When is Abortion Murder?

[37818]

Gernerally the evangelical Christian view is any time after conception.

In the word of God murder was condemned because of the taking of a life (soul) who was made in God's image (Genesis 9:6.) And involves the sheding of another person's (soul's) blood.

And the fetus has its own blood separate from his/her mother.

And it is said to be about 17 days after conception that the zygote/fetus has his/her own blood. (". . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11.) And the nervous system developes following this almost immediately (about the 18th day.)

_________________________________________________

Identical twins. When after "conception" the cells become separated into two parts each part becomes an individual.

Question: Is it that the orginal conception dies and two new individuals are formed or is there not a soul until there is blood?

_________________________________________________
So the question is, is abortion NOT murder until after the 16th day of conceptiom?

[Jackie Fox]

Never. A fetus is not a person, hence, can't be murdered.

[LostSheep]

Never. A fetus is not a person, hence, can't be murdered.

Says who?

There are Bible verses that state that a human is a person from conception.

'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I haw appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5).

"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16)

[dizzle]

Never. A fetus is not a person, hence, can't be murdered.

Sick.

[Vigilante]

I'd rather err on the side of life.

[Sparko]

I thought this area was for pro life activism not arguing about whether abortion is allowable, or when a person becomes a person, etc.

[Tfbandie]

Never. A fetus is not a person, hence, can't be murdered.

Errr. Incorrect, Killing a fetus is murder, by law. However, the law makes an exception for only the mother of the child, that though it is still killing a person, it is allowed under law, same as executioner can kill someone under law.

And beyond this, a majority of states legally define a fetus as a person.

[Chytraeus]

Since most women never know that they are pregnant until after at least three weeks (21 days) it is a moot point. Hardly any intentional abortions occur within 17 days of conception, except those caused by IUDs and "Day After Pills." If we would simply return to God's original design for sexual intimacy, that is, for both the soul union of the bride and groom and the procreation of children, then there would be no need for IUDs and "Day After Pills." It gets kind of scary when the Pope is closer to the Biblical truth of a moral matter than most protestants. Besides that, both of these particular methods of "birth control" are potentially harmful to the mother as well, so why choose them?

As far as when life exists, the Bible tells us that as soon as Mary was told about her miraculous pregnancy, she left to visit her kinswoman, Elizabeth, who was three-months pregnant at the time. When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, she said that the child in her womb lept for joy because the mother of her Lord had come to her home. Jesus was less than 17 days old, John was only 3 months old, and yet John was filled with the Holy Spirit and lept for joy at the sound of the voice of Jesus' mother. I agree with the idea of erring on the side of life.

Those who favor abortion fail to understand that it takes three, not just two, to create a child. The mother provides the egg, the father the sperm, and God provides the spirit. What God has created, let no man destroy.

[Jackie Fox]

Sick.

Care to back that up, or, is your argument entirely limited to name calling?

[Jackie Fox]

I thought this area was for pro life activism not arguing about whether abortion is allowable, or when a person becomes a person, etc.

The guidelines do not specify that views posted here must be politically correct.

[Jackie Fox]

Errr. Incorrect, Killing a fetus is murder, by law.

Whose law? Not civil or criminal law.

a majority of states legally define a fetus as a person.

Really? Where?

[Gabby]

This is a specialty area of the forum which purpose is to reflect this forum's commitment to the rights of the unborn and recognition that each day more are dying. This is not a debate area but rather a discussion area of various pro-life issues - with supporters from all faiths or lack of faith. Can be found here--->Pro-Life Activism Sticky (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=114)

[Pilgrim]

Never. A fetus is not a person, hence, can't be murdered.

The law disagrees with you. There are more than a few states that consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homocide.

[Sparko]

The guidelines do not specify that views posted here must be politically correct.

actually nowadays your view is the "politically correct" one, sad to say.

Gabby posted the relevant guidelines for this area, but I leave it up to Darth Xena, as this area is her creation.

[Jackie Fox]

[/b] Can be found here--->Pro-Life Activism Sticky (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=114)

It does not appear to have divergent views on whether or not abortion is murder is in any way a violation thereof.

[Jackie Fox]

The law disagrees with you. There are more than a few states that consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homocide.

This was so more or less in the Peterson case in California. It does not however address whether or not abortion is murder.

[Jackie Fox]

actually nowadays your view is the "politically correct" one, sad to say.
[

You are incorrect there. Whenever a majority castigates a minority for having another view they are advocating "political correctness". It appeared that is what was being done earlier.

[Pilgrim]

This was so more or less in the Peterson case in California. It does not however address whether or not abortion is murder.

Your assertion was that a fetus can not be murdered because a fetus is not a person. I was addressing the incorrect nature of that assertion. I was not addressing the question of abortion as murder. However, by precedence, one could make that argument. If states count a fetus as a murder victim when a pregnant mother is murdered, then one could argue that the state has set a precedence for calling abortion, the destruction of a fetus, murder.

[Gabby]

It does not appear to have divergent views on whether or not abortion is murder is in any way a violation thereof.

This is a specialty area of the forum which purpose is to reflect this forum's commitment to the rights of the unborn and recognition that each day more are dying.. It's not about divergent views it's about the one view that the life of the unborn is sacred, and that this forum is commited to stopping abortion period.

chris

[dizzle]

actually nowadays your view is the "politically correct" one, sad to say.

Gabby posted the relevant guidelines for this area, but I leave it up to Darth Xena, as this area is her creation.

Gabby is moderating this area, not I. If my intention is being asked, you two understand it quite well - one can promote the murder of the unborn in multiple other forums at TWeb, this area is not for that. It is up to the moderators to decide if that purpose is being broken.

[Jackie Fox]

Your assertion was that a fetus can not be murdered because a fetus is not a person. I was addressing the incorrect nature of that assertion. I was not addressing the question of abortion as murder. However, by precedence, one could make that argument. If states count a fetus as a murder victim when a pregnant mother is murdered, then one could argue that the state has set a precedence for calling abortion, the destruction of a fetus, murder.

Precisely the pitfall in such provisions. Thank you.

