 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: | | 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. |
I didn't think the point of contention was whether the baby was a 'human being', but rather whether it was a 'living human being' or not. The issue of whether a person in a coma can be taken off of life support is not debated because one side thinks that the person is still a human and the other side thinks they have ceased to be human - they both agree on the person's humanness - rather, the issue is about whether the person, the human, is living or not. The same is true for the infant, or fetus, I had assumed.
Consult your dictionary (you seem so privy to do that  ), does it say that a 'fetus' is the 'unborn young' as mine does (I'm using thefreedictionary.com)? If so, then I think it would be agreed that a species 'young' is still considered a member of that species, it is just not yet born (as the deceased elderly is still a member of the species, they are just no longer living).
| Quote: | | 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? |
This is a somewhat complicated issue, that may get us sidetracked. Let me see if I can give you the Bible's stance on this (or at least my interpretation of it) without being too verbose.
If there is an issue which the Scripture specifically condemns, and yet a state allows, the Christian is to condemn the action with Scripture, as Scripture is the higher authority (as most Christians would say abortion is such an issue). If there is an action which the Scripture is silent upon, and the state condemns, the Christian is to submit to the State and follow its laws (like say the driving at 60mph).
This is the idea of 'render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's'. If Caesar oversteps his bounds and commands the Christian to do soemthing that the Bible tells the Christian not to do, the Christian is to disobey Caesar (all the while recognizing that he is still subjected to the consequences of such disobediance) and obey rather the Scriptures.
Make sense?
| Quote: | | If I'm not mistaken, didn't they skirt the issue by not considering the slaves to be human? |
I do believe you're correct my dear Watson.
| Quote: | | ...which means that abortion isn't murder by the #2 definition of murder provided earlier. |
Very well. I'm not going to argue concerning this. I do believe that the idea of it being 'wanton slaughter' is somewhat of a subjective opinion. Some people can be cold-hearted about it and see the killing of the fetus as nothing more than the removal of an apendix (which in their opinion it really is nothing more than this). Whereas some will see the killing of the baby as the cold-blooded murder of a helpless little child (which in their opinion it really is exactly this). So it would be described as 'wanton slaughter' by the second class and only a surgical removal of excess tissue by the first.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I didn't think the point of contention was whether the baby was a 'human being', but rather whether it was a 'living human being' or not. The issue of whether a person in a coma can be taken off of life support is not debated because one side thinks that the person is still a human and the other side thinks they have ceased to be human - they both agree on the person's humanness - rather, the issue is about whether the person, the human, is living or not. The same is true for the infant, or fetus, I had assumed. |
Well, there are all kinds of debates going on about this - when ensoulment happens, when personhood happens, when being a human happens, when life starts, et cetera. The main thrust of all of these is to determine whether or not abortion is killing a live person.
| sofyst wrote: |
Consult your dictionary (you seem so privy to do that ), does it say that a 'fetus' is the 'unborn young' as mine does (I'm using thefreedictionary.com)? If so, then I think it would be agreed that a species 'young' is still considered a member of that species, it is just not yet born (as the deceased elderly is still a member of the species, they are just no longer living). |
First things first: I typically use www.m-w.com for the simple reason that all I have to do to access it is type m- into the URL bar (I'm lazy that way). Additionally, m-w tends to have some of the most impartial definitions, in my experience. For more technical info, as is the case for 'fetus', wikipedia usually suffices for definitions. A fetus is what we call the product of 8 weeks of pregnancy (in humans). This leads to my next point: when did 'fetus' come up? According to this article, 59.2% of abortions in the States (2001) occur before it's even a fetus. We're talking zygotes and embryos here. Zygotes and embryos are not people - they're only potential people. An apt analogy was made earlier on this board comparing zygotes to a stack of lumber and some drywall - these things are only a potential house. Anyways, we're drifting here...
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | 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? |
This is a somewhat complicated issue, that may get us sidetracked. Let me see if I can give you the Bible's stance on this (or at least my interpretation of it) without being too verbose.
If there is an issue which the Scripture specifically condemns, and yet a state allows, the Christian is to condemn the action with Scripture, as Scripture is the higher authority (as most Christians would say abortion is such an issue). If there is an action which the Scripture is silent upon, and the state condemns, the Christian is to submit to the State and follow its laws (like say the driving at 60mph).
This is the idea of 'render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's'. If Caesar oversteps his bounds and commands the Christian to do soemthing that the Bible tells the Christian not to do, the Christian is to disobey Caesar (all the while recognizing that he is still subjected to the consequences of such disobediance) and obey rather the Scriptures.
Make sense? |
It makes sense to me, although it doesn't address the issue with a satisfactory answer (I don't believe there is one). If you're supposed to follow God's law, and the bible (God's law) is silent on whether abortion is allowed, then you have to follow man's law instead, in which case, person A is a-ok while person B is not.
If you want, we can talk about this more on a separate thread...
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | ...which means that abortion isn't murder by the #2 definition of murder provided earlier. |
Very well. I'm not going to argue concerning this. I do believe that the idea of it being 'wanton slaughter' is somewhat of a subjective opinion. Some people can be cold-hearted about it and see the killing of the fetus as nothing more than the removal of an apendix (which in their opinion it really is nothing more than this). Whereas some will see the killing of the baby as the cold-blooded murder of a helpless little child (which in their opinion it really is exactly this). So it would be described as 'wanton slaughter' by the second class and only a surgical removal of excess tissue by the first. |
Well, I'd be inclined to apply 'wanton slaughter' as a description to both the Flood and the passage I mentioned earlier. God says 'yep, kill them all', but the mother-to-be says 'hmm, should I? shouldn't I?' and deliberates about just one baby-to-be.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dramatic_n_comedic_lynn wrote: | | 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 |
|
Hi DnC Lynn (mind if I call you that?),
Can you see the parallel between the #1 definitions of both the verb and the noun? Basically, the verb is the act of commiting the noun. Either way, they're for the purpose of this discussion the same thing.
Yep, it is the same - that's where I got it from.
| DnC Lynn wrote: |
| 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. |
Exactly!
| DnC Lynn wrote: |
| 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? |
I'm with you on this. My comment was to point out the problems of inconsistency, considering that from a Christian viewpoint, the general concensus on morality (right vs. wrong, sin vs. not sin, where sin is any trangsgression of God's law) is that God (unchanging) provides absolute morality, rather than subjective or geographically determined morality.
Tie this together with Sofyst's point about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
Sidenote: what religion do you follow?
| DnC Lynn wrote: |
| 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. |
Wow. Seriously? Where did they come up with that?
| DnC Lynn wrote: |
| 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. |
And what difference does this make? I'm explicitly referring to consistency regarding two definitions provided by the same dictionary. I think that if they're going to use a word, then they'd best use the word in accordance with their own definitions. In any case, I covered all the possible bases. Besides, the definition I am working with (verb) doesn't exclude anything that yours (noun) says (barring def'n #2, which you yourself are not using, as it is clearly irrelevant).
| DnC Lynn wrote: |
| 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. |
Yep - I think that betwixt the two of us, this horse is officially dead and beaten
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | It makes sense to me, although it doesn't address the issue with a satisfactory answer (I don't believe there is one). If you're supposed to follow God's law, and the bible (God's law) is silent on whether abortion is allowed, then you have to follow man's law instead, in which case, person A is a-ok while person B is not.
If you want, we can talk about this more on a separate thread... |
Who said that the Bible was silent about whether abortion was allowed or not?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8175
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Who said that the Bible was silent about whether abortion was allowed or not? |
I guess that was me! (But I don't claim to be the person who discovered this fact.)
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7000
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could have something to do with it...
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8175
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I could have something to do with it... |
Yup, RevJP was the one who first pointed this out to me! And he's right. I scoured the internet, and also have asked many people here. If there were a verse from the Bible which stated that abortion is murder or that ensoulment happens at conception, then I would have found it.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Hi DnC Lynn (mind if I call you that?) |
Lynn would suffice I think it would be easier, unless there's another lynn on this board I don't know about.
| Quote: | | Can you see the parallel between the #1 definitions of both the verb and the noun? Basically, the verb is the act of commiting the noun. Either way, they're for the purpose of this discussion the same thing. |
 Yeah, now I do. I apologeize. It takes me a while to understand the way words are put and written. It's a major comprehension problem I have. I haven't been diagnois with it yet because it was never an issue enough, but it's theorized that I might have Aspenger's syndrome (tis fun *sarcasm*)
| Quote: | | Sidenote: what religion do you follow? |
I'm a monolithic Unitarian Universalist. I do have a God, but it's a personal and spiritual one. I still follow the ten commandments, even though I'm not Christian anymore because my God sees it having some laws that are also in other religions and some commandments are laws in society (like "thou shall not steal"). I have beliefs in paganism, buddahism, sikhism, christianity, judaism, and my God knows what else there is.
All those beliefs I have from other religions just developed, and UU is the only religion where I can have these beliefs without conflicting anything within that religion (like Christianity)....maybe with the exception of buddahism but I'm not sure.
| Quote: | | Wow. Seriously? Where did they come up with that? |
Which part? They didn't consider slaves to be a full person and have 1/4 personhood, or what I said about fetuses?
