Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?
If not, then Saint Stephen is merely being pedantic.
Making that assumption is what got me in trouble in the first place ...Let's be civil to each other here, and assume that we're all familiar with the Bible verses that apply to this question.
What possible argument could claim that it is not alive at any point after conception? “Sorry, you have something dead growing inside your body” … is that really a viable argument?
One can debate its “personhood” … but not it’s “life”.
As far as the “doctrine” … scripture is clear that God “opens” and “closes” wombs … so God regulates conception. The OT Law supported the death of a life if a woman was struck and it caused a miscarriage … God says the unborn was a person that was killed (not a parasite). God knew us before we were born … God knows people, not tissue.
I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).
I hope that helps (and you can find and read the verses for yourself).
Be warmed and fed. (by someone else)
Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?
If not, then Saint Stephen is merely being pedantic.
Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.I wouldn't say my almost glib answer is positing that pregnancy is caused by unzipped men, it's just that that's more or less where I landed with the issue in taking the entire Bible into consideration, human sexual history and for the fact that the Abortion issue was one of the prime issues I had to study in Bio-Medical Ethics some years ago.
But yeah. I'm Pro-Zippa, suckas!! Jezebels galore notwithstanding!
[And no, this comment is not directed at you, Steven.]
Thanks for your post. Welcome to the discussion, and the forum. You appear to be new here?Sir, a parasite is still a living thing. So, your conversation with the rancher actually affirms that the unborn child is a living thing.
Thank you.Is "Saint Steven" really ignorant of the biblical verses referenced on God knowing us before we were born and the OT references to harm to pregnant women?
Thanks for joining us in the discussion.HOw Ironclad? Most people get it from the scriptures, and they and I would say it is clear, although not a fundamental of the faith.
Can you expand on that?The human body rejects 40 to 80% of fertilized eggs. Are they all now dead persons?
Yes, they're dead humans. However, those that are rejected or miscarried die natural deaths. As such, attempting to draw moral parallels between the two is disingenuous at best.The human body rejects 40 to 80% of fertilized eggs. Are they all now dead persons?
Careful! Going down that path could make you Catholic.Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.
This, at least in my mind, raises the whole issue of the morality of birth control. We take it for granted today, but... ???
I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangilism.Isn't "the depravity of man' part of Calvinism?
Yeah, it pretty much just indicates that somebody read Romans 3 or Ephesians 2 or any of the many other Biblical verses that support the inadequacy of man and our unhealthy attraction to sin (hence the NEED for God to send a SAVIOR and the reason following the LAW saved nobody).I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangelism.
Are you always this evasive?I guess...buts its also a part of just about every other Christian sect. Calvinist doesnt own it no more than Baptist own evangilism.
That's a dangerous standard, since it can easily be extended beyond pregnancy to the infirmed and other eugenic-like propositions. The argument over abortion is about the sanctity of human life, so whether or not the life is "viable" is a separate question entirely.Thanks for your post. Welcome to the discussion, and the forum. You appear to be new here?
Just to be clear, my rancher friend was making a distinction between life and viable life. He wasn't denying that the fetus "parasite" in question was alive, but he did hold out judgment on viability until the animal could see to its own needs. Which I thought was an interesting point.
How does it stand up? For those who believe the Bible, pretty well. For those who don't, not at all.Thanks for joining us in the discussion.
This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?
What is that biblical case? I seem to have a hard time getting anyone to own up to it.How does it stand up? For those who believe the Bible, pretty well. For those who don't, not at all.
I think it is far more a Christian anthropology than politics. We knew from way back that the way of the world was wrong when it came to how we treat little people. From the Roman pater familias who had the absolute right to not accept a child he didn't want to the potions for contraception or abortion, and mystery religion practices, common Greco-Roman sexual practice didn't fit how Christians saw humanity.What is that biblical case? I seem to have a hard time getting anyone to own up to it.
And frankly, last time I looked into it, it looked pretty shaky. But you seem very confident.
What are the key points biblically?
It seems to me that the case made is more reliant on a conservative Christian political position than anything else.
Saint Steven said:
Thanks for joining us in the discussion.
This is the reason for the topic. We have all bought into the dogma about life beginning at conception. But does that claim really stand up?
That's an angle worth exploring. The human rights issue as it concerns the child.We knew from way back that the way of the world was wrong when it came to how we treat little people.
Thanks, Phil. No worries about being directed at me.
This, at least in my mind, raises the whole issue of the morality of birth control. We take it for granted today, but... ???
HELP !!!!!!!!
Recent events, in the USA, have pushed the abortion rights issue back into the arena of politics. Individual states must decide on the issue after the Supreme Court overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Correct me if I did state that properly, thanks.
My purpose is not to start a topic about politics, but doctrine. Controversial Christian doctrine. ("Prolife" doctrine)
I had a long discussion with an agnostic friend about the subject of abortion, and more specifically, when life begins. His perspective was very interesting, to say the least.
He grew up on a ranch. He has lots of experience with the birthing and weening of calves, and very successful experience with artificial insemination of cattle. If you want to know anything about bovine reproduction, he's a great source. Anyway...
I was a bit shocked when he informed me that they consider a calf fetus to be a parasite until it can be independent enough to live on its own. By "live" they mean able to walk and eat on its own. Otherwise, it's not a "viable" life.
He didn't seem to deny that "viable" life was at the end of a process of the beginning of that life, but without ongoing viability, was it really a life? His point was that viable life does not begin at conception.
I was somewhat familiar with the Prolife doctrine apologetics, having followed the church crowd with the "Life begins at conception" mantra. Was even voting that way. Basically one-issue voting. (guilty as charged)
I suppose I was a victim to a one-sided discussion on the subject. We had never taken much time to hear the other side out, or in the rare cases that we did, we fell back on the Prolife doctrinal position. We even made bumper-stickers (labels) that read: "God is Prolife".
I haven't declared myself to be ProChoice, but have pulled back into a neutral position on the issue. I can see both sides now. What to do, what to do... ???
How ironclad is the "life begins at conception" doctrine?
The question is: Is this true only of the Psalmist, or of EVERY conceived "zygote" (as you say) ?Psalm 139:16, NIV: Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
This zygote is unformed yet it is still that man's 'body' and God saw him. Not just saw his body but who he would become.
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?