…”The last part of the first word of Genesis 1:1 is “-ît” (the ancient Hebrew letters yod and taw, here pronounced together like the “-eet” of the English word sheet). -ît appears to be an ancient Hebrew suffix which indicates that the word it is suffixed to referrers to a group or set of related objects like a house, nation, or flock.”

See: “The Mayim of Creation” – http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/39_mayim.pdf

Your argument is invalid – it completely “begs the question.” You’re putting your conclusion in as a premise (the “Law of Consent”):

All conceptions occur via sexual intercourse
All conceptions may naturally abort
Some conceptions naturally abort
(Consent to sexual intercourse is implied consent for abortion)
——
Therefore: All conceptions have implied consent for abortion

Even with a possibility of natural abortion through miscarriage, how does that make elective abortion morally acceptable? Are you saying any externally induced abortion is natural? Are you arguing moral choices are natural acts? That makes about as much sense as saying murder is not wrong, because someone was going to die anyway, and another’s choice to kill is merely part of a natural process of death.

You misattribute a non-universal (some risk there may be a natural abortion) as a universal basis for elective abortion. That is, acceptance of some risk is actually acceptance of all risk – including the mother making a choice.

You’d probably find the following situation morally wrong: A woman and a man agree to have a child together. After intercourse a child is conceived. The woman then decides she doesn’t want to be pregnant and so aborts the child, against the consent of the man. Is her responsibility towards fulfilling the initial agreement no longer valid because she’s made a different choice later? Should the man bear all risk in the agreement – including her reneging on the initial agreement? Does she bear no liability at all? How is that just for the man?

Here’s an analogous scenario – a man agrees to protect a woman. Later he decides he doesn’t want to protect her, so he kills her. Is his responsibility towards fulfilling the initial agreement no longer valid because he’s made a different choice later?

If you don’t find those situations morally wrong, then apparently you have absolutely no understanding of positive law. You’re conflating natural law and positive law.

You’re not making a valid argument – but simply attempting to dress a bad argument up in “scientific” clothes.

I believe the human person is an intrinsic whole: a person’s spirit is inseparable from their body. This whole constitutes the entirety of their person. I have sound Biblical reasons for believing this to be the case. I believe a person has a spirit, but this is intrinsic – not additive. It doesn’t come and go, nor is it detachable as we think of as parts/pieces relationships.

Whatever our views regarding personhood, we must not forget that it is a human body which is destroyed during abortion. My simple test for proof of personhood is to be subjected to the same destruction which is done to the unborn, and then once destroyed, to prove your person was completely unaffected. Such proof would require supernatural communication, because your natural life would cease to exist!

The danger in arguing personhood as an additive and not intrinsic nature of being is that doing so leaves too much philosophical wiggle room. Peter Singer makes such arguments. I contend if he doesn’t know when he became a person, then it would be impossible for him to claim any development of the body he inhabits as being “his development”. Further, how could he claim the body he inhabits as “his” – how would we proscribe ownership/title to that body? It’s illogical.

Our bodies are grounded in flesh at conception, and whatever the spiritual outgrowth of that momentous event is immaterial to the physical destructive procedure of abortion. Arguments purely in the spiritual realm are outside our jurisdiction!

You may wish to study the materials at http://www.ehd.org/.

Thanks Cath!

I think, though, that in the refutation of non-personhood arguments, you mean ‘undergo’ and not ‘forgo.’ Most people, I imagine, would be quite willing to forgo that kind of destruction!

Nik said :
In general, I tend to agree with your argument. However, you don’t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor,… one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US. Is that an acceptable trade-off?

Your question (counter-argument, really) implies 1) that humans are only functionally valuable, not immeasurably valuable; and 2) people can’t change when they face adverse conditions.

That’s a very depressing perspective. Simple question: do you love people for who they are, or for what they do for you? Would you tell someone you “loved” they were only functional to you?

Further, your justification (via Ayn Rand) based on human exceptionalism only works if you are exceptional. Do you realize you live entirely at the mercy of others upholding their responsibility not to kill you? Seriously. Laws on paper are only good to the point where people believe there is a morality behind them. And last time I checked murder continues. Shall we talk about that likelihood?

You contend my argument is based on emotion, while yours isn’t. However, at the very core of your argument is a pure hypocrisy:

you condone violence to avert violence;
deadly force is merciful and morally justifiable against innocent human beings;
killing our own children is an act of responsibility to others;
and, ultimately the violence of abortion is an appeal to force to remove the assertion (truth) of the child.

Sorry, that’s not rational, it’s insane. So your logic is invalid and your charge false. Nik – your comment looks fearful, very typical of pro-choice “population-control” arguments – “get them before they get us.”

Nik said :The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies. Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?

Group, what group? My family and I believe in the sanctity of marriage, the blessing of chilldren, that sex is a family matter, not a public one and that sex education should be frank discussions between parents and their children, not for the public to impose upon our family.