When Does Human Life Begin?

[Natman]

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?


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?

I am not a Bible scholar and therfore must rely on the efforts of other scholars such as Strong's to aid me. I looked up every instance of "ratsach" according to Strong's (I could not locate the "link" you referred to) and every single one talked about the killing of a human being (murder).

Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill 07523 .

Num 35:6 And among the cities 05892 which ye shall give 05414 unto the Levites 03881 [there shall be] six 08337 cities 05892 for refuge 04733, which ye shall appoint 05414 for the manslayer 07523 , that he may flee 05127 thither: and to them ye shall add 05414 forty 0705 and two 08147 cities 05892.

Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint 07136 you cities 05892 to be cities 05892 of refuge 04733 for you; that the slayer 07523 may flee 05127 thither, which killeth 05221 any person 05315 at unawares 07684.

Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities 05892 for refuge 04733 from the avenger 01350 ; that the manslayer 07523 die 04191 not, until he stand 05975 before 06440 the congregation 05712 in judgment 04941.

Num 35:16 And if he smite 05221 him with an instrument 03627 of iron 01270, so that he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:16 And if he smite 05221 him with an instrument 03627 of iron 01270, so that he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:17 And if he smite 05221 him with throwing 03027 a stone 068, wherewith he may die 04191 , and he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:17 And if he smite 05221 him with throwing 03027 a stone 068, wherewith he may die 04191 , and he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:18 Or [if] he smite 05221 him with an hand 03027 weapon 03627 of wood 06086, wherewith he may die 04191 , and he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:18 Or [if] he smite 05221 him with an hand 03027 weapon 03627 of wood 06086, wherewith he may die 04191 , and he die 04191 , he [is] a murderer 07523 : the murderer 07523 shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 .

Num 35:19 The revenger 01350 of blood 01818 himself shall slay 04191 the murderer 07523 : when he meeteth 06293 him, he 01931 shall slay 04191 him.

Num 35:21 Or in enmity 0342 smite 05221 him with his hand 03027, that he die 04191 : he that smote 05221 [him] shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 ; [for] he [is] a murderer 07523 : the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 shall slay 04191 the murderer 07523 , when he meeteth 06293 him.

Num 35:21 Or in enmity 0342 smite 05221 him with his hand 03027, that he die 04191 : he that smote 05221 [him] shall surely 04191 be put to death 04191 ; [for] he [is] a murderer 07523 : the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 shall slay 04191 the murderer 07523 , when he meeteth 06293 him.

Num 35:25 And the congregation 05712 shall deliver 05337 the slayer 07523 out of the hand 03027 of the revenger 01350 of blood 01818, and the congregation 05712 shall restore 07725 him to the city 05892 of his refuge 04733, whither he was fled 05127 : and he shall abide 03427 in it unto the death 04194 of the high 01419 priest 03548, which was anointed 04886 with the holy 06944 oil 08081.

Num 35:26 But if the slayer 07523 shall at any time 03318 come 03318 without the border 01366 of the city 05892 of his refuge 04733, whither he was fled 05127 ;

Num 35:27 And the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 find 04672 him without 02351 the borders 01366 of the city 05892 of his refuge 04733, and the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 kill 07523 the slayer 07523 ; he shall not be guilty of blood 01818:

Num 35:27 And the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 find 04672 him without 02351 the borders 01366 of the city 05892 of his refuge 04733, and the revenger 01350 of blood 01818 kill 07523 the slayer 07523 ; he shall not be guilty of blood 01818:

Num 35:28 Because he should have remained 03427 in the city 05892 of his refuge 04733 until the death 04194 of the high 01419 priest 03548: but after 0310 the death 04194 of the high 01419 priest 03548 the slayer 07523 shall return 07725 into the land 0776 of his possession 0272.

Num 35:30 Whoso killeth 05221 any person 05315, the murderer 07523 shall be put to death 07523 by the mouth 06310 of witnesses 05707: but one 0259 witness 05707 shall not testify 06030 against any person 05315 [to cause him] to die 04191 .

