
The Lord commanded : You Shall Not Kill. So , if you do an abortion , the best thing you can do is confess, and repent , because if you don't, you know where you are going.

Do you know where abortion and when abortion came on the scene 200-150 BC this is about 4009yrs ago. Do you know who introduced it to man? The Watchers. 1 Book of Enoch .It was called "(To Dash) a child in the womb" They also taught man how to make tinctures to make women barren as not to loose their" Comely Forms". CONTRACEPTION RIGHT? God hated the teachings of the Watchers then and hates it now.
Man has not happened upon some new knowledge - ECCLESIASTES 1:9 " What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

LUKE 17:26 "As in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man." Christ has told us the state of the world before His second coming would be like in the days of Noah. It is unfortunate that most do not see what is going on.
Proverbs- 6:16-19 '"There are six things which the Lord hates, seven which are an abomination to Him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue and hands which shed innocent , a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that
make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breaths out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers."
ABORTION FACT: (50,000,000) children across the glob every year die through abortion!
SAVE THE CHILDREN FROM ADULTERY, FORNICATION AND ALL SELFISHNESS!

Question? When is a child considered to be a life? YOU ANSWER.
1. Is a human being a life? Yes or No
2. Are you alive? Yes or No
3. Is a pregnant woman going into an abortion clinic alive? Yes or No
4. Does not all life have a beginning? Yes or No
5. Does not all life have a growth process? Yes or No
6. Does life beget life? Yes or No
7. Can a corpse conceive, sustain and bring forth life? Yes or No
8. Does a baby come by a male and female, a woman and a man? Yes or No

There is no debate, look at the questions and you will see. We beget life at the moment of conception. No one has a right to take innocent life. Now many try and argue in the instance of Rape and Incest abortion is ok. This is only 1% of this abortion mess. And knowing who Christ is , even under this terrible circumstance I believe that a child should be put in God's hands. This may be a radical stand to some but, think about who Christ is? This is only 1% of the abortions performed that fall into this category. If the abortions that are preformed on woman who are sinning, are taken away how many children would be saved?

 

[Armoured]

By the definition which I understand God would mean through Genesis 25:22-24.

He says there are "two nations" in Rebecca's womb. So, to me this means God is saying each of the unborn was a nation. So, if you killed one of them, you would be killing the whole nation which could have descended from the one you killed. And killing off a nation of people, I understand, is or can be a form of genocide.

What word would you use for killing a whole nation of people . . . or aborting a whole nation from arising from an individual, for that matter?

But abortion doesn't kill a whole nation of people, so I'm really not following your logic? It's not Rebecca having an abortion we're talking about, right? Or do you think that the whole two nations thing pertains to every woman's womb? I'm honestly not following.

 

[SPF]

Your refusal to address or acknowledge my points doesn't make them invalid.

I'm not sure what points you have made that I have yet to acknowledge or respond to, can you actually provide them instead of randomly saying this?

I don't think we are going to be able to have much of a conversation as you still have not provided much of anything of substance to discuss. For instance, your response to this: "Actually, the burden of proof rests with the person attempting to make the claim that there exists a distinction between a human being and a human person. No distinction exists outside of an entirely arbitrary and subjective line of reasoning." was a really deep, meaningful, and helpful response of "nonsense".

Unfortunately, that kind of response is tantamount to well, nothing. If you disagree with this, please explain how the burden of proof rests with the person holding the negative position.

Furthermore, I invited you to present a position when I asked this: "If you believe there is a distinction between a human being and a human person, I welcome and invite you to attempt an objective argument for why such a distinction should exist." Unfortunately, the extent of your response consisted of: "Self awareness is the big one." Anyone with even a high school education would recognize that your response is not an argument. Indeed, all you did was provide a subjective opinion.

I tried to help you out again by responding to this with: "What does this mean? Does this mean that your position is that there exists a distinction between a human being and a human person and that the difference lies in self awareness? Well, if this is your position, you need to first establish why there exists a difference between a human and a human person, and then you need to actually explain why self awareness is what distinguishes the too. Naked assertions are empty and meaningless."

So I'm not really sure what to say at this point other than it doesn't seem like you have much to actually contribute towards the discussion.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. Science tells us that human life begins at conception. Scripture tells us that all human life is inherently morally valuable and created in the image of God. This logically leads us to a place where terminating the innocent life inside a mother's womb for convenience sake is morally wrong.

People have tried to justify abortion by fabricating a subjective and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. But that distinction is again, necessarily subjective and arbitrary, and the only reason that one would attempt to create the distinction would be that some act may be committed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral. If you (or anyone else) disagrees, I welcome an actual argument as to why the distinction between a human and a human person is actually real, and how we know where the line is.

