The Question Abortion Advocates Won’t Answer

[Adventist Heretic]

Agreeing with facts and disagreeing with interpretaitons is exactly the opposite of what you are saying, so you have some explaining to do. The Bible verses you referred to are interpreted; conclusions of research by women's health specialists and zoologists are not. Critical thinking is what college educated experts do to not only learn but prove facts about human reproduction.

Now you totally contradict yourself and prove SPF's point because he copied the entire official job titles of scientific authorities, not just their quotes. You can clearly see all of them are extremely well educated so it is impossible to deny they are legitimate authorities on the subject.

Not correct, I did not reject the scientific authorities. I rejected his use and application of the scientific authorities for his purpose. he assigns them the meaning that life begin at conception, when none of them say that. he has not grasped the fact that I do not deny that something begin at conception and those quotes only add to the claim. I do deny the fact that Life, (awareness & feeling) begin at conception. At conception the Formation and Preparation of the body, to inhabit the Soul, beings. he assigns the meaning that Life begins I do not.



Here you admit the BIBLE is subject to interpretations that people assign meanings to.

Nowhere does Scripture say feeling and awereness are the criteria for getting a soul or that life begins when there is a body.

If feeling and awareness were required to be a person, nobody would be a person because we have no feeling or awareness when we sleep!

it is the requirement for death, See Ps 146:4,so by reason we can say the logic we can say thought must be present for life to be present. It is part of it. You call me out for saying that nowhere is "feeling and awereness" the criteria, but that is the consequence of the soul entering the body, the absence of "feeling and awaerness" is the consequence of the soul leaving the body. Without a soul you are not a person. NOW, you call me out for my view, but you have less support for the belief that life begins at conception. There is NO text that says that. what you do have are texts that say formation and preparation of the body begin. that is fact.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The scientific and medical definition of death has nothing to do with feeling and awareness. The heart has stopped beating, The person has stopped breathing. The brain has totally stopped functioning. There isn't any cell reproduction or movement. That is being dead.

If feeling and awareness do not exist, but the involuntary systems are operating and cells are dividing, the person is alive. Consider general anesthesia, medically-induced comas, concussions, fainting, and grand mal seizures, which all make people unconscious. Do you think people in all of these conditions are dead because they have no feeling or awareness?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

The scientific and medical definition of death has nothing to do with feeling and awareness. The heart has stopped beating, The person has stopped breathing. The brain has totally stopped functioning. There isn't any cell reproduction or movement. That is being dead.

Call it something different, use a different measurement if you will. but the result is still the same. brainwaves stopping is lack of awareness or conscience. so there you go.

If feeling and awareness do not exist, but the involuntary systems are operating and cells are dividing, the person is alive. Consider general anesthesia, medically-induced comas, concussions, fainting, and grand mal seizures, which all make people unconscious. Do you think people in all of these conditions are dead because they have no feeling or awareness?[/QUOTE]scripture says the body without the spirit is dead. what you described is the spirit being in the body. so it is still alive. both the spirit and the soul have to leave the body that is what scripture says. so there you go.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Call it something different, use a different measurement if you will. but the result is still the same. brainwaves stopping is lack of awareness or conscience. so there you go.

If feeling and awareness do not exist, but the involuntary systems are operating and cells are dividing, the person is alive. Consider general anesthesia, medically-induced comas, concussions, fainting, and grand mal seizures, which all make people unconscious. Do you think people in all of these conditions are dead because they have no feeling or awareness?

scripture says the body without the spirit is dead. what you described is the spirit being in the body. so it is still alive. both the spirit and the soul have to leave the body that is what scripture says. so there you go. At conception you have neither spirit nor soul. there spirit powers the body and the soul give it awareness and feeling. You assume all 3 happen at the same time at conception. Please prove that. no where in scripture does it say that.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Paul referred to people who have already sinned and chosen to follow Jesus Christ as their Savior.

it is refering to the parts that make up a person

 

[GodLovesCats]

SPF can prove human beings have souls at conception. He already has done so many times, actually.

 

[SPF]

SPF can prove human beings have souls at conception. He already has done so many times, actually.

IceDragon is a gnostic who believes God teaches him extra-biblical truths, so you can’t really reason with him.

 

[GodLovesCats]

IceDragon is a gnostic who believes God teaches him extra-biblical truths, so you can’t really reason with him.

No, extra-Biblical truths are what we have been teaching him: the scientific stuff. I will keep trying to find out why Icedragon believes he is not interpreting the Bible to make up his own meanings that don't exist.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Icedragon, you still have not explained why you claim to oppose interpretatoins, but choose to make up a nonsensical interpretation of the Bible instead of rely on authoritative facts, which you said you support. I can't understand why you assume scientifically proven facts learned and taught by biomedical specialists, including people with MD and Ph.D degrees, are subjective interpretations.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You're simply engaging in personal attacks now. you are simply shifting the burden of proof. you say life begins at conception. I have challenged that position. I have stated there is no biblical texts that state that out right. you have failed to provide one text that definitively declares that life begins at conception. all of what you say is a matter of interpretation weather it be scriptural, or scientific. you are either lacking evidence or you are lazy. you just assume that people should do whatever you say without ever questioning I look at the subject matter and I find your positions lacking. scripture tells us, that a person according to the Bible is body soul and Spirit. if you do not have one of those you do not have a person. at death the spirit and the soul the part of the body.. at conception the formation of the body begins, since the spirit and the soul inhabit the body you you first must have a body before you have a soul and spirit. since you do not have a body, it is in the process of being formed you cannot have a soul or spirit because the soul is what gives the the body consciousness and the spirit is what gives it power to run. you assume that because the process starts at conception that life begins at conception. that is not a valid conclusion

 

[Jamesone5]

Icedragon, you still have not explained why you claim to oppose interpretatoins, but choose to make up a nonsensical interpretation of the Bible instead of rely on authoritative facts, which you said you support. I can't understand why you assume scientifically proven facts learned and taught by biomedical specialists, including people with MD and Ph.D degrees, are subjective interpretations.

Here is my take on it.
I will admit that my wife and I had an abortion back in 1978. I say "and I" as I was certainly the father and that stayed with me for 20 years until I finally found the forgiveness of Christ. Unfortunately my wife died in a car accident a few years later and had never found the forgiveness.

Becase of our abortion, I have watched this whole debate since Falwell started his Moral Majority in the 70's. One thing that has always stuck me is in that in the blame, they focus only on women who have abortions. Currently, a few States have adopted Laws that threaten the death penalty towards only the woman [and the doctor] for an abortion--as if the father is a non-factor.

Coupled with that, most States have child support Laws that mandate child-support for the father, if a baby is carried to term and is of course, born. By the peculiarity of our Laws, a child is a non-entity until it is carried to term. A Father is only responsible then, if that fetus is carried to term.

How many abortions in this Country have been because of that very factor? Hey-- a guy is off the hook if his girlfriend gets pregnant and they abort, and of course, then would be responsible if that baby is born.

For me, I support an Adoption Option {Care Net} where a pregnant woman can at least adopt her future baby out. I did this somewhat in memory of that child we aborted so many years ago. This Group also provide statistics that tell us of the abortions in the Country, 4 out of 10 of them are active church-going woman [and men] at the time of the abortion. They have further statistics that tell us that most woman and of course, the men who have had an abortion are not comfortable to talk about it is a Church setting with even with their pastor. We of course, have stigmatized it so much and even more so lately.

 

[SPF]

you say life begins at conception. I have challenged that position. I have stated there is no biblical texts that state that out right.

And there doesn't need to be. There are no Biblical text that give us the formula for water, yet you don't seem to question that it is H2O. There is no Biblical text that outright declares God is Trinity, yet (hopefully), you don't question that. There is no Biblical text that explain what Diabetes is, or Alzheimer, or a myriad of other things... and that's OK. It's not meant to.

We don't need the Bible to tell us when life begins, we can literally, literally see it happen now. We know scientifically when a new human being comes into existence. We know that it happens at fertilization, just like we know that the chemical makeup of water is H2O.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“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.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

all of what you say is a matter of interpretation weather it be scriptural, or scientific.

Yes, and the exact same statement applies to you. Thankfully, in some cases the interpretations are made easy when Scripture and science are clear.

at conception the formation of the body begins, since the spirit and the soul inhabit the body you you first must have a body before you have a soul and spirit. since you do not have a body, it is in the process of being formed you cannot have a soul or spirit

You need to define body. The human body takes roughly 25 years to fully develop. I would argue that Biblically our body is simply whatever constitutes our physical makeup. Thus, we have a body at fertilization. It begins as one cell, and then grows for about 25 years. Yet at no point during our development are we not a living human being.

If you think otherwise, then you need to supply a working, supported definition of "body".

Again, there is not a single Biblical example of a living human being without a soul or a spirit. Couple this fact with the fact that scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, the logical conclusion is that ensoulment is a simultaneous with our coming alive, which again, happens at fertilization.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Please read the excerpt below and link for the full article provided.

The Question Abortion Advocates Won’t Answer


Abortion discussions can get ugly real fast.

In a June 11 interview with the Des Moines Register, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) likened judges who oppose abortion to bigots who promote racism. She was just getting started.

A moment later, she put the entire pro-life movement in her crosshairs. “I think there are some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable,” the presidential hopeful said. Lest anyone miss the point, the ultra liberal Huffington Post summarized the interview in its headline: “Kirsten Gillibrand Compares Anti-Abortion Views to Racism.”

For Gillibrand, pro-lifers are not only bigots; they are religious bigots who wrongly force their sectarian views on others. “All these efforts by . . . ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our constitution,” she told the paper. “Church and state are separated by law,” but the conservative right is legislating the religious views of pro-life advocates. Put simply, opposing abortion is an unacceptable form of religious bigotry.

Is Abortion About Privacy?
I think Senator Gillibrand is correct. Abortion is a private matter, and laws restricting it are unjust. She’s right that pro-lifers should not impose their views on others. She’s right that only women should decide the issue. She’s right that the government should stay out. Yes, she is right about all of that if . . . If what?

If the unborn are not human beings. And yet that is precisely the question she refused to engage. She simply changed the subject to a personal attack on pro-lifers.

Contra the senator, the issue that divides us is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice, or that she is tolerant and I’m a bigot. Truth is, I am vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own healthcare provider, to choose her own education, to choose her own husband, to choose her own car, and to choose her own career path — to name a few. These are among the many choices I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like intentionally killing innocent human beings simply because they’re unwanted. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.

In short, the abortion issue is not about forcing religious views; it’s not about privacy; it’s not about who hates women and who loves them. It’s about one question: What is the unborn?

Remainder of the article here:

The Question Abortion Advocates Won’t Answer: Five Ways They Avoid the Unborn

Either way you look at it someone’s rights must be violated when it comes to the abortion issue. Either the mother must lose the right to have control over her body and have her baby aborted or the baby has to lose his/her right to live. So which is worse? Is it worse for the mother to be inconvenienced for 9 months or is it worse for the child to lose his/her life? The fact is, most abortion cases are not the result of rape victims, but instead women who irresponsibly engaged in consensual intercourse and who simply do not want to be inconvenienced by the result of their actions. All of the excuses they use for wanting an abortion after they became pregnant they knew about these consequences before they consented to having sex. Sure they made a mistake, but does that justify killing another human being to avoid paying for the mistake they made by their own choice? As for rape cases there are morning after abortion pills. These should only be obtainable thru a prescription and only provided in the event that a police report was filed in a rape case. This would at least dramatically lower the amount of killing innocent babies. Our government’s job is not only to fight for the right of those who can speak for themselves but moreso to fight for the rights of those who can’t speak for themselves. The “oops I got so wasted last night I didn’t know what I was doing” excuse should not be acceptable grounds for killing another person. It’s not acceptable in drunk driving cases or any other case of murder.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where do you derive the definition of partially a person from?

Complete person. My 14 year old is not fully formed yet. He is still growing. Does that make him a partial person?

This term “partial person” intrigues me. So let’s say the government adopts this term and decided that anyone who is receiving government assistance is not allowed to further impede on government funding by mandating that they are not allowed to have any more children. The government could defend their position by saying a “partial person” is not a human being with human rights yet. Would it be acceptable for the government to step in and demand these pregnant women to have abortions since they’re not fully developed human beings yet? Of course not!! People would be outraged by this and rightly so. Even the very same people who support this term “partial person” in favor of abortion would defend their right to keep their baby by saying things like the government can’t be allowed to kill my child. Americans across the country would unite against this decision and the term “partial person” would go right out the window!! Then we would see how this term “partial person” is only thrown around when it’s favorable to the person using it and not actually universally accepted by society.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Either way you look at it someone’s rights must be violated when it comes to the abortion issue. Either the mother must lose the right to have control over her body and have her baby aborted or the baby has to lose his/her right to live. So which is worse? Is it worse for the mother to be inconvenienced for 9 months or is it worse for the child to lose his/her life?

Do you realize it is not just an "inconvenience" when the mother gets gestational diabetes, needs a medication that kills fetuses, or has an ectopic pregnancy? The mother may have to choose between the baby's life and her own life. And what if she knows her baby wil be stillborn? Should she be forced to carry a dead fetus to term if it does not miscarry on its own?

The fact is, most abortion cases are not the result of rape victims, but instead women who irresponsibly engaged in consensual intercourse and who simply do not want to be inconvenienced by the result of their actions. All of the excuses they use for wanting an abortion after they became pregnant they knew about these consequences before they consented to having sex. Sure they made a mistake, but does that justify killing another human being to avoid paying for the mistake they made by their own choice?

Learn all about the effectiveness of contraception methods. I learned this stuff in ninth grade. None of them are 100% effective. In fact, I read about one lady having an abortion after both she and her husband used contraception!

As for rape cases there are morning after abortion pills. These should only be obtainable thru a prescription and only provided in the event that a police report was filed in a rape case. This would at least dramatically lower the amount of killing innocent babies. Our government’s job is not only to fight for the right of those who can speak for themselves but moreso to fight for the rights of those who can’t speak for themselves. The “oops I got so wasted last night I didn’t know what I was doing” excuse should not be acceptable grounds for killing another person. It’s not acceptable in drunk driving cases or any other case of murder.

You are so uninformed if you think it is possible for rape victims to get Plan B prescriptions, then filll them at pharmacies, and kniow with abolsute certainty it is not too late. How long do you think it takes for that police report to be filed? Plan B is an emergency drug. There is a reason they call it the morning after pill, not the week after pill. The Plan B drug needs to be more accessible and easier to get the same day a girl is raped in order to have a nearly 100% success rate.

 

[joshua 1 9]

For Gillibrand, pro-lifers are not only bigots; they are religious bigots who wrongly force their sectarian views on others.

If anyone is forcing their views on others it is the liberals. People are just about always guilty of what they accuse others of.

 

[joshua 1 9]

A human beling who is devloping into a complete person able to live in apart from his/her mother's body.

We are a complete person at conception. God writes the book of our life before we are even born. We receive all of our gifts, talents & abilities. Even the reason and purpose of our life at conception. There are babies that do not make it to the womb, yet they are in heaven today fully formed and still growing and maturing. They have the book of their life so they know the reason they were created and the purpose God has for them.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A complete person is one who has all the body parts. We are new human beings at conception but we are not complete human bodies. If you know what a body is, there is no reason to be confused about it.

Conservatives are forcing their views on liberals when all they say is, "Abortion is murder and the woman can just adopt out her baby." Rinse and repeat. Broken record. Liberals are the ones who admit abortions are murders (after having that lesson shoved through their ear canals) and say they do not like abortions but just want them to be legal when they are under pressure for a response.

 

[SPF]

A complete person is one who has all the body parts.

Yikes! So if a baby is born without an arm they are an incomplete person? If a person has an arm amputated are they no longer a complete person?!

Liberals are the ones who admit abortions are murders

Really? Can you provide a reference to a liberal who acknowledges that abortion is murder?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yikes! So if a baby is born without an arm they are an incomplete person? If a person has an arm amputated are they no longer a complete person?

That is what you get out of it? The context should be obvious here: At the stage of development where all organs, tissues, and other specialized body parts are formed to make a human body. The fetus has all the different cell types separated and in the shapes or organs, tissues, etc. As opposed to what would look on a sonogram like clumps of cells with the potential to become what God made them for.