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