So says you .. unfortunately you have nothing that backs up this claim. Developmental stages are not classified taxonomically Your argument is absurd.
You dont seem to have read or have any understanding of biology so I doubt you have read the Bible much either.
He never said it was a good thing. He's saying that the passage implies that aborting the potential offspring that results from adultery is better than actually birthing it.
No .. a curse is a bad thing. How does that factor into the fact that an abortifacient is being administered ? God condones abortion !
IT WAS PUNISHMENT! If you said that God approves of capital punishment, that would be closer to the truth, only in that case the child is killed for the mother's sin.
That makes no sense. Why kill an "innocent" for the sins of the mother? Why not wait until the child is born and then kill the mother for her own sins?
That is why the New testament exists to trump the old. But back to the issue at hand, it was clearly shown as a punishment for the woman's transgressions.
The punishment in this case was abortion. The woman was being punished. The fetus was then reduced to an instrument of punishment. This is just one of a multitude of Passages related to abortion in the OT where the fetus is not considered of much value.
That a fetus would be used as an instrument of punishment shows that it is of little regard in Gods eyes. There are a multitude of instances in the OT that confirm this. The NT says nothing in relation to abortion that I can think of so it is of little help in determining what God thinks. The idea that the NT trumps the OT is far from universal .. I think only elements on the fringe claim this. Certainly not the Catholics, Lutherans, nor most other mainstream Christian organizations. This matters not because I don't think the NT addresses abortion.
On the contrary, if the fetus was of no value, it would be of no use as a tool of punishment. Logic, try it!
Logic ? please do not talk about things you know nothing about. You have been caught in so many logical fallacies I have lost count. Now we all make mistakes from time to time but even when caught in a logical fallacy you refuse to admit your mistake and defend your lost position. There is a name for people like that. The question at hand is what value God places on the Fetus. Just because the mother may have placed some value on the fetus, does not mean God does. There are bible stories, brought up earlier, where the mother was punished, by being burned to death for example. In this case we have no idea whether the mother valued the fetus or not. What is clear is that in both examples God places does not value the fetus.
You continually say that the zygote disappears or dies and doesn't become part of the ensuing developmental stages, then you agree that the genetic material contained within IS carried on to the ensuing developmental stages. Could be lack of logical ability, could be pure dishonesty, I'm not sure.
Nowhere do I say the zygote does not become part of the whole. Do not blame your lack of reading comprehension on me. The parent zygote is a cell .. after mitotic division there are two cells called daughter cells. Each of the daughter cells contains half of the parent zygote's genetic material. Test of Logic for you: Are either of the two cells after the first mitotic division is the parent zygote.
SO you agree that the zygote grows into the subsequent stages of human development? Great, then why are you being no nasty?
No nastyness ... just good science. The zygote does not grow into a subsequent stage of human development. After the first cell division the zygote cell as an entity does not exist. If you think it does exist .. then state which of the two daughter cells after the first mitosis is the parent zygote cell ?
Mitosis is reproduction for the zygote. Mitosis is growth for a human. After the first mitosis the parent zygote cell does not exist so it can not grow. The fact that after the first mitosis you can not point out which cell is the parent zygote proves this.
