my take on abortion:

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The bottom line is that your prerequisites for what is required in order for there to be a human being are entirely, 100% subjective and arbitrary. It is actually not possible for you to present an objective argument in support of your position.

"Must have blood!" "Must have flesh" "Must breathe air" "Must be located outside the womb!" These are all things you have said that are necessary for there to be a human being. But why? Why is this the case? And why are these the prerequisites and not more? Why don't we say that they must be able to walk? Why don't we throw in that they must be able to feed themselves? You're assertions are indefensible. They're certainly not based upon science. They're based upon some underlying unsupported philosophical or theological position you hold.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
The bottom line here is this:

1) In order to be considered a human organism neither the current ability or future ability to reproduce are prerequisites.

The validity of 1) can be demonstrated by the fact that all human beings are born without the current ability to reproduce and some are born without the future ability to reproduce.

2) A zygote is still considered an organism, just as an embryo and a fetus are.

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

Finally, even IF you were able to convince the scientific community that a zygote was not a human being, there's nothing you have ever said that would demonstrate that a 7 month old fetus would not be a human being other than the fact that it hasn't breathed air yet. And that is an assertion that you have zero defense for beyond "because I said so".
So you're taking issue with the biology definition of "organism."
For there to be a being or actual animal organism :
Organism
[Biology-Online] noun
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.
It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
Trying to rewrite the definition is not cool - unless what you say is in accord with the definition.
Your objection to it has shown that it cannot be a denial of there being disabilities, that organs for reproduction may be deformed and still the person born is a human being.
Try rewriting the definition to say what it says plus pointing out that it does not rule out poorly formed "capabilities" in the individual case. It is a definition of an "individual" and if you want it more fully expressed must include the cases where the real born person is not him/her self able to reproduce.
Surely the definition means generally what constitutes an organism (being) must be the sort of thing that reproduces itself - but not even that is done all by itself, of course.
That is, strictly speaking, no individual (animal) reproduces but the species reproduces because generally most individuals have some of that capability and together with others certainly do reproduce. This is what one is expected to understand from the definition, without all of that being objectively stated in the definition given.
So this is what you should be able to understand in terms of your number (1).

Number (2) repeats your's and other's FALSITY in terms of how you want to describe the zygote. HUMAN BEINGS ARE NEVER ONE-CELLED ORGANISMS.
A lot of the falsity arises from your wanting to say "the zygote produces"; the zygote has no productive capacity but is replicated repeatedly - there is no being having any capacity whatsoever to produce anything - it divides into more like itself, and it is very misleading to think there is anything there that has any agency.

Zygotes are not agents, do not do any of the things you attribute to them.
The zygote is nowhere and never near, "complex tissues, structures and organs," that your oft repeated propaganda piece claims it produces. So could not produce them - never even touches such things at all whatsoever!

The embryo is self-directed in a certain sense. But that is the same sort of thing found in the cancer - it too "grows" and "develops" in accord with the instructions of its genes. (And other factors perhaps - just like with any growth in a womb, exactly how it occurs is not fully known in all its total complexity.)
The embryo directs nothing, and certainly does not direct "more mature stages of human life." False ways of talking lead to even more falsity.
Your final paragraph resides in falsity also; I have pointed out a number of other obvious ways in which the born person is quite different from what is found in a womb.
Your "nothing you have ever said," is false false false!

AND you keep repeating the falsity (after I have complained about it before), that I say or even imply that something is so "because I say so." I have never said anything like that, would never say anything like that, and certainly do not think it is true that anything is the case "because I say so."
Falsity is anti-God - one should try to avoid it.
 
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
So you're taking issue with the biology definition of "organism."
No, I take issue with your interpretation and understanding of the term. I have provided dozens upon dozens of textbook references and authorities for you.

Number (2) repeats your's and other's FALSITY in terms of how you want to describe the zygote. HUMAN BEINGS ARE NEVER ONE-CELLED ORGANISMS.
Human beings come into existence at the moment of fertilization. So one could say that for a very short period of time that they are made up of just one cell. But this is just a very short period of time in their development.

AND you keep repeating the falsity (after I have complained about it before), that I say or even imply that something is so "because I say so." I have never said anything like that, would never say anything like that, and certainly do not think it is true that anything is the case "because I say so."
Actually Douglas, 100% of everything you argue for comes down to "because I say so" for the precise reason that you are incapable of defending anything you say outside of your subjective opinion. I'll demonstrate by asking you to provide for me a list of qualities that must exist for a human to be considered a human being. Acceptable answers would be: 1) They must breathe oxygen, 2) They must have blood, 3) They must have flesh, etc... Those three examples are all things you've argued in the past must be present in order for an entity to be qualified to be a human being. So please feel free to use those three and any additional prerequisites that must exist for there to be a human being. THEN, after you've done that, defend the list. Actually do some work and defend your list.

In the meantime, while we wait for that. Here's some educational material for you:

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.4 (emphases added)

In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.5 (emphases added)

... Coalescence of homologous chromosomes, resulting in a one-cell embryo. ... The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell. (p. 33) ... t is now accepted that the wordembryo, as currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8 weeks' from fertilization.6 (emphases added)

In multi-cellular organisms, each of the cells that comprise it are only "parts" of that whole being. An organism is inherently capable of its growth and reproduction as a being; a cell can only multiply more cells, not more beings (unless they are totipotent, separated from the whole organism, and the state of differentiation of their DNA is reversed to "zero" by the process of "regulation" - the basis of cloning by "twinning".7).

Rahilly addresses "human organisms", their distinction from just "cells", and their growth and development in his first chapter dealing with the science of human embryology. As Rahilly documents, the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is a single-cell organism:

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. This remains true even though the embryonic genome is not actually activated until 2-8 cells are present at about 2-3 days.8 (emphases added)

It is precisely because the immediate product is an organism that the international Nomina Embryologica Committee formally rejected the fake term "pre-embryo". As Rahilly put it:

(4) it [the term "pre-embryo"] is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a newhuman organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization;9 (emphases added)

Rather, the single-cell human organism - the human being, human embryo, human individual - simply then proceeds to grow bigger:

Human embryology ... is the study of the human embryo and fetus. ... Development includes growth (an increase in the mass of tissue) and differentiation, by which is meant increasing complexity. Although early development, particularly that of the embryo, is the main focus of embryology, development continues after birth as well as before. ... Development is under the control of the genome, which operates at several levels of organization. A reductionist approach, however, needs to be complemented by descriptive embryology so that the end products of genetic and environmental interaction, mainly organs and systems, can be clearly discerned. (p. 7) ... Growth, strictly speaking, is an increase in the size of an organism or of its parts. ... The chief cause of prenatal growth is cellular division. Growth is ordinarily accompanied by the specialized cellular changes that constitute differentiation. Although growth is very marked prenatally and during the first two decades postnatally, it continues throughout life.10(emphases added)

4 Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed. only) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 18.

5 William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), p. 1.

6 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 87.

7 For a scientific explanation (with extensive scientific references) of the role of "regulation" in both sexual and asexual reproduction, see Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" (October 4, 2003), presented twice at the Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at: http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf, and at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html; see also "Stem cells that could become embryos: Implications for the NIH Guidelines on stem cell research, the NIH stem cell report, informed consent, and patient safety in clinical trials" (July 22, 2001); written as consultant on human embryology and human embryo research as Fellow of The Linacre Institute (CMA), The Catholic Medical Association (USA), and The International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), at:http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_39anlystemcel1.html.

8 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 31.

9 Ibid., p. 88.

10 Ibid, p. 98
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
The bottom line is that your prerequisites for what is required in order for there to be a human being are entirely, 100% subjective and arbitrary. It is actually not possible for you to present an objective argument in support of your position.

"Must have blood!" "Must have flesh" "Must breathe air" "Must be located outside the womb!" These are all things you have said that are necessary for there to be a human being. But why? Why is this the case? And why are these the prerequisites and not more? Why don't we say that they must be able to walk? Why don't we throw in that they must be able to feed themselves? You're assertions are indefensible. They're certainly not based upon science. They're based upon some underlying unsupported philosophical or theological position you hold.
So there is nothing objective about a dictionary - even it's definitions are 100% subjective and arbitrary?
Is that understanding necessary so you can say anything you want to and think, of course it makes sense?

Either you can't understand that seeing something conforms to the dictionary definition is the opposite of having nothing objective about it, that is not an objective undertaking, to reference a dictionary, or you blatantly present a falsehood to see if anyone raises an objection. One could probably come up with a third explanation, but lets not bother now - see if you deny both of these.

After you accuse me of only being subjective and arbitrary, you claim that I could not possibly "present an objective argument in favor of my position." I guess we need to know on what basis you say that, and whether it is a serious claim you are making. Because then you have to show on what basis you make the claim - it's only to say I am wrong, is it not? And thus a total non-argument.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
Emphasizing a false assumption does not make it any more true.

Of course there is a true understanding that conforms to the bolded statement, but you want to claim something quite beyond that, and without substantiation.
Each of us is a unique individual, and we all came from somewhere. We can be said to have a beginning before we ever actually exist, if one remains clear about that, that we do not suddenly pop into existence, except at birth in one sense. Yet that "popping" is not a human being from nothing - it is the coming into beingness of the human constructing already done, to culminate in quite a few very significant features of a human being coming into existence at that time.

It is true that every person that comes into existence originates or was constructed in a womb, and the beginning of that construction was the uniting of the sperm and egg, the zygote.
But that does not mean we exist before we are constructed, a non-sense idea if there ever was one.

It seems at first glance to make sense, that we come from a single first cell, and that is pretty much true. But we do not exist, we are not human being animals, before we are animals. The claim fails to take into account that human beings are bodies that must be constructed in a womb, and the human being does not exist before it is so constructed any more than a house exists before it is constructed. We know the house came from nailing together boards, etc., but that does not mean with the first nailing there was a house. Same with the human being - first cell that became two is nothing like a human being built, is merely a couple of cells!
 
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
We can be said to have a beginning before we ever actually exist
That's non-sensical. You can't exist before you exist.

It seems at first glance to make sense, that we come from a single first cell, and that is pretty much true.
I'm glad we agree.

But we do not exist, we are not human being animals, before we are animals.
Why?

The claim fails to take into account that human beings are bodies that must be constructed in a womb...we do not suddenly pop into existence, except at birth in one sense. Yet that "popping" is not a human being from nothing - it is the coming into beingness of the human constructing already done, to culminate in quite a few very significant features of a human being coming into existence at that time
Your logic is flawed because the developmental stages of human beings lasts roughly 25 years. You're wrong when you assert that birth somehow marks the end of the developmental stage of human beings. You can't argue against that.

I see why as someone who supports abortion you would argue for this. But you're arguing that there is no such thing as a human being until birth would permit abortion as acceptable at any time during pregnancy. Your position would even allow a woman who was full term who had just gone into labor to change her mind. I'm sorry, but that's disgustingly horrible. Part of me really wants to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you're single, or at the very least, married without children. I don't see how any parent could believe that it would be morally permissible to have a pregnant woman going into labor request that her doctor instead of delivering the baby, kill the baby.

Bottom line, your assertion that there is no human being that exists until it comes out of a womb is left both philosophically and scientifically wanting.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
DH SAID:
We can be said to have a beginning before we ever actually exist.
SPF SAID:
That's non-sensical. You can't exist before you exist.

I (obviously) did NOT say, "you exist before you exist."

Just like the house that does not exist before it is built - one can point to the beginning of the building process, the house does come from that process, and although it does not exist as a house during much if not all of that process, "it," when we have a house, can be pointed to as having its origin or start when the basement was poured, for instance.
Thus it had a beginning then, but did not exist then.
A very logical and sensible understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
DH SAID:
But we do not exist, we are not human being animals, before we are animals.
SPF SAID:
Why?
OBJECTIVELY, because of the logic of the language.

It is like saying there are blue jay birds, yet no blue jay birds before there is a bird.
"They are not blue jay birds, before they are birds" is the exact parallel.
It is saying, "human being animals" are animals.
Same thing as saying a red sky is a sky, or a grey cloud a cloud. How could you possibly say it is false?
IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FALSE.

Referring to them when when they do NOT exist seems to imply they exist, perhaps, so one must be careful not to make that mistake, thinking something somehow exists when it does (did) NOT, simply because it now exists and there is some reference to where it came from, especially in the case of the human being when one considers the consequences of the point ...
The "we" in the original claim is perhaps confusing, because we know we exist. Does NOT mean we exist when we do (did) not.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Your logic is flawed because the developmental stages of human beings lasts roughly 25 years. You're wrong when you assert that birth somehow marks the end of the developmental stage of human beings. You can't argue against that.

I do not say that. Again, false witness.

I surely agree there is development of the human being after birth.
Yet there is no human being before there is a being, before there is the animal (organism) that is a human being first at birth.

Most of the building of the human being happens prior to birth, yet there are profound essential characteristics of a human being that are only present with birth. A sentient autonomous member of an animal species does not exist before that.
 
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
Yet there is no human being before there is a being, before there is the animal (organism) that is a human being first at birth.
So why does a full term 9 month old fetus no qualify as a human being?

Also,

I see why as someone who supports abortion you would argue for this. But you're arguing that there is no such thing as a human being until birth would permit abortion as acceptable at any time during pregnancy. Your position would even allow a woman who was full term who had just gone into labor to change her mind. I'm sorry, but that's disgustingly horrible. Part of me really wants to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you're single, or at the very least, married without children. I don't see how any parent could believe that it would be morally permissible to have a pregnant woman going into labor request that her doctor instead of delivering the baby, kill the baby.

Bottom line, your assertion that there is no human being that exists until it comes out of a womb is left both philosophically and scientifically wanting.
 
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

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Douglas Hendrickson said:
Yet there is no human being before there is a being, before there is the animal (organism) that is a human being first at birth.
So why does a full term 9 month old fetus no qualify as a human being?

For precisely the reason given; what you ask the question about is the answer to your question.
In other words, one way of putting it is there is no animal, no animal organism, no animal being, prior to birth.
That would be a functional animal, not some pretty much dead flesh in terms of activity, not actually doing something.
Nor is it only part of an animal.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I see why as someone who supports abortion you would argue for this. But you're arguing that there is no such thing as a human being until birth would permit abortion as acceptable at any time during pregnancy.

Again, bearing false witness, seems to me.

I don't think I ever argue in favor of abortion.

On your second point, way I see things and present them here, thing is that there is no good reason to view abortion as murder, and that is seen to be true, is likely to influence a decision.

"Acceptable" would probably be in the eye of the beholder- just because it was not murder might not be enough to convince anyone to act differently that they would otherwise have done.
 
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
In other words, one way of putting it is there is no animal, no animal organism, no animal being, prior to birth.
Again, what is it about a 9 month old full term fetus located inside a womb that disqualifies it from being a human being until 1 hour later when it is located outside the womb?
Again, bearing false witness, seems to me.

I don't think I ever argue in favor of abortion.

On your second point, way I see things and present them here, thing is that there is no good reason to view abortion as murder, and that is seen to be true, is likely to influence a decision.
Would you agree that if people agreed with your outlandish belief that a human being does not exist until it exits the womb that it therefore means that there is nothing morally wrong with terminating the life of the non-human being prior to birth? This IS the abortion debate section. So let's be very clear about the abortion implications of 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
Would you agree that if people agreed with your outlandish belief that a human being does not exist until it exits the womb that it therefore means that there is nothing morally wrong with terminating the life of the non-human being prior to birth? This IS the abortion debate section. So let's be very clear about the abortion implications of your position.
Perhaps we should start a thread in some other forum?
Actually not, because this one is for discussion of matters relating to abortion, and I am sure you have by now noticed it is very against the rules to advocate for abortion. So probably not true to call it "abortion debate" section, since not really allowed to debate whether there should be abortion.
YES I POINTED OUT THE ABORTION IMPLICATIONS of my position - are you still not clear about them?
And long ago I told you there are many MORAL CONSIDERATIONS other than whether it is murder, that figure into why they do or do not abort, and certainly those should be considered. If you can't think of them, it may be because you have never read anything but "pro-life" propaganda?
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Again, what is it about a 9 month old full term fetus located inside a womb that disqualifies it from being a human being until 1 hour later when it is located outside the womb?

