You tied "personhood" with cognitive development. This apparently is your justification for aborting unborn children. What you typed up there has absolutely positively nothing to do with that.
Sola Scriptura is your limitation. Please don't try making it mine.
Hmm..Can we explore this? Do you believe it is wrong to kill an animal for any reason what so ever?
I'm not sure why you would bother making any such distinction considering that you wrote...
... which I assume you believe in. Isn't adding to Sacred Scripture bad inasmuch as it makes the text meaningless?
That's the point. The poster believes it isn't a human being at that point.
No you are not following anything at all, so all 1st world people are environmentalists? They are the ones that pollutes the most.
Why would any christians tell them anything? They should have their imams to break the news.
Uhmm, I think you just missed the elephant in the room, try to think about the topic.
They're also the only ones with any hope of improving the environment.
So the Muslims should tell the Muslims and the jews that God broke His covenant with them? Golly, how will the imams ever reach that realization?
If you're talking about unborn and innocent human life, I think I understand quite well.
I never said ONLY the 1st worlds, and in India and China they are billions of people, it would greatly help to reduce their numbers.
Even so, reducing the population inside that circle seems like the far better starting point since (A) that would reduce the world population by about 50% (which is, I assume, your goal) and (B) it would eliminate or else greatly reduce current pollution levels. Seems like that's where you and your death squad probably need to start.
So people should be free to choose to commit murder. To your credit, that is consistent with your view expressed above about wiping out vast swaths of already-born people.
Merely asking questions.
If you think you can talk half the world's population into committing suicide, you're welcome to try.
I disagree, if only because the great majority of people reading it won't understand the significance of the italics and will take that altered passage at the same face value as everything that hasn't been altered. Scholars might understand what italicized text means but the other 99.99% of readers won't.
I'd say adding "alone" to that passage is a pretty significant change. It affects a passage about which there had been no real dispute for centuries (or more) and introduced disagreement where previously there had been none. It clarified nothing.
