Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.religion Subject: Re: Random Definition - (nf) Message-ID: <977@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 09:33:46 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.977 Posted: Tue Aug 14 09:33:46 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 01:26:26 EDT References: <361@ih1ap.UUCP>, <44700023@uiucdcs.UUCP> <3424@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 65 >>> 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