From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:56:18 GMT

In article <74333@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov09.170021.28822@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> |In article <74157@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> In article <1992Nov06.211949.14647@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> ||> |In article <73889@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> ||> In article <Bx9J8z.5F1@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|> ||> ||> |In article <72646@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> ||> |>
|> ||> |
|> ||> 
|> ||> ||> |>Jer 1:5   "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you
|> ||> ||> |>      were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to
|> ||> ||> |>      the nations."
|> ||> ||> |>


|> |
|> |So, let's see if I've got your view straight - you believe:
|> |a) the "knowing" and "setting apart" in this verse are not relevant to
|> |the abortion issue (since you believe both can [and do] happen prior to
|> |conception)
|> |and
|> 
|> Agreed.
|> 
|> |b) The significance to the abortion issue comes from the "fact" that God
|> |mentions "formed in the womb" and "birth" as "events" in Jeremiah's life.
|> 
|> Agreed.
|> 
|> |Am I with you so far?
|> 
|> Yes.
|> 
|> |As to a). 
|> |Every sermon, article, etc I've heard on the topic places the relevance to
|> |the abortion issue in the fact that Jeremiah was "called" before birth. You
|> 
|> I'd have to see the article.  Yes, he was called before birth, but that
|> has to do with God's ability and not Jeremiah's existence.  As I cited,
|> God calls things that are not as though they are.
|> 
|> |are free to hold different opinions on this, but I think this is where the
|> |confusion comes in. The objection that the traditional pro-life interpretation
|> |of this verse negates divine foreknowledge (advanced by Publius among others)
|> 
|> If you can email to me or include an unedited track passage or something 
|> that presents this "tradional view", then I could agree or disagree with 
|> you on your understanding of this traditional view.  I'm not saying it
|> is not out there.  

Not worth pursuing - we're discussing the reasons YOU see this verse as anti-abortion.

|> 
|> |applies to the usual interpretation, but (as I see it, Publius can speak for
|> |himself) doesn't apply to your views if I've summarized them correctly above.
|> 
|> Agreed.
|> 
|> |So your interpretation wiggles (not meant perjoratively) out of this difficulty,
|> |but does so at the cost of losing about all of the pro-life force of the verse.
|> |Because b)
|> |NO ONE on the pro-choice side denies that human beings are "formed" in the womb!!
|> |The question is "When is the forming significantly complete?".  IF, as you believe,
|> |we are "formed in the womb", then we are NOT formed at conception. Think of a timeline
|> 
|> We begin at conception - and are formed (grow) all along in the womb, as
|> we continue to do until we are about 25 years old.  I haven't said
|> pro-choicers deny the forming (growing) in the womb.  Conception is
|> a definite point in this processes.  Birth is a definite point too,
|> but without conception and the forming we wouldn't get to birth.  All
|> of them are significant.   You can't have the latter without the former.

And without sex we wouldn't get to contraception. But you don't advocate an 
anti-abstinence view so the big question remains "Why the big division at
conception?".  If that's the "great divide" then why doesn't this verse say
"before you were conceived I knew you"? The BEST this verse can give you is
that Jeremiah existed after being formed in the womb and before birth. It
offers NO support for the view that life begins at conception.

|> 
|> |                 a                 b                           c
|> |-----------------|-----------------|---------------------------|
|> |             conception    forming process complete          birth
|> |                             (person exists)
|> |
|> |The fundamental question in abortion is where does b lie? Traditional 
|> |pro-life position is that b=a. But note that it seems to me that the only
|> |biblical verse they offer as evidence is this Jeremiah quote and it says
|> |NOTHING about conception. In fact,as you seem to agree, it mentions only
|> 
|> The passages that mention conception lump it very closely to the
|> sex act.

I wonder why:-). well, at least you've found someting in the bible that I
can agree with.  

|> The passages pretty much pertain to those who are in
|> the linage of Jesus - it often says so and so lay with his wife and
|> she conceived.
|> 
|> The conception of Jeremiah isn't mentioned here, but we know it happened.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key point, I'm glad you agree.
|> 
|> Again, the forming, which began at conception, and the birth are give
|> equal significance.

No, the point when Jeremiah was "formed" (the END of the process) and the
birth are both mentioned (any equality of significance is implied)
  
|> 
|> |b & c. It offers NO INFORMATION AT ALL as to the relationship between 
|> |a & b, hence it says ABSOLUTELY nothing about the abortion question!!!!
|> |Where do you see any applicability at all?
|> 
|> The forming is significant, else why mention it? 

That's MY point. It's mentioned because the earliest point one could claim 
Jeremiah existed was at the conclusion of the forming! Turn your question
around...if conception, not "formation", is the significant point why is it
NOT mentioned? Don't you think that if God meant this passage to be used
2500 years later as a basis for the pro-life movement he was capable of
being clear about it?

|> For the sake of
|> the argument, if one grants that the forming process is not started at 
|> conception, but some where else but yet prior to birth, then there should
|> be some reasonable restrictions placed on abortion. However, the pro-choice
|> side continues to lobby for NO restrictions.  Some could argue that
|> SOME reasons are valid for abortions, but as it is now one can get an
|> abortion for ANY reason.  Why not have some restrictions?

Of course, the forming process STARTS at conception - and, while I'm not all
that familiar with the biology, I think it clearly ends before birth. We haven't
really defined "forming" yet - I'm using it in the sense that all the major organs
have formed, most importantly the point at which the brain and nervous system
are significantly developed. 

The bit about the pro-choice side lobbying for NO restrictions is rhetorical
exageration, but I can't complain because I do it too. I don't think you'll find
many who argue for unrestricted third trimester abortions, but I'll admit there
are some out there. In their defense however, even granting completed formation
prior to birth, their ARE other aspects to this issue (there is an undisputed
"person" involved and the forming is happening in HER body, strictly religious
arguments are not binding, etc.).

|> 
|> |Couple this with 3 other facts:
|> |  a) Pro-lifers can't (at least to my knowledge) provide any other biblical
|> |     "evidence" against abortion
|> 
|> John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb, when Mary, who was six months 
|> pregnant with Jesus, came to visit them.  Conception is often mentioned
|> as the starting/initial point - and you agree it is the starting point,
|> correct?  As you say, people want the supposed right to relinquish
|> their responsibility and so have pushed the issue to this supposedly
|> vague devolopment period.  Abortions are generally performed after the 6 
|> or 7 week of pregnacy not at conception.  The unborn is perfectly viable
|> in the womb.  It is man's technology that cannot support the baby outside
|> the womb - God's design (the woman's womb) can support the life.

So JtB kicked at a particular time as a fetus. Surely, you have more than that
to back up your argument? Abortions usually occur very near to the time pregnancy
is determined. Unfortunately God's design didn't include a digital readout to
indicate conception has occurred, maybe it'll make Release 2:). If you want to
push the abortions back in time to increase the chances of "not killing", then
surely you support the availability of RU-486? No?
|> 
|> |  b) they consistently ignore a verse that has God saying that a pre-birth 
|> |     "life" and a post-birth life are not equivalent (the Exodus passage)
|> 
|> Is the pre-birth life insignficant?  I think not.

But that's not the question! Is the pre-birth life significant enough to warrant
protection under murder laws? God says no - what do you say?
|> 
|> |  c) They consistently ignore the FACT that god commands the Jewish priests
|> |     to commit abortions. (Numbers 5)
|> 
|> This was a judgement against adultery.  Have we gone so far as to
|> think that what was a punishment is now to be desired?

Come on Richard, no one DESIRES an abortion. Apparently God thought that
abortion was preferable to an undesired (bastard in this case) kid - why
do you disagree?

|> 
|> |and you see why we question the motives & integrity of those who claim biblical
|> |backing for banning abortions. It just ain't there (of course even it was there
|> |it wouldn't be sufficient grounds to impose it on non-Christians).
|> 
|> Justice can be imposed on any one - check out the legislative system.
|> It may not be imposed on purely religious grounds, but just because
|> religion agrees or supports something doesn't make it only a church issue.
|> The church opposes murder as does the state and we think this is ok.
|> We (Americans) are to prompt the common welfare of the people.

But this IS purely religious grounds! The pro-life movement has made precious
little effort to advance any secular arguments. Because it's hard to rationally
justify giving preferential rights to a parasitic (not meant in the perjorative sense)
non-sentient being over a fully-conscious, developed human. Do you deny that the
pro-life forces prefer religious appeals?

|> 
|> For Christ and His Kingdom,
|> Richard Pitts
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |