Life Begins at Conception

[AxisMundi]

I stand corrected. What arguments do you have in mind that I should respond to? And why should I respond to ANY that avoid my post?

I offered simple statment of faith in the scriptural account of where life began. I do believe that was the theme of the OP. ANYTHING else is not pertinant to the issue of "life begins at conception." I showed my reason for believing life begins prior to conception, and is part of the process of conception.

Since I have offended other posters, I first apologize, and second I move on. It was not my intent to offend. It is just that I find none of the responses to deal with the issue raised in my post, which in fact does respond to the OP.

For starters, why don't you address the simple fact that abortion numbers were nearly as high before Roe vs Wade as they are today.

Or you can address who, by bringing abortion up from the underground culture it was, exposed it to targeted education, which has not only resulted in moving the prime demographic from teenage girls but has resulted in the steady decline of abortions?

Perhaps you'd like to comment on how hysterics (it's murder!) and attempts at circumventing Roe v Wade has only resulted in slowing the desirable decline all these decades?

Or perhaps we can discuss how, as pre-1973 statistics show, one cannot legislate abortions out of existance, and that the anti-choice movement either refuse to see this, or are incapable of seeing this due to peer pressure.

 

[Theo_Book]

For starters, why don't you address the simple fact that abortion numbers were nearly as high before Roe vs Wade as they are today.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on how hysterics (it's murder!) and attempts at circumventing Roe v Wade has only resulted in slowing the desirable decline all these decades?

Nope! I'd rather compare the numbers. Look at the numbers as they fluctuated since 1973 (remember? year of "Roe vs. Wade?" That WAS your reference.

Abortion in the United States

ABORTIONS BY YEAR
Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics Click herefor details and documentation.​

Center for Disease Control Statistics
Click here for details and documentation.
(Click here for PDF version)​

..............AGI.............CDC
1973....744,600..........615,831
1974....898,600..........763,476
1975.1,034,200..........854,853
1976 1,179,300..........988,267
1977 1,316,700.......1,079,430
1978 1,409,600.......1,157,776
1979 1,497,700.......1,251,921
1980 1,553,900.......1,297,606
1981 1,577,300.......1,300,760
1982 1,573,900.......1,303,980
1983 1,575,000.......1,268,987
1984 1,577,200.......1,333,521
1985 1,588,600.......1,328,570
1986 1,574,000.......1,328,112
1987 1,559,100.......1,353,671
1988 1,590,800.......1,371,285
1989 1,566,900.......1,396,658
1990 1,608,600.......1,429,247
1991 1,556,500.......1,388,937
1992 1,528,900.......1,359,146
1993 1,495,000.......1,330,414
1994 1,423,000.......1,267,415
1995 1,359,400.......1,210,883
1996 1,360,160.......1,225,937
1997 1,335,000.......1,186,039
1998 1,319,000.......884,273*
1999 1,314,800.......861,789*
2000 1,312,990.......857,475 **
2001 1,291,000.......853,485 **
2002 1,269,000.......854,122 **
2003 1,250,000.......848,163***
2004 1,222,100.......839,226***
2005 1,206,200
2006-07 1,206,200 §
§ NRLC Base Figure
* excludes NH, CA AK, OK
** excludes NH, CA AK
*** excludes CA, NH, WV

Would you care to re-evaluate your statistics?

Abortion in U.S. prior to 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_history/

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.



Nope! I'd rather compare the numbers. Look at the numbers as they fluctuated since 1973 (remember? year of "Roe vs. Wade?" That WAS your reference.

Abortion in the United States

ABORTIONS BY YEAR
Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics Click herefor details and documentation.​

Center for Disease Control Statistics
Click here for details and documentation.
(Click here for PDF version)​

..............AGI.............CDC
1973....744,600..........615,831
1974....898,600..........763,476
1975.1,034,200..........854,853
1976 1,179,300..........988,267
1977 1,316,700.......1,079,430
1978 1,409,600.......1,157,776
1979 1,497,700.......1,251,921
1980 1,553,900.......1,297,606
1981 1,577,300.......1,300,760
1982 1,573,900.......1,303,980
1983 1,575,000.......1,268,987
1984 1,577,200.......1,333,521
1985 1,588,600.......1,328,570
1986 1,574,000.......1,328,112
1987 1,559,100.......1,353,671
1988 1,590,800.......1,371,285
1989 1,566,900.......1,396,658
1990 1,608,600.......1,429,247
1991 1,556,500.......1,388,937
1992 1,528,900.......1,359,146
1993 1,495,000.......1,330,414
1994 1,423,000.......1,267,415
1995 1,359,400.......1,210,883
1996 1,360,160.......1,225,937
1997 1,335,000.......1,186,039
1998 1,319,000.......884,273*
1999 1,314,800.......861,789*
2000 1,312,990.......857,475 **
2001 1,291,000.......853,485 **
2002 1,269,000.......854,122 **
2003 1,250,000.......848,163***
2004 1,222,100.......839,226***
2005 1,206,200
2006-07 1,206,200 §
§ NRLC Base Figure
* excludes NH, CA AK, OK
** excludes NH, CA AK
*** excludes CA, NH, WV

Would you care to re-evaluate your statistics?

