As it was for blacks under Jim Crow, the South leads in denying women reprod. rights-

ok, slavery and Jim crow may be associated with skin color. I do not believe that skin color is behavioral. Let us just agree that skin color is an involuntary choice. On the other hand getting pregnant in the vast majority of cases is a voluntary action, rape of course would not be. there are many ways to prevent pregnancy. it is very hard to prevent being born a minority. in both the case of abortion and skin color the fetus has no choice.

May I just suggest that the analogy is not appropriate. Furthermore you imply that women do not possess the intelligence to prevent pregnancy either through behavior or medical devices.

 

Having sex is voluntary, getting pregnant is not, it either happens or it doesn't.

Yes, there are birth control methods and many women use them, sometimes even the best fail. Women who have been using birth control have gotten pregnant.

BUT women are under NO obligation to use them.

 

FoxHastings. I was addressing the analogy to Jim Crow and slavery. what exactly are you addressing? Is Hillary a second class citizen? Did Carly lose because she was a woman or because she focused on abortion? Finally, should a man that does not want to pay child support be able to force a woman to have an abortion?

 

When you drive your car you are taking a risk, knowing that there is the possibility that you might have an accident. If an accident happens, does that mean you volunteered for an accident? I think not, but I look forward to hearing (from you) why that is different from voluntarily having sex and finding out that it accidentally caused a pregnancy.

 

I was addressing your post, the one I quoted.


What are you addressing? I never mentioned Hillary, Carly, or whether a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. (they don't and shouldn't, NO one should)

 

As previously mentioned, Adam and Eve were created in a unique manner which is not the manner for the creation of all other people - they were created directly by God, there was no intercourse, conception, and period spent in a woman's womb. Using the manner of "birth" of Adam and Eve as a model for all other people is incorrect.

The value assigned in the Old Testament (Leviticus, Numbers) does not equate to personhood. In that period, people had different levels of material value but were still people - slaves for example had different prices, people who had fallen into debt which they could not pay back could sell themselves into temporary servitude (indentured servants), a beggar was worth nothing in terms of material value, people of different ages and skill levels had different material values, but all were still people.

In the Old Testament time, the world was paternalistic, slave holding, monarchical. The world at that time operated on manual labor, a person was often associated with their worth to their father, king, and kingdom but that worth did not equate to whether they were a "person" or not.

You mentioned that the words used in the Bible to describe the unborn are simple semantics and are not persuasive. That is an incredibly weak argument, language is specific, labels are created to convey specific and accurate meanings. We are argueing over whether a pre-born child is a person or not - we are arguing over the application of the word "person" and all that word implies. The words in the Bible were selected for a reason, to convey specific messages. To dismiss in such a cavalier manner language in general and a literary work - any work, not just the Bible - is disappointing.

The arguments in the links are clear and cover a wide range of issues and parts of the Bible. If their sum does not convince you in any way then it is a waste of my time to reiterate those links.

 

perhaps we should allow people to change their mind about parenting long after the child is breathing. why should anyone be unwillingly encumbered by their choices from previous circumstances. why have CPS at all.
it is comical people make moral arguments about selfish acts. I have rights, damn the rights of others that are not legal yet.

 

check out back and forth with random observer

 

I like that analogy, at least as it pertains to humor. lets see in a car government mandates airbags, anti lock brakes, seat belt usage and so on, also drivers training and licenses. I assume you are advocating that women be medicated and or restricted in their behavior so as not to get injured, really are you going there. perhaps they should be educated in how pregnancy happens and only be allowed to have sex in they can take care financially of the kids. Like car insurance.

I know, I Know, you don't think women can make good choices and take care of their bodies. but isn't that attitude kind of sexist?

 

I did not find those sites persuasive (nor do I see anything in the Bible that tells me the breath of life was significant to Adam but not to anybody else). I find it hard to ignore the implications of the fact that God formed Adam in one step, and after Adam was complete God gave him his soul.

These websites depend on extrapolation from words and phrases that were used in a different language in the context of an unfamiliar culture. Since the Old Testament Israelites were Jewish, let's consider what Jewish culture can tell us about the unborn.
Reference: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. For more details about the consequences of this doctrine, see Abortion.
If you follow the "Abortion" link it goes on to state:
Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

The people who write those pro-life websites cannot possibly have a better understanding of the original intent of Old Testament law than the scholars who lived in that culture, so I do not find their semantics arguments convincing.

If you found any other evidence in those links that I have overlooked, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the most convincing argument(s) on this forum. I am not trying to "win" an argument here, or discourage anybody from the discussion. I have been trying (for weeks) to get past the typical "it looks like a newborn so it deserves to live" arguments and into the ones that might be compelling enough to justify imposing the beliefs of one religion over the beliefs of another.

Is there anything in the pro-life justification that proves there is a "soul", or "spirit" inhabiting the fetus before the brain is developed enough to support meaningful, self-aware thought?

 

I totally support mandatory, comprehensive, sex education for both sexes. Do you?

