Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You hold the Nestorian view of the nature of Jesus Christ?

What exactly (of Nestorianism) do you mean by that? Just trying to obsfucate?

 

[SPF]

Perhaps some clarifying statements are in order so that we don't talk across each other. I'm going to state my position, and then I'm going to attempt to state your position, based on what I've read. If you could please correct me where I'm misinterpreting you then I think that would be really helpful.

1. At conception, a new and unique human life is created. Sperm, on its own has no potential to become a human, neither does an ovum. However, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a human life is formed. Under most circumstances, the newly conceived human has 46 chromosomes, half coming from the sperm and half coming from the egg. Human life begins at conception.

2. Biblically, all humans are created in the image of God. We all posses the Imago Dei. All humans possess an inherited sinful nature and are in need of forgiveness that comes through Christ.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are both in agreement with 1 and 2 above. I think our point of disagreement lies in the fact that I think point 2 begins at conception, and you think point 2 begins at birth, am I correct?

It sounds like you create a distinction between a human being, and a human person, where a human being does not possess inherent moral worth, nor do they have a sinful nature, nor do they have a soul. The human being becomes a human person, which possesses inherent moral worth, a sinful nature, and has a soul at birth. Am I interpreting you correctly?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

yes, aborted babies go to heaven. they also go to hell.

basically, God is sovereign over salvation.

 

[redleghunter]

What exactly (of Nestorianism) do you mean by that? Just trying to obsfucate?

I asked at what point in the pregnancy Jesus Christ became truly God and truly man. Your response was you hold an orthodox view. However, your explanation was Nestorian in nature as it depicted two distinct natures.

I'll ask in modern terms. Was Jesus Christ truly God and truly man at conception?

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps some clarifying statements are in order so that we don't talk across each other. I'm going to state my position, and then I'm going to attempt to state your position, based on what I've read. If you could please correct me where I'm misinterpreting you then I think that would be really helpful.

1. At conception, a new and unique human life is created. Sperm, on its own has no potential to become a human, neither does an ovum. However, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a human life is formed. Under most circumstances, the newly conceived human has 46 chromosomes, half coming from the sperm and half coming from the egg. Human life begins at conception.

2. Biblically, all humans are created in the image of God. We all posses the Imago Dei. All humans possess an inherited sinful nature and are in need of forgiveness that comes through Christ.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are both in agreement with 1 and 2 above. I think our point of disagreement lies in the fact that I think point 2 begins at conception, and you think point 2 begins at birth, am I correct?

It sounds like you create a distinction between a human being, and a human person, where a human being does not possess inherent moral worth, nor do they have a sinful nature, nor do they have a soul. The human being becomes a human person, which possesses inherent moral worth, a sinful nature, and has a soul at birth. Am I interpreting you correctly?

You are new to CF, so welcome.

@Douglas Hendrickson has been presented the settled science of embryology quite a few times by me and others. Here is the evidence presented of human life beginning at conception:

The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

More: Quotes from Textbooks on Human Development

When Do Human Beings Begin?

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)


So yes, the science has been presented. When the science becomes inconvenient to our philosophical or theological views, we tend to engage in relativism. You no doubt have heard the argument from "personhood." Yet there is no objective definition of such anywhere. Only subjective opinions.

Yes human life begins at conception. That means the life is a human being and a human person. There is no separating the terms.

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps some clarifying statements are in order so that we don't talk across each other. I'm going to state my position, and then I'm going to attempt to state your position, based on what I've read. If you could please correct me where I'm misinterpreting you then I think that would be really helpful.

1. At conception, a new and unique human life is created. Sperm, on its own has no potential to become a human, neither does an ovum. However, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a human life is formed. Under most circumstances, the newly conceived human has 46 chromosomes, half coming from the sperm and half coming from the egg. Human life begins at conception.

2. Biblically, all humans are created in the image of God. We all posses the Imago Dei. All humans possess an inherited sinful nature and are in need of forgiveness that comes through Christ.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are both in agreement with 1 and 2 above. I think our point of disagreement lies in the fact that I think point 2 begins at conception, and you think point 2 begins at birth, am I correct?

It sounds like you create a distinction between a human being, and a human person, where a human being does not possess inherent moral worth, nor do they have a sinful nature, nor do they have a soul. The human being becomes a human person, which possesses inherent moral worth, a sinful nature, and has a soul at birth. Am I interpreting you correctly?

The next issue is we hear the Bible does not tell us abortion is wrong. We are told there is no mention of abortion, so that means it is permissible or left to the conscience. Some even point out Exodus 21 as allowing abortion to be permissible. However, under exegesis this does not stand, and here is why:

Jeremiah 1: Lexham English Bible (LEB)

4 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you came out from the womb I consecrated you;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

As Hebrews perceived:

Psalm 139:13 Lexham English Bible (LEB)


13 Indeed you created my inward parts
you wove me in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you, because I am fearfully
and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works,
and my soul knows it well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was created secretly
and intricately woven
in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my embryo
and in your book they all were written—
days fashioned for me when there was not one of them.

The assertion Exodus 21 some how shows the fetus as a lesser being than a born person was the machination of a 19th century to early 20th century Jewish rabbi (not orthodox). Some of the more liberal Christian denominations picked up his interpretation. However, when you apply exegesis to the passage you get the exact opposite. Exodus 21 actually gives us the first recorded fetal homicide law:

Let's examine the text:

Exodus 21: KJV

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(KJV)

Bolded above is the point of discussion.

"so that her fruit depart from her,"

Hebrew: 'yeled'

יֶלֶדyeled, yeh'-led; from H3205; something born, i.e. a lad or offspring:—boy, child, fruit, son, young man (one).

Off the top we see this is not a miscarriage. We also see the referred to "fruit" of the womb is born. The language clearly deems this an offspring.

Is there a different word for miscarriage?

Yes.

Exodus 23: KJV

25 And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.

26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.(KJV)

We see above "cast their young" and barren. Let's look at the Hebrew.

Hebrew: shakol

שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.

There's the clear comparison. It seems the translators of the KJV understood the difference between a premature birth and a miscarriage.

So now back to Exodus 21.

In 1995 during the periodic revision of the NASB, the translators went back to the traditional rendering of yaled as a premature birth of a child.

Exodus 21: NASB

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB

Applying the above we see if the premature birth results in no injury a fine is imposed. But if there is injury the Law applies to mete out justice. Eye for eye...etc.

What we have in Exodus 21:22-25 is the first recorded fetal homicide law.

It makes perfect sense as the "fruit" of the womb is the subject of these verses and not the mother.

We established the difference between yaled Exodus 21 (child alive) to shakol (miscarriage) in Exodus 23.

Both put within proper context using exegesis lends us better understanding.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I asked at what point in the pregnancy Jesus Christ became truly God and truly man. Your response was you hold an orthodox view. However, your explanation was Nestorian in nature as it depicted two distinct natures.

I'll ask in modern terms. Was Jesus Christ truly God and truly man at conception?

At conception, are you kidding?

Do you believe in an invisible Jesus? Really?

 

[JoeP222w]

This is a serious question I've been struggling with, do aborted babies go to heaven?

If they are the elect of God, yes. But because they are the elect of God, not because they have been aborted, else abortion would be the greatest Heaven filling device.

God's grace is much bigger than we can ever imagine, and we don't know who the elect are.

 

[JoeP222w]

Babies have no personal knowledge or understanding of the Law, so they cannot be judged.

That is not the criteria for salvation. There are many Atheists who know the Bible far better than many Christians, but that does not mean the Atheist will go to Heaven.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You are new to CF, so welcome.

@Douglas Hendrickson has been presented the settled science of embryology quite a few times by me and others. Here is the evidence presented of human life beginning at conception:

The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

More: Quotes from Textbooks on Human Development

When Do Human Beings Begin?

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)


So yes, the science has been presented. When the science becomes inconvenient to our philosophical or theological views, we tend to engage in relativism. You no doubt have heard the argument from "personhood." Yet there is no objective definition of such anywhere. Only subjective opinions.

Yes human life begins at conception. That means the life is a human being and a human person. There is no separating the terms.

So this does not become too unmanageable, I'll deal with the last point first.
"Human life begins at conception." So, is the sperm human life, or not?

Now I take it that is two questions: 1. Is the sperm alive, i.e. is it an alive sperm and not a dead sperm? And thus qualifies as LIFE?
2. Is the sperm human? Does it have the characteristics (DNA) of the human species?
That it is indeed sperm of the human species (and not some other species of animal) is fairly easily shown.

SO, in conclusion, the sperm is human and alive so IT must be human LIFE.
HENCE THERE IS HUMAN LIFE BEFORE CONCEPTION .
And hence "human life" doe NOT begin at conception.

Or taken the other way around, "human life begins at conception. That means the life is a human being and a human person."
You are JUST SAYING "that means the life is a human being (person)."
There is nothing in either the concept "life" or "human" that implies it is a person, a human being. (Need I point out again that the cancer is both but NOT a human being?)
So YOU GET THIS OUT OF THIN AIR.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If they are the elect of God, yes. But because they are the elect of God, not because they have been aborted, else abortion would be the greatest Heaven filling device.

God's grace is much bigger than we can ever imagine, and we don't know who the elect are.

That is probably the best thing, that we do NOT KNOW who the elect are.
Otherwise we would probably kill them.

So they wouldn't HAVE THE SUFFERING of a human being life, we would kill them in the womb of course! "Take them right to heaven!"

BTW, anyone in this thread who answers "Yes, the aborted will go to heaven," must subscribe to this logic - BETTER THEY ARE NEVER A HUMAN BEING.
(Are you for betterness, or do you believe killing a fetus is killing a human being? Just a thought.)

 

[JoeP222w]

That is probably the best thing, that we do NOT KNOW who the elect are.
Otherwise we would probably kill them.

So they wouldn't HAVE THE SUFFERING of a human being life, we would kill them in the womb of course! "Take them right to heaven!"