Abortion in U.S. prior to 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History

Thanks for proving my point.

Estimates place abortions anywhere from 600,000 to 800,000 annually prior to 1973.

Look at any graph, even those from the most vehement anti-choice site, and you will note that those graphs do NOT start at zero.

Eliminating choice will drive abortions back into bathrooms and back alleys, and away from targeted education. We will simply see a rise in estimated abortion numbers.

 

[Venatoris]

I stand corrected. What arguments do you have in mind that I should respond to?

Well, you could start here. My post at the top of the previous page was in regards to adoption not being a suitable alternative to abortion on the whole because it can't function efficiently with the numbers of children it has currently in the system. Now take your abortion stats and add those numbers to the current adoption rate. Increasing the number of children does not proportionately increase the number of parents seeking to adopt.

 

[Theo_Book]

Well, you could start here. My post at the top of the previous page was in regards to adoption not being a suitable alternative to abortion on the whole because it can't function efficiently with the numbers of children it has currently in the system. Now take your abortion stats and add those numbers to the current adoption rate. Increasing the number of children does not proportionately increase the number of parents seeking to adopt.

I can only speak my opion of the adoption situation in the state of Florida; in florida Adoption is often bereft with over important stuffed shirts whose job seems to be, to thwart all adoption efforts, and the reason is simple. State institutions are paid by the head count. The more kids they keep in the system, the more money they get paid.

With lawyers, contracts, investigations, adjustments, health requirements, "matching" and all the other red tape involved, I am really surprized anyone ever gets adopted.

Yet there are many couples who go far out of their way to help the kids, and age seems to be no factor. Older kids get breaks far beyond what popular expectation seems to suggest. It is still an institution that desperately needs overhauled, in favour of the kids.

Here is a link offered when I typed into the search engine, "Florida adoption proceedures."

Child Adoption Laws Florida

Lookat all the "necessary" legal bumps in the road, generated between the adaptor and the adoptee.

 

[McBell]

I can only speak my opion of the adoption situation in the state of Florida; in florida Adoption is often bereft with over important stuffed shirts whose job seems to be, to thwart all adoption efforts, and the reason is simple. State institutions are paid by the head count. The more kids they keep in the system, the more money they get paid.

With lawyers, contracts, investigations, adjustments, health requirements, "matching" and all the other red tape involved, I am really surprized anyone ever gets adopted.

Yet there are many couples who go far out of their way to help the kids, and age seems to be no factor. Older kids get breaks far beyond what popular expectation seems to suggest. It is still an institution that desperately needs overhauled, in favour of the kids.

Here is a link offered when I typed into the search engine, "Florida adoption proceedures."

Child Adoption Laws Florida

Lookat all the "necessary" legal bumps in the road, generated between the adaptor and the adoptee.

And you want to put even MORE children into that system?

 

[McBell]

And YOU are being silly in front of the whole world.

Yes I am.
But only because I am STILL talking to a brick wall...

I have made no claim of martyrdom, no claim of abuse, no claims whatsoever, except your attack without merit, and you seem to think if you repeat your slander often enough, something is bound to stick.

You really should pay much better attention to your own posts.

Or do you consider everyone with whom you disagree, to be claiming martyrdom if they respond?

Only the ones like yourself who try the self martyr route.

I not only am no martyr, I have yet to see any serious response to my post. Just a lot of "Oh, you poor boy, you have been beaten so badly..."

You have yet to see a serious reply to one of your posts?

​

Then you either need glasses so you can read the posts in this thread, or you need some more leaning in the way of being able to understand the contents of the posts.

Doesn't work with me. Try again.

Yes, you have clearly shown that come rain, sleet, hail, truth, facts, high water; that you will continue to believe and spout the same old nonsense ad nauseum.

 

[Theo_Book]

And you want to put even MORE children into that system?

Well, if we need laws to kill someone, why not kill those who are causing the problem, instead of the innocent babies?

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, if we need laws to kill someone, why not kill those who are causing the problem, instead of the innocent babies?

So you support anti-abortion terrorism, such as practiced by the "Army of God"?

 

[McBell]

Well, if we need laws to kill someone, why not kill those who are causing the problem, instead of the innocent babies?

I take it you do not believe in "Original Sin"?

 

[McBell]

Well, if we need laws to kill someone, why not kill those who are causing the problem, instead of the innocent babies?

