A Thought Experiment

[Jedi]

No you didn’t because my question was about the sperm as opposed to the zygote when you referred to both. So you didn’t address my question.

So wait, because I responded not only to your reference but went beyond that to include something else, I somehow didn’t respond to your reference? Allow me to disagree with that logic.

It units[sic] with the egg. that’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.

How is the sperm not “life developing?” Is it not alive? Is it not a critical organic component in the development of a human being? How do you suppose human life develops if you exclude this from the process? It is human life developing, provided all the right conditions are met – just like the zygote. The zygote, egg, and sperm are the same in the respect that they will not necessarily develop into a full grown, thinking, breathing person. They have only the potential, as their development is contingent on countless conditions being met. The zygote may be further along in its development, but it’s still a far cry from having a certain fate. It may or may not ever be born – just like the sperm & egg.

No, of course not, the sperm isn’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.

An arbitrary distinction. The zygote can’t become a human being without the proper materials being added to it from an outside source – just like the egg and sperm. All three entities need things added to them to develop further.

No it isnt, its reality.

Saying “mother” or “prospective mother” is nothing but semantics and you know it. Both reference the same person, referencing her only by different names that represent different world views. That’s semantics.

The life starts at conception

Source please. You have yet to provide a single scrap of reason to suppose that human personhood begins at conception rather than all the possible points before or after that state of human development.

and God knows people before the womb.

No one has said otherwise. This fact does not, however, mean that God grants the organic apparatus a soul at the moment of conception. That is an assumption of your own creation.

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.

Again, “life” is not the issue. You kill biological life repeatedly without being guilty of murder. Insects, your skin cells, the plants you eat, the animals you consume. If destroying “life” was inherently bad as you suggest here, then you’re among the worst of murderers. No, you mean something else when you type “life.” You mean to refer not only to a biologically living organism, but a person. The problem here, however, is that you have yet to demonstrate that a conceived cluster of cells is a person at the moment of conception.

There is no argument for abortion by choice, it is genocide.

It is a woman’s choice to have an abortion after being raped. It is a woman’s choice to have an abortion after finding out there’s a medical condition that will claim both her life and the life of the fetus if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. The conditions that placed the women in these situations may not have been a choice, but they still have the ability to choose how to respond to those conditions. So tell me: if your wife was raped and got impregnated by the rapist before finding out she has a medical condition that will claim her life if she continues with the pregnancy, is she a murderer upon choosing to respond to those conditions by aborting the zygote?

Yes it was that’s what the Bible says.

Really? The Bible says you were a person from eternity past? You have existed for all eternity? Wow! Good to see you’re posting on the forums, God.

Ok then state what part you are suggesting and why.

I just did following this quotation. Perhaps you’d like to read at least the paragraph in its entirety before you respond?

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, ‘I knew you’. So it’s the human as he is that was known.

Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (NIV). Like I said earlier, God’s knowledge transcends time; His knowledge of someone does NOT start at conception. Therefore, you have no reason to pinpoint conception as the beginning of human personhood by evidence of this verse. It’s not describing at what point God gave a soul to biological matter. If this is so, it in no way supports your assumption that personhood begins at conception. It is referencing God’s knowledge of people apart from their formation in the womb, so it makes no sense for you to try to use this verse as a step-by-step guide to human formation within the womb.

No don’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?

The subject has been the same for a while now. Re-read my previous posts. I’ve pointed out that people are composed of two main parts: physical and spiritual. It is entirely possible that God forms within the womb a biological apparatus to house the soul and implants it at some later time during its development in the womb. There’s no reason to assume this has to be done at conception.

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?

Because the fact that God knows us before our formation in the womb is no indication of when our personhood actually comes into being. If the organic matter is destroyed before our personhood even existed, then it cannot be considered murder; no person was killed. You can’t kill someone who doesn’t exist.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Sorry I cant discuss this with you, the zygote is the result of the amalgamation of the sperm and egg, it is not the sperm. Until you can acknowledge the difference you are outside reality.

An arbitrary distinction.

On the contrary its crucial.

Saying “mother” or “prospective mother” is nothing but semantics and you know it.

The word prospective has a meaning, if you apply it then it applies. Prospective means something expected to happen. At what point therefore in your opinion does the woman change from prospective mother, to actual mother?

Source please.

Observable reality.
Source please to show it doesn’t.

No one has said otherwise.

Ok. So why would you be in favour of destroying who God knows. or even the assumed part of someone you keep alluding to?

Again, “life” is not the issue.

Yes it is.

You kill biological life repeatedly

not human beings whom God knows.

It is a woman’s choice to have an abortion after being raped.

Who said? No mention of that in God’s word. But it certainly isnt a woman’s choice to abort a life just because it doesn’t suit her, and that’s what pro-choice is.

Yes it was that’s what the Bible says.

Really?

er yes I quoted it.

The Bible says you were a person from eternity past?

No the Bible says what it says which I quoted not what you have just written.

Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (NIV).

I know, my question was where did you get the idea that people He knew before and in the womb aren’t fully people?

It’s not describing at what point God gave a soul to biological matter.

I agree, there is no indication in the scripture as to just the soul, so that’s why I keep asking you what prompted you to make the assumption?

Because the fact that God knows us before our formation in the womb is no indication of when our personhood actually comes into being.

That’s exactly what it means, I am who I am, if God knew me before the womb then He knew me. Trying to suggest it was part of me is baseless assumption.

You can’t kill someone who doesn’t exist.

Hence the motive for the baseless assumption, to be able to kid oneself that abortion isn’’t murdering.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Sorry I cant discuss this with you, the zygote is the result of the amalgamation of the sperm and egg, it is not the sperm. Until you can acknowledge the difference you are outside reality.

I’m not saying there’s no difference at all, but that the difference is irrelevant to our discussion. Why is it a person at step (b) instead of step (a)? You can’t just pick willy-nilly at what step of development a bunch of cells obtains personhood, and so far I’ve seen only blind assumption as the reason for picking conception as the beginning of human personhood.

The word prospective has a meaning, if you apply it then it applies. Prospective means something expected to happen.

Of course, but this is precisely what semantics is.

At what point therefore in your opinion does the woman change from prospective mother, to actual mother?

At some point after conception, probably around the time brain activity kicks off or when the cells can no longer divide into two, separate entities.

Observable reality.
Source please to show it doesn’t.

Oh? You can observe when the soul is emplaced into the biological apparatus inside the womb? Wow! You should contact National Geographic.

I’m sorry, but this is just pure nonsense.

Ok. So why would you be in favour of destroying who God knows.

You can’t destroy someone who doesn’t exist. The fact that God knows someone before they were formed in the womb has no indication of when, exactly, their personhood came into being. Messing with the base organic material before it houses a person does not prevent God from creating the soul/spirit/person or from knowing it.

Yes it is… not human beings whom God knows.

I’m sorry to inform you that humans don’t have a monopoly on “life.” Things have “life” outside of the world of humans, so if you’re going to say “life,” but really mean only “human persons,” you need to specify. “Life” is far too broad a term.

Who said? No mention of that in God’s word. But it certainly isnt a woman’s choice to abort a life just because it doesn’t suit her, and that’s what pro-choice is.

So answer the question: if your wife gets raped and impregnated by the rapist shortly before she finds out she has a medical condition that will forfeit her life and the life of the fetus if she chose to carry the pregnancy to term, would she be guilty of murder by choosing to abort the pregnancy? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

No the Bible says what it says which I quoted not what you have just written.

Okay, let’s have a history lesson. In post 58, you wrote “For me, I am all of me” in reference to you being a complete person. In post 59, I responded, “Well, now you are, but this wasn’t necessarily true from eternity past.” You then replied in post 60 with “Yes it was that’s what the Bible says.” You were responding to what I said – you quoted me and responded specifically to that quote. Thus you insisted that the Bible tells you that you were a person form eternity past by disagreeing with what I said.

I know, my question was where did you get the idea that people He knew before and in the womb aren’t fully people?

Because they have yet to come into being. People don’t exist from eternity past, so God knows people who don’t even exist yet. If they don’t exist, they aren’t “fully people,” at least not in reality. It’s hard to be a person if you don’t yet exist.

I agree, there is no indication in the scripture as to just the soul, so that’s why I keep asking you what prompted you to make the assumption?

Again, you’re not understanding the situation here. I’m making a distinction, not an assumption. I’m pointing out there is more than one possibility for the formation of persons. I’m not just assuming it’s one way or the other.

Further still, I never said God knew “just the soul.” I said if you were going to use the passage of God knowing people strictly in a temporal sense, the passage doesn’t indicate in what capacity at what point during the formation process (Physical? Spiritual? Both? And the big question of when for all 3 possibilities). But since we both seem to agree that God’s knowledge of a person extends beyond time, it’s a moot hypothetical situation that only detracts from the discussion.

The key take-away, however, is that Jeremiah 1:5 has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of people inside the womb; only that God knew them before that point. If it gives no indication of the point when God gives a biological entity a soul, then it can’t be used as evidence that God gives out souls at the moment of conception.

That’s exactly what it means

Oh? So the fact that God knew you before you were in the womb tells us when your birthday is, huh? It tells us exactly at what point God created your soul and combined it with the biological apparatus inside the womb? That’s amazing, because man, I’m not finding any such indication in there.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
No I still cant continue the discussion until you make the issue relevant.
The sperm will not keep developing as a human being, it has to mate first with the egg before it becomes a human being. The zygote is however the human being already in development and will develop through to adulthood, in stage terms, through foetus, birth, baby, infant, adolescent and adult. That’s why God’s word refers to knowing people and knitting them together in the womb.
Yes sure God knows people before they are in the womb, but that’s God for you.
Science is tap dancing around selfish political agendas, the genes exist at the zygote stage, they look for a gay gene to try and justify homosexuality, but they try and justify life doesn’t start until after a time has been allowed to abort it if they want to.

