Show me scripture that supports ABORTION.

[Cain Spencer]

Because it's from the Bible and talks about the closest thing to what would classify as a fetus. If an infant under 1 month didn't matter, surely a fetus doesn't. Abortion isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible, by the way.

I think you have been quite logical, thanks again.

 

[Phinehas2]

AirForceTeacher,

In one of my comparative religion classes, a Jewish Rabbi explained that abortion was not against Judaism using some verses in Leviticus.

Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, that’s logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

Because it's from the Bible and talks about the closest thing to what would classify as a fetus.

Sorry but you are claiming the Bible doesn’t mention abortion so don’t mention foetus which its doesn’t mention either. Stick to what the Bible says instead of imagining things, one can see God knows people in the womb so terminating them in the womb by choice is by logic, murder.

If an infant under 1 month didn't matter, surely a fetus doesn't.

An infant under 1 month didn’t matter for a dedication, it mentions nothing about aborting a life; on the one hand you claim the Bible says nothing about abortion and then you start linking scripture to what you claim the Bible doesn’t mention, abortion. Sorry makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[AirForceTeacher]

AirForceTeacher,
Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, that’s logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.

Then why is the penalty in The Law for causing a miscarriage not the same as the penalty for killing an already living person? Is that logical?

 

[Phinehas2]

Then why is the penalty in The Law for causing a miscarriage not the same as the penalty for killing an already living person? Is that logical?

As you said, there was a penalty for causing a miscarriage, so there should be a penalty for abortion you must agree? Thats the point.
As to your tangental point, well perhaps but had you not considered the cause of the miscarriage might have not have been the intended result from the action? Would you not consider murder having more severe penalties than manslaughter? Of course abortion is intentional, murder. Interestingly, a case was brought against a doctor in the UK, by a vicar, after the doctor carried out an abortion after 28 weeks, the legal limit is 24 weeks. The doctor was not found guilty because the unborn child had a clef palate.
Three things, firstly either the law is the law or it isnt, secondly if it isnt what is the point of it, and thirdly the vicar also had a clef palate when born and there is now no sign of it.

 

[lux et lex]

Stick to what the Bible says instead of imagining things

Take your own advice.

 

[Phinehas2]

So as a summary.
There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop. The only one offered was the production of sperm, but that does not lead to life/foetus beginning unless there is conception, so not only was that an unfounded objection, it was rather alarming the obvious distinction wasn’t perceived.
Holding to the validity of life from conception is easy, there is no event before conception from which life starts developing and life develops by default from conception. The argument for pro-choice abortion revolves around when the life is viable and as the pro-choice side cant decide amongst themselves when that is, I don’t see they have much of an argument until they can. What is annoying is the arrogance they seem to have in expecting others to dance to their tune.
Abortion is an intervention to terminate the life/foetus, miscarriage isn’t, yet miscarriage was cited. This is very alarming, that’s like saying death is natural so murder should be ok.. Amazingly they don’t see the analogy.
Yes I do think pro-choice abortion is a mental health issue, its a lack of grasping reality.

 

[Jedi]

So as a summary.
There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop. The only one offered was the production of sperm, but that does not lead to life/foetus beginning unless there is conception, so not only was that an unfounded objection, it was rather alarming the obvious distinction wasn’t perceived.

A poor argument, as it's nothing more than begging the question. Conception, likewise, will not lead to life/a fetus unless a number of other things happen afterward. It will not result in a fetus unless it divides into blastocyst. It will not result in a fetus unless the blastocyst attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, about 10 days after conception. The list of necessary steps continues. You have only arbitrarily picked one of the necessary steps and stated the obvious: that without this necessary step, it won't develop. Well, no kidding, sherlock, but the same thing can be said for countless other steps that are equally necessary.

Holding to the validity of life from conception is easy, there is no event before conception from which life starts developing and life develops by default from conception.

Yeah, the creation of the sperm and egg are not events, I guess. Neither is sex. That's not necessary for human production either. There are no events that lead up to conception. It just happens spontaneously for no reason, without cause. So much for being in touch with reality...

The argument for pro-choice abortion revolves around when the life is viable and as the pro-choice side cant decide amongst themselves when that is, I don’t see they have much of an argument until they can.

You're either in denial or not a very good reader, as I've already explained to you previously how this is a terrible argument. Disagreement on particulars within a group does not negate the presence of truth, unless you mean to say that all Christians shouldn't be listened to, because they "can't decide amongst themselves" what the truth is concerning countless matters. Or heck, even humans shouldn't be listened to, as they can't "decide among themselves" what the truth is on countless matters. It is a fool's errand to think yourself correct just because you have a group of people who agree with you and it doesn't even look like you hold the power of consensus. From what I read, 4 in 10 pregnancies end in abortion. That means 40% of women not only disagree with you, but have actually had an abortion. That's not counting people who think abortion is warranted in some (or all) circumstances but just haven't done it themselves. Indeed, 66% of Americans believe that abortion is okay in the first trimester, thus you do not represent the majority of people in thinking that abortion is not okay under any circumstance. Apparently, your ideas aren't convincing enough to capture the attention of the majority, and if your arguments here are representative of the pro-life camp in general, I'm certainly not surprised.

