You are warned by the makers of Plan B One Step to not use the product if you are pregnant.

“You can read about it here.

No. Only a fool would equate the two. Abortions stop a pregnancy that is already in progress. The morning after pill prevents a pregnancy from starting and cannot stop a pregnancy that is already in progress. I am not opposed to it, nor am I opposed to birth control in general.

@bkcunningham Did you actually read the warning?

Yes, I did read the warning.

Then you’ll notice that your answer has nothing to do with the question asked.

@SavoirFaire, the question asks about abortion and the morning after pill aka Plan B One Step. You don’t take the morning after pill if you are pregnant, thus eliminating any question of abortion.

But that’s not what your answer says. You just talked about being warned not to take the pill when pregnant. By answering so indirectly, you imply the opposite of what you are now claiming to have said.

@SavoirFaire Only a fool? Or perhaps a Christian who believes life begins at conception, which would be after that sexual act. Please don’t be a bully, we’re all women here.

I think women who use the morning after pill as an excuse or positive reenforcement to be promiscuous and irresponsible should be allowed to use it ONCE unless it’s a case of incest or rape.

There is no problem with birth control for me, because you’re preventing the ‘spark’ of life before it hurts anyone.

@KNOWITALL are you claiming that the morning after pill does not prevent conception?

No. It prevents implantation, ergo, there is no pregnancy. Birth control pills also function (partially) by preventing implantation.

There is a slim chance conception can happen and plan B can help prevent the fertilized egg from attaching, but very slim chance. Even if you take plan B, if ovulation already occured before you took the pill, plan B may not work, which is part of the reason it has a biggish failure rate. The main purpose of plan B is to prevent ovulation so conception never happens.

@Cupcake No I am not. I think using it in ER / rape crisis centers, etc…is a wonderful, humane thing to do.

Plan B One-Step® is not effective in terminating an existing pregnancy. Do not use Plan B One-Step® if you are already pregnant because it will not work. Plan B One-Step® does not protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Side effects may include changes in your period, nausea, lower abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, and dizziness. If your period is more than a week late, you may be pregnant. You should not take Plan B One-Step® if you are already pregnant. Plan B One-Step® should not be used as a routine birth control, as it is not as effective. If you have severe abdominal pain, you may have an ectopic pregnancy, and should get immediate medical help.

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA at www.fda.gov/medwatch or call
1–800-FDA-1088. Click here for full product information.

Source

I would say if someone is ok with an IUD, they should be ok with plan B.

@bkcunningham Right, don’t take it when pregnant because it doesn’t work to abort the fetus.

@KNOWITALL I’m curious, you said that you’d allow the women to use it once after being irresponsible. How would you enforce that rule?

@KNOWITALL If it prevents conception, why shouldn’t everyone feel free to take it?

@JLeslie I think that should be clear. But also, since its primary mode of pregnancy prevention is to prevent ovulation… more people should be OK with it than an IUD. My 2 cents

It’s a high dose birth control pill. Shouldn’t everyone who is OK with birth control be OK with plan B?

To be clear… this is not an “argue with @KNOWITALL” thread. but no one else has offered a negative opinion on the use of the morning after pill

@Cupcake I can see your point. There are people OK with IVF, but not with any type of abortion or even plan B. That makes no sense to me. There are all sorts of inconsistencies in the topic of abortion. I think women should have the right to abort, but I agree with viability being a line that should be drawn. Even I have my limits.

@JLeslie Agreed. Since I believe in the attachment of a soul at conception, I feel funny about IVF… mostly about the unused/discarded embryos. But I don’t believe that my spiritual beliefs should be law.

@Rarebear Most Pro-Lifers feel like abortions should be granted on a case by case basis by a judge in your local area. A physician, family, friends, etc…are allowed to testify. If you can penalize a man for killing a woman and her fetus as two murders, then that ‘potential child’ deserves someone fighting for it’s life as well.

@Cupcake I’m a big girl and this is close to my heart. I was also born on the date abortion was legalized here in the States, and have been a local poster-child for this subject a few times. My uncle was VP of Mo Right To Life as well.

As most know, my father tried to have me aborted/ killed, then when that failed he tried to abduct my mother via his plane to fly her out of state for an abortion against her will. Luckily family members intervened before he succeeded, which is why I’m alive today.

*I said ONCE because sexually responsible people should learn the first time.

@KNOWITALL So it sounds to me like this is an issue of personal responsibility… not so much that the pill causes an abortion or has some spiritual implications. Am I close?

And I had no idea about the situation with your father/mother. Woah. Quite a story.

@Cupcake The Catholic church has taken a stand against IVF, but most Christians I know who aren’t Catholic seem to be fine with it, and as far as I know the church leaders are also. I don’t get it. Ok with placing embryos in a freezer? Ok with creating embryos when we know statistically the majority will not make it. I figure the Catholic church since it consults with scientists and medical doctors understands the science well. I don’t agree with them about the soul entering at the time of conception, but I respect the belief and their consistency.

@KNOWITALL Fair enough. I don’t agree, obviously, but I am just checking the logic.

@KNOWITALL Plan B prevents conception, it cannot stop the process after conception has started. So yes, only someone who doesn’t understand how these things work will equate the two. And as a bit of scientific fact, you should know that conception does not necessarily occur immediately after a sexual act. Sometimes it happens right away, sometimes it doesn’t. If you don’t understand the basic facts of how the process works, you’re going to say foolish things sometimes.

And we’re not all women here. I’m a man, as are a few other participants in the conversation.

@SavoirFaire Did I say that it did something else? I don’t see that post if so.
Sorry, I thought you were female, hard to tell here sometimes.

@Cupcake It’s all about personal responsiblity for most Republicans.

@Rarebear May I ask your personal opinion?

@JLeslie I’m Catholic and I used birth control with no guilt since I wasn’t married.

I do not equate Plan B with abortion any more than I equate birth control pills or condoms with abortion. It is my understanding that Plan B prevents a pregnancy and doesn’t terminate a pregnancy. I believe in birth control as a right and a responsibility.

@JLeslie it would make sense that the Catholic Church would disallow Plan B because they disallow all contraceptives. The only birth control condoned by the Catholic Church is Natural Family Planning, formerly known as the Rhythm Method.

@KNOWITALL, I respect your opinion and I am totally trying to understand your perspective here. Are you saying if the sperm and the egg meet that to your mind, anything that prevents implantation of the embryo is considered abortion? That would seem to align with your wanting to make it a one time offer and available in cases of rape and incest. As I said, I am not wanting to argue, just wanting to understand where you are coming from. I do have to agree that Plan B should be considered a last resort rather than a regular form of birth control.