Num 35:30 Whoso killeth 05221 any person 05315, the murderer 07523 shall be put to death 07523 by the mouth 06310 of witnesses 05707: but one 0259 witness 05707 shall not testify 06030 against any person 05315 [to cause him] to die 04191 .

Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take 03947 no satisfaction 03724 for the life 05315 of a murderer 07523 , which [is] guilty 07563 of death 04191 : but he shall be surely 04191 put to death 04191 .

Deu 4:42 That the slayer 07523 might flee 05127 thither, which should kill 07523 his neighbour 07453 unawares 01097 01847, and hated 08130 him not in times 08543 past 08032; and that fleeing 05127 unto one 0259 of these 0411 cities 05892 he might live 02425 :

Deu 4:42 That the slayer 07523 might flee 05127 thither, which should kill 07523 his neighbour 07453 unawares 01097 01847, and hated 08130 him not in times 08543 past 08032; and that fleeing 05127 unto one 0259 of these 0411 cities 05892 he might live 02425 :

Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill 07523 .

Deu 19:3 Thou shalt prepare 03559 thee a way 01870, and divide the coasts 01366 of thy land 0776, which the LORD 03068 thy God 0430 giveth thee to inherit 05157 , into three parts 08027 , that every slayer 07523 may flee 05127 thither.

Jos 21:21 For they gave 05414 them Shechem 07927 with her suburbs 04054 in mount 02022 Ephraim 0669, [to be] a city 05892 of refuge 04733 for the slayer 07523 ; and Gezer 01507 with her suburbs 04054,

Jos 21:27 And unto the children 01121 of Gershon 01648, of the families 04940 of the Levites 03881, out of the [other] half 02677 tribe 04294 of Manasseh 04519 [they gave] Golan 01474 in Bashan 01316 with her suburbs 04054, [to be] a city 05892 of refuge 04733 for the slayer 07523 ; and Beeshterah 01203 with her suburbs 04054; two 08147 cities 05892.

Jos 21:32 And out of the tribe 04294 of Naphtali 05321, Kedesh 06943 in Galilee 01551 with her suburbs 04054, [to be] a city 05892 of refuge 04733 for the slayer 07523 ; and Hammothdor 02576 with her suburbs 04054, and Kartan 07178 with her suburbs 04054; three 07969 cities 05892.

Jos 21:38 And out of the tribe 04294 of Gad 01410, Ramoth 07433 in Gilead 01568 with her suburbs 04054, [to be] a city 05892 of refuge 04733 for the slayer 07523 ; and Mahanaim 04266 with her suburbs 04054,

Jdg 20:4 And the Levite 03881 0376, the husband 0376 of the woman 0802 that was slain 07523 , answered 06030 and said 0559 , I came 0935 into Gibeah 01390 that [belongeth] to Benjamin 01144, I and my concubine 06370, to lodge 03885 .

1Ki 21:19 And thou shalt speak 01696 unto him, saying 0559 , Thus saith 0559 the LORD 03068, Hast thou killed 07523 , and also taken possession 03423 ? And thou shalt speak 01696 unto him, saying 0559 , Thus saith 0559 the LORD 03068, In the place 04725 where dogs 03611 licked 03952 the blood 01818 of Naboth 05022 shall dogs 03611 lick 03952 thy blood 01818, even thine.

2Ki 6:32 But Elisha 0477 sat 03427 in his house 01004, and the elders 02205 sat 03427 with him; and [the king] sent 07971 a man 0376 from before 06440 him: but ere the messenger 04397 came 0935 to him, he said 0559 to the elders 02205, See 07200 ye how this son 01121 of a murderer 07523 hath sent 07971 to take away 05493 mine head 07218? look 07200 , when the messenger 04397 cometh 0935 , shut 05462 the door 01817, and hold him fast 03905 at the door 01817: [is] not the sound 06963 of his master's 0113 feet 07272 behind 0310 him?

