When does a fetus become a life?

[ktfrogg]

I hate to blow your heroic, "persecuted" pro-life Christian bit here, but if your "pro-life" efforts are being opposed by people, it is only because those efforts are fear-motivated, and work against women, the Jews, the Bible, millions of pro-choice Christians and the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom (see the 1st amendment).

For example, Jewish tradition considers the fetus a person (a nephesh, i.e., "a breathing creature," translated as "soul" in Genesis 2:7, "life for life" in Exodus 21:23 and "man" in Lev. 24:17 - #5315 in the Hebrew dictionary in Strong's Concordance) only at birth.

Just check your Bible. The Bible's definition of "living" is breathing (Ps. 150:6, Ez. 37:10, 1 Kings 17 and similar passages. Try looking up breathing and breath in your Strong's Concordance). The Bible's definition of a human being is nephesh. It is translated 30 times as person in the King James Version, and also as "life," "man" and "soul."

Why, in Ex. 21:22-25, is only a fine paid for a miscarriage, and execution (life for life; nephesh for nephesh) required if the woman dies? It is because the unborn has not yet received the "breath of life" (through its nostrils - see Genesis 2:7). So biblically, (I'm not talking science here) it is not "alive." Therefore, abortion is not murder. Ask a rabbi or two, or three. Contact a few pro-choice Christians and look at the evidence. Kick the fear habit.

Just to confirm this, see page 139 of Operation Rescue. Randall Terry cuts off verses 23, 24 & 25 of Exodus 21, takes the passage out of the context of nephesh and "breathing," adds the idea of "accidental" (see Deuteronomy 25:11 on that idea), and tries to use Jewish scripture against the predominantly pro-choice Jews.

See George Grant's book Grand Illusions page 193 - Exodus 21 is buried under a lot of irrelevant passages, or see Grant's Third Time Around - no relevant material here. No attempt here to convince you of anything, just to give you the information that many cover up, so you can make an "informed decision." There are always people around who will use your good intentions for their purposes. - Good luck on this.

[jcr4runner]

I thank Mr. Frogg for responding and providing this topic for discussion. He seems to have done considerable research on the subject, and I regret that his thoughts are not better organized so as to show full exegesis.

I'm afraid it takes more than ownership of a Strong's Concordance to arrive at logical conclusions about the Bible. As Mr. Frogg points out, God requires a penalty for the accidental death of an unborn baby boy or girl. How might God then feel about the intentional death of an unborn baby boy or girl? How might He feel about those who quote this scripture to PROMOTE such intentional killing?

Exodus 21 is in complete agreement with the rest of the Old Testament Law regarding the distinction between accidental manslaughter and intentional murder. Those who killed as the result of an accident were allowed to flee to another city (Deut. 19:5). To spell this out as clearly as possible, the penalty afforded in Exodus 21:22 was to be determined by the recklessness with which the killers were guilty. Two men struggling with each other could quite possibly strike a woman who interfered to such a degree that she miscarried. To strike her so hard that she died would take much more, and is very correctly described as manslaughter.

That Mr. Frogg tries to invoke Deut. 25:11 as an argument for his position either testifies of his faulty logic or further exemplifies his hit and run tactics of using an idea in his own defense long enough to hide behind but running to another idea before the logical conclusions of tat idea can be used to disprove his original thesis.

As to the matter of breath, the Bible refers to spirits in a number of different metaphors such as fire, water, oil, and yes, breath. The key to understanding these metaphors is a sincere effort to respect context. The Old Testament clearly states that "the life is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11). This is no metaphor. Moses did not indicate that the breath of an animal be offered as a sacrifice and, for the Christian, the physical reality of Christ's shed blood on the cross is an essential tenet.

In Genesis, man is the only creature into which God "breathed" life. The imagery here is that of God taking one of his creatures and making man more than an animal: "and he became a living soul." We can't take "breath" to mean biological life anymore than we can fire or oil. Hearts can be said to "burn" and no one takes it to mean a Maalox moment God "breathed" life into Adam that he later lost as a result of sin.

The Messiah Jesus Christ provided this spiritual life to be born anew within us as a result of sin. Jesus provided this spiritual life to be born anew within us, wonderfully portrayed in John 20: 22: "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"

The reader has chided me for having some sort of problem with fear. If this were true, I can tell you that I would not now be radically pro-life. It takes virtually no courage to agree with militant feminists. When, I trust, the reader has discovered the person who is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he will then be able to quote Psalm 139 with the same enthusiasm with which he has written of Exodus 21. I don't fear man, but I do fear God. It is the beginning of wisdom.

- written by Mike Wade

[AMbomb]

A fetus is already alive when it becomes a fetus. Life in complex organisms such as ourselves is defined by brain activity. Brain activity becomes detectable 5 to 6 weeks into gestation during the embryonic stage of development..

[jcr4runner]

Are you saying you are a pro-life atheist? -- A rarity!

[AMbomb]

Are you saying you are a pro-life atheist? -- A rarity!

That depends on your definition of pro-life.

[AMbomb]

A zygote is a single celled organism. If you want to outlaw the killing of single celled organisms you have to outlaw the use of disinfectants.

[jcr4runner]

A zygote is a single celled organism. If you want to outlaw the killing of single celled organisms you have to outlaw the use of disinfectants.

Less than 0.01% of abortions are zygotes.

Most women don't know they are pregnant until the sixth week.

If you are willing to outlaw the other 99.99 percent of other abortions that are performed when a fetus has a heart beat and brain waves, then I will go along with you.

Let's keep bacterial disinfectants legal and make the murder of innocent human life illegal.

[AMbomb]

Why wouldn't girls know they're pregnant until the sixth week? Let's say a girl has gets pregnant halfway between periods. She's going to miss her period about two weeks later. Give her a week to realize she's late and that's still only 3 weeks into gestation.

[jcr4runner]

You are right, some do know earlier. There are early pregnancy tests. But it is a fact that the vast majority of abortions occur after the sixth week. It would take until the fourth week to realize menstruation is not going to occur. The fifth week the decision to abort is made and then the actual procedure is done a week later. At the earliest. Do some research and find out for yourself.

[AMbomb]

How old are you, AMBomb? Do you have any experience with women? Or childbirth? You have an awfully strong pro-abortion stand for someone who doesn't seem to know very much about childbirth? When I say, "experience with women", I'm not talking about sex - I'm talking about actually being a part of a woman's life (including her cycles).

Very few women ever know they are pregnant. Only the paranoid/delusional freaks who decided not to use "protection" that one time and rush right out and get a pill or a test. Most women are a little more at ease, and only begin to suspect they are pregnant once they are late. I would think someone as opinionated as you would be a little more aware of this.

And even the freaks, once they discover they are pregnant, run around in a daze for weeks trying to decide what to do, eventually tell the guy (usually in hopes of reeling in him - which rarely works), and after he hits the road, then decides to abort - that is, if the scumbag doesn't try to talk her into it first, offering to pay to coverup his crime. By the time someone actually makes an appointment with an abortion clinic it is usually well after six weeks, usually pushing the end of the first trimester.

And I think it is awfully childish and frankly, quite stupid of you, to contrast a zygote with bacteria. There is a world of difference, which is somewhat obvious to most civilized, non-barbaric people, but I'll go ahead and explain here, just in case some young person actually thinks you had a valid point for a moment.

First, the zygote has potential - in the environment it is found (the womb) it will grow into something resembling you. Put another way, you were once a zygote. The bacteria will never amount to anything other than more bacteria. Kind of obvious, but....

Second, the zygote is an environment created for the development of all human life. The zygote is not a threat to anyone, despite what career-minded, cold-blooded representatives of Planned Parenthood might claim. Bacteria, of course, is often a threat, and is not in an environment created for the development of human life. The good bacteria might be, but I assume you are talking about the kind we kill with Lysol.

And of course, also quite obviously, no one is arguing about whether or not zygotes are okay to abort. In case you aren't aware of the position of the side that you claim to be on - it is to say that all abortions up until the moment of natural birth should be legal. If you are positing (and baiting) that pro-lifers won't concede a "zygote" abortion because their position is that all life is created from the moment of conception and that therefore we would not concede to those first six weeks.... if that is what you are baiting us with, trust me on these two things: First, I'd sign that bill in a heartbeat (no pun intended) despite my beliefs. Overnight, the abortion industry would cease to exist. And of course, second, the pro-abortion lobby would never, ever, in a million trillion years allow such a bill to be conceded because of my first point - they would evaporate the very next day.

So, it is a rather illogical and foolish point you make - which is why I go back to my first question - how old are you? Throughout, I've had the feeling that we've been chatting with someone in the junior high to high school age range who is very argumentative and who has been fed a little bit of knowledge (you know what they say about that), but who doesn't seem to have much real experience with life itself.

Funny you should characterize my views as pro-choice. Jay seemed to think I might be a pro-life atheist. Nowhere on this thread do I claim to be pro-choice or pro-life. My position on abortion is that it should be legal until embyronic brain activity becomes detectable. If you call that pro-choice, fine. If you call it pro-life, fine. You don't seem to understand my point when I stated that if you're going to outlaw aborting a zygote, you might as well outlaw disinfectants. So, I'll explain it to you. My point was that outlawing the abortion of a zygote would be ridiculous because it, like a bacteria, is a single celled organism. The fact that it has potential is irrelevent, as is the fact that it's not a threat to anyone. Apparently, you agree that aborting a zygote should be legal. But, you seemed to imply otherwise in message 6. That was your mistake.
Christianity is the dark side of the Force.

[FaithnJC]

Why, in Ex. 21:22-25, is only a fine paid for a miscarriage, and execution (life for life; nephesh for nephesh) required if the woman dies? It is because the unborn has not yet received the "breath of life" (through its nostrils - see Genesis 2:7).

I don't know if anyone picked up on this or not but kt seriously used subterfuge there. The passage says:

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

I didn't read miscarriage, I read gives birth prematurely. And as I read verse 23, "But if any harm follows"--I read that as, if any harm follows to that fetus, not the woman. The subject of verse 22 and 23 is the fetus of the woman.

Seeing as how kt likes to be deceptive in citing our Lord's word, I don't think there is anything else to debate.