A Thought Experiment

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Ok, it wasn’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?

On the contrary it wasn’t anyone else who was the foetus you were in the womb, nor was it anything else
However knowing people and God knitting people together in the womb indicates we have no right as believers and followers, to terminate that life.

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.

Sorry but the scripture says God knows us and knits us together in the womb, how do you suppose the skins cells are separate from what He knits together of us in the womb?

His foreknowledge of my being included them, didn't it?

He knows us in the womb and knits us together, that’s present tense, not foreknowledge.

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.

The reason you are getting upset is because if you recognised the baby in foetus stage it would make abortion murder.

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

point taken, yet still God knows us in the womb and knits us together implies from the start of entering the womb, and not at some assumed position having developed a bit.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
On the contrary it wasn’t anyone else who was the foetus you were in the womb, nor was it anything else

Was it? You're talking about a cluster of cells at the beginning stages of development. If it is never to be "anything else" than what it is, it shouldn't be developing. Development necessitates change into something other than what it is.

The problem here is that you're assuming the entity is a person from the get-go, then saying that its nature of being a person doesn't change. Of course, this is just begging the question. How do you know it's a person from the very start? The fact that God made it? That doesn't help, unless you want to assert you know how God makes people on a physical and spiritual level and use this claim to knowledge to assert that God bestows a soul (or "personhood") at the physical step of conception.

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

Even you have admitted that's not necessarily true by condoning abortion in the case of rape and medical emergency. This is also only an issue once the developing fetus/zygote obtains personhood. Thus far, you've only begged the question that personhood is obtained at conception and not at some other point.

The reason you are getting upset is because if you recognised the baby in foetus stage it would make abortion murder.

Not necessarily, as even you admitted that even if we're dealing with a person, abortion still may be merited under specific conditions.

point taken, yet still God knows us in the womb and knits us together implies from the start of entering the womb, and not at some assumed position having developed a bit.

I really don't think we have reason to limit God's formation of a person from conception onward, as if His plan started there and goes back no further. Even so, like I said, there are two aspects to people: the physical and spiritual. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that God deems the human-making process' beginning to be conception, what necessitates God grant the cluster of cells personhood at the beginning? Why couldn't God form the materials to make a suitable home for a person, then at some later point of development in the womb, combine spirit and body?

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Was it? You're talking about a cluster of cells at the beginning stages of development. If it is never to be "anything else" than what it is, it shouldn't be developing. Development necessitates change into something other than what it is.

No I am not talking about a cluster of cells, that’s what you are talking about, but once again in typical liberal style, although I understand what you are saying, its contrary to God’s word as the question was who was the foetus you were in the womb. If the cluster of cells wasn’t you who was it.

Genesis 24 says there were boys in her womb, the scripture refers to people in the womb whom God knows. It doesn’t refer to clusters of cells, you are not addressing what the scripture says, God’s word but making up your own ideas.

The problem here is that you're assuming the entity is a person from the get-go, then saying that its nature of being a person doesn't change.

Once again that’s what the word of God says, and yes of course it’s a person who and what else is it? I could be called a cluster of cells just as much as when I was a foetus.

Even you have admitted that's not necessarily true by condoning abortion in the case of rape and medical emergency.

No I haven’t, read the posts.

As I said This is also only an issue once the developing fetus/zygote obtains personhood.

It is a person at zygote, its not a bus, its not a cat and its not someone else other than the person it is developing as.

I really don't think we have reason to limit God's formation of a person from conception onward,

That’s my argument, you cannot abort at some arbitrary time what God has created.

Assuming,

Sorry no more assuming please, I know what I am saying is observably true and the word of God. I don’t need to assume; there is no scriptural basis for your assumption.

 

[Phinehas2]

There is no need to terminate the life of a perfectly healthy baby in the womb, that the mother or father may not want it, is not a argument, they took their chance with sexual intercourse, thats obviously what the act is for.

 

[lux et lex]

There is no need to terminate the life of a perfectly healthy baby in the womb, that the mother or father may not want it, is not a argument, they took their chance with sexual intercourse, thats obviously what the act is for.

Thanks for your opinion. Duly noted.

 

[Phinehas2]

and thanks for your opinions on the subject, you know my view of it.
best wishes.

 

[Jedi]

No I am not talking about a cluster of cells, that’s what you are talking about

You’re not? The organism you are describing – the zygote/fetus – has no cells? Huh… that’s weird…

Referring to a zygote as a “cluster of cells” is common ground for everyone. Everyone here can agree that yes, it is a cluster of cells. Some people may see it as more than that, but at the very least, everyone agrees to those characteristics of it: it is a cluster of cells forming a single organism that is developing into something other than what it currently is.

but once again in typical liberal style

Is this supposed to be an insult? I guess that’s a typical fundamentalist jibe: if someone doesn’t agree with you for whatever reason, just call them a dirty liberal. That’ll show ‘em.

although I understand what you are saying, its contrary to God’s word as the question was who was the foetus you were in the womb. If the cluster of cells wasn’t you who was it.

