The idea of rats in the bellies of rats is repugnant - there are enough rats already!Correct, and nobody claims that rats are persons. Whether rats in a womb, or rats that are born, or rats that have died. But it is probably worth mentioning that a rat first comes into existence at fertilization.
Whether it makes sense, and perhaps even is obvious. That is a lot of the criteria I would employ.I still don't understand what authority you have which allows you to dictate what is necessary for their to be a human being. Why should anyone agree with your standard for what determines what a human being is or is not? You certainly are incapable of providing any scientific evidence to support your assertions.
Given that everyone here thinks you're obviously wrong, I'm surprised you haven't changed your mind.Whether it makes sense, and perhaps even is obvious. That is a lot of the criteria I would employ.
So personhood depends on how valuable someone/thing is to us, depending on their capabilities?The "person" you value is less than a jellyfish, for the so-called "person" you here argue for the preservation of, is only one cell.
It is not capable of moving about let alone doing anything useful. Totally worthless in itself, really. Only could prove valuable IF it does indeed develop into something else. But that is only potential, not what it actually is.
Given that everyone here thinks you're obviously wrong, I'm surprised you haven't changed your mind.
Yah well it's a fake test.So personhood depends on how valuable someone/thing is to us, depending on their capabilities?
By that definition, infants, toddlers, the mentally infirm, many disabled, most of the elderly at some point, etc. are not "persons" at all and perhaps we'd be better off destroying them if they prove an expense or inconvenience?
Whereas a milk cow, laying hen, or fattening pig could prove very useful and thus are worthy of consideration above the non-persons just mentioned?
That test fails.
Yah well it's a fake test.
I certainly never say, "personhood depends on how valuable someone/thing is to us, depending on their capabilities."
A STRAWMAN. And false witness.
The "person" ... is only one cell ...
not capable of moving about let alone doing anything useful. Totally worthless in itself, really.
Potential is NOT actual. That is precisely what it is not. Therefore if we are talking about reality, what is real, it is nothing about potential.Many of the people I listed are incapable of doing anything "useful" by some people's standards. In fact, many can't move about by themselves. So ... is that your definition of worthless, a non-person? Or not?
A human not yet born has the potential to become much more useful than a permanently paralyzed person, or one with very limited capabilities. So which is valuable, and why?
(I believe they are ALL valuable, because they are human.)
A piece cut off from a human body is not likewise valuable (though out of respect we do treat human remains with dignity). But a severed arm will not grow into anything else.Potential is NOT actual. That is precisely what it is not. Therefore if we are talking about reality, what is real, it is nothing about potential.
I do not say worthlessness and having no substance are the only criterion. The people you listed as per the first paragraph here are all actually real people. One thing they do have is a functional body (not dead) of an actual animal - one basic requirement to be the member of the species, an actual human being. As per the OP, they are human being body endowed, not some single cell that is virtually nothing in terms of substance.
Your final belief is not expressed well, not a good belief to have the way you have expressed it.
SOMETHING "human" may be valuable in some sense, possibly may be valuable for something "because human," but "human" is an adjective, indicating something is composed of human cells. (Or it may be "of humanity," but that is not much what we are talking about here.)
Thus this usage would include the "body," the mass of cells that is a cancer in a human body. Also true of an arm of course, which may be said to be "a body," but of course is not a human being body. All can easily see that an arm may be a human arm, but it being human does not make it a human being.
There are NO persons "not yet born" ever, so Scripture does not speak of unborn persons being worthless or otherwise.A piece cut off from a human body is not likewise valuable (though out of respect we do treat human remains with dignity). But a severed arm will not grow into anything else.
You may not like the way I expressed it, but a child growing in the womb that is not yet fully formed is still a human. It isn't a dog or a donkey. And it isn't shrubbery. Allowed to live, a child will be born. Prevented, it will die. A human will have been killed. Again, not a dog, not a donkey, not shrubbery.