What is annoying is the arrogance they seem to have in expecting others to dance to their tune.

Pot, meet kettle.

Abortion is an intervention to terminate the life/foetus, miscarriage isn’t, yet miscarriage was cited. This is very alarming, that’s like saying death is natural so murder should be ok.. Amazingly they don’t see the analogy.

Simply untrue. No one has ever said "Because miscarriages happen, it must therefore be okay to intentionally cause it to happen." The only point being made from the existence of miscarriages is that because they happen so often, even without the issue of abortion, the zygote's fate is not set just because conception happened. It still may or may not become a fully developed human being.

Yes I do think pro-choice abortion is a mental health issue, its a lack of grasping reality.

See, that's just arrogance right there. Pure, unadulterated arrogance, thinking that because someone doesn't agree with your extremist views, they must have a mental health issue. Considering it looks like your little camp is in the minority, "normality" is something you're not in sync with. If that's the basis for assessing the presence of a mental health issue, it seems you're in trouble. Time to fit you for a strait jacket and set you up with a padded room, eh?

Your little comment here adds nothing to the discussion, as either side can say "You disagree with what I think is reality, therefore you have mental health issues!" until they're blue in the face. It doesn't get us anywhere, it is a gross misunderstanding of what "mental health" really is, and only works to set each party against each other instead of work together for a mutual understanding.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

A poor argument, as it's nothing more than begging the question.

A poor argument on your part certainly, all you have done is call reality a poor argument, unless you are disputing what I have said in which case do so instead of contradiction.

Conception, likewise, will not lead to life/a fetus unless a number of other things happen afterward.

I have no problem with that, but that was not the point was making. There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop so there is your starting point for life. Now sure a number of other conditions may occur but that doesn’t change the fact. Yes?

You have only arbitrarily picked one of the necessary steps and stated the obvious: that without this necessary step, it won't develop.

I have no problem with that, but that was not the point was making, which is that conception must be the starting point where life develops. Yes?

Yeah, the creation of the sperm and egg are not events, I guess.

Again you haven’t addressed the point I made which was that life doesn’t develop from either sperm or egg, but from conception.

Neither is sex. That's not necessary for human production either.

I disagree, naturally it is, but that was not the point I was making.

You're either in denial or not a very good reader, as I've already explained to you previously how this is a terrible argument. Disagreement on particulars within a group does not negate the presence of truth, unless you mean to say that all Christians shouldn't be listened to, because they "can't decide amongst themselves" what the truth is concerning countless matters.

Once again that was not the point I was making. And I disagree, the truth is Jesus Christ and absolute. The pro-choice cannot agree when abortion should be legal, so none of them can really argue with the pro-life position. All they seem to do is agree that abortion is ok, assuming their view is correct.

Simply untrue.

True.

No one has ever said "Because miscarriages happen, it must therefore be okay to intentionally cause it to happen."

Miscarriage terminates the foetus/life, without intent, abortion terminates the foetus/life with intent. The analogy doesn’t work if one sees the foetus as not a human being, but does if one sees abortion terminating a human being. The pro-choice sees it that way, and we do not have to justify anything because we do not support pro-choice abortion, it is you side that is being criticized and asked to justify murder.

See, that's just arrogance right there. Pure, unadulterated arrogance,

Well that is only my opinion, and I would rather have arrogant opinions than be supporting murder.

than thinking that because someone doesn't agree with your extremist views, they must have a mental health issue.

Well it is an extreme opinion, not many of the pro-life group would share my opinion in that.

I think my points prove your argument to be in gross error, and certainly do until they are challenged, I am happy to be challenged about them but so far you have avoided addressing them directly choosing to discuss a tangent.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
A poor argument on your part certainly, all you have done is call reality a poor argument, unless you are disputing what I have said in which case do so instead of contradiction.

Reality? I'm sorry, but you're just kidding yourself if you think your assertion that there are no events leading up to conception "reality." Events necessary for human development start before conception, unless you really want to say conception happens on its own, without cause, and without the need for the presence of prior materials.

There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop so there is your starting point for life...Yes?

Nope. See above.

I have no problem with that, but that was not the point was making, which is that conception must be the starting point where life develops. Yes?

Nope. See above. Things and events are required for the development of life before we even get to the stage of conception.

Again you haven’t addressed the point I made which was that life doesn’t develop from either sperm or egg, but from conception.

