pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/13/84)
> >/**** uiucdcs:net.abortion / weutil@ih1ap / 6:12 pm Jul 16, 1984 ****/ > > Only a minor point, but the Bible states that the human >fetus is not inhabited by the 'soul' until God breathes life into >his/her nostrils. > > David L. Pope >/* ---------- */ > >This is quite a major point. For those who use the Bible to attack >abortion, a reexamination is in order. Certainly it is bad to kill humans, >but if a fetus does not have a soul, then killing of the animal body >is not so bad (I am a vegetarian and prefer not to kill animals). > >This "random" distinction on where to draw the line seems to solve the main >problem. It is not at all arbitrary. The first breath is fairly distinct. > >Daniel LaLiberte (ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte) Mr. Pope's statement is not true. The Bible makes no such pronouncement about the human fetus. He should have, at least, given the reference to back up his assertion. I can only assume (because I've read this argument before) that it is based on Genesis 2.7: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. There are many reasons why the use of this reference to justify abortion is a tenuous hermeneutic. Genesis 2.7 only applies to a special case--the creation of the first two humans (mankind), not all individual humans. Adam and Eve were never feti. It is questionable wether all that is meant here by "the breath of life" is "breathing air". Breathing air at birth *sustains* the life of an already living human. At birth it is merely exchanging one source of O2 for another. Here "the breath of life" clearly has more significance than that. It seems plain that the first humans were inanimate before it was given--not living in any sense. There are other Bible citations that clearly indicate the spiritual vivacity of the human fetus: Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1.4-5) "For he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb". (Luke 1.15) I think it's fair to say that God does not commission a prophet or fill him with the Holy Spirit if he has no soul and is no different than an animal. But perhaps the most profound expression of God's acknowledgement of the fetus is his entrance into history as one (Luke 1.30-37). A final comment on the net.abortion discusions: I've noticed many in the pro-choice camp attempt to forstall biblical criticism of their views by saying things like, "those who use arguments from the Bible will be ignored". Yet when the Bible seems to serve their purpose there is no objection to appealing to it. If you don't consider the Bible to be authoritative on the issue of abortion, don't call it a major point when it seems to support your views. Either allow people to speak form the Bible on this issue (from both sides) or leave it alone altogether. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/84)
>>> Only a minor point, but the Bible states that the human >>> fetus is not inhabited by the 'soul' until God breathes life into >>> his/her nostrils. >>> David L. Pope >> This is quite a major point. For those who use the Bible to attack >> abortion, a reexamination is in order. Certainly it is bad to kill humans, >> but if a fetus does not have a soul, then killing of the animal body >> is not so bad (I am a vegetarian and prefer not to kill animals). >> This "random" distinction on where to draw the line seems to solve the main >> problem. It is not at all arbitrary. The first breath is fairly distinct. >> Daniel LaLiberte (ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte) [Paul Dubuc responds:] > Mr. Pope's statement is not true. The Bible makes no such pronouncement > about the human fetus. He should have, at least, given the reference to > back up his assertion. I can only assume (because I've read this argument > before) that it is based on Genesis 2.7: > > Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and > breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became > a living being. > There are many reasons why the use of this reference to justify abortion > is a tenuous hermeneutic. > Genesis 2.7 only applies to a special case--the creation of the first > two humans (mankind), not all individual humans. > There are other Bible citations that clearly indicate the spiritual > vivacity of the human fetus: > Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed > you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I > consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." > (Jeremiah 1.4-5) > > "For he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of > the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will > be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's > womb". (Luke 1.15) One could say with just as much validity that THESE two passages are the ones that apply to "special cases". (Probably with more validity.) > A final comment on the net.abortion discusions: I've noticed many > in the pro-choice camp attempt to forstall biblical criticism of their > views by saying things like, "those who use arguments from the Bible > will be ignored". Yet when the Bible seems to serve their purpose > there is no objection to appealing to it. If you don't consider the > Bible to be authoritative on the issue of abortion, don't call it > a major point when it seems to support your views. Either allow > people to speak form the Bible on this issue (from both sides) or leave > it alone altogether. The point is twofold: 1) doing this shows the Bible to be self-contradictory and/or open to whatever interpretations one wishes to glean from it (one could probably interpret a passage to contraindicate breathing if one desired), and 2) using a book that happens to be the basis of the *chosen* morality of many people does NOT make one's arguments from that book applicable to all of society JUST because one feels like it. Thus, speaking from the Bible to show a pro-abortion point of view points out these two points. [THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE PLACED FOURTH IN THE OLYMPIC EVENT "USING THE WORD 'POINT' IN A SENTENCE AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE". :-] -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr