Life Begins at Conception

[Sententia]

Well, it's not that simple.

What we learn about the nature of all living seeds tells us about the nature of living human seed, that the life which ensues from it is of the same nature as the life that produced it--human.
That leaves us with human life in the womb.
Then there is the responsibility of the state to protect human life.

That sort of flies in the face of abortion.

But we base laws on the Constitution and the will of the people, not the Bible.
However, the Constitution guarantees the right to vote as one sees fit.
So if the majority of citizens votes for laws to protect human life in the womb,
then that is the Constitutionally valid law of the land.
But it is not based on the Bible, it is based in the will of the people, who are guaranteed the right to base their opinions on whatever they will.

I think I have been quoted saying people who think we should live by the bible instead of the constitution and the bill of rights are anti-american zealots that are a toy, and a few fries short of a happy meal.

But If I haven't been quoted before on it go ahead and quote me now. As a side note.... Really? Like if the majority of people decided white/black/purple people should be slaves then in america the majority rules and thus the white/black/purple people become slaves? Really?

 

[smokydot]

I think I have been quoted saying people who think we should live by the bible instead of the constitution and the bill of rights are anti-american zealots that are a toy, and a few fries short of a happy meal.

But If I haven't been quoted before on it go ahead and quote me now. As a side note.... Really? Like if the majority of people decided white/black/purple people should be slaves then in america the majority rules and thus the white/black/purple people become slaves? Really?

If what you propose is Constitutional, in the meaning of the Court; i.e., the Constitution with its amendments, then the answer is yes.

 

[smokydot]

This is to clear the confusion regarding how Rom 1:18-32 relates to life in the womb.

In declaring pagans under the wrath of God for their idolatry, because they refused to accept what Christians call natural revelation in nature (creation),
Rom 1:18-32 establishes a Biblical principle--that what is clearly seen in nature is authoritative (has the authority of God,) as it relates to an issue.
Christians call it natural revelation, as distinct from special revelation from God himself, in the Scriptures.
What the pagans refused to accept was the revelation clearly seen in creation that God exists, he is eternal, he is divine and he is righteous.
Rom 1:18-32 applies the divine authority of that natural revelation to the issue of their idolatry, and declares them under the wrath of God for not accepting it.
Strong stuff.

That same prinicple--the divine authority of natural revelation applies to the issue of life in the womb.
It is clearly seen in the nature of all seeds that the life which ensues from seeds is always of the same nature as the life in the seed. Corn seeds produce corn, cotton seeds produce cotton, etc.
There is never a time when the life in a corn seed is anything but corn, it is never cotton, grape or tomato life.
Nor is it ever just generic plant life. Generic life does not exist in nature.

From this authoritative revelation clearly seen in nature, we can know about human seed--it always produces humans, there is never a time when the life which ensues from it is anything but human,
nor is it ever just generic animal life. Generic life does not exist in nature.

So from natural revelation in creation is clearly seen the nature of life in all seeds, including human seed.
And from special revelation (Rom 1:18-32) is established the divine authority of natural revelation, as it applies to an issue, just as it applied to the issue of idolatry with the pagans.
Both natural and special revelation are the bases for life in the womb being human life from the moment of conception.

And it is not just human, it is a person. There is no humanity without personhood. That's what it means to be human. Animals are not persons.
Life in the womb is a human person from the moment of conception.

This is revealed in natural revelation, and special revelation (Rom 1:18-32) establishes the divine authority of natural revelation as clearly seen in creation.

 

[smokydot]

Perhaps you are not aware that I am NOT in your choir?

You don't have to be in the choir to read and understand a text.

Nor do you have to agree with the text.

The only agreement is about what the text actually imports.

Do you disagree with my assertion in post #724, regarding the import of the text (Rom 1:18-32); i.e., it establishes the divine authority of what is clearly seen in creation?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's the second time that you've posted that {#724}, and it's no more applicable to your argument now that it was then.

 

[smokydot]

That's the second time that you've posted that {#724}, and it's no more applicable to your argument now that it was then.

