*allowed

@Draug, I just looked back at my post and saw where it was that I seemed to call you disingenuous. Such is the problem with responding quickly. Sorry!

I mean the generalized "you," sorry, and I should have narrowed more in my "if" clause. If you're an evangelical Christian / whatever. Sorry. I meant no statement at all about you. It was just clumsy.

@dexter, thank you for the response. I'll try to respond later. As I said, I'm very busy. Sorry for the flakiness.

@semck - no problem.

Yeah, it wasn't meant to be a formal legal document so much as an outline a young woman could fill in and update to be a reminder to herself. She might choose to give it to her closest trusted friend, the person she would go to even when she couldn't go to her spouse or significant other; someone she knew would have her best interests at heart to remind her what she wanted at that time. It would still be 100% her choice within the confines of the law (i.e. no third term abortions or whatever).

@semck - I did get you meant the plural generalized you. It was more then "if you're Christian" which didn't account for the less conservative (religious right) Christians. But all is fine now.

Emperor Maximus, great points.

@ Draugnar--How convenient, to try to shape an argument about life by asking people not to refer to God, the author of life. But how futile.

@ Abgemacht--You wrote "
Like, fulamish, please don't cite things that don't back up your claim and just assume we're too stupid to realize you're pulling a fast one on us. It's very insulting.

Let's look at the *full* quote you referenced from the bible. Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

God was talking to *one* person: Jeremiah! This in no way supports a pro-life stance. Are we all prophets? No. He was chosen by God specifically. There is no support here to suggest God considers every fetus a living person. FFS, if you're going to cite a fantasy book for support of your cause, you could at least pick parts that actually support you." My reply follows...

Abge, I didn't assume that you were stupid, but your argument doesn't hold water. You are saying that God knew Jeremiah in the womb but not everyone else, because they aren't prophets? The logical end of that reasoning would be to permit abortions of everyone but prophets.

Also, if your mind is closed to the reality of God's existence, and for as long as you deny your need for God, as I stated in my original post, you will not know the truth when it speaks. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me."

Anyone who wants to know how to come to Jesus, feel free to private message me anytime.

I can not believe in the bible and see recognize quotes taken out of context.

God was clearly speaking directly to Jeremiah in that quote. Does that mean he can't speak to anyone else? No, but it doesn't prove that he considers every life to start at the instant of conception. To think otherwise is simply dishonest or delusional.

Furthermore, God says "*before* I formed you*, which would lead one to believe that Jeremiah was created *before* conception. Does that mean all contraceptives are murder? Clearly it does because according to you, God knows all before they are conceived.

@Mujus, I want to jump in here. You said to abgemacht, "You are saying that God knew Jeremiah in the womb but not everyone else, because they aren't prophets?"
No - he didn't say that... you quoted him right above - take a second look. He made no positive claim about the bible. He simply pointed out that *you* did not prove *your* point - your quote from the bible does not say that God knew all people before they were born (it made a much smaller claim - that God knew one man [a prophet, as it turns out] before he was born). You cannot logically conclude that God knows all people before they were born from this one example... that would be a Hasty Generalization fallacy. (For one thing God may have made this a special situation where he made it possible [due to his plans for Jeremiah] where it normally it wouldn't be... the bible is silent on that... and thus your assertion goes unsupported).
...and since you got that wrong, your following conclusion based on that is also wrong.

I realize my first statement was a bit unclear, so let me rephrase:

Being an atheist doesn't mean I'm unable to objectively point out logical fallacies from bible references.

looks like I spoke up a bit late.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your support, dexter.

I personally think Psalm 51:5 is the strongest Biblical source for the personhood of a fetus. Luke 1:44 is not bad either. The former is of course talking about a specific person, but it's pretty clear he's not relying on anything special about himself.

See also Psalm 22:10.

Etc.

Still owe you one, dexter, and you too abge.

@semck

Let me look up those verses and get back to you.

Also, Mujus... ...one cannot trust the bible implicitly in any literal way since it contradicts both observable reality and itself. Well, let's just say that one would be well advised not to. Of course plenty do, never the less. I'm not trying to start a war about it - but just wanting to put it in proper context of why bible quotes are considered inherently untrustworthy by non-Christians... and, for that matter, many liberal Christians who believe that the hand of man and the sands of time muddied things up... and thus why they don't apply well in a conversation where we are trying to base things on a shared understanding of the world, evidence and logic. And in that regard, perhaps you can try and limit your references to it here. Thanks.

...you guys can keep at it if you like, I'm simply concerned that it not attract a flame war... as it often does. As you were. (I appreciate your civility on it so far).

According to my personal bible, this is Psalm 51:5

"Behold, I was brought forth in inquiry,
and in sin did my mother
conceive me."

I fail to see how this supports the personhood of a fetus. The Fetus is not talking, unless I've misunderstood the Psalm. Rather, he is talking about the past, where his mother, presumably out of wedlock, fucked a dude and got in trouble. I don't see at all how this supports your claim.

