Is Abortion Murder?

[Gina B]

Post-it, here is what you said.

Ok more bad news for the CONSERVATIVES and some liberals!

ALERT ALERT ALERT:

Bible verse found that once and for all establishes when "life" begins.

Speaking of the New Heaven and Earth...

Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,

This supports the first breath concept also. So far every verse we have examined supports it and now we have one that says an INFANT HAS ONLY LIVED A FEW DAYS (Infant is one that has been born) It was common that a baby could die soon after birth. This will not happen in the New Earth, as it does in the this earth.

This verse can't be twisted by my opponents. This verse backs up every first breath argument I have posted. Life begins at birth and more specific at first breath.

Will you now stop saying the Bible says life begins a conception... that is a Catholic view and one that is wrong.

You said that the verse supports that life begins at first breath. Yet this verse is referring to babies outside the uterus, ones that have already been born and died a few days afterward. It does NOT prove that life begins at first breath if you think that infants breathe at 11 weeks inside the mother, since it's referring to babies already born.
Besides that, humans are unique in that they have souls. When a soul is imparted might be a better way to define what is human and what is just a blob or an animal. Don't you think?
Gina
PS. Thank you Ransom for supporting the murder-free view.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
You said that the verse supports that life begins at first breath. Yet this verse is referring to babies outside the uterus, ones that have already been born and died a few days afterward. It does NOT prove that life begins at first breath if you think that infants breathe at 11 weeks inside the mother, since it's referring to babies already born.

What I said was that if a baby could breath, (take the first breath), then at that point if it is aborted then it is murder. This argument comes from an earlier passage in which we are told that a man can be killed if he kills a baby that should have been born alive.

I know you might have missed that one, but it is in the past somewhere. The argument I have is built on each and every scripture that has been presented during this thread if it supported (a life starts at X) concept.

 

[Alex]

Hello, post it:

Boy, do you make radical changes. Not so far back, you agreeded that life began around 11 weeks as per scriptures that you accepted. Now I see you are back to a full birth as the beginning of life as per the first breath.

Now we have everything prior to birth as just "something" that has life! That "something" prior to birth has ALL that humans have yet it isn't human.

So where are we, back to square one?

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

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Alex:
[QB]Hello, post it:

Boy, do you make radical changes. Not so far back, you agreeded that life began around 11 weeks as per scriptures that you accepted. Now I see you are back to a full birth as the beginning of life as per the first breath.

Scott put forth an argument that pretty much nulled the breath via the placenta fluid. The fetus is not breathing to obtain oxygen but rather fluid that just lubricates the lung and interior linings. No life breath is able to enter at this time through the nostrils. This takes us back to the 1st breath ability at 5-6 months.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by post-it:
......Scott put forth an argument that pretty much nulled the breath via the placenta fluid. The fetus is not breathing to obtain oxygen but rather fluid that just lubricates the lung and interior linings. No life breath is able to enter at this time through the nostrils. This takes us back to the 1st breath ability at 5-6 months.[/QB]

Dear Post-it,
What I seem to hear you saying is that God only works through oxygen to create souls and only through a very mechanical physical mechanism.
It seems to me that you continue to overemphasize one aspect and underemphasize all of the other qualities of an unborn baby. You do not see Adam's creation as a special case, but every baby mentioned in the Bible you see as a special case.

Karen

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by SheEagle911:
Thank you for you assessment of me and your personal attacks.

by stating a couple of verses that lead me to conclude that human life starts at birth which implied abortion not being murder, you identified me as a pro-abort! where did i say that abortion is fine?

in that matter i refuted you, and told you your mistake in misjudging me. i did it for my defense. i did it because you have showed me a pro-abort when i did not say anywehre that i am! and when i did it, you saw my personal attack. but did you see your mistake? as far as this thread is concerned, all i've said was that abortion is not murder and that the practice of it is a different issue. once again, this thread is about abortion being murder or not! it is NOT whether abortion is fine or evil.

Originally posted by SheEagle911:
You sure know how to illuminate the beauty of Jesus Christ and show His love to all creation including the unborn children who never had a chance to draw their first breath because some butcher slaughtered them in the womb and sucked their brains out.

good thing Jesus Christ would not see me as a pro-abort simply because i said it is not murder! here is what i believe:

Is abortion murder - NO!
Is abortion fine - NO!
Is abortion bad - YES!
Should there be special cases when abortion must be allowed - rarely yes, and in a very strict standards.

here is one situation:
1. a rape victim who cannot forget the trauma with a blown womb should be allowed to choose to abort or not. by the way, when the rape victim chose abortion, i would not call her a murderer!

