Is it the same thing that elohiym says, or is it worse?
What is the basis for the belief that abortion is murder?
- Thread starter john2001
- Start date
- Status
aharvey
New member
Well, after all this fussing and posturing, I still don't see any serious discussion of john2001's original question: what is the basis for the belief that abortion is murder? The question has been reframed, slightly, to "what is the basis for the belief that a human embryo is fully human?", but no insights have emerged here. It doesn't seem to have a Scriptural basis. Nineveh, and probably others, seems to think it follows from first principles: it's a human zygote, right, so what else could it be besides human? Sheesh!. But do you really think that human the adjective means human the noun? By that logic a human toe, a human toenail ,a human egg, a human ego, would also be considered human.
As absolutely convinced as y'all are that a newly fertilized human egg deserves full protection as a complete human, and asvein-poppingly enraged that anyone could fail to see this, I would expect that you could easily defend this position without having to resort to insults. Well, I would have hoped so; I guess my expectations are a little less naive.
And, no, my opinions about abortion don't really matter here. However, in case you're wondering if I'm bringing this up to try to bolster my own despicable baby-killing tendencies, I long ago personally decided that it's not an option I'm comfortable with. But then again I don't try to tell other people how they should think. If you're going to do that, then you should at least be able to defend your position! (For the gradeschool 'gotcha' lovers, I didn't just tell you how to think, I told you what would be expected of someone with that objective in mind. You are of course free to ignore that advice, and even to be surprised and indignant when people ignore your rants!)
As absolutely convinced as y'all are that a newly fertilized human egg deserves full protection as a complete human, and asvein-poppingly enraged that anyone could fail to see this, I would expect that you could easily defend this position without having to resort to insults. Well, I would have hoped so; I guess my expectations are a little less naive.
And, no, my opinions about abortion don't really matter here. However, in case you're wondering if I'm bringing this up to try to bolster my own despicable baby-killing tendencies, I long ago personally decided that it's not an option I'm comfortable with. But then again I don't try to tell other people how they should think. If you're going to do that, then you should at least be able to defend your position! (For the gradeschool 'gotcha' lovers, I didn't just tell you how to think, I told you what would be expected of someone with that objective in mind. You are of course free to ignore that advice, and even to be surprised and indignant when people ignore your rants!)
Redfin
New member
For a Scriptural basis, see post #73. There's much more, but that alone is sufficient.
Also there, I wrote -
"Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult."
That is also the difference between a human zygote, and human toes, toenails, eggs (gametes), etc.
Objections answered.
aharvey
New member
Originally posted by Redfin
For a Scriptural basis, see post #73. There's much more, but that alone is sufficient.
Also there, I wrote -
"Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult."
That is also the difference between a human zygote, and human toes, toenails, eggs (gametes), etc.
Objections answered.
Sorry, I overlooked this reply. Good effort. Totally subjective, but well thought out. What I mean by subjective is that you are starting with the, er, preconceived opinion that "human" begins with "zygote," and then are calling whatever "zygote" shares with "post-zygote" the smoking gun that proves that "humanity" is complete at conception. Embryos share attributes with post-embryos that are lacking in zygotes; fetuses share attributes with post-fetuses that are lacking in embryos; infants share attributes with post-infants that are lacking in fetuses. Yeah, but the zygote-postzygote attributes are the important ones when it comes to defining a human is not self-evident.
And if you're going to use Jeremiah 1:5 as a Scriptural justification -- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations" -- you might have to explain why this doesn't suggest one's humanity in fact precedes conception.
aharvey-
Could it be because it speaks of before He formed Jeremiah in his mother's womb, that He knew him...not before the sperm and egg connected?
Could it be because it speaks of before He formed Jeremiah in his mother's womb, that He knew him...not before the sperm and egg connected?
It says before Jeremiah was formed. It doesn't say before he was conceived. It doesn't even say that it isn't referring to the full formation of Jeremiah.
The truth of the matter is that humanity does not come before conception. Especially not before the parents met.
aharvey
New member
Originally posted by lighthouse
No, this is an intriguing schism that, not being a fundamentalist Christian, I wasn't really tuned into before, but is popping up in a couple of otherwise unrelated threads. Does God know the future? There are apparently some very strong differences of opinion among the "true believers" on this. So it's not necessarily a trivial question as to whether God could know someone before they even exist.
That is not a triviasl question, you're right. But to argue that you can't infer from the text, that it wasn't in reference to before Jeremiah's conception is fruitless, and pointless...because you can't infer from the text that it was, either.
firechyld
New member
I'm saying that you can't infer from the text what point in time the author was referring to. All we're told is that it is prior to point A. There's no mention of how far prior to point A we're referring to. To say anything beyond that is reading things into the text that aren't there.
It still doesn't stand that humanity comes before conception.
BChristianK
New member
No, Murder is a concept that is communicated colloquially.
There is certainly a word that correlates to an illegal premeditated act of violence that results in death. That Hebrew word is Ratsach.
Actually, that is exactly what Ratsach means! See BDB's entry on Ratsach...
From Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Not to mention the NIV, NAU, NRS, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NET and the JPS Tanach (Both the 1917 and the 1985 translations) translate Ratsach as "murder."
So please, if you will, present us with your credentialing regarding the Hebrew language such that it is so compelling to discount the scholarship of Brown Driver and Briggs and the hundreds, if not thousands of consummate linguistic scholars who have translated the word Ratsach as "murder" in the above translations.
This argument is made devoid of the common sense understanding of the coorelation between legality and morality. Legality is certainly not the same thing as morality but to ignore the correlative (and causative) relationship between legality and morality is foolish. The reason that murder is illegal is because it is “wrong� or “sinful� or “evil.� Furthermore, it is not evil because it is illegal it is illegal because it is evil. For those who have even a modicum of understanding of the historical basis of English common law it is commonly evident that a great deal of Judeo-Christian ethics underlie the legal system as we have it today. So to make your argument that “abortion� can’t be “murder� because it is not currently illegal only begs the question. It should be. And it was, at one point. And may be again (hopefully). Furthermore, the argument merely dances around the point. If God’s standard is such that abortion is evil, then those who engage in its practice are committing evil acts. Likewise, if God’s standard is that human life is formed prior to birth (and there is good scriptural argument to conclude that it is), then abortion is the unjust termination of a human life.
Now why don’t you please define for me what murder is, if it is not the unjust taking of another human life.
Grace and Peace
Last edited:
firechyld
New member
It rests on a legal defintion.
You yourself are focussing on the legality of the word! It's quite simple: In the English language, the word murder refers to a killing that is done in cold blood and against the law. You've emphasised that yourself.
Please note that my argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the action is immoral, unjust, or any of the other emotionally loaded adjectives you've used. I am not arguing that abortion is morally right. But at this point in time, it is not an illegal killing, and as such not murder.
Argue the morality of the question with somebody else, because it simply isn't my debate. My point relates strictly to the defintion of the word "murder".
- Status