Peter Singer supports infanticide.

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

When a broad statement is made, such as saying that we can kill anyone who hasn't made it to puberty, I'm going to address that based on the law of my country because that couldn't be done in the US because of the 14th Amendment.

Which by definition n sounds like you are believer in the laws of your country, what I was referring to was believers in God and His word.

First, as others have said, we aren't talking about a human being at the moment of conception. Rather we are talkinmg about a potential human being.

I haven’t been talking about a human being but a life. So why again do you fail to understand the question?

Second, the moment when the life of a human being begins has changed throughout history. Under Common Law it was viewed that a human being's life began at the time of quickening (about the 14th week of pregnancy).

couldn’t care less about that mate, as I said I am talking about the life.

Third, as the fetus is inside of the pregnant woman, her rights are preeminent.

, No that’s law again, God knows us in the womb.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you want a response you will have to rephrase this.

no sure why you confused at reality.

Yes, it is a potential human being.

Again, couldn’t care less about it being a human being, that it is a life is what means one cant abort it.

Really? Are you saying that a fertilized egg that fails to implant is a human being?

Are you saying that pigs can fly?

How do you know exactly what Skipton wanted to point out? [/quote[ Because I can read what he wrote and I have a sense of reality.

Your writing style is very similiar to Skipton's writing style. You must be very close friends.

The unity of spirit is very close among believers.

It isn't a matter of being "out of touch with reality." It is simply a matter of having a different interpretation.

So as you agree that abortion is wrong why didn’t you say?

Actually I'm happy to engage in polite conversation.

No you aren’t you persist in referring to human beings what people ask you questions about life.

You might notice that I often have said in this and other threads that others are entitled to their own opinions. However, I have issues when people start saying that what I believe is "stupid." We are all entitled to our own interpretations of scripture. Your interpretation is no more valid than my interpretation.

You seem to have issues with reality, stupidity has a dictionary definition like believer, if someone doesn’t believe something that makes them by definition a non-believer rather than a believer, you seem to get upset when reality applies to you.

 

[lux et lex]

Declaring unbelievers again Phineas? Are you God? Blasphemy I tell you. Wait until judgment day. Then we shall see who believers and unbelievers are.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

You seem to have issues with reality, stupidity has a dictionary definition like believer, if someone doesn’t believe something that makes them by definition a non-believer rather than a believer, you seem to get upset when reality applies to you.

​

Yours seems to be a baseless threat with no evidence to support it.
I might ask you the same question, are you God, or do you believe what God says in His word?

What is your definition of believer, someone who believes something or someone who doesnt believe something?

 

[lux et lex]

Lux et Lex,
[/font][/size]

​

Yours seems to be a baseless threat with no evidence to support it.
I might ask you the same question, are you God, or do you believe what God says in His word?

What is your definition of believer, someone who believes something or someone who doesnt believe something?

I'm not God. I believe what He says in His Word when you take it as a whole, not splice it into tiny fragments. It was written by errant man, you know.

 

[Archivist]

Which by definition n sounds like you are believer in the laws of your country, what I was referring to was believers in God and His word.

But that isn't what was said. When blanket statements are made about killing anyone who hasn't reached puberty, I'm going to point out that such action would violate US law.

I haven’t been talking about a human being but a life. So why again do you fail to understand the question?

I do understand the question. We are talking about a potential human being.

couldn’t care less about that mate, as I said I am talking about the life.

So anyone who disagrees with you as to when life begins is wrong?

No that’s law again, God knows us in the womb.

So a woman whose life is at risk shouldn't have the right to an abortion to save her own life?

no sure why you confused at reality.

You really need to work on your grammer.

Again, couldn’t care less about it being a human being, that it is a life is what means one cant abort it.

Then why was abortion permitted under Jewish law.

Are you saying that pigs can fly?

I never said anything about pigs. What I said was "Are you saying that a fertilized egg that fails to implant is a human being?" Please answer the question.

Because I can read what he wrote and I have a sense of reality.

So do I.

The unity of spirit is very close among believers.

Are you saying that I am not a believer?

So as you agree that abortion is wrong why didn’t you say?

I never said that abortion is wrong. I did say that I have a different interpretation than you. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

No you aren’t you persist in referring to human beings what people ask you questions about life.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. You really need to work on your grammer.

You seem to have issues with reality, stupidity has a dictionary definition like believer, if someone doesn’t believe something that makes them by definition a non-believer rather than a believer, you seem to get upset when reality applies to you.

Again, we can engage in a polite conversation. When you start saying that I'm out of touch with reality or I'm stupid because I have differing views then you are out of line.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

But that isn't what was said. When blanket statements are made about killing anyone who hasn't reached puberty, I'm going to point out that such action would violate US law.

Why are you going to do that when what I was referring to was God’s word?

I do understand the question. We are talking about a potential human being.

Which means you don’t understand the question, I was talking about a life rather than a potential human being. For a potential human being you have to identify when that point exists, why not puberty. DO you have any reasoning of your own or do you merely trust any law of your country?

So anyone who disagrees with you as to when life begins is wrong?

I think so yes, but I am looking to see what your view about a life is, rather than a potential human being. Unless of course you don’t see a life until it is how you or your country’s laws judge to be a human being.

So a woman whose life is at risk shouldn't have the right to an abortion to save her own life?

God knows us in the womb, so unless the mother’s life or the baby’s life is threatened there is no reason for abortion.

Then why was abortion permitted under Jewish law.

well lets see the example from Jewish law and we can discuss it, bearing in mind that I am not a Jew under Jewish law.

"Are you saying that a fertilized egg that fails to implant is a human being?" Please answer the question.

No, its not a human being, but it is a life, its development depends on gestation.

Are you saying that I am not a believer?

Are you saying you believe the Bible where it says ..
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).


"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).
or not?

I never said that abortion is wrong. I did say that I have a different interpretation than you.

If its interpretation about what you said you did say that if someone interprets it like that. Same with the Bible, you don’t like attributed the opposite of what you say or write, but you are happy to do so with God’s word.

Again, we can engage in a polite conversation. When you start saying that I'm out of touch with reality or I'm stupid because I have differing views then you are out of line.

Well I never said you were stupid, but yes according to what you have said I think your argument is stupid and out of touch with observable reality.
That’s the way I see it, because conception is a finite point at which life starts to develop, you cant say when a life starts before that, and thus there is no point at which when you see a human being, that didn’t result from conception.

 

[Archivist]

Why are you going to do that when what I was referring to was God’s word?

But that isn't what was originally said.

Which means you don’t understand the question, I was talking about a life rather than a potential human being. For a potential human being you have to identify when that point exists, why not puberty. DO you have any reasoning of your own or do you merely trust any law of your country?

Yes, I certainly understand the question. The question has been answered over and over by me and by other posters. You just don't want to accept the answer.

I think so yes, but I am looking to see what your view about a life is, rather than a potential human being. Unless of course you don’t see a life until it is how you or your country’s laws judge to be a human being.

Again, this has been answered.

BTW, ahve you ever read the Roe v. Wade decision? You know that this matter is discussed in the opinion.

God knows us in the womb, so unless the mother’s life or the baby’s life is threatened there is no reason for abortion.

So a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry her attacker's seed to term and go through the pain of childbirth?

well lets see the example from Jewish law and we can discuss it, bearing in mind that I am not a Jew under Jewish law.

This is from Judaism 101. Please note the use of the term "potential human life."

"Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory."

"An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another."

"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).

I certainly believe what Scripture says. I also believe Exodus 21:22, which says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

If its interpretation about what you said you did say that if someone interprets it like that.

Scripture is open to interpretation. If a fetus was equal to a human being then the punishment in Exodus 21:22 should be death.

Same with the Bible, you don’t like attributed the opposite of what you say or write, but you are happy to do so with God’s word.

What I'm saying is in accordance with Exodus 21:22.

Well I never said you were stupid, but yes according to what you have said I think your argument is stupid and out of touch with observable reality.

Unlike you, I don't think that your opinion is "stupid" or "out of touch with reality." You are entitled to your own opinon. I simply choose to disagree. You can, however, carry on a polite conversation without saying that views are "stupid" simply because you disageee with them.

That’s the way I see it, because conception is a finite point at which life starts to develop, you cant say when a life starts before that, and thus there is no point at which when you see a human being, that didn’t result from conception.

It could also be said that all human beings pass through the stage known at quickening.

 

[ziggy29]

Scripture is open to interpretation. If a fetus was equal to a human being then the punishment in Exodus 21:22 should be death.

I don't think that's a given, not if there was no intent to kill the fetus and force a miscarriage. The death penalty in Exodus 21:14 seems to refer to an intentional murder. Exodus 21:14 --

But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.

I don't think Ex. 21:22 refers to a deliberate killing of a fetus that could trigger the death penalty under 21:14. So using verse 14 as context, I don't think verse 22 is proof that the fetus is not considered human by God.

 

[Archivist]

I don't think that's a given, not if there was no intent to kill the fetus and force a miscarriage.

But the very next verse says "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." Please note that there is no mention of intent to kill. So, you two men are fighting and one stricks a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, he pays only a fine, but if the pregnant woman dies he is the be killed.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

But that isn't what was originally said.

That’s what I originally said; there is no issue with human being, don’t mind considering a foetus as a human being, but it is a life, that’s the issue you wont address.

Again, this has been answered.

How come I don’t know then whether you recognise that a ‘potential human being’ is a life.

So a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry her attacker's seed to term and go through the pain of childbirth?

That’s been answered, my point concerns abortion by choice outside rape and medical danger, outside the mothers control. … but it is still killing a life, God still knows the life that has been created.

This is from Judaism 101.

Sorry, I made it clear I am not a Jew under Jewish law, but the Bible passages you cited are the ones that describe how the life in the womb is God’s work.
Could be a another liberal/relativist dysfunction

I also believe Exodus 21:22, which says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

So what was the fine for if there was no injury to the woman? You seem to be reading this as though the cause of the miscarriage was alright.

Scripture is open to interpretation. If a fetus was equal to a human being then the punishment in Exodus 21:22 should be death.

Ah I see, because you want to ignore all the Biblical texts that show the life in the womb is God’s creation whom God knows, in order to make a judgement about equality of life from a law breaking. That’s some length you go to.

What I'm saying is in accordance with Exodus 21:22.

No it isnt, in to in accordance you would be pushing for whoever did the abortion to be fined.

It could also be said that all human beings pass through the stage known at quickening.

My point mean it cant, because conception is a finite point at which life starts to develop, you cant say when a life starts before that, and thus there is no point at which when you see a human being, that didn’t result from conception.
The quickening doesn’t start until some weeks into the development of the human life, so I don’t see your point.

 

[Phinehas2]

Abortion does fit the the dictionary definition of murder, unlawfull taking a life. The definition of abortion and the law needs changing. Bear in mind abortion after 12 weeks in most European countries is deemed unlawful yet not up to 24 weeks in the UK. How come the life (foetus) is ok to be aborted after 12 weeks in some places but not in others? What is supposed to be different about the life (foetus) in one country as opposed to another?

 

[Jedi]

Abortion does fit the the dictionary definition of murder, unlawfull taking a life.

Huh... is that so? Boy, I'm in deep trouble if that's the definition of murder. I must confess: I've taken countless thousands of lives today when I scratched my elbow and clapped my hands. All those poor, countless little cells just packed with human DNA! Those little living entities... their lives snuffed out because of a whimsical urge I had at the time. For shame.... for shame.

Bear in mind abortion after 12 weeks in most European countries is deemed unlawful yet not up to 24 weeks in the UK. How come the life (foetus) is ok to be aborted after 12 weeks in some places but not in others? What is supposed to be different about the life (foetus) in one country as opposed to another?

Seems to me they don't differ on whether or not the fetus is alive. I think everyone in this discussion will agree to that. After all, it's hard to kill cells that aren't alive. Life, you see, isn't the issue. We kill things all the time with no moral reservations to it. A cockroach here, a fly there. We chow down into a nice juicy steak that can only be retrieved from killing a cow and everyone who has had a salad has comitted vegetable genocide. Unless we want to cry bloody murder in each of these cases and more, pointing out that the fetus is alive really doesn't help the anti-abortion argument. Indeed, it's not even human life that's the issue, as we destroy that even more than non-human life each time we scratch an itch or clap our hands: the countless little cells - individual organisms that are full of unique human DNA - perish and for no better reason than personal fancy.

No, no, what you're trying to reference - and what these nations disagree on - is a different matter entirely: where personhood begins. When does a cluster of cells cease to be merely a cluster of cells and become a person? That's what we're concerned with. We don't care about killing potatoes, bugs, cows, or human cells because they lack that one thing: personhood. None of them are a person.

So when does it begin? A lot of people will say at conception, but here we run into a very weird problem. Let's suppose, however, that personhood does begin at conception. The egg and the sperm join forces and gel into a single cluster of cells. We'll call this cluster of cells "Bob." However, along the way of growing up in the womb, something happens to Bob that isn't all too uncommon: the cluster of cells divides into two, separate entities. We'll call the resulting persons "Tom" and "Jerry." Well, what happened to Bob? Did he just disappear? Or is there a little bit of Bob in both Tom and Jerry (and if so, what does THAT mean)?

Of course, this problem doesn't exist if the cluster of cells isn't a person yet. Perhaps personhood begins once the cells can no longer divide and the individuality of the cluster is sealed? Just a thought.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Huh... is that so? Boy, I'm in deep trouble if that's the definition of murder.

It is not the definition of murder, that’s not what I wrote. Abortion fits the definition of murder.

Seems to me they don't differ on whether or not the fetus is alive.

Ok.

Life, you see, isn't the issue. We kill things all the time with no moral reservations to it. A cockroach here, a fly there.

A human here a human there.
Yes life is the issue, life of a human being in development, that’s the issue. You see the question to you was what is supposed to be the difference about the life in one country as opposed to another, what you are saying doesn’t seem to care about terminating the life at any time.

No, no, what you're trying to reference - and what these nations disagree on - is a different matter entirely: where personhood begins.

OK, so according to some nations who insist on 12 weeks, other nations must be killing a person. Yes?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
It is not the definition of murder, that’s not what I wrote. Abortion fits the definition of murder.

You suggested that "murder" is "the unlawful taking of life." According to what law? How is killing that cluster of cells different from any other cluster of cells? Because it has the potential to become a person? So does every sperm in every guy. Do they commit genocide when they touch?

A human here a human there.
Yes life is the issue, life of a human being in development, that’s the issue. You see the question to you was what is supposed to be the difference about the life in one country as opposed to another, what you are saying doesn’t seem to care about terminating the life at any time.

No, life is not the issue. What makes the life of this particular cluster of cells any different from the countless other cluster of cells we kill every day with no moral reservations? Because it's "human?" Define "human." A cluster of cells containing unique, human DNA? If that's what you're worried about killing, I'm afraid you join me in being among he worst of murderers through the genocide of countless human cells with every tickle or itch you scratch.

Your entire case rests on whether or not this particular cluster of cells contains personhood. If it is not a person, why should I care any more about terminating its organic functions than when we do this very thing to other life forms? Because it "might become a person" at some point? A lot of things fit into that category: sperm, the egg, the nutrients that are consumed to create the sperm and the egg, and so forth. We have to treat somthing as it is, not as it might some day be.

OK, so according to some nations who insist on 12 weeks, other nations must be killing a person. Yes?

If personhood begins at 12 weeks? Sure. But since the rule of law is "innocent until proven guilty," the prosecutor here has to first demonstrate that what they're killing is more than just another cluster of cells.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi

According to what law?

According to God’s law.

How is killing that cluster of cells different from any other cluster of cells?

Such as an adult human being? touching yourself doesn’t destroy a life, the life is the conception that starts developing.

No, life is not the issue.

Life is the issue for our argument, we recognise it might not be for yours.

Because it's "human?" Define "human." A cluster of cells containing unique, human DNA? If that's what you're worried about killing, I'm afraid you join me in being among he worst of murderers through the genocide of countless human cells with every tickle or itch you scratch.

The human zygote, embryo, foetus, not the sperm or egg.

Your entire case rests on whether or not this particular cluster of cells contains personhood.

No that’s not my argument at all, my argument is that it is life which is developing into personhood.

If personhood begins at 12 weeks? Sure.

So who knows apart from we who cant point to conception as the time life begins.
If you don’t know when personhood begins how can you afford to support any termination of any life?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi
According to God’s law.

God has a law forbidding the termination of a pregnancy? Boy, referencing that could end the whole Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate! So, um, what law?

Such as an adult human being?

Now, now, don’t muddy the waters here. We’re not talking about an adult human being. Our focus is the cluster of cells that hasn’t developed into any sort of conscious, self-aware, thinking, breathing person.

touching yourself doesn't destroy a life

It doesn’t? Sperm are living cells, aren’t they? Human cells, in fact; chalk full of human DNA. Is this not human life?

the life is the conception that starts developing.

The cluster of cells is alive, sure, but again, how is this cluster any different than any other cluster of cells? Why protect these living cells in the womb and not the living cells on my elbow?

Life is the issue for our argument, we recognise it might not be for yours.

The human zygote, embryo, foetus, not the sperm or egg.

And what you’re failing to realize is that “life” is not monopolized by human persons. Your cells are alive, just as the zygote/embryo/fetus is. Why defend one and not the other? Plants and animals are just as much alive, but I see no one crying about murder when we snuff their lives out and devour them. If all these things are alive, but we’re okay with killing some and not others, then the fact that they’re alive cannot be what differentiates why it’s okay to kill some and not others. All of them fall into the category of “things that are biologically alive.” The difference, then, must be something else and I submit that something else is personhood; whether or not our subject is a person.

No that’s not my argument at all, my argument is that it is life which is developing into personhood.

So if it doesn’t have personhood, by your own admission, why is it any different from any other cluster of cells? Because it might develop into a person? I’ve already addressed that. We must treat things for what they are, not what they may become. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, we would have to treat everything as a person because it may someday become part of one: the sperm, the egg, the nutrients the parents consume that might be used to construct the sperm and the egg, etc. If this is so, then we’ll be crying “murderer” every time someone so much as steps on an acorn, since it was developing into a tree that would have developed fruit that would have been consumed by a prospective parent and used to develop sperm or an egg that would then develop into a fetus that would develop into a person. This is why we treat things as they are, not as what they may become.

So who knows apart from we who cant point to conception as the time life begins.

If you don’t know when personhood begins how can you afford to support any termination of any life?

This argument was presented in a recent thread. We can’t just throw our arms up in the air and say, “Well, because we don’t know, we’re going to assume the answer is A. Therefore, anyone who commits act B is guilty of murder.” Totally random and comes at the expense of the prospective parents.

I could likewise put forth an argument from ignorance in the same fashion:

1.) We don’t know when a developing fetus becomes a person
2.) We know that the prospective parents are persons
3.) The interests of persons should be sought over the interests of an entity we can’t determine is a person.
4.) Therefore, the interests of the prospective parents should be sought over the interests of the fetus.
Somehow, I don’t think this argument from ignorance will jive with you, which makes it interesting how you would use the same sort of argument against the prospective parents.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

God has a law forbidding the termination of a pregnancy? Boy, referencing that could end the whole Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate! So, um, what law?

Well His purposes. Life is His creation and He knows people in the womb, you should know that from His Biblical testimony. How you don’t seem to have any respect for God’s word is beyond me. Much better than human laws which vary so much they haven’t got a clue when life starts or doesn’t.

Now, now, don’t muddy the waters here. We’re not talking about an adult human being.

That’s what I asked. If I now ask you where the boundary of the focus is, the cluster, consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, breathing, your view is just going to be one of many.

It doesn’t? Sperm are living cells, aren’t they?

But sperm wont develop into a human being will they.

The cluster of cells is alive, sure, but again, how is this cluster any different than any other cluster of cells?

Well completely. Sperm wont develop into a human being, conception and gestation of sperm and egg will. Can you not see the complete difference?
The whole pro-choice argument is an example of not being able or willing to recognise reality or things for what they are. It can’t decide when life begins, when life is viable it is total confusion.
So let me say again, a foetus/baby at 18 weeks cannot be aborted in some countries because of what their government and scientists think not, but can be aborted in other countries because their government and scientists believe it can.

If it is serious enough to make legal or illegal, one group is right the other is wrong.

You tell me which.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Well His purposes. Life is His creation and He knows people in the womb, you should know that from His Biblical testimony.

Granted, life is His creation, but no one has said otherwise. Again, life is not the issue. If it was, we should be talking about a great number of other things that people kill more often: plants, animals, skin cells, and more that also possess "life."

How you don’t seem to have any respect for God’s word is beyond me.

Haha, woah now. Pull back on the throttle of self-righteous ad hominem attacks here. I merely asked for this elusive law God made against the termination of a pregnancy. You just failed to provide. That has nothing to do with my alleged lack of respect of God's word.

That’s what I asked. If I now ask you where the boundary of the focus is, the cluster, consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, breathing, your view is just going to be one of many.

So because my view is one of many, it's invalid, and although your view is also one of many, it's valid? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Further still, I've been very clear about what the focus of our discussion must be: when human personhood begins. The fact that something has life is not enough to merit moral condemnation when it's killed, otherwise you should be pointing your finger and shouting "murderer" at everyone who has ever killed a fly, eaten a hamburger, or had a potatoe salad, because all these things once possessed "life" until we snuffed it out for our own purposes.

But sperm wont develop into a human being will they.
Well completely. Sperm wont develop into a human being, conception and gestation of sperm and egg will. Can you not see the complete difference?

There is no difference. Not even the sperm + egg combination will turn into a person without more conditions being met to further its development toward that end. Each part will eventually turn into a person under the right conditions; if each step in the person-making process is successfully completed. Why you insist that the process begins only when the sperm and the egg meet is umerited. Where did the sperm and the egg come from? The process begins before that.

The whole pro-choice argument is an example of not being able or willing to recognise reality or things for what they are. It can’t decide when life begins, when life is viable it is total confusion.

That's funny, because if you're a good example of the pro-life argument, you don't even have a clue about what you're arguging, thinking that life is the issue when it's not. It's easy to tell when "life" begins. The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. They are biologically living cells. But we don't care about sperm or eggs like we do a person, so the fact that they're biologically alive is irrelevant.

So let me say again, a foetus/baby at 18 weeks cannot be aborted in some countries because of what their government and scientists think not, but can be aborted in other countries because their government and scientists believe it can.

/facepalm You're muddying the waters again by focusing on a subject no one is even talking about but you. I'm not defending the laws of countries. I've never brought it up. The only time I've even talked about it is in response to you. So there's a difference between countries. Okay. No one has said otherwise. Someone has to be wrong if there's a difference. Great. No one has said otherwise.

If it is serious enough to make legal or illegal, one group is right the other is wrong.

You tell me which.

The difference between me and a pro-life advocate such as yourself is that I don't speak where my knowledge doesn't allow. I don't assume answers I can't back up. There's reason to believe that human personhood does not begin at conception (the problem of identical twins I illustrated earlier), but there's also reason to believe the fetus obtains personhood at some point later inside the womb (my guess would be around the time brain activity becomes apparent. It's hard to have a person without a mind).

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Granted, life is His creation, but no one has said otherwise. Again, life is not the issue. If it was, we should be talking about a great number of other things that people kill more often: plants, animals, skin cells, and more that also possess "life."

As I said, life is God’s creation and He knows them in the womb, which you didn’t acknowledge or address, God knows people in the womb as they are ‘knit’ together. What right has anyone to abort that life. No-one.

Haha, woah now. Pull back on the throttle of self-righteous ad hominem attacks here.

Something I have noticed is that a particular liberal response to obvious disbelief and disregard for what the scripture says, it is considered a personal attack.
As I said, life is God’s creation and He knows them in the womb, which you didn’t acknowledge or address, God knows people in the womb as they are ‘knit’ together. What right has anyone to abort that life.
If you have respect for God’s word, read for example Psalm 139 and respond.

So because my view is one of many, it's invalid, and although your view is also one of many, it's valid?

So you are saying your view amongst differing ones is right and all the others are wrong? No my view is not one of many, the pro-life side all agree life starts at conception.

Further still, I've been very clear about what the focus of our discussion must be: when human personhood begins.

Again, your view of when personhood begins, is not shared by all your side of the argument, your side cant decide.

The fact that something has life is not enough to merit moral condemnation when it's killed, otherwise you should be pointing your finger and shouting "murderer" at everyone who has ever killed a fly, eaten a hamburger, or had a potatoe salad, because all these things once possessed "life" until we snuffed it out for our own purposes.

Again, the human is made in God’s image, we were created to ‘rule’ over the animal Kingdom and eat meat.

There is no difference. Not even the sperm + egg combination will turn into a person

No, I didn’t refer to sperm +egg, I referred to sperm alone wont develop into a human being, I take it from your response you don’t see the difference.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
As I said, life is God’s creation and He knows them in the womb, which you didn’t acknowledge or address, God knows people in the womb as they are ‘knit’ together.

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. Since God's knowledge transcends time, He doesn't have to wait until I'm a person to know me. He knew me beforehand: what I would be and who I would be. This fact has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I obtained personhood at the moment of conception. The lines you're trying to draw to connect the two are nonsensical.

What right has anyone to abort that life. No-one

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!!"

Something I have noticed is that a particular liberal response to obvious disbelief and disregard for what the scripture says, it is considered a personal attack.

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! Say something and it's holy writ. No? This isn't the case? Then stop being so pig headed as to think that because someone disagrees with what you THINK the Bible says, they must automatically not be serious about God's word.

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

You've already abused that passage enough by assuming without reason that because scripture says "you knit me together in my mother's womb," that somehow that means the organic matter is a person from the moment of conception. Where in Psalm 139 does the author state, "You knit me together in my mother's womb with the very first step of my creation being attaining personhood as soon as the sperm touched the egg?" Where is it? Because, gosh, I'm just not seeing there in there.

So you are saying your view amongst differing ones is right and all the others are wrong?

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

No my view is not one of many, the pro-life side all agree life starts at conception.

Oh, I see. You think because you have a great number of people who think like you do that you therefore must be right. So consensus equals truth, is that it? So all the philosophers and theologians that found great consensus with each other in thinking the world was flat... they must have been right? Or the great consensus of scientists who thought there was nothing smaller than an atom, then they split one and all kinds of stuff burst out - they must still be right about the atom, correct?

Spare me. Don't think that numbers proves anything. Often a consensus only means that all the fools are on the same side. Specifically in your case, it's real easy to check your brain in at the door, state that someone becomes a person at the moment of conception because because it's too tough to really think about all the other possibilities, then condemn anyone who has an abortion under any circumstance, because it would take too much brain power to consider the many difficult circumstances that really seem to merit abortion (Rape? A medical peril that endangers the life of the fetus and mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue?). An army of zealots who are passionate apart from reason is nothing to be proud of.

Again, your view of when personhood begins, is not shared by all your side of the argument, your side cant decide.

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.

Again, the human is made in God’s image, we were created to ‘rule’ over the animal Kingdom and eat meat.

And this excuses the killing of countless human cells through physical contact... how? Or what about the killing of pests? What about killing in self defense or in war? Pretty sure if you cracked open your Bible, you'd find plenty of cases where God not only permitted but actually ordered people to take "human life." So much for this being a black & white issue.

No, I didn’t refer to sperm +egg, I referred to sperm alone wont develop into a human being

Neither will the zygote/fetus. Not unless, just as with the sperm and/or egg, all the proper conditions are met to develop it in that direction. There is no difference and your choosing of the step where the egg and sperm combine to be the beginning of the process where a person is formed is arbitrary. The process begins before that, because without the supplies known as the sperm or egg or the nutrients gained from food consumed by the prospective parent to create the sperm or the egg, that person will never come to be.