Life Begins at Conception

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Onan was a fisherman.

 

[McBell]

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

False

Democracy all by itself means "Majority rules".

 

[Sententia]

False

Democracy all by itself means "Majority rules".

True, I meant in america: (America being a republic democracy)

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

 

[smokydot]

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.

Thanks. I thought I had labored the point.

In summary of what it seems to me must be included (below):
A. Creation reveals the nature of all seeds (natural revealtion). There are no uncertainties.
B. Human seed is exactly the same. There are no uncertainties.
C. I then prosecute the prinicple of Rom 1:18-32 (which gives divine authority to natural revelation) to establish certainty regarding the nature of life from human seed.

I've heard arguments that life in the womb is everything from "not human life" to "potential life."
And I've heard everything from "we don't know when it becomes human life" to "we don't know when the soul enters the body."
These spurious "uncertainties" are then used as the bases for a blameless extinquishing of life in the womb.

I use the prinicple of Rom 1:18-32, that natural revelation in creation is authoritative (has the authority of God and, therefore, we are not blameless for refusing to acknowledge it), to show
that natural revelation regarding the nature of seeds is authoritative--meaning there are no observable natural "uncertainties" regarding living seeds.

A. I maintain that creation reveals the nature of all seeds (including human seed); i.e.,
1) In order for plants to generate living seed (capable of transforming into plants), the pollen must be received in the gynoecium.
2) From the moment of its generation, the seed generated by this union is always of the same nature as the "life" which generated it--corn plants generate corn seed which transforms into corn plants, not into tomato plants. . .or into some generic form of plant life.
3) There are no "uncertainties" regarding
---what kind of "life" is in any living seed (the same kind of "life" that produced it),
---when the nature of that "life" occurred (at the moment of its generation),
---what the nature of the "life" is as it transforms into a plant (the same as the "life" in the seed).

This is what "we are to naturally know by observing seeds". . .and note in Rom 1:18-32 the divine authority of that natural knowledge, which authority I prosecute regarding what is clearly known by observing seeds.

B. I maintain that human seed is exactly the same as all other seeds.
1) In order to generate living seed (capable of transforming into humans), the sperm must be received in the egg.
2) From the moment of its generation, the seed generated by this union is always of the same nature as the "life" which generated it--humans generate human seed
which transforms into humans, not into beavers. . .or into some generic form of animal life.
3) There are no "uncertainties" regarding
---what kind of life is in human seed (the same kind of "life" that produced it),
---when the nature of the "life" occurred (at the moment of its generation),
---what the nature of the "life" is as it transforms into a human person (the same as the "life" in the seed).

C. I then prosecute the prinicple of the divine authority of natural revelation (Rom 1:18-32) to show there are no true uncertainties regarding
1) the origin of life in the womb (conception),
2) the nature of life in the womb (human), and
3) the nature of life as it transforms into a human body (human).

Thereby natural revelation (nature) in all seeds reveals that human life begins at conception,
and special revelation (Rom 1:18-32) gives divine authority to that natural revelation in all seeds.

 

[McBell]

and the mental gymnastics continue

 

[smokydot]

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

That responsiblity is assumed by the Legislature (State).

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

That is denial, the same as previously. Demonstration would be better.

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

The prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures is not a right to privacy, as is clearly seen in the illegality of conspiracies hatched in "privacy."

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.

Your admonition was how I could protect life--by education.
I am not in the business of doing the State's job of protecting life.

 

[smokydot]

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

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

Agreed. . .in the sense that government cannot establish an official religion of the State and require adherence to it.

But there is no Constitutional quarantee of a society free of religion.
On the contrary, the Constitution guarantees the right to practice religion.

 

[smokydot]

Sigh.

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

You stopped beating your wife. True or False?

The Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals.

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

Democracy would be like a townhall meeting where the assembled can originate and pass legislation for the town.
In a republic, the people themselves do not originate or pass legislation. It is done by a representative body elected by the people.

and can a democratic dude be for a republic but not be a republican?

That's a yepper.

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

I am saying such a law as you proposed would be unconsitutional.

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 )

We cannot legally make people slaves under the Constitution (with its amendments).

The choice for a woman to have an abortion is the WOMANS decision.

That depends on several things, among them:
1) how the State views its responsibility to protect human life, including that of the mother, and the penalty it imposes for taking human life,
2) what the State determines is in fact human life.

She could jump of a bridge and kill herself and the baby. Done.

In which case, the State's jurisdiction ends and no penalty can be imposed for taking either.

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

I am not saying it is up to me. It has always been the prerogative of the State.

 

[smokydot]

and the mental gymnastics continue

As does the failure to refute. . .

 

[McBell]

As does the failure to refute. . .

There is nothing to refute.
You have not shown how the Bible supports the claim that life begins at conception.

All you have done is shown how you can take some non-Biblical idea and force it into the Bible.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There is nothing to refute.
You have not shown how the Bible supports the claim that life begins at conception.

All you have done is shown how you can take some non-Biblical idea and force it into the Bible.

The Bible has many stories of killing children outside the womb.

 

[McBell]

The Bible has many stories of killing children outside the womb.

what does this have to do with the side tangent at hand or even the thread OP?

 

[smokydot]

There is nothing to refute.

Oh, there's plenty to refute alright. I submit that you can't.

You have not shown how the Bible supports the claim that life begins at conception.

All you have done is shown how you can take some non-Biblical idea and force it into the Bible.

1. The authority of natural revelation (what is clearly seen in creation) is a Biblical idea (Rom 1:18-32).
2. That authority applies to the natural revelation clearly seen in the nature of all seeds. . .just as it applied to the clearly-seen natural revelation (creation) that God exists, he is eternal and divine, and he is righteous. (Rom 1:18-32)
3. The clearly-seen nature of all seeds includes human seed.