Again, according to my bible Psalm 22:10 states

"On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you
have been my God."

The first line clearly doesn't support your argument. Now, if we take "from" to mean "since", which I think is reasonable, he's saying "since I was in my mother's womb, you have been my God." But, does this mean since he was conceived? To me, that is not at all clear.

Luke 1:44 is a bit long; hopefully, I'll have time in the future to address it.

In the mean time, I'd like to ask you about the following Psalm 137:9

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little
ones
and dashes them against the rock!"

To me, this indicates that it's OK to kill someone's children if they've wronged you.

So, please tell me: If the Psalms are to be used to loosely justify preventing abortion, why is it not ok to also use them to justify killing real babies of your enemies? You'll note that we are both referencing Psalms and, quite frankly, my verse much more clearly supports my 4th trimester baby killing that your no abortion position.

It used to be that abortion before "quickening" (when the baby started moving on its own) was considered OK... this based on English law... and in turn, in U.S. law until the 1820's when several states started enacting additional restrictions. I have a hard time imagining that there was an earlier standard that was more restrictive (as quickening would certainly be a convincing and unmistakable sign of life to pre-medical people).

@abge, Psalm 51:5 in my translation says,

"Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

I can see why you don't find it terribly forceful given the apparent ambiguity of translation. However, look at it in context and I think you'll agree even your translation makes the most sense interpreted my way.

It sounds at least like you'll agree that Psalm 22:10 supports the idea that the fetus is a person at some point. That's a start.

As for Psalm 137 -- it does not support the general proposition, no, that it is OK to kill the infants of those who harm you. It was OK at times in the OT when God commanded it against certain peoples. (I have never claimed that infants are MORE people than others, and God commanded various entire people to be wiped out.

Note that I am citing the Psalms for the proposition that fetuses are people, not for any conclusion about what to do toward them. Not killing them just follows from their personhood, in generic circumstances.

I hope this answers your question.

1) How am supposed to make important life choices based on a book with such wildly different translations? We both have a physical copy of wildly recocnized versions and yet we have completely different books. Is that alone not enough to not use it as a source for an argument?

2) "It was OK at times in the OT when God commanded it against certain peoples."

So, If I claim God told me to kill a baby and did so, it would be OK? Because that is exactly what I understood you to just have said.

"How am supposed to make important life choices based on a book with such wildly different translations?"

By doing careful interpretation. I think any of the important stuff comes through pretty clearly and redundantly.

"So, If I claim God told me to kill a baby and did so, it would be OK? Because that is exactly what I understood you to just have said."

Only if He actually had. That, obviously, would be between you and God. Meanwhile, we (unlike Israel) not being a theocracy, would have no choice but to punish you.

I would also mention that it's fairly clear that such commands would not actually happen in the New Testament, post-theocracy period.

"By doing careful interpretation. I think any of the important stuff comes through pretty clearly and redundantly."

Clearly not, because abortion is a real issue and it isn't clear at all what the bible's position is, depsite many people claiming it as a source.

"I would also mention that it's fairly clear that such commands would not actually happen in the New Testament, post-theocracy period."

Then why use the Old Testament to support your position? If your'e the one picking and choosing which parts are relevant, you're really not using the bible as a source of morality.

"Clearly not, because abortion is a real issue and it isn't clear at all what the bible's position is, depsite many people claiming it as a source."

Actually, it is. Why do you think people who take the Bible seriously are so close to unanimous on this?

"Then why use the Old Testament to support your position? If your'e the one picking and choosing which parts are relevant, you're really not using the bible as a source of morality. "

OK, follow closely here abge. The point, as I already mentioned, is that the OT supports the position that the fetus is a person. That is not something that is going to change from one covenant period to another, so it's legitimate to use it to support that.

On the other hand, a specific command to kill the infants of a specific people applied in the time it was written, and there are good theological reasons not to expect such a command again.

"Actually, it is. Why do you think people who take the Bible seriously are so close to unanimous on this?"

In order to keep this conversation civil, I won't answer that. Instead, I'd ask if you can supply me a white paper with the original Hebrew or Greek which which these passages were written and their most widely accepted translations by theist scholars. Because quite frankly, without that, we can't continue this conversation.

This is like 2 articles in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal claiming different results in a scientific experiment. I don't trust the science journalists of newspapers and I don't trust the translators of the bible. Show me the original source.


"OK, follow closely here abge. The point, as I already mentioned, is that the OT supports the position that the fetus is a person. That is not something that is going to change from one covenant period to another, so it's legitimate to use it to support that.

On the other hand, a specific command to kill the infants of a specific people applied in the time it was written, and there are good theological reasons not to expect such a command again."

Why? I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I just don't understand what you're saying and, quite frankly, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and objective person.

Exodus 21:22-23:13
" 22If 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.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So... violently causing a miscarriage results in a fine (essentially being treated as property damage)... and injury to the woman, up to death, on the other hand, is treated by equal punishment... up to death. Seems to me that this gives fetus' a very different and lower value.