When Does Human Life Begin?

Natman · Nov 16, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
As we have shown in another thread, there can be no thoughts unless there is a brain. Care to join us there?

On the physical plain, maybe. On the spiritual plain, I don't think so.

doubtingmerle said:
"Neither does the Bible declare the voluntary disposal of a zygote to be immoral."
Interesting. So you can voluntarily dispose of a zygote--a fertilized egg--and it is not immoral. You seem to be favoring abortion here.

Excuse me. That quote "Neither does the Bible declare the voluntary disposal of a zygote to be immoral." was actually your quote. I accidently pasted it in the wrong section of my response.

doubtingmerle said:
No, I was refererring to Psalm 137:8-9 where it praises the killing of babies. Do you agree with these verses that it is a blessed thing to kill babies? I don't agree with them.

No. This Psalm is a lamentation of David, revealing his desire for for fulfillment of Isaiah 13:16, begging God to instutute his (David's) vengence.

doubtingmerle said:
Your words do not sound even close to "pro-life" to me. They are all about following an ancient book, whether it means giving life or killing life. That is the issue with you, isn't it?

The Bible says it is wrong to "murder". However, when God commands the death of individuals or whole societies, His people are right and justified to fullfill His commands. Indeed, if they do not, then they are sinful.

Again... God and only God creates life, and God and only God may take or authorize the taking of life.

That said, I believe that if you read the entire Bible, you can see that God loves His creation and He will go WAYYYYYY out of His way to show us grace.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Rom 5:8

doubtingmerle said:
If the Bible told you to abort as many babies as you could, would you do it? Your words seem to say you would.

It doesn't, and I know it wouldn't because it would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

doubtingmerle said:
Suppose others have different assumptions. Why do you want to force them to live by your assumptions?

Because we are talking about the possiblity of "human life" with no black and white answers at this level. A significant portion of humanity believe that human life begins at conception, and that it is sacred to God based on His revealed Word to give pause to it's wanton destruction.

I cannot force you to live by my assumptions any more than I can stop you from murdering your grandmother. It matters not what you or I think to be right or wrong, only what God says to be right or wrong, and it is God we will ALL have to answer to ultimately.

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

doubtingmerle · Nov 17, 2004

Natman, let's look at what we can all agree on: Human life is precious. We all agree that we should try to preserve the life of thinking, feeling human beings.

Now when does a collection of molecules become a thinking, feeling human being? That is the question for this thread.

It seems to me that the fetus cannot become a thinking, feeling human being before it has a brain. And this does not happen before 20 weeks. So it seems like that is the minimum requirement to be called human life. But you suggest that the fetus could become a thinking, feeling human being earlier, by suggesting that it has a soul before that time, and that the soul can think and feel without a brain. I think both statements are unjustified. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that a fetus has a soul at that point in time, or at any point in time. And there is clear evidence that thoughts originate from the brain, not from the soul, as I have discussed in another thread.

Nevertheless, with no proof that the fetus is a thinking, feeling human being, you insist we must treat it as such, just in case it is.

But at this point you reveal your real motivation. You inform us that this is all about pleasing God. But you have not made it clear how we would know what God thinks about this matter. So it seems to me that the issue of when human life begins is immaterial to you. If God told you to preserve a fetus, than you would, even if it was not yet a living human being. And if God told you to abort a fetus, then you...well, I don't know what you would do in that case. You fudge at that point.

So let's ask that question: If God told you to abort a fetus, would you do it?

This Psalm [psalm 137] is a lamentation of David, revealing his desire for for fulfillment of Isaiah 13:16, begging God to instutute his (David's) vengence.

Is Psalm 137:9 true of false? It says, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Is that true or false? Is it blessed to seize little babies and dash them against the rock? I think it is false. What do you think?

The Bible says it is wrong to "murder". However, when God commands the death of individuals or whole societies, His people are right and justified to fullfill His commands. Indeed, if they do not, then they are sinful.

Well, actually it doesn't say "murder." "Murder" is a modern english word based on modern concepts. The Bible says not to "ratsach." Now what exactly does the hebrew word ratsach mean? Nobody knows. But it is obvious from the other uses of the word in the Bible, it is not the equivalent of our word "murder". "Kill" seems to be a better translation.

But many verses in the Bible differ, and say it is okay to kill, at least at some times. And the Bible is not clear about when killing is wrong and when it is right.

That said, I believe that if you read the entire Bible, you can see that God loves His creation and He will go WAYYYYYY out of His way to show us grace.

I have read the whole Bible--six times. How about you? Have you read the whole Bible (every chapter, every verse, every line)?

I do not see how anybody can read the whole Bible and think the theme of the whole book is about God going "WAYYYYYY out of His way to show us grace."

If the Bible told you to abort as many babies as you could, would you do it?

Click to expand...

