A Thought Experiment

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

There are two separate arguments you've made here and whenever I address one, you just switch to the other, so let me be very clear here.

Of course I switch, I told you why I switch. I switch because the zygote is a cluster of cells already the product that will develop as a human being, due to the human interaction of a male and female, the clusters you referred to don’t, so it isn’t like for like. Two of the sets of clusters you referred to require that human interaction to start the development of life, abortion is the human interaction that terminates it.

One argument is essentially "God created life, so we shouldn't take it," but this just isn't very consistent with how people act.

Again this isnt relevant as Jesus says do not murder, which abortion is. The other things you mention again I have already shown are not like for like.

The second argument you're using is that the zygote/fetus is "a person in development." I've already pointed out how this is left wanting as an argument to defend it.

Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person?

Okay... I've been saying all this time we shouldn't be treating it as something other than what it currently is.

What is it is a person in development, so your argument doesn’t treat it for what it is despite your claims.

You're muddying the waters with the phrase "person in development."

As I said what is it in development if it isn’t a person? You are trying to muddy the waters.

This is not the only condition.

Even by that statement it must be one the conditions, and thus the statement is fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

And I am not forgetting the involvement of the mother, you are however. The mother was part of the human interaction that created the life and now she responsible to the development of the life.

If we left it alone, it would perish.

On the contrary if you left it alone it wouldn’t perish, it would still be in the mothers womb developing, if you left it alone.

So... if an object looks like something, it must be that something? That's an interesting assumption...

So you think if it looks like something it cant be the thing it looks like?

Not necessarily, as even you admitted that people should have a choice to abort in the case of rape or medical emergency. You're not entirely anti-choice, you sly dog.

Again you are trying to look at exceptions, in the case of risk to death of the baby or mother the result will still be a death, and in the case of rape, it’s the result of error and sin in the first place.
So are you against abortion in all cases except rape or medical emergency por were you playing devil’s advocate?

I've seen them. Its thrust comes by being graphic, elliciting an emotional response from the viewer, but nothing more. It serves to create a connection with the viewer by showing it something that looks like itself. To prove this, the same scan would lose its power if it showed the cluster of cells at a much ealier stage. Why? Because it doesn't look like the audience.

The scan usually does the trick, people see its murder of a baby and change their views, probably why pro-choice people object to it being seen.
For your information, from this scan, both the doctor and the feminist mother changed from pro-choice to pro-life after seeing the scan.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Of course I switch, I told you why I switch. I switch because the zygote is a cluster of cells already the product that will develop as a human being, due to the human interaction of a male and female, the clusters you referred to don’t, so it isn’t like for like.

What? This has nothing to do with why you would alternate between two different arguments; the first being "God created it, don't touch it," and the second being "it's a person in development, so we should treat it like a person."

Two of the sets of clusters you referred to require that human interaction to start the development of life, abortion is the human interaction that terminates it.

And interaction from a separate human is not needed by the zygote/fetus? On the contrary, if this interaction doesn't take place by the prospective mother inside the womb, the zygote/fetus will perish, as it will develop into nothing on its own. This puts the zygote on the same level as the sperm and egg: outside human involvement is needed to develop it into something more than what it is.

Again this isnt relevant as Jesus says do not murder, which abortion is.

It's murder? All the time in all circumstances? You know better than that, as even you promoted the pro-choice position in cases of rape and medical emergency. If abortion is murder, then you've promoted something contrary to the Bible. So which is it?

Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person?

You missed the problem with that phrase entirely. Define a "person in development." Is it a person? Yes or no. Don't try to muddy the waters by implying it's some kind of quasi-person with that phrase.

What is it is a person in development, so your argument doesn’t treat it for what it is despite your claims.

Are you listening to yourself? "What is a person in development? Well, it's a person in development!" You only beg the question without any elaboration. Is it a person at conception? And if so, will you please address the problem of identical twins? Let me re-illustrate it for you just in case you forgot.

Let's suppose, for the sake of the discussion, that personhood begins at conception. Now imagine a scenario, one that isn't too uncommon: Suppose an egg and sperm come together in conception to produce a person at the moment they unite. We'll call this person Bob. However, shortly after coming into existance, something funny happens to Bob. He splits in two so that the result is two identical groups of cells developing into human beings; we'll call them Tom and Jerry. But wait - what happened to Bob? Did Bob just disappear? Or is there a little bit of Bob in both Tom and Jerry (and if so, what does THAT mean)?

