Abortion and the Bible

[Cerberus]

Hokay, this seems like the right place to ask this. I'm having a problem with another member at "http://www.Abort73.com" forums (For those how don't know, it is not a pro-choice-to-kill-ones-own-children sight, it is a prolife sight, the name for which stands for Abort the decision made in 1973...IE, Abort RoevWade ruling...also...please excuse my spelling.)

Any ways, he says its perfectly justifiable to kill the fetus at any stage in pregnancy before the 20th week, and he says the bible and God has no objection to this because we find no reference to abortion in the bible. He states that the Jews were frequent in abortion (a history for which I have found numerous essays proving other wise).

I soon found my self at a loss to counter his arguments. But, as I looked at them further, I found that his arguments only work if the Bible did not consider the un-born child a human.

I posted five essays and example of how he is wrong (courtesy of tectoniks.org) and he completely blew them off. For a personal plug, he reminds me of a saying that is a favorite of mine frequently repeated by the Creation Scientist Ken Ham. "Stop telling God what He meant to say, because He already said what He meant." Or something to that effect.

Any ways, I would like to hear your opinions on the issue of Abortion and the Biblical facts for or against it, as well as the Jewish history dealing with abortion. If need be, upon request, I will post the arguments this person made.

Thank you for your time and putting up with my horrible grammar. Again, upon request, I will run this through Word processor...because I'm too lazy to do it of my own free will:lol:

[David_A_Reed]

Exodus 21:22-24 says this about hitting a pregnant woman so that the fetus comes out; if the child lives and is uninjured, there's just a fine imposed, but if the fetus is killed, the penalty is 'life for life':

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

David

[Cerberus]

Hello Reed, thanks much for tackgin the time to answer. That was one of the verses I quoted which he prceeded to blow off completly. By this I mean he did not even give a reply to it. He di dnot reply to any thign I posted, merely gogin into his own personle views.

I'm curious as to how to answer his arguments. The promoment argument I made was the verse foudn in Jerimiah. "Even before I made oyu in the womb, I knew you." I frequently use that verse to coutner the argument that abortion is no longer justified once we obtain a soul, because it tells us exactly when we have a soul...or when I personly feel we have one. Before God makes us, we already exist to Him. They retort that this verse was Jerimiah spucific. But, was Jerimiah nothign more then human? And is God not soverighn? Why woudl His word such as this apply only to one human?

[neocon_voter]

Hello Reed, thanks much for tackgin the time to answer. That was one of the verses I quoted which he prceeded to blow off completly. By this I mean he did not even give a reply to it. He di dnot reply to any thign I posted, merely gogin into his own personle views.

I'm curious as to how to answer his arguments. The promoment argument I made was the verse foudn in Jerimiah. "Even before I made oyu in the womb, I knew you." I frequently use that verse to coutner the argument that abortion is no longer justified once we obtain a soul, because it tells us exactly when we have a soul...or when I personly feel we have one. Before God makes us, we already exist to Him. They retort that this verse was Jerimiah spucific. But, was Jerimiah nothign more then human? And is God not soverighn? Why woudl His word such as this apply only to one human?

Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)

I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children.

Voter

[Cerberus]

You see, thats the main problem. Even with all the evidenc ein the bible agianst him, he still dosn't regard the fetus as human. untill the 20th week, when it actualy looks liek a born human and is cappable of a chanc eof lif eif born premature.

[neocon_voter]

neocon_voter offered to solve the Bible/abortion question:
"Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)
I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children."


You see, thats the main problem. Even with all the evidenc ein the bible agianst him, he still dosn't regard the fetus as human. untill the 20th week, when it actualy looks liek a born human and is cappable of a chanc eof lif eif born premature.

If it isn't human, what species does he think it is?
AFAIK (as far as I know), Homo sapien parents have always produced Homo sapien offspring.
Whether or not the Homo sapien in the gestation stages (zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus) looks like a 'born' human is irrelevant. Neonate (born human) is merely a stage, like infant or toddler or adolescent or teenager or adult or elderly adult. Neonates and infants don't look like teenagers or adults, but all of those stages are still stages of a living human being. Zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus are additional stages of a living human being.

Maybe your friend simply doesn't know what a human being is supposed to look like in the gestational (pregnancy) stages. He should have a look at an embryology textbook.

Here is a website with the stages of the Homo sapien in gestation stages.
http://www.visembryo.com/

Voter

[Snarf]

Hokay, this seems like the right place to ask this. I'm having a problem with another member at "http://www.Abort73.com" forums (For those how don't know, it is not a pro-choice-to-kill-ones-own-children sight, it is a prolife sight, the name for which stands for Abort the decision made in 1973...IE, Abort RoevWade ruling...also...please excuse my spelling.)

Any ways, he says its perfectly justifiable to kill the fetus at any stage in pregnancy before the 20th week, and he says the bible and God has no objection to this because we find no reference to abortion in the bible. He states that the Jews were frequent in abortion (a history for which I have found numerous essays proving other wise).

I soon found my self at a loss to counter his arguments. But, as I looked at them further, I found that his arguments only work if the Bible did not consider the un-born child a human.

I posted five essays and example of how he is wrong (courtesy of tectoniks.org) and he completely blew them off. For a personal plug, he reminds me of a saying that is a favorite of mine frequently repeated by the Creation Scientist Ken Ham. "Stop telling God what He meant to say, because He already said what He meant." Or something to that effect.

Any ways, I would like to hear your opinions on the issue of Abortion and the Biblical facts for or against it, as well as the Jewish history dealing with abortion. If need be, upon request, I will post the arguments this person made.

Thank you for your time and putting up with my horrible grammar. Again, upon request, I will run this through Word processor...because I'm too lazy to do it of my own free will:lol:

I agree with your opponent-abortion should be legal and long live Roe v. Wade!

[Snarf]

Exodus 21:22-24 says this about hitting a pregnant woman so that the fetus comes out; if the child lives and is uninjured, there's just a fine imposed, but if the fetus is killed, the penalty is 'life for life':

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

David
A fetus isn't an embryo.

[Snarf]

Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)

I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children.

Voter

The same way that many violate the same commandment by supporting the death penalty, and the same way that God ordered His people to kill on a regular basis in the OT-so much for thou shalt not kill.

[Snarf]

neocon_voter offered to solve the Bible/abortion question:
"Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)
I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children."




If it isn't human, what species does he think it is?
AFAIK (as far as I know), Homo sapien parents have always produced Homo sapien offspring.
Whether or not the Homo sapien in the gestation stages (zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus) looks like a 'born' human is irrelevant. Neonate (born human) is merely a stage, like infant or toddler or adolescent or teenager or adult or elderly adult. Neonates and infants don't look like teenagers or adults, but all of those stages are still stages of a living human being. Zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus are additional stages of a living human being.

Maybe your friend simply doesn't know what a human being is supposed to look like in the gestational (pregnancy) stages. He should have a look at an embryology textbook.

Here is a website with the stages of the Homo sapien in gestation stages.
http://www.visembryo.com/

Voter

"Human" is not the same as "human being." You gonna call removal of a wart 'murder' because the cells are human?

[neocon_voter]

neocon_voter offered to solve the Bible/abortion question:
"Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)
I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children."

The same way that many violate the same commandment by supporting the death penalty, and the same way that God ordered His people to kill on a regular basis in the OT-so much for thou shalt not kill.

Nice try, but the 'kill' in this context refers to an unjustified killing of a human being.

God ordered his people to kill *child-killers*, various Canaanite cultures which practiced this.

Killing murderer/rapists by the death penalty is justified, just ask the family members of the victim.

Voter

[Bill the Cat]

"Human" is not the same as "human being." You gonna call removal of a wart 'murder' because the cells are human?

:doh:

Not this one again...

A wart will never be anything but a wart. It has no unique genetic structure, and no potential to grow into something that will be independent of the body it is attached to.

[Bill the Cat]

The same way that many violate the same commandment by supporting the death penalty, and the same way that God ordered His people to kill on a regular basis in the OT-so much for thou shalt not kill.


Certain laws required that the offender be put to death by stoning, so are you saying that these particular laws are immune to the other commandment?

[neocon_voter]

neocon_voter attempted to breach a stasis of definition:
"If it isn't human, what species does he think it is?
AFAIK (as far as I know), Homo sapien parents have always produced Homo sapien offspring.
Whether or not the Homo sapien in the gestation stages (zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus) looks like a 'born' human is irrelevant. Neonate (born human) is merely a stage, like infant or toddler or adolescent or teenager or adult or elderly adult. Neonates and infants don't look like teenagers or adults, but all of those stages are still stages of a living human being. Zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus are additional stages of a living human being.
Maybe your friend simply doesn't know what a human being is supposed to look like in the gestational (pregnancy) stages. He should have a look at an embryology textbook.
Here is a website with the stages of the Homo sapien in gestation stages.
http://www.visembryo.com/ "


"Human" is not the same as "human being." You gonna call removal of a wart 'murder' because the cells are human?


