Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[PapaZoom]

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

none so blind

 

[PapaZoom]

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.

a troll

 

[PapaZoom]

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

...¯\_(ツ)_/¯...

 

[PapaZoom]

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

...¯\_(ツ)_/¯...

 

[PapaZoom]

Jonah Goldberg
@JonahNRO
I'm old enough to remember when liberals considered abortion a regrettable necessity. Now it's for spite. nationalreview.com/corner/437210/

 

[St_Worm2]

Just off the top, please note the blatant contradiction you and I here are obviously talking about is "unborn baby." NOWHERE in the Bible does that form of words appear - a definite indication God "has trouble with it," at least to the point of never using it.To some it may "seem" that God does not have trouble with it, although would never actually say it. If it is an idea so welcome to God, why does it never appear directly in Scripture?

Hi Douglas, but your response and disdain was directed specifically at the phrase, "unborn child" (NOT, "unborn baby"). You said:

To my mind "unborn child" is about the most blatant contradiction there could be...

Of course, once you realized that it is commonplace in the Bible to refer to the being living in a pregnant mother's womb as a "child", you attempted to cover your tracks by saying that we were actually discussing the phrase, "unborn baby", but that's simply not true (not that there a difference in understanding between those two phrases).

I rarely use "unborn baby" (as is clear from my posts), but only because I prefer to use the phrase, "unborn child", instead. There is however, absolutely NOTHING wrong with using "unborn baby", it's simply a matter of individual preference.

To me .. and to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently ) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby" (or saying that a pregnant woman is "with child"), means EXACTLY the same thing!! To say otherwise is to mince words in a vain attempt to show a difference where none exists

Many of your arguments merit discussion (at least to some degree), but your arguments against the use of, "unborn child" and "unborn baby", do not.

Yours and His,
David

 

[civilwarbuff]

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

So now we are not animal, we are vegetation?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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

It was claimed the fetus has a beating heart and can "learn." So it is very much to the point to say that rats can learn, for they like the fetus have a beating heart.

In other words, it is an argument about the fetus that says nothing more than that it is like a rat. Certainly relevant to point that out!

GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Douglas, but your response and disdain was directed specifically at the phrase, "unborn child" (NOT, "unborn baby"). You said:

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
To my mind "unborn child" is about the most blatant contradiction there could be...​

Of course, once you realized that it is commonplace in the Bible to refer to the being living in a pregnant mother's womb as a "child", you attempted to cover your tracks by saying that we were actually discussing the phrase, "unborn baby", but that's simply not true (not that there a difference in understanding between those two phrases).

I rarely use "unborn baby" (as is clear from my posts), but only because I prefer to use the phrase, "unborn child", instead. There is however, absolutely NOTHING wrong with using "unborn baby", it's simply a matter of individual preference.

To me .. and to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently ) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby" (or saying that a pregnant woman is "with child"), means EXACTLY the same thing!! To say otherwise is to mince words in a vain attempt to show a difference where none exists

Many of your arguments merit discussion (at least to some degree), but your arguments against the use of, "unborn child" and "unborn baby", do not.

Yours and His,
David

Hi David, you start out by making a big fuss that I was talking about "unborn child" and not "unborn baby," and then later claim "to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently ) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby"... means EXACTLY the same thing!!"
I think this point of yours is pretty well all your imagination and fabrication. That is, I don't think there is any real and relevant distinction to be made between "unborn child" and "unborn baby." They are both the same blatant contradiction. I think you do not point at any place I try to make some great distinction between the two, and I think there is no such distinction of mine to which you could point.

So who minces words "in a vain attempt to show a difference where none exists," I wonder?

In Christ, Douglas

GOD LOVETH TRUE LOVE

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So now we are not animal, we are vegetation?

It reads "fetus," not "WE."
We are not fetuses, but I am not surprised you have the confusion.

And btw, I don't even say fetuses are vegetation - only that they share one very significant characteristic, being totally attached to something else like a plant at the bottom of the sea, having no independence from such physical life attachment.

 

[civilwarbuff]

you start out by making a big fuss that I was talking about "unborn child" and not "unborn baby," and then later claim "to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently ) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby"... means EXACTLY the same thing!!"

Maybe you can explain the difference between the 2 to those of us who are not so "enlightened".....

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Douglas,

) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby" (or saying that a pregnant woman is "with child"), means EXACTLY the same thing!!
Yours and His,
David

Hi David,
Fraid I must take exception at this point too, to your saying "unborn child" is the same as "with child."

I have already pointed out that what I think is a blatant contradiction, namely "unborn child," does not appear in Scripture.
But "with child" does, and it is of course in the context: "woman with child." What it means is she is pregnant. You can try to read more into it, but basically that is its meaning, its usage.
Usually it also means she is "expecting" to soon give birth to a child, especially if she is said to be "great with child."
It does not mean she already has a child; note one does NOT say "woman and child." It means it is likely there will soon be a new mother and a new baby.

In Christ, Douglas

GOD LOVETH TRUE LOVING

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Maybe you can explain the difference between the 2 to those of us who are not so "enlightened".....