Do you see the problem? This is an issue only if we assume that someone is a person from the moment of conception. If we don't assume this, suggesting personhood is obtained some time down the road in the womb (perhaps when the cells can no longer divide and multiply?), this isn't a problem at all. It's just materials getting ready to harbor two separate persons.

Even by that statement it must be one the conditions, and thus the statement is fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

Eh, you're just coming across as fallacious now, telling only half the story because it suits your cause; because you don't want to admit that a zygote/fetus will develop into nothing more if it was truly "left alone."

And I am not forgetting the involvement of the mother, you are however. The mother was part of the human interaction that created the life and now she responsible to the development of the life.

Haha, what? Um, I had to explain this part to you. Hard to do if I forgot about it...

On the contrary if you left it alone it wouldn’t perish, it would still be in the mothers womb developing, if you left it alone.

You don't get it, do you? Having the prospective mother's body continually feed, develop, and form it is NOT "leaving it alone." Just because you're not going out of your way to do something does not mean no action is being taken. If the actions of the prospective mother were to cease, the zygote/fetus would perish. It therefore can't be "left alone." End of sentence.

So you think if it looks like something it cant be the thing it looks like?

No, but unlike you, I'm not making that kind of argument here. Again, just because it looks like something doesn't mean it IS that something. It could be; it could not be. Appearances can be deceiving and if that's all a scan offers, its appeal remains strictly emotional and not intellectual.

Again you are trying to look at exceptions, in the case of risk to death of the baby or mother the result will still be a death, and in the case of rape, it’s the result of error and sin in the first place.

Exceptions still count, don't they? Are you saying they shouldn't be considered? Before you say blanket statements like "abortion is murder," you need to consider the subject from all angles. If you did, you would instead be saying things like "abortion is only some times murder." But I guess that doesn't sound as righteous as a proclaimed pro-lifer, eh?

So are you against abortion in all cases except rape or medical emergency por were you playing devil’s advocate?

I'm against the abortion of persons if it can be reasonably avoided. I just submit that personhood is not immediately present upon conception, as illustrated by the problem identical twins present.

The scan usually does the trick, people see its murder of a baby and change their views, probably why pro-choice people object to it being seen.

There we go with it being murder again. So you would mandate this of a person who was raped or had medical issues?

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

What? This has nothing to do with why you would alternate between two different arguments; the first being "God created it, don't touch it," and the second being "it's a person in development, so we should treat it like a person."

Both are correct.

And interaction from a separate human is not needed by the zygote/fetus?

No of course its not needed, the mother is the natural process through which the baby grows.

This puts the zygote on the same level as the sperm and egg: outside human involvement is needed to develop it into something more than what it is.

which means the sperm and egg are not on the same level. The mother is part of the growing process of life to birth, your argument tries to imagine it isnt.

It's murder?

yes. God knows us and knits us together in the womb.

You missed the problem with that phrase entirely. Define a "person in development." Is it a person? Yes or no. Don't try to muddy the waters by implying it's some kind of quasi-person with that phrase.

Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person? The question is to you.

As to twins I don’t see your point. The zygote is still a life, that it will be twins is going to happen regardless of any human interference, abortion is human interference. .

Eh, you're just coming across as fallacious now, telling only half the story because it suits your cause; because you don't want to admit that a zygote/fetus will develop into nothing more if it was truly "left alone."

Already answered, the human zygote will develop if left alone and not aborted by human interference.

Haha, what? Um, I had to explain this part to you. Hard to do if I forgot about it...

The mother was part of the human interaction that created the life and now she responsible to the development of the life.. That’s reality.

You don't get it, do you?

yes I do get it, what is wrong with my statement? On the contrary if you left it alone it wouldn’t perish, it would still be in the mothers womb developing, if you left it alone.

Having the prospective mother's body continually feed, develop, and form it is NOT "leaving it alone."

Sorry that’s the reality of reproduction, nor is it the prospective mother, it is the mother and was so at conception. Your argument is in la-la land.

So you think if it looks like something it cant be the thing it looks like?

No, but unlike you,

So why did you question the statement then?

Exceptions still count, don't they?

No. Exceptions don’t change the fact that the abortion is terminating life. ...

I'm against the abortion of persons. I just submit that personhood is not immediately present upon conception, as illustrated by the problem identical twins present.

So you were playing devils advocate. I asked you whether you are against abortion in all cases except rape or medical emergency, not whether they are persons or not.

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et lex,
You mean 'two'? . Yes they are two lives. Would you care to address the question I asked please.

No, I don't mean two, I said one and I meant one. At conception there is a single developing zygote. It then spawns off into two. So what happens with the soul and all of that? Is that split, since apparently it's received at conception, or is one twin just souless? You didn't answer my question at all, and I don't think you will, because you know there isn't an answer that's acceptably "pro life".

And what question did you ask?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Both are correct.

So... if God made something, we can't harm it. Right. Even you don't believe that by admitting that abortion should be a choice under the circumstances of rape and medical emergency.

No of course its not needed, the mother is the natural process through which the baby grows.

I really can't believe you're not getting this. Just because the mother is the natural process through which the baby grows does not mean it is somehow not needed. The developing zygote/fetus cannot survive apart from the mother; i.e. it cannot develop "on its own." If left to its own devices, it will perish.

The mother is part of the growing process of life to birth, your argument tries to imagine it isnt.

You must have been confused when you typed this statement out. I've been insisting on the necessity of the prospective mother's involvement in the continued development of the zygote/fetus. In contrast, you've insisted that the zygote/fetus is just fine and dandy without any external support. Who's imagining the prospective mother isn't part of the process, hmmm?

yes. God knows us and knits us together in the womb.

But that fact doesn't make it murder. Not all killing is murder, and you yourself promoted pro-choice in cases of rape and medical emergency. Are you promoting murder?

Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person? The question is to you.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do. I didn't ask if "a person in development" is "a person in development." Circular definitions won't get us anywhere. I asked whether or not your designation of "person in development" is the same as a "person." In other words, does a fertilized egg possess full personhood?

As to twins I don’t see your point. The zygote is still a life, that it will be twins is going to happen regardless of any human interference, abortion is human interference. .

Um, you don't see the problem? You don't see how one person magically becoming two different people is not a problem? We're not talking just the materials here. We're talking about the essence and identity of the person - the very soul of who they are. Answer the question: if the alleged person "Bob" splits into two, identical cell clusters ("Tom" and "Jerry"), what happened to Bob? Where did that alleged person go?

Already answered, the human zygote will develop if left alone and not aborted by human interference.

Again, you're telling only half the story. It will develop only if it is NOT left alone by the prospective mother (unless you really want to say that a zygote/fetus can survive without her) and is not aborted by human interference. Two sides of the coin are needed to produce a human being: positive interaction from an outside source and the lack of terminal interaction.

The mother was part of the human interaction that created the life and now she responsible to the development of the life.. That’s reality.

Responsible for the development of the life, eh? Who says? Where in scripture are we told "Once you get pregnant, you must carry it to term without exception?"

yes I do get it, what is wrong with my statement? On the contrary if you left it alone it wouldn’t perish, it would still be in the mothers womb developing, if you left it alone.

Because by being in the mother's womb, it's not being "left alone." Think outside the box. If you were able to teleport that cluster of cells out of the womb that actively builds upon it and left it to its own devices, what would happen? It would perish. I'm not talking about leaving the process of child bearing alone (which is what you seem stuck on); I'm talking about what would happen if the zygote/fetus was truly left on its own. It wouldn't develop into anything. It has potential to be a living, breathing, thinking person, but it is not yet that thing. If it is not yet a person, then when it is terminated, the person who did the terminating can't be held responsible for killing anything other than a cluster of cells.

Sorry that’s the reality of reproduction, nor is it the prospective mother, it is the mother and was so at conception. Your argument is in la-la land.

No, my argument illustrates the point that the zygote won't develop into anything if it was "left alone." Its development into a person is not set; it is conditional. Without the conditional care of the prospective mother's womb, on whom it is completely dependant, it won't develop into anything more than what it is. It only has the possibility of becoming a person with a mind of its own; it won't necessarily become that.

So you think if it looks like something it cant be the thing it looks like?

So why did you question the statement then?

Oh my gosh. I merely pointed out that it's not a given. I'm not arguing that if one thing can't be something it looks like. I'm saying that just because one object appears to be another does not mean it actually is. It points out that the connection you want to make between a scan and a human is not full proof.

No. Exceptions don’t change the fact that the abortion is terminating life. ...