Job 24:14 The murderer 07523 rising 06965 with the light 0216 killeth 06991 the poor 06041 and needy 034, and in the night 03915 is as a thief 01590.

Psa 62:3 How long will ye imagine mischief 02050 against a man 0376? ye shall be slain 07523 all of you: as a bowing 05186 wall 07023 [shall ye be, and as] a tottering 01760 fence 01447.

Psa 94:6 They slay 02026 the widow 0490 and the stranger 01616, and murder 07523 the fatherless 03490.

Pro 22:13 The slothful 06102 [man] saith 0559 , [There is] a lion 0738 without 02351, I shall be slain 07523 in 08432 the streets 07339.

Isa 1:21 How is the faithful 0539 city 07151 become an harlot 02181 ! it was full 04392 of judgment 04941; righteousness 06664 lodged 03885 in it; but now murderers 07523 .

Jer 7:9 Will ye steal 01589 , murder 07523 , and commit adultery 05003 , and swear 07650 falsely 08267, and burn incense 06999 unto Baal 01168, and walk 01980 after 0310 other 0312 gods 0430 whom ye know 03045 not;

Hsa 4:2 By swearing 0422 , and lying 03584 , and killing 07523 , and stealing 01589 , and committing adultery 05003 , they break out 06555 , and blood 01818 toucheth 05060 blood 01818.

Hsa 6:9 And as troops 01416 of robbers wait 02442 for a man 0376, [so] the company 02267 of priests 03548 murder 07523 in the way 01870 by consent 07926 07927: for they commit 06213 lewdness 02154.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Phred]

Really, there's no denying an embryo is, from day one, a human being, and a living one at that. Therefore, killing it is wrong, even for noble scientific purposes.

The day I see firemen rushing into a burning clinic to save the embryos in its freezer... The day I see YOU rushing in... that's the day you really mean what you say. Until then, your words are empty.




.

 

[Beoga]

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.

the key issue is of course what God thinks and what God decides to do, the second issue is whether or not the fetus is a living human being. We know that God says not to murder. Since we know this, we must establish that a fetus is a living human being or not. If we establish that it is, then we not we shouldnt kill/destroy it because that would be murder and against God's Law. There may be certain occurences where God says/allows for an abortion to take place, the only occurence i can think of would be if the mother's life was in danger, i can't think of any others so i would not recommend someone have an abortion even if it felt right to tell them to get one.

 

[Beoga]

The day I see firemen rushing into a burning clinic to save the embryos in its freezer... The day I see YOU rushing in... that's the day you really mean what you say. Until then, your words are empty.

.

your statements are not dealing with the issue

 

[doubtingmerle]

Natman, we seem to have drifted from the subject of when human life begins. Instead most of this post deals with whether we should kill people. We both agree: It is not good to kill people. And we both agree that there are exceptions, that sometimes one needs to kill. I can follow up briefly on this, but, if you wish to discuss this further, we should probably start a new thread.

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).

Okay, this is what I refer to as the pro-authority position.

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.

Once more, the pro-authority position. Even if your authority commands something you think is clearly wrong--such as killing innocent babies--you reluctantly would go along with the authority.

But I am afraid you have no clear way of knowing what your authority--Jehovah, supposedly--wants you to do. So with no clear word as to what Jehovah wants, it seems we need a better way to determine morality. I prefer reason.

The lament [in Psalm 137] 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.

Well actually, it couldn't be David who wrote Psalm 137. The writer is living in the Babylonian exile long after David.

You agree that the writer was writing his own opinion, not God's. The writer says that it is blessed to kill enemy babies. That was the writer's opinion. The writer was wrong. And the scripture includes this wrong statement that was on the heart of the writer.

If the writer of Psalm 137 was expressing a wrong thought, could not the writer of I Samuel 15 have expressed a wrong thought? Could it not be that that writer was expressing his own feeling that God wanted Saul to kill babies, but that God really did not approve?

And if Psalm 137 and I Samuel 15 are recording the wrong feelings of early authors, is it not possible that John 3 is recording the wrong feeling of an early author?