[Jackie Fox]

This is a specialty area of the forum which purpose is to reflect this forum's commitment to the rights of the unborn and recognition that each day more are dying.. It's not about divergent views it's about the one view that the life of the unborn is sacred, and that this forum is commited to stopping abortion period.

chris

I am not sure what point you are attempting to make here. My posts did not state in any form anything to contradict the view "that the life of the unborn is sacred, and that this forum is commited to stopping abortion period."

[Jackie Fox]

Gabby is moderating this area, not I. If my intention is being asked, you two understand it quite well - one can promote the murder of the unborn in multiple other forums at TWeb, this area is not for that. It is up to the moderators to decide if that purpose is being broken.

It is obvious nothing of this sort has occurred.

[Gabby]

I am not sure what point you are attempting to make here. My posts did not state in any form anything to contradict the view "that the life of the unborn is sacred, and that this forum is commited to stopping abortion period."

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? If nothing else the forum rule states that this forum is not for debate. This discussion needs to be taken elsewhere.

[Jackie Fox]

* moderator notice *

Excuse me? Where should such be taken? Your tone is most unkind.

Arguing Moderation. I have given you several "gentle hints" as to what is appropriate in this forum. It is inappropriate to bring up your moderation in this thread as the notice says. If you have an issue with your moderation you are more than welcome to Privately pm me or if you feel the need to rant to take your complaint to the Boiler room. DO NOT do it here.

[Teallaura]

Er, yeah...


Back on topic: No, the split does not constitute abortion anymore than a woman giving birth would. No particular reason to assume that a) the zygote had two souls or b) that the zygote's souls was destroyed to be replaced by two new ones. The most reasonable assumption is that the second zygote, once split, is given a soul of its own just as the original zygote received its soul at conception. In effect, the original zygote merely lost cells where the second enjoys its conception at the time of the split.

A clone of an adult would be a similar situation. Presuming that a clone would receive a soul at its conception just as a zygote does then the situation is the same. The donor - in this case an adult and not a zygote - doesn't lose his or her soul merely in the donation of complete genetic material any more than he/she would do so when shedding dead cells. Yet a second life originates from that material (with a lot of help from science) which we have no grounds to assume would be soulless.

[RumTumTugger]

Excuse me? Where should such be taken? Your tone is most unkind.

Try Civics 101 since is it current events.

[Jackie Fox]

Try Civics 101 since is it current events.

I'm sorry I do not understand your statement.

[Jackie Fox]

* edited by a moderator *

* moderator notice *

A private message was received and a reply sent.

[Chaotic Void]

Gernerally the evangelical Christian view is any time after conception.

In the word of God murder was condemned because of the taking of a life (soul) who was made in God's image (Genesis 9:6.) And involves the sheding of another person's (soul's) blood.

And the fetus has its own blood separate from his/her mother.

And it is said to be about 17 days after conception that the zygote/fetus has his/her own blood. (". . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11.) And the nervous system developes following this almost immediately (about the 18th day.)

_________________________________________________

Identical twins. When after "conception" the cells become separated into two parts each part becomes an individual.

Question: Is it that the orginal conception dies and two new individuals are formed or is there not a soul until there is blood?

_________________________________________________
So the question is, is abortion NOT murder until after the 16th day of conceptiom?

Even if it isn't PC "Murder". Its still a Rather Cold-Blooded thing to do.

I heard a couple of people talking in my Law class about Abortion methods. They ranged from injection to, as one kid put it, "Shoving a Tube in you and grinding your kid up"[yes, this was a male]. Rather savage methods for someone whos supposed to be the most advanced race on the planet....

On a side note, I've yet to find a rational, unselfish reason for abortion.

[Chytraeus]

One orthodox Jewish position on abortion is that when an individual is killed, it is not just the soul of the person who is killed, but all of those who would have descended from that one. This makes sense when you take into account that they rather proudly trace their entire race back to one man, Abraham. If Isaac had been killed in his mother's womb, there would be no nation of the Hebrews today, for they would all have been killed in that action. Interestingly enough, they extend this logic to birth control and forbid it as well.

However, the Old Testament laws do not seem to give the same weight to killing an unborn child as is given to killing one who is born. One who murders someone is to be put to death, and even one who accidentally kills someone by carelessness can be killed by the family of the victim with no repercussions on the vengeant family member as long as the guilty party was not in one of the cities of refuge. On the other hand, a man who hits a woman in the stomach, causing her to miscarry has only to pay a rather stiff fine. As an anti-abortionist, this fact has always troubled me.

However, trying to decide exactly which day after conception an embryo becomes a human, and thus its termination would be murder seems to be splitting hairs for no valid reason. What would be the value of permitting abortion during the first 16 days? It only gives those who devalue life before birth ammunition. There are so many better ways to prevent giving birth, with Abstinence being at the top of the list. Sexual intercourse was designed to cause pregnancy. Yes, it also happens to be enjoyable, but to place the enjoyment of intercourse ahead of it's real intended purpose, which was the propagation of life, is to pervert the design of God beyond recognition. If you are going to enjoy intercourse, be prepared to raise children. If you must, use a condom or have a vasectomy, but don't punish the child for the sins of the parents!

Legalistic questions about how old the child has to be before it is really human just shows that we still don't really get it.

[ptet]

Gernerally the evangelical Christian view is any time after conception.

This reasoning leads to some absurd conclusions...

"...more than two-thirds of fertilised eggs are lost in nature... If each of these is really a person, that is, an eternal soul, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that heaven is mainly populated by people who have never been born." - Dr Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford.

So the question is, is abortion NOT murder until after the 16th day of conceptiom?If so, does that mean God is responsible for murdering babies where miscarriages occur after 16 days of pregnancy?

In my opinion bringing "God" into the abortion debate is not helpful. Fine, if we want to prevent abortion, there are lots of things we can do to help that. However, when "God" is brought into the debate, reason seems to fly out of the window. Just my opinion...

[John Goddard]

This reasoning leads to some absurd conclusions...

"...more than two-thirds of fertilised eggs are lost in nature... If each of these is really a person, that is, an eternal soul, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that heaven is mainly populated by people who have never been born." - Dr Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford.

Assuming that there is some kind of lack of space in Heaven is absurd.


If so, does that mean God is responsible for murdering babies where miscarriages occur after 16 days of pregnancy?

