The Question Abortion Advocates Won’t Answer

[Adventist Dissident]

Sure there is. The Bible refers to all born as "begat" is the beginning. Meaning fathered. The father has a unique role in that it is a one time deal.

do you not see your error. you said All born, that is true, it does not say all conceived they have to reach birth.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yes the body without the soul/spirit is what is called dead. So your argument is we are all dead up to some point in gestation? When is that and where is the Scriptural or even scientific support for that. Which means you are arguing we are not human at conception. What are we? ​

we are not alive until ALL 3 parts are present. We are not alive when any 1 of the 3 are missing. It is the formation and preparation of the body phase. formation begin at conception, not life.

​

 

[redleghunter]

you assume ideal conditions, you do not assume a fallen sinful world.

The Bible is all about a fallen world from Genesis chapter 3. God gave commands within this fallen world that we are not to kill innocent life.

Your logic only works if everything is perfect and there is no sin.

Absolutely not. The logic is supported by God's command for us to love Him and love others.

but there may be conditions in which a person might have to kill an innocent child. for example, a slave women murder her children in order to save them from being raped,violated, exploited and abused.

So it's ok to kill an innocent life because they 'may' face a fallen world and the evils of that world? Why not just kill all children then?

the child was conceived in rape and the only life for that child was abuse and misery and cruelty. under your logic it would be evil for her to do that, not evil for the child to be abused.

So the solution to rape is to make another victim by killing the child who did nothing warranting death?

Come on now:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Yes or no and if no give me something other than subjective examples.

The only way out of this is to somehow explain and prove the premise(s) is/are wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

do you not see your error. you said All born, that is true, it does not say all conceived they have to reach birth.

No you missed it. Begat, the fathering is the beginning. In modern science that would be conception when the little fellas travel up to the egg and we have fertilization.

 

[redleghunter]

we are not alive until ALL 3 parts are present. We are not alive when any 1 of the 3 are missing. It is the formation and preparation of the body phase. formation begin at conception, not life.

When is this?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

So basically you are saying since we can't figure out when a soul enters the body,

No, scripture tells us that life does not begin at conception, consider Luke's account of meeting John the Baptist in Luke, The angle came to Mary and said your cousin is 6 months pregnant(26 weeks) then marry rushed to see her. assume packing and travel time. 2-4 weeks. the latest you get is 30 weeks. now look at what is said of John the Baptist and Jesus vs 41, 44, it refers to JTB as a baby, the baby lept in my womb, clearly a person in the present tense. Now look at what it says about Jesus. it refers to the child that will be born, future tense, not present tense, at 2-4 weeks.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

When is this?

not at conception, 26 weeks it is a person according to Luke 1. if you place Matt 1 and Joseph appering to Gaberial after Mary comes back from visiting Elezebath, then you get 12 to 16 weeks and it does not refer it it as a person yet. Sometime between 12 and 26 weeks.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No you missed it. Begat, the fathering is the beginning. In modern science that would be conception when the little fellas travel up to the egg and we have fertilization.

no you said birth, is when the baby comes out of the womb. If you ment conception you should have said so. that is reasoning from an assumption.

 

[usexpat97]

Obviously, as before, Premise #2 is the one most in contention. It's not that "abortion advocates" (whatever those are) refuse to answer--it's that redleghunter refuses to accept it.

Even so, I can think of rare cases where even Premise #1 does not necessarily hold, either. Namely, euthanasia and triage. If you pull the plug on your family member in a vegetative state, you are intentionally taking an innocent life. And of course they're innocent--after all, how can they sin or make any decisions? They are in a vegetative state.

Now, with triage, say you are an ER doctor and a natural disaster strikes. The victims are innocent. But you, the ER doctor, cannot save them all, and must decide who lives and who dies. You might make mistakes, but you didn't do anything wrong, because the dilemma you face is either: kill person A, or kill person B, C, and D. So you choose to kill A--an innocent person.


All that to say, gray areas DO exist. Even for premise 1; let alone 2. And abortion enters gray area.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Absolutely not. The logic is supported by God's command for us to love Him and love others.

you are right, we are to love people, but you are wrong because YOU ARE NOT LOVING THESE PEOPLE. you are saying it is loving to bring a child who is unloved and unwanted in the world so they can be rejected and abused over and over and over again. that is evil, it is not loving at all. that is the problem with you syllogism you assume love that is not present and ignore when love is not there.



So the solution to rape is to make another victim by killing the child who did nothing warranting death? YOUR SOLUTION WOULD CREATIVE A VICTIM BY LETTING THEM BE ALIVE.

you are simply ignoring reality.

 

[redleghunter]

we are not alive until ALL 3 parts are present.