The cluster of cells was me on a physical level. I think we can all agree to that. Conception is where my genetic code was written (although my physical origins can be traced even earlier than this point). This does not mean, however, that the cluster of cells was me on a spiritual level at the moment of conception, as it remains entirely possible that God gave the physical apparatus a soul/personhood at a later point of development within the womb.

Genesis 24 says there were boys in her womb

Where? I did a word search on Genesis 24 in the NIV, NASB, and KJV and neither “boys” nor “womb” came up. Be more precise. Further still, scripture stating there were boys in someone’s womb indicates they’re well beyond the moment of conception, and does not in any way mandate that they became persons upon conception.

the scripture refers to people in the womb whom God knows.

But at what point? You’re assuming that if God knows them, His knowledge of their personhood must begin at conception, which is a blatant and unwarranted assumption on your part. Not only does God’s knowledge transcend time, even in a temporal paradigm, God’s knowledge of them (“them” in the spiritual/personable sense rather than the mere physical material being used to make them) can start while they’re in the womb at some point after conception.

you are not addressing what the scripture says, God’s word but making up your own ideas.

A more ironic and hypocritical statement could not be said.

Once again that’s what the word of God says

Where? Where does God say “I grant a developing human its soul/personhood at the moment of conception?” Until you provide such a verse, you need to stop claiming your ideas to be God’s.

…and yes of course it’s a person who and what else is it?

What else is it? An organic apparatus awaiting the implantation of a soul by its creator, just like the egg and sperm before it.

No I haven’t, read the posts.

Oh, really? You haven’t conceded that the victims of rape and medical emergency should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? That’s funny, because you described your position as exactly that in post 101 in the other thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t7473645-11/), when you blatantly denied forbidding rape victims and those with a medical condition to have abortions by typing, “No that’s not my side’s position, my side’s position usually accepts where there has been rape or there is a danger to life there could be an abortion.” You went out of your way to make it clear that you don’t fall into the “no abortions under any circumstance” crowd.

Perhaps you should read your own posts and get your story straight? Do you or do you not agree that there are some circumstances in which abortion should be left to the discretion of the pregnant woman; specifically, in the case of rape or medical peril? Let's make this personal for some extra fun. If your wife got raped, impregnated by the rapist, then found out that if she carried the pregnancy to term, both she and the fetus will die, would she be entitled to the choice of whether or not to have an abortion?

That’s my argument

So wait, let me get this straight. I type, “I really don't think we have reason to limit God's formation of a person from conception onward” and you respond with “That’s my argument?” Really? You think you have the knowledge to limit God’s formation of a person upon conception; to tell Him "It can only be done this way"? Do you really mean to say that you mandate the process of God’s creation step-by-step inside the womb? Wow! What medical credentials do you have? Where did you study? And how in the world have you been able to detect when the soul/spirit of a person is put into its biological shell? This is the knowledge you’re assuming, so I thought it only fair to ask how you obtained it.

Sorry no more assuming please, I know what I am saying is observably true and the word of God. I don’t need to assume; there is no scriptural basis for your assumption.

You know, what’s funny is that the position I referred to after I wrote “assuming” is your position. If you don’t want that position to be assumed, then you need to cut it out. Further still, you’re really not picking up on hypothetical scenarios explained to illustrate points. I “assumed” your position to be true to point out a problem with it if it really was true: your refusal to consider other points of development inside the womb as the point when God grants the organic matter a spirit/personhood. I find it no surprise that you didn’t answer the question.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

You’re not? The organism you are describing – the zygote/fetus – has no cells? Huh… that’s weird…

I have said the zygote/foetus has cells just as the fully grown adult has cells and the sperm and egg each have cells, so I don’t see how you can ask a question about why I believe what I don’t believe.
The difference between a zygote and a sperm or an egg is the zygote is a human in development, a sperm isnt and nor is an egg, neither will become a human being in the state they are in. Sure when mated they will but that’s completely irrelevant to whether they are a cluster of cells or not.

Is this supposed to be an insult?

No it is an observation.

The cluster of cells was me on a physical level.

Ok the scripture says 'you', no mention of a physical level, although of course physical would be part of it.

This does not mean, however, that the cluster of cells was me on a spiritual level at the moment of conception, as it remains entirely possible that God gave the physical apparatus a soul/personhood at a later point of development within the womb.

Sorry read the Jeremiah passage, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, “ All your assumptions are contrary to scripture. I cant waste my time listening to endless ungodly assumptions.

The Genesis passage was 25 rather than 24, my apologies for that.

But at what point? You’re assuming that if God knows them, His knowledge of their personhood must begin at conception, which is a blatant and unwarranted assumption on your part.

No its a matter of disbelief on your part. I know God knows people before he forms them in the womb as in the Jeremiah passage, I am not making any assumption, but your assumption is on the back of your disbelief of what the Bible says.

And I cant entertain your questions about where God doesn’t say something which if He did would be contrary to what He does say that you are ignoring.

 

[Jedi]

The difference between a zygote and a sperm or an egg is the zygote is a human in development, a sperm isnt and nor is an egg, neither will become a human being in the state they are in.

Neither will the zygote unless all the proper conditions are met within the womb. It will never develop into an adult without additional materials being added to it - just like the sperm and egg.

No it is an observation.

One that just happens to add absolutely nothing to the discussion and serves only as an implied jibe.

Ok the scripture says 'you', no mention of a physical level, although of course physical would be part of it. Sorry read the Jeremiah passage, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, “

Ah, but you're just begging the question that the "you" being referred to is the spiritual/personable "you." In what capacity did God know someone before he was born? The passage doesn't say.

The problem here is your argument from this verse requires two things to work: (a) you have to assume God's knowledge of a human life only begins once they're conceived and does not transcend time, and (b) the reference to God knowing someone is His knowledge of them on a spiritual level rather than a reference to the material He was using to form them. Both assumptions are just unwarranted and you end up with a circular argument. You have to assume these things to be true when referencing these verses, then you point to the passages as evidence to support those assumptions.

All your assumptions are contrary to scripture. I cant waste my time listening to endless ungodly assumptions.

On the contrary, I haven't assumed anything. I've merely asked "why can't personhood begin at this point or that point," not surprisingly with no response from the professed pro-lifer. I've raised possibilities alternative to what you're saying. If there's any assuming being done, it's by you.

No its a matter of disbelief on your part. I know God knows people before he forms them in the womb as in the Jeremiah passage, I am not making any assumption, but your assumption is on the back of your disbelief of what the Bible says.

No one has said anything contrary to the fact that God knows people before they're born. The question I've raised, however, is in what capacity and whether or not God's knowledge transcends time. You merely assume a spiritual capacity within a temporal paradigm, which is completely unwarranted. If those two things aren't assumed, your use of these passages doesn't support your argument against abortion.

And I cant entertain your questions about where God doesn’t say something...

Apparently, you can't entertain a lot of questions when asked directly of you to answer. The questions concerning identical twins being a huge problem for those who insist souls/personhood are in place at the moment of conception or questions concerning circumstances of rape and medical emergency.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi

Neither will the zygote unless all the proper conditions are met within the womb.

Ok but the sperm or egg alone will never develop further despite the best conditions… so condition isn’t a criteria and one cant compare the two.

Ah, but you're just begging the question that the "you" being referred to is the spiritual/personable "you." In what capacity did God know someone before he was born? The passage doesn't say.

No you were. You referred made the assumption as to physical and spiritual, the text makes no such distinction, nor can it as the entity whether you assume it as physical or spiritual is still known by God before the womb and knitted together in the womb, and referred to as ‘you’ So therefore the ‘you’ is personhood, it cant be anyone else than the person God knows.

Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." - Mother Theresa
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Theresa

 

[Jedi]

Jedi
Ok but the sperm or egg alone will never develop further despite the best conditions… so condition isn’t a criteria and one cant compare the two.

Really? A sperm or egg won't develop further under any condition? Even if the condition is, say, the sperm and egg coming together? Huh, that's funny... wait, perhaps you're focusing on the qualifying condition of being "alone." Well then, if we likewise were to leave the zygote "alone" (as per the webster.com definition), it wouldn't develop into anything further either.

Conditions being met is everything for the egg, the sperm, and the zygote. If the condition of the sperm and egg meeting isn't met, neither will develop into anything further. If the condition of constant, unwavering materials being added to the zygote from a dedicated, outside source is not met, it too will not develop into anything further. In this respect, the zygote, egg, and sperm are all the same: they will only develop further if certain conditions are met to lead it that direction.

No you were. You referred made the assumption as to physical and spiritual, the text makes no such distinction

Do you even know what "assumed" means? I didn't say it was one or the other, therefore I couldn't have "assumed" anything. I merely pointed out that there's room for a question: in what sense does God form the "me" in the womb? You merely assume it's the spirit/soul when that's not necessarily the case. "Me" as a human being is composed of different parts. There's "me" on a physical level and "me" on a spiritual level. If God was merely working on "me" on a physical level near the time of my conception, the passage would still be just as true. He did know "me" and knit "me" together, as I was physically present. If its reference is my spirit/soul, then it works just the same. The fact that it could be either voids the passage as a proof text to demonstrate that a zygote necessarily has the same rights as a soul/spirit that possesses personhood.

The passage also does not specify at what point inside the womb God started "knowing" the person; only that God knew the author before he was born. There's no reason to assume the author's reference of God's knowledge began at conception when any point in the womb would fit that criteria just as well.

Further still, you and I have already established that God's knowledge transcends time. Why, then, must He start "knowing" someone at the moment of conception? Wouldn't His knowledge have existed beyond that point? And if so, why couldn't it be that earlier knowledge being referenced rather than the arbitrary point of conception?

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Really? A sperm or egg won't develop further under any condition?

Really? I didn’t say that exactly, explain what you mean. Surely the sperm and egg would have to come together to become a human life?

Even if the condition is, say, the sperm and egg coming together? Huh, that's funny... wait, perhaps you're focusing on the qualifying condition of being "alone." Well then, if we likewise were to leave the zygote "alone" (as per the webster.com definition), it wouldn't develop into anything further either.

How are you going to leave it alone? What action are you going to take and how will that be leaving it alone. Of course if one leaves it alone in the mother’s womb it will naturally develop. Why this death wish for the human life?

Do you even know what "assumed" means?

I thought you said you didn’t like ad hominem?

I merely pointed out that there's room for a question: in what sense does God form the "me" in the womb? You merely assume it's the spirit/soul when that's not necessarily the case. "Me" as a human being is composed of different parts.

Well I understand your question but its obviously faulty speculation as the Bible makes no distinction in Psalm 139 or Jeremiah, implies it’s the whole person, and elsewhere describes how God knows our thoughts, our hearts and the hairs on our head. Your proposition is disbelief.

So remind me, why abort a foetus/baby anyway? What is the reason?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Really? I didn’t say that exactly, explain what you mean. Surely the sperm and egg would have to come together to become a human life?

Which is a condition. "If this, then this." You only threw in the stipulation that they must remain "alone" to make it seem like they're different from the zygote. All you did was insist that the sperm and egg remain separate from the conditions that would promote their development into a human being, but did not give the same stipulation concerning the zygote. If you deny the proper conditions for one but allow it for the other, you shouldn't be surprised when the former does not develop and the other does. This does not, however, mean they are different in this respect.

How are you going to leave it alone?

You're too caught up on the "But, but, but HOW would you do it" to consider the implications "if" it was done, which is a limitation of you rather than the point being made.

What action are you going to take and how will that be leaving it alone. Of course if one leaves it alone in the mother’s womb it will naturally develop

But that's not really leaving it "alone," is it? It is still being constantly added to, formed, and protected by the prospective mother. Like I said earlier, you're having difficulty differentiating between the process of pregnancy versus the zygote itself. Two different things. You're insisting the zygote will develop if the "process" (not the zygote) is left "alone." No one has ever said otherwise and that doesn't factor into anyone's argument.

The focus here is the zygote, not the process of pregnancy, and if you left the zygote alone, it will develop no further. Again, let me clarify by posting the Webster definition of "alone" from Webster.com.

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 <the children alone would eat that much> b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

If the zygote was "separated from others," that would include the prospective mother. If so, the zygote would perish. If the zygote was "exclusive of anyone or anything else," it would perish. Stop confusing the matter of "if" with the alleged problem of "how." Two different issues.

But to hammer the final nail in that coffin, even the issue of "how" has already been answered to you. That you forgot or just didn't read it is of no surprise, but I'll post it again for your benefit:

Suppose there is a pregnant woman hiking alone in the woods. Unfortunately, she trips, falls, snaps her neck, and dies. What will happen to the zygote? Will it develop into anything further? Nope. As soon as the nutrients and warmth fade upon the woman's death, it will truly be alone. And alone, the zygote cannot continue to exist.

Well I understand your question but its obviously faulty speculation as the Bible makes no distinction in Psalm 139 or Jeremiah

Which leaves the issue open as to either alternative. You have no reason to assume one or the other. If the Bible doesn't tell us one way or the other, on what ground do you assume it's both?

...implies it&#8217;s the whole person, and elsewhere describes how God knows our thoughts, our hearts and the hairs on our head. Your proposition is disbelief.

And those "elsewhere" passages are referencing clearly matured human persons; the context of a fetus in the womb just isn't there. Pregnancy isn't in the passage, so for you to use those passages in another context is a fallacy.

Further still, none of this even touches on the fact that God's knowledge transcends time or the questions I asked you concerning the fact.

So remind me, why abort a foetus/baby anyway? What is the reason?

You've already been given reasons in paragraphs and posts you've chosen to ignore (or at least consistently not respond to). But let's start from the top: rape, medical emergency, incest, euthenasia of a fatally ill fetus, heck, let's throw in convenience while we're at it. Plenty of reasons to abort, but reasons don't matter if the thing being aborted is not a person. If it's not, you might as well say "Why kill the skin cells by rubbing your shoulder? What's the reason?"

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Which is a condition.

And if they don&#8217;t that&#8217;s a condition as well. So I don&#8217;t see your point. So my point still stands, the sperm and egg alone are different from the zygote.

You're too caught up on the "But, but, but HOW would you do it" to consider the implications "if" it was done, which is a limitation of you rather than the point being made.

So how are you going to leave it alone, you haven&#8217;t addressed the question, if you leave it alone you know full well it will naturally develop within the womb. You are trying to make out leaving it alone is active intervention when the active intentional intervention is in fact the abortion that kills the person.

Which leaves the issue open as to either alternative.

Only of one doesn&#8217;t believe what the passages say. The passages are not contradictory. Look at Job and Isaiah, it is quite obvious that God knows us before and in the womb and knits us together in the womb. What sort of selfish determination is behind trying to assume it may not be us long enough to be able to abort the life?
It&#8217;s arguably the biggest injustice in the world at the moment, Christians should make it a priority to speak out

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
And if they don’t that’s a condition as well. So I don’t see your point.

Sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that the development of the egg, sperm, and zygote is conditional. It isn't certain.

So my point still stands, the sperm and egg alone are different from the zygote.

How? How has anything you typed negate the fact that the zygote, like the sperm and egg, will develop into nothing further unless certain conditions are met?

So how are you going to leave it alone...

Oh my gosh! Have you read nothing in the previous post? I just pointed out how you're stuck on the question of "how," which isn't a necessary consideration to answer the question of "if." You're confusing the two issues with your inability to focus on the latter.

..you haven’t addressed the question...

Really? I'm pretty sure I addressed your nonsensical demand for "how" multiple times, the most recent of which was the very last post I wrote for your benefit. In post 53, in my response detailing the webster definition of "alone," I typed...

But to hammer the final nail in that coffin, even the issue of "how" has already been answered to you. That you forgot or just didn't read it is of no surprise, but I'll post it again for your benefit:

Suppose there is a pregnant woman hiking alone in the woods. Unfortunately, she trips, falls, snaps her neck, and dies. What will happen to the zygote? Will it develop into anything further? Nope. As soon as the nutrients and warmth fade upon the woman's death, it will truly be alone. And alone, the zygote cannot continue to exist.

If you're not going to read the posts, you need to leave the discussion.

if you leave it alone you know full well it will naturally develop within the womb

I'm just going to copy & paste my response to this nonsense from my previous post, since you obviously didn't read it the first time:

But that's not really leaving it "alone," is it? It is still being constantly added to, formed, and protected by the prospective mother. Like I said earlier, you're having difficulty differentiating between the process of pregnancy versus the zygote itself. Two different things. You're insisting the zygote will develop if the "process" (not the zygote) is left "alone." No one has ever said otherwise and that doesn't factor into anyone's argument.

The focus here is the zygote, not the process of pregnancy, and if you left the zygote alone, it will develop no further. Again, let me clarify by posting the Webster definition of "alone" from Webster.com.

Main Entry: 1alone
Pronunciation: \&#601;-&#712;l&#333;n\
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 <the children alone would eat that much> b : incomparable, unique <alone among their contemporaries in this respect>

If the zygote was "separated from others," that would include the prospective mother. If so, the zygote would perish. If the zygote was "exclusive of anyone or anything else," it would perish. Stop confusing the matter of "if" with the alleged problem of "how." Two different issues.

Only of one doesn’t believe what the passages say.

Translation: "only if one doesn't believe what I think the passages say."

The passages are not contradictory.

No one here has said otherwise.

Look at Job and Isaiah, it is quite obvious that God knows us before and in the womb and knits us together in the womb.

No one here has said otherwise.

What sort of selfish determination is behind trying to assume it may not be us long enough to be able to abort the life?

Asking a question and raising a possiblity is not the same as "assuming." Why can't you answer a single question I posed to you in the previous post? If scripture doesn't specify in what capacity God knows us before we're born or in what respect God is "kniting" us together inside the womb at the point of conception, on what basis do you stand to assume (yes, you. Assume) that the reference is an organism with a fully present spirit/soul at the moment of conception? Why can't God give the organic matter a spirit at some later point? Especially considering the problem of identical twins, which you still haven't had the gall to address.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that the development of the egg, sperm, and zygote is conditional. It isn't certain.

What development of the sperm, as opposed to the zygote, are you referring to? The only development of the sperm would be when it is no longer a sperm but a zygote, which is my point. A development cant be conditional or otherwise if there is nothing that develops.

Oh my gosh! Have you read nothing in the previous post? I just pointed out how you're stuck on the question of "how," which isn't a necessary consideration to answer the question of "if." You're confusing the two issues with your inability to focus on the latter.

If one leaves the zygote alone it will continue to grow naturally in the womb, that&#8217;s reality. The mother doesn&#8217;t even need to intervene as she does with babies and infants, the intervention to the foetus is the abortion.

Suppose there is a pregnant woman hiking alone in the woods. Unfortunately, she trips, falls, snaps her neck, and dies. What will happen to the zygote? Will it develop into anything further? Nope. As soon as the nutrients and warmth fade upon the woman's death, it will truly be alone. And alone, the zygote cannot continue to exist.

Ok what happens if a young mother apart from pregnancy falls and dies, how is the young mother going to develop into maturity?

But that's not really leaving it "alone," is it? It is still being constantly added to, formed, and protected by the prospective mother.

