Topic: Solid argument against abortion (Read 5091 times)

SML · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2006, 12:18:50 AM »

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

You position on that on passage of Scripture stems from faulty logic. You take "Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me" and conclude that every zygote has a soul. We could even throw John the Baptist responding at 6 months as supporting evidence. The problem is you have individual cases. Here is your logic simplified:

A. Individual A was conceived in sin
B. If sin is present a soul is present
Therefore
C. All human zygotes have souls.

We seem to have a translation derailment. That doesn't address your point about my logic, so I'll ignore it. Are you arguing that only people born have souls to begin with? That the one's who clearly had souls prior to birth were special exceptions?

John the Baptist clearly had a soul in the womb. Based on what scripture would you say that he is an exception? Based on what scripture would you say that other unborns do not have souls?

A. Individual A was sinful at conception, Individual B gave a response of faith in the presence of the unborn Messiah
Therefore
B. Individuals A and B clearly had souls
and
C. Nowhere in scripture is given any reason to believe that individuals A and B are unique as to when they received their souls. Whether we want to believe they might be unique or not, God provided them as examples.
Therefore:
E. All unborns ought to be treated as though they do indeed have souls.

The idea that God would not provide a soul if the child wouldn't be born doesn't have any scriptural basis; otoh, He went out of His way to give an example or two of unborns with souls. The argument about His foreknowledge is a paper tiger - it takes the knowledge He intentionally gives us and chooses to say it's isolated when there is no indication elsewhere that it is intended to be taken that way. It is presumptuous of us to believe we can assume that, even though scripture gives clear evidence of souls existing prior to birth, we can say which unborns have souls.

Sorry if I'm getting redundent - getting very sleepy...

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2006, 12:28:11 AM »

I agree. What I'm disagreeing with is your assumption that two cases can be generalized to all of humanity. You ask where scripture says these two cases are exceptions. I'm asking where it says they represent all of humanity. It's fairly well settled that these are general exceptions to humanity (outside of 10 other Biblical individuals there aren't more unique and non-regular individuals). I'm not claiming that scripture opposes your position, I'm saying it doesn't support it. In fact, besides these two cases, it is silent on the issue (if not, please note it).

Being that Scripture is silent you have nothing on which to make a difinitive argument unless it is a non-scriptual defense of the unborn human as a "person."

SML · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2006, 01:27:57 AM »

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

I agree. What I'm disagreeing with is your assumption that two cases can be generalized to all of humanity. You ask where scripture says these two cases are exceptions. I'm asking where it says they represent all of humanity.

Exactly how many examples are necessary to be able to generalize?

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

It's fairly well settled that these are general exceptions to humanity (outside of 10 other Biblical individuals there aren't more unique and non-regular individuals).

Exceptions because of who they became, not defined as exceptions because of they had souls in the womb. Their exceptionality is not related to that. If scripture had some similar verse (and it does, but not as clear, for Jeremiah, chapter 1 and in Job, chapter 14) for other prophets you would consider them too exceptional to generalize?

Quote

I'm not claiming that scripture opposes your position, I'm saying it doesn't support it. In fact, besides these two cases, it is silent on the issue (if not, please note it).

The ultimate question in my mind is not even particularly whether or not we posses souls within the womb, but whether or not God values us within the womb. Possessing souls is an obvious, "Yes, He values unborns.", so I stopped with that. So, where does it show that God values us even before birth (which, in turn, means that we should not kill off unborns)?

Psalm 51:5 - got soul
Luke 1:41-44 - got soul
Job 31:15 - God active in formation of all unborns
Jeremiah 1:5 - God has plans for unborns
Psalm 139:13-16 - God active in formation of unborns and and has plans for them
Ecclesiastes 11:5 - God Maker of unborns
Exodus 21:22-25 - To cause a miscarriage comes with a penalty, that life is precious

Quote

Being that Scripture is silent you have nothing on which to make a difinitive argument unless it is a non-scriptual defense of the unborn human as a "person."

I don't think the word is silent, as I showed above. Without cause, because the scripture does not make this distinction, you are distinguishing between those babies who actually are born and those who are not.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2006, 06:27:07 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

Quote from: FUSSCCJ
I'm not claiming that scripture opposes your position, I'm saying it doesn't support it. In fact, besides these two cases, it is silent on the issue (if not, please note it).

The ultimate question in my mind is not even particularly whether or not we posses souls within the womb, but whether or not God values us within the womb. Possessing souls is an obvious, "Yes, He values unborns.", so I stopped with that. So, where does it show that God values us even before birth (which, in turn, means that we should not kill off unborns)?

Psalm 51:5 - got soul
Luke 1:41-44 - got soul
Job 31:15 - God active in formation of all unborns
Jeremiah 1:5 - God has plans for unborns
Psalm 139:13-16 - God active in formation of unborns and and has plans for them
Ecclesiastes 11:5 - God Maker of unborns
Exodus 21:22-25 - To cause a miscarriage comes with a penalty, that life is precious

Now you let me know your real position. This is totally different, because again it gets into what "value" means. Of course God values the child in the womb just as he also values the sparrow. Is that value equal or different? Does that value mean that nothing should ever be killed? The answer is no on both counts. God values different creations differently (see Matt. 12:12 or Luke 12:24). God loves and values every living human, yet he commands that some be killed (see the whole OT). That God values something does not mean it should not be killed.

I buy the premise of your soul argument: if something has a soul than there is a much higher standard that must be met before it is killed. Two cases, however, does not humanity make. Actually, no number of specific cases can ever be generalized to all of humanity unless it is demonstrated that those cases are fully representative of humanity. In social science research case studies are often undertaken. No matter how many cases studies a social scientist does, they can never use case studies to draw conclusions about the general population, this is called the Ecological fallacy. Such conclusions can not be made from Biblical passages either.

I don't think any of the passages you presents neccesarily leads to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, although they certainly raise questions that should make any Jew or Christian think and pray long and hard before participating any way in an abortion. That some hard and fast rule has been presented, however, is assuming too much.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2006, 08:18:17 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel

mur

SML · « **Reply #26 on:** May 18, 2006, 02:25:09 AM »

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

Now you let me know your real position. This is totally different, because again it gets into what "value" means. Of course God values the child in the womb just as he also values the sparrow. Is that value equal or different?

I apologize, I obviously was not clear in my word choice.

Firstly, I believe that personhood involves the presence of a soul. Once my soul leaves my body, I really don't care what happens to it. Donate it to science, cremate it, bury it, toss it in a dumpster - it doesn't matter, my body is not my person. (I don't, however, recommend eating it as cannabalism brings on some nasty diseases

...) My body contains my person. If I have a soul, I am a person, and therefore I have special value to God.

Secondly, I believe the verses I gave past that point show that unborn people are of special value to God. What does value mean? Not equivalent to mere animals. No one is required to give recompense for the death of a sparrow. There is no limit set on the recompense demanded by the father beyond what the court at the time of the incident chooses to set - this is not the same strict guideline given for the loss of livestock. The value is not set as high as the value of born human being, though. (Even though I would personally like it to be, I am misrepresenting what the scriptures actually say when I make that claim. So, I'll stick to the scripture.) Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. seem to be in reference to the mother, not the child (though some translations seem to say otherwise those translations don't read cohesively in that verse). So instead of life for life, we have the person responsible fined as much as the court will permit. I would apply this by saying that abortion should by no means be a death penalty offense. Probably, it should have heavy fines attached. Because we're talking about an intentional thing here, possibly jail time. I'm not convinced of that, though.

Thirdly, you disagree with my generalizing the presence of a soul in unborn David and unborn John to the whole unborn human race. I'm having trouble connecting your social science research example to this. Perhaps it's because I should be sleeping. I think we're going to end up simply having to disagree on this. I see no reason that this should not be generalized. In the very least, I think we ought to acknowledge the possibility based on David and John that each person has a soul prior to birth. The mere fact that any individual could and that we have no possible way of telling otherwise is enough to warrant acting as though each and every unborn has a soul and is a person, therefore having special value to God.

Fourthly, when following God's will, the question ought never be "If I do this thing I want to do, will it be against God?", but should be "How can I serve God in this situation?" There is no justification that ending a life that God holds in special esteem, has His own plans for, is personally and actively involved in the formation of, and calls for an accounting over the loss of would be serving God. All of this, of course, really applies only to followers of God. Those who have no ties to the scriptures would hardly have a reason to take them into account.

Also, I wanted to apologize. I thought the paper tiger remark was a bit on the inflamatory side. By the time I decided that, you had already responded. I'm sorry.

JustLiz · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2006, 08:22:23 AM »

Was there something special about David and John that they'd have a soul but others wouldn't? Is there anything in the context to support God endowing those two with a soul but waiting until birth for the rest of mankind?

