Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, thats logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.In one of my comparative religion classes, a Jewish Rabbi explained that abortion was not against Judaism using some verses in Leviticus.
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.Because it's from the Bible and talks about the closest thing to what would classify as a fetus.
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.If an infant under 1 month didn't matter, surely a fetus doesn't.
AirForceTeacher,
Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, thats logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.
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.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?
Stick to what the Bible says instead of imagining things
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.
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.A poor argument, as it's nothing more than begging the question.
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?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, which is that conception must be the starting point where life develops. Yes?You have only arbitrarily picked one of the necessary steps and stated the obvious: that without this necessary step, it won't develop.
Again you haven’t addressed the point I made which was that life doesn’t develop from either sperm or egg, but from conception.Yeah, the creation of the sperm and egg are not events, I guess.
I disagree, naturally it is, but that was not the point I was making.Neither is sex. That's not necessary for human production either.
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.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.
True.Simply untrue.
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.No one has ever said "Because miscarriages happen, it must therefore be okay to intentionally cause it to happen."
Well that is only my opinion, and I would rather have arrogant opinions than be supporting murder.See, that's just arrogance right there. Pure, unadulterated arrogance,
Well it is an extreme opinion, not many of the pro-life group would share my opinion in that.than thinking that because someone doesn't agree with your extremist views, they must have a mental health issue.
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.
There is no event before conception whereby life/foetus begins to develop so there is your starting point for life...Yes?
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?
Again you havent addressed the point I made which was that life doesnt develop from either sperm or egg, but from conception.
I disagree, naturally it is, but that was not the point I was making.
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.
Well that is only my opinion, and I would rather have arrogant opinions than be supporting murder.
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.
Again like what?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.
Strange you would admit this, since earlier you said "
The sexual act that unites them is conception, without conception none of the events you are proposing result in a foetus/life developing.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,
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.Your argument is one of ad populum;
Again you have not addressed my point, I never said I was better, but sure my position on abortion is.Even when your arrogance is pointed out, you still insist that you are better than someone who disagrees with you.
Yes I have the spiritual life begins in the womb, God knows us in the womb. Looks like you don’t believe the Bible.So far, you have shown no evidence to support your assertion that (a) spiritual life must begin at the same time biological life does,
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.(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.
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.You said ‘unless conception happens on its own’ No idea what you mean.
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?The sexual act that unites them is conception, without conception none of the events you are proposing result in a foetus/life developing.
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.Yes we have a view which is demonstrably reality, Conception is the point at which no foetus/life can develop before it.
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?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.
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.Again you have not addressed my point, I never said I was better, but sure my position on abortion is.
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...Yes I have the spiritual life begins in the womb, God knows us in the womb. Looks like you don’t believe the Bible.
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.Ok, your presumption is dangerous as the foetus is already developing as a life that has all you mentioned
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.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.
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."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.
Hmmn who was this Jewish rabbi then? Sorry if God knows people in the womb then abortion is killing them, thats logic. Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 seems to indicate this Rabbi was badly mistaken.
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.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.
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.You suggested there are no events prior to conception that lead to the development of a human life.
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.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.
As pointed out none of those steps begin foetus/life without conception.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?
The sperm and egg is conception.The sperm and egg may or may not lead to a fetus, just like conception.
The Bible passages given say God knows us in the womb, in what way do you not consider that spiritual?Looks like you can't read my posts.
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 have repeatedly suggested that spiritual life does begin in the womb - just not at conception.
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.I've asserted that 2 months at the soonest and 26 months at the latest,
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.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?
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.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.
I know what I said is true and I know what you said isnt. So your statement is incorrect.You and I both know that's simply not true.
There is no difference at all between the essentials advancing in one and the essentials advancing in the other.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.
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.What has been said, however, is that conception isn't the beginning of the process,
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.
Sure there are other events needed but none of those events on their own result in a foetus/life developing.
As pointed out none of those steps begin foetus/life without conception.
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 dont need to hear your views at odds with God.
On a secular level, sadly not everyone shares your view on that, so I dont 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.
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 know what I said is true and I know what you said isnt. So your statement is incorrect.
There is no difference at all between the essentials advancing in one and the essentials advancing in the other.
I think we are getting some key points.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.
Well if there is no previous event whereby a foetus/life will develop without conception, conception is the start of life developing.Like I said, no one here has ever said otherwise.
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.And as I pointed out, conception wouldn't even happen if previous steps weren't taken.
No because your post repeated the same error.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:
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.Simply because God knows someone "in the womb" doesn't necessitate that the reference being made is the point of conception
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.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.
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.I really have serious doubts what you're saying is true.
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.Cognition simply refers to the ability to know, conceptualize, or recognize.
No, it has been my point all along.You've changed the scenario, though.
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.In one, they aren't even present. The zygote has no mental facilities - a 7-year old does.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
then you can’t say ‘granted’ as my argument is about the process starting at conception.Granted, but the process didn't start at conception.
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.On a biological level, you and I used to be a separate sperm and egg.
But your metal facilities were present in the foetus that was only ever you developing, so it was you.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.
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.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 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.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.
because it doesn’t without conception.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?
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.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 there is nothing for you to make that assumption on, and see above, in Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive.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.
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.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.
As I said, I think justifying murder of life is criminally insane. Are you saying you don’t think it is?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").
Then by your definition we aren’t extremists or zealots as we reason with each other.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?