No one here has said otherwise. But not everyone cares about terminating life. Again, life is not the issue. If your concern was the termination of "life," then you should be crying foul whenever someone goes to war to fight for your freedom, defends themselves from an attacker, swats a fly, or kills some skin cells. These are all "life." But you don't really mean that, do you? No. You're up in arms because something more than mere "life" is being destroyed. Personhood. And that's what I've been talking about all this time and even then, there are circumstances under which killing another person is merited, even by your own admission of how it's permissable to have an abortion in the cases of rape or medical emergency. You're not completely "pro-life," like it or not.

So you were playing devils advocate. I asked you whether you are against abortion in all cases except rape or medical emergency, not whether they are persons or not.

Whether or not they are persons is one of the main factors on whether or not I'm against abortion. Is it a person at conception? I have reason to believe it's not, as illustrated by the twins problem. Is it a person at 24 weeks? There's reason to believe so, given the presence of brain activity. Whether or not I'm against abortion is contingent, among other things, on whether or not the thing aborted is a person. That's why I answered as I did. To leave that condition out is to leave out the answer to the question.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

At conception there is a single developing zygote. It then spawns off into two. So what happens with the soul and all of that? Is that split, since apparently it's received at conception, or is one twin just souless? You didn't answer my question at all, and I don't think you will, because you know there isn't an answer that's acceptably "pro life".

So why would it matter to you if you advocate aborting? I cant see why you would be bothered.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

So... if God made something, we can't harm it.

That’s not what I said, so explain your reasoning.

Right. Even you don't believe that by admitting that abortion should be a choice under the circumstances of rape and medical emergency.

That’s not what I said, I don’t think under those conditions it is choice.

Just because the mother is the natural process through which the baby grows does not mean it is somehow not needed. The developing zygote/fetus cannot survive apart from the mother; i.e. it cannot develop "on its own." If left to its own devices, it will perish.

So what? It’s the way human life develops. I have no intention of discussing your proposal of what would happen to the zygote out of the mother’s body when abortion does that, as opposed to what happens naturally.

But that fact doesn't make it murder. Not all killing is murder, and you yourself promoted pro-choice in cases of rape and medical emergency. Are you promoting murder?

Yes it does, if God knows us and knits us together in the womb merely terminating the life by choice is murder.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do. I didn't ask if "a person in development" is "a person in development." Circular definitions won't get us anywhere. I asked whether or not your designation of "person in development" is the same as a "person." In other words, does a fertilized egg possess full personhood?

My question remains, Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person? Were you not in development as a foetus? If not who was it?

Um, you don't see the problem? You don't see how one person magically becoming two different people is not a problem?

Ah so you recognise they are two people, I thought you said it wasn’t a person(s)

Again, you're telling only half the story. It will develop only if it is NOT left alone by the prospective mother

So why does the mother need an abortion when according to what you are suggesting she could just leave the baby in the womb alone? Sorry but your argument is outside reality.
It’s the same outside reality thinking of homosexuality, anything and everything to satisfy sex for pleasure without any responsibility.
I cant entertain your strange insistence on it being considered outside the womb. It is like your argument can’t think of a life except in an artificial aborted state.
The mother was part of the human interaction that created the life and now she responsible to the development of the life.. That’s reality.

Responsible for the development of the life, eh? Who says?

Not responsible for the development of life you say, so how come you have just said the baby cant survive without the mother?

Where in scripture are we told "Once you get pregnant, you must carry it to term without exception?"

Sorry don’t do liberal, I look to see what God’s word says, not what it doesn’t say so I can justify my own selfish ideas.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
As you say the issue for you is whether the person exists at conception, and you don’t think it does.
So the questions I still have for you are..
If this isn’t the person in development after conception how come we all went through this stage and would not be here if we had been aborted? I cant see how you cant see that abortion terminates life.

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et Lex,
So why would it matter to you if you advocate aborting? I cant see why you would be bothered.

Again with the dodge. Nice work.

I'm not advocating abortion. I believe in options. Abortion is an option just like adoption or carrying a pregnancy to term and keeping it. The only thing I am bothered by is hypocrisy, which I see plenty of in the "pro life" movement. Especially when people fob off questions that are too difficult for them to answer.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et lex,

Again with the dodge. Nice work.

Well it is two souls when it splits, I fail to see how it couldn’t be. How do you feel about that?
However if you are asking about the souls at this point the that’s way before limits like 12 weeks on abortion.

I'm not advocating abortion. I believe in options. Abortion is an option just like adoption or carrying a pregnancy to term and keeping it.

So you are advocating the option of abortion, which is what I meant.

The only thing I am bothered by is hypocrisy, which I see plenty of in the "pro life" movement. Especially when people fob off questions that are too difficult for them to answer.

look in the mirror.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
That’s not what I said, so explain your reasoning.

Yes, that is what you said. In post 23 of this thread, you stood behind your argument as expressed with the phrase "God created it, don't touch it." This, of course, applies to more than just a developing zygote. In spite of this, you confirmed this phrase as being "correct." It's not my reasoning that needs explaining here - it's yours.

That’s not what I said, I don’t think under those conditions it is choice.

No? People don't still have a choice of what to do after being raped or are in medical peril? That's funny, because I know some people in those situations who went ahead with the pregnancy and others who did not. Sure seems like they have a choice to me. They don't "have" to abort and don't "have" to continue with the pregnancy. It's up to them. They may not have had a choice about being raped or plagued with a medical situation, but they DO have a choice about whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy. So then, you are pro-choice. You advocate the abortion of the zygote/fetus given certain conditions are met; that your conditions aren't in sync with everyone doesn't mean you're all of a sudden not pro-choice; you still insist that abortion is some times an option.

So what? It’s the way human life develops. I have no intention of discussing your proposal of what would happen to the zygote out of the mother’s body when abortion does that, as opposed to what happens naturally.

Clearly, as doing so would clearly reveal that your nonsensical insistance that the zygote will develop into something else "on its own" doesn't correspond with reality. It's not on its own in the mother's womb. If something is completely dependant on something else to exist and grow, it's not "on its own." Dependancy is the antonym equal to individuality.

Yes it does, if God knows us and knits us together in the womb merely terminating the life by choice is murder.

So the woman who decides to not go through with the pregnancy after being raped or having a medical situation revealed to her is... a murderer? So are you advocating murder?

My question remains, Yes of course it’s a person in development, what else do you think it is in development if not a person? Were you not in development as a foetus? If not who was it?

Of course I was a "person in development." I never said otherwise. That does not mean, however, that I possessed full up "personhood" at the moment of conception.

Ah so you recognise they are two people, I thought you said it wasn’t a person(s)

Wow. Just wow. You really don't read the posts you respond to, do you? I said that for the sake of the argument, let's assume personhood begins at conception. I was illustrating a huge problem that exists only if we assume your point of view that personhood begins at conception. I never said this was actually the case.

So why does the mother need an abortion when according to what you are suggesting she could just leave the baby in the womb alone?

Um, because leaving the zygote/fetus in the womb is NOT leaving it alone. It's leaving it in a place where it is constantly fed, protected, and developed into something else. Just because you're not doing something with your hands and feet does not mean no action is being taken. The prospective mother's body is actively tampering with the zygote in the womb. You're confusing the matter by insisting that the pregnancy process be left alone, but if we do this, the zygote isn't left alone - it is constantly built upon by an external source. Differentiate between those two things and you'll understand.

Please refer to the webster definition of alone: Alone - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Main Entry: 1alone
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlōn\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from al all + one one
Date: 13th century
1 : separated from others : isolated
2 : exclusive of anyone or anything else : only <she alone knows why>
3 a : considered without reference to any other. b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

If the zygote is in the womb, it does not fit this description. I'm not sure what definition of "alone" you're using here...

Sorry but your argument is outside reality.

No, my argument is theoretical to illustrate a point: that if left alone, the zygote will not develop into anything else. Its future as a breathing, thinking person isn't set, as you would have us believe. It is only a possible outcome, contingent on someone else leading it that direction. If this is so, then the zygote is on the same playing field as a sperm or egg: it "might" become a fully developed person. This fact only emphasizes that we need to treat things as they are, not as what they might become.

Not responsible for the development of life you say, so how come you have just said the baby cant survive without the mother?

"Responsible" in the sense of moral responsibility, not physical responsibility. Huge difference. Of course the mother is physically responsible for the zygote/fetus. Her body is tampering with it in the womb, but that fact does not necessarily impose moral responsibility for the subject.

Sorry don’t do liberal, I look to see what God’s word says, not what it doesn’t say so I can justify my own selfish ideas.

I asked you a question of where God's word says something, not where it doesn't say something, and you failed to provide. A person is innocent until proven guilty, so if you want to shake your finger of condemnation and label someone a murderer for abortion, you need to back up that accusation. Strange that you cannot, even when directly asked to provide Biblical support.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Yes, that is what you said. In post 23 of this thread, you stood behind your argument as expressed with the phrase "God created it, don't touch it." This, of course, applies to more than just a developing zygote. In spite of this, you confirmed this phrase as being "correct." It's not my reasoning that needs explaining here - it's yours.

