No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The Luke narrative concerning John the Baptist's experiences in life while in the womb really constitute a 1-2 punch for Douglas' lone view that a human being with a soul does not come into existence until it takes its first breath after being removed from the womb.

Luke 1:15 - For he [John] will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he [John] will drink no wine or liquor, and he [John] will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's [Elizabeth's] womb.

So first we have an angel declaring that John, while even still located inside Elizabeth's womb, would be filled with the Holy Spirit.

We then actually see something happen a few verses later which only enforce the angel's words as true.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth hear 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 [John] leaped in my womb for joy.

You put all of this together and the position that Douglas puts forth, which he actually provides zero support for, crumbles. It crumbles before this because Douglas can't actually support anything he says with any Biblical evidence or scientific evidence. But this passage just really seals the deal and puts the nail in the empty coffin.

It is rather amusing of you to call that, "John the Baptist's experiences in life... ."
Especially after what I have already pointed out.

I told you you were fond of adding to Scripture, and now you prove it by adding the "John" and "John" and "Elisabeth" to what is purportedly Luke 1:15. Plus of course using a (corrupt in my opinion) version that says "while yet in" whereas the Greek has "eti ek," the "ek" being pretty much "from" (or after) and not "in."

Why does verse 14 say they shall rejoice at his birth, if "he" was all those things you say already in the womb? Was there so much abortion/miscarriage in those days that almost no fetus survived to birth?
Note also that 13 refers to the bearing and naming of a son, the answer to a prayer and NOT any in womb happening.
Also of course as I have already pointed out, the points of verse 15 are about a real living human being John, not some womb thing.

Sorry sorry sorry, it is YOU that say it was "John, while even still located inside Elizabeth's womb," NOT TRUE BIBLE. You deliberately distort scripture in a pretty blatant manner!

And my oh my how you must be SO PERSONAL, at every posting it seems very diligent to personally attack me.
BTW, you characterize me as talking about, "human being with a soul," not a form of words I much use, especially in this context. Since it is you that makes this reference, please explain what a soul is, if you have any idea.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, the text is not on your side.

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...

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. It's so explicit that it's actually mentioned twice. Twice it is said that John leaped while still in his mother's womb. First in Luke 1:41, and then again in 1:44 it even says that the reason John leaped was for joy. And before you go off on the term joy...

We do have another example in Luke of the specific Greek word employed for "leap" in this passage:

Luke 6:23 - "Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven..."

On a side note, if you don't believe that a human being exists inside a womb, or even outside the womb until it has breathed - what exactly is in the womb and pre-breating outside the womb?

And with regards to what constitutes a human being, possessing the Imago Dei, etc... Do you believe that a human being has a soul? Are we only flesh and blood, or is there also a spiritual aspect to being a human? If so, your position seems to implicitly state that until a human actually breathes that they are not a human being, so assuming you do believe we have a soul (you'll need to clarify your position on this), I can't see you believing that the unborn human has that soul, right? Can you clarify from a 30,000 foot view what your belief is about the nature of a human being and how it isn't a human being in the womb but suddenly becomes one once it breathes?

 

[AACJ]

I've not found anyone who knows much about being the salt of the earth.
Salt adds flavor.

“Ye are the salt of the earth...” (Mat 5:13)

Salt certainly preserves.
Salt certainly make something more desirable.
Salt certainly is a vital nutrient and thus nourishes.
Salt certainly affects the entirety of that to which it is applied.

Christians have been charged with not only representing the Truth, but also to affect the whole earth. Salt affects the entirety of that to which it is applied.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, the text is not on your side.

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...

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. It's so explicit that it's actually mentioned twice. Twice it is said that John leaped while still in his mother's womb. First in Luke 1:41, and then again in 1:44 it even says that the reason John leaped was for joy. And before you go off on the term joy...

We do have another example in Luke of the specific Greek word employed for "leap" in this passage:

Luke 6:23 - "Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven..."

On a side note, if you don't believe that a human being exists inside a womb, or even outside the womb until it has breathed - what exactly is in the womb and pre-breating outside the womb?

And with regards to what constitutes a human being, possessing the Imago Dei, etc... Do you believe that a human being has a soul? Are we only flesh and blood, or is there also a spiritual aspect to being a human? If so, your position seems to implicitly state that until a human actually breathes that they are not a human being, so assuming you do believe we have a soul (you'll need to clarify your position on this), I can't see you believing that the unborn human has that soul, right? Can you clarify from a 30,000 foot view what your belief is about the nature of a human being and how it isn't a human being in the womb but suddenly becomes one once it breathes?

What exactly exists in a womb is what exactly is there - a fetus.
(I would have thought even you know what a fetus is, or what is a fetus.)

It should be clear from what I said, that I require a definition of "soul" to respond to your speaking of "soul." THEN I can tell whether I believe in it. Or not.

The spirit aspect comes from sex, so what do you suppose the spiritual "soul" is? And is about?

