Spoilers

Oi I said Spoilers

Okay nyow I've been viewing the nyu anime BNA for a while and can't help but notice the Beastman biology that allows for metamorphic transformation, the growth of limbs immortality, the slight control of a higher electromagnetic resonance with the Kami Wolf form and so on. Started with the wolf Shiro absorbed all the blood from his fallen friends. So this is a bit suggestive of some odd form of basically Alchemy in the Ultimate Form Blood Of Majicks or phase shift of material that is transferred and exothermically activated by s.rna much like squid's or something that is transfered through bodily fluids like blood or seamen or something else sex joke here.

So basically if Covid-19 had Crispr technology and was a total furry. Basically they make furries by either fucking them or bleeding on people and its just pure lycanthropy having a baby with the mutation rate of HIV XD and the death rate of tuberculosis lol Bio jokes for the Mystics and Druids XD.

>3Totally gonna add that to my char he bang hoomans they turn >;3 to cewt kittens

Well here we are again 12 states are trying to ban porn and declare it a public health crisis. I'm sure I need not notify most of you but I'm sure there will be some "Ever Sincere" individuals might have a hard time imagining that all these bans are being present by Conservatives and red states. It is almost beyond Hilarious that we still have such ignorant and staunchly repressed people in government. The only thing more Hilarious is that I have heard from people trying to debate that it is liberals or progressives who've always promoted free love and equal rights for gays have somehow magically decided to ban porn and conservatives are the new white knights.

As ever the Conservative tradition of pretending to hold views that are otherwise not your own or to pretend you're actions are not so extreme still live. Given the Myriad of alternative facts presented by conservatives and their actions on average being the opposition of their "Sincere" discourse saying otherwise why should anyone believe them? Still there are some here who are either complete trolls intent on lying no matter the evidence or those given the benefit of the doubt must be the Absolutely dumbest individuals possible.

We here are a community where the majority of us hold mostly Progressive views. We on average hold such views because the majority of us have a horror story of being persecuted by conservatives for our sexual dispositions. If you happen to see someone suggesting the conservatives have changed their ways, denying that they ever persecuted, or giving false equivocation for other political groups, I have absolute certainty that the majority of us Know well enough that they're are either liars or at best ignorant at such a massive scale it would be negligent to not call it stupid. Conservatives should they gain any real power will come for us and they will commit the most sadistic and vile actions upon us simply for being gay, bi and yes furries

There is good news is Ajit Pai and the FCC does not have the final word on net neutrality. Congress had previously Demanded they halt their vote due to how it affects our nation but they ignored it. Now there is a set a court ruling to challenge such an action. The supreme court and several other legal organizations have suggested that this act could have extreme ramifications for the entire nation economically, politically, and constitutionally that would ultimately put it out of the FCC's jurisdiction.

Net Neutrality is held by India the EU Canada and several others. The countries who don't have it are plagued with throttle issues, monopolies, and higher prices. Some have gotten past it by creating municipalities taking the internet wholly away from corporations which is what we Must do. This affects our economy, our freedom of speech, technology, and politics.

Verizon and the FCC along with Warner tried to add secondary legislation to prevent states from using their states rights to create Net Neutrality laws but that doesn't involve Municipalities and who the Fuck would be stupid enough to agree to that? We have to set up Municipal broadband deployments which are broadband Internet access services provided either fully or partially by local governments.Common connection technologies include unlicensed wireless (Wi-Fi, wireless mesh networks), licensed wireless (such as WiMAX), and fiber optic cable.