It doesn't, and I know it wouldn't because it would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Huh? We have gone over this repeatedly. Exactly where does the Bible say that it is wrong for a woman to choose an abortion? You have repeatedly resorted to saying that maybe the fetus has a soul, and that you do not want to take a chance that it is not hman life, but you have not shown one verse to show abortion is wrong.

So, once more, If the Bible told you to abort as many babies as you could, would you do it?

A significant portion of humanity believe that human life begins at conception, and that it is sacred to God based on His revealed Word to give pause to it's wanton destruction.

I cannot force you to live by my assumptions any more than I can stop you from murdering your grandmother.

And that is exaclty what many Christians are tyring to do. They are using their votes in an attempt to force people to not have abortions. And they are ignoring almost all other issues. Why do Christians try to force this view on others with so little to support their opinion?

It matters not what you or I think to be right or wrong, only what God says to be right or wrong, and it is God we will ALL have to answer to ultimately.

Yes, this is not an issue of saving life with you, is it? It is simply an issue of obedience. The pro-life name is merely words to make it sound like there is a good moral reason for that position. But that is not your real issue, is it? Your real issue, as expressed in your words, is obedience.

But how can you know that you are obeying God in this issue, when God has given no clear direction on what he wants?

Again... God and only God creates life, and God and only God may take or authorize the taking of life.

If God authorized you to take a life, would you do it, regardless of whether you personally thought it was good to take that life?

Natman · Nov 17, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Natman, let's look at what we can all agree on: Human life is precious.

This appears to be ALL that we might agree on.

doubtingmerle said:
We all agree that we should try to preserve the life of thinking, feeling human beings.

This is where we differ. You state that we are not "human" until we are able to think. I say we are "human" whenever we are infused with a soul, regardless of when we "think".

doubtingmerle said:
It seems to me that the fetus cannot become a thinking, feeling human being before it has a brain. And this does not happen before 20 weeks.

Actually, measurable brain cells can be detected withing 26 days of development, controlling a beating heart, and brain waves are detectable with in six weeks. This is based on current technology. Obviously substantial neural networks are already in place before this time in order to make the necessary connections between the brain and the heart and other organs.

doubtingmerle said:
So it seems like that is the minimum requirement to be called human life. But you suggest that the fetus could become a thinking, feeling human being earlier, by suggesting that it has a soul before that time, and that the soul can think and feel without a brain.

Whoa! You HAVE been listening (reading)!

doubtingmerle said:
I think both statements are unjustified. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that a fetus has a soul at that point in time, or at any point in time.

For that matter, there is no "physical" evidence (as of yet) that YOU have a soul. For that, we must rely on faith. Someday we will know for certain.

doubtingmerle said:
But at this point you reveal your real motivation. You inform us that this is all about pleasing God.

EXACTLY!!!

doubtingmerle said:
But you have not made it clear how we would know what God thinks about this matter.

Oh but I did... in post #81.

doubtingmerle said:
So it seems to me that the issue of when human life begins is immaterial to you.

No. I think I made it perfectly clear that as far as I am concerned, human life begins at conception.

doubtingmerle said:
So let's ask that question: If God told you to abort a fetus, would you do it?

If I had a clear, unquetionable command from God or an unquestionable prophet. Yes.

doubtingmerle said:
Is Psalm 137:9 true of false? It says, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Is that true or false? Is it blessed to seize little babies and dash them against the rock? I think it is false. What do you think?

Like I said, Psalm 137 is a lament of David, pleading with God to satisfy David's vengence against Babylon. It is not an edict or even a promise from God. Just a man, David, crying out.

doubtingmerle said:
Well, actually it doesn't say "murder." "Murder" is a modern english word based on modern concepts. The Bible says not to "ratsach." Now what exactly does the hebrew word ratsach mean? Nobody knows. But it is obvious from the other uses of the word in the Bible, it is not the equivalent of our word "murder". "Kill" seems to be a better translation.

But many verses in the Bible differ, and say it is okay to kill, at least at some times. And the Bible is not clear about when killing is wrong and when it is right.

Strongs Concordance entry # 7523 "ratsach"
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

doubtingmerle said:
I have read the whole Bible--six times. How about you? Have you read the whole Bible (every chapter, every verse, every line)?

Several times.

doubtingmerle said:
I do not see how anybody can read the whole Bible and think the theme of the whole book is about God going "WAYYYYYY out of His way to show us grace."

Considering that you are even ABLE to sit there and criticize the Bible, for one. If God is a "just" God, then He should not be able to tolerate even one ounce of sin, for "the wages of sin are death". He should just stamp us out at the very first sin we commit. Instead, He gives us chance after chance, even a lifetime of chances to repent and turn to His grace poured out through the perfect sacrifice of His Son.

doubtingmerle said:
Exactly where does the Bible say that it is wrong for a woman to choose an abortion?

