Abortion and the whole 'breathing' thing

[His Name Is John]

I remember several members saying that until the child breaths, they are not 'alive', and thus can be aborted.

I just wondered what they made of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

I could mean potentially that people could go through life without ever taking a breath. They could live to be 70. Come up with several important philosophical ideas. They could get married and have kids.

To those people who say you are only alive if they breath, would the potential person I described be alive?

If so, then why not a foetus?

If not, then would it be morally ok to kill such a person?

[A Troubled Man]

I remember several members saying that until the child breaths, they are not 'alive', and thus can be aborted.

I just wondered what they made of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

I could mean potentially that people could go through life without ever taking a breath. They could live to be 70. Come up with several important philosophical ideas. They could get married and have kids.

It would help to distinguish what it is you're questioning. The action of breathing is the collection and distribution of oxygen to the blood. If merely not having lungs or the ability to breathe constitutes life, that would be different than the action of breathing as a means to an end.

The article talks about injecting micro-particles into the bloodstream as a result of acute lung failure.

[Hubert Humphrey]

To those people who say you are only alive if they breath, would the potential person I described be alive?

If so, then why not a foetus?

If not, then would it be morally ok to kill such a person?

Hello, His Name Is John.
Good questions, but let us be clear that "the whole 'breathing' thing" has less to do with science than it does with the biblical significance of breath.
In the original scriptures, breath, spirit, soul, and wind were typically interchangeable words because of their shared qualities of being invisible, yet vital.
Life was equated with breath because of breath's association with spirit. Here are some examples:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen.2:7
Notice here that man- fully formed- became a living soul only after breathing.

"And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." Gen.7:15 Breath and life are clearly equated in passages such as this.

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Job 33:4 Spirit, breath, and life all in the same sentence . . . you get the idea.

One more from the new testament: "Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life and breath."

But today we measure life by other criteria, most notably by brain wave patterns, so your argument is based on this standard rather than the old biblical standard. It boils down to what people accept and believe as their standard. If religious folk are to oppose abortion on the basis of fetuses being living souls, then they will have a hard time supporting it with scripture.

[Bust Nak]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

Wow, that's very cool. 15 minutes is a long time in an medical emergency.

[kayky]

I have an adult daughter. She grew inside my body. In the throes of great agony I delivered her to the world. Then I nourished her from my own body. I do not believe she was less a person before she drew her first breath.

Yet I am pro-choice. A first trimester fetus is not a person. After that it has to be between a woman and her doctor depending on medical circumstances. The government certainly has no business in such a decision.

[JohnPaul]

I remember several members saying that until the child breaths, they are not 'alive', and thus can be aborted.

I just wondered what they made of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

I could mean potentially that people could go through life without ever taking a breath. They could live to be 70. Come up with several important philosophical ideas. They could get married and have kids.

To those people who say you are only alive if they breath, would the potential person I described be alive?

If so, then why not a foetus?

If not, then would it be morally ok to kill such a person?

This may be a little aside from the question, but is it ever morally OK to kill any living thing? I am not a religious believer of any kind and have no official "standards" to guide me. During my life, I have killed many things, including some humans, I am sure, but the government assures us that they were not humans, but were "enemies." I am a gun owner and would not hesitate to kill to defend myself or my home and family. If someone intends to harm me, they are my enemy.

However, as I grow older, I have become increasingly aware of other living things sharing the planet with me. When I see a fly or a spider crawling on my countertop, I am instantly aware that they are innocent living creatures going about their business, with no intention to harm me. It is no great difficulty for me to shoo them outside, rather than kill them.

I know many people would consider this absurd, but however irrational, that is my "feeling." That is all that matters to me, not some artificial outside "morality" subject to religious or philosophical argument.

[bluethread]

The word "ruach" translated as breath refers to more than just inhaling and exhaling. Though it can be used in a limited context to mean that, it refers primarily to the spirit. In a world where incubators and ultrasound do not exist, the taking of a breath is a significant indication that a child is not stillborn. Thus, the term has come to signify life.

[Jake]

I'm an advocate for very, very strict limitations and regulations of abortion. I think some factors that come into play when deciding whether or not to abort a baby is whether or not the woman was raped, what her financial situation is, her reasons for aborting the baby, how healthy the baby will be, etc. I really don't see how whether or not the baby is "breathing" matters.

[Hubert Humphrey]

I really don't see how whether or not the baby is "breathing" matters.

It matters because the pro-life crowd tend to be bible zealots who state without scriptural substantiation that the soul, i.e. "life," starts at the moment of conception. This matters because it is the sole basis for their contention that abortion is murder.

They fail to realize three substantive facts:
1. The bible clearly defines a living soul as one that draws breath
2. The bible does not ever state that life, i.e. the soul, begins at conception; in fact, old testament scripture does not seem to attach any general significance to the life of infants until they have reached thirty days of age
3. "Murder" by legal definition involves "malice aforethought," in other words the mother would have to be aborting the fetus for the purpose of doing it harm; this is never the case

[Jake]

It matters because the pro-life crowd tend to be bible zealots who state without scriptural substantiation that the soul, i.e. "life," starts at the moment of conception. This matters because it is the sole basis for their contention that abortion is murder.

This is another reason I can't stand outspoken religious zealots; they're making pro-life atheists look bad! I wish we could just make sound, ethical choices and define some very strict limits on abortion because it's the right thing to do, not because the Bible says it!

3. "Murder" by legal definition involves "malice aforethought," in other words the mother would have to be aborting the fetus for the purpose of doing it harm; this is never the case

I don't see how that's relevant. The baby will still never be allowed to grow up and have a chance at a successful, fulfilling existence. It doesn't matter if there was malice behind the abortion or not.