You have not provided evidence we are separate the three parts at any given time other than death. Actually what you describe is death.

We are not alive when any 1 of the 3 are missing.

Meaning we are dead. That’s how the Bible defines death.

It is the formation and preparation of the body phase. formation begin at conception, not life.

That would mean we are dead at conception.

Finally, where’s the evidence we are not alive at conception. What makes you think life happens at any other moment? This not only defies logic, but scientific evidence. Not to mention you have provided no Scriptural exegesis to support your claim.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Body, spirit, soul, when do you have all three? Where ever that occurs you have a person.

 

[redleghunter]

No, scripture tells us that life does not begin at conception, consider Luke's account of meeting John the Baptist in Luke, The angle came to Mary and said your cousin is 6 months pregnant(26 weeks) then marry rushed to see her. assume packing and travel time. 2-4 weeks. the latest you get is 30 weeks. now look at what is said of John the Baptist and Jesus vs 41, 44, it refers to JTB as a baby, the baby lept in my womb, clearly a person in the present tense. Now look at what it says about Jesus. it refers to the child that will be born, future tense, not present tense, at 2-4 weeks.

Scripture says no such thing.

I’m not seeing how Mary’s encounter with Elizabeth proves some point you are asserting. It says “Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country,” right after the visitation to visit her cousin Elizabeth. Not two weeks, not 4 weeks but “in a hurry.”

Which then Elizabeth says this:

41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed isthe fruit of your womb! 43“And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? (NASB)

She calls Jesus in the womb “my Lord.”

This was “in a hurry” which would amount to travel time. We are speaking of days not weeks. So Jesus was referred to as Lord by Elizabeth days after:

35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. (NASB)

You have yet to point out when this magical moment happens when we are not alive (dead) in the womb and become alive. When?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

This will be the last post for the day. If you want to say it was days not weeks FINE,. It make no difference I was simply tryin to be generous. You still don't have life at conception. And to your other point, I don't have to point to where it body soul spirit occour, I just have to know where it does not occur. Since you have no body at conception you have no person. Since the spirty powers the body and it has not been formed yet it does not exist either. It has nothing to power. And since the soul gives consciousness to the body and can only be present when a body and spirit are present, it cannot be at conception because neither exist at conception. So your premise is false to be fine with and therefore invalid. Now as to not being alive vs dead, dead assume you were alive and ceased to be so. Not alive assumes something is there but not aware yet, it has not been turned on yet.

 

[redleghunter]

not at conception, 26 weeks it is a person according to Luke 1. if you place Matt 1 and Joseph appering to Gaberial after Mary comes back from visiting Elezebath, then you get 12 to 16 weeks and it does not refer it it as a person yet. Sometime between 12 and 26 weeks.

Luke 1 makes no such statement nor suggestion.

 

[redleghunter]

Body, spirit, soul, when do you have all three? Where ever that occurs you have a person.

What evidence do you have of when this happens?

 

[redleghunter]

Obviously, as before, Premise #2 is the one most in contention. It's not that "abortion advocates" (whatever those are) refuse to answer--it's that redleghunter refuses to accept it.

Then you should be able to address it. Please do so. Redleghunter awaits.

Even so, I can think of rare cases where even Premise #1 does not necessarily hold, either. Namely, euthanasia and triage. If you pull the plug on your family member in a vegetative state, you are intentionally taking an innocent life. And of course they're innocent--after all, how can they sin or make any decisions? They are in a vegetative state.

Euthanasia is the intentional taking of innocent human life.

Triage is not.

Now, with triage, say you are an ER doctor and a natural disaster strikes. The victims are innocent. But you, the ER doctor, cannot save them all, and must decide who lives and who dies. You might make mistakes, but you didn't do anything wrong, because the dilemma you face is either: kill person A, or kill person B, C, and D. So you choose to kill A--an innocent person.

No with triage you are attempting to save as many lives as possible. Not intentionally kill them. Why do people continue to use this flawed logic.

 

[redleghunter]

you are simply ignoring reality.

I can’t tell what point you were making in the last post other than not addressing the statements.

Sure life can be terrible here on planet Earth. We just compound the hurt and suffering by killing each other.

 

[redleghunter]

You still don't have life at conception.

Observed science refutes this.

The only body not alive is dead in the Bible.

You have yet to provide evidence of what a lifeless human in the womb consists of.

The Bible tells us when the soul departs the body we are dead. In fact that is the Biblical definition of dead.

Biologically a lifeless human in the womb is either still born or a miscarriage.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ps 139:16 "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them." NASB Do you see that it is "UNFORMED". how to you get life beginning at conception out of that? it has to have form to be considered a person. NO FORM = NO PERSON on what basis do you say otherwise.