Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[redleghunter]

You don't know that I have a low regard for what you call "unborn babies." (I CERTAINLY HAVE A LOW REGARD FOR SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS.)
I may have a very high regard for fetuses; I may think they are about the very best things in all existence - for research purposes. I am somewhat kidding - what I do have high regard for is truth, for people being clear about things. Including myself of course. So I am willing to engage in the discussion.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

You are not a serious poster. You just want attention and post outrageous stuff to tick off other people.

The above is evidence for such.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't know that I have a low regard for what you call "unborn babies." (I CERTAINLY HAVE A LOW REGARD FOR SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS.)
I may have a very high regard for fetuses; I may think they are about the very best things in all existence - for research purposes. I am somewhat kidding - what I do have high regard for is truth, for people being clear about things. Including myself of course. So I am willing to engage in the discussion.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

BTW.....you didn't answer the question.....

 

[redleghunter]

Yep - in this sense. BOTH are "life" and both are "human." (So noticing something has "human life" proves nothing in this discussion.) That is science - if you wanted to investigate it scientifically you could prove it scientifically.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

Amazing. When has a cancer cell displayed its very own set of DNA distinct from the person who has the tumor? Sir, you lack of knowledge on basic genetics and embryology is staggering. Again, if you want a serious conversation, start posting opposing scientific and Biblical evidence as me and others have presented; and dispense with your opinions.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
There are different kinds of considerations, Biblical and perhaps the strongest are the understandings of biology. Common sense understanding such as that of a child would seem to coincide with what else we know - that there is only the new member of a species when it is born (or hatched). In the case of species that reproduce in those ways.

"Human being" means among other things being an animal, and I think we all know how to count actual animals.

The above statements are incoherent. If you are going to take the stance from a biology stand point then please at least do the research.

The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

And more:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.


The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

II. When does a human being begin?

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.



A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which thespermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed withinfemale and malepronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Oh, "incoherent," huh? What specifically in those few statements I make can't you understand?

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

BTW.....you didn't answer the question.....

It was a loaded question - to answer it in the way you posed it was to buy into your view that I have a negative view of fetuses.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are different kinds of considerations, Biblical and perhaps the strongest are the understandings of biology. Common sense understanding such as that of a child would seem to coincide with what else we know - that there is only the new member of a species when it is born (or hatched). In the case of species that reproduce in those ways.

"Human being" means among other things being an animal, and I think we all know how to count actual animals.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

That's not common sense...Whether a being can be counted in a census does not determine whether it is a person. The Holy Spirit is a person, Jesus is a person (God the Son), and The Father is a person. So whether they're visible to you or not doesn't constitute whether a person exists.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It was a loaded question - to answer it in the way you posed it was to buy into your view that I have a negative view of fetuses.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

Your refusal to answer is duly noted.......

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Yep - in this sense. BOTH are "life" and both are "human." (So noticing something has "human life" proves nothing in this discussion.) That is science - if you wanted to investigate it scientifically you could prove it scientifically.

Amazing. When has a cancer cell displayed its very own set of DNA distinct from the person who has the tumor? Sir, you lack of knowledge on basic genetics and embryology is staggering. Again, if you want a serious conversation, start posting opposing scientific and Biblical evidence as me and others have presented; and dispense with your opinions.

What I said is totally true. Easily scientifically provable - any half-decent biologist would not have to look very far to be able to figure out that fetal flesh is composed of alive cells (when it is in a womb and a sonogram proves it has movement - like growing for instance, indicating the cells it is obviously composed of are alive).
And I venture to suggest it would be found to have human DNA if it were found in the belly of a woman.

In what you respond to (and falsely accuse about), I made NO claims about DNA - it is only you who brings up that subject. (Prior to my now pointing out that the scientist could prove it is human by analyzing the DNA. (So too in the case of the cancer!) IT IS HUMAN if found living within and attached to a human being. (And is not some sort of usual parasite.)

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[redleghunter]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
There are different kinds of considerations, Biblical and perhaps the strongest are the understandings of biology. Common sense understanding such as that of a child would seem to coincide with what else we know - that there is only the new member of a species when it is born (or hatched). In the case of species that reproduce in those ways.

"Human being" means among other things being an animal, and I think we all know how to count actual animals.


Oh, "incoherent," huh? What specifically in those few statements I make can't you understand?

GOD KNOWETH ALL

You state 'science' and give absolutely no evidence to support your assertions. No worries, I provided enough sources for you to view.

 

[redleghunter]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Yep - in this sense. BOTH are "life" and both are "human." (So noticing something has "human life" proves nothing in this discussion.) That is science - if you wanted to investigate it scientifically you could prove it scientifically.


What I said is totally true. Easily scientifically provable - any half-decent biologist would not have to look very far to be able to figure out that fetal flesh is composed of alive cells (when it is in a womb and a sonogram proves it has movement - like growing for instance, indicating the cells it is obviously composed of are alive).
And I venture to suggest it would be found to have human DNA if it were found in the belly of a woman.

In what you respond to (and falsely accuse about), I made NO claims about DNA - it is only you who brings up that subject. (Prior to my now pointing out that the scientist could prove it is human by analyzing the DNA. (So too in the case of the cancer!) IT IS HUMAN if found within a human being.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

I know quite a bit on how a cancerous tumor develops in a person. It did not require 23 chromosomes from my mother and 23 chromosomes from my father to give me cancer. The cancer in me was not a distinct 'entity' conceived from two people.

This has to be the most ridiculous assertion you are peddling.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

That's not common sense...Whether a being can be counted in a census does not determine whether it is a person. The Holy Spirit is a person, Jesus is a person (God the Son), and The Father is a person. So whether they're visible to you or not doesn't constitute whether a person exists.

What is NOT common sense is to suggest a human being is a person just like the Trinity has persons.

The person who is a human being is necessarily an animal being, an actual animal. That can be counted, of course, just like the biologist would count it as a member of the species homo sapiens.

Perhaps if you had a bigger picture and more of them you could take up an entire thread page?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"breath of life" is a metaphor

Oh there is no such real thing that is precisely "the breath of life."? And without which we would be (and will be) dead?

[I say this to "St.Worm" too, David having been rather dismissive of the idea, as though it was a spurious nothing concept.]

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[civilwarbuff]

The person who is a human being is necessarily an animal being, an actual animal. That can be counted, of course, just like the biologist would count it as a member of the species homo sapiens.

Like a lion, or tiger or bear?.....Oh My! Of course the big difference is that humans have souls and the other animals do not. So to just call us animals is an insult to the God who personally creates each and every one of us.......

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

God told Jeremiah "Before you were in the womb, I knew you." That, to me, suggests that our souls are created before our physical bodies.

Oh I see -pre incarnation, like there is reincarnation?
Maybe we were not born (many times) before, but still it is the case we pre-exist even before conception?
A little funny and I would say certainly not Biblical.
What God knew before Jeremiah was conceived is that there would be a Jeremiah and the exact entire details of his life, since God knows all, future and past.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[civilwarbuff]

Oh I see -pre incarnation, like there is reincarnation?
Maybe we were not born (many times) before, but still it is the case we pre-exist even before conception?
A little funny and I would say certainly not Biblical.
What God knew before Jeremiah was conceived is that there would be a Jeremiah and the exact entire details of his life, since God knows all, future and past.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

And of course, you can demonstrate that it is not Biblical, right?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And of course, you can demonstrate that it is not Biblical, right?

• What are you trying to claim, that WE pre-exist from all time just like Jesus Christ?
• I would think if the proposition is yours it is up to you to show it is Biblically correct, to give some reference to it (other than God's knowledge of Jermiah) so it might become clear what you are talking about.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

personhood is a metaphysical construction and is determined not by objective measures but by subjective arguments

PERSONHOOD is being a person. "A person" and "a human being" are the same thing, they have the same meaning.

So like I already said:
The person who is a human being is necessarily an animal being, an actual animal. That can be counted, of course, just like the biologist would count it as a member of the species homo sapiens.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Like a lion, or tiger or bear?.....Oh My! Of course the big difference is that humans have souls and the other animals do not. So to just call us animals is an insult to the God who personally creates each and every one of us.......

I did NOT "just call us animals" or say we are only animals. But we are animals, members of a certain animal species. Certainly not plants! (The fetus is rather like a plant of course, implanted in the womb.)

Please refrain from bearing false witness.

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[PapaZoom]

Rats can learn!
GOD KNOWETH EVERYTHING

So what? We're not talking about rats. You've said nothing here.

 

[PapaZoom]

You don't know that I have a low regard for what you call "unborn babies." (I CERTAINLY HAVE A LOW REGARD FOR SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS.)
I may have a very high regard for fetuses; I may think they are about the very best things in all existence - for research purposes. I am somewhat kidding - what I do have high regard for is truth, for people being clear about things. Including myself of course. So I am willing to engage in the discussion.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

NO you demonstrate by your words that you have little to no regard for a developing fetus. You talk like a hard core abortion advocate.