Prospective? Is she not already the mother in your view? Yes it is leaving it alone, the mother&#8217;s body does that naturally, she doesn&#8217;t have to concentrate and intervene in maintaining the baby in the womb, not even like she has to attend to a born baby or infant.

No one here has said otherwise.

Ah but you have, you have suggested it may not be &#8216;us&#8217; fully. If it is us, its us, not part of us. You have assumed unreality might be the case and then asked me to explain reality.
As to identical twins, what is your question exactly, God knows people in the womb and knits them together, are you asking me about a problem you see with that, because I cant give you an answer to a problem I don&#8217;t see. If the twins started as one zygote and end up with two completely independent personalities maybe science needs to reflect on whether it actually knows that much.

If scripture doesn't specify in what capacity God knows us before we're born or in what respect God is "kniting" us together inside the womb at the point of conception, on what basis do you stand to assume (yes, you. Assume) that the reference is an organism with a fully present spirit/soul at the moment of conception?

Ok scripture does specify in what capacity God knows us, He knows us, as far as I am concerned that&#8217;s me. If He knows me He knows me. The assumption that it might only be part of me is yours, and scripturally baseless.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,

What development of the sperm, as opposed to the zygote, are you referring to? The only development of the sperm would be when it is no longer a sperm but a zygote, which is my point.

The development of a sperm into a zygote is only a step, not the final destination. The zygote will then develop into a fetus, provided all necessary conditions are met to lead it that direction. What&#8217;s your point? The sperm didn&#8217;t just magically disappear; it developed into something other than what it was, just like the egg, just like the zygote.

If one leaves the zygote alone it will continue to grow naturally in the womb, that&#8217;s reality. The mother doesn&#8217;t even need to intervene as she does with babies and infants, the intervention to the foetus is the abortion.

This is where you&#8217;re clearly wrong. Even if she&#8217;s not going out of her way to do so, the mother is intervening on behalf of the zygote inside the womb. I really don&#8217;t know how to make this any more clear to you. If something is being tampered with, added to, protected, fed, and formed by another person or entity, it is not being &#8220;left alone.&#8221; It doesn&#8217;t fit the definition of &#8220;alone&#8221; in any way.

Ok what happens if a young mother apart from pregnancy falls and dies, how is the young mother going to develop into maturity?

Simple: she won&#8217;t. You&#8217;re confusing the matter here, though. Everyone here agrees that the prospective mother is a person with a spirit; she is a person. Her status is not in question. On the other hand, you have a zygote, which you&#8217;re trying to treat it as if it &#8220;will&#8221; become something else out of necessity or &#8220;on its own.&#8221; This line of thought is falsified by my example of the hiking woman clearly illustrating that the zygote cannot exist on its own and no one has to actively do anything to stop its growth. If the woman dies, the zygote will develop no further, because its existence is contingent on the woman&#8217;s body for development. Look at the definition of &#8220;alone.&#8221; The zygote cannot survive if you attribute that condition to it.

Prospective? Is she not already the mother in your view?

Not if the cluster of cells lacks personhood&#8230;

Yes it is leaving it alone, the mother&#8217;s body does that naturally

Are you listening to yourself? &#8220;Yes, it is alone, and the mother&#8217;s body takes care of it.&#8221; That&#8217;s not ALONE. Look at the bloody definition. Please, explain how the zygote&#8217;s existence being completely dependent on someone else qualifies as &#8220;alone.&#8221;

she doesn&#8217;t have to concentrate and intervene in maintaining the baby in the womb, not even like she has to attend to a born baby or infant.

An irrelevant distinction, as she&#8217;s taking care of it regardless. &#8220;How&#8221; doesn&#8217;t matter; the fact is the developing zygote/fetus is not left alone. It is not &#8220;separated from others;&#8221; it is not &#8220;exclusive of anyone or anything.&#8221; By definition, if it was, it wouldn&#8217;t be tampered with by the woman in any respect. End of sentence.

Ah but you have, you have suggested it may not be &#8216;us&#8217; fully. If it is us, its us, not part of us.

You&#8217;re only assuming that &#8220;us&#8221; refers to us wholly instead of in part, which is nonsensical when referring to a time when our parts are being put together. Even so, like I&#8217;ve said, it&#8217;s a moot point, as you&#8217;ve already agreed with me that God&#8217;s knowledge transcends time. If so, then God&#8217;s knowledge of a person could extend even before the person existed. If so, it could be at any point in all of eternity that God&#8217;s knowledge is referencing, leaving no reason to assume the knowledge mentioned is referring specifically to the point of conception.

If the twins started as one zygote and end up with two completely independent personalities maybe science needs to reflect on whether it actually knows that much.

Are you serious? Are you calling into question how identical twins develop? Do you mean to say that a conceived cluster of cells cannot divide into two, identical clusters and then go on to develop into two separate individuals?