A wart on a human being is only a part of an existing human being. A zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) is not a part of a human being, but a whole human being at that stage, much the same as an infant is a whole human being even though it hasn't completed the human developmental process.

So that was a false analogy.

You play semantics when you say "human" is not the same as "human being" since the Homo sapien is a human being.

Remember, I identified the zef as an organism, and organisms are individual living things which are classfied per species.

This is not something I just made up; it is based on biological definition:
ORGANISM: An individual living thing, such as a bacterium, fungus, protist, plant, or animal. (glossary, PAGE 812) BIOLOGY CONCEPTS & CONNECTIONS, Campbell, Mitchell, Reece, 1994, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company
ISBN # 0805309209

The zef is an organism, even the single-cell-zygote:
"The development of a HUMAN BEING begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." ..MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY, Human Development - Normal and Abnormal, 3rd Edition., Jan Langman, M.D.,Ph.D. Professor of Anatomy, University of Virginia Charlottesville (formerly Professor of Anatomy McGill University, Montreal) The Williams and Wilkins Company Baltimore ( page 3 )

The zef is an individual living thing, even though it is attached to its host mother during gestation:
“The haploid nuclei of the sperm and the egg fuse, producing a zygote, the first cell of a new individual.”
BIOLOGY Understanding Life, Sandra Alters, page 491,
ISBN # 0763708372

"Life for this man AS AN INDIVIDUAL, began when an egg was fertilized by a sperm to form A ZYGOTE." ...THE CELL, 3rd Edition, Carl P.Swanson, Prentice Hall, PAGE 90”


Moore/Persaud's embryology textbook has no problem referring to the zygote itself as a 'human being'
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." ... Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 6)" (ISBN #072164662x)

Some abortionists quibble on that point, claiming "beginning of a new human being" is not the same as "is a human being" and Moore/Persaud refer to the developing human as something that is not human yet but is developing to become a human being.

But Moore and Persaud make it quite clear that the zef is an already existing human being and 'developing' refers to the process all of us go through till we reach our completed development stage (about age 25)
""DEVELOPMENTAL PERIODS
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important developmental changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth, e.g., the development of teeth and female breasts. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years. Most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."
Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 1) ISBN # 072164662x

IOW (in other words), developing to become a human being refers to the fertilization process (about a 24 hour process) when the oocytes have merged and the pair of haploid chromosomes are organizing to become the new human being (when the fertilized egg is officially a zygote)

A Homo sapien IS a human being.

These references, BTW (by the way) have been posted in various venues by myself and friends, but the texts we either have possession of in our library, or have located at public libraries. IOW, this isn't just something I copy-pasted from some website.

Voter

[Snarf]

neocon_voter offered to solve the Bible/abortion question:
"Whats the problem, the sixth commandment should cover that: Thou shalt not kill (kill translated from the Hebrew 'ratsach' which is closer to murder/unjustified killing of a human being)
I don't see how parents can justify killing their innocent children."



Nice try, but the 'kill' in this context refers to an unjustified killing of a human being.

God ordered his people to kill *child-killers*, various Canaanite cultures which practiced this.

Killing murderer/rapists by the death penalty is justified, just ask the family members of the victim.

Voter

And where is this modification included in the words "Thou shalt not kill?"
And as long as you're going to make up justifications, then a woman is justified in what happens inside of her body.

[Snarf]

And where is this modification included in the words "Thou shalt not kill?"
And as long as you're going to make up justifications, then a woman is justified in what happens inside of her body.
Correction: The woman is justified in determining what happens inside of her body.

[Snarf]

:doh:

Not this one again...

A wart will never be anything but a wart. It has no unique genetic structure, and no potential to grow into something that will be independent of the body it is attached to.

It does have a unique genetic structure-the exact same chromosomes as the zygote. Arguments about potential do not matter in the answer to the question "Is it a human being?"

[Snarf]

Certain laws required that the offender be put to death by stoning, so are you saying that these particular laws are immune to the other commandment?

Then clearly the lawgiver speaks out of both sides of the mouth.

[Snarf]

neocon_voter attempted to breach a stasis of definition:
"If it isn't human, what species does he think it is?
AFAIK (as far as I know), Homo sapien parents have always produced Homo sapien offspring.
Whether or not the Homo sapien in the gestation stages (zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus) looks like a 'born' human is irrelevant. Neonate (born human) is merely a stage, like infant or toddler or adolescent or teenager or adult or elderly adult. Neonates and infants don't look like teenagers or adults, but all of those stages are still stages of a living human being. Zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus are additional stages of a living human being.
Maybe your friend simply doesn't know what a human being is supposed to look like in the gestational (pregnancy) stages. He should have a look at an embryology textbook.
Here is a website with the stages of the Homo sapien in gestation stages.
http://www.visembryo.com/ "





A wart on a human being is only a part of an existing human being. A zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) is not a part of a human being, but a whole human being at that stage, much the same as an infant is a whole human being even though it hasn't completed the human developmental process.

So that was a false analogy.

You play semantics when you say "human" is not the same as "human being" since the Homo sapien is a human being.

Remember, I identified the zef as an organism, and organisms are individual living things which are classfied per species.

This is not something I just made up; it is based on biological definition:
ORGANISM: An individual living thing, such as a bacterium, fungus, protist, plant, or animal. (glossary, PAGE 812) BIOLOGY CONCEPTS & CONNECTIONS, Campbell, Mitchell, Reece, 1994, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company
ISBN # 0805309209

The zef is an organism, even the single-cell-zygote:
"The development of a HUMAN BEING begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." ..MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY, Human Development - Normal and Abnormal, 3rd Edition., Jan Langman, M.D.,Ph.D. Professor of Anatomy, University of Virginia Charlottesville (formerly Professor of Anatomy McGill University, Montreal) The Williams and Wilkins Company Baltimore ( page 3 )

The zef is an individual living thing, even though it is attached to its host mother during gestation:
“The haploid nuclei of the sperm and the egg fuse, producing a zygote, the first cell of a new individual.”
BIOLOGY Understanding Life, Sandra Alters, page 491,
ISBN # 0763708372

"Life for this man AS AN INDIVIDUAL, began when an egg was fertilized by a sperm to form A ZYGOTE." ...THE CELL, 3rd Edition, Carl P.Swanson, Prentice Hall, PAGE 90”


Moore/Persaud's embryology textbook has no problem referring to the zygote itself as a 'human being'
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." ... Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 6)" (ISBN #072164662x)

Some abortionists quibble on that point, claiming "beginning of a new human being" is not the same as "is a human being" and Moore/Persaud refer to the developing human as something that is not human yet but is developing to become a human being.

But Moore and Persaud make it quite clear that the zef is an already existing human being and 'developing' refers to the process all of us go through till we reach our completed development stage (about age 25)
""DEVELOPMENTAL PERIODS
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important developmental changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth, e.g., the development of teeth and female breasts. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years. Most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."
Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 1) ISBN # 072164662x

IOW (in other words), developing to become a human being refers to the fertilization process (about a 24 hour process) when the oocytes have merged and the pair of haploid chromosomes are organizing to become the new human being (when the fertilized egg is officially a zygote)

A Homo sapien IS a human being.

These references, BTW (by the way) have been posted in various venues by myself and friends, but the texts we either have possession of in our library, or have located at public libraries. IOW, this isn't just something I copy-pasted from some website.

Voter
I'm sorry, I disagree with the definitions. "Human" is an adjective; "human being" is a noun. "Becmoing a human being" implies that the organism is not yet a human being, since it has not become one yet. I'm sure that these people believe that the embryo is a human being, but what is the definition of a human being?

[Bill the Cat]

I'm sorry, I disagree with the definitions. "Human" is an adjective; "human being" is a noun. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human
hu·man

n.

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.



Main Entry: human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae —hu·man·like /-"lIk/ adjective

[neocon_voter]

And where is this modification included in the words "Thou shalt not kill?"
And as long as you're going to make up justifications, then a woman is justified in what happens inside of her body.


As I pointed out, 'kill' in the commandment is the English translation from the Hebrew word 'ratsach' in that particular commandment.

