[B0ycey]

If we deliberately prevent conception of the last male and female specimen of an endangered species, have we not actively destroyed the species?

Should conservation efforts not include eggs of endangered birds because they are just eggs?

Do you define any of that as murder?

As a female, do you advocate the message of this thread and try to produce as many children as possible?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Do you define any of that as murder?

My point is that it would logically follow if you agree with conservationists, e.g. as far as I'm aware, the law makes no distinction between the eggs and the birds if the species is endangered and rightly so because the egg will develop into the bird if it is not destroyed. That kind of logic is increasingly absent in the abortion debate with people claiming a foetus isn't human or even comparing it to a parasite.

Do you believe eggs should be exempt when it comes to the protection of endangered birds because they are not actual birds yet?

As a female, do you advocated the message of this thread and try to produce as many children as possible?

No, but I'm uncomfortable with our current message that asserts this is exclusively about women's right/women's bodies and increasingly includes late term abortions as well. Note that this argument implies that a pregnant women cannot have any recourse with respect to her unborn child if somebody inflicts injuries on her which lead to the death or injury of the foetus. I do not agree with this at all.

The original abortion argument was about overall harm reduction. It was pragmatic. Today it's ideologically motivated reasoning devoid of any logic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If we deliberately prevent conception of the last male and female specimen of an endangered species, have we not actively destroyed the species?

Should conservation efforts not include eggs of endangered birds because they are just eggs?

have you not answered your own question? If you prevent an endangered species from breeding you have guaranteed its extinction.

[B0ycey]

My point is that it would logically follow if you agree with conservationists, e.g. as far as I'm aware, the law makes no distinction between the eggs and the birds if the species is endangered and rightly so because the egg will develop into the bird if it is not destroyed. That kind of logic is increasingly absent in the abortion debate with people claiming a foetus isn't human or even comparing it to a parasite.

I think everyone would acknowledge that if you prevent an endangered species from replicating you would be responsible for making that species extinct. But do you think that is the same as contraception of personal choice? More importantly have you practiced contraception? Or do you actively try to produce as many children as possible? That is after all the topic.

Do you believe eggs should be exempt when it comes to the protection of endangered birds because they are not actual birds yet?

No, because they are in danger. Do I think we should ban chicken eggs from supermarkets so the hen can mate with the rooster and produce as many chickens as possible? No because they are not in danger.

No, but I'm uncomfortable with our current message that asserts this is exclusively about women's right/women's bodies and increasingly includes late term abortions as well. Note that this argument implies that a pregnant women cannot have any recourse with respect to her unborn child if somebody inflicts injuries on her which lead to the death or injury of the foetus. I do not agree with this at all.

That is your moral opinion. Do you believe in free choice? Do you accept the law?

The original abortion argument was about overall harm reduction. It was pragmatic. Today it's ideologically motivated reasoning devoid of any logic.

I think most females don't go through an abortion even with an unwanted pregancy. I also believe most people don't believe in abortions. As it happens, neither do I. But I do believe in free choice and that everyone is different. I also believe that people should have all the rights the law allows. For that reason alone to me abortions should be up to the individual in practice to decide. I also don't consider anyone who undertakes an abortion as a murderer - the message of this thread.

[Hindsite]

My point is that it would logically follow if you agree with conservationists, e.g. as far as I'm aware, the law makes no distinction between the eggs and the birds if the species is endangered and rightly so because the egg will develop into the bird if it is not destroyed. That kind of logic is increasingly absent in the abortion debate with people claiming a foetus isn't human or even comparing it to a parasite.

The egg of a bird will not develop into a bird unless it has been fertilized by the male sperm.

[Godstud]

The egg of a bird will not develop into a bird unless it has been fertilized by the male sperm.

FAKE NEWS!!

It only becomes a bird if God wills it, you sinful heathen! Praise the lord! Halleluyah!!

[Victoribus Spolia]

The egg of a bird will not develop into a bird unless it has been fertilized by the male sperm.

Thats not the point, the point is, if you prevent said fertilization you are preemptively causing the extinction of the species in question. Hence, if you have endangered birds, and you prevent them from reproducing, its the same as guaranteeing their extinction that would otherwise not be the case, all things being equal.