If not, then please answer the question that was asked of you time and again. If you insist that personhood begins at conception, then let&#8217;s play along to illustrate a problem. Suppose a person is conceived. We&#8217;ll call this conceived cluster of cells &#8220;Bob.&#8221; However, while growing up in the womb, something happens to Bob that isn&#8217;t too uncommon: he divides and splits in two, producing two identical cluster of cells. We&#8217;ll call them &#8220;Tom&#8221; and &#8220;Jerry.&#8221; They will grow up as identical twins. But wait, what happened to Bob? Did he just disappear? Is there a little bit of Bob in both Tom and Jerry (and if so, what does THAT mean)?

Do you not see the problem? If you insist that the conceived cluster of cells is a person with a soul, how in the world do you explain when that &#8220;soul&#8221; splits into two clearly separate individuals?

Ok scripture does specify in what capacity God knows us, He knows us, as far as I am concerned that&#8217;s me. If He knows me He knows me.

Please re-read this. It&#8217;s hilarious, as all you do is re-state what you stated previously without providing a scrap of evidence or reference of how scripture specifies in what capacity God knows a person at the moment of conception. You are the sum of your parts, so how in the world can you assume (there&#8217;s that word again) that God&#8217;s knowledge is referring to the whole when the parts are still coming together? This is, of course, presuming God&#8217;s knowledge is bound to time. If not, like I said, your entire argument stemming from these passages is blown to sunshine, as it could then be any point in all eternity that God&#8217;s knowledge is referencing with no reason at all to reference conception as the beginning of that knowledge.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
I appreciate the debate but you aren&#8217;t actually addressing the questions I pose.

The development of a sperm into a zygote is only a step, not the final destination.

is not addressing my question. The sperm doesn&#8217;t develop into a zygote, but the zygote is already a human developing. The sperm does not develop into a zygote any more than an egg does, and if it&#8217;s a zygote how is it a sperm? They both have to mate together to becomes a zygote.
Your point claimed development of the sperm as opposed to the zygote, your point was wrong. If we cant agree on this then we cant really discuss it, we have absolutely no common ground even at which to start discussing.

Now, if the mother merely carries on as normal allowing for physical changes the human life will develop from zygote to foetus to born baby, so long as their isn&#8217;t a trauma and miscarriage or some murderer comes along with some tools to smash up the foetus and suck it out so destroying it. The former is reasonable natural behaviour, the latter is mentally disordered behaviour.

Come on stop wasting my time, I have NEVER heard doctors and nurses or any medical staff refer to expectant mothers as prospective mothers, nor do they ever refer to the foetus, they refer to the baby.

Suppose a person is conceived. We&#8217;ll call this conceived cluster of cells &#8220;Bob.&#8221; However, while growing up in the womb, something happens to Bob that isn&#8217;t too uncommon: he divides and splits in two, producing two identical cluster of cells. We&#8217;ll call them &#8220;Tom&#8221; and &#8220;Jerry.&#8221;

ok why? If Bob was conceived its Bob and whoever, or it wasn&#8217;t Bob that was concieved but Bob and someone else. Sorry you argument is la la land.

You are the sum of your parts, so how in the world can you assume (there&#8217;s that word again) that God&#8217;s knowledge is referring to the whole when the parts are still coming together?

What parts? No parts are coming together, the person is growing and developing. Arms don&#8217;t come from somewhere into the womb to be added so what parts coming together?
So let me ask you. For me, I am all of me, and according to His word, God knew me before I was conceived, so He knew all of me. As you are assuming God might have known only part of me, which part are you assuming God didn&#8217;t know about when He knew me before I was conceived? The only parts I can think of are the sperm or the egg? I mean come on, you are the one assuming a part rather tha the whole, explain what on earth you mean.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
I appreciate the debate but you aren&#8217;t actually addressing the questions I pose.

Haha, wow, more ironic words have never been spoken.

is not addressing my question.

You asked what I was referring to and I laid it out for you. That you disagree with what I said does not mean I didn&#8217;t address it.

The sperm doesn&#8217;t develop into a zygote

Lol, really? Well, gosh, what happens to the sperm when it unites with the egg? Do you mean to say the materials of the sperm and egg don&#8217;t unite to develop further?

but the zygote is already a human developing.

And the sperm is not? Both are the same in nature: a group of cells that will only become a mature, thinking, breathing human adult if the right conditions are met (i.e. if outside sources form and develop it in that manner). You have yet to draw a definitive distinction between the two other than beg the question that the zygote is a &#8220;human in development&#8221; in some way that the sperm and egg are not.

The sperm does not develop into a zygote any more than an egg does, and if it&#8217;s a zygote how is it a sperm? They both have to mate together to becomes a zygote.

The sperm becomes the zygote when more materials are united with it (e.g. the egg). The egg develops into the zygote when more materials are united with it (e.g. the sperm). They &#8220;develop&#8221; into something more than what they were. The fact that they need to be combined with outside materials in order to do so is irrelevant, as even the zygote requires that to develop into anything more than what it is.