If God chooses to terminate a pregnancy through His natural design, by say a miscarriage, that is one thing. When WE terminate a pregnancy, then it is murder. There is no mention of the word "abortion" in the Bible, because the topic is well covered in the Decalogue.

doubtingmerle said:
Yes, this is not an issue of saving life with you, is it? It is simply an issue of obedience.

It is BOTH.

I love the Lord. I desire to be obedient to His commands and desires. I believe that He treasures ALL human life and that He knits it together at the moment of conception. So, yes, I desire to save life, not destroy it.

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

The Story Teller · Nov 17, 2004

I thin human life begins when the children leave home..

Natman · Nov 17, 2004

The Story Teller said:
I thin human life begins when the children leave home..

Being the father of two teenage boys... I would have to agree.

Thanks for the comic relief.

Son-cerely,
Nate

doubtingmerle · Nov 17, 2004

Natman said:
This is where we differ. You state that we are not "human" until we are able to think. I say we are "human" whenever we are infused with a soul, regardless of when we "think".

What I said is that the cells of the embryo are not yet human life. I did not say they were not human cells.

Are you saying souls don't think? How can a person have a soul and not think?

Actually, measurable brain cells can be detected withing 26 days of development, controlling a beating heart, and brain waves are detectable with in six weeks.

And your source for this is?

For that matter, there is no "physical" evidence (as of yet) that YOU have a soul.

That is correct, there is no physical evidence for the soul.

Oh but I did [made it clear how we would know what God thinks about this matter].... in post #81.

I'm sorry. I checked out post #81, and did not find where it makes it clear how we could know what God thinks. Do you care to tell us how we can know what God thinks?

If God told you to abort a fetus, would you do it?

Click to expand...

If I had a clear, unquetionable command from God or an unquestionable prophet. Yes.

Interesting.

So you do not think abortion is inherently evil? It all depends on what God wants? You would willingly and unashamedly abort babies with no sense of guilt if God told you to? So it is not the act of abortion in and of itself that is immoral? Is this what you are saying?

So it seems to me that the issue of when human life begins is immaterial to you.

Click to expand...

No. I think I made it perfectly clear that as far as I am concerned, human life begins at conception.

Yes, we all knew when you think human life begins. But the isssue is whether this is relevant to your opinion on abortion. It seems that your decision is based solely on what you think God wants, and not on when you think life begins. You have already said you would abort a baby if God told you to (even if it was human life) and you would not abort it if God told you not to (even if it was not human life). Your decision appears to be based solely on what you think God wants. For either way, you would not do different from what God wants, would you?

But you have not yet showed us a foolproof way of knowing what God wants.

Like I said, Psalm 137 is a lament of David, pleading with God to satisfy David's vengence against Babylon. It is not an edict or even a promise from God. Just a man, David, crying out.

Interesting. So David was crying out and saying something that was false? David was saying it is blessed to kill babies, but he was mistaken? It is not blessed to kill babies after all? The psalmist goofed when he said it was blessed to kill babies?

I agree. Sometimes the writers of the Bible goof.

Strongs Concordance entry # 7523 "ratsach"
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

Yes, of course, people have tried to guess what the ancient words mean. But nobody knows for sure. And as I explained to you before, the Hebrew word ratsach is clearly not identical with the English word murder, as you can easily see if you wil look at the link I had provided.

The Bible does not make it clear what acts of killing are sin and what acts are not.

There is no mention of the word "abortion" in the Bible, because the topic is well covered in the Decalogue.

Nowhere does the bible say that it is wrong to willfully abort one's own fetus.

Beoga · Nov 17, 2004

So you do not think abortion is inherently evil? It all depends on what God wants? You would willingly and unashamedly abort babies with no sense of guilt if God told you to? So it is not the act of abortion in and of itself that is immoral? Is this what you are saying?

God can can do whatever with these fetuses/humans. They are his creations. God creates life, he can take it away. God is the author of life, not man, so God can take life away whenever He wants, from whoever He wants, man does not have that authority. God can use us as tools to take life away from individuals, and if this be the case it would not be morally wrong, though it might be governmentally (is that even a word, if not, it is now) wrong.
I am sure you disagree with this, but this is why it is okay for a believer in God to believe it is okay to abort a baby if God tells you to do so.

flicka · Nov 17, 2004

Perhaps God made it possible for US to make life... Yeah I actually think thats how it works. I don't believe in the whole idea of god opening and closing the womb to put life in there so he gets to do whatever he wants with that life. WE put it in there, our actions (sex) so in that case should it follow that we should get to do whatever we want with that life? I don't have the answer to that. I don't know how people will ever find a compromise on this subject since everyone has a different point of reference regarding the creation of a specific life.

Saruman · Nov 17, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
The Bible does not make it clear what acts of killing are sin and what acts are not.

Nowhere does the bible say that it is wrong to willfully abort one's own fetus.

The Bible does, however state that there are inumerable sins unlisted. It would take thousands of volumes for every single sin to be listed. Refering to the Bible would then be very difficult. We are to use the guidence of the Holy Spirit and our consiences when wondering whether something is wrong or right.

doubtingmerle · Nov 18, 2004

littleapologist said:
this is why it is okay for a believer in God to believe it is okay to abort a baby if God tells you to do so.

And so the issue of whether or not the fetus is human life is not the key question with you as far as abortion is concerned? The issue is what God decides is best to do with the fetus? As I know of no way to be certain what God wants us to do with each fetus, it would seem that Christians should not be too dogmatic in preventing others from following their own conscience on this matter.

Outspoken · Nov 18, 2004

At conception.

to say anything else is to allow the posiblity of murder.

Natman · Nov 18, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Are you saying souls don't think? How can a person have a soul and not think?

No. I do not know where you would get such an idea. The generally accepted concept of souls are that they are the non-coporial part of a human beings that have an eternal consciousness (thought).

doubtingmerle said:
And your source for this is?

They are many.

Vera L. Bailey, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Pregnancy Center & Clinic of the Low County
from a workshop given June 28, 2001
www.aclife.org/education/development.html

Medline Plus

www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

The Child Development Institute

www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/prenataldevelopment.shtml

DC Doctor

www.dcdoctor.com/pages/rightpages_wellnesscenter/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment.html

Prenatal development by Dr. C. George Boeree
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html

doubtingmerle said:
So you do not think abortion is inherently evil? It all depends on what God wants? You would willingly and unashamedly abort babies with no sense of guilt if God told you to? So it is not the act of abortion in and of itself that is immoral? Is this what you are saying?

No. I am saying that the unathorized and willful destruction of human life is inherently evil.

I am also saying that I am a Christian and therfore, by definition, desire to live a life that is fully pleasing to my Lord. I respect and fear the wrath of the Lord and know that He has commanded the utter destruction of certain societies by His people, and when they have not completely complied, He has punished them (ie. Saul's defeat of the Amalekites 1 Sam 28). However I know that God does not do things out of character.

doubtingmerle said:
It seems that your decision is based solely on what you think God wants, and not on when you think life begins. You have already said you would abort a baby if God told you to (even if it was human life) and you would not abort it if God told you not to (even if it was not human life). Your decision appears to be based solely on what you think God wants. For either way, you would not do different from what God wants, would you?

I would hope not. However, in the absense of undeniable word from God or His prophets, knowing that God cherishes human life and has commaned us not to wantonly destroy it, as well as knowing that a substantial portion of humanity stronly believe that human life begins at conception, I would not even consider aborting a child at any time after conception.

doubtingmerle said:
Interesting. So David was crying out and saying something that was false? David was saying it is blessed to kill babies, but he was mistaken? It is not blessed to kill babies after all? The psalmist goofed when he said it was blessed to kill babies?

That was David's cries, not God's.

David's lament is not very different than what you might call out about the guy that cut you off on the freeway. You might scream at the top of you lungs that you wish he were dead and that the world would be better off (blessed) without such idiots.

doubtingmerle said:
Yes, of course, people have tried to guess what the ancient words mean. But nobody knows for sure. And as I explained to you before, the Hebrew word ratsach is clearly not identical with the English word murder, as you can easily see if you wil look at the link I had provided.

The poeple that study ancient languages are very capable of discovering the precices definition of ancient words by studying their common usage. I believe Strongs has done their homework and have presented an adequate definition ot the Hebrew "ratsach".

doubtingmerle said:
The Bible does not make it clear what acts of killing are sin and what acts are not.

Oh, it seems prety clear to me and the vast majority of humanity that the Bible considers the unauthorized and willful destruction of human life to be "murder", which is a sin.

doubtingmerle said:
Nowhere does the bible say that it is wrong to willfully abort one's own fetus.

It merely says "Thou shalt not murder." That should be enough.

Furthermore, the Bible authorizes the creation of governemts to care for the common good of the people and to carry out punishment, even unto the sword, if necessary.

If the Bible alone were required to list every possible transgression known to man, it would approach the size of the Library of Congress.

Son-cerely,
Nate

doubtingmerle · Nov 19, 2004

Natman, you have an interesting view on things. Would it be fair to call it the "pro-authority" position? For you seem to have no objection to wiping out an entire group of people--including the babies--provided you have the proper authority commanding the killing. It appears from your writing that it is not the killing of innocent people that you object to. It is the disobedience to authority--God's authority--that you object to.

And so you have tried to present the case that abortion is wrong because it goes against God's authority. But your case seems very weak.

First, you suggest that humans must have souls, based on what the Bible says. But we have already shown that the Bible is sometimes mistaken. For instance, you apparently agree with me that the writer of the Psalms was wrong when he said it is blessed to kill babies. So the writer of the Psalms goofed. If the writer of the Psalms goofed, how do you know that the writer who told you that people have souls was not mistaken? Besides, as we have shown in another thread, the evidence indicates that it is the brain, not an immaterial soul, that thinks.

