Is Abortion Murder?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
So you are now saying if a woman has a transplanted liver, that isn't a part of her body since it doesn't have the same genes and tissue as her?

In the purest sense, no. A transplanted organ is not a part of her body. It functions within her but it is only a part of her body if she grew it.

By definition, a transplant introduces something into a foreign environment.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Post-it, you are lazy, very lazy, in your thought process about this.

post-it, .. When one rejects abortion as murder, there are only two reasons:
1. Intellectual laziness (not thinking it through, rather mindlessly going with the masses)
2. Spiritual Depravitiy (not knowing right from wrong and living a worldly life).

You have still failed to provide proof of these things. Where have I demonstrated that I don't know right from wrong? Where have I demonstated I am usually Lazy in my thought process? I would like to correct these faults if they are true. I would agree that I would have no business posting on any subject in which they are true.

Then we can discuss your arguments.

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

So you are now saying if a woman has a transplanted liver, that isn't a part of her body since it doesn't have the same genes and tissue as her?

No, it is a body part from another person, and so it would have the DNA of that other person. A fetus, on the other hand, is still a genetically distinct entity.

So - if a fetus is not a person, and since it is not a body part that belongs to the mother, and since it is not a body part that originally belonged to someone else, what is it?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by post-it:
So you are now saying if a woman has a transplanted liver, that isn't a part of her body since it doesn't have the same genes and tissue as her?

In the purest sense, no. A transplanted organ is not a part of her body. It functions within her but it is only a part of her body if she grew it.

By definition, a transplant introduces something into a foreign environment.</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree, if a organ has been transplanted into a body, then that body "grows" the new organ. If cells were not growing due to the host's body blood and nutrition, it would die.

 

[gratefulcao]

Post It said: Is it the taking of a life?
No, just as removing a lung is not taking a life.

So, Mister, is Chopping a guy's head off NOT taking a life?
Is shooting at somebody's head NOT taking a life?
Then my question would be: what COULD be taking a life then?! huh?
The innocent life of a baby is NO MORE, is MURDERED!

Post It said: THERE IS NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT THAT IT DESERVES GUILT OR A CHARGE OF MURDER.

When does a new life start? A new life starts even before we are awe of it!
Let's go to the Bible, see what the Scripture says,
People have worth and identity before they are born.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV)
God is at work in a person’s life while he is in the womb.
For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. ( Psalm 139:13-14, NIV)
God’s commandment forbids the taking of life.
You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13, NIV)
Essentially speaking, every life BELONGS TO God.
Who are we to MURDER an innocent life?!

[ August 22, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: gratefulcao ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jasonW*:
Post-it, you are lazy, very lazy, in your thought process about this.

post-it, .. When one rejects abortion as murder, there are only two reasons:
1. Intellectual laziness (not thinking it through, rather mindlessly going with the masses)
2. Spiritual Depravitiy (not knowing right from wrong and living a worldly life).

You have still failed to provide proof of these things. Where have I demonstrated that I don't know right from wrong? Where have I demonstated I am usually Lazy in my thought process? I would like to correct these faults if they are true. I would agree that I would have no business posting on any subject in which they are true.

Then we can discuss your arguments.</font>[/QUOTE]Now you are acting childish. Sorry, but it is true. If you take the time to read my posts in this thread, you will plainly see the clear holes in your arguments. Holes which you would not have if you would think more about the topic. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, not using the word lazy, but then again, I didn't want to insinuate that you were unintelligent (which I don't feel you are).

Once again, I must correct you. I never said you didn't know right from wrong. You see, in writing, when one says "There are two possible reasons" for something and then lists two things. Well, it is not a statement of assertion. Rather, it is upto the readers, and more importantly, the person to which it directly refers, to decide which it is. I, in no way, stated that you didn't know right from wrong nor that you were spiritually depraved. I simply said that spiritual depravity is one of two possible reasons one could accept abortion. If you personally feel you are spiritually depraved, I am not the one who must show how and why...that is test left to the reader.

