A Losing Battle

[Douglas Hendrickson]

FETAL APPENDAGE are WE??? So when we meet, will we be shaking each other's ADULT APPENDAGES???

So do I just walk up to you and ask you to put your ADULT APPENDAGE in my hand???

Forgive my scorn of your usage of language...

But a living child's LIFE is at issue here...

And you are dehumanizing that life...
FINGER??? Whatever happened to ADULT APPENDAGE???

Arsenios

In case you don't know, adults generally have real fingers. If YOU want to call them "appendages," that is just fine. Nothing important rests on such a claim and it is certainly true.

Perhaps I should scorn your usage of language - it is YOU that seems to want to speak of "adult appendage" when everyone recognizes it is a finger.
BTW, if I "dehumanize" that life by referring to a part of it in a precise manner that is truthful about what it is, then would there not be at least as much dehumanization in your use of "adult appendage"?

IT IS HUMAN AND ALIVE, THE "APPENDAGE" (in either case) IS HUMAN AND ALIVE. Hence it (the appendage) IS human life.
It consists of alive human cells. And in either case it certainly is not a baby.
I would not try to un humanize or dehumanize it at all - it is certainly and totally human and alive cells.

 

[amariselle]

In case you don't know, adults generally have real fingers. If YOU want to call them "appendages," that is just fine. Nothing important rests on such a claim and it is certainly true.

Perhaps I should scorn your usage of language - it is YOU that seems to want to speak of "adult appendage" when everyone recognizes it is a finger.
BTW, if I "dehumanize" that life by referring to a part of it in a precise manner that is truthful about what it is, then would there not be at least as much dehumanization in your use of "adult appendage"?

IT IS HUMAN AND ALIVE, THE "APPENDAGE" (in either case) IS HUMAN AND ALIVE. Hence it (the appendage) IS human life.
It consists of alive human cells. And in either case it certainly is not a baby.
I would not try to un humanize or dehumanize it at all - it is certainly and totally human and alive cells.

"It" is much more than just "human cells." It is a baby.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"It" is much more than just "human cells." It is a baby.

Your saying that is so does not make it so.
BTW, to clarify, I was talking about the two types of appendages when I said "It is certainly not a baby."

It is fairly correct to say, "it is much more than just 'human cells.'" It is definitely a certain organization of human cells, as is a cancer tumor. Organized in a growing fashion.
And organized to possibly become a born human being.
But that is only possibility, not what it actually is.

 

[amariselle]

Your saying that is so does not make it so.
BTW, to clarify, I was talking about the two types of appendages when I said "It is certainly not a baby."

It is fairly correct to say, "it is much more than just 'human cells.'" It is definitely a certain organization of human cells, as is a cancer tumor. Organized in a growing fashion.
And organized to possibly become a born human being.
But that is only possibility, not what it actually is.

I will never accept an unborn baby being compared to a cancerous tumor as any kind of logical argument whatsoever. Cancer is a disease, left intreated it will kill the person who has it. And it is in no way a separate and sacred human life, created by God, in His image.

A growing baby in the womb is not simply a "possible" human being, it IS a human being, from conception. The Bible clearly tells us that God is the one who "knits us together in our mother's womb." The process of a baby's development is beautiful and amazing, a miracle.

God knows each of us, before we are even born.

I am deeply saddened that people are actually still comparing unborn babies to a terminal illness. This makes absolutely no sense, and is throwing God's precious gift of life back in His face. The pain and suffering of untold numbers of babies will not be something He ignores.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I will never accept an unborn baby being compared to a cancerous tumor as any kind of logical argument whatsoever. Cancer is a disease, left intreated it will kill the person who has it. And it is in no way a separate and sacred human life, created by God, in His image.

A growing baby in the womb is not simply a "possible" human being, it IS a human being, from conception. The Bible clearly tells us that God is the one who "knits us together in our mother's womb." The process of a baby's development is beautiful and amazing, a miracle.

God knows each of us, before we are even born.