Furthermore, with the way politics are going, we can see an even greater split in our nation by those states who have an affordable and open internet to those who do not. Those who do will have a stronger economy and greater informed populace which is an absolute Necessity for a Democracy. Those without will be irate sheep controlled by their t.v and starving for money and knowledge led easily into the wrong direction. So basically worse than what it is now between red and blue states. With such huge differences by economy technology and politics based on having information are not a civil war will be inevitable.

knowing about previous historical issues much like this. It took ages for us to get working rights when we had monopolies beforehand thousands of protest for people to get the weekend, a minimum wage, removal of child labor. Things beforehand were so bad people couldn't do crap about it that's why we had so many abuses of power. Our own FCC data and other statistics show there is NO competition between internet providers. if you have an issue you can always go to their competi OH wait you can't their the only ones yeah Gee sorry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSnkrw1ao_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JucFpDhuF98

The Yule tide is here and I’m trying to gather some Christmas cheer. However, it seems a tear falls down my side the lachrymal essences bears something of a fear and loathing rage ever present in me. A pressing touch reminds me that my hands shake resentful that I, cannot but remain livid with the incident created by my father and the past institution of learning I retired from within my adolescence.

It follows me almost every waking hour simply because it was upon the time my ever present solitude was formed into true pain. It was intuitive to me at a fairly young age that mankind often move through life by transitioning from one stage to another. Simply understanding this I had a realization of extreme solitude hit me very hard for I could see that I was just not on the same rhythm as everyone else. But this solitude wasn’t painful it was refreshing; it stood as my ground of all being holding me against the constant shifting of axis of society and the berating of all who saw me as natures oddity.

I ran toward this solitude embracing it fondly delving into worlds of reflection and contemplation colored by the hue of my imagination. I so often enjoyed the idea of energies moving through planes of a finite area yet an infinite perimeter. Twisting the laws of nature as they did so I made characters and stories combining realms where such things the weak nuclear and electromagnetic were easily intermingled forces, as space and time tilted to my perceptions.

However, due to my oddities and the scruples to form meaning from concern, the authority figures of my life grew restless. Rather than sitting down with me and properly addressing the ills of my angst to search for identity, they duly thrusted me into a place they didn’t have to deal with me. I was taken, placed in a holding area of a rundown hostile area. They beat me, drugged me, and chained me. Forced into solitary confinement as the drugs induced an adverse reaction the resentment of the world to my existence was pressed into me. The solitude I had once enjoyed and an ever present part of my identity now beget nothing but shame as all claimed that I was created wrong and framed as a vile irregularity.

As I was moved the conviction that I was wronged was merited by every psychologist I had met. They declared nothing was wrong with me and that I should never have been placed into such a situation in the first place. Over fives times their stance and five times compensation solidified my internal construction that this was a vile heinous wrong done onto me. Yet it remained because to restrain my resentment toward my family I have had to wait for their apology. Not an apology for their negligence in the matter of allowing such a thing to happen. But the smallest trepidation of an apology in acknowledging that what I went through was regrettable.

I have waited over ten years, a literal decade, still in hope that I shall receive it. For the ever-present solitude of my differing stride in life remains not a steadfast recluse I could retire and revive myself; but a toxic tempest of inferiority, shame, and the whispers of Thanatos echoing the call of the void to remove myself as a mistake of the world. How can I feel anything other than loathing for the ones who stripped the essence of that which is mine of oneself and diluted it to a twisted spiral of wanting and dread? How, can one not naturally desire to forgive those they love and return to be enveloped by the expression of sequestration?

But how can either be done on one’s own if such cannot allow the legitimization of that act? To do so would to equate that vile wrong to a wholesome deed and it would give all reason to snuff out the twisted ember of mine soul that would solidify from such equivocation. Thus I can only continue to hope one day I will receive that trepidation or I will have to forsake all to maintain myself.

When it comes to the contention of proving evolution often one gets a false dichotomy of some saying that evolution means “Life on earth is descended via blind random processes and not design”. Natural process are not random and do result in an incidental design. Proving that evolution is fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates or other religious and superstitious hearsay. So to say that evolution proves god couldn’t have done it and thus must meet those criteria is obviously wrong. Therefore when someone speaks about proving evolution or disproving god these concerns must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as “descent with inherent genetic modification”. Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among the reproductive population; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually leading to one or more descendant branches increasingly becoming distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Evolution is a theory, that is to say, one of the highest contentions of science that embodies and encompasses numerous degrees of Facts, Laws, and Predictions that are all falsifiable and substantially evident through methodological naturalism. Here are a few of the facts each one I can later give sufficient evidence to satisfactorily prove it under rigorous or strictest definition and by far been proven meeting the standards required of a scientific theory of peer review, critical analysis and law in court.