God doesn't murder, He defines what unjust killing is for us. That's why he's God and we aren't.


In my opinion bringing "God" into the abortion debate is not helpful. Fine, if we want to prevent abortion, there are lots of things we can do to help that. However, when "God" is brought into the debate, reason seems to fly out of the window. Just my opinion...

Reasoning God from an atheist view usually isn't very effective.

[Silver Hand]

Rather savage methods for someone whos supposed to be the most advanced race on the planet....

Excellent point! This is why I am dumbfounded at how pro-choice advocates write off human life so easily. You'd think such "methods" for the "procedure" would give them pause and make them think about what they're supporting. Such brutality shows that Satan revels in the destruction of what God creates.

Then again, it really does boil down to the fact that we live in a world that originally fell into sin because of mankind justifying selfish behavior.

On a side note, I've yet to find a rational, unselfish reason for abortion.

There is none.

Murder is the most selfish act a person can commit against another. Unfortunately, it's also the most logical sin for one to commit, given man's depraved mind. Sin tells us our own interests trump everything else. It's the reason a mother can say to her child "My currently endangered ability to live my life free of responsibility is more important than your God-given right to exist, so goodbye."

Disgusting!

[John Goddard]

On a side note, I've yet to find a rational, unselfish reason for abortion.

If a mother already has children and another endangers her life, a case can be made to abort for the interests of other children.

[Silver Hand]

If a mother already has children and another endangers her life, a case can be made to abort for the interests of other children.

Sorry John. That's a cop out.

Is the mother's life more important than the childs? No! They are both human lives. If anything, a mother should willingly lay down her life for the child.

If a birth is a risk to the mothers life, she is still obligated to bring that child into the world. If she dies, yes it's terrible. But to kill her child as a safety precaution is not justified.

There is no excuse for abortion. Ever.

[ptet]

Assuming that there is some kind of lack of space in Heaven is absurd.That's not the point. Do you really believe that God kills two thirds of all unborn humans himself, to fill up heaven that way? is that what you really believe?

God doesn't murder, He defines what unjust killing is for us. That's why he's God and we aren't.Really? is that what makes him God? That he can arbitrarily set rules for behaviour, which are beyond judgement solely because he makes them? That is the way of the tyrant.

Reasoning God from an atheist view usually isn't very effective.LOL. that's because what you describe "God" to be only makes sense thru ad hoc justifications, each more ludicrous than the last.

If you want to make serious arguments against abortion, one can do so without resorting to some "god" for whom you make up attributes for as you go along.

[ptet]

Sorry John. That's a cop out.

Is the mother's life more important than the childs? No! They are both human lives. If anything, a mother should willingly lay down her life for the child.

If a birth is a risk to the mothers life, she is still obligated to bring that child into the world. If she dies, yes it's terrible. But to kill her child as a safety precaution is not justified.

There is no excuse for abortion. Ever.What the two thirds of pregnancies which spontaneously abort? Are you saying there is no excuse for God causing miscarriages?

[Michelle]

If you want to make serious arguments against abortion, one can do so without resorting to some "god" for whom you make up attributes for as you go along.
So are you going to do that? That's what this forum is for. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=114)

[jordanriver]

when is abortion murder?

Since 'murder' is a legal term, I suppose it won't be 'murder' until after 2012 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg) gives up holding on to her seat after the incumbent Vice President Palin beats dem candidate hillary for the White House.

JR

[jordanriver]

What the two thirds of pregnancies which spontaneously abort? Are you saying there is no excuse for God causing miscarriages?

what a silly argument citing a 67% mortality rate of the unborn.
What does make us born folks where there is a 100% mortality rate.

JR

[Silver Hand]

What the two thirds of pregnancies which spontaneously abort? Are you saying there is no excuse for God causing miscarriages?

"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:29b, ESV)

He's God. I don't know His reasons, and try not to question them. But God, as the Author of life, is the only One who can justly make the decision as to who lives and who dies. It's his Divine right.

God isn't bound by a particular standard, because that standard is bound to His will. Man is accountable to God for his actions. But there is no authority higher than the Creator of the entire created order.

[Silver Hand]

when is abortion murder?

Since murder is the unjustified taking of a human life by another for selfish reasons, ALWAYS.

[ptet]

So are you going to do that? That's what this forum is for. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=114)The only arguments pro-life activists have made in this thread relate entirely to their personal religious view. Since the US constitution forbids laws that have a purely religious purpose, it is counter-productive and indeed useless to argue for a pro-life position purely on religious grounds.

Indeed, it says a great deal about the general brain-deadedness of the religious right that most of its supporters haven't got this concept into their brains yet, despite thirty-odd years of campaigning.

The only arguments which matter in pro-life activism are non-religious ones... And to that extent insisting that "life begins at conception" are worthless if they can't be made on non-religious grounds. Since 2/3 of pregnancies spontaneously abort, anyway, the "life begins at conception" argument is ludicrous and, frankly, stupid.

Unless, of course, this discussion isn't really about pro-life activism, and is instead about certain religious groups in the USA trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else...

If pro-life'ers are serious about preventing abortion, they need to get serious with their arguments.

Waiting for Saint Palin to come to power won't help. Last I read, she's against abstinence only sex education. Sheesh, given that both her and her daughter got pregnant before they got married, no wonder...

[John Goddard]

Sorry John. That's a cop out.

Is the mother's life more important than the childs? No! They are both human lives. If anything, a mother should willingly lay down her life for the child.

If a birth is a risk to the mothers life, she is still obligated to bring that child into the world. If she dies, yes it's terrible. But to kill her child as a safety precaution is not justified.

There is no excuse for abortion. Ever.

Your rebuttal addresses the interests of the mother. I agree self-sacrifice is more noble.

But what about the other children who would lose a mother?

If a mother already has children and another endangers her life, a case can be made to abort for the interests of other children.

I'm not saying the case would ultimately stick, but a case could be made for their interests, outside of the mother's.

[ptet]

what a silly argument citing a 67% mortality rate of the unborn.
What does make us born folks where there is a 100% mortality rate.

JRThe argument is whether life begins at conception. Since two-thirds of pregnancies in nature don't lead to a live birth, it's a relevant question.