#724 is the short form of the previous more lengthy post.

I would be interested in your demonstration how it is not applicable to my argument.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

#724 is the short form of the previous more lengthy post.

I would be interested in your demonstration how it is not applicable to my argument.

1) Basically you're arguing that we should just "know" that life begins at conception.

2) And this knowledge is based on your limited logic concerning seeds, giving it the authority of God by either divine or natural revelation that we should all be able to access.

3) Actual scientific knowledge and/or reason is thrown out with premise #1

Your premise that we should know your interpretation of seeds from natural revelation is compromised by your rejection of natural science and philosophy.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, it's not that simple.

What we learn about the nature of all living seeds tells us about the nature of living human seed, that the life which ensues from it is of the same nature as the life that produced it--human.
That leaves us with human life in the womb.
Then there is the responsibility of the state to protect human life.

That sort of flies in the face of abortion.

But we base laws on the Constitution and the will of the people, not the Bible.
However, the Constitution guarantees the right to vote as one sees fit.
So if the majority of citizens votes for laws to protect human life in the womb,
then that is the Constitutionally valid law of the land.
But it is not based on the Bible, it is based in the will of the people, who are guaranteed the right to base their opinions on whatever they will.

No, the government is not in the business of protecting human life. Far from it when one of the responsibilities of government is to conduct war, for one small example.

Also, your seed analogy just doesn't work, sorry.

And as we are not a Christian theocracy, despite the best efforts of some, so nothing solely biblical can be the sole basis for our laws.

Our Constitution supplies basic Rights and Privileges, bounds not to be overstepped even by the democratic principle. Abortion is one of them.

One cannot use a right to remove the rights of others. SCOTUS has found that the right to choose is indeed a right, and said right cannot be removed by a majority.

And while we are on that subject, removing that Right to choose would only drive abortions back underground, where targeted education, the factor that has helped lower abortions to nearly pre-1973 statistics, will not reach.

If you wish to "protect human life", ignoring the argument of when is it human life for the moment, promote comprehensive sex ed for kids (as opposed to the failed abstinence only model) and targeted education for adults.

Free from the mindless demagoguery of course, which turns people off so that they loose the message.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Also, your seed analogy just doesn't work, sorry.

I don't think that it's just an analogy - it's the substance of his argument.

 

[AxisMundi]

In declaring pagans under the wrath of God for their idolatry, because they refused to accept what Christians call natural revelation in nature (creation), .....

This part I found highly laughable. The Elder Gods and those who worshiped them were quite close to nature, intimately so in many cases. Those ancient "pagans" lived and breathed nature, living by the seasons, carefully managing wild life and live stock.

If my religious ancestors "refused to see natural revelation" it is simply because it is not there.

 

[smokydot]

1) Basically you're arguing that we should just "know" that life begins at conception.

Thanks.

Actually I'm arguing that we should know that from what we clearly observe in the nature of all seeds.

2) And this knowledge is based on your limited logic concerning seeds, giving it the authority of God by either divine or natural revelation that we should all be able to access.

What information presented on seeds is not factual?

3) Actual scientific knowledge and/or reason is thrown out with premise #1.

Remember, the parameter of the question is the Biblical basis.
My response is in terms of that parameter.

Your premise that we should know your interpretation of seeds from natural revelation is compromised by your rejection of natural science and philosophy.

Any personal "rejection" of natural science and philosophy Is irrelevant to whether the presentation on seeds is factual, or not.
Is the presentation on seeds not factual?

 

[smokydot]

No, the government is not in the business of protecting human life. Far from it when one of the responsibilities of government is to conduct war, for one small example.

It is the responsibility of the State to protect the life of its citizens, not all the lives in the world. That is the responsibility of their respective States.
"War" protects the human life of those in whose name it is engaged.

Also, your seed analogy just doesn't work, sorry.

Denials are easy. Demonstration would be better.

And as we are not a Christian theocracy, despite the best efforts of some, so nothing solely biblical can be the sole basis for our laws.

Agreed, as I agreed in my response to your previous post.

