Penalty for ABORTION.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I mean I wasn't trying to be rude. I just can't respond to something I can't understand.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Best to see points of view other than the ones you have taken as yours. Attaching to an idea or a concept is being the mouth piece of it; it isn't you.

My suggestion is if a baby is not in your future? Stop advocating against what does not concern you. Freedom of speech a right, however who are you representing or being a mouth piece for? If you then that is self serving... if the right of those in the future? Then you are serving them, better to leave an option open in my opinion than to force and issue none of your concern on them due to belief.

I may have a child again, I may not. So the topic concerns me. If you have not had a child or have but do not plan on it? Then it makes no sense for you to be arguing your beief against reality.

I took no offence it simply is what it is a situation that effects thousands and thousands of people, if not one of the thousands and thousands it effects directly? None of your concern.

Money is indirectly, so really no one's concern there either. Because taxes ar involved it becomes societies child so people want a say, since belief is involved those thinking it is some gods child think they deserve a say.

The person whom is often LEFT as a parent should have the say... the woman whoms body that is.

A hunter leaving bait in a trap, is the corpse his or which ever wild animal gets there first? Does that give the hunter then right to kill what is there when he returns feeding on it? Nature is taking it's course either way right? But life is life... one is born and unborn. One has been imprinted with belief the living, and one has yet to be imprinted. So nothing there to attach too... just cells, if life energy was there? That energy will leave and go elsewhere, form may be destroyed but the energy will not be... the matter then falls in the same intangible place called the mind.

Cease grasping the intangible as this topic? and I have to go urinate... which has nothing to do with abortion, the future possibility that I may be a parent again? Is why I have been putting it off. If there is no future possibility for you and you just want to talk belief of the topic? I urge you to piss off as well.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

My suggestion is if a baby is not in your future? Stop advocating against what does not concern you. Freedom of speech a right, however who are you representing or being a mouth piece for? If you then that is self serving... if the right of those in the future? Then you are serving them, better to leave an option open in my opinion than to force and issue none of your concern on them due to belief.

My desire or aversion towards parenthood is irrelevant. I don't have to want to be a parent, to point out that other people who are parents don't have a right to kill their kids irrespective of the inconvenience it may put on them.

I may have a child again, I may not. So the topic concerns me. If you have not had a child or have but do not plan on it? Then it makes no sense for you to be arguing your beief against reality.

I am sorry I just don't see how this seems like a logical thought to you. Basically, again you saying if I don't want to be a parent then the topic of abortion is no concern of mine, and to that I say horse #. I can be against murder of children while at the same time taking proper precautions to make sure I don't have a child out of wedlock, and if I did I would take the responsibility for my actions just like I expect everyone else to do. Murder of the innocent concerns who ever thinks murder is immoral.

The person whom is often LEFT as a parent should have the say... the woman whoms body that is.

No sorry. No parent has the right to murder a child irrespective of its age of development or the amount of oxygen that has entered its lungs. If that person didn't want to be a parent they should have practiced safe sex, or remained abstinent . I will not absolve them of their moral obligations towards human life just because they feel inconvenienced.

hunter leaving bait in a trap, is the corpse his or which ever wild animal gets there first? Does that give the hunter then right to kill what is there when he returns feeding on it? Nature is taking it's course either way right? But life is life... one is born and unborn. One has been imprinted with belief the living, and one has yet to be imprinted. So nothing there to attach too... just cells, if life energy was there? That energy will leave and go elsewhere, form may be destroyed but the energy will not be... the matter then falls in the same intangible place called the mind.

I see no connection between a hunter killing something for food, and woman killing a child due to inconvenience, or some other terrible justification for murder. You are just cells man, so I guess your right to life should be removed as well

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jeremiah 1:5 is a simple declaration that God foreknew who Jeremiah was long before he existed. You could even say long before the human race was ever created. So Jeremiah doesn't even apply to this debate in any shape or form, because God is referencing a general time prior to Jeremiah's conception.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

I don't see a connection between John 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5. The point at which John was filled with the Holy Spirit, was from the womb. Luke could have said from conception, or in the womb, but he didn't. Luke said ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας, meaning even from the womb. The ἔτι is stressing that John was filled with the Holy Spirit as early as coming from the womb. This is literally what the text says. I don't see a need to read any other ideas into it.

Lets give the Greek preposition, ἐκ, a little context here.

Rev 7:14
...These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation...
...Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης...