This is essentially, similar logic as to what I have been making the entire thread. I don't think @Kaiserschmarrn, agrees with me, which is fine (most do not), but the logic of actual person destroying via potential person destroying (a preemptive act with future generational consequences) is hard to deny.

Its almost childish actually.

[Hindsite]

Thats not the point, the point is, if you prevent said fertilization you are preemptively causing the extinction of the species in question. Hence, if you have endangered birds, and you prevent them from reproducing, its the same as guaranteeing their extinction that would otherwise not be the case, all things being equal.

This is essentially, similar logic as to what I have been making the entire thread. I don't think @Kaiserschmarrn, agrees with me, which is fine (most do not), but the logic of actual person destroying via potential person destroying (a preemptive act with future generational consequences) is hard to deny.

Its almost childish actually.

The more important point is that you don't need every egg to be fertilized to prevent extinction of the species. You can also eat some of them for food and it will not matter to the species. There is also a thing called over-population of a species for its environment. Then to keep the balance, it requires killing some of the species are doing some sort of contraception. God gave this duty to man in the beginning. You refuse to perform this duty.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The more important point is that you don't need every egg to be fertilized to prevent extinction of the species. You can also eat some of them for food and it will not matter to the species.

No one made this claim.

God gave this duty to man in the beginning. You refuse to perform this duty.

Where is the duty to use contraception in Scripture, please cite the text.

If you are ready to debate Scripture on birth control, I am ready and willing to do whenever you are. This is as good of a place as any.

[Hindsite]

Where is the duty to use contraception in Scripture, please cite the text.

I did not say contraception is mentioned in the Holy Bible. There was no need for it then because the earth was greatly underpopulated. After God blessed the first man and woman, He said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (NAS, Genesis 1:28)

Don't you believe that part of "ruling over every living thing that moves on the earth" includes managing the species so they don't become extinct or overpopulate their environment? I do.

Anyway, in ancient times it was believed that the male sperm was the only factor in human reproduction and the sperm was regarded as humans in miniature. Hence spilling it out was tantamount to abortion as well as a waste of a precious element.

It is now known that sperm cells are not miniature humans; a man's sperm must unite with a woman's egg before a baby can be formed. Furthermore, sperm cells not ejected from the body simply die after a few weeks anyway, and they are continuously replaced. So today, masturbation is no longer considered bad by informed people.

In the twentieth century, scientific knowledge of reproduction, sensitivity to women's rights, and concern about overpopulation produced great changes in attitude. Most Christian churches now say reproductive decisions are private matters between husband and wife and their consciences. Birth control methods are no longer discouraged, except by the evil Roman Catholic Church.

[ingliz]

contraception in Scripture

I find it odd that God can condemn Onan for spilling his seed (Genesis 38:8-10) when God is ordering priests to abort fetuses (Numbers 5:12-22).

And the Lord spoke ...

[Hindsite]

I find it odd that God can condemn Onan for spilling his seed (Genesis 38:8-10) when God is ordering priests to abort fetuses (Numbers 5:12-22).

I don't see anything there about priests aborting fetuses. It appears more like an elaborate attempt to get the woman to admit her sin against her husband or take the chance of drinking dirty water that may result in a curse against her fertility, if she is lying.

[ingliz]

I don't see anything there about priests aborting fetuses

Using your preferred text:

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that... your womb miscarries.

The cursed water was thought to be an abortifacient.


p.s. Alternative translations have the poisoned fetus rotting inside the woman.

Example:

Numbers 5:22 King James Version (KJV)

And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.

[Hindsite]

Using your preferred text:

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that... your womb miscarries.

The cursed water was thought to be an abortifacient.

p.s. Alternative translations have the poisoned fetus rotting inside the woman.

Example:

Numbers 5:22 King James Version (KJV)

And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.

"Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water."
(Numbers 5:17 NIV)

There is no indication that anything but dust is put into the holy water in any translation that I have seen. However, there is a difference in the translations of what the curse means to the women as can be seen below:

Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
(Numbers 5:21 KJV)

here the priest is to put the woman under this curse--"may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."
(Numbers 5:21 NIV)

"At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, 'May the people know that the LORD's curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel and your abdomen to swell."
(Numbers 5:21 New Living Translation)

We see that a couple versions believe the "thigh" refers to the "womb" of the woman.

