Is Abortion Murder?

I suppose it wouldn't help my argument theologically if I cried right now, would it?
Gina

 

Isa 65:20
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that
hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but
the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

ROFLMTO!
Are you that desperate? How does this establish the breath of life view you're clinging to? An infant of days and an old man are being talked about.
It's very common start counting how old a person is on this earth from the day they were born. Jesus himself was counted that way.
I don't get your point. Can you explain it more clearly?
Gina</font>[/QUOTE]No... No... I can't believe you really mean that. OHHHHHHHHHHH there is no hope for you, I can see that now.

Ok... the verse is talking about NO MORE WEEPING AND SADNESS cause by the examples to follow. Which is where it gives an example of how an infant will no longer die after a few days of living, this is then contrasted to old people (man) who will not die at even 100 years of age but will be thought of a still just a youth.

 

Can't you see I'm crying here?
You might want to give me until tomorrow to come at it from a different viewpoint.
Gina

 

OK, so you didn't really mean it.

So now what? Will the others accept what scripture is saying, or will they continue to keep their eyes closed. I don't like this anymore than you, but this is WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS. I was secretly hoping someone would blow me out of the water, but it only got worse the more that scripture was brought into play.

I still think it is wrong to prevent a life, but It never made sense that women could be cold blooded murderers to me. Nature telling them that it is Ok at this point when I see that once a baby is born and the mother connects, she would sooner die herself than have harm come to the child. So this whole murder thing just didn't set right. Then when I asked for scripture, no one stepped up with anything that couldn't be argued the opposite way with equal or more strenght.

This is a sad day for me. To think that life really does begin at birth and/or first breath.

 

Me too, I hope you come back with something else. This really does suck eggs.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Bible says that or that there is one iota of scriptural basis for saying abortion is ok.
I'm saying that the last approach I tried to take was wrong. It doesn't say what I thought it says, it apparently does say that animals contain the breath of life. I was wrong does not equal murder is right.
There is an answer to this, but I haven't been able to show it 100% scripturally as of yet, only partially.
I just have to find it or at least be able to prove it logically. So far I believe I've done a much better job proving abortion is wrong both scripturally and logically than you have in doing the opposite. Don't ya think?
So I will continue for as long as it takes.
Gina

 

Another thought just occurred to me and I don't want to wait until tomorrow.
If in your mind breath = life and animals have it when they start breathing to, check this out.
Man became a LIVING soul.
He was a soul, then he started breathing.
Doesn't say when he became a soul, just a breathing one.
Gina

 

nobody here is trying to be as God, but you are trying to be a judge!

Wow, that is quite a stretch! Biblical definition as you define one or two verses? Can we please be spared? Do you not compare Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept? The totality of the Word of God?</font>[/QUOTE]there is actually no stretching at that! i have provided biblical evidences to show that in the womb, there is biological life, but no soul. with that, no human life! the passages that others show to prove otherwise can be also be concluded for my belief with the same validity. yet with the proof that i have shown, you did not refute it (i wonder why). you said scriptures must be compared with scriptures. but where is your comparison? all your responses were emotions and twisting and stretching of biblical truths to suite that emotion!

see what i mean?

i understand it all! but what part of Eccl. 3:1-2 and Job 3:11 did you not understand? because the way you dealt with it above, you avoided it but instead show another scripture which you merely backed-up with emotions and not with God's Word.

the problem with you, SheEagle, is that you are too quick to make conclusions. i suggest you stop it and be a more responsible owner of your tounge! the issue at hand is whether or not abortion is murder! when someone tells it is not, it does not necessary mean he pro-abortion! being for it or against it is another issue. i think it is on the other thread that i laid my stand about it.

 

I really was centering on Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,

Not the animal/spirit thing.

Isaiah 65:20 is a verse that can stand on its own as supporting that life begins after birth. That verse is my main focus right now.

 

nobody here is trying to be as God, but you are trying to be a judge!

