I said that -_-

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/only_in_americuh_miscarriage_abortion_murder/post21

Great minds think alike. But that's a tangent, it also seems that you and I think similarly.

Well, one has to do with the Son of God, part of the Holy Trinity. Thus, I would say this really doesn't count, since Jesus was not, in fact, a run-of-the-mill mortal.

The other example is, of course, King David, talking about God's role in conception. The full quote is: "For you formed my inward parts, you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works, my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance, in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."

This, of course, must be true, since God is the alpha and the omega; He is the beginning and the end and 'time' is merely a mortal construct. However, I don't see how this proves that life begins at conception, merely that God saw it happening.

The soul is everlasting and immortal; it cannot die or be born. However, what I am speaking to is the 'body'. When is the body actually alive? Since the body is merely a vessel, when does that vessel actually qualify as life? Neither King David nor God (through the Bible) have ever defined this precisely, to my knowledge.

EDIT:
Had to find the full quote of Psalm 139.13 to 139.16

EDIT 2:
After thinking on the question a little longer, I suppose the real crux of the issue is when exactly the soul inhabits the body. Jesus, as the Son of God, is rather a special case. Is there another example that mentions the soul inhabiting the body at conception? The King David quote only deals with the construction of the body, not about the time-frame of when the soul took 'possession'.

As I have noted, anything dealing with time is merely a mortal construct. God sees all, in all places, in all times. Time is not a concern to him. Thus, He would know, and have planned for, all eventualities. Would He not have seen which babies would be aborted, and acted accordingly? Is it necessary that every fetus conceived gets a soul? Where is this written?

I don't know, the reasoning all starts to get a little circular to me; kind of like the 'Wine In Front Of Me' (WIFOM) arguments in Werewolf games. It gets into the question of Free Will vs. God's omniscience; if he knows how everything turns out, is it all just fate after all? This is why I ask for a precise quote from the Bible, anything else seems too much like putting words in God's mouth.

This reminds me of a state, I can't remember which one, that was proposing the exact same thing recently. The problem is, while it targets people intentionally causing a miscarriage, the text actually says ANYBODY that has a miscarriage can be prosecuted or something like that.

Still bullshit tho.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by "murder" you meant "killing another human being". Despite "thou shalt not kill" religious folks overwhelmingly support war and the Bible is chocked full of killing, including genocide of the Canaanites (actual children included).

Every mammal kills unwanted young, it's a survival strategy, we're able to do it pre-birth making it a bit more palatable. In the end the "is it a kid yet or not" argument is a red herring, nothing more. Killing is legal in many instances in modern society, even outside of war. Eliminating a zygote appears to be on the "it's okay" list. Sorry, if that bothers you but given what you support, if you're pro the Bible, go fucking pull that beam out of your eye, then come back and talk to me.
Most states wrote these laws that way according to the article posted in the OP.

.. I like you. Finding verses people are quoting out of context and using that to fight their argument, instead of the classic 'LOL bible!"

WOW... Just Wow... really I'm amazed this is even being taken to court.

Actually, the Commandment pertaining to this is: "You shall not murder." Which number Commandment it is and, to some extent, how it is stated, depends on which translation of the Old Testament is consulted, however 'murder' is the generally accepted term, not 'kill'.

The difference is not only semantics. 'Murder' is always unjustified and illegal, but 'killing', as you yourself argue, is often justifiable and just as often legal.

Merriam-Webster defines them as (first definitions):

Murder:
to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

Kill:
a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering

Some of the secondary and tertiary definitions are the same, but this is because they are close synonyms.

I am just mentioning this, because this is possibly the most misquoted Bible Commandment. Using the correct word here does clear up a lot of ambiguity, I think.

EDIT:
So, to me the argument really does hinge on whether or not the fetus has a soul, for I believe it is the soul that makes Man created in the image of God. If the fetus has a soul, then, in fact, abortion is murder and Christians are totally justified in being morally outraged. However, if the fetus has no soul, then abortion is merely tantamount to killing livestock and only vegans should object. This is why I made such a big deal about when, and if, a fetus has a soul.

EDIT2:
Please note that even if the Bible does state something definitive about a soul being granted at the moment of conception***, it doesn't mean that I am saying that abortion should be illegal. I am am only saying that if this is the case, then I fully understand why Christians would want to criminalize the practice. Christians get just as many votes per person as anyone else, and they must, as every else, vote their conscience. But, we have the First Amendment, and we have no state religion; just because a faith denounces a practice, it does not mean the country's laws must as well.

***A strong possibility. I have neither read the entire Bible nor do I have a perfect understanding or recollection of all that I have read of the Bible.

I'm not religious, for the record, and consider myself to be both pro-choice and pro-life. Legally, pro-choice.

Other than that, I'm very turned off by those within the pro-choice movement who have dug in their heels to the point of absurdity, where making this decision becomes the rough equivalent of whether or not to use a condom. If you don't see this as one of the biggest moral quandaries that a person can face, I'm not sure where living on the same planet.

I agree totally. If my posts haven't proven already that I am very torn over the issue, then let me just confirm it here. :)

First off just wanna say to Krypsyn....you're one of the most mature people I've ever seen on an online forum!! Kudos to you!! :)

Now as to if the baby has a soul or not...I think the question is...at what point is the baby truly alive? Because even outside of Christianity, clearly murder is wrong. A society that legalizes murder in any form, won't be long to last.

So I would say that based on several arguments I've heard from pro-life people (unique DNA is created within seconds after conception, there is a registered heartbeat within a few [i forget exactly how many] days after conception) that if not immediately AT LEAST within a few days of conception the baby can be considered "alive" in which case aborting it would be murder.

That's how I personally see it. :)

The point is that, following that train of thought, cells turned malignant due to a mutations have unique DNA, and hence, a tumor is 'life'.

Obviously there's a need to limit abortion in order to keep it from being a contraceptive method, but banning it altogether, even (from the article) in its unintentional form, is pure lunacy.

Thank you. That is the most misunderstood line in the Bible, in my experience. I don't know about rape and incest but I have no pity for someone who, knowing all of the possible consequences, has sex and then wants none of the responsibility. Am I the only one who sees abortion as a (if nothing more) drastic measure for anything less than rape or medical emergancy?

Yeah, that is certainly a valid and internally consistent viewpoint. It is one that many of my friends hold, and I respect it.

Mine is that Christians believe God created everything, and the only quality that sets Man apart is that we have a soul. God is the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy spirit) and Man also has a trinity of Body, Soul, and Spirit. That is what I was taught is meant when the Bible said God made us in his image during my decade+ tenure in Episcopal grade school (chapel every morning, first 'class' of the day).

God can create life inside a woman, but I don't consider 'life' to equal 'humanity' until there is a soul involved. While I find killing anything or anyone just as a matter of convenience repugnant, I don't believe aborting a, for the sake of argument, soulless-fetus breaks any laws, secular or ecclesiastical. Killing doesn't rise to murder until there is a human being (e.g. life with a soul) involved.

Of course, if the Bible DOES state something definitive on the subject of conception and souls, then all bets are off.

Also, thanks for the compliment. I do try to be respectful when I argue. I guess my mantra for debates and arguments in general is: "Just because I think they are wrong, it doesn't mean that they are stupid". I occasionally forget this, in the heat of the moment, and I say things I regret, but it goes a long way to remind me to be polite of differing viewpoints.

I would also include potential birth defects in the valid reasons to have an abortion, but I largely agree with you. We live in a society full of over-entitled "victims" currently, and it is hard to take responsibility for anything if nothing is ever your fault.