Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[Root of Jesse]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Not relevant to abortion.
Note it says first born - it was born (the firstborn) - I wonder if anyone called it "firstborn" in the womb, perhaps but it would have been inaccurate. In a sort of almost obvious way.
I know "church of the Firstborn" means of Christ, but does it also give hints about anything else?

Question: Was the Gospel written as it happened, or years later?

There is nothing in Samuel 12:23 about what is in wombs - it was a real born child, who got sick and died. Of no relevance to this discussion, except to be part of a demonstration that the Bible is concerned about real actual born human beings when it comes to life eternal, without any comparisons or references to or confusions about what has not been born, what does NOT have God's breath of life.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
There are no "hes" in a womb. Ever.

What I was trying to indicate is that the term "he" (or "she," but "he" was used) is never appropriate re womb contents since there is never a person there to whom such a term would correctly apply.

How do you know when a person becomes a person?

 

[redleghunter]

Do you believe our God is a merciful God?

Yes indeed. He accepts such a repentant destitute and damned sinner as I long after I gave myself the opportunity to fail miserably multiple times.

 

[PapaZoom]

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130102/babies-learn-womb

Babies Listen and Learn While in the Womb

This is what a person can do. Non-persons cannot learn (because it requires the mind to learn information and process it - )

The argument that the developing human being is not a person is terribly weak and unjustified by all measures.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OF COURSE it is not the case that something not living can have heartbeats. (And of course I never said it could.)

If you want to discuss reasonably you might quote me, you might respond to what I actually say.

Fetuses (to NOT BEG THE QUESTION of the human being nature of what is in a womb), fetuses, or to be equally neutral, the contents of a gestating womb, a lot of the time have heartbeats, though not early on of course when there is nothing that might be called a heart.

I would never say what is in the gestating womb is not alive (unless it has died, of course). So I certainly never say the contradiction of something not living having heartbeats.

But please note that to say it is alive is not to prove it is a human being that should be protected from destruction - it is only to notice that it is like unto a cancer tumor in that it consists of alive cells. That's what it means to be "alive," nothing more.
Mice have heartbeats, but should we outlaw cats on that basis?
Better never step on an ant?

Note to David ("Saint Worm"),
it may be seen how much clarification of basic understanding is needed in some cases. Do you not agree?

Let me ask you something...the contents of a human gestating womb...can it be anything but human? So, if it is alive, and it cannot be anything but human, it is a living human, just as an acorn is as much an oak tree as a full grown oak tree. Same systems, same DNA, same everything.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am no abortion, thank you very much.

Let me clarify his question: As a Christian, how do you justify abortion?

 

[redleghunter]

Let me ask you something...the contents of a human gestating womb...can it be anything but human? So, if it is alive, and it cannot be anything but human, it is a living human, just as an acorn is as much an oak tree as a full grown oak tree. Same systems, same DNA, same everything.

Indeed you are correct.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You giving 5th grade science lessons again? Sorry you have to do that on a forum populated with adults.

I'm sorry that I have to too!

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

There's far more to this argument than a beating heart. The arguments favor the pro-life side by a long way.

First point is very true, second is questionable at best.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Let me clarify his question: As a Christian, how do you justify abortion?

I don't know that I do. Not hereabouts anyway.

You see, one must be careful not to be promoting abortion, and any argument that seems to favor it can (it seems) be all too easily interpreted as promoting it. That sort of thing gets a thread like this shut down, in my experience.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't know that I do. Not hereabouts anyway.

You see, one must be careful not to be promoting abortion, and any argument that seems to favor it can (it seems) be all too easily interpreted as promoting it. That sort of thing gets a thread like this shut down, in my experience.

Nice tap dance.......

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Root of Jesse said: ↑
Let me ask you something...the contents of a human gestating womb...can it be anything but human? So, if it is alive, and it cannot be anything but human, it is a living human, just as an acorn is as much an oak tree as a full grown oak tree. Same systems, same DNA, same everything.

Indeed you are correct.

No, not so.

Aside from the fact that an acorn is certainly NOT a tree, the contents of a gestating womb are indeed human. But that does NOT mean they are a human, a living human, a human being, because it only shows that it shares characteristics with cancer tumors in being HUMAN.

Can't distinguish a seed from an actual plant? Pre-schoolers can probably tell the difference.

Course IF it had the same everything it would be identical to the actual born, it would be born.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130102/babies-learn-womb

Babies Listen and Learn While in the Womb

This is what a person can do. Non-persons cannot learn (because it requires the mind to learn information and process it - )

The argument that the developing human being is not a person is terribly weak and unjustified by all measures.

Rats can learn!
GOD KNOWETH EVERYTHING

 

[civilwarbuff]

Rats can learn!
GOD KNOWETH EVERYTHING

Based on your comments in this thread I must ask this question:..Do most Pentecostals have such a low regard for unborn babies or are you mostly an outlier?

 

[redleghunter]

Root of Jesse said: ↑
Let me ask you something...the contents of a human gestating womb...can it be anything but human? So, if it is alive, and it cannot be anything but human, it is a living human, just as an acorn is as much an oak tree as a full grown oak tree. Same systems, same DNA, same everything.


No, not so.

Aside from the fact that an acorn is certainly NOT a tree, the contents of a gestating womb are indeed human. But that does NOT mean they are a human, a living human, a human being, because it only shows that it shares characteristics with cancer tumors in being HUMAN.

Can't distinguish a seed from an actual plant? Pre-schoolers can probably tell the difference.

Course IF it had the same everything it would be identical to the actual born, it would be born.

You are comparing a gestating human life to a cancer tumor? Can't wait to hear the 'science' on this one.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

How do you know when a person becomes a person?

There are different kinds of considerations, Biblical and perhaps the strongest are the understandings of biology. Common sense understanding such as that of a child would seem to coincide with what else we know - that there is only the new member of a species when it is born (or hatched). In the case of species that reproduce in those ways.

"Human being" means among other things being an animal, and I think we all know how to count actual animals.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Based on your comments in this thread I must ask this question:..Do most Pentecostals have such a low regard for unborn babies or are you mostly an outlier?

You don't know that I have a low regard for what you call "unborn babies." (I CERTAINLY HAVE A LOW REGARD FOR SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS.)
I may have a very high regard for fetuses; I may think they are about the very best things in all existence - for research purposes. I am somewhat kidding - what I do have high regard for is truth, for people being clear about things. Including myself of course. So I am willing to engage in the discussion.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

 

[redleghunter]

There are different kinds of considerations, Biblical and perhaps the strongest are the understandings of biology. Common sense understanding such as that of a child would seem to coincide with what else we know - that there is only the new member of a species when it is born (or hatched). In the case of species that reproduce in those ways.

"Human being" means among other things being an animal, and I think we all know how to count actual animals.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

The above statements are incoherent. If you are going to take the stance from a biology stand point then please at least do the research.

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.]

And more:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html


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.)

WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.


The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

II. When does a human being begin?

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.



A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which thespermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed withinfemale and malepronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't know that I have a low regard for what you call "unborn babies." (I CERTAINLY HAVE A LOW REGARD FOR SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS.)
I may have a very high regard for fetuses; I may think they are about the very best things in all existence - for research purposes. I am somewhat kidding - what I do have high regard for is truth, for people being clear about things. Including myself of course. So I am willing to engage in the discussion.

GOD KNOWETH ALL

Could have fooled me......

Rats can learn!
GOD KNOWETH EVERYTHING

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You are comparing a gestating human life to a cancer tumor? Can't wait to hear the 'science' on this one.

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