- May 29, 2005
- 5,876
- 485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.
Upvote
0
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.
Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.Except, of course, we all know Jane is dead,
Then just find us a valid medical/scientific source that declares the unborn are dead until a defined point in their development.
But your example is of a dead person. If the unborn isn't dead, then your example doesn't apply.Not dead, just not a person until the brain is developed enough for personhood to emerge.
Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, in reading your response I can't seem to locate any sort of an objectively based argument.Sure, we can do that. We can look at the other end of life, at the time we pass away.
Say John Doe has a sister, Jane, and John is her only living relative. Jane is shot in the head, brain damaged and so much brain tissue is destroyed she is declared brain dead. The hospital is keeping her alive on machines and ask John for permission to harvest the organs and take the body off the respirator.
All your arguments in favor of personhood for Jane are present. She has been fertilized; indeed, the cells have even gone ahead and made a body! She has a full complement of DNA. And she has that beating heart so many attempt to use as a criterion. Everything one could possibly define in a single fertilized egg is present. Except, of course, we all know Jane is dead, really, and the moral choice to harvest her organs for the lives of others and allow the heart to stop is entirely appropriate.
There is your objectively based argument on why the distinction is real.
Herin lies the problem with the phiosophy of "the end justiNot really. When a miserable person experiences a miserable sex life and experiences an unplanned pregnancy and has not the ability to raise or care for a child, they may decide to end the pregnancy rather than expose the unborn to drugs, alcohol, or abandonment. That decision does not require a devaluing of either life.
My daughter, who has brain damage from Chemotherapy at age 5, has not aborted two pregnancies, and the results have been a challenge to all of us. But I don't presume to be the best decision maker in her life. I believe it is her decision.
I too am a Protestant. I too believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. I reach this belief, not in faith, nor as the result of a papal bull, but because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the complete and total word of God ( sola scriptura ). If God knows us before we were in our mothers womb, does he not know us the instant we are in our mothers womb ? If God knows us as a person as a fertilized egg, does that not make us as a fertilized egg most definitely a person ?It doesn't matter to the twins, it merely destroys your argument from identical DNA.
Truth is you have to resort to empty retorts because you tried to prove an article of faith by logic, which is impossible. It is your article of faith that a newly fertilized egg is a person already and it is my article of faith that it isn't yet a person. There is no logic to prove one way or the other. As a protestant, I go for scripture evidence for my religion, and this topic is not addressed in scripture. As a catholic, you have papal decree on your side, and that is sufficient for you. Not for me.
I too believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. I reach this belief, not in faith, nor as the result of a papal bull, but because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the complete and total word of God ( sola scriptura ).
A very flawed hypothetical. First, a zygote is the first direct result of the combination of two separate sets of DNA growing in the natural environment designed specifically for that purpose. You are trying to use potential ethical problems from a totally unnatural set of circumstances as sand in the eyes to confuse the issue. We aren't discussing the ethical problems of what maybe might happen in the sweet by and by, we are discussing serious ethical issues of what happens every day. False equivalencies lead to false conclusionsYour last to statements seem to imply identical twins are a single person. Since they are not a single person, your reasoning there is flawed.
Suppose, some day, it becomes technically possible to take a blood cell from my body, treat it in such a way as to allow it to begin to express all its genes and grow into a fetus and a baby. A marvelous triumph of science. In such a case, wouldn't every failure to go ahead and do that to all my blood cells be the crime of failing to allow a baby to grow? Of course not. Your reasoning fails in that case as well.
Yes, I will give you a few to think about. Let me look them up, I promise I will get back to you today. There is, of course, no verse that says "behold, the fertilized egg is a human being", but that is the inescapable conclusion from what is said.Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...
Obviously there isn't one because the Bible is not a biological textbook. However, we know 1) scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, 2) Biblically, all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, we can conclude 3) Unborn human beings possess inherent moral worth and value.Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...
Here are the three that convinced me beyond any doubt, that a person exists at conception. " You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mothers womb, you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret " Ps. 139: 13-15 " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5 " You have been my guide since I was first formed, from my mothers womb, you are my God" Ps. 22:10-11Can you provide a bible verse where it says a fertilised egg is a human being? I am now quite curious...
Not according to the BibleNot dead, just not a person until the brain is developed enough for personhood to emerge. As Jane Doe may be considered "brain dead" we can say a newly fertilized egg, while alive, is not "brain alive".
Here are the three that convinced me beyond any doubt, that a person exists at conception. " You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mothers womb, you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret " Ps. 139: 13-15 " Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you " Jer. 1: 4-5 " You have been my guide since I was first formed, from my mothers womb, you are my God" Ps. 22:10-11
These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.
In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".
No, they are saying that we are known by God at or before conception, thus meaning we are a person at conception. Womb isn´t a scientific term, it may not even be the exact Jewish definition for the word translated womb. Womb has historically been known where babies are both conceived and carried. The point is clear. If God knows us before or at conception, we are persons IN HIS EYES at the exact same time. Exhaustive anatomy is irrelevant to the matter.These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.
In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".
What verses are you using to identity that abortion is a sin?Hi. I would like to preface this by saying that I am a pro-life Catholic, and I always have been.
I want to discuss the evil of abortion. I notice that many pro-lifers get hung up arguing about the evil of murdering babies, whether or not a fetus is a human, etc., and they fail to see the greatest evil of it all: the idea that one human life has more intrinsic value than another. This idea has manifested itself through all of human history: as slavery/racism, Nazism, and today, abortion. Slavery in pre-Civil War America was rooted in the idea that a white person's life was more valuable than a black person's life. Once this idea had been accepted, whites (not all whites) could then attack and dehumanize blacks to the point where they would consider them as property, not people. And once they did this, once they reached this point, they could justify the rape, beating, and enslavement of black people "because they're only property, after all."
Similarly, as you most likely already know, Hitler had the idea that the life of an "Aryan" was naturally more valuable than the life of a Jew. (Of course, if you were to ask the Internet why Hitler hated Jews, it would tell you that he believed "Jews were a destructive influence in any society." That comes from the aforementioned idea.) When Hitler came to power, he gradually passed laws restricting the rights of Jews. He eventually began to treat them like cattle, marking them with the Star of David (and numbers at concentration camps).
Hitler felt justified in killing millions of Jews because he had dehumanized them to the point where they were barely more than cattle.
Abortion today is akin to a "sibling" of racism and Nazism. All three are manifestations of the same horrible idea. In order to justify abortion, you must first accept that the life of the mother has more intrinsic value than the life of the baby. Once you accept this, you can dehumanize the baby to the point where you can justify its murder by saying that it is "only a cluster of cells." Furthermore, you can then divert the argument away from the root of the evil and point it elsewhere, wasting time arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human.
In retrospect, we know how evil such things as slavery and the Holocaust were. We look back on these evils and we swear to never let something so horrible happen again: and yet it continues, right before our very eyes. Why do we never learn?
God declares an unborn child a person. ( see my post in this thread ). Premeditated killing of a person is first degree murder, murder is a sin.What verses are you using to identity that abortion is a sin?
Well, you're reading your conclusion into the interpretation of those verses. It isn't a necessary interpretation. Not the first or last time that has happened.God declares an unborn child a person. ( see my post in this thread ). Premeditated killing of a person is first degree murder, murder is a sin.
These are only saying that we are made in our mother's womb, which I don't think anyone would dispute. None of these imply that we have individual identity at fertilisation.
In fact, these verses are contrary to the view that identity is made at fertilisation. The egg is fertilised in the fallopian tube, not in the womb, but the verse says "you knit me together in my mothers womb" implying that the parts happening prior to the womb are not "me".
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?