Is Abortion Murder?

latterrain77 The Bible is clear that the taking of LIFE is murder (Exo. 20: 13, Gen. 9: 6). Life begins at conception.

Exodus 20
13 "You shall not murder.

Genesis 9
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.[/quote]
So far, you have only established that taking a man’s is murder. Your conclusion that Life begins at conception was not proven in these verses.

Lets look at the verse.
Job 31
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

This verse only confirms that God makes every thing in existence including Job. God also makes our Lungs etc. Again, this still has not established a human life in the womb.

Job 3
11 "Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?

Thanks for giving me this verse since it actually supports life not beginning until birthing. Notice his implication that he could only die at birth and not before. Which would be the time his first breath would make him alive. I’ll stock this on away for my side. Again, thanks.

Since you obviously are having a hard time interpreting scripture, lets keep looking at them and see exactly what they are saying.
Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

This verse again establishes that God creates all things including David, the egg David came from, his mother the egg was in, and her entire lineage. His use of I does not establish life since one can refer to himself as being an unfertilized egg also. God form the egg too.

Ecclesiastes 11
5 As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed [1] in a mother's womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.

I have never said that a body nor bones are not formed in the womb how silly of you to think that. This verse still doesn’t establish life; it establishes a form only (a shell of human tissue, but not a human being…yet)

Luke 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

You haven’t proved your theory of emotional understanding by the word “leap”. It only establishes movement of the child at the time the Holy Spirit filled the mother not the baby. As to the word baby used here, we continue to use the word baby at any point during pregnancy and baby does not establish the form as a human life. Now to my side, I believed an angel (voice) established proof that it is not a life yet by the words “the child you will bear” more clearly the word “will” places the event of being a “child/life” at the point of birth.

I have my doubts about the whole virgin birth so I won’t bother with this verse, but to say that if the virgin birth is true, then with Christ, I would believe that he was unique and he was a life started at conception. This would fail to hold a ground for argument with normal people. [/quote]

Maybe Biblical evidence that would support your argument better than mine.

[ August 21, 2002, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

John the Baptist lept while he was in his mother's womb. He was so blessed by hearing Mary talk about the life that was in her womb, he worshipped. That's plenty of evidence for most folk that believe the Bible, but I'm not sure you are categorized as a true Bible believer.

I seriously doubt someones testimony of salvation if they don't believe in the Virgin Birth. Jesus did not have the blood of man: He had the very blood of God. IF he didn't have the Blood of God, there would be no hope of salvation for any of us.

I think you probably know all the verses people have been giving you. I can't help but think that you defend murder so ardently because someone in your life has had an abortion. If that is the case, your passion overrides your good logic.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

Dear post-it,

You have made the following statements…

So, with all due respect, I don't think your arguments from "biblical evidence" will matter much anymore on the BB with those who hold to the teaching that the Bible IS the Word of God.

HankD

 

If you read what I have posted, I argue as if every verse is word-for-word dictated by God himself because I know that is what "most" people here believe. If I argued from a full Liberal Baptist stance, I wouldn't be going to the extent I am. So my personal beliefs have little to do with arguments I'm putting forth in reference to scripture and verse interpretation. I'm sure some believe it a sin to wear make-up, does that make their arguments on other issues any less valid? I think not. Nobody here believes exactly the same.

 

post-it said:

11 "Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?

Thanks for giving me this verse since it actually supports life not beginning until birthing.

If someone laments that he did not die in the same accident that claims his loved ones, does that prove he was not alive before the accident?

You also asked:

Again, this still has not established a human life in the womb.

Well, since we have already established that you believe what is in the womb is not actually alive, what is it then? Dead?

 

You are in conflict with Scriture on your Humanistic theory of the Blood of God/Jesus. Even Jesus admits (see below) he is from the seed of David, also Mary's blood had to course through his vains. Your adding to scripture which we have been warned not to do.

Mark 12:35
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?

 

Helen said:

Biologically, the child is a parasite, taking nourishment from the mother, upsetting her hormone balance, causing many enormous sickness during all or part of the pregnancy, and finally, eventually, being expelled.

No, no, no. Not a parasite. A few years ago this was a very popular pro-abort argument - that since a fetus was a parasite it was morally justifiable to exterminate it.

However, by definition a parasite is of a different species than the host. A fetus is not a parasite. It is offspring.

 

Dear Post-it,

I think the individual is alluding to this passage of Scripture:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

RE: Your response to my post...

I understand your arguments for both your views concerning the Virgin Birth and the Bible as the Word of God, though I disagree.

I was simply stating that you lost a bunch of folk.

As a last comment, I believe it is wrong for any one to question one's salvation or imply that it is faulty based on doctrine held or not held.
I see that some have targeted you for that.
Besides that it is explicitly against the rules for posters to do so.

Let me say that while I disagree (sometimes vehemently) and say so, I believe your views are important (INCOMING!) for all of us to know what other Baptists believe.

Who knows, you may change your mind through the influence of others on the BB .

HankD

[ August 21, 2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Bad Analogy, a person in a car accident is already established as alive before the accident. Try again.

For the 4th time... live and alive are two different words and mean two different things. The opposite of live is dead. The opposite of alive is not dead i.e. I felt alive today, doesn't mean I was dead yesterday.

 

Thank you HankD. What many here still don't understand is that I really would like to believe that abortion is wrong, but it isn't supported in scripture as wrong, therefore, it is wrong to say it is supported by scripture as wrong or that God is saying it is murder. That would be lying and lies are wrong.

[ August 21, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

post-it said:

Bad Analogy, a person in a car accident is already established as alive before the accident. Try again.

OK, more basically, your proof-text only says that the author wanted to die when he was born. It does not, as you claim, "support life not beginning before birthing." That is a non sequitur on your part.

For the 4th time... live and alive are two different words and mean two different things.

According to every dictionary I have consulted (Webster's, AHD, Oxford Concise), "live" and "alive" are synonymous adjectives, and the verb "to live" means "to be alive." So I don't know where you're getting your definitions from.

To quote just one of these, the Oxford Concise:

Looks like they mean the same thing to me, and that your distinction is some kind of smokescreen.

The opposite of live is dead. The opposite of alive is not dead i.e. I felt alive today, doesn't mean I was dead yesterday.

Uh . . . being and feeling are not the same thing; and in fact, you are making a false comparison since you are apparently arguing from a figurative definition of "alive" (i.e. lively, active, invigorated.)

So I ask again: if a fetus in the womb is not live/alive, what is it? Dead?

[ August 21, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Post-it,

My theory of the blood of Christ is not humanistic, but rather your's is. In order for prophecy to be fulfilled, Christ had to be born in the lineage of David. He was born of that lineage through His mother Mary. Study the lineages in Matt. 1. She was His only Biological parent. He was not conceived by Joseph, but by the Holy Ghost.

And you have very, very limited medical knowledge. The child in the womb does not receive his blood from his mother, it comes from his father. I have personally heard doctors I know confirm that, aside from reading behind doctors that have written on the subject. M. R. Dehann has an exellent book called the Chemistry of the Blood. He is a medical doctor and a born again Christian.

You are on the borderline of blasphemy when you say that Jesus had human blood. You bring much disgrace to His deity by even suggesting that He was not virgin born.

 

Well...well...well...post.....two hostle threads in one day. WOW! Post-it stirs the pot even more!

The plot thickens.....post it stirs......and his foot is inserted in his mouth.

.....go figure!

 

This, quite frankly, is pointless. Post-it does not want to discuss this issue, nor seriously consider the alternative. Rather, he is intent on trying to use false analogies like the lung/human/DNA issue which was refuted several times to propogate his notion of human and non-human.

Maybe I am stubborn, but I will give this one more try to break through post-it's faulty logic (which abounds in this thread).

1. Just because something is not called "wrong" in the bible does not mean it is not wrong (ie. ok or right) and vise versa. By attempting to demand scripture to prove that abortion is murder is akin to asking me to provide scripture saying that computer hacking is trespassing. So, I can't provide scripture to show that computer hacking is trespassing so you think it is free game? Uhm...yeah...good idea.

2. An organ a.) is a piece of a human b.)has the same DNA has the host c.) cannot survive, ever, on it's own outside of the host (aside from madscientist type experiments) no matter how "mature" the organ is ("mature" is a nice way of saying old. Post-its lungs are WAY more mature than mine and yet neither of our lungs could survive outside of us) d.) will not work in another host save with huge doses of drugs to supress the immune system from thinking it is an intruder.

Where does that leave us?

Well, a child (unborn, in the womb, from the moment of conception) a.) has DIFFERENT DNA from the host, nessitating it being DIFFERENT than the host. I.e. It is not part of the host, nor does it righfully belong in the host. It is biding its time until it is ready to move on. b.) CAN survive, and actually thrive, independent of the host (given enough time).

By pertually trying to argue that the child cannot survive on its own outside of the mother you have stepped into an area which I hope you really don't want to be in. These ideas are what are being spouted to support the 30 day termination of life. This idea would give parents 30 days to terminate their childs life AFTER birth. Also, by extension, if a child must be capable of surving on its own, we would most likely get a 10 year rule as a child cannot realistically survive for about 10 years after birth. Also, by extension, what are we to do with the mentally handicapped? The senile? The old? I doubt you support murdering the mentally handicapped and the senile, but they cannot survive on their own without at least some limited supervision except in rare cases.

3. Bringing love into this is a serious mistake on your part as noone mentioned not loving the doctor or parent. Simply, not allowing it as it is murder. They should be punished just as if someone shot and killed another in cold blood.

If my daughter (if I ever have any) has an abortion, I would love her. I could never stop loving my child. I WOULD chastise her and, if it was illegal by that time, turn her into the authorities.

In closing, post-it, you need to reevaluate the criteria by which you accept abortion as being 'ok'. When one rejects abortion as murder, there are only two reasons:
1. Intellectual laziness (not thinking it through, rather mindlessly going with the masses)
2. Spiritual Depravitiy (not knowing right from wrong and living a worldly life).

There can be some combination of the two, but those are the only two reasons by which one can accept abortion as acceptable.

In Christ,
jason

[ August 21, 2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

HeisLord said:

And you have very, very limited medical knowledge. The child in the womb does not receive his blood from his mother, it comes from his father.

This is a popular misconception, but it is mistaken. The makeup of your blood is the product of both parents' genes, not just the father's. Just like every other part of the body.

In my family, everyone has the same blood type except my father. If blood is determined only by the father, then all of his offspring would have his blood type.

M. R. Dehann has an exellent book called the Chemistry of the Blood. He is a medical doctor and a born again Christian.

Whatever de Haan's medical credentials might be, he is mistaken on this.

You are on the borderline of blasphemy when you say that Jesus had human blood.

On the contrary - it is those who claim Jesus had non-human blood that are in serious error. They border on the heresy of Docetism, which claimed that Jesus was not truly human.

The Lord Jesus was, fully and in every respect, 100% Deity. He was also, fully and in every respect, 100% human. That mean he had human hair, human eyes, a human pancreas, human fingerprints, and human blood.

You bring much disgrace to His deity by even suggesting that He was not virgin born.

Don't draw a greater conclusion than is warranted from the argument. It is a non sequitur to conclude that if Christ is fully human, even his blood, then that casts doubt on the virgin birth. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. If God could miraculously conceive Jesus in Mary's womb without sperm, then he could miraculously provide him with male chromosomes too.

[ August 21, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Just because it could be non sequitur on my part it doesn't mean it couldn't be true... certainly more likely than her non sequitur. Agreed?

Let me say it a different way, a lung is living tissue, a fetus is living tissue, niether is dead.

[ August 21, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

So let me get this straight, Ransom, you believe that Jesus had human blood? Are you a doctor, and even if doctors did not agree (and there are many that do), we have to stay with the Word of God.

This may even need to be another thread, but I'll address it here. By the way, all my children have my husbands blood type, all my sisters have my father's blood type. so the fact that your family is different doesn't discredit what has been medically observed. There are always medical exceptions.

I do not at all deny the full humanity of Jesus Christ. But the blood that He offered once and for all was not and could not be the blood like that of a human. Your blood, my blood, we are all made in the likeness of God, but we are robed in flesh like Adam. And since the fall of Adam, all mankind has followed in his path. Our nature is to sin.

Just like certain sacrifices were unacceptable, the blood of a perfect lamb had to be the offered before a Holy God in order to pay man's sin debt. Now how could a Holy God accept anything less than the perfect sinless Lamb of God's blood? And if it were tainted with the human sin nature, how could Jehovah God find that as acceptable. It would be similar in nature to the Levitical priest offering swine on the altar! Human blood would not do. I Peter 1:19..."as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

With your kind of reasoning, are you saying that man's blood could have paid the sin debt? Of course you are not. Or at least I hope not. God requires blood for a sacrifice, not human flesh.
I am fully aware that He was 100% human, but He was still none the less 100% God. And what He offered to God, was His perfect sinless blood. And no other human could have ever done that.

 

post-it said:

Just because it could be non sequitur on my part it doesn't mean it couldn't be true...

All Job 3:11 says is that Job wishes he hadn't been born. Drawing any further conclusion from this verse about the life or personhood or whatever of the fetus, is wishful thinking on your part.

Let me say it a different way, a lung is living tissue, a fetus is living tissue, niether is dead.

Good, so we have established that the fetus is not dead; therefore, it is alive.

So what is it? Is it human, or is it something else?

 

HeisLord asked:

So let me get this straight, Ransom, you believe that Jesus had human blood?

I am starting a different thread for this issue, since it is not directly relevant to abortion.

 

Please stop your attack on me unless you can show me where I have been hostle to others. Hostle and personal attacks are what the normal conservative here have been doing to me, but only when I say something they don't agree with.... Like you are now doing. I'll pray for you.

[ August 21, 2002, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]