How to win

[redleghunter]

I don't want to argue with you, but what about if some of the genes are missing?

I was very surprised once here on CF to find a person that thought original sin was physically inherited in genes. Isn't there something called a 'soul' and something called a 'spirit' (I'm being rhetorical, because I know you agree souls and spirits are real).

This isn't a small thing, about what is physical and what is not physical...

This spirit, from God, isn't the body, isn't physical:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 before the dust returns to the ground from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The spirit is not the body.

When the body returns to dust, the spirit goes back to God, Who gave it into the dust body, temporarily.

Why does this point matter. It matters because we don't know from scripture when the spirit is put into the body, but only know that the spirit exists before the body does:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations."

"before" -- spirit exists before the body in which it will be placed.

This is all deeply relevant to this whole question, of course. It's not the temporary dust body we are to place our hope in, but in God. Would God put a spirit into a fertilized egg He knows is only going to die just a few days later?

In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.
Conception: How It Works

These usually flawed fertilized eggs are naturally aborted by the body, as God designed.

Would He put a spirit into a fertilized egg He can see is going to die naturally? I don't think that would fit what we know of God.

The soul, which seems to be the outcome of the spirit lived in a body, seems associated to consciousness, and when consciousness is finally ended comprehensively (including the level called 'unconscious' like dreaming and such), the soul departs the body.

But consciousness doesn't begin in a developing baby until at the very earliest 6 weeks, but probably more like 12 --

Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed. The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16.
The moment a baby’s brain starts to function, and other scientific answers on abortion

I know of no Scriptures which promote or even mention human beings as being soulless or without a spirit. The Scriptures do call those who have had the spirit/soul departed as dead and that was not our created intent. Thus why the Resurrection of Christ was a Bodily resurrection.

 

[Halbhh]

Let me ask a more compelling question...Do you believe we can be saved by the Grace of God at any stage of our development as human beings?

Yes, in view of Romans 2:6-16 and 1 Peter 3:18-20, I feel very confident that any and all who die without having heard the gospel will get a fair chance, and many of them will be saved then, just as in these verses in 1rst Peter suggest, but especially the 'innocent' (as your interesting post above talked on) children. I feel it's very likely 100% of children who die -- war, famine, cancer, late term miscarriage, you name it -- will live forever in bliss with God.

 

[redleghunter]

Wasn't talking to you. I already addressed your little thing and you stopped talking.

This thread is now at least 8 pages long. Did I miss a response from you? If so please just give me the post # please. Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree, it's time to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of political expedience.[/s]

Do you really think that this will be a solution? It will just take the conservatives a few months to rile up their voters with another non-issue that they can get outraged about. They propably already have their game plan in the drawer for 3 replacements.

And at the same time, they can celebrate it as a win to have made the democrats buckle and rally around that.

It's certainly possible. But as I said, it is also possible that the constituency for the rest of the Christian Right's political agenda is not so broad as they would like to think. I don't know, really--it's just an idea I got the other day reading about the Civil War. In March, I think it was, of 1865 the Confederate Government finally decided to offer slaves their freedom to serve as soldiers. The Confederated Army was always undermanned and the situation had grown disastrous. By then, of course, it was too late. But what if they had come to that decision in, say, late 1862? It would have meant the end of the institution of slavery, but wiser heads knew that was inevitable anyway. And if they were really fighting for freedom and states rights, why not? They could well have won the war, or at least settled it on favorable terms. It would depend on what they really wanted.

What do the Democrats want? Is an inflexible stance on unrestricted abortion on demand worth another four years of Trump? The courts he will continue to packing will almost certainly gve him abortion, but they, or the Congress, are likely to give him the rest of the Christians Right's political agenda as well, crouched in the cruel and punitive terms they dream of. It's certainly worth thinking about. If the chips are down, I don't think there would be unanimous support for unrestricted abortion on demand in the Democratic party anyway,

 

[Halbhh]

It's certainly possible. But as I said, it is also possible that the constituency for the rest of the Christian Right's political agenda is not so broad as they would like to think. I don't know, really--it's just an idea I got the other day reading about the Civil War. In March, I think it was, of 1865 the Confederate Government finally decided to offer slaves their freedom to serve as soldiers. The Confederated Army was always undermanned and the situation had grown disastrous. By then, of course, it was too late. But what if they had come to that decision in, say, late 1862? It would have meant the end of the institution of slavery, but wiser heads knew that was inevitable anyway. And if they were really fighting for freedom and states rights, why not? They could well have won the war, or at least settled it on favorable terms. It would depend on what they really wanted.

What do the Democrats want? Is an inflexible stance on unrestricted abortion on demand worth another four years of Trump? The courts he will continue to packing will almost certainly gve him abortion, but they, or the Congress, are likely to give him the rest of the Christians Right's political agenda as well, crouched in the cruel and punitive terms they dream of. It's certainly worth thinking about. If the chips are down, I don't think there would be unanimous support for unrestricted abortion on demand in the Democratic party anyway,

Well, when we phrase it 'support for unrestricted abortion on demand in the Democratic party', that Marist poll puts that at 78% against. (since 22% are for, then the remainder, 78%, instead favors some restrictions, or quite a lot, variously.)