I am deeply saddened that people are actually still comparing unborn babies to a terminal illness. This makes absolutely no sense, and is throwing God's precious gift of life back in His face. The pain and suffering of untold numbers of babies will not be something He ignores.

It is not a comparison with terminal illness, so you do not have to be saddened by that. Cancers can go into remission and often are removed, so they are not correctly identified as "terminal illness." I agree that cancers generally are more of a threat to the woman in whose body one is growing, but pregnancies have also caused death. The question is, what can you point to that makes the pregnancy growth different from the cancer growth?
The reason this is an important question is that many people like to say, "It is human life," and that is true but it proves nothing in that cancers are also human life. In that sense it is rational and important to consider tumors, for they clearly show that to say "it is human life" does not justify preserving it.

We should not doubt that God created the natural processes of life, and especially those of human reproduction. Therefore it is true that God is responsible for the "knittting together" in the womb. But what about when the knitting is not "together," when it is not complete? The divine workmanship of creation does not mean something is already "knit together" when the knitting has only begun, say.

You say "God knows each of us, before we are ever born." That is true in the sense that God has absolute foreknowledge of all that will come to be, and IF we are born would have known that from eternity. On the other hand, if a particular fetus is destined to be aborted, God would also know that, but it would not be knowledge of a person born.

The human life that is the fetus is NOT separate - the person opposing abortion clearly wants to prevent it from being separated from its host. Of course it can be separate, just like the tumor can be separate (hopefully), and is then likely to suffer the same fate.

 

[amariselle]

It is not a comparison with terminal illness, so you do not have to be saddened by that. Cancers can go into remission and often are removed, so they are not correctly identified as "terminal illness." I agree that cancers generally are more of a threat to the woman in whose body one is growing, but pregnancies have also caused death. The question is, what can you point to that makes the pregnancy growth different from the cancer growth?

The reason this is an important question is that many people like to say, "It is human life," and that is true but it proves nothing in that cancers are also human life. In that sense it is rational and important to consider tumors, for they clearly show that to say "it is human life" does not justify preserving it.

We should not doubt that God created the natural processes of life, and especially those of human reproduction. Therefore it is true that God is responsible for the "knittting together" in the womb. But what about when the knitting is not "together," when it is not complete? The divine workmanship of creation does not mean something is already "knit together" when the knitting has only begun, say.

You say "God knows each of us, before we are ever born." That is true in the sense that God has absolute foreknowledge of all that will come to be, and IF we are born would have known that from eternity. On the other hand, if a particular fetus is destined to be aborted, God would also know that, but it would not be knowledge of a person born.

The human life that is the fetus is NOT separate - the person opposing abortion clearly wants to prevent it from being separated from its host. Of course it can be separate, just like the tumor can be separate (hopefully), and is then likely to suffer the same fate.

Wow....I am honestly speechless. I guess if you are so convinced that unborn babies are the same as cancer, there is nothing left to say.

I will answer your question, not that I think my answer will make a difference to you, but maybe it will to someone else who reads this at some point.

The "pregnancy growth" (the unborn human child) is different from a cancerous growth because each and every human being is intrinsically valuable, created in the image of God and known and loved by Him, even before birth. Cancer is NONE of these things. Cancer is a disease, a result of our sinful and broken world. An unborn child is precious and beautiful, a new life. Cancer takes lives and destroys them.

The two are not even CLOSE.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Wow....I am honestly speechless. I guess if you are so convinced that unborn babies are the same as cancer, there is nothing left to say.

I will answer your question, not that I think my answer will make a difference to you, but maybe it will to someone else who reads this at some point.

The "pregnancy growth" (the unborn human child) is different from a cancerous growth because each and every human being is intrinsically valuable, created in the image of God and known and loved by Him, even before birth. Cancer is NONE of these things. Cancer is a disease, a result of our sinful and broken world. An unborn child is precious and beautiful, a new life. Cancer takes lives and destroys them.

The two are not even CLOSE.

