What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

[TomZzyzx]

Please cite sources for the three statements I have bolded and reddened. You're just making up "facts."

I'll address them in order.

1) Christians are in a minority on this earth. There are larger religions that feel abortion is immoral. Your statement is a fabrication.

2) Christian tradition has the dead being buried (and cremated rarely) based on many accounts in the bible. God Himself buried Moses. It is the fitting end for a human life. If you're trying to say that burial is unimportant for everybody, you have a long, hard path of explaining that. The point is that Christian dispose properly of their dead, but not dead embryos. Why?

3) An embryo is a human being like a can of paint is a masterpiece of art. It is an opportunity, not an existence. Nobody cries over spilled paint.

And, in answer to your question: It is okay to abort an embryo because it fails the test for determining whether it is alive. Fire actually passes that test with a higher score in that fire consumes, replicates, and responds to outside stimulus. Late term fetuses may also pass this test, but embryos do not.

Why? Because embryos are not alive. They are more akin to ovarian cysts.

Ok, now that we've determined your logic to be based on biased and fabricated information, let's see what the bible says:

Exodus (KJV)

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

In other words, a loss of an unborn fetus is not the same as the loss of birthed baby.

I'm not making this up, as you seem to be doing in your posts. I'm stating a fact that the bible is very clear at distinguishing the difference in value between a fetus and a baby.

Here's another translation for clarity's sake:

22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [u]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life

This translation that shows that "life for a life" does not apply in the destruction of a fetus. Why? A fetus is not biblically "alive."

I did make one mistake, I didn't specify that I was talking about The United States of America when I said, "most pro life advocates are Christian". If the unborn is not a human life then what kind of life is it? Dog, cat, monkey, maybe fish. Humans beings produce human life. Each species produces after is own kind. Embryologist have already affirmed this. life begins at conception.

This is not my logic. Scientists generally agree that anything that exhibits Irritability (reaction to stimuli), Metabolism (converting food to energy) and Cellular Reproduction (growth) is alive. The unborn exhibits all three. Now that sounds like good logic. Ovarian cysts don't grow into human beings.

In both of your biblical examples there is no "destruction of a fetus". They say "she gives birth prematurely". The unborn is born alive. Then it goes on to say "but if there is any further injury" (to the baby) then you shall appoint a penalty life for life. Which means whatever injury there is to the unborn/baby , then whoever struck the woman will pay life or life. Sounds like God does consider the unborn alive.

 

[LawsonAlan]

I did make one mistake, I didn't specify that I was talking about The United States of America when I said, "most pro life advocates are Christian". If the unborn is not a human life then what kind of life is it? Dog, cat, monkey, maybe fish. Humans beings produce human life. Each species produces after is own kind. Embryologist have already affirmed this. life begins at conception.

This is not my logic. Scientists generally agree that anything that exhibits Irritability (reaction to stimuli), Metabolism (converting food to energy) and Cellular Reproduction (growth) is alive. The unborn exhibits all three. Now that sounds like good logic. Ovarian cysts don't grow into human beings.

In both of your biblical examples there is no "destruction of a fetus". They say "she gives birth prematurely". The unborn is born alive. Then it goes on to say "but if there is any further injury" (to the baby) then you shall appoint a penalty life for life. Which means whatever injury there is to the unborn/baby , then whoever struck the woman will pay life or life. Sounds like God does consider the unborn alive.

The Talmud says that a fetus is its mothers thigh (Hulin 58a and Gittin 23b), and it has no legal rights. Even once the birth process starts the fetus can be destroyed to save the women from physical or mental harm. In order for a fetus to be considered a nefesh adam (a living person), its head must have emerged from the birth canal. Sanhedrin 72b states: it (the fetus) is not a person and therefore its life is inferior to its mothers life.

If it was a live birth the verse in Exodus would have said something like "Tinoch ha' nolad". "tinoch" being the word for baby or infant. The verse HAS ALWAYS been translated by the Jews to mean miscarriage.

But nice try.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The Talmud says that a fetus is its mothers thigh (Hulin 58a and Gittin 23b), and it has no legal rights. Even once the birth process starts the fetus can be destroyed to save the women from physical or mental harm. In order for a fetus to be considered a nefesh adam (a living person), its head must have emerged from the birth canal. Sanhedrin 72b states: it (the fetus) is not a person and therefore its life is inferior to its mothers life.

If it was a live birth the verse in Exodus would have said something like "Tinoch ha' nolad". "tinoch" being the word for baby or infant. The verse HAS ALWAYS been translated by the Jews to mean miscarriage.

But nice try.

What, Am I Jewish? Do I live in Israel? Why would I believe what the Talmud says? If your Jewish and believe the Talmud teaches that it's ok to have an abortion then that's up to you, but your not going to convince me that abortions are ok because a book that I don't believe in says so.

