Is Abortion Murder?

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
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.

You are correct, I used latterrain77 non sequitur logic to arrive at an equally invalid conclusion. Sometimes it is the only way an illogical person can understand why their assumptions are wrong.

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.

Ok fine, I will use your word if you insist, it doesn't change the argument. The fetus is alive and a lung is alive, how does that prove removing the lung is murder?

[ August 21, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

The fetus is alive and a lung is alive, how does that prove removing the lung is murder?

A lung is a body part; it may be human, but it is not a human being. Removing a lung is not murder, it is a surgical procedure.

What is the unborn? If it were simply another body part, then abortion would be no more immoral than taking out a lung. But a fetus is not a body part. It is gestating offspring, a genetically distinct human being. Deliberately terminating a pregnancy is the ending of a human life.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
Ok fine, I will use your word if you insist, it doesn't change the argument. The fetus is alive and a lung is alive, how does that prove removing the lung is murder?

Post-It, What about this is so difficult for you? You seem to be an intelligent person but this same unsound line of reasoning has been refuted over and over but you keep bringing it up as if it were a new objection.

A lung is not, nor ever will be, a fully functioning, individual human being. It is a part of an individual's body... it is not an individual. It is not a "living soul". The unborn child meets every legitimate qualification for personhood... a lung does not.

Having a lung is not the result of a choice made by the woman. Having an unborn baby is. Pregnancy is by nature a temporary condition leaving the woman no less complete than she was before. A lung is a necessary organ that if lost leaves the woman less complete than she was before.

A lung will never be able to think or make moral choices. A lung can never have a spiritual, intimate relationship with God. Given the opportunity to develop, the unborn child will be able to do these things.

I am amazed that you continue to compare an unborn child to a body part when the differences are so obvious and profound.

 

[jasonW*]

Using Post-it's Logic below:

Human Body = Garage
Golf Club = Lung/Organ
Car = Child

Since both the golf club and the car are made out of the same material (essentially, metal) and they are both housed in my garage, then if someone enters my garage and steals either my golf club or my car, they are commiting grand theft auto. There is no distinction between the types.

Since both the lung/organ and the child are alive/essentially the same living tissue, if someone removes either of them from the mother, the person is either commiting murder in both cases or not commiting murder in both cases. There is no distinction between the types.

This analogy doesn't even do justice to how poor the logic is that post-it is using. A child and a lung cannot possibly be considered the same type...in any fashion other than superficially. Post-it, you are lazy, very lazy, in your thought process about this. Please rethink your position.

In Christ,
jason

[ August 21, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Post-it,

The following passage is used by conservative Rabbis against abortion:

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 exent 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.

I believe The Law (Torah) is saying both and if the child dies so does the perpetrator.

HankD

[ August 21, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear Post-it,

The following passage is used by conservative Rabbis against abortion:

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 exent 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.

I believe The Law (Torah) is saying both and if the child dies so does the perpetrator.

HankD

HankD, you realize that you just proved the Bible does not place a life for life value on a fetus in this passage, therefore, the Bible clearly is saying the the "unformed fetus" is not a life. It is not Human since the killing of it does not justify a death penalty, rather a fine.

I have pointed this out before and most people here just don't get it. You have to think about this one. It isn't seen on the first reading pass.

Any comments? Any other verses?

 

[FearNot]

Pst it
I just don't understand how one can have such little regard for life. I just don't. This is simple. Dead things don't grow, living things do. If it is made of human tissue and dna, is made by a sperm and egg, it is human. The life created is not animal, vegitable or mineral. God said in Gen, women will bring forth children, not things that aren't children till they take a breath.
Children always held a special place in Jesus' physical ministry. Why would he not regard one in the womb as a piece of non-important tissue that can be easily discarded if it is an inconveniance to the person who is carring it? God who can see through time, does know us before we are born. He can see us as old people or as children, or at conception. Everything is created by God, He created life in the first place. Why would He say well, since it hasn't formed legs yet it doesn't matter, I don't love it yet? Why would God excuse the disread for His creation? He created people to multiply, be fruitful. Why would he accept the destruction of innocent life?
I am sorry, but no, abortion is not acceptable as being a choice. A choice is not haveing sex out of marriage. A choice is not getting pregnant if you didn't want a child. Stealing the life away from a child is not a choice, it is murder.

Warning to those light of stomach, don't read further

When those butchers, deliver all of a child's body but the head and poke a hole in the skull, and vaccume out it's brains, they are not makeing a choice, they are killing the child. If someone stuck a vaccume in your head and vac. your brains that would be murder. So what is the difference? I will tell you the difference. You aren't a baby, you can defend yourself, a baby can't.

It is really messed up. The U.S. fish and game wardens can tell you that a fish is too small and must be thrown back, a deer is too young it can't be shot, but the same government says it is alright to suck a babies brains out as long as they are below a sertain age.

WHAT A CROCK

 

[HankD]

It is not Human since the killing of it does not justify a death penalty, rather a fine.

The fine is if the child is eventually born after the injury to the woman, with a birth defect.

If still born then the offender dies.

This is what I believe this passage to be saying.
This is the LXX understanding and many Rabbis as well.
You are entitled to your opinion.

But you don't have to answer (ultimately) to me, neither do I answer to you ultimately.

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

HankD

[ August 21, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Justified]

The seed of the woman and the seed of the man, start the creation of a baby, a human being that grows and matures into a full grown man/woman.

If it ends up being a full grown adult human being, and this started at conception, then the aborting of the baby while it is in the womb, is murder!

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

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Justified:
[QB]
If it ends up being a full grown adult human being, and this started at conception, then the aborting of the baby while it is in the womb, is murder! ]

Correction, it started at the single cell stage of an unfertilized egg. An unfertilized egg that is taken through the proper stages for growth will "end up being a full grown adult human" so why are you saying it magically starts at conception when the egg already existed and is living. Fertilization is just another step in the growth of the single cell.

Following some of the other arguments here killing anything which is alive that could become a human is murder, so removing eggs would be murder and one should be put to death for doing so. Would you agree with that?

 

[post-it]

Please vote, at the link below, how you see abortion if it were outlawed and made a Murder Offense.

Abortion Poll

[ August 22, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[HankD]

Too many assumptions, one of them being that all all Christians support the death penalty (which is another issue).

HankD

 

[jerryMschneider]

Abortion is an example of how our tecknology has far surpassed our wisdom. We now have the ability to do things with which our wisdom is unable to cope. It seems quite strange indeed that we must resort to wordy debate to determine if it is acceptable to remove life from a human being. The fact is that whe the two sexual elements come together there is life. That is the bottom line. To cause that life to stop is to kill it. There is only one motice which is accceptable and which will keep this killing from being considered murder and that motive is self defence. If carring this child to term will result in the death of the Mother, then and only then is this killing of an unborn child not considered murder.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by HankD:
Too many assumptions, one of them being that all all Christians support the death penalty (which is another issue).

HankD

No HankD, it is not too many assumptions. We have the death penalty if Texas. So if abortion was ruled "murder" it would be enforced as it is now. You can't make abortion murder, and expect to change the death penalty in some states. Thats not the way the way laws work.

If Politicians listen to the prolife argument that it is murder and pass a law saying it was. Girls... your daughters and yes some of your wives and mothers... could and would be executed until in the far future, when and if the death penalty would be over turned.

[ August 22, 2002, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jerryMschneider:
There is only one motice which is accceptable and which will keep this killing from being considered murder and that motive is self defence. If carring this child to term will result in the death of the Mother, then and only then is this killing of an unborn child not considered murder.[/QB]

Any woman could die in or during child birth. The statistics show a very tiny percentage will die. Since it is not always predictable who will die, every woman can make a self-defense argument to abort, which you just agreed would be OK.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
Please vote, at the link below, how you see abortion if it were outlawed and made a Murder Offense.

Abortion Poll

Post-It, Not all murders, even in Texas, result in the death penalty. As you know, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes. Should she be tried for murder or man slaughter? Yes. Should she be executed? Not unless the circumstances were incredibly vicious.

The girl, no. However, the doctor should be subject to the highest levels of punishment.

[ August 22, 2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by post-it:
HankD, you realize that you just proved the Bible does not place a life for life value on a fetus in this passage, therefore, the Bible clearly is saying the the "unformed fetus" is not a life. It is not Human since the killing of it does not justify a death penalty, rather a fine.

Post it,

It is you who are wrong on this. If the woman is hit and the baby is born, then there is only a penalty for injury, not for death. There would be no death penalty because the death never took place. The baby was born.

If ... a pregnant woman delievere her child prematurely as a result of a blow, but both were oterwise uninjured, the guilty party was to pay compensation determined gythe woman's husband and teh court. However, if there was injury to the xpectant mother or her child, then the assailant was to be penalized in proportion to the nature of hte severity of the injury. While unintentional life-taking was usually not a captial offsne ... here it clearly was. Also the unborn fetus is viewed in this passages as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of the fetus was considered murder. ... This law was designed to restrict the exacting of punishment to what was equitable (Hannah, BKCOT)

See also Kaiser (EBC) and Keil Delitzsch.

The teaching is exactly opposite of what you are saying

If the blow is unintentional and there is no harm to mother or child, then a simple fine is to be paid as determined by the husband and the court. If the child or mother is harmed, then lex talionis is the rule to be followed, even up to a life for a life. If the baby dies, the person who struck the mother is put to death.

I have pointed this out before and most people here just don't get it. You have to think about this one. It isn't seen on the first reading pass.

I think you are the one who "just doesn't get it" in this case.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Not all murders, even in Texas, result in the death penalty. As you know, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes.

Yes, but to clarify... To be eligible for the death penalty, a person has to be convicted of a second felony in addition to murder. For instance, if you simply walked up to someone on the street and shot them to death, you would not eligible for the death penalty. If you shoot two people though, you will likely get the needle. If you kidnap someone and murder them, you are likely to get the needle as well. If you commit armed robbery and murder someone in the process, you will stand a decent chance of getting the needle. But don't worry, they'll swab your arm with alcohol so you don't get an infection.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Post-It, Not all murders, even in Texas, result in the death penalty. As you know, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes. Should she be tried for murder or man slaughter? Yes. Should she be executed? Not unless the circumstances were incredibly vicious.

Scott, your point is well made.

However, punishment for murder in this regard could be a most heinous crime since a double murder (having two or more abortions) could result in a death penalty. Women in some cases could be considered serial killers if they have gotten away with a few already.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

It is you who are wrong on this. If the woman is hit and the baby is born, then there is only a penalty for injury, not for death. There would be no death penalty because the death never took place. The baby was born.

QB]

Thank you Pastor Larry, I will examine this again later today and post a more complete answer to what arguments could be made from this passage.

I hope you are right on this one, it is the closest thing we have reference to in the Bible regarding the "life" classification during gestation.