I have addressed it time and again - human production doesn't start with conception, as even conception needs supplies and events to occur before that step is reached. Life will not develop period if steps prior to conception do not take place. If this is so, then conception is not the beginning of the process - there are supplies and events required to proceed in a particular fashion to lead up to that point.

I disagree, naturally it is, but that was not the point I was making.

But sex is an event necessary for the production of human life that takes place before conception. Strange you would admit this, since earlier you said "There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop." If the production of the sperm, egg, and the sexual act that unites them are necessary events involved in the development of a human being and also predate the point of conception, these supplies/events must be closer to the beginning than conception is. If they happen earlier and are equally necessary as conception, and may or may not result in a fully developed human being just like conception, there's no reason to focus on conception as the beginning rather than these earlier entities/events.

Once again that was not the point I was making. And I disagree, the truth is Jesus Christ and absolute. The pro-choice cannot agree when abortion should be legal, so none of them can really argue with the pro-life position.

Your argument is one of ad populum; thinking that because you have a group of people that think the same thing, you cannot be argued against; that your group's idea is superior to the idea of an individual. You suppose that anyone with an idea different than yours doesn't have a viable position because other people disagree with them. Well here's the kicker: most people disagree with you. Thus by your appeal to ad populum, you cannot argue with the pro-choice position, as humanity in general is more unified under that position than the they are under the extremist pro-life position.

In the end, your appeal to the masses is irrelevant to matters of truth. "You guys can't all agree" is irrelevant when you're talking to an individual. You and me, buddy. Most people don't agree with your extremist idea, and some don't agree with mine.

Well that is only my opinion, and I would rather have arrogant opinions than be supporting murder.

Even when your arrogance is pointed out, you still insist that you are better than someone who disagrees with you. It's clear you are blinded by your arrogance and it is neither necessary nor does it serve any constructive purpose.

I think my points prove your argument to be in gross error, and certainly do until they are challenged, I am happy to be challenged about them but so far you have avoided addressing them directly choosing to discuss a tangent.

You have only begged the question and have made no argument to support your assertion that spiritual life begins at conception. If you have made some point that you feel hasn't been responded to, please post it along with referencing the post in which it was allegedly overlooked.

So far, you have shown no evidence to support your assertion that (a) spiritual life must begin at the same time biological life does, (b) an organism can contain personhood without having any mental facilities necessary for the existence of a person (e.g. capacity for emotion, memory, sentience, thought, will, etc), and (c) abortion is still morally forbidden even in such extreme cases as rape, incest, or medical peril to the mother and fetus.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Reality? I'm sorry, but you're just kidding yourself if you think your assertion that there are no events leading up to conception "reality." Events necessary for human development start before conception, unless you really want to say conception happens on its own, without cause, and without the need for the presence of prior materials.

Again like what?
You said ‘unless conception happens on its own’ No idea what you mean.
Again all you have done is contradict, without conception foetus/life won’t start developing. Again you haven’t addressed the point, which undermines your whole argument.

Strange you would admit this, since earlier you said "

There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop." If the production of the sperm, egg, and the sexual act that unites them are necessary events involved in the development of a human being and also predate the point of conception,

The sexual act that unites them is conception, without conception none of the events you are proposing result in a foetus/life developing.

Your argument is one of ad populum;

Godbledegook. Yes we have a view which is demonstrably reality, Conception is the point at which no foetus/life can develop before it. I see you can’t grasp that reality, you think the creation of sperm leads to a foetus/life yet if you watched a sperm it would never develop into life. It might unite with an egg but that’s the conception I was talking about.

Even when your arrogance is pointed out, you still insist that you are better than someone who disagrees with you.

Again you have not addressed my point, I never said I was better, but sure my position on abortion is.

So far, you have shown no evidence to support your assertion that (a) spiritual life must begin at the same time biological life does,

Yes I have the spiritual life begins in the womb, God knows us in the womb. Looks like you don’t believe the Bible.

(b) an organism can contain personhood without having any mental facilities necessary for the existence of a person (e.g. capacity for emotion, memory, sentience, thought, will, etc), and (c) abortion is still morally forbidden even in such extreme cases as rape, incest, or medical peril to the mother and fetus.

Ok, your presumption is dangerous as the foetus is already developing as a life that has all you mentioned, but one must argue that a child under 7 years old doesn’t have full capacity for those facilities you mention, cognitive thought has not developed. Based on what you have said a child under 7 is an organism without personhood. It could be your view as opposed to someone else’s, yet neither organism came into being and started developing without conception which makes my argument right.

 

[Jedi]

You said ‘unless conception happens on its own’ No idea what you mean.

You suggested there are no events prior to conception that lead to the development of a human life. If this is so, it begs the question: what causes conception? You've already negated any event prior to that one as having a role in the development of a human life, which is curious, since without steps prior to conception, human life could not develop.

The sexual act that unites them is conception, without conception none of the events you are proposing result in a foetus/life developing.

That's fine, but you're not seeing the problem here: without the events I mentioned that take place prior to conception, conception will never happen. If this is so, why do you insist that the process begins at conception when clearly the process begins with necessary steps before that?

Yes we have a view which is demonstrably reality, Conception is the point at which no foetus/life can develop before it.

A fact that, as true as it is, is arbitrarily chosen as the beginning of the development of humans. Of course if you take that part out, nothing will happen. But the same can be said of any great number of processes and events from the production of the sperm and egg to the birth of the baby. Why you focus on only one of those events when every other event fits the same criteria is indicative that you're trying in vain to justify a tradition with no biological or scriptural backing.

I see you can’t grasp that reality, you think the creation of sperm leads to a foetus/life yet if you watched a sperm it would never develop into life. It might unite with an egg but that’s the conception I was talking about.

The sperm and egg may or may not lead to a fetus, just like conception. Both things/events are contingent upon a long series of other events happening in a particular fashion. If this is so, why are you emphasizing one event that may or may not lead to a fully developed human being and not another?

Again you have not addressed my point, I never said I was better, but sure my position on abortion is.

No, you just blatantly said that anyone who disagrees with you on abortion is mentally unhealthy. Right. That's not arrogant or condescending at all. The medical community would laugh at your miserable understanding of mental health and your baseless accusation serves only to create a divide between you and those with different ideas instead of working together to arrive at a mutual understanding.

Yes I have the spiritual life begins in the womb, God knows us in the womb. Looks like you don’t believe the Bible.

Looks like you can't read my posts. I have repeatedly suggested that spiritual life does begin in the womb - just not at conception. I've asserted that 2 months at the soonest and 26 months at the latest, a fetus obtains personhood, as it develops the capacity for emotion, memory, sentience, a will, etc. - the combination of which compose a mind, the very essence of a person. And wouldn't you know it? At 8 - 26 weeks, the fetus is still in the womb. So much for that hollow accusation...

Ok, your presumption is dangerous as the foetus is already developing as a life that has all you mentioned

Incorrect. Read any article on the stages of fetal development and you'll very easily see that the higher facilities of the brain are not present until about 26 weeks after conception. Before this point, there has been no interlinking of the brain's neurons. There is no capacity for a will, emotions, sentience, consciousness, memory, etc. Saying "But it's getting to that point!" doesn't mean it's there. These things simply aren't present and if they aren't present, there is no person. If there is no person, there is no moral rule against killing it.

but one must argue that a child under 7 years old doesn’t have full capacity for those facilities you mention, cognitive thought has not developed.

You and I both know that's simply not true. The essentials are there - the elements that compose a person are present, even if they are still advancing. There is a huge difference between a 7 year old that doesn't understand well and a zygote that doesn't even have a brain to understand anything at all. What you're doing here is likening a person who needs glasses to a creature that has no eyes. It's nothing more than an attempt to draw a fallacious parallel.

It could be your view as opposed to someone else’s, yet neither organism came into being and started developing without conception which makes my argument right.

Okay, I cannot be any more clear than how crystal clear I'm being right now. No one here has said that a life can fully develop without conception. What has been said, however, is that conception isn't the beginning of the process, nor does it necessitate the result will be a fully developed human being. Like the creation of the sperm or egg, the event of conception is a necessary step for something to happen, but does not guarantee a child will be born. Conception is merely one step contingent on a list of steps that come before and after it that, assuming all events happen in a particular fashion, will result in a child. Conception is still a "maybe" (or even "probably"), not definitive "yes."

But I wonder how moot this point is. Even if we agreed that conception is the biological beginning of a human being, there's no scientific indication or biblical explanation that it's also the spiritual beginning. Simply because God knows someone "in the womb" doesn't necessitate that the reference being made is the point of conception any more than if I said "I was born in 1983" necessitates that I was born in January.

Further still, we know the existence of the body and soul are not always in sync. When someone dies, their spirit leaves the body, but there is still plenty of biological life persisting within the body in spite of having no spirit. For a while, hair and fingernails continue to grow, if you cut the body, it will still bleed, and the organs may be harvested for use. However, if we know the body exists apart from the spirit near the end of its existence, it stands to reason that the body may exist apart from the spirit near its beginning. Insisting the body could not exist without a spirit near its beginning is not only without merit, but also contrary to what we see at death.

 

[Archivist]

Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, that’s logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.

I attended a presentation on this issue by two Jewish Rabbis (one liberal, one conservative) several years ago. Jewish law does allow abortion under certain circumstances, although there is not complete agreement between liberal and conservative Jews.

This might be of interest: Abortion in Jewish Law

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

I attended a presentation on this issue by two Jewish Rabbis (one liberal, one conservative) several years ago. Jewish law does allow abortion under certain circumstances, although there is not complete agreement between liberal and conservative Jews.

Thank you, I suggest we could the same liberal blindness amongst Jewish rabbis as well. But the link is quite good, in Judaism it only really allows for abortion where there are health issues, it seems as much against mere pro-choice.
Useful.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

You suggested there are no events prior to conception that lead to the development of a human life.

No I did not. Re read what I wrote. No event before conception, that without conception, can lead to development of life. Until you can understand this basic concept you will never be able to debate it.

That's fine, but you're not seeing the problem here: without the events I mentioned that take place prior to conception, conception will never happen.

So then its not relevant. Conception is the point at which foetus/life develops and without it there will be no foetus/life. Sure there are other events needed but none of those events on their own result in a foetus/life developing.

Thank you. If this is so, why do you insist that the process begins at conception when clearly the process begins with necessary steps before that?

As pointed out none of those steps begin foetus/life without conception.

The sperm and egg may or may not lead to a fetus, just like conception.

The sperm and egg is conception.

Looks like you can't read my posts.

The Bible passages given say God knows us in the womb, in what way do you not consider that spiritual?

I have repeatedly suggested that spiritual life does begin in the womb - just not at conception.

The Bible says God knows us in and before the womb, and knits us together, and God is Spirit, so whatever your reason to doubt, God knows us at conception; I don’t need to hear your views at odds with God.

I've asserted that 2 months at the soonest and 26 months at the latest,

On a secular level, sadly not everyone shares your view on that, so I don’t think any of you are in a position to play God and decide who can and who cant live.

a fetus obtains personhood, as it develops the capacity for emotion, memory, sentience, a will, etc. - the combination of which compose a mind, the very essence of a person. And wouldn't you know it?

Not everyone agrees with your view many countries deem it 12 weeks or 24 weeks. When you can make your minds up come back and we will listen.

Incorrect. Read any article on the stages of fetal development and you'll very easily see that the higher facilities of the brain are not present until about 26 weeks after conception.

A child develops but until 7 its mental capacity lacks cognitive thought, but its still developing. Why should someone not be able to subjectively kill a child at under seven years old if you subjectively defend killing a baby in the womb. on the basis of their full facilities of the brain not having been fully developed? Your original assertion there was against 'development' you have now switched to a concept of 'higher' development. Having pointed out a similar 'higher' development which undermines your generalisation you will no doubt lurch onto another criteria. Mother Theresa is correct abortion is teaching society to hate.

You and I both know that's simply not true.

I know what I said is true and I know what you said isnt. So your statement is incorrect.

The essentials are there – the elements that compose a person are present, even if they are still advancing. There is a huge difference between a 7 year old that doesn't understand well and a zygote that doesn't even have a brain to understand anything at all.

There is no difference at all between the essentials advancing in one and the essentials advancing in the other.

What has been said, however, is that conception isn't the beginning of the process,

It has been established that is it, the only thing you proposed, the sperm, will never become a foetus/life. You then claim it will when it mates with an egg seemingly disconnected from realising that is the conception I am referring to.

 

[Jedi]

Note: going to weed out most of the repetitive jargon and respond to specific points being made. If you feel I skipped something, by all means, point it out and I'll address it.

No I did not. Re read what I wrote. No event before conception, that without conception, can lead to development of life. Until you can understand this basic concept you will never be able to debate it.

Like I said, no one here has ever said otherwise. All you're saying is "No event before necessary step X will lead to the development of life without necessary step X." True, but that doesn't make necessary step X and more important than necessary step Y. I could just as well say "No event before the blastocyst implants itself on the uterus, that without said implantation, can lead to development of life." It's just begging the question that a certain event is necessary in the production of human beings. It's a moot point in this discussion, since no one has said otherwise, and pointing it does not explain how it is more important than any of the other necessary steps, nor does it have any bearing on when spiritual life begins.

Sure there are other events needed but none of those events on their own result in a foetus/life developing.

Granted, but no one has said otherwise. Likewise, conception, "on its own," will not result in a fetus. If there were no other events after that one, the zygote would become nothing more than what it is: a mindless cell invisible to the naked eye, void of any potential to become a developed person.

As pointed out none of those steps begin foetus/life without conception.

And as I pointed out, conception wouldn't even happen if previous steps weren't taken. So why in the world is conception the starting point if conception itself depends on prior events? The long series of events required to produce a baby begins before conception; each event just as equal in importance to conception. If this is so, why emphasize conception? It is a necessary step, yes, but so are the others that preceed it, without which a fetus will never develop.

The Bible passages given say God knows us in the womb, in what way do you not consider that spiritual?
The Bible says God knows us in and before the womb, and knits us together, and God is Spirit, so whatever your reason to doubt, God knows us at conception; I don’t need to hear your views at odds with God.

They aren't. Let me just repost what I posted in my last reply to you, since it seems you missed the last couple paragraphs:

Even if we agreed that conception is the biological beginning of a human being, there's no scientific indication or biblical explanation that it's also the spiritual beginning. Simply because God knows someone "in the womb" doesn't necessitate that the reference being made is the point of conception any more than if I said "I was born in 1983" necessitates that I was born in January.

On a secular level, sadly not everyone shares your view on that, so I don’t think any of you are in a position to play God and decide who can and who cant live. Not everyone agrees with your view many countries deem it 12 weeks or 24 weeks. When you can make your minds up come back and we will listen.

And sadly, you still don't seem to understand that truth isn't determined by how many people agree with you. It is an appeal to irrelevancy. Numbers do not determine truth.

A child develops but until 7 its mental capacity lacks cognitive thought, but its still developing. Why should someone not be able to subjectively kill a child at under seven years old if you subjectively defend killing a baby in the womb.

I really have serious doubts what you're saying is true. Cognition simply refers to the ability to know, conceptualize, or recognize. It refers to the ability to process information, apply knowledge, and change preferences - all things even the smallest of children are clearly capable of. We see this easily enough in even a baby being born, crying because it recognizes change its will does not welcome. It may get more advanced with age, but it's present. An ability may be relatively poor, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; else you could equate a person with poor eye sight to a creature born without eyes. The parallel just isn't there.

I know what I said is true and I know what you said isnt. So your statement is incorrect.

See, statements like these are just plain worthless. They only beg the question and progress the discussion nowhere.

There is no difference at all between the essentials advancing in one and the essentials advancing in the other.

You've changed the scenario, though. In one, they aren't even present. The zygote has no mental facilities - a 7-year old does.

Finally, it seems there's a need to repost my last two paragraphs, as they went completely ignored by you and have an impact on the relevance of the discussion up to this point:

But I wonder how moot this point is. Even if we agreed that conception is the biological beginning of a human being, there's no scientific indication or biblical explanation that it's also the spiritual beginning. Simply because God knows someone "in the womb" doesn't necessitate that the reference being made is the point of conception any more than if I said "I was born in 1983" necessitates that I was born in January.

Further still, we know the existence of the body and soul are not always in sync. When someone dies, their spirit leaves the body, but there is still plenty of biological life persisting within the body in spite of having no spirit. For a while, hair and fingernails continue to grow, if you cut the body, it will still bleed, and the organs may be harvested for use. However, if we know the body exists apart from the spirit near the end of its existence, it stands to reason that the body may exist apart from the spirit near its beginning. Insisting the body could not exist without a spirit near its beginning is not only without merit, but also contrary to what we see at death.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Note: going to weed out most of the repetitive jargon and respond to specific points being made. If you feel I skipped something, by all means, point it out and I'll address it.

I think we are getting some key points.

Like I said, no one here has ever said otherwise.

Well if there is no previous event whereby a foetus/life will develop without conception, conception is the start of life developing.
Lets take that further now. Both you and I were therefore the product of conception, I as a human being then developed into stages first as a zygote, then a foetus, then a born baby, then a child then an adolescent and then a fully developed adult.
It seems to me from what you are saying, you do not consider you were a human being when a foetus according to the criteria you gave. I see what you are saying, but two points.
Firstly, your premise doesn’t make sense. The foetus that you were, and you are a person, was only going to be the person you are now, as it developed into the person you are now, so I don’t see how you can say it wasn’t you as a person or even a person. For it not to have been the person you are in development it must logically have been able to be something else, and quite clearly that isnt the case.
Secondly, once you have claimed the foetus isn’t a human being or doesn’t have personhood you have to justify the criteria you are using. Why should the criteria you are using be used instead of for example cognitive thought or puberty, and why do you think between 6 and 26 weeks and many countries think 12 – 24? Who is right? I mean are you concerned at all about pro-choice abortion? If you were surely you would be concerned that some countries are terminating viable human beings.

And as I pointed out, conception wouldn't even happen if previous steps weren't taken.

But the neither would you be here arguing, so I suggest you address the point that conception is the point at which life starts developing.

They aren't. Let me just repost what I posted in my last reply to you, since it seems you missed the last couple paragraphs:

No because your post repeated the same error.

Simply because God knows someone "in the womb" doesn't necessitate that the reference being made is the point of conception

Jeremiah 1 says 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you', So God knows us even before conception. Why do you keep asking me to read stuff you have posted which is clearly error? So what follows conception is both physical and spiritual.

And sadly, you still don't seem to understand that truth isn't determined by how many people agree with you. It is an appeal to irrelevancy. Numbers do not determine truth.

But firstly I don’t have to as I am not the one being accused of supporting and defending murder, and secondly the truth is God’s word which you have just disputed.

I really have serious doubts what you're saying is true.

bear in mind that I think your position is criminally insane, so I think we should stick to the issue rather than swap opinions on the others position.

Cognition simply refers to the ability to know, conceptualize, or recognize.

Yes I know, but as I said its not full development just because you don’t expect it for personhood doesn’t mean that someone else using a subjective view wouldn’t.

You've changed the scenario, though.

No, it has been my point all along.

In one, they aren't even present. The zygote has no mental facilities - a 7-year old does.

You’ve changed the scenario, as I said there is no difference at all between the essentials advancing in one and the essentials advancing in the other.

 

[Jedi]

Lets take that further now. Both you and I were therefore the product of conception, I as a human being then developed into stages first as a zygote, then a foetus, then a born baby, then a child then an adolescent and then a fully developed adult.

Granted, but the process didn't start at conception. On a biological level, you and I used to be a separate sperm and egg. Or heck, even the nutrients that were used to compose those things. What you say is true, but the chain of events doesn't start at conception.

It seems to me from what you are saying, you do not consider you were a human being when a foetus according to the criteria you gave. I see what you are saying, but two points.

In the fullest sense to suppose I was not only a biological organism but possessed personhood as well? You bet. At least until the 26-week mark when my mental facilities were present.

Firstly, your premise doesn’t make sense. The foetus that you were, and you are a person, was only going to be the person you are now, as it developed into the person you are now, so I don’t see how you can say it wasn’t you as a person or even a person. For it not to have been the person you are in development it must logically have been able to be something else, and quite clearly that isnt the case.

Let me ask you something that might clarify the distinction I'm trying to make. When someone physically dies and you look upon their corpse, are you looking at a person? I'd submit that you are not - the person has left their body. "Apart from the body, at home with the Lord" as the saying goes. In a very real way, you are looking at an empty shell; the biological apparatus that housed the person for a number of years.

In the same way, I submit that in the early stages of human development inside the womb (before mental facilities are present), the body is merely an empty shell. If we define the essence of a "person" to be a combination of emotions, will, memory, and sentience, then it's impossible for the zygote/fetus to be considered a person before it possess the mental facilities to enable these attributes.

Secondly, once you have claimed the foetus isn’t a human being or doesn’t have personhood you have to justify the criteria you are using. Why should the criteria you are using be used instead of for example cognitive thought or puberty, and why do you think between 6 and 26 weeks and many countries think 12 – 24? Who is right?

The criteria is certainly open for debate. What is the essence of personhood? What, exactly, persists after our bodies pass away? I'm basing my understanding of "person" on what we see persists after death in scriptural examples. The Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, indicates there is will, sentience, and memory that persist beyond physical death.

But the neither would you be here arguing, so I suggest you address the point that conception is the point at which life starts developing.

I could just as well say that you wouldn't be here arguing if it weren't for the sperm, the egg, or the nutrients that composed those two, so why doesn't life start there? Because without conception, it won't turn into anything? True, but without those things, conception wouldn't happen at all, and without yet more necessary steps, even conception won't result in childbirth. It dims the specialness of conception when we recognize that steps before and after it are equally important in the building of a human being.

Jeremiah 1 says 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you', So God knows us even before conception. Why do you keep asking me to read stuff you have posted which is clearly error? So what follows conception is both physical and spiritual.

That's just not true. God's knowledge of us prior to being in the womb is no indication of when our spiritual life begins. The connection just isn't there. It's like a man saying, "I knew you before you were in college. Therefore, you started college in the summer." The former fact has no bearing on the latter claim. The fact that the man knew you before college tells us absolutely nothing about when you entered college. In the same fashion, God's knowledge of us before we were in the womb does not indicate when our spirit was placed in the womb.

But firstly I don’t have to as I am not the one being accused of supporting and defending murder, and secondly the truth is God’s word which you have just disputed.

But don't you see? Now you've moved on from "because a larger group agrees exactly with me than the group that agrees exactly with you, your point of view is invalid by default," to begging the question that your side is right and I'm defending moral wrong (which progresses the discussion nowhere) and begging the question that your idea is backed up by God's word while anyone who disagrees with you and claims the same biblical authority is wrong. In short, you've switched from "numbers determine truth" to "I'm right and you're wrong because my point of view is X." It's a waste of time to even type it out, as it progresses the discussion nowhere.

bear in mind that I think your position is criminally insane, so I think we should stick to the issue rather than swap opinions on the others position.

First, I didn't just say "Your opinion is silly" or something to that effect. I expressed doubt about a particular claim you made, then listed reasons why that doubt is justified. Your ideas about the cognitive abilities of a 7-year old just don't match up with universal experience.

Secondly, as I've pointed out, you only demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes mental health by accusing anyone who disagrees with your worldview as "insane" as well as propped yourself up on a pedestal, supposing yourself better than the person you speak with (unless you really don't think yourself better than someone who is "criminally insane"). This is the behavior of extremists and zealots; people who cannot be reasoned with because they quickly disregard the words of anyone with a different worldview, labeling them as morally or intellectually bankrupt and thus creating a barrier between them and differing ideas, hindering any kind of discussion to reach a mutual understanding.

 

[lux et lex]

Secondly, as I've pointed out, you only demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes mental health by accusing anyone who disagrees with your worldview as "insane" as well as propped yourself up on a pedestal, supposing yourself better than the person you speak with (unless you really don't think yourself better than someone who is "criminally insane"). This is the behavior of extremists and zealots; people who cannot be reasoned with because they quickly disregard the words of anyone with a different worldview, labeling them as morally or intellectually bankrupt and thus creating a barrier between them and differing ideas, hindering any kind of discussion to reach a mutual understanding.

Well said.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Granted, but the process didn't start at conception.

then you can’t say ‘granted’ as my argument is about the process starting at conception.

On a biological level, you and I used to be a separate sperm and egg.

Irrelevant, the process started at conception, the individual sperm and egg never lead to a foetus/life. This is where your argument is outside reality.

In the fullest sense to suppose I was not only a biological organism but possessed personhood as well? You bet. At least until the 26-week mark when my mental facilities were present.

But your metal facilities were present in the foetus that was only ever you developing, so it was you.

Firstly, your premise doesn’t make sense. The foetus that you were, and you are a person, was only going to be the person you are now, as it developed into the person you are now, so I don’t see how you can say it wasn’t you as a person or even a person. For it not to have been the person you are in development it must logically have been able to be something else, and quite clearly that isnt the case.

Let me ask you something that might clarify the distinction I'm trying to make. When someone physically dies and you look upon their corpse, are you looking at a person?

If I die are you looking at who I was or who you were? Obviously it would be me that was dead and not anyone else. Similarly it was me who was a the foetus I was in development.
Furthermore a dead body is somewhat different from a foetus, the former is dead and the latter is living, a similarity is when the foetus is aborted, its then dead, which says a lot about your argument.

The criteria is certainly open for debate. What is the essence of personhood? What, exactly, persists after our bodies pass away? I'm basing my understanding of "person" on what we see persists after death in scriptural examples. The Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, for example, indicates there is will, sentience, and memory that persist beyond physical death.

I agree with the scripture about Lazarus, not sure if it is a parable, but I also agree with life being before conception as in Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1. I don’t pick choose which scripture to suit a preconceived human idea.
You didn’t address my question. I maintain that abortion by choice is not acceptable because life, personhood and human being starts at conception. If you are for pro-choice abortion what are the limits you are going to set for abortion which doesn’t destroy personhood, life or human being (whichever you choose) ?

I could just as well say that you wouldn't be here arguing if it weren't for the sperm, the egg, or the nutrients that composed those two, so why doesn't life start there?

because it doesn’t without conception.

That's just not true. God's knowledge of us prior to being in the womb is no indication of when our spiritual life begins.

On the contrary in Adam all are dead in Christ all are made alive, the spiritual life is arguably there at conception or not there until one accepts Jesus Christ. The scripture says God knows us, there is no indication of a separation of physical or spiritual, that’s an assumption you have made, which is clearly faulty.

In the same fashion, God's knowledge of us before we were in the womb does not indicate when our spirit was placed in the womb.

On the contrary there is nothing for you to make that assumption on, and see above, in Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive.

First, I didn't just say "Your opinion is silly" or something to that effect. I expressed doubt about a particular claim you made, then listed reasons why that doubt is justified. Your ideas about the cognitive abilities of a 7-year old just don't match up with universal experience.

Sorry but if I don’t agree with the subjectivity of your argument I don’t agree with it, whether its life as a foetus or not, or life as child under 7 or not.

Secondly, as I've pointed out, you only demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes mental health by accusing anyone who disagrees with your worldview as "insane" as well as propped yourself up on a pedestal, supposing yourself better than the person you speak with (unless you really don't think yourself better than someone who is "criminally insane").

As I said, I think justifying murder of life is criminally insane. Are you saying you don’t think it is?

This is the behavior of extremists and zealots; people who cannot be reasoned with because they quickly disregard the words of anyone with a different worldview, labeling them as morally or intellectually bankrupt and thus creating a barrier between them and differing ideas, hindering any kind of discussion to reach a mutual understanding.

Then by your definition we aren’t extremists or zealots as we reason with each other.