Of course, but this is precisely what semantics is.

I know, semantics is the meaning of a word, your use of the ‘prospective’ indicates the mother isnt yet really a mother, yet on the other hand you refer to the zygote and foetus as being unable to survive without the mother. Semantics is useful to people who are trying to twist things to justify their own agenda.

At some point after conception, probably around the time brain activity kicks off or when the cells can no longer divide into two, separate entities.

Of course in reality she is already the mother, she was the mother when she conceived. The reality just doesn’t suit the pro-choice brigades so they all offer their own varying possibilities. Hopeless.

Oh? You can observe when the soul is emplaced into the biological apparatus inside the womb? Wow! You should contact National Geographic.

I made the statement life starts at conception, you asked for proof, the proof is observable, there is no life unless there is conception. We see women conceiving after conception, we don’t see women conceiving without it.
Now your source for the second time please, where is your proof that life doesn’t start at conception? Are babies born without there having been any conception of sperm and egg?

I’m sorry, but this is just pure nonsense.

I know, so why do you keep posting it?

You can’t destroy someone who doesn’t exist.

that’s true, but God does know the person in the womb and before so abortion does destroy someone, which was my question, unless of course you don’t believe God’s word, in which case forgive me for asking.

The fact that God knows someone before they were formed in the womb has no indication of when, exactly, their personhood came into being.

Ah I se you don’t believe the word of God. Jeremiah was a person and God knew him in the womb so what is in the womb is a person. God’s word tells you that. Personhood is your invention.

By the way, if a woman is raped and conceives, it is still terminating a life to abort the resulting baby, one can’t avoid reality, and it is still wrong, it is just that a concession is made in the face of the crime that has caused it.
But in fact murder carries a greater secular penalty than rape, until of course its abortion.

Because they have yet to come into being.

Well that may be your idea but as shown its not God’s, God said He knew Jeremiah who was a person whilst he was I in the womb. So you are making up your own beliefs.

Again, you’re not understanding the situation here. I’m making a distinction, not an assumption. I’m pointing out there is more than one possibility for the formation of persons. I’m not just assuming it’s one way or the other.

The scripture says knows you, addressing a person, you are adding a distinction that isnt mentioned or implied, that’s an assumption.

Oh? So the fact that God knew you before you were in the womb tells us when your birthday is, huh?

The scripture says nothing about us knowing anything, it says God knows us in the womb, your point is again assumption and irrelevant. For the record I think God knows when we our birthday is, if He can know us before before we are in the womb I think we can safely assume He can know when our birthday is ‘with His eyes shut’

 

[Jedi]

Okay, instead of going in circles with you quote by quote, let’s break things down here:

You insist that a zygote is a person. Convince me. What makes a zygote any different from any other cluster of cells involved in the process of human development? It has human DNA, sure, but so does the sperm, egg, and every cell in your body. So unless you’re willing to say that killing any of these cells is “murder” because they are “cells that have human DNA” in them, that’s not an adequate criteria. Perhaps it’s because the zygote is a “human in development,” but let’s back up a bit. What does that mean? “Human in development.” A zygote will not necessarily become a thinking, breathing human. Its development into one is contingent on a number of conditions leading in that direction. If these conditions aren’t met (i.e. all the materials and formation processes required in the womb), it will develop into nothing more than what it is. If this is true, it is the same in nature as the sperm or egg: it has the potential to be a person; it “may” result in a thinking, breathing human being. If the zygote is the same as the sperm or egg in this respect, there’s no reason for us to deem it “human” and the others not. You don’t know if any of those things will become a thinking, breathing human being, since their development toward that end is conditional; not certain. It only “may” (not “will&#8221 become an entity with a mind or personality or be born. Perhaps it’s because God “knows” people before they’re even in the womb. But how does this knowledge specify when God gives a “developing human” a soul? It doesn’t. Scripture doesn’t tell us at what point a cluster of cells receives a soul and obtains personhood. If this is so, any passage concerning God’s foreknowledge cannot be used as evidence that a zygote is a person.

So if the reasons are not “it has human DNA” and not “it’s a human in development,” and not “God knows people before they’re in the womb,” then what reason is there?

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Its very simple, I think your argument is lacking a perception of reality. Convince me otherwise.

In observable terms, a person is created at conception and gestation. There is no person developing before conception. What is created at conception naturally develops as a person, not into a person but as a person. What I am offering is reality. Convince me otherwise.

Furthermore all the DNA a person has is there when the person is a zygote.