'Ratsach' refers to murder of a human being according to The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of Bible. (ISBN #0840720726)

If you want to equate parents' 'justification' for killing their innocent children with the state-execution of murderer/rapists or direct orders from Our Maker (Biblical orders to destroy various Canaanite peoples), that is your prerogative.

I don't see any comparison.

Voter

[Bill the Cat]

Then clearly the lawgiver speaks out of both sides of the mouth.

:ahem: Or you read the Bible in King James English and don't know how to understand a verb.

Even Wiki gets it right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

The Hebrew word ratsach, used in this commandment, is close to the word murder; kill is a mistranslation, but it does not translate directly to the word murder. While most uses of the word ratsach are in passages describing murder, in Proverbs 22:13 a lion ratsach a man to death, many argue since a lion cannot murder anyone, murder is a flawed translation as well. Also in Joshua 20:3, ratsach is used to describe death by negligence. A closer translation would be to kill in the manner of a predatory animal. Some Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which they hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another, or killing in self-defense.

[Bill the Cat]

It does have a unique genetic structure-the exact same chromosomes as the zygote.

That's not unique. THe wart has the identical genetic makeup as the body it is attached to. The same DNA sequence. The embryo, zygote, and fetus has a unique DNA sequence from the host it is temporarily attached to.

Arguments about potential do not matter in the answer to the question "Is it a human being?"

Rubbish. You don't want them to apply, but they do. The embryo will develop into a fully independent individual. You can not escape that fact. Stopping the process kills the individual before its total independence, and the legal terms "abortion" and "murder" simply differ by geography.

[Snarf]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human
hu·man

n.

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.



Main Entry: human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae —hu·man·like /-"lIk/ adjective

www.dictionary.com
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human.
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

[Bill the Cat]

www.dictionary.com
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human.
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.
exactly. It is both a noun and an adjective. Not either/or. You said it was not an noun, which is false.

[Snarf]

As I pointed out, 'kill' in the commandment is the English translation from the Hebrew word 'ratsach' in that particular commandment.

'Ratsach' refers to murder of a human being according to The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of Bible. (ISBN #0840720726)

If you want to equate parents' 'justification' for killing their innocent children with the state-execution of murderer/rapists or direct orders from Our Maker (Biblical orders to destroy various Canaanite peoples), that is your prerogative.

I don't see any comparison.

Voter

But a zygote is not a child. More importantly, and this is the heart of the matter with respect to the political issue, what matters is what people think because legal justification is ultimately determined by the people's will. In the US, abortion is not popular, but the majority believe that there is justification for abortion. It's not just my prerogative; it is the prerogative of many. Many pro-choicers, like me, don't want our laws to be determined by the ethics of evangelical Christians. And yes they are your ethics because no matter what verses you pull up, you can't find one in which God speaks about abortion.

On the meaning of the word kill, I'm going by the English Bible. If you want to substitute 'murder,' that's fine except that God then told the Israelites that it was OK to murder people too.

[neocon_voter]

neocon_voter applied the weight of modern biological definition to reach a consensus beyond the discussion's stasis of definition:

<A wart on a human being is only a part of an existing human being. A zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) is not a part of a human being, but a whole human being at that stage, much the same as an infant is a whole human being even though it hasn't completed the human developmental process.

So that was a false analogy.

You play semantics when you say "human" is not the same as "human being" since the Homo sapien is a human being.

Remember, I identified the zef as an organism, and organisms are individual living things which are classfied per species.

This is not something I just made up; it is based on biological definition:
ORGANISM: An individual living thing, such as a bacterium, fungus, protist, plant, or animal. (glossary, PAGE 812) BIOLOGY CONCEPTS & CONNECTIONS, Campbell, Mitchell, Reece, 1994, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company
ISBN # 0805309209

The zef is an organism, even the single-cell-zygote:
"The development of a HUMAN BEING begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." ..MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY, Human Development - Normal and Abnormal, 3rd Edition., Jan Langman, M.D.,Ph.D. Professor of Anatomy, University of Virginia Charlottesville (formerly Professor of Anatomy McGill University, Montreal) The Williams and Wilkins Company Baltimore ( page 3 )

The zef is an individual living thing, even though it is attached to its host mother during gestation:
“The haploid nuclei of the sperm and the egg fuse, producing a zygote, the first cell of a new individual.”
BIOLOGY Understanding Life, Sandra Alters, page 491,
ISBN # 0763708372

"Life for this man AS AN INDIVIDUAL, began when an egg was fertilized by a sperm to form A ZYGOTE." ...THE CELL, 3rd Edition, Carl P.Swanson, Prentice Hall, PAGE 90”


Moore/Persaud's embryology textbook has no problem referring to the zygote itself as a 'human being'
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being." ... Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 6)" (ISBN #072164662x)

Some abortionists quibble on that point, claiming "beginning of a new human being" is not the same as "is a human being" and Moore/Persaud refer to the developing human as something that is not human yet but is developing to become a human being.

But Moore and Persaud make it quite clear that the zef is an already existing human being and 'developing' refers to the process all of us go through till we reach our completed development stage (about age 25)
""DEVELOPMENTAL PERIODS
Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important developmental changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth, e.g., the development of teeth and female breasts. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years. Most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."
Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1993), (page 1) ISBN # 072164662x

IOW (in other words), developing to become a human being refers to the fertilization process (about a 24 hour process) when the oocytes have merged and the pair of haploid chromosomes are organizing to become the new human being (when the fertilized egg is officially a zygote)

A Homo sapien IS a human being.>


I'm sorry, I disagree with the definitions. "Human" is an adjective; "human being" is a noun. "Becmoing a human being" implies that the organism is not yet a human being, since it has not become one yet. I'm sure that these people believe that the embryo is a human being, but what is the definition of a human being?

Do you have a problem with current biology texts in general? Are current biology texts incorrect in your opinion?

Of course *human being* used together is a noun.
What do you think a Homo sapien is?

"Becoming a human being" is the meaning I specifically designated to the abortionists' POV (point of view). (the abortionists' interpretation of 'beginning of a human being')

But embryological science makes it clear that "beginning of a human being" refers to an already existing human being.

"Becoming a human being" refers to the pre-zygote merging of the oocytes.

I am not convinced you read any of the definitions from the various embryology/biology texts I cited.

A human being is a Homo sapien. A human being/Homo sapien is an organism. The zygote is an organism. Organisms are individual living things.

A real living human being is killed in an abortion.

Voter

[Snarf]

Rubbish. You don't want them to apply, but they do. The embryo will develop into a fully independent individual. You can not escape that fact. Stopping the process kills the individual before its total independence, and the legal terms "abortion" and "murder" simply differ by geography.

"Will develop into" means that the organism is not what it is supposed to be developing into. A caterpillar is a caterpillar, not a butterfly. If you ask for an apple, would you expect to get a seed? Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions-how do you plan on punishing the women whose bodies' spontaneously killed?

[Bill the Cat]

"Will develop into" means that the organism is not what it is supposed to be developing into.

Exactly. Just as an infant will develop into an adult. It is simply a matter of geography and development.

A caterpillar is a caterpillar, not a butterfly.

Again, you make my point. The Caterpillar does not have a different scientific name form the butterfly, now does it? Is it any less unique or less of an individual based on the stage of development?

If you ask for an apple, would you expect to get a seed?

No, just the same, if I asked you to pick an adult out of a crowd, you would not give me an infant.

Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions-

Unassisted death, again my point.

how do you plan on punishing the women whose bodies' spontaneously killed?

Its a natural process, unaided by any other circumstance. It is unintentional and unplanned. Abortion is premeditated.

[Bill the Cat]

But a zygote is not a child.

Ask an expectant mother what it is... or an obstetrician for that matter.

More importantly, and this is the heart of the matter with respect to the political issue, what matters is what people think because legal justification is ultimately determined by the people's will. In the US, abortion is not popular, but the majority believe that there is justification for abortion. It's not just my prerogative; it is the prerogative of many. Many pro-choicers, like me, don't want our laws to be determined by the ethics of evangelical Christians.

And Pro-lifers like me would like the child to have a say on whether or not they get to exist or not.

And yes they are your ethics because no matter what verses you pull up, you can't find one in which God speaks about abortion.

I believe that argument was already refuted above.


On the meaning of the word kill, I'm going by the English Bible. If you want to substitute 'murder,' that's fine except that God then told the Israelites that it was OK to murder people too.

