each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[sojourner]

My comment about my playing with my children in the womb was in response to what you said in post # 190,

Playing with a fetus doesn’t constitute a human being. That was my point.

You could not be any more incorrect.

The word nephesh is used many hundreds of times in the Old Testament and was used to describe a myriad of things, but is best translated as "person" or "being

BZZZZZZZZZT!! Thanks for playing.
The word nephesh means “soul.” Biblically (which is obviously the grounds for your argument), only human beings have souls, and that soul is imparted when the baby draws breath. That’s what makes it a “living being.” Twisting words to fit a particular preconceived notion doesn’t help.

I don't understand what would cause someone to refer to child birth as "violence" being perpetrated on the mother

You’ve never been raped and been forced to carry the child.

Needless to say, you may have an argument for aborting the products of rape here, but no other

I just mentioned them. For some people, a pregnancy will cause death. For some, the fetus will be in physical jeopardy.

Adoption

Unless the mother is a drug addict and a smoker and isn’t well enough to quit, and knows it.

Death

It’s not a “living being” until it draws breath... biblically speaking, that is.

 

[sojourner]

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd already know that I never said that convenience was the only reason or abortion.

I said that the "overwhelming majority" of abortions are those of convenience

If you had actually read what I wrote, you’d already know that I said it only takes one for the legality to be justified.

 

[Prestor John]

OK, but but does something have a claim to moral consideration just because of its species, or because of its potential, future status?

I believe killing people is wrong, but how does one define "person?" The features that, in my mind, define personhood are not the same as those that designate species, nor is potential, future personhood the same as personhood.

A young foetus is 'human', but is not a person. It lacks the features associated with personhood, therefore, any claim moral consideration needs further support.

I grant moral consideration to persons, but not necessarily to humans.

Would you be willing to share how you define both "person" and "human" and then explain how an unborn child would qualify for one but not the other?

Also, my moral consideration for the unborn has little to do with their potential or future status for I believe that they have an intrinsic value.

True that. The support for foetuses not being children stems from other facts..

Such as?

 

[Prestor John]

Your ability to use logic properly is extremely limited. You base quite a bit of your argument in a myth which is of course self defeating and now you are employing a strawman argumentargument, a logical fallacy.

What myth did I base my argument to you on?

You believe that my referencing the whole of human history is a strawman argument?

For my edification, would you mind pointing out exactly where my logic is "extremely limited" and where I employed the strawman argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you had actually read what I wrote, you’d already know that I said it only takes one for the legality to be justified.

The legality of abortion is justified just by bodily security.

Just as we don't demand a reason for someone to refuse organ donation, we don't demand a reason from people who want abortions.

In both cases, the person's body can't be used by anyone else without their ongoing consent... even if people will die as a result (which can certainly be the case when someone refuses to donate their organs).

@Prestor John

 

[Prestor John]

You really don't like reading what other's write or you have an inability to process information.

Playing with a fetus doesn’t constitute a human being. That was my point.

Yes, I know that you shifted the "goal post". As I said.

I used the example of me playing with my unborn children to combat your claim that children in the womb are not alive and are just tissue.

The fact that I can play with my children while they are in the womb is proof positive that they are alive!

Whether or not they are human is the topic of another discussion, which I am willing to have, after you admit that your earlier statement was wrong and that unborn children are alive in the womb.

BZZZZZZZZZT!! Thanks for playing.
The word nephesh means “soul.” Biblically (which is obviously the grounds for your argument), only human beings have souls, and that soul is imparted when the baby draws breath. That’s what makes it a “living being.” Twisting words to fit a particular preconceived notion doesn’t help.

You cannot be any more incorrect.

Many words in Hebrew have multiple meanings. Nephesh can be translated as "soul", but it has also been used to describe "mind", "person", "being", "will", "character", "emotions", "appetites", "self", "creature" etc.

The word has even been used to described disembodied spirits.

Not to mention that nephesh was also used in Genesis to describe many types of animals, so you are wrong on all accounts.

You’ve never been raped and been forced to carry the child.