Sure the zygote isn’t a fully developed person, but I like everyone does, went through the zygote stage, if it wasn’t me who was it? This question you have not answered, all you have done about when a personhood might begin, the question remains, if you think personhood begins later, then the person who develops must be variable. Of course it isnt variable, the person you say the develops is already developing in zygote stage, with all the DNA that is always has. Your argument doesnt make the zygote cannot be any other 'thing' than the person who is developing.
So the question to you is, what else, with its DNA, apart from the person it develops into, is the zygote.

You insist that a zygote is a person.

So yes of course a person starts by going through the stage one calls zygote.

What makes a zygote any different from any other cluster of cells involved in the process of human development?

Well firstly it sits in the womb developing, (well moving down the fallopian tube first). No other cluster of cells does this. The zygote contains 46 chromosomes, your sperm only 23, so your sperm is a very different cluster of cells to the zygote. So in that respect the sperm, although living organism, isnt a human in deveolpment, the zygote is however.
The sperm does do that so I cant see why you think it is the same sort of cluster of cells.

So unless you’re willing to say that killing any of these cells is “murder”

So unless you can demonstrate to me what other cluster of cells growing in the mothers womb is a human life developing, I am not willing to imagine the unreality you are.

What does that mean?

until you can grasp reality you won’t be able to know what it means.

what “Human in development.” A zygote will not necessarily become a thinking, breathing human.

Yes it will, by default it will, certainly as long as some pro-choice abortionist doesn’t come and smash it up.

Its development into one is contingent on a number of conditions leading in that direction.

So is everything else so I dont see what possible argument that makes. If the natural conditions are met, then it will. So we don’t want some murdering abortionist coming along and playing Satan, who is the destroyer of God’s purposes.

If this is true, it is the same in nature as the sperm or egg:

or the cluster of cells we call someone who is pro-choice? As you see above, it is not the same as the sperm or the egg at all, the zygote is a person naturally growing in the mothers womb, the sperm isnt.


Now God knows people before they are even in the womb, so what you call the zygote, God’s word says He knows as a person. Now you may not think so, but then you aren’t God.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it is a good assessment that pro-choice people as clusters of cells, are not yet fully viable human beings as they haven’t yet grasped reality?

As Mother Theresa said,
Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

 

[Jedi]

Here we go again, an endless merry-go-round of assumptions courtesy of a self-proclaimed pro-lifer…

Jedi,
Its very simple, I think your argument is lacking a perception of reality. Convince me otherwise.

Phinehas, it’s very simple. I think your argument is lacking a perception of reality. Convince me otherwise.
I love how comments like this just add to the discussion…

In observable terms, a person is created at conception and gestation. There is no person developing before conception.

Observable terms? What, exactly, are you observing? The implantation of soul into organic matter? That’s the only thing that you could claim to observe that would define the subject as a person, but the funny thing is, I have yet to see any reason that such a thing can be observed. Never have I heard of any method or tool capable of observing the implantation of a soul into a body, so your claim to “observe” this smacks of lunacy.

What is created at conception naturally develops as a person, not into a person but as a person. What I am offering is reality. Convince me otherwise.

At this point, I deem that impossible. Your pro-life blinders prevent you from seeing anything than your own assumptions. You only continue to beg the question that personhood begins at conception with no reason to back up said assumption.

Furthermore all the DNA a person has is there when the person is a zygote.

So human DNA = person, yes? The blueprints of a house = a house? DNA is nothing more than plans for the biological organism. It has NOTHING to do with the soul, spirit, or personality of the entity.

Sure the zygote isn’t a fully developed person, but I like everyone does, went through the zygote stage, if it wasn’t me who was it.

It very well could have been no one. Think of the sperm. “If it wasn’t me, then who was it?” That’s all you’re saying. You’re referring to some organic matter at some arbitrary point and saying it was you, omitting the fact that it doesn’t need to be anyone at that point; it could have been a mere biological apparatus awaiting a person to be implanted in it. You have yet to give any kind of reason to deny this possibility.

Well firstly it sits in the womb developing, no other cluster of cells does this.

So location determines personhood, then? Why? How does location have any bearing on the nature of the entity?

If there is any credibility to your question the tell wm what other cluster of cells is the result of the amalgamation of sperm and egg and therefore a human life developing into foetal and baby stages?

I’m afraid you’re going to have to re-write this sentence. The grammar is so broken I can’t tell what you’re trying to ask.

The sperm does do that so I cant see why you think it is the same sort of cluster of cells.

I really don’t know how to be any more clear than how crystal clear I’m being now. Sperm: will develop into a thinking, breathing person if the right conditions are met. Egg: will develop into a thinking, breathing person if the right conditions are met. Zygote: will develop into a thinking, breathing person if the right conditions are met. So the difference lies… where?

So unless you can demonstrate to me what other cluster of cells growing in the mothers womb is a human life developing, I am not willing to imagine the unreality you are.

