From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:48:29 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov11.135618.25303@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|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)
  
FORMED - yes that is the word, but FORMED is not an instantaneous thing.
The process starts at conception.

||> 
||> |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?

Why is conception mentioned at all in the Bible?  Why do people within
the first month or two get so excited that they are going to give birth?
They know the proces has started - it is a process.  

||> 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. 

Why is it not the whole process (conception forward)?  Man or rather woman
of her own will doesn't cause the forming of the unborn - she can help
or hurt this process by proper or improper neonatal care, but she can't
cause the unborn to form.  The forming from conception is part of the
amazing thing of life - God gave it to us - he is responsible - he
designed us.

|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.).

Why is it so hard to get any real restrictions?  People want a way out
and that is why we have such a problem.  People don't plan they act
and then sometime latter realize they should have planned.  So they
try to avoid the responsibility.

||> 
||> |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?

David speaks of God being his God from his mothers womb, which isn't real
clear, but see the Exodus discussion below.

||> 
||> |  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?

I think you misunderstood what Exodus says.  If there is no serious 
injury and the birth is premature there is a fine.  However, it there
is serious injure - it is LIFE for LIFE.  How else could the man
pay for a the lack of birth, but by his life?  Children are a blessing
from the Lord - many children are seen as God honor upon a family.

    Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)   "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant 
    woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious 
    injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband 
    demands and the court allows. {23} But if there is serious 
    injury, you are to take life for life, {24} eye for eye, tooth 
    for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, {25} burn for burn, 
    wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 

||> 
||> |  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?

The passage was not about a voluntary act of abortion desired or choosen
as the "best" way out, but about punishment.  Many of the OT laws had
a death penalty - why do we want this as an option?

||> 
||> |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?

Why is this purely religious and the ending of an adult life (murder) isn't?
Is it not because you believe one is complete life and the other isn't?
God honors all life.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc