Is Abortion Murder?

[onevoice]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
[QB]Post it, I looked up Numbers 5 and will continue looking at other sources of information that explain it, but so far what I've read is this.

The water used in and of itself contained nothing harmful. Holy water, dust, and scraped parchment of the written curse. It would not harm an innocent person, in fact it would be beneficial to them, but to the guilty it would cause the said symptoms.

Which if the woman had become pregnant during the adultry, she would miscarry the baby because of those symptoms. Right?

This appears to be Abortion sanctioned by the church.

Thanks for your research. Let me know if you come up with anything else.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, this was done by God. Since the water was made to have this affect only on the guilty.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by onevoice:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
[QB]Post it, I looked up Numbers 5 and will continue looking at other sources of information that explain it, but so far what I've read is this.

The water used in and of itself contained nothing harmful. Holy water, dust, and scraped parchment of the written curse. It would not harm an innocent person, in fact it would be beneficial to them, but to the guilty it would cause the said symptoms.

Which if the woman had become pregnant during the adultry, she would miscarry the baby because of those symptoms. Right?

This appears to be Abortion sanctioned by the church.

Thanks for your research. Let me know if you come up with anything else.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, this was done by God. Since the water was made to have this affect only on the guilty.</font>[/QUOTE]Please explain your last comment about God, It was unclear to me what you meant.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Not always.

That is the problem, rith there. not always but sometimes. This could be one of those "sometimes".

The text shows that without breath life ends, not that it does not exist before the first breath. That is a clear and important distinction.

It could also mean that without breath life doesn't exist, which "could" imply that until breath starts, life doesn't exist.

Without the sun, a tree will die. However, when a seed sprouts and the runner starts making its way toward the surface, it is very much alive... without the sun. In exactly the same way, a fertilized egg develops in an environment in which it could not live if it were grown. But it is none the less alive, developing for the next stage of life.

I agree, but this is an A type argument, I do agree this could be true but if the Bible said that trees come to life when the sun hits their leaves, then there is the conflict. The Bible said that Adam came to life when Breath was breathed into his nostrils.

I know you keep saying Adam doesn't count, but that is another A argument, your right, he may not count, but he may very well count since he was "formed" from the earth by God... just as a baby is "formed" in the womb by God. Since there is no other verses that would invalidate the use of Adam, just conjecture on your part, it leaves open the possibility that until both formation is completed and a breath in the nostrils is taken, life is not yet granted by God.

[ August 27, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
[QB]post-it: Now the last points I would like to hear from you on are the first breath ideas and when life begins.

I have made those earlier, but here goes...

It seems that life is always associated with the act of breathing, further that God gives us life in this breath, further that God gives a breath of life. These may be the same, or different types of breath as it is unclear. I'm pulling from Gen 2:7 as Gen establishes life on earth and gives a full cycle of life connected to Adam. It can't be separated from the Breath that is breathed into his nostrils. Even if he were formed in a split second, with fully functioning everything, he still lacked life.

Many verses associate breath with life, and with no breath, there is no life, the implication is that before the fetus takes a breath there is no life, this is backed up by the Adam event of breath and life.

The breath verses are listed a few pages back on one of my posts, it think.

 

[Gina B]

Do infants breathe in the womb?
Not in the same way we do, but they do receive oxygen through the placenta and cannot continue to be alive in the womb without it.
Also, there is such a thing as fetal breathing movements, but it seems to be unknown why? At least I can't find out the info., perhaps someone more learned on it can give information? Anyhow, I did find it interesting to read that for about 24 to 48 hours before birth, these fetal breathing movements are said to stop, and if the baby isn't born soon enough it will go into distress.
This information was read on different sites online, so I do not know the exact accuracy of it.
And here is one site with a little on fetal senses that I thought was pretty interesting.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html
Gina

 

[Scott J]

I am going to try another approach to this "breath" argument. Does "breath" always equal, thus limit, "life"? NO:

1- All of us spend more time in our life not breathing than breathing. Does that mean that we are not alive for 6 out of every 7 seconds? Of course not, that would be a silly conclusion. However, if we are going to take the legalistic approach to terms that your premise demands then this aspect must be dealt with. The clear context in the scriptures you quote is the lack of breath that results in death but we don't die between deaths. Our bodies use stored oxygen... similarly, unborn babies don't die though the "moment" between death and the "next" (or first) breath is nine months.

2- Some animals don't breath in the same sense as we do. Frogs for example don't have to breath through their mouths. They can take oxygen through their skin. Fish don't breath air at all. If I am not mistaken, some parasites even receive oxygen from the blood of the host...

Although I would not call an unborn child a parasite per se, it is not unique among living things in that it takes everything it needs to live from the host.

So when we say "breath = life" are we referring to the process of using lungs to take in oxygen... or are we talking about the system by which a living body oxygenates its blood, allowing it to convert sugars to needed energy?

If we are going to make this equation then it must be the latter. Therefore, the unborn infant is very much alive and very much a person since it has a functional respiratory system.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
[QB]Do infants breathe in the womb?
Not in the same way we do, but they do receive oxygen through the placenta and cannot continue to be alive in the womb without it.

Wow... Chrys, two perfect refutes in a row. I'm really impressed. I forgot that the fetus does breath the fluid. That could count as first breath and since we don't know if it not considered first breath we must default that it could be.

You have now kicked the "possibility" of the first breath from the previous 5 months down to 11 weeks at which time the nose develops and the fetus starts to breath through the nostrils.

It can now be shown that the Bible can be said to support that aborting after the 11th week could be the killing of a live breathing person with a soul, one which God could have given the breath of life through its nostrils.

from your site suggestion:
The nose develops between 11 and 15 weeks. Many chemical compounds can cross the placenta to join the amniotic fluid, providing the fetus with tastes and odors. The amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus bathes the oral, nasal, and pharyngeal cavities, and babies breathe it and swallow it,(Smotherman and Robinson, 1995).

 

[Alex]

Post-it:

The law should not allow abortions at whatever month medicine would normally try to save a premature birthed baby, but rather go ahead and deliver the baby and try to bring it to life. Once a baby can survive on its own (with medical help)it should be considered a human life with rights of a human being. If that is 5 months or whatever, so be it. It is at that point an individual.

I had to go back to page ONE as I am starting to lose it.

You have regressed quite a bit since this post but still far from dealing with abortion as not only bibically wrong, but even in some 50 percent of the secular world, at least in the USA.

In the BOLD above you are calling a premature birth a BABY but in the same sentence, you say only a HUMAN when it survives on it's own.

So what is a baby to you if not a human? It is not in the womb anymore, it is living with help yet it isn't human? You may have already explained this but as I said, with the many, many post by you, and continually changing your views(now back to 4 months), would you answer why a baby isn't a human? Also why are you so adamant in continueing to NOT believe life starts at conception when 99.99 percent who have posted believe it is? Sometimes our questions are not readily defined by scripture,(or at least we may overlook the real meaning), but I think God would call a new life, for the human species, a human being from conception. Do you have a reason why He shouldn't? And lets not go to the Adam theory about breath(THANKS) Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start this topic over but I don't recall anyone asking you this(In the bold).

God Bless..........Alex

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Alex:
Post-it:
You may have already explained this but as I said, with the many, many post by you, and continually changing your views(now back to 4 months), would you answer why a baby isn't a human? Also why are you so adamant in continueing to NOT believe life starts at conception when 99.99 percent who have posted believe it is? Sometimes our questions are not readily defined by scripture,(or at least we may overlook the real meaning), but I think God would call a new life, for the human species, a human being from conception. Do you have a reason why He shouldn't? And lets not go to the Adam theory about breath(THANKS) Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start this topic over but I don't recall anyone asking you this(In the bold).

God Bless..........Alex

Ok, just a note here, a little off the given topic, I know, but I want to say it.
First, changing your views after learning and studying is usually progress. You may have not meant it to be a bad thing, but the way you worded it makes it sound that way.
But the comment that irks me is "why are you so adament....when 99.9% believe...".
That's just silly, and that it is no argument for a belief. The vast majority, IMHO, is usually wrong, and even when it comes to Christians the vast majority can still be wrong.
It's admirable for a person to be able to think for themselves. True, they may want to factor in what the rest all say, but when push comes to shove other people's opinions don't mean squat, no matter how many of them you get, if they're wrong. Read, study, and pray, and go with what happens from there regardless of whether 99.9% of people agree with you or not.
Not that I don't totally agree with your position on the subject, I just disagree with the possible basis for your beliefs.
Gina

 

[Justified]

Are we God's Creation?

Is not the conception of a baby, God's creation?

What if Joseph had Mary get an abortion?

I guess that according to post-it, that this is acceptable?

Where would we go for Salvation?

Or would people like post-it say that this would be the "Sacrafice and Shed blood of the Savior"?

”Why stand on the broad road and get trampled?” Justified Version

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, than to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

”Conservatives- Theology dictates morality/Liberals- morality dictates Theology” Justified Version

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alex:
Post-it:
You may have already explained this but as I said, with the many, many post by you, and continually changing your views(now back to 4 months), would you answer why a baby isn't a human? Also why are you so adamant in continueing to NOT believe life starts at conception when 99.99 percent who have posted believe it is? Sometimes our questions are not readily defined by scripture,(or at least we may overlook the real meaning), but I think God would call a new life, for the human species, a human being from conception. Do you have a reason why He shouldn't? And lets not go to the Adam theory about breath(THANKS) Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start this topic over but I don't recall anyone asking you this(In the bold).

God Bless..........Alex

Ok, just a note here, a little off the given topic, I know, but I want to say it.
First, changing your views after learning and studying is usually progress. You may have not meant it to be a bad thing, but the way you worded it makes it sound that way.
But the comment that irks me is "why are you so adament....when 99.9% believe...".
That's just silly, and that it is no argument for a belief. The vast majority, IMHO, is usually wrong, and even when it comes to Christians the vast majority can still be wrong.
It's admirable for a person to be able to think for themselves. True, they may want to factor in what the rest all say, but when push comes to shove other people's opinions don't mean squat, no matter how many of them you get, if they're wrong. Read, study, and pray, and go with what happens from there regardless of whether 99.9% of people agree with you or not.
Not that I don't totally agree with your position on the subject, I just disagree with the possible basis for your beliefs.
Gina</font>[/QUOTE]What can I say? You are so right!

I guess you can REALLY get me now, post-it! Don't get me as believing what I believe as based on the "99.99 percent statement", though. BUT, even with that in mind, most of these posts were bibically sound, at least to my way of interpertation of the Word Vs abortion. When you go to church, you have to have some faith in what the preacher says ALONG with your own referencing. Many have the Word pretty accurate. That is why I said the percentage of post were pretty well on target with my beliefs. But again, I should apologize now to post-it as I often come across in the wrong way to those more well versed than I (scholars, etc).

God Bless........Alex

 

[Gina B]

Man, would ya all quit agreeing with me?! I'm gettin' kinda scared! Is is a vast right wing conspiracy?!
J/K. LOL
Continue on.
Gina

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
Man, would ya all quit agreeing with me?! I'm gettin' kinda scared! Is is a vast right wing conspiracy?!
J/K. LOL
Continue on.
Gina

You admiringly took some of the heat off of posit-it!

God Bless.........Alex

 

[try hard]

Post-it:
If a woman( most cases, a girl) chooses to abort, how do you know for sure that is the will of God? If God put the baby there ultimately,where is she given a right by God to stop the baby intentionally from being born?

These are sincere questions.

 

[post-it]

Alex, you are right, I have changed my view 3 times (my count) during this thread. I change when I see that a premise I hold that supports the conclusion I hold is proven false, otherwise it is still a possibly true premise. You and many others have just added additional premises and that is why I rejected most every argument made. It wasn't because yours is a false premise, it was that you couldn't show why I should rule out my original premise. The results are that yes, you could be right and I wrong, but equally I could be right and you wrong.

Here is the current argument and my comments of what the current proofs and refutes have shown.

I have used Adam as a premise that God breathed life into his nostrils and this is when life began for him. Other verses supports that life is somehow connected to the breath and that without the breath we die. I extended Adam's experience with breath to people in general.

Instead of attacking and showing why this isn't a valid way to determine life and because it is truly a "possible" way to determine life, it must be proven not to be a way, before I dismiss it.

Instead I have gotten arguments like, well that doesn't count since we are talking about a man vs. a conception. However, that statement is not supported with facts as to why it "can't" be considered, and no scripture or evidence is provide that doesn't disprove the breath idea.

Until it is eliminated as a possible way of determining life, it stays in the equation. Right now it has been knocked back to 11 weeks. At which time First breath could be said to occur.

However, it continues to be an option, there has been no argument to knock it completely out. Another problem that keeps it as a possibility is that the other "possibilities" are just that, possibilities, since scripture doesn't come out and state that life begins at conception. If it said that then first breath would not be a possibility. Other arguments so far is that names like "child", is used in verses and somehow that is suppose to be an argument for life.

I would think that carries even less weight than breath since scripture equates breath with life, but does not equate a name like "child" with life. Plus, I have already shown where the word "man" was used for man before he came to life, therefore names that label are not a basis in scripture to signify when life begins.

Helen presented a valid argument from a secular viewpoint of the wrongness of abortion. I accepted it. Gina presented valid arguments which eliminated Numbers 5 as a defense of abortion. I accepted that one also.

Gina (Chrys) also has presented valid arguments that while it did not eliminate the first breath hypothesis but did prove if it is in fact, a way of determining life, that we must assume at 11 weeks that it could be the time when the fetus starts to breathe fluid which may or may not contain life's breath. I accepted it.

Therefore Life at first breath could start at 11 weeks. If we can find scripture that would rule out this idea altogether, then we are left with the possibility that life could start at conception and it would be the best choice to accept, even if we don't know for sure due to a lack of Biblical instruction on the matter of life beginnings.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Trinity26:
Post-it:
If a woman( most cases, a girl) chooses to abort, how do you know for sure that is the will of God? If God put the baby there ultimately, where is she given a right by God to stop the baby intentionally from being born?

These are sincere questions.

Thank you Trinity26 for your questions. When we know what God's will is, then we follow it. We know what some of his will is by the Bible. I believe the will of God may be found in scripture on this subject. That is what we are looking at. Your questions assume that we need not to look to scripture but to look to God's will through assumptions about what you or others think God's will is. Once you show why I should believe that you know God's will then you have an argument, until then you are asking a question.

My answer, ultimately God puts everything, everywhere. Including the abortion doctor and the procedure. Your implications support that we shouldn't stop anything that God has allowed to happen or "set up." That would include the abortion.

 

[Gina B]

Post-it, I'm going to put a different spin on this to hopefully throw you off a little while I study answers to before eleven weeks. (I'll try to be less honest in the future?) However, it really is a valid question.
When do you think that you became you? Was it at eleven weeks when you started to breathe in your mother's womb, or was it at 18 days when your heart began to weight, or was it when you were conceived?
Sorry to keep using the word "you" and implying that you weren't just a blob of tissue, but I'm not sure when the cut-off date is. (ok, that last sentence was sarcasm to make my point. )
Gina

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by preachtheword:

I want to know if you think Christ was a person while in Mary or if He became a person only when He took His first breath?

I think it was a possibility that he could have been Christ before he took first breath because the Holy Spirit was involved right around conception time. The verses are unclear as to what happened and no other references give us any real knowledge (verification) of what happened. So to answer your question, I don't know if he was or not, nor could I even venture a guess.

Since this is a special case outside of the topic, I have failed to see the relevance. I will wait to see how you try to make this part of the topic of abortion.

 

[post-it]

deleted

[ August 28, 2002, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:

When do you think that you became you? Was it at eleven weeks when you started to breathe in your mother's womb, or was it at 18 days when your heart began to weight, or was it when you were conceived?

At 1-2 months of age (after birth) That is where my memory of events started. Before that I was just tissue without awareness.

PS to moms out there, your children, at 6 months of age, can fully understand all your conversations, even when you are on the phone. So be careful of what you say in front of them. I remember them very well. And talk more with them since they can understand what you say. (forget the babytalk, use english from day one)