Wow, that is quite a stretch! Biblical definition as you define one or two verses? Can we please be spared? Do you not compare Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept? The totality of the Word of God?</font>[/QUOTE]there is actually no stretching at that! i have provided biblical evidences to show that in the womb, there is biological life, but no soul. with that, no human life! the passages that others show to prove otherwise can be also be concluded for my belief with the same validity. yet with the proof that i have shown, you did not refute it (i wonder why). you said scriptures must be compared with scriptures. but where is your comparison? all your responses were emotions and twisting and stretching of biblical truths to suite that emotion!

see what i mean?

i understand it all! but what part of Eccl. 3:1-2 and Job 3:11 did you not understand? because the way you dealt with it above, you avoided it but instead show another scripture which you merely backed-up with emotions and not with God's Word.

the problem with you, SheEagle, is that you are too quick to make conclusions. i suggest you stop it and be a more responsible owner of your tounge! the issue at hand is whether or not abortion is murder! when someone tells it is not, it does not necessary mean he pro-abortion! being for it or against it is another issue. i think it is on the other thread that i laid my stand about it.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for you assessment of me and your personal attacks. You sure know how to illuminate the beauty of Jesus Christ and show His love to all creation including the unborn children who never had a chance to draw their first breath because some butcher slaughtered them in the womb and sucked their brains out.

 

post-it said:

Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,

This supports the first breath concept also.

This is pretty pathetic, and it shows how desperately the pro-abortionists must reach to make the Scriptures conform to their views.

Post-it has never told us what state the fetus is in in the womb, if not alive.

Besides, I wonder if post-it realizes how contradictory he makes his position look when he changes his argument nearly as frequently as his socks?

[ September 03, 2002, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ok, but please be clear. Have you totally given up the thought that life begins when a spirit is imparted? Are you now only using this one verse as your support of abortion, which if it means what you say it does, means that's it's ok to have an abortion up to the time the baby is seperated from its mother.
Where do you stand right now?
Anyhow, for the verse. I myself call a baby a few days old or a few months old or a few hours old dependant upon when he/she was born. It doesn't mean he/she wasn't a person before then, it's just how I and everyone else has always done it. It doesn't mean that life begins at that point, it means that that is when life enters the world we all relate to. It's pretty simple, and by no means a saying from scripture to base an entire view that abortion before birth is ok.
Gina

 

Oops, double posted.

[ September 03, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Chrysoprasus ]

 

My argument has never changed, just the timing of when first breath occurs, other than that I have just been finding more and more scriptures that back it up. This last one, not even you attempted to refute or argue.

Thanks for not contributing to a meaningful discussion, this is the type of post that doesn't refute an argument or put foward one on this subject, but rather is considered a personal attack. The very kind you and other conservatives say you are trying to stop.

 

post-it said:

This last one, not even you attempted to refute or argue.

Why should I even bother trying to answer your smokescreen arguments when you have, so far, failed to pass first principles: whether or not the unborn is a human person?

 

No I'm not, it all is part of the same argument. I just thought we should examine this verse first.

No, this is just another (but solid) verse that supports the first breath concept.

Not really, remember they didn't have ventilators back then, and a child who dies soon after birth could also be premature babies with weak lungs. They were considered alive at the point they took first breath. If anything, this further provides proof that any baby born that can breath or be made to breath should be considered alive.

This just confirms what my argument has been all along. Nothing has changed.

 

That is the point of looking to scripture to determine what scripture says is "life" not if it is human or not. I have never said a fetus is not human. The search in this thread is about finding out when life "begins", not what species something is, that is for the scientist. I have no interest in over riding Biblical data with biology at this point since we appearantly will never have to since the Bible is indicating that life starts at first breath.

 

post-it said:

I have never said a fetus is not human. The search in this thread is about finding out when life "begins", not what species something is, that is for the scientist.

Well, if the human fetus is not alive while in the womb, then what is it?

If the human fetus is alive in the womb, then abortion is the taking of human life and is not justifiable.

If the human fetus is not alive in the womb, then no justification is necessary.

So if it is not alive, what is it?

[ September 03, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

No, you can't hold to the first breath concept and keep the meaning of the verse in Isaiah the way you're interpreting it. According to your interpretation it says life begins when a baby is born. If you kill it in the womb it ain't born. A child of days..one that has been born and has days counted toward the age we give them as being "here".
It's gotta be one or the other. Is it when the spirit is given or when it's born? If you use one you can't use the other. They don't mix.
Gina

 

I might be missing something you are getting at but I have never really related life to being born. Just to the ability of the baby being able to breath a first breath. While this verse says born, it must be assumed that the baby was breathing for a certain amount of time before it died. If the baby was born dead, it would not ever have taken a breath and would not be called an infant which lives for only a few days (a time).