 

[com7fy8]

But abortion doesn't kill a whole nation of people, so I'm really not following your logic?

The LORD is the One who called the two babies "nations". So, to me this means that killing one of them would be killing a nation, if each child was a nation, which it appears to me that God did say.

So, abortion can kill the whole nation which could arise from that baby. This is what I mean. And so each abortion could be considered genocide, not only murder.

If you do not get this from how the LORD called them "two nations", then what do you get from it, please?

 

[redleghunter]

A Blastocys is not a embryo yet, it is still a mass of stem cells, which are cells that have no specific function yet. The Blastocyst will have to go trough a brief stage of growth so the Embryo can be formed from 3 types of Stem Cells that will originate 3 base types of tissues.
During this stage, i cannot consider this to be murder, because it is not yet an human being. It HAS the potential of becoming one, but it is still a ball of cells.

Thank you for explaining the micro functions of embryology. It is great to have you here on this site. On the above, all of the above, however, is part of embryonic development. The only part of your quote above is where you apply an analysis of whether a 'ball of cells' is human life. Biologically it is, as at conception what exists is a new distinct human life 23+23=46 human chromosomes. Scientifically speaking what is there regardless of how microscopic is a human being (of the species homo sapiens). Of course people can debate and argue if a 'ball of cells' are a moral person, or discuss "personhood" but these terms are philosophical and not medical or scientific. Therefore, the pro-choice argument is not science or evidenced based and relies on philosophy to rationalize 'what is human life.'

HOWEVER, once the blastocyst transforms into a embryo , which happens 4 weeks if not mistaken ( I can be, because i dont know the numbers by head), it is already considered a human creature, and it is a human creature in a "Hostage" relationship with the mother. Anything that enters the mother will also be absorbed into the child. So, by definition of MURDER, if the embryo stops living (which is already living, has a circualtory system already,etc), then it is dead. Now it can be considered murder if it was intentional of course. There are many abortions that happen by accident, like falling ,etc.

The embryonic stage is defined as week 5 to week 11.

An embryo is an early stage of development of a multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism. In general, in organisms that reproduce sexually, an embryo develops from a zygote, the single cell resulting from the fertilization of the female egg cell by the male sperm cell. The zygote possesses half the DNA of each of its two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.


In humans, a pregnancy is generally considered to be in the embryonic stage of development between the fifth and the eleventh weeks after fertilization,[1] and is expressed as a fetus from the twelfth week. (Embryo - Wikipedia)

Yet week 5 is well past implantation if that is what you were wanting to convey. That happens day 8 or day 9 after fertilization. However, again I take you back to fertilization/conception. Our entire genetic blueprint is present at conception. And it is a human blueprint. How can we use biology to deny what happens at conception is not human? If it is not human, then what is it? A ball of cells is what you said but that lacks a modifier. A ball of what cells? We know the genetic makeup of that ball of cells came from a union of one male and one female to create a distinct genetic makeup. Therefore, what is there is a human ball of cells as is at birth a human bundle of joy.

Again, people are entitled to their opinion on when they think a pre-born human being is actually a human being, philosophically speaking. However, scientifically from conception we are all human beings. Human beings are defined scientifically as having the genetic make up of the species homo sapiens.

Again, the pro-choice view ignores the science or is ignorant of it. They have to argue from a position of relativism by using terms of 'it's a choice', 'personhood, redefining human being. There are so many varying views it gets confusing (brain function, heartbeat, actual birth, personal moral worth). The list of relative subjective definitions is staggering.

When it comes down to Christians the matter is very easy to determine theologically.

We should ask ourselves the question from the perspective of the Incarnation. When did Jesus Christ become human?

 

[JCFantasy23]

And in case of rape, just have the baby and give it up to adoption, simple.

I'm against abortion, but I have to say I seriously disagree with this statement. It is not simple to be pregnant and give birth - it's a difficult thing for the body to endure. Psychologically it is difficult to carry a baby as the product of rape. Adoption is never simple either.

 

[Vicomte13]

God

Correct.

Look at Genesis, the lineage of the patriarchs. Lives are measured from the time of their begetting by their fathers. A father's participation in "begetting" lasts a very brief moment: when sperm joins with egg. It does not speak of life from birth, but from begetting by the father. So yes, the Bible does state that life begins at conception.

You are also correcting in reading the Fifth Commandment as prohibiting killing. That's the word. Intentional killing is prohibited by God. The only killing God permits us, in Scripture (unless we are Hebrews, specifically, conquering Canaan), is the execution of those who have killed others. The ability to defend one's self from attack is implicit in Jesus' telling the apostles to buckle on swords in his absence.

Where things get more problematic is in the assumption that the 5th Commandment applies to anybody but Hebrews in Israel.

