When a being possesses life inside the womb

[HeIsHere]

If you think that a male and female can produce a soul then good for you.

uh?

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Man's breath is not life.

Try going without it for a few minutes.

Only God's breath is life, which was given in the garden and is allowed to carry on to this day.

Are you speaking of the breath of life that God breathed into the nostrils the man formed from dust?

I hate to tell you but "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. " (Gen 7:22) Yeah, they died when they stopped breathing.

 

[rewriter]

Warning duly noted and I am also aware of Revelations 3:15-16. (See Gen 4:11). There is a difference between a "spirit" and and "soul".

Maybe science and religion can't answer the question on when life begins, and but that doesn't mean there isn't a answer, like the question asked in the NT, "Are there not twelve hours in a day?" But "wir haben es nicht gewußt " isn't a answer.

If science can define when life is present then how would they not know what life is? or when life begins?

The American Medical Association (AMA) does not define a single point or moment when human life or personhood begins, maintaining instead that there is no broad medical or scientific consensus on the matter however views abortion as essential medical care and a human right.

The universal definition of Abortion by the Christian Church is that all human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. The Holy See

In Judaism, life is broadly understood to begin at birth—specifically at the moment the child's head emerges from the birth canal, or when the baby takes its first breath. However, it places a profound value on potential human life, a developing fetus is not legally considered a full, independent person (nefesh) until it is born. The question on when an abortion is permitted varies between
Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.

Under Shirai law, abortion in Islam is not categorically permitted or banned, but is regulated based on the stage of pregnancy, the presence of valid legal or medical excuses , and the consensus of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh).

The presence of brain wave activity in the cerebral cortex does not in and of itself constitute a living system. Likewise, the lack of brain waves in the cerebral cortex does not in of itself establish brain death.

Brain death is lost of the entire brain function, including the brainstem (Medulla). While the lack of brain waves definitely represents a serious medical condition, one that might have a grave prognosis; however, once the Medulla stops, the entire living system will immediately begin to shut down, including brain waves, and in almost every case is irreversible.

Common examples of reversible problems that could be misdiagnosed as brain death without the loss of function of the Medulla are a very low body temperature (hypothermia), very low blood pressure, very low blood levels of certain substances such as sugar (hypoglycemia) and sodium (hyponatremia), and an overdose of a sedative.

Science has a generally accepted understanding of when PHYSICAL life ends, not what life is though. But as soon as one introduces Christianity and Christianity's understanding of life, the issue gets far more complicated. The OPINION that life begins at conception and continues after physical death to either eternal presence with God or eternal punishment is hell violates the idea of life having a beginning. It also violates the idea that life may be ended via physical means. So, the argument that life begins with conception can only refer to PHYSICAL life, yet one is using a SPIRITUAL definition, do you see any contradiction here? For life, the spiritual trumps the physical, but for death the physical trumps the spiritual, why, merely because it is convenient for the desired argument.

God is consistent and Christians are called to be like God yet actively choose to be different when it comes to abortion. Be consistent, set a physical beginning to life without respect to some spiritual standard or set the end of life to a spiritual standard without regards to the physical. Do not use one standard at one time and the other at a different one.

 

[HeIsHere]

God is consistent and Christians are called to be like God yet actively choose to be different when it comes to abortion.

I sincerely doubt this.

 

[rewriter]

I sincerely doubt this.

What that God is consistent or that humans are inconsistent? Both are clearly supported by scripture, and scripture clearly calls for Chrisians to be as much like God as is possible, you know, avoid sin.

 

[Cameron143]

What that God is consistent or that humans are inconsistent? Both are clearly supported by scripture, and scripture clearly calls for Chrisians to be as much like God as is possible, you know, avoid sin.

Are you arguing that abortion is not sin?

 

[GWH]

Some women mourn when they find out they were not pregnant.
This is very subjective.

I agree with @NightTwister concerning this real purpose of this thread and I think @ZuluKono and @WiselyWoven have settled the issue.

You want to look for scriptural loopholes to support early term abortion that is on you, but I think it is very unwise.

So y'all's opinion is that it is better to allow late term abortions than to support my partial solution,
and you call that WISE?!

 

[ZuluKono]

If you think that a male and female can produce a soul then good for you.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

And what's your definition of soul?

 

[HeIsHere]

What that God is consistent or that humans are inconsistent? Both are clearly supported by scripture, and scripture clearly calls for Chrisians to be as much like God as is possible, you know, avoid sin.

Yes we are to avoid sin, abortion is a sin.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

... about as much as conception being the the continuation of life, not the beginning of a new spirit.

And what's your definition of soul?

My definition of "soul" doesn't matter as you implied by your price of tea comment. And you are right my definition of soul doesn't matter. Have you ever heard the saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" It is your definition of soul that matters but try reading Proverbs 23:25 and when you know who they are then you will know your definition of a soul is right.

 

[ZuluKono]

Second: medical viability.

Around 22–25 weeks, premature infants enter what medicine calls the periviable period.

At approximately 24 weeks, survival outside the womb becomes substantially more possible with intensive neonatal medical support.

This is not a point at which the body becomes completely developed. Rather, it is a period when essential physiological systems may function sufficiently to permit survival with assistance.

The overlap between neurological development and increasing viability is therefore significant to investigate, but it cannot independently prove that the breath of life is granted at this stage.

6. Why Must We Examine Medical Evidence?

Because Scripture identifies God as the Creator of the human body without supplying a week-by-week account of gestation.