Incorrect. The phrase ‘God created it, don’t touch it’ was yours, I merely agreed it was correct and I had referred to the scripture that God knows us and knits us together in the womb, so what the scripture refers to is specific and not what you claimed as more than a developing zygote.

No?

No.

People don't still have a choice of what to do after being raped or are in medical peril?

No more generalisations please. If the rape results in conception then the baby is not the result of a choice for the woman. If death is likely when no action is taken that isnt the choice of the woman.

That's funny, because I know some people in those situations who went ahead with the pregnancy and others who did not.

Perhaps they understand that abortion is still terminating a life.

They may not have had a choice about being raped or plagued with a medical situation, but they DO have a choice about whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy.

you got it, they didn’t have the choice about the pregnancy.

Clearly, as doing so would clearly reveal that your nonsensical insistance that the zygote will develop into something else "on its own" doesn't correspond with reality. It's not on its own in the mother's womb. If something is completely dependant on something else to exist and grow, it's not "on its own." Dependancy is the antonym equal to individuality.

As I said It’s the way human life develops. I have no intention of discussing your proposal of what would happen to the zygote out of the mother’s body as opposed to what happens naturally.

So the woman who decides to not go through with the pregnancy after being raped or having a medical situation revealed to her is... a murderer? So are you advocating murder?

Well it is terminating life so what do you think? My point is that it was not her to choice to be put in that position.
Now the issue pro-life has is the ability of mothers to choose whether to abort perfectly healthy babies in the womb resulting from sexual intercourse they chose to have.

Of course I was a "person in development." I never said otherwise. That does not mean, however, that I possessed full up "personhood" at the moment of conception.

Why not? If it was you in development did you not have all the DNA that was needed for the development? So do you think it right to terminate a person in development?

Wow. Just wow. You really don't read the posts you respond to, do you? I said that for the sake of the argument, let's assume personhood begins at conception. I was illustrating a huge problem that exists only if we assume your point of view that personhood begins at conception. I never said this was actually the case.

Ok point taken, I apologise, you did say for the sake of argument.

Um, because leaving the zygote/fetus in the womb is NOT leaving it alone.

But its what happens naturally, the mother can cause miscarriage to have it aborted, she cant choose whether it develops otherwise.

No, my argument is theoretical to illustrate a point: that if left alone, the zygote will not develop into anything else.

No your argument is outside reality, to demonstrate that you would have to remove the zygote from the womb, which is not leaving it alone. If you leave the zygote where it is one is leaving it alone to take its natural course. Your argument is an artificial situation.

I asked you a question of where God's word says something, not where it doesn't say something, and you failed to provide.

You have what God’s word says on the subject, the Jeremiah and Psalm passages.
What have you got that says its ok for the mother to abort the baby God says He knits together and knows in the womb. (and dont bother with what happens after rape thats not pro-choice)

 

[lux et lex]

So one soul splits into two? Or the newly twinned zygote magically get a soul then to make up for the lack of one at conception? Or there is no soul until some point after conception?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Incorrect.

lol, really? Because back in post #23, you just said it was correct. So which is it? Incorrect or correct?

The phrase ‘God created it, don’t touch it’ was yours

To sum up your position, which you agreed with in post 23.

I merely agreed it was correct and I had referred to the scripture that God knows us and knits us together in the womb, so what the scripture refers to is specific and not what you claimed as more than a developing zygote.

Again, no one here has denied that God creates people or knows us before we're born. This does not, however, necessitate the developing zygote/fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Unless you can show me where in any of those passages God clarifies that He grants personhood upon the moment of conception, you just don't have any biblical support for your assertion.

No...

If the rape results in conception then the baby is not the result of a choice for the woman. If death is likely when no action is taken that isnt the choice of the woman.

I never said otherwise and you're clearly confused. We're not talking about the choice of conceiving. We're talking about the choice whether or not to carry the baby to term (i.e. not aborting). Whether you want to admit it or not, the prospective mother has a choice in each scenario. Is is THAT choice she has: to abort or not abort. I really don't know how to be any more clear than how crystal clear I'm being now.

Perhaps they understand that abortion is still terminating a life.

What?! That doesn't make any sense. So because some people in those circumstances chose to abort and others didn't, "they" (which "they?") understand that abortion is killing a life? How does that even apply to the situation? Do you even read what you type?

you got it, they didn’t have the choice about the pregnancy.

