North Dakota -- Gettin' Tough on Abortion!

[Wiccan_Child]

Every human has a starting point. All humans started out as zygotes and every human zygote (left alone) has developed a beating heart.

Incorrect: 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously miscarry.

It's part of the process and experience of humanhood. The heart generally develops about 18 days after conception.

Right. So? The fact remains that neither zygotes nor gametes have a beating heart.

A human zygote has 46 chromosomes. All normal humans have 46 chromosomes. A gamete (unfertilized egg or a sperm) only has 23 chromosomes each. Therefore, to compare a gamete to a zygote is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different things.

Because they have a different number of chromosomes. Why is that important?

 

[ActionJ]

=Wiccan_Child;62947168]Incorrect: 2/3rds of zygotes spontaneously miscarry.

Natural miscarriage and purposeful abortion are two different things.

Right. So? The fact remains that neither zygotes nor gametes have a beating heart.

A healthy zygote (left alone) will develop a heart while a gamete (on its own) never will. Apples - Oranges.

Because they have a different number of chromosomes. Why is that important?

The amount of chromosomes (46) in a complete human represents the fact that it is no longer a gamete but, rather, a human being.

 

[Lethe]

Your earlier reasoning was not predicated on chromosomes, but the fact that the zygote were, "stepping stones," and that, "You were a zygote at one point. You could not be who you are today had you not experienced that stage in your overall development."

The exact same is true of the gamete.

A contradiction you've slithered out of by, pulling out of thin air, your personal definition for being human.


All of which is irrelevant, because we still haven't established what properties make human beings deserving of rights or protections in the first place.

Jesus, save me from your followers.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Natural miscarriage and purposeful abortion are two different things.

Nevertheless, your claim that all zygotes develop a heartbeat is false. 2/3rds of pregnancies end in natural miscarriage.

A healthy zygote (left alone) will develop a heart while a gamete (on its own) never will. Apples - Oranges.

May, but probably won't, would be more accurate description.

The amount of chromosomes (46) in a complete human represents the fact that it is no longer a gamete but, rather, a human being.

It represents the fact that two gametes have fused. It's inconclusive whether that act constitutes the magical creation of a thing which has all the rights of a concious adult human - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Natural miscarriage and purposeful abortion are two different things.

Not to God.

 

[quilbilly]

Not so! You're comparing the formation of Adam and Eve to a live birth. Adam was not born of a woman. He was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living soul.

Easu and Jacob were twins. God had a purpose for them before they were ever born:

Romans 9:10-13, "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Note that they are referred to as "children" before they were ever born. It's important to think of unborn children as "children."

Identical twins start out as one egg at conception. Do you believe they each get half a soul at conception?

A baby getting their soul at conception leads to either two thirds of inhabitants of heaven never having existed on earth and never sinning or two thirds in hell never being baptized. Neither makes sense to me

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Identical twins start out as one egg at conception. Do you believe they each get half a soul at conception?

A baby getting their soul at conception leads to either two thirds of inhabitants of heaven never having existed on earth and never sinning or two thirds in hell never being baptized. Neither makes sense to me

Because now you're trying to make souls logical.

 

[quilbilly]

Because now you're trying to make souls logical.

I like my beliefs to make sense. Don't you?

 

[Lethe]

Because now you're trying to make souls logical.

Reality is logical. If a concept doesn't comport to logic, it can't be a part of reality.

Logical contradictions necessarily imply impossibility.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because now you're trying to make souls logical.

As they must be, given that there are basic rules that souls obey:

• You get one (and not two or three)
• It persists after death (or at least can do; qv. annihilationism)
• It is conferred at the moment of conception (or so the Christian anti-abortion camp says; this belief wasn't shared by Christians and Jews of ancient times)

Etc. They are logical and follow these rules inasmuch as anti-abortionists say this is how they work. But this leads to complications and ambiguities - such as, what happens with monozygotic twins? Does the original zygote have a double-soul, or are souls not conferred till after separation, or does one soul split with the zygote - and if so, do the resulting twins have half a soul or one soul shared between them?

These questions can't be ignored with a dismissive "God'll sort it out", as the whole 'soul at conception' thing is the core argument against abortion: you can't abort even a zygote because it has a soul. But reproduction is not that cut-and-dry - you get twins and triplets, you get Siamese twins, you get miscarriages (more often than not, in fact), etc.

So it's not us making them logical, it's those among the anti-abortion crowd who use Christian theology to support their cause - namely, by presenting an idealised, and ultimately unrealistic, view of reproduction and ensoullment.

 

[Lethe]

Example:
Round square is a logical contradiction and therefore a physical impossibility.

 

[quilbilly]

Example:
Round square is a logical contradiction and therefore a physical impossibility.

Gee thanks. That clears everything up

 

[Lethe]

Serves me for string posting... it's related to my prior post.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I tend to let God worry about the souls. Given that, it's not up to me to decide when unborn babies actually get souls. Personally, I believe it's at conception. I have no indication to believe otherwise. God tells us in the bible that we were sinful from the moment we were conceived. He sent Jesus to save us sinners - that seems to mean he sent Jesus to save babies who had just been conceived. That would mean that they have a soul.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I tend to let God worry about the souls. Given that, it's not up to me to decide when unborn babies actually get souls. Personally, I believe it's at conception. I have no indication to believe otherwise. God tells us in the bible that we were sinful from the moment we were conceived. He sent Jesus to save us sinners - that seems to mean he sent Jesus to save babies who had just been conceived. That would mean that they have a soul.

And how moral is it to create someone as sinful when they've never done anything wrong? At that point they're a collection of cells, they couldn't possibly have done anything wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I tend to let God worry about the souls. Given that, it's not up to me to decide when unborn babies actually get souls. Personally, I believe it's at conception. I have no indication to believe otherwise. God tells us in the bible that we were sinful from the moment we were conceived. He sent Jesus to save us sinners - that seems to mean he sent Jesus to save babies who had just been conceived. That would mean that they have a soul.

That's a better argument than the 'John lept' one. Can you cite where the Bible says people are sinful from the moment of conception? It could well be the verse only talks about those conception events that go on to produce an adult human - a conception that leads to a miscarriage may never actually undergo ensoulment.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And how moral is it to create someone as sinful when they've never done anything wrong? At that point they're a collection of cells, they couldn't possibly have done anything wrong.

This isn't General Apologetics and we're not here to talk about the morality of God - a concept you don't even believe in. So quit trying to strawman me here.

That's a better argument than the 'John lept' one. Can you cite where the Bible says people are sinful from the moment of conception? It could well be the verse only talks about those conception events that go on to produce an adult human - a conception that leads to a miscarriage may never actually undergo ensoulment.

Psalm 51

verse 5 and 6 specifically.

And no, this Psalm does not indicate that David was the ONLY person in the world who was conceived in sin. (This has been an argument I've heard - that since he was the author it only refers to him)

 

[Dave Ellis]

This isn't General Apologetics and we're not here to talk about the morality of God - a concept you don't even believe in. So quit trying to strawman me here.

There is no strawman, presumably you believe in a moral God.

If that's so, then that God wouldn't condemn something that isn't even self aware yet.

That casts significant doubt on your idea that a soul exists at the moment of conception. If your argument is correct then God has condemned something before it ever had a chance of acting good.

This gets down to the basic concept of original sin and redemption through belief in Jesus. If you believe in a moral God, then your argument is contradictory to the God you claim belief in.

In short, either the God you believe in is incorrect, or your argument is, or both. They can't both be correct, they're contradictory.

 

[quilbilly]

This isn't General Apologetics and we're not here to talk about the morality of God - a concept you don't even believe in. So quit trying to strawman me here



I went to that board thinking I might find an answer there but found out it would be against CF rules for me to pose a question. .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Psalm 51

verse 5 and 6 specifically.

And no, this Psalm does not indicate that David was the ONLY person in the world who was conceived in sin. (This has been an argument I've heard - that since he was the author it only refers to him)

How do you know the verse wasn't just talking about David?

How do you know the verse wasn't just being metaphorical or allegorical?

How do you know the verse doesn't actually imply that all sinful adults were once sinful zygotes, but not that all zygotes are sinful beings? That all human sinners were once zygotes (as Psalm 51:5-6 implies) does not mean all zygotes are sinners.

"Zygotes that will go on to be human adults" is a small minority of all human zygotes that ever form. Those particular zygotes may have their soul at conception, but if a zygote never makes it past week 10 (say), maybe God doesn't give them a soul? Psalm 51 doesn't imply that all zygotes have souls; at best, it implies that all human adults had their soul at conception.