"A HUMAN LIFE BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION"

[SPF]

or merely what we know for sure, that it is "human life" in the sense that it is a human cell and it is alive like most cells in any alive human being body

But would you agree that we actually can't say that it is a human cell like most cells in any alive human body? Meaning, if you were to take any alive human cell from inside your body and put it into a womb or anything else for that matter, those cells will not become anything more than what they are at that moment. Cells from my toe will not grow into a new human being. The human cells that makeup the zygote are very different in their potential from the cells in our body, correct?

Basically, what I understand you to be saying is that only human beings have innate and inherent moral worth, and that a human being does not come into existence until it developmentally reaches the point to where it can live outside of a womb. Is that correct?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

But would you agree that we actually can't say that it is a human cell like most cells in any alive human body? Meaning, if you were to take any alive human cell from inside your body and put it into a womb or anything else for that matter, those cells will not become anything more than what they are at that moment. Cells from my toe will not grow into a new human being. The human cells that makeup the zygote are very different in their potential from the cells in our body, correct?

Basically, what I understand you to be saying is that only human beings have innate and inherent moral worth, and that a human being does not come into existence until it developmentally reaches the point to where it can live outside of a womb. Is that correct?

Nope. You refer to "it" as though "it" were a human being, it seems. There is no human being in the womb "to come into existence," far as I can tell. Your form of words rather presume the answer.
Of course it has "more potential" if it can live outside the womb, that's what "can" means.
However, only when it actually does that is it a human being. (Consistency is a virtue.)
Member of the species. Actual animal.

BTW. on your first point, it is both alive and human, that is the point. That is what it is. HUMAN LIFE.
(Like any other alive cell within or part of a person.) So IN REALITY (as opposed to the potentiality you refer to),
what we can truly say of each cell AS ACTUALLY EXISTING is that they all (what "alike" means) are human and alive.
We cannot say some cells are "part of another person," (even or perhaps because they are in a womb), because there is no other person. There is a fetus perhaps, when there are many many many cells.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The answer is, in our genes. We inherit those "things in our nature" that do not need to learn, like for instance breathing. EVERY CELL has a complete gene package.

Where in that "package" is the idea of Perfect ideals or a "personality"?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I suppose you don't care for what scripture has to say about this?

luke 1:15
exodus 21:22-24
psalms 139:13

God's Word recognizes human beings in the womb. when a women finds out that she is pregnant, that's a human being in it's earliest stages of development.

First, these Scriptures do not make claims contrary to what I say, none of them outrightly says, "There is a human being in the womb." You, I suppose, do interpret them that way, you interpret them to say that.

Perhaps it should be up to you who wants to use them as some kind of evidence to point out just what that is, how do these versus say, "There is a human being in the pregnant womb." ?

On Psalm 139:13, is not all creation made by God? So acts within creation, it is an active creation, for them God would be somewhat if not totally responsible. Hence the covering in the womb, the covering of the womb, is the womb itself and God's doing.
"... me in my mother's womb," is most interesting to be noticed, and is the way a real human being like the Psalmist can refer to his most primitive origins in a womb. The assembly there, the development, the growth, we know from there being the born person, were "of him." Whatever there was "of him" at any particular point is first of all dependent upon there being a real he, a born person.
The short and easy answer is that his reality came from there, so it's rather natural to refer to that as him, though strictly speaking there is not "him" before birth.

The "from his mother's womb" of Luke 1:15 can be best understood as "since," once he emerged, all the time from when even the earliest possibility of having the Holy Ghost was realized, at birth.

The way I read Exodus 21: 22-24 is that if someone strikes a woman who's fruit is thereby expelled (a miscarriage), it is a rather minor infraction the payment for which is dependent on the whim of the pregnant woman's husband.
I know others who interpret it the opposite way, even other translators who make it read the opposite, so to my mind this passage is a "wash" in the abortion arguments. I don't think anyone should bother to use it; I certainly don't think it is persuasive as an argument against abortion. Unless and until someone comes up with ancient Hebrew documents to give details of over time how it was interpreted in practice. I rather think such documents must exist, but I don't know of any scholar who has analyzed them.

You are correct to say what's in the womb are the "earliest stages of development" of a human person, but that does not mean the person then being built exists before it is an animal, a member of the species, an actual human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Where in that "package" is the idea of Perfect ideals or a "personality"?

Genes are not ideas. I don't know where your idea of genes goes off base, but I am pretty sure it involves a lack of understanding to think there might be ideas in genes - or anywhere in a womb, for that matter.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Genes are not ideas. I don't know where your idea of genes goes off base, but I am pretty sure it involves a lack of understanding to think there might be ideas in genes - or anywhere in a womb, for that matter.

As babies can be shown laughing in the womb, am unclear where the idea that ideas are lacking there became fabricated in this "it is all in the genes" position. A main point already made by the ancients and asked repeatedly in this thread, was that personality is almost immediately evident upon exit from the womb, many mothers will attest to before that, and videos of the person inside the womb rather demand the recognition of ideas being present. Are we now going to get a claim this is all fabrication too?

If all those who study and reflect on metaphysics are deemed by someone to have a "lack of understanding" then that there rather explains the need to see all that as "a fabrication" and "not of reality". But as in the last two attempts, that did not address the question of where did this personality coming out of the womb come from. From the above reply everyone now knows we both apparently agree it is not from the genes. So if it is fabrication to say it comes from a spirit/soul and agreed a fabrication to say it comes from the genes, how long do we need to wait to guess where one thinks it does come from?

Obviously men way smarter than either of us have long seen the need to explain what comes out a womb already possessing a personality as well as a nature that includes inherent in it things like "perfect ideals" as something not explainable from genes or seeds but rooted in a concept of a soul. To simply label those explanations as fabrications without offering an alternative demonstrates not enough thought has been given to process that produces individuals (a person) to this world.

So OK, we rather got that one believes souls/spirits are not present at conception, unknown or not understood perhaps present at some later point before birth but obviously admitted present upon exit. Are we now to understand that it is the spirit/soul that answers the questions asked?

 

[Winken]

Just pause to look what is happening...........

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
Monday, March 13, 2017

For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com.

Top Stories
• Scientifically Clueless Pro-Abortion Legislator Wants to Fine Men for Masturbating as “Act Against Unborn Child”
• Cecile Richards: It’s “Obscene and Insulting” to Suggest We Stop Killing Babies in Abortions
• Comedian Chelsea Handler: People Can’t Have Safe Sex if Planned Parenthood is Defunded
• Roe v. Wade Attorney Sarah Weddington: Donald Trump is a Threat to Abortion and Roe
• China Aborts Over 63,000 Unborn Babies Every Single Day
• Radical Feminists Push Abortion as the Solution for Poor, Malnourished Women Worldwide
• Lena Dunham’s Character on “Girls” is Pregnant, Makes a List of “Reasons It’s Insane to Have a Baby”
• Top Democrat Chuck Schumer Repeats This Huge Lie About Planned Parenthood to Save Its Funding
• One Planned Parenthood Clinic Has Injured Women in 64 Botched Abortions, Has 39 Health Violations
• Shock: British Doctors and Midwives Groups Pushing Unlimited Abortions Up to Birth
• University Officials Scrub Students’ Pro-Life Chalk Messages, Leave Messages From Other Groups

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

As babies can be shown laughing in the womb, am unclear where the idea that ideas are lacking there became fabricated in this "it is all in the genes" position. A main point already made by the ancients and asked repeatedly in this thread, was that personality is almost immediately evident upon exit from the womb, many mothers will attest to before that, and videos of the person inside the womb rather demand the recognition of ideas being present. Are we now going to get a claim this is all fabrication too?

If all those who study and reflect on metaphysics are deemed by someone to have a "lack of understanding" then that there rather explains the need to see all that as "a fabrication" and "not of reality". But as in the last two attempts, that did not address the question of where did this personality coming out of the womb come from. From the above reply everyone now knows we both apparently agree it is not from the genes. So if it is fabrication to say it comes from a spirit/soul and agreed a fabrication to say it comes from the genes, how long do we need to wait to guess where one thinks it does come from?

Obviously men way smarter than either of us have long seen the need to explain what comes out a womb already possessing a personality as well as a nature that includes inherent in it things like "perfect ideals" as something not explainable from genes or seeds but rooted in a concept of a soul. To simply label those explanations as fabrications without offering an alternative demonstrates not enough thought has been given to process that produces individuals (a person) to this world.

So OK, we rather got that one believes souls/spirits are not present at conception, unknown or not understood perhaps present at some later point before birth but obviously admitted present upon exit. Are we now to understand that it is the spirit/soul that answers the questions asked?