I agree that "each and every human being is intrinsically valuable, created in the image of God and known and loved by him."
But the "even before birth" is a stretch, seems to me. There is a certain recognition in the Bible that we all come from wombs and (of course) would never exist had that not been so, had we not come from a womb. We are built there, knit together there, if you will. But just like a house, we are not a human being body for God until we are built. Not when the building of our body begins, but when it is completed. The question is what is a human being, not whether God loves human beings.

Just a little aside, why do we make so much of the BIRTH of Jesus Christ if he was incarnate as a human being long before that? Was he, and is everybody else, actually about nine months older than we normally consider to be the case?

 

[amariselle]

I agree that "each and every human being is intrinsically valuable, created in the image of God and known and loved by him."
But the "even before birth" is a stretch, seems to me. There is a certain recognition in the Bible that we all come from wombs and (of course) would never exist had that not been so, had we not come from a womb. We are built there, knit together there, if you will. But just like a house, we are not a human being body for God until we are built. Not when the building of our body begins, but when it is completed. The question is what is a human being, not whether God loves human beings.

Just a little aside, why do we make so much of the BIRTH of Jesus Christ if he was incarnate as a human being long before that? Was he, and is everybody else, actually about nine months older than we normally consider to be the case?

I guess I wasn't human when I was born then, not by your definition. I was born two months early and had to be in an incubator. Being as I had two months left to go before I was "finished", then I must not have been a person. And nowadays babies born even earlier can be saved.

Also, it's interesting you would bring up the birth of Jesus. Of course His birth was celebrated, why wouldn't it be? He is the Messiah that the world so desperately needs . But when the Angel Gabriel appeared the Mary and told her she would conceive a child, Jesus was no less Jesus, even at the beginning.

Also, remember when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth? Well, Elizabeth was still pregnant with John the Baptist, and when her baby heard Mary's voice he jumped for joy inside her womb. He was very much a person, even though he had not been born yet.

 

[Arsenios]

In case you don't know, adults generally have real fingers.

!!!NEWS-FLASH!!!

REAL FINGERS RECENTLY FOUND

ON BABIES IN THE WOMB

A.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

!!!NEWS-FLASH!!!

REAL FINGERS RECENTLY FOUND

ON BABIES IN THE WOMB

A.

If you can't win an argument, try a fake headline.
I suspect nothing substantive rests on whether fetuses are said to have fingers, or not. For those interested in "from the moment of conception," there are certainly no fingers that are part of an embryo.

 

[amariselle]

If you can't win an argument, try a fake headline.
I suspect nothing substantive rests on whether fetuses are said to have fingers, or not. For those interested in "from the moment of conception," there are certainly no fingers that are part of an embryo.

Yes, an unborn baby doesn't need fingers to be a real human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I guess I wasn't human when I was born then, not by your definition. I was born two months early and had to be in an incubator. Being as I had two months left to go before I was "finished", then I must not have been a person. And nowadays babies born even earlier can be saved.

Also, it's interesting you would bring up the birth of Jesus. Of course His birth was celebrated, why wouldn't it be? He is the Messiah that the world so desperately needs . But when the Angel Gabriel appeared the Mary and told her she would conceive a child, Jesus was no less Jesus, even at the beginning.

Also, remember when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth? Well, Elizabeth was still pregnant with John the Baptist, and when her baby heard Mary's voice he jumped for joy inside her womb. He was very much a person, even though he had not been born yet.

"By my definition" you were certainly human when you were born. Not only that, at birth you became a human being, a member of the species homo sapiens. Not only were you human when born, the fetus that became you at birth had been human, composed of only human cells from its beginning. (A I tried to point out a post or two ago.)

Jesus, the Messiah the world needed, was God incarnated, and that is what we celebrate, his incarnation when he was born!
One might well say The Son was part of the Godhead "from eternity," and that may be what you mean by "Jesus was no less Jesus, even at the beginning." Yet the name "Jesus" rather focuses on one person who lived on this earth for a certain period of time. Certainly he was NOT on this earth before his mother even conceived!

