YahuahSaves
Well-Known Member
- Nov 19, 2022
- 1,759
- 714
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We linked the biological facts of embryology. Did you? No.I am stil waiting for people to prove biology and mathematics are wrong.
Begins, is not completed. When I plant a tomato seed, the life of a new tomato begins but the life is not completely formed until I am eating a BLT
We linked the biological facts of embryology. Did you? No.
An individual human being begins at conception. How a single zygote that gives rise to twins can be found in the links below. Interesting read, (if you're not close-minded). This will be my last response to you, because this circular conversation is getting old....There is no proof that 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 2 zygotes. If this miracle does not happe, life cannot begin at conception for monozygotic twins.
An individual human being begins at conception. How a single zygote that gives rise to twins can be found in the links below.
When a zygote splits into 2, is the "original zygote" gone? Obviously not. We can discuss whether it isUntil the single zygote becomes two zygotes, there cannot be twins, so life for monozygotic twins cannot happen at the moment of conception. This is all middle school level stuff, so I am sure you know it. I am open-minded to all biological facts. The biological fact about when life starts in monozygotic twins is that always happens after conception because 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 offspring. You obviously are not open-minded because you refuse to accept that extremely obvious, repeatedly proven, totally unbiased fact.
Yes, I do know it, and is why I linked evidence.This is all middle school level stuff, so I am sure you know it
If that were so, and you'd read all the evidence I linked, you would have admitted your error and changed your mind by now.I am open-minded to all biological facts.
Link your scientific evidence of "biological fact" and we can settle it once and for all.The biological fact about when life starts in monozygotic twins is that always happens after conception because 1 ovum + 1 sperm = 1 offspring. You obviously are not open-minded because you refuse to accept that extremely obvious, repeatedly proven, totally unbiased fact.
"This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived."This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived.
Cause and effect are not the issue. Permission is the issue, which can't be granted to "someone" who does not exist.
I'm not dodging the question: forum rules prohibit my answering it.
Identical twins. At conception, you have one single cell.
"This does not address your claim that permission was granted to the unborn before the unborn was conceived."
Cause and effect deals exactly with the issue at hand. If you know what causes something and do it anyway you are either:
1. A fool 2. Insane 3. An addict or 4. And most commonly, completely selfish.
People of childbearing age grant permission to conceive every time they have sex. The same way a speeder running red lights is playing Russian Roulette with other cars and people lives.
What you want is fun without responsibility. To satisfy self and deal with the consequences later. Unwanted baby? Just kill it. Cause a crash? Nah I can run red lights and miss everyone. Pure selfishness.
"I'm not dodging the question: forum rules prohibit my answering it."
Then I can only assume.
Because you get into a car and drive on the road, knowing full-well that car crashes happen, you are then making a choice based on risk-assessment. Unfortunately, many people don't think a bad car accident will happen to them (or many don't think about it atleast in the day-to-day), they get in the car expecting to get from A to B, but the act of driving is where our ability to judge the risks really counts. Being aware of and following the guidelines for road safety is paramount, we cannot always determine what other road users will do - but we can take precautions to make sure we are protecting ourselves as best we can (safe driving/seatbelts etc). That's called personal accountability. in the event that we have a crash that is someone else's fault, then that is something outside of our control, but the analogy can hardly be used in parallel to abortion, because the innocent party had no say in whether it lives or dies.Because people drive there are car crashes. If you are driving a car you are giving permission to be maimed in a wreck. Hmmm... No, that does not work.
The Christians (and the lions) are still the innocent party in that scenario^ but the choice to believe in something and the choice to act on those beliefs (especially if it's violent) are 2 completely separate things. So again, not in any way parallel to abortion.If you were a Christian you knew the Romans would feed you to the lions. Therefore if you worshiped Christ you gave the lions permission to eat you.
We "consent" in many ways all the time (consciously or subconsciously). Take the driving a car analogy at the beginning as an example. By getting in the car, you've subconsciously consented to getting in a (potential) car-crash.Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.
Please read again what I wrote. I said "what makes you alive". You are not a cell. You are an organism, a life. You once were a zygote yourself. You have never been a sperm or an ovum.They are indeed living cells.