When in reference to an area, place, or situation, be it the Great Tribulation on earth, or a pregnant woman's womb, the Greek preposition ek (ἐκ) and its Hebrew equivalent min (מִן) always mean out of, never inside.

for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He shall never take wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.

If you want to draw a Hebraic parallel between Luke and a related passage, then the parallel would be with Judges 13:5, and guess what, the same principle is repeated. It says, "min-habbaten" (מִן־הַבָּ֑טֶן), which again, is from the womb, not in the womb, and not from conception.

“For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”

כִּי֩ הִנָּ֨ךְ הָרָ֜ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֗ן וּמֹורָה֙ לֹא־יַעֲלֶ֣ה עַל־רֹאשֹׁ֔ו כִּֽי־נְזִ֧יר אֱלֹהִ֛ים יִהְיֶ֥ה הַנַּ֖עַר מִן־הַבָּ֑טֶן וְה֗וּא יָחֵ֛ל לְהֹושִׁ֥יעַ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִיַּ֥ד פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים׃

Luke 1:44 is not a sign of soul life in the womb either. A fetus is connected to the pregnant woman, and experiences the same neuro-stimulation as the woman does. How could a fetus with an undeveloped brain (and undeveloped vocabulary) recognize an external voice and derive joy from it. It was the woman's reaction which carried into the womb.

For behold, as the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby in my womb leaped in exultation.

But lets look at the entire passage for complete context.

Luke 1:
39Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43“And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44“For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45“And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

Notice that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, not the fetus as well. Notice that the fetus jumped when the greeting reached Elizabeth's ears, not the fetus' ears.


The breath of life is the soul entering the fetus, but there is a reason why it is call the "breath of life", and that is because when the soul enters the fetus, the fetus becomes a human child and begins to breathe. That's why Gen 2:7 says, God "breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person".

Look at the occurrences of Breath of Life for your self. You should notice a common theme forming; no breath, no life.

Numbers 5 applies to pregnant and non-pregnant women alike. The only difference is, a pregnant woman who fails the test would willingly abort her fetus by lying under oath, with the result of never being able to bear children again, and the non-pregnant woman would simply never be able to bear children again. The point is that a pregnant woman who lies under oath would willingly abort the pregnancy, and God does not call it murder.


Do you realize that if the government begins to penalize mothers for having abortions based on the assumption that it is murder, that opens the window for falsely accusing someone of committing premeditated murder? And if the penalty becomes execution, that opens the window for state sponsored murder of women and doctors. Currently, (to my knowledge) there is no death penalty for abortion. But Donald Trump has stated that he supports a penalty for abortion, and with religious Christian conservatives backing him, there's no telling what will happen.

That possibility needs to be taken into consideration, because the further we go into a Trump presidency, the more that possibility becomes a probability.

So before "Pro-life" Christians continue to accuse women and doctors of murder for carrying out abortions, "Pro-life" Christians better have their have all their little ducks in a row. They better understand what the Bible really says on the topic, and so far, I don't see any evidence of comprehension of such knowledge. I don't see objectivity. What I see is people arguing against basic grammar, and against consistent themes established as early as man's advent in Genesis 2.


So the next time you assume abortion is murder, remember Matt 7:1....

1“Do not judge lest you be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

...,and know that you better be damn certain that you know what you're talking about. Because saying that abortion is murder is saying that millions of women and doctors are murderers too, and that is a very serious accusation to be throwing around.

I will not absolve them of their moral obligations towards human life just because they feel inconvenienced.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is not up to you to decide where moral lines are drawn for others.

I wouldn't choose an abortion personally, if my methods of prevention fail, I guess I would be raising another child, but that's me. I cannot impose my will on others, because, they've crossed a moral line I've drawn in the sand for myself.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Since you enjoy taking the whole out of context?

Kids are not children unless you are a goat. A child is a human infant, a fetus is neither child nor infant.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Jeremiah 1:5 is a simple declaration that God foreknew who Jeremiah was long before he existed. You could even say long before the human race was ever created. So Jeremiah doesn't even apply to this debate in any shape or form, because God is referencing a general time prior to Jeremiah's conception.

I don't see a connection between John 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5. The point at which John was filled with the Holy Spirit, was from the womb. Luke could have said from conception, or in the womb, but he didn't. Luke said ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας, meaning even from the womb. The ἔτι is stressing that John was filled with the Holy Spirit as early as coming from the womb. This is literally what the text says. I don't see a need to read any other ideas into it.

Lets give the Greek preposition, ἐκ, a little context here.

Well the connection I drew was between Luke 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5. The connection I was drawing was the intent of the authors message, namely that both of them were set apart, and known by God. This is relevant because I think it speaks to Luke's use of "ETI" in 1:15. Now, if I understand you correctly you are taking KOILIAS MHTROS AUTOU as a metonymy referring to birth, and so the translation "even from his birth" would be correct, and if we understand the womb more literally, it would mean "even from his being in the womb." Now my argument for the latter interpretation is on the basis of context. I think your main problem is the lack of EN in this passage, and I wholly agree with you that if Luke's main point was the John was in the womb he would have used EN.

However I don't think this was the focus of the passage just like I don't think it is the focus of Jeremiah. ETI is often connected with an event idea and often implies that this event happened or will happen at a time or place where it is not expected to happen. In Luke 1:15 the event is John's filling with the Holy Spirit. So my suggestion to you is that Luke didn't use EN because his focus was on the unexpectedness of the event. Based on the context later given in the passage its very possible there is an implicit EIMI used in this passage as is normally used with EK. We can even use KOILIAS MHTROS AUTOU as metonymy while taking the temporal reference from ETI to mean it would have before his birth, hence the reason Carl W. Conrad takes it to mean something similar to "already from the time before his birth". Again I think the majority of scholars take the position due to the later context . Conrad's take on the text seems to be a combination of both of ours. He takes EK to mean "out of", and uses ETI as a temporal referent to before the exiting of the womb.

Now again I have an issue with how you are reading certain passages because you ignore Identity, which is just a logical no no. The portion you bolded of Jeremiah 1:5 is the correlation I was drawing between Luke's main point and the main point here in Jeremiah. However read the portion above that, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." Now I have a question. Who did he form, and where did he form them? The answers to these questions are implicit, but they aren't the main message.

Luke 1:44 is not a sign of soul life in the womb either. A fetus is connected to the pregnant woman, and experiences the same neuro-stimulation as the woman does. How could a fetus with an undeveloped brain (and undeveloped vocabulary) recognize an external voice and derive joy from it. It was the woman's reaction which carried into the womb.

Well first since you like to be nit picky about language the word used for babe is a word that references both born and unborn babies. If its just worthless flesh, then wouldn't Luke have made that clear? I mean you have no other event to draw that leaping to in the context. Depending on the length of the pregnancy a baby most definitely can hear, not only the mothers voice but others as well.

Studies of newborn behaviour show that babies get used to the music and voices they've heard in the womb. When your baby is born, if he hears sounds he's heard before birth, he may respond by appearing more alert and active. Your newborn may also pay more attention to your voice than any other. As your unborn baby can't see or touch the outside world, hearing is the one sense that helps him to prepare for life after birth. Knowing your voice before he's born helps him form that strong bond with you afterwards. In fact, some people think that the reason babies learn to hear in the womb is so that they can bond with their mothers more easily once they're born.

They even retain these sounds as memories. Pretty sure Elisabeth is about 6 months pregnant at this point. Now your position here goes totally off base.

The breath of life is the soul entering the fetus, but there is a reason why it is call the "breath of life", and that is because when the soul enters the fetus, the fetus becomes a human child and begins to breathe. That's why Gen 2:7 says, God "breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person".

Lets quote the full verse, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So God forms Adam from the ground and then breathes life into him...that is wholly different from how we are created..but lets continue to the bottom of Genesis 2:

1 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

No mention of God breathing life into her. So show me a verse were the breathe of life is breathed into someone directly after exiting the womb. The breathe of life does not literally refer to oxygen man. It is a metaphor for the soul, and back in the day when medical equipment wasn't the hottest breathe was a sign that something was alive and not dead hence the connection to soul and breathing, but your perspective literally allows for heinous acts to be preformed on children so long as you keep their head inside their mother you could cut into all you want, and watch it kick and squirm. Its morally disgusting man.

Numbers 5 applies to pregnant and non-pregnant women alike. The only difference is, a pregnant woman who fails the test would willingly abort her fetus by lying under oath, with the result of never being able to bear children again, and the non-pregnant woman would simply never be able to bear children again. The point is that a pregnant woman who lies under oath would willingly abort the pregnancy, and God does not call it murder.

Again dude if you concede this test was given to non-pregnant women who underwent the same side effect such as a swelling abdomen or swelling reproductive parts. The swelling of the womb is not the women's choice, that is a curse put on her by God. The context of this passage is God acting as witness in a trial that has none....So the punishment is carried out by God not the women. It doesn't follow that because God induces a miscarriage due to consequence that it isn't a life...

a reply to: daryllyn

It is not up to you to decide where moral lines are drawn for others. I wouldn't choose an abortion personally, if my methods of prevention fail, I guess I would be raising another child, but that's me. I cannot impose my will on others, because, they've crossed a moral line I've drawn in the sand for myself.

Sorry, but morality is not subjective. We all have a duty to our fellow man to protect their life if it is within our power. The statement murder is wrong is not a statement about my preference, but rather a truth claim about reality. So it cannot be the case that murder is wrong and murder is not wrong.

I guess we should let all these murders out of prison. I mean who are we to impose our moral beliefs that they shouldn't kill on them.....

Your arguments do nothing do justify your position they are actually pretty baseless.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But not everyone believes that abortion is murder, or morally on the same level as murder.

There is a lot of debate on when "personhood" begins, so again, your personal moral lines in the sand, cannot be applied to everyone.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am here. If you make my life your responsibility then it also makes you feel you have some right to take it away. My life is my responsibility not yours, if you want to play brothers keeper? Then it is obvious you have twisted your chosen ideology to be self serving of you and no one else.

I have met a lot of religious touters in my day; beware this holding the banner and not walking the path. The mouth waves in the wind of the mind while the feet stand on a shore so distant from reality truth never contacts your feet... bare the cross for your savior and his will carry you, riding him like an ass? At least get down off yourself and give him a break.

I've walked that path of sacrifice; I still walk that path of sacrifice I do not talk that path of sacrifice. Not just that one either, but it is what it is and only fools make it different.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think its clear that Luke 1:15 uses ETI to emphasize that John would be filled with the Spirit from day 1. The use of EK indicates that it was from the point of birth, not conception. Luke doesn't focus on the issue of life at conception vs life at births, because he expects the reader to know that life begins at birth. Why do you think we celebrate birthdays and not conception days.

I really think you over complicate the simplicity of the text by trying to make this a pro-life issue, when it really isn't. Its the same as in Jeremiah. God is telling him that he was sanctified long before his existence. Its only until people start making it a pro-life issue that the true meaning of the text is obscured by politics.

A fetus responds to music, because music stimulates the brain, but remember that the brain is the control panel of the body, by which the soul expresses itself overtly. So what when a fetus responds to stimuli, its really a matter of neurological stimulation. The same applies to drugs. The flesh and the brain (an extension of the flesh) has receptors that are designed to respond to drugs. Either way, it was Elizabeth's ears that heard Mary's voice, causing the fetus to react. It doesn't even say that the fetus heard it, so scientific observation doesn't really even touch upon this issue.

I already said that the breath of life was an idiom for the soul, but there is a reason why its called the breath of life. Its actually very simple. When you're born, you start breathing. When you die you stop breathing. What does this illustrate? You soul enters the body at birth (first breath) and your soul exits the body at death (last breath). Its simple and poetic, which is important, as the Bible uses simple rhetorical poetry to communicate spiritual concepts. The Bible says that all living things (humans, animals, etc) have the breath of life, so it stands to reason that Eve was given the breath of life, and it was taken away at her departure. The Bible shouldn't have to tell us that for us to know it.

Again dude if you concede this test was given to non-pregnant women who underwent the same side effect such as a swelling abdomen or swelling reproductive parts. The swelling of the womb is not the women's choice, that is a curse put on her by God. The context of this passage is God acting as witness in a trial that has none....So the punishment is carried out by God not the women. It doesn't follow that because God induces a miscarriage due to consequence that it isn't a life...

My point is going way over your head, and to be honest, its annoying. I really shouldn't have to explain this multiple time to someone like you, so I'll explain it one more time and then you should probably use 1John 1:9 and talk it over with God.

1) The test consists of the suspected woman (pregnant or not) to take an oath. The oath is posted below:

“If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21(then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people by the LORD’S making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; 22and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

2) An oath can only be taken voluntarily. Confession is always an alternative.

3) If the woman CHOOSES to take the oath and drink the water, even though the is aware of her own guilt, not only will she become barren for the remainder of her life, but if she is pregnant, the pregnancy will be terminated.

4) The abortion would then be completely avoidable by not taking the oath and confessing her guilt either before going to the priest, or directly to the priest. Confessing her guilt would defeat the purpose of the test.

5) So my point is, if she willingly takes the oath despite her guilt, and a fetus is aborted, she is not committing murder, because God does not sanction murder.

We have officially gone into a full circle. I have addressed my previous points at least once, and you have with your's as well. Do you really want to go for another round?

a reply to: daryllyn

But not everyone believes that abortion is murder, or morally on the same level as murder. There is a lot of debate on when "personhood" begins, so again, your personal moral lines in the sand, cannot be applied to everyone

That is exactly what slave owner's said. They simply claimed slaves as property rather than people, and it is this type of desensitizing that is necessary for people to become brainwashed enough to think its not murder.

Lets take the pro-choice arguments and boil them down to their basic claims:

If a child will be poor, you can kill it.

If a child's father is a criminal, you can kill it.

If a child will inconvenience you, you can kill it.

If child is at a stage of development in which it cannot survive on its own, you can kill it.

If a child hasn't inhaled oxygen, you can kill it.

None of these are biological arguments, but they are the only ones I have heard. Do you know of any biological argument for denying "personhood" to an unborn child?

You can be charged with a double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman because the fetus is not affecting your bodily integrity. The fetus has bodily integrity from the moment of conception but it does not supersede that of the mothers giving her the right to an abortion in order to maintain her bodily integrity.

Biologically speaking if the fetus has a bodily integrity at conception in response to someone else murdering it, then not even the law is ridiculous enough to deny it personhood. The idea of someones bodily integrity superseding another's is logically incoherent. Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. The court acknowledges the fetus has its own right to personal autonomy and self-determination, but then conclude that based on geographical location it can remove that right. The mother body throughout the process are natural processes of her own body. The fetus has not infringed on her bodily integrity in anyway. The choice to risk pregnancy was hers, the releasing of hormones, the larger belly, ect, are all processes her body goes thru, the fetus in and of itself is a biologically distinct organism. Then the court arbitrarily decides at a certain point the fetus can have its rights back.

Sorry. The fact is people are just desensitized to what they are actually doing because we have legalized and taught that infanticide is okay. The moment you grant the fetus bodily integrity for any grounds you have given in basic human rights. When I call it immoral I am simply voicing a claim about reality that I have recognized. Two weeks ago I was pro-choice. It wasn't until I came face to face with the reality of abortion that I cared enough to educate myself on the topic.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

k

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

k

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to make people slaves to your belief and will? That is the face of man, the river of life crosses that breath from birth to death over the river stix... washed clean from the previous, this is what baptisim is supposed to represent in being born again in this very life. A symbolic crossing of that river whilst still alive so one does not once again have to go to the charnal ground and recieve judgement... they start walking the word not talking it. That is the living word that utters action nor needs to utter anything... in it's walking or living.

Putting the face of man on other men, men judge each other by their own faces or tree of knowledge when it is not their job to do so... as the tree or book of life they have lived from birth and death either grants the fruit or turns them away at the gate.

I shant havent have to point you the way, as oh so many have pointed and oh so few have walked it. Walking it is proverbial with the words meditate day and night... walk the word in your mind your heart your being and it fills that void with the breath of life. Wandering around in the darkness of the desert ones whole life? Choice.

Same as this issue that people keep uttering forth that does not personally concern them setting them up high to a position of judge that is not their job to do.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
That is the stupidest # I read so far today on here. Isn't there a thing about religion and state being different? May want to go along those lines, then the lines of the scriptures. As those were written by men as well, and some were pretty unhinged and a marble or 10 short of a full bag.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The penalty for abortion should be eternity in hell.
Of course.

WTF! Who let you out of the kitchen? Or were you joking? I suppose some women just have to much time on there hands and believe everything is handed to them and so it must be for others.

Should you not get back to worshiping Trump and his holly trinity, the dragon made flesh born again and some such come to fulfill the prophecy of the Great Nixon. Or whatever.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
The fact that there are policy makers in my country that belive the same things you do scares the hell out of me.

Sure is a scary thought. But here is a much more scarier one.

The fact that there millions of others that relive the same as them, and put them in those positions both on a conscious level and unconscious one both actively and by there inaction. And they are merely the representatives of a great mass of people and there train of thought and believe. Whats worse the but to the lever, or the lever to the but? Or are they merely just to different ends of the same thing?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Two weeks ago, I would have told people I leaned towards pro-choice. I never really cared about the topic to be honest, because in high school it was the normal thing to believe in my echo chamber of thoughts. Two weeks ago I came across a video on abortion, that shared an ultrasound of a 13 week old baby being aborted. A righteous anger burned at the disgusting site before me, along with a deep sense of conviction from the spirit. I know that means nothing to you, but I am sure a similar experience exist somewhere in your life. God is morally perfect and brother that is not moral perfection and it shouldn't be legal. I don't think it is a coincidence I came across the thread.

I really think you over complicate the simplicity of the text by trying to make this a pro-life issue, when it really isn't.

Hold on now. I never gave you this passage. Let me refresh your memory as this has been going on for a few pages:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You posted this which was totally off topic from the point I would try and make to you for the soul existing at least at some point in the womb if not at conception. After hearing your claim I looked into and found that either reading of the text is valid, but I personally feel the idea he was filled in the womb makes more sense with context. You have your right to disagree, but it doesn't make the other interpretation "distorting" the text.


You brought this passage up as a positive case for the soulessness of the fetus until oxygen hits its lungs. All i have been doing is trying to get you to see that your interpretation is not the only valid interpretation of the Greek.

I think its clear that Luke 1:15 uses ETI to emphasize that John would be filled with the Spirit from day 1. The use of EK indicates that it was from the point of birth, not conception. Luke doesn't focus on the issue of life at conception vs life at births, because he expects the reader to know that life begins at birth. Why do you think we celebrate birthdays and not conception days.

You can sit here and say you think its clear, but its obviously not as I've given you quite a few scholars that disagree with your position on the text both modern and ancient. There are many many scholars who draw that parallel between the leaping and the filling of John with the Spirit. My point was that there is a valid pro-life interpretation of that text, and there is also an argument to be made that it is more likely. We will go back to my argument if you like which is based on just a couple passages with a little bit of logic.

A fetus responds to music, because music stimulates the brain, but remember that the brain is the control panel of the body, by which the soul expresses itself overtly. So what when a fetus responds to stimuli, its really a matter of neurological stimulation.

So me harmonizing Luke 1:15 and 1:41 is a over complicating things, but taking the phrase "the baby leaped in her womb" to mean the inanimate piece of flesh reacted to neurological stimuli inside the uterus of Elisabeth" isn't an over complication of the text to confirm your confirmation bias? Lets remember you brought this passage up in the context of pro-life vs pro-choice not me. Should we ignore the fact that the word used for "baby" refers to both an unborn and born child.

My point is going way over your head, and to be honest, its annoying.

Oh no I understand your point perfectly. I just don't agree with your laying out of the scenario. Again this is another one of those passages you brought up to try and prove your point. If anyone has a stake in the game here it is you. I am just telling you how I see it. The context of the chapter again is God being the witness in a trial with no witnesses, so what we have here is a case where someone believes there wife cheated and they go to the priest to have God decide. The miscarriage isn't murder because the miscarriage is a judgement brought about by God as a sign of her guilt in this trial of no witnesses. "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward." The women's conception was a reward from the Lord, and he has every right to take it away in judgment. As you said had she told the truth she could have avoided being judged by God, but the judgement isn't murder because the consequence of being barren is God's judgement on the women. That doesn't mean she murdered her baby that means God took her baby for cheating and refusing to confess. So i get that you think it would be murder if she chose to be judged by God knowing she was guilty, but I just don't agree. It seems clear to me that what befalls the women is a judgment in a trial of no witnesses not murder, but a punishment. I mean you are the one trying to stretch a trial about jealousy and adultery into a pro-life vs pro-choice issue....

Its the same as in Jeremiah. God is telling him that he was sanctified long before his existence. Its only until people start making it a pro-life issue that the true meaning of the text is obscured by politics.

Its not til people start making it a pro-choice issue that the true meaning of the text is obscured by politics. I mean I can throw that accusation right back. The only reason I eluded to Jeremiah is to draw the connection between the odd timing of there consecration, and to relate that to Luke's use of ETI to indicate the unexpectedness which we both agree was the main point of the authors. Now I would draw Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139 for a case that the soul exist within the womb at some point, if not at conception. I don't care if you respond to anything else in the post please answer the following questions:

Is something itself?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,"

What did God form, and where did he form it?

"you knitted me together in my mother's womb."

What did god knit or weaver together, and where did he do it?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

And what exactly did I post that was so stupid?
Did you even read what I wrote in the OP?