It is a fact that evolution happens, That is to say that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics and environmental dynamics

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and practical application

It is a fact that beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups and that several biological markers do exist which traces these lineages backward over a myriad of generations.
• types of mutations
• missense, This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid
• nonsense, A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein.
• insertions, An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA
• deletions, A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA.
• Frameshift, This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene's reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid
• Duplications, A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times.
• Repeat expansions Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences.
• Beneficial mutations already found in humans: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, Increased bone density, Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Increase in HDL cholesterol

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way, that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in the same way lions are a subset of cats.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced back to the most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as chronological and correct placement of successive stages through the geological column.

It is a fact that every animal on earth has obvious living relatives either living nearby or evident within the fossil record and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even to the strictest definition of that term.

It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution has been directly-observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in nature-controlled conditions, and that all of these instances have withstood scrutiny of critical analysis and peer review.

It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evident support or measurable validity, and that no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

Many may accept evolution but those who don’t are ever contentious with its evidence and drum against it as the production of life. They often do not realize that evolution itself is not an explanation of how life arose but rather how it diversified. When it comes to the origins of life the subject matter is referred to as Abiogenesis and there are many theories of how it got started but all that are involved are determined by the precursors of chemical replications that are the most likely candidates.

Abiogenesis: Proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855 and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing Spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life: The proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix. Thus Genetic and metabolic cells must have developed through an intricate sequence of an increasingly complex chemical construct, each having been naturally enhanced by a particular constituent and environmental conditions.

There have been a number of experiments proving that amino acids can be incidentally derived from inorganic chemicals according to the natural conditions of the prebiotic earth. We now know of conditions that will also generate polypeptide and ribonucleotides through a repeated sequence of inundation, dehydration, and irradiation.

Simple chemicals => Polymers => Replicating Polymers => Hypercycle Protobiont => Bacteria

Looking at the previous steps we see from experiments, starting from Urey Miller and have advanced further. Simple chemicals can and do add up to the matrix respondent for replicating molecules quite often and eventually lead to life given the right conditions. There is often the argument from creationists that evolutionists are arguing that life came from non-life. This stems from the idea of vitalism that living matter is somehow infused with a spirit or primordial essence. However, all scientific discourse has shown that this is simply not so; the only thing that is different from organic matter and inorganic matter is how it’s arranged which is often interchangeable simply by the fact that many animals consume and digest inorganic material.

Still, despite the abundant wealth of experimentation, fossils, and papers showing the practical applications there are many who deny the prospects of evolution or Abiogenesis. They do so wholeheartedly out of either ignorance to these facts or by subscribing to superstitious and/or religious dogma. There are even many who will go past the idea of evolution is wrong and will ultimately contend that Methodological Naturalism, aka science, itself; is flawed and will prevail that the will and structures of god cannot be known. Ultimately this is an argument from ignorance saying because we don’t know A then X must be true. This puts their god at an ever-shrinking area where science will inevitably close those gaps that they plead he must live within.

Such an attitude is could not only be considered insulting for those who find a pantheistic view of God but is ultimately weak and deleterious for developing any understanding of the cosmos at large. We can see how deleterious this is by those working against the idea of a big bang. Many creationists add a cosmic evolution along to their many contentions with science. They will hypocritically, or ignorantly, declare science has proven their religion by proving there was a first day of the cosmos while denying the big bang not realizing that the big bang was the evidence.

There are several aspects we hold as evidence for the big bang and the expansion of a singularity. For one, we see a large red shift in the oscillation of light throughout the entire universe. To put it mildly, the universe is expanding. Further evidence was discovered by the background radiation giving us a map of the singularity. This background radiation was asymmetrical which mirrored the distribution of how we saw the universe. Furthermore dark matter observed through the bending of light confirms to the standard model and this background map and though we are not completely certain of the more recent findings of gravity waves, what we have found confirms the mathematics of the big bang.


