Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Alabama Abortion Ban:
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou don't seem to realize that if you're correct, then you have no valid reason for objecting to abortion for any reason prior to the nebulous point of "personhood".
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostGiven Augustine and other church Fathers that excepted the Septuagint translation not only didnt think so, they argued strongly against it, I honestly think you are mistaken in that assessment.
JimSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDon't tell me who argued for it, tell me what their arguments actually were, because I can't see any way around the implications without special pleading.
The one thing I can say is that if we truly value human life, then the fact the fetus at sometime can be stated to be a potential human life should only make the smallest difference in our estimation of its value and our attempts to preserve its development.
That is, in fact, why rape induced pregnancy and threat to the life of the mother are the only legitimate exceptions.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 05-20-2019, 09:37 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou can look them up if you are interested. I will not argue any point from a position that is based on its usefulness as a tool in some other argument.
Unfortunately for you, the reasons you've given for carving out an exception for rape depend entirely on special pleading and appeal to emotion which leaves a big hole in your argument.
I'll leave it at that.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe point at which someone can't be bothered to defend his own arguments is the point at which I stop caring what he has to say.
Unfortunately for you, the reasons you've given for carving out an exception for rape depend entirely on special pleading and appeal to emotion which leaves a big hole in your argument.
I'll leave it at that.
I gave you a summary of my own arguments in the part of my post you cut out.
And unfortunately there are only one or two participating in this discussion that have even the slightest interest in what the support for my position is, and you are not one of them - so no great loss there.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 05-20-2019, 11:23 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
You have repeatedly ignored some very pointed questions that I've asked. Adrift even drew your attention to one of my posts, and you still failed to answer. So please, spare us your usual brand of self-righteous blather.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou have repeatedly ignored some very pointed questions that I've asked. Adrift even drew your attention to one of my posts, and you still failed to answer. So please, spare us your usual brand of self-righteous blather.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI don't get the point. Why would that matter? I'm not proposing the soul is not independent of the body, at least at death, though I don't think it makes sense to assume it preexists the body. The fact someone that doesn't believe in God would think the observed interaction between personality and the brain means there is no soul is irrelevant. There are a lot of people that think the evolution of the body implies there is no soul and even no God. That doesn't drive my own believe about God nor does it mean they are correct.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI don't believe there is any means of proving much of anything about the soul. The Bible implies we have existence beyond death but very little if any information about how it comes to be. However, there is nothing that even hints at the idea that any of us exist in any form prior to our life here on earth. So I think the soul as an emergent or created phenomenon is the only possible Scriptural belief about it. And I also believe that since the procedure outlined in the creation of Adam did not involve the creation of body and soul as separate things, but rather the formation of the body and then God breathing life into that body, it is reasonable to conclude that the soul is in some manner emergent. If we then line that up with how, as I understand it, OT law in fact treats the unformed fetus differently that the formed fetus in the event men fighting kill the unborn baby, it seems reasonable to conclude that the personhood or soul of the child is not present early on in the process. Since scientifically the creation of neurons well precedes any possible ANE observation the fetus is 'formed', I think using neural activity as the first possible moment the fetus could be classified a 'person' is generous, and it has the added advantage of being a useful and objective criteria for both the beginning and the ending of personhood in a day and age when the life of the body and the life of the person can in fact be quite diifferent - especially at death (e.g. brain dead person on life support).
In my opinion people should be very careful about basing any assumption on how the soul and body are related on the story about the creation of Adam, because the manner in which Adam was created is a unique one-time event that have too many dissimilarities with the normal human development process in the womb, so we should be reticent in speculating too much based on that passage. Not to mention, even if I did accept that the creation story of Adam could be used to base beliefs about the relationship between the soul and the body, I could just as readily argue that what God did in the story of creating Adam was not simply "breathing life" into the lifeless body, but actually "breathing" the soul into it, which would run counter to your claim that the story lends support for the notion that the soul is emergent.
As for the case of the men fighting and accidentally killing an unborn baby, I think there's two ways to look at this, that doesn't necessitate believing that the fetus is not it's own person. I'm sure you've already heard of these arguments (I'm suspecting Adrift has presented one or both of them already in this thread) but I'll repeat them here in any case.
Option one is to take the view that what is described is not a miscarriage induced by violence, or killing of the unborn baby, but rather that the fighting causes a premature birth, a view that the translators of the NET bible takes, with the following justification:
https://netbible.org/bible/Exodus+21
The other option would be to argue that even if the passage does speak of the unborn baby dying, the reason for why the punishment is not as harsh as in other circumstances when a person is killed is not because baby is not seen as a full person, but because the manner of death was accidental, and not deliberate. The OT is pretty consistent in meting out far more lenient judgement if the reason for the damage is thoughtlessness/carelessness rather than deliberate intention to destroy. And if we read verses 20-21 about a man striking his slave/servant it would seem to lend some support for this view, since it seems to differentiate between deliberately causing grievious injury to your servant up to the point of death, and doing so accidentally, with the punishment being adjusted accordingly.
In fact, one could argue that the person who accidentally causes a woman to miscarry is punished harsher than the person who accidentally kills his servant, which would mean that using the logic that Exodus 21:22 shows that the unborn baby is not a full person, shows, by the same logic, that the servant in verse 21 is even less of a person than the unborn baby, which would be absurd.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt is hard to argue much of anything about the soul in a convincing manner unless one already believes in it and the authority of scripture, and even then, almost no information is given to us about it's formation. So I'm not surprised that if you are already against the concept of a rape exception based on the personal assumption the soul is placed in the zygote when it forms that you would find ANY argument for any alternate view unconvincing. Ideas that are not based on evidence or scripture can't be argued. They are axioms which can be neither proven nor disproven.
Jim
* Specifically the arguments you were using in post #187.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOr baconAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAre you arguing with yourself again?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNot really. The way to change my view on this would be to offer a clear rebuttal of the passage in Exodus concerning the way the accidental death of a fetus is dealt with. To date, most of what I've heard there is to effectively dismiss the elements that lead me to my conclusion. The problem there is that when I first read it, My opinion on abortion was your opinion. I read it in the NASV, and it seemed clear as day there was a difference. That God did not require life for a life if the fetus was not fully formed. Other translations as well. Only the more modern translations try to 'clarify it' in a way that is more in line with the more modern sense that it is from conception. Adding to that the way the Septuagint is translated makes it quite clear that to the Hellenistic Jew at least the original Hebrew was even clearer. And that my perception of what the text is saying is justified. There are also quotes from Josephus and Augustine that indicate this was also the view then (Augustine accepts the distinction, but much as I do, argued that distinction did NOT justify abortion as a means of birth control). So the problem here is that my view was changed from the more restrictive form you hold to its current form as a result of reading scripture and study, and so I don't think I'm making a wager of any sort. The first brain activity in the fetus occurs long before any ANE observer would have considered the baby fully formed.
Jim
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou can look them up if you are interested. I will not argue any point from a position that is based on its usefulness as a tool in some other argument. The truth is what matters.
The one thing I can say is that if we truly value human life, then the fact the fetus at sometime can be stated to be a potential human life should only make the smallest difference in our estimation of its value and our attempts to preserve its development.
That is, in fact, why rape induced pregnancy and threat to the life of the mother are the only legitimate exceptions.
Jim
To me that is a tacit acknowledgment that I and MM are right. You have no way to claim that it is OK for a rape victim to abort her baby but not any other woman, if you are basing your argument on your reading of Exodus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI did read through them. I've not yet had time to fully follow up on them.
Maybe. But not if they are biased in such a way as to ignore the evidence that shows there is a problem with their conclusions.
The problem is that most modern scholars tend to dismiss the Septuagint's translation of that passage as a mistake, I believe in part because of the church's historical teaching that abortion is wrong. It is hard to accept that is the correct rendering if one is expecting to see the text support the idea that the fetus at all phases is a human person, and it is much easier to argue against abortion if the text does not mean what the Hellenistic Jews translated it to mean (Yet many of the early church fathers did just that). But more importantly why, given the degree to which Jewish Priests and scribes revere and cherish the Torah, could such an egregious mistake (as it is viewed today) EVER become fixed into something as widely used as the Septuagint (keeping in mind THAT is the text we often find quoted in the NT)? One answer is it simply was not a mistake.
As I see it, the awkwardness of the existing text, the fact it retains a sense that the death of the fetus is not treated as murder, the Septuagint's seemingly 'wrong' translation relative to the text as we know it today, and the general acceptance of that 'mistake' both by Jewish rabbis and Christian patriarchs from the time point to the Hebrew text of the passage as we know it today being the textual entity that is in error.
The evidence supporting that conclusion is presented in detail here. I have given the link before, but you may not have seen it.
Jim
Here's the link to my post on this subject again, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post506802
Assuming you're uninterested in reading that post, here is Gorman's summary from Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World
With that in mind, your link points out that the penalty for the destruction of the unformed fetus is in reference to accidental miscarriage, not to intentional abortion, as well, your link seems to agree with Joe Sprinkle (note 19) that an unformed fetus is simply one that is "not yet viable independently of the mother", which, if you're being consistent, and were to use this article to give leeway to abortion for rape victims, gives you way late into the pregnancy to allow for that abortion. But of course your article doesn't suggest anything about a difference between a pregnant woman who became pregnant because of rape or because of consensual sex, so the point is moot.Last edited by Adrift; 05-21-2019, 09:55 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe OT is pretty consistent in meting out far more lenient judgement if the reason for the damage is thoughtlessness/carelessness rather than deliberate intention to destroy. And if we read verses 20-21 about a man striking his slave/servant it would seem to lend some support for this view, since it seems to differentiate between deliberately causing grievious injury to your servant up to the point of death, and doing so accidentally, with the punishment being adjusted accordingly.
In fact, one could argue that the person who accidentally causes a woman to miscarry is punished harsher than the person who accidentally kills his servant, which would mean that using the logic that Exodus 21:22 shows that the unborn baby is not a full person, shows, by the same logic, that the servant in verse 21 is even less of a person than the unborn baby, which would be absurd.
Note that Russell Fuller (1994: 174, 179, 180) argued as follows for the personhood of every fetus:
Consistent with the culture and society of the ancient Near East, the Exodus covenant code also refutes the argument that differences in punishments imply differences in personhood by showing various legal statuses, the parade example being the slave. . . . Hence whereas Exod 21:22 does not directly address the personhood of the fetus, the passage does intimate, by using yeled instead of golem or nepel, that the fetus is more than just parental property. It is a yeled, a human being, a child, a fetus with personhood. . . . Various Biblical passages and Exod 21:22, by specifying the fetus as a yeled, clearly suggest the personhood of the fetus. . . . . Exodus 21:22 does not indicate that the Bible values the fetus as less than human or as non-human.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:40 AM
|
2 responses
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 03:28 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:30 AM
|
15 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 04:20 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:24 AM
|
25 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:13 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
|
43 responses
237 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
31 responses
149 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:12 PM
|
Comment