Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
Like I said earlier, let's not argue fringe cases, but pick the low hanging fruit, so to speak.
Pro-aborts try to confuse the issue with these fringe cases, which amount for 1% of the abortions,
whereas they don't want to talk about the 99% of abortions done out of convenience for the "mother".
Now you use the 'blood is life' argument. I'd stop if I were you. You're now arguing against yourself.
Well that's what everyone was arguing. Eagle Eye simply pointed out that from a strictly biblical standpoint, "life" does not exist until there is "blood". He made a valid point (IMHO) and people were treating him as if he were promoting partial birth abortion.
Sounds like a “don’t know when life begins” argument.
So, if you don’t know when life begins,
you expose a lot of your morality by where you choose to err.
No, you simplify his argument. He also stated that because there is no life until there is blood, there is no life preceding birth. And we pointed out that there was blood and flesh prior to birth. Thus, his argument was false. And we've been treating him based on his invectives toward us, which you simply ignore.
Actually I was simply arguing against your position (which was internally inconsistent, unless you also believe that contraception is murder).
BTW what will happen to me if I don't stop?
The fetus is alive whether there is blood in it or not.
Saying that the life is in the blood does not say that without blood there is no life.
Leviticus 17 is not a valid argument for abortion not being murder. The whole chapter is dealing with sacrifices and the eating of blood, not related to murder or whether something is alive without blood being in it.
So no, that is not a valid argument.
It is my understanding that Protestant teachings about contraception were changed in the mid-20th century.
I can state without hesitation that life is present when the heart begins to beat. Beyond that, I cannot find a legitimate biblical argument for making the killing of the fetus a "murder". It may be in the eyes of God, but I am not going to speak for God on that point. God does make it clear that if there is blood flowing, then there is "life".
you expose a lot of your morality by where you choose to err.
Tell me about me. What have I exposed?
No. The question is whether the flesh is human or not. Changing it to whether it is life is merely a diversionary tactic.
Killing animals is not murder. Murder is the killing of a human being by another human being. THAT is what God prohibits.
As wagglebee pointed out earlier, Christians believed that up to and including much of the past century. And no, I don't believe it is inconsistent. Murder occurs when something living is destroyed intentionally through malice. contraception prevents that living thing from being formed. That's the technical response.
The Biblical one is far more involved. Does it go against God's will? I'm not sure Jeremiah 1:5 says that. Contraception prevents a fetus 'forming in the womb'. God is speaking of knowing us before 'I formed you in the womb'. Thus He is speaking of a formed fetus. Others may look at this differently.
BTW what will happen to me if I don't stop?
Nothing. I was merely pointing out your getting argumentative with yourself.
You are arguing the atheist position very well. No. It's not the same and you know it.
You could try turning the other cheek.
So could he.
Then why does the bible refer to murder (hundreds of times) as the "shedding of innocent blood"?
If there is no "blood" then how can you call it the "shedding of innocent blood"?
Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.
“you” collectively.
I think you fully understand what I meant, and I’ll leave “telling about you” to you, since you’ve obviously got your bristles up.
As to the issue, the heart starts beating at around 7 days, IIRC...
How many abortions occur before the heart starts beating?
Is it 0? Probably.
You see? This is an example of you arguing against yourself. If it is wrong, it cannot be a valid argument. So, it's either right, and valid, or wrong and invalid. Take your pick, but don't argue against yourself.
I am making points entirely by reference to scripture (which I believe to be infallible).
So how does my pointing out from scripture what the scripture actually says "arguing the atheist position"?
The problem is that you are NOT arguing the scriptural position.
So could he.
So you only turn the other cheek if it is reciprocal?
So, pointing out one sides invectives while ignoring the other side's is proper?
I'm not the one with my bristles up. I made no judgment about your morality, but you seem to have made up your mind about mine. I'm just curious as to what you think my "morality" is? I've been posting on Free Republic for over 10 years now and most everyone knows my political and religious positions. You seem to have made a moral judgment about me based on a single post in defense of the arguments made by another poster.
So please tell me what that post reveals about my morality. If not, then please ping the moderator and have your post removed.
As to the issue, the heart starts beating at around 7 days, IIRC...
Well if that it when it starts, then that is when it is biblically justified to prohibit it entirely. I believe it is 21 days post conception, however.
Note the key word of INNOCENT. The death penalty, established by God, does not qualify as murder. Why? Because of the guilt of the person involved.
Murder is not simply the shedding of blood, but of *innocent* blood. Therefore, the argument that murder must only involve the shedding of blood is invalid.
Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.
If it's wrong, it can't be a valid argument.
Do demand that everyone else turn the other cheek before you do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.