Abortion

Well, the closest argument to life in the womb according to scripture was that the baby John "leaped" in Elizabeth. Although the other women here said that was common in their own pregnancys. The closest thing I could determine about life in the body was always connected with breath (wind, spirit) going into the nostrils of a person, without which they are considered dead.

So between the two scripture context, the Bible sides more that there is no real person (spirit,breath) in a body until after they are born and take a breath into the nostrils.

From there, some wanted to know why I personally think it is neither right or wrong to abort. They wondered how an event could be both right and wrong or neither right or wrong. So that is how we got here.

 

a little story about fence straddlers. one day God was standing on one side of the fence and satan on the other. God said "Ok all that want to be good come on this side." And Satan said " Ok all that want to be bad come on this side." All parted to one side or the other except one guy. He straddled the fence. Well Satan came by and said "Well come on your one my side." The man said "No i am staying on the fence." Satan said "Ok, but i own the fence too." Just a story for thought....

God Bless America

 

It is never right to do wrong to do right.


Sue

 

Okay--here is my first post ever to a board on this site, and it had to be this issue to get me started.

Post it, I read your well thought out (and very well defended) points and it is as if I am seeing myself, my position on this issue, about ten years ago. I had fallen away from God to an extreme point (another post/another time), and I would say mealy-mouthed, liberal things like, "Abortion is a woman's choice and I will defend it--but I personally could never have one."

Well, four years ago in July I found out I was pregnant out of wedlock. The father did not want me to have the baby and put tremendous pressure on me to have an abortion, because fatherhood was not an option he was interested in at the time.

I had been involved with this man for two years, and was sure I loved him, blah blah, blah. I had an ultrasound to date the pregnancy, and saw on the screen my then 13-week gestation daughter, opening and closing her mouth, moving with a purpose and pattern. She was no less alive then than she is now, at three years of age.

Praise God, I made the right choice, and at the time it was not a choice motivated by any faith or doctrine. I saw my baby then as the innocent party in all of this. That child was not free to walk away from the situation. I saw that I had two choices, one which would make an adult's life easier (my daughter's father), and one which defended the right of a completely innocent person to exist at all.

At that point, I flushed my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road apologetics down the toilet, which is where they belonged in the first place. I truly became pro-choice at that moment, choosing life!

So, you can have your discussions about when life begins. You can make fine philosophical points and quibble over doctrine. But, as Christians, we should remember that "{charity} rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth (I Cor 13:6)," and get off the fence, and have the intestinal fortitude to admit something is just plain wrong, evil, horrible, when it indisputably is.

I am not going to argue the finer points of this issue with you. I will leave that to my brothers and sisters in Christ who have more of a stomach for it than I do. The choice/life debate is not now and never will be a balanced one, as they are approached from two very different perspectives. One side sees itself as defending civil liberty and the other side sees murder made legal; there is not, nor will there ever be, any sane middle ground. The fence is a very dangerous (if not absurd)place to sit on this issue. I know. I have done it.

 

Thanks Susan for putting it so well. Not once did you use scripture to defend your choice. Not once did you use scripture to put guilt and shame on those who choose to abort.

My problem is when others try to claim scripture says this or that when it doesn't. You will see very little argument on my part on this subject out side of scripture because I don't feel pro-choice has very good arguments. In fact, I would lose to science and logic everytime on the abortion issues. So why do we feel we need to lie and claim God said something or implied something in scripture over it? It just clouds issues in any debate. The abortion argument can be defeated but not with scripture.

Abortion is not a Bible issue, it is a legal issue, we need to keep it there.

I was reading two days ago about how mothers in Ethiopia would kill their own children rather than let them go on starving and suffering any longer. They would then feed on their own murdered children to keep themselves and their other stronger children alive hoping that food would some how come to them. That same thing has happened over and over throughout history.

How can anyone judge that right or wrong. Circumstances dictate what is more right than wrong.

 

So you think we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq since we did have to murder innocent children, a clear wrong, in order to do right, defend our country.

 

Susan,
Praise God that you have chosen life and it sounds like you have a beautiful bundle of joy to show for it. Thank you so much for sharing that testimony with us here. It has truly blessed me to see how God was working in your life, even though you knew Him not. What mercy and grace He has!
And welcome to the Baptist Board. Keep on sharing that story with others.

HCL

 

I went back and read the original post by Joseph. Thank you for sharing this, as horrifying as it is. We must pray that these horrific crimes against God's creation will stop.