So refute
1) that the divine authority of natural revelation is not the principle of Rom 1:18-32,
2) that the natural revelation in the nature of seeds is clearly seen,
3 )that the clearly-seen nature of all seeds includes human seed.

You don't have to agree with the texts to read and understand them, nor to see their import.

 

[smokydot]

The Bible has many stories of killing children outside the womb.

As it does of adultery, idolatry, and prevaricating.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks. I thought I had labored the point.

In summary of what it seems to me must be included (below):
A. Creation reveals the nature of all seeds (natural revealtion). There are no uncertainties.
B. Human seed is exactly the same. There are no uncertainties.
C. I then prosecute the prinicple of Rom 1:18-32 (which gives divine authority to natural revelation) to establish certainty regarding the nature of life from human seed.

I've heard arguments that life in the womb is everything from "not human life" to "potential life."
And I've heard everything from "we don't know when it becomes human life" to "we don't know when the soul enters the body."
These spurious "uncertainties" are then used as the bases for a blameless extinquishing of life in the womb.

I use the prinicple of Rom 1:18-32, that natural revelation in creation is authoritative (has the authority of God and, therefore, we are not blameless for refusing to acknowledge it), to show
that natural revelation regarding the nature of seeds is authoritative--meaning there are no observable natural "uncertainties" regarding living seeds.

A. I maintain that creation reveals the nature of all seeds (including human seed); i.e.,
1) In order for plants to generate living seed (capable of transforming into plants), the pollen must be received in the gynoecium.
2) From the moment of its generation, the seed generated by this union is always of the same nature as the "life" which generated it--corn plants generate corn seed which transforms into corn plants, not into tomato plants. . .or into some generic form of plant life.
3) There are no "uncertainties" regarding
---what kind of "life" is in any living seed (the same kind of "life" that produced it),
---when the nature of that "life" occurred (at the moment of its generation),
---what the nature of the "life" is as it transforms into a plant (the same as the "life" in the seed).

This is what "we are to naturally know by observing seeds". . .and note in Rom 1:18-32 the divine authority of that natural knowledge, which authority I prosecute regarding what is clearly known by observing seeds.

B. I maintain that human seed is exactly the same as all other seeds.
1) In order to generate living seed (capable of transforming into humans), the sperm must be received in the egg.
2) From the moment of its generation, the seed generated by this union is always of the same nature as the "life" which generated it--humans generate human seed
which transforms into humans, not into beavers. . .or into some generic form of animal life.
3) There are no "uncertainties" regarding
---what kind of life is in human seed (the same kind of "life" that produced it),
---when the nature of the "life" occurred (at the moment of its generation),
---what the nature of the "life" is as it transforms into a human person (the same as the "life" in the seed).

C. I then prosecute the prinicple of the divine authority of natural revelation (Rom 1:18-32) to show there are no true uncertainties regarding
1) the origin of life in the womb (conception),
2) the nature of life in the womb (human), and
3) the nature of life as it transforms into a human body (human).

Thereby natural revelation (nature) in all seeds reveals that human life begins at conception,
and special revelation (Rom 1:18-32) gives divine authority to that natural revelation in all seeds.

This is a collection of declarative statements and not an argument.

 

[AxisMundi]

False

Democracy all by itself means "Majority rules".

This is why we are not a democracy, and why we are a Constitutional Republic instead.

While sufferage may determine our Elected EMployees, and democracy may decide our laws, both must be within the framework of our Constitution.

 

[AxisMundi]

Agreed. . .in the sense that government cannot establish an official religion of the State and require adherence to it.

But there is no Constitutional quarantee of a society free of religion.
On the contrary, the Constitution guarantees the right to practice religion.

The Constitution indeed guarentees the right to worship relieion freely, within legal constraints, of course. (think polygamy or certain Santarea practices)

However, one simply cannot have a Freedom OF Religion without a Freedom FROM Religion.

This is a basic Contitutional Principle that has been eroded over the centuries.

Does this mean I "enjoy" some right not to have your church advertise on a billboard near my home? Of course not. But I can have JW's who are persistant in trespassing on my property arrested for it, for example.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, there's plenty to refute alright.

No, there isn't.

Just because you are unwilling or unable to provide any evidence to substantiate your declarative statements ..... doesn't mean that people are unable to offer a refute.

Even a bad argument can be refuted, but you haven't even provided that.

It's like you are wanting us to make up reasons why you hold your positions and then refute them.

 

[smokydot]

This is a collection of declarative statements and not an argument.

So refute the declarative statements in post #745. . .if you can.
You don't need "reasons for why I hold my position" to refute the representation of my sources, nature and Rom 1:18-32.

And here's how to refute those statements:
1) show from the sources of those declarative statements--nature, and Rom 1:18-32, that those declarative statements are incorrect, and/or

2) show that the conclusions drawn from those declarative statements are incorrect.

In the absence of that, my presentation of the Biblical approach to life beginning at conception is without refutation.

 

[smokydot]

The Constitution indeed guarentees the right to worship relieion freely, within legal constraints, of course. (think polygamy or certain Santarea practices)

We seem to be agreed, but make that "exercise" religion freely rather than "worship" freely.

However, one simply cannot have a Freedom OF Religion without a Freedom FROM Religion.

This is a basic Contitutional Principle that has been eroded over the centuries.

Does this mean I "enjoy" some right not to have your church advertise on a billboard near my home? Of course not. But I can have JW's who are persistant in trespassing on my property arrested for it, for example.

But do you need a religion clause to have someone arrested for trespassing?