"t however makes a great deal of sense if you think about it like the ancient Jews would have, which is that the loss of a child represents a signifigent economic loss, as opposed to a personally emotional one.  It was only relatively recently that we as a people have put such an emphasis on loving our infants and toddlers.  Previously, the risk of death was just too high to emotionally invest.  However, children have long been considered a source of free labor, and that is I think where the fine is involved."

I'm not disputing this, however, the passage in question offers a fine even if there is no serious harm.  Your argument here would be supported if along with a fine, 'life for life' and 'eye for eye' was exacted if the child dies.  However, when you read the passage you see that no fine at all is placed when the child dies or is injured.  Here you have the eye for eye formula applied and the restitution formula abandoned.  If the loss of injury of the child had to do with some sort of 'property' valuation, then the fine would be levied also in cases of 'serious injury.'  Instead, we see that the fine is actually in place when there ISN'T serious injury, and no fine for when there is, and according to your reasoning, an actual economic loss.

That strikes me as a pretty odd approach if it is economic considerations you're worried about.

"I think clear to anybody who understands the context that the statement about God knowing you in the womb is a statement not to your "Humanness" in the womb but rather a statement that was meant to demonstate the omniscience of God.  And there are other statements that might extend that to Him knowing you prior to conception."

I don't think CHristians are wrong to use this passage with each other, but I would agree that it doesn't work well with nonChristians.

"So Sntjohnny, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken."

I didn't use that passage, did I?
 
"Actually, I would be very interested in actual scriptural support aside from the complicated passage that specifically and clearly supports your position."

I think your whole problem here is that you want to see arguments that specifically address the question of abortion, and barring that, you think the Scriptures have little to say about the matter.  You seem to think then that this should make Christians tone it down as there is Biblical room for disagreement.  I think it is important to remember that there might be reasons for why abortion isn't singled out.  For one thing, it hasn't always been the case that the technology has existed for women to abort their children at will.  Abortion has always been with us but it hasn't always been common.  Even the Exodus passage hinges on an accident, say, the woman gets kicked in the stomach.  So, the fact that abortion isn't singled out more often in explicit terms doesn't surprise me a bit.

However, my argument is not based on prohibitions.  Its based on principles.  Principles abound, if prohibitions be scant.  One of those principles is that the human life has special, unique value, because we are made in God's image.  This principle comes up from one end of the Bible to the other. That we are made in God's image is not a later passage, but one from the first two chapters of the first book of the whole collection.  The 'order of creation' is repeated and alluded to throughout.

Now, very simply, we need to have some reason for thinking that that unborn child- which we call a fetus in order to insulate ourselves from unwelcome connotations if we want to 'terminate' it- is not also made in God's image.  Can a Christian really believe that 5 minutes before birth the child is a mere fetus, and is not a human, but 5 minutes later somehow it is now a human?  Or, worse, can a Christian really abide that grotesque insult to common sense and moral propriety by reasoning that if the body is still in the birthing canal but the head is peaking, it isn't yet a child and you can jam an ice pick into the skull, or whatever instrument they use?

We have no non-arbitrary reasons for thinking that humanness begins at birth, or when the heart starts pumping, and on and on.  To me, trying to fix a point itself is the height of capriciousness:  Basically, the argument is, "Let's see if we can pick a spot where we can kill this child where we won't feel guilty about it."  That of course isn't enough.  We have to sanitize it further:  "At such and such a point, the mass of cells is a fetus, and so it is alright to terminate it."

In short, I am not as concerned as some at laying out passages that prohibit abortion.  I am more interested in showing passage that illustrate that human life has value.  This has the benefit of having wider application then just one narrow phenomena such as the modern achievement they call 'abortion on demand.'  It allows me to support the unborn, repudiate slavery (yes, even the passages that treat slaves as property will more often than not still indicate that their value is not merely economic), condemn racism, and any other crazy way humans come up with to harm or marginalize or murder each other.

Conversely, I am not saddled with such moral conundrums like, "Ok, so we reason that this organism is a fetus because it does not feel pain, so we can terminate it if we like" followed with, "Well, if we just make sure people don't feel the pain, can we kill them at will then?"  Common sense says that's ridiculous, but if the logic is to be followed, then it should be applicable across the board. 

If you still need me to produce passages that argue for the value of life, I can do so.

Ok, we've got like five topics going now.  We might need to rename this thread.  :)

"Though I think that during a very early stage of development (I am in no way qualified to say how early) it is in fact an "It".  Not human, except in the most general of definitions (Genetic Identification, comes to mind)."

