Peter Singer supports infanticide.

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

I didn't acknowledge it because it's completely irrelevant to our discussion. No one has ever denied that God knits people together or knows them before they're born. These facts, however, do NOT necessitate that personhood begins at conception.

Well it is relevant to our discussion, because its my argument. God knows us in the womb and knits us together, so how are you deciding to allow the destruction of something God is knitting together to become a person?

Baseless assertion. I could just as well follow your foot steps and say, "Oh, the poor little skin cells! What right has anyone to take that life? No one! God created it! It's sacred!!"

But that would not be following my argument which deals with life starting at conception. You are using your straw man as an objection to my point.

Haha, you truly are blinded by your own self-righteousness, aren't you? I mean, wow. [/You're actually surprised that people take it personally when you accuse them of not taking God's word seriously by reason that they disagree with you. Right. Because you and God are always on the same field of thought, right? I mean, all of your ideas are as good as scripture!

So what is God’s view if not what the scripture I am referring to says?

If you have respect for God’s word, read for example Psalm 139 and respond.

Its says what it says regardless whether you think that’s abuse or not.

And you're saying something different? That among the many views people have, yours is right and others are wrong? Give me a break.

I am saying the pro-life position sees life starting at conception which means no abortion by choice, the pro-choice position cant decide when an abortion should be allowed, it varies between them.

Haha, "my side?" Are you kidding me? By your "side's" very nature, it's single minded: no abortion under any circumstance. It's tough to think outside of that box. But for those who have a mind of their own and consider the problem from different angles, it's not a black and white issue.

No that’s not my side’s position, my side’s position usually accepts where there has been rape or there is a danger to life there could be an abortion.

Neither will the zygote/fetus.

Yes it will.

Not unless,

So it will.


Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." – Mother Theresa.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,
Have you seen scans of babies during the abortion process, are you seriously trying to tell me it isnt a human being?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Well it is relevant to our discussion, because its my argument. God knows us in the womb and knits us together, so how are you deciding to allow the destruction of something God is knitting together to become a person?

So your argument now is "because God created it, it is tantamount to murder if we kill it?" Boy, talk about a can of worms... God also creates non-human life. Why is it okay to kill that life but not the cluster of cells in the womb?

But that would not be following my argument which deals with life starting at conception. You are using your straw man as an objection to my point.

The explain how. You asserted that no one has the right to kill a life that God has created. You have consistently failed to demonstrate why taking the lives of skin cells (among other things) is okay but ending the organic life of the cluster of cells in the womb is not. Both are alive. Are you just picking and choosing which lives are okay to terminate? And if so, on what basis?

So what is God’s view if not what the scripture I am referring to says? Its says what it says regardless whether you think that’s abuse or not.

Translation: "So what is God's view if not what I think the scripture I am referring to says? It says what I think it does regardless whether you disagree." There is nowhere in that Psalm that dictates a person is brought into existence the very moment the egg and sperm unite at conception. It's not there. If it is, please, by all means, bring it up already. Show me where the writer states, "You knit me together in my mother's womb, starting off with the very first step of granting me personhood at the moment of conception." If you can't do this, then I'm sorry, scripture isn't saying what you think it is. You're putting your own words into the Psalm and that's dangerous business.

I am saying the pro-life position sees life starting at conception which means no abortion by choice, the pro-choice position cant decide when an abortion should be allowed, it varies between them.

A completely irrelevant appeal and, unfortunately, completely inaccurate. Plenty of people consider themselves "pro-life" but still allow exceptions for abortion (say, a medical condition which will kill the mother and fetus if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. You would seriously have both die by neglecting to act rather than have only one die by acting?).

No that’s not my side’s position, my side’s position usually accepts where there has been rape or there is a danger to life there could be an abortion.

So you're pro-choice, then. You don't see abortion as a form of birth control, but you DO insist that abortion be a choice to those who have been raped or who are in danger should the pregnancy continue. Oh, you sly dog. You're not really the super holy righteous defender of all life without exception you present yourself to be. Glad to meet another pro-choice person. So now you're part of the crowd that allows choice when it comes to abortion. It just depends on the circumstance. But what's this? Not everyone agrees on the same circumstances under which a fetus can be aborted? Well, I guess your opinion is just "one of many;" just like the rest of us. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes it will.

Really? By itself? I can have a zygote/fetus on a table from the moment of conception and it will take care of itself without any particular requirements being met? Wow! The things you learn...

So it will.

No, it's a conditional fate. Particular conditions must be met for a person to develop. You can't just blindly assume that the conditions will always be met. You don't know that and there's countless examples of when those conditions aren't met and the cluster of cells (or sperm or egg) does not develop into a person.

Just like the sperm or egg or the nutrients that are consumed to develop the sperm or the egg, the cluster of cells upon conception only has the potential to become a living, breathing, thinking person. Judge things for what they are; not for what they have the possibility of becoming.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Have you seen scans of babies during the abortion process, are you seriously trying to tell me it isnt a human being?

That's an emotional appeal. If you see something that looks like you, you relate to it. Why do you think manikins are so well known? If the baby never developed a brain and had no soul (i.e. it was an empty shell), people would still sympathize for it because it looks like them. Looks can be deceiving. It's something to consider, but on an intellectual level, it doesn't help at all in determining when personhood begins.

On the flip side, if I showed people the organism in an earlier state of just a cluster of gooey cells, they wouldn't feel so inclined to call it a person.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

So your argument now is "because God created it, it is tantamount to murder if we kill it?"

You mean you think you know better than God?

Boy

‘boy’ indeed.

God also creates non-human life.

And God said we can kill and eat it. Now back to what God said about the man and woman He created in His image and knows in the womb. You think people have the right to destroy what God creates and has plans for. I don’t.

The explain how. You asserted that no one has the right to kill a life that God has created. You have consistently failed to demonstrate why taking the lives of skin cells (among other things) is okay but ending the organic life of the cluster of cells in the womb is not. Both are alive. Are you just picking and choosing which lives are okay to terminate? And if so, on what basis?

Yes I have consistently explained what is obvious. The human life doesn’t begin with skin cells, or sperm or egg, it begins at conception of sperm and egg when it fertilizes and gestates. Then it becomes the human life in development. That’s the point it starts, neither your life nor mine could not have come about just by skin cells somehow developing into you or me, both our lives started at conception. Our lives did not start at 12 weeks, or 24 weeks or any other arbitrary subjective point which some rather than other people think.

There is nowhere in that Psalm that dictates a person is brought into existence the very moment the egg and sperm unite at conception.

Ah that liberal disbelief tactic agian, to suggest what the Bible doesn’t say as opposition to what it does. Sorry, there are plenty of examples such as Genesis 4, 2 Samuel 11:5. where the man and the woman conceived and bore the child indicating the start of the life of the person is conception. In Samuel 11 you see the woman conceived and was with child. How come you call it a foetus when God’s word has already made no such distinction. There is no 12 weeks or 24 weeks in the Bible, there is no indication of any time, when the baby leaped for joy it was the baby not the foetus.

A completely irrelevant appeal and, unfortunately, completely inaccurate.

its completely accurate because some pro-abortionist think 12 weeks and some 24 weeks and other varying other times. Explain to me how these varying times abortion is allowed is not varying!

So you're pro-choice, then.

Don’t you realise that rape is where there has been force rather than choice?

Really? By itself? I can have a zygote/fetus on a table from the moment of conception and it will take care of itself without any particular requirements being met? Wow! The things you learn...

If its on the table you must have aborted it. My answer stands as correct, yes it will.
Should I treat people as human beings or just another cluster of cells?

That's an emotional appeal.

If its an emotional appeal to you why don’t you like it? Its not an emotional appeal to me it’s a scientific scan showing how the foetus at 12 weeks is clearly a human being. What was the reason you said it wasn't, remind me again.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,

And God said we can kill and eat it. Now back to what God said about the man and woman He created in His image and knows in the womb. You think people have the right to destroy what God creates and has plans for. I don’t.

You're assuming that any non-human life we kill, we're doing so to consume it. That's just not warranted. Do you eat the skin cells you kill? The flies that get swatted? No? I guess you're taking life outside God's command, then. In some cases, human life (skin cells are living aren't they? Full of human DNA?). Are you a murderer?

Yes I have consistently explained what is obvious. The human life doesn’t begin with skin cells, or sperm or egg, it begins at conception of sperm and egg when it fertilizes and gestates. Then it becomes the human life in development.

Oh? So where did the sperm and egg come from? Why is that the beginning when the process could not have begun without previous materials first coming together in the right conditions?

That’s the point it starts, neither your life nor mine could not have come about just by skin cells somehow developing into you or me, both our lives started at conception. Our lives did not start at 12 weeks, or 24 weeks or any other arbitrary subjective point which some rather than other people think.

And how is the stage of conception any less arbitrary than, say, when brain activity kicks off? Further still, there's a big problem with saying it's a person at the moment of conception: identical twins. I've explained that problem earlier, but no one has responded to it. Curious, when it's a huge road block to those who insist conception is the beginning of people.

Ah that liberal disbelief tactic agian, to suggest what the Bible doesn’t say as opposition to what it does.

If it says what you say it says, then please, point it out. So far, you have been unable to do so.

Sorry, there are plenty of examples such as Genesis 4, 2 Samuel 11:5. where the man and the woman conceived and bore the child indicating the start of the life of the person is conception.

What?! In Genesis 4, all it says is that "so and so became pregnant and gave birth." There is NOTHING in the entire chapter that states personhood begins at conception.

In Samuel 11 you see the woman conceived and was with child. How come you call it a foetus when God’s word has already made no such distinction.

You've got to be kidding me. Saying someone is "with child" is a euphemism for saying "they're pregnant." The Hebrews would make no distinction because they had no medical knowledge that would allow them to do so. They wouldn't know what a zygote is, what a fetus is, what any of the stages of development are. All they would know is sex then pregnancy then birth and that's all the description you find in these passages.

Explain to me how these varying times abortion is allowed is not varying!

I'm not saying you're inaccurate when you say people vary; I'm saying you're inaccurate in describing the pro-life position. Even pro-lifers, such as yourself, often advocate pro-choice when it comes to abortion. They just differ on the circumstances (rape, incest, medical conditions, etc).

Don’t you realise that rape is where there has been force rather than choice?

And don't you realize the prospective mother still has a choice she can make about what to do about the pregnancy? Don't confuse the matter here. The issue is about a choice to abort - not a choice to have sex.

If its on the table you must have aborted it. My answer stands as correct, yes it will.

You're really not getting this. The zygote/fetus, ON ITS OWN, will NOT develop into anything. It needs some outside force to continue forming and developing it, just like the sperm, just like the egg. I can't believe you seriously think this cluster of cells is self-sustained and would be just fine if left to its own devices.

If its an emotional appeal to you why don’t you like it?

Because it has no intellectual thrust, like I explained earlier...

Its not an emotional appeal to me it’s a scientific scan showing how the foetus at 12 weeks is clearly a human being. What was the reason you said it wasn't, remind me again.

Why is it a human being? Because it looks like one? The scan shows absolutely nothing about the nature of the subject except its appearance and that's the entire pull of the argument.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

You're assuming that any non-human life we kill, we're doing so to consume it.

As I am not making any assumptions at all I don’t want to be diverted to tangent assumptions. As I said, God created man and woman in His image and knows in the womb.

Oh? So where did the sperm and egg come from? Why is that the beginning when the process could not have begun without previous materials first coming together in the right conditions?

Your question is irrelevant, human life doesn’t begin with sperm or egg, it begins at conception of sperm and egg.

And how is the stage of conception any less arbitrary than, say, when brain activity kicks off?

Because it is at point in time before which no life will naturally develop, babies still continue to develop after 12 weeks and after 24 weeks.

Further still, there's a big problem with saying it's a person at the moment of conception: identical twins. I've explained that problem earlier, but no one has responded to it. Curious, when it's a huge road block to those who insist conception is the beginning of people.

Sorry, how are identical twins not persons? The identical twins occur before 12 weeks, would your abortion time not be more suitable for the point before which twins occur?

If it says what you say it says, then please, point it out. So far, you have been unable to do so.

Ah that liberal disbelief tactic agian, to suggest what the Bible doesn’t say as opposition to what it does, and then attribute what the Bible says to an individual so as to pretend what the Bible says isn’t actually what the Bible says but what an individual thinks the Bible says.

What?! In Genesis 4, all it says is that "so and so became pregnant and gave birth." There is NOTHING in the entire chapter that states personhood begins at conception.

Except what is says implies it is, and there is nothing to say any number of weeks.

You've got to be kidding me. Saying someone is "with child" is a euphemism for saying "they're pregnant."

The question to you was why do you call the child a foetus when the Bible calls it a child.

The Hebrews would make no distinction because they had no medical knowledge that would allow them to do so.

This is the word of God inspired by God, not the word of Hebrews or modern man. I have no problem with describing the stage of the life of the baby as at zygote or foetus, but the word of God describes the baby.

I'm not saying you're inaccurate when you say people vary; I'm saying you're inaccurate in describing the pro-life position.

You see the country passes the legal limit on abortion, not even based on what science says, but what one group of scientists say as opposed to others. So there is no real reason to the law.

And don't you realize the prospective mother still has a choice she can make about what to do about the pregnancy?

No I don’t, the choice was to have sexual intercourse which naturally results in conception. Don’t you realise that rape is where there has been force rather than choice?

Don't confuse the matter here. The issue is about a choice to abort - not a choice to have sex.

This is the issue, your argument is in la-la land, sexual activity naturally leads to conception, that’s the choice. Your argument implies one fancies sex but doesn’t fancy the consequences.

You're really not getting this.

Ok so how did it get on the table from its mother’s womb. Either it was miscarried or aborted.

The zygote/fetus, ON ITS OWN, will NOT develop into anything.

SO LEAVE IT IN THE MOTHERS WOMB WHERE GOD HAS CREATED IT TO DEVELOP.

Because it has no intellectual thrust, like I explained earlier...

It has the intellectual thrust of being reality.

Why is it a human being?

Sorry I was referring to the scan, the scan shows clearly it is a human being.

Because it looks like one?

doesn’t a human look like a human?

The scan shows absolutely nothing about the nature of the subject except its appearance and that's the entire pull of the argument.

Of course it shows the nature of the subject, we know it is a baby in development, the scan shows this.

 

[Jedi]

Okay, I'm not even going to bother repeating myself in quoting you like I have here for pages on end. It's the same arguments as the other thread. We'll continue this there.