Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

Did you even read the article?

A human being can be born naturally outside of thte womb. Were these babies not concieved? Does your "law of seeds" argument not apply here?

note: BBC News | HEALTH | Bowel baby born safely
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | 'Special' baby grew outside womb

Yes, it does.

In my previous discussion, the only issue was, is life in the womb human life at conception?
I demonstrated only that the Biblical approach to the question shows that it is human life from the moment of conception.

So, yes, conceptions outside the womb are human life.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, yes, conceptions outside the womb are human life.

And therefore worthy of human dignity, I presume.

So we have a very clear example of how abortion (destroying of the fetus) is used to save a woman's life --- and such pregnancies outside of the womb can produce viable a fetus.

 

[smokydot]

And therefore worthy of human dignity, I presume.

So we have a very clear example of how abortion (destroying of the fetus) is used to save a woman's life --- and such pregnancies outside of the womb can produce viable a fetus.

Agreed.

 

[AxisMundi]

Translate: It's irrefutable.

So in post #745 (fuller #724), I have successfully demonstrated the Biblical approach to conception and human life.
I have successfully answered the question of the thread: "What is the Biblical basis for life beginning at conception?"

Thanks. :bow:

Smoky, I do not recall even one person on this thread agreeing with your seed anology.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, actually it's not.
"Worship" freely usually applies to church and its worship services.
"Exercise" freely applies to places outside church, to activities not connected with worship, to the voting booth, etc.

People worship, not institutions such as Churches.

They are not in conflict with one another, there is no "trumping."

Au contrair.

You would realize this if Christians didn't tend to be quite so foregiving of your own fundies and hard-liners.

Being on the other side of the fence, so to speak, I clearly see the battles waged by Christian hard-liners in turning this Nation into a theodemocracy.

And non-Christans are still discrimianted against in certain venues.

 

[AxisMundi]

Abortions (the arresting of life) are not medically "needed," they are for purposes other than medical; i.e., the baby is not wanted.

The involvement of the State would look like this.
It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human life, hence laws against homicide, murder, etc., with serious penalties attached for violation.
Therefore, parents do not have the right to kill their children, no matter how young they are, even only a few hours old.

Consider the 8 1/2-month baby in the mothers womb, which should be the safest place in the universe.
At present, she is allowed to kill her helpless baby. . .but she is not allowed to kill her same helpless baby when it is only 15 days older (assuming birth at 9 months).
She is even allowed to kill her helpless baby during birth, by stabbing it in the back of the head when the head emerges from the womb (partial-birth abortion).

Should the State protect the life of her 8 1/2 month-old baby in her womb, as it protects its life a few days later?
That's how, and why, the State would be involved.

1. There is a whole book of medical reasons for abortions.

2. Laws against murder, theft, rape, ect are there because they remove individual rights, not becasue the State is "responsible for human life". I've asked you to substantiate that with quotes from elgal sources. Did I miss your explination?

3. Such late term abortions are still illegal except in extreme cases of a direct hazard to the mother's life. Might I suggest some researhc on your part? The Guttmacher Institute is considered a realiable and credible source on both sides of the issue.

4. There is no such thing as "partial birth abortions". Feel free to cite a medical source.

 

[smokydot]

Smoky, I do not recall even one person on this thread agreeing with your seed anology.

Agreed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, yeah, but what does that change? If you want to extend the "sanctity of life" to sperm cells, then masturbation = holocaust.

My sperm are Gentiles.

 

[smokydot]

People worship, not institutions such as Churches.

Let me rephrase for clarification: "Wosrhip" freely usually applies to worship in churches. . .

Au contrair.

You would realize this if Christians didn't tend to be quite so foregiving of your own fundies and hard-liners.

Being on the other side of the fence, so to speak, I clearly see the battles waged by Christian hard-liners in turning this Nation into a theodemocracy.

And non-Christans are still discrimianted against in certain venues.

We have courts to remedy any legal right you are being denied.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because the Bible is irrelevant.

To many Christians.

 

[smokydot]

1. There is a whole book of medical reasons for abortions.

Other than ectopic pregnancies, would you give a few examples of abortion being needed to save the life of the mother.

2. Laws against murder, theft, rape, ect are there because they remove individual rights, not becasue the State is "responsible for human life". I've asked you to substantiate that with quotes from elgal sources. Did I miss your explination?

I said the State was reponsible for the protection of human life.

The State makes the laws which forbid the destruction of human life--homicide, murder, etc., and
The State prosecutes the violators who destroy human life. . .because the State, not an individual, is responsible for the protection of human life.

I assume you mean the right(s) of human beings.

3. Such late term abortions are still illegal except in extreme cases of a direct hazard to the mother's life.

By late-term, are you including extinguishing the life of the baby as its head emerges from the birth canal?

Might I suggest some researhc on your part? The Guttmacher Institute is considered a realiable and credible source on both sides of the issue.

4. There is no such thing as "partial birth abortions". Feel free to cite a medical source.

Not any longer, they are illegal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Other than ectopic pregnancies, would you give a few examples of abortion being needed to save the life of the mother.

Well, how many would you like?

note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Abortion_Committee

In some cases, procedures required to protect a woman's life are not available during pregnancy. A prime example would be cancer treatments such as chemotherapy which would do extensive and irreversible harm to an embryo or foetus if done during pregnancy but which, if not done in a timely fashion, can allow the cancer to spread to a point at which the condition is fatal and no longer successfully medically treatable

 

[smokydot]

Well, how many would you like?