How many times will I have to tell you?
It is because it is not an animal, has not an animal beingness, is not the member of a species, not an actual real alive organism.
 
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
How many times will I have to tell you?
It is because it is not an animal, has not an animal beingness, is not the member of a species, not an actual real alive organism.
I think this might be a perfect example of what “begging the question” actually is. You’re making a naked assertion with zero support. Can you provide support for this assertion? Still haven’t seen anything beyond “because I said so”.

But again, we both know that you can’t support the assertion that a 9 month fetus inside the womb does not qualify to be called a human being because nobody on the planet agrees with you. No scientist, no philosopher, no theologian, and nothing we scientifically know supports your absurd beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I think this might be a perfect example of what “begging the question” actually is. You’re making a naked assertion with zero support. Can you provide support for this assertion? Still haven’t seen anything beyond “because I said so”.

But again, we both know that you can’t support the assertion that a 9 month fetus inside the womb does not qualify to be called a human being because nobody in the planet agrees with you.
Such a broken record!

I showed you from the dictionary how a human being organism must be an animal, not something that only might become an animal, it must already be an actual member of the species.
That is so when born - is not so before being born.

It is then when major organ systems begin functioning, when there is a changing environment that senses must detect and respond to, when there is first an autonomous organism that maintains its systems on it's own, not as some parasitic appendage where "it" has no doing, no "say in the matter, where "it" is only totally captive non-being flesh.
The real functioning, real doing of an organism, is not found before birth and means what is in the womb is not a human being.
 
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
That is so when born - is not so before being born.
Why? Is the best you can come up with because it breathes oxygen and it’s physical location changes?

How does a 9 month old viable fetus fail to meet the definition of an organism again?

My wife ended up delivering two of our children VIA emergency c-sections. According to you, you’re suggesting that one moment there was a non human being in her womb and then once his location changed to outside the womb he magically became a human being. I can see why you’re completely alone in your strange ideas.

Not even pro-choice proponents agree with you.

All you’re doing is subjectively creating a list of things that must be true in the development of a human for it to be qualified as a human being. The problem is that in reality there is no distinction. A human being comes into exisetence at conception and it continues to grow and develop for 25~ years.

Go get a woman pregnant and hang around while the baby grows in her womb and then be there st delivery. Then come back and we can continue this conversation.
 
Upvote 0

Douglas Hendrickson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 27, 2015
1,951
197
81
✟133,415.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Why? Is the best you can come up with because it breathes oxygen and it’s physical location changes?

How does a 9 month old viable fetus fail to meet the definition of an organism again?

My wife ended up delivering two of our children VIA emergency c-sections. According to you, you’re suggesting that one moment there was a non human being in her womb and then once his location changed to outside the womb he magically became a human being. I can see why you’re completely alone in your strange ideas.

Not even pro-choice proponents agree with you.

All you’re doing is subjectively creating a list of things that must be true in the development of a human for it to be qualified as a human being. The problem is that in reality there is no distinction. A human being comes into exisetence at conception and it continues to grow and develop for 25~ years.

Go get a woman pregnant and hang around while the baby grows in her womb and then be there st delivery. Then come back and we can continue this conversation.
Why tell you again. I told you three times already.
I presented much more than your suggest. Strikes me your only purpose is to bear false witness against me with backswipes like "Is the best you can come up with because it breathes oxygen and it’s physical location changes?" Ignoring almost all I have said and without being man enough to directly falsely charge me but put it in a question like that.

The best you can do is copy the conclusion of my argument and ignore my pointing to the reasons for it.
 
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

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now the best way to not abort is not getting pregnant, simply.
The best way is to have a baby and have Pro-life supporters adopt it into a loving home.
It's a win-win-win for everybody!
 
Upvote 0