An irrelevant fact that no one here has denied. They STILL have a choice to have an abortion. They can abort or carry the pregnancy to term. It's their CHOICE to do either. It's their decision to kill the "person in development." They could refrain. Do you deny this? Do you really think they can't refrain from taking life? No? Then according to you, they're murderers and as someone who advocated abortion in these conditions, you are now an advocate of murder. Whew, sure looks like it hurts shooting yourself in the foot like that.

Well it is terminating life so what do you think?

I think everyone here can clearly see your inability to answer a direct question. Let me make it easier by making it multiple choice with only two answers to pick from: If a woman is raped and decides to not go through with the pregnancy, is she guilty of murder? Yes or no? Write nothing more than that.

My point is that it was not her to choice to be put in that position.

Irrelevant. She still has the freedom to do as she pleases from that point on and is accountable for how she acts. Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it. To abort or not to abort is her reaction and she is able to choose in that matter. She has the power to kill life or not. She has a choice, so let me ask you again: if she chooses to abort - to kill - the life inside her womb, is she guilty of murder?

Now the issue pro-life has is the ability of mothers to choose whether to abort perfectly healthy babies in the womb resulting from sexual intercourse they chose to have.

Um, yeah... that's what we've been talking about this entire time while you've gone off chasing a rabbit that no one introduced to the discussion. No one ever said raped women had a choice in conceiving. What people have said is that she has a choice of whether to terminate the conceived zygote/fetus or to carry it to term. So I ask again: if she chooses to abort (kill, terminated, nullify) the unborn zygote/fetus in her womb, is the woman guilty of murder? Yes or no?

Why not? If it was you in development did you not have all the DNA that was needed for the development? So do you think it right to terminate a person in development?

DNA doesn't determine personhood. If something was a person just because it had human DNA in it, then all my skin cells should be treated as individual persons. It is wrong to terminate a person, but there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest that the conceived cluster of cells possesses personhood. Indeed, there's reason to doubt this due to the huge problem of identical twins, which you have consistently dodged when asked by multiple people.

Ok point taken, I apologise, you did say for the sake of argument.

Woah... a concession... good form.

But its what happens naturally, the mother can cause miscarriage to have it aborted, she cant choose whether it develops otherwise.

No one has denied this is the natural process; for the zygote/fetus to grow inside the womb. You're absolutely right on that. However, that's not the issue being addressed. Will the zygote/fetus develop into anything more than what it currently is if it was truly "left alone?" The answer is a resounding no. If it could, separating it from the mother wouldn't matter, as it would be self-sufficient and continue growing & developing into something other than what it is.

No your argument is outside reality, to demonstrate that you would have to remove the zygote from the womb, which is not leaving it alone.

You're having trouble differentiating between the zygote and the natural process of growing inside the womb, so let me illustrate a picture where it is, indeed, possible. Suppose the prospective mother is alone in the wilderness. She trips, falls, and snaps her neck. She is dead. The zygote is still unharmed. However, it is now alone. Its source of food, growth, and development is dead. The zygote will be increasingly "on its own" as the mother's body shuts down upon her death. So now that the zygote is on its own, will it develop into anything other than what it is?

You have what God’s word says on the subject, the Jeremiah and Psalm passages.

I have already addressed those individually, explaining to you how nowhere in either passage are we told that God bestows personhood at the moment of conception.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Again, no one here has denied that God creates people or knows us before we're born. This does not, however, necessitate the developing zygote/fetus is a person from the moment of conception.

If God knows us then we must be the person He knows in the womb. When you say &#8216;us&#8217;, whom God knows and knits together in the womb, to whom are you referring, persons or not? Are you a person?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
If God knows us then we must be the person He knows in the womb. When you say ‘us’, whom God knows and knits together in the womb, to whom are you referring, persons or not? Are you a person?

This would be true only if God's knowledge didn't transcend time. God can know a person who currently does not even exist in any form.

Even if God is referring to a knowledge that begins only as someone grows in the womb, it doesn't specify at what point of growth in the womb God "starts" knowing them. You only presume it's at the conception, but it could be at any point while the zygote/fetus is in the womb that God first "knows" them. If personhood began at, say, the point when the cells can no longer divide (thus securing the individuality of the growing entity) or when brain activity kicks off, the phrase "you knew me in my mother's womb" would still be completely true. As soon as there was a "me" to know, God knew us. This has no bearing, however, on when that "me" came to be inside the womb (in the sense of "me" being an entity possessing personhood).

