Oh...it's not a 'baby' or a 'person' - it's just a FETUS...a clump of tissue!

[musicman]

AJ:

I ask this question - not in a contentious spirit, but, rather, out of genuine curiosity:

Can you tell me where, in the Bible, it says "...G-d said that there is no human life in the new born until HE breathes the SOUL or ESSENCE into the nostrils at birth."?

 

[Bullypulpit]

John kerry believes life begins at conception as well. Is he in this villified group? No, because he's a socialist, right bully?

Nah...He's wrong too, but he will let the woman decide the issue.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nah...He's wrong too, but he will let the woman decide the issue.

Oh yes. It's a gender issue; it's not about life and death at all. Do you hear yourself? Your mindset is a tragedy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Did you know that a fetus can actually SMILE in the womb?

That's enough "Human Life" for me.

 

[ajwps]

You say what you believe in your own statements. I can read. That's all.

The topic here is HUMAN LIFE in utero. If you can read, decipher this y o u

a r e a p o o r l o o s e r , , ,

I'm certain the majority will feel your stance on palestinian rights is less than admirable.

You certainty of the majority is lacking in substance....

 

[ajwps]

Did you know that a fetus can actually SMILE in the womb? That's enough "Human Life" for me.

Did you know that a monkey can also smile in utero and a human embryo can masturbate in utero? Also early on in fetal developement, human fetuses have gill slits and a tail and live in a water filled placenta that is nothing more than sea water. Very early human fetuses look just like mice, fish, zebras and lemurs.

HUMAN LIFE? Is that your professional opinion?

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

I ask this question - not in a contentious spirit, but, rather, out of genuine curiosity:

Can you tell me where, in the Bible, it says "...G-d said that there is no human life in the new born until HE breathes the SOUL or ESSENCE into the nostrils at birth."?

Certainly. Here is the actual words that the pious Jewish child Jesus of Nazareth learned in his synagogue.

Genesis 2:7

7 And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (HUMAN LIFE and no longer just a forming fetus).

I suspect that the metaphor of man being formed out of dust holds as true today as exactly when Bible believing people also understand the metaphor that the first man and all mankind become human at that point in their existence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

a human embryo can masturbate in utero?

so wouldn't that require life? You've been thoroughly discredited.

 

[musicman]

AJ:

From, "And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul", you get, "...G-d said that there is no human life in the new born until HE breathes the SOUL or ESSENCE into the nostrils at birth"? I've heard of comparing apples to oranges, but - man! That's comparing chicken liver to driveshafts!

I cannot prove that life begins at conception, any more than you can prove it does not. But, since the stakes are life and death, wouldn't you consider it prudent to err on the side of caution, and concern for innocent life?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The topic here is HUMAN LIFE in utero. If you can read, decipher this y o u

a r e a p o o r l o o s e r , , ,




You certainty of the majority is lacking in substance....

What did I lose. It's obvious babies are alive in utero prior to birth. You admit it yourself when you discuss their autoerotica. Your constant deflection and lies are blatantly apparent to all.

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

From, "And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul", you get, "...G-d said that there is no human life in the new born until HE breathes the SOUL or ESSENCE into the nostrils at birth"? I've heard of comparing apples to oranges, but - man! That's comparing chicken liver to driveshafts!

I cannot prove that life begins at conception, any more than you can prove it does not. But, since the stakes are life and death, wouldn't you consider it prudent to err on the side of caution, and concern for innocent life?

So you find the words of G-d in the Bible to be comparing chicken liver to driveshafts. So you say that you don't want to take a chance that a forming embryo might have HUMAN LIFE. You don't want to take the word of G-d Himself in his own Bible.

Let me give you another biblical proof.

The following was also known by the Jesus Christ in his studies with the Rabbis in the synagoge. Here is some more chicken liver and drive shafts for you to dismiss.

Exodus 21:22-23

21:22 [This is the law] when two men fight and [accidentally] harm a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. If there is no fatal injury [to the woman], then [the guilty party] must pay a [monetary] penalty. The woman's husband must sue for it, and [the amount] is then determined by the courts.

21:23 However, if there is a fatal injury [to the woman], then he must pay full compensation for her life. A life for a life.

In other words, if the fetus is lost by a mishap, the offender must pay a small fine to the father for the loss of a POTENTIAL WORKER as determined by the court. BUT if the woman dies by the accident, then the man who struck the woman has taken a HUMAN LIFE and must be tried for murder. (A life for a life).

Perhaps you still don't want to take a chance that a fetus has a HUMAN LIFE?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Aj, are you sure you're a doctor? or did you go off meds or something? you make no sense any more.

 

[ajwps]

so wouldn't that require life? You've been thoroughly discredited.

So rtwngAveangr, when you masterbate, does that in any way prove that you have a HUMAN LIFE within your being?

I don't think so...

 

[ajwps]

Aj, are you sure you're a doctor? or did you go off meds or something? you make no sense any more.

Oh yes, I am a health care provider. Also, I can read the original words also read by Christ in his own Bible of his time and from which the concept of the HUMAN LIFE or the SOUL came into the mind of mankind.

If you are an atheist, then there is nothing to human life for it is meaningless and has no consequences.

It is not that I make no sense but that you apparently are unable to comprehend these insights.

 

[musicman]

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.

As Jesus sat with the little children, he said, "What you do unto the LEAST of these, you do unto me".

I vote for erring on the side of caution and concern for innocent life.

 

[ajwps]

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.

As Jesus sat with the little children, he said, "What you do unto the LEAST of these, you do unto me". "Do little children come to Christ before they are born and receive a soul?

I vote for erring on the side of caution and concern for innocent life.

You are talking about 'replacement theology' where Jesus doesn't fulfill the OLD (Torah) but actually replaces the word of G-d with himself. But Jesus Christ denied Paul's theory that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament (Torah).

Matthew 5;18-19 King James Version

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Has all the prophecies been fulfilled with Christ's first coming? Nope.

Christ says in Matthew 5:19 that 'whosoever shall break one of the commandments and shall teach men to so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. PAUL of TARSUS taught that 'works or deeds' in the law or commandments were dead, so who do you think Jesus was talking about?

Are you one of those 'whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven?'

Do you believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth or do you believe in Paul of Tarsus, who directly contradicted Christ's words?

If you don't trust G-d in His words that that He created the soul which He knew before the body formed in the womb, then you must believe a man who said he used PRETENCE and rejoiced in it, yea he rejoiced.

 

[musicman]

Jesus' crucifixion was the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. You do not believe that. I'm not going to change you. You're not going to change me.

But, the fact remains that neither of us can say, with complete certainty, at which precise moment human life begins. Knowing this, I consider it prudent to approach questions of life and death with extraordinary care. To blithely say that abortion is not expressly forbidden in either the Bible or the Constitution - so it must be OK - is to abdicate our responsibility to protect innocent, helpless life. Therefore, I am against abortion.

 

[ajwps]

Jesus' crucifixion was the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. You do not believe that. I'm not going to change you. You're not going to change me.

I have no intention of changing you or anyone from their religious beliefs. And there is no way that I am going to believe that the original Laws given to Moses by G-d Almighty were modified, changed or fulfilled in any way by any death crucifixion of a man.

But, the fact remains that neither of us can say, with complete certainty, at which precise moment human life begins. Knowing this, I consider it prudent to approach questions of life and death with extraordinary care. To blithely say that abortion is not expressly forbidden in either the Bible or the Constitution - so it must be OK - is to abdicate our responsibility to protect innocent, helpless life. Therefore, I am against abortion.

You are very right in your statement that no one can know the precise moment human life is placed into each person on earth. But the fact also remains that in neither the New Testatment nor the Old Testament is the act of abortion forbidden, allowed or even discussed. If G-d wanted to convey abortion as either evil or of no consequence, He would certainly have given mankind some direction or moral lesson concerning life in the unborn fetus.

You state that abdication of your responsibility in the act of abortion is to turn away from protecting innocent, helpless life. But your statement is exactly the point.

Each person has his or her individual personal responsibility for any act they do while they live on earth. Your being against abortion is fine and dandy but many think that it is their responsibility to legally ban a moral and ethical individual decision for which each person must answer. I am not for abortion but I do not feel myself so righteous as to protect 'potential life' in other's actions. That is between each person (male or female) and their G-d.

For myself, I believe in the singular gift given to each person by G-d or the free will to choose one's own course between good and evil in this veil of tears.

Who am I to decide for others? Of course protecting innocent and helpless human life is a duty ordered by both of our Bibles. But I choose not to be so presumptuous and become a judge over what G-d has deemed not to allow or forbid.

 

[musicman]

AJ:

I have several observations, but, I'd like to start with a quick question:

Do you think any abortions took place in Biblical times?

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

I have several observations, but, I'd like to start with a quick question:

Do you think any abortions took place in Biblical times?

Of course there was abortion in biblical times. In Num 5: 27, G-d mandates "trial by ordeal" for women accused by their husbands of adultery. The priest is instructed to make a potion, the accused is ordered to drink it, and if she miscarries, she is considered guilty. In other words, G-d commands the priest to give the woman a potion which may induce an abortion.

John Riddle in Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Harvard University Press, 1992) studied ancient medical texts, identified the plants in their contraceptive and abortifacient potions, and determined that the ancient contraceptives and abortifacients were probably effective and as safe as giving carrying a pregnancy to term. These herbals were commonly used by all strata of society. Although some plants were added to and other plants were dropped from the herbal lists over the millennia, many plants, plants which modern science has determined contain natural chemicals that could cause a woman to miscarry or become infertile, remained on the lists for thousands of years. After all, would the same plants show up in medical texts for thousands of years if they were not safe and effective? Many traditional societies without access to Western medicine still use herbal potions as contraceptives and abortifacients. If modern women use safe and effective herbal contraceptives and abortifacients, why couldn't ancient women have used them?

The Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians had laws which forbade abortion. The Greeks and Romans considered abortion and contraception a crime only if the father objected because the crime was in depriving the father of an heir, not in murdering a human being.

The earliest Christian theological objection to abortion and contraception was that abortion and contraception were not sins in and of themselves. Neither of them were considered to be murder since the fetus had no soul. (According to Augustine, the fetus acquired a soul at 40 days for boys and at 90 days for girls. The pig.) These practices were objected to because they hid the true sins: fornication (sex with someone you are not married to) and adultery. Not until 1869 did the Catholic church declare that the soul entered the fetus at conception, making contraception and abortion murder.