Abortion or Poverty?

Life begins at the moment of conception. We do not have to show hands, lungs, heart, etc. to have life or be human.

If young Sam had been aborted before he looked human, his life still would have ended, 21 hours after conception or 21 weeks after.

 

The above is just opinion, backed by nothing.

 

Poles, you keep telling us when life does not begin but refuse to tell us when life does begin! Is this because you do not know and value life so little you would be willing to have a child "aborted" (read murdered) and get it wrong?

Curiously though, there is an indication, some Christian scientists think, that the word "wrought" in Psalm 139:15 has reference to DNA. Possible, I do not know.

All I do know is that it definitely can mean to embroider, fine needlework. That tells me God is invovled with a child in the womb at every level!

 

mnw, obviously you have not read my previous posts on the subject, as I have clearly stated exactly that...that we do not know at what point life begins, but it is apparent a mass of undifferentiated cells is not a person. If we knew the answer to that, there would be no controversy. I value life highly, but do not consider a zygote to be a life. It has potential to become a person given the right environment and time.

As for the interpretation of 'wrought', there is nothing to indicate this means DNA. Pure speculation and trying to retrofit meaning into a passage. As the word is a verb and deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a noun, that doesn't appear to even make sense.

 

Poles, you say you do not know when life begins but tell us we are wrong for believing life begins at conception.

You say "it is apparent a mass of undifferentiated cells is not a person." Really, is it apparent? What physical evidence makes it apparent? What Scripture makes it apparent?

At what point does the eternal soul and spirit of a person start? Is it when there are lungs and a heart and brain?

You say you value life highly but you are willing to guess about when life begins and risk killing an unborn child. Sorry, that does not equate to me. If you valued life highly enough I think you would reason there is every chance life begins at conception and not risk murdering a little child.

You argued with my "potential" understanding of the verse, which I still think holds some merit.

However, what I definitely believe is that the word means to embroider, it has to do with fine needle work. Surely that at the very least indicates God at work in the tiniest detail of conception?

 

I have used the example before that I can mix eggs, milk, flour and sugar, but it isn't a cake. Only a potential cake. When does the batter become a cake while in the oven? I don't know. But I know when it isn't, and that is what is important.

Physical evidence? No arms, head, legs, respiratory system, circulatory system, nervous system, reproductive system, endocrine system, all the things that make one human. Scriptural evidence? There is no argument from silence.

I don't know, but again, I don't believe it is when you have a clump of cells.

I am not guessing. I have already stated that late term abortion should be a rarity, and that I am against it in most cases. Again, a clump of undifferentiated cells is not "a little child".

I did indeed argue against your potential understanding of that verse, as it is quite a stretch to try to fit a preconceived meaning to a passage. I also believe you are free to believe whatever you want to believe about it.

 

And that, MP, is your opinion, based on nothing but.

How does a zygote only have the potential to become a person but is not one? Please tell us how it is not a person or does not have human life created by God. Are you going by appearance?

 

Under rules of logic Marcia, I bear no burden of proof. You are the one making the positive assertion that the zygote is a human being. It is up to you to make your case.

However, I will say, I make the call based not only on appearance, but as I have clearly stated several times, the lack of anything we would say a person has, such as major body systems, such as circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, and especially nervous system, which is necessary for a brain and to feel sensory or emotional reactions.

 

Where do you come up with anything about socialists. Do you think public schools are socialist?

 

I think based on the term "conceiving a child" being used in the Bible, and God saying he opens and closes wombs, that the burden of proof is on you, at least from a biblical viewpoint.

Just because the full functions are not developed or yet operating, that does not mean there is not a human life. It is the beginning of human life. Although not in the form of a recognizable baby or child, human life is as valuable at the moment it begins as at the moment it ends.

If there is no interference, the zygote becomes a recognizeable baby, which is what I guess you determine to be human. To interfere with that process is, therefore, ending that life. Deliberately ending human life is murder.

 

So you cannot provide evidence for your position and attempting to repeatedly shift the burden of proof is your only recourse? Again, YOU are making the positive assertion. YOU must provide evidence. Otherwise, end of debate. That is the rules of debate and logic.

Again, I must restate to you that there is no debate that conception precedes a baby. However, not all conceptions result in babies. You have failed to provide evidence of that.

Your opinion stated as fact doesn't make it so without evidence.

Again, your opinion stated as fact, without supporting evidence.

 

you prove it! no you prove it! no you! no you!:laugh:

 

MP, if you took the DNA from a fertilized human egg and submitted it to a lab for testing, it would not only show that it was a human being, but what sex it was and a number of abnormalities which might develop.

Scientifically, then, the fertilized egg is a human being.

Let's work backwards here, though. How much must be missing from a human being for it NOT to be human? What form or function must be lacking?

Where do you draw the line? A single cell which is considered alive has respiration, excretion and replication, minimally. A human fertilized egg has all those things. Therefore, biologically it is alive. Scientifically, it is human.

Therefore, if killing a human who has done nothing to deserve death is murder, and that is a general definition of murder outside of war, then abortion is murder.

It's a logical thing, not even a religious one.

The religious argument states that that human life is precious. The abortionist argument states that it is not. That is the main difference. That the fertilized egg is alive can never be in doubt unless it is, in fact, dead and has ceased living.

 

There is no scientific way to say when God gives a developing human a soul. The medieval Europeans thought it was at the first quickening, which seems indefensible, on the grounds that it's highly subjective.

Not knowing,we should err on the side of caution.

 

The same can be said about cells from a swab from the inside of my cheek. So are discarded cells from my mouth a human being with rights equal to you?

 

Really? We can tell what sex our cells are from the inside of our mouths?

The cells from the inside of our mouth cannot progress into a human being. Im' surprised someone needs to say that.

 

Yes, you can tell the sex by the chromosomes in the cells...XX for female, XY for male. This is how they test Olympic athletes for gender.

And yes, a cell from my mouth can be used to clone me. Make an entirely new person with my genetic makeup.

 

Hmmm, I know there's a good joke in their somewhere....

 

They didn't have that test back in the old days did they? Might explain some of those Russian "women" that won all the medals.

 

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator