Author Topic: Abortion: Right Or Wrong?  (Read 5724 times)

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« on: January 02, 2005, 08:35:05 AM »
Find hereunder a piece I posted at fggcowerri.com in response to an abortion question. I thought some browsers of this site who are not opportuned to visit the fggc site may benefit from the fact therein contained.

Abortion: Right Or Wrong?

When it comes to the issue of abortion, opinion is ?dime a dozen.? Everybody appears to have a thing or two to say about it. We begin to rely on our intelligence or wisdom. Unfortunately, our intelligence or wisdom is nothing to go by and therefore not competent to decipher a moral issue such as this. According to 1Cor 3:19, ?the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.?

As Christians, when an issue as perplexing as abortion arises, rather than jump in with our intelligence and opinion, we aught to pull back and search first the book of knowledge; the one book God handed to us as our guide through life. This book, the bible, has the answer to everything that has to do with man and his existence on the earth and beyond.

Searching the scriptures to support or refute any doctrine we receive is a command to all Christians. In commending the people of Berea, Acts 17:11 says, ?Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.? According to 1John 4:1, ?Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.? To get to the truth, we owe it to ourselves to ?test everything; hold fast what is good,? (1Thess 5:21).

I promised to research the bible about abortion and make my findings known to you all. I did the research. I thought it was gonna be a breeze, but it turned out to be quite a task. Surprisingly, I didn?t find a thing about abortion, directly. It was not mentioned anywhere in the bible: no law, injunction, commendation, or condemnation. However, I found scanty references about miscarriages. But only once was induced miscarriage mentioned. All the same, what I found may be of some help in determining the your position, one way or the other, on it issue of abortion.

Given my limited understanding of the scriptures, I can only conclude the following:
(1) Abortion is neither sinful nor virtuous.
(2) It is not commanded, prescribed, suggested, encouraged, condemned, or dwelt on.
(3) It is therefore a personal, private matter the lawmakers should stay clear of.
(4) Nobody should take on the fight against abortion, hiding behind the name of God or Christ, seeing that God is quite capable of doing his own battles.

Anyone disagreeing with these conclusions is free to voice out his/her views. Depending on how strong the opposition is, there may be an opportunity for an open debate where everybody will be invited to participate. I?m sure folks have strong feeling on the matter. In lieu of a debate, I can be persuaded to publish my argument if readers so desire. You will agree that it?s not a good feeling to invest a lot of time and energy in putting out text nobody wants to read or is interested in.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Chizi

  • Posts: 66
    • http://
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2005, 10:00:29 AM »
Abortion is a topical issue that disturbs me. It disturbs me because I pefer to have reasons why I stand on any one side of an issue. I prefer to have reasons why I think something is right or wrong. Like Prince said, the Bible nither encourages nor condemns it directly.
 Some people ask; What about murder? The Bible clearly states, \"Thou shall not kill\". Murder is basically causing a fellow being to die. Induced abortion is willfully terminating a living fetus, in other words, taking the life out of it. Some people will argue; It is a fetus, not a human being until it is born; It does not have the rights humans have and cannot exist independently, therefore its termination should not be termed \"murder\". So the next question is this; Should we consider whether abortion is right or wrong with regard to the fetus as completely human, or should we consider whether it is right or wrong with regard to the fetus as an entity of multiplying and differentiating cells yet to become human?
 Another problem with this issue is that there are no universal standards to determine if and why a fetus should be considered human or otherwise. It\'s purely a matter of personal beliefs and beyond the scope of science. If the Bible nither encourages nor condemns it, and if the law says \"abortion\" is not tantamount to \"murder\", then on what basis can we say it is wrong?
This is a complex issue with lots of gray areas.
<div>Little minds are subdued by misfortune, but great minds rise by it. <br /></div>

Ahunna

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2005, 08:43:39 PM »
Hmmm, interesting!!!. Well I disagree with you guys Prince and Chizi in some of yall opinion in regards to if abortion is right or wrong. The Bible mustn?t say ?thou say not commit an abortion? for it to be in the Bible, if you research on the bible you will find where the fetus are talked about.
First  we must ask ourselves, Is it biblically right to take a human life?  Is the unborn fetus considered a human life in the Bible? We must first find an answer to the questions. We must search in order to find out if unborn fetuses are considered a living being according to the Bible.
   To answer the  first question if its biblically right to take human life?: Romans 13:3-4, \"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.\" Here, we read specifically that the nation has the right to perform capitol punishment. The quote \"he beareth not the sword in vain\" is clear. Paul, being inspired of God, gives the nation the right to bear the sword. A sword is used for nothing other than the taking of human life. No one would hunt food with a sword. Therefore, we can see what is taught: Capitol punishment is permissible under New Testament law.
   When condemning capitol punishment, one will inevitably use the word ?murder? capitol punishment is not murder. Murder by definition is the taking of an innocent life A criminal is far from innocent. God  does not allow murder because it is the taking of an innocent life. Capitol punishment gives a nation the right to take a guilty life.
    Now to answer the second question,  In psalms 139: 13-16, ?\"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother\'s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of  them?.  
Also when we look at the book of Luke 1:44 \"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy\" Mary acknowledges the baby in her womb. This statement is clear. Mary makes a definite distinction between her and the babe in her womb. She also said the babe leaped for joy. Joy is an emotion only experienced by human beings. This shows the unborn fetus is a living human being. Since it is a living human being, and taking innocent life is wrong, then abortion must be wrong. One might counteract that statement by saying, \"It is not a human life because it cannot live outside of the womb.\" This statement is absurd. That person is correct in saying that the premature fetus cannot live outside the womb. But, if the inability to live on its own disqualifies it as being a human being, then it would seem that we have the right to discontinue the existence of a common child. After all a child is not able to survive on its own. A child needs someone to help it to survive. Even science confirms that the beginning of life is at conception. The sperm of the male and the egg of a female are united in sexual intercourse ? a new life has begun. Life does in fact begin at conception! After all, conception means \"BEGINNING.\"
   The fetus of an unborn child is life according to the Bible. The life that exists inside the mother\'s womb has done nothing wrong. It is in fact innocent. According to the Bible, murder is wrong. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, to the final end: It is clear that abortion is WRONG . Just felt like adding my one cent on this topic. i going to research more in the Bible cause i know there are more books in the Bible that has more to say. :D.  I will be checking in to see if anyone has something to say  about my views.

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2005, 11:21:42 PM »
Chizi, your reference to people?s concerns regarding the biblical prohibition of killing and the stage where a fetus counts as an individual is well noted.  Given that there?s not a whole lot we disagree on about the issue, I?ll go ahead and address Ahunna?s argument in the hope that, somewhere in there, something that may mitigate those concerns will be found.  Later.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2005, 09:28:12 AM »
Hey Ahunna, I picked up your footprints over at the Christmas tussle at FGGCO site.  I deferred to respond to your post hoping we meet again.  Behold, here we are.  Good to see you.

Please allow me to express my thanks to you for the hereunder-appearing reasons: (1) you visited the forum and took the time to read the post.  (2) In responding to the piece, you understood what was posted and did what needed be done, including but not limited to searching the scriptures to support your views, in other to present an impressive argument.  I?m proud of you.  (3) Through it all, you never accused those having views opposed to yours, as working for the devil.  This is the stuff a healthy argument and an enlightening debate are made of, respect.

I promised a research, and I did one.  I?ll therefore present my argument, based on my findings.  As you well know, the bible, Jesus? earthly teachings, and the things of God are not meant for the understanding of all.  ?At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes? (Matth 11:25).  Compare ?That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world? (Matth 13:35).
 
To unlock bible truth, one must have a number of keys, one of which is found at Isaiah 18:10, ?For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:? The bible is not a novel.  Therefore, reading it like a history or literature book will not yield understanding.  Consider it as a big jig saw puzzle.  The right piece has to fit in the right space for the picture to be appreciated.  To do this, one has to pull resources a little here, a little there, matching sentence-to-sentence, concept-to-concept, and scheme-to-scheme.
 
Although the caption, ?Abortion: Right Or Wrong?? appears to require an answer from the choices, I personally don?t see abortion as a right or wrong issue.  It is a thing of personal choice, not to be legislated by any government.  But for the benefit of the debate, your arguments will be examined carefully.

The controversy dogging abortion is rooted in the ?thou shalt not kill? law of Exodus 20:13.  And you seem to share that notion.  Most, if not all, bible scholars agree that there was an error in interpretation.  The word the translators sought after was ?murder? not ?kill.?  Remembering the ?precept upon precept? rule of the thumb, we go to another place for clarification.  The Master himself, in answering a man enquiring after eternal life, concluded with the words, ?Thou shalt do no murder? [Matth 19:18]. There it is.

What is the status of a fetus and at what stage does it become the much-taunted person?  Is it a life?  Yes.  And so are the roundworm, the tapeworm, or every other parasite that may find comfort and sustenance in our body.  Is the fetus human?  Yes again.  At the least, it has the potential.  Then again, so is the hair follicle, which, under favorable conditions, namely cloning, can become a human.  But the fetus is not a person.  As we shall see shortly, that makes all the difference.  

In the status of a fetus as a person, when life begins becomes irrelevant.  Of relevance is when a fetus becomes a person.  In all the 6,000 years of human history, a pregnant woman, regardless of the stage of her pregnancy, has never been counted as two, not at a meeting, not during a census, and definitely not in the church. If he wants to keep driving, a taxi cab driver better not charge a pregnant woman double. So, even our society, as modern and progressive as it claims, does not see the fetus as a person.

Moreover, in the Hebrew tradition, the bed of the life law, a baby is not a person until the age of one month.  God never repudiated this practice.  Two persons cannot occupy the same space at the same time.  It?s easy to see that the woman-fetus relationship is very different from the mother-baby relationship.  There should be no comparison what so ever.  Until birth, both woman and fetus are inseparable.  If the woman is relocated, the fetus goes.  If she feeds, it feeds.  If she breathes, it breathes.  Let her bleed to death, the fetus dies.  The fetus goes if she?s suffocated.  No human can provide the fetus with life, sustenance, or protection other than the host.  Contrarily, a baby can survive and live a full life without further contact with the mother, after birth.  A woman and her child are counted as two; a pregnant woman counts as one.

That brings us to the ?leaping fetus? argument.  Before we go on, please allow me to make a slight correction.  It was Elizabeth who made the Luke 1:44 utterance and it was John that leapt in her womb.  It doesn?t really matter. The point you are trying to make is that something leapt, signifying awareness.  I got your back.  Yes, after Mary saluted, the fetus in Elizabeth?s womb leapt.  She acknowledged the unique, miraculous event.  Thereafter, Mary delivered the ?Magnificat? of Luke 1:46-55.

The event in question was a miraculous, momentous event of boundless significance, the likes of which had never happened before, and will never happen again.  Observe that it was John, not Jesus, who leapt for joy.  It was not because he recognized Jesus.  If anything it was Jesus who recognized him.  If he could recognize Jesus in the womb, surely, he would recognize him anywhere.  Even though they were cousins, John didn?t recognize Christ later on in life, at about the age of 30.  Remember that John has to send forth his disciples to go ask Christ if he was the Messiah (Matth 11:2-3).

So, why did John leap for joy?  That was his baptism.  Jesus baptized him in preparation for his work as the harbinger of and one who would in turn baptize Christ.  Jesus? super natural activities are not to be used as a yardstick for human behavior.  He recognized John and his purpose because he is God.  Doing things from the womb is nothing to him. He did more comfounding things.  Just by touching his garment even without his authorization, a woman was healed (Matth 9:20).  See also Matth 14:36.  Even dead, he was doing wonders.  On the cross, the veil of the temple tore, as earthquakes terrorized the land.  Dead folks rose from their graves and walked among the living.  Buried, he knew when the three-day period was up.  What is it to him to sanctify john from the womb?  Noth like that has ever happened since then.

Revelation of God?s knowledge of things before their existence is rife in the bible.  God, the Master Craftsman, designed everything and obviously knew them all before he spoke them into existence.  Is everything then a person?  No. ?Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father? (Matth 10:29).  God?s knowledge of the sparrows does not make then persons.  And neither is the hair on my head a person, because they are numbered (Matth 10:30).    The knowledge or awareness of an individual?s existence does not make one a person.  When God created Adam, he was just a soul.  But he became a living soul only after God ??breathed into his nostrils the breath of life? (Gen 2:7).  One becomes a person with the infusion of the breath of life.  Once the breath of life leaves, one goes back to nothing.  This breath of life, the fetus doesn?t have.

Every issue of human existence is laid out in the bible. So, what does the bible say about a fetus? This is the only instance in the entire bible, Old and New testaments, where the welfare of the fetus is discussed. Check Exodus Chapter 21. Verse 22 reads, ? If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman\'s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.?  Follow the scenario closely.  Men fight. A pregnant woman is hit. A miscarriage occurs. The next statement says, ?and yet no mischief follow.? If the fetus is that valuable, how come the bible does not consider the loss of the fetus a mischief? Up to this point, we have a civil case, punishable by a fine and financial restitution.

But, according to verse 23, ?And if any mischief follow (further damage), then thou shalt give life for life, 24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, and 25: Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It is only when the woman is wounded is it considered criminal and an equitable punishment enforced. The second part is not about the fetus. Since fetuses possess no teeth, it must be refering to the woman. Similarly, the likelihood of the fetus being burned is zero. Remember it is not our opinion that matters. We are searching for the bible truth.  

Consider the self-styled pro lifers who hide behind their cause and commit crimes of murder, arson, rape, assault, etc. These folks are lawbreakers whom God did not commission to fight his battles. Any mere mortal who believes he can fight God?s fights does not have any sliver of respect for God. If he has to depend on us to fight his fights, he is in deep trouble. He is more than capable of doing his own and our battles. ?Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the LORD will be with you? (2Chro 20:17). See also Exod 13:14; 14:18; 23:27-28; Isaiah 38:6; 1Chro 14:15; 2Kgs 7:6-7.

Those who take it upon themselves to do God?s work without commission or authorization should take note ?For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD? (Jer 29:9).
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Ahunna

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2005, 10:24:11 AM »
Prince, apparently, it seems to be more than one Ahunna around. I do not have the slightest clue to what you are talking about on the fggco site. i am a different Ahunna, Nevertheless, i am still doing some research on this particular topic and as soon as i am done, my views would be made known to you. see you soon.

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2005, 09:46:53 PM »
My bad!  It must be in the name.  There\'s something in that name, Ahunna, that captivates my fancy.  Maybe it\'s the depiction of a father-daughter bonding.  

I should have known it wasn\'t you over there at fggco.  What the heck, you can\'t have too many Ahunna\'s, can you?  Don\'t they say, \"the more the merrier?

By the way, I see you have solid conviction and a firm grip of issues, why don\'t you register to be a member?  That way, you can get credit for your posts, in the wise of ranking.  I strongly believe you have a lot to offer the readers.  What do you say?
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2005, 02:04:05 AM »
Thanks for appreciating my piece but I must  tell you that I may not be coming here all the time, very soon I will resume school and I don?t know how much time I would have on my side to write but nevertheless , I will be checking in with you guys if time permits. Therefore registering as a member wouldn?t really make a difference.
   Before I Proceed, I stand corrected, it was Elizabeth that made the utterance on Luke 1:44 but who made the utterance is irrelevant, the point I was trying to raise is that the presence of a child was recognized ?The babe leaped in my womb for joy?  I did some researches and like I?ll promised, I will lay my view out to you.
   Often there is little progress on the issue of abortion, because both sides haven\'t taken the time to listen to what the other side is arguing for. Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is taking an innocent life for no reason (this is usually called murder). Pro-choice advocates do not see abortion as taking innocent lives, but as a beneficial medical procedure. This procedure gives women the power to make decisions that put them in control of their sexual decisions like never before. Before the pro-choice option should even be explored, the pro-life question (is abortion murder?) needs to be answered. After all, a social revolution based upon murdering babies should not be acceptable to anyone, no matter how great those benefits are.
The crux of the argument for abortion or against abortion rests on this single question. If life begins at conception, then taking that life after conception is murder. If life begins at birth or later, then abortion cannot be objected on grounds of murder.
Here\'s some evidence in favor of an unborn child being a person. They have their own blood, DNA, heart beat, brainwaves, and actions. Basically, this means that an unborn child cannot be called just organ tissue from the mother. Organ tissue would not have these characteristics. Individual human beings have these characteristics.
Why do people usually object to the unborn being a human? Three objections come to mind: size, location, and development.
Many times people think size is important (whether or not they consciously realize this). They assume that since an unborn child is so small, it can\'t possibly be human like everyone else. Of course, if this is true, then it follows the bigger you are, the more you are human. That would mean Shaquille O\'Neil should be regarded as being more human than me, since he is much larger. I hope the logic of this reasoning seems ridiculous to you, because it is. There is no sign that reads \"you must be at least this tall to be considered human.\" Location is another determining factor that crosses people\'s minds. Often people assume that since the unborn is located in the womb of the mother that makes the child not human. Would that mean if I hid underground or buried myself in human flesh I would be less human? Why should location factor into this at all? People often mention development as a key issue to this debate. After all, the unborn may have the potential to become to become human after it develops, even if it is not a fully developed human right now. Unfortunately, this would mean that until humans are fully developed, they should be allowed to be subjected to inhumane acts (such as murder) until they are fully developed (which doesn\'t occur until the late teens for most people). Should we be allowed to kill and mistreat anyone under age 15? I don\'t think anyone believes this, but it is the natural conclusion from the argument of development.

Depending on how you weigh the evidence, one can conclude (at best) an unborn child is a human being or (at worst) we cannot know what an unborn child is. There is strong compelling evidence for an unborn child to be a human life, but there is not any evidence against it. In fact, the pro-choice supporters must work with the premise that we do not know if an unborn child is a human. Let\'s lay aside all the evidence we have for believing the unborn child is a human being. I will argue that even if all we know is that we do not know what the unborn child is, we should still oppose abortion. For example, if there is a condemned building and the demolition crew does not know whether or not anyone is inside, should they just go ahead and destroy the building? No, they should see if anyone is inside. If we do not know whether or not an unborn child is a human, we ought to avoid abortion all costs, because there is the very real possibility it is a human being! Not knowing whether or not the unborn are human beings does not help the case for the pro-life position. Before a demolition crew destroys a building they cannot just say, we do not know if anyone is inside, they must know that no one is inside, or they risk killing a human life. Before we can say abortion is not murder, we cannot just say we do not know if it is human. We must be able to say the unborn child is not human. And there is no evidence that would allow that. The problem for the pro-choice advocates is that there is actually strong evidence pointing for the opposite conclusion that the unborn are humans.

   Like me take you back  to certain places in the bible where the fetus is referred to a CHILD. Just to mention but a few, In Exodus 21:22, \"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman\'s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.\"
2 Samuel 11:5, \"And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.\"
Matthew 1:23, \"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.\"
Matthew 1:18, \"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.\"
The Lord God chose His words carefully. Every Word of God is pure! (Proverbs 30:5) All Scripture is God breathed! (2 Timothy 3:16). God said what he meant and meant what He says.
Let me take you back to Exodus 21:22-23  that you raised and that I raised too.
Consider what Moses said in the law, \"If men strike and hurt a woman with child (not just tissue) so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman\'s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.\" Exodus 21:22-23. This is not a reference to abortion, but the Lord said that the fruit of the womb is a c-h-i-l-d! A child! Not a mass of tissue. God said it, I didn\'t. Get mad at Him if you disagree!
If the child, or any human, is killed, the Lord says, \"life for life.\" In the New Testament, God authorizes government to be the \"... revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,\" Romans 13:4.
Genesis 9:6 says, \"Whoso sheddeth man\'s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.\" God authorizes the human race to carry out capital punishment of murderers, but God never authorizes the human race the right to put to death the unborn! .
   At this point, I will work from the conclusions I have argued from above. This means that an abortion is the killing of a human life. We must work with this guiding assumption: the unborn ought to be treated like a human being. Is it ever permissable to take a human life? Sure, it is generally accepted (by both Christians and non-Christians alike) that in war, self-defense, and some other specific cases one is permitted to take human life. If the pregnancy is a serious threat to the mother\'s life, I believe that there is justification in having an abortion in that case (just like self-defense killing is allowable in certain cases). This is justified killing, not abortion. Perhaps there are other specific cases where an abortion is permissable. However, over 90% of abortions are not done in any of these special cases.
If my arguments are solid, it follows that abortion is not just a personal or private issue, but a serious issue that should be followed up with legal action barring it.

Ahunna

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2005, 02:06:14 AM »
Prince the above post is my me i forgot to write my name..enjoy :D

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2005, 01:13:52 AM »
Ahunna, it appears to me that you?ve already made up your mind regarding registering to be a member.  That?s too bad, if it is not open for discussion or debate.  If it were, I?d probably use the following argument:

(1)   Membership does not compel anyone to write or post.  There are numerous members here who haven?t posted a lick.  If you were a member, you would have had access to the ?Member List? and found that only about 6% of the entire membership of 470 has posts here.
(2)   If you have the time to surf profiles, you will also find that many of those who have posted are students too.
(3)   If were a member, I would have been able to pm you to give you a heads up before making the correction.  That would have given you the opportunity to edit your post and reshape your argument as you see fit.  I know you?re not angry about it.  But what to do or not to do with the information would have been your decision.

Your closing comment? Funny.  You?re not gonna get me with that one.  \"I see you have solid conviction and a firm grip of issues.\"  Those are my words.  I\'m not implying that you don\'t have a solid argument, I just didn\'t say you had.  Granted, your argument was good enough to actually sway many folks.  I enjoy a good debate, opposite a formidable opponent.  That?s as far as I can go.  Your arguments were solid, but not factual.

About the rest of your argument, I?ll present a rebuttal later.  I?ve got to go now.  See you.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Ahunna

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2005, 11:13:26 PM »
Oh well Prince, i will register irrespective of the fact that i may/maynot have the time to come in here when school starts as earlier stated. When school is in session i am usually overwhelmed with school work carrying 21 credits/semester :(  and working 50hrs/ week :( .  Now u go figure.
    Now back to the argument at stake, Its either i have a Solid argument or Not . Read ur last paragraph, there seems to be some contradictions on ur statements.\"I see you have solid conviction and a firm grip of issues.\" Those are my words. I\'m not implying that you don\'t have a solid argument, I just didn\'t say you had\"and\"Your arguments were solid, but not factual\". Hmmmm, I think Solid arguments comes with being factual too, moreover you acknoweledged the fact that i have a Solid conviction of issues but u don\'t seem convinced yet. anyway i can\'t wait to read ur rebuttal.  see ya later.cheers

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2005, 04:20:44 AM »
You go ahead and register.  When it comes to the amount of workload that goes with 21 credit hours, you do have my sympathies.  And when you factor in your 50-hour workweek, yours is not an enviable position.  I mean it?s all work, enough to drown any average human.  All the same, don?t they say, all work and no play makes Jill a dull girl?  In the words of Chief Zebrudaya Okoroigwe Nwogbo, ?Let it be are.?

Ahunna, I see we?ve got a mess on our hands.  OK, let?s untangle this web we have woven.  We?ll get to the bottom of this by cutting apart my statement and see what?s going on in there.

\"I see you have solid conviction and a firm grip of the issues.\" Those are my words. I\'m not implying that you don\'t have a solid argument, I just didn\'t say you had\" and \"Your arguments were solid, but not factual.\"  This is the statement that is about to earn me the hangman?s noose.

I see you have solid conviction:  Yes, that?s what I see and I call them as I see them.  I?m not in the habit of playing with words, especially when dishonesty and deceit can easily be read into it.  I employed conviction here to mean belief, strong belief.  An idea or doctrine you strongly hold on to, especially one by which you were born or raised, qualifies as your conviction; something you are convinced of.  Your conviction, not mine, is that abortion is murder and a sin.  I don?t have that conviction; you do.  Am I right or wrong?

The adjective, solid, brings with it the connotation of staunch, ardent, or immovable.  It?s my belief that anyone desiring to shake you from this belief better bring a bulldozer.  That?s what it will take to pry you away from it.  And you most likely would be kicking and screaming too.  Now, how am I doing, so far?

A firm grip of the issues:  I still stand behind that.  The issue in question is Abortion, spanning the rights or wrongs it. I believe you have a pretty good understanding of the issue.  In other words, your grip of the issues is firm.  Am I wrong?  I believe you know what?s at stake here.  I also believe that you have participated in this debate in a way that demonstrated that you are knowledgeable in matters of the morality, or lack thereof, of abortion.  This doesn?t preclude your argument from flaws or imperfection, does it?

Those are my words:  They were, still are, and ever will be.  I spoke out of conviction, my conviction this time, not yours.

I\'m not implying that you don\'t have a solid argument; I just didn\'t say you had:  In your closing sentence, which I qualified as funny, you wrote: ?If my arguments are solid?? The implications are that I had qualified your argument as solid, earlier.  I?m denying that I said that, because I didn?t.  What I said was that your conviction, your belief, your orientation, your inclination, is solid.  The solid refers to your conviction, not your argument.  It is by the medium of your argument can you then pass your conviction to us, the readers.

You may or may not have a solid argument.  What I?m attempting to explain is that I have not made that determination, not yet.  The quoted statement above is simply saying this:  
(1)   I did not say you have a solid argument.  
(2)   What I said is that you have a solid conviction, two different things.
(3)   That I didn?t make the statement ascribed to me does not mean that you don?t have a solid argument.

Your arguments were solid, but not factual: Wait, wait, now I see what you are talking about.  Yes, I did write those words.  That?s an error on my part, for which I apologize profusely.  I was thinking about the bone of contention, solid.  But it wasn?t what I meant to write.  If I had an editor, he/she would have picked that up.  I meant to reiterate the statement right before it: ?Granted, your argument was good enough to actually sway many folks.? This is what I meant to write: ?Your arguments were good, but not factual.?

I hereby serve you, and also the membership of this site, passersby, and the rest of both the literal and literary world a healthy dose of an apology.  
THE PRINCE HAS MADE A BOO-BOO.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Ahunna

  • Guest
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2005, 05:56:45 AM »
LOL .Still waiting for ur rebuttal.

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2005, 10:08:08 PM »
I hear you.  It won\'t be long now.  I hope that the next time I hear from you, you will have registered.  Take care.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)

Prince

  • Posts: 438
Abortion: Right Or Wrong?
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2005, 04:57:51 AM »
Heads Up: This rebuttal is a bit lengthy.  My advice would be to print it out to read at your leisure.

Ahunna, I very much agree with you that people who engage in debates, not only about abortion, do not listen to each other and one another.  And even when they pretend to listen, they refuse to concede, holding on to flawed arguments.  But this argument is not between them and us; it?s between you and me.  I believe that within the confines of this one on one engagement, you ought to pitch your views and convictions against mine.  Incidentally, through most, approximately 50% of your argument, you appeared to be debating somebody else.  Another 20% dwelt on points already addressed.  That leaves me about 30% of your argument to rebut.  

To be more specific, you created a pro-life/pro-choice confrontation.  You interjected their views and went to work addressing those views.  I?m simply a seeker of bible truth.  I?m neither a pro-lifer nor a pro-choicer.  I?m not even people, whoever they are.  I see a lot of flaws in the pro-life argument.  I see as many misstatements attributed to pro-choice.  And people are ignorant of the whole thing.  Responding to statements I have not made or addressing points I didn?t raise is simply not to the benefit of this exercise.  I would be very much appreciative of your addressing argument only made by me, not any other third party.  I would not care a newt?s eye what these groups say.  Talk to me.

For instance, you pulled in something you attributed to \"people\" and made it an issue here.  If people use ?size, location, and development? to argue for or against abortion, then arrange a debate with them.  I never made that statement and should not have to clean up after them.

You also brought in the issue of when life begins as the test of the morality, or lack thereof, of abortion.  Again, judge me by my words not somebody else?s.  Regarding the status of the fetus, these are my words:

Quote
?What is the status of a fetus and at what stage does it become the much-taunted person? Is it a life? Yes. And so are the roundworm, the tapeworm, or every other parasite that may find comfort and sustenance in our body. Is the fetus human? Yes again. At the least, it has the potential. Then again, so is the hair follicle, which, under favorable conditions, namely cloning, can become a human. But is the fetus a person? No. As we shall see shortly, that makes all the difference.?

?About the status of a fetus as a person, when life begins becomes irrelevant. Of relevance is when a fetus becomes a person. In all the 6,000 years of human history, a pregnant woman, regardless of the stage of her pregnancy, has never been counted as two, not at a meeting, not during a census, and definitely not in the church. If he wants to keep driving, a taxi cab driver better not charge a pregnant woman double. So, even our society, as modern and progressive as it claims, does not see the fetus as a person.?


From the above quote, it?s easy to see where I stand.  The fetus is a life, and it is human, possessing what it takes to be a full human being, DNA and all.  But it is not a person, and I presented why not.

But another thing that seems to be problematic here is semantics: war of words, you might say.  It would be prudent to straighten things out.  The words in question are HUMAN, FETUS, CHILD, and PERSON.  Both HUMAN and CHILD have been extensively employed to heighten passion and solicit sympathy.  We need to explore the words we are playing with, at least in biblical perspective.

The word, human, is not found anywhere in the bible.  The infusion of this word into debates and doctrines is artificial and not biblical.  Not even the word mankind is used to envelop humanity.  Instead, man, as in ?man cannot live by bread alone,? or ?whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed? does more for humanity.  In other words, man, commonly used for a male adult, is also used to describe the individual being male or female, and all humanity.  But mankind applies to any human adult of the male persuasion.

Contrarily, the word, person, appears quite frequently when an individual, the total package, is intended.  Although this has been dealt with in my previous post, I?ll do it again for good measure.  For one to become a person, certain agents namely, the physical body and the breath of life must be present. These must be present jointly, but separate from and independent of another, to constitute a person or a living soul.  Hence, ?And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul? (Gen 2:7). The breath of life doesn\'t bring just life, as in living organism.  Afterall, other animals and plants have life, and breathe.  but with the breath of life comes the mind, which in turn carries with it, emotion, conscience, freewill, and awareness.  These are the attributes of a person.  Evidently, man was not a living soul, or a person, until God gave him the breath of life.  The fetus does not have the breath of life.  Only a child, born live and clear of the mother, has that.  

In agreeing with the above statement, The Catholic Encyclopedia declares:
Quote
?If to this be added rationalis naturae, we have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia-- this excludes accident; (b) completa-- it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or \"aptitudinally\" does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens--the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) separata ab aliis--this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae--excludes all non-intellectual supposita.?
 But pay particular attention to the third criteria, (c). Per se subsistens, especially the last sentence (underlined).  This is the exact point I made in the previous post you just responded to.  Below is an excerpt.

Quote
Moreover, in the Hebrew tradition, the bed of the life law, a baby is not a person until the age of one month. God never repudiated this practice. Two persons cannot occupy the same space at the same time. It?s easy to see that the woman-fetus relationship is very different from the mother-baby relationship. There should be no comparison what so ever. Until birth, both woman and fetus are inseparable. If the woman is relocated, the fetus goes. If she feeds, it feeds. If she breathes, it breathes. Let her bleed to death, the fetus dies. The fetus goes if she?s suffocated. No human can provide the fetus with life, sustenance, or protection other than the host. Contrarily, a baby can survive and live a full life without further contact with the mother, after birth. A woman and her child are counted as two; a pregnant woman counts as one.
 Refer to the underlined sentence.

God doesn\'t say things just for the heck of it.  He always has a purpose.  But sometimes, these sayings are not easily understood.  Remember the pecept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little rule.  When Christ and the bible talk about a new Christian, the words, born again, as in a child, always come up.  He never said conceived again.  Jesus answered Nicodemus, not once, but twice, \"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God\" (John 3:3,5).  A new Christian must become a new person.  One can only be a person after birth, not before.  To be born again, one must do away with old things.  One must be severed from old tradition and old life as signified by the cutting of the umblical chord.  For a New Christian, this ritual is represented by baptism.  He must be totally immersed in water signifying his life in his mother\'s womb.  Then he is born again as he emerges from the water, as from the birth canal.  Observe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus Christ only after he came out of the water.   Not before or while he was in the water, but after.  \"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:\" (Matth 3:16).

