Pro-life or pro-choice

[redleghunter]

There's no confusion about what it is. First it's a zygote. Then it becomes a blastocyst. Then an embryo. At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy it becomes a fetus. Not until it is born and viable is it a baby. That's medical and scientific fact.

Actually to make your statement medical and scientific fact it would be the following:

First it's a human zygote. Then it becomes a human blastocyst. Then a human embryo. At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy it becomes a human fetus. Not until it is born and viable is it a newborn human baby. That's medical and scientific fact.

Embryology confirms at conception we have a distinct new human being:


Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245

 

[redleghunter]

Edit, duplicate.

 

[redleghunter]

Though I must ask what this to do with the OP?

Good question.

 

[PiedType]

Now who's putting their philosophy into it?

What philosophy? A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. That describes a fetus.

 

[redleghunter]

Nice, parasitic human beings.....why don't you take that to the sci-fi thread?

You mean like the movie Alien?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Parasites are from separate species....brush up on your science.....

 

[redleghunter]

What philosophy? A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. That describes a fetus.

A parasite is alien to the host. Conception is not a parasitic occurrence and I challenge you to find embryologists who view it as such or proven as such.

 

[PiedType]

First it's a human zygote. Then it becomes a human blastocyst. Then a human embryo. At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy it becomes a human fetus. Not until it is born and viable is it a newborn human baby. That's medical and scientific fact.

Agreed.
Also, I only meant that the dependent relationship is parasitic in nature, not that an actual non-human parasite existed.

 

[Davian]

There is no use. Even if you understand you will twist what I say into yet another question about nothing.

What was wrong with the questions I just asked of you?

No matter what I say, you will stay on your course to derail the topic at hand. Why is it the most self proclaimed rational and open minded peeps cant have a convo without tricks and tactics to try and control the 'opponent'?

You offer nothing, and expect everything.

I am only here to observe. I am not here to promote my worldview, or champion science.

Here, read this post from way back when on that topic:

** REPOST**

What if I told you an Atheist's idea of proving God exists is subjective?

When something is subjective, it is considered a matter of personal opinion. Truth is considered to be independent of personal opinion. That is to say, personal opinion cannot change the truth. Any position that is held that is not unchangeable, immutable, or eternal is opinion; it is not truth.

When someone says, “prove to me that Christianity is true.” They are not asking you proclaim, “In my opinion, Christianity is true.” Instead, they are asking you to prove to them that Christianity is true despite their opinion that Christianity isn’t true. The problem is, the atheist’s burden of proof is an opinion, and one should not test truths using opinions because truths are always true independently of individual opinion or personal conviction.

This makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with the one(s) making the claim. Not the unbeliever, in this case.

Now that a description of truth has been given, we should look at the implications of the following statement: “Christianity is true.” When we say Christianity is true, we mean that it is absolutely true. This, of course, means that Christianity is true independently of any individual’s opinion. This, of course, can be said of any true proposition.

Which begs the question, which interpretation of Christianity? Yours?

When the atheists say, “prove to me that God exists” or “prove to me that Christianity is true,” many of them have a different burden of proof in mind.

I am not asking for proof. I would ask for something that would demonstrate that we are not simply talking about a character in a book.

One might ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t he heal amputees?”

Indeed. Why not? Why is only headaches and sore backs, and the like?

Another will ask, “Why is it that God won’t just come down and show himself to me?”

Is that not what many believers claim happened to them?

Another may say, “If God exists, he can prove himself to me by ridding the world of evil and suffering.”

That would make sense for a "loving" god, would it not?

Perhaps another atheist will ignorantly say, “If God exists, he would be testable by the scientific method.”

Have you a better, more reliable means for exploring reality?

Different atheists will give different levels and conditions concerning what constitutes as meeting the burden of proof.

Are you able to meet any of them?

This is, unfortunately for the atheist, where their request to prove that Christianity is true falls apart. Truth is immutable, unchangeable, and absolute, but the burden of proof that each atheist says they require is completely subjective and nothing more than personal opinion.

If only you spent as much time trying to meet that burden of proof as you did complaining about it.

If we are to be justified in believing in any proposition, we must have a concrete way to test the truth of propositions. A subjective standard will not do. If the burden of proof for any truth is subjective, then anyone can be justified in believing in any proposition, including Christianity, as long as the burden of proof has been met for that individual. If the burden of proof is subjective, then a universal truth cannot be considered universal, rather, all “truths” are a matter of personal opinion.

So how then do you prove the existence of your god?

If the atheist is to hold that we ought to test the truth of propositions in a subjective manner, then no proposition is ultimately provable. The epistemological implications on the atheist worldview is devastating. The obligation that the atheist sets forth for us to meet their own subjective burden of proof destroys their own epistemology.

Atheism is not a truth claim. There is no burden of proof for it.

If their epistemology falls, then so too does their objection concerning their burden of proof not being met for Christianity. After all, if no proposition is provable beyond opinion, then all known propositions are opinions. If all propositions are opinions, then the only consistent conclusion concerning epistemology is that no one can know anything at all, thus, such a way of testing propositions leads to skepticism.

Let's give that a quick test. Is it only opinion that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun?

Any Christian that has had a discussion with an unbeliever concerning the truth of Christianity has probably been told that it is the Christian’s task to prove the truth of Christianity to an unbeliever.

Indeed, the burden lies with the one making the claim.

The atheists’ ideas concerning how Christianity might be validated or invalidated are utter nonsense.

If it's them you are wishing to convince, it's their standards you will need to meet.

First, setting out a Biblical foundation will be appropriate. 1 Peter 3:15 is often quoted, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” Christians are to give a defense of their faith, but they are not obligated to prove to someone else that Christianity is true.

Then others are not obligated to take you seriously.

Too often, Christians allow atheists to set the parameters concerning what the Christian’s task is in an apologetic situation. We should not base our apologetic on the atheist’s demands, rather, we should focus on the task that God has given us. We are to set scripture as our authority, and give a defense that is consistent with the scriptures.

How circular.

We are also obligated to show the absurdity of any worldview that is to stand in opposition to God’s authority.

Go for it. Show me how virtually all of mainstream science has it wrong.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 says, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” From these verses we have our justification of using logical arguments that show the absurdity of any worldview that stands in opposition to God’s authority.

I have not seen these "logical arguments" that you allude to.

None of the aforementioned verses, nor any other verses in The Bible, say that the Christian’s task is to convince or prove to someone that Christianity is true. In fact, The Bible clearly teaches that people only come to belief by the power of God himself. For instance, John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Matthew 16:17 also says, And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” There are numerous verses in scripture that teach that God is the one who causes belief in an individual but these two examples will suffice.

If it is God that causes belief in God, why then would I be held accountable by this same God for disbelief?

If it is true that God directly causes belief, then it is not the Christian’s job to attempt to cause belief in Christianity within an unbelieving individual. Instead, our job is to proclaim the truth of Christianity and destroy any worldview that dares to raise its hand against God’s authority.

Just not in this forum, of course.

The idea that we have to prove Christianity to an unbeliever assumes a false theology that is not found within scripture. It is God who has given us our task to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, we ought to follow the criteria that God has set forth instead of the criteria given by the unbeliever.

Then why would you expect to convince anyone, if you can't meet their criteria?

 

[Davian]

Nope, just making sure you know where you are........

And now you do too.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What was wrong with the questions I just asked of you?

I am only here to observe. I am not here to promote my worldview, or champion science.

This makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with the one(s) making the claim. Not the unbeliever, in this case.

Which begs the question, which interpretation of Christianity? Yours?

I am not asking for proof. I would ask for something that would demonstrate that we are not simply talking about a character in a book.

Indeed. Why not? Why is only headaches and sore backs, and the like?

Is that not what many believers claim happened to them?

That would make sense for a "loving" god, would it not?

Have you a better, more reliable means for exploring reality?

Are you able to meet any of them?

If only you spent as much time trying to meet that burden of proof as you did complaining about it.

So how then do you prove the existence of your god?

Atheism is not a truth claim. There is no burden of proof for it.

Let's give that a quick test. Is it only opinion that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun?

Indeed, the burden lies with the one making the claim.

If it's them you are wishing to convince, it's their standards you will need to meet.

Then others are not obligated to take you seriously.

How circular.

Go for it. Show me how virtually all of mainstream science has it wrong.

I have not seen these "logical arguments" that you allude to.

If it is God that causes belief in God, why then would I be held accountable by this same God for disbelief?

Just not in this forum, of course.

Then why would you expect to convince anyone, if you can't meet their criteria?

I am only here to observe. I am not here to promote my worldview, or champion science.

And another statement shot down in flames, this time by its owner......

 

[Davian]

Fiction? That is quite presuppositional.

Not at all. I am not claiming that your god is fictional. I remain unconvinced of it being otherwise.

As much as I would like free stuff, I cannot bring myself to write letters to Santa.

What part of the discussion about the historical manuscript evidence proclaiming Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord did you miss. That is the message of the historical record in the NT.

You have not yet established this "historical record". Convince Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman of it an get back to me.

Now, if you examine the truth claims of the NT you can only come to two conclusions. Truth or one of the most elaborate conspiracy theories to span thousands of years.

Seeing you must, by that statement, allow for multiple "elaborate conspiracy theories" (religions), parsimony states that I will go with the latter. They can't all be right.

And, evidence for conspiracy theories exists. For gods, not so much.

 

[Davian]

And another statement shot down in flames, this time by its owner......

How so?

 

[Davian]

I'm not even in canada! What do you mean"where I am?" Prove to me your God is some kind of GPS! Dogs don't even quack in summertime.

Sorry, but I can hear it already......

And no, this is not an attempt to flame. Just an attempt to show how it is when someone tries to exaggerate what you are actually saying, and make you defend what you never even stated.

Or show you not defending what you have stated.

 

[civilwarbuff]

zip......right over the head....

 

[civilwarbuff]

How so?

You don't answer our questions, I don't answer yours.....

 

[Davian]

You don't answer our questions, I don't answer yours.....

Which questions are you referring to?

 

[Davian]

No mailing addresses in 1st century Roman empire.

And no names? You throw out this claim of witnesses, but you can't even name them?

How about those that recorded their testimony?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Which questions are you referring to?

Go back and look, not doing your research for you.....

 

[OrthodoxForever]

What philosophy? A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. That describes a fetus.

An unborn HUMAN, as we all started out... hm... is that a Tape Worm? Nope... Ring Worm? No, not that either... hm... I wonder what the DNA would say it is... I'll give you a hint... if you said anything except HUMAN, please go back to school.

In my DNA samples example before I made it clear for the sake of argument the scientists examining those samples would have no clue that one came from a fetus... my point in saying so what to show that genetically speaking mother and child are separate individuals.