Again, the zygote, egg, and sperm are all cells that will only develop into a human if certain conditions are met. You keep talking about the zygote as if its fate is set; that it “will” become a person when that’s not necessarily the case. You’re assuming all conditions will necessarily be met in favor of the zygote’s development in that direction. Why can’t the same be assumed for the egg or sperm?

until you can grasp reality you won’t be able to know what it means.

Until you can grasp reality you won’t be able to know what it means. Look! I can say things like that too. So glad it helps the discussion progress.

Yes it will, by default it will, certainly as long as some pro-choice abortionist doesn’t come and smash it up.

So miscarriages never happen, huh? Pregnant mothers never die, huh? No, you’re blatantly ignoring the fact that a zygote’s fate is not set any more than a sperm or egg’s. Conditions have to be met in order for it to develop in a certain fashion.

So? If the natural conditions are met, then it will.

Then it’s conditional. Not certain. The zygote’s fate is not set, just like the sperm or egg.

or anything else that could die. Sorry no as you see above it is not the same as the sperm or the egg, the zygote is a person naturally growing in the mothers womb, the sperm isnt.

And as you see above, location has no bearing on the nature of the entity. It is an irrelevant distinction that tells us nothing about whether or not a soul has been implanted into a biological apparatus.

Now God knows people before they are even in the womb, so what you call the zygote, God’s word says He knows as a person.

Really? God’s word says zygote = person? Boy, you should reference that verse now and this part of the discussion will be over. Funny how you haven’t done that. You can’t. It’s not there. Stop taking your own assumptions to be holy writ. Again, God saying “I know people before they exist” does not somehow mean that God implants souls at the moment of conception. The connection just isn’t there.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it is a good assessment that pro-choice people as clusters of cells, are not yet fully viable human beings as they haven’t yet grasped reality?

Before you start asking questions that clearly demonstrate how out of touch of reality you are, how about you first answer the question about your wife in the case she gets raped or finds herself in medical peril due to a pregnancy? Hmmm? Here, let me post it for you again, since you apparently missed the entire paragraph in the previous post:

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Observable terms?

let me stop you there. If we are going to debate without going round in circles then we have to establish things. Is there a person developing before conception, yes or no? If no we can move on, if yes, how?

At this point, I deem that impossible. Your pro-life blinders prevent you from seeing anything than your own assumptions. You only continue to beg the question that personhood begins at conception with no reason to back up said assumption.

So human DNA = person, yes?

Essentially yes. Furthermore all the DNA a person has is there when the person is a zygote. It is the same entity that burrows itself into the wall of the uteris for nourishment and how after about 5 weeks, as an embryo has a spinal chord. Of course the zygote is the person/baby is it!
All the medial descriptions refer to the baby
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
So don’t bother trying to make out my argument is lunacy.

The blueprints of a house = a house?

Let me stop you there. When is the house a house. Naturally the house is started by laying foundations according to the blueprint and continues its development until the house is finished. If you ask the builder what he is building he wont say ‘oh it could be nothing’ or even it should be a house but who knows what it will turn out as.

It very well could have been no one.

But as it is what we all go through it is obviously someone.

Think of the sperm. “If it wasn’t me, then who was it?”

well the sperm wasn’t you. The sperm that mated with the egg that became the person you are at the point it mated, only had 23 chromosomes. You and the zygote you were, have 46. Yet you keep treating the sperm as the same sort of cluster of cells as the zygote, until you can grasp that obvious reality of the compete difference I doubt that you will come to the reality that abortion is terminating the life of a human being.
Besides, If you think the zygote could be no one, then don’t bother asking hypothetical questions.

So location determines personhood, then?

I said no other cluster of cells is developing in the womb like the zygote is. true or false? If false says what other cluster of cells.

Sperm: will develop into a thinking, breathing person if the right conditions are met.

No a sperm will not A sperm has 23 chromosomes, if it could develop as a human it would need 46, and would no longer be a sperm but a zygote, the start of life of a human being.

Remember, God’s word says He knows us in the womb. Us being people. IT is your pro-choice argument that wishes first to split life into viable stages and is then unable to recognise basic differences in the constituent parts.

 

[Jedi]

All the medial descriptions refer to the baby
Fetal development: The first trimester - MayoClinic.com
So don’t bother trying to make out my argument is lunacy.

We’ve already been over this. Saying “But they call it this!” doesn’t help your case. There is only false security in consensus and you’re talking about people outside of the context of an intellectual discussion concerning the nature of the zygote/fetus.

When is the house a house. Naturally the house is started by laying foundations according to the blueprint and continues its development until the house is finished. If you ask the builder what he is building he wont say ‘oh it could be nothing’ or even it should be a house but who knows what it will turn out as.

That’s really a straw man. If I asked the builder “what is this right now” when there was only a slab of concrete for foundation, he won’t say “It’s a house already!” It’s not. He could say “I’m building a house,” much like the prospective mother could say “a person is being formed inside me,” but a work in progress does not necessitate the work is the same in nature as it is upon completion.

But as it is what we all go through it is obviously someone.

I would not be here today without going through the stage of a sperm & egg. Are they persons as well?

well the sperm wasn’t you.

Based on what? I’m pretty sure I would physically not be here without the sperm and that my physical beginnings could be traced to the existence of the sperm and egg that later developed into what I am today. But it wasn’t me? Interesting.

The sperm that mated with the egg that became the person you are at the point it mated, only had 23 chromosomes. You and the zygote you were, have 46. Yet you keep treating the sperm as the same sort of cluster of cells as the zygote, until you can grasp that obvious reality of the compete difference I doubt that you will come to the reality that abortion is terminating the life of a human being.

Even here you only reference a particular point of physical development to suppose that’s when a soul/spirit is emplaced into the biological apparatus. Why there? Why not when the brain develops? Or when the cells can no longer divide into different entities? Your picking of the combining of Chromosomes is completely random. You might as well say, “Let’s see… I think this step is important in the development of humans, so I’m going to say it receives its soul at this point.” It’s just plain arbitrary.

Besides, If you think the zygote could be no one, then don’t bother asking hypothetical questions.

And if you can’t even consider that possibility, you have no place in this discussion. Your mind is closed to any possibility of the implantation of a soul other than the one you’ve blindly assumed.

I said no other cluster of cells is developing in the womb like the zygote is. true or false? If false says what other cluster of cells.

And still you have yet to demonstrate how something developing in the womb makes it a person. How does its location have any bearing on its nature? It doesn’t. That is an imaginary connection of your own creation.

No a sperm will not A sperm has 23 chromosomes, if it could develop as a human it would need 46, and would no longer be a sperm but a zygote, the start of life of a human being.

A sperm will never develop into a human? Well then, we can do away with that part altogether then, yeah? Let’s just wipe that part out completely. Wait… it’s kind of an important part of human development. And if it’s a critical component of human development, then it is a “human in development.” No different from the zygote.

Remember, God’s word says He knows us in the womb. Us being people.

Actually, Jeremiah 1:5 states that God knew us before being formed in the womb. Regardless, God’s knowledge does not begin at conception. It clearly extends before that. If so, this passage cannot be used as some kind of proof text that God bestows a soul to a biological apparatus at the moment of conception.

IT is your pro-choice argument that wishes first to split life into viable stages and is then unable to recognise basic differences in the constituent parts.

I’m sorry to break it to you, but human development DOES have stages. We don’t burst into existence fully formed, all at once, from nothing. I’m not denying there are differences between the parts – what I’m denying is your bogus claim that there’s some difference between the parts and stages immediately before and after conception that dictates a soul must be present at the moment of conception. There’s just no evidence from scripture or in the biological steps of physical formation to suggest that. It is an assumption of your own creation.

This will also be my last response to you until you answer my question about your wife. If you respond without addressing the question, I’ll simply copy & paste it until you finally read it and care to address a question that has been asked of you for pages upon pages. Let me copy & paste it for you again:

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
I think saying the doctors and nurses call it a baby does help my case. You may not but I do.

If I asked the builder “what is this right now” when there was only a slab of concrete for foundation, he won’t say “It’s a house already!” It’s not. He could say “I’m building a house,” much like the prospective mother could say “a person is being formed inside me,” but a work in progress does not necessitate the work is the same in nature as it is upon completion.

I suspect if most people were to ask most builders who had just laid a foundation stone what it is, they would say a house. They may say they are building a house. If you ask God or the doctors and nurses they will say it’s a baby, or a baby developing.

I would not be here today without going through the stage of a sperm & egg. Are they persons as well?

People have 46 chromosomes, the egg has 23 and the sperm 23, people don’t exist until they have 46 chromosomes.

Even here you only reference a particular point of physical development to suppose that’s when a soul/spirit is emplaced into the biological apparatus.

Makes no difference, the particular point of physical development I am referring to is the zygote which like the human being at any stage has 46 chromosomes, unlike the sperm which you considered as equal, which only has 23. So the zygote is the person and yes of course according to God’s word it has a soul. I have a soul and a body, if God knew me before the womb, then I must at least have had a soul before I had a body. But to try and jsutify a selfish desire to abort the soul and body of a baby in the womb, the pro-choice brigade tray and make out the baby isn't viable because it does have a soul. So they all preneted how many weeks that point might be.
Sadly, if a baby is vaible after 12 weeks then the UK is committing premeditated murder on a massive scale. Forget Iraq, its peanuts.

If you really want to consider the sperm with 23 chromosomes the same sort of cluster of cells as a zygote or adolescent with 46 then I would like to have a small fury mouse considered as much a human being as we are based on the fact that it is merely a cluster of cells as well, possibly with a soul.
But I am sure the prochoice doesn’t realise the pro-life thinks the pro-choice argument is as mad as that.