Answered.

 

[Luminous]

As it does of adultery, idolatry, and prevaricating.

but which were sponsered by the idol scripture's described god?

 

[smokydot]

Well, how many would you like?

note:

Therapeutic Abortion Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

 

[smokydot]

but which were sponsered by the idol scripture's described god?

Adultery, idolatry and prevarication were contrary to the law given by the God of the Bible.

 

[Sententia]

Abortions (the arresting of life) are not medically "needed," they are for purposes other than medical; i.e., the baby is not wanted.

First off I will assume you meant to say that abortions are not *ALWAYS* medically needed.

Second whats that gibberish in parentheses after you use the word abortion? Did you just try to define abortion in four words? You could really condense Wikipedia eh?

The involvement of the State would look like this.
It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human life, hence laws against homicide, murder, etc., with serious penalties attached for violation.
Therefore, parents do not have the right to kill their children, no matter how young they are, even only a few hours old.

True. But this is just Equivocation. You are claiming a fetus is a human life and to best state your case you are painting a picture of late term abortions as the norm. Lets look at your ideology as I am interpreting it.

for purposes other than medical; i.e., the baby is not wanted.

Consider the 8 1/2-month baby in the mothers womb, which should be the safest place in the universe.
At present, she is allowed to kill her helpless baby. . .but she is not allowed to kill her same helpless baby when it is only 15 days older (assuming birth at 9 months).

What is going on in your brain? If the baby is not wanted the mother is going to wait to the day before delivery to have an abortion? Do you have this thought process that Abortion is just escalating out of control? (Which would be unfounded)

If the mother is having an abortion at 8 1/2 months do you think she is happy about it? Is she going to brag about it? Are humans just naturally evil especially pregnant mothers?

Should the State protect the life of her 8 1/2 month-old baby in her womb, as it protects its life a few days later?
That's how, and why, the State would be involved.

No. The Mother is far better equipped to decide what happens with her 8 1/2 month old fetus. The state has no business poking around in her stomach or violating her right to privacy.

 

[smokydot]

First off I will assume you meant to say that abortions are not *ALWAYS* medically needed.

That would be correct.
And with the millions that have been performed, it is more likely that the majority of them were not medically needed.
It is just wrong to take a human life because it is not wanted.

Second whats that gibberish in parentheses after you use the word abortion? Did you just try to define abortion in four words?

Webster defines it in four words.
Is there a problem with four-word definitions?

You could really condense Wikipedia eh?
True. But this is just Equivocation. You are claiming a fetus is a human life and to best state your case you are painting a picture of late term abortions as the norm. Lets look at your ideology as I am interpreting it.

Those statements neither stated nor implied late-term abortions were the norm.
But late-term abortions that are not medically needed show what a difference a month can make in the life of a baby.
One month you can kill it, the next month you cannot.

What is going on in your brain? If the baby is not wanted the mother is going to wait to the day before delivery to have an abortion? Do you have this thought process that Abortion is just escalating out of control? (Which would be unfounded)

If the mother is having an abortion at 8 1/2 months do you think she is happy about it? Is she going to brag about it? Are humans just naturally evil especially pregnant mothers?

There is never any occasion when it is necesssary to kill a baby as its head emerges from the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the head.
It is no longer legal, but Google up partial-birth abortion, have a look at what it was about before it was made illegal.
Would not the atrocity have continued had not the State discharged its responsibility to intervene in the interest of the baby and protect its life?
What does that say about the mothers? and the doctors?

No. The Mother is far better equipped to decide what happens with her 8 1/2 month old fetus. The state has no business poking around in her stomach or violating her right to privacy.

It seems the same can be said about her being far better equipped to decide what happens to her two-week-old child, but the State does not allow her to take its life, no matter how well equipped she is to decide what happens to it.
What a difference only a month makes in a baby's safety.
With the millions of abortions performed, the most dangerous place for a baby is in its own mother's womb.

 

[Sententia]

That would be correct.
And with the millions that have been performed, it is more likely that the majority of them were not medically needed.
It is just wrong to take a human life because it is not wanted.



Webster defines it in four words.
Is there a problem with four-word definitions?



Those statements neither stated nor implied late-term abortions were the norm.
But late-term abortions that are not medically needed show what a difference a month can make in the life of a baby.
One month you can kill it, the next month you cannot.



There is never any occasion when it is necesssary to kill a baby as its head emerges from the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the head.
It is no longer legal, but Google up partial-birth abortion, have a look at what it was about before it was made illegal.



It seems the same can be said about her being far better equipped to decide what happens to her two-week-old child, but the State does not allow her to take its life, no matter how well equipped she is to decide what happens to it.
What a difference only a month makes in a baby's safety.
With the millions of abortions performed, the most dangerous place for a baby is in its mother's womb.

I can not get over this impression that your eyes see pregnant women of america as demons.

Contrary to your misguided beliefs the mother of the baby knows whats best for her baby.

 

[smokydot]

I can not get over this impression that your eyes see pregnant women of america as demons.

Demon is not the right word. But the millions of babies that are killed in their mothers' wombs because they are not wanted is not a good thing.

Contrary to your misguided beliefs the mother of the baby knows whats best for her baby.

The State limits what mother is allowed to do no matter how much what she knows is best for her baby.