Because quoting Old Testament verses like that is a slippery slope. You are entering the realm of Jewish law, where many Jewish scholars debate the law in the Talmud with many commentaries.
Genesis 2:7 describes a soul entering the body with the first breath.
This one always feels rather flimsy to me. It deals with God breathing life into the first man created. It doesn’t necessarily say anything about fetuses or embryos.
Not that it makes much of a difference, since it’s ultimately just an interpretation of a creation myth that shouldn’t sway public policy one way or another.
From the Bible? The other two verses quoted are fine. But honestly anyone who looks to the Bible for truth isn’t going to accept my interpretation over their preferred priest, pastor, or whatever.
Exodus 21 describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.
So clearly a fetus is not alive enough to trigger the life for a life clause. That’s probably the clearest example.
The request seemed genuine. Google also gives a number of conflicting answers from a variety of dubious sources. I’m happy to provide a citation and probably should keep a link to that Dan McClellan video and just post it any time I make the assertion.
What you’re teaching them to do is trust “experts” on the internet to give them unbiased sources. (And we know that there’s no such thing.) You might be an expert, I’ll grant you, but what happens the next time they ask about COVID and the only person who replies sends them a link about bleach light treatments?
There’s nothing wrong with answering questions, but I’d much rather answer the question “Is this link/source legit?” than “What’s the answer?” I think that’s more ethical, and more critical thinking can come into play by explaining why a source is or isn’t good.
Once I send someone to Google, I can’t help them discern fact from fiction any more. And some people do need help. Most of us do. Try googling what is the best dishwasher or laptop or vacuum and what do you get? A massive number of articles which mostly don’t agree on the slightest, and most of which just repeat marketing copy from the box and show ads. Google is honestly next to useless as an information source these days. There are many subjects that Google is still quite useful for, but there are a bunch that are in an awful state.
I get what you’re saying and part of me agrees with it - we need desperately to develop critical thinking skills. But I don’t think I can help anyone do that by sending them to Google. I actually googled before sending the video link because I prefer textual references. But I ran into the same issue of a bunch of conflicting information from highly dubious websites. answersfromgenesis.com? abort73.com? Nah. So, when I can, I share sources I’ve vetted, and if someone can refute them then I’ve learned something helpful myself.
Imparting critical thinking skills is unfortunately beyond my ability. I’m only about 3/5 teaching them to my kids, so I think the internet as a whole needs more help than I can give.
Please help me with this one. I’m genuinely interested in understanding this. Got any sources?
Exodus 21:22 differentiates between causing a miscarriage and murder.
Numbers 5 has the Lord ordering an abortion, complete with instructions for how to give one and why (suspicions of a wife being unfaithful).
Genesis 2:7 describes a soul entering the body with the first breath.
If they really want to cite old testament verses, they should also refer to the Talmud.
Why? It’s Christians ego run everything, not Jews.
Because quoting Old Testament verses like that is a slippery slope. You are entering the realm of Jewish law, where many Jewish scholars debate the law in the Talmud with many commentaries.
This one always feels rather flimsy to me. It deals with God breathing life into the first man created. It doesn’t necessarily say anything about fetuses or embryos.
Not that it makes much of a difference, since it’s ultimately just an interpretation of a creation myth that shouldn’t sway public policy one way or another.
But what other precedent would you cite?
From the Bible? The other two verses quoted are fine. But honestly anyone who looks to the Bible for truth isn’t going to accept my interpretation over their preferred priest, pastor, or whatever.
Exodus 21 describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.
So clearly a fetus is not alive enough to trigger the life for a life clause. That’s probably the clearest example.
Also here is a much better explanation than I can provide: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8KShXpd/
here ya go
Why?
Because it’s something that’s easily googled? Because it’s lazy to ask questions like that before trying to find it yourself?
The request seemed genuine. Google also gives a number of conflicting answers from a variety of dubious sources. I’m happy to provide a citation and probably should keep a link to that Dan McClellan video and just post it any time I make the assertion.
What you’re teaching them to do is trust “experts” on the internet to give them unbiased sources. (And we know that there’s no such thing.) You might be an expert, I’ll grant you, but what happens the next time they ask about COVID and the only person who replies sends them a link about bleach light treatments?
There’s nothing wrong with answering questions, but I’d much rather answer the question “Is this link/source legit?” than “What’s the answer?” I think that’s more ethical, and more critical thinking can come into play by explaining why a source is or isn’t good.
Once I send someone to Google, I can’t help them discern fact from fiction any more. And some people do need help. Most of us do. Try googling what is the best dishwasher or laptop or vacuum and what do you get? A massive number of articles which mostly don’t agree on the slightest, and most of which just repeat marketing copy from the box and show ads. Google is honestly next to useless as an information source these days. There are many subjects that Google is still quite useful for, but there are a bunch that are in an awful state.
I get what you’re saying and part of me agrees with it - we need desperately to develop critical thinking skills. But I don’t think I can help anyone do that by sending them to Google. I actually googled before sending the video link because I prefer textual references. But I ran into the same issue of a bunch of conflicting information from highly dubious websites. answersfromgenesis.com? abort73.com? Nah. So, when I can, I share sources I’ve vetted, and if someone can refute them then I’ve learned something helpful myself.
Imparting critical thinking skills is unfortunately beyond my ability. I’m only about 3/5 teaching them to my kids, so I think the internet as a whole needs more help than I can give.