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".

First, it doesn't say "murder." As we discussed before, it says "ratsach", and nobody is sure what "ratsach" meant in that context.

But you do make many exceptions, don't you? It is okay to ratsach a cow, isn't it? It is okay to ratsach living blood cells that flow out of the body, isn't it? And do, if the fetus is not a person, perhaps it is okay to ratsach it.

Which brings us back to the question. When does the fetus become a person?

 

[Phred]

the key issue is of course what God thinks and what God decides to do,

No... God is irrelevant to the issue since he chooses not to be heard on the issue. Will your deity strike down anyone having or performing an abortion? Obviously not. God is only relevant to those who wish to be on his good side considering the heaven/hell aspect of an afterlife. Now, I will respect your use of scripture as a guide in determining your own choices. If you believe a person is a person from conception, then by all means, don't have or condone an abortion. But I will not accept your interpretation of scripture as a guide for my life.

the second issue is whether or not the fetus is a living human being. We know that God says not to murder. Since we know this, we must establish that a fetus is a living human being or not. If we establish that it is, then we not we shouldnt kill/destroy it because that would be murder and against God's Law. There may be certain occurences where God says/allows for an abortion to take place, the only occurence i can think of would be if the mother's life was in danger, i can't think of any others so i would not recommend someone have an abortion even if it felt right to tell them to get one.

The issue is, and always has been, when does a person become a person? At what point do the rights, protections and benefits of society extend into the womb? At what point do the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the already born mother? The problem is that we are all using different measures to determine the answers. One group interprets scripture and decides that we're all human at conception... another determines that a woman's rights come first so the fetus isn't a person until it's born. (After reading this over notice I'm very careful to use the word "fetus".)

So here's what I do know. There have always been and will always be abortions. You can't force women to remain pregnant if they don't wish to be.



.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Obviously there is substantial brain activity occuring within 3-4 weeks of conception, not 20 weeks as you indicate.

Huh? We have no proof of that at all. As I pointed out to you, your own source says brain activity begins after 25 weeks. You have not found a single source that says that "substantial brain activity" occurs before 3-4 weeks. Not one. So why do you say it is obvious?

At this point we have no way of determining if brain cells are already accumulating the ability of thought or the sensation of pain.

There is a difference between brain cells and brains. Just like there is a difference between an acorn and a tree. And just like there is a difference between a zygote and a person. The acorn is not a tree. And brain cells are not a brain. Get it?

 

[Phred]

your statements are not dealing with the issue

But they are... directly. You say that an embryo is a person. Yet you won't admit that you don't think an embryo IS a person, nor do most people... that IS the issue.

You want to extend the protections of a person back to conception, yet you don't wish to extend all the other benefits. Will I be able to get a social security number for my fetus? How about for a blastocyst? If it doesn't implant, as many conceived cells are known to do... may I take days off from my job for bereavement leave?

It's either a person, or it's not...

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am not a Bible scholar and therfore must rely on the efforts of other scholars such as Strong's to aid me. I looked up every instance of "ratsach" according to Strong's (I could not locate the "link" you referred to) and every single one talked about the killing of a human being (murder).

Once more, click here for the link.

Yes, those passages all talk about killing humans, but not all refer to murder as we use the word. And nowhere does it say that ratsach only applies to humans.

Deu 4:42 That the slayer 07523 might flee 05127 thither, which should kill 07523 his neighbour 07453 unawares 01097 01847, and hated 08130 him not in times 08543 past 08032; and that fleeing 05127 unto one 0259 of these 0411 cities 05892 he might live 02425 :

This is killing, but it is not murder. It is accidental killing. The person is not trying to kill but an accident happens. But it is still called Ratsach. Looking at the context, you can see it does not mean murder.

So you cannot say that Ratsach is the equivalent of murder in this case. It is not.

Perhaps the word meant different things to different people at different times.

Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill 07523 [ratsach].