Next, you suggest that embryos possibly have souls at that early stage of developmnet. You have presented no real evidence for this. You have merely stated that it is possible.

Finally, you suggest that the Bible is generally against killing of hmans with a soul unless God authorizes it. But it seems that the biblical position on killing is so vague, it is difficult to know exactly what it says.

Nevertheless, folks somehow insist that this scanty evidence is enough to force people to stop terminating a young fetus, even though those people think that fetus is not yet human life.

It seems to me that it is good to preserve human life. It also seems that the early fetus is not yet human life. Perhaps you could call this the "Pro-life/choice" position. I think this is better than the "pro-authority" position.

------------------------------------

Okay, now to your latest post. Let's begin with the unsuported statement you made about fetal development:

Natman said:
Actually, measurable brain cells can be detected withing 26 days of development, controlling a beating heart, and brain waves are detectable with in six weeks.

Which goes against most of what is known about fetal devalopment. When I asked for a source, you responded:

Natman said:
They are many.

Vera L. Bailey, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Pregnancy Center & Clinic of the Low County
from a workshop given June 28, 2001
www.aclife.org/education/development.html Medline Plus

www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm ...

Well, that is a nice list of links. But I could not find one that supported your claim. Not one!

For instance, the Medline Plus site you quote says:

Weeks 25 to 28

- the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches
- the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.
- rapid brain development
- nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

Okay? Your source says the nervous system develops to the point it can control some body functions at 25-28 weeks. But you claim it happens at 26 days. Your own sources disagree with you!

So you do not think abortion is inherently evil? It all depends on what God wants? You would willingly and unashamedly abort babies with no sense of guilt if God told you to? So it is not the act of abortion in and of itself that is immoral? Is this what you are saying?

Click to expand...

No. I am saying that the unathorized and willful destruction of human life is inherently evil.

I see. So you seem to be going by the "pro-authority" view of abortion.

I respect and fear the wrath of the Lord and know that He has commanded the utter destruction of certain societies by His people, and when they have not completely complied, He has punished them (ie. Saul's defeat of the Amalekites 1 Sam 28). However I know that God does not do things out of character.

I see. You "respect and fear the wrath of the Lord." Once again, this sounds more like pro-authority than pro-life.

When Saul was told to kill the Amalekites in I Samuel, he was told to kill all the babies. And your words seem to indicate he was right to kill all of the babies. So, in this case, you were not pro-life were you? You appear to be in favor of the deaths of Amalekite babies, as commnaded in I Samuel. So it appears that sometimes you are pro-death for babies, and sometimes pro-life, whichever is consistent with the pro-authority position at the time.

However, in the absense of undeniable word from God or His prophets, knowing that God cherishes human life and has commaned us not to wantonly destroy it, as well as knowing that a substantial portion of humanity stronly believe that human life begins at conception, I would not even consider aborting a child at any time after conception.

And what would you consider to be an undeniable word from God or His prophets? Please give me an example of how you would know that something was an undeniable word from God.

If you cannot do that, how do you know the Bible is the undeniable word of God?

That was David's cries, not God's.

David's lament is not very different than what you might call out about the guy that cut you off on the freeway. You might scream at the top of you lungs that you wish he were dead and that the world would be better off (blessed) without such idiots.

"Such idiots"? We are talking about helpless babies. The psalmist is saying it is blessed to kill babies. How does "such idiots" apply to babies? How can one look at babies and say the world would be better off without "such idiots"? That is an odd view of babies.

So it appears that you think the psalmist goofed. He said it was blessed to kill babies, but he was wrong.

It seems that the Bible writers sometimes goof.

The poeple that study ancient languages are very capable of discovering the precices definition of ancient words by studying their common usage. I believe Strongs has done their homework and have presented an adequate definition ot the Hebrew "ratsach".

The study of ancient languages can be quite controversial. And the definition of the hebrew ratsach--translated kill or murder in the ten commandments--is disputed. Not even Strong's Concrodance supports your position. Strong's does not say ratsach is equivalent to murder. Besides, if you will check out the link I gave to Strong's, you will see that ratsach is used several times in the Bible where it applies to killing that is not murder.

And if ratsach does mean murder, what does the commandment then mean? For murder refers to unlawful killng. Then the commandment becomes "Thou shalt not do unlawful killing." Well duhhh. That is obvious! But what killing is unlawful? The Bible is not clear.

But many places the Bible authorizes killing that we would consider to be unlawful. So it seems that the Bible is not clear about what killing is evil.

.

Nowhere does the bible say that it is wrong to willfully abort one's own fetus

Click to expand...

It merely says "Thou shalt not murder." That should be enough.

No, it does not say murder. It says ratsach. And there is considerable controversy about what ratsach actually means.

If we assume the command forbids the unlawful killing of human life, than we must ask if the embryo is human life yet. So we are back where we started: When does human life begin?

Furthermore, the Bible authorizes the creation of governemts to care for the common good of the people and to carry out punishment, even unto the sword, if necessary.

You just keep digging your hole deeper. The verses you refer to say it is wrong to rebel against government. So it was wrong for the American colonists to rebel against England, the Russians to rebel against the Kremlin, the Northern Alliance to rebel against the Taliban, and the people of Iraq to rebel against Saddam? Once again, it appears the Bible--the apparent source for your anti-abortion views--is mistaken.

Natman · Nov 19, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Natman, you have an interesting view on things. Would it be fair to call it the "pro-authority" position? For you seem to have no objection to wiping out an entire group of people--including the babies--provided you have the proper authority commanding the killing.

Doubtingmerle, you certainly enjoy twisting what I say for your own purposes.

I personally abhore violence of any kind and even the unintentional taking of human life. I believe that the desire to protect human life is what separates us from the beasts, whether we acknowlege God or not.

At the same time, I believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that loves us and desires to have a relationship with us, as do the vast majority of humans, and that as such, we owe our first allegience to Him.

doubtingmerle said:
It appears from your writing that it is not the killing of innocent people that you object to. It is the disobedience to authority--God's authority--that you object to.

No. I GREATLY object to killing "innocent" people, unless specifically and unquestionably directed by God to do so. That is a huge "unless".

doubtingmerle said:
And what would you consider to be an undeniable word from God or His prophets? Please give me an example of how you would know that something was an undeniable word from God.

This I can not answer because I personally have never heard the "undeniable" word of God. But if and when it occurs, I am sure I will know.

doubtingmerle said:
But we have already shown that the Bible is sometimes mistaken.

I never agreed that the Bible is mistaken. I said that YOUR understanding of what the Bible stated through the Psalmist is mistaken because you have taken it out of context and don't understand the purpose for the scripture.

doubtingmerle said:
Next, you suggest that embryos possibly have souls at that early stage of developmnet. You have presented no real evidence for this. You have merely stated that it is possible.

Yes. And it is a position held by very large portion of humanity, if not the vast majority.

doubtingmerle said:
Finally, you suggest that the Bible is generally against killing of hmans with a soul unless God authorizes it. But it seems that the biblical position on killing is so vague, it is difficult to know exactly what it says.

I do not find the Bible "vague" at all. When read completely and in context we see that God has the supreme authority for the creation and destruction of life and that He cherished human life enough to send His only Son to pay the price so that those that accept His gracious gift would have eternal incoruptable life.

doubtingmerle said:
Okay, now to your latest post. Let's begin with the unsuported statement you made about fetal development:

Which goes against most of what is known about fetal devalopment.

Well, that is a nice list of links. But I could not find one that supported your claim. Not one!

Directly copied from American Collegians for Life/Vera L. Bailey, Ph.D...

From American Collegians for Life said:
http://www.aclife.org/education/development.html
Stage III - Embryo

Three week embryo

19- 22 days the heart begins to beat

neural tube forms which becomes the spinal cord

26 days, brain cells grow, also leg and arm buds appear and grow out from body

Two statements on this site indicate that sunstantial brain development has occured; "Brain cells grow" and "the heart begins to beat". Obviously there must be brain cells presnet to grow, but also, the fact that the heart beat is regulated by the brain would indicate that substantial enough brain exists as to contain the program and the control network to operate the heart.

Directy copied from Medline Plus...

Medline Plus said:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Week 3

beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart

beginning development of the gastrointestinal tract

<LI>Weeks 4 to 5

formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones

further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm

movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels

beginning of the structures of the eye and ears

the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible

arm and leg buds are visible

Again, acknowledging the presence of a brain at three weeks (21 days), a beating heart and substantial brain development into five areas by four weeks (28 days).

Directly copied from DC Doctor

DC Doctor said:
2. EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT:[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]4-8 weeks of embryo development.
[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]
[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]1.5 WEEKS:[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]Completely developed embryo.
[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]2nd WEEK:[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica] [/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]Primitive streak.
[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]3rd WEEK:[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]Central nervous system begins to develop.
Heart development initiated - beating begins.[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]4th WEEK:[/font][font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica]Complete mass (baby and chorion, etc.) - about 1" long and the size of a pigeon's egg.
Embryo inside is about 3/8" and weighs less than 1 gram.
Outpouching from anterior brain - early eyes - limb buds of arms and legs[/font][/font]

Again, by three weeks we have a beating heart indication enough brain development to control it's rythemand by week four, a substantially developed brain.

doubtingmerle said:
Not even Strong's Concrodance supports your position. Strong's does not say ratsach is equivalent to murder. Besides, if you will check out the link I gave to Strong's, you will see that ratsach is used several times in the Bible where it applies to killing that is not murder.

And if ratsach does mean murder, what does the commandment then mean? For murder refers to unlawful killng. Then the commandment becomes "Thou shalt not do unlawful killing." Well duhhh. That is obvious! But what killing is unlawful? The Bible is not clear.