Our Constitution supplies basic Rights and Privileges, bounds not to be overstepped even by the democratic principle. Abortion is one of them.

One cannot use a right to remove the rights of others. SCOTUS has found that the right to choose is indeed a right, and said right cannot be removed by a majority.

Agreed, and that's where it has to stand.
But I will point out that the right to choose was based on the right to privacy, which right is not found in the Constitution.

And while we are on that subject, removing that Right to choose would only drive abortions back underground, where targeted education, the factor that has helped lower abortions to nearly pre-1973 statistics, will not reach.

Agreed.

If you wish to "protect human life", ignoring the argument of when is it human life for the moment, promote comprehensive sex ed for kids (as opposed to the failed abstinence only model) and targeted education for adults.

I'm not in the business of doing the State's job.

Free from the mindless demagoguery of course, which turns people off so that they loose the message.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I
Denials are easy. Demonstration would be better.

There really isn't anything to refute - you just made a baseless claim.

 

[smokydot]

This part I found highly laughable.

I am simply reporting what the Bible says, because the parameter of the question was its Biblical basis.

The Elder Gods and those who worshiped them were quite close to nature, intimately so in many cases. Those ancient "pagans" lived and breathed nature, living by the seasons, carefully managing wild life and live stock.

If my religious ancestors "refused to see natural revelation" it is simply because it is not there.

I understand that is your belief, just as the Bible is my belief.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that right to us.

 

[smokydot]

There really isn't anything to refute - you just made a baseless claim.

A rephrased denial . . .demonstrate that it is without base.

Stop playing "Lord of the lab rat."

 

[AxisMundi]

It is the responsibility of the State to protect the life of its citizens, not all the lives in the world. That is the responsibility of their respective States.
"War" protects the human life of those in whose name it is engaged.

Denials are easy. Demonstration would be better.

Agreed, as I agreed in my response to your previous post.

Agreed, and that's where it has to stand.
But I will point out that the right to choose was based on the right to privacy, which right is not found in the Constitution.

Agreed.

I'm not in the business of doing the State's job.

1. Feel free to show where in any Constitution there is a mandate the protect citizen's lives.

2. No need for denial, you ahven't come close to proving your point.

3. There is indeed a right to privacy in the Us Constitution. It is found in the 4th amendment.

4. It is not the State's job to educate people on this amtter. That is left up to those that oppose abortions, or pro-lifers like myself who support chioce.

 

[AxisMundi]

I am simply reporting what the Bible says, because the parameter of the question was its Biblical basis.

I am fully aware of what your srouce is, and it is indeed quite laughable.

I understand that is your belief, just as the Bible is my belief.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that right to us.

Indeed. The US Constitution also guarentees us Freedom From Religion as well.

 

[Sententia]

If what you propose is Constitutional, in the meaning of the Court; i.e., the Constitution with its amendments, then the answer is yes.

Sigh.

Okay. Democracy entails not just majority rule, but protection of minority rights. True or False?

In the pledge of allegiance do Americans pledge to the democracy or to the republic? What is the difference between a republic and a democracy and can a democratic dude be for a republic but not be a republican?

Now if anyone missed what smokeydot was replying too it was me:

Really? Like if the majority of people decided white/black/purple people should be slaves then in america the majority rules and thus the white/black/purple people become slaves? Really?

Now while we can legally make purple people slaves I would argue that we can not actually do it. (Read: Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

The choice for a woman to have an abortion is the WOMANS decision. She could jump of a bridge and kill herself and the baby. Done.

It is ultimately up to her. Never was it up to you. Ever.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A rephrased denial . . .demonstrate that it is without base.

Stop playing "Lord of the lab rat."

So what exactly is it that we are supposed to naturally know by observing seeds that should convince us that human life begins at conception ... that a fertilized egg should be treated with human dignity and given human rights?

You never made an argument, so there's nothing to refute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what exactly is it that we are supposed to naturally know by observing seeds that should convince us that human life begins at conception ... that a fertilized egg should be treated with human dignity and given human rights?

Or maybe that this should convince us that Onan was a farmer.