_________________
When do we stop learning? Maybe never |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dramatic_n_comedic_lynn
Big Goldfish
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 73
Location: Sweden (though I'm from Maryland)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | It makes sense to me, although it doesn't address the issue with a satisfactory answer (I don't believe there is one). If you're supposed to follow God's law, and the bible (God's law) is silent on whether abortion is allowed, then you have to follow man's law instead, in which case, person A is a-ok while person B is not. |
Who said that the Bible was silent about whether abortion was allowed or not? |
| Rev JP wrote: | | I could have something to do with it... |
Heh heh...that's where I got it from that abortion is silent in the bible. I still remember our conversation when we met irl. I was with Fake.
I can't remember if I was an active member on here at the time, but I think I was christian at that point. I remember looking in the back of the bible's glossary to see if abortion was there, and there wasn't nothing in the bible about it.
_________________
When do we stop learning? Maybe never |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the Bible is necessarily silent about abortion, it may not explicitely say 'abortion', but it does give implication that the child within the womb is a living human, and there is no doubt that murder of a living human is wrong.
We have of course the case of Jeremiah being known by God and formed by God within the womb.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7000
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
The issue here though, as being discussed between P123 and Lynn is one of when does life begin and what constitutes life. The deeper issue on a spiritual level is one concerning ensoulment. Spiritually I hold that murder involves the idea of 'releasing' a soul, and it follows that to kill a dog (or any animal) is not murder because no soul is involved.
The soul is the reason the death of a human being is held seperately from the death of an animal. If there is no soul then there are no eternal consequences. Thus the discussion moves into the realm of when does ensoulment occur? I've found nothing in scripture to indicate when that happens save for the Genesis account when God breathed life into Adam, thus creating a living soul.
My conclusion, based on a lack of contradictory biblical information, is that ensoulment occurs at 'first breath', or in other words: birth.
I also look to the idea of miscarriages and SIDS, and the lack of any biblical support for an 'age of accountability'. I would have a hard time accepting that a soul is imparted upon conception, then a miscariage occurs and that 'soul' is then damned for eternal seperation from God, and to be completely honest; "suffer the little children to come unto Me" is woefully insufficient to suggest that being a child ensures salvation in light of all scriptures which demonstrate that man is BORN in a state of sin.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would you then classify Jeremiah as a special case? Was he not said to be known by God BEFORE he was born, i.e. in your opinion, before he had a soul?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7000
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I am saying is that the reference to Jeremiah says nothing about a soul, and that God knows all before it exists or existed and that nothing that exists or existed is so without God's decree.
Scripture tells me that God knew every hair on my head (all three of them) before the begining of creation, that has nothing to do with me having a soul, but purely to do with His omniscience.
I am not saying that 'souls' do not or did not exist before one's birth, but that one does not have a soul imparted until their birth (I refer to ancient jewish beliefs regarding the guff and the impartation of souls as the only reference to ensoulment that I can find).
God did not create man (Adam) with a soul. He created the physical body and imparted the soul after the physical was formed.
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being. [I Cor. 15:45-49.]
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 AMP Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being (an individual personality); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit [restoring the dead to life]. [Gen. 2:7.] (46) But it is not the spiritual life which came first, but the physical and then the spiritual. (47) The first man [was] from out of earth, made of dust (earthly-minded); the second Man [is] the Lord from out of heaven. [Gen. 2:7.] (48) Now those who are made of the dust are like him who was first made of the dust (earthly-minded); and as is [the Man] from heaven, so also [are those] who are of heaven (heavenly-minded). (49) And just as we have borne the image [of the man] of dust, so shall we and so let us also bear the image [of the Man] of heaven.
Now, I willingly admit that these are my opinions, I am not stating that scripture teaches this, only that it does not adequately support another view.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8175
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Would you then classify Jeremiah as a special case? Was he not said to be known by God BEFORE he was born, i.e. in your opinion, before he had a soul? |
I don't think this says anything about ensoulment. God also knew Jeremiah ten million years before He was conceived, because God is omniscient.
He also might just be talking about Jeremiah's physical body. After all, humans have two parts; the physical and the spiritual.
The statement is ambiguous at best.
Besides, the argument can also be made that the Bible says that ensoulment happens at birth. It very clearly states that Adam received his soul when He took his first breath.
So like RevJP said, the Bible is definitely not clear on the subject.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
But consider the situation. God tells Jeremiah that He, God, knew Jeremiah before He was born.
Now, if your opinion is correct, and the soul is not imparted until birth, then this would mean the person/thing/being that God knew before Jeremiah's birth was a soulless being, and yet it was still classified, or called by God, 'Jeremiah'.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