What questions asked is that? Does some "spirit/soul" answer questions in the womb? Are you kidding?
Or is it the questions you are asking here? Who knows. I find it difficult to understand your obscurities.

On "personality," supposedly in the womb? or from the womb?, when you say, "personality is almost immediately evident upon exit from the womb," what precisely is that "personality"? I imagine it is something like "such a quiet baby" or "she's always so active," referring to actual babies of course. Why is it a problem that the genetic makeup of some people means they are one way more than another, and one way of characterizing that is as their "personality."
BTW, was I tricked in our last exchange? What you said was so difficult for me to figure out, to make sense, that I probably didn't know what question you thought you were asking, in that my answer about genes seems to have given you the idea I thought what you want to call "personality" wasn't something that could be governed by genes.
Anyway, perhaps before we go farther you could give samples of what you mean by "personality" here?
YOU SAY:
"Obviously men way smarter than either of us have long seen the need to explain what comes out a womb already possessing a personality as well as a nature that includes inherent in it things like "perfect ideals ..."
This "obviously" is puzzling to me, in that I do not even have an inkling that some have made such claims, let alone that these are reasonable ideas that can possibly make sense. Your next sentence speaks of "to simply label these explanations ..." , what explanations is that? Who are these men you refer to and what exactly are their explanations? If it was you that threw the "scientific and medical" unsubstantiated claims at me, show me some evidence for any one of them, or I will continue to to call them fabrications. (I think it may have been only your writing, not quoting, I called "fabrications," - don't remember.)

Anyway, these "way smarter men," just exactly who are they and in what exact way are they smarter? You mention "ancients," I think ...?

BTW, YOUR: "If all those who study and reflect on metaphysics are deemed by someone to have a "lack of understanding..."
That SMEAR is a bit much - implying that I said any such thing about "all those who study and reflect on metaphysics." HOW COULD ANYONE EVER KNOW THAT, THAT THAT IS THE CASE? Let alone claim it?

 

[Biblewriter]

Your saying so don't make it so!
This is merely the claim "it is a human being," nothing to substantiate that claim.

Nothing except inescapable logic. If it is 100% human, and alive, and is different from any other living human, it is a human being. Its size simply does not matter.

 

[Biblewriter]

Nope. You refer to "it" as though "it" were a human being, it seems. There is no human being in the womb "to come into existence," far as I can tell. Your form of words rather presume the answer.
Of course it has "more potential" if it can live outside the womb, that's what "can" means.
However, only when it actually does that is it a human being. (Consistency is a virtue.)
Member of the species. Actual animal.

BTW. on your first point, it is both alive and human, that is the point. That is what it is. HUMAN LIFE.
(Like any other alive cell within or part of a person.) So IN REALITY (as opposed to the potentiality you refer to),
what we can truly say of each cell AS ACTUALLY EXISTING is that they all (what "alike" means) are human and alive.
We cannot say some cells are "part of another person," (even or perhaps because they are in a womb), because there is no other person. There is a fetus perhaps, when there are many many many cells.

Your saying "it" is not a human being doesn't make it so. You can claim that a developing human is not a human being until it exits the womb. But you an offer zero evidence to back this claim.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Your saying "it" is not a human being doesn't make it so. You can claim that a developing human is not a human being until it exits the womb. But you an offer zero evidence to back this claim.

So what do you think a real animal is, a human being member of the species. Do you really think it makes sense (let alone has any biological truth) to think of human beings as SINGLE CELLED ANIMALS?
There are animals that are known to be members of distinct species that are single-celled, but they are not humans.

You do not think it is evidence to point out that human beings are NOT single-celled animals, that it does NOT make sense to think of God's crowning achievement, in the IMAGE OF GOD, as that?
A single cell can be the image of God? Really?
If people cannot see that, that certainly there is no human being at conception, if considering the nature of what exists is irrelevant to the discussion, then that failure to appreciate the evidence that the crucial difference that marks a human being cannot be conception and therefore must be beyond that, perhaps at birth, if that initial step in understanding the evidence and what can be said about it that makes sense, if understanding cannot even recognize that point, then why bother trying to discuss the realities of birth?

In other words, before engaging about what might be the case later in pregnancy, please acknowledge at least a basic understanding that conception cannot be the point at which there is an actual human being. That you don't think the impossible, PERSONS HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITIES AT ALL, and being even invisible (to the naked eye).

