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.
How many lives to you claim that it is? If one, then you're admitting that life begins after conception. If two, then you're arguing an impossibility.For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.
So a single cell is not by your definition life?
Do you know what the word "splitting" means? You can, by definition, not end up with only one entity after splitting.There is only one after splitting, eh?
AgreedThe reality is that we live in a world where we have to continuously make choices.
It is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrityyou cannot claim abortion is OK because the pregnant woman didn't give verbal consent to the baby growing in her womb - that would be illogical.
No. No matter how many times you claim it consent is not given simply by actions. Consent is not something YOU can assign for someone else and it is revokable at any time.She gave consent by not using contraception (or consent that her partner didn't use protection) when engaging in an act that has a known consequence of pregnancy.
Ipsie Dixit. Toodle pipsky.Your arguments don't stack up so....NEXT.
"In a singleton (one baby) pregnancy, the zygote splits into two cells — usually around day 3 — but the cells remain connected to each other. But in twinning, rather than staying connected, those two cells fully separate into two distinct entities" SOURCEThere is only one after splitting, eh?
Try quoting the REST of the quote next timeThis contradicts your earlier claim that we're formed in the womb. The sperm-egg fusion described above occurs in the fallopian tube. You can't even seem to make a consistent claim as to where conception occurs.
with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state."
the above quotes illogicalIt is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrity
Trolling much?Grant it to whom? We've already established that the unborn doesn't yet exist. Permission is something you grant to a person who actually exists.
Bodily integrity hey?It is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrity
Did the baby ask the mother to be created when she and her partner consented to unprotected sex? Like I said...illogical arguments not based in reality.Consent is not something YOU can assign for someone else and it is revokable at any time.
Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent.
But it is still "caused". A person may cause something without desiring the outcome. In the case of preganacy, the person is willfully taking a chance, they will "cause" a pregnancy. It is gambling. Who goes to a casino/stocks/investments and gambols away their money, and claims it was an accident. The bible certainly does speak to this very thing. From full on accidents, where a man must flee to a city of refuge for killing someone on accident. And not securing a pit with a fence, or an ox that had shown itself to tend to gore. these things were indeed dealt with. The ones "gambling" with harm of others By not fencing dangers they are aware "could" occur. To full on accidental death, to the city of refuge. The judgement was to determine whether the manslayer had hated the individual in the past or not.Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent.
Well, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.The point is, they are alive. and they don't live "independently" from their mother after they're born either.
I'm sure there would have been some who tried that claimWho goes to a casino and gambling away their money, and claims it was an accident.
Yeah, they just need her for everything else and that is the responsibility people are truly avoiding by getting an abortion.Well, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.
Well now you are talking people of every and any age, or situation. Hospitals do not have oxygen for people to choose that someone not provide it in a time of need. Certainly and especially if doing so will result in the restoration to full health.Yes as a symbiote. They do not live independently of their mother until they breathe.
Since you say you are a Christian. Life for lifeWell, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.
From: How babies breathe in the womb
"Instead, the umbilical cord provides the baby with oxygen until the first breath"
Who said anything about lungs. It is how babies in the womb breathe, like fish breathe through gills. Big deal it changes nothing. Their air supply, so to speak. Big deal.The terms used were "breathe" and "air". Neither of those apply to fetuses.
Air is the gas mixture that makes up our atmosphere. It contains molecular oxygen in gaseous form, but it is not "oxygen".
Breathing is the process of inhaling and exhaling through the lungs. Fetuses do not use their lungs to get oxygen, that's why oxygen bound to hemoglobin flowing through the umbilicus is necessary. (Your brain, heart, muscles, intestines, liver, and other organs *also* get oxygen from hemoglobin in the blood. They do not breath either.)
Breathing of air begins at birth, not before. The lungs aren't exposed to air until then.
Explain to me how it is illogical. Simply claiming it Ipsie Dixit gives me no understanding of your position.Bodily integrity hey?
Did the baby ask the mother to be created when she and her partner consented to unprotected sex? Like I said...illogical arguments not based in reality.
Of course it is a possible consequence. No one with any knowledge of the debate contests that. The single point I am arguing and what everyone keeps trying to move away from is the idea that consequence is not the same as consent. That something is a possible outcome does not mean people are consenting to the outcome and are locked into that consent.But it is still "caused". A person may cause something without desiring the outcome. In the case of preganacy, the person is willfully taking a chance, they will "cause" a pregnancy. It is gambling. Who goes to a casino/stocks/investments and gambols away their money, and claims it was an accident.
I do not care what the bible has to say on the subject. I am not a believer and not bound to follow its precepts.The bible certainly does speak to this very thing. From full on accidents, where a man must flee to a city of refuge for killing someone on accident. And not securing a pit with a fence, or an ox that had shown itself to tend to gore. these things were indeed dealt with. The ones "gambling" with harm of others By not fencing dangers they are aware "could" occur. To full on accidental death, to the city of refuge. The judgement was to determine whether the manslayer had hated the individual in the past or not.
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?