No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Imagine for a moment Archivist has been invited to a formal debate about the moral value of humans located inside a womb vs humans located outside a womb. The moderator stands up and introduces Archivist and his debate opponent.

The moderator then turns to the audience and says: "Tonight, we will be examining whether or not humans possess inherent moral value from their conception. Mr.Archivist is taking the position that human beings do not possess inherent moral worth and value from their conception.

The moderator then turns to Mr.Archivist and says, "Mr.Archivist, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement.

Mr.Archivist walks up to the mic, clears his throat and says: "Potential life in being vs actual life in being". He then sits down.

The moderator looks around confused, walks over to Mr.Archivist and says: "Yes, that is the topic for tonight's debate, whether the human in the womb (potential) possesses the same moral worth and value as the human outside the womb (actual). All you did was state the topic, can you please put forth your argument to support your position?

Mr.Archivist looks at the moderator confused like and says: "I just did, were you not listening?"

------------------------------------------------------

The above is essentially what Archivist has done this entire thread. He has not once put forth an actual argument explaining why the actual life in being possesses a level of moral worth that the potential life in being does not. And that's just really odd, and honestly leaves me confused. The entire abortion debate hinges upon that precise question, yet all Archivist has done is asserted that there is a difference. He hasn't once actually explained why there is a difference.

Finally, legal rights do not translate into moral truths. you might as well have said that since abortion is legal it is therefore morally acceptable. Hopefully you can recognize that something being legal or illegal has no bearing at all on whether or not that action is moral. We look to Scripture to determine morality. If Christianity became illegal and you were told to burn your Bible and never pray, would you do it? The law said to, so it must be right!

It would be great if you could provide some substance and content to actually respond to. The depth of your explanation for why an actual life in being possesses more inherent moral worth than a potential life in being has been "because I am saying so". You need to provide more than that to carry on a discussion.

You don't want to carry on a discussion, you just want to present you diatribe while ignoring questions that are presented to you. You complain that I have not answered your questions while you have ignored mine. The fact is that I have answered your questions, you just don't like the answers

You stated that "Mr.Archivist is taking the position that human beings do not possess inherent moral worth and value from their conception." The problem is that I have never said any such thing. That is a lie on your part. What I have said throughout the thread is that in cases where the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the fetus are both at risk, the choice must remain with the pregnant woman because she is the actual life in being. I have never commented on the inherent moral worthb of human beings at any point in their development.

Conversation ended.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Don't be tricked, the burden of proof rests completely upon the person attempting to create the distinction between a human being and a human person. Also don't be tricked, this line is entirely subjective and arbitrary. There is no objective case that can be made for this line.

Human development begins at conception and continues for a couple of decades. The question that we must answer which will determine whether or not abortion is an immoral or a moral action is this question here: "Do humans possess inherent moral worth or not?" It's that "simple".

Well SPF, we were "jimmied"! Anyway ...
I am responding to one point of a much longer "prospectus." I would encourage all posting to do it one point at a time, not throw out a whole bunch of points of which at least one is likely to be missed.

You favorite "distinction" is a straw man. Or mostly a straw man.
I would certainly never try to distinguish between "a human being" and "a human person." And I see no one here or elsewhere doing it either. If you think a human being IS a human person, then bravo for you. They are indeed one and the same thing, refer to the real human being, the person.
If anyone hereabouts thinks your "distinction" is other than a straw man, they should speak up now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
What I have said throughout the thread is that in cases where the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the fetus are both at risk, the choice must remain with the pregnant woman because she is the actual life in being.
Practices are derived from principles.

The important question is what is the principle that is driving you to this practice? The follow up question asked to this is why does the actual life in being trump the potential life in being? The answer cannot be because one has a literal voice and the other does not, because we can think of examples where two actual lives in being are at risk and both have a voice. So it's not the voice. What is it then that makes the actual life in being worth more than the potential life in being?