And if you can’t even consider that possibility, you have no place in this discussion.

A typical secular liberal response. Discussion doesn’t depend on accepting the possibility of a counter argument, it can be examining and rejecting it. But let me ask you, have you considered the possibility that a foetus at any stage is a God created human being with a soul? If so are you comfortable with defending its abortion? I mean with my argument I have nothing to lose, but yours, well if it is murder.... best of luck. ;-)

And still you have yet to demonstrate how something developing in the womb makes it a person.

Sorry didn’t catch your answer, yes or no? I stated no other cluster of cells is developing in the womb like the zygote is. true or false?
I did not say person by the way, please re-read.

Remember, God’s word says He knows us in the womb. Us being people.

Actually, Jeremiah 1:5 states that God knew us before being formed in the womb.

Ok who do you mean by us? I am body and soul so are you saying He didn’t know me as body and soul. If so on what grounds?

I’m sorry to break it to you, but human development DOES have stages.

Glad to hear it, so why defend the abortion of a human in development?

 

[Jedi]

Blah blah blah

As I said at the end of my previous post...

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Sadly you have declined to directly affirm or deny whether my specific points are correct.
As I said, God knows people before they are in the womb, so He must know their soul and body even though you have doubts you have not substantiated.
The zygote has the same 46 chromosomes as the foetus, the baby and the fully grown adult, yet you seem to argue the sperm with only 23 is the same.

So

Finally, even if it IS a person,

As you can see, it is.

 

[Jedi]

Somehow still responding without responding to any question in the post...

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi

I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

I dont think its worth it, our worldviews dont even start at the same place
Best wishes

 

[Jedi]

Jedi

I dont think its worth it, our worldviews dont even start at the same place
Best wishes

It's no surprise you don't care to answer those questions. Doing so would either (a) show how out of touch from reality you are by condemning all those people or (b) show how you're really not as pro-life as you say you are.

It also has nothing to do with our differing worldviews, as now it's not a matter of fact but value; it's not a matter of whether or not it's a person, which was the focus of the discussion up to this point and became a virtual impasse. It's a matter of getting you to stand next to your claimed position of pro-life. Judging by how difficult it has been to get you to answer these basic questions, it seems you're just a fair weather pro-lifer acting like a hardcore one. You strut about self-righteously about being 100% pro-life and how abortion is "murder" with "no argument" to justify it, but you don't have the stomach to really support that position, as even you know in the back of your mind how rediculous and unjust it is.

So I ask again: "Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions."

 

[Phinehas2]

JEDI,

So I ask again: "Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament.

Ah, but that’s God, not people. God’s word is that He knows people before they are in the womb and knits them together, so whether the pro-choice group thinks it may or not be a person is merely what the pro-choice group thinks and rejects God’s word. I mean it is not as though there is any scripture in any context to support abortion apart from that one in the case of rape.

Now of course through Christ God did not condemn us but saved us. What I see in liberalism is that anyone who speaks God’s word about a sin is seen by liberalism as condemning people, rather the opposite of God’s purposes.

 

[Jedi]

More blind dribble mistaking your thoughts for God's word...

Still just begging the question, repeating yourself like a broken record even though it's already been demonstrated that your logic is pure fail without any biblical support whatsoever.

I mean it is not as though there is any scripture in any context to support abortion apart from that one in the case of rape.

So answer the bloody questions. For someone so confident in your position, I find your refusal to answer basic questions amusing.

Some more self-righteous diarrhea of the mouth about how evil "liberals" are and how your thoughts are as good as holy writ without any need for intellectual or scriptural evidence

So I ask again:

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed. Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament. What about soldiers who kill in war? Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?” Or, in the case of a woman who was raped or was informed of a medical condition that will jeopardize her life if the pregnancy is allowed to continue? If your wife one day falls under these conditions, will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion? I greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

Answer.

The.

Questions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
You don’t seem to have realised I have answered your question. Here again. ..

Finally, even if it IS a person, there are still conditions under which human persons may be killed.

Yes there are, miscarriage results in the death of the life, but that’s not premeditated like abortion. If you mean the killing of persons in a wider sense, no, I don’t accept that, the foetus is unable to commit a crime and cannot defend itself.

Heck, God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament.

As I said that’s God who did that, if you wish to use that argument show where God instructs people to abort, except where there was rape, and what do you think Jesus taught about it?

What about soldiers who kill in war?

What about them? As I said the foetus is not capable of crime or fighting, and who is to say which soldiers of which side is entitled to kill in war? I see NO relevance to the argument about abortion. BUT I will say, Jesus taught not to kill.

Are those who defend your freedom “murderers” because they take “human life?”

Those who abort the baby are murderers because they take an innocent life.

will you shake your finger at her and accuse her of murder if she decides to have an abortion?

No that’s your misrepresentation, I have already explained that I don’t accuse anyone, through Christ all can be forgiven.