Well, first of all both of them are the same blatant contradiction. So in both cases the two words together don't make any sense.
Without the contradicting adjective "unborn," I suspect most people think a baby is always a child but a child is not always a baby. That is, a baby is an infant child, probably less than one year old. There is little confusion about this.

It is only when you contradict the usual understanding of a baby or a child, that it is either a few months old or a few years old, and blatantly claim that it has not even been born, only then is there any problem with understanding.

GOD LOVETH TRUE LOVING

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't think there is any real and relevant distinction to be made between "unborn child" and "unborn baby." They are both the same blatant contradiction.

Hi Douglas, if that's true, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize. The confusion (if there is any) was borne out of a discussion we were having that used the term "unborn child", but (after showing you that the Bible clearly uses the term "child" to describe the being that occupies a mother's womb), your next reply to me said:

...please note the blatant contradiction you and I here are obviously talking about is "unborn baby."

I will not continue to discuss this phraseology with you, save to simply remind you that your opinion about its use is wrong. If there is anything left to discuss with more substance, let's move onto that.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - just to be clear, are you now describing the being who resides in a pregnant woman's womb as a, "child"?

 

[CodyFaith]

This guy can't be for real.

I feel stupid because I can't tell if he's a troll or not.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Douglas, if that's true, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize. The confusion (if there is any) was borne out of a discussion we were having that used the term "unborn child", but (after showing you that the Bible clearly uses the term "child" to describe the being that occupies a mother's womb), your next reply to me said:



I will not continue to discuss this phraseology with you, save to simply remind you that your opinion about its use is wrong. If there is anything left to discuss with more substance, let's move onto that.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - just to be clear, are you now describing the being who resides in a pregnant woman's womb as a, "child"?

Hi David, are you kidding? Is it not yet clear that whether "child" is used, or "baby," if it is, imho, blatantly contradicted with the adjective "unborn," then it matters little which one is used. That adjective indicates it is in the gestating womb, what is being talked about, so if you here indicate womb contents I would certainly reject calling it a "child." Amounts to the same thing as "unborn child," which amounts to the same thing as "unborn baby" which amounts to nothing sensible, imho. It would seem "unborn" indicates womb contents.
But it is not a being - I challenge you to demonstrate that it is a being.
It is an entity, it is some "thing." Rather than nothing. But that it has "being" in that sense does NOT mean it is "a being" as in animal being, member of a species. [I studied philosophy - got an M.A., always thought of it as "sharpening one's tools." To write of Love and God. In case you're interested.]

You mention "something with more substance," I point you at the question of the ambiguity of "being."
And you may remember rather summarily dismissing "the breath of life;" without that breath from God we are dead and I suggest that means it is indeed a substantial thing.

Sincerely in Christ, Douglas

GOD LOVES TRUE LOVING

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Douglas,
p.s. - just to be clear, are you now describing the being who resides in a pregnant woman's womb as a, "child"?

Just to be clear, there are two reasons I would not refer to a fetus as a "child." One, it is IMHO, false and untrue to do so, and two, especially in the context of discussing abortion, it begs the question, is the pronouncement of a conclusion to the question at issue, rather than any kind of rational argument.

And for greater clarity, and less prejudicing of the question, I suggest the fetus (what we can call it without begging the question) not be, without argument for it, referred to as "the being," since that strongly suggests "human being" and of course since it IS human fetal flesh, what other kind of being could it be? That is, not only does "baby" or "child" beg the question, so too does "being."

Oh, David, another reason I am concerned for clarity on this issue, it has immense consequences for the future livability of God's world. I see what I think of in my more tender moments as the spewing forth of much wanton flesh, and better birth control, control over whether a birth actually takes place, is part of an approach to godly responsibility.

GOD LOVETH TRUE LOVE

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

A person is a person, be it the persons of the trinity, or the lowest thinkable homo sapiens. Maybe you withhold person-hood from those very mentally handicapped???
Perhaps if you had a bigger picture and more of them you could take up an entire thread page?[/QUOTE]Got a problem? Go tell it to the Marines.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A person is a person, be it the persons of the trinity, or the lowest thinkable homo sapiens. Maybe you withhold person-hood from those very mentally handicapped???
Perhaps if you had a bigger picture and more of them you could take up an entire thread page?

Nice putting the most uncharitable construction on another. Smearing.
Your first statement is correct - and I suggest you keep in mind that "homo sapiens" means actual animals, actual members of the species. Of course that includes the very mentally handicapped, including ... .

GOD HATETH UNCHARITABLE REMARKS

 

[PapaZoom]

This is what the culture of death lead to - a complete disregard for the fact that a baby is in the womb. Not "gestational content" as some clueless advocates of abortion claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...born-into-trash-to-die/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

We are rightly appalled at this killing. But not at the dismembering of the same child while still in the mother's womb. One abortion procedure is designed to rip the baby apart in the womb and then collect and catalog the contents! That's acceptable to pro abortion crowd even while they hide behind the false claim of "choice."