 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | As stated, I disagree. It is not an argument against the pro-life position, but rather it is more of an argument for no committment to either position. While I agree that the bible is mostly, if not completely, silent on the issue of abortion, it leaves the only valid position to be: Scripture neither condones nor condemns abortion - hardly an argument against either position.
|
Ah, but it is an argument against the 'standard' pro-life position, which is that the Bible says abortion is murder and therefore wrong.
Most pro-lifers don't know the Bible nearly as well as you do. Most of them think that they are following the Bible when they condemn abortions. This is definitely wrong.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
-Even IF God somehow omitted an explicit commandment against abortion even though He considers it to be murder, there is NO WAY any Christian can possibly know that this is the case. Christians can only go by what is written in the Bible, and the Bible is silent on the issue, |
You have this correct, you should have started with this and deleted the previous comments as they contradict this position completely.
|
Fine, ignore my other points and let's stick with this one. The pro-life movement goes against the Bible because it uses the Bible to justify its pro-life positions. That is wrong.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | so really there should be no Christians out there who are totally gung-ho in the pro-life movement. |
Really? How can you say this? I believe people have every right and responsibility to support or oppose any act or issue which they feel inclined to. What I cannot agree with is their assertion that God or scripture opposes certain issues when they clearly do not, but nothing in scripture tells us that we cannot put forth our energies to support or oppose something we feel strongly about.
Many Christians feel abortion is morally wrong, based on their view of life and their feelings as to when life begins - they are perfectly justified in standing firm in their convictions as long as those convictions do not contravene scripture - and opposing abortion in NO WAY contravenes scripture.
|
Sure, but do you agree that most pro-lifers consider their beliefs to be supported by scripture? THAT contravenes scripture!
I am not really taking issue with the pro-life position here; I am taking issue with the fact that they think it is scripturally sound. It isn't.
Let me put it another way: the pro-life movement thinks that the Bible is 'on their side' in the debate about abortion. They are wrong. This means that their entire argument just comes down to personal opinion, and does not have the weight of scripture backing it up. Without scripture to back them up, their opinions are worth no more than the opinions of the pro-choice people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, but it is an argument against the 'standard' pro-life position, which is that the Bible says abortion is murder and therefore wrong. 
Can you make an argument and stick with it? You continually revise and qualify what you have said....
| P123 wrote: | | Most pro-lifers don't know the Bible nearly as well as you do. Most of them think that they are following the Bible when they condemn abortions. |
I would suggest that most know it as well, if not better than I do. It is their view of life and when life begins which leads them to beleive the bible condemns abortion - an element of the issue which is not addressed in scripture, nor adequately addressed by science and as such is completely subjective.
F | Quote: | | ine, ignore my other points and let's stick with this one. The pro-life movement goes against the Bible because it uses the Bible to justify its pro-life positions. That is wrong. |
Sorry, wrong again. As I pointed out, they are not going against the bible, they are interpreting it based on personally held convictions of life which are not addressed in scripture.
| Quote: | | Sure, but do you agree that most pro-lifers consider their beliefs to be supported by scripture? THAT contravenes scripture! |
No, it does not contravene scripture - it simply is not supported by scripture.
con·tra·vene /ˌkɒntrəˈvin/ Pronunciation[kon-truh-veen]
–verb (used with object), -vened, -ven·ing.
1. to come or be in conflict with; go or act against; deny or oppose: to contravene a statement.
2. to violate, infringe, or transgress: to contravene the law.
| Quote: |
I am not really taking issue with the pro-life position here; I am taking issue with the fact that they think it is scripturally sound. It isn't. |
This I can agree with.
| Quote: | | the pro-life movement thinks that the Bible is 'on their side' in the debate about abortion. They are wrong. This means that their entire argument just comes down to personal opinion, and does not have the weight of scripture backing it up. Without scripture to back them up, their opinions are worth no more than the opinions of the pro-choice people. |
Finally! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Sure, but do you agree that most pro-lifers consider their beliefs to be supported by scripture? THAT contravenes scripture! |
No, it does not contravene scripture - it simply is not supported by scripture.
con·tra·vene /ˌkɒntrəˈvin/ Pronunciation[kon-truh-veen]
–verb (used with object), -vened, -ven·ing.
1. to come or be in conflict with; go or act against; deny or oppose: to contravene a statement.
2. to violate, infringe, or transgress: to contravene the law.
|
Let me try to be more clear; I am not saying that it is in contradiction with what scripture says. I am not saying that scripture says abortions are ok and they say that abortions are not ok, and that's where the contradiction is.
What I am saying is this: the pro-lifers believe that scripture says abortions are murder. Scripture does not say that abortions are murder. Therefore what they think the Bible says is not actually what the Bible says, and their views contradict scripture.
Pro-lifers can go and have their pro-life opinions if they want. They can even say things like, "If abortion is murder, then the Bible condemns it." But they can't point to their Bibles and say, "Abortion is wrong; it says so right here." But that's my point! Most of them seem to think that their anti-abortion views are scripturally sound. So like I said, most of them don't know their Bible as well as you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What I am saying is this: the pro-lifers believe that scripture says abortions are murder. Scripture does not say that abortions are murder. Therefore what they think the Bible says is not actually what the Bible says, and their views contradict scripture. |
No sir, you are mistaken. One's view that abortion is murder is NOT contradictory to scripture, it simply is fully and specifically supported by scripture. There is no contradiction here, simply a difference of opinion in doctrine.
IF scripture said "abortion is not murder", and the prolifers asserted that it WAS, then THAT would be a contradiction.
Since scripture is replete with the love of life, the love of children, and admonitions not to murder, then for one to beleive that it looks down upon the idea of abortion is not entirely out of context.
The issue, as we stated, is the actual definition and origin of life. It is a widely held opinion that life begins at conception and since abortion is paraomount to ending that life it is not unreasonable to infer that scripture would not condone abortion.
Where the problem lies, and I think this is the point you are really trying to make, is that scripture DOES NOT STATE that abortion is wrong, or that it is murder, and most prolifers assert that it does say such.
Is the idea of abortion as being wrong scripturally sound? It could be, but I don't think it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | No sir, you are mistaken. One's view that abortion is murder is NOT contradictory to scripture, it simply is fully and specifically supported by scripture. There is no contradiction here, simply a difference of opinion in doctrine.
|
Yes, I know. I am not saying that there is a contradiction with the content of the scripture; I am saying that there is a contradiction with the scripture itself. If someone says that a book contains something that it doesn't contain, then that is a contradiction.
| RevJP wrote: |
Where the problem lies, and I think this is the point you are really trying to make, is that scripture DOES NOT STATE that abortion is wrong, or that it is murder, and most prolifers assert that it does say such.
|
Yes, this is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | RevJP wrote:
Where the problem lies, and I think this is the point you are really trying to make, is that scripture DOES NOT STATE that abortion is wrong, or that it is murder, and most prolifers assert that it does say such.
|
Yes, this is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. |
I thought as much. I would suggest however, in the future, when trying to make a point like this, avoid using the words 'contradiction'. There is no contradiction necessarily.
If a pro-lifer says that scripture supports their position, it could be shown that scripture indeed supports that postion - dependent upon definitions of various terms of course. If they assert that scripture SAYS abortion is wrong, then that would be a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I thought as much. I would suggest however, in the future, when trying to make a point like this, avoid using the words 'contradiction'. There is no contradiction necessarily. |
Sometimes I forget that we logicians use the term 'contradiction' somewhat differently from the vernacular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No sir, it is not a use which is different from the vernacular, it was clearly an incorrect use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | No sir, it is not a use which is different from the vernacular, it was clearly an incorrect use. |
Only incorrect in the vernacular. When someone says that the Bible states that abortion is murder and in fact it does not, this is a logical contradiction. That's what I was saying all along. I agree that it might sound a bit funny to a non-logician, but that's how we use the term. There's technically nothing wrong with what I wrote. I agree that from a style point of view, I should have been more careful, but it's not incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, so now it is a 'logical contradiction'? Before it was simply a 'contradiction'.
As I said: improper use.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | sofyst wrote: | I know, I was just combatting your idea, or what I perceived as your idea, of that God couldn't command the killing of the babies.
I think then our discussion would move into the morality discussion. Whether it is immoral of God to do so... |
I think it's an issue of consistency. We have have a few pieces of information here:
1. God has ordered the killing of babies in the past.
2. God is benevolent and loving.
With that information, is it more reasonable to conclude that abortions ok or not? |
I think that a conclusion cannot reasonably be reached unless one further discusses these difference pieces of information. You present these two propositions as though they are simple thoughts (like 2+2=4). When in reality these are far from simple.
In discussing the second piece of information, we would need to discuss what 'benevolent' means and what 'loving' means. One person may claim that it is the 'loving' thing to do to put someone out of their misery if they are suffering, another may claim that this is not 'loving', but only compassionate. Understand? And what do you mean by 'benevolent'?
And in discussing the first piece of information, we would have to consider the context of the decree. As I have said before, neither you nor I are God nor the babies. We do not know what transpired between the two, and therefore we attempting to decree that this act was wrong (or right) is us presumptuously saying that we are either a neutral third party, or a governing counsel above the two.
To illustrate this, I would paint the scenario of a man killing another man. If you and I saw only this act, we may first assume that the killer was in the wrong, that there was no justification for his act. But we don't know all of the facts.
You may attempt to say the parallel is not the same, as babies couldn't possibly be guilty of any act which justifies their death. But that, you must admit, is an assumption.
We likewise must consider that even if God has decreed the death of babies in the past, this wouldn't have much relevance to the abortion issue now. As no advocate of abortion would claim that God decreed them to do so. The only relevance that it would have is in that it would present a precedence showing that God is not angered or displeased with the death of babies. But the entire anti-abortion argument is not based upon this belief alone.
May I ask whether you believe abortion to be permissable or not? Just curious? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I forgot I started this conversation... now it's been all over the place, so I hardly know how to respond, so I'll go with this:
Murder:
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
How does abortion fit either of these definitions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | Murder:
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
How does abortion fit either of these definitions? |
The first definition is a good working one, save of course the 'premeditated malice' part. All murder is the killing of a nother human being unlawfully. But not all murder is done with premeditated malice. I think though that this becomes more difficult given the different degrees and terms for 'killing' (or murder) within our judicial system. So, I think that we could work with the definition of murder being the unlawfull killing of another human being.
With that in mind, I think that abortion would be considered murder if the laws which allow it are considered to be unjust laws. A person who believes abortion to be murder may recognize that the laws of our country allow this killing, but they may believe that the laws are wrong and hence want the laws changed.
Consider slaves. The killing of slaves were of course murder, as they were human beings. But if I'm not mistaken, the killing of slaves was not illegal. In this situation, the laws were corrupt, or just wrong. Hence the killing of slave was murder, although it was not an 'unlawful killing'.
Regarding the second defintion, wantonly is defined as 'Immoral or unchaste; lewd.' Therefore, given that anti-abortionist believe that the act of killing the babies is immoral, they would then think that the slaughter of the babies is of course wanton. Therefore, it would be a wanton slaughter to kill the baby, i.e. to abort the child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Ana wrote: | Murder:
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
How does abortion fit either of these definitions? |
The first definition is a good working one, save of course the 'premeditated malice' part. All murder is the killing of a nother human being unlawfully. But not all murder is done with premeditated malice. I think though that this becomes more difficult given the different degrees and terms for 'killing' (or murder) within our judicial system. So, I think that we could work with the definition of murder being the unlawfull killing of another human being. |
You're right. If you commit murder as defined in the first one, only without the premeditated malice, it's second degree murder, which is still murder. The other thing is, the definition has in parentheses the qualification "a human being", which is a point of contention, to be sure.
| sofyst wrote: |
With that in mind, I think that abortion would be considered murder if the laws which allow it are considered to be unjust laws. A person who believes abortion to be murder may recognize that the laws of our country allow this killing, but they may believe that the laws are wrong and hence want the laws changed. |
This brings up a separate but related issue: whose law? If abortions are legal in Country A and illegal in Country B, and person A from Country A has an abortion and person B from Country B has an abortion, then is only person B's action condemned by the bible?
| sofyst wrote: |
Consider slaves. The killing of slaves were of course murder, as they were human beings. But if I'm not mistaken, the killing of slaves was not illegal. In this situation, the laws were corrupt, or just wrong. Hence the killing of slave was murder, although it was not an 'unlawful killing'. |
If I'm not mistaken, didn't they skirt the issue by not considering the slaves to be human?
| sofyst wrote: |
Regarding the second defintion, wantonly is defined as 'Immoral or unchaste; lewd.' Therefore, given that anti-abortionist believe that the act of killing the babies is immoral, they would then think that the slaughter of the babies is of course wanton. Therefore, it would be a wanton slaughter to kill the baby, i.e. to abort the child. |
Well, to be consistent, the same dictionary (m-w) defines wanton thusly:
wanton:
1 a archaic : hard to control : UNDISCIPLINED, UNRULY b : playfully mean or cruel : MISCHIEVOUS
2 a : LEWD, BAWDY b : causing sexual excitement : LUSTFUL, SENSUAL
3 a : MERCILESS, INHUMANE <wanton cruelty> b : having no just foundation or provocation : MALICIOUS <a wanton attack>
4 : being without check or limitation: as a : luxuriantly rank <wanton vegetation> b : unduly lavish : EXTRAVAGANT <wanton imagination>
I wonder which the dictionary writers had in mind for the definition of murder. We can rule out #1 as it is archaic (not to mention inapplicable in this instance), and #2 is hardly the norm either, especially when considering abortion. #3 might fit, and there's a chance they meant #4.
Now, going back to whether or not abortion fits under "to slaughter wantonly", abortion is neither merciless nor inhumane, it isn't malicious, and there is just foundation and provocation (it's not a light decision to make, after all), so it doesn't fit #3. Abortion isn't extravagant, lavish, luxurious or without check or limitation, either, so it isn't really #4, which means that abortion isn't murder by the #2 definition of murder provided earlier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | Murder:
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly |
Actually, that defintion of murder is more of the verb than the noun. This isn't the definition that's used as a legal term. The one that's use as a legal term and is the first definition of what murder is....is this:
| Quote: | Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary |
The defintion you got of murder is the verb, which is mentioned here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
(btw, if that link shows you the same word and definition...let me know)
| Quote: | | How does abortion fit either of these definitions? |
It doesn't. First of all, the defintion of murder (the noun) states that murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice and intent. First of all, if abortion was murder, it would be treated as murder and it wouldn't have become legalized. Second of all, personhood isn't granted until birth despite what someone may personally think of a pregnancy. Third of all, no one gets pregnant just to abort. And fourth of all, abortion doesn't happen maliciously. It's chemically injected the same as an animal that gets euthanized.
| sofyst wrote: | | With that in mind, I think that abortion would be considered murder if the laws which allow it are considered to be unjust laws. A person who believes abortion to be murder may recognize that the laws of our country allow this killing, but they may believe that the laws are wrong and hence want the laws changed. |
However, here's the difference of opinion. The best thing a person can do if they don't like abortion (regardless why) is not do it. Abortion isn't murder because murder (the noun, which is the first definition and used by the legal system) because abortion is defined as a termination of pregnancy that results in the death of a fetus. A fetus doesn't have personhood and abortion isn't even considered to be a legal killing.
If one seriously wants to decrease the abortion rate, it would be better to decrease the need of abortion rather than just flat out illegalizing or banning it.
| ana wrote: | | This brings up a separate but related issue: whose law? If abortions are legal in Country A and illegal in Country B, and person A from Country A has an abortion and person B from Country B has an abortion, then is only person B's action condemned by the bible? |
no, because abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the bible. Not to mention, how does one know that person is christian, let alone religious? If they follow another religion, like I do, what the bible says isn't going to matter to them in the first place.
Not to mention, it depends why abortion is illegal in the first place? Is it illegal totally on ethical reasons or religious?
| ana wrote: | | If I'm not mistaken, didn't they skirt the issue by not considering the slaves to be human? |
No, they didn't consider a slave to be a person. Although, slaves had more personhood than fetuses do. slaves had 1/4 of personhood.
| sofyst wrote: | | Regarding the second defintion, wantonly is defined as 'Immoral or unchaste; lewd.' Therefore, given that anti-abortionist believe that the act of killing the babies is immoral, they would then think that the slaughter of the babies is of course wanton. Therefore, it would be a wanton slaughter to kill the baby, i.e. to abort the child. |
Here's the problem though with that view of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists...however you want to refer to them as...it isn't a baby, but a non-viable fetus 95% of the time. I don't mind if a woman personally thinks her pregnancy to be a child or a person. It's her pregnancy, and she can call it whatever the hell she wants to.
However, universally, not every single person views the pregnancy as a baby. Besides, baby is mostly a term of endearment. It's medically a fetus, and most of the time when abortions occur...it's not even viable yet, which means it cannot survive outside the womb...even with the help of other people.
Besides, abortion isn't as cruel as some put it. It's a medical procedure that involves a chemical injection to terminate the pregnancy. With the sources cut off, the fetus dies. By the time it's removed, the fetus is dead. It's almost like an animal being euthanized...except they are not vaccumed out of anything.
| ana wrote: | | I wonder which the dictionary writers had in mind for the definition of murder. We can rule out #1 as it is archaic (not to mention inapplicable in this instance), and #2 is hardly the norm either, especially when considering abortion. #3 might fit, and there's a chance they meant #4. |
No, because the defintion of murder you used was a verb...not the noun. The noun is what the judical system pretty much follows and it's the very first definition of what murder is.
| ana wrote: | | Now, going back to whether or not abortion fits under "to slaughter wantonly", abortion is neither merciless nor inhumane, it isn't malicious, and there is just foundation and provocation (it's not a light decision to make, after all), so it doesn't fit #3. Abortion isn't extravagant, lavish, luxurious or without check or limitation, either, so it isn't really #4, which means that abortion isn't murder by the #2 definition of murder provided earlier. |
I agree with this, and wanted to add it doesn't fit in with the first definition either, or the noun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