 

[SPF]

The problem Douglas is that you are subjectively, out of nothing more than your head creating a distinction that does not exist and has never existed. Meaning, we know scientifically and medically that new human life begins at conception. Your continual rhetoric that this is "unsubstantiated" does not make it true. It is substantiated, it is fact. A new human life begins at conception.

Your entire argument is one of creating a distinction based upon development. This is as much unnecessary as it is flawed and entirely subjective - a creation of yours, and yours alone.

Human development begins at conception and continues until about the mid-twenties of a humans lifecycle. Changes certainly occur after that, but as far as development goes, the process essentially lasts 25 years. What you want us to do is to create an arbitrary distinction in the life span of a human and believe that until the human develops to stage X (where X is your own designation), that it is not a human. The problem Douglas, is that you have no objective foundation for your belief.

The only reason that anyone would ever want to subjectively create the distinction that you are would be so that some action could be performed against the developing human that would otherwise be considered immoral. Because if we adopt your belief, then that would mean that a woman could decide to abort the fetus inside her even if she was 2 weeks past her due date. Your position is so flawed and based upon nothing but your own creation. You have no way to substantiate your own position, so when you mock scientific fact as unsubstantiated, it's absurd and reveals your own hubris. This will be my last post to you about this subject.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Nothing except inescapable logic. If it is 100% human, and alive, and is different from any other living human, it is a human being. Its size simply does not matter.

So you think SIZE is the only difference between a fertilized egg and a flesh and blood human being?
That is patently nonsense.
Surely something can be an alive human cell (i.e. 100% human) and "different from any ... living human " (your "other" here begs the question), and not be a human being. The "difference" is a genetic map, and that is virtually ALL it is! NOT the difference of a human being. Mammals, the type of animal a human being is, are at least flesh and blood.
It only requires recognizing what a single cell could not possibly be, and that is a human being, that it is simply the very first step in the manufacture of a human being and that that manufacturing, believe it or not, takes place in a womb. That is what a womb does, produce a human being. It is totally illogical to think what is (just barely starting to be formed) is already there at this "beginning," the product before the process that creates it.

(Actually the process begins with production of sperm and egg - you certainly wouldn't think fertilization could occur without that production being completed, there being viable sperm,etc., nor should you think there is the product of the womb when what there is (EVIDENCE!) cannot even be seen if one were to have it sitting right in front of you. Thinking such "is a person" is ridiculous.
"The emperor (in the womb) has no clothes!" I.e., it has (and IS) nothing except a bit of genetic information that is alive and quite possibly could continue alive as the precursor (so is the sperm) of what might become a human being.

Edit: By the way, in case you didn't notice, sperm satisfies your criterion for being a "human being," your "inescapable logic." Sperm (in humans) is 100% human, is alive, and is not some (other) human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The problem Douglas is that you are subjectively, out of nothing more than your head creating a distinction that does not exist and has never existed. Meaning, we know scientifically and medically that new human life begins at conception. Your continual rhetoric that this is "unsubstantiated" does not make it true. It is substantiated, it is fact. A new human life begins at conception.

Your entire argument is one of creating a distinction based upon development. This is as much unnecessary as it is flawed and entirely subjective - a creation of yours, and yours alone.

Human development begins at conception and continues until about the mid-twenties of a humans lifecycle. Changes certainly occur after that, but as far as development goes, the process essentially lasts 25 years. What you want us to do is to create an arbitrary distinction in the life span of a human and believe that until the human develops to stage X (where X is your own designation), that it is not a human. The problem Douglas, is that you have no objective foundation for your belief.

The only reason that anyone would ever want to subjectively create the distinction that you are would be so that some action could be performed against the developing human that would otherwise be considered immoral. Because if we adopt your belief, then that would mean that a woman could decide to abort the fetus inside her even if she was 2 weeks past her due date. Your position is so flawed and based upon nothing but your own creation. You have no way to substantiate your own position, so when you mock scientific fact as unsubstantiated, it's absurd and reveals your own hubris. This will be my last post to you about this subject.

You think there is NOTHING OBJECTIVE about what happens at birth, when most of the ABILITIES of a human being are FIRST existing? I pointed out to you some time ago what some of these real and necessary abilities of a human being are, those not present before birth.

Looks to me in the above that it is you that has NO OBJECTIVE BASIS for what you say. Your "we know scientifically and medically," and all the rest, for that you offer NO EVIDENCE, you point at nothing real in your repeated unsubstantiated claims. (Except that "development" continues for many years - not relevant, though I would view "getting old" with diminished capabilities is also something of human (being) development.)