But nice try.

I guess since medical science proves that the unborn is a human being, you have to look for another way to justify abortions.

 

[LawsonAlan]

What, Am I Jewish? Do I live in Israel? Why would I believe what the Talmud says? If your Jewish and believe the Talmud teaches that it's ok to have an abortion then that's up to you, but your not going to convince me that abortions are ok because a book that I don't believe in says so.

But nice try.

I guess since medical science proves that the unborn is a human being, you have to look for another way to justify abortions.

Do not forget that before Christ, God spoke to the Jews. They wrote Exodus in Hebrew.

Now, while many current translations in English include the word "miscarriage," we should not hesitate to look into how the Jews understand these scriptures because it is in their own language.

You don't need to be Jewish to understand that Jews are convinced these passages say "miscarriage" when they read it in their own language.

Just because the Nicean Council decided to include the Jewish Scriptures into the Christian bible and translate them in a way you could possibly misunderstand does not change what these scriptures say.

They say miscarriage, as every Jewish scholar understands them, and is evidenced by the law that progressed from these scriptures into the Talmud.

When the text is Hebrew, you might as well take a Hebrew's word when it comes to understanding it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Do not forget that before Christ, God spoke to the Jews. They wrote Exodus in Hebrew.

Now, while many current translations in English include the word "miscarriage," we should not hesitate to look into how the Jews understand these scriptures because it is in their own language.

You don't need to be Jewish to understand that Jews are convinced these passages say "miscarriage" when they read it in their own language.

Just because the Nicean Council decided to include the Jewish Scriptures into the Christian bible and translate them in a way you could possibly misunderstand does not change what these scriptures say.

They say miscarriage, as every Jewish scholar understands them, and is evidenced by the law that progressed from these scriptures into the Talmud.

When the text is Hebrew, you might as well take a Hebrew's word when it comes to understanding it.

How about those Mets?

I don't know what to say Alan. I'm not Jewish so there is no reason to believe what the Talmud teaches.

First you give me bad reasons for abortions, and when I refute them you give me teachings from the Talmud. Which I might consider, if I was Jewish.

Any way, I believe abortions kill innocent human beings, and I will continue to argue that way in an effort to convince women to stop having abortions, except in the case that a woman's life is in danger.

 

[LawsonAlan]

How about those Mets?

I don't know what to say Alan. I'm not Jewish so there is no reason to believe what the Talmud teaches.

First you give me bad reasons for abortions, and when I refute them you give me teachings from the Talmud. Which I might consider, if I was Jewish.

Any way, I believe abortions kill innocent human beings, and I will continue to argue that way in an effort to convince women to stop having abortions, except in the case that a woman's life is in danger.

Fine, like I said early on, there would be no abortions in a perfect world and that if you think it's wrong, you shouldn't have one.

My only argument is that I don't support the government meddling with a woman's right to choose.

And, if that woman is a Christian, and she reads the bible, and she reads Exodus, and she comes to the conclusion that an embryo is not valued by God the same worth that a birthed human is, she is well within her rights.

Why, because Exodus says what it says.

You may think it says something different, but to those who read it in Hebrew, it is very clear. Miscarried embryos are not valued the same way as human life.

As proof, i cited the Talmud, which i can understand if you don't weigh with any merit.

But the actual verse in question is not in the Talmud, but in Exodus, which is quite biblical.

So, you're actually ignoring the bible by cherry-picking a translation that allows you a loophole to misunderstand it.

But here's one translation that you cannot deny. It's the Bible, btw.

The New American Standard Bible Says:
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty 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." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

The Revised Standard Bible Says:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Ignore the Talmud all you want.

If you deny these translations accuracy, then you need to look into views of actual Hebrews. And they all know it means miscarriage . . .

 

[brightmorningstar]

But isn't the potential for human life just almost or just as important as human life?

Yes and more prescisely..

Consider myself. At one point, I was an unborn fetus who was unware. At the time, my mother had a right to abort me. 9 months later I am now a functioning being. The potential was always the same, but yet it is somewhat more justifiable to terminate a human-in-the-making than it is to kill a born baby.

The key point being, what the pro-choice say wasnt you, obviously was you. Same for everyone, it was me who was the foetus developing as me.

Not sure why this logically obvious and observable point is missed.

 

[brightmorningstar]

My only argument is that I don't support the government meddling with a woman's right to choose.

What right? And who are you to speak for the unborn?
According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights it is not the right you claim it is.
No such rights are mentioned, abortion isnt mentioned and there is a right of motherhood. Destroy the unborn and it ceases to be motherhood, the right is to motherhood.