@KNOWITALL I understand your point about using birth control without guilt because you weren’t married, but as a formerly devout Catholic I gotta know how you had sex outside of marriage without guilt!

Also, controlling a woman’s right to chose actually takes away her personal responsibility so the Republicans might be slightly off track there.

@KNOWITALL Here are your words:

“Only a fool? Or perhaps a Christian who believes life begins at conception, which would be after that sexual act.”

These words were directed at me, and the context was you responding to my claim that “Only a fool would equate [use of the morning after pill with abortion].” According to the rules of the English language, those words made in response to that claim amount to an assertion that the morning after pill can have an effect post-conception. If you did not mean to assert that, then you should have written something different.

Note: you made a similarly mistaken assertion as part of the other discussion here.

In any case, I find it surprising when people get so offended over having their foolishness pointed out to them. We are all ignorant about a vast number of things. There is much more to know than we could ever learn, and our ignorance outstrips our wisdom by orders of magnitude that we can barely understand. Foolishness is just ignorance made visible, and being foolish provides a prime opportunity for learning.

You had the opportunity to be one of today’s lucky 10,000—but instead, you decided to be offended.

A) Yet another method of preventing pregnancy.

B) I am not opposed to the use of a morning after pill under any circumstances.

C) I am for birth control for all who want to use it. Because no single method works for every individual, I favor a variety of methods all readily available at reasonable cost.

D) If you want to use a variety of methods to prevent pregnancy in conjuction with each other I say “go for it” be it Nuvaring and a condom or an IUD and the morning after pill.

I do think you ought to heed the warning of the mfg. that this product is NOT a method of birth control.

Guys I’m trying to explain and work, so give me a minute.

No matter what its’ failure rate, it has got to be better than this:
“Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, suggested in his work Gynecology that women wishing to abort their pregnancies should engage in violent exercise, energetic jumping, carrying heavy objects, and riding animals. He also prescribed a number of recipes for herbal bathes, pessaries, and bloodletting, but advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage due to the risk of organ perforation. [26] It is also known that the ancient Greeks relied upon the herb silphium as both a contraceptive and an abortifacient. The plant, as the chief export of Cyrene, was driven to extinction, but it is suggested that it might have possessed the same abortive properties as some of its closest extant relatives in the Apiaceae family.”

I especially like the mention that a particular plant was driven to extinction because of abortive properties. Evidently unwanted pregnancy is not a new thing. Who knew?

@KNOWITALL My personal opinion? Truth be told, I’m pro-choice, but I think that every abortion is a societal tragedy, and a necessary evil. I was actually trained in how to do an abortion, but I made a personal decision not to do them myself. But I always referred a patient to someone who would.

I don’t feel the same about Plan B. I see Plan B as just high dose birth control pills

@Rarebear Thanks, I also believe that it’s a tragedy, but not a necessary one. :(

Repeating myself from that other thread.

I think a lot of people don’t understand how the ‘morning after’ pill works. It prevents a pregnancy from occurring, it doesn’t “abort” a pregnancy. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

So, no. I don’t equate the two.

@SuperMouse As I said, I am fine with the Catholic church stance because it is consistent. I was talking about IVF regarding them, not plan B, but I agree it makes sense. Although, since they are ok with rhythm, logically, that is preventing a pregnancy, so really I can’t understand being against preventing conception in general. I used “rhythm” even though I am not Catholic for years and never became pregnant accidently, and did become pregnant when I wanted to. Before age 35 I could not have sex without knowing whether I was having sex on a fertile day or not. I always knew the day I ovulated.

@KNOWITALL I forgot to answer you. I don’t mean Catholics, I mean the church, the Pope, the rules Catholics are supposed to follow. Most Catholics I know use birth control

@augustlan Yeah, I think a lot of people confuse the morning after pill with mifepristone.

@SuperMouse Catholic guilt never goes away, but I’m not a cradle Catholic, I converted, so maybe that was it…lol

@KNOWITALL how can you say it is not necessary? There are absolutely circumstances where an abortion can be considered 100% necessary.

No, I do not equate it with abortion. No, I am not opposed to birth control.

@SuperMouse Not to everyone.

@KNOWITALL How about a situation where the options are:

(1) Woman and fetus both perish.

(2) Only the fetus perishes.

If the fetus is a lost cause in either case, then I don’t see how it could be anything but immoral to say that the woman has to die as well to satisfy some bizarre sense of righteousness.

@KNOWITALL it doesn’t have to be to everyone – only to the person for whom it is an absolute necessity. It is none of anyone else’s business.

@SavoirFaire @SuperMouse All women have the legal right to abort and have for the 40 years I’ve been on this earth, and have used that right often.

No need to get angry at me for not condoning it for myself personally, I don’t, and I never will think it’s okay. I think there’s a moral obligation to God to provide safe haven for the child he blesses a person with.

@SavoirFaire I feel you forgot the third option: fetus perishes and woman is saved. Woman who can go on to have more children, be a mother to the children she already has birthed. A fetuses life is much less stable than an adult. Fetuses die and miscarry all the time. If we have to choose whose life is more important, I don’t see how in most cases the mother’s life isn’t the most important. We aren’t in a time of small populations where the young matter most to perserve the human race.

@KNOWITALL First I want to say, I have no problem with you believing life begins at conception, just to be clear. I am not arguing here, just trying to understand your point of view. Why would the baby from rape not also still be from God?

@KNOWITALL I am not angry with you, I am just trying to understand your perspective. From this and many of your posts here I have always gotten the impression that you are solidly in favor of taking away a woman’s right to chose. Is that not the case?

@SuperMouse Good, that’s what the purpose is I’d think.

I couldn’t do it myself, but I think choice is important, as God has given us all a choice since the beginning of time. So no, I won’t help take away the choice of my sisters, but I am Pro-Life so morally I cannot condone abortion.

I would hold my besties hand if she needed it, I’d raise her child, or offer whatever help I could, but I wouldn’t get angry and never talk to her again because of her decision to abort, if that helps.

@JLeslie Incest and rape are forcible circumstances that are beyond a person’s control, so that’s why those exceptions are generally allowable to Republicans.

The child and mother are free of blame or guilt, and of course the child is still from God.

Mentally it’s more difficult to have your daddy’s baby, or your rapists child though.