Well, here's the thing.  Though I certainly agree one ought to be reasonably informed on these issues, I think that once you come to that point you arrive at the conclusion that there really isn't an iron-clad method for making the determination.  It used to be thought that science would eventually offer the answer (ie, viability) but medicine and research has pushed it back further and further.  For example on the issue of viability, the age in which a baby can be born prematurely and be supported with good odds for a normal life is way down.  It's in the second trimester for sure.  The only truly non-arbitrary distinction to be found is locating the point where the entity possesses finally has its own, unique, DNA fingerprint.  After that, the organism is in just different stages of development. 

So here is my point:  it at the very bottom, a decision by the individual, even the ignorant ones, and there is no hope anymore that science will be able to lay out something definitively that might be able to supercede by empirical experimentation the conscience of the individual thinker.

"Now I understand that you would likely argue against that point based on the idea that the very act of conception itself is divine, and would imply the divinity inherent in all of man exists from the very beginning.  I might even be inclined to agree with you."

As you can see, my argument is not on the event being divine, but rather the most significant non-arbitrary point in the process where we can see that there really is something new in the womb.

"The problem arises because you have needed to go through what I think is an incredibly complicated theological process to construct what might be a valid logic-based argument for abortion being against christian beliefs."

Point of clarification.  The theological process has more to do with whether or not we ought to value life, how to value it, to what degree, and what to do when someone violates it.  I am not using the theological process to establish that the unborn infant should be protected because it is human.  I am merely insisting that we need to have a solid reason for not thinking it is human, and so that we can abort it guilt-free does not in my mind constitute a good reason.  More on this in a moment.

"I am certain that few of the anti-abortionists out there would be able to construct similarly cogent arguments.  ...
If you think I am stretching, just say so."

I don't doubt that.  On the other hand, we can't all know everything about everything and yet we all must take positions based on the knowledge that we do have.  However, I would agree that a lot more Christians could be a lot more educated if only they wanted to be and this would help in the pursuit of the causes that are important to them.

"The real problem I have with making abortion illegal is that there are some cases where I think that it is justified in much the same way as killing a person can be justified."

Ok, now we've come to a couple of other issues.  Now we have the question of how this information is applied in our own civil system and consequently how far a Christian might go in imposing his views on that system.  Or, in other words, while I would expect a Christian to nod along with most of what I'm saying, I don't expect the non-Christian to do so.

So first here are some of my own positions.  I believe that abortion on demand should be illegal but I believe the law should allow exceptions for rape, incest, etc.  I do not believe that Christians who have formed similar decisions about the value of the human life as I have to take advantage of those exceptions.  I believe that Christians have as much right as anyone else to impose their views on the civil system, and as this matter is completely despairing of any hope to be settled by any 'neutral' territory, ie perhaps science, in our society the matter should be put up to a vote on a state by state basis so that individual consciences can be respected.  Hence, my most serious objection to Roe vs. Wade, quite apart from the fact that it is a utterly flawed decision, is that the matter was appropriated by just nine individual's consciences, removing even the possibility of the other hundreds of millions of Americans whose consciences are no less competent to form their own opinion on the matter.

I should like the matter returned to the states and after that we can at least battle it out.  I believe the pro-life position can win that battle.  I believe that has always been the case, hence the need to resort to just nine men where instead of persuading millions you only had to persuade five.

"Yes, I don't think parents of under-18 women seeking abortion should be contacted, or their permission needed, because it is primarily women under 18 that are faced with those unique situations, usually caused by their parents."

Oh, I don't think it is as far as usually caused by their parents.  Come on!  What about all that underage sex we're hearing about?  And you're going to pin it as usually the fathers?    No, I don't buy that.  Furthermore, it is absurd that parents need to be consulted for just about every other medical procedure that is out there but here you have one involving severe mental anxiety and potential long term health risks (ie, sterility itself) and the parents are to be excluded?  Nonsense.  In fact, it has been observed that these types of provisions lead to abuse in an entirely different direction. 

Ie, the 19 year old boy has consensual sex with a 16 year old girl who then becomes pregnant.  The boy does not want the baby to come to term for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he will be implicated in statutory rape.  He then pressures and pressures the girl to have the abortion and meanwhile keep it secret from the girl's parents, thus making this self-serving ass the sole voice in this woman's right to 'freely choose how to use her body.'

I see your point, but I think a better way to handle it would be to have it as the rule that parents must be notified with a path available for exceptions.  If a poor, hurt, frightened woman finds it too intimidating to make her case before a judge that the parents shouldn't be notified because, well, the father did it, I sympathize but that's just the breaks.  She's in a bad spot as it is and let's be quite clear what the alternative is:  neither judge nor parents learn of the abortion and so the pedophile daddy got away with raping his daughter.

In other words, your attempt here to be compassionate is actually giving Daddy (and rapists in general) exactly what he wants:  a mechanism by which his daughter can cover up his crime and no one, not even he, need know it happened.