Here the context doesn't help. What exactly does ratsach mean in this verse? Nobody really knows. And you cannot simply grab one of the many possible definitions of the word--"murder"--and insist that is the right one. And even if it does mean murder, exactly how was it defined back then? Murder is clearly defined in modern law. But ratsach was not clearly defined back then. To take a modern definition of murder, and force that on the ancients, is not valid. We don't know exactly what they meant by "ratsach".

It is better to live life based on principles, rather than rigid rules. There is a principle that says it is good to preserve life. Using principles and reason, we can establish morality.

 

[Natman]

Referring to Deut 4:42

This is killing, but it is not murder. It is accidental killing. The person is not trying to kill but an accident happens. But it is still called Ratsach. Looking at the context, you can see it does not mean murder.

In the current vernacular, it is still murder, otherwise referrd to as "involuntary man-slaughter" or "murder in the firt degree". It is STILL "murder".

It is better to live life based on principles, rather than rigid rules. There is a principle that says it is good to preserve life. Using principles and reason, we can establish morality.

Precisely my point.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

In the current vernacular, it is still murder, otherwise referrd to as "involuntary man-slaughter" or "murder in the firt degree". It is STILL "murder".

I think you should check the definitions of murder. Click here.

 

[Calidore]

human life never begins. it has begun in prehistory with the evolution from dust. more relevant is to ask when it ends, ie with the death penalty. where do we find a religion supporting the state killing of individuals who have often not had proper legal representation? not in Europe, I need say no more do I?

 

[simplynix]

Pregnant women driving alone cannot legally use the HOV (carpool) lane.

Silly, yeah, but it made me laugh.

 

[Natman]

I think you should check the definitions of murder. Click here.

I actually had it backwards when I said...

In the current vernacular, it is still murder, otherwise referrd to as "involuntary man-slaughter" or "murder in the first degree".
​

Murder in the THIRD degree is what is commonly referred to as "involuntary manslaughter".

If you are trying to say that "premeditation" is required for the unlawfull taking of human life to be considered "murder", that is only true in the case of "First Degree Murder".



Here is an example from the Pennsyvania Code (your home state)...

Section 2502. Murder.

(a) Murder of the first degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. (Chgd. by L.1978, Act 39(1), eff 6/27/78.)

(c) Murder of the third degree - All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

​

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the various levels of "murder" as follows...

de·praved–heart murder

/di-'prAvd-'härt-/
: a murder that is the result of an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and no regard for human life
NOTE: Depraved-heart murder is usually considered second- or third-degree murder.

felony murder
: a murder that occurs in the commission of a serious felony (as burglary or sexual battery) —compare misdemeanor-manslaughter at MANSLAUGHTER
NOTE: Felony murder is usually considered first-degree murder. Felony murder does not require specific intent to kill, and an accessory to the felony may also be charged with the murder.

first–degree murder
: a murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony (as kidnapping) or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law

second–degree murder
: a murder that is committed without premeditation but with some intent (as general or transferred intent) or other circumstances not covered by the first-degree murder statute

third–degree murder
: a murder that is not first- or second-degree murder: as a : a murder committed in the perpetration of a felony not listed in the first-degree murder statute

​

Son-cerely,

Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

Natman, we are way off the subject, but I think you misunderstand when you refer to accidental death as murder. I never heard it said that a victim of an automobile accident (with no malicious intent or willful negligence) was murdered.



Here is a link that clearly distinguishes between 3rd degree murder and accidental death.



So when the Bible speaks of an accidental death and calls it ratsach, that makes it clear that ratsach is not the equivalent of the modern word murder.



Back on subject: I see no evidence that the zygote is a person. If you think it (he) is a person, should we issue a death certificate if it (he) fails to attach to the womb? Should we give him a social security number? Should the parents get time off for bereavement if this one-celled person fails to attach to the uterus wall and dies? Should a pregnant woman driving alone be entitled to drive in the HOV lane? If you insist it is a person, shouldn't it have all of the rights of a person?