Strongs Concordance entry # 7523 "ratsach"
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

"Especially to MURDER". I'd say that is pretty "CLEAR".

Further Mirriam-Webster defines "murder" as..
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

That's also pretty "CLEAR".

Biblically "unlawful killing" would be taking of human life wothout the ordination or authority from God. That's pretty "CLEAR"

doubtingmerle said:
But many places the Bible authorizes killing that we would consider to be unlawful.

Where?

doubtingmerle said:
So it was wrong for the American colonists to rebel against England, the Russians to rebel against the Kremlin, the Northern Alliance to rebel against the Taliban, and the people of Iraq to rebel against Saddam? Once again, it appears the Bible--the apparent source for your anti-abortion views--is mistaken.

The Bible tells us we are to submit to our governments.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Rom 13:1-7
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

However, when a direct confict between a government command and a Biblical command arises, we are to obviously pick the Biblical command.

Mark 16:15
He (Jesus) said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

Acts 4:18-19
Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God."

Son-cerely,
Nate

doubtingmerle · Nov 19, 2004

Natman said:
Doubtingmerle, you certainly enjoy twisting what I say for your own purposes.

Huh? Where have I twisted your words? Please show me. I have no desire to twist anybody's words. If I misunderstood you, I will apologize. Now please show me what I said that indicates I twisted your words.

Your quote above was given in response to my words that said:

Natman, you have an interesting view on things. Would it be fair to call it the "pro-authority" position? For you seem to have no objection to wiping out an entire group of people--including the babies--provided you have the proper authority commanding the killing.

I said your view is interesting, and asked you a question about your view. That certainly is not "twisting words," is it?

I also said you seemed to have no objection to wiping out babies provided you had the proper authority. For that is what your words seemed to say. Are you now saying that you object to wiping out babies if one is authorized to do so by God?

Here is the passage from I Samuel we had been referring to:

<B>

1 Samuel 15</B>

1 Then Samuel said to Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD.
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.
3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Okay, now Saul here is said to have the authorization of God to kill babies. Now do you or do you not object to Saul killing babies as he was directed to do in this passage? Please answer clearly. Otherwise, people will misunderstand.

I personally abhore violence of any kind and even the unintentional taking of human life. I believe that the desire to protect human life is what separates us from the beasts, whether we acknowlege God or not.

So you abhor the violence when Saul killed all the babies, as recorded in I Samuel 15? Your words seem to say that you abhor what Saul was told to do here. Does that mean Saul was told to do something wrong?

At the same time, I believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that loves us and desires to have a relationship with us, as do the vast majority of humans, and that as such, we owe our first allegience to Him.

And do you agree that the Bible says Saul's first duty was to kill those babies at the command of God, whether he wanted to do it or not? If your answer is "yes", then you cannot object when people think you "have no objection to wiping out an entire group of people" if authorized to do so by God. And if your answer is "no", then you think the Bible is wrong here. So what is your answer? Yes or no?

No. I GREATLY object to killing "innocent" people, unless specifically and unquestionably directed by God to do so. That is a huge "unless".

And if specifically and unquestioningly directed by God--as Saul reportedly was in I Samuel 15--do you then approve of killing the babies as the authority commands? You seemed to be saying you approved of the killing, but now you are apparently saying I twist your words when I suggest you approve, so you had better clarify for us.

I never agreed that the Bible is mistaken. I said that YOUR understanding of what the Bible stated through the Psalmist is mistaken because you have taken it out of context and don't understand the purpose for the scripture.

Okay, let us look at Psalm 137:9 again. It says, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Is Psalm 137:9 true or false? You seemed to indicate that the psalmist was speaking in a rage, and was not speaking the truth. Now you seem to think he is telling the truth. So tell us clearly: Were people blessed for killing babies as this verse indicates? (I think Psalm 137:9 is false.)

Yes. And it is a position held by very large portion of humanity, if not the vast majority.

Now you turn to popular vote? Okay, by a vote of the world population, Protestant Christianity is wrong, by a vote of about 4 to 1. Are you sure you want to determine truth by popular vote?

Directly copied from American Collegians for Life/Vera L. Bailey, Ph.D...
[/list]
[/list]Two statements on this site indicate that sunstantial brain development has occured; "Brain cells grow" and "the heart begins to beat". Obviously there must be brain cells presnet to grow, but also, the fact that the heart beat is regulated by the brain would indicate that substantial enough brain exists as to contain the program and the control network to operate the heart.

Directy copied from Medline Plus...
[/list]Again, acknowledging the presence of a brain at three weeks (21 days), a beating heart and substantial brain development into five areas by four weeks (28 days).

Yes, there are brain cells and a beating heart early. Nobody disputes this. But science disputes your claim that the brain is functioning and controlling the body at this point. You have shown nothing that supports this claim.