Psalm 139:13–16 describes God's involvement in human formation within the womb.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 acknowledges the mystery of how a body is formed in the womb.

These passages establish divine involvement, not a clinical gestational timetable.

Medical science examines the biological processes through which fetal development occurs: the growth of organs, maturation of the brain, development of physiological functions, and capacity for survival.

We consult medical evidence because the question of bodily viability is biological.

Scripture can establish the theological distinction between the body and God's gift of life. Medicine can investigate the development and functional capacities of that body.

Neither discipline should be made to assert what it has not established.

Furthermore, medical viability is not a fixed, universal moment. It varies with fetal development, birth weight, medical circumstances, and access to neonatal care.

Therefore, viability cannot simply be treated as a scientifically established measurement of when God imparts the spirit.

I'm not inclined to thoroughly read your (or anyone else's) mini-dissertations, so as with your homosexuality thread, I'm not sure what your ultimate goal here is. I'm more of a get-to-the-point kinda guy.

However I noticed that you touched on viability. The viability of a baby in the womb is irrelevant regardless of where it's at in gestation. A baby isn't viable outside of the womb. Like for years. In fact it's more viable inside the womb in that it's protection and nourishment aren't strictly voluntary.

 

[GWH]

I'm not inclined to thoroughly read your (or anyone else's) mini-dissertations, so as with your homosexuality thread, I'm not sure what your ultimate goal here is. I'm more of a get-to-the-point kinda guy.

However I noticed that you touched on viability. The viability of a baby in the womb is irrelevant regardless of where it's at in gestation. A baby isn't viable outside of the womb. Like for years. In fact it's more viable inside the womb in that it's protection and nourishment aren't strictly voluntary.

Yes, but the crucial question regarding the abortion issue is this: “When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?” Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. At this point many folks accept viability as the stage of fetal development after which killing it should be viewed as murder, but do you prefer to insist on making all abortion illegal instead of agreeing on drawing the line there until the Overton window can be shifted further toward sentience and then conception?

I guess you may have seen me share that I knew very little about fetal development and was a naive pro-choice person at the age of 24 when I became a minister, but I invited a Methodist lady to share a seminar in our church and considered two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, which promoted me to realize that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood, so I converted to being "pro-life" as I considered when personhood actually begins.

Being the logician that I am, I had the thought that those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies--but I knew few did so and thus the Overton window needed to be shifted to where it had just done with regard to my own understanding.

Then I considered whether personhood begins the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). This stage (“sentience”), of development occurs/is reached when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life. I quickly realized that everyone should agree using logic that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development.

I admit that in the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. However, some people who pretend to be pro-life prefer to allow all abortions instead of limiting them with this solution.

Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately. Thus, I advocate that this be done and my tax money be spent on that endeavor, because abortion should NOT be used as a birth-control method.

 

[ZuluKono]

Yes, but the crucial question regarding the abortion issue is this: “When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?” Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. At this point many folks accept viability as the stage of fetal development after which killing it should be viewed as murder, but do you prefer to insist on making all abortion illegal instead of agreeing on drawing the line there until the Overton window can be shifted further toward sentience and then conception?

I guess you may have seen me share that I knew very little about fetal development and was a naive pro-choice person at the age of 24 when I became a minister, but I invited a Methodist lady to share a seminar in our church and considered two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, which promoted me to realize that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood, so I converted to being "pro-life" as I considered when personhood actually begins.

Being the logician that I am, I had the thought that those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies--but I knew few did so and thus the Overton window needed to be shifted to where it had just done with regard to my own understanding.

Then I considered whether personhood begins the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). This stage (“sentience”), of development occurs/is reached when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life. I quickly realized that everyone should agree using logic that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development.

I admit that in the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. However, some people who pretend to be pro-life prefer to allow all abortions instead of limiting them with this solution.

Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately. Thus, I advocate that this be done and my tax money be spent on that endeavor, because abortion should NOT be used as a birth-control method.

Tldr, but IMO when one uses any variation of the euphemism "fetus", one is part of the problem.

 

[GWH]

Tldr, but IMO when one uses any variation of the euphemism "fetus", one is part of the problem.

You ought to consider whether opposing any law that permits abortion after conception is a bigger part of the problem,
because its effect is to allow states to legalize abortions at any stage of (insert your preferred term) development.

As I have exemplified with my own case, moving the Overton window to sentience (about the sixth week) can be done easily simply by showing everyone the two pictures I cited and sharing how death is determined as I mentioned, which would save the lives of many babies, but y'all seem not to care about them by opposing laws against abortion after that stage.

 

[ZuluKono]

You ought to consider whether opposing any law that permits abortion after conception is a bigger part of the problem,
because its effect is to allow states to legalize abortions at any stage of (insert your preferred term) development.

As I have exemplified with my own case, moving the Overton window to sentience (about the sixth week) can be done easily simply by showing everyone the two pictures I cited and sharing how death is determined as I mentioned, which would save the lives of many babies, but y'all seem not to care about them by opposing laws against abortion after that stage.

It's hard for me to decipher your meaning. Can you dumb it down for me please?

Sounds like "y'all" are advocating for baby-murder-for-convenience so long as it's within your subjective time frame?

Again, I may be misreading what you're saying. I suck at riddles.

 

[rewriter]

Are you arguing that abortion is not sin?

Many actions are sinful, but I hold that sin is not the action but the inner attitude that drives the action. Are you arguing that your stance is loving towards the person who seeks an abortion? Christians are called to love, not condemn.