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #28 on:** May 18, 2006, 10:57:32 PM »

Maj73, I think the way you presented your position in your last post in unobjectionable. That the Bible does not equate the killing of a unborn human to the killing of a born human yet neither, when unjust, is considered acceptable is quite a modification from the position you seemed to be arguing for (although looking back it isn't as clear as I thought it was). I still am not understanding how Biblically an unborn child can be considered a person just like a born individual when the consequences for killing the former is different than for the latter. Maybe personhood is very broadly defined but I'm wondering how those two positions are consistent.

Q: Was there something special about David and John that they'd have a soul but others wouldn't?

A: They were eventually born (there may be other possible answers, but logically I only need to provide one possiblity to disprove the assumed generalizability...and assuming about the Bible is discouraged in the first place).

Q: Is there anything in the context to support God endowing those two with a soul but waiting until birth for the rest of mankind?

A: There is as much to support them being exceptions as there is to support them being accurate representations of all of mankind. That is, there is nothing on either count. To draw either conclusion from that nothingness is to declare as Scripture something that isn't. Nothing is nothing. Neither position is supported, therefore no conclusion ought to be drawn.

SML · « **Reply #29 on:** May 19, 2006, 04:38:37 PM »

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

Q: Is there anything in the context to support God endowing those two with a soul but waiting until birth for the rest of mankind?

A: There is as much to support them being exceptions as there is to support them being accurate representations of all of mankind. That is, there is nothing on either count. To draw either conclusion from that nothingness is to declare as Scripture something that isn't. Nothing is nothing. Neither position is supported, therefore no conclusion ought to be drawn.

This is not actually so far from what I said - only I take the opposite tack on its importance. That some people do have souls prior to birth means that it is possible (I would say likely) that all people have souls. If it is possible that my unborn child has a soul, then who am I to end its life? I think the other verses support the position that an unborn is more than a mass of cells, more than an animal, and precious to God. The (accidental, at least) ending of that life is not as severe a crime as the accidental ending of the life of a born person, but it is still identified as a crime by God. If God calls it a crime, how could we possibly justify it? My very tentative answer to the question of why it is a lesser crime is that the child may have died before birth or even during birth if the miscarriage was not caused by someone.

Is it inconsistent? I think there are a number of things in scripture that I don't have the big picture knowledge that God has that is needed to fully understand. No one has ever been able to present the answers to me on those questions. I am confident enough that it is God's word to permit a lack of understanding in some areas.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #30 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:10:23 PM »

I think we pretty much agree. I agree that the default position should be not to have an abortion. As I stated previously, "[Scriptures] certainly raise questions that should make any Jew or Christian think and pray long and hard before participating any way in an abortion."

Of course, this only addresses abortion in the moral sense. How abortion should be treated legally (what laws should be enacted regarding it) could be quite different.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #31 on:** May 22, 2006, 08:32:49 PM »

Quote from: FUSSCCJ

Of course, this only addresses abortion in the moral sense. How abortion should be treated legally (what laws should be enacted regarding it) could be quite different.

EXACTLY! Thank you!

SML · « **Reply #32 on:** May 29, 2006, 06:55:29 PM »

That's just it... you see, if an unborn human is possessing of a soul (and here we disagree on the significance of the scriptures), and is treated as having special worth above animals, then there ought also to be laws protecting these babes. Not as severe as the laws protecting people who have already been born, but more severe than any laws protecting animals. Unborns are more important than animals. It is impossible to divorce my beliefs from my views of society at large. I believe the government has a duty to protect the lives of these helpless, unborn people. Certainly, government has a greater call of duty to these people than to wolves, buffalo, plants, insects, or birds!

Deep Thought · « **Reply #33 on:** May 30, 2006, 04:36:52 AM »

Quote from: Maj73

That's just it... you see, if an unborn human is possessing of a soul (and here we disagree on the significance of the scriptures), and is treated as having special worth above animals, then there ought also to be laws protecting these babes.

I quite agree!

Now can anyone prove the existence of said soul?

...oh, wait, no they can't.

Never mind, then. I disagree with every last little strand of my soul.

SML · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2006, 03:35:36 PM »

You don't, in your post (DT), argue against the possibility that humans have souls and that unborns also have them?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #35 on:** May 30, 2006, 06:01:18 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

You don't, in your post (DT), argue against the possibility that humans have souls and that unborns also have them?