@KNOWITALL That’s not an argument. And I don’t think we’re getting angry. We’re supposed to be having a discussion here, and now you’re trying to back out of it with the “I’m entitled to my opinion” excuse. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. And since this is a discussion site, we are entitled to critique your opinion once you’ve made it public.

You presented a claim, and we offered counterarguments to that claim. That’s how discussion works. You have your position, and you have offered reasons for holding it. Those reasons are not good reasons, and @SuperMouse and I are pointing out that fact. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but debate isn’t really about comfort.

@JLeslie Wouldn’t that option be subsumed by “only the fetus perishes”? If only the fetus perishes, then the woman does not.

RU-486 is an abortion pill. Plan B is not. I don’t see anything wrong with either birth control or abortion.

@KNOWITALL that really doesn’t clarify your position. Do you believe abortion should be illegal?

@SavoirFaire What is your question, sir?

@SuperMouse No.

@KNOWITALL It wasn’t a question; it was a statement. You could answer my previous question, though:

If presented with a situation in which the only options were to abort and save the life of the mother or not abort and lose both the mother and the fetus, which would be the right thing to do? If the former, then you cannot say there are no circumstances under which abortion might be necessary (in this case, morally necessary). If the latter, then I would argue that your system of morality is far too bizarre to be taken seriously.

I think the morning after pill is a method of defining and clarifying the line between the ill-conceived and un-conceived.

@SavoirFaire Yes. Oy. I meant the thrid option is fetus survives woman perishes. If the woman’s life is in danger she can wind up harmed or dead and the fetus can survive. Let’s say she strokes out because she chooses to stay pregnant when it is very dangerous. Or, doesn’t get her cancer treatment to stay pregnant. Those things happen. When my sister worked at a Holy Cross Hospital the patient had to go to another hospital to get her abortion so she could treat the cancer they had discovered, Holy Cross was the usual hospital she went to and where her OB was credentialed.

@SavoirFaire I once would have agreed with you, but too many women have told me otherwise as far as whether thri lives are more important than their child’s possibility of survival.

It may seem bizarre to you, but I assume you are not a Christian, let alone a Catholic.

Not the same. Some people need a refresher course on reproduction. Shakes head.

They are two entirely different things, so no, I don’t! I have no problem with the use of the morning after pill or abortion as I believe in women’s right to bodily autonomy.

I am fairly certain that anyone who believes the morning after pill is the same thing as abortion does not understand what it is or how it works.

@JLeslie I understand that the third option exists in some cases, but I was asking about a situation in which there were only two options. Not all situations present all three options as possible outcomes. I am thus focusing on a particular set of circumstances to make a particular point.

@KNOWITALL Read the question again: I am asking about a situation in which there is no possibility of the fetus surviving and developing into a person in either scenario. And while I am not Christian anymore, I once was. I even trained for the clergy. But I have been pro-choice for as long as I’ve been aware of the issue (which would be since around the age of 12 or 13). My former Christian self would have found it just as bizarre that someone believed they should sacrifice their life for no reason (since the scenario stipulates that no child will come to be either way) as I do today.

No. I agree with @SavoirFaire
Preventing implantation is not even close to aborting a fetus.

@SavoirFaire So a man considering the clergy at one point and a Christian doesn’t believe in miracles? When no possiblity exists there is always the omnipotent Creator of all Life, my friend. Sacrifice of self for others is what Jesus is all about.

I’m not surprised, now that you’ve told me this, that we’ve disagreed and miscommunicated, thank you for sharing that.

@KNOWITALL No, I do not believe in miracles. Neither did my pastor. He had theological reasons for believing that God could not be both morally perfect and perform specialized miracles for individuals. The only miracles he believed in were those that affected the entire world (such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).

In any case, it seems to me that you are avoiding the question. I asked very specifically about a situation in which it is known that there are only two possible outcomes. If you really want to insist that this is something that cannot be known—which, strictly speaking, is irrelevant to the procedure of a thought experiment—then we can stipulate instead that the best available evidence says that there are only two possible outcomes. It is irrational to act against the best available evidence, and no loving God could reasonably blame someone for acting rationally after building them to be a rational being.

So I ask: if the only options are to abort and save the life of the mother or not abort and lose both the mother and the fetus, which would be the right thing to do?

@SavoirFaire In that circumstance, I’d say that was a moral question for the mother herself to debate in her own soul, and whatever she chooses is the right thing to do for her.

For some of us, it’s not even a choice, you know, even for our country or a stranger, soldiers do it every day. I’m sure there are a lot of women in the world that would choose self over anything, so theoretically I would be wrong to give you either answer definitively.

*So afer this is over, I wouldn’t mind talking to you a little more in future. You interest me, and I’m actually very open-minded, but I hold very firm beliefs.

@KNOWITALL Thank you for answering the question, and for doing it thoughtfully. It seems we agree, then, that it would be wrong to say that the woman has to sacrifice herself in this situation (which is what the case was meant to prove).

I don’t think it is correct to say, however, that soldiers (and those like them) do not make a choice. They do make a choice wherever service is voluntary, and often it is a noble one. I am not disregarding the value that self-sacrifice may have. I am only pointing out that it seems rather irrational in cases where it is known that the act can do no good as it thereby prevents all the good one could do were one to continue living. Some sacrifices are senseless, and I see no virtue in encouraging them.

Sure, but I can be glib in the way a fella can be glib about abortion when he’s never had to deal with it specifically in his life.

For the record I am pro-choice.

@SavoirFaire To me, a woman and a soldier both would have to think about whether to risk their lives for others, that was my point. Isn’t any true sacrifice for others a good thing, senseless or not? Jesus died on the cross for all of us, but we still have to decide to accept or reject his teachings.

These kinds of Q’s are always interesting because a lot of people here don’t understand how Christian’s base politics on religion, they simply don’t ‘get it’, but it’s really very simple.

“These kinds of Q’s are always interesting because a lot of people here don’t understand how Christian’s base politics on religion, they simply don’t ‘get it’, but it’s really very simple.”

…......

“To me, a woman and a soldier both would have to think about whether to risk their lives for others, that was my point.”

Exactly. That’s why I disagreed when you said it wasn’t a choice. They think about it, and they decide what to do. That’s what making a choice is.

“Isn’t any true sacrifice for others a good thing, senseless or not?”

You are introducing a new word to the formulation here. What counts as a “true” sacrifice (as opposed to a “false” one)? In any case, it seems to me that reason puts a strong limit on the extent to which something senseless could be good. If something is truly futile and it is known that it is futile, then I don’t think it can be good.

