Giving a Voice to the Voiceless

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, it's a real shame after all the discussion that has been held on this issue that you are so unwilling to learn and grow in your understanding. Does it concern you at all that you are utterly alone in your position? There is not a single doctor or scientist or theologian who agrees with you on this issue.

A human sperm is not a human. A human egg is not a human. Neither of those have any capacity to be anything more than what they are. It is only when a sperm fertilizes an egg that a new human life is formed. At conception we have a new and unique human with its own unique DNA, and if permitted will continue to grow and develop. That can never under any circumstance be the case with just human sperm or just a human egg.

You need to let this point go. If not, can you provide any support for it other than your stating it as true?

Interesting to notice that you know that much about all doctors and all scientists and all theologians. . .

Were it actually the case that no one agrees with me, that could still mean I am correct.
Is an "argument from authority" (logical fallacy) the only kind you will accept?

If I agree with you that neither sperm nor egg are a human being, they are certainly human, human cells. So you AMBIGUATE when you say "a human."

If I agree with you on the basis of your say so that a sperm is "not a human" (if one takes that to mean "not a human being"), then will you agree with me on the basis of my say so that a fetus is not "a human" meaning not a human being?

The unique DNA is the right thing to point to, but it only proves the fetus is not the woman incubating such flesh. More about what it is to be a human being is required to know whether it qualifies to be one of those.

 

[claninja]

Poor argument, which seeks to deflect rather than deal with the issue.

I would disagree. Again as I said before, abortion is terrible. I am pro life. From MY experience, I have met many christians (not all) that are against abortion and also would like to cut social programs like Medicaid and food stamps. My point was that being pro life is so much more than just being anti abortion.

If anything is poor, it would be the comparison you made between abortion/welfare and rape/prostitution

Prolifers are actively involved in caring for women in crisis pregnancies and difficult child-raising situations.

Absolutely agree. There are also pro choicets that do the same thing.

Prolifers are actively involved in caring for “unwanted” children and the other “disposable people” in society.

Absolutely agree, and there are also pro choices that do the same thing.

It is “abortion providers” who do not provide support for women choosing anything but abortion.

While I don't agree with abortion,
I would disagree with your above statement, as abortion providers do provide services post abortion like therapy and counseling, as depression is common.

The link you provided has no references to where they got their information.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

My point was that being pro life is so much more than just being anti abortion.

"Pro-life" is just another term for anti-abortion. Trying to jam other things into it is intellectually dishonest.

Also, count me among those who wants to cut food stamps, section 8, and many other harmful programs that encourage women to have babies, while avoiding marriage and work.

The nanny state, brought on by Liberals, has robbed poor blacks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Amen!

AMENT. UNT A MENT.

 

[claninja]

Pro-life" is just another term for anti-abortion. Trying to jam other things into it is intellectually dishonest.

LOl what? To include the life of the child after it is born into pro life is intellectually dishonest? Wow.

Also, count me among those who wants to cut food stamps, section 8, and many other harmful programs that encourage women to have babies, while avoiding marriage and work.

Yea those sinful poor people don't deserve help.

The nanny state, brought on by Liberals, has robbed poor blacks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dont forget racism.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yea those sinful poor people don't deserve help.

They don't deserve the hellish, inescapable, prison that they've been forced into by people like yourself. They deserve freedom and liberty.

 

[claninja]

They don't deserve the hellish, inescapable, prison that they've been forced into by people like yourself. They deserve freedom and liberty.

Thanks for the personal attack and showing your true character. I wish you well in all things

 

[SPF]

Birth is not simply a change of location, but an immense transformation that brings into being a new person (or actual animal being of another species). It is when there is first a new biological organism, autonomous not parasitically attached and totally inside a person, first breathing the breath of life (which the Bible identifies with "a living soul"), in the kingdom of light and love, not something in total darkness like a tomb. It is then a real animal being, a human being, and was not before, was only being made into something capable of existing in the real world.

This is a good summary of Douglas' view in his own words. The problem of course is that it's not based upon anything other than his opinion. Douglas, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only Scripture that you can point to which could be used to support your position is the unique to mankind, one time formation of Adam.

The problem here is that in Genesis 2:7 it doesn't actually even say that Adam became alive when he breathed, it was when God breathed life into him. So in Genesis we have the creation of the first man. He was formed from the dust of the earth, he was formed as a fully grown adult human, and then God breathed life into him. The attempt to draw that as analogous to a baby taking their own first breath at birth is really reaching far. And given that there is nothing else in Scripture that I know of which you can use to support your belief, I have to wonder why you so strongly hold to it.

The actual reality of human development is that at conception we have the creation of a new human life. We know that new human life begins at conception. Indeed, the abortion discussion isn't actually over when life begins, because all the medical and scientific community is in agreement that life begins at conception.

According to Douglas, something like partial-birth abortion would be acceptable. According to Douglas, even a baby brought to full term who has been removed entirely from the womb but has yet to breathe - could be killed, and that wouldn't be wrong. Surely we all see that this position has serious issues.

Indeed, all we have to do is look at the life of John the Baptist and we can see there is a real Biblical disagreement with Douglas' view.

Luke 1:15 - "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.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..."For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

The passage in Luke is thankfully quite clear. We have an unborn child who is filled with the Holy Spirit while located in the womb. We have an unborn child that leaped for joy. Douglas' position that there is not a human baby in the womb until it draws its first breath is really found wanting in light of this passage.

 

[-V-]

Birth is not simply a change of location, but an immense transformation that brings into being a new person (or actual animal being of another species). It is when there is first a new biological organism,

According to who? Based on what science? According to all the biology and medical science I’ve seen, the unborn is a unique biological organism and a human being at conception. So where do you get this idea that it becomes biologically different via passage through the birth canal?

first breathing the breath of life (which the Bible identifies with "a living soul"),

So, just air is the “breath of life”? So, When God formed Adam from the ground, had you or I been there, either one of us could have breathed into that lump of dirt, and Adam would have become alive? If not, equating “the breath of life” to just air is completely unsubstantiated. It was the power of God that was the “breath of life”, not oxygen.

 

[Blade]

Jimmy.. love you man I do.. ever talk face to face with a woman that did this? Easy to speak what we personally believe to be true... what your asking you know to be not true.. to then speculate.. anything can then be said... and have I? yes yes yes.. its a pain.. I will never know of..

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jimmy.. love you man I do.. ever talk face to face with a woman that did this? Easy to speak what we personally believe to be true... what your asking you know to be not true.. to then speculate.. anything can then be said... and have I? yes yes yes.. its a pain.. I will never know of..

People can rationalize anything. I've lived long enough to see that.

If you're asking me to excuse a woman kills a living child in her stomach, I won't. If you're asking me if I am compassionate toward sinners, I am.

A question for you: should we determine right from wrong based on emotions or facts? Has anyone every asked you if you've met a "loving homosexual couple" when you've voiced your agreement with scripture regarding homosexuality? Both the question and answer are irrelevant.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Birth is not simply a change of location, but an immense transformation that brings into being a new person (or actual animal being of another species). It is when there is first a new biological organism, autonomous not parasitically attached and totally inside a person, first breathing the breath of life (which the Bible identifies with "a living soul"), in the kingdom of light and love, not something in total darkness like a tomb. It is then a real animal being, a human being, and was not before, was only being made into something capable of existing in the real world.

According to who? Based on what science? According to all the biology and medical science I’ve seen, the unborn is a unique biological organism and a human being at conception. So where do you get this idea that it becomes biologically different via passage through the birth canal?

So, just air is the “breath of life”? So, When God formed Adam from the ground, had you or I been there, either one of us could have breathed into that lump of dirt, and Adam would have become alive? If not, equating “the breath of life” to just air is completely unsubstantiated. It was the power of God that was the “breath of life”, not oxygen.

So are we supposed to believe that we all have God in us, not breath, not breathed air?
Seemeth a bit fantabulistic to me!
What we not only believe but KNOW is that without breath we are dead, so breath OF AIR! seemeth to have a particularly fond attachment to the human being life.

HUMAN BEING LIFE. REAL PERSONS IN THE REAL WORLD.
My entire paragraph could have been quoted, but apparently was very abbreviated to make it more seem like somebody has a point in objecting to it.

Where do I get "this idea" that it (THE FETUS) becomes biologically different via passage through the birth canal? (Why is it no longer called a fetus, one might wonder?)
If that means the passage through the canal itself is some kind of magic or something, that is certainly not my idea.
That the born human being is very different than the fetus IS OBVIOUS and should not be very difficult for anyone at all in touch with reality to realize! I pointed to some of the differences, REAL DIFFERENCES IN THE REAL WORLD (or perhaps between the real world and the world of the womb).
You choose to delete most of them in your pseudo or semi-quote.

It (that was a fetus and is now a baby child) is no longer tied to the woman via a hollow "rope" or hose. (LIKE A DOG TO A TREE OR A DYING MAN TO A RESPIRATOR.)

The actual human being animal, an actual organism, is only found post birth. Before that what exists is it being built, first a few cells then after months much flesh and blood. Yet it is not even breathing, "the breath of life," and being a "living soul." Not in God's kingdom of light but utter darkness, not free of parasitic attachment. Not a human though composed of human cells.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Luke 1:15 - "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.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..."For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

The passage in Luke is thankfully quite clear. We have an unborn child who is filled with the Holy Spirit while located in the womb. We have an unborn child that leaped for joy. Douglas' position that there is not a human baby in the womb until it draws its first breath is really found wanting in light of this passage.

Did you make up the quote of Luke 1:15, make up the translation so it read "while yet in his mother's womb"? My King James says, "even from his mother's womb," which means after immediately after.
The "ek" of the Greek seems to mean "from" and certainly not "in." It would probably have to have another term meaning "in," and read "from in" or "from when in," to have the "in" meaning your translation gives it.

So anyway, contrary to what you say, the passage in Luke is NOT "quite clear." Just the opposite.
There is no child, not even a baby. There is a much anticipated baby that will be born, best translated as "babe," a term of endearment and expectation.
And you seem not at all to have noticed verse 14 where it is indicated Elizabeth will have a son "and many shall rejoice at his birth." NOT BECAUSE HE WAS A FETUS.

You do not yet see that you are very falsely claiming yet again that "John was filled with the Holy Spirit" when it is Elisabeth that was so filled and that is clearly stated in verse 41?

 

[SPF]

The actual human being animal, an actual organism, is only found post birth.

This is one of the cornerstones of your position, and unfortunately, it's just wrong.

Human development doesn't end when we exit the womb. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Puberty is a fairly significant change in development. Human development begins at conception and continues for a couple of decades after birth occurs.

A new actual human being, an actual organism is formed and created once a sperm fertilizes an ovum. That new actual human being then begins a 20+ year process of development.

Regarding Luke 1:15, I was quoting the NASB, which in this instance does a better job than the KJV.

"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."

If we look at other uses of this term in the NT, we will see that it fits well with the NASB interpretation:

Matthew 12:46 - While he was "still" speaking...
Matthew 19:20 - ..what am I "still" lacking...
Matthew 26:47 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 8:49 - While He was "still" speaking...
Luke 9:42 - While he was "still" approaching...
Luke 24:6 - while He was "still" in Gallilee...
John 11:20 - Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was "still" in the place....

Basically, the passage could also read - "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"

The text is not on your side Douglas. As a Christian you should strive for some intellectual and Biblical integrity and you should base your beliefs upon Scripture, not try to read your exclusive beliefs into Scripture.

And again, let's not forget that John literally leaped inside his mother's womb when his mother heard Mary's greeting. John leaped for joy. The Bible is very explicit on this. He leaped for joy.

 

[-V-]

So are we supposed to believe that we all have God in us, not breath, not breathed air?
Seemeth a bit fantabulistic to me!
What we not only believe but KNOW is that without breath we are dead, so breath OF AIR! seemeth to have a particularly fond attachment to the human being life.

Do we breathe air? Of course. But what made Adam a living being? You conveniently didn't answer my question - again, if you or I were there, could we have just pumped oxygen into the lump of dirt, and Adam would have been made alive? Nonsense. God "breathed" the breath of life into Adam. I don't think it's any kind of stretch to see that as meaning God did, in fact, put some piece of His essence into man, and that is what made Adam become a living being, it's that piece of God's essence that makes us be "in His image." We're dead without air? So what? We're dead without lots of things. We're dead without food. So why shouldn't the rule be a fetus isn't a real human being until it consumes food? We're dead without water. So why shouldn't the rule be a fetus isn't a real human being until it drinks water?

HUMAN BEING LIFE. REAL PERSONS IN THE REAL WORLD.
My entire paragraph could have been quoted, but apparently was very abbreviated to make it more seem like somebody has a point in objecting to it.

Where do I get "this idea" that it (THE FETUS) becomes biologically different via passage through the birth canal? (Why is it no longer called a fetus, one might wonder?)
If that means the passage through the canal itself is some kind of magic or something, that is certainly not my idea.
That the born human being is very different than the fetus IS OBVIOUS and should not be very difficult for anyone at all in touch with reality to realize! I pointed to some of the differences, REAL DIFFERENCES IN THE REAL WORLD (or perhaps between the real world and the world of the womb).
You choose to delete most of them in your pseudo or semi-quote.

It (that was a fetus and is now a baby child) is no longer tied to the woman via a hollow "rope" or hose. (LIKE A DOG TO A TREE OR A DYING MAN TO A RESPIRATOR.)

The actual human being animal, an actual organism, is only found post birth. Before that what exists is it being built, first a few cells then after months much flesh and blood. Yet it is not even breathing, "the breath of life," and being a "living soul." Not in God's kingdom of light but utter darkness, not free of parasitic attachment. Not a human though composed of human cells.

I see. So, you have no medical evidence, no biological scientific arguments. Just your own personal philosophy.

There is no child, not even a baby

According to no biological, medical, scientific, or Biblical definition. Nope. Only according to your as of yet unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do we breathe air? Of course. But what made Adam a living being? You conveniently didn't answer my question - again, if you or I were there, could we have just pumped oxygen into the lump of dirt, and Adam would have been made alive? Nonsense. God "breathed" the breath of life into Adam. I don't think it's any kind of stretch to see that as meaning God did, in fact, put some piece of His essence into man, and that is what made Adam become a living being, it's that piece of God's essence that makes us be "in His image." We're dead without air? So what? We're dead without lots of things. We're dead without food. So why shouldn't the rule be a fetus isn't a real human being until it consumes food? We're dead without water. So why shouldn't the rule be a fetus isn't a real human being until it drinks water?

What made Adam a living being?
THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT LIFE, WHEN THERE IS LIFE AND WHEN THERE IS NOT.

Do you understand that both the fetus and the child are alive - there is no difference of life or "aliveness." Even as the sperm and egg are alive.
All life is from God in that he instilled that first life from which all life has come.

So the question is not at all about life - it is about when "life" is a human being, when what is alive is an alive human being, and when what is alive (e.g. a fetus) is not a human being.

Btw, the rule is that a fetus isn't a human being until it consumes food and drinks water. Ie. the necessary injestation of food and water, that is the way things work, part of what it is to be born.

 

[SPF]

So the question is not at all about life - it is about when "life" is a human being

Scientifically we already know the answer to that - at conception. Are you able to provide ANY support for your opinion other than just what you type here on this forum?

Btw, the rule is that a fetus isn't a human being until it consumes food and drinks water

I missed that rule, can you provide the source for where you are citing it from?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Human development doesn't end when we exit the womb. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Puberty is a fairly significant change in development. Human development begins at conception and continues for a couple of decades after birth occurs.

A new actual human being, an actual organism is formed and created once a sperm fertilizes an ovum. That new actual human being then begins a 20+ year process of development.

IT IS NOT ABOUT "HUMAN DEVELOPMENT." Whether there is always that, or not.

It is about, to use your words, "a new actual human being." (At last we agree on something?)

Of course there is no new actual human being when there is NOT EVEN any human flesh, not even the semblance of a bone, NO BLOOD ... (Without blood can be no blood of Christ?), i.e. at conception.
At conception what we find CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AN ACTUALIZED ER ACTUAL HUMAN BEING

 

[-V-]

What made Adam a living being?

God did.

THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT LIFE, WHEN THERE IS LIFE AND WHEN THERE IS NOT.
Do you understand that both the fetus and the child are alive - there is no difference of life or "aliveness." Even as the sperm and egg are alive.
So the question is not at all about life - it is about when "life" is a human being, when what is alive is an alive human being, and when what is alive (e.g. a fetus) is not a human being.

Yes - when is it a human being. A sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. A fertilized egg *IS* a human being. From conception to birth, there is NO POINT before which science/medicine/biology can say it is not a human being, but only a human being in different stages of development.

Btw, the rule

is that a fetus isn't a human being until it consumes food and drinks water. Ie. the necessary injestation of food and water, that is the way things work, part of what it is to be born.

Where do you get that "rule" from?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Scientifically we already know the answer to that - at conception. Are you able to provide ANY support for your opinion other than just what you type here on this forum?

Your saying "we already know," and "scientifically" does not prove anything except you can say those words.

Of course I would to you not be able to provide ANY support for you opinion other than just what I type here on this forum -that is THE ONLY WAY I know of to talk to you!