Now, if the mother merely carries on as normal allowing for physical changes the human life will develop from zygote to foetus to born baby, so long as their isn&#8217;t a trauma and miscarriage or some murderer comes along with some tools to smash up the foetus and suck it out so destroying it.

Great, no one has said anything different. I just gave you an example of how a fetus can be left alone without being actively removed from the source it&#8217;s dependent on, since apparently you were too caught up with the question of &#8220;how&#8221; to consider the question of &#8220;if.&#8221; The point stands: if the zygote is left &#8220;alone&#8221; (by the Webster definition of the word), it cannot continue to exist.

Come on stop wasting my time

Says the person who excels in this&#8230;

I have NEVER heard doctors and nurses or any medical staff refer to expectant mothers as prospective mothers, nor do they ever refer to the foetus, they refer to the baby.

It&#8217;s all semantics. Just because you&#8217;ve never heard of something said a certain way doesn&#8217;t mean that way is less accurate than the ways you have heard it (I also question how many doctors and nurses you associate with on a regular basis). Besides, the context of the doctors & nurses isn&#8217;t typically one of debate about the nature of the zygote/fetus; they just use vernacular language.

ok why? If Bob was conceived its Bob and whoever, or it wasn&#8217;t Bob that was concieved[sic] but Bob and someone else.

So which is it? And do you mean to say that a zygote has multiple souls in it? A single body with multiple persons in there? Haha, and you say I&#8217;m in la la land&#8230;

What parts? No parts are coming together, the person is growing and developing. Arms don&#8217;t come from somewhere into the womb to be added so what parts coming together?

I&#8217;m sorry, but you&#8217;re just being fallacious now. Not all parts are there from the moment of conception. No brain, no eyes, no arms, no liver, no immune system, no cardiovascular system, and countless other parts. They aren&#8217;t there. They have yet to be formed. The materials have to be carried from the prospective mother&#8217;s body to the developing zygote; i.e. parts are coming together. Humans don&#8217;t spring into existence fully formed, all at once.

So let me ask you. For me, I am all of me

Well, now you are, but this wasn&#8217;t necessarily true from eternity past.

As you are assuming God might have known only part of me, which part are you assuming God didn&#8217;t know about when He knew me before I was conceived?

First, this isn&#8217;t an &#8220;assumption.&#8221; Considering something an option isn&#8217;t an &#8220;assumption.&#8221; Considering alternatives and possibilities isn&#8217;t an &#8220;assumption.&#8221; Sorry. Secondly, I already explained the two main components to humans: physical and spiritual. It&#8217;s entirely possible that God could form the biological apparatus first and plant the soul at some later point. Why you refuse to consider this possibility only speaks to the limitations you&#8217;ve set on yourself.

The only parts I can think of are the sperm or the egg? I mean come on, you are the one assuming a part rather tha the whole, explain what on earth you mean.

Why not the zygote? It&#8217;s entirely possible that the zygote is nothing more than an organic apparatus taking shape and being prepared for the emplacement of a human spirit.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

You asked what I was referring to and I laid it out for you. That you disagree with what I said does not mean I didn&#8217;t address it.

No you didn&#8217;t because my question was about the sperm as opposed to the zygote when you referred to both. So you didn&#8217;t address my question. But I see what you are saying&#8230;

Lol, really? Well, gosh, what happens to the sperm when it unites with the egg?

It units with the egg. that&#8217;s what happens, it does develop into a zygote, it unites with the egg thus becoming the zygote. The zygote is the life developing, the sperm isnt.

And the sperm is not?

No, of course not, the sperm isn&#8217;t a human developing, the zygote is, the sperm cant become a human without mating with the egg, so one cant treat them the same in reality.

It&#8217;s all semantics.

No it isnt, its reality. The life starts at conception and God knows people before the womb.
Even if one were to argue that God only knows people spiritually before the womb God did create man and woman to be united, so abortion n destroys that life. There is no argument for abortion by choice, it is genocide.

Well, now you are, but this wasn&#8217;t necessarily true from eternity past.

Yes it was that&#8217;s what the Bible says.

First, this isn&#8217;t an &#8220;assumption.&#8221;

Ok then state what part you are suggesting and why.

It&#8217;s entirely possible that God could form the biological apparatus first and plant the soul at some later point.

No its isnt because the scripture says He knows people before the womb, so it would have to be the soul first, but then the scripture would say before you were in the womb I knew your soul.
The scripture says to an adult human, &#8216;I knew you&#8217;. So it&#8217;s the human as he is that was known.

Why not the zygote? It&#8217;s entirely possible that the zygote is nothing more than an organic apparatus taking shape and being prepared for the emplacement of a human spirit.

No don&#8217;t change the subject again, my point was the only parts I can think of before the zygote are the sperm or the egg? You are now saying what about the zygote?

If God knows us before and in the womb as His word says then abortion n terminates all of that life, so what is the use of the point you are trying to make?