Penalty for ABORTION.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I don't advocate or encourage abortion. I simple do not believe in calling doctors and women who choose to engage in such activities murderers.

So I am really curious about something, do you really believe it is morally acceptable to pull a baby partially out of the womb one day from delivery, stab it in the back of the head, and suck the brains out? Or how about torture it while its head is still inside, is that morally acceptable as well?

In order to remain consistent with your belief that life begins at first breath you have to say yes.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think abortion should be illegal once the fetus is capable of breathing out side of the womb. Even if it is so premature that it needs help breathing, but if it can be born out of womb, then it is a living, breathing being and it has the right to life. To be honest, I don't know when that stage is.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Even if it is so premature that it needs help breathing, but if it can be born out of womb, then it is a living, breathing being and it has the right to life. To be honest, I don't know when that stage is.

So I am a little confused. Why are you trying to make the case that the soul doesn't exist inside the womb, as you obviously believe it does ^^^^

They can survive around 22-24 weeks gestation

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That's not what I said. I believe the soul enters the fetus upon drawing its first breath, so to avoid aborting a birth, abortions should only be legal up to the point that the fetus is capable of drawing breath. If that point is indeed 22 weeks, then abortion past 22 weeks should be illegal, since the fetus is capable of experiencing birth (soul imputation).

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why should it be illegal if there is no soul in it? You can say it has the potential to be a living, breathing being, but if this is your current stance I see no justification for making it illegal at 22 weeks or even 37 weeks. Am I not understanding your position appropriately? I mean people like to over complicate this issue, when its really not a complicated issue. Either, it is a life and you cannot kill it or it isn't a life and you can do whatever you want to it. Your position, from my understanding, seems to be that lungs making contact with oxygen is crucial for a soul, and therefore crucial for right to life.

Why should someone accept that the phrase "breath of life" is an idiom for the soul, and yet focus so directly on the literal action of breathing of oxygen? I know this may seem like a silly question, but from your view couldn't I keep God from giving a baby a soul by simply not allowing oxygen to enter its lungs after its exited the birth canal ?

If that point is indeed 22 weeks, then abortion past 22 weeks should be illegal, since the fetus is capable of experiencing birth (soul imputation).

Am I really to believe that God's love for a human only extends to the stage of development its lungs are at? Or am I to believe that the fetus is not human? Both just seem outrageous to me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm not to familiar with the developmental stages of a fetus, so I wont speculate any further. I will say, if the fetus takes its breath during the process of abortion, and the process is continued, then it is murder. If the abortion is completed without the fetus taking its breath, then its not murder.

So I personally think abortion laws should be designed based on that. Does that answer your question?

From Adam to Israel's resurrection, the BREATH always indicates life, never conception or gestation.


Why do you think God used the phrase, "breath of life"? Its because living is associated with breathing, and death isn't. Why is it so difficult to see that its an idiom, cleverly attatched to a physiological action.

Believe whatever you choose. ButI recommend using 1John 1:9 constantly. The is no such thing as an objective Christian who doesnt us 1John 1:9.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Brother I've done as you asked with 1 John 1:9.

I'm not to familiar with the developmental stages of a fetus, so I wont speculate any further. I will say, if the fetus takes its breath during the process of abortion, and the process is continued, then it is murder. If the abortion is completed without the fetus taking its breath, then its not murder. So I personally think abortion laws should be designed based on that. Does that answer your question?

Brother, please tell me that you can see your being logically inconsistent. So again I'll have to ask can I overpower God's desire to give a child a soul by simply covering its air ways after exiting the birth canal? This is the question I asked you a few post back:

So I am really curious about something, do you really believe it is morally acceptable to pull a baby partially out of the womb one day from delivery, stab it in the back of the head, and suck the brains out? Or how about torture it while its head is still inside, is that morally acceptable as well?

Now your response to this, was if it can breathe outside the womb then the baby should have had a right to life, which to me means doing the above acts would be murder at such a point. Now you are saying that if the baby hasn't taken a breath then you or I or anyone else can pull if half out of the womb and dismember the child limb from limb and it would be morally acceptable to both you and God? So which is it? Do we have the right to torture a baby half way out of the womb or not? Again in order to remain consistent with your statement that " If the abortion is completed without the fetus taking its breath, then its not murder," you have to concede such an act is morally acceptable.

