Giving a Voice to the Voiceless

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
If a baby in the womb could speak, would she object to being violently killed? Or, would she give her consent so that the woman could be spared the inconvenience of pregnancy?

If a child in the womb could speak. . . She can't, so we must give her a voice.

well-family-prenatal-master768.jpg
 
Last edited:

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
If a baby in the womb could speak, would she object to being violently killed? Or, would she give her consent so that the woman could be spared the inconvenience of pregnancy?

If a child in the womb could speak. . . She can't, so we must give her a voice.
Nonsense religion, to write like this OP.

If mountains could speak, would they object to having their forests cut down? Ridiculous question.
Neither mountains nor fetuses have any objectively working consciousness that could even in any such manner be intelligent.
That is the logic of, "can't speak, so must be given a voice." There is no necessity involved in the fact something cannot speak that implies someone else should speak for it.

A door can't speak, so we had better "give it a voice," whether it be closed or opened. Ridiculous.

An obvious falsity, whatever is represented as "the voice of the unborn," when such an entity is always lacking the wherewith all to be speaking. And surely only concocted in the mind of who ever does speak - with no possible way to ever truthfully assume it is anything else.

BTW, perhaps the greatest virtue the so-called "baby" then has is it cannot cry, i.e. has no voice!

A pile dumped in a toilet cannot speak either, but that in no way whatsoever means we should not flush it or even that it be given any kind of "voice."

Use of the terminology "the voiceless" is a way to try to suggest there is a real person, "if only"...
One of the manifold attempts to justify calling what is referred to "a baby," when it is no such thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Use of the terminology "the voiceless" is way to try to suggest there is a real person, "if only"...
One of the manifold attempts to justify calling what is referred to "a baby," when it is no such thing.
The unborn aren't real people now? Why's that?

Not a baby?
Definition of BABY
What about it doesn't fit that definition?

How about a medical dictionary:
baby
the 4th or 5th one down specifically includes "An unborn child; a fetus."
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
A pile dumped in a toilet cannot speak either, but that in no way whatsoever means we should not flush it or even that it be given any kind of "voice."
As usual, Douglas is finding the most uncharitable way possible to make a point and have a discussion.

Douglas' position is that until a human makes its first breath that it does not possess a soul and it is therefore not morally valuable. So for him, a partial birth abortion would be perfectly acceptable. Thankfully he's in the minority.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
As usual, Douglas is finding the most uncharitable way possible to make a point and have a discussion.

Douglas' position is that until a human makes its first breath that it does not possess a soul and it is therefore not morally valuable. So for him, a partial birth abortion would be perfectly acceptable. Thankfully he's in the minority.
Oh, and how pray tell would you make my point in a way that is supposedly so much more charitable?
Just NAME-CALLING, far's I can tell.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I have not around here (in the last few years) ever talked about when there is a soul and what that is. So where she gets her ideas, who knows, about a "position" I don't think I have ever articulated.
SPF, I really should report you for your personal attacks.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
The unborn aren't real people now? Why's that?

Not a baby?
Definition of BABY
What about it doesn't fit that definition?

How about a medical dictionary:
baby
the 4th or 5th one down specifically includes "An unborn child; a fetus."
Definition of baby
plural
babies
  1. 1a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animalb : the youngest of a group He is the baby of the family.

  2. 2a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) When it comes to getting shots, I'm a real baby.b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest The project was his baby.
Again from the M-W,
Definition of infant
  1. 1: a child in the first period of life
An infant is not a fetus, believe it or not.
I.e. You feed your baby, your infant. And have to put up with it's crying, etc, etc..

That a dictionary (rather like an afterthought) might include the fetus as "baby" is that often in usage that is what it means, even if the meaning is not true to reality.
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Definition of baby
plural
babies
  1. 1a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animalb : the youngest of a group He is the baby of the family.

  2. 2a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) When it comes to getting shots, I'm a real baby.b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest The project was his baby.
Again from the M-W,
Definition of infant
  1. 1: a child in the first period of life
An infant is not a fetus, believe it or not.
I.e. You feed your baby, your infant. And have to put up with it's crying, etc, etc..

That a dictionary (rather like an afterthought) might include the fetus as "baby" is that often in usage that is what it means, even if the meaning is not true to reality.
"A child in the first period of life" - how is that not a fetus? Aren't fetuses alive?
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
"A child in the first period of life" - how is that not a fetus? Aren't fetuses alive?
To answer your first question, how a child in the first period of life might NOT be a fetus is that what "child" means and "baby" means is born actual animal being, a human being.

Of course fetuses are alive. So too is a cancer tumor, which may even be in the same place in a body.
So that LIFE MUST CONTINUE?

We know from our experience with mice that certain things are good to be killed.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"A child in the first period of life" - how is that not a fetus? Aren't fetuses alive?
To be fair, a fetus is specifically referring to the period in which the human being is in the womb.

noun, plural fetuses. Embryology.
1.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

What we could say that would be logically consistent would be that all fetuses are human beings, but not all human beings are fetuses.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> NewBorn --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly

But of course the important point is that at all stages of a human's life they are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,786
114,476
✟1,339,565.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
What came to mind for me, as i was reading some of these posts (in particular your posts Douglas Hendrickson), is:

Would you give the same description and comparison to Jesus Christ when He was in His mother's womb?

Thank you kindly.
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
To answer your first question, how a child in the first period of life might NOT be a fetus
I never asked that. Of course a "child" MAY not be a fetus. That does NOT, however, mean that a fetus is not a child.

It's analogous to taking the question, "how is a square not a rectangle?" and changing it to "how is a rectangle not a square?" While a rectangle might not be a square, a square is always a rectangle. In the same fashion, while a child might not be a fetus, a fetus is always a child.

is that what "child" means and "baby" means is born actual animal being, a human being.
So, the unborn are not human beings? I've never seen a scientific, medical, biological definition that supports that.
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
To be fair, a fetus is specifically referring to the period in which the human being is in the womb.

noun, plural fetuses. Embryology.
1.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

What we could say that would be logically consistent would be that all fetuses are human beings, but not all human beings are fetuses.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> NewBorn --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly

But of course the important point is that at all stages of a human's life they are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
You guys are misunderstanding what I asked.

Yes, a "child" may or may not be a fetus. What I was asking is how a fetus is not "A child in the first period of life."
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
To be fair, a fetus is specifically referring to the period in which the human being is in the womb.

noun, plural fetuses. Embryology.
1.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

What we could say that would be logically consistent would be that all fetuses are human beings, but not all human beings are fetuses.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> NewBorn --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly

But of course the important point is that at all stages of a human's life they are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
"The young," as in the ageless ?
"The young" is used here like "the voiceless," to make the pretense there is an entity equal to a human being, when it has NO HUMAN BEING AGE (not being made yet).

NO fetuses are human beings, where "beings" means animal beings or animals, actual organisms alive on this earth.
So you are NOT FAIR when you say "a fetus is ... the human being... in the womb," because not only is it not true, it is to BEG THE QUESTION. Precisely what you claim is "fair" is the point that must be shown, is at issue.

NOTE that one must have a very diminished conception of "the human being," THE CROWN OF CREATION, to think a few cells of an ambryo are such an exalted being. And pretty much non-existent concept of reality to boot, to provide such an inaccurate view.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
What came to mind for me, as i was reading some of these posts (in particular your posts Douglas Hendrickson), is:

Would you give the same description and comparison to Jesus Christ when He was in His mother's womb?

Thank you kindly.
There are never any people in a womb, there is no person ever there.
In other words, JESUS CHRIST the incarnate Son of God was never in a womb.

He was incarnated at birth, when HE first existed as a person.

INCARNATION is not some blob of flesh in a womb - we celebrate Christmas, THEE BIRTH.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"The young," as in the ageless ?
"The young" is used here like "the voiceless," to make the pretense there is an entity equal to a human being, when it has NO HUMAN BEING AGE (not being made yet).

NO fetuses are human beings, where "beings" means animal beings or animals, actual organisms alive on this earth.
So you are NOT FAIR when you say "a fetus is ... the human being... in the womb," because not only is it not true, it is to BEG THE QUESTION. Precisely what you claim is "fair" is the point that must be shown, is at issue.

NOTE that one must have a very diminished conception of "the human being," THE CROWN OF CREATION, to think a few cells of an ambryo are such an exalted being. And pretty much non-existent concept of reality to boot, to provide such an inaccurate view.
Unfortunately for Douglas, his position falls short in explaining how John the Baptist was able to leap for joy in his mother's womb and was indwelled with the Holy Spirit as a non-human being blob.

Ths passage was brought up before, and the best he was able to do was to try and completely reinterpret the passage to make it say that it wasn't actually John leaping for joy even though the text is clear that he was.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Unfortunately for Douglas, his position falls short in explaining how John the Baptist was able to leap for joy in his mother's womb and was indwelled with the Holy Spirit as a non-human being blob.

Ths passage was brought up before, and the best he was able to do was to try and completely reinterpret the passage to make it say that it wasn't actually John leaping for joy even though the text is clear that he was.
So you have to personally attack, and misrepresent.

At the state when an expectant mother might say there is leaping, I have never called the entity that is claimed to do such a (mere) blob.

There is no "John" in anybody's womb ever, your continuing to suggest the untruth that there is, is not any argument for it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There are never any people in a womb, there is no person ever there.
Then what is there? We know that human life begins at conception. We know according to Scripture that we are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth. The burden of proof is on you to explain exactly when the human becomes a human person created in the image of God. You need to do more than simply assert it, you need to actually put forth an argument why.

There is no "John" in anybody's womb ever
Scripture would disagree with you, and I personally find Scripture more authoritative than you! John leaped for joy while in his mother's womb. John was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb. Scripture explicitly contradicts your position.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Then what is there? We know that human life begins at conception. We know according to Scripture that we are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth. The burden of proof is on you to explain exactly when the human becomes a human person created in the image of God. You need to do more than simply assert it, you need to actually put forth an argument why.

Scripture would disagree with you, and I personally find Scripture more authoritative than you! John leaped for joy while in his mother's womb. John was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb. Scripture explicitly contradicts your position.
Human life does NOT begin at conception.
The sperm and the egg are both human (cells), and both are alive.
And they unite - they bring the life they have and that life is what continues. They do not die, the life they bring to conception continues and it is that same life that is present in the fetus.

That shows your conception of conception, your understanding is what is wrong and needs revising.

It is you that is claiming there is a human being in the womb, so that is what you have to show. I am content with the understanding that there is a human being at birth, I think we agree on that. You want to say there is such before birth, so I think it is pretty much up to you to demonstrate that additional claim.

If scripture disagrees with me, point to it. I guess we might re-discuss the "leaping" things, but if you wish to make claims that "Scripture would disagree with you," then YOU must show how that is so.
You can make unfounded claims about which of us finds Scripture more authoritative, but regardless of that you cannot simply without even quoting actual Scripture expect to have any acceptance of your view as though merely your saying you are more in accord with Scripture than I am proves something.

Scripture says, "... the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost." Luke 1:41. Surely that is the joy that is referred to in 44, that was caused by the movement in the womb, or at least occurred at about the same time.

John is not even mentioned in the Scripture at this point, let alone said to be present in the womb. "The babe," however that is best understood, is undoubtedly present.


So Scripture undoubtedly agrees with my view, and NOT with yours. The "babe" or fetus, is endearingly referred to as "the babe" because they were very expectantly looking forward to her having a baby. Note she did not have a baby, but was "great with child," as it is sometimes put, was soon going to bring forth one. There would be a baby a very special one, they were pretty sure of that so already referred to it as "the babe."

Please note it was Elisabeth that was claimed to be "filled with the Holy Ghost," not John.
As I have already pointed out, there was then NO JOHN to be "filled with the Holy Spirit," as you put it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense religion, to write like this OP.

If mountains could speak, would they object to having their forests cut down? Ridiculous question.
Neither mountains nor fetuses have any objectively working consciousness that could even in any such manner be intelligent.
That is the logic of, "can't speak, so must be given a voice." There is no necessity involved in the fact something cannot speak that implies someone else should speak for it.

A door can't speak, so we had better "give it a voice," whether it be closed or opened. Ridiculous.

An obvious falsity, whatever is represented as "the voice of the unborn," when such an entity is always lacking the wherewith all to be speaking. And surely only concocted in the mind of who ever does speak - with no possible way to ever truthfully assume it is anything else.

BTW, perhaps the greatest virtue the so-called "baby" then has is it cannot cry, i.e. has no voice!

A pile dumped in a toilet cannot speak either, but that in no way whatsoever means we should not flush it or even that it be given any kind of "voice."

Use of the terminology "the voiceless" is a way to try to suggest there is a real person, "if only"...
One of the manifold attempts to justify calling what is referred to "a baby," when it is no such thing.

You are the very person that the powerless need to fear the most, and the very reason they need to be given a voice. You would crush the skull of a child, and call that a good work. . .
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.