01 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMaking it difficult to be killed before conception, but it seems as
Using your logic, according to Jeremiah 1:5 since God knew him BEFORE he formed him in the womb, you have a right to life BEFORE conception!
soon as that is possible, you are all for it.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you asserting that you know Hebrew better than Rabbinical scholars? Are you asserting that the Jewish belief is that a fetus is a human being?? You are utterly wrong; cite a jewish source anywhere that says so.
Are you asserting that you know Hebrew better than Rabbinical scholars? Are you asserting that the Jewish belief is that a fetus is a human being?? You are utterly wrong; cite a jewish source anywhere that says so.
1. Psalms is poetry; it does not override explicit Mosaic Law.
2. The phrase "woman with child" proves nothing as it is a translation o ...[text shortened]... th what some conservative pastor told you; sad, but typical of 21st century tele-"Christians".
Not at all - I'm referring to several scholars (in this case, Keil and Delitzsch who mostly wrote on the Pentateuch in the 1800s) who noted, on that text in Exodus:
"If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . ."
Ultimately, Jewish scholars are still divided about this, although many consider a fetus a human being - take a look:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by RatXFrom your source, RatBoy:
[b]Are you asserting that you know Hebrew better than Rabbinical scholars? Are you asserting that the Jewish belief is that a fetus is a human being?? You are utterly wrong; cite a jewish source anywhere that says so.
Not at all - I'm referring to several scholars (in this case, Keil and Delitzsch who mostly wrote on the Pentateuch in the 1800s) who n ...[text shortened]... any consider a fetus a human being - take a look:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html[/b]
Nevertheless, it appears the Torah itself teaches that killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing an adult. The Torah specifically states[9] that if in the course of an altercation with a third party, a person causes a woman to miscarry, he pays only monetary damages, while if the woman herself were to die of her injuries, the aggressor would receive a death sentence.
So much for the Ratvian version of Exodus 21:22-24.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioCmon, Ivanhoe. I answered your question with complete candor.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Iva ...[text shortened]... ns
can be evil or good.
Why do you feel that identity starts at the beginning?
Nemesio[/b]
Quid pro quo.
Nemesio
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIt amazes me, Parrot, that a grown man can go through life utterly incapable of rational thought or argument. I have a tape recorder that can say the same thing over and over like you do but it has an excuse: it can't think. What's yours?
Making it difficult to be killed before conception, but it seems as
soon as that is possible, you are all for it.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAs i said, the scholars still differ on this point - you've got that scholar noted. Hooray... Couldn't help that lawyer in you, could you?
From your source, RatBoy:
Nevertheless, it appears the Torah itself teaches that killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing an adult. The Torah specifically states[9] that if in the course of an altercation with a third party, a person causes a woman to miscarry, he pays only monetary damages, while if the woman herself were to die of her inju ...[text shortened]... sor would receive a death sentence.
So much for the Ratvian version of Exodus 21:22-24.
But clearing up the "Ratvian version of Exodus" - I was quoting a noted Jewish scholar (whom I mentioned before and you're no doubt trying to find evidence to discredit...) who states:
1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.
2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'😉. "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse'😉 red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)
3. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB). The word "further is NOT in the original text.
The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."😉. But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.
Likewise in verse 23 when it says, "But if there was injury . . ." it does not say "to the woman," as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, "If there was injury (to the child or to the mother)."
Cheers, it's late here -
01 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI do not "feel" that identity starts at conception. I look upon this as a scientific fact.
Cmon, Ivanhoe. I answered your question with complete candor.
Quid pro quo.
Nemesio
The living zygote is a human being with personhood, because it has the necessary information which together with the rest of its "body" forms a unique living entity, a human being with an identity. A human being with an identity is a human person.
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "You are asserting that identity begins at conception, but a person can have no identity without a brain. A braindead person has no identity, even though he ...... "
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Iva ...[text shortened]... ns
can be evil or good.
Why do you feel that identity starts at the beginning?
Nemesio[/b]
The human being you are discussing has no identity because he/she is dead, not because he/she doesn't have a brain. A braindead person does have a brain.
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioBbarr: "And, what Bbarr says about a fetus is scientifically unequivocable. He is one of few who articulates an internally consistent and logical position which relies on nothing but facts."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Iva ...[text shortened]... ns
can be evil or good.
Why do you feel that identity starts at the beginning?
Nemesio[/b]
Unequivocal ? .... nothing but facts ? This remains to be seen.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeHave you answered this question yet ?
Nemesio: "Provide and argument and compel me. I swear by Almighty God, if
you can provide a rational argument for the legal impermissibility of
abortion, I will adhere to it."
If you write "legal impermissability" do you mean "moral impermissability" or indeed the "legal impermissability" within the US legal system ?
02 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIT is true: KYJelly has an intrinsic inability to grasp ideas, and just asks irrelevant questions endlessly.
It amazes me, Parrot, that a grown man can go through life utterly incapable of rational thought or argument. I have a tape recorder that can say the same thing over and over like you do but it has an excuse: it can't think. What's yours?
02 Nov 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf your prolife it means your prolife, if your prochoice I guess that
I have not read the entire thread...but if it hasn't been stated...
The term Pro-life or Pro-choice are confusing.
If I am pro-life...does this mean I am anti abortion?
and if I am Pro-choice does this mean I support abortion and/or life?
depends on what choice you support.
Kelly
02 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt means that as I have pointed out to you, you are supporting the
It amazes me, Parrot, that a grown man can go through life utterly incapable of rational thought or argument. I have a tape recorder that can say the same thing over and over like you do but it has an excuse: it can't think. What's yours?
death of someone at an early stage of their lives. It means that
no matter how you dress it up, where you go to justify your favor
of those deaths, that is what you are doing. You can rationalize
it anyway you want, it doesn't change, someone who could be
here today was killed within a woman who made that choice a
few years ago by a doctor. The rational thought of your arguments
have only supported the deaths of how many I wonder now?
Kelly