In any case, by your argument humans taking another human life would never be justified, whether for war, capital punishment, or any reason. Or do you believe hat the lives of the unborn are worth more than the born?

[jordanriver]

Waiting for Saint Palin to come to power won't help. Last I read, she's against abstinence only sex education. Sheesh, given that both her and her daughter got pregnant before they got married, no wonder...

huh?

lets see,
Mama Palin believes abstinence is what works.

Her daughter didn't go along with Mama Palin and got pregnant.

Therefore you conclude abstinence doesn't prevent pregnancy.

um

didn't your mama or daddy ever explain the birds and the bees to you?

JR

[ptet]

"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:29b, ESV)

He's God. I don't know His reasons, and try not to question them. But God, as the Author of life, is the only One who can justly make the decision as to who lives and who dies. It's his Divine right.

God isn't bound by a particular standard, because that standard is bound to His will. Man is accountable to God for his actions. But there is no authority higher than the Creator of the entire created order.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Philosophical objections to your gibberish aside, I thought this forum was for pro-life activism?

Not for religious drooling?

[jordanriver]

The argument is whether life begins at conception. Since two-thirds of pregnancies in nature don't lead to a live birth, it's a relevant question.

In any case, by your argument humans taking another human life would never be justified, whether for war, capital punishment, or any reason. Or do you believe hat the lives of the unborn are worth more than the born?


no, wrong conclusion. I didn't make an argument, I just pointed out your flawed argument.

JR

[ptet]

huh?

lets see,
Mama Palin believes abstinence is what works.

Her daughter didn't go along with Mama Palin and got pregnant.

Therefore you conclude abstinence doesn't prevent pregnancy.

um

didn't your mama or daddy ever explain the birds and the bees to you?

JR
Abstinence-only didn't work for Sarah Palin, and it didn't work for her daughter.

There's no evidence that abstinence-only policies work.

There is not a single public heath agency in the western world which advocates abstinence-only policies.

It's not that abstinence doesn't prevent pregnancy. It's that abstinence is an "ideal", and providing that as teenagers ONLY OPTION is irresponsible, religiously-motivated delusional nonsense.

[John Goddard]

That's not the point. Do you really believe that God kills two thirds of all unborn humans himself, to fill up heaven that way? is that what you really believe?

That's quite possible.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Really? is that what makes him God? That he can arbitrarily set rules for behaviour, which are beyond judgement solely because he makes them? That is the way of the tyrant.

Since you aren't omniscient you have no way of judging what God does that might be in everyone's best interests. Maybe one of those miscarried babies would otherwise grow up to kill you, how would you like that?


LOL. that's because what you describe "God" to be only makes sense thru ad hoc justifications, each more ludicrous than the last.

Not at all, your observations are absurd because they are made from an non-omniscient perspective as applied to one of omniscience.


If you want to make serious arguments against abortion, one can do so without resorting to some "god" for whom you make up attributes for as you go along.

I can do that too, innocent until proven guilty of being a non-person unworthy of equal protection under the Law. Simple.

[ptet]

no, wrong conclusion. I didn't make an argument, I just pointed out your flawed argument.

JRAnd I just pointed out why your supposed counter to my argument fails.

[ptet]

Not at all, your observations are absurd because they are made from an non-omniscient perspective as applied to one of omniscience.So are yours. Oh right, sorry, YOU speak for God. how foolish of me. LOL.

I can do that too, innocent until proven guilty of being a non-person unworthy of equal protection under the Law. Simple.That's better. But still no cigar... You haven't established that the unborn are "persons". Oh right - except that they are to you because YOU speak for God.

How lucky we are to have God's own prophet John Goddard amongst us..

[John Goddard]

So are yours. Oh right, sorry, YOU speak for God. how foolish of me. LOL.

At least I can keep my perspectives straight when we are talking about a concept, regardless of belief in it.


That's better. But still no cigar... You haven't established that the unborn are "persons". Oh right - except that they are to you because YOU speak for God.

You have to prove unborn children are worthy of death and not worthy of protection under the Law, if we consistently apply standards for legalized killing, at least as they are in the USA. Not just stomp your feet and say we need an exception to the Law for abortion.

[Silver Hand]

The only arguments pro-life activists have made in this thread relate entirely to their personal religious view.

That's because it's a moral issue. At least "personal religious views" account for the concept of morality. Atheism can't. No God, no rules.

Since the US constitution forbids laws that have a purely religious purpose, it is counter-productive and indeed useless to argue for a pro-life position purely on religious grounds.

Common sense dictates we shouldn't murder people. Babies are people. By the way, where does common sense knowledge come from, and why does everyone have it (even if not all use it...)

Indeed, it says a great deal about the general brain-deadedness of the religious right that most of its supporters haven't got this concept into their brains yet, despite thirty-odd years of campaigning.

How would YOU argue the issue, then?

The only arguments which matter in pro-life activism are non-religious ones... And to that extent insisting that "life begins at conception" are worthless if they can't be made on non-religious grounds.

Okay. Scientific fact proves a fetus can feel pain at 7 weeks gestation. Enough for me right there.

Since 2/3 of pregnancies spontaneously abort, anyway, the "life begins at conception" argument is ludicrous and, frankly, stupid.

You're not your Creator. How would you know?

Unless, of course, this discussion isn't really about pro-life activism, and is instead about certain religious groups in the USA trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else...

Did anyone force you to look for this site, sign up, post, and wait for comments?

If pro-life'ers are serious about preventing abortion, they need to get serious with their arguments.

Agreed!

Waiting for Saint Palin to come to power won't help. Last I read, she's against abstinence only sex education. Sheesh, given that both her and her daughter got pregnant before they got married, no wonder...

That was low.

[jordanriver]

Abstinence-only didn't work for Sarah Palin, and it didn't work for her daughter.

There's no evidence that abstinence-only policies work.

There is not a single public heath agency in the western world which advocates abstinence-only policies.

It's not that abstinence doesn't prevent pregnancy. It's that abstinence is an "ideal", and providing that as teenagers ONLY OPTION is irresponsible, religiously-motivated delusional nonsense.

AFAIK, Wassila schools that Bristol attended did not teach abstinence-only.

JR

[jordanriver]

And I just pointed out why your supposed counter to my argument fails.

then you pointed out wrong.
Your argument is that since 67 % of the unborn die, they therefore must not be persons.


Since 100 % of born humans die, does that mean they are less likely to be persons than the unborn??

JR

(or perhaps 67% is the magic number)

[ptet]

That's because it's a moral issue. At least "personal religious views" account for the concept of morality. Atheism can't. No God, no rules.Absolute balderdash. But what should I expect from someone who's every thought is filtered by their religious fundamentalism?

Common sense dictates we shouldn't murder people. Babies are people. By the way, where does common sense knowledge come from, and why does everyone have it (even if not all use it...)"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

That's not to say "common sense" doesn't have its uses... But it has its limitations too.

"Common sense" says fetuses aren't babies...

How would YOU argue the issue, then?
How nice to be asked. Roe v. Wade is a constructivist legal ruling which while having some merits in general is unsupportable by precedent. There is no real reason under US constitutional law why states should not be entitled to legislate on the matter of abortion within reasonable (non-religious, of course) limits.

On a practical level, many countries have substantially reduced their abortion rates by encouraging wide-ranging sexual education from a young age.

In the US that doesn't happen, because most pro-life advocates droolingly and moronically think telling kids frankly about sex is the same thing as telling them to go and have sex.

Okay. Scientific fact proves a fetus can feel pain at 7 weeks gestation. Enough for me right there.That's not a scientific fact (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain2.htm). You need to learn what facts are. never mind that, you need to learn what scientific opinion is and is not. You need to learn that there is more to life and human knowledge than the fundamentalist gibberish which appears to be all that you read.

You're not your Creator. How would you know?Neither are you. How would you know?

[ptet]

then you pointed out wrong.
Your argument is that since 67 % of the unborn die, they therefore must not be persons.No. My argument is that since 67% of pregnancies end naturally, it is ludicrous to argue that pregnancy is somehow sacrosanct.

Why not try thinking for a change?


Since 100 % of born humans die, does that mean they are less likely to be persons than the unborn??That doesn't make any sense.

67% of pregnancies spontaneously abort.

100% of born humans die.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

(or perhaps 67% is the magic number)You're the one who believes in magic.

[jordanriver]

No. My argument is that since 67% of pregnancies end naturally, it is ludicrous to argue that pregnancy is somehow sacrosanct.

Why not try thinking for a change?


That doesn't make any sense.

67% of pregnancies spontaneously abort.

100% of born humans die.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

.

what?????

abortion is not the same as dying???????

JR

[Silver Hand]

Absolute balderdash. But what should I expect from someone who's every thought is filtered by their religious fundamentalism?

Then how do you account for morality? (And I'm NOT a fundamentalist, thanks)

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

One man's opinion. And a bad theory. I know children and teens are immature and often act irrationally, but common sense is innate. It's their fault if people choose not to exercise it.

That's not to say "common sense" doesn't have its uses... But it has its limitations too.

Please, enlighten me...

"Common sense" says fetuses aren't babies...

When does a fetus become a baby, then?

How nice to be asked.

You're most welcome!:smile:

Roe v. Wade is a constructivist legal ruling which while having some merits in general is unsupportable by precedent. There is no real reason under US constitutional law why states should not be entitled to legislate on the matter of abortion within reasonable (non-religious, of course) limits.

Okay...

On a practical level, many countries have substantially reduced their abortion rates by encouraging wide-ranging sexual education from a young age.

As well they should. Within reason, of course.

In the US that doesn't happen, because most pro-life advocates droolingly and moronically think telling kids frankly about sex is the same thing as telling them to go and have sex.

I agree, there needs to be a more well-rounded sex ed program, with abstinence presented as the absolute best option to prevent disease and unprepared pregnancy. No passing out condoms and birth control. No enabling sexual experimentation. Just information.

You need to learn that there is more to life and human knowledge than the fundamentalist gibberish which appears to be all that you read.

And the Atheist (who can't account for morality, the meaning of life, or ANYTHING beyond what he can physically sense) is telling me this why? And again, I'm NOT a fundamentalist.

Neither are you. How would you know?

Because, the very fact that I exist (given the circumstances of my own birth) not only convinces me that I was created by a divine Being, but also tells me all human life, in any stage, has value.

[ptet]

what?????

abortion is not the same as dying???????

JRThen you need to address the second part of my statement. If abortion is always wrong, is killing living people always wrong in any circumstance? What about war? Judicial executions?

Even worse, what do you about people who increase their chances of miscarriage, say by being obese, or smoking or drinking? Are you going to call them killers? Are you going to imprison them for murder?

Or don't you care and are you just here to make yourself look like an idiot?

[Michelle]

No. My argument is that since 67% of pregnancies end naturally, it is ludicrous to argue that pregnancy is somehow sacrosanct.

I bet pretty close to that percentage, or more, of the lives of people living in nursing homes will end naturally, so is it also ludicrous to argue that their lives are somehow sacrosanct?

Oh, wait. You're from the UK. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2448013&postcount=1)

[ptet]

Then how do you account for morality? (And I'm NOT a fundamentalist, thanks)Stop acting like a fundamentalist then. In the real world, outside of religious gibberish, there are thousands of years of human culture. There are libraries devoted to this very question. To start with, why no try some wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) is that isn't too scary.

Isn't "good" higher than God? Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

One man's opinion. And a bad theory. I know children and teens are immature and often act irrationally, but common sense is innate. It's their fault if people choose not to exercise it. Blame the teens! yeah, that'll work...


Please, enlighten me... When does a fetus become a baby, then?Are you asking my opinion, or are you asking for a medical definition? I think you need to start by realizing that this is a gray area.


I agree, there needs to be a more well-rounded sex ed program, with abstinence presented as the absolute best option to prevent disease and unprepared pregnancy. No passing out condoms and birth control. No enabling sexual experimentation. Just information.LOL. "No enabling sexual experimentation". What planet are you living on!?!?!? clearly NOT this one...


And the Atheist (who can't account for morality, the meaning of life, or ANYTHING beyond what he can physically sense) is telling me this why? And again, I'm NOT a fundamentalist.I can offer my own opinions on morality and the meaning of life. I can offer the opinions of many other people. I can't pretend to have definitive answers to any of these questions.