No, I haven't and that is completely irrelevant to what I said.

When you claim that child birth is an act of violence, you are also claiming that the unborn child is the perpetrator of that violence and is therefore committing an immoral act or breaking a law.

That makes no sense.

I also never claimed that a pregnant woman should be forced to do anything, so let's add yet another irrelevant point you made to this discussion.

I just mentioned them. For some people, a pregnancy will cause death. For some, the fetus will be in physical jeopardy.

Why are you applying what I said about your argument for termination of pregnancies that are the product of rape to other comments you made?

Let's try to stay coherent, ok?

I shared a list with you about situations where the Lord allows for the possibility of the termination of pregnancy, which included rape, threat of death to the mother and the maladies had by the unborn child.

Each situation would need to be prayerfully thought out.

Unless the mother is a drug addict and a smoker and isn’t well enough to quit, and knows it.

There isn't much anyone can do about that, is there?

Well, except teaching her truth about God, herself and her unborn child.

You'd be surprised how fast people can change when they come to understand and appreciate truth.

So why are you an enabler of destructive behavior?

It’s not a “living being” until it draws breath... biblically speaking, that is.

Fake news.

Adam's spirit was a nephesh before he was placed into his physical body.

The moment his spirit entered into his physical body he was described as a "living nephesh."

The moment his spirit left his physical body in death his disembodied spirit and his deceased physical body could both be described as nephesh.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you’d already know that I said it only takes one for the legality to be justified.

Where did you get this idea from?

 

[Prestor John]

The legality of abortion is justified just by bodily security.

Just as we don't demand a reason for someone to refuse organ donation, we don't demand a reason from people who want abortions.

In both cases, the person's body can't be used by anyone else without their ongoing consent... even if people will die as a result (which can certainly be the case when someone refuses to donate their organs).

@Prestor John

I cannot contest that and indeed I have not attempted to here.

I have already mentioned, many times, that I am not advocating that anyone should be forced to do anything.

All I have done is shared what I believed and have encouraged others to live by certain standards.

However, I do contest the claim that child birth is an act of violence.

So, was the point of your post to simply repeat what I had already said, or what?

Why are you here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What myth did I base my argument to you on?

You believe that my referencing the whole of human history is a strawman argument?

For my edification, would you mind pointing out exactly where my logic is "extremely limited" and where I employed the strawman argument?

Really? You do not know what myth you based a big part of your When you try to falsely say that someone said something that is a strawman.

But for fun let's break your post down:

How so?

I have all of human history to support the fact that human females give birth to other human beings.

This is your first error. It is a red herring that has nothing to do with the debate.

You are the one trying to claim that what is in the womb of the mother is anything other than human.

This is your strawman since I did not come close to saying this. It is a form of lying and as a Christian you should avoid it.

Thus proving my point that using the standard of something being "legal" makes it "right" and something being "illegal" makes it "wrong" is...not smart.

No, you proved no point. This is an error at best and possibly a falsehood since you should have known that it is wrong.

Therefore, your claim that abortion is not destroying the bodies of children because it's legal is stupid.

And this is a rather moronic claim on your part since abortion does not destroy the bodies of children. At worst it destroys the bodies of fetuses and often not even that. You see it is not a child until after it is born. It is illegal to destroy the bodies of children. This is an appeal to emotion fallacy by claiming that fetuses are children when you have provided no evidence for this.

In what world would I need to prove that killing babies is wrong?

And another appeal to emotion fallacy, and a strawman as well since no one is talking about killing babies.

Now that all of your errors have been made clear I hope that you do not repeat them. Though I would bet the opposite. Not even the Bible supports your beliefs. As has been already explained to you the Bible supports the soul entering at birth at the earliest. The Bible has two clear areas where it is clear that a fetus is not a baby, and all that the anti-abortion side has a couple of special pleading arguments based upon the emotions of pregnant women in the Bible. Your arguments have been purely emotional so far and not logical or even biblical at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don't like reading what other's write or you have an inability to process information.

Yes, I know that you shifted the "goal post". As I said.