There is nothing more for you to say because your position is not based on reality, is nothing of reality.

 

[Biblewriter]

In other words, before engaging about what might be the case later in pregnancy, please acknowledge at least a basic understanding that conception cannot be the point at which there is an actual human being. That you don't think the impossible, PERSONS HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITIES AT ALL, and being even invisible (to the naked eye).

That is exactly the point I am making. And your denials of it do not make inescapable logic false.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What questions asked is that? Does some "spirit/soul" answer questions in the womb? Are you kidding?
Or is it the questions you are asking here? Who knows. I find it difficult to understand your obscurities.

On "personality," supposedly in the womb? or from the womb?, when you say, "personality is almost immediately evident upon exit from the womb," what precisely is that "personality"? I imagine it is something like "such a quiet baby" or "she's always so active," referring to actual babies of course. Why is it a problem that the genetic makeup of some people means they are one way more than another, and one way of characterizing that is as their "personality."
BTW, was I tricked in our last exchange? What you said was so difficult for me to figure out, to make sense, that I probably didn't know what question you thought you were asking, in that my answer about genes seems to have given you the idea I thought what you want to call "personality" wasn't something that could be governed by genes.
Anyway, perhaps before we go farther you could give samples of what you mean by "personality" here?
YOU SAY:
"Obviously men way smarter than either of us have long seen the need to explain what comes out a womb already possessing a personality as well as a nature that includes inherent in it things like "perfect ideals ..."
This "obviously" is puzzling to me, in that I do not even have an inkling that some have made such claims, let alone that these are reasonable ideas that can possibly make sense. Your next sentence speaks of "to simply label these explanations ..." , what explanations is that? Who are these men you refer to and what exactly are their explanations? If it was you that threw the "scientific and medical" unsubstantiated claims at me, show me some evidence for any one of them, or I will continue to to call them fabrications. (I think it may have been only your writing, not quoting, I called "fabrications," - don't remember.)

Anyway, these "way smarter men," just exactly who are they and in what exact way are they smarter? You mention "ancients," I think ...?

BTW, YOUR: "If all those who study and reflect on metaphysics are deemed by someone to have a "lack of understanding..."
That SMEAR is a bit much - implying that I said any such thing about "all those who study and reflect on metaphysics." HOW COULD ANYONE EVER KNOW THAT, THAT THAT IS THE CASE? Let alone claim it?

If one does not one want to be misunderstood (not that it is at all clear this happened) then perhaps some consideration and reflection should be made before making sweeping generalizations like the following gems:

• In reference to Greek thought (only meaningful here if naturally associated philosophy, metaphysics and specifically Aristotle, Plato and Socrates) on souls being present from conception:

"All just your fabrication, far as I can tell."
"....to concoct something supposedly present at conception in order to try to suggest there is a human being there is sheer conjecture and nothing of reality."​

• In reply to being asked for an alternative to the Greek thought of where things originate (that we are born with) that we do not need to learn (learning implies thought/ideas):

"The answer is, in our genes."​

That question being replied to in this conversation can only properly be understood as concepts like thought/self or like the philosophers postulated Perfect Ideals like Good.
​

• To reiterate the mistake obviously made in the above prior reply, had to correct himself:

"Genes are not ideas."​

• Then attempt to deflect the obvious mistake in same reply by turning the tables:

"I don't know where your idea of genes goes off base​

When what was off base came two replies earlier suggesting the poster's alternative explanation to the Greek thought (again only obviously and naturally an appeal to metaphysics, phylosophy and the Greek's like Aristotle) of soul's being there from conception was:

"The answer is, in our genes."​

Now we come to most recent post feigning forgetfulness of what the prior posts were:

"What questions asked is that?"
​

That would be the same question asked in my first reply to you in this thread - what explanation can you offer that attempts to explain what the Greek's did, which in this thread CAN ONLY be a reference to the soul being present from conception to which you first replied before correcting yourself:

"The answer is, in our genes."​

And for someone who says this about souls:

"WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS."​

It is difficult to understand why we should accept a person offering assurance about what a soul "is not" or "when it is not", when they obviously have nothing at all to offer about what a soul is or does.

The same poster fosters the idea there is "nothing" present at conception for a spirit to work on/with - so the zygote is now "nothing".

