Yes, it is a child in the womb.

Do you wish to hear a cryptic answer or plain English? If the latter, then abortion is indeed murder - plain and simple. The above referenced Bible verse refers to plain murder (in this case double murder, because killing a women and her child within the womb).

 

The Church has always viewed abortion as murder. One early Church author (and I forget which) said it was so horrible a deed that he he didn't even want to call it murder.

HankD

 

Thanks PTW, That other thread was certainly becoming redundant with Post-it simply re-packaging the same defeated arguments.

One thing kept recurring to me though. Once Post-it said that he sometimes debated just to pick up good arguments rather than to defend his personal opinion. He plays the "devil's advocate" so to speak.

I'm not sure which would be worse. If he really believes the non-sense he posted or if he was being deceptive all along.

 

What I said was that I will take on arguments that I may not have any real belief or care about either way, then make a case using scripture against “out of context” social promotions by the scripturally challenged.

I do this since I hate to see the Bible and our Faith raked over the coals by using it in ignorance to promote an stand that can’t be made from verses in context and scripture against scripture.

I have said that I think abortion is wrong but I didn’t arrive at this view from scripture. If anything, my thoughts on its wrongness is contrary to scripture. I am just making the arguments from within the confines of Scripture. I will and have adjusted it when scripture or understanding of scripture has been presented to support changes to my original stand.

This is, after all, Theology and Bible Study, not the Baptist Opinion Forum.

[ September 03, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Labeling doesn't establish life. Of course they used the word child, what else are you going to call "it"? There are no other words to describe it, even Fetus means "baby". But "names" don't establish "life."

Adam was called a "man" before he was given "life". Labels and names only help us understand generalities about an object.

 

Oh, so maybe life just means moving in general, like how a plant sways in the wind or gets bigger. Kewl.

 

Honk! Honk!

So many geese post-it, so little time

Please give it up.

HankD

[ September 04, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Maybe if I go ahead and use your argument in a formal logic equation, you will see why it doesn't support your conclusion.

p1 Anybody called a child is alive
p2 A fetus is called a child
C Therefore, all fetus' are alive

If p1 and p2 are true (facts) then C is true.
If either or both of p1 or p2 can be shown not to be a fact (false), then the conclusion can't be a valid conclusion.

Here was my refute on your premise.
We also call a child who has just died "a child" too. Therefore p1 is a false premise, while p2 is true, therefore C is an invalid conclusion.

I hope this helps shows why it is an invalid argument.

 

Preach says:
Good one. That is informative. The latin term for child is fetus.

So, your second premise goes like this:
A child is called a child.

That is profound.

Problem for you: a fetus is not anything but a child. They are one and the same. It is the same word in a different language. Hello! Didn't we learn this when we were, 12?</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't change anything. I used fetus to make it short and clear but here, I will use your exact claim.

p1 Anybody called a child is alive
p2 An unborn entity in the Bible is called a child
C Therefore, all fetus' are alive

p1 is still false and the conclusion is still false.

 

Then please give me your premises and conclusion, I would like to see this.

Show me how calling something a child makes it alive.

 

Sorry Post-it, I had hoped to not start the piling on again but this has to be exposed.

A "dead child" must always be qualified as "dead" or the assumption is that it is alive.

Additionally, when we say that a child "died", the phrase has a specific meaning- that its body is no longer functioning in a way to perpetuate its life. This cannot be side of an unborn child.

On several occasions, you have claimed to just be taking the Bible literally. Yet, when confronted with clear passages like this, the discussion devolves into us trying to convince you that words mean what they mean.

On the other hand, you post scriptures that neither explicitly nor implicitly support your conclusions and demand that we read between the lines with you to get a different meaning, ie. the discussion about the test for adultery.

Additionally, you employ escape and evasion tactics when your arguments fall apart. In this case, you cannot accept the very literal meaning of the posted passage so you attempt to switch to "logic." Now, since it has been demonstrated that a dead child cannot be a proper analogy for an unborn child, what will you do? My guess is that you will pull out one of your (already disproven) scriptural arguments and claim victory through your 'literal treatment of scripture.'

Until you can agree that words mean what their definition says and that a literal interpretation of scripture requires that we not insert a pregnancy into the text when it is neither said nor implied, it will be impossible to have a meaningful debate with you.

 

Then please give me your premises and conclusion, I would like to see this.

Show me how calling something a child makes it alive.</font>[/QUOTE]p1- The word "child" unless otherwise qualified means a living child. This is universally true.
p2- The word "child" in the passage in question is not qualified in such a way as to imply anything other than a normal living child.
C- The passage refers to a living child.

p1 Anybody called a child (without qualifying terms such as "dead") is alive
p2 An unborn entity in the Bible is called a child
C Therefore, all fetus' are alive

On several occasions I have noted that you have abused and twisted scripture to support an argument. Now, you are doing the same with the rules of logic.

 

Doesn't this scripture provide proof that the unborn is actually a child (babe)?

_____________
Luk 1:41 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:
_____________