:lol3:

[neocon_voter]

But a zygote is not a child. More importantly, and this is the heart of the matter with respect to the political issue, what matters is what people think because legal justification is ultimately determined by the people's will. In the US, abortion is not popular, but the majority believe that there is justification for abortion. It's not just my prerogative; it is the prerogative of many. Many pro-choicers, like me, don't want our laws to be determined by the ethics of evangelical Christians. And yes they are your ethics because no matter what verses you pull up, you can't find one in which God speaks about abortion.

On the meaning of the word kill, I'm going by the English Bible. If you want to substitute 'murder,' that's fine except that God then told the Israelites that it was OK to murder people too.


Zygotes which are human (adjective) offspring (verb) are still organisms classified Homo sapien which is a human being (noun) no matter how you cut it.

Zygotes aren't aborted anyway. Mothers aren't usually aware when the new organism (the zygote) as come into existance.

Embryos and fetuses however, are aborted when parents decide they no longer want to be parents of those human beings in the gestational stages.

I am not making up definitions here, but have consulted a few MEDICAL DICTIONARIES and MEDICAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS.

Abortion kills a CHILD:
Medical dictionaries define 'child' as the stage of a human being after infancy and up to puberty, but that is not the only definition of 'child'
FETUS, (1).The latter stages of the developing young of an animal within the uterus or within an egg.
(2) In humans, the CHILD in utero from the third month till birth. (emphasis mine)
TABER’S CYCLOPEDIC MEDICAL DICTIONARY, pages 721 o 723, (page 722 is a diagram of fetal circulation),Edition 17, 1993 F.A.Davis Company, Philadelphia, ISBN 0803683138

FETUS: The unborn child from the end of the eighth week after fertilization until birth. For the first eight weeks, the unborn child is called an embryo.
THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MEDICINE (PAGE 397), Random House New York, ISBN # 0394565282

CHILD, 1. A person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence, 2. An unborn or recently born human being, fetus, neonate, infant, 3. an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan, 4. one who is like a child or immature (PAGE 313) MOSBY’S Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary Fourth Edition


Abortion kills a HUMAN INFANT
CHILD, 1. A person between birth and puberty, 2. AN UNBORN INFANT; A FETUS ( emphasis mine), 3. An infant; a baby, 4.One who is childish or immature, 5. A son or daughter; an offspring.
The American Heritage STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 1995, Houghton Mifflin Company
ISBN # 039569955X

I am not convinced the majority of the people in the USA believe there is justification for abortion. They voted for a pro-life president who they knew would appoint pro-life Supreme Court Justices. There isn't anybody who didn't know that about President GW Bush, unless they've been on Mars for the past 6 years.

If the zef is a human being, then the commandment in the Bible does refer that method of killing human beings (abortion). To use the excuse that the term *abortion* isn't in the Bible is as absurd as saying that since the Bible does not specifically mention killing human beings via handguns, it must be allowed.

And I have demonstrated the zef (offspring of human beings) IS a human being/Homo sapien.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0481706.html
hu'man be'ing

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.


Voter

[Teallaura]

Cerberus,

I doubt your guy is going to be reasonable and the continuation is probably fruitless. That said, if his intent is to formulate a biblical argument, then reverse it on him. It will quickly become obvious that his argument is deeply flawed.

He says the Bible does not mention 'abortion' per se, which is technically correct - so ask him where exactly it mentions 'zygote, embryo, fetus' et al? There are no such developmental distintions in the Bible - when the Bible speaks of unborn children it is usually (can't think of any exceptions - you may want to double check me, but I'm reasonably sure I'm correct) as a child. Hence his redefinition by developmental stage is not biblical - and fails as an argument merely by applying his (flawed) standard of requiring a specific reference to the term (his having been 'abortion').

Then sit back and reverse every argument he gives to support his 'it doesn't say abortion' thesis, as they will be true for both arguments, if true to begin with. If he blows it off (I'd bet he will), keep dragging it up and demand that he answer that point before continuing. Don't give more than short 'not true' or 'unproven' et al to any other point he raises until he answers that question.

Honestly, my guess is he's just gonna abandon it when the short answers become too annoying, but if he really can argue worth a darn (doubtful from your descriptions) he'll soon find he's backed himself into a corner. He'll either abandon the argument - or the thesis. If the thesis, you can then proceed.

-T

[Snarf]

Exactly. Just as an infant will develop into an adult. It is simply a matter of geography and development.



Again, you make my point. The Caterpillar does not have a different scientific name form the butterfly, now does it? Is it any less unique or less of an individual based on the stage of development?

Yes, because a human being has a particular structure which a zygote doesn't have. Just like a caterpillar is not a butterfly, niether is a a zygote a person.

[Snarf]

That's not unique. THe wart has the identical genetic makeup as the body it is attached to. The same DNA sequence. The embryo, zygote, and fetus has a unique DNA sequence from the host it is temporarily attached to.



Rubbish. You don't want them to apply, but they do. The embryo will develop into a fully independent individual.
Possibly, but by your words the embryo is not the individual into which it may develop.

[Snarf]

And Pro-lifers like me would like the child to have a say on whether or not they get to exist or not.
And you were appointed by who?



I believe that argument was already refuted above.

Nope, please quote a verse which mentions the word "abortion," and which describes the procedure as being wrong.

[neocon_voter]

Yes, because a human being has a particular structure which a zygote doesn't have. Just like a caterpillar is not a butterfly, niether is a a zygote a person.

You are making a category mistake here. 'Caterpillar' is just a stage in the life of a butterfly. If the butterfly for example, is L. archippus (Limentis archippus), then so is the caterpillar.

You make the same mistake other abortionists make with the overused conundrum: "is an acorn a tree"

In that case, the acorn is classified per species the same as when it becomes a tree, whether it is the White oak (Quercus alba) or the Red Oak (Quercus rubra), or one of many other oaks species.

An acorn can be identified by the species it belongs to in other words, the same as a caterpillar.

Voter

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, because a human being has a particular structure which a zygote doesn't have.

I have a good friend who is missing a kidney. He is missing the "particular structure" of a "complete" human being, so I guess he is not a human being.

Just like a caterpillar is not a butterfly, niether is a a zygote a person.

The caterpillar is in a specific stage of development. An infant is not an adult either, as they are merely stages of development

[Bill the Cat]

Possibly, but by your words the embryo is not the individual into which it may develop.

Neither is the infant.

[Cerberus]

Thanks for the info guys, now, if I could some how get soem ifo an abortion history with in the Jewish nation, I would b set. I've looked all over the net and foudn only one source, courtecy of JPHolding (God bless)

[Bill the Cat]

And you were appointed by who?


:ahem: Where did I say I made the rules?

Nope, please quote a verse which mentions the word "abortion," and which describes the procedure as being wrong.

Exodus 21
22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


If a man causes the premature birth of a child and the injury is the child's life, then the offender is to lose his life.

[Snarf]

:ahem: Where did I say I made the rules?



Exodus 21
22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


If a man causes the premature birth of a child and the injury is the child's life, then the offender is to lose his life.

Doesn't contain the word "abortion," please try again.

[Snarf]

You are making a category mistake here. 'Caterpillar' is just a stage in the life of a butterfly. If the butterfly for example, is L. archippus (Limentis archippus), then so is the caterpillar.

You make the same mistake other abortionists make with the overused conundrum: "is an acorn a tree"

In that case, the acorn is classified per species the same as when it becomes a tree, whether it is the White oak (Quercus alba) or the Red Oak (Quercus rubra), or one of many other oaks species.

An acorn can be identified by the species it belongs to in other words, the same as a caterpillar.

Voter
Very well, then a wart is also classified according to species (a wart of H. sapiens), made of cells of H. sapiens. Doesn't make it a human being.

[Snarf]

:ahem: Where did I say I made the rules?


So, then you're not speaking for them since you don't know what their wishes are. Essentially, you're insisting that everyone be born who can, whether they want to or not.

[Bill the Cat]

Doesn't contain the word "abortion," please try again.

Its the flipping DEFINITION of abortion!!

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; especially : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy

Forcing premature birth... both cases :clueless:

[Bill the Cat]

So, then you're not speaking for them since you don't know what their wishes are. Essentially, you're insisting that everyone be born who can, whether they want to or not.

And you are insisting that all 1.5 million per year aborted babies are destroyed whether they want to or not... so who is more humane?

[Cerberus]

I have a question concerning this whole "WOman's right (to end a human life)" thing.

If a woman has the option to opt out of being a mother (abortion) why can't a man opt out of being a father? (Not paying child support)

[Snarf]

Its the flipping DEFINITION of abortion!!

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; especially : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy

Forcing premature birth... both cases :clueless:

No, because abortions of zygotes and embryos are procedurally different, and women don't give "birth" to an aborted zygote, embryo, or fetus.

