Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
Do you attend a church at all, or are you one of the many "Lone Christians" who eschew formal religious gatherings and make up their own doctrine as they go along?
I posted it because it had to do with the original thread topic - should abortion be allowed in cases of rape or incest. I haven’t read every comment on the thread (not enough time right now), so I apologize for it not being germane to the topic of when does life begin.
I still hold that “life” begins when growth starts, both in humans, animals and plants. There can be no growth without life. What else makes things grow, if not life?
Twinkies.
FWIW my point has been that in passages too numerous to post here, the Bible states that the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have yet to encounter a clear verse that you could use to show that there is life in the flesh (from a biblical standpoint) before there is blood in the veins.
If you have such a verse I would be glad to see it.
I know what you are saying... and I also think we could never get that through, so we have to take what we can get.
I’m just pointing out how hypocritical the argument is that abortion is ok when someone is raped. It’s still the life of an innocent. Either it’s ok in all cases, or it’s wrong in all cases.
By the way, I’m not saying this to you, I’m just trying to open the eyes of someone on this board who might not have thought of the topic in this way.
Good policy is not necessarily the right thing to do. What is the slippery slope that traps the human race if it agrees to kill what it knows to be human life?
Getting God’s perspective correct is the first order of business, as I see it.
We then build our policy DESPITE the difficulties it might cause.
I have argued in the past exactly as you are now: prevent implantation and you have not killed a human.
But what if it is a fact that only truly living joinings of sperm and egg are those that implant?
One thing we have learned is that the contraception generation has come to believe that it determines who lives and who dies. That was the slippery slope.
And that is the logic of the Health Care philosophers who dreamed up the death panels.
I’m not arguing from a biblical standpoint, just a universal, easily undestood, common sense and scientific standpoint. Not that I have something against the Bible, but there are plenty of people such as Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and agnostics or even atheists who believe abortion is wrong, or could be convinced, and biblical passages are not enough to convince them.
That's it.
My take on it is that absolutely no abortion under any circumstance is extreme and harmful to some patients.
On the other hand, abortion on demand is also extreme and harmful to society, souls and patients. Not to mention the fetus.
I think there are certain cases that merit compassion for a patient’s life, health and well-being, even if that means the end of anothers life to promote that one life.
As an example, when one takes the life of another to preserve ones own life or that of another person, it is then justifiable.
I am not here to disrupt this thread, but to share my own idea on abortion. As a noob, I just wanted to share my POV on this so I am not a closet FReeper.
I’d say life starts when you attach to the uterine wall. Only then can you get the nutrition you need.
I see your point about other religions and the effect a resort to the “Bible” would have for them and I agree with you.
As a Christian it seems that God would only invest a body with a spirit after it is viably attached to its source of nutrition - mom.
When I think of my kids, I never think of them as my husband's kids.
When women have a baby from being raped, I believe they think of him or her as my baby. Not as that rapist's baby.
Perhaps they do (think of the baby as their baby).
But I just couldn’t. Every time I looked at it, I would relive the horror. I’d wonder if it was a ‘bad seed’.
Great find. Thanks for posting.
While the life is in the blood is true, it does not necessarily mean that without blood there is no life or that with blood there is always life.
There is plenty of life that exists that has no blood but is living and growing.
Likewise there are bodies of those who have died, which still have blood in them.
By the reasoning of the argument that the life is in the blood therefore a fetus cannot be considered alive because it has no blood, any thing that doesn't have blood in it is not alive, it only has the appearance of life, and then any body which appears to be dead that still has blood in it, can't be declared dead after all, it must be alive.
The *logic* fails miserably.
Good point!
Exactly. To someone for whom the Bible has no meaning, arguing against abortion from a Biblical standpoint has no meaning. The whole debate about when life begins using the Bible as that basis, is only going to maybe settle the issue for believers. Unbelievers will remain unconvinced.
That's why I prefer to argue from the *scientific* position.
That is, DNA establishes the humanity of the fetus.
The life is determined by the signs of life that the growing fertilized egg displays such as growth, cell division, respiration, reaction to stimuli, ...
Looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it's bad for evolution because it destroys a pool of genetic material necessary for evolution to occur.
Which would mean that cells are never alive and the recently deceased are.
The Bible is not a science text P-Marlowe.
So you could give it up for adoption. There are many infertile couples who long for a baby to raise as their own.
Why is it that nobody reads what I post?
I had earlier stated that from a scientific viewpoint, I do not believe there is any legitimate argument but that life begins at conception.
But I was not arguing the scientific issue, I was arguing the theological position, and from there I was making the point that there is a valid theological argument that life (for the purposes of legal protection) begins when the first heartbeat occurs (which is generally around the 21st day after conception). I have questioned whether or not there is a scriptural basis for concluding that a fetus should be considered "life" before the baby has a detectable heartbeat.
For some reason (I don't know, maybe it's me) but nobody seems to be addressing my point.
After this thread I am considering just getting out of the whole pro-life thread business. Nobody here seems to want to view the issue from anything other than their own pre-conceived ideas, whether it be from a pro-life viewpoint or a pro-abortion viewpoint. If nobody is going to bother to question their own position, then we are just spinning our wheels here "Don't bother me with the facts and don't bother me with your logic, I have already made up my mind."
I think there are certain cases that merit compassion for a patient’s life, health and well-being, even if that means the end of anothers life to promote that one life.
As an example, when one takes the life of another to preserve ones own life or that of another person, it is then justifiable.
The numbers of abortions where the fetus is destroyed to preserve the life of the mother are relatively small. It's a fact that most abortions are for the convenience of the parent(s). Restricting these would go a long way toward minimizing the problem.
Yet, there would still be the residue where the mother's life comes into play. I would suggest that there are also a high number of these cases where the mother has also acted in a cavalier way sexually. Something to consider.
The simple fact is, enough information has been presented here to define a life as being 'pre-birth'. And most abortions destroy a developing life. Thus, to a considerate World, abortion is, indeed, murder.
I know, I've said I wouldn't respond here, however I was one who wrote to criticize you so felt obligated to respond. I can assure everyone, I will not again.
Abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is justified, because both mother and baby die otherwise - at least most of the time if not all the time, maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Other than that, there are very few times that a pregnancy will kill a mother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.