I used the example of me playing with my unborn children to combat your claim that children in the womb are not alive and are just tissue.

The fact that I can play with my children while they are in the womb is proof positive that they are alive!

Whether or not they are human is the topic of another discussion, which I am willing to have, after you admit that your earlier statement was wrong and that unborn children are alive in the womb.

You cannot be any more incorrect.

Many words in Hebrew have multiple meanings. Nephesh can be translated as "soul", but it has also been used to describe "mind", "person", "being", "will", "character", "emotions", "appetites", "self", "creature" etc.

The word has even been used to described disembodied spirits.

Not to mention that nephesh was also used in Genesis to describe many types of animals, so you are wrong on all accounts.

No, I haven't and that is completely irrelevant to what I said.

When you claim that child birth is an act of violence, you are also claiming that the unborn child is the perpetrator of that violence and is therefore committing an immoral act or breaking a law.

That makes no sense.

I also never claimed that a pregnant woman should be forced to do anything, so let's add yet another irrelevant point you made to this discussion.

Why are you applying what I said about your argument for termination of pregnancies that are the product of rape to other comments you made?

Let's try to stay coherent, ok?

I shared a list with you about situations where the Lord allows for the possibility of the termination of pregnancy, which included rape, threat of death to the mother and the maladies had by the unborn child.

Each situation would need to be prayerfully thought out.

There isn't much anyone can do about that, is there?

Well, except teaching her truth about God, herself and her unborn child.

You'd be surprised how fast people can change when they come to understand and appreciate truth.

So why are you an enabler of destructive behavior?

Fake news.

Adam's spirit was a nephesh before he was placed into his physical body.

The moment his spirit entered into his physical body he was described as a "living nephesh."

The moment his spirit left his physical body in death his disembodied spirit and his deceased physical body could both be described as nephesh.

Where did you get this idea from?

Nope, you are guilty of moving the goal posts. The argument has always been whether fetuses count as "human". You have not been able to support that. At best you have an equivocation fallacy going for you. You need to quit assuming, without any valid evidence at all, that a fetus is a baby. Once again, a baby is after birth. Not before.

 

[Prestor John]

Really? You do not know what myth you based a big part of your When you try to falsely say that someone said something that is a strawman.

Are you saying that you didn't claim in post #230 that the term "human" is subjective?

But for fun let's break your post down:

"How so?

I have all of human history to support the fact that human females give birth to other human beings.[/quoite]

This is your first error. It is a red herring that has nothing to do with the debate.

I do not see how it is an "error" or a "red herring."

If you are making the claim that a female human has given birth to something other than another human, please share your evidence for that claim.

Otherwise, I see no need to deviate from what all of human history has taught us.

This is your strawman since I did not come close to saying this. It is a form of lying and as a Christian you should avoid it.

So, you don't think that the term "human" is subjective?

No, you proved no point. This is an error at best and possibly a falsehood since you should have known that it is wrong.

I see you like claiming that I am guilty of some logical fallacy or that I am in error without explaining how these things are so.

The idea that what is "right" and "wrong" is not always defined by what is "legal" is no error or falsehood.

And this is a rather moronic claim on your part since abortion does not destroy the bodies of children. At worst it destroys the bodies of fetuses and often not even that. You see it is not a child until after it is born. It is illegal to destroy the bodies of children. This is an appeal to emotion fallacy by claiming that fetuses are children when you have provided no evidence for this.

And what is a human fetus other than a developing human child?

The evidence for this is all of human history. All human beings went through the same process of development.

Unless, of course, you have that evidence proving that human females can give birth to something other than another human being.

And another appeal to emotion fallacy, and a strawman as well since no one is talking about killing babies.

Now that all of your errors have been made clear I hope that you do not repeat them. Though I would bet the opposite. Not even the Bible supports your beliefs. As has been already explained to you the Bible supports the soul entering at birth at the earliest. The Bible has two clear areas where it is clear that a fetus is not a baby, and all that the anti-abortion side has a couple of special pleading arguments based upon the emotions of pregnant women in the Bible. Your arguments have been purely emotional so far and not logical or even biblical at all.

That's a lot coming from the guy you can't pin down what is or is not a "human."

Just because I draw the line earlier than you do does not mean that I am employing a logical fallacy.

If human life begins at conception, then logic dictates that abortion kills babies.

If anyone is employing any logical fallacies here it is you because you are allowing politics to dictate science and biology.

There is no scientific basis for assuming that life does not begin at conception.

Nope, you are guilty of moving the goal posts. The argument has always been whether fetuses count as "human". You have not been able to support that. At best you have an equivocation fallacy going for you. You need to quit assuming, without any valid evidence at all, that a fetus is a baby. Once again, a baby is after birth. Not before.

Are you then claiming that it is not possible to argue that a fetus is alive, but not human?

Whether a fetus is alive or whether it is human are two different arguments.

It would be dishonest to take my arguments for one and apply it to the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that you didn't claim in post #230 that the term "human" is subjective?

No, I did not say that. It is always a good idea to quote rather than to incorrectly interpret what somebody said.

I do not see how it is an "error" or a "red herring."

Really? Your reasoning abilities are that limited? The discussion hinges on whether a fetus, not a baby, counts as a human being with human rights or not. Legally they are not. The Bible seems to feel that way too. Your post has nothing to do with that argument.

If you are making the claim that a female human has given birth to something other than another human, please share your evidence for that claim.

Otherwise, I see no need to deviate from what all of human history has taught us.

And back to the red herring. Try again. We are not talking about babies, we are talking about fetuses, embryos and earlier. Please try to keep on subject.

So, you don't think that the term "human" is subjective?

If you can't be honest you will never learn. Try to focus on the issue of fetuses. You are trying to twist the argument. That is a strawman.

I see you like claiming that I am guilty of some logical fallacy or that I am in error without explaining how these things are so.


The idea that what is "right" and "wrong" is not always defined by what is "legal" is no error or falsehood.

Wrong again. I explained those to you. It is only cognitive dissonance at best that keeps you from understanding your errors. This sort of reply of yours is what leads to accusations of not being honest. The proper action to take when you do not understand is to ask questions politely and properly. And your last add on was a throw away error. You failed to support any claim that abortion is wrong.

And what is a human fetus other than a developing human child?

The evidence for this is all of human history. All human beings went through the same process of development.

Unless, of course, you have that evidence proving that human females can give birth to something other than another human being.

Once again with the same red herring. I can see that my wager would have been correct.

Try again.

That's a lot coming from the guy you can't pin down what is or is not a "human."

Just because I draw the line earlier than you do does not mean that I am employing a logical fallacy.

If human life begins at conception, then logic dictates that abortion kills babies.

If anyone is employing any logical fallacies here it is you because you are allowing politics to dictate science and biology.

There is no scientific basis for assuming that life does not begin at conception.

The point is that we are not debating when an organism becomes a human being. We are discussing when an organism has both legal and moral rights. You have made logical error after logical error and won't let yourself understand them. This alone can be argued to be a dishonest act on your part. Drop the red herrings, drop the other logical fallacies and see if you can actually support your beliefs. You even seem to know that the biblical position is a very weak one. What do you have that supports your opposition to a women having her choice in this matter?

Are you then claiming that it is not possible to argue that a fetus is alive, but not human?

Whether a fetus is alive or whether it is human are two different arguments.

It would be dishonest to take my arguments for one and apply it to the other.

And we are back to the equivocation argument. Once again it depends upon how one defines "human". You are using a definition that supports your side while ignoring the definitions that do not support yours. Many definitions limit "human" to baby and beyond. The fact that a fetus is alive does not support your claim. And you appear to understand the weakness of your argument. Legally a fetus is not a "human" in the sense of having legal rights. Morally the burden of proof is upon you since you want to affect the life of the women involved. I will let them answer that question for themselves. It is a highly persona one that cannot be clearly stated either way at this point in time.

Once again, you really should not try to put words into other peoples' mouths. Not even as a question. Your questions presently are on the order of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" An assumption buried in a question is almost always dishonest and once again, if you claim to be a Christian you should avoid that.

 

[sojourner]

The legality of abortion is justified just by bodily security.

Just as we don't demand a reason for someone to refuse organ donation, we don't demand a reason from people who want abortions.

In both cases, the person's body can't be used by anyone else without their ongoing consent... even if people will die as a result (which can certainly be the case when someone refuses to donate their organs).

@Prestor John

That’s a great point.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that I can play with my children while they are in the womb is proof positive that they are alive!

They are certainly alive. Whether they have souls and are at that point “human babies” is questionable.

You cannot be any more incorrect.

Many words in Hebrew have multiple meanings. Nephesh can be translated as "soul", but it has also been used to describe "mind", "person", "being", "will", "character", "emotions", "appetites", "self", "creature" etc.

The word has even been used to described disembodied spirits.

Not to mention that nephesh was also used in Genesis to describe many types of animals, so you are wrong on all accounts

And yet, when Genesis talks about the creation of human beings, the word means “living soul.” And it didn’t occur in the womb. It happened at first breath. According to the Bible.

No, I haven't and that is completely irrelevant to what I said.

When you claim that child birth is an act of violence, you are also claiming that the unborn child is the perpetrator of that violence and is therefore committing an immoral act or breaking a law.

That makes no sense

The RAPE is the act of violence that resulted in an unwanted lump of living tissue being deposited in the woman’s body without her consent. Its genetics are shared by the perpetrator of the violent act. For many women, that causes extreme emotional upset, which, of itself, is violence.

I shared a list with you about situations where the Lord allows for the possibility of the termination of pregnancy, which included rape, threat of death to the mother and the maladies had by the unborn child.

Each situation would need to be prayerfully thought out

Not all mothers believe in prayer. It doesn’t “need to be prayerfully sought out.” It should bear serious thought and reflection.

There isn't much anyone can do about that, is there?

That’s why abortion.

Fake news.

Adam's spirit was a nephesh before he was placed into his physical body

There was no “Adam’s spirit” in the Bible, until God breathed it into The lump of clay. It was at that point that the lump of clay became nephesh.

Where did you get this idea from

Letting someone suffer trauma from violence is acceptable... at what time?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot contest that and indeed I have not attempted to here.

I have already mentioned, many times, that I am not advocating that anyone should be forced to do anything.

All I have done is shared what I believed and have encouraged others to live by certain standards.

However, I do contest the claim that child birth is an act of violence.

So, was the point of your post to simply repeat what I had already said, or what?

Why are you here?

Pay more attention: the post I responded to talked about legality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to mention that nephesh was also used in Genesis to describe many types of animals, so you are wrong on all accounts.

If we're going by the Biblical take on personhood, there's always Numbers 3: males are counted in the population of Israel once they're 30 days old and females aren't counted at all.

This seems as Biblical a position on when personhood begins as I've ever seen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we're going by the Biblical take on personhood, there's always Numbers 3: males are counted in the population of Israel once they're 30 days old and females aren't counted at all.

This seems as Biblical a position on when personhood begins as I've ever seen.

And one can't forget the fact that a priest could administer a chemical abortion if the wife was suspected of cheating in the Old Testament.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And one can't forget the fact that a priest could administer a chemical abortion if the wife was suspected of cheating in the Old Testament.

Right. And causing a miscarriage by assaulting a pregnant woman is punished with a fine, but the penalty for murder is death.

 

[james dixon]

It is the mother who is obligated to raise the child and if she chooses not to have that child it is her choice and only her choice.

 

[james dixon]

And one can't forget the fact that a priest could administer a chemical abortion if the wife was suspected of cheating in the Old Testament.

When I read the above; "LIAR" came to mind; and having said that I realize it would be in poor taste to call another poster a LIAR so I won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I read the above; "LIAR" came to mind; and having said that I realize it would be in poor taste to call another poster a LIAR so I won't.

Not only would it be in poor taste. You would be wrong.

I did not know that you were ignorant about what was in the Old Testament.