Biblical Phrases Against Abortion

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

Wisdom 12:5-7:

"...These merciless murderers of children, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers, that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worth colony of God's children."

Some might say, "Okay, obviously God disapproves of infanticide, but that doesn't say that the fetus is a human being."

Psalm 51:7:

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin if a fetus doesn't have a soul, and how can a fetus have a soul if a fetus is a blob of cells and not a human?

[Coyotero]

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin

It can't.

Nobody's born evil. We all just have plenty of time to practice.

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

It can't.

Nobody's born evil. We all just have plenty of time to practice.

A sinner is not necessarily evil, that's not what the verse is saying. It's saying that from conception David - and everyone else with the exclusion of Mary - is conceived with Original Sin passed down from Adam and Eve.

[Coyotero]

I don't believe in Adam and Eve, or original sin, so your point is irrelevant.

Going by lore, I'm a descendant of Ask and Embla, really, I imagine this is an allegory for some ancient Indo-European tribal chieftains.

In the reality of everyday life, I don't suppose it matters either way.

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

I don't believe in Adam and Eve, or original sin, so your point is irrelevant.

Going by lore, I'm a descendant of Ask and Embla, really, I imagine this is an allegory for some ancient Indo-European tribal chieftains.

In the reality of everyday life, I don't suppose it matters either way.

This is a biblical debate, so use biblical arguments.

[Coyotero]

This is a biblical debate, so use biblical arguments.

Very well, if non-biblical viewpoints are unwelcome, I will concede. Good day.

[MagusYanam]

Wisdom 12:5-7:

"...These merciless murderers of children, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers, that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worth colony of God's children."

Some might say, "Okay, obviously God disapproves of infanticide, but that doesn't say that the fetus is a human being."

Psalm 51:7:

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin if a fetus doesn't have a soul, and how can a fetus have a soul if a fetus is a blob of cells and not a human?

This is 'quote-mining' - the use of Biblical quotes taken out-of-context to mean something that they don't. One could easily find quotes in the Bible, taken out-of-context, to support infanticide (given the Old Testament commands issued against the Amalekites in 1 Samuel and the inhabitants of Jericho in Joshua), but this is not the point of these passages (since infanticide is still wrong).

Also, quoting Psalms to score political points is reprehensible, from a literary standpoint - in context, the psalmist is singing of the completeness of God's knowledge and wisdom in judgment of him, such that he knows everything about a person from before they are born. He is offering a poetic conceit, not making a commentary on when human life begins or when 'ensoulment' occurs.

To be sure, there are good and intellectually-honest arguments against abortion - sadly, this isn't one of them.

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

This is 'quote-mining' - the use of Biblical quotes taken out-of-context to mean something that they don't. One could easily find quotes in the Bible, taken out-of-context, to support infanticide (given the Old Testament commands issued against the Amalekites in 1 Samuel and the inhabitants of Jericho in Joshua), but this is not the point of these passages (since infanticide is still wrong).

Also, quoting Psalms to score political points is reprehensible, from a literary standpoint - in context, the psalmist is singing of the completeness of God's knowledge and wisdom in judgment of him, such that he knows everything about a person from before they are born. He is offering a poetic conceit, not making a commentary on when human life begins or when 'ensoulment' occurs.

To be sure, there are good and intellectually-honest arguments against abortion - sadly, this isn't one of them.

Very well, what about Luke 1: 39-45?

"During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste in the town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believe that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

Let's take a look at what happened here. John, a fetus, recognized Jesus, another fetus, and leaped for joy. A simple clump of cells cannot recognize the Lord and leap for joy at his existence. A human being with a soul, on the other hand, can. Therefore, at the moment of conception, Jesus and John must both have had souls.

[MagusYanam]

Very well, what about Luke 1: 39-45?

"During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste in the town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believe that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

Let's take a look at what happened here. John, a fetus, recognized Jesus, another fetus, and leaped for joy. A simple clump of cells cannot recognize the Lord and leap for joy at his existence. A human being with a soul, on the other hand, can. Therefore, at the moment of conception, Jesus and John must both have had souls.

There are several problems with this argument as well.

The first is that it happened sometime after (we don't know how long) Jesus and John were conceived. It is not an argument that 'at the moment of conception' anything. Secondly, stimulus response is common in foeti (leaping at the sound of a loud voice), but it is not proof that the foetus has a soul, since stimulus response is also present in plants and single-celled organisms - for which I have never heard an argument in favour of having souls.

I would argue that the only true proof for the presence of a soul (Gk. ψυχή, or 'vital breath' - as in Genesis 2:7) is the ability to understand and use language with explicit lexical content (λόγος). It signifies a self aware enough of herself to posit herself in relation to the 'others' in her world, even as simply as 'Mama' and 'Dada' - as we see in Genesis 2, as a literary symbol for all mankind, Adam's infancy and development was similar; he went about naming all the creatures.

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

So, if not for the creation of sign language, would a deaf person be considered soulless? What about a foreign man in a strange country? Is he considered to be soulless because of his inability to communicate?

Webster's dictionary states that the soul is "the emotional part of human nature." Therefore since John felt joy, he was human in the womb.