You pretend you can. I don't pretend I can. That's the difference between us.


Because, the very fact that I exist (given the circumstances of my own birth) not only convinces me that I was created by a divine Being, but also tells me all human life, in any stage, has value.Bully for you. But we come back tot he same question. If all life has "divine" value, and life beginsat conception, then why (and we're getting into theology here) does God allow 2/3 of pregnancies to spontaneously abort?

[jordanriver]

Then you need to address the second part of my statement. If abortion is always wrong, is killing living people always wrong in any circumstance? What about war? Judicial executions?

Even worse, what do you about people who increase their chances of miscarriage, say by being obese, or smoking or drinking? Are you going to call them killers? Are you going to imprison them for murder?

Or don't you care and are you just here to make yourself look like an idiot?

The mistake you make is not considering unborn humans as fellow human beings.

When you suggest that if a person says abortion is wrong, then they have to also say its wrong to kill criminals and enemy combatants, that is the same as saying that since we outlaw killing toddlers and adolescents then we also have to not be allowed to kill criminals or enemy combatants.

Ask yourself, why is it wrong to kill born infants, toddlers an d adolescents.

(hint, it starts with the letter 'i')

JR

[ptet]

I bet pretty close to that percentage, or more, of the lives of people living in nursing homes will end naturally, so is it also ludicrous to argue that their lives are somehow sacrosanct?So you are arguing that anyone who allows a person to die naturally in a nursing home is guilty of murder?

Oh, wait. You're from the UK. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2448013&postcount=1)So you are arrogant and elitist as well as being ignorant and stupid?

[ptet]

The mistake you make is not considering unborn humans as fellow human beings.

When you suggest that if a person says abortion is wrong, then they have to also say its wrong to kill criminals and enemy combatants, that is the same as saying that since we outlaw killing toddlers and adolescents then we also have to not be allowed to kill criminals or enemy combatants.

Ask yourself, why is it wrong to kill born infants, toddlers an d adolescents.

(hint, it starts with the letter 'i')

JRIf it's ALWAYS wrong to kill innocent unborn children thru abortion, then it's ALWAYS wrong to kill them thru war, right?

You know, it is possible to think abortion is not a "good thing" without being a drooling idiot about it.

These issues are complicated. There are a lot of gray areas. YOU are the one trivializing this debate by pretending the issues are cut and dried.

[jordanriver]

If it's ALWAYS wrong to kill innocent unborn children thru abortion, then it's ALWAYS wrong to kill them thru war, right?

You know, it is possible to think abortion is not a "good thing" without being a drooling idiot about it.

These issues are complicated. There are a lot of gray areas. YOU are the one trivializing this debate by pretending the issues are cut and dried.

i think you are the one who is drooling. I think you are the one who is the idiot here.

(since you brought it up)

JR

[Michelle]

So you are arguing that anyone who allows a person to die naturally in a nursing home is guilty of murder? Uh, no. Just the ones who actively take part in killing them and excuse it because, "hey, they're going to die anyway and they're such a burden on society."

So you are arrogant and elitist as well as being ignorant and stupid?
perhaps

[ptet]

Uh, no. Just the ones who actively take part in killing them and excuse it because, "hey, they're going to die anyway and they're such a burden on society."[quote]Who the HELL says that we should act like that? I don't.No-one does. Oh wait, you've given up on your argument. Fair enough.


[quote]perhapsApologies. I got carried away. I didn't mean to be so rude.

[Silver Hand]

So you are arrogant and elitist as well as being ignorant and stupid?

That was low, sir. An ad hom. attack is unacceptable.

[ptet]

i think you are the one who is drooling. I think you are the one who is the idiot here.

(since you brought it up)

JRFair enough.

But you have yet again avoided my central point. If killing unborn kids is ALWAYS wrong, then why isn't it ALWAYS wrong to kill kids that ARE born

[ptet]

That was low, sir. An ad hom. attack is unacceptable.LOL. True. But at least I was joking.

I was being told my opinion didn't count because of my country of origin...

[jordanriver]

Fair enough.

But you have yet again avoided my central point. If killing unborn kids is ALWAYS wrong, then why isn't it ALWAYS wrong to kill kids that ARE born

i thought it was always wrong to kill innocent kids.

Thats why we should go out of our way and bend over backwards to avoid wars and such if at all possible.

JR

[ptet]

i thought it was always wrong to kill innocent kids.

Thats why we should go out of our way and bend over backwards to avoid wars and such if at all possible.

JR
But it's ludicrous from a scientific (and I would say even a theological point of view) to argue that life begins at conception.

And be careful about your discussion of war. The majority of international lawyers would argue that the current war in Iraq was not justified. Do you really want to argue that the president of the USA and the prime minister if the UK are war criminals?

Again, it's quite possible to argue for limits on abortion and on war without being absolute about either.

[John Goddard]

But it's ludicrous from a scientific (and I would say even a theological point of view) to argue that life begins at conception.

When else would it begin? If bacteria found on Mars would make history and deemed to be life on another planet, why do you suppose a fertilized human embryo shouldn't also be considered life?

[jordanriver]

But it's ludicrous from a scientific (and I would say even a theological point of view) to argue that life begins at conception.

And be careful about your discussion of war. The majority of international lawyers would argue that the current war in Iraq was not justified. Do you really want to argue that the president of the USA and the prime minister if the UK are war criminals?

Again, it's quite possible to argue for limits on abortion and on war without being absolute about either.

Have you looked into this? Have you checked with embryology texts to see if its 'ludicrous'?

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product) is a starter, a book you can search for yourself if you have an amazon.com account:
http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222025833&sr=8-4

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Moore and Persaud
on page one we learn from the 'scientific POV' that the "zygote is the beginning of a new human being" Also on that first page , birth itself is not the beginning but just an event that takes place in the life of a developing human, and that calling it a developing human does not mean its developing to become a human but is already a human being that is developing the same way one would say infants, toddlers adolescents and teenagers are developing human beings, since we keep developing till about age 25.