Not against the possibility, but against the use of that concept as a valid argument for laws preventing (though not necessarily restricting) abortion. If it can't be proven that humans have souls (or, for that matter, that unborns do/don't have them), then when considering the practical things (like laws, for instance), talk of "souls" is nothing more useful than subjective prattle. Laws, by nature, ought to be kept in the realms of objectivity--this isn't a religion-run country, folks, it's a flipping democracy. I won't run "separation of church and state" into the ground any further than it's already been run in (mayhap that's a bit too far, anyway), but some division should be placed, I think.

Point in question: there's this fictional female who is atheist. Suppose that person (for whatever circumstance--rape, broken condom, or sexual irresponsibility, take thy pick) was pregnant with little or no hope of sufficiently supporting the child. After careful deliberation, this atheist, who does NOT believe in the unprovable soul, determines abortion the best course of action in the long run. Is it fair to her that abortion should be denied her on a basis she doesn't even believe in, i.e. a completely different religion? I think not. If you think otherwise, then fire away. Tell me just why your soul argument amounts to more than just an individual's reason to reject abortion as wrong.

SML · « **Reply #36 on:** May 31, 2006, 11:36:31 AM »

That depends, DT.

If the unborn is a person (which in my view means has a soul, which all people do), then killing it is murder unless letting it live would directly cause (like tubal pregnancy and other such things) the death of its mother. It really doesn't matter whether or not someone believes what their doing is murder. Murder IS. The victim of murder ought to be defended.

I'm not interested in imposing morality on an unbelieving world. It's pointless all around. My only interest in constructing a legal framework for abortion is to defend people who are being murdered. I'd work to do the same if we still had stupid laws permitting people to murder black slaves. You see, blacks weren't considered people either. Yes, I do see the issues as related.

I'm really against morality laws (like laws against homosexuality, etc) - you can't create morality through legislation - it's silly to think you can. Abortion isn't about morality. It's about the wrongful taking of another person's life.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:40:00 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

That depends, DT.

If the unborn is a person (which in my view means has a soul, which all people do), then killing it is murder

I ask again: Why?

I've yet to receive an answer for that one. I've been given definitions by Zagzagel, but the question's blank remains blank.

The first thing we need to ascertain is: What makes a killing "murder?"

Then we need to see if we're doing that to unborn babies when we abort them.

Please note that I have no fully-fixed answer in my head for this one; I'm honestly clueless as to whether or not abortion can rightly be classified as "murder."

Quote

unless letting it live would directly cause (like tubal pregnancy and other such things) the death of its mother. It really doesn't matter whether or not someone believes what their doing is murder. Murder IS. The victim of murder ought to be defended.

Meh heh. I love subjective answers like this one--they amuse me to no end. "Murder IS."

Why IS murder, pray tell? I don't dispute that murder IS, but we seem to disagree on the reasons for its existence.

Quote

I'm not interested in imposing morality on an unbelieving world. It's pointless all around. My only interest in constructing a legal framework for abortion is to defend people who are being murdered. I'd work to do the same if we still had stupid laws permitting people to murder black slaves. You see, blacks weren't considered people either. Yes, I do see the issues as related.

Well, I'm bloody flummoxed as to how that relation is valid, but never mind. We could argue that point until either the sun explodes or until Christ comes again, and never get an answer--unless, of course, Christ DOES indeed come again and makes it all clear--in which case I'll likely have to bow in humble incorrect-ness and admit my error before being banished to the Great Eternal Furnace or (if Tony N is right rather than the non-universalists) the Great Eonion Pizza-Oven.

Quote

I'm really against morality laws (like laws against homosexuality, etc) - you can't create morality through legislation - it's silly to think you can. Abortion isn't about morality. It's about the wrongful taking of another person's life.

According to your morality, at least.

Which is why I disagree with you.

SML · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:59:22 PM »

Define murder.

My definition is the intentional taking of another person's life who has commited no act so as to purposefully put him/herself in the dangerous situation (like someone who runs out in front of a bus to commit suicide - the bus driver is no murderer as the suicidal person put him/herself into that situation intentionally and the bus driver had no intent to take life) (also like a soldier in a war... the soldiers are there to fight and kill among other things ... soldiers killing soldiers cannot therefore be considered murder, though soldiers killing neutral or friendly civilians would be).

Unborn children have commited no act so as to put themselves intentionally in harms way.

Author Topic: Solid argument against abortion (Read 5091 times)