The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Give it up. You can never argue with the pro lifers. We all know what would cause less abortions . . . and it's not making it illegal.

I need to know why they think making safe abortions illegal (and consequently increasing the numbers of dangerous abortions) while calling girls and women who get them murderers is what Jesus would do. The only person who never sinned preached kindness and compassion.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I need to know why they think making safe abortions illegal (and consequently increasing the numbers of dangerous abortions) while calling girls and women who get them murderers is what Jesus would do.
Likewise, I need to know why pro-abortion advocates think killing innocent human beings created in the Image of God for convenience reasons is morally acceptable.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Likewise, I need to know why pro-abortion advocates think killing innocent human beings created in the Image of God for convenience reasons is morally acceptable.

Your problem is thinking anything short of saving the mom's life is an inconvenience. Usually it is not just that. There are many reasons a girl or woman may want to have an abortion which are more than just "I don't want a baby." Only she and God know exactly what they are because it is a very private matter like any medical situation. God is the only Judge, not us, and told us in Scripture not to judge others. I cannot speak for these girls and women, but some of their reasons are legitimate, if not justified.

I am not a pro-abortion advocate. My preference would be comprehensive and expanded sex education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in every state, universal health care with free contraception, and vouchers for free pregnancy/parental counseling with female psychologists. Combining these changes would go a long way toward helping girls and women stay pregnant without being treated like crap if they do not have medical reasons to get abortions.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Likewise, I need to know why pro-abortion advocates think killing innocent human beings created in the Image of God for convenience reasons is morally acceptable.

You don't know when an embryo becomes a human, as scripture does not clarify on when an individual comes into existence (ensoulment that completes the creation of life). And science cannot say when life of a human comes into existence, because as far as science is aware, life predated the embryo and has existed for billions of years. Science also cannot say when ensoulment occurs because it is a metaphysical occurance.

With this said, in cases of early term abortions, you cannot say that it is killing of a human being created in the image of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You don't know when an embryo becomes a human, as scripture does not clarify on when an individual comes into existence (ensoulment that completes the creation of life). And science cannot say when life of a human comes into existence, because as far as science is aware, life predated the embryo and has existed for billions of years. Science also cannot say when ensoulment occurs because it is a metaphysical occurance.

With this said, in cases of early term abortions, you cannot say that it is killing of a human being created in the image of God.

The fact that God sees us while still unformed is enough.
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The fact that God sees us while still unformed is enough.
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This doesn't say when God creates an individual. At best, assuming we were to take the Psalmist's poetry as literal information (which is an assumption in and of itself), it would merely suggest that God creates within the womb. But there is no clarity on when this is. Week 1, 2, 5, week 20 etc.

Psalms 149:9:
If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You don't know when an embryo becomes a human
Really? We don't know when a human embryo becomes a human? is there a chance a human embryo might become a chicken? Or is it possible, just maybe, that a human embryo is already a human?

Human beings take roughly 25 years to develop. Our development begins as a zygote at fertilization. We then grow from a zygote to an embryo, then to a fetus, then to a newborn, then an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, a teenager, and finally an adult. Yet, at all points of our development - we are still a human being.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really? We don't know when a human embryo becomes a human? is there a chance a human embryo might become a chicken? Or is it possible, just maybe, that a human embryo is already a human?

Human beings take roughly 25 years to develop. Our development begins as a zygote at fertilization. We then grow from a zygote to an embryo, then to a fetus, then to a newborn, then an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, a teenager, and finally an adult. Yet, at all points of our development - we are still a human being.

You're confusing when we (people) decide to begin calling something human, with when God actually creates a human.

Nowhere in the above did you say anything to clarify on when God brings a human being into existence, ie ensoulment.

And remember, this question cannot be answered by science, because in accordance with science, life, and the DNA which is continually recombining and changing and self-sustaining, has existed for billions of years. It didn't come into existence at conception but rather existed long before.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Nowhere in the above did you say anything to clarify on when God brings a human being into existence, ie ensoulment.
Humans are created as both physical and spiritual beings. God created a system where our physical part of our being comes into existence at fertilization.

There's no reason to think that ensoulment doesn't happen at the same time our physical beings come into existence. Can you think of a reason why there would be a delay?

I can't think of any examples in Scripture where there is a living human being without a soul, can you?

We know that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb. We know that King David declared he was sinful from the moment of conception - would a soulless human being have a sinful nature? I doubt it.

I don't know why the default position wouldn't be that ensoulment would be simultaneous with our physical beings coming into existence.

And at any rate, even if there is some sort of a delay by a few weeks or months from our physical beings coming into existence and ensoulment happening, I don't know why that would matter from a practical standpoint anyway. Do you want to stand before God and argue with him that it was morally acceptable to kill another human being because we managed to do the killing just before God slipped their soul in? I sure don't.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Humans are created as both physical and spiritual beings. God created a system where our physical part of our being comes into existence at fertilization.

There's no reason to think that ensoulment doesn't happen at the same time our physical beings come into existence. Can you think of a reason why there would be a delay?

I can't think of any examples in Scripture where there is a living human being without a soul, can you?

We know that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb. We know that King David declared he was sinful from the moment of conception - would a soulless human being have a sinful nature? I doubt it.

I don't know why the default position wouldn't be that ensoulment would be simultaneous with our physical beings coming into existence.

And at any rate, even if there is some sort of a delay by a few weeks or months from our physical beings coming into existence and ensoulment happening, I don't know why that would matter from a practical standpoint anyway. Do you want to stand before God and argue with him that it was morally acceptable to kill another human being because we managed to do the killing just before God slipped their soul in? I sure don't.

Nothing physical comes into existence at conception. It's not like matter just comes into being. I don't know why you keep repeating this, it doesn't make any sense.

As you've been told before, when someone takes ham, cheese and bread, and puts it together, a ham sandwich is not coming into existence from non existence, But rather this is the reforming of that which already exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
" And at any rate, even if there is some sort of a delay by a few weeks or months from our physical beings coming into existence and ensoulment happening, I don't know why that would matter from a practical standpoint anyway. " -SPF

The point is, if you don't know when human life begins, then you just have to accept that as it is. You can't rightfully go around saying that human beings are being murdered (say in the case of a morning after pill) if you don't know when the human being is created.

"Do you want to stand before God and argue with him that it was morally acceptable to kill another human being because we managed to do the killing just before God slipped their soul in? I sure don't."-SPF

As we've discussed before, it is my opinion that if a hunter can go out with a bow and arrow, and can shoot a deer, that experiences pain, fear and suffering, through its spinal cord and lungs, for sport and enjoyment, so that they can hang it's stuffed body parts on their wall as trophies, then a woman who is raped and may have health risks by carrying out a pregnancy, should have the right to use a morning after pill to destroy a non sentient, non pain and fear experiencing embryo.

And I would happily bring this before God^.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Nothing physical comes into existence at conception. It's not like matter just comes into being. I don't know why you keep repeating this, it doesn't make any sense.
That may have been the case a few hundred years ago, but thanks to the advancements in science, we actually do know when the physical form of a new human being comes into existence. As a secular science, evolution embracing person I'm surprised you aren't more aware of these basic biological facts. Read this:

One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.


In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That may have been the case a few hundred years ago, but thanks to the advancements in science, we actually do know when the physical form of a new human being comes into existence. As a secular science, evolution embracing person I'm surprised you aren't more aware of these basic biological facts. Read this:

One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.


In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

Nothing physical comes into existence at conception. It's not like matter just comes into being. I don't know why you keep repeating this, it doesn't make any sense.

As you've been told before, when someone takes ham, cheese and bread, and puts it together, a ham sandwich is not coming into existence from non existence, But rather this is the reforming of that which already exists.

You're confusing when we (people) decide to begin calling something human (when sperm and egg meet), with when God actually creates a human (unknown).

And remember, this question cannot be answered by science, because in accordance with science, life, and the DNA which is continually recombining and changing and self-sustaining, has existed for billions of years. It didn't come into existence at conception but rather existed long before. When you talk about a sperm and egg meeting, you're describing the reforming of pre existing DNA and matter, you aren't actually describing life coming into existence from non existence (more appropriately known as ensoulment).

When God created the universe, He didn't take a pre existing universe and reform it. He created the universe from a prior non-existence.

And when you talk about a sperm meeting the egg, you aren't describing creation of life from non existence. Rather you're describing the physical recombination of pre-existing DNA and matter. This isn't God creating life. This is just people labeling things "human" out of convenience of conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Nothing physical comes into existence at conception. It's not like matter just comes into being. I don't know why you keep repeating this, it doesn't make any sense.

As you've been told before, when someone takes ham, cheese and bread, and puts it together, a ham sandwich is not coming into existence from non existence, But rather this is the reforming of that which already exists.

You're confusing when we (people) decide to begin calling something human, with when God actually creates a human.

And remember, this question cannot be answered by science, because in accordance with science, life, and the DNA which is continually recombining and changing and self-sustaining, has existed for billions of years. It didn't come into existence at conception but rather existed long before.
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

As noted above, when you describe "cell fusion", you're describing the re-forming of pre existing matter. You're not describing anything being brought into existence from non existence.

You're confusing when we (people) decide to begin calling something human (or in this case a zygote), with when God (not a human scientist) actually creates a human being (a metaphysical act that cannot be observed in science).

When I take ham, cheese and bread and put it together, a sandwich does not "come into existence". But rather, I am taking things that already exist, and I am reshaping them, then I make the personal choice to call it a sandwich for ease of conversation.

But none of this has to do with any act of God. Me making a sandwich is merely a materialist act. And when cells undergo fusion and their molecules join together, this is a materialist occurance. It says nothing about God's actual act of creating you or me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You're confusing when we (people) decide to begin calling something human (or in this case a zygote), with when God (not a human scientist) actually creates a human being (a metaphysical act that cannot be observed in science).
Actually I'm not. Biblically speaking, a human being is both physical and spiritual in nature. This is how God created us, and it's how we will exist when Christ returns and redeems and restores all things. Heaven will come down to earth, and we will live, with Christ, on earth, as both physical and spiritual beings.

God created a system in which the physical being of a human begins at fertilization. That is when we have our beginning, physically speaking.

As far as this discussion relates to abortion - the 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral because human beings are a unique creation of God, alone out of all creation - created in His Image. Humans alone possess the Imago Dei. No other created being does. Not angels, nor any animals in the animal kingdom that God has given us to rule.

So the reason that the 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral is because it is the intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent, made in God's Image, human being. Whether ensoulment happens at fertilization, or a month after fertilization doesn't really matter. Our physical being exists at fertilization, and killing it when it has a soul, or when it's waiting for a soul would be equally wrong.

And again, there are no examples in Scripture of their ever being a living human without a soul. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, King David acknowledged he had a sinful nature from conception - would a soulless human have a sinful nature? I have never seen any compelling case made for ensoulment not to be simultaneous with the beginning of our physical selves.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
" God created a system in which the physical being of a human begins at fertilization. That is when we have our beginning, physically speaking."

You're confusing a shape of physical matter "beginning to exist" with creation. A sandwich begins to exist when I combine ham, cheese and bread, but nothing is actually coming into existence. Rather I am simply recombining that which was already created by God at a prior point in time. We cannot confuse the reshaping of pre-existing physical matter with an act of creation by God.

This is not to be confused with how God creates life. Remember, Peter doesn't eternally exist prior to being created. God creates Peter and brings Peter into existence at some point in time. And this moment in which Peter is brought into existence is not something that any scientist can define based on the fusion of cells or when sperm or egg touches or when DNA combines etc.

You can't say, well these cells fused, so now the zygote has a soul, for example. In fact, ensoulment isn't something observed in a lab. And as noted above, scripture doesn't clarify on when this event occurs.

God's creation of life isn't just a chemical reaction to be defined by scientists looking at petri dishes.

You keep repeating yourself but you aren't actually providing any resolution for your dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
" Whether ensoulment happens at fertilization, or a month after fertilization doesn't really matter. Our physical being exists at fertilization, and killing it when it has a soul, or when it's waiting for a soul would be equally wrong."

This is an interesting approach. I would say that if the zygote is not ensouled, then it is physical matter that is not equivelant to a human being created in the image of God. I would say that it is not yet created. But rather it is physical matter that may one day host the created being. But before the created being enters it's physical host, then it's just physical matter.

When a human gets an arm amputated, that human doesn't stop being in the image of God.

Being created in the image of God is dependent on the souls presence.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You keep repeating yourself but you aren't actually providing any resolution for your dilemma.
I actually am the one who provides scientific references and cited material. You're the one who ignores them, and only offers up "because I said so" as reasons to think that all the cited material I provide is somehow wrong.

This is not to be confused with how God creates life. Remember, Peter doesn't eternally exist prior to being created. God creates Peter and brings Peter into existence at some point in time.
Again, Human beings are both physical and spiritual beings. The way that God has determined that our physical beginning is to occur is through sexual relations, culminating in fertilization. The more that science has progressed, the more clearly we've literally been able to see the beginning of our physical existence.

The fact is that you and I both physically exist. There was also a time, believe it or not, when we did not physically exist. The question of when we as a human being, or a human organism first began, has been scientifically answered. It's not a matter of debate anymore.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

So again, what we know biologically is that our physical selves came into existence at fertilization. All of us began to exist as physical beings. Thanks to advancements in science, we now know when that physical existence began.

However, Biblically, we know that human beings are not merely physical beings, we are both physical and spiritual beings. All of us have a soul. The question that has arisen is when do our physical bodies receive their soul?

There are two options - either ensoulment happens simultaneously with the beginning of our physical existence, or ensoulment happens at some point before birth.

Scripture does not state matter of factly when ensoulment occurs. However, as I've always said, I think the Biblical evidence would lend itself towards the notion that ensoulment happens simultaneously with the beginning of our physical being.

1. There is no Biblical suggestion that a physical human being ever exists without a soul.
2. King David acknowledged that he was sinful from conception.
3. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,187.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's an idea and you can share your thoughts @SPF ,

The moment we consider that life has value, purely on the basis of the form of physical matter, it's shape, if cells are fused or not, whether the DNA has one combination or another etc. These are all human observations made over petri dishes. The moment we consider that life has value without the need for a soul or any specific metaphysical activity, is the moment we have to reflect on the idea that non ensouled life has value as well, and that includes the deer that we are shooting in the lungs with arrows.

If the zygote has value purely based on observation of its physical form, without the need for a soul, then so does the deer, because if we are only examining physical form, independently of metaphysical completion, then we are no different than any other life on earth but for the shape of our cells (which, as we all know, isn't static but rather changes over time).
 
Upvote 0