As far as being careful about a war discussion, the only care I need to worry about is whether its allowed in this specific pro-life activism forum. As far as the lawyers are concerned, they're going to try to accuse the President of that anyway because those lawyers are enemies of America and the Americans who accuse President Bush are nothing but a bunch of scumbag traitors (IMHO of course). The President's intentions were plain and public when the majority voted for him, his doctrine was plain and Palin was right and Charlie Gibson was wrong. If you harbor a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist warned President Bush before we invaded Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/26/se.23.html

and according to the non-partisan (no friend of President Bush) Human Rights Watch, Iraq was one of the terrorist sponsoring governments:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-06.htm

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 2002 Report (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-06.htm)
IRAQ:
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.

and as I recall, Iraq repeatedly ignored UN resolution after resolution.

We bent over backwards to avoid the inevitable.

JR

[ptet]

When else would it begin? If bacteria found on Mars would make history and deemed to be life on another planet, why do you suppose a fertilized human embryo shouldn't also be considered life?An embryo at conception is not viable. It will become viable after around 24 weeks - unless it's one of the 2/3 or so of embryos which naturally abort.

But then, John Goddard, you are completely incapable of processing information which conflicts with your own prejudices.

[ptet]

Have you looked into this? Have you checked with embryology texts to see if its 'ludicrous'?

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product) is a starter, a book you can search for yourself if you have an amazon.com account:
http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0721694128/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222025833&sr=8-4

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Moore and Persaud
on page one we learn from the 'scientific POV' that the "zygote is the beginning of a new human being" Also on that first page , birth itself is not the beginning but just an event that takes place in the life of a developing human, and that calling it a developing human does not mean its developing to become a human but is already a human being that is developing the same way one would say infants, toddlers adolescents and teenagers are developing human beings, since we keep developing till about age 25.For heaven's sake. What about all the embryos which spontaneously abort/ what about the fact than an embryo isn't viable on its won for around 24 weeks?

Oh, I forgot. You are completely incapable of handling any information which conflicts with your prejudices.


As far as being careful about a war discussion, the only care I need to worry about is whether its allowed in this specific pro-life activism forum. As far as the lawyers are concerned, they're going to try to accuse the President of that anyway because those lawyers are enemies of America and the Americans who accuse President Bush are nothing but a bunch of scumbag traitors (IMHO of course).That is a pig ignorant opinion.

Gosh talking to you evangelicals is boring.

[Silver Hand]

Gosh talking to you evangelicals is boring.

Then why do you persist?

[ptet]

Then why do you persist?You post in public forums. It seems sensible to counter ignorance and bigotry whenever it arises.

The trouble is, you just ignore any information not filtered thru evangelical eyes.

Hence we get astounding statements along the lines of calling anyone a "traitor" who suggests that the President of the USA should be accountable under the US Constitution. Hence we get the notion that rape victims should be forced to carry their attacker's children; and that what the poor in the world need is more children and more religious ignorance.

No wonder people call evangelicals dumb. You act dumb.

Anyway, don't take it from me. Read it from a former evangelical who tells it like it is (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/an-open-letter-to-all-rep_b_127709.html).

I've had enough stupid for one day. Seyonara.

[Silver Hand]

Hence we get astounding statements along the lines of calling anyone a "traitor" who suggests that the President of the USA should be accountable under the US Constitution.

Matters not. You're not an American. Why should you care?

I've had enough stupid for one day. Seyonara.

Via con Dios, muchacho!

[ptet]

Matters not. You're not an American. Why should you care? Is that the same logic which leads you to say atheists can't have morals?

Via con Dios, muchacho!Tú eres un buen hombre. Adios! ;>

[John Goddard]

An embryo at conception is not viable. It will become viable after around 24 weeks - unless it's one of the 2/3 or so of embryos which naturally abort.

Where did you come up with that magical standard? By that reasoning, if you were in a serious car accident that required immediate medical attention, paramedics would be ok to let you die since you weren't viable without their care. How would you like that?

So now you need to show that you would at least be as deserving of the same care and protection that a fetus should receive.

[ptet]

You know, john Goddard, reasonable, normal, rational people are able to accept that complex issues might not be as clear as they would like them to be.

But sure. go ahead. Believe that abortion is always wrong. Believe that life begins at conception. Believe that rape victims should carry their attacker's children. Believe that mothers should be left to die rather than risk the lives of their unborn children. While you're at it, criminalize women who don't take proper care of their unborn children - who drink or take drugs or smoke or take too much or too little exercise; or who fly then drive for 8 hours after their waters have broken... Or who don't believe in the same God that you do... Knock yourself out.

Apparently I shouldn't care, because I'm an atheist.

[John Goddard]

You know, john Goddard, reasonable, normal, rational people are able to accept that complex issues might not be as clear as they would like them to be.

But sure. go ahead. Believe that abortion is always wrong. Believe that life begins at conception. Believe that rape victims should carry their attacker's children. Believe that mothers should be left to die rather than risk the lives of their unborn children. While you're at it, criminalize women who don't take proper care of their unborn children - who drink or take drugs or smoke or take too much or too little exercise; or who fly then drive for 8 hours after their waters have broken... Or who don't believe in the same God that you do... Knock yourself out.

Apparently I shouldn't care, because I'm an atheist.

In other words I got you stumped, now you are trying to guilt me.

I already said earlier a case can be made for abortion if a mother's life is in danger and she has other children to care for, so don't bother trying to paint me as a raging pro-lifer ignorant of relative circumstances.

When I talk about abortion it starts with the kind that lazy women use as birth control, just because they don't want to bother with a child even though they are otherwise capable of raising one, or bringing it to term and adopting it out.

Just like if a paramedic let you die because he didn't want to be bothered with you, for no other reason.

From there it's a matter of debate, but it starts with so-called convenience abortions on demand.

[Chytraeus]

This reasoning leads to some absurd conclusions...

"...more than two-thirds of fertilised eggs are lost in nature... If each of these is really a person, that is, an eternal soul, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that heaven is mainly populated by people who have never been born." - Dr Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford.

If so, does that mean God is responsible for murdering babies where miscarriages occur after 16 days of pregnancy?