So don’t greatly anticipate your response to these questions.

Pleasure . Look forward to your response and the answer to my questions.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
You don’t seem to have realised I have answered your question. Here again. ..

Haha, really? Point it out. Where, previous to this post, have you EVER responded to any of those sentences ending in a question mark?

Yes there are, miscarriage results in the death of the life, but that’s not premeditated like abortion.

Perhaps I should have specified: "Killed by a person." Miscarriages aren't a moral issue - no one has ever debated over whether or not someone is morally depraved for having a miscarriage.

If you mean the killing of persons in a wider sense, no, I don’t accept that, the foetus is unable to commit a crime and cannot defend itself.

Unlike, say, the children God had wiped out in the Old Testament? Like, say, killing the first born regardless of age or wiping out entire civilizations (which would, of course, include their infants)? If you don't accept the killing of defenseless humans that haven't had a chance to do any wrong, you're going to have a problem with God.

As I said that’s God who did that, if you wish to use that argument show where God instructs people to abort, except where there was rape, and what do you think Jesus taught about it?

Okay, so you're making an exception for rape? Where is THAT in the Bible? To my knowledge, Jesus never touched on the subject of abortion.

What about them? As I said the foetus is not capable of crime or fighting, and who is to say which soldiers of which side is entitled to kill in war? I see NO relevance to the argument about abortion. BUT I will say, Jesus taught not to kill.

Oh, it's very relevant, because you insist that people should not kill other people. I'm merely pointing out there are circumstances in which it's permissable for people to kill other people. If this is so, your argument of "Well, abortion is wrong because it's killing a person!" doesn't work, because it's clear that killing a person is not always wrong.

So I ask again: are soldiers fighting for your freedom murderers because they take "human life?" A simple yes or no will do, or if there's some answer in-between, please provide an explanation of circumstances under which soldiers qualify as murderers when taking human life.

Those who abort the baby are murderers because they take an innocent life.

So God is a "murderer" by your definition. He took innocent life and taking innocent life = murder, right? My goodness, do you even read what you type? Innocence has nothing to do with the intention of the killer, which dictates whether or not the killing is in cold blood, for the greater good, a crime of passion, manslaughter, or otherwise. Murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Your failure to see the difference is astonishing.

No that’s your misrepresentation, I have already explained that I don’t accuse anyone, through Christ all can be forgiven. Pleasure . Look forward to your response and the answer to my questions.

What a load of crock; you're among the chief accusers. You said that there is "no argument" for abortion; that "those who abort the baby are muderers." So answer the freaking question and stand by your claim: If your wife gets raped some day before she finds out she has a medical condition that will place her life in peril should she carry the pregnancy to term and decides to get an abortoin, is she a murderer? Yes or no?

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Perhaps I should have specified: "Killed by a person." Miscarriages aren't a moral issue - no one has ever debated over whether or not someone is morally depraved for having a miscarriage.

If you were specifying ‘killed by a person’ why did you then refer to who God had wiped out? We are not God.

Unlike, say, the children God had wiped out in the Old Testament?

Correct, unlike them, for they were already part of Adam and the disobedience and had already gone against God and His people.

If you don't accept the killing of defenseless humans that haven't had a chance to do any wrong, you're going to have a problem with God.

So where do you stand, if you are defending pro-choice abortion then you must have thought it ok for God to have wiped out people. You seem unhappy that God wiped out people because you personally don’t think they deserved it, but you don’t mind defending abortion because you don’t consider it viable life.

Okay, so you're making an exception for rape? Where is THAT in the Bible? To my knowledge, Jesus never touched on the subject of abortion.

The question was whether you wished to use the argument

God ordered people to kill other people all the time in the Old Testament

And? Does that give people the right to kill? Not sure what your point is.

Oh, it's very relevant, because you insist that people should not kill other people.

That’s what Jesus said, I merely repeated the truth.

I'm merely pointing out there are circumstances in which it's permissable for people to kill other people.

Really. I thought Jesus taught not to kill. Are you describing wars humans do, where people are attacked and defend themselves? That’s the result of worldly sinful nature.

So I ask again: are soldiers fighting for your freedom murderers because they take "human life?"

No. They are fighting for my worldly freedom otherwise I might get killed, Christ sets me free to eternal life.

So God is a "murderer" by your definition.

No, by my definition God is God, it is people who should not murder as none are without sin enough to carry out punishment themselves.

What a load of crock; you're among the chief accusers.

crap, abortion is murder, anyone who has an abortion or performs it can repent and be forgiven in Christ, no different for anyone and any sin.

If your wife gets raped some day before she finds out she has a medical condition that will place her life in peril should she carry the pregnancy to term and decides to get an abortoin, is she a murderer? Yes or no?

Yes of course, abortion is still killing the child, in what ever circumstances, but she isnt the one who caused the problem, that would be the criminal who raped her.