I see you discovered the many incidences of the word, Child, in the bible and spared no opportunity to rub my nose in it.  That?s OK.  It?s all good.  We just have to figure out why, where, and how it is used.  You see, bible use of CHILD is a little more complicated than it appears.  It appears quite frequently and, unlike the others, appears directly in the bible.  As I pointed out before: The translators of the bible lumped many words, irrespective of their differences in meaning, spelling, and usage, as one word.  Child is one of them.  

The original text, Hebrew for example, has different words for every stage of life.  One who is yet to be conceived, a fetus, a baby, an infant, a toddler, teenager, and even adults and old men are represented by distinctly different words.  Does that make a yet to be conceived life the same as life about to return to dust?  I think not.  This can be laid at the foot of the translators.  Maybe there were no words then to facilitate a verbatim rendering of the Hebrew or Greek texts.  Maybe they did not take the trouble to find the appropriate diction.  Maybe they were so inspired to foster God?s scheme to hide his design from the wise of this world.  Far be it from me to query the Almighty.  But the fact remains:  These are clearly distinct words that were lumped together as Child by the translators.

CHILD as used in Gen 19:36 is a Hebrew translation of harah, pronounced haw-raw, and refers to the result of pregnancy or conception, as in the beginning of life.  In other words, a fetus, if you ask me.  It has the same meaning as hareh (haw-reh) and hariy (haw-ree).

As used in Gen 21:8, 14; 37:30; 42:22; and elsewhere, it is rendered Yeled and pronounced, yeh-led.  It represents ?something born, i.e. a lad or offspring: - boy, child, fruit, son, young man.?

Yaldah, pronounced yal-daw, is feminine gender referring to lass, damsel, or girl.  The child of Gen 11:30, valad means the same as yeled

Children, as in the children of Israel, found in Exod 2:23 is a rendition of ben, pronounced bane, represents offspring as in from the builder of the family name.

In revisiting Exodus 21:22-23, you didn?t have to shout the word child.  I could hear you loud and clear.   Secondly, your statement of  ?Get mad at Him if you disagree!? was not necessary, given that I have not given you any reasons to believe that discussing the word of God makes me angry.  Do you think it?s cool to ask me to get mad at God?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Anyway, getting back to the issue, I believe this passage was dealt with in my previous relevant post.  To freshen your memory, I wrote:
Quote
Verse 22 reads, ?If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman\'s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.? Follow the scenario closely. Men fight. A pregnant woman is hit. A miscarriage occurs. The next statement says, ?and yet no mischief follow.? If the fetus is that valuable, how come the bible does not consider the loss of the fetus a mischief? Up to this point, we have a civil case, punishable by a fine and financial restitution.

But, according to verse 23, ?And if any mischief follow (further damage obviously to the woman), then thou shalt give life for life, 24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, and 25: Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It is only when the woman is wounded is it considered criminal and an equitable punishment enforced. The second part is not about the fetus. Since fetuses possess no teeth, it must be referring to the woman. Similarly, the likelihood of the fetus being burned is zero. Remember it is not our opinion that matters. We are searching for the bible truth.
Counts.

This is a two-tier admonition.  The first part, which concludes with the judge?s fine, is about the fetus.  The second pertains to the woman.  Why would a tooth be required for a tooth if the fetus has no teeth?  Are you certain you have divided the word of truth?  

You also insisted that the fetus ?is a child, not a mass of tissue.?  I?ll have to disagree, with all due respect.  Biologically, even a grown human is a mass of tissue.  Elementary Biology defines the human body as a collection of organs working together towards the same goal.  Each organ, in turn, is a collection of tissues.  Logic therefore allows us to consider the human body as a collection of tissues.  And what?s so special about the fetus that it should not be so considered?  

Besides, the instance of ?woman with child? shown above is not even absolute.  Among the popular bible versions, only the King James has it like that.  Most others such as the New International version, the Living Bible, and the Revised Standard Version have it as ?a pregnant woman.?  Apparently, the King James translation is in error.
   
The bible may have mentioned CHILD numerous times, but I say it again, this is the only instance in the entire bible, Old and New testaments, where a threat to the fetus?s welfare, with emphasis on threat, is discussed.

We all know that God?s word is true and perfect.  The use of child or any other word in the bible does not necessarily make it an accurate translation of the original.  It can be misleading.  Therefore, it behooves us, Christians, to ?Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth? (2Tim 2:15).  We have to be able to divide or separate the truth from all we read or hear.

As can be seen, part of being a bible student is striving to decipher the writings of God.  The word child appears 200 times in the KJV of the English bible.  The word, Children, occurs 1778 times.  This figure does not include the numerous incidences of child?s, Children?s, and other forms of the word.  They are not translated from the same word.  They are a translation of many different Hebrew and Greek words.  Bible research is heavy work.  It?s also fun, especially when a truth seeker?s understanding is opened.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

If you s-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-l-l-l-l what the Prince - is - cooking!!

(Adapted from WWE’s Rock.)