Are you aware of the fact that a baby might not take its first breath for up to a minute upon exiting the womb? I take it if I were a serial killer with a sense of morality I would be an OBGYN and everytime I delivered a child I would just sling as hard as I can into the wall in front of its parents. When they look at me in horror I'll be sure to tell them the child hadn't taken a breath yet and therefore wasn't actually alive and so my action wasn't murder, and you with your current position would have to agree that it is not murder.

I appreciate your honesty and I don't mean to be rude, but how can you form an educated opinion on this topic if you don't even actually know what a child in the womb is capable of a certain points during the development stage. I am curious how are you tying this in to your eschatology because I think its part of the reason you seem to have this position.

I am not extremely familiar with them, but I know 92% of abortions are preformed up to 13 weeks, by which the baby can feel physical pain, and even has the mental sense to run from the danger when the vacuum is stuck inside the uterus. Unfortunately, the one person in this world who was supposed to protect that child from such a danger is gladly letting it occur, and its struggle is futile.

Why do you think God used the phrase, "breath of life"? Its because living is associated with breathing, and death isn't. Why is it so difficult to see that its an idiom, cleverly attatched to a physiological action.

Well I think its pretty obvious that such a stigma was attached to the soul due to the lack of medical knowledge about 3500 years ago when Moses was writing Genesis. I mean its pretty obvious now days that lack of breath does not immediately equal lack of soul. So I just take that idiom as an ignorant one of man that God uses on occasion to express knowledge to these people. I equate this to the statement in 1 Corinthians 11:14, "Does not even nature teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?" This comes from the works of Herodotus I believe, and in Paul's day it was thought that seamen was stored in a women's hair. Maybe you and I have different views of inspiration as well.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm not saying that abortion isn't a sin, nor am I trying to morally justify it. Those decisions are between the patient and God. I'm just saying that abortion is not murder. A fetus, even outside the womb is not alive till it breathes, so any damage to the body is not damage to a human being unless it starts breathing. There is an entire circulatory conversion that occurs once the child takes its first breath. I really think you are letting emotion control you're reasoning. Most orthodox Jews even believe that the soul came with the first breath. They believe it was part of their law.

God chooses to create, not man. So a woman who intentionally gets pregnant is not the creator.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm not saying that abortion isn't a sin, nor am I trying to morally justify it. Those decisions are between the patient and God. I'm just saying that abortion is not murder.

Okay so its a sin, and morally atrocious but it should be legal? I don't follow your reasoning. I see no reason to classify it as anything other than murder. What are you classifying the sin as?

A fetus, even outside the womb is not alive till it breathes, so any damage to the body is not damage to a human being unless it starts breathing. There is an entire circulatory conversion that occurs once the child takes its first breath. I really think you are letting emotion control you're reasoning.

Okay so it is not murder to pull a baby at 39 weeks gestation from the womb, toss it in the air, and blow it away with a shot gun? I mean you have enough time to do so before it breathes so this mustn't be murder. Why isn't it murder? It doesn't pass my soul test, which is solely based on oxygen touching the lungs.....like that is retarded man...it really is..and I am sorry if I seem short but your to smart for such a dumb position.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Drinking in excess is a sin, does that mean it should be illegal?
If you say yes, then your problem runs deeper than pro-life vs pro-choice. Who are we to push morality upon others. Murder is more importantly a suppression of volition issue than it is a "moral" issue.

Okay so it is not murder to pull a baby at 39 weeks gestation from the womb, toss it in the air, and blow it away with a shot gun? I mean you have enough time to do so before it breathes so this mustn't be murder. Why isn't it murder? It doesn't pass my soul test, which is solely based on oxygen touching the lungs.....like that is retarded man...it really is..and I am sorry if I seem short but your to smart for such a dumb position.

How much clearer can I make myself? If its not breathing, its not alive. The use of a shotgun would be highly unprofessional, but its not murder IMO. Sensationalizing your opinion is not going to change mine

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Okay well that shows me you are somewhat diluted, and you can't argue with insanity. As Richelle E Goodrich said, “You can't argue with insanity. You can stare at it, gaping and incredulous, but arguing with it is futile.”

From a thread I posted long ago:

You simply cannot win an argument with a person who is insane. A sane person listening to your presentation may become convinced, but there is no way of convincing a person who is not sane of anything. For example, Lets say I am holding a pineapple in my hand and claim that it is a pineapple, but another person in the room instead claims that it is a tv remote. I would be completely incapable of refuting this persons claim as I would have no stronger proof other than a pineapple being in my hand. This person and I would have a fundamental disagreement about reality, and the only solution to this would be to the resolution of a mental illness. I find the above example, parallels to the discussions I have upon morality. For example I may say that torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil. Yet there are those who would argue that morality is based on the subjective whims of each individual person. Those who argue this are simply calling my pineapple a tv remote. There is a fundamental disagreement about reality. I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil. I cannot hope to convince anyone who disagrees with such things that objective morality is the truth behind reality as they simply are not in touch with reality.

Brother I have no stronger evidence that abortion is murder, but to show you that physically the actions are identical. Your argumentation is that based on nothing but pure speculation about what the Bible says about the soul. Mine however is based on observation of such actions. There is nothing misleading about watching a child struggle for it's life. I love you man, hopefully the spirit can reach you.

P.S.

Drinking in excess is a sin, does that mean it should be illegal? If you say yes, then your problem runs deeper than pro-life vs pro-choice.

Drinking in excess and then preforming an action that could harm someone other than yourself is illegal.....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Just because your evidence appears stronger in your eyes, doesn't mean that it is. If you think I'm insane, then let me remind you that by your own measure of judgement, it is reflected back upon you.

That doesn't mean that I am right, but what you have shown me has gone against the established grain of Scripture.

Nevertheless, the government should not be given the right to legislate or dictate morality.

For now we'll have to agree to disagree. You keep using 1John 1:9 and asking God to correct your mistakes, and I will do the same for myself.

Ps. I'll address your comment on the Parable of Ten Virgins in its own thread soon. I'll send you the link when I have time to write the OP.

I am not very studied in theology; could someone help educate me where it says in the bible that it is our responsibility to judge and then punish people rather than God's?

If the punishment for killing babies is going to hell, does God also demand that the accused be punished in life as well?

Is it stated in the bible that killing is wrong (rhetorical, even I know that commandment)? Can someone who is pro-life justify killing in warfare from a biblical standpoint as opposed to killing via abortion (insofar as the distinction actually being made)?

a reply to: Wayfarer

My argument throughout the duration of this thread has been that the Bible teaches, life at first breath, not at conception.
That was a popular Protestants understanding up until the 1960s. Thats when pastors began to lose interest in the Hebrew/Greek text of the Bible, and churches became 'goody two shoe' lonely heart's clubs.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Looking forward to it.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I don't want to get into it anymore, but look at 6f

www.epm.org...

6f. A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth. Some prochoice religious groups argue that as Adam’s life began when God breathed into him, so each human life begins when the baby is born and takes his first breath. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the unborn’s respiration:

While breathing in the usual sense does not begin until birth, the process of respiration in the more technical biological sense of the transfer of oxygen from the environment of the living organism occurs from the time of conception...it is the mode but not the fact of this oxygen transfer which changes at birth.[viii]

Looks like if one is referring to oxygen as the "breath of life" it is there at conception.

www.scienceclarified.com...

Science Clarified El-Ex Embryo and Embryonic Development Embryo and embryonic development The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen). The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has.These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms.

So friend now you have literally no distinction between the embryo and the adult unless you want to make the argument that mode of oxygen transfer is now the important thing... I don't want a response just think about it..

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The circulatory and respiratory systems are two separate systems, even though they do work together in a living human being. In the fetus' case, the respiratory system is inactive, while its circulatory system is completely dependent on the mother's intake of oxygen.

Oxygen circulation is not the same as breathing, but the act of breathing is the sign of ensoulment.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I do have one question for you. God does noting without giving us spiritual lesson to learn from it."It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of a king to discover it."

If Adam wasn't alive until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of his body....
If Israel is not resurrected until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of her body...
If we are BORN AGAIN, not CONCEIVED AGAIN....

Why would God deviate from His specially crafted theme to put a soul in a fetus while in the womb?

Show me what the spiritual lesson would be behind 'life at conception'.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If Adam wasn't alive until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of his body.... If Israel is not resurrected until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of her body... If we are BORN AGAIN, not CONCEIVED AGAIN.... Why would God deviate from His specially crafted theme to put a soul in a fetus while in the womb? Show me what the spiritual lesson would be behind 'life at conception'.

Brother I will answer your question, but what is your view of Biblical inspiration? Do you believe it was auto-writing ?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I believe the Holy Spirit revealed the Word to men, and inspired them document it accurately without overriding their personal writing/poetic styles. Therefore, I view the Word of God as infallible.

Auto-writing is probably a sign of demon possession.