"If there were a soul at conception, it would have NOTHING (to be the "soul" of)."​

Such comments shows not only an obvious lack of understanding but perhaps even total unawareness of even the basic philosophical argument for the need of a spirit of every animal present at conception. Which perhaps explains why someone would call my summary of it in posts a "fabrication" followed by an attempted to deny having said anything like that (recall "....to concoct something supposedly present at conception in order to try to suggest there is a human being there is sheer conjecture and nothing of reality."), that they had discredited metaphysics and philosophers in doing so. Like what was said about the soul, if one does not even know what the argument is then how can we accept the claim it is fabrication?

If one is not even aware of the common traditional argument for both the existence of our souls, the nature of it and the need for it being present from conception, then why in the world make reckless statements like all that being "fabrication"?
If one does not even realize that when someone mentions "Greek thought" in such discussions it can only be reference to less than a handful of men, why not take the time and educate oneself before attempting to comment or attack a position when "WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS" ?

Just curious. If one does not even have a formed opinion of what a soul is or does, then why bother making declarations against people who have obviously thought enough about it to actually form and support their opinion?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

First, these Scriptures do not make claims contrary to what I say, none of them outrightly says, "There is a human being in the womb." You, I suppose, do interpret them that way, you interpret them to say that.

Perhaps it should be up to you who wants to use them as some kind of evidence to point out just what that is, how do these versus say, "There is a human being in the pregnant womb." ?

On Psalm 139:13, is not all creation made by God? So acts within creation, it is an active creation, for them God would be somewhat if not totally responsible. Hence the covering in the womb, the covering of the womb, is the womb itself and God's doing.
"... me in my mother's womb," is most interesting to be noticed, and is the way a real human being like the Psalmist can refer to his most primitive origins in a womb. The assembly there, the development, the growth, we know from there being the born person, were "of him." Whatever there was "of him" at any particular point is first of all dependent upon there being a real he, a born person.
The short and easy answer is that his reality came from there, so it's rather natural to refer to that as him, though strictly speaking there is not "him" before birth.

The "from his mother's womb" of Luke 1:15 can be best understood as "since," once he emerged, all the time from when even the earliest possibility of having the Holy Ghost was realized, at birth.

The way I read Exodus 21: 22-24 is that if someone strikes a woman who's fruit is thereby expelled (a miscarriage), it is a rather minor infraction the payment for which is dependent on the whim of the pregnant woman's husband.
I know others who interpret it the opposite way, even other translators who make it read the opposite, so to my mind this passage is a "wash" in the abortion arguments. I don't think anyone should bother to use it; I certainly don't think it is persuasive as an argument against abortion. Unless and until someone comes up with ancient Hebrew documents to give details of over time how it was interpreted in practice. I rather think such documents must exist, but I don't know of any scholar who has analyzed them.

You are correct to say what's in the womb are the "earliest stages of development" of a human person, but that does not mean the person then being built exists before it is an animal, a member of the species, an actual human being.

so God gave the Holy Spirit to a blob of cells that was not a person and will demand that a person is potentially put to death for causing extermination to a blob of cells?

does not compute. the fact that God would bestow his Spirit upon a child in the womb shows that this person had a soul even in that period of development.

so i'm seeing that your position is that a person is not a person until they are actually born?

 

[John 1720]

General usage is not always accurate IS my answer.

Hi Armoured,
Okay that is not exactly in context with the question but by implicationI think you are affirming that most people, if not all, will ask a pregnant woman, "So how are you and the baby doing?".
So you are affirming that, correct?
Thank you, John 1720

 

[Armoured]

Hi Armoured,
Okay that is not exactly in context with the question but by implicationI think you are affirming that most people, if not all, will ask a pregnant woman, "So how are you and the baby doing?".
So you are affirming that, correct?
Thank you, John 1720

If it really makes you happy, ok. Sure. I "affirm" it. And again, I "affirm" that common usage is not always accurate. For example, referring to a foetus as a "baby".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

so God gave the Holy Spirit to a blob of cells that was not a person and will demand that a person is potentially put to death for causing extermination to a blob of cells?

does not compute. the fact that God would bestow his Spirit upon a child in the womb shows that this person had a soul even in that period of development.

so i'm seeing that your position is that a person is not a person until they are actually born?

Your last point makes sense and is correct.

As to what comes before that here, seems your didn't read my post - certainly didn't respond to it. I thought I pointed out how Luke 1:15 doesn't say what you claim it does - does not even come close to showing that God would (or even merely could) bestow Holy Spirit in the womb. "From" is not "in," in case you didn't notice.