[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I think he has it partially correct. I think there is a fundamental difference between a child in the womb and one who has just taken its first breath. I have payed extra careful attention to verses dealing with "breath", "soul", "spirit", and "life" as I read through the Bible these last three months and I am still convinced that Ruckman was on to something. I'm not saying he was entirely correct, since I think abortion is a sin. Nevertheless I think there is a distinction.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Stephen, I think a body without a spirit is dead. I've fought the "breath/spirit" fight with the hardened Ruckmanites till I'm sick of it, and bringing out the incident where my mother carried a dead baby in her womb for the last two months of gestation where it had been beaten to death by her first husband, combined with the look on my face, has put the "quietus(Koine' English) on personal discussions of the topic with me. I'm not at this time angry in the least. I just think Dr. Ruckman is secretly flattered and tickled(more Koine' English)by the extremists in his camp. Personally I see no distinction, a human being is a human being, life begins at conception. I've had the hardened extremists(particularly in a yahoo group I quit, or was thrown out of I should say)who told me the words to Jeremiah were "...just for that ONE INCIDENT...". Just like a Seventh Day Adventist who says God telling Peter to eat anything on the divine sheet in Acts 10 was a "...one time thing ONLY to Peter..." Your and my differences are too small to disagree over on this topic, grace and peace to you my friend.

Tony