Consider the Spartans at Thermopylae. Their actions were not futile because they achieved their goal, despite dying in the process. They held back the invading Persian army long enough for the rest of the Greek city-states to join organize a resistance that would be able to successfully defeat Xerxes. But a woman who dies for no reason (e.g., who refuses to get an abortion even when the fetus will definitely be lost) does nothing virtuous. What she does is irrational, and irrationality is contrary to virtue.

Nor is this some pagan idea. While the place of reason in virtue goes back to Plato and Aristotle, it was wholly accepted by Aquinas and the Catholic Church. God did not make us rational beings for us to discard is gift in favor of irrationality. Even if there must be leaps of faith in life, there is a difference between being acting for reasons that go beyond reason and acting contrary to reason. This, if you are interested, is a key notion in the theistic existentialism of Kierkegaard.

“a lot of people here don’t understand how Christian’s base politics on religion”

Nor do a lot of Christians understand how their leaders claim to base their politics on their religion while actually perverting Christianity and serving their own interestes instead. But we can leave that discussion for another day.

@Blackberry What is your point, that you don’t get it either? If you don’t understand it, you certainly can’t change it.

@SavoirFaire Yeah, another day. Thanks for the convo.

@KNOWITALL I think we do get it. That is why my dad left the Republican party, because more and more they were basing their politics in religion. The party made a concious and deliberate effort to go after the bible belt at one point, meaning went after them to gain their loyalty and votes, when they saw southerners were becoming disenchanted with the Democrats. Remember the south was home to Democrats, Dixiecrats, for many years. Over time, especially in the last 30 years, the religious right gained a lot of power in the Republican party and became the “base” of the party. The social issues began to drive the wedge between the two parties more and more. It’s brilliant really. If you tie up religion with politics, especially Christianity in America, you have a large audience. A big part of that audience believes Christianity is the only right religion and they fear the wrath of God if citizens of the US don’t follow His word. The politicians and clergy also effectively tell their parishners that the “other” people in the US are trying to take away Christianity and Christian values. So, agreeing with the other side on an issue means not being Christian enough.

I don’t think of you this way. I think when it comes to abortion you have very personal reasons for your thoughts on the topic, I am sure your religious beliefs also add onto it, but I don’t lump you in as a Christian who won’t consider each topic separately; I don’t see you as someone who is just following along with the party.

@JLeslie I think you may, but you’re smarter than the average jelly in my opinion. :)

See, I don’t agree that God will get angry with us for our votes on social issues, at all, but I do believe most Christians try to follow God’s will in every aspect of their lives, as is possible. Unfortunately, you can have all the Christians voting Republican and no Republican leaders that actually care about God or right/ wrong. So we stay in this endless circle.

@KNOWITALL Maybe angry with us, or using the phrase “wrath of God” was off base. It seems to me Christians try to deliver God’s word. Live by God’s laws, so if their religion says gay marriage and abortion is wrong for example, then fighting for the country to be moral and not condone it makes sense. That’s more descriptive of how I think they think about it. But, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It’s not just that some minister told them it’s wrong, the people internalize it and agree those behaviors are wrong. I guess also some people feel they can help the other person by not allowing it. Many Christians talk about women who now regret the abortion they had. If it had not been permitted we could have helped that woman not have to live with her regret; spared her that life long regret. I absolutely don’t think all people against abortion all think exactly the same about it, nor have all the same reasons why they are against it, or gay marriage, or whatever other issue we pick that has some religious background behind it.

The thing is, it basically feels like Christians wanting the world to be Christian, or at least the US, when they put their religion into the politics and laws instead of sticking to ethics and science. Even under ethics and science abortion can be debated, it’s not like all of a sudden the topic is undone and there is just choas and no laws.

All true Christians have a problem going against God’s word/ the Bible. Some of us see things differently, or realize it was written long ago by fallible men as well.

Jesus teaching’s seem to directly contradict certain passages in the Bible, so I use my brain and common sense to make my decisions about what I believe God/ Jesus would have me to do.

I think I’ve mentioned my uncle Dave here before. He is one of THOSE Christians who is so incredibly rigid that no one can hardly stand to be around him. I could never see him sitting down and trying to understand a LGBT. In fact, he has almost single-handedly destroyed our family unit. We can’t cuss, sing, drink a glass of wine or sing Black Betty in his presccence, nor his wife and son. That kind of narrow-mindedness can’t be pleasing to God, but he feels that it is, and is a very conservative Christian Republican, and very politically active. Needless to say, we don’t talk anymore and haven’t since I called him a hypocrit a year or two ago. It’s sad and he wasn’t raised to disregard others feelings at all, we’re not sure when it turned so negative and ugly.

@KNOWITALL It’s not just Christians, which is why I often say religious right rather than Christian right depending on the specific topic at hand. My father finally said religion is ridiculous when his family kind of shunned his uncle and his uncle’s Catholic wife. My dad felt breaking apart a family over religious differences and some sort of rule that marrying outside of the faith meant you were now outside of the family was horrible. They weren’t Orthodox, but they were “old world” as I call it, and it was many years ago. But, today still, in orthodox communities marrying outside the faith is a huge problem and can get your shunned just like it is among Amish and Jehovah and others. It’s the religiousity, not the particular religion. In America we can be cafeteria Catholics as they say, or cafeteria put what ever religion in there you want. But, those who adhere strictly to the religion are similar to your uncle at least in some ways no matter what religion. On abortion it just happens to be that in Judaism saving the mother is paramount when a decision of life and death is to be made. Among Muslims I don’t know. I don’t know the eastern religions either on the topic. As far as the soul, for Christians it is at conception, for Jews it isn’t. I’m Jewish and whatever the od testament says exactly on the topic doesn’t concern me, because as you know I am not religious, although I would find it interesting to know what the various religions think. Also, I am not going to obligate a Christian to do what a rabbi says is right by trying to make a law about it.

Anyway, I think we overall agree :).

Apparently the heartbeat starts 18 days after conception, that’s why it was difficult for me to pinpoint the exact verbage/ minute to consider it ‘killing’ the baby last week with you.

Anyway, as you said, we generally agree. Yeah!

@KNOWITALL Not trying to start up an argument, because from what you have said conception is where you actually draw the line not when the heartbeat starts, but the plan B pill specifically is way before 18 days, even if it is preventing implantation. Some might argue it isn’t really a heart beat that early, not a four chamber human heart, but it is true a circulatory system is formed somewhere in the third week that now circulates the baby’s blood.

@JLeslie It’s all good, I understand, that’s why it was difficult to pinpoint the difference in terminating an embroy or killing a baby.

There’s also no head or brain at the time that the heart first forms. Moreover, the heart is different from all of your other muscles. It can keep beating even if you are decapitated (which most people would think makes you good and dead). And check out this video of a turtle heart beating after being completely separated from the body. Hearts don’t really make good indicators of either life or personhood.

@SavoirFaire Can I ask why this subject is so important to you?

Every time I post, you’re there to blow off any reasons NOT to terminate a baby’s life, so I’m just curious as to your motivations in this discussion.

Because your opinions are backed up with fairy tales and he is trying to explain the scientific truth.

You have the right to your opinion, but not to inaccurate facts that justify your opinion.

@tinyfaery Abortion is legal, women do it every day, you already won that war back on ½2/73.

SavoirFaire was adding another fact to my fact, he didn’t actually correct me, and then justified it with his OPINION on whether or not a heartbeat is a good indicator.

Do you want me to define opinion and fact for you?

Don’t condescend to me. You will not win. You have no concept of logic. Should I define that for you? You sure need it.

You don’t want to fuck with me. Just go complain about me on a thread I am not involved in. Try it. I dare you.

Don’t bother. I refuse to waste my time on you. Peace and hair grease.

@tinyfaery Bahahaha, oh you’re priceless honey. Virtual threats are awesome. :)
So awesome I’m giving you GA’s cause you made me laugh!

Maybe I’m missing something. We’re in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception?

More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5). King David said this about God’s role in our conception: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13, 16).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/life-begin-conception.html#ixzz2VBSW4aDh

Just playing devils advocate here but @KNOWITALL couldn’t that passage indicate that life begins pre-conception? Perhaps the Thursday before or even earlier?

Joking aside, many people believe we do live before conception. The Mormons for instance. If you do a tissue sample of the fetus you will find that the fetus is human (DNA, ect.) You can observe the cells multiplying. Life. Human life.

@rojo Devil’s advocate, very appropos. ;)

If you want to read it that way, interpretation is up to the reader.

@KNOWITALL Okay, thanks. Follow up question, you said, “All true Christians have a problem going against God’s word/ the Bible.” Does this mean that if a woman is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding day that you are in favor of stoning her to death? (Deut 22:20–21)

Now, to save you the embarrasment of answering, because I like you, I’m going to assume that the answer is no. So my question is, how do you pick and choose which rules to follow and which to not follow?

@Rarebear You’ll also be pleased to know that I’ve done more Jewish homework as well, a whole new perspective actually. :)

Okay, now back to this again, we know what we’re supposed to do based on the Bible and our teachings, that doesn’t mean we always do it, or do it to the letter, or even do it correctly. Striving for holiness is the goal, for me at least, and unless you dedicate your life to it, it’s very difficult going between holiness and secular life. For me it’s near impossible to do anything other than simply try your best.

The bible was written a very long time ago. We don’t stone women (kind of against the law) and a lot of women don’t remain virgins until marriage. That being said, a lot do, it’s kind of a private matter between a woman and her husband, so it’s not openly discussed but I’d bet you’d be surprised at the amount of abstinence rings worn around here. So I’d have to say it’s a personal choice, or personal interpretation, or you can take it quite literally (which is why there’s so many sects.) This is what is dividing the Republican party, too, because all Christians don’t think alike at all.

I’m not sure I believe you like me, but I’ll say thank you. :)

@KNOWITALL What threw me was you said, “All true Christians…” What defines a “True Christian?” I have a lot of liberal skeptic secular Christian friends who go to church (one went to seminary and the other was a monk) who might take exception to that.

@Aster Are you being sarcastic?

@Rarebear, Jesus came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Matthew 5:17

@bkcunningham What’s that mean? If Jesus is fulfilling the law, does that mean that Jesus is going to stone nonvirginal women?

@Rarebear I get it, but by definition a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, which the Bible contains.

Plus Jesus came to abolish the old Jewish laws, as well, so it was freeing to follow Jesus. Instead of Thou Shalt Not Kill, it was Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. At least that’s what I’ve been taught.

No. The law foreshadowed the cross. When he said, “fulfill,” he said, “to make full, to fill, to fill up . . . to fill to the full” or “to render full, i.e. to complete” – Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2002, Strong’s number 4137.

He came to complete the law. We are under the law. But Christ is the law. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The members of the Westboro Baptist Church don’t understand this either.

@bkcunningham Ugh, those people. :(

@KNOWITALL So Jesus abolished the old Jewish laws including, “Thou shalt not murder?”

My point is that it seems to me that some Jewish laws are followed and some are not. Christians are picking and choosing which to follow based upon their (usually political) beliefs.

And you still didn’t answer my question as to what you meant by ”...true Christian…”

@rarebear This isn’t really a fair fight since you have monks and seminary students in your corner, and I no longer even attend a church regularly, but I’ll keep trying. And I did answer that above, I thought?! Peace.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly.

In Eph. 2:14–15, Paul is speaking about how the gentiles who were called the uncircumcision (v. 11), were separated from Christ (v. 12), but have now been brought near (to God) by the blood of Christ (v. 13). Jesus removed the requirement of having to follow the Law in order to please God, established justification by faith, and thereby united both Jew and Gentile into one group in Christ. This is when Paul says in verse 15 that he abolished in his flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments in ordinances. The Law was that which separated Jew from Gentile and since it has been fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer something that would separate Jew and Gentile.
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

The harmony between Matthew 5:17–18, and Ephesians 2:15, is this: The purpose of the law of Moses was never to come to naught; its original design would be perpetual. On the other hand, as a legal code, it would be abolished, being cancelled by the Savior’s sacrificial death (cf. Col. 2:14ff.).

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/485-did-christ-abolish-the-law-of-moses

@KNOWITALL first, wearing an abstinence ring literally means absolutely nothing. Lots of stoners have D.A.R.E. bracelets. Second, you say in this very thread that you have sex outside of marriage which you then say is against Bible rules, then you go on to quote the Bible about loving they neighbor as you love thyself in a thread where you were incredibly nasty and condescending to @tinyfaery. So I guess what I am wondering is where the rubber hits the road for you. Is it about living your life according to the rules set out in The Bible or arguing with people about where life begins?

The truth is the best way to testify is to live your life in a way that shows everyone what you believe. The most wonderful, strongest, most amazing Christians I have ever known talk very little about what they believe – they have no need to discuss it because the live it every single day.

@SuperMouse First of all, do you speak for the entire abstinence movement?

Second, I did have sex before marriage which is against the rules. Point? Christians aren’t perfect, did you think they were?

Third, Did you read what was written to me by that particular person? It was a threat and I should have reported it, but who can take that seriously.

Lastly, If you don’t like God or Jesus, feel free to ignore my posts.

I also feel that abortion is murder, and I will stand by that until the end of time.

Are you a Christian? Most of us know we’re not supposed to judge each other, just sayin.

I am not Christian. I am Bahai’. I like Jesus just fine and believe He is a manifestation of God (though not the manifestation of God for our time) and I believe in God. I do not believe the Bible is the unerring Word of God.

I am not judging you, I am trying to understand your perspective which I find consistently baffling, as you seem to pick and chose which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore. For instance, I did read what was written to you but it is my understanding that Christians are supposed to “turn the other cheek” rather than lash out the way you did. Yeah, yeah you are human and fall down, just like with the sex before marriage thing – needing to use that excuse so often makes the moral high ground you consistently try to stake out a bit shaky.

Oh and no, I do not speak for the abstinence movement, just saying that believing all those bracelets are on the wrists of virgins is rather naive.

@KNOWITALL o e. more quick question, if you believe abortion is murder why do you think it should be legal? Murder is and should be illegal right?

@Rarebear Not a fight, a discussion. I’m trying to understand your religion more.

Your links still don’t answer my question though. How do Christians pick and choose which of the Old Testament laws to follow? Is there an updated set of laws in the New Testament?

@Rarebear, thou shalt not murder, as you say, isn’t a law, friend. That is a commandment.

@bkcunningham so is stoning a woman for not being a virgin.

No, @Rarebear. There are ten commandments. The stoning falls under a law.

@bkcunningham No, you’re wrong. There are 613 commandments. Stoning a woman is one of them.

What number is the commandment about stoning the nonvirgin?

I thought the commandments are laws? God’s laws. I feel like I am about to learn something, I love that feeling. I think stoning is a punishment that can be given under the commandments, I don’t think it specifically mentions stoning woman for a specific act. Hopefully, @Rarebear will know. I had wondered about something similar a while back and never followed up on it, so the turn this took is very interesting.

Here is a list. Actually, I’m mistaken. Stoning a woman isn’t on the list.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

But commandment #564 says that you can’t screw a woman who is on her period.
And #572 says that a menstruating woman is unclean and defiles others.

@Rarebear What makes you point out those two commandments?

I think the saying, “let the first to cast a stone be free of sin,” is referring to Jesus standing up for a women who was found out to not be a virgin and was going to be stoned. Does that sound right to you? I never can keep things like this straight. My memory doesn’t hold that sort of information well.

@JLeslie Because those were the two most obnoxious I could find on short notice.

Oh.

@JLeslie, here’s the reference for the saying, John 8: 1–7

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It is the total opposite of what you thought it said. The total passage drives directly at the heart of what I was trying to explain about Jesus completing the law. When the scribes and Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus, Jesus didn’t didn’t change one word of the law or say you shouldn’t follow the law.

He basically said go ahead stone her. Let the first stone be flung by the one who doesn’t have any sin in their life.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Hey everybody, sorry I was on mobile and couldn’t get my little ole 3g to load this Q last night unfortunately! :)

@SuperMouse If you read what I wrote to TF, you’ll see I said nothing meanspirited to her and she was still amped up. I blew it off, so is that not turning the other cheek? Why are you defending that behavior may I ask?

Since I feel abortion is murder, I am Pro-Life for myself, as I’ve stated repeatedly. I also have a mother who was in that position, choosing abortion or raising a child, so I have empathy for my sisters who go through that horrible decision-making process. God gives us the gift of ‘choice’, and I won’t try to take that away from Him or my sisters.

@Rarebear I don’t know the answer to why we follow some rules and not some others, but I have a priest, preacher and other fb friends I can ask if you’d like me to. Just PM me.

@bkcunningham Your explanation doesn’t makes sense to me. It seems to me he saves her from punishment. But, I am not trying to argue, I just interpret it differently. Now, what about @Rarebear‘s point that there are actually 613 commandments and what I said about commandments being law. How do you differentiate between a commandment and a law?

@KNOWITALL I am not defending her. I wrote nothing in her defense. i am wondering about your less than Christian behavior toward her such as being condescending and rather nasty with your “Bahahaha…” quip. It just doesn’t feel very understanding.

I remain baffled by your position on a abortion. Either it is murder and should illegal or it isn’t murder. You can’t haven’t both ways. It seems to me, based on you comments here and in other threads, that you don’t think of women struggling with an unplanned pregnancy as “your sisters” you think of them as murderers.

@SuperMouse Whatever, she was nasty, I was amused by it, so I moved on. I still don’t even know what that person was upset about. I don’t take threats lightly from anyone, so hopefully that is the end of that juvenile nonsense.

On abortion, I have the utmost sympathy for women in that position, and I won’t judge them regardless of their decision. They are making a personal choice that is legal in the US, as well, and I won’t take that choice away, as I feel God gave us the right to make choices, good or bad, for ourselves.
Some other Christians seem to feel that it’s our job to make sure abortions are stopped, and they march and kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics.

Now, I know you probably still don’t understand and I’m sorry for that, but I need to move on, so have a great day. Peace.

@bkcunningham My understanding of what you wrote is that Jesus is explaining to the scribes and Pharisees that the law is not bad – that is, that a woman “taken in adultery” deserves to be stoned – but that no man can ever enforce this law because no man is without sin.

That’s fine for one event, or even one law, but how can we use this story (or this view of Jesus’ attitude towards laws) to decide which biblical laws to enforce, and which not to? Doesn’t this leave us back where we started, at picking and choosing?

I think perhaps it comes down to the difference between using these laws to make one’s own choices, and ignoring the same laws as they might apply to someone else – in other words, do the right thing, but let your neighbour do the wrong thing without judgment. That applies to the question of abortion very aptly, I think.

@glacial I think that is a major part of the problem here, that so many Christians are specifically told not to judge and they do anyway, and get nasty about it. Like I said, my own uncle is very much that way, but he thinks his reasons are good and just, because God laid down the rules. So he has an excuse to treat people poorly, it seems.

” I don’t know the answer to why we follow some rules and not some others, but I have a priest, preacher and other fb friends I can ask if you’d like me to. Just PM me.”

Finally! An honest answer! I’ll take it. No, I don’t need to PM you. I always respect people who say they don’t know an answer when they don’t know an answer, as opposed to blustering along.

@Rarebear HA, heck I would’ve said that a long time ago if I knew you were that easy…lol

I hate admitting I don’t have all the answers, as you’ve probably guessed.
With friends like yours you already probably know the answer, care to share? :)

The truth is no one has all the answers and if someone says they do that is your cue to run screaming!

@SuperMouse Well, there is one upstairs that has all the answers, but He doesn’t always answer quickly…lol

@KNOWITALL It generally doesn’t come up in conversation. If I get around to it, I will.

@Rarebear Harsh, grill me then take your time? I see how ya are now….lol

@KNOWITALL Well, the seminary dude is in my two bands, and we generally talk music or beer. The monk dude is another doctor in another state, and when we talk it’s almost always about medical stuff.

@Rarebear Sounds like an interesting life you lead there- beer, bands and bodies. I’ll ask my fb priest.

There really isn’t any difference between commandments and laws, @JLeslie. Most people say that the laws were given to Moses by God and written by the hand of Moses. The commandments were given to Moses by God and were written by the finger of God. Without the laws and the commandments, we’d have no Grace. We don’t stone people, or present burnt offerings or blood sacrifices or any of the other “commandments” written by Moses as laws for tribes to follow. Why? Because Christ is our law and our commandments. He completed them. Not destroyed them, but completed them. What did they do with these commandments when they traveled? They carried them in the ark under the mercy seat. Christ is our mercy seat.

The original question, Do you equate the use of the morning after pill with abortion?, has taken a lot of twists and turns. With few exceptions, it has been a real delight reading the back and forth between members and participating with a few members. This is the way I imagined it is suppose to be in a Q&A forum.

@bkcunningham I see. So Jesus completed them, that is interesting to me. I always found it odd that if Jesus is God, why would he change his old rules? Did he get it wrong the first time? If the bible is the word of God, and some Christians tell me each word is basically perfect, God does not make mistakes and the bible is God’s word, then why would there be a new testament? It seemed illogical to me. I don’t mean that as a challenge, I say that as something I wondered. How is it explained. It seemed more logical to me that Jesus was a nice Jewish boy, very empathetic, loving, and pensive. He didn’t follow many of the old laws because he used his own brain to decide what felt right. But, I’m Jewish, so I am a little biased.

Why is there a New Testament? Because of Jesus. Everything was leading up to the Redeemer, the ultimate sacrifice; so to speak. We failed, @JLeslie. Not God. If Jesus was what you are saying, @JLeslie, and I know you’ve had and heard this discussion before, then Jesus was a liar and/or a lunatic.

@JLeslie I just want to share that Bahai’s believe that Jesus was just one of God’s manifestations on earth and He was the manifestation for His time. We believe that the Old and the New Testaments were the perfect word of God for their times. God didn’t get it wrong in either place, He just gave what was appropriate for the people of the time.

@bkcunningham We don’t know any such thing. Jesus did not write the bible. We don’t know for sure what he said and exactly what he did. The bible was written years after him.

We don’t know any such thing? What do you mean, @JLeslie. You confused me.

We don’t know he is a liar or lunatic, because we don’t know for sure exactly what happened, we only know the stories that were written down. When I use the word story I do not mean made up story or fairy tale, I only use story to mean the telling of what happened during Jesus’ time was first passed down verbally and then finally writeen down. Unless I misunderstand how it happened.

I don’t get the all or nothing outlook on Jesus. I have had Christians say to me if one thing is wrong in the bible then we might as well throw the whole book out. Why? One thing might be incorrect while there might be all sorts of valuable, good, true, information in there. My dad has been wring about some things, but overall he has given me good advice to live my life and been a good example of integrity. I don’t throw out everything he has said because he did one dumb or mean thing,

Just going by the stories that were written down, if what He said wasn’t true, He was first and foremost a liar. Secondly, he was a lunatic for the things he proclaimed. He said He is the Son of God. He said the only way to the Father was through Him.

Let me stop writing and let you read this. It says it better than I. It is a classic argument between Christians and Atheists. I thought that is where you were going.

@bkcunningham I skimmed your link. It seems close to what I am saying. I find it interesting that atheists are willing to give Jesus credit for having some worth while teachings even if he is not the son of God, but Christians think he is either the mesiah or a crazy nobody.

@KNOWITALL This subject is a professional interest of mine. I teach classes and publish papers about it. I am not here “to blow off any reasons NOT to terminate a baby’s life.” There are many good reasons not to get an abortion, the most obvious being when one wants to have a child. But when I see someone present a bad argument for being opposed to abortion, I’m going to point out that it is a bad reason. It is my professional duty as a philosopher to point out bad arguments, regardless of whether or not I agree with the conclusions. Indeed, I’ve annoyed several people on this site with whom I fundamentally agree by pointing out that their argument for a conclusion that we share is a bad one.

I’m not sure why you think my motivations are relevant, though. Arguments are either valid, or invalid; sound, or unsound. To focus on the motivations behind them is to commit the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

By the way, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are political positions. To be pro-life is to think that abortion should be illegal (either completely or in the vast majority of cases), and to be pro-choice is to think that abortion should be legal and with minimal restrictions (though not necessarily no restrictions). Someone who believes that abortion is morally wrong, but that it should be legal, is pro-choice. There’s no such thing as being “pro-life for oneself” as “pro-life” is not a moral judgment (even if it might be based on moral judgments). It is a position regarding how the law should be.

@Rarebear The Bible does not say that life begins at conception, and in fact says quite differently. One of the most commonly cited passages from the anti-abortion crowd is from Psalm 139. This is the passage that @KNOWITALL cited, but it is no coincidence that the website from which she got the passage omits verses 14 and 16. The full section runs as follows:

”[13] For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. [14] I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. [15] My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

In Hebrew, this is:

13 כִּֽי־אַ֭תָּה קָנִ֣יתָ כִלְיֹתָ֑י תְּ֝סֻכֵּ֗נִי בְּבֶ֣טֶן אִמִּֽי׃
14 אֹֽודְךָ֗ עַ֤ל כִּ֥י נֹורָאֹ֗ות נִ֫פְלֵ֥יתִי נִפְלָאִ֥ים מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ וְ֝נַפְשִׁ֗י יֹדַ֥עַת מְאֹֽד׃
15 לֹא־נִכְחַ֥ד עָצְמִ֗י מִ֫מֶּ֥ךָּ אֲשֶׁר־עֻשֵּׂ֥יתִי בַסֵּ֑תֶר רֻ֝קַּ֗מְתִּי בְּֽתַחְתִּיֹּ֥ות אָֽרֶץ׃
16 גָּלְמִ֤י ׀ רָ֘א֤וּ עֵינֶ֗יךָ וְעַֽל־סִפְרְךָ֮ כֻּלָּ֪ם יִכָּ֫תֵ֥בוּ יָמִ֥ים יֻצָּ֑רוּ אֶחָ֣ד בָּהֶֽם׃

The talk of being woven together in the depths of the earth is directly parallel to a belief found in the ancient Greek mystery religions, which were historically quite influential on Judaism. According to these religions, human bodies were of subterranean origin and magically transported to the womb (which people back then believed was only a fertile resting place and not somewhere that a body could develop, thus why the various homuncular theories of human development originated at the same time).

This is just one of the many elements Judaism (and later, Christianity) borrowed from the Greek religions (especially pre-Olympian Greek religions). The doctrine is related to the ancient Greek view that we exist before conception even happens in the form of our soul, and that we must wait for our body to be fully formed so that we can then be attached to it. Plato used the idea to support his theories of knowledge and reincarnation. And as @Aster notes, some Christians still believe this (e.g., Mormons).

We can get out of this uncomfortable association by saying that the passage is metaphorical, but then we can no longer use it to support the notion that life begins at conception. Of course, we can’t use it that way in the first place since—as @rojo has already noted—the passage says nothing about conception and speaks only of God’s foreknowledge. The same holds true of the other passage that was cited to you, for Jeremiah 1:5 says that God knows about us before we are even conceived. Again, it is a passage about God’s foreknowledge. It tells us that God’s omniscience is not limited to the past and the present, but extends into the future as well.

This only speaks against the passages on offer, but there are other passages that speak against the thesis they were offered to support. The words most commonly used to refer to the human soul or spirit, are נשמה (neshama = “breath”) and רוח (ruach = “wind,” or “breath” by analogy). For reference, the term “holy spirit” comes from רוח הקודש (ruach hakodesh). This equivalence of “soul” and “breath” can be found in many passages, such as Genesis 2:7, Genesis 7:15, Deuteronomy 20:16, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Isaiah 42:5, Job 33:4, Ezekiel 37:5–6, Joshua 11:11, 1 Kings 15:29, John 3:5–8, and John 20:22.

Again, there is a parallel to the Greek usage of πνευμα (pneuma = “wind” or “breath,” with a connotation of being in motion as in blowing). The other Greek word that means “soul,” ψυχη (psuche or psyche), also comes from the verb “to blow” (and eventually comes to mean “mind,” which is where we get “psyche” and “psychology”). Indeed, we see this and the chthonic elements of early Greek thought come together in Genesis 2:7 when God makes Adam’s body out of earth and then makes him into a living thing by breathing into him. This is probably why modern Judaism holds that people do not come to have a soul until their first breath (though my understanding is that Jewish law grants the right to life upon one’s head exiting the mother’s body during childbirth).

Finally, there are several passages in the Bible that suggest a fetus is not of any intrinsic value. Exodus 21:22 tells us that the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine, whereas Exodus 21:23 tells us that the penalty for ending a life is to be killed oneself. It therefore follows that miscarriage must not, according to the law given in Exodus, count as ending a life. This is in keeping with Genesis 38:24, in which being pregnant does not prevent Tamar from being sentenced to immediate death by immolation. It also accords with Leviticus 27:1–7, in which we find out the monetary value of people by age and sex. No one below one month of age is given any value at all (just as how, in Numbers 3:15, only males a month old or more are considered persons to be counted by the census).

The clearest case, however, might be found in Numbers 5:11–31. There we learn that any man who has the merest suspicion that his wife might have been unfaithful may be brought to a priest for a test. If she is guilty, this test will abort whatever pregnancy might be in progress and sterilize her for life. If she is innocent, then she will not be harmed. Note that there is no consideration whatsoever to the possible fetus. All that matters in this scenario is that no man be forced to raise a child that he did not sire. Like the case of Tamar, pregnancy is not considered an extenuating circumstance.

No doubt, someone will find themselves with an irresistible urge to post passages that seem to contradict the ones I have cited above. All this will prove, however, is that the Bible is internally inconsistent. The problem with internal inconsistency is that it engenders self-contradiction. Statements that are self-contradictory are necessarily false, and sources that contain them are always suspect. Highlighting inconsistencies in the Bible, then, cannot help any argument that seeks to establish its legitimacy by appealing to Scripture.

(And to think that some people say studying classics and ancient philosophy has no practical uses…)

@Rarebear @KNOWITALL @bkcunningham One more inconvenient verse for you all (as it is relevant to one of the side debates you’ve been having):

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5: 17–19)

We’ve already had that discussion in this thread, @SavoirFaire. It started somewhere around post 97, if I’m not mistaken.

@bkcunningham I know you have. That’s why I addressed it to the three of you and said “it’s relevant to one of the side debates you’ve been having.” I wouldn’t have said that if I weren’t already perfectly aware that you have had that discussion. I mentioned it because you and @KNOWITALL did not cite the complete passage and I thought it might be relevant. But that debate is with @Rarebear. If he doesn’t want to continue it, that’s up to him.

Sure.

Wow. Awesome post. Thanks for that. I am in awe.

@SavoirFaire You’ve given us some very interesting reading. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

@SavoirFaire, when the laws were given in Exodus, what was happening? Can you put it in context for us? The who, what, when and where of laws that this discussion seem to be addressing? I’d appreciate your help with this.

@SavoirFaire I posted Matthew 5 earlier, I just didn’t copy it here, I gave the link.

I’m interested in the reply to bk’s question as well, since we’ve devolved this far out into Crazyworld, we may as well take it to the limits. :)

@bkcunningham @KNOWITALL The relevant portion of Exodus comes from the Covenant Code (sometimes called the Book of the Covenant). According to the Bible, it is a set of laws given directly to Moses by God on Mount Sinai after the escape from Egypt in order to provide a legal code for the newly freed Israelites. These laws, along with others given to Moses by God, were meant both to guide the Israelites during their journey to the Promised Land and to serve as the basis of a legal system for the future state of Israel. Thus it constitutes an important component of Old Testament law.

Due to the mix of absolute commandments and case law, modern scholars generally believe that this section of Exodus actually combines various sources of law into one single code. So if one wishes to take a historical view of the Bible rather than interpreting it as a divinely inspired record of God’s word, then it could just be a record of the actual laws that the Israelites were following at the time that Exodus was written down. One can adopt the historical view in order to resist the implications of Exodus 21 regarding abortion, but of course that would also weaken the ability to rely on other passages to bolster a contrasting view.