In my opinion bringing "God" into the abortion debate is not helpful. Fine, if we want to prevent abortion, there are lots of things we can do to help that. However, when "God" is brought into the debate, reason seems to fly out of the window. Just my opinion...

Opinions are a lot like back-sides, everyone has one, they all blow hot air, and the all stink.

What God choses to do with what He has created is for Him to worry about. Bringing such absurd ponderings into the discussion is throwing reason out the window. I question his facts, since they have no stated support, but are just presented as though, since he is the "Former Bishop of Oxford" he must be telling the truth. But even if it is true that two-thirds of fertilised eggs are lost in nature, we do not know why. It is possible that God has chosen not to give these fetuses a soul, which is why they die naturally. We just don't know, only God does. So using this as reasoning for permitting abortions up to a certain arbitrarily established date is hardly helpful. It sounds intelligent, as long as no one looks at it too closely, and then it is discovered that the emporer is naked.

Neither including God in the debate nor excluding Him either guarantees lucid arguments. The term "fetus" is a Latin term of indearment for "little one". The fact that we have taken an affectionate term and turned it into a technical word that we can dismiss as not yet a human just shows how little rational is involved in this debate. Parents who are desperately trying to have a child charish the fetus the moment they realize they have one. Those who were just "having sex" and consider a child in intrusion in their plans to have a fun time will despize the child long after the heart starts pumping blood and the brain waves begin. The question seems to be more emotionally answered than logically.

Of course, if we leave God out of the equation, then there is no true humanity at all. We are all just accidents of nature, and have no rights. All rights, morals, values and principles are just illusion, for we are no more significant that the germs we kill by the thousands when we clean our kitchens and bathrooms. We are just an "evolved" version of the same. So, go ahead and leave God out of the question if you want to. Then abortion becomes a moot point, and we begin to question if it is permissible to end the life of an unwanted todler, terminate the lives of anyone whose health has deteriorated to the point that they will never again be a productive member of society, euthanize all severely handicapped people.... You pick where it ends. The whole concept of life being an inalienable right was founded on the idea that life was a gift from the Creator, and He alone had the right to take it back.

The question is, does a fetus have that right or not. If his life was given to him by the Creator, then neither the mother nor doctor nor court of law has the right to take it back from him. If his life was an accident of nature, then it is not now, nor ever will be protected by anything other than a random law that can change at the whim of the majority. Murder is defined as taking the life of one created in the image of God. We cannot murder trees or cows, even though they have life, since they were not created in God's image.

The Scripture verses that speak of "life in the blood" are not aimed at answering this question. They weren't even written to deal with murder. They were written to forbid drinking the blood of animals, a practice common in pagan religions and witch craft even today as a way of obtaining spiritual power over life and death. It also points forward to the life given to the world through the shed blood of our Savior, which the faithful now are commended to drink that they might have eternal life. It is not a helpful text for determining when life begins in the womb, as it was not written to speak to that issue. It is being taken out of context. It is about as helpful as the man who was seeking advice from God so he opened his Bible to a random spot and put his finger on the page without looking. He opened his eyes and read "Judas went out and hung himself." He was a bit confused, so he decided to try it again. He opened his eyes and read, "Go and do likewise." God's Word only works when used in context. Taking the vers that says, "It is forbidden to drink the blood of an animal, like the pagans do, for the life is in the blood," and concluding, "See, it's ok to terminate a pregnancy during the first 16 days because there is no independant blood supply yet, and Scripture says that the life is in the blood," is taking those words completely out of their context.

What I would agree with is that there is no solid Biblical answer to this question. In the Old Testament, a man who caused a woman to misscarry by striking her in the stomache was not charged with murder. It was a serious sin, he owed a stiff penalty to both the mother and the father of the unborn child, and he had to take a sin offering to the temple to spare his life, but he was not stoned to death for murder. On the other hand, a nation God had sent as a judgement against Israel earned God's wrath and condemnation because they even cut open the bellies of pregnant women and killed the unborn children in the womb, a crime considered more horrendous than any punishment God had intended against His chosen people. That nation no longer exists, because God himself destroyed them. That was a pretty stiff penalty for forced abortion.

Abortion on demand at any stage simply begins the process of devaluing human life that can only end badly. Now we have scientists justifying experimentation on human embryoes, hoping to find cures to diseases. Will that lead to experiments on aborted fetuses next? And maybe prolonging the life of children born brain dead so we can harvest their organs and do test's on their bodies (oops, we are already doing that)? Maybe we can do the same with children bron with severe disabilities who are not expected to live very long. Just the other day I saw a 17 year old boy whose mother was told on the day of his birth would not live more than a few weeks. He has some serious health concerns to this day, but he also has a whole shelf of trophies he has won in highschool sports.

Both God and reason need to be kept in this argument. Without either we are lost.

[Jedidiah]

The argument is whether life begins at conception. Since two-thirds of pregnancies in nature don't lead to a live birth, it's a relevant question.

When else would it begin? If bacteria found on Mars would make history and deemed to be life on another planet, why do you suppose a fertilized human embryo shouldn't also be considered life?

In fact life does not begin at conception at all. Life only comes from life, so the origin would be at the point the first life form came into being. From my perspective that would be at the creation (in the case of human beings that would be Adam). So even an unfertilized ovum is actually alive. It only becomes a human being at conception.

[John Goddard]

In fact life does not begin at conception at all. Life only comes from life, so the origin would be at the point the first life form came into being. From my perspective that would be at the creation (in the case of human beings that would be Adam). So even an unfertilized ovum is actually alive. It only becomes a human being at conception.

There's a model for God's plan even in our reproductive systems, as reflective by Torah.

Sperm struggles like a man to get into the egg, Heaven. When he enters he finds Life, embryo.

All the rest of the sperm are flushed away into the Lake of Fire. Unrealized Heaven is also Hell and flushed away, unfertilized eggs with the period. Thus the state of being unclean during these emissions, which remind us to repent of our old selves that keep us from Life.

[jordanriver]

Gosh talking to you evangelicals is boring.

so what do you want me to do about it.

JR

[$cirisme]

Thread closed. Pro-life activism is not the place for debating whether or not abortion is murder, ptet.

You are to stay out of Pro-Life Activism. If you want to debate abortion, do it in Poly Sci if you must.