 

[civilwarbuff]

A human zygote is human, but not a human being.​

Of course you can prove that statement, right?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I agree, it's time to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of political expedience.[/s]

Do you really think that this will be a solution? It will just take the conservatives a few months to rile up their voters with another non-issue that they can get outraged about. They propably already have their game plan in the drawer for 3 replacements.

And at the same time, they can celebrate it as a win to have made the democrats buckle and rally around that.

You got that right, we are ready to go. We are gonna block immigration by all aliens...you know these kind

 

[civilwarbuff]

It doesn't require logic or a syllogism or scientific evidence. It's a definition.

Human being: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens"

A zygote is not a man woman or child of any species.

Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? It is a simple DNA test to tell....the results will come back as a human being....even its sex.....

 

[Speedwell]

Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? It is a simple DNA test to tell....the results will come back as a human being....even its sex.....

Which proves what? If I am already opposed to abortion what difference should that make to me?

 

[Halbhh]

Also, I have not heard if you accept the following:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

I've told you my view a few times, and it's still the same (though not rigid -- I consider there are real unknowns). Here it is again. perhaps more succinct (click and wait a second to jump to post): Post #116

 

[Pommer]

So, at the moment of fertilization when 23 chromosomes from the mother and father pair up, what do you have? Most scientists, as well as science books, will tell you that you have a human being. This zygote, which is what a fertilized egg is called, has everything it needs to be identified as a human being....not a horse, not a pig,.....a human being. So it seems that conception is the point that determines when a human being exists and not some indeterminate point later down the line. Don't believe me; go investigate for yourself before making a decision on whether abortion is killing and innocent human being. I understand you are not a believer but we will all stand before God someday and receive His judgement for our lives....abortion is an easy one to not stand judgement for.....

“It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.”

Source:Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say

 

[civilwarbuff]

Which proves what? If I am already opposed to abortion what difference should that make to me?

My question was directed to someone else. If you are trying to answer it maybe expand your answer somewhat......

 

[Speedwell]

My question was directed to someone else. If you are trying to answer it maybe expand your answer somewhat......

I'm not sure what the argument is about. Of course a human zygote or embryo or fetus will have a human genome, whatever opinion you may have about whether any of those stages of development is a human being capable of being murdered. Such an opinion would be formed independently of the fact that a human genome was present.

 

[Halbhh]

Why should we guess that a soul/spirit was not present?

See post #116.

Also, I recall your 2 best arguments from our previous discussion.

You asked, in view of the fact so many conceptions result in natural abortion, if we can then presume to play God. That was a good question, and I'm totally sympathetic to it -- if a person becomes pregnant (implantation, about 6 days to 10 days after intercourse), and the baby and mother are both healthy (can live) and there is no physical risk (of likely death, bad odds), then why should she in those good (and common) conditions for pregnancy 'play God'. Shouldn't she instead let God play it out?

I think that's a great point (even if I don't have the precise version you meant, I think that's close, or it's what I got from it).

I responded (or at some point I did, and now it's connected in my mind) that at some point in time, often, a woman is said to know (mystically almost) that she is pregnant, or something -- she gets a feeling. Of course, some don't know that it's pregnancy in particular perhaps until they find out that side of it to their surprise. But perhaps they feel that feeling later, too. Women can detect that something feeling, and some pay more attention to it. That might be a special moment. She knows something -- not a test result, but something more subtle, I wonder.

Also, you asked what about Christ -- present with Mary it seems (plausible) after the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.... Very good question. I responded before, that to me it seems He is different than us. He was with God since the beginning. That's qualitatively different than us.
John 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.

See?

Suppose you proved somehow that our own spirits are put in our developing bodies exactly at the moment the first neuron is grown, sometimes between 4 and 6 weeks. If that were shown, then I'd think in that case that 4 weeks would be a firm date to suddenly change the rules. As it is though, my best guess is instead, it's not the heartbeat, or whatever else, but instead consciousness itself, and that's closer to that 12 weeks and later time.

 

[civilwarbuff]

“It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.”

Source:Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say

That is based on 4 "studies" (loose interpretation of that word) from 1962-1988 .....it is a review of those studies. It also has a proviso that the results the studies arrived at are 'exaggerated'. No wonder since the parameters of the studies are seriously flawed.
Abstract
How many human embryos die between fertilisation and birth under natural conditions? It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed. However, the first external sign of pregnancy occurs two weeks after fertilisation with a missed menstrual period, and establishing the fate of embryos before this is challenging. Calculations are additionally hampered by a lack of data on the efficiency of fertilisation under natural conditions. Four distinct sources are used to justify quantitative claims regarding embryo loss: (i) a hypothesis published by Roberts & Lowe in The Lancet is widely cited but has no practical quantitative value; (ii) life table analyses give consistent assessments of clinical pregnancy loss, but cannot illuminate losses at earlier stages of development; (iii) studies that measure human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) reveal losses in the second week of development and beyond, but not before; and (iv) the classic studies of Hertig and Rock offer the only direct insight into the fate of human embryos from fertilisation under natural conditions. Re-examination of Hertig’s data demonstrates that his estimates for fertilisation rate and early embryo loss are highly imprecise and casts doubt on the validity of his numerical analysis. A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women. In conclusion, natural human embryo mortality is lower than often claimed and widely accepted. Estimates for total prenatal mortality of 70% or higher are exaggerated and not supported by the available data.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A human zygote is not human? And a zygote is not of our species? Provide the genetics to support your assertion.

A human zygote is human. I said so already.

A human zygote is of our species, sure.

My assertion was that a human zygote is not a human being.

Then what is it? A horse, a cow, a chicken? .

A human zygote, but not a human being.

Human being:
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

A zygote is not a man, woman, or child. A zygote also doesn't do very well at mental development, articulate speech, or an upright stance. A zygote is not a human being.

 

[Speedwell]

The same thing always happens here when you try to discuss the political implications of abortion law--it turns into a thread spammed by Christian arguments against abortion even when it is stipulated in the OP that abortion should be illegal. The exact same thing happened recently when we tried to have a discussion on the practical aspect of anti-abortion laws. It seems that the pro-lifers aren't interested in discussing any practical issues growing out of their position and don't want anybody else to discuss them, either. Please close the thread.

 

[redleghunter]

It's good news, even if the actual percentage favoring abortion restrictions isn't an entire 14% increase in just 1 month, even if only 10% or whatever. It's good more have gained awareness of distinctions. Further, again, 78% don't agree that 'abortion on demand' is always ok (such as just for 'convenience' alone, after some point in time).

Good news in the sense that more people are actually realizing abortion is the termination of a human being and changing their views...I will give you that.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

You are assuming Premise #2 is wrong based on how all humans are sinners and deserving death? Nice point, but notice this from Psalm 51:

Psalm 51: NASB

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.

3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.

4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.​

Notice what you refer to in verse 5, verse 4 addresses. God has every right as creator of every life to give said life and take it. Premise 2 addresses decisions to kill by human beings. We are commanded throughout Holy Scriptures to not take another life. And God does explain this in the context of human on human killing or murdering:

Genesis 9: NASB

6“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.

7“As for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”​

And God does make the distinction of "innocent blood" (life) often in Holy Scriptures:

Psalm 106: NASB
37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,

38And shed innocent blood,
The blood of their sons and their daughters,
Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
And the land was polluted with the blood.​

Many more passages on the shedding of innocent blood (life) here.
Therefore, the Scriptures do make the distinction. Premise #2 stands as does the syllogism:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

You should have been more precise in your language in Premise #2 and said we are only counting on whether someone is innocent before man and not before God. I would think following God’s standard would be a good measure for Christians to go by. You’ve spammed this thread countless times with a poorly worded argument.

I’d also take issue with Premise #1 because of the Trolley Problem. Killing one innocent person to save several is a moral dilemma but very arguable that the less dead people the better. Imagine if you were at an IVF clinic with a Petri dish of dozens of fertilized eggs on inside of the room and an infant in a carrier on the other side of the room. The building is burning to the ground and you only have time to save one. Which do you save? It is unfortunate but at extreme times weighing lives is necessary so your Premise #1 doesn’t always hold up.

The same thing always happens here when you try to discuss the political implications of abortion law--it turns into a thread spammed by Christian arguments against abortion even when it is stipulated in the OP that abortion should be illegal. The exact same thing happened recently when we tried to have a discussion on the practical aspect of anti-abortion laws. It seems that the pro-lifers aren't interested in discussing any practical issues growing out of their position and don't want anybody else to discuss them, either. Please close the thread.

That’s because it is all sizzle and no steak. It’s made the fire up the base and make them feel good. That other thread you regency demonstrated to me pro-life is sort of like a dog chasing a truck. They have no clue what they are going to do if they ever do catch it. And that is horrifying considering we can see what happens in El Salvador with poorly thought out prolife policies.


You are wrong on there not being much downside. I do not believe for one second the Right would not find a new thing to target with all the veracity they have for abortion now (probably more because they no it works). Also, it would reduce the Democrats to what the Republicans did with Trump. Selling out your values for political power. That’s never a good look.

 

[redleghunter]

I must conclude your personal worldview is based on Merriam Webster, a dictionary. With that:

My assertion was that a human zygote is not a human being.

Based on a dictionary which uses general terms.

A human zygote, but not a human being.

Human being:
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Some gender confusion aside, where does adolescence factor into your wooden literalism?

Adolescence: the period following the onset of puberty during which a young person develops from a child into an adult.​

Using your dictionary worldview, no dice for teens.

A zygote is not a man, woman, or child. A zygote also doesn't do very well at mental development, articulate speech, or an upright stance. A zygote is not a human being.

Therefore, children or even adults who don't have a high degree of mental development are not human. An elderly man or woman hunched over is not a human being. Someone who has a speech impediment is not a human being.

Interesting subjective dictionary worldview which does not pass the basic biological facts.

The biological fact is we are human beings from conception.

Which leads to the question on where you view when we become human beings?