[Snarf]

And you are insisting that all 1.5 million per year aborted babies are destroyed whether they want to or not... so who is more humane?

I'm saying that I think that it should be the woman's decision. No one likes to have abortions, just that some of us recognize that one may be sometimes be necessary.

[Snarf]

I have a question concerning this whole "WOman's right (to end a human life)" thing.

If a woman has the option to opt out of being a mother (abortion) why can't a man opt out of being a father? (Not paying child support)

Because a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a child.

[neocon_voter]

Quote: Originally posted by neocon_voter
"You are making a category mistake here. 'Caterpillar' is just a stage in the life of a butterfly. If the butterfly for example, is L. archippus (Limentis archippus), then so is the caterpillar.

You make the same mistake other abortionists make with the overused conundrum: "is an acorn a tree"

In that case, the acorn is classified per species the same as when it becomes a tree, whether it is the White oak (Quercus alba) or the Red Oak (Quercus rubra), or one of many other oaks species.

An acorn can be identified by the species it belongs to in other words, the same as a caterpillar."

Very well, then a wart is also classified according to species (a wart of H. sapiens), made of cells of H. sapiens. Doesn't make it a human being.

No, we settled that issue. A wart may be human tissue or H. sapien tissue, but it isn't a H. sapien individual. A wart isn't an organism, it is only part of an existing organism, the human being itself.
A zef is not part of another existing H. sapien.
A zef is an organism. A zef is a whole individual member of its species.
A knot on a tree is not an individual tree for example, and one butterfly wing is not another individual butterfly. And an acorn is an individual living thing.

organism:
(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant.
A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.
A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; "the social organism".
Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=organism

Voter

[Teallaura]

Bear in mind that I don't accept that a woman has any legitimate right to 'opt out' of carrying her pregnancy to term once she has gotten pregnant.


The argument would be that a man, unlike a woman, has no risk of death or to health once he has impregnated the woman, whereas a woman does (in reality, these aren't very high risks). Further, he doesn't have to endure the 'discomfort' of pregnancy (true, unless he's the husband! :teeth:).

Basically, the child is regarded as an imposition on the woman until its birth when her 'right' to 'opt out' ends. Since there is no such 'imposition' on the man, his right to 'opt out' occurs prior to pregnancy and does not resume at the end of the pregnancy.



For the record, both arguments are bunk. The right to or not to procreate exists prior to pregnancy. The right to keep or not keep the child exists after. If you can't deal with the inbetween, keep your pants up or get fixed.

[neocon_voter]

I have a question concerning this whole "WOman's right (to end a human life)" thing.

If a woman has the option to opt out of being a mother (abortion) why can't a man opt out of being a father? (Not paying child support)

It is because of misguided past Supreme Court decisions, that one parent can avoid their natural responsibilities and the other parent cannot. A father has been given a responsibility to his offspring to financially support it.

A mother aquires natural responsibility when she becomes a mother, and she becomes a mother when her oocyte becomes a human child.

We don't always want the responsibiities we are given, but there is already precedent that we are obligated, in that the father is forced to take responsibility for his offspring.


Voter

.......and yes, even the unborn child is considered 'offspring' even though it is still in utero:
FETUS (L, fruitful) the unborn offspring of any viviparous animal after it has attained the particular form of the species, more specifically, the human being in utero after the embryonic period and the beginning of the development of the major structural features, usually from the eighth week after fertilization until birth. (PAGE 612) MOSBY’S Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary Fourth Edition

[Cerberus]

I found it interesting that in my Websters Unabridged Dictionary (dated copyrigt 1995) that the definitiogn of "child" included the word "off spring". A child is the off spring of its parents. I found a similer definition for zygote, embryo, and fetus. All definitins of these included a passage stateing clearly that they are the OFFSPRING of their parents.

By drawing a paralell, since child (taken form the greek word "childe" which means "with child" or pregnant as it is commonly known now) is merely another word for off spring, one can lagitemtly call a zygote, or an embryo, or a fetus, or all three a child.

[Keepupthefire]

Snarf when does they zygot become a human being(that is a baby independent and has a right to sovereignty)?

[Cerberus]

The zygote is an independent being all its self. It is a brand spnaking new human being in the first stages of development. ALmost on the moment of conception (or moments afterward. All pregnancies are diffrent) the cells diferentiate. Meaning, on concpetion, the cells are already skin, hair, liver, eye, etc cells.

How ever, some argue that depoendency dosn't cease untill up to two to three to four years after birth. Because of this, some groups are arguing that a mother has the right to kill her already born child up untill a designated age of self dependency.

[RumTumTugger]

Because a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a child.

that arguement has been refuted. even though you refuse to admit it.

[Jedidiah]

Snarf when does they zygot become a human being(that is a baby independent and has a right to sovereignty)?
Not until implantation.

[Teallaura]

Not until implantation.

Why? Implantation is only an alteration to enviroment - it has nothing to do with what the zygote/embryo intrinsically is.

An analogy would be an astronaut returning from space. He can survive only so long in the artificial enviroment created for space travel - eventually he must return to his natural enviroment, Earth. Same for a zygote/embryo - it can't survive indefinitely floating free in the uterus - it eventually must be implanted in the uterine wall in order to survive. But just as the astronaut doesn't change his/her humanity by changing enviroments, neither does the zygote/embryo.

[Jedidiah]

Why? Implantation is only an alteration to enviroment - it has nothing to do with what the zygote/embryo intrinsically is.
I have been considering what LW had to say about the waste of political power in trying to outlaw all abortion. So I have decided that until implantation takes place there is no true pregnancy. Thus abortion prior to implantation is okay. Well, the truth of the matter was my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. :blush:

[Snarf]

No, we settled that issue. A wart may be human tissue or H. sapien tissue, but it isn't a H. sapien individual. A wart isn't an organism, it is only part of an existing organism, the human being itself.
A zef is not part of another existing H. sapien.
A zef is an organism. A zef is a whole individual member of its species.
A knot on a tree is not an individual tree for example, and one butterfly wing is not another individual butterfly. And an acorn is an individual living thing.

organism:
(Science: biology) Any individual living thing, whether animal or plant.
A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.
A system considered analogous in structure or function to a living body; "the social organism".
Any living thing that exhibits living characteristics and is composed of one cell or more.
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=organism

Voter
Then, by the definition of "organism" a tumor may be defined as such for it can have an independent existence, has living characteristics, and is ompsed of one or more cells.
(BTW, the first definition is faulty since it doesn't mention fungi and single-celled organisms).

A zef is physically part of the mother, connected through the placenta.

[Snarf]

The right to or not to procreate exists prior to pregnancy. The right to keep or not keep the child exists after.
Yep, a woman should have the right to decide to keep or not keep the developing, though not fully, child after conception. In short, she has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

[Snarf]

Snarf when does they zygot become a human being(that is a baby independent and has a right to sovereignty)?
IMHO, when the embryo has a brain, all the major body parts developed, and can respond to stimuli.

[Snarf]

The zygote is an independent being all its self. It is a brand spnaking new human being...

Why should I accept your definition?

[Snarf]

that arguement has been refuted. even though you refuse to admit it.
Not yet, what is a child and how did you decide?

Let's assume for a minute that an embryo is a child. Pro-lifers have no problem deciding that certain classes of humans should be killed-why is a child sacred?

[Teallaura]

Yep, a woman should have the right to decide to keep or not keep the developing, though not fully, child after conception. In short, she has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Reading comprehension needs some work there - the obvious conclusion was that I was refering to after pregnancy. But given your arguments to date, I'm not surprised you can't read well either.

[Teallaura]

I have been considering what LW had to say about the waste of political power in trying to outlaw all abortion. So I have decided that until implantation takes place there is no true pregnancy. Thus abortion prior to implantation is okay. Well, the truth of the matter was my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek. :blush:

You do know elective abortion never occurs before implantation, right? (How far you got that tongue in that cheek anyway? Be careful - it'll freeze like that! :wink:)

[Snarf]

You do know elective abortion never occurs before implantation, right? (How far you got that tongue in that cheek anyway? Be careful - it'll freeze like that! :wink:)

Complain as much as you want- fact is legal abortion is here to stay, thank goodness.

[Jedidiah]

You do know elective abortion never occurs before implantation, right? That was the thought I held as I made my post. :teeth:

[Jedidiah]

. . . fact is legal abortion is here to stay, thank goodness.Count on that . . .

[neocon_voter]

Then, by the definition of "organism" a tumor may be defined as such for it can have an independent existence, has living characteristics, and is ompsed of one or more cells.
(BTW, the first definition is faulty since it doesn't mention fungi and single-celled organisms).

A zef is physically part of the mother, connected through the placenta.


Do you have any citation for your claims.

I presented various biology texts, embryology texts, medical dictionaries, American Medical Association Encyclopedia defnintions.......

You need to back up your claims. I met the burden of proof. You now have a burden of rejoinder if you wish to challenge the citations I presented.

Neocon_Voter

[Cerberus]

Why should I accept your definition?
:ahem: Its not my definition, its a scientific definition

[Cerberus]

IMHO, when the embryo has a brain, all the major body parts developed, and can respond to stimuli.


Current medicle science has proven that, at 8 weeks gestation, the fetus has all organs and can respond to stimulai.

[Cerberus]

Complain as much as you want- fact is legal abortion is here to stay, thank goodness.

Legal abortion, or legal ellective on demand abortion?

[Snarf]

Do you have any citation for your claims.

I presented various biology texts, embryology texts, medical dictionaries, American Medical Association Encyclopedia defnintions.......

You need to back up your claims. I met the burden of proof. You now have a burden of rejoinder if you wish to challenge the citations I presented.

Neocon_Voter
dictionary.com
or·gan·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrg-nzm)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

pla·cen·ta ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-snt)
n. pl. pla·cen·tas or pla·cen·tae (-t)

A membranous vascular organ that develops in female mammals during pregnancy, lining the uterine wall and partially enveloping the fetus, to which it is attached by the umbilical cord. Following birth, the placenta is expelled.

[Snarf]

Current medicle science has proven that, at 8 weeks gestation, the fetus has all organs and can respond to stimulai.

That's why I'm not crazy about abortions after the first trimester. However, as noted above, the issue of when the embryo is a person does not address the point that many, including pro-lifers, have always designated that certain people can be killed without moral repercussion. I might add that the Bible gives parents the right to have disobedient children killed, along with a lot of other people.

There was a time that I was pro-life, but I have since changed largely because of the antics of fellow pro-lifers, who delighted in grabbing pregnant women by the collar and yelling in their face while on their way to an abortion clinic and calling it "counseling," or those who scream that they would give up their lives for a fetus, yet can't give up the tax money for resources to help take care of the children after they're born.

I admire the efforts of pro-life groups that actually give pregnant women real, constructive options and who help with the nitty-gritty like babysitting and child care, and jobhunting, as opposed to those who demonstrate out of a lust for power and attention.

I really hate abortion, but a woman should still be allowed to do with her body as she sees fit. If that means having an embryo killed, so be it-it is no more a crime than pro-lifers deciding that people should be killed for crimes, even if it's possible that they might be innocent.

[Snarf]

Legal abortion, or legal ellective on demand abortion?

legal, abortion on demand.

[Cerberus]

legal, abortion on demand.
Oh, well, I guess South Dekota and all these other states that have waiting period and parental consent laws arn't listening.

As well, she's not doing any thing with her body other then removing a life that she is ultimatly responcible for (A life that isn't even part of her body). As well, the bible dosn't give parents the authority to kill their children. The bible gives parents the authorty to take their UNRULLY (IE, they have down every thing they can to disciplin the child but the child is still acting violently and will not listen) child to the temple councelors, who then decide what the sentence shall be. This can not be compared ot the tackign of an unborn life. One is innocent, the other is not. It really is diffrent Snarf, but it seem sliek your too bussy telling God what He meant to say, even though He's already said what he meant, to notice how diffrent it is.

Personhood: The first definition in the websters dictionary for PERSON is "A human being" The second is "The HUman body."

The definition for HUMAN BEING is simply "human"

You ask when personhood starts? Legaly it starts at birth. But, some times the law dosnt run paralell with logic. Since humanity and life starts at conception, and "person" is simply the definition for a single human being, and human being is simply another word for human, personhood starts at conception.

[Snarf]

As well, she's not doing any thing with her body other then removing a life that she is ultimatly responcible for (A life that isn't even part of her body).
The new life is a physical part of her body-unless you want to deny the existence of the placenta and umbilical cord. An embryo isn't floating around in some vacuum.
As well, the bible dosn't give parents the authority to kill their children.
Yes it does.
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Stoning is not an option-it is a command.

The bible gives parents the authorty to take their UNRULLY (IE, they have down every thing they can to disciplin the child but the child is still acting violently and will not listen) child to the temple councelors, who then decide what the sentence shall be.

Your interpretation is not what the passage says. The passage doesn't say what "unruly" is, nor does it say "violently," nor does it say that the temple leaders get to decide the punishment. There is only one according to the passage-the unruly child must be killed.

What a world you must live in, in which a rebellious teen gets stoned for having long hair or some other rebellion-it's OK to kill them but wrong to kill an embryo.

This can not be compared ot the tackign of an unborn life. One is innocent, the other is not. It really is diffrent Snarf, but it seem sliek your too bussy telling God what He meant to say, even though He's already said what he meant, to notice how diffrent it is.

I am only quoting the Bible.


You ask when personhood starts? Legaly it starts at birth. But, some times the law dosnt run paralell with logic. Since humanity and life starts at conception, and "person" is simply the definition for a single human being, and human being is simply another word for human, personhood starts at conception.

And what makes your logic right? YOUR opinion should be the law of the land?
Sorry, we live in a democracy and not a theocratic fascist state-we had enough of that in the middle ages.

[Cerberus]

Sorry dude. But the placenta and umbilicle cord is part of the fetus, not the mother.

A healthy placenta is the single most important factor in producing a healthy baby. The placenta, which is in fact part of the fetus, is critical for all aspects of pregnancy from implantation to delivery. As early as three days after fertilization, the trophoblasts-the major cell type of the placenta-begin to make human chorionic gonadotropin, a hormone which insures that the endometrium will be receptive to the implanting embryo. Over the next few days, these same trophoblasts attach to and invade into the uterine lining, beginning the process of pregnancy. Over the next few weeks the placenta begins to make hormones which control the basic physiology of the mother in such a way that the fetus is supplied with the necessary nutrients and oxygen needed for successful growth.
http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/tabplac.htm

The placenta belongs to the fetus, not the mother. In other words there is no mixing of the mother's blood with fetal circulation, and all nutrients are passed from the mother's circulation into the fetal circulation via osmosis, that is, by absorption. It used to be thought that the placenta acted as a barrier for harmful substances, but to date research has shown this not to be the case. More and more, it is realised how profoundly the baby is affected by his intra-uterine environment.
http://www.naturalmedicine.co.za/sajnm_main/article.php?story=20031104143526413

We now know that the placenta belongs to the baby, not to the mother, as was long thought.
http://unbornperson.com/section_5.htm

and so one and so forth


Another thign to note is that the mother's body does not recocgnize any thing of the fetus to be part of her body. A search on this will turn up information on how the mothers own imune systme will attack the fetus, placenta, etc as forihgnbodies if the proper chemicles are not released.

It seems I must use the dictionry once again.

Unruly: Adj. Hard to control, restrain, or keep in order; disobedient.

The word unruly completly describes the passage "which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:" I fidn it odd that you tell me the passage dosn't say what unruly is, and yet you use it indiscription of the verse. Hypocracy mabey?

I suppose stonign is a command. Oh well, I know when to admit I'm wrong, and cease arguing over the matter before I make a fool of myself.

What makes my logic right (or atleast more right then yours) is that it works. You've yet to proove how yours works. The responcibility of bearing proof rests on you now.

[Snarf]

Sorry dude. But the placenta and umbilicle cord is part of the fetus, not the mother.


http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/tabplac.htm


http://www.naturalmedicine.co.za/sajnm_main/article.php?story=20031104143526413


http://unbornperson.com/section_5.htm

and so one and so forth


Another thign to note is that the mother's body does not recocgnize any thing of the fetus to be part of her body. A search on this will turn up information on how the mothers own imune systme will attack the fetus, placenta, etc as forihgnbodies if the proper chemicles are not released.

It seems I must use the dictionry once again.

Unruly: Adj. Hard to control, restrain, or keep in order; disobedient.

The word unruly completly describes the passage "which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:" I fidn it odd that you tell me the passage dosn't say what unruly is, and yet you use it indiscription of the verse. Hypocracy mabey?

I suppose stonign is a command. Oh well, I know when to admit I'm wrong, and cease arguing over the matter before I make a fool of myself.

What makes my logic right (or atleast more right then yours) is that it works. You've yet to proove how yours works. The responcibility of bearing proof rests on you now.

from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
The placenta is an ephemeral (temporary) organ present only in female placental mammals during gestation (pregnancy).

