Conception = Life = Human? Is this equation right? Think carefully.
Waco1947
Pro Life Premise?
21,611 Views |
267 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by RioRata
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
Waco1947
National Right to Life
"The life of a baby begins long before he or she is born. A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell. If the baby's life is not interrupted, he or she will someday become an adult man or woman."
"The life of a baby begins long before he or she is born. A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell. If the baby's life is not interrupted, he or she will someday become an adult man or woman."
Waco1947
Waco1947 said:
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
BTW, you never answered my question on the other thread about when an embryo/fetus takes on the image of God. At what point is an embryo/fetus created by God in His image?
I am waiting?
What's your answer, you idiot?
OK, Mr. 37 weeks, make the case that I should support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 37 weeks. Then we can talk about conception.
Jeremiah 1:5 preacher man
Psalms 139:13-16 is probably more on point though
Job 31:!5
Psalms 139:13-16 is probably more on point though
Job 31:!5
Waco1947 said:
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
I find it interesting that you break this down in what appears a simple transitive property statement. I also think it interesting that you quote Focus on the Family. You obviously do not agree with the conception = life. What are your thoughts about God as creator?
Do you agree with John Cobb who writes , "The understanding of God as Creator has been closely related to the idea that God is in control of the world. Both the way the world is and what happens in it are thought to be directly or indirectly an expression of God's will and purposes. The idea of a 'transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys, is the fallacy which has infused tragedy into the histories of Christianity and of Mahometanism'." 114
Does your embracing process theology cause you to come the the conclusion that God creating the physical world ex nihilo is foolishness and the opinion of unreflective thinkers?
Florda_mike said:
What's your answer, you idiot?
Matthew 5:22 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
We need to remain civil.
I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do.Polycarp said:Florda_mike said:
What's your answer, you idiot?
Matthew 5:22 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
We need to remain civil.
Of course the most evil thing is to advocate for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings while purporting to do so in God's name. Which 47 does.
By the way, even Jesus called people "fool". As well as "wicked", "hypocrite", etc. Probably all appropriate here.
Polycarp said:Waco1947 said:
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
I find it interesting that you break this down in what appears a simple transitive property statement. I also think it interesting that you quote Focus on the Family. You obviously do not agree with the conception = life. What are your thoughts about God as creator?
Do you agree with John Cobb who writes , "The understanding of God as Creator has been closely related to the idea that God is in control of the world. Both the way the world is and what happens in it are thought to be directly or indirectly an expression of God's will and purposes. The idea of a 'transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys, is the fallacy which has infused tragedy into the histories of Christianity and of Mahometanism'." 114
Does your embracing process theology cause you to come the the conclusion that God creating the physical world ex nihilo is foolishness and the opinion of unreflective thinkers?
Waco1947 said:I have a simply answer "No, he did not pay for my sins. He simply loved me and forgave me."jstins said:
Waco, I have a very simple question.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins?
Waco1947 said:
Thats the point. It cannot be proved. It is by faith I trust in God's Love, not God's super powers. They are false. They do not fit reality as we experience. Love does.
Waco1947 said:
Your "All powerful" God is self created, too.
Waco1947 said:
You Prove the Bible's claim omnipotence by pointing to the Bible ascproof. That's circular.
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
I'm sorry for your pain. I lost a child at 16 weeks. Went in for sonogram and saw it, but the heart had stopped beating (they estimated only a day or so earlier based on the size of the baby). It's extremely hard to deal with.pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
As to your point about "outlawing abortion does not stop girls from doing it" . . . I've never really understood this point. After all, outlawing murder, or robbery, or rape doesn't stop people from doing those things either. But they're still illegal because the things they prohibit are evil and hurt someone. The same is true about abortion.
If someone wants to circumvent the law to do evil, they will.
BearsaSS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
It is a lie
Waco1947
Waco1947 said:
BearsaSS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
Your response seems no different than the one I questioned or the poster you quoted. This is one reason I struggle in taking you seriously.
I find it interesting that you still do not answer my questions.
Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.Waco1947 said:
Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.
The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Do you have any children?
