REPLY #11 TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) I agree with your abortion views %100. I often use the Bible novel to argue abortion with bible nuts. I argue that it allows abort by its silence.
(MB) Absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of absence. However, since there are so many specific Biblical pronouncements upon which acts are evil, sinful, wrong, illegal, or otherwise forbidden, it is certainly interesting to note that abortion rates no such mention in the Bible.
(R) It does not address what females shoud do with the issue from their menstrul dischare. Surely God should have known that miscarriage could occur at any time, the the microscopic embryo would not reveal its presence in the discharge; and, therefore, females should protect and respect the discharge. They should not merely flush it and discard it as it may contain a living soul.
(MB) The question of when the soul enters the developing fetus' body is an important one that never quite gets a good answer. Fundamentalists tend to say that this happens at the moment of conception, but this would present the difficulty you mentioned. Somehow, I can't imagine every menstruating woman spending 4-5 days in a clinic each month so that the entirety of her menstrual flow could be examined for the presence of a fertilized egg or spontaneously aborted zygote. Yet, I can't see any other way to accomplish the goal of not missing and accounting for the life and death of any soul-containing "human".
(R) But no where does (as far as I can find) the bible require ritual, baptism, or burial of preborns --- they are treated as non-entities.
(MB) It seems rather obvious that the moment of birth is (and pretty much always has been) one of those arbitrary dividing lines our legal system draws to determine whether or not an individual possesses or gains any legal rights and responsibilities. The designation of one's 18th birthday as the time when a minor becomes an adult is another such line. Nobody makes a big deal out of demanding proof that someone who has just turned 18 years of age is actually somehow "better" than a peer who is only 17 years and 364 days old and is, therefore, deserving of gaining the rights and responsibilities that are still denied to his peer. Our legal system just recognizes that a line must be drawn and that particular one has become accepted. The moment of birth is another such legal line. So is the moment of death.
"Life begins at conception" is a noble concept, but it falls short of being realistic and could lead to many unresolvable difficulties if it was made a strict matter of law.