The Creationist still marches forward ever demanding that matter cannot come from non-matter or that we can never know what happened before the big bang. Matter and energy are interchangeable thus it is possible that they could be eternal. The Higgs boson as we’ve seen is the primarily what gives particles their mass and stands well with the mathematics of the standard model. We can also show that Cosmic inflation from a quantum singularity could be explained as 3Dimensional space/time emerging from a 4th spacial dimension which could have an entirely natural catalysis and still, wouldn't have something coming from anything but rather from a large plane far beyond any current concept. Even if there was nothing many aspects of quantum mechanics show that such a vacuum is unstable and through quantum tunneling never remains a constant

In the end most creationist disbelieve in a straw man ideal of evolution lumping many aspects of science from allele frequency, Abiogenesis, replicating chemical structures, the exchange of mater and energy, and the big bang. This seems to easily follow arguments much like this

One kind of animal cannot beget another kind of animal=> Life cannot come from non-life => matter cannot come from non-matter =>Something cannot come from nothing


I hope that it is obvious that each one of these arguments can be seen as either a false dichotomy or wholly wrong in their presumptions. We know from ring species that the presumption of a bounded kind is ultimately wrong. We can show vitalism was disproven and there is nothing spiritual or different between the chemistry of organic vs nonorganic. Physics and experimentation shows energy and matter are interchangeable and eternal e=mc^2. And finally, the idea of the universe coming from nothing is base on a false dichotomy and faulty notions of a vacuum and assuming nothing is some default null when quantum mechanics shows that a vacuum of nothing is unstable.

In all this we can see that those who try to contest with the facts of evolution go about it thinking if they can pull a straw out of the theories proposed the whole thing collapses. Science is a tentative discipline the only sacred truth is there are no sacred truths. However much we may love a theory if it is inconsistent with the facts we must discard it. Only accurate information has practical application. Evolution has withstood the greatest of scrutiny and remains viable through practical use that those who desire to remove it do so only at their own peril.

Plato was a philosopher whose ideas and lectures still hold sway to this day. Many of his ideas pertain an essence of essentialism; that is to say a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are or rather the doctrine that essence is prior to existence. Essentialism was at one point a rationale for scientific thought creating the criteria not only for a degreed hierarchy of animals but mathematics, shapes, music, and states of matter. He describe this in his theses of a shadow world. Painting a picture of those trapped in a cave deprived of ever seeing a tree; yet the light outside allowed them to see the shadow of the tree. Thus the captives came to associate what was a tree with its shadow yet what was the true essence of the tree was the tree itself. Plato further argue that with all things from trees to circles all we saw was the shadow of things but at some higher plane of the mind the true essence of what things were in pure essence existed. As of now we know through a myriad of evidence the way at which Plato suggested essentialism was ultimately wrong. One may argue that we still use criteria to differentiate objects animals numbers and so on but let us look at why we now throw off the bulk of Plato’s essentialism.

Darwin showed that there was no hierarchy of animals and through evolution all of life is interconnected through a tree and/or web where one never truly grows out of one’s ancestry. As an example you yourself are still a primate just as you are still a mammal and even further still a chordate and a eukaryote. We can go on about evolution and ancestry all the way to the point that you are still a deuterostome meaning that you grew with the anus opening forth first before any other body part; showing that at one point in your life you, as every other person, was essentially just an Asshole. One can say that you meet these criteria not by some essential essence of said criteria but through transitioning through each aspect by ancestral traits still retained by some degree. And that is one of the primary difference you meet them by a degree that doesn’t satisfy anything fully inherent or in essence of the criteria but enough to which you still qualify as a group or subgroup of the clade.