"I think I understand your position, which is admittedly a moderate one (as even you permit for a few exceptions)."

Most people would not consider it moderate and I'm not sure even I do.  I allow the exceptions because the circumstances involved in rape and incest, physical deformity, and life of the mother are likely to be so complex that I can't bring myself to think that I can resolve them by a blanket set of laws when I will never be aware of those circumstances.  However, that applies for civil society and nonChristians.  I would argue that Christians should strongly consider not aborting even in these instances.  I have met people who were raped and brought their child to term and in the context of their Christian faith are more than able to love the child while despising how it was conceived.  Furthermore, I know from more direct experience that physical deformities are not necessarily as certain as the doctors sometimes believe and assert but that you can love the child at any rate and the child is happy to be loved.

So, my position regarding Christians is slightly different than non-Christians.

"Most people for whom this is an important issue feel it either should or should not be legal on a national basis."

I would like it be illegal on a national basis, but I want to fight it out state by state.

"More unfortunately, for a lot of people it is a litmus issue, because they could never support a man for President who supports infanticide."

I could never support a man for President who supports infanticide because, well, it is infanticide.  If you believe these 'fetuses' are in fact humans and have the rights that humans have, then abortion has killed tens of millions more humans than were killed in the concentration camps.  I also could never vote for a President who supports sticking Jews in camps and slaughtering them wholesale.  Even if he supports fences on the borders and the right to bear arms, I will not support the wholesale slaughter of humans.

I think it is just one of many issues, it isn't the only issue.  I think it is the mark of a somewhat tragic parochial or subject political culture that produces these individuals for whom the issue of abortion is the reason to support or not support a candidate.

"I happen to think abortion is a bad thing, but I don't have especially strong feelings on the matter, and I am certainly not going to make it a litmus issue for myself.  Ultimately, I think there are far more important issues (Foreign Policy is my big one, which is strange, because I want candidates who are strong but not stupidly aggressive.  One who can restore respect and admiration for our country, and not generate further fear and ridicule.)"

I disagree for reasons I just stated.  If you believe that the fetus is a human and ought to have the rights that humans have, then these other issues are cast in a much more profound light.

"I think the real issue that makes this much more complicated from the religious perspective you are taking is one of implications and inferrances.  I mean by that, you are taking two general biblical principles:1. Respect for human life, and 2. The idea that maybe (I might be inclined to agree) unborn children are included in that first principle."

Again, my tact would change slightly whether I was talking to a Christian or a nonChristian.  For the atheist, of course, there is no final reckoning to be concerned about if you are wrong and the fetus really is a human, just in a different stage of development.  Slaughter them all, the only harm is to your conscience.  We slaughter cows all the time, and a human is just an animal.  For the Christian, however, if you're wrong in your belief that the unborn is not a human at such and such a point, you believe there will be a reckoning.  So, you'd better have a really stinking good reason for concluding that the fetus is not human if you're going to also allow for the 'termination' of them. 

It is not even good enough to say (as with the embryonic stem cell issue) that perhaps some good will come of it, for that argument could also be applied to the Nazis, who, in deciding that the Jews were not human, performed medical tests on them while they were still alive.  I am informed that the Nazi doctors compiled some of the best insights into the human body than was available before and available even now, because everyone else waits until the person is dead before running the tests.  The Christian, at least, should have a different view.

And if you are not a Christian but you are not an atheist, either, the chance that you could be wrong about when it really is a human still demands, I would argue, one to have extremely good, non-arbitrary, non-self-serving reasons for making one's decision about when the human life begins.

"And about your argument that this passage would not exist if it were not for the need to extend eye for an eye to unborn children because otherwise it would be redundant, I would argue that the OT is full of such redundant passages and so that at least is not a compelling argument."

Well, say that it is not as compelling as it could be.  However, I believe an examination of these passages won't be as weakening as you might think.  For example, a redundant passage might simply be one passage describing an event which is also described in another place.

I'm sorry, I just didn't feel like beating a dead horse.  We are at a logical impasse as far as I am concerned.  I have stated my reasons for believing one thing to be the case, he has stated his I believe incorrect reasons (I am sure he would make a similar assertion about mine).  We will not I believe see eye to eye. 

So I moved onto an associated but more complicated and discussable topic.

I'm sorry, I just didn't feel like beating a dead horse.  We are at a logical impasse as far as I am concerned.  I have stated my reasons for believing one thing to be the case, he has stated his I believe incorrect reasons (I am sure he would make a similar assertion about mine).  We will not I believe see eye to eye. 

So I moved onto an associated but more complicated and discussable topic.

Look, it's sntjohnny's board and his rules.  Elsewhere, you might have been invited to start a new thread topic, but the traffic here isn't that large that it really matters much.  I'm content to migrate the discussion to another thread, where the horse is still alive and kicking.