Still, from ... ("even from" my Bible says.) "From" (not "in") is the term in question. And NOT "still."
You are just obfuscating with your "still." Nothing rests on the "still" except the extension of time is FROM THE WOMB and into full adulthood of course. Even or yet or still from the womb. NOT in the womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Can you clarify from a 30,000 foot view what your belief is about the nature of a human being and how it isn't a human being in the womb but suddenly becomes one once it breathes?

I did ask you to treat one topic at a time. (Will I always have to break them up to make them intelligible and not so much confusing one thing with another?)

Basic thing about a human being is that it is a being, a being that is human, i.e. composed of human cells. It is a person like a pig is a pig, a member of the species, a living organism. Look up some definitions of "organism."
It is no more a person in the womb than a bunch of pig fetuses are all pigs. Nonsense to even begin to think so.
There is no difficulty in distinguishing between pig fetuses (that are NOT pigs!) and a real actual pig that is present upon the earth. So too there should be no problem knowing what a human fetus is, and what on the other hand is an actual human being member of the species. Almost any kid can tell, I am sure.

 

[SPF]

The spirit aspect comes from sex

Biblical support for this? And do you believe there is a difference between a person's spirit and a person's soul? Do you believe that humans have an immortal soul?

Basic thing about a human being is that it is a being, a being that is human, i.e. composed of human cells. It is a person like a pig is a pig, a member of the species, a living organism. Look up some definitions of "organism."
It is no more a person in the womb than a bunch of pig fetuses are all pigs. Nonsense to even begin to think so.
There is no difficulty in distinguishing between pig fetuses (that are NOT pigs!) and a real actual pig that is present upon the earth. So too there should be no problem knowing what a human fetus is, and what on the other hand is an actual human being member of the species. Almost any kid can tell, I am sure.

So would it be accurate to say that you believe that the fetus is a human, but not a human being, because a human being must by definition (meaning the way you're defining being) must exist outside the womb? And then from this, you seem to be asserting that only human beings possess inherent moral worth and value, not humans. Correct?

 

[SkyWriting]

“Ye are the salt of the earth...” (Mat 5:13)

Salt certainly preserves.
Salt certainly make something more desirable.
Salt certainly is a vital nutrient and thus nourishes.
Salt certainly affects the entirety of that to which it is applied.

Christians have been charged with not only representing the Truth, but also to affect the whole earth. Salt affects the entirety of that to which it is applied.

That describes a good school teacher.
It's quite vague on specifics.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is no more a person in the womb than a bunch of pig fetuses are all pigs. Nonsense to even begin to think so.

Pig fetuses are small pigs. Fetus means small.
That point fails to reach any agreement.

 

[SkyWriting]

So too there should be no problem knowing what a human fetus is, and what on the other hand is an actual human being member of the species. Almost any kid can tell, I am sure.

Technology has moved the line back so that early pregnancies have a bigger survival rate.
A time is comming when any fertalized egg can be raised in an artificial womb.
On that day, any imagined differences between small and large will be imaginary.
Likely learning will begin very early as well.
So the technology line between fetus and baby will have dissolved.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yet birth certainly is the point of immense biological/physical changes, the coming into being of a new (human) animal being.

And thanks to technology all that will fade away as preemies are surviving younger and younger.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And thanks to technology all that will fade away as preemies are surviving younger and younger.

It is nothing about preemies. They are born and continue as human beings (if they do).
Technology of medicine can mess around with fetuses more each day - that does not change the fact of what they are.
AFTER BIRTH THEY ARE NOT FETUSES, there is no longer a fetus but there is a new human being, a member of the species, an autonomous being or organism alive on the earth.

And on the pig fetuses, try taking them to an auction sale and passing them off as pigs.
It would certainly be a FRAUD to do so.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Technology has moved the line back so that early pregnancies have a bigger survival rate.
A time is comming when any fertalized egg can be raised in an artificial womb.
On that day, any imagined differences between small and large will be imaginary.
Likely learning will begin very early as well.
So the technology line between fetus and baby will have dissolved.

It's not about "small and large." It's about things like breathing and usable and used organs, for instance those of digestion and elimination and ALL THE SENSES.

An artificial womb would be a simulation of a womb, keeping human cells alive until the functions of a real human being can be realized in birth.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not about "small and large." It's about things like breathing and usable and used organs, for instance those of digestion and elimination and ALL THE SENSES.An artificial womb would be a simulation of a womb, keeping human cells alive until the functions of a real human being can be realized in birth.

Nobody claims the senses are not fully active before birth.
Some children are put on respirators at birth.
The digestive system does work and waste is expelled
(it's greenish) at birth.
One of my nephews was very active in the womb then did
bridging back handstands after birth. I saw him on his hands
and feet backwards at 420 grams.
Got anything else?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And do you believe there is a difference between a person's spirit and a person's soul? Do you believe that humans have an immortal soul?
So would it be accurate to say that you believe that the fetus is a human, but not a human being, because a human being must by definition (meaning the way you're defining being) must exist outside the womb? And then from this, you seem to be asserting that only human beings possess inherent moral worth and value, not humans. Correct?

What do you think SPIRIT is then, and especially Holy Spirit, keeping in mind that it is a type of spirit?
You have not yet told me what you think "soul" is that I would believe or not that humans have an immortal soul.
Note here you don't seem to think "humans" is different than "human beings," why do you make such a distinction at the very end of your post?

The problem with using the term "humans" (which I don't much do) is that it is rather close to "human," such that if something has or is human flesh it is human yet not necessarily "a human."
(The example of the cancer.) IT IS OBVIOUS THE "building" in the womb is human cells and hence human flesh (if there is any flesh), just like in the case of the cancer. How do you go beyond that?

NOT by sliding from "human" to "humans," or "a human," as though they were the same thing, which is very illegitimate!

The question of whether a person has an immortal soul is irrelevant.
It will be there (if it is!) only when there is a person; it would be co-incident perhaps that is not the right word, always there when there is a person but that would not (necessarily?) mean it in any way defines or makes a person a human being.
New thought - maybe a person is a human being with a soul - as though there could be any other kind? "Loose your own soul..."?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Nobody claims the senses are not fully active before birth.
Some children are put on respirators at birth.
The digestive system does work and waste is expelled
(it's greenish) at birth.
One of my nephews was very active in the womb then did
bridging back handstands after birth. I saw him on his hands
and feet backwards at 420 grams.
Got anything else?

Depends on what "fully active" means. I rather think eyes that cannot see anything taste buds that cannot and do not (never have!) tasted anything... etc..
FAR LESS THAN FULLY SENSES. (Full sensing of full senses.)
A child on a respirator is born, so it is an actual real child. No question of whether or not a human being.

Of course you never had a nephew in a womb. To be very active, or otherwise.
Wouldn't it be STRANGE to not be able to determine at any one time how many nephews one has (because who knows whose pregnant)?

 

[SkyWriting]

Depends on what "fully active" means. I rather think eyes that cannot see anything taste buds that cannot and do not (never have!) tasted anything... etc..
FAR LESS THAN FULLY SENSES. (Full sensing of full senses.)
A child on a respirator is born, so it is an actual real child. No question of whether or not a human being.

Of course you never had a nephew in a womb. To be very active, or otherwise.
Wouldn't it be STRANGE to not be able to determine at any one time how many nephews one has (because who knows whose pregnant)?

There were three. One died. Two were born still alive.
One is sedate. The other is still active. Eyes and taste buds are not activated by the birth process.
Got anything else?
I've corrected your mistakes about digestion and such so far. How many mistakes can you invent?
Baby's Palate, Food Memories Shaped Before Birth
Babies can hear and see inside the womb
Pre-Birth Memories: Can People Remember Being in the Womb
15 Things You Had No Idea Babies Learn In The Womb
Babies cry in the womb and 18 other surprising facts I learned
Babies Learn to Recognize Words in the Womb

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

There were three. One died. Two were born still alive.
One is sedate. The other is still active. Eyes and taste buds are not activated by the birth process.
Got anything else?
I've corrected your mistakes about digestion and such so far. How many mistakes can you invent?
Baby's Palate, Food Memories Shaped Before Birth
Babies can hear and see inside the womb
Pre-Birth Memories: Can People Remember Being in the Womb
15 Things You Had No Idea Babies Learn In The Womb
Babies cry in the womb and 18 other surprising facts I learned
Babies Learn to Recognize Words in the Womb

Are you saying eyes are open and used before birth?
Are you saying a fetus tastes things? How would you know?
What would be called blindness, the type of sight you insist there is, were it of any person on this earth,they would be called blind. Surely not much of the potential of the organs.
Actually a lot of systems only really start operating at birth. Breathing is the most vital, one might suppose.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, as this is the abortion section, would you clarify how this impacts your belief on the morality of abortion? To be pointed, would you agree that abortion is acceptable at any point up until the first breath because until the first breath, we do not have a human being?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, as this is the abortion section, would you clarify how this impacts your belief on the morality of abortion? To be pointed, would you agree that abortion is acceptable at any point up until the first breath because until the first breath, we do not have a human being?

I am NOT going to advocate for abortion, though you prompt me to do so.

Against the rules, in case you didn't know!

 

[SPF]

I'm not asking you to advocate for abortion. But this is the abortion section where people can give their views for abortion and state what they believe. I'm looking to see how your belief about humanity is impacting your position on abortion.

And from what I can see, because you do not believe that a human being even exists until it takes its first breath of fresh air, that would indicate to me that you do not believe that the unborn, yet to be human being possesses inherent moral worth and value. Thus, that leads us logically to a position on abortion that would suggest that abortion prior to the first breath is not an immoral action.

Would you say that accurately captures your position?