- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
How do you know this?That is not my view. I don't deal in speculation, I deal in fact. I know that a single cell fertilised egg is not a person; I know a foetus close to birth is.
Don’t know what that means.
I guess I was asking for what general morality means.You said “Do you see human life as morally valuable regardless of stage of development?” and I said “generally speaking, sure.”
I guess I was asking for what general morality means.
Actually the genealogies in Genesis confirm we are persons at begetting or fathering of the child.
Genesis 5: KJV
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: 13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Genesis confirms we become persons at the begetting or fathering of the child.?? These passages say nothing about when a zygote becomes a person. Why did you even bother to quote them in this discussion?
You said “generally speaking.”It means per your question, in general, I find life to be inherently morally valuable.
I don’t know what “general mortality” is either. I never brought it up.
You said “generally speaking.”
Thanks for showing us all how you read out of verses what you want instead of what the verse really says.Genesis confirms we become persons at the begetting or fathering of the child.
I don't see the onus as being on the pro-lifer to prove that a fetus is a human being. If there is any ambiguity then we should be conservative and protect the life of that fetus.
Those in favour of abortion need to be certain that a fetus is not a human being in order to kill it. At some point in the womb this fetus becomes a human being because otherwise you could kill it right up until the point of birth, which is a truly reprehensible view.
So at what point does a fertilised egg turn into a human being? And how do you know it isn't a human being before that point?
Murder is a legally defined crime, and abortion doesn't meet the definition.Okay so you her to be a murderer, got it.
Where have I used two definitions for the word 'human'? I believe that we are human from conception. Those who do not have been asked to explain at what point we do become human, and their reasoning for their views.And your claim is simply not accepted. First of all, the Bible doesn't ever say that. Second of all, you use two definitions for the word "human" there, and try to make conclusions as if they were the same.
There is no bible verse to support your view unless you read into that bible verse, first, your own interpretation.
Except, as I am sure you are aware, that is not the only place where the Bible links breath and life.
Job 33:4: "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
Isaiah 42:5: "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it."
Yes, the act of rape is evil. Telling a woman that she she must carry the fetus of her attacker to term is just as evil. Some in this thread have said that would make her a murderer. Where is the compassion for her?
Some are actually claiming that it should be ok to 'terminate' newborns up to several months old, based on this argument.We used to have laws against on demand abortion. So the question is valid given some bioethicists don’t consider new born babies as cognitive persons.
That's the whole problem. If you don't know at what point the foetus becomes a person, at what point does abortion become wrong in your view? It's easy to say 'early=ok, late=not ok', but how about in the middle? When there are people campaigning for the date to be shifted further and further into the pregnancy, at what point do you say 'no'?That is not my view. I don't deal in speculation, I deal in fact. I know that a single cell fertilised egg is not a person; I know a foetus close to birth is. Ergo, somewhere between these points the foetus changed from not a person to a person. I don't know exactly where that is, but it would have to at least have some sort of brain development. Therefore I would not condemn abortion when done early in the pregnancy.
Murder is a legally defined crime, and abortion doesn't meet the definition.
Maybe you can explain it then? I'm sure you have fathered a few children and know the father's contribution to procreation.Thanks for showing us all how you read out of verses what you want instead of what the verse really says.
It does Biblically. Secular laws shift over time. Abortion used to be illegal in most cases.Murder is a legally defined crime, and abortion doesn't meet the definition.
Where have I used two definitions for the word 'human'? I believe that we are human from conception. Those who do not have been asked to explain at what point we do become human, and their reasoning for their views.
I don't think I am the one 'reading into' the Bible something that isn't there. @redleghunter has already quoted numerous verses which speak of God watching over/knowing/having plans for someone while in the womb. To my mind, the most straightforward reading of these verses is that we are human while we are being 'knit together' in the womb. You are, of course, entitled to disagree.
The most obvious reading of these verses is that life comes from God. I do not see anything here that proves that life begins at birth.
I have never called a woman who aborts her rapist's child a murderer. And I would not. I find it odd that you would accuse those who believe a rapist's child has the right to live of lacking in compassion. YOU are the one who is showing a lack of compassion - by saying that being against the abortion of foetuses resulting from rape is as evil as rape itself, you are trivialising the act of rape. How DARE you compare the two?!!! Ask any woman whether she would rather experience being raped or experience being told that a child resulting from rape should be allowed to live and I doubt you'll find any who will say they'd prefer the former. OR that both are equally evil. You seem to be so caught up in proving your point that you are actually losing sight of the terrible suffering caused to women who experience rape. Ironic, since you are the one accusing me of lack of compassion!
Some are actually claiming that it should be ok to 'terminate' newborns up to several months old, based on this argument.
That's the whole problem. If you don't know at what point the foetus becomes a person, at what point does abortion become wrong in your view? It's easy to say 'early=ok, late=not ok', but how about in the middle? When there are people campaigning for the date to be shifted further and further into the pregnancy, at what point do you say 'no'?
The point is, knowing who fathered the child does nothing to decide whether there is, or is not, a time early in the pregnancy that it would be ok to decide to have an abortion. Someone who thinks that is the case has a cavalier attitude towards basic logic and is therefore beyond having rational discussions.Maybe you can explain it then? I'm sure you have fathered a few children and know the father's contribution to procreation.
Where have I used two definitions for the word 'human'? I believe that we are human from conception. Those who do not have been asked to explain at what point we do become human, and their reasoning for their views.[/quote
I am a human. So if somebody shoots me and I die, that is a murder, a sin and a crime.
But its not just because I am a human. It is also because I am a person.
There is a difference between being human and being A human. To me you are depending on the conflation of these two meanings of the word to advance your argument.
Suppose my finger is severed in an accident. We rush to the hospital to get it re-implanted on my hand. On the way, a mugger robs me of everything that might be of value, including the finger. It dies. He is guilty of robbery, assault, etc, but not murder! But the finger he killed was human! But not A human.
You refuse to allow that distinction in your discussion, and that is why I say you are confusing two meanings of the word "human" there.
As long as you do that, you are fudging the reasoning behind your stance. I implore you to reason about the facts of the case without regard to depending on word definitions.
You might say "A fertilized egg is sacred in the eyes of God because He has declared it to be the host of a soul, regardless of its lack of brain". Then you would realize you need to find evidence for your position. Or you might come up with other reasonable logical points in favor of your stance. Just don't depend on having called it the same word in our modern english language. Go for the underlying reality.
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?