Life Begins at Conception

[HonestJoe]

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.

I'm not sure why people are unwilling to address your points because, though refute is the wrong term your position is easily challenged;

1) You are making a personal interpretation of that piece of scripture. I doubt all other Christians would come to the same conclusion so what is to say that your interpretation is correct. Also, doesn't the conclusion of your interpretation spread much further than seeds to saying that everything that happens in nature is presented by God as right, valid and divine revelation (including all the horrible things)?

Just on plant seeds, the vast majority of seeds never make it to become a plant. They loose the battle for resources with their "siblings", fall somewhere they can't grow or are eaten by animals. The "natural revelation" here suggests that the life of individual seeds isn't significant, something which could be used as an argument in favour of abortion (note I am not arguing for or against abortion here).

2) The only nature of seeds you appear to have described is that fact that seeds for a specific plant can only grow in to the same kind of plant. Nothing you have described defines a point where a seed should be considered "a plant" rather than "a potential plant" or anything similar about when a plants life begins.

3) I don't think the comparison between plant seeds and animal/mammal/human "seeds" is an as exact match as you claim. While there are clearly similarities, there are significant differences too. I also see no point in your argument to go via plant seeds. If all nature is divine revelation, shouldn't the nature of human "seeds" be so directly too?

 

[smokydot]

I'm not sure why people are unwilling to address your points because, though refute is the wrong term your position is easily challenged;

1) You are making a personal interpretation of that piece of scripture. I doubt all other Christians would come to the same conclusion so what is to say that your interpretation is correct.

Thanks, HonestJoe, for your thoughtful reply.
". . .what may be known about God is plain to them (idol worshippers), because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world, God's invisibile qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew (of) God, they neither glorified him as God, nor gave thanks to him. . ." (Rom 1:19-21)

How can I put this delicately? I don't play games with what is clear in black and white.
What different interpretation do you see in those words?

BTW: "refute" is a correct term--to disprove, to prove to be false or erroneous,
as long as one keeps in mind the measure of proof in this situation is the Bible.

Also, doesn't the conclusion of your interpretation spread much further than seeds to saying that everything that happens in nature is presented by God as right, valid and divine revelation (including all the horrible things)?

My conclusion from the nature of seeds is not related to moral right and wrong.
It is related simply to the nature of human seed--what it is, and when.

Just on plant seeds, the vast majority of seeds never make it to become a plant. They loose the battle for resources with their "siblings", fall somewhere they can't grow or are eaten by animals. The "natural revelation" here suggests that the life of individual seeds isn't significant, something which could be used as an argument in favour of abortion (note I am not arguing for or against abortion here).

The significance of seeds is not related to their nature.
Therefore, it has no bearing on what creation reveals about the nature of seeds--what they are, and when--which nature is all that is relevant to my analogy.

2) The only nature of seeds you appear to have described is that fact that seeds for a specific plant can only grow in to the same kind of plant. Nothing you have described defines a point where a seed should be considered "a plant" rather than "a potential plant" or anything similar about when a plants life begins.

See post #724 (and also #705) for those descriptions and considerations.

3) I don't think the comparison between plant seeds and animal/mammal/human "seeds" is an as exact match as you claim. While there are clearly similarities, there are significant differences too. I also see no point in your argument to go via plant seeds. If all nature is divine revelation, shouldn't the nature of human "seeds" be so directly too?

Show where the match between plant seeds and human seed fails.
The nature of human seed is hidden inside human bodies and cannot be observed there.
However, they can be made observable by opening some bodies.

 

[AxisMundi]

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

Again, same difference. You're being nit picky.

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

This is a true story. I do not expect you to believe it, I do not offer it as evidence. Merely food for thought.

Back in the early 1980's, I spent a few months in jail while I awaited trial. Couldn't come up with bail. Why was I in jail?

My younger brother attended one of those types of Baptist churches where you were going to hell if you didn't attend their church, even if you merely attended another Baptist church. My younger brother let them know my religious affiliation.

I answered the doorbell one Saturday morning to be greeted by a neighbor from across the street, who I was to find attended church with my brother, and four other gentlemen from the same establishment.

They tried to kidnap me for an "Intervention of the Lord", and I was the one to get arrested and charged with aggravated assault despite being attacked on my own property.

Not only was I threatened with contempt of court when I refused to be sworn in on the bible, I was convicted on a lesser charge and received a sentence of time served.

As has been shown with SCOTUS upholding a clearly illegal item, our current Motto, our justice system contains human beings who are subject to their personal beliefs, and let said beliefs encroach on to their findings.

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

The majority of women who get abortions already have children. A majority of women who get abortions are in the lower economic demographics.

What of the children already in the home?

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

Point?

 

[smokydot]

Again, same difference. You're being nit picky.

The difference is not the same.
The right to "worship" freely is much more limited. It guarantees only one kind of activity.
The right to "exercise" freely guarantees many kinds of activities.

This is a true story. I do not expect you to believe it, I do not offer it as evidence. Merely food for thought.

Back in the early 1980's, I spent a few months in jail while I awaited trial. Couldn't come up with bail. Why was I in jail?

My younger brother attended one of those types of Baptist churches where you were going to hell if you didn't attend their church, even if you merely attended another Baptist church. My younger brother let them know my religious affiliation.

I answered the doorbell one Saturday morning to be greeted by a neighbor from across the street, who I was to find attended church with my brother, and four other gentlemen from the same establishment.

They tried to kidnap me for an "Intervention of the Lord", and I was the one to get arrested and charged with aggravated assault despite being attacked on my own property.

Not only was I threatened with contempt of court when I refused to be sworn in on the bible, I was convicted on a lesser charge and received a sentence of time served.

As has been shown with SCOTUS upholding a clearly illegal item, our current Motto, our justice system contains human beings who are subject to their personal beliefs, and let said beliefs encroach on to their findings.

Interesting story, indeed.
Who laid hands on whom first?
I am sorry for our experience.

 

[smokydot]

The majority of women who get abortions already have children. A majority of women who get abortions are in the lower economic demographics.

What of the children already in the home?

Are you saying their lives are threatened?

Point?

Response to your assertion that the mother knows what is best for her child, implying that the child does not need interference from the State.
The State disagrees.

 

[HonestJoe]

What different interpretation do you see in those words?

That the wonders of creation demonstrate that God exists, that it demonstrates God as being worthy of appreciation and worship? I don't see any "need" for those quotes to be interpreted to say that specific processes in one aspect of nature automatically means similar (appearing) processes must work in the same manner.

My conclusion from the nature of seeds is not related to moral right and wrong.

Not directly but you are stating that this is divine revelation of how the world is, as God created it. In the context of a good God, wouldn't that imply that the way things are must be right?

See post #724 for those descriptions and considