Quickening

[redleghunter]

So if your personal viewpoint is that life begins at conception, then your viewpoint just got punted. The world of the 21st century just kicked that idea aside. I'm not saying it is wrong ... just pointing out the reality of where we are today.

Understand your point but does not change the reality of life begins at conception. That evil people disregard that fact does not change the objective science and call into question the moral worth of the human being at the earliest stages. It actually exposes the specious nature of views which lean on subjective opinion.

 

[redleghunter]

And the world does not care. He is not in trouble for doing this. The strenuous objections of scientists are not related to the fact that 28 human embryos were tossed away. The scientists are concerned about other issues.

Strong delusion is clearly here in our time.

2 Thessalonians 2:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[zelosravioli]

I dont think you folks understood what I said. So let me try to slow down and say this clearly.

When the Chinese geneticist made 30 embryos, he didn't 'mix them up in the kitchen'. He got sperm from human fathers. He got eggs from human mothers. He created test-tube bsbies. So unless you believe that a test-tube baby is "not a person" ... then the argument is directly relevant to the discussion here.

The Chinese geneticist discarded 28 of these embryos. He tossed them in the trash. Done deal.

And the world does not care. He is not in trouble for doing this. The strenuous objections of scientists are not related to the fact that 28 human embryos were tossed away. The scientists are concerned about other issues.

There is no difference between growing a foetus in a test tube, or growing one in a mother's womb. Either way, after 2 weeks of life, you have the same result. Therefore, 28 of these foetuses were tossed in the junk pile. And the world never even blinked.

So if your personal viewpoint is that life begins at conception, then your viewpoint just got punted. The world of the 21st century just kicked that idea aside. I'm not saying it is wrong ... just pointing out the reality of where we are today.

Blessings!

My mistake sorry, I 'assumed' the Chinese scientists baby embryos were not babies yet because they were single cells when genetically altered. I suppose I fell into the trap of a presupposition - that single cell human embryos are not 'people' yet. Also I didn't catch that the other cells/embryos in this experiment where thrown away or 'something' (being raised in a shed somewhere in China?)

Nevertheless the topic 'genetically altered humans' does deserves a scary thread of its own.

 

[redleghunter]

It is getting younger and younger, but that is not the same thing as saying conception. There are nine months between conception and a full term baby. The second a child is conceived is not when they can live outside the mother.

And why is your asserted standard of life outside the womb valid?

The womb is supposed to be a safe developing location for a human being. Not like a Gladiator arena or like the show Survivor.

 

[redleghunter]

My mistake sorry, I 'assumed' the Chinese scientists baby embryos were not babies yet because they were single cells when genetically altered. I suppose I fell into the trap of a presupposition - that single cell human embryos are not 'people' yet. Also I didn't catch that the other cells/embryos in this experiment where thrown away or 'something' (being raised in a shed somewhere in China?)

Nevertheless the topic 'genetically altered humans' does deserves a scary thread of its own.

At what stage do human beings become “people?”

 

[redleghunter]

Secular law is what gets someone incarcerated. That is the one enforceable on this Earth and so that is the one I tend to go with.

So your view is secular law decides who is or is not alive or a “person?”

 

[dogs4thewin]

And why is your asserted standard of life outside the womb valid?

The womb is supposed to be a safe developing location for a human being. Not like a Gladiator arena or like the show Survivor.

You see the way I see abortion is people are going to do it anyway, and so I would rather they have a "safe" way to do it early on as opposed to doing it on the black market ( Which they will if there is not a legal option.

 

[TuxAme]

Because science has proven to us that an individual human life begins at conception, and we shouldn't permit- neither at the state nor federal level- the murders of any person.

 

[Toro]

At Common Law--the law that was in effect at the time America gained it's Independence--abortion was legal until the time of Quickening, approximately 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Why not return to the law as it existed at the time of the Founding Fathers--abortion is legal until quickening, illegal there after unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Thoughts?

BTW, for more on Quickening you might appreciate this article: The "Quickening": Another Way of Looking at the Abortion Debate. - Being Libertarian

Well, if our founding fathers were the pinnacle of human morality... then that would bring into question other laws at the time such as a right to own another human being.

Now I'm not arguing that abortion should be banned without any exception... while I do not agree with abortion... I also believe in free will. While I do not support making it legal to kill an unborn child... I am also not naive enough to believe that laws will stop anyone if they want something bad enough.

I am also not stating that I think there should be a return of slavery.... simply arguing against the use of. "Well we use to do it..." justification. There are MANY things, both in law and in society that we used to do both good and bad... doesnt mean that just because we used to do it that it was good, right and just simply because we were a nation that was founded on Christian principles.

That said, it was a different climate at the time. There were no bailouts there were no free lunches... it was live or die, period. There are many ways that the law of man could justify abortions as it did with many other laws, such as the owning of another human being.

The founding fathers, you can argue how pure their intent, but the one thing you cant argue is that they did what they could with what they could.... but they were not perfect north on the moral compass.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Whether that is when life begins is really the point of the abortion debate.

Actually, it's when "personhood" begins, which is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

 

[SPF]

Actually, it's when "personhood" begins, which is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

And which I pointed out “personhood” is an entirely subjective and made up term which is arbitrarily determined by the feelings of whoever is arguing for the made up distinction.

And the only reason people attempt to create a distinction between a human being and a human person is so that they may commit some action against the non-person that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Attempting to create a distinction between a human being and a human person necessarily asserts that human beings do not possess inherent moral worth and value, which as Christians we should recognize is calling God a liar and saying we are not in fact, created in His Image as he tells us.

I personally do not want to find myself making such an assertion.

 

[Not David]

You see the way I see abortion is people are going to do it anyway, and so I would rather they have a "safe" way to do it early on as opposed to doing it on the black market ( Which they will if there is not a legal option.

"People are going to murder anyway, why not just make it legal so it can be safe?"

 

[zelosravioli]

Understand your point but does not change the reality of life begins at conception. That evil people disregard that fact does not change the objective science and call into question the moral worth of the human being at the earliest stages. It actually exposes the specious nature of views which lean on subjective opinion.

"... life begins at conception"

To say there is some general agreement or consensus within Christianity - as to when the cells gain or receive a human soul - would be dreaming.
The debate goes back before history I'm sure, but didn't Plato, Aristotle and others debate the origin of the soul. The early church had many many debates, if not the central debate of the early church was over the origin of, state of, dichotomy of, the human spirit and of Christ Himself (the hypostatic union, etc).

I don't think that Christianity, or other western religions agree that a human body, embryo, cell or cells 'alone' determines that we are a 'person' which is what some Christians believe 'human' means. It seems there would be 'agreement' that human would be 'both soul and body' (yet a soul is a person without a body... but thats another discussion).

The question remains, until it can be proven: 'when' does the human 'cell' obtain (or grow) its human 'spirit'?

 

[redleghunter]

"... life begins at conception"

To say there is some general agreement or consensus within Christianity - as to when the cells gain or receive a human soul - would be dreaming.
The debate goes back before history I'm sure, but didn't Plato, Aristotle and others debate the origin of the soul. The early church had many many debates, if not the central debate of the early church was over the origin of, state of, dichotomy of, the human spirit and of Christ Himself (the hypostatic union, etc).

I don't think that Christianity, or other western religions agree that a human body, embryo, cell or cells 'alone' determines that we are a 'person' which is what some Christians believe 'human' means. It seems there would be 'agreement' that human would be 'both soul and body' (yet a soul is a person without a body... but thats another discussion).

The question remains, until it can be proven: 'when' does the human 'cell' obtain (or grow) its human 'spirit'?

You are mixing what we know is biologically a fact that we are human beings at conception, with the philosophical terms of ensoulment and personhood.

People and theologians and philosophers can speculate all they want on what is a Sovereign act of God in our procreation but they won’t come to a solution. Which means if we don’t know the common denominator is to do no harm.

We should also consider what we do know from Scriptures. A body without a soul is deemed dead physically. Is there any instance in Holy Scriptures where there is life and no soul?

Something to consider.

 

[SPF]

We also know that John the Baptist in Luke 1 had a soul while he was still in the womb. So at the very least we know a human does have a soul before birth.

And I can’t think of anything in Scripture that would suggest a teaching that a human being at any point in their lives does not possess a soul.

 

[dogs4thewin]

"People are going to murder anyway, why not just make it legal so it can be safe?"

When you do black market abortions, sometimes it causes a lot of dangerous problems for the mother as well, so I figure discourage abortions, but have it as an option until baby can live outside the womb (putting that at the end of the first trimester.

 

[Not David]

When you do black market abortions, sometimes it causes a lot of dangerous problems for the mother as well, so I figure discourage abortions, but have it as an option until baby can live outside the womb (putting that at the end of the first trimester.

Then they can wait until the end of the first trimester

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

When you do black market abortions, sometimes it causes a lot of dangerous problems for the mother as well, so I figure discourage abortions, but have it as an option until baby can live outside the womb (putting that at the end of the first trimester.

I figure require the mother to carry the baby to term, then if she still doesn't want it, with 24 hours after delivery, let her drown it - with her own hands.

(Due credit to G.K. Chesterton)

 

[zelosravioli]

You are mixing what we know is biologically a fact that we are human beings at conception, with the philosophical terms of ensoulment and personhood.

People and theologians and philosophers can speculate all they want on what is a Sovereign act of God in our procreation but they won’t come to a solution. Which means if we don’t know the common denominator is to do no harm.

We should also consider what we do know from Scriptures. A body without a soul is deemed dead physically. Is there any instance in Holy Scriptures where there is life and no soul?

Something to consider.

"You are mixing what we know is biologically a fact that we are human beings at conception..."
Says who? Where? Scripture does not say 'at conception'.

".. biologically"? Biology does not say whether, or not, humans have a soul. Ensoulment is a thing of philosophy and religion, so why are you speaking as if you 'know' the body has a soul at conception.

"... A body without a soul is deemed dead physically. Is there any instance in Holy Scriptures where there is life and no soul?"
You made my point, because I think you missed my point: I said a soul is a person without a body (I don't know why you would think 'anybody' needs to know a body without a soul - is deemed dead? No duh).
I said there is no agreement on 'when the cells (embryo or 'body') gain or receive a human soul.

 

[redleghunter]

"You are mixing what we know is biologically a fact that we are human beings at conception..."
Says who? Where? Scripture does not say 'at conception'.

".. biologically"? Biology does not say whether, or not, humans have a soul. Ensoulment is a thing of philosophy and religion, so why are you speaking as if you 'know' the body has a soul at conception.

"... A body without a soul is deemed dead physically. Is there any instance in Holy Scriptures where there is life and no soul?"
You made my point, because I think you missed my point: I said a soul is a person without a body (I don't know why you would think 'anybody' needs to know a body without a soul - is deemed dead? No duh).
I said there is no agreement on 'when the cells (embryo or 'body') gain or receive a human soul.

There are too many posts going off on tangents one of which is equating a philosophical term such as person or personhood with biological development.

That was my point. The OP fails at this as well by mentioning "quickening" which was a 18th century term from English Common Law. The OP in effect was trying to link a legal term with a determined biological status and thus suggest such was ensoulment adding in philosophy.

My first two posts was to point out the biological understanding of quickening was proved scientifically false in the 19th century when medical technology increased during the industrial revolution. More doctors moved to conception as the beginning of human life. Not surprisingly the secular laws changed with that.

Fast forward to the 20th century and now 21st century and we know this is now fact and settled science that human life begins at conception.

Yes a soul does not need a mortal body. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5 that when we are absent from these bodies we are present with the Lord. But a mortal body is dead without a soul by the same reasoning.

There is absolutely no evidence from Scriptures a mortal body develops and grows or has any animation without a soul. There is concrete evidence human beings are alive and developing from conception. We can do the math there and figure it out that God is intimately involved with us from our beginning.