In the case of Elizabeth, "the babe" which is a way of referring to a very obvious pregnancy that would very likely result in a birth, especially when very much anticipated, is said to have "lept for joy." We are told she was filled with the Holy Ghost, so it seems it was her joy. Likely also Mary's, and even we today can be joyful at the thought that indeed John the Baptist was born. The "jumping" was not likely anything other than what usually is call quickening, when the pregnant person can first feel some movement in her womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, an unborn baby doesn't need fingers to be a real human being.

Surely a human being needs some flesh, some body parts, some organs to be an actual person?

 

[amariselle]

"By my definition" you were certainly human when you were born. Not only that, at birth you became a human being, a member of the species homo sapiens. Not only were you human when born, the fetus that became you at birth had been human, composed of only human cells from its beginning. (A I tried to point out a post or two ago.)

Jesus, the Messiah the world needed, was God incarnated, and that is what we celebrate, his incarnation when he was born!
One might well say The Son was part of the Godhead "from eternity," and that may be what you mean by "Jesus was no less Jesus, even at the beginning." Yet the name "Jesus" rather focuses on one person who lived on this earth for a certain period of time. Certainly he was NOT on this earth before his mother even conceived!

In the case of Elizabeth, "the babe" which is a way of referring to a very obvious pregnancy that would very likely result in a birth, especially when very much anticipated, is said to have "lept for joy." We are told she was filled with the Holy Ghost, so it seems it was her joy. Likely also Mary's, and even we today can be joyful at the thought that indeed John the Baptist was born. The "jumping" was not likely anything other than what usually is call quickening, when the pregnant person can first feel some movement in her womb.

Well, I believe Jesus as a human was also present from the moment of conception. Though of course He was more than just another human being.

As for John, it is clear from the Biblical text that he did respond to Mary's voice with joy. He did so because he was very much a human being, even though he had not yet been born.

 

[amariselle]

Surely a human being needs some flesh, some body parts, some organs to be an actual person?

And they need a soul as well. But as for body parts and organs, those do develop very very early in a pregnancy.

 

[Arsenios]

If you can't win an argument, try a fake headline.
I suspect nothing substantive rests on whether fetuses are said to have fingers, or not. For those interested in "from the moment of conception," there are certainly no fingers that are part of an embryo.

You left THAT door WIDE OPEN...

And it DID win the argument...

Quid, Erat, Splat!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Well, I believe Jesus as a human was also present from the moment of conception. Though of course He was more than just another human being.

As for John, it is clear from the Biblical text that he did respond to Mary's voice with joy. He did so because he was very much a human being, even though he had not yet been born.

Is he really denying that John in the womb at 6 months recognized Jesus in the womb at a few days when their pregnant mothers met?

I thought he was a Christian...??

Oh well...

Arsenios

 

[amariselle]

Is he really denying that John in the womb at 6 months recognized Jesus in the womb at a few days when their pregnant mothers met?

I thought he was a Christian...??

Oh well...

Arsenios

I'm not sure. In any case I believe the both of them were very much real and alive, not just a mass of cells or anything like that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

↑
In case you don't know, adults generally have real fingers.

!!!NEWS-FLASH!!!

REAL FINGERS RECENTLY FOUND

ON BABIES IN THE WOMB
Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
If you can't win an argument, try a fake headline.
I suspect nothing substantive rests on whether fetuses are said to have fingers, or not. For those interested in "from the moment of conception," there are certainly no fingers that are part of an embryo.

You left THAT door WIDE OPEN...

And it DID win the argument...

Quid, Erat, Splat!

Arsenios

Oh sure. How do you figure that? Your "headline" claims there are real fingers in the womb - when it uses the term "babies" for what is found there is at best a linguistic distortion.
What are undoubtedly, unquestionably human beings have in that sense undoubtedly real human being fingers (unless there were amputations). Your conclusion needs arguing for; mine certainly does not.

And in case you don't know it, the single cell embryo is not even flesh, has not even the barest possibility of having a finger.

 

[amariselle]

↑
And in case you don't know it, the single cell embryo is not even flesh, has not even the barest possibility of having a finger.

But it is a human being.