The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother. It is implanted in the wall of the uterus, where it receives nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood and passes out waste.

According to wikipedia, the umbilical cord comes from the egg.

Regarding "unruly," the descriptors in the Bible do not define it sufficiently; not obeying parents is pretty common among children. You think that a kid ought to get stoned for not cleaning up their room when mommy says so? According to that verse (not listening to parents=death) no one would make it past 14. Clearly they had some specific behaviors in mind, but none are described.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your logic works." Regarding what, the decision of pro-lifers as to who can live and who can be killed (and who raised you to that role?) or when an embryo becomes a human being?
(in keeping with evangelical Christians who once decided that African Americans were not human but property?)

[neocon_voter]

That's why I'm not crazy about abortions after the first trimester. However, as noted above, the issue of when the embryo is a person does not address the point that many, including pro-lifers, have always designated that certain people can be killed without moral repercussion. I might add that the Bible gives parents the right to have disobedient children killed, along with a lot of other people.

There was a time that I was pro-life, but I have since changed largely because of the antics of fellow pro-lifers, who delighted in grabbing pregnant women by the collar and yelling in their face while on their way to an abortion clinic and calling it "counseling," or those who scream that they would give up their lives for a fetus, yet can't give up the tax money for resources to help take care of the children after they're born.

I admire the efforts of pro-life groups that actually give pregnant women real, constructive options and who help with the nitty-gritty like babysitting and child care, and jobhunting, as opposed to those who demonstrate out of a lust for power and attention.

I really hate abortion, but a woman should still be allowed to do with her body as she sees fit. If that means having an embryo killed, so be it-it is no more a crime than pro-lifers deciding that people should be killed for crimes, even if it's possible that they might be innocent.

Don't be silly. No pro-lifer I have ever heard of believes in capital punishment for convicts if it is possible that they might be innocent.

And AFAIK, no zef has ever been declared 'unruly'.

But I think I see where our differences lie.

We have beat the definitions to death, and should be able to move beyond stasis of definition where we were stuck. It appears no amount of definition is going to change your position.

We are at odds over a stasis of quality. Quality of life; which human has more of a right to live.

You seem to be appalled with the pro-lifers' position (right to life for innocent unborn children, forfeiture of that right to criminals convicted of some capital offense)

But we are appalled with the opposite position. To a pro-lifer it appears as if your position is that a human being does not have an innate right to live, but must earn that right, and more dismaying, it seems as if the only way for an innocent human being to earn the right to live in the eyes of pro-choicers, would be to commit some heinous capital offense. Every time some rapist/murderer is about to get the lethal-injection, here come the SC's (secular progressives) out of the woodwork to plead for that convict's life, no matter the feelings of the victims' families. Those same SC's who are indignant at the very idea that innocent human lives should be spared.

I don't know any other way to describe such a position, but to simply say it is 'mixed-up'.

Neocon_Voter
former naughty fetus

[Snarf]

Don't be silly. No pro-lifer I have ever heard of believes in capital punishment for convicts if it is possible that they might be innocent.

And AFAIK, no zef has ever been declared 'unruly'.

But I think I see where our differences lie.

We have beat the definitions to death, and should be able to move beyond stasis of definition where we were stuck. It appears no amount of definition is going to change your position.

We are at odds over a stasis of quality. Quality of life; which human has more of a right to live.

You seem to be appalled with the pro-lifers' position (right to life for innocent unborn children, forfeiture of that right to criminals convicted of some capital offense)

But we are appalled with the opposite position. To a pro-lifer it appears as if your position is that a human being does not have an innate right to live, but must earn that right, and more dismaying, it seems as if the only way for an innocent human being to earn the right to live in the eyes of pro-choicers, would be to commit some heinous capital offense. Every time some rapist/murderer is about to get the lethal-injection, here come the SC's (secular progressives) out of the woodwork to plead for that convict's life, no matter the feelings of the victims' families. Those same SC's who are indignant at the very idea that innocent human lives should be spared.

I don't know any other way to describe such a position, but to simply say it is 'mixed-up'.

Neocon_Voter
former naughty fetus
I agree that we should move beyond the definitions.

I'm not sure that you understand my pro-choice thinking. No, I do not believe that a human being has to earn a right to live, nor do I think that criminals are more deserving of life.

In contrast to your opening statement, pro-lifers are for capital punishment even if it means that there is a chance that innocent people will be killed to (it was explained to me as 'collateral damage'). Not all believe this, and the Catholic group Seamless Garment holds a very consistent position-they are against both abortion and the death penalty.

I would state the beliefs more like this: it is not certain that an embryo or a zygote is a human being. The definitions fly around, but ultimately there is no way to know. However, what is for certain is that the mother is a human being, and the reality is that women can be raped or otherwise forced to become pregnant with an embryo against her. Why should she have to bear the burden of that which was forced on her? The other fact is that no matter how much moralizing you do, women will still seek abortions, including women who are pro-life until the moment of truth arrives. They have a right to expel that which they don't want from their bodies, and many have died needlessly to exercise their right to control what is in their bodies.
Is there a death of a human? possibly, you would say certainly. But you accept the needless deaths of humans in wars which you support, maybe the executions that you approve of, why do you not accept death in abortions? Are embryos sacred?

Again, my question stands, how do you decide which classes of people can be killed and not killed?

[neocon_voter]

I agree that we should move beyond the definitions.

Again, my question stands, how do you decide which classes of people can be killed and not killed?

That's easy. Remember the recent "Is Christian opposition to abortion inconsistent with upholding the death penalty" thread.

I answered this is post #62:
"A: Outlawing abortion means protecting innocent human beings, a safer society for the rest of the law-abiding humans, and thats a good thing.

B. Getting rid of murderer/rapists/psychos makes society safer, and thats a good thing.

Therefore, A=good thing, B=good thing

Looks consistant to me."

And it still does.
Simply put, get rid of the truly nasty horrible murderer/rapists, protect the innocent.

Neocon_Voter

[Snarf]

That's easy. Remember the recent "Is Christian opposition to abortion inconsistent with upholding the death penalty" thread.

I answered this is post #62:
"A: Outlawing abortion means protecting innocent human beings, a safer society for the rest of the law-abiding humans, and thats a good thing.

B. Getting rid of murderer/rapists/psychos makes society safer, and thats a good thing.

Therefore, A=good thing, B=good thing

Looks consistant to me."

And it still does.
Simply put, get rid of the truly nasty horrible murderer/rapists, protect the innocent.

Neocon_Voter
The criminals can also be gotten rid of by being put in jail, no need for death penalty. that way, those that might be innocent can still be proven to be.
Your way, the death penalty, ensures that innocent humans will get killed as will support for war.

Besides, is a fetus truly innocent? Don't Christians believe that we are all born sinners which is why we need Jesus?

[neocon_voter]

The criminals can also be gotten rid of by being put in jail, no need for death penalty. that way, those that might be innocent can still be proven to be.
Your way, the death penalty, ensures that innocent humans will get killed as will support for war.

Besides, is a fetus truly innocent? Don't Christians believe that we are all born sinners which is why we need Jesus?

Snarf, were you fully awake when you posted this. Fetuses are still in the unborn category. They haven't had the opportunity to be truly angry yet, till they've had their first spanking.

Neocon_Voter
former unruly embryo

[Snarf]

Snarf, were you fully awake when you posted this. Fetuses are still in the unborn category. They haven't had the opportunity to be truly angry yet, till they've had their first spanking.

Neocon_Voter
former unruly embryo
So, you believe that fetuses are as perfect and as sinless as God is?
How does the passage through the birth canal change their status from 'sinless' to 'sinners?'

[neocon_voter]

So, you believe that fetuses are as perfect and as sinless as God is?
How does the passage through the birth canal change their status from 'sinless' to 'sinners?'

beats me.
But you were the one who mentioned we're supposed to believe we're 'born' in sin, and applied it to an unborn fetus.

Neocon_Voter

[Snarf]

beats me.
But you were the one who mentioned we're supposed to believe we're 'born' in sin, and applied it to an unborn fetus.

Neocon_Voter

Of course it can be applied to an unborn fetus, based on your definition that a fetus is just as much a human being as you are.

[Bill the Cat]

The criminals can also be gotten rid of by being put in jail, no need for death penalty.

And criminals NNEEEEEVVVEEERRR escape, do they?


that way, those that might be innocent can still be proven to be.

Honestly, how mant death row inmates have been proven not guilty? If 15-20 years on death row isn't enough time to exonerate them with today's technology, then chances are they are guilty.


Your way, the death penalty, ensures that innocent humans will get killed

MAYBE a handfull, maybe not.

as will support for war.

Please...:ahem: Don't even try to equate war with abortion. Take a look through this site http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml and notice that no war dead total that is tracked (includes estimated civilian casualties) on this site even comes close to the estimated 944,935,000 abortions reported by http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp337sd.html worldwide. that's nearly 1 BILLION dead who never got the chance to see the light of day.


Besides, is a fetus truly innocent? Don't Christians believe that we are all born sinners which is why we need Jesus?

Guilty of sin and guilty of breaking secular law are two different animals, and you know it. This is a red herring, nothing more.

[Snarf]

And criminals NNEEEEEVVVEEERRR escape, do they?
To use your words,

Honestly, how mant death row inmates have escaped?




Honestly, how mant death row inmates have been proven not guilty? If 15-20 years on death row isn't enough time to exonerate them with today's technology, then chances are they are guilty.
An innocent person is innocent no matter how many years they are on death row.

Please...:ahem: Don't even try to equate war with abortion. Take a look through this site http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml and notice that no war dead total that is tracked (includes estimated civilian casualties) on this site even comes close to the estimated 944,935,000 abortions reported by http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp337sd.html worldwide. that's nearly 1 BILLION dead who never got the chance to see the light of day.

The numbers don't matter-what matters is your willingness to have innocent people killed for your political or economic cause. For you, it's OK that innocent Muslims die when their cities are bombed but it's not OK for innocent fetuses to die when they are aborted. Why is the death of one group of innocents more acceptable than deaths in another?

Guilty of sin and guilty of breaking secular law are two different animals, and you know it. This is a red herring, nothing more.

According to the Bible, it's OK for parents to kill their kids just for being unruly.

[neocon_voter]

Neocon_Voter posted:
"But you were the one who mentioned we're supposed to believe we're 'born' in sin, and applied it to an unborn fetus."

Of course it can be applied to an unborn fetus, based on your definition that a fetus is just as much a human being as you are.

No it can't. Not for this specific category.
All the definitions I applied were the biological/embryological definitions.
You are attempting to switch categories to apply my biological definitions to a metaphysical category, in relation to the Biblical God.

Neocon_Voter

[Snarf]

Neocon_Voter posted:
"But you were the one who mentioned we're supposed to believe we're 'born' in sin, and applied it to an unborn fetus."



No it can't. Not for this specific category.
All the definitions I applied were the biological/embryological definitions.
You are attempting to switch categories to apply my biological definitions to a metaphysical category, in relation to the Biblical God.

Neocon_Voter

So, you believe that there are sinless people and sinful people?

[neocon_voter]

Snarf had said:"Of course it can be applied to an unborn fetus, based on your definition that a fetus is just as much a human being as you are."

neocon_voter had said:"No it can't. Not for this specific category.
All the definitions I applied were the biological/embryological definitions.
You are attempting to switch categories to apply my biological definitions to a metaphysical category, in relation to the Biblical God."

So, you believe that there are sinless people and sinful people?

I don't have a position on that. I believe "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3:23).
OTOH, I don't know how its possible that zefs (even though they are biological H.sapiens ) sin.
I believe that as long as we are "in the flesh" we cannot please God (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8:8), but I do not know if that context pertains exclusively to being 'carnally minded' because of the context there.

I do not believe all people are accountable for their sins, based on the death of David's child by Bathsheba, because of 2nd Samuel 12:22-23:
"And he (David) said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?"
"But now, he is dead, wherefore should I fast: can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

I believe it is safe to say the child went to heaven (paradise), if thats where David was going to have to go to go to him.

So, you have given me something to wonder about.

neocon_voter

[Snarf]

Snarf had said:"Of course it can be applied to an unborn fetus, based on your definition that a fetus is just as much a human being as you are."

neocon_voter had said:"No it can't. Not for this specific category.
All the definitions I applied were the biological/embryological definitions.
You are attempting to switch categories to apply my biological definitions to a metaphysical category, in relation to the Biblical God."



I don't have a position on that. I believe "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3:23).
OTOH, I don't know how its possible that zefs (even though they are biological H.sapiens ) sin.
I believe that as long as we are "in the flesh" we cannot please God (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8:8), but I do not know if that context pertains exclusively to being 'carnally minded' because of the context there.

I do not believe all people are accountable for their sins, based on the death of David's child by Bathsheba, because of 2nd Samuel 12:22-23:
"And he (David) said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?"
"But now, he is dead, wherefore should I fast: can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

I believe it is safe to say the child went to heaven (paradise), if thats where David was going to have to go to go to him.

So, you have given me something to wonder about.

neocon_voter
This is the point. If you are going to define zefs as being people, then they fall under same condemnation as everyone else. The Bible makes no such distinction-an embryo that doesn't believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior is doomed to Hell.

If you argue that there's an alternative for zefs to be saved, then that means that you have to make an extraBiblical argument for a plan B of salvation. Then who's to say that such plan Bs can't apply to others?

If one takes the approach that zefs are not completely functional human beings to begin with, but are human then there is no metaphysical problem.

[neocon_voter]

Snarf had said:"Of course it can be applied to an unborn fetus, based on your definition that a fetus is just as much a human being as you are."

neocon_voter had said:"No it can't. Not for this specific category.
All the definitions I applied were the biological/embryological definitions.
You are attempting to switch categories to apply my biological definitions to a metaphysical category, in relation to the Biblical God."

Then Snarf said: "So, you believe that there are sinless people and sinful people?"


So then Neocon_Voter said: "I don't have a position on that. I believe "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3:23).
OTOH, I don't know how its possible that zefs (even though they are biological H.sapiens ) sin.
I believe that as long as we are "in the flesh" we cannot please God (based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8:8), but I do not know if that context pertains exclusively to being 'carnally minded' because of the context there.

I do not believe all people are accountable for their sins, based on the death of David's child by Bathsheba, because of 2nd Samuel 12:22-23:
"And he (David) said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?"
"But now, he is dead, wherefore should I fast: can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

I believe it is safe to say the child went to heaven (paradise), if thats where David was going to have to go to go to him.

So, you have given me something to wonder about."



This is the point. If you are going to define zefs as being people, then they fall under same condemnation as everyone else. The Bible makes no such distinction-an embryo that doesn't believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior is doomed to Hell.

If you argue that there's an alternative for zefs to be saved, then that means that you have to make an extraBiblical argument for a plan B of salvation. Then who's to say that such plan Bs can't apply to others?

If one takes the approach that zefs are not completely functional human beings to begin with, but are human then there is no metaphysical problem.

Maybe you didn't read my answer. David's newborn by Bathsheba apparently avoided condemnation (2nd Samuel 12:22-23)

So nothing has changed Biblically. The Book of 2nd Samuel has been in the OT for over two thousand years.

And what makes you think that would be "plan B" for salvation. How do you know that wasn't 'PLAN A' to begin with.

Maybe accepting Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins to be our Lord and Savior IS plan B.

Remember in Matthew's Gospel Chapter 5 (the Beatitudes/Sermon on the Mount), when Jesus taught in verse 20; For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(i have a red letter edition :smug: )



I looks like Jesus was saying that if you can be MORE righteous than the Pharisees, you might be good enough to enter the kingdom of heaven.

......rotsa-ruck on that though... :sigh:

You gotta be perfect to qualify for plan A
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

As far as others, those who have never heard the gospel, they are not forgotten. The Bible God has a way for their salvation, which we discover in the Book of Acts where Paul was speaking to the 'men of Athens' on Mars Hill:
Acts Chapter 17;
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:


And in his Epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote in Chapter 2:
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


So, even though men haven't heard the gospel, the 'law' (according to the Bible), was already 'written in their hearts'.

It isn't God's fault though that people are condemned. People condemn themselves, by their own judgments. If they did something wrong but weren't aware it was wrong, perhaps they are innocent of their wrongdoing. But perhaps they do know what they did was wrong, their judging will be their own undoing. (IOW, if they claim they didn't know such-and-such was wrong, if the same such-and-such had been committed by another and they judged it wrong, they won't have an excuse)

At least thats what Jesus says in The Gospel of Matthew Chapter 7:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Thats why IMO, PLAN B is the Gospel. Since nobody is perfect, (all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23, and in Psalms Chapter 53:
2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Thank God though, that there is still a way out. The shed blood of Jesus Christ. And the hope of resurrection.

Have a Happy Easter, see ya next week!

Neocon_Voter :smile: