Life and breath

He sounds very much like a wordly view, lacking any christian influance in thought on the subject.

 

Helen,

All Post-it and his camp brothers would have to do is to go down to their local university campus, enroll in a Human Anatomy class and PAY ATTENTION to the professor. If the Bible's Psalm 139 is not convincing enough--maybe a worldly classroom will be the crowning event on the liberal mind.

The liberal media/press sure has a warped sense of conviction they throw upon such loose minds!

 

Life begins at conception. Just because the baby needs its mother and can't survive on his own dosn't mean she is not alive. When the baby is born it is just as dependant upon his mother. She can't survive outside the womb without alot of care from his parents.

Bill

 

Helen, I researched that idea but found the word being used, "breathing", in this case should not have been used to describe the event happening with the fetus. The fetus is only "taking in and expelling" fluid to keep the mouth and throat, and inner wall tissues lubricated. This is not an exchange of oxygen, there is no breath entering the fetus. There is a membrane that seals of the lungs from taking in a breath at this point in its development. It is incapable of breathing.

Scripture is clear that the event of breath occurs with the breath going into the lungs from outside the womb. And all references to the breath of life is found outside the womb.

Again to make my belief clear so I don't get slammed personally, I personally think abortion is wrong for other reasons, but scripture doesn't support that abortion is wrong before this 5-6 month period and that is the only argument I have made.

 

Where does scripture support abortion at all? in any stage??? In fact, what was the penalty for a man that caused a woman to miscarry?

[ September 16, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

Every time you write this, I get this mental picture of disembodied souls floating around in oxygen and one entering a body through the mouth.
As I commented to you before, I think you are being too mechanistic about oxygen as a soul medium.

Karen

 

O.K. just a thought here...& I know some will think this is totaly out of context, but seriousy consider before you write me off. Jesus spoke of marraige as two becoming one flesh. All right, so why wouldn't ...at least in God's eyes the child in the mothers womb be considered part of that "one flesh"? Then consider his warning:Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. we have to know that all creation begins & ends with God, no matter when we term it as being "life" or not. Even "if" tha docs' were right about when "life" begins (which they ain't)...it's still God's "creation", not ours.

 

If it were true that a baby isn't alive because it can't survive outside the womb, wouldn't it also be true that one who is on 'life support' by machines isn't alive either?

 

Preacher,

I don't think it's 'out of context' at all. I think it's a very original thought ... and wonderful at that! It opened my eyes to a new line of defense for the unborn. Thank you!

 

The problem using this argument is, just as there are circumstances to allow for divorce with the full permission of God, there could be circumstances for abortion with permission of God,.. example (Numbers 5).

[ September 18, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

I don't see where you get anything about abortion from Num.5 It isn't making reference to killing an unborn child, read it more closely. It's saying the woman, if found unclean will not concieve.Numbers 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Now is my biology off, or don't the seed have to be concieved before it could be destroyed?

 

If it were true that a baby isn't alive because it can't survive outside the womb, wouldn't it also be true that one who is on 'life support' by machines isn't alive either?</font>[/QUOTE]Grammy....I think you missed my point. My positon is that no matter how much help/support/whatever a baby needs it is still alive. The baby needs his mother while in the womb, the baby needs her parents once she is born. If live was measured by being able to take care of yourself a human wouldn't be alive until they reached their teens.

Bill

 

Hi, I'm Grammy1013's daughter...she sent me this convo and thought I should at least reply with this little quote:

Also, if you're going to debate over the fact that there is no oxygen entering into the lungs, then you must also admit that there is no injustice in the 'disposal' of a baby that had just been born and is not breathing due to fluid in the air passage. It is not breathing and has not yet taken it's first breath...therefore (according to you) it is not alive.

 

Is Professor Gordon suppose to override the Bible? Since he is claiming something other than what the Bible says, one of them is wrong.

It is not if a baby is breathing or not, it is 'CAN' a baby breath due to the development stage that makes it ABLE to breath given the chance. This is made clear in Exodus 21. Death penalty given if a baby that could normally live, dies after being hurt in a fight before birth.

 

You have changed your position now. So a baby CAN have a soul without having taken in a molecule of oxygen, he just has to be ABLE to.

Karen

 

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." Exodus 21:22,23

How is it so CLEAR to you that it's only wrong if the baby is 'taken' from the mother after it is ABLE to breathe?

If a woman is with child and men strive (fight), and the baby departs from her and dies ... it requires the death penalty. There is absolutely NO MENTION of whether the baby is ABLE to survive, only if because of men it is taken from the woman and DOESN'T survive.

[ September 18, 2002, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Grammy1013 ]

 

Post-it, As best as I can tell, you never dealt with my argument about what constitutes breathing. If you will remember, I argued that it is not limited to inhaling and exhaling but would include any method by which blood is oxygenated. In every important sense, a baby must breath shortly after conception in order to continue its development.

It is not that failure to inhale and exhale that causes someone to die.. It is the failure to take in sufficient oxygen. Likewise, it is not inhaling and exhaling that constitutes life but the ability to acquire oxygen to burn calories to operate the body systems.

 

You are attempting to use science to argue with scripture. I have no idea why the breath of life was never mentioned as being present in the unborn, but it is clear that all references were connected to after birth entities. You would think that if God knew that this was wrong, he would have given us a clear verse somewhere to work from. But he didn't! Of course he wouldn't have if in fact, there is no life before the first breath, and abortions today are not murder.

I therefore, default out to existing text which indicate there is no life without the breath of life.

 

....still waiting on Post-it to give proof of when God gives someone their spirit..
Gina