BTW, anyone in this thread who answers "Yes, the aborted will go to heaven," must subscribe to this logic - BETTER THEY ARE NEVER A HUMAN BEING.
(Are you for betterness, or do you believe killing a fetus is killing a human being? Just a thought.)

By definition, the fetus is a baby, i.e. a human being. Life begins at conception. Yes, abortion murders a human being.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, neither the sperm nor the ovum would be what we call human life. Typically each sperm and each Ovum possess 23 chromosomes, half of what is needed to create human life. On their own, neither the sperm nor the ovum will develop into a human. The ovum will never be anything more than an ovum, and the sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. A sperm is not a human. Have you seen any sperm lately driving down the road or engaging in theological discussions?

In order for us to have a human life, we need the sperm to fertilize the egg. Once this occurs, we have a newly created human life that typically possesses 46 chromosomes. The developmental stage of a human begins at conception and doesn't complete the majority of its development until after twenty+ years.

The sperm is not a human life, and the ovum is not a human life. Human life begins at conception. It begins quite small, as your pointed out with your invisible Jesus comment, and continues to grow for quite a number of years. But there's no valid reason to assume that the moral worth of a human does not exist at all stages of its development.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

By definition, the fetus is a baby, i.e. a human being. Life begins at conception. Yes, abortion murders a human being.

By definition the fetus is NOT a baby - check your dictionary.
(Unless it has been distorted by pro-life bias.)

 

[SPF]

You are correct Douglas, a fetus is not a baby. But then a toddler is not a baby, a teenager is not a toddler, you are not an infant. Yet each of those are only distinctions in the age of a human being. I honestly find it disconcerting how hard you are arguing against what appears to be an obvious truth - human life begins at conception. I'm not sure why you're so insistent upon fighting against that fact.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, neither the sperm nor the ovum would be what we call human life. Typically each sperm and each Ovum possess 23 chromosomes, half of what is needed to create human life. On their own, neither the sperm nor the ovum will develop into a human. The ovum will never be anything more than an ovum, and the sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. A sperm is not a human. Have you seen any sperm lately driving down the road or engaging in theological discussions?

In order for us to have a human life, we need the sperm to fertilize the egg. Once this occurs, we have a newly created human life that typically possesses 46 chromosomes. The developmental stage of a human begins at conception and doesn't complete the majority of its development until after twenty+ years.

The sperm is not a human life, and the ovum is not a human life. Human life begins at conception. It begins quite small, as your pointed out with your invisible Jesus comment, and continues to grow for quite a number of years. But there's no valid reason to assume that the moral worth of a human does not exist at all stages of its development.

I suppose the union of an egg and a sperm could be called "a human life," IF we were sure to clearly distinguish that from a human being. There is no human being until there is an animal being, the new autonomous member of a species, i.e. at birth.

Trouble being with calling the zygote "a human life" is it is taken as warrant for thinking it is a human being, which it is not. It is an intellectually identifiable parasitic entity that can be distinguished from it's host, but unlike the actual person with the womb, is not a person.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You are correct Douglas, a fetus is not a baby. But then a toddler is not a baby, a teenager is not a toddler, you are not an infant. Yet each of those are only distinctions in the age of a human being. I honestly find it disconcerting how hard you are arguing against what appears to be an obvious truth - human life begins at conception. I'm not sure why you're so insistent upon fighting against that fact.

That so-called "fact" DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Did you see my post #170?

(That by the way is why I am "so insistent upon fighting" the way that I do, because THERE IS SO MUCH UNTRUTH, just like you acknowledged in the case of your "dictionary" assumption.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

HEY ALL YOU LOVERS (of love!)

Happy Valentines day!

 

[SPF]

I suppose the union of an egg and a sperm could be called "a human life," IF we were sure to clearly distinguish that from a human being. There is no human being until there is an animal being, the new autonomous member of a species, i.e. at birth.

Trouble being with calling the zygote "a human life" is it is taken as warrant for thinking it is a human being, which it is not. It is an intellectually identifiable parasitic entity that can be distinguished from it's host, but unlike the actual person with the womb, is not a person.

Do you have children? I have a hard time believing you do because I don't know of any parent that would refer to their newborn as autonomous. Can you define what you mean by that? Why does the baby that is 1 hour away from birth possess a different moral worth than the baby that is 1 hour beyond birth?

I personally found that my wife had a lot more free time prior to the births of our children. Indeed, our infants seem a lot more dependent upon us for survival than in the womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, my reply #173 was in response to your reply #170. You also never replied to my reply #162.

Most people that engage in discussions over the morality of abortion at least have common ground in accepting the rather obvious fact that human life begins at conception. I'm surprised that fact is so lost on you.

Need I repeat what I said in #170, where I pointed out the sperm IS "HUMAN LIFE," and therefore HUMAN LIFE exists before conception (in both the sperm AND the egg) and therefore HUMAN LIFE does NOT begin at conception.

In your #173 you are talking about "a human life," not human life. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Do you see that difference? And hence the necessity of not confusing the one with the other, and not illegitimately moving from the one, "THERE IS HUMAN LIFE," to the other, THERE IS A HUMAN LIFE?