If I live on a farm I can drive my car all over the place, and any speed I like, without insurance or registration or even seat belts. Now back to the question you ignored. EVEN with all those safety precautions in place, you could still have an accident (just like a woman could be using birth control and a condom and still have an accident) so are you claiming that your decision to drive your car (knowing that there is a risk involved) means that you volunteered for the accident? If that is the case, shouldn't you refuse any medical assistance and just let nature take its course (no jaws of life to pull you out of the wreck)?

 

Exactly how did God form Adam and then breath life into him?

Was Adam conceived and developed for 9 months in a woman's womb and then birthed? Obviously not, Adam was created from scratch, in a unique process not applicable to any other people (not even Eve, who was created in another unique process).

How does a body gain a soul? Is it a discrete act by God who personally bestows it upon every person, or is it passed from person to person at the moment of conception? Unknown.

Whatever was done to create Adam, it is not applicable to the rest of humanity.

Your first sentence is incorrect. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew is a living language still in use, Greek is very well understood. Aramaic is a variation of Hebrew, and was used by many kingdoms including the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Parthian Empires, which left a tremendous amount of documentation. The Aramaic of the Bible was in use into the 2nd century AD and variations are still in use today.

The context is sometimes difficult since the Bible deals with events 2,000+ BC (Abraham was around 2,000 BC), but no more difficult then studying any other ancient people. The life and times of the people in the New Testament era, are well known and well documented.

In other words, we are not working in a vacuum.

As you quoted, Jewish law states that the unborn have a soul. To anyone using the argument that the presence of a soul is the criteria, then Jewish law justifies that argument and abortion for convenience should be banned.

In "life of the mother" cases, Jewish law is consistent with almost all pro-life people in the regard that abortion in that circumstance is allowed.

Again, your equating of the word "soul" with "meaningful, self-aware thought" severely confuses the issue. A soul is a totally subjective religious concept. Meaningful, self-aware thought, is measurable and independent of religion. They are not and cannot be linked.

Your quote from Jewish law clearly states the pre-born have a soul. That was your own research, is that not enough for you?

 

... unless they're on food stamps.



​

 

The fetus, the woman or the stranger??

 

Adam:

Did Adam develop in a womb? Not according to the literal translation, but (according to the literal translation) the very first human was (1) formed and (2) given a soul (the breath of life) as a separate step. This is the ONLY place in the Bible where we are told exactly when the soul was bound to a body.

How does a body gain a soul? There is nothing (else) in the Bible to tell us exactly when the soul is bound to the body, but both Christian and Jewish tradition suggest that the soul existed long before a body was formed for it, and that the fetus becomes a "person" at birth. It seems obvious that the self-aware mind, spirit, and soul all need a functional brain to exist in this world, so the most likely time for the "soul" to bind to the body is when the brain is capable of self-aware thought. If you have evidence of some more logical time for it to arrive, please present it.

Translations:

I agree that there are modern linguists who can parse the syntax of these languages (but I am not convinced that the pro-lifers who write for these web sites have that expertise OR the objectivity). Anyone who is trying to interpret these passages today is, to some degree, working in a vacuum because they have never been immersed in that culture. At least the records from Jewish law were written by people who had lived in that culture so I trust the recorded interpretations more than I trust the writers of today. You have not called out any specific arguments from these websites so I assume you agree that they are all based on the fact that the fetus is sometimes referenced as a "child." This is NOT a convincing argument because Jewish law makes it clear that "human life" begins at birth.

If you are willing to accept Jewish law, let me remind you the article says "In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body." In Jewish tradition (like many Christian traditions) the soul is believed to exist BEFORE conception, so the most common tradition is that the soul joins the body at the moment of birth.

SOUL:

Like many people, I believe the "flesh" and "spirit" and "soul" are all inseparable aspects of the self-aware mind. Maybe they are supernatural but I cannot prove that. That is a matter of faith. I merely point out that if you believe it is possible for the soul to exist all by itself outside of a fully functional brain, you need to offer some evidence to that effect.

 

Correction (too late to edit) I said:

I do recognize that tradition suggests the soul existed long before the body. I was trying to say:

Like many people, I believe the "flesh" and "spirit" and "soul" are all inseparable aspects of the self-aware mind. Maybe they are supernatural but I cannot prove that. That is a matter of faith. I merely point out that if you believe it is possible for the soul to exist in the developing body without a fully functional brain, you need to offer some evidence to that effect.

I did not intend to start a tangent about whether the soul could exist before the body.

 

Adam was not created in the same manner all other people have been created. The fact he was formed and then God breathed life into Adam is totally irrelevant to how the rest of humanity was created. Why is this so difficult to understand?

That is your hypothesis, you are linking the spiritual soul to a functional brain. You just wrote that Christian and Jewish tradition claims the soul exists before the body exists - your hypothesis is contrary to that well accepted tradition.

What more evidence do I need besides the Jewish Law (which you later in your post write that you have some degree of trust in it) and Jewish and Christian tradition which has stood the test of time and religious thought? You have made my argument for me, yet you once again reject your own writing.

No , I absolutely do not agree that they are all based on the fact a fetus is sometimes referenced as a child. That linguistic argument is just one of many in those links, obviously you have glanced through the beginning of at least one of the articles but not read them.

Jewish Law does not make it clear that life begins at birth. The Law you are referring to places compensation and value on a persons life. As you earlier wrote, Jewish thought is that the soul exists before the body - the person has a soul before birth. "Soul" and "value" are not the same, just like "soul" and reasoning ability are not the same.

First you state your belief that flesh/spirit/soul are inseparable, then you state your belief is not provable and a matter of your own faith, then you ask me to prove my belief (which is contrary to your belief). You cannot prove your belief, there is no evidence al all regarding when and how a person gains a soul, your belief is pure supposition. Any belief regarding the soul is supposition, including mine. At least my belief has Jewish and Christian tradition behind it, so it has passed a qualitative review.

 

I understand the words you are saying but (1) this is the ONLY time the Bible tells us when a soul is joined to a body and (2) you offer no evidence to support your claim that it does not apply to all the rest of the souls.

I claim (like many) that they are all the same thing, and that hypothesis is consistent with Christian and Jewish tradition that (1) the soul (i.e. the person) existed before the body was formed, and (2) the soul/spirit/self-aware person joins the body when the body is ready.

Are you saying here that you accept Jewish law? "In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body."
That means you agree that human life (the point when the soul joins with the body) is at the moment of birth... so I am not clear whether you accept Jewish law or reject it.

Then please find what you consider the strongest argument and quote it here instead of making vague references to those websites.

I quoted text from that same article that you accepted because it asserts that the soul existed before birth. You just did not notice that it did not mention how long before birth (perhaps since the beginning of time?).
Reference: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body.

No, your belief is different from many centuries of Jewish and Christian belief (unless you now believe that human life begins at actual birth).

I said "Maybe they are supernatural but I cannot prove that." The only thing we can prove is that the fetus is incapable of supporting a self-aware mind until the last month or two of pregnancy. That is a scientific fact. I said (on many posts) I am willing to accept the commonly used terminology of "soul" or "spirit" as equivalent. That is consistent with the Jewish view that human life begins at birth. I am satisfied to allow unrestricted abortion up until the point that there is the capacity for a self-aware mind.

IF you believe the soul is something different (and separate) from the self-aware mind AND that it is bound to the body before the brain is fully developed, then it is up to you to prove your position (or accept that it is purely a religious belief and you have no right to force this belief on any other human being).

 

*shrug* The stranger whose life we are forced sustain.



​

 

This is fun! It is sooo cryptic.


Are you referring here to a woman being forced to sustain the life of the fetus?

 

Wrong. I have presented more evidence than you. Adam was clearly created in a unique way which with the exception of Eve does not even come close to the manner all other people are created. Adam was created through God's direct hand with no involvement of any other humans, Eve was created in a similar manner. All other people are created through the mating of a human man and woman, spend time in a woman's womb, and are then birthed.

No matter what is known about Adam's creation, it is independent to the reproduction of all other humans.

You continue to link "soul" and self-aware thought. They are not the same, they are not linked, accepted thought is that they are not linked.

And you continue in this idea that I must prove whatever I believe, while you are not subject to the same requirement. You can no more prove your belief that the soul and self-aware thought are equated than I can p[rove a soul even exists (you cannot prove a soul exists either).

 

Is there any other instance in the Bible where it specifically states when a soul enters the body? If not, then this is the only example we have and the fact that Adam's body was formed outside a womb while the rest of us were formed inside a womb does not address the question of when the soul is bound to the body. Are you aware of any other place in the Bible that tells us exactly when a soul enters a body?

In what way is the soul different from the self-aware mind? Please explain (and provide some evidence if possible).

I believe the key element is the self-aware mind (which many call the soul or spirit). My position is secure if there is no such thing as a soul, or if the soul is the same thing as the self-aware mind. I do not have to prove the soul exists, or is a separate thing from the self-aware mind.

If YOU want to claim the soul exists, AND is something different from the self-aware mind, AND that it must absolutely bind to the body at the moment of conception, then YOU have to prove those things.

 

More commonly the tax payer, who is forced to sustain the life of the food stamp user. The bystander or registered medical professional, who is forced by good Samaritan laws to provide aid, might be another example.



​

 

I am not aware of explicit statements in the Bible regarding exactly when a soul becomes associated with a body - that means nothing.

If Adam is one example, it does not necessarily transfer to a universal method - given that Adam was created by a unique process not applicable to any other human, such an extrapolation is completely unfounded.

The soul is endowed by God, it is immaterial, it is separate from the physical body, it is not measurable.

Self-awareness and reasoning ability are products of a physical mind, they are inseparable from the physical body, they are measurable.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "...and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." The body returns to dust, the spirit returns to God.

Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." The body and soul are separate and independent.

Correct, it is your belief. It is also a belief which you cannot prove. Nobody can prove a soul exists, or does not exist.

Why do you get a pass on proving your belief but I must prove mine? As I have repeatedly stated, nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a "soul", the soul is a result of religious belief, it is not measurable or quantifiable, its path into and out of a body cannot be detected. By granting yourself immunity from dealing with such an issue, you are hiding from the problem.

 

It's about control.....controlling blacks under Jim Crow....controlling women for "pro-lifers"