abortion

What about it? Surely if Science proves it, why do you still have to turn to some "Sacred Scripture"?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Have you considered the full implications of biochemistry defining life where the Sacred Scriptures remain silent?

Are you refering to the Bible? If you were then I suggest you consider this:

The Bible makes it very clear that an unborn child possess genuine human life.

Jesus Christ made the transition to earth at the point of conception, not birth! It was in the wonb that He "...took upon him the form of the sevant, and was made in the likeness of men..." (Philipians 2:5-8)

When John the Baptist was yet in his mothers womb, he leaped for joy at the salutation of Mary when she was carrying Jesus. (Luke 1:41,44)

Jacob and Esau began theur conflict with each other in the womb, causing their mother concern. God informed Rebekah that their striving with each other would continue through life and generations to come. (Genisis 25:22-23)

Scripture teaches that the transgressions of Adam are passed on to us at conception, not at birth. (Psalm 51:5)

Based upon this alone, the sixth commandment applies directly to abortion: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)

However, the Bible states even more specifically that abortion is murder in the case law of the Pentateuch. Even if a person causes a premature birth with no serious injury, he is to be punnished.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25)

One of the most respected and scholarly commentaries on the Old Testament is by Keil and Delitzsch. Their clarification on this verse is as follows:

"If no injury was done to either the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid... The plural is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinately because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb. 'But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,...' thus perfect retribution was to be made." (Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical commentary on the old testament, Vol. 2, pp 134-135)

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Have you considered the full implications of biochemistry defining life where the Sacred Scriptures remain silent?

Have you considered the full implications of biochemistry defining life where the Sacred Scriptures also agree?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Have you considered the full implications of biochemistry defining life where the Sacred Scriptures also agree?

how do you get the unborn is treated as anything other than the woman's husband's property in Exodus 21:22-25 Note it doesn't even say the father of the unborn. The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

Originally posted by frogstomp
how do you get the unborn is treated as anything other than the woman's husband's property in Exodus 21:22-25 Not it doesn't even say the father of the unborn.

Would you mind saying that in English?

PS: Please leave out the double-negatives to cut out the ambiguity...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you mind saying that in English?

PS: Please leave out the double-negatives to cut out the ambiguity...

learn how to read !

Originally posted by frogstomp
learn how to read !

Sneeky of you to go and edit it and then tell me to go and learn how to read... Unluckiliy you can't edit my quotation of your origional statement...

Originally posted by frogstomp
how do you get the unborn is treated as anything other than the woman's husband's property in Exodus 21:22-25 Note it doesn't even say the father of the unborn. The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

Please make your point. Is the husband not a man? Or am I missing you somewhere?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sneeky of you to go and edit it and then tell me to go and learn how to read... Unluckiliy you can't edit my quotation of your origional statement...

this :The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

and adding the e to note (mis-hit key)

is all that was added.

read the exodus quote over and you will see.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Please make your point. Is the husband not a man? Or am I missing you somewhere?

What you're missing is the unborns legal status is the same as a goats.

Originally posted by frogstomp
this :The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

and adding the e to note (mis-hit key)

is all that was added.

read the exodus quote over and you will see.

The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

Read the commentary. If no injury was done to either the woman or the child that was born... Would you be so kind as to explain how a child can be aborted without injury?

Originally posted by Halitose
Medical Science clearly proves that from the moment of conception, the zygote and finally the fetus is entirely a new human being. The fetus has completely original DNA. All that fetus will need from the point of conception till birth is oxygen and nutrition. Basically it is a very immature human.

Conception is the only cut off date that is really viable for the formation of a new human.

First, the question as to when a human life begins is irrelevant to the abortion debate. The right question is: Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill a human organism. It is clear that a human organism begins to exist at conception.

Second, not all fetuses have completely original DNA. If this is your criterion of being a unique human being, then monozygotic twins don't count as seperate human beings.

Third, it is false that all a fetus needs from conception until birth is oxygen and nutrition. The fetus also needs, amongst other things, not to be aborted.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The husband wouldnt have any legal consequences even if he jumped up and down on the wifes stomach to cause her to abort ,unless she suffered injuries.

Read the commentary. If no injury was done to either the woman or the child that was born... Would you be so kind as to explain how a child can be aborted without injury? [/b]

get yourself a better dictionary.

Originally posted by frogstomp
get yourself a better dictionary.

I'm afraid you are the one that needs a dictionary.

You still have not answered my question: How do you suggest aborting a child without causing it any harm?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I'm afraid you are the one that needs a dictionary.

You still have not answered my question: How do you suggest aborting a child without causing it any harm?

We don't abort children, that is infanticide. We abort fetuses. Further, why should anybody be concerned about the life of the fetus prior to the third trimester? No harm, no foul.