I want to remind others that one of the best ways to stop abortion is to support your local crisis pregnancy center. They are always in need of baby clothes, maternity clothes, baby items, money, volunteer counselors and prayers. Check your phone book, there is probably one in your area. Even if you can't give much atleast knowing who they are will help when you pray for them as they work daily to save babies.

I remember the first time I had a look inside of a crisis pregnancy center I cried and cried, because I could hardly believe how stocked full their shelves were, *at this particular center*. I knew that so many were choosing abortion for the "reason," of not having enough money and here were literally hundreds of maternity and baby items waiting to be used.

I cried at this sight of it.

 

Post It:

"Breath into the nostrils" as you adamantly continue to assert, is nothing more than air into the blood stream in the final anatomical analysis. The child in the womb has air in it's bloodstream through the umbilical cord from/with it's mother. Your position is refuted and silenced that it must be after birth. I am not sure, I did not read all ten pages of this thread to see if someone has already made that point, but I believe you will still bask away in your own dilemma. There is one thing I am sure about and that is God will help you to see the truth of it all on this side or in your long home.

Thanks ------Bart

 

We did not go to war with Iraq with the intent purpose of murdering innocent children. When a woman chooses an abortion, it IS with the intent purpose of murdering an innocent child.


Sue

 

Well, the closest argument to life in the womb according to scripture was that the baby John "leaped" in Elizabeth. Although the other women here said that was common in their own pregnancys. The closest thing I could determine about life in the body was always connected with breath (wind, spirit) going into the nostrils of a person, without which they are considered dead.

So between the two scripture context, the Bible sides more that there is no real person (spirit,breath) in a body until after they are born and take a breath into the nostrils.

From there, some wanted to know why I personally think it is neither right or wrong to abort. They wondered how an event could be both right and wrong or neither right or wrong. So that is how we got here. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me ask you a question. Do you have a soul? Does that baby have a soul in the womb? If so then that baby and you are alive. The bible says in Genesis "God breathed into man and man became a "LIVING SOUL."

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

The abortion argument rises and falls on the personhood of the unborn.

Lets start with scientific facts.

The Unborn human being is biologically alive. It is a life. Only the most Uneducated Pro-Aborts will not admit that the Unborn are alive, it has been proven as a scientific fact.

The zygote fufills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life, (1) Metabolism, (2) Growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, (4) reproduction. This life is HUMAN Life. the human conceptus - that which results from conception and begins as a zygote - is the sexual product of human parents. Hence, insofar as having human causes, the conceptus is human. not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new - although tiny - individual. It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human. Her (or his) genetic make-up is established at conception, determining her unique individual physical characteristics - gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. That is to say, at conception, the "genotype" - the inherited characteristics of a unique human being - is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual. Although sharing the same nature with all human beings, the unborn individual, like each one of us, is unlike any that has been conceived before and unlike any that will ever be conceived again. The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism (as with the rest of us) is oxygen, food, and water, since this organism - like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent - needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.

The unborn are HUMAN. The old abortion argument that "this is not human life." is now known by scientific communities and even most abortion advocates to be false. There are still some uneducated baffoons who still hold to this premise, but they are easy enough to shut down.

It is important to realize that abortion advocates have been beaten on both of these fronts, I can list numerous sources from secular scientists and individuals that states life begins at conception. Any expert in genetics can tell you that the unborn are human. In fact you can take a newly formed zygote from a human and a chimp and any genetic expert could easily tell you which was which because the DNA identifies which is monkey life and which is human life.

Most logical abortion advocates realized that they lost on both of the above issues, they then retreated to this popular and most common argument.

"The unborn is human, and it is alive, but it is not a person until birth."

Lets examine this argument, and the popular arguments that stem from it.

A popular argument is this " The fetus is just a part of the woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix."

The problem with this is that a body part is identified by a common genetic code, the unborn's genetic code is different from its mothers.

Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs share the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mothers. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. Often his blood-type is also different, and half the time even his gender is different.

Half of the childs 46 chromosomes come from his father, half from his mother. Except in the rare cases of identical twins, the combination of those chromosomes are unique, and distinct from even a brother or sister coming from those same parents.

Just as no 2 people have identical fingerprints no 2 people have identical genetic fingerprints. If one body is inside another, but each has its own genetic code, then there is not one person, but 2 seperate people. John Jefferson Davis states:

"It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existance at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly concieved individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and development. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely "part of the mother's body." In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possess seperate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems."

A chinese zygote implanted in a swedish women will always be chinese not swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code not that of the body in which he resides. If there were only one body involved in a pregnancy then that body has 2 noses, 4 legs, 4 arms, 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 brains, 2 circulatory systems, and 2 skeletal systems. Half the time the child is male, clearly his sexual organs are not part of his mother's body, but his own. In reality, it is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person, and the child another.

A second point, the child may live and the mother may die, or the mother may live and the child die.

The child is a temporary resident of the mother. He will leave on his own as long as he is not prematurely evicited. In may cases where a mother has been fatally injured a child has been delivered without complications. The mother's body dies yet the child lives. If it were part of the mother's body it would have died with her. In California a child was born several months after his mother was declared brain dead.

Being inside of something is not the same as being part of something.

One's body does not belong to another's body because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there, a loaf of bread is not part of the oven because it is baked there. Louise Brown the first test-tube baby was concieved when egg and sperm were joined in a petri dish. She was no more part of her mother's body when she was implanted than she was part of the petri dish where her life began.

The other popular argument is this:

" The unborn isn't a person with meaningful life, it is only inches in size, and can't even think, it is less advanced than an animal."

Personhood is defined by membership in the human species, not by a stage of development in that species.

A living beings designation to a species is determined not by a stage of development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics, actual and potential, which are genetically determined. If we say that the fetus is not human, a member of Homo Sapiens we must say that it is a member of another species, but this cannot be.

Dictionaries define person as a "human being", "Human individual," Or "Member of the human race." What makes a dog a dog is the fact he comes from dogs. His father was a dog, his mother was a dog. What makes a human being a person is that he comes from human persons. His father was a person and his mother was a person, he can be nothing else than a human person.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or development.

Proaborts often argue that a child aborted in the first trimester may be less than an inch or 2 in size, or less than an ounce or 2 in weight. But what measure of personhood is size? Is an NBA Player more of a person than someone half his size? If a 200 lb man loses 50lbs did he lose 1/4 of his personhood? Scales and rulers are no measure of human worth.

Joseph Fletcher maintains that an individual is not a person unless he has an IQ of 40. British anthropolgist Ashely Monatague says no one becomes a person until they are molded by social and cultural influences. By this he means that more intelligent or educated people (like himself.) are more human that the inferior elements of society, (Like the rest of us.) This is a fatal flaw in liberal thinking.

If personhood is determined by one's current capacities, then someone who is unconscious or sick could be killed immediatly because he is not demonstrating superior intellect and skills. "But give a man time and he'll be able to function like a person." Give a baby time and so will they.

Age, Size, IQ or stage of development are simply differences in degree, not kind. Our Kind is humanity. We are people, human beings. We Possess certain skills to differing degrees at different stages of development. When we reach maturation there are many different degrees of skills and levels of IQ. But none of these make some people better or more human than others. None make some qualified to live and others unqualified.

The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not a subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

The 14th Amendment says the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. Of course when this was written the word human was a synonym for the word person, and could just have easily been used. The Supreme Court Admitted in Roe V Wade that:

"Of the suggestion of personhood is established, the appeallant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment."

To solve the problem the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood. In the years that have followed, artifical distinctions have been made by pro-abortion advocates to differntiate between humans and persons. Part of the reason for this was the scientific fact that life begins at conception paints the pro-abort movement into a corner. The old and still popular argument "this isn't human life." is now known by most pro-aborts to be erroneous. They realize that it is only a matter of time before the public (sheeple) learn the truth. The newer position is "Ok it is a life, but it is not a person." Once someone is committed to the pro-abort position, rather than abandon it in the light of scientific fact, they tend to come up with another line of defense.

We must not reduce issues of life and death and basic human rights to a sematic game in which we are free to redefine our terms. Changing the meaning of words does not change fact. The concept of personhood is now virtually worthless as an ethical guide in the matter of abortion.

The only objective questions we can ask are:

1. "Is it Human ,that is, did it come from human beings?"

2. "Is it a gentically unique individual?"

3. "Is it alive and growing."

If the answers are yes, then "it" is a "he" or "she" a living person worthy of protection.

 

Welcome to the board DM!
Thank you for sharing that!
Gina

 

Welcome dittomonkey911, all that and nothing from scripture supporting when life begins. Science can be made to support 6 day creation as well as 13 billion year creation. One year coffee causes cancer, the next year it doesn't. So much for science.
This thread has really been about seeking answers to the abortion question in scripture, not from science.

But you did make a good humanistic argument.