If both possess equal inherent moral worth and value, why would the actual life in being trump the potential life in being? That's the question that needs to be answered, and that's the question that you don't seem capable of answering.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Human development begins at conception and continues for a couple of decades. The question that we must answer which will determine whether or not abortion is an immoral or a moral action is this question here: "Do humans possess inherent moral worth or not?" It's that "simple".

Sorry, your "question we must answer" is spurious, a true answer will get us nowhere.

"Human beings" or "humans" as you put it here (same thing for sure, just like "human beings" and "human persons" are the same thing), of course possess inherent moral worth. The Bible tells us for sure that human beings are "made in the image of God," etc. etc.

So it seems it is you who is setting up false distinction, thinking "humans" is different from "human beings," so you can apply the former to fetuses which are not obviously human beings (or there would be no discussion). So tell us, what is the difference between "human persons" and "humans"?
There is NONE, in my humble opinion.
There are no "humans" who are not "human beings," that is just what the terms mean.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Practices are derived from principles.

The important question is what is the principle that is driving you to this practice? The follow up question asked to this is why does the actual life in being trump the potential life in being? The answer cannot be because one has a literal voice and the other does not, because we can think of examples where two actual lives in being are at risk and both have a voice. So it's not the voice. What is it then that makes the actual life in being worth more than the potential life in being?

If both possess equal inherent moral worth and value, why would the actual life in being trump the potential life in being? That's the question that needs to be answered, and that's the question that you don't seem capable of answering.
The "potential" possesses nothing except potential. IT IS NOT ACTUAL. That is the difference.
"Get real," someone might say.
Potential may be valuable, yet it certainly (in most cases?) cannot have the same moral worth because IT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. Something being part of reality, what is, the way things actually are, will make a lot of difference, a world of difference, one might say.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So tell us, what is the difference between "human persons" and "humans"?
There is no difference.

The issue you have Douglas is that you stand on an island of one in your belief that a new human being is not formed at conception, but that it must first breathe to be considered a human being created in the image of God.

Is that when you think human beings first get a soul, when they take their first breath?
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
There is no difference.

Is that when you think human beings first get a soul, when they take their first breath?

I would think so, yes. NOT that the soul is the breath, of course.
The question is, when are there "human beings." Your question presupposes there is already a human being, so of course it has a soul since all human beings have souls. IMHO. Whatever "soul" means.

What do you think the soul is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The "potential" possesses nothing except potential. IT IS NOT ACTUAL. That is the difference.
"Get real," someone might say.
Potential may be valuable, yet it certainly (in most cases?) cannot have the same moral worth because IT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. Something being part of reality, what is, the way things actually are, will make a lot of difference, a world of difference, one might say.
Yes, "get real" indeed, as once again you make claims without substantiation.

Where is your substantiation of the unborn not being actually alive or not being an actual human being?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you pro-abortion? Well then, please carefully consider the past possibility of one of your current dear loved ones having been ripped limb from limb in their mother's womb.

Yes, that sounds bad. Imagine, if you will, 4 or 5 neglected children raised
by the parents of the pregnant teen mother until they also become pregnant.
Then raising those grandkids. Are you ready to do that?
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yes, that sounds bad. Imagine, if you will, 4 or 5 neglected children raised
by the parents of the pregnant teen mother until they also become pregnant.
Then raising those grandkids. Are you ready to do that?
So, when raising kids gets difficult, it's better to just kill them instead. Yeah, that totally sounds like something Jesus would teach us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, when raising kids gets difficult, it's better to just kill them instead. Yeah, that totally sounds like something Jesus would teach us.
I said the parents were raising them. And their kids when they have them.
And what are you going to do about that? And about birth control
that aborts fertilized eggs? And about female problems that abort
half of all eggs? Are you going to ignore those problems?
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I said the parents were raising them. And their kids when they have them.
Yeah... and? You indicated that's a problem and abortion is the solution. Is there some other meaning we should have gleaned from that?

And what are you going to do about that?
I don't have any kids who are having kids that I need to raise.

And about birth control
that aborts fertilized eggs? And about female problems that abort
half of all eggs? Are you going to ignore those problems?
Who said anything about ignoring them? I don't think murdering the unborn is the solution.