What logic? It was bearassnekkid's slam. It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocateD. C. Bear said:Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.Waco1947 said:
Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.
The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Do you have any children?
Waco1947
Waco1947 said:What logic? It was bearassnekkid's slam. It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocateD. C. Bear said:Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.Waco1947 said:
Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.
The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Do you have any children?
Do you have children he also asked you
Can you answer that?
Abortion is a horrible thing, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on.Waco1947 said:
Conception = Life = Human? Is this equation right? Think carefully.
Conservatives hate it. Liberals celebrate it.
"It it ain't broke, get a bigger hammer!"
You have advocated advocated on this board for the right to kill unborn human offspring and you have stated that you do not discourage a woman from killing her unborn offspring when the situation presents itself.Waco1947 said:What logic? It was bearassnekkid's slam. It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocateD. C. Bear said:Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.Waco1947 said:
Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.
The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Do you have any children?
If a person argued that he was not advocating for slavery, but only supported the rights of slaveholders to do with their property what they wished, we would rightly call it sophistry.
You are ignoring my other points. The unborn offspring of a human is alive, defenseless and human. You support and advocate a culture where killing them is acceptable.
Do you have children?
"celebrate it". You made that up. That's opinion not fact and certainly not helpful to dialogue.Loaded4Bear said:Abortion is a horrible thing, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on.Waco1947 said:
Conception = Life = Human? Is this equation right? Think carefully.
Conservatives hate it. Liberals celebrate it.
Waco1947
The op asked" "Is this premise right for pro life people?"
It was not an invitation to attack me.
It was not an invitation to attack me.
Waco1947
If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.
Waco1947
You like to use the phrase "you made that up" a lot. That's certainly not helpful to dialogue.Waco1947 said:"celebrate it". You made that up. That's opinion not fact and certainly not helpful to dialogue.Loaded4Bear said:Abortion is a horrible thing, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on.Waco1947 said:
Conception = Life = Human? Is this equation right? Think carefully.
Conservatives hate it. Liberals celebrate it.
While there are many exceptions to the rule, as a general rule, conservatives do "hate" abortion as the slaughter of innocent human beings and liberals do "celebrate" it as the realization of a high point of women's rights. It is what it is.
Do you have any children?
Polycarp said:Waco1947 said:
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
BTW, you never answered my question on the other thread about when an embryo/fetus takes on the image of God. At what point is an embryo/fetus created by God in His image?
I am waiting?
Do you continue to refuse to answer my questions about when a person takes on the image of God?
Polycarp said:Waco1947 said:
It appears so per Focus on the Family
"We believe that human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worthincluding preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life."
I find it interesting that you break this down in what appears a simple transitive property statement. I also think it interesting that you quote Focus on the Family. You obviously do not agree with the conception = life. What are your thoughts about God as creator?
Do you agree with John Cobb who writes , "The understanding of God as Creator has been closely related to the idea that God is in control of the world. Both the way the world is and what happens in it are thought to be directly or indirectly an expression of God's will and purposes. The idea of a 'transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys, is the fallacy which has infused tragedy into the histories of Christianity and of Mahometanism'." 114
Does your embracing process theology cause you to come the the conclusion that God creating the physical world ex nihilo is foolishness and the opinion of unreflective thinkers?
I await your answer to this question.
Waco1947 said:
If the premise is indeed a your pro life belief then I refer you to the dilemma of who to save in the clinic fire - a 5 year life or a 1,000 lives.
Casuistry.
In the essence of honest dialog, I am another looking forward to waco1947 answering the questions posed to him above.
"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
Please don't interpret this as sarcastic in any way, but there are only two scenarios under which I can imagine this happening, either of which would be painful:
- You weren't married yet, she became pregnant, you were willing to marry her and wanted the baby, but she chose an abortion instead.
- You were married, and contraception failed. She did not want to have a baby right then because she wanted to finish her education or for some other reason.
In neither case did you truly have the decision-making power: https://family.findlaw.com/paternity/fathers-rights-and-abortion.html
But you did learn something important: That you and your exwife had different ideas about what would and should happen if she became pregnant.
Re: abortion versus birth: My understanding is that babies are pretty much full term by 36 weeks and in the month following, they gain weight in utero which helps them survive after the birth. 26 weeks used to be the threshold for premature baby survival--now I think that's down to 23 weeks, but infants are likely to suffer delays and deficits.
I am deeply concerned about any laws prohibiting abortion in all circumstances, as I feel sure some women will be prosecuted for having miscarriages, which are nature's way of addressing some fetuses that aren't viable for various reasons or of protecting women whose bodies can't support a pregnancy for whatever reason.
He didn't want the abortion. She did.Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
Not sure what about that was hard for jinx to understandDoc Holliday said:He didn't want the abortion. She did.Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
I thought you were a big fan of this? Women's choice. Man has no say in the matter. Why do you seem confused now?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
Also, I thought you announced Lebron-style that you were taking your talents elsewhere (leaving this board). What gives?
I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
Sigh.Waco1947 said:It was a lie. I do not "advocate for abortion." There is no logic to it. I do not advocateD. C. Bear said:Let us break down your logic. A reasonable way to consider supporting abortion as anything other than advocating "the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings" is to argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is either not alive, and therefore cannot be slaughtered, not defenseless or not human. Whether it is the "second most evil thing a person can do" is a matter of opinion and not subject to being true or false.Waco1947 said:
Bears SS this is a liar. "I hear what you're saying, but I understand his righteous anger. Advocating for the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings is probably the 2nd most evil thing a person can do. "
It is a lie
The unborn offspring of a human being is clearly "alive" by any reasonable definition of the term. Brain activity, a hearbeat, interacts with his or her environment--there are other indicators of life, but it's hard to come up with a definition of life that doesn't include the unborn offspring of a human being. If you can, you have a right to call the statement a lie.
The unborn offspring of a human being, much like the recently born offspring of a human being, is basically defenseless. If you can argue otherwise, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Finally, one might posit that the unborn offspring of a human being is not, in fact, human in nature. This is an incredibly difficult argument to make. In addition to looking like a human, he or she has uniquely human DNA. What definition of human can be seriously offered that would exclude a living being who, if tested, would show up as "human?" If you can make that case, you have a right to call that statement a lie.
Do you have any children?
ad.vo.cate
verb
To publicly recommend or support
You absolutely, unequivocally, clearly, and with full intent do advocate for the right to commit abortion. Full stop. Why are you even pretending otherwise? You literally started this very thread to do so. Good grief, man.
I did.contrario said:I thought Jinx left the message board?Jinx 2 said:"Forced one on you"?pitchman said:
It's not like I'm a fan of abortion. My ex wife at Baylor forced one on me and it still hurts. I'm just saying outlawing abortion does not stop girls from going to the barber like my mom's sorority sisters did while she was at BU in the fifties.
I Do think when the baby can survive in the nicu, it's tine to force a full term. So I'm
For safe and legal, just like my baptist church containing so many bu profs.
That's my honest five cents worth.
At least, i tried.
They wouldn't delete my account. Still haven't.
And Stovepipe's back in at least 2 of his personas--Corncob Pipe is the main one. My purpose was to stop him and Golem from trolling me on this board by outing my personal details. When he dangled the name of the street where I live in a post, I'd had enough.
Finally, as I've told my daughters, you should never have sex with someone with whom you cannot imagine raising a child together, because there's always the potential for that. Any time you have sex.
The implication there is that, before you have sex with someone, you should be committed enough to be prepared to marry and raise a child together (if you aren't already married). That's a hard message to convey in this day and time, when people in my daughter's generation assume that anyone who is in a relationship for longer than a month is having sex. But, especially for women, sex is a serious thing with life-changing consequences.
My support for a woman's right to choose is for all women. Many women out there weren't raised by my mother, who made sure I understood the serious implications of sex before I started dating (that old-fashioned thing we still did in the 1970s).
My personal approach when I was single and the approach I've advocated for my daughters was to take sex seriously, as a life commitment--since the birth of a child IS a life commitment. "Choice" means exactly that. And, in my experience, women who choose abortion should not be parents--at least not at the time they make that choice.