 

[brightmorningstar]

And, if that woman is a Christian, and she reads the bible, and she reads Exodus, and she comes to the conclusion that an embryo is not valued by God the same worth that a birthed human is, she is well within her rights.

And if shje reads Psalm 139, Job, Jeremiah 1, Luke etc and exodius properly she will see God knows the child in the womb, and she will then know she has no right to murder what God has created when she chose to have sexual intercourse.

 

[brightmorningstar]

But here's one translation that you cannot deny. It's the Bible, btw.

Why not? You seem to be ignoring Psalm 139, Job, Jeremiah etc.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury"

So how does that relate to the woman's choice to abort? That shows the premature coming out (a better transaltion than miscarriage) is due to men fighting (hardly a Godly act), and causing some harm to the woman.

 

[LawsonAlan]

Look up the definition of miscarriage and ask yourself if the fetus survives.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Look up the definition of miscarriage and ask yourself if the fetus survives.

No I wont need to waste my time with that seeing as it wasn't the point put to you.

BTW the word in Hebrew is yalad to issue prematurely usually birth.

 

[LawsonAlan]

No I wont need to waste my time with that seeing as it wasn't the point put to you.

BTW the word in Hebrew is yalad to issue prematurely usually birth.

Your argument has already been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

If you find the word "miscarriage" to be a translational error, then look into the Hebrew's interpretation of their own word as evidenced in their own laws.

If you do not want to "waste time" properly educating yourself on this topic, you're perfectly welcome to continue tooting the horn of misinformation.

I just can't take a lazy view as a serious view.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Your argument has already been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

If you find the word "miscarriage" to be a translational error, then look into the Hebrew's interpretation of their own word as evidenced in their own laws.

If you do not want to "waste time" properly educating yourself on this topic, you're perfectly welcome to continue tooting the horn of misinformation.

I just can't take a lazy view as a serious view.

Actually, we never finished discussing Exodus 21:22. Just because the Jews interpret yatsa' as miscarriage doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. They've been known to misinterpret other verses before (all the messianic verses about Jesus to name a few). Yatsa' means "to come out" and has no connotation of the baby being dead when it comes out. The is another word that could have been used instead of yatsa' that means "to miscarry" if the writer of Exodus wanted us to believe that they baby was born dead.

 

[LawsonAlan]

Actually, we never finished discussing Exodus 21:22. Just because the Jews interpret yatsa' as miscarriage doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. They've been known to misinterpret other verses before (all the messianic verses about Jesus to name a few). Yatsa' means "to come out" and has no connotation of the baby being dead when it comes out. The is another word that could have been used instead of yatsa' that means "to miscarry" if the writer of Exodus wanted us to believe that they baby was born dead.

So, the bible is wrong, the Hebrews were wrong, and all the continuing tangents of God's Law aren't worth consideration because they were interpreted by the people God had chosen, and in their own language.

Just making sure I know what side you're taking in this argument.

 

[TomZzyzx]

So, the bible is wrong, the Hebrews were wrong, and all the continuing tangents of God's Law aren't worth consideration because they were interpreted by the people God had chosen, and in their own language.

Just making sure I know what side you're taking in this argument.

Wow, that's bad logic. Just because they misinterpret some verses doesn't mean the bible is wrong.

 

[LawsonAlan]

Wow, that's bad logic. Just because they misinterpret some verses doesn't mean the bible is wrong.

Nobody knows the Hebrew language better than the Hebrews who wrote down what God told them.

And, you've already discounted taking their interpretation into consideration because you're not Jewish, if I recall.

And, you won't take current translations of the bible as accurate either.

So, you think the bible is wrong and won't look any further at the evidence that Hebrews could possibly understand what they wrote.

And my logic is bad?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Nobody knows the Hebrew language better than the Hebrews who wrote down what God told them.

And, you've already discounted taking their interpretation into consideration because you're not Jewish, if I recall.

And, you won't take current translations of the bible as accurate either.

So, you think the bible is wrong and won't look any further at the evidence that Hebrews could possibly understand what they wrote.

And my logic is bad?

It's not a matter of knowing the Hebrew language since we all know what every word means now.

And since I am not Jewish I am free to consider what the word yatsa' really means, not what I mistakenly think it means because of tradition.

There are other current bible translations that translate yatsa' as "to come out" and not "miscarriage", so your third statement if false.

I think the bible is correct and it's the Jews that interpret Exodus 21 incorrectly.

 

[Willy21]

Check out a clip that Ray Comfort put out about abortion called 180 movie, i can't put the link in because not enouph posts yet.

Bill

 

[lismore]

There is something wrong and abhorrent in ending a helpless human life.

Abortion= the worst holocaust ever.