Strongs Concordance entry # 7523 "ratsach"
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

"Especially to MURDER". I'd say that is pretty "CLEAR".

Strong's does not say that Ratsach is the equivalent to the English word "murder", does it? It lists many words that may help us to understand what Ratsach means. But it never says it is the exact equivalent of the English word murder.

Ratsach is clearly not the exact equivalent of the English word murder, as you can see by looking at the ways that Ratsach is used in the Bible. You can do that by clicking on the link I had provided for you. As I have explained multiple times to you, there are acts of ratsach in the Bible that are clearly not what we would refer to as murder. Why do you continue to ignore that evidence?

Biblically "unlawful killing" would be taking of human life wothout the ordination or authority from God. That's pretty "CLEAR"

That is the meaning of "ratsach" as given in the command not to kill? Please show me how you know this is the meaning of the word "ratsach".

Are you aware that many Hebrew scholars disagree with you? How is it that you are so certain that you are right, and all of those scholars are wrong?

No, it seems to me that the Bible is not clear on exactly what acts of killing are wrong.

doubtingmerle · Nov 21, 2004

Natman (in post 133) said:
CASE CLOSED!

Uh, do you mind turning down the volume a little? There is no need to shout.

I agree. Case closed.

Archivist · Nov 22, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Uh, do you mind turning down the volume a little? There is no need to shout.

I agree. Case closed.

Good point regarding the shouting. Don't you just love when people do that--it's as if they are saying "I've said my piece, end of discussion, it's over."

This is a discussion forum, not a court of law.

Natman · Nov 22, 2004

Please excuse my rudeness. I was trying to make a point to doubtingmerle about how riduculous it is to end a debate entry with "case closed". Obviously the debate was not closed, nor will it be until we come to a "common" understanding as the the beginning of human life.

Son-cerely,
Nate

doubtingmerle · Nov 22, 2004

Natman said:
Obviously the debate was not closed, nor will it be until we come to a "common" understanding as the the beginning of human life.

No problem. Do you have any additional arguments you would like to contribute for our consideration?

Natman · Nov 22, 2004

Doubtingmerle,

What I am trying to say is that I would not choose to destroy anyone, including babies, women, children, staunch enemies or even hardened criminals, of my own volition. I would only be willing in light of a direct command from God. (I'm not talking the "voices in my head" thing either).

My position would be more like Abraham, trying to save the lives of his nephew Lot when God promised to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

doubtingmerle said:
So you abhor the violence when Saul killed all the babies, as recorded in I Samuel 15? Your words seem to say that you abhor what Saul was told to do here. Does that mean Saul was told to do something wrong?

No and yes. Saul was doing as he was commanded. However, he kept some of the "loot" for himself, claiming that he was going to use it to honor the Lord.

doubtingmerle said:
And do you agree that the Bible says Saul's first duty was to kill those babies at the command of God, whether he wanted to do it or not?

Unfortunately, yes.

doubtingmerle said:
If your answer is "yes", then you cannot object when people think you "have no objection to wiping out an entire group of people" if authorized to do so by God.

Of course I can object. But just because I object does not make my objection correct in the eyes of God.

doubtingmerle said:
And if specifically and unquestioningly directed by God--as Saul reportedly was in I Samuel 15--do you then approve of killing the babies as the authority commands?

Reluctantly.

doubtingmerle said:
Okay, let us look at Psalm 137:9 again. It says, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Is Psalm 137:9 true or false? You seemed to indicate that the psalmist was speaking in a rage, and was not speaking the truth. Now you seem to think he is telling the truth. So tell us clearly: Were people blessed for killing babies as this verse indicates? (I think Psalm 137:9 is false.)

The lament is "truth" in that it was what was on the heart of David. I do not see that it was on the heart of God.

doubtingmerle said:
Now you turn to popular vote? Okay, by a vote of the world population, Protestant Christianity is wrong, by a vote of about 4 to 1. Are you sure you want to determine truth by popular vote?

I'm not talking about "popular vote" or "majority" here. I said specifically a "substantial portion" of humanity, meaning not one person here or there. The fact that a "substantial portion" hold the position that life begins at conception means that that portion of humanity are forced to standby and watch as millions of "innocent" lives are murdered.

doubtingmerle said:
Yes, there are brain cells and a beating heart early. Nobody disputes this. But science disputes your claim that the brain is functioning and controlling the body at this point. You have shown nothing that supports this claim.

Obviously there is substantial brain activity occuring within 3-4 weeks of conception, not 20 weeks as you indicate. At this point we have no way of determining if brain cells are already accumulating the ability of thought or the sensation of pain.

To me it doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder... unless the one you are murdering feels no pain, or is not conscious".

More to come...

Son-cerely,
Nate

When Does Human Life Begin?

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

The Story Teller

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Sola Scriptura

Contributor

Senior Veteran

I'll think about it.

Standing in the Gap

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency