Is it just me that feels strange about people insisting on a blanket prohibition on the taking of innocent life when those same people would also insist on the concept of original sin and that salvation can only be achieved through the proactive act of accepting Jesus, the clear implication being that there is no such thing as an innocent life because everyone is born in sin?
That's incorrect. When we say "innocent" in reference to the unborn we are referring to the fact that they haven't committed a sin. That's why original sin is contrasted with personal / committed sins. Either way, even though people are sinners, that doesn't necessarily mean we have a right to kill them. It would only be valid in self defense (applying the principle of double effect)
One thing that people seem to either forget or overlook is the trial of bitter waters. This is a trial that a woman is forced to undertake if her husband believes her to be unfaithful to him and is carrying another man’s baby’s. She is to drink a mixture of water and ash. She then aborts the baby if it belongs to another man. Numbers 5: 11-31. This is scriptural prescription for abortion.
Like with biblical slavery and homophobia and the one case of human sacrifice people with twist themselves into knots trying to make that not say what it literally says.
Dan has a video about that. You can try to find it yourself using appropriate keywords if you are interested. I ain’t going to rummage through hundreds of Dan’s videos. Anyway, in short he basically says it’s not about abortion and gives a detailed explanation of the original Hebrew. He says there’s no mention that the woman is given the potion because she is pregnant, just that the husband believes her to be unfaithful. Tbh I was not fully convinced because a lot of other scholars do mention the reference to miscarriage and I don’t think they dreamed it. I am not equipped to judge who is right, however, whatever the correct context/interpretation it’s clear that forcing a woman to drink nasty s*t at a time when women spent most of their fertile life pregnant, shows utter disregard for the possible fetus they carry.
That was a fun thing to read while I was a believer going from cover to cover of the Bible. There's a lot of stuff in there that most Christian positions just seem to ignore. Anyone who says that God values life didn't read the Old testament. And anyone who says that God values fetuses who have committed no sin have never read God's commands to ransack cities, sparing no woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding. The only thing you could say is that the only lives he values are those of men in his chosen people. Kind of messed up by any modern measure.
The Visigothic code from early medieval Spain has regulations on abortion. It's never punished as murder. It's either a fine if the abortion was caused by someone of the same social class, or a fine and lashings if it was caused by someone socially inferior (for example, a slave performing it on a free woman). And fun fact, there's no crime at all if the husband doesn't report it or demand a fine.
The Greek word, bréphos, to define both a baby in the womb before birth and an infant afterwards. It is the word used to describe John the Baptist while he’s still in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44). It is the same word used to describe baby Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes after birth (Luke 2:12, 16). Genesis: 25:22. Rebekah is pregnant with twins, Jacob and Esau, and as siblings do, already they are jostling with each other… in her womb. The word used for babies in this verse is the Hebrew word ben (ref. 1121), which occurs over 5000 times in the Old Testament. It’s definition is: Although the most basic meaning and general translation is son, the direct male offspring of human parents (Gen. 4-25; 27:32, Isa. 49:15), it is more generally a relational term because of its variety of applications. This word can express an adopted child (Ex. 2:10), children in general, male and female (Gen 3:16; 21:7; Ex. 21:5); descendants, such as grandsons (Josh. 22:24, 25, 27; 2 Kgs. 10:30), etc… So the “fetuses” in Rebekah’s womb are called ben, human children. Interesting. In conclusion, it’s very simple. God acknowledges human life in the womb. Before conception, there is merely a sperm and an egg. After conception, there is life. As far as I can comprehend, this is God’s ONLY plan for creating life. I’m going to accept his definition of it.
In mid 90s I well recall a Youth Fellowship talk at our fundamentalist church on “sanctity of life” aka this topic, given by a senior medical student. He let slip/was asked about how many human fertilised eggs didn’t make it to full term - and he had to admit the majority don’t even manage attachment to the uterus. In other words in this worldview, countless mini-human lives are created and destroyed annually at a genocidal scale in the first moments of life, with no divine intervention to stop it! If that is a designed system described by sound theology… it’s beyond mixed-up
Thoroughly informative. As someone of a Catholic background, I typically find Biblical arguments to be weaker compared to those based on philosophical tradition. When discussing things such as abortion, sex, and any other hot topic, using something like a natural law framework, for instance, at least puts the discourse in terms that tend to be more universally comprehensible than the "revealed" truth of a particular tradition.
It's also more practical if looking to make any legal or social changes, as religious reasons have the problem of not applying to everyone, separation of church and state and would rightly be viewed as forcing religious beliefs onto others. Not to mention people are more receptive to views if they have more then my holy book says so, that's just not a convincing thing for both those in that specific religion (who have a different interpretation of gods clear and unchanging word) or those outside of it (definitely those outside of it, why would they care what a book of myths says? Or what a heretical religious text says?). At the moment I'm firmly on the side of abortion for moral, philosophical and scientific reasons but if an arguement were to convince me it wouldn't be from the bible.
@@charlestownsend9280Everyone has a conscience and would be appalled at the very least by 2nd trimester abortions if they were presented with the details of the procedure. Here’s a video of a doctor who used to perform abortions explaining it and some of the issues. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9l7lTMzEs8E.htmlsi=yPmREicjur1iEKw_
@@charlestownsend9280 There are always two arguments that need to be addressed to oppose abortion. 1 Does it have a right to exist ? 2 Does that right to exist take precedence over the person it is going to exist inside ? The third argument would be: Why do we need consent if its existence always takes precedence ?
Interesting to read about the link between Hammurabi and Moses. I saw half on article (on JSTOR) by George Duncan on the parallels there: The Code of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi. Thank you for that background.
The inclusion of Michael J. Gorman’s “Abortion & the Early Church” as recommended reading at the end is an excellent recommendation. It goes through all the scholarship touched on above but also, interestingly, comes to a quite different conclusion. Not that it’s at all uncommon for Biblical scholars to come to different conclusions from the same set of facts. All the more reason to applaud Dr. McClellan for including it in the list of texts to check out. In that book Gorman argues that the position of the Early Church firmly against abortion actually is instructive and relevant for us today and that it should indeed lead modern Christians to oppose abortion. And I think it’s a conclusion worth taking seriously and it makes Gorman’s book well worth reading.
I'm always mystified by 'life begins at conception' when, in reality, life began once and we're really not sure how or when. There's no point where inert matter becomes animate matter.
they mean when does an individual human life begins. it begins at conception. which doesn't compel any particular position on abortion. society places limited value on individual human lives all the time. Food and drug, products liability, and environmental standards allow for estimated mortality rates, for example.
@@scambammer6102 Does it begin at conception? What is the criteria for an individual human life? Surely if it cannot sustain its own existence then it is not an individual but rather a part of the body that is sustaining it?
Does this mean that identical twins have only one human life between them? Or that people who are born as chimeras of two conceptions have two lives?@@scambammer6102
@@scambammer6102 And I mean that the statement "life begins at conception" is an actual nonsense statement in terms of biology. I know what they think they mean, but that's not how it works. Sorry.
The word quickening is also used in early colonial America to describe abxrtion cutoffs along the Aristotelian definition. This was probably based on the Bible and/or early church, so that might make an interesting video topic, since people also worship early US laws as if they're sacred.
In 7:14 it is spoken about how opposition to abortion is not based entirely on the testimony of scripture but it is mentioned it is mentioned in the Epistle of Barnabas. The thing is, the Epistle of Barnabas is part of the Codex Sinaiticus, someone regarded it as scripture.
Dan, do you agree with Jennifer Bird's position that the ordeal of bitter water in Numbers can result in abortion? I can't see how such a trial would not take into account the possibility of pregnancy, and so provide an outcome if the woman is pregnant. I would assume, then, that the thigh rotting and falling away would indicate the lost life issuing forth from her, providing visual evidence of the transgression and leading to her ostracization.
The whole "thou shalt not murder" commandment always seemed to me to be really stupid. As you point it, it boils down to "Thou shalt not kill when you are not allowed to kill." Thanks. That's real helpful. Glad you cleared that up, God. I was confused.
@@sullivanbiddle9979 Yes. Murder is killing that is not allowed. Some killing is allowed, some is not allowed. If it is not allowed, it is murder. By definition. And since murder is, by definition, not allowed, why do you need a commandment against it?
Great explanation, thank you. I do have a question. Do you think it's possible that because of what Christians are taught about sinful nature, that it is much easier to allow women today to die in childbirth and to be forced to carry babies they don't want because they are considered "sinful", and the babies are innocent and pure, so they deserve to be protected more than their mother?
We should take a moment to appreciate the accuracy of the title in directly suggesting it was decided by _people…_ which it was. Just like every other alleged attribute of God. Somehow God can never speak for itself.
If god were against abortion it could simply withhold the miracle of life from someone who doesn’t want to accept it. This would not violate free will, in fact it would honor it
Doesn’t god recommend a method (poultice ?)to determine if a woman has/had committed adultery? If she has a abortion it was adultery, if not she had been faithful
Life does not begin at birth, nor when the brain forms, nor even at conception. Life began a couple of billion years ago and CONTINUES. Two living organisms release two living cells which combine into a living cell that grows eventually into an independent organism. The point you consider the new organism to be a new "life" is arbitrary.
The topic isn't when "life" (living cells) began. The topic is when "life" (a new human being) begins. You have to know how disingenuous and pointless your comment is. There is nothing "arbitrary" about distinguishing between clearly distinct living beings. Does that distinction begin at conception, or does that distinction begin at birth when the baby is separated from the umbilical cord, or at another time all together? You are engaging in a fallacy of equivocation.
@@BK-hq7tn I disagree. I'm pointing out that there is no clear boundary where a new organism begins. A fertilized ovum is neither viable nor conscious, while a baby is both even before it is literally born. You can set one for legal purposes, just like in my country you set 18 for the age to be an adult, but other jurisdictions choose differently. The approach to the problem is wrong. It is more important to work on fixing society, culture, economics, education, health care, etc to reduce incidence rather than legislate against it which increases suffering.
valid analysis; however, although 'life' as it stands on its own is an interesting scientific question, as it stands as a criterion for abortion is irrelevant since bodily autonomy takes priority over life, personhood, 'soul' or any other arbitrary attribute the religious feel like attributing to the zygote, embryo or fetus.
@bertilow Polygamy is still part of church doctrine. It is accepted that polygamy will be practiced in the next life and that it is simply "on hold" for now. Technically, the church could reactivate it at any time and that would be consistent with church teachings. The church teaches that you must be married to attain the highest degree of heaven. It also teaches that that means polygamy because there will be more women than men, so what it teaches women is that you must accept polygamy if you want to go to heaven. Go investigate.
The notion that Exodus 21 refers to the baby being born intact or not intact comes directly from the Septuagint. Edit: wrote this comment before hearing the section about the Septuagint.
Some of them know how they use these verses is incorrect. Once you point out you know what the verse mean or are saying they choose different arguments or ghost any further conversation. They know they are arguing in bad faith.
@@marlabeard5352 that's the thing about humans,He said My little ones,,babies inside the body are still little ones .And decides that back then,people weren't ramming sharp objects into their bodies to kill their offspring.,And God said be fruitful and multiply,not destroy your children in your womb.But hey ,do what you want and take your chances on the other end.
@@ricklamb772 Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. If God wanted every fertilized egg to become a born baby, it sure seems like he wouldn't have aborted so many.
@@ricklamb772 "And decides that back then,people weren't ramming sharp objects into their bodies to kill their offspring" *besides that And yes, they were. Abortion has been practiced throughout human history. We have manuscripts from ancient Egypt (ca. 1550 BCE) discussing the practice.
While one could argue that a person is formed at conception, to say that life begins at conception is just silly. Both the sperm and the egg are necessarily alive when they fuse, so there is no "new" life, just a continuation of the lives of the parents.
@@scambammer6102 The child is a new person and also a continuation of the parents. The potential child is a potential new person, not an actual new person. Sperm and eggs are also potential new people, just more ambiguous - but a fertilized egg is extremely ambiguous as well, since fetal development can proceed or not in multiple ways (such as the ambiguous potential at fertilization for identical twins).
If a life is formed at conception, if the soul enters the body at the point of conception, and twins form by the abnormal division of an embryo after conception takes places, does that mean that twins are considered a singular lifeform? This is why the whole appeal to science is silly. Science is able to draw a distinction between what is and isn't "alive" (even then the boundaries are fuzzy) but it does not draw a distinction between what is and isn't "a life" because that is a legal/ethical term and not a scientific one. Even science's category for what is and isn't an individual comes with fuzzy boundaries and asterisks, because you start to get into things like colonial organisms, symbiosis, genetic chimera's etc. There is no clear demarcation of when life begins because it can only be a qualitative assessment and not an objective empirical one.
easy 1. Destruction of property 2. Whatever the parents agree is a reasonable punishment, up to a maximum of death and/or an arbitrary amount of money.
@@move_i_got_this5659 that is the maximum possible recompense that can be sought by the victims. I'm not sure if you are aware but maximum possible punishment is not often given.
If people want to decide this question biblically, the Bible is very clear. In the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2 verse 7, God creates man out of dust and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life, and man becomes a living being. Read it yourself. So man (and woman etc.) as a living being begins with the first breath after birth.
Science teaches life at conception, this is logical and not muddied as you paint it. Church fathers haven't understood that always. They have always taught abortion wrong. They could only ever teach it more wrong today due to science, not less. Human life and human being are "coterminous", we are conceived human, we are not monkeys in the womb, this is about thou shalt not murder (human beings!). The opinion of early Christians is important, as they were closest to the apostles, and obviously (well, to actual Christians) the actual Church of Christ. We have evidence of abortion taught to be morally wrong in the Didache, which harkens back to the times when the Bible (NT) was still being written. Saying that the Bible does not condemn abortion is like saying the Bible does not condemn pedophilia. Again, you shall not murder, and God fashioned me in the womb, and the "mother of my Lord", and John the Baptist dancing in the womb at her greeting. The passages are about God creating man in the womb, and the man being alive in it. That abortion is murder is the unescapable conclusion. And Exodus points to that not being case as much as it points to slaves not being human (it does not). Though I am not aware of any supposed Septuagint issue, I would not be surprised to find your bias plays into that as well. It is you who are performing a slight of hand, misinterpreting the commandment "thou shalt not murder" as "thou shalt not kill unless sanctioned by the state". You appear very stoic teaching murder to people, may the Triune God, the fearful Judge, who judges every idle word, let alone teaching others to do evil, have mercy on your soul and convict your mind so that you do not perish but be saved as you are supposed to be and come to repentance and convert to Christ. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. He is pro life of those whom He created, in the womb, as zygotes first, then embryos, then fetuses, then infants, then toddlers, then preadolescents, then adolescents, then aged, then dying, and then - may God have mercy - living forever. He gives life and life everlasting. May God rebuke this Moloch spirit. Some text to check out: Job 31:15, Luke 1:39-45, Didache 2:1-2, Council of Ancyra, cannon 2, Apostolic Constitutions 7:3
"22 If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] 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." That's what the verse says. Jesus was conceived, he wasn't a soul put into a robot. That's how we decide that God is pro life. This misinformation, or blatantly ignorant arguments, need to stop.
He did reference it. He also explained that the reference is to the woman and not the birthed itself. It is not that if the fetus looses a life, eye, tooth (that grow later) etc. But if the woman get a serious injury. Than the woman's husband (not the w herself) can demand the equivalent to be fined. Especially because, if I remember correctly, nearly all if not all premature births in that time is not survivable. Additionally, are there stories of the killing of innocent life and pregnant women in the bible, including an abortion if the fetus is formed by the seed of another man. (Numbers 5:11-?? can't look up the more specific citation) This of course can't mean, you can't be pro-life, I just don't see it as a biblical debate or backed by the bible. Especially with conflicting rules or events on that matter. Especially because not all of the referenced "we" agree to that interpretation.
Thank you ! Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception? No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body. Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured. According to Jewish law, is abortion health care? Yes, Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health
Here’s a fun thought, if all of the proof that God is pro-life hinges on all the verses about God creating human life, then shouldn’t we also hold the same or at least similar reverence for ALL of biblical creation? Like…. The Earth…. And shouldn’t those same Christians be as loudly fighting against climate change? Just a thought…
@@FishfaceTheDestroyer billions of years ago. And it most likely began in some sort of interface medium, such as on the internal or external walls of "black smokers", or similar environments.
@@FishfaceTheDestroyer semantic nonsense. The topic isn't when "life" (living cells) began. The topic is when "life" (a new human being) begins. You have to know how disingenuous and pointless your comment is.
@@scambammer6102 This fellow reminds me of a conservative, drinking-is-a-sin preacher, who was expounding upon John 2. When he reached the part where Jesus turned the water into wine, he, like the guy in the video, began verbal gymnastics to undermine reality to fit his desired belief. He comes off as wise and studied, but his message is nothing but verbal smoke and mirrors. (Personage/personhood - know this: The slave owners in America used the same thinking as this guy. The slaves, they said, were not people, so killing them, when, of course, necessary, was perfectly fine and legal. The nature of the slaughtered individuals is different, but the thinking behind the murderous behavior is the same.) (Meaningless platitudes? If I had written my comment to the conservative preacher instead of a fellow you obviously support, you would have said, "Yeah, man. Yeah," instead of dismissiveness. By the way, my comment does not meet the definition of platitude. Find a better word when condemning me.)
@@rainwalker95 Personage/personhood - know this: The slave owners in America used the same thinking as this guy. The slaves, they said, were not people, so killing them, when, of course, necessary, was perfectly fine and legal. The nature of the slaughtered individuals is different, but the thinking behind the murderous behavior is the same. Like this guy, the slave owners used verbal gymnastics to justify killing slaves (when necessary), who were, like the fetus, different than they. The single cell egg, freshly germinated, has all it's chromosomes and a unique, human DNA chain. Other than appearance, if that ain't human, what is?
This. It's not really that big of a deal to put down a crotch goblin even a few months after it's actually born, I've had to do the same to one of my dogs in the past and I guarantee he was way smarter than a baby that young.
@@ossiah_i I'd probably draw the line somewhere prior to birth, _but_ I have known some SOBs that made a pretty credible case for legalizing abortion up to 200ish trimester. Sorry about your dog.
Those people are not "pro-life," they are anti-choice. If they were pro-life, then they would be addressing the issues that might compel a girl or woman to seek an abortion.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 (KJV): I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. And if the King James Bible was good enough for Joseph Smith, then that's good enough for me.
So the simple question then is, Dan, would you argue that the Bible (and God) allows abortion? That it is not morally sinful and that a person who has an abortion is not culpable for murder?
@TomJones-wm4ro I don't think Dan is about arguing one way or the other in this - as a scholar, he is just examining the arguments and dismissing those that don't hold up.
By not considering it from God's point of view. What the Hell 🔥🔥🔥 reason could God have for being pro-life? Explaining how it could do it is not an answer. I could explain *how* a loving parent killed their child, it wouldn't explain *why.*
Firstly, after listening to a lot of this gentleman's videos that has become pretty obvious that he is leaning more on the left side and is atheist. So expecting to hear anything good about the Bible is out the window. Furthermore he is a scholar. So for every opinion he has on his readings, there are 100 other opinions from other Scholars that argue the exact opposite. Realize that. More realistically, the Bible doesn't go into abortion and death because it wasn't near as popular now and as widespread with a good method of performing it with accuracy. If the Bible touched on every single moral conflict ,we would have a much larger book. Which is why passages are inserted such as inspireto be like Him etc. And obviously from his teachings, inspiring to be like Him would certainly make killing the creation of life wrong.
Ah, you're a typical theist. AKA, a blatant liar. Dan is a practicing Mormon. Dan is honest about what the Bible does and does not say. Whether what it says is good or bad is a value judgement that you're making. Dan goes out of his way to mention if a position is his own or the academic consensus. He always has sources for the latter. _And obviously from his teachings, inspiring to be like Him would certainly make killing the creation of life wrong._ You apparently missed the entire Noah story.
Then again, it is irrelevant. I can concede that you are a perfectly fully formed human person with all agency of yourself. However, that does not give you the right to use my body parts without my consent. If you need a kidney and we are a match, you cannot have mine unless I consent to it. If you, as a human being, are dependent on the use of my body, I have the right to say no and you are SOL.
@@flowingafterglow629 Strange you say that. Because when l saw my daughter In my wife's womb at 20 weeks old on a ultra scan l saw a separate human being. I could see she was a girl with a heartbeat.
So, you are saying that abortion is more complicated than what pro-life Christians make it out to be and that "banning abortion" because God commands it is at best, very misguided? Cool. 😎
I find this to be more in the realms of opinion than I do as thought of contested morality, I look at it this way, a fetus is part of God's creation and if God so desires to terminate then so be it, but it's not our place to interfere with his creation, it's not our place to act as though we are god and have the right to say who lives and who dies.
We interfere with his creation every second of our lives. But, anyway, how is that the fetus if part of God's creation? It's the creation of their parents, not God's.
So with that logic we shouldn't be treating cancer or any other illness. Or doing surgery or anything, get a cut just let it bleed and wash it or you might kill gods creation of harmful bacteria amd viruses, break a leg if god wants it fixed it will get fixed, need your eyes fixed, only of god says so.
@@juanausensi499 if we are all his creation then we are ALL his, we don't have the right to decide, the process had begun, if you didn't want to be pregnant keep you legs closed, or take precautions, it just amazes me people have sex and then are so shocked that they became pregnant, like HOW DID THAT HAPPENED! abortions are not a contraception! And that's what's happening. You don't have to agree with me but I don't buy into the lie of "My body my choice" as they kill the body of their baby!
Considering how 99% of all life that has ever existed on the Earth is now dead? Well... I'd say you, and/or your reasoning, are wrong there. We can further add to that with the fact that throughout all of the Bible 'God' is ultimately responsible for Millions of Deaths (both direct & indirect, commanded & inspired), including the Deaths of Untold Numbers of Pregnant Women (And their Unborn Child), especially from Neighboring Tribes & Nations. And that's not even [yet] factoring in how he [apparently] was perfectly fine with (/Endorsing of) the Ordeal of Bitter Water(/Abortion Ritual) portrayed in the Bible. There even used to be Christian Sects during the Earlier Years of Christianity, which were full of Self-Martyring Suicidal Devotees... people who would deliberately provoke others into killing them, other people on the street, guards, home-owners, etc... Solely just so they could die quickly and go to 'heaven' as a "martyr". And it's not surprising to realize how & why the Roman Catholics had to eventually Condemn the act of suicide as "Unforgivable/Unpardonable in the eyes of God", despite the Bible NEVER making such a claim. If the Biblical 'God' exists at all, then if anything Occam's Razor would suggest it IS Pro-Death, rather than the opposite.
@@geraldingraham4948 When God causes people to die there is an overarching reason. As tough as it is, & it is tough, ultimately good will come of it for all those affected. All people who have ever lived will be resurrected and offered the chance to live forever. The Bible does not specifically say this, but I can see no reason that a pregnant woman who died, won't still be pregnant when resurrected. With humans, except in rare cases, almost all abortion is for selfish reasons of personal convenience. This attutide & motivation is wicked.
Something doesn’t have to be murder to be morally wrong. The Bible encourages us to put the interests of others above our own, be fruitful and multiply, glorify the creator whose image is in every born and unborn person, love sacrificially and live above reproach. You would have to disregard a lot of Biblical concepts to decide that abortion is ok morally. Science will tell you that the unborn are human, they are living and they can feel some form of pain after 15 weeks. Your conscience testifies that it is wrong to brutally destroy a human life that can feel and respond to stimuli by vacuuming it out piece by piece.
The bible was used to justify abortion until the "moral majority" wanted an easy emotional issue to convince Christians that Jesus wanted them to vote for Reagan. It worked so well that a lot of Christians today think that Trump is their guy for moral reasons.
there is nothing myopic about extrapolating and interpolating using scientific knowledge, it is correct, and it is inevitable. Knowledge of when life begins is critical to the debate and is an extension of life beginning in the womb, as when Elizabeth's baby 'leapt' inside her when the Virgin Mary visited.
There is a major difference between when LIFE begins and when the PERSONHOOD of that life begins. This is what the Jewish law and thinkers recognized for millennia. Also, what Elizabeth’s baby did in the womb has no inherent significant bearing on what we assert about the global case of when personhood begins. Any significance we attach to that verse is implicit, not explicit.
"When life begins" is a relatively irrelevant question to me in this matter. If the pregnancy is within a Catholic marriage, then it is the fruit of a Holy Sacrament. If it's a sin forgivable only by the Pope to desecrate the eucharist, then it's very reasonable to say that its a sin forgivable by any priest to destroy the fruit of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Now, in the case of someone not in full communion with the Holy See, I don't see how it is the business of the Church (or we could say that person has bigger issues to deal with first). And in any event, as far as a legal matter, as the law applies to non-Catholics as well as there are times when the termination occurs under pastoral consideration (for the welfare of the person who is pregnant), I don't see how the Church should be supporting any laws of the State in this matter.
So how do you account for the 14% of pregnancy that are auto-aborted by the body. Could this be the will of god? And if so why cannot medical abortions be seen as the will of god?
I would suggest that you wasted your time earning your various academic "theological" degrees which you seem to think so highly of. To be honest, I have found that the more academic “theological” learning someone has acquired the less they actually seem to know God, His will, Jesus and the Bible. For many years I have referred to institutional theological seminaries as theological cemeteries. Places where Biblical faith and Spirit led life go to die and be buried. Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, rather than higher education, they tragically seem to become indoctrinated with various humanistic philosophies, fanciful interpretations, and absurd in-vogue opinions about the Bible that Spirit led believers would not acquire from a straight forward reading / study of inspired Biblical scripture. I have yet to find a sermon or commentary upon the Bible that was one iota as life giving as continuously reading and rereading the inspired Word of God over and over and over while asking The Holy Spirit to illuminate it’s meaning. Nothing is equal with scripture. Nothing comes close. Regarding your opinions of God’s views on abortion, your biggest and most glaring error was that YOU DID NOT USE THE BIBLE as the source of authority for your absurd claims about when a baby was considered life in God’s sight. You relied upon "subtle" and "nuanced" non-biblical opinions, philosophies, and interpretations, rather than upon pure, unadulterated, God breathed, and inspired scripture. There are numerous Biblical passages that plainly and clearly indicate that God is prophesying the detailed futures of specific unborn people who are called by name with set in stone certainty before they are born. And, on numerous occasions it is long before they are even conceived. I will include a few such passages but there are many more: In Luke chapter 1 both Mary the mother of Jesus and Zechariah (Elizabeth) are given angelic prophecies about the lives of Jesus and John the Baptist before they are even conceived. Regarding John the Baptist, first the prophecy is given ub verse 13: 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth WILL BEAR YOU A SON, and you are to call him John. After this, Elizabeth becomes pregnant in verse 23: 23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 AFTER THIS HIS WIFE ELIZABETH BECAME PREGNANT and for five months remained in seclusion. Regarding Mary the mother of Jesus, the prophecy is given as future tense not past tense so it is before conception: 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.31 YOU WILL CONCEIVE and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit WILL come on you, and the power of the Most High WILL overshadow you. The prophecies about Jesus (Isaiah 52, 53) and Cyrus (Isaiah 45) were given centuries before they were conceived. There is not whiff of “if” or “maybe”. It is fully settled in God’s perfect plan. And there are many more such passages. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Regarding Exodus 21, the emphasis is upon what happens to the baby and it makes no reference regarding how long the baby has gestated. If the baby dies, then the killer is put to death (life for life). Exodus 21:22-25 “If people are fighting and 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. But if there is serious injury, YOU ARE TO TAKE LIFE FOR LIFE, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. There is a reason that Jesus rejected the Pharisees and instead chose 12 untrained disciples to establish His Kingdom. The Pharisees had become polluted wells, contaminated with the accumulated toxins of an empty, adulterated religious doctrine which were in opposition to God’s will. I would suggest that you cast aside your academic shackles and strictly read the Bible asking the Holy Spirit to see and hear God’s will rather than the humanistic interpretations of men as they are often poisoned wells.
Laughable to say the combatant just pays a "fine" If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Exodus 21 22:23 KJV While his testimony regarding Romans 13 is pretty spot on. He uses the Word to reinforce his left wing world view. Similar to what the despot-sationalists do to justify their violent, blood thirsty rants.
@@howardnapier3618 If you were logically and rationally correct, you wouldn't need to appeal to emotion with a fake laughs and appeals to mockery. You literally lost the debate with your first word "laughable".
@@ErraticFaith An educated person wouldn't assume that someone else isn't educated. Nor use that assumption as an ad hominem attack to explicitly attempt to force someone out of a conversation with "aren't welcome here". My education allows me to analyze ancient texts, and establish that Dan is a known liar. And the only people who shouldn't be welcome in a conversation are intellectually dishonest liars. His other video about abortion he explicitly states that the bible "repeated" establish personhood at birth. This video seems to be a followup because he was called out on that lie (or at least very very ignorant non-truth).
"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee." Notice it doesn't say, "Before I formed a clump of cells in the belly." Also, who is doing the forming? God. If you think you should destroy God's creations willy nilly, you might be a devil.
Abortion is unethical regardless what the barbaric, pro-infanticide, racist, genocidal, pro-slavery, misogynistic Old or New Testaments or Quran say. Human rights do not need ancient [un]holy law codes as a reference. Also, considering embryos, individual bio-organisms, as genetically and philosophically human, is not dogmatic, and definitely not an inherently Christian position. There is nothing dogmatic or particularly religious about defending human rights.
I think you're missing the point. People are claiming in overwhelming numbers that their religious faith, informed by a specific book, is the reason they are holding a specific view. More than that they are insisting that there is no science or medical information that matters more than that view because it is a moral position backed by a religious text. That doesn't mean that they couldn't come to that same conclusion for different reasons or that anyone should. But it is important to be rigorous when that religious belief is being used to make medical decisions that can and had resulted in people's deaths. Because forcing someone to carry a non viable fetus because some voter thinks that their religious faith demands it, or continuing with an ectopic pregnancy when there is a high risk of injury or death for the same reasons shouldn't be decided using the Bible. And that should be something people should be able to discuss, but can't when "because it's in the Bible" is the constant rebuttal. I would also argue you can defend human rights vigorously and still think abortion should be a medical decision that will be necessary to save lives. Because we don't live under theistic dogmatic rules where all pregnancies are magically viable and never result in death. We live in the real world and when a fetus doesn't have lungs or a brain there isn't going to be a chance for a miracle. Science lets us know we're looking at a tragedy and forcing people to endure that tragedy because of the Bible is obscene. Look at the case of Savita Halappanavar who's death at the time was preventable, her pregnancy was not viable and her husband was told that the hospital would do nothing to save his wife's life because Catholicism. While both of them had wanted to welcome a child into their lives the reality turned into Savita spending days dying from sepsis while they both knew her life could have been saved if they were in a different country. That is what prioritizing religious texts over medical facts can get you when it comes to abortion. The ethical and moral decision might not be pretty but it would have saved a life. The religious choice ended a life.