[ingliz]

We see that a couple versions believe the "thigh" refers to the "womb" of the woman.

No

The "thigh" refers to the vagina. The "rot" to putrefaction - the foul smelling pus and blood seeping from the vagina. If a dead fetus is not expelled, it will cause an infection.

[Igor Antunov]

For murder to occur from a legal perspective, a fully formed multi-cellular organism must be destroyed. Contraception prevents conception. It is no more murder than killing cheek cells in your mouth by drinking Vodka.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@ingliz, @Hindsite,

I think you guys are both missing the point with that text. God directly punishes people in Scripture with infertility and with even the loss of a child for adultery. David's lost his first child with Bathsheba for this very thing.

However, that God punishes people by taking away from them what is important to them, is His prerogative. He is God, we are but men. That he condemns contraception as a murderous crime is a separate matter. Once again, this is His distinction and He is God and alone has the right to make it; whether we understand it or not.

For murder to occur from a legal perspective, a fully formed multi-cellular organism must be destroyed.

Obviously, but no one is arguing the contrary.

Contraception prevents conception. It is no more murder than killing cheek cells in your mouth by drinking Vodka.

My syllogism proves otherwise and the cheek cells analogy would not apply.

Don't you believe that part of "ruling over every living thing that moves on the earth" includes managing the species so they don't become extinct or overpopulate their environment? I do.

Yes, we are free to kills animals for furs, food, to selectively breed them, to castrate them, to reduce or expand their numbers etc....Because they are animals. They are not the Imago Dei.

Anyway, in ancient times it was believed that the male sperm was the only factor in human reproduction and the sperm was regarded as humans in miniature. Hence spilling it out was tantamount to abortion as well as a waste of a precious element.

It is now known that sperm cells are not miniature humans; a man's sperm must unite with a woman's egg before a baby can be formed. Furthermore, sperm cells not ejected from the body simply die after a few weeks anyway, and they are continuously replaced. So today, masturbation is no longer considered bad by informed people.

Are you implying that the truth of God's Word is culturally conditioned? Thus, God was wrong to punish Onan in the OT because "He just didn't know better?"

That is heresy. The implantation theory is not assumed in the text, nor is it assumed in my argument, and yet both remain valid.

Also, the Hebrew in Genesis 38 for the Onan incident cannot be translated "Spilled his seed" or "spilled his semen." The word translated spilled only ever means kill or destroy and that is the only way it is used in Scripture. Likewise the word translated as seed or semen in that text means "offspring" in Hebrew.

a literal translation is that Onan "destroyed his offspring on the ground" All historic commentators agree that is what he did that merited death as well, including all of the major reformers as well as all ancient commentators.

In the twentieth century, scientific knowledge of reproduction, sensitivity to women's rights, and concern about overpopulation produced great changes in attitude. Most Christian churches now say reproductive decisions are private matters between husband and wife and their consciences. Birth control methods are no longer discouraged, except by the evil Roman Catholic Church.

Most Christian churches are wrong and have departed from the Scriptures, all held contraception to be immoral until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when Anglicans were the first ones to deviate. The Romish church's position allows for the rhythm method, which is also immoral in my opinion.

Likewise, Scripture is what determines what is right, not what people want to be right that determines the meaning of Scripture. the "rights of women," "science," and whether the world can be overpopulated, are all claims that must be subordinated to Scripture's authoritative claims, not the other way around. To say otherwise, is to abandon the true faith, for it elevates human reasoning above the revealed will of God.

[ingliz]

Are you implying that the truth of God's Word is culturally conditioned?

Religion is a culturally conditioned construct.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Religion is a culturally conditioned construct.

If you really believe that, you are blind to the Truth, and do not understand the doctrine of Revelation or its consequences in ethical philosophy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, god is unprovable, and since Vicky dismisses all arguments based on unprovable premises, Vicky will no doubt dismiss religious arguments.