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Karen:
Originally posted by post-it:
Dear Post-it,
What I seem to hear you saying is that God only works through oxygen to create souls and only through a very mechanical physical mechanism.

What we are focused on is when or at what development stage does scripture say a fetus/baby is living as a viable human that if it were to be aborted/killed, it would be murder.

Scripture seems to say it is when breath enters the nose and until it leaves, that life exists.

It seems to me that you continue to overemphasize one aspect and underemphasize all of the other qualities of an unborn baby. You do not see Adam's creation as a special case, but every baby mentioned in the Bible you see as a special case.

Karen

I know it looks that way, but it isn't. I keep trying to show why, but when one doesn't want to be open minded about a subject and put previous assumptions to the side, it is very hard to interpret scripture correctly.

For example, Jeremiah has been used in that God knew he would be born, he knew him before time even existed. David too, God knew these people before time, before the world, in the womb, and in childhood, knew what they would do in life. These facts only support that God is omniscient, it doesn't establish when life begins. It said nothing about life in the womb, it said God formed them in the womb, well God forms everything, everywhere. God forms rocks, and he knows what rock will be were and when, but that doesn't mean they are alive. So all these arguments are non sequitur.

I can use Adam only because we have very clear verbiage that he was formed by God, then god breath into his nostrils, then man came to life. Could this be a special case, yes, but only in that he was formed a whole complete man. But the sequence of forming, breathing, then life is the same flow that isn't a special case. All people are formed (in the womb), then they breath. To fit life in there somewhere we have to look at scripture. With Adam, it was placed in just after he took his first breath from God. All animals have the same breath, so we have to assume that it is connected to normal everyday breathing.

We then have many verses that equate breath or the lack of breath with life and death.

 

[Gina B]

They didn't exactly have ventilators back then post-it. Being born even 4 weeks early would have been dangerous.
Why should when we can pump breath into someone count? And why should the baby count as a baby if it hasn't taken that first breath? Why count breath over heartbeat? It's all physical, and doesn't seperate us from animals.
You're arguments aren't logical.
Gina

 

[Gina B]

Bump!
Just in case post-it missed it last comment.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Chrysoprasus:
They didn't exactly have ventilators back then post-it. Being born even 4 weeks early would have been dangerous.
Why should when we can pump breath into someone count? And why should the baby count as a baby if it hasn't taken that first breath?
Why count breath over heartbeat? It's all physical, and doesn't separate us from animals.
You're arguments aren't logical.
Gina

It think my arguments will make more sense in reference to the ventilators if I repost some verses that HankD posted early on in this debate.

Exodus 21:
22 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.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Some say this passage (eye for eye, life for life) applies to the woman only.
Some say both.
Some say the child.

The Septuagint appears to say the child.
However, and to be honest the LXX applies it only to the extent of the development of the child.

LXX Exodus 21
22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now the bottom translation is from the Torah I think it helps clear up the interpretation twisting that was going on with just the KJV.

The point that we are taking from this verse that would bring in a ventilator argument is that if a man is found guilty of hurting a woman and causing the death of an unborn that could have lived under normal circumstances (in modern time this would be with the help of ventilators) then he was guilty of murder. This means that if a woman aborts her baby when in fact the child could live outside the womb, it also must be murder, but before this time is not considered a murder, the old T law was very exact... meaning a life for a life, it even says it here again. It also means that a baby that couldn't normally survive (undeveloped) is not a life.

Now that is enough, but the scripture against scripture analysis shows that it again boils down to when can the baby breath, that is the last and most important feature in its development. It also ties in with the first breath concept. Scripture against scripture keeps pointing to the first breath as the key to when a baby is considered a living human.

 

[Gina B]

It says it has value, and it does not say it wasn't a child or didn't have life. In fact, it says child. The only difference given is that the punishment was life for life.
It says nothing about breath. It speaks of form..in the "version" you used. And what stops you from interpreting that as not meaning if the baby was deformed with a disorder and most likely would have died without his actions?

I don't get how you keep getting the breath thing from nowhere but ignore that you don't know when a soul is given.

Gina