And what does "female problems that abort half of all eggs" have to do with anything? The unborn dying from natural causes or illness is a far cry from murdering them.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I think one of the coolest passages in Scripture comes from Luke chapter 1. God had very specific plans for John the Baptist. Read the chapter and you'll see that John was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb. You'll see that when his mother heard the greeting of Mary, he literally leaped for joy in his mother's womb. Not a human person? Not according to Scripture.

This is a joke of an argument based on: "read the chapter and you'll see," without the particular verses that "show" being pointed to. Because mostly they cannot be, I think - WHERE does it say, "John was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"?

He "literally leaped," what does that mean? Surely it can mean no more than there was some movement of the fetus, perhaps rather violent movement compared to a little feeling of "something there" that a pregnant woman might experience from time to time.
Nobody saw any actual ("literal"?) leaping, and certainly there was nothing like the actually unmistakably joyful real leaping that the man who Jesus healed engaged in.

Surely you don't think the fact there was some movement in Elisabeth's belly proves what was there was "a human person"? How could it possibly do that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This is a joke of an argument based on: "read the chapter and you'll see," without the particular verses that "show" being pointed to. Because mostly they cannot be, I think - WHERE does it say, "John was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"?

He "literally leaped," what does that mean? Surely it can mean no more than there was some movement of the fetus, perhaps rather violent movement compared to a little feeling of "something there" that a pregnant woman might experience from time to time.
Nobody saw any actual ("literal"?) leaping, and certainly there was nothing like the actually unmistakably joyful real leaping that the man who Jesus healed engaged in.

Surely you don't think the fact there was some movement in Elisabeth's belly proves what was there was "a human person"? How could it possibly do that?
Douglas, had my post been aimed at you as opposed to the general reader, I certainly would have quoted the verse. You're very familiar with the verse as we've discussed it numerous times on numerous threads. However, the reason that I didn't post the actual verse and only the specific book and chapter was because it was a very subtle way of encouraging the reader to open their Bible and look for it themselves. But if you want to dive into that passage once again we can...

Luke 1:15 - "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..."For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

The passage in Luke is thankfully quite clear. We have an unborn child who is filled with the Holy Spirit while located in the womb. We have an unborn child that leaped for joy. Douglas' position that there is not a human baby in the womb until it draws its first breath is really found wanting in light of this passage.

If we look at other uses of this term in the NT, we will see that it fits well with the NASB interpretation:

Matthew 12:46 - While he was "still" speaking...
Matthew 19:20 - ..what am I "still" lacking...
Matthew 26:47 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 8:49 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 9:42 - While he was "still" approaching...
Luke 24:6 - while He was "still" in Gallilee...
John 11:20 - Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was "still" in the place....

Basically, the passage could also read - "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"

The text is not on your side Douglas. As a Christian you should strive for some intellectual and Biblical integrity and you should base your beliefs upon Scripture, not try to read your exclusive beliefs into Scripture.

And again, let's not forget that John literally leaped inside his mother's womb when his mother heard Mary's greeting. John leaped for joy. The Bible is very explicit on this. He leaped for joy. It's so explicit that it's actually mentioned twice. Twice it is said that John leaped for joy while still in his mother's womb.

We do have another example in Luke of the specific Greek word employed for "leap" in this passage:

Luke 6:23 - "Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AACJ
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Douglas, had my post been aimed at you as opposed to the general reader, I certainly would have quoted the verse. You're very familiar with the verse as we've discussed it numerous times on numerous threads. However, the reason that I didn't post the actual verse and only the specific book and chapter was because it was a very subtle way of encouraging the reader to open their Bible and look for it themselves. But if you want to dive into that passage once again we can...

Luke 1:15 - "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..."For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

The passage in Luke is thankfully quite clear. We have an unborn child who is filled with the Holy Spirit while located in the womb. We have an unborn child that leaped for joy. Douglas' position that there is not a human baby in the womb until it draws its first breath is really found wanting in light of this passage.

If we look at other uses of this term in the NT, we will see that it fits well with the NASB interpretation:

Matthew 12:46 - While he was "still" speaking...
Matthew 19:20 - ..what am I "still" lacking...
Matthew 26:47 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 8:49 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 9:42 - While he was "still" approaching...
Luke 24:6 - while He was "still" in Gallilee...
John 11:20 - Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was "still" in the place....

Basically, the passage could also read - "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"

The text is not on your side Douglas. As a Christian you should strive for some intellectual and Biblical integrity and you should base your beliefs upon Scripture, not try to read your exclusive beliefs into Scripture.

And again, let's not forget that John literally leaped inside his mother's womb when his mother heard Mary's greeting. John leaped for joy. The Bible is very explicit on this. He leaped for joy. It's so explicit that it's actually mentioned twice. Twice it is said that John leaped for joy while still in his mother's womb.

We do have another example in Luke of the specific Greek word employed for "leap" in this passage:

Luke 6:23 - "Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven..."
Yes, that Greek word: "skirtao" means leap; it does not really mean "leap for joy," and there are no words "for joy" in the passages. Many translations add the "for joy" - the NAS does not. Pretty tenuous to base your interpretation on words not even in the original manuscripts.

So you double down on your false claim, you do, saying "Twice it is said that John leaped for joy while still in his mother's womb." FALSE FALSE FALSE! After I specifically pointed out it is NOT true.
The words of Scripture do NOT say that. Certainly the anticipation or prophecy of Luke 1:15 does not say that. It is far from being past tense, as you keep insisting with your false claim.
And where do you possibly get that "filled with the Holy Ghost" means "leap for joy." Especially since there i
And you might well drop (or at least correct) your last reference John 11:20 which is NOT that Jusus was still in the house, but MARY. [You probably got it from some inaccurate screed, who knows where.] And please note the word you want to insist means "still" is not even in the Greek here either.

And you still repeat your use of "literally" which I already questioned. What is that supposed to mean?
How do you get that?

AGAIN you say, "the passage in Luke is thankfully quite clear," a great falsehood as I would hope my failure to see it clearly (from your point of view) would illustrate. I suppose those words are merely copied, and you are re-copying them. Where in all this there is the Holy Ghost is far from clear.

Oh, and the "still" you focus on, it (eti) is not really the crucial term in Luke 1:15, but the "from" (ek). Your pointing to "still" would be more relevant if there were not here the additional "from" which certainly can mean "after" and way I see it only makes good sense if the "still" (or "yet") is modified by the "from" to mean "after." Subsequent to, already going on from there (thereafter).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that Greek word: "skirtao" means leap; it does not really mean "leap for joy," and there are no words "for joy" in the passages. Many translations add the "for joy" - the NAS does not. Pretty tenuous to base your interpretation on words not even in the original manuscripts.

So you double down on your false claim, you do, saying "Twice it is said that John leaped for joy while still in his mother's womb." FALSE FALSE FALSE! After I specifically pointed out it is NOT true.
My apologies, what is stated twice is that John the Baptist leaped. The "for joy" is only mentioned once, in Luke 1:44

Luke 1:44 - For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

So what we find in Luke is that in verse 15 the author states that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in the womb, and then in verse 41, we have John leaping in his mother's womb, and then in verse 44, we have Elizabeth reiterating that John leaped for joy in her womb, and that he did so for joy.

Douglas, if you have any intellectual or spiritual integrity about you, you really need to drop your subjective, exclusive, and untenable position.

1. We know that a new human being is formed at conception.
2. Scripture teaches that all humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth.
3. Therefore, all humans from the moment of their conception are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
My apologies, what is stated twice is that John the Baptist leaped. The "for joy" is only mentioned once, in Luke 1:44

Luke 1:44 - For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

So what we find in Luke is that in verse 15 the author states that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in the womb, and then in verse 41, we have John leaping in his mother's womb, and then in verse 44, we have Elizabeth reiterating that John leaped for joy in her womb, and that he did so for joy.
[personal attack]
1. We know that a new human being is formed at conception.
2. Scripture teaches that all humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth.
3. Therefore, all humans from the moment of their conception are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth.
INTERESTING HOW YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
After a paragraph where a few not too obviously untrue things are said, I see no conclusion, what we are to make of it. Unless you take your paragraph to say your # 1, "We know that a human being is formed at conception." WHAT IN THE PARAGRAPH YOU GAVE SAYS EXACTLY THAT?
(A "we" that does not include me, I take exception to.)
Seems I could equally say, "We know that a new human being is first at birth."
Good arguments?

And on the "double-down" bit, you missed the meaning entirely.
NEVER, NEVER does Luke 1 say "John leaped for joy in his mother's womb,"
NOR DOTH IT SAY DOES IT EVER SAY, "John possessed the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb."

and yes, the leaping was "for joy"
But who's joy? We are NOT told.

And we are NOWHERE told the leaping had anything to do with the Holy Ghost.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
NEVER, NEVER does Luke 1 say "John leaped for joy in his mother's womb,"
I would again direct you to Luke 1:44 - "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy"

Who did the leaping? the baby in the womb.
Why did the baby in the womb leap? For joy over hearing Mary's greeting.

NOR DOTH IT SAY DOES IT EVER SAY, "John possessed the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb."
I would again direct you to Luke 1:15 - "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."

And we are NOWHERE told the leaping had anything to do with the Holy Ghost.
I wouldn't disagree with that. I suspect he leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's voice because the Spirit in Him knew that she was pregnant with Christ, the Messiah.

Douglas, I'm confused. For someone who provides no evidence, no support for what they believe other than just typing their opinion, you hold really strongly to it. To help you out a bit in your arguing your position, can you point to anything in Scripture other than your odd interpretation of how Adam was formed as evidence for your belief? Anything else?

Then when it comes to outside Scripture, can you provide any evidence, any support at all for your believe that a new human being is actually not formed at conception as it seems the entire scientific and medical field believe? Do you have any credible support for your position? Anything you can point to?

Or is your best argument that a new human isn't formed at conception that they can't pee and all human beings should be able to pee?
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I would again direct you to Luke 1:44 - "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy"

Who did the leaping? the baby in the womb.
Why did the baby in the womb leap? For joy over hearing Mary's greeting.

I would again direct you to Luke 1:15 - "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."

I wouldn't disagree with that. I suspect he leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's voice because the Spirit in Him knew that she was pregnant with Christ, the Messiah.

Douglas, I'm confused. For someone who provides no evidence, no support for what they believe other than just typing their opinion, you hold really strongly to it. To help you out a bit in your arguing your position, can you point to anything in Scripture other than your odd interpretation of how Adam was formed as evidence for your belief? Anything else?

Then when it comes to outside Scripture, can you provide any evidence, any support at all for your believe that a new human being is actually not formed at conception as it seems the entire scientific and medical field believe? Do you have any credible support for your position? Anything you can point to?

Or is your best argument that a new human isn't formed at conception that they can't pee and all human beings should be able to pee?

You like to add to Scripture, don't you?

It says "the babe leaped for joy." It does NOT say what you claim it says, "For joy over hearing Mary's greeting."

YOUR SUSPICIONS, they are nothing except the wind in our ears.

So then change the subject by attacking me. So what's new?

Like I pointed out already once, all I have to do is point to the flaws in your reasoning and your false facts, whereas you who want to make the very extravagant claim that there is a human being in the womb, that requires some very fancy footwork.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You like to add to Scripture, don't you?

It says "the babe leaped for joy." It does NOT say what you claim it says, "For joy over hearing Mary's greeting."
Douglas, you may want to take another look at your Bible...

Luke 1:15 - "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:44 - "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

And I wasn't attacking you, I'm actually trying to help you. Are you able to provide ANY Biblical support aside from your idea about how Adam was formed to support your position? Are you able to provide ANY scientific or medical papers or quotes, or anything that would support your assertion that a new human being is NOT formed at conception? Seriously, you've done nothing at all to support your position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0