But God proscribed the shedding of blood before Sinai. And Jesus included intentional killing on both lists of things that will get you thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

 

[Armoured]

The LORD is the One who called the two babies "nations". So, to me this means that killing one of them would be killing a nation, if each child was a nation, which it appears to me that God did say.

So, abortion can kill the whole nation which could arise from that baby. This is what I mean. And so each abortion could be considered genocide, not only murder.

If you do not get this from how the LORD called them "two nations", then what do you get from it, please?

God was talking about those two specific babies, not every baby. Further, it's a metaphor. The babies aren't actual nations.

 

[Armoured]

I'm not sure what points you have made that I have yet to acknowledge or respond to, can you actually provide them instead of randomly saying this?

I don't think we are going to be able to have much of a conversation as you still have not provided much of anything of substance to discuss. For instance, your response to this: "Actually, the burden of proof rests with the person attempting to make the claim that there exists a distinction between a human being and a human person. No distinction exists outside of an entirely arbitrary and subjective line of reasoning." was a really deep, meaningful, and helpful response of "nonsense".

Unfortunately, that kind of response is tantamount to well, nothing. If you disagree with this, please explain how the burden of proof rests with the person holding the negative position.

Furthermore, I invited you to present a position when I asked this: "If you believe there is a distinction between a human being and a human person, I welcome and invite you to attempt an objective argument for why such a distinction should exist." Unfortunately, the extent of your response consisted of: "Self awareness is the big one." Anyone with even a high school education would recognize that your response is not an argument. Indeed, all you did was provide a subjective opinion.

I tried to help you out again by responding to this with: "What does this mean? Does this mean that your position is that there exists a distinction between a human being and a human person and that the difference lies in self awareness? Well, if this is your position, you need to first establish why there exists a difference between a human and a human person, and then you need to actually explain why self awareness is what distinguishes the too. Naked assertions are empty and meaningless."

So I'm not really sure what to say at this point other than it doesn't seem like you have much to actually contribute towards the discussion.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. Science tells us that human life begins at conception. Scripture tells us that all human life is inherently morally valuable and created in the image of God. This logically leads us to a place where terminating the innocent life inside a mother's womb for convenience sake is morally wrong.

People have tried to justify abortion by fabricating a subjective and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. But that distinction is again, necessarily subjective and arbitrary, and the only reason that one would attempt to create the distinction would be that some act may be committed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral. If you (or anyone else) disagrees, I welcome an actual argument as to why the distinction between a human and a human person is actually real, and how we know where the line is.

Keep calling the fundamental issue "subjective" or "arbitrary". By all means. Do it another hundred times, if you like. It won't change the fundamental fact that foetuses are not self aware, thus not morally comparable to actual people..

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus was Jesus in Mary, as soon as Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

Exactly. Theologically speaking Christians cannot escape the fact Jesus both fully God and fully human. He had a beginning, humanly speaking, and it was conception.

One can refute many heresies and errors looking to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Armoured]

Correct.

Look at Genesis, the lineage of the patriarchs. Lives are measured from the time of their begetting by their fathers. A father's participation in "begetting" lasts a very brief moment: when sperm joins with egg. It does not speak of life from birth, but from begetting by the father. So yes, the Bible does state that life begins at conception.

You are also correcting in reading the Fifth Commandment as prohibiting killing. That's the word. Intentional killing is prohibited by God. The only killing God permits us, in Scripture (unless we are Hebrews, specifically, conquering Canaan), is the execution of those who have killed others. The ability to defend one's self from attack is implicit in Jesus' telling the apostles to buckle on swords in his absence.

Where things get more problematic is in the assumption that the 5th Commandment applies to anybody but Hebrews in Israel.

But God proscribed the shedding of blood before Sinai. And Jesus included intentional killing on both lists of things that will get you thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

Wht translation are you using?

 

[redleghunter]

A Embryo (when it is past Blastocyst phase) Is a living human creature, therefore , by willingly ending his\her life, you are comiting murder.

I'll ask again...why this stage? If we are not humans at the blastocyst phase then what are we?

 

[Vicomte13]

Wht translation are you using?

None. Hebrew. Massoretic Text: Leningrad Codex.

 

[redleghunter]

i wouldnt say that life begins at conception tho. I would say it starts when a blastocyst becomes an embryo. But either way, most pregnancies are detected during the embryonic phase so it would be murder if an abortion takes place.
An embryo has all the basic characteristics of a human being:
Genome, vascular system, and a basic nervous system

Yet at conception we have all the genetic makeup of who we are. A separate and distinct human life from the mother and father.

 

[redleghunter]

Is there any other law of Moses were someone paid a monetary penalty if there was no loss to the other person?

Please share.