The revelation we have from God in every case is that He values human life in every stage. It is a gift from Him.
Can you find a single Scripture that God makes a distinction between persons not yet born as being worthless, and born ones valued?
There are NO persons "not yet born" ever, so Scripture does not speak of unborn persons
...
And since there are no persons not yet born, EVER, there is no real child or person living inside a woman, in a womb, and it is false to say, "a child growing in the womb that is not yet fully formed is still a human."
"Seems" may be the operative word here. But not so much even "seem," if you look closely.Seems like John the Baptist and Jesus were both persons in the womb, and capable even of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, John recognized Jesus. So yes, John was a human person. John had a body. John was filled with the Holy Spirit. While in the womb.
Luke 115 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb
41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
"What was in the womb" was John the Baptist."Seems" may be the operative word here. But not so much even "seem," if you look closely.
Don't know which translation you used, but it is one that more gives the answer you want. I generally prefer the King James, which in this case reads:
Luke 1:15 "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."
I don't think there is any good warrant for translating the Greek "eti ek" as "while yet in," rather than "even from."
The first and I would think strongest Strong's translation for "ek" is "from"; "eti" is about "henceforth" and "hereafter," as in "after that."
SO you are really grasping at straws to make the pivot of your argument the one translation "in," the only relation to that being "because of" and "after." The point from which action or motion proceeds.
In other words, Luke 1:15 is not talking about anything in a womb.
And verse 44 is the same in both translations, except the King James has "babe," a more affectionate (and less misleading) term for what is being referred to. It was pretty obvious she was going to give birth, have a baby, and that anticipation is reflected in the "babe" reference. It had to be called something, and that was the most likely outcome.
There was some noticeable motion in the womb, that is certainly what it was, which happened to happen just when Mary saluted Elizabeth. (And certainly not much like the real leaping of the man whose inability to walk Jesus cured.) Such an experience late in a pregnancy is rather usual, and it is of course Elizabeth's interpretation that the so-called leaping was "for joy." When the womb motion is first mentioned that "for joy" is not part of the understanding, and undoubtedly it was Elizabeth's joy, for it is her who we are told in 41 was (then) filled with the Holy Ghost.
Again, it is grasping at straws to think this shows there was a person in Elizabeth's womb. It certainly DOES NOT SAY WHAT WAS IN THE WOMB WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST; it was Elizabeth we are specifically told was so filled. And Mary's spirit rejoiced, and her soul was magnified.
There is in the Scriptures no "John recognized Jesus," when neither had even been born; the Bible does not talk with that sort of silliness. So you should certainly dispense with such imagining.
edit: And Christians over the centuries should never have engaged in such.
I say what it says."What was in the womb" was John the Baptist.
"The baby leapt for joy".
I'll leave you to it.
It is you who would grasp at straws, twisting Scripture to justify your opinion. For what reason I can't begin to imagine.
Christians over the centuries were well aware of what the Scriptures meant. The early Church fathers forbade abortion - "killing a child in the womb". There were strict canons against it all through history.
And that has always been the Christian position, as taught by the Apostles, received from Christ, believed by the faithful.
Ditto.I say what it says.
You say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.
Cannot argue against that, so of course you don't try.
Wanna try another ditto?I say what it says.
You say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.
Cannot argue against that, so of course you don't try.
Disrespecting Scripture (reporting something made-up as being true?), and disrespecting the people it tells about (Lis/Liz?). All for the sake of making John the Baptist before he was born "not a person" ... so you can justify your thoughts that's it's ok to kill a baby before it's born, which flies in the face of 20 centuries of Christianity?WHAT IF :
Lis did not feel anything in her belly (not even six months done, apparently)
LIZ DID NOT EVEN FEEL, even feel ANYTHING IN HER BELLY
And just made up a story
Had it furst
Lid did not feel anything ...
Never said that.IF YOU CAN FEEL IT IT MUST BE A BABY
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?