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Let me remind you of my question
My question was &#8220;If God knows &#8216;us&#8217;, then we must be the person He knows in the womb. When you say &#8216;us&#8217;, whom God knows and knits together in the womb, to whom are you referring, persons or not? Are you a person?

Even if God is referring to a knowledge that begins only as someone grows in the womb, it doesn't specify at what point of growth in the womb God "starts" knowing them.

Your assumptions are not in line with God&#8217;s word.
Jeremiah 1:5 &#8220;Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; &#8230; &#8220;
Psalm 139:13 &#8220;For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb. &#8220;
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be. &#8220;

So God knows us before He forms us in the womb.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Let me remind you of my question
My question was &#8220;If God knows &#8216;us&#8217;, then we must be the person He knows in the womb. When you say &#8216;us&#8217;, whom God knows and knits together in the womb, to whom are you referring, persons or not? Are you a person?

Am I a person now? Yep. Was I always a person? Nope. Does God's foreknowledge of my personhood somehow necessitate that I must have been a person at the moment of conception? Nope.

Your assumptions are not in line with God&#8217;s word... So God knows us before He forms us in the womb.

Please re-read my post above. First two sentences. Easy to find. That's exactly what I said. The paragraph after that started with a hypothetical condition addressing an alternative viewpoint: "Even if..."

In short, God's foreknowledge of my personhood does not give any indication of when I became a person. Your misuse of these passages in an attempt to show otherwise is thus in vain.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Am I a person now? Yep. Was I always a person? Nope. Does God's foreknowledge of my personhood somehow necessitate that I must have been a person at the moment of conception? Nope.

Ok, it wasn&#8217;t anyone else who was the foetus you were in the womb, nor was it anything else. A big disconnect with reality. However knowing people and God knitting people together in the womb indicates we have no right as believers and followers, to terminate that life.

In short, God's foreknowledge of my personhood

let me stop you there. The scripture says He knows us and knits us together in the womb, that&#8217;s present tense, so firstly it isn&#8217;t foreknowledge, and secondly it refers to &#8216;us&#8217;, &#8216;us&#8217; being who we are, not who we weren&#8217;t.
It is you who is badly misusing the passage.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Ok, it wasn&#8217;t anyone else who was the foetus you were in the womb, nor was it anything else.

The fetus wasn't anything else than a fetus? I guess I'd have to agree with you there. Of course, no one here has ever said otherwise... unless you're trying to imply that I was always a person. You and I both know that's just not true; that the organic materials that were involved in my physical formation pre-date my personhood.

However knowing people and God knitting people together in the womb indicates we have no right as believers and followers, to terminate that life.

I'm pretty sure God is the creator of all life; that His foreknowledge isn't limited to human persons. God's knowledge is so detailed that the very hairs on my head are counted. If so, it would be reasonable to say that God also foreknew the number of skin cells I would have. If so, and since God is ultimately the creator of those just as much as any other part of me, your argument would outlaw even the killing of skin cells. God made them, didn't He? His foreknowledge of my being included them, didn't it? They are alive (i.e. they contain "life"), right? Again, life is not the issue for this very reason. The reason you get all riled up over a zygote/fetus is because you see it as more than life - you see a person, and a person is entitled to more rights than "life" in general.

let me stop you there. The scripture says He knows us and knits us together in the womb, that&#8217;s present tense, so firstly it isn&#8217;t foreknowledge...

Actually, if you'd crack open your Bible, it's "created" and "knit:" past tense.

Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (NIV)

The writer is referring to God's knowledge of him before his birth and God's intimate role in creating him, that's it. Nowhere does this passage indicate that God granted him personhood at the moment of conception. God just as well could have been forming the organic materials in the womb and granted it personhood at some later point of development in the womb.

and secondly it refers to &#8216;us&#8217;, &#8216;us&#8217; being who we are, not who we weren&#8217;t.

It's also speaking in past tense about a time before they were what they are now; a time of their formation. God knit "us" together in the womb; sure. No one said otherwise. You're just insisting that the first step in the formation of a human being is being granted personhood when that just's just not necessarily the case. God knit "me" together in more respects that one: physically and spiritually. There's no reason to assume the spiritual part (i.e. my personhood) had to begin at the moment of conception when it could have very well been put in place at some later point as the raw materials came together.