In addition, these rather mundane evasion techniques show your inability to seriously discuss the issues. You simply are trying to avoid my corrections and questions. For what purpose? I do not know. I can speculate, and what the heck, I will. Typically, when one avoids another it is because of reproach or fear. This could mean that you do not like my rebuking you, correcting you or it could mean that you are afraid of the topics which I have called/corrected you on. I do now know though, like I said, I am simply speculating.

Where does this leave us? Well, quite a bit of confusion and round about posting could be avoided if you simply answer my questions on page 7 (which I will repost at the end of this entry). I hope you do.

In Christ,
jason

REPOST FROM EARLIER ENTRY (questions to Post-it have thusfar gone unanswered)

Why, according to you, is a fetus not a person? How can you prove this either medically or logically?

Is this, the fetus not being a person, the only reason you feel that abortion is not murder or is there something else?

When, according to you, is a fetus a person? At what point does a fetus turn into a person?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by gratefulcao:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Post It said: Is it the taking of a life?
No, just as removing a lung is not taking a life.

So, Mister, is Chopping a guy's head off NOT taking a life?
Is shooting at somebody's head NOT taking a life?
Then my question would be: what COULD be taking a life then?! huh?
The innocent life of a baby is NO MORE, is MURDERED!

Post It said: THERE IS NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT THAT IT DESERVES GUILT OR A CHARGE OF MURDER.

When does a new life start? A new life starts even before we are awe of it!
Let's go to the Bible, see what the Scripture says,
People have worth and identity before they are born.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV)
God is at work in a person’s life while he is in the womb.
For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. ( Psalm 139:13-14, NIV)
God’s commandment forbids the taking of life.
You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13, NIV)
Essentially speaking, every life BELONGS TO God.
Who are we to MURDER an innocent life?!</font>[/QUOTE]You must have missed the prior posts where I have answered these arguments. Please review my previous answers then post a follow up.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Maybe I should have phrased it differently, not using the word lazy, but then again, I didn't want to insinuate that you were unintelligent (which I don't feel you are).

Thanks for clearing that up. I will review your posts and answer your other arguments.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:

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.

In Christ,
jason[/QB]

That is correct. It can't be murder if the lung is removed and so it wouldn't be murder if a fetus is removed. But if a fetus is removed and it is classified as murder, then removing a lung would also be classified murder.

Of these the two choices, which makes more sense?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jasonW*:

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.

In Christ,
jason

That is correct. It can't be murder if the lung is removed and so it wouldn't be murder if a fetus is removed. But if a fetus is removed and it is classified as murder, then removing a lung would also be classified murder.

Of these the two choices, which makes more sense?</font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure you got was I was driving at with that post. I showed how, using your logic, one could commit grand theft auto on a golf club.

REPOST

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.

Just because both "things" (organ and child) are housed in the same place doesn't mean all the rules apply to both equally. This was shown by using the analogy of the golf club/car both being housed in the garage. You cannot commit Grand Theft Auto for stealing a golf club, that is not how it works. Grand Theft Auto must take place on a vehicle. As such, murder doens't have to be transitive and be on ANY internal part of a person (IE Giving blood is not murder), but, it could hold for certain parts (IE. Aborting a child can be murder).

Also, this is skipping ahead. This would only really hold if the fetus is not a child. You must first demonstrate that the fetus is not a child for anything else to be argued. If the fetus is in fact a child, they have any rights an out-of-the-womb child has.

In Christ,
jason

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:

Why, according to you, is a fetus not a person? How can you prove this either medically or logically?

My main reason is because the Bible never gave a directive that life begins before the first breath of a baby/man. It further gives more evidence that life occurs with the act of Breathing, not a sperm and egg combo mix. There are also some side issues like I don't see why God would abort a pregnancy of a recently conceived zygote when a mother-to-be catches a cold. If that is all it takes to abort, isn't nature/God telling us something here? The lack of scripture though is my biggest concern. If it were murder, it would have been clearly set out in several laws given in both the old and New Testament. It's not like abortions weren't happening back then too. The silence is deafening.

When, according to you, is a fetus a person? At what point does a fetus turn into a person? In Christ,
jason[/QB]

First breath after birth. This could be as early as 5-6 months. And with the aid of medicine.

 

[onevoice]

Quote:
My main reason is because the Bible never gave a directive that life begins before the first breath of a baby/man
---------------------------------------------
The Holy Bible, King James Version

Jeremiah 1:4 (KJV)
4Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV)
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[John Wells]

Dear PostIt,

Read the Bible, my friend!

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psa 139:16 NIV)

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
I am not sure you got was I was driving at with that post. I showed how, using your logic, one could commit grand theft auto on a golf club.

There are to many unproven presuppositions in your extended analogy to address. Basically it was a bad analogy. It left my response as a valid conclusion to your analogy which you dismissed, I guess.

Also, this is skipping ahead. This would only really hold if the fetus is not a child. You must first demonstrate that the fetus is not a child for anything else to be argued. If the fetus is in fact a child, they have any rights an out-of-the-womb child has.

In Christ,
jason

I presented scripture to prove that. I think somewhere in the past posts I listed that a voice from heaven verified that an unborn fetus/baby (the future John the Baptist)is not a "child" until at least, the moment after birth.

NIV
Oh here it is. Luke1: 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

"Child will bear" as in future tense.

KJV
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Fruit is something that comes forth. And in this case it comes forth from the womb.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by onevoice:
Quote:
My main reason is because the Bible never gave a directive that life begins before the first breath of a baby/man
---------------------------------------------
The Holy Bible, King James Version

Jeremiah 1:4 (KJV)
4Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV)
5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Asked and answered in previous posts. Page 3.

Found it!

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew [ 1:5 Or [ chose ] ] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ok, is God saying that he knew everyone before they where formed in the womb? No, he is saying he knew Jeremiah. In fact, the implication is that he doesn't know other people before they are formed in the womb. Otherwise God wouldn't have needed to point this out as something special about Jeremiah over all other people. So here we have a "singular" instance of a pre-birth situation in which God himself admits this is a special singular situation.

Now, that is enough to make my case however, after reading this verse again, I now see something else that is also of importance.

It says that God knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb, indicating that we are talking a pre-conception event. Is God talking about a spirit that was already in existence(not likely) or that it is simply that God can foretell the future and knew what and who this fetus would develop into after birth. Thus not indicating whether a fetus is alive or not since it certainly couldn't have been alive before conception.

The bottom line is that my case is made that we have a singular situation here as admitted by God himself.

[ August 22, 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
I disagree, if a organ has been transplanted into a body, then that body "grows" the new organ. If cells were not growing due to the host's body blood and nutrition, it would die.

I actually should not have followed you down this path even this far. An organ can still never become an individual human being. An unborn child is an individual human being.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
There are to many unproven presuppositions in your extended analogy to address. Basically it was a bad analogy. It left my response as a valid conclusion to your analogy which you dismissed, I guess.

The analogy was poor, due to the logic you employed in the first place. A lung and fetus are distinct "things". The same rules cannot be applied to both "things". Your conclusion that aborting a child or removing a lung either have to both be murder or neither can be murder is just as invalid as my stating that stealing my golf club and stealing my car either both have to be GTA or neither can be GTA. Both assertions (yours and mine) are false. This simply shows that your original logic is tragically flawed.

I presented scripture to prove that. I think somewhere in the past posts I listed that a voice from heaven verified that an unborn fetus/baby (the future John the Baptist)is not a "child" until at least, the moment after birth.

NIV
Oh here it is. Luke1: 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

"Child will bear" as in future tense.

No, you are incorrect in this.

'Will bear' is what is future. Child, in this statement, assumes that the thing inside of her is already a child (if she was pregnant when the statement was made) and she will (future tense) bear it. So, she has a child currently, but will not bear it until a later time.

NOTE: If she was not pregnant when the statement was made, it has no bearing on this conversation. If she was pregnant, then the thing inside of her is already a child.

Also, you do yourself a grave disservice by 1.) Not knowing what the passage is about. Elizabeth is speaking to Mary about Mary's child (Jesus, not John). 2.)Disregarding the previous verse where the bible calls the fetus a baby.

Luke 1:41 and 1:44
41: And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

44: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

So, the bible clearly and plainly calls the fetus in Elizabeth's womb a baby and tells of it jumping for joy. Your already weak scripture is presently crumbling.

KJV
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Fruit is something that comes forth. And in this case it comes forth from the womb.

This neither proves or disproves anything. This is a poor example.

In Christ,
jason

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Scott J:
An organ can still never become an individual human being. [/QB]

Actually, that's not true, now that we can clone humans. Don't dismiss this argument as nonsense, it is not. The same argument applies to an unfertilized egg as well and more people will accept that argument over the lung example. An egg, a lung, and a fertilized egg can become a person if it is developed and nurtured correctly for about nine months.

[ August 22, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jasonW*:

Why, according to you, is a fetus not a person? How can you prove this either medically or logically?

My main reason is because the Bible never gave a directive that life begins before the first breath of a baby/man. It further gives more evidence that life occurs with the act of Breathing, not a sperm and egg combo mix. There are also some side issues like I don't see why God would abort a pregnancy of a recently conceived zygote when a mother-to-be catches a cold. If that is all it takes to abort, isn't nature/God telling us something here? The lack of scripture though is my biggest concern. If it were murder, it would have been clearly set out in several laws given in both the old and New Testament. It's not like abortions weren't happening back then too. The silence is deafening.
</font>[/QUOTE]As I stated before, the bible is silent on millions of issues. If you suggest that we are to take silence as liberty, you are wrong. To use my previous example, the bible never mentions computer hacking and whether it is trespassing or not. Am I to assume that it is ok to hack another's computer simply because the bible is silent on the issue? I can't believe you would advocate this.

Secondly, if I get a cold, I could die! Are you saying that you don't think God/Nature would do this? I will leave that one alone because it really does not show the depth to which you have thought about this issue, I am sure.

I cannot over state that just because the bible is silent on an issue does not give one liberty to do it! Do you think it is ok to kidnap an entire amazon village and perform genetic engineering tests upon them? How about tricking them into going along with the tests? How about not lying, nor kidnapping, but silently subjecting an entire population to biological experimentation. The bible never talks about any of these issues, so, should we be free to pursue such avenues if we wished? Rhetorical question as everyone knows we are not free to do that.....see the connection?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
When, according to you, is a fetus a person? At what point does a fetus turn into a person?

First breath after birth. This could be as early as 5-6 months. And with the aid of medicine.</font>[/QUOTE]So, a fetus is not a child until it takes it's first breath? Is that it's own first breath or would a ventilator count? Do you also deem partial birth abortion as acceptable as the child is not fully delivered when it is killed?

More to your logic now though: A fetus is only a child when it breathes. Now, living has simple been reduced to the ability to draw air for one's self. Therefore, every patient or geriatric on a respirator can, according to this, be killed. This is true under your system because life is nothing more than being able to breath. Life is defined by drawing breath.

You may wish to take issue with this last statement, but you would have no right. According to you, something being alive versus tissue is the ability to draw breath. If one cannot breath for themselves, we can get rid of them as they are no longer alive.

In Christ,
jason

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Actually, that's not true, now that we can clone humans. Don't dismiss this argument as nonsense, it is not.

Yes it is. Cloning has to do with making an exact genetic copy of something. For there to be something cloned, there must have been an original. You cannot clone something that never existed.

The same argument applies to an unfertilized egg as well and more people will accept that argument over the lung example. Both and egg, a lung, and a fertilized egg can become a person if it is developed and nurtured correctly for about nine months.

Please explain to me how a lung can become a person with any amount of nurturing after 9 months. Or, are you assuming because breath is all that is needed for life (your logic, not mine) that a lung is more a person than a heart?