Let's try that logic in other scenarios
Because people drive there are car crashes. If you are driving a car you are giving permission to be maimed in a wreck. Hmmm... No, that does not work.
How about;
If you were a Christian you knew the Romans would feed you to the lions. Therefore if you worshiped Christ you gave the lions permission to eat you.
Does not really work either.
Consequence and consent are two completely separate things. For one consent can be revoked at any time.
The analogy is not to abortion but to consent and it demonstrates that it is not given simply by acknowledging possible consequences. Consent and knowing something is possible are two distinct concepts.Because you get into a car and drive on the road, knowing full-well that car crashes happen, you are then making a choice based on risk-assessment. Unfortunately, many people don't think a bad car accident will happen to them (or many don't think about it atleast in the day-to-day), they get in the car expecting to get from A to B, but the act of driving is where our ability to judge the risks really counts. Being aware of and following the guidelines for road safety is paramount, we cannot always determine what other road users will do - but we can take precautions to make sure we are protecting ourselves as best we can (safe driving/seatbelts etc). That's called personal accountability. in the event that we have a crash that is someone else's fault, then that is something outside of our control, but the analogy can hardly be used in parallel to abortion, because the innocent party had no say in whether it lives or dies.
The Christians (and the lions) are still the innocent party in that scenario^ but the choice to believe in something and the choice to act on those beliefs (especially if it's violent) are 2 completely separate things. So again, not in any way parallel to abortion.
If this were the case insurance claims would be easy to dispute since the other party consented to be in an accident. The idea that every time I drive I am giving people permission to crash into me is not correct.We "consent" in many ways all the time (consciously or subconsciously). Take the driving a car analogy at the beginning as an example. By getting in the car, you've subconsciously consented to getting in a (potential) car-crash.
Acknowledging risk is not the same as granting permission. Your claim was that every time someone has sex they "grant permission" to possibly conceive. As pointed out, knowing possible consequences and granting permission are not synonymous and you can't make claims of consent simply based on behavior.Not the same. I was showing risky behavior.
Casual sex = risky behavior = consequence pregnancy.
Speeding and running red lights = risky behavior =consequence a car crash.
If you are driving your car responsibly you are at much lower risk but still at risk, this is why seat belts and air bags were invented. You are acknowledging that risk every time clip your seat belt.
This could be likened to birth control. The risk of pregnancy is much lower, but risk is still there.
Being thrown to the lions was an act carried out by another person towards you, doing so against your will. People engaging in causal sex are doing so voluntarily.
If you are celibate what is the risk of pregnancy? Extraordinarily low. If you don't 'consent' to becoming pregnant then don't engaged in behavior that will get you pregnant, it is that simple.
Morality is internal, not something you enforce on others. That is the function of the law.Also you don't fix one sin by adding another sin on top of it. Immorality is bad enough but adding murder to it is much worse.
What was I before I was a zygote?Please read again what I wrote. I said "what makes you alive". You are not a cell. You are an organism, a life. You once were a zygote yourself. You have never been a sperm or an ovum.
Human life begins at conception. You didn't exist prior to being a zygote.What was I before I was a zygote?
You consent to taking a risk when driving, understanding there's a chance you can have an accident. You consent when you have unprotected sex, knowing there's a chance you (/the woman) can get pregnant. This is basic stuff.The analogy is not to abortion but to consent and it demonstrates that it is not given simply by acknowledging possible consequences. Consent and knowing something is possible are two distinct concepts.
This is where the analogy cannot be compared. If a drunk driver runs a red light and hits your car, injuring you - then you have every right to claim insurance and (in some cases) even sue. A person who chooses to have unprotected sex is aware of the risks and the innocent party is the one being aborted. Actions have consequences, whether good or bad. As consenting adults we're to use our reasoning skills to determine the risks and possible outcome/s before making a choice. In the scenario we are using, to not do so is just plain carelessness and a denial of personal accountability.If this were the case insurance claims would be easy to dispute since the other party consented to be in an accident. The idea that every time I drive I am giving people permission to crash into me is not correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?