There is also Platos idea of the elements having the purrfect shapes you know fire being an isosceles triangle Earth a cube and so on. Now we do know from topology and other mathematics that by no means is the universe composed of some perfect essential shapes but rather progressions of a curves or patterns that obtain an infinite perimeter known as fractalsn ex(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake) Along with psychology and quantum mechanics we also have shown that most of our mathematics are seemingly but simulations and are not entirely inherent parts or by the least pure truths of the universe. It seems by all means more than not, Eastern philosophies have won in the battle of essentialism as in that they degree that there is no pure or refined essence of the universe. That in all of the holy or purity in words the only true scriptures are blank scriptures.

Yet Though there may be now primal or null set of essence when it comes to Eastern philosophies they’re all to prime to meet contradictions as complimentary. With quantum mechanics we do know that the void or that the primary essence of Nothing or the point of 0 itself does not retain an essence of well Nothing. Within any vacuum there retains the energy of that vacuum pulling forth things to fill it; and within any empty space that is truly empty imaginary or virtual particles spring into existence and are destroyed at moments we would consider instantaneous. Though not much easier to visualize; the void seems to be more akin to a living cauldron of bubbling uncertainty and potentiality (If you like elders scrolls think of Sithis), rather than simply the woeful true emptiness that many a mind resists to comprehend. And again the aspects of Fractals we do know that repetitious and simple patterns bring forth grand complexity that at their beginning spring wholly isolated but become interwoven and interconnected creating patterns of order from chaos making order and chaos not mutually exclusive. And all of these also help to confirm the ideas and math of string theory which composites that all of matter is vibrating bands of energy allowed only to give credence of what existence is by a variation of degree.

So with these ideas of small patterns arising from the chaos of the void forming forth isolated variables that become dependent of one another to create interconnected patterns is there any way to save essentialism by some measure? Indeed with all these aspects that seem to give rise to the nature of the universe more as an emerging principle we can degree that what they most bear out is that the Universe is but an illusion or a hologram.

So one must ask how can I say that essentialism is permitted in a universe that is essentially a hologram doesn’t that seem like two opposing view? Well I could go on about such things but will return to the idea that Eastern philosophies say contradictions are complementary. We can begin by looking at the beginning; the singularity and expansion of our Universe can easily be describe as a 4Dimensional space moving through a 3D plane. For a much more comprehensible picture think of a 3D sphere moving through a 2D plane ex (https://saladinoonscience.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/flatland72.gif) it would begin as a small dot or and then expand slowly becoming a circle. Much like this the universe emergence and expansion can be explained; our universe would fit the idea of being a hologram set by the ideas of quantum mechanics and could also be explained as a 3D shadow of a 4D material in the same vein as Plato’s shadow.

So what can we finally say of essentialism. At best we cannot say it is the primary aspect of the universe but rather a tentative boundary to which chaos developed into order. a good examples would be to discuss it in terms of Null and Void. Like in a number line ...-1..0..1... if we we're to start with any data point say 1 or -1 we would consider that our Null our starting point but it is not our Origin our Origin would be the void or 0. Or to put it in some Nerdy terms if you were playing a videogame and had unlocked all your character stats only for the Final boss to well basically take them away leaving your character as it was when you started the game then that would be rendering you Null; whilst Void would be having your Character Die and having No more lives as in complete game over complete restart all Data erased.

Abortion as describe in the bible is often said to either be nonexistent or to claim life begins at inception and that the act of abortion is against gods plans. Of the more prevalent statement against the claim that the god bible abhors abortion is Numbers 5:11-31 clearly outlining the under what circumstances an abortion may be performed and how it should be formed. One of the key notes of this is how it describes a priest and husband are to force a woman to consume a cursed bottle of bitter water with added dirt from the tabernacle (An area where animal sacrifice occurred likely showing the quality of the dirt) in order to cause her womb to engorge and to miscarry. This is to say that the woman herself has little to no say and that the man is given a bit of barely or such to appease his jealousy. Now should she no miscarry and come out whole and fine there is no retribution for her other than that she shall not be punished any further but in either case the man shall be considered guiltless. This set a precedent for any man to demand abortion of one’s spouse on the mere suspicion of a woman cheating which clearly whether found true or not is perfectly justifiable.

There are some who prescribe to several passages from the bible as a declaration that god knew us fastening every member and before one came into existence. They interpret this to mean that god knew us in the womb and that it goes against gods plan for to perform an abortion. However there is no direct statement in any of these passages, according to the Hebrew text, against abortion and we see from the previous precedent that abortion under the mere circumstance of jealousy is perfectly okay and just under gods plan. Clearly god knew of the fetus in the womb of numbers 5:11-31 and even should it be to punish a woman for her sin it clearly shows that said punishment has higher precedent than that fetus. Since people make so much contention on this subject and interpretation it is prudent to discuss how one knows that what we infer from these passages is best to be true instead of being errant.

When addressing any meaning of words, phrases, or inherent definitions one must turn to the source and context of history that they derive from. And the source for the bible starts first with the Torah a book written by and for the Jewish people under the precepts of Talmudic law and tradition and of the New Testament having many differing authors but started with Christians of the Gnostic faith in the dosetic sect. The bible states, like every other religion, it was documented and written by men not specifically which but this is confirm via archeology, several radiometric dating, literature analysis of historic and phonetic compilation. Even though the authors are but men the faithful insist that they were taking dictation from god or angels and thus whatever interpretations that are inferred from the bible is reliant on such authors original meaning. Even more so for a literalist who has to take the original meaning of the words or phrases into account to have any weight for understanding, otherwise we may as well say that the word right in the bible means left by matter of interpretation.

In reading the biblical laws of homicide the rabbinic sages declare homicide is only concerned with an animate human being (Nefesh adam from Lev24:17). Where as an embryo is not considered a person(Lav Nefesh Nu). The Talmud or Maimonides codified in the Mishneh Torah a fetus viability is recognized within two areas of the Talmud Yevamot 69 , 2 where the fetus for the first 40 days is consider merely water And Nida 8, 2 recognizes the fetus within the 2nd trimester as a limb of the mother(Sanhedrin80b). Overall in Talmudic law an embryo is not considered a viable human being (Bar kayyam) but rather a being of doubtful viability (Nida44b). The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman. If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her fetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.( mOholot 7:8)

Concerning Jewish law is but one half of this equation and when it comes to Christian religious doctrine we must also look on the views and dictates of these early Christians as well. Early Christian’s interpretations on the fetus vary in many differing ways some considering it a sin though giving it now full weighted seriousness others giving it a little to no concern. Before the 4th century Christians had no direct grievance or concern for the fetus as an encompassing doctrine of their faith where some purported it as a mild sin to kill while others declaring the fetus had no soul and equivalent to mere water like the Talmud though still many of their writings did condemn abortion.

The bible also has many other passages that either permit abortion or shows that it does not concern the fetus as viable. Though some translations have altered these to a degree for the most part they retain similar meanings but for authenticity sake we shall take direct translations from the original Hebrew and Yetis as best as possible. (Exodus 21:22-23) Here a man will be charged should he damage a pregnant woman but only pay fee for said miscarriage but shall only face further judgment if harm is pressed upon the mother. (Leviticus 27:6) Biblical laws show several values of children even babes of one month old yet below this age there is no value given which seems to suggest that such an age before hand and a fetus has no value. This is further shown in (Numbers 3:15-16) where again Moses counts the value of his people but omits anyone below the one month age mark. Furthermore God himself not only permits but approves the death of unborn fetus in (Numbers 31:15-17) (Hosea (9:14, 9:16, 13:16)). We also see god goes on to punish parents or unfaithful wives such as (Samuel 12:14) and (Numbers 5:27-28) but one of the even so as mere punishment goes we see that abortion is part of following gods law with (Genesis 38:24).

With these passages descriptions as well as their interconnections to Jewish law culture and previous interpretations we can see that the idea of abortion and life beginning with a soul at conception is merely a newer interpretation coming forth from the idea of ensoulment which was nothing more than Austine of Hippo’s affirmation of an Aristotelian concept which as a greek philosopher had little to do with the bible its history or development but did have much to do in developing Catholic doctrine