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.
Yep - in this sense. BOTH are "life" and both are "human." (So noticing something has "human life" proves nothing in this discussion.) That is science - if you wanted to investigate it scientifically you could prove it scientifically.
GOD KNOWETH ALL
Oh there is no such real thing that is precisely "the breath of life."? And without which we would be (and will be) dead?
[I say this to "St.Worm" too, David having been rather dismissive of the idea, as though it was a spurious nothing concept.]
GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS
PERSONHOOD is being a person. "A person" and "a human being" are the same thing, they have the same meaning.
So like I already said:
The person who is a human being is necessarily an animal being, an actual animal. That can be counted, of course, just like the biologist would count it as a member of the species homo sapiens.
GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS
Just off the top, please note the blatant contradiction you and I here are obviously talking about is "unborn baby." NOWHERE in the Bible does that form of words appear - a definite indication God "has trouble with it," at least to the point of never using it.To some it may "seem" that God does not have trouble with it, although would never actually say it. If it is an idea so welcome to God, why does it never appear directly in Scripture?
To my mind "unborn child" is about the most blatant contradiction there could be...
So now we are not animal, we are vegetation?I did NOT "just call us animals" or say we are only animals. But we are animals, members of a certain animal species. Certainly not plants! (The fetus is rather like a plant of course, implanted in the womb.)
Please refrain from bearing false witness.
GOD KNOWETH ALL THINGS
It was claimed the fetus has a beating heart and can "learn." So it is very much to the point to say that rats can learn, for they like the fetus have a beating heart.So what? We're not talking about rats. You've said nothing here.
Hi David, you start out by making a big fuss that I was talking about "unborn child" and not "unborn baby," and then later claim "to everyone else in the world (except for you apparentlyHi Douglas, but your response and disdain was directed specifically at the phrase, "unborn child" (NOT, "unborn baby"). You said:
Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
To my mind "unborn child" is about the most blatant contradiction there could be...
Of course, once you realized that it is commonplace in the Bible to refer to the being living in a pregnant mother's womb as a "child", you attempted to cover your tracks by saying that we were actually discussing the phrase, "unborn baby", but that's simply not true (not that there a difference in understanding between those two phrases).
I rarely use "unborn baby" (as is clear from my posts), but only because I prefer to use the phrase, "unborn child", instead. There is however, absolutely NOTHING wrong with using "unborn baby", it's simply a matter of individual preference.
To me .. and to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby" (or saying that a pregnant woman is "with child"), means EXACTLY the same thing!! To say otherwise is to mince words in a vain attempt to show a difference where none exists
Many of your arguments merit discussion (at least to some degree), but your arguments against the use of, "unborn child" and "unborn baby", do not.
Yours and His,
David
So now we are not animal, we are vegetation?
Maybe you can explain the difference between the 2 to those of us who are not so "enlightened".....you start out by making a big fuss that I was talking about "unborn child" and not "unborn baby," and then later claim "to everyone else in the world (except for you apparently) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby"... means EXACTLY the same thing!!"
Hi David,Hi Douglas,
) .. "unborn child" and "unborn baby" (or saying that a pregnant woman is "with child"), means EXACTLY the same thing!!
Yours and His,
David
Well, first of all both of them are the same blatant contradiction. So in both cases the two words together don't make any sense.Maybe you can explain the difference between the 2 to those of us who are not so "enlightened".....
I don't think there is any real and relevant distinction to be made between "unborn child" and "unborn baby." They are both the same blatant contradiction.
...please note the blatant contradiction you and I here are obviously talking about is "unborn baby."
Hi David, are you kidding? Is it not yet clear that whether "child" is used, or "baby," if it is, imho, blatantly contradicted with the adjective "unborn," then it matters little which one is used. That adjective indicates it is in the gestating womb, what is being talked about, so if you here indicate womb contents I would certainly reject calling it a "child." Amounts to the same thing as "unborn child," which amounts to the same thing as "unborn baby" which amounts to nothing sensible, imho. It would seem "unborn" indicates womb contents.Hi Douglas, if that's true, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize. The confusion (if there is any) was borne out of a discussion we were having that used the term "unborn child", but (after showing you that the Bible clearly uses the term "child" to describe the being that occupies a mother's womb), your next reply to me said:
I will not continue to discuss this phraseology with you, save to simply remind you that your opinion about its use is wrong. If there is anything left to discuss with more substance, let's move onto that.
Yours and His,
David
p.s. - just to be clear, are you now describing the being who resides in a pregnant woman's womb as a, "child"?
Just to be clear, there are two reasons I would not refer to a fetus as a "child." One, it is IMHO, false and untrue to do so, and two, especially in the context of discussing abortion, it begs the question, is the pronouncement of a conclusion to the question at issue, rather than any kind of rational argument.Hi Douglas,
p.s. - just to be clear, are you now describing the being who resides in a pregnant woman's womb as a, "child"?
A person is a person, be it the persons of the trinity, or the lowest thinkable homo sapiens. Maybe you withhold person-hood from those very mentally handicapped???What is NOT common sense is to suggest a human being is a person just like the Trinity has persons.
The person who is a human being is necessarily an animal being, an actual animal. That can be counted, of course, just like the biologist would count it as a member of the species homo sapiens.
Nice putting the most uncharitable construction on another. Smearing.A person is a person, be it the persons of the trinity, or the lowest thinkable homo sapiens. Maybe you withhold person-hood from those very mentally handicapped???
Perhaps if you had a bigger picture and more of them you could take up an entire thread page?
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?