What are you talking about, "laws to kill someone"?

 

[Theo_Book]

I take it you do not believe in "Original Sin"?

"Believe in original sin" What does that even MEAN?

I do not "believe in" doors and windows, though I know they exist and use them, I place no faith in them.

Or do you mean the "doctrine of original sin." No! I do not believe it, but I can tell you why, but not on this thread. This thread, if I read th e OP correctly, is about when life begins in the process of passing it on.

 

[Theo_Book]

What are you talking about, "laws to kill someone"?

Anytime a law is passed that allows one to kill another, it is "a law to kill
someone."

Any process designed to interupt life, is designed to kill. A law designed to allow interuption of life, is a law designed to kill someone.

You cannot abort life without killing the life aborted.

The issue of the OP was about when life begins in the process of child bearing. To interupt the life-process is to introduce the death process. You kannot kill what was not alive. To kill life is called "murder" in civilized societies.

 

[Smoke]

1,335,000.......1,186,039
1998 1,319,000.......884,273*
1999 1,314,800.......861,789*
2000 1,312,990.......857,475 **
2001 1,291,000.......853,485 **
2002 1,269,000.......854,122 **
2003 1,250,000.......848,163***
2004 1,222,100.......839,226***
2005 1,206,200
2006-07 1,206,200 §
§ NRLC Base Figure
* excludes NH, CA AK, OK
** excludes NH, CA AK
*** excludes CA, NH, WV

Would you care to re-evaluate your statistics?

Abortion in U.S. prior to 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History

Which proves that if you omit the most populous state plus two or three other states from your statistics, there will seem to be a dramatic decline in numbers.

 

[McBell]

Anytime a law is passed that allows one to kill another, it is "a law to kill someone."

What law was passed that allows one to kill another?

Any process designed to interupt life, is designed to kill. A law designed to allow interuption of life, is a law designed to kill someone.

Again, what law allows the killing of another?

You cannot abort life without killing the life aborted.

Thank you captain obvious.

The issue of the OP was about when life begins in the process of child bearing.

No, the OP is asking if the Bible supports the idea that life begins at conception.

To interupt the life-process is to introduce the death process. You kannot kill what was not alive.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

To kill life is called "murder" in civilized societies.

No it isn't.
Murder is an UNLAWFUL killing.
Since abortion is not illegal, it is not, by definition of the word, murder.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To kill life is called "murder" in civilized societies.

No it's not.

There is a difference between killing and murder, which is why civilized law has different degrees of murder as well as manslaughter.

The laws in some states of the USA have capital punishment, which is execution of justice and not murder.

Finally, every civilized nation that I know of has both a police force and a standing army (at least), with perogatives that both of these groups kill when needed, sometimes in large numbers. But we wouldn't call a soldier or a policeman a "murderer" because he killed an armed enemy under the rules of engagement established by the state.

All killing is not murder. Some killing is self-defense, for national security (theoretically, for freedom), and for the application of the law.

 

[Theo_Book]

There is a difference between killing and murder, which is why civilized law has different degrees of murder as well as manslaughter.

Different degrees of what?

The laws in some states of the USA have capital punishment, which is execution of justice and not murder.

When enough murderers want the laws changed so it is no longer called "murder," but is given a new name to make it easier to accept, the new laws do not change what it is, only what it is called. And a popular vote is not always a moral or ethical vote.

Finally, every civilized nation that I know of has both a police force and a standing army (at least), with perogatives that both of these groups kill when needed, sometimes in large numbers. But we wouldn't call a soldier or a policeman a "murderer" because he killed an armed enemy under the rules of engagement established by the state.

Not talking about warfare between nations. And what has a policeforce and an army to do with abortion of unborn babies?

All killing is not murder. Some killing is self-defense, for national security (theoretically, for freedom), and for the application of the law.

I do hope you are not going to tell me that abortion of babies is "self-defense" or "national security." WoW! That must have been SOME baby, to instill that much fear.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I do hope you are not going to tell me that abortion of babies is "self-defense" or "national security." WoW! That must have been SOME baby, to instill that much fear.

Pay attention.

I'm explaining why not all killing is murder.

 

[Theo_Book]

Pay attention.

I'm explaining why not all killing is murder.

o.k.

Please explain how it is that one can kill an unborn, with impunity. The unborn has no guilt before society, has done no evil for which society demands retribution, constitutes no danger to society. How is kiilling this unborn NOT murder? How is it justified?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How is kiilling this unborn NOT murder? How is it justified?

First, abortion is not murder because it is state-sanctioned killing, just like killing in war (which includes both military and collateral damage of innocent civilians), by the police, or in self-defence.

The health of the mother, which is determined by her and her doctor with no one between them, is the justification for abortion. Neither you nor I nor the state can dictate a woman's health.