Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.religion
Subject: Re: Random Definition - (nf)
Message-ID: <3424@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 13:36:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3424
Posted: Mon Aug 13 13:36:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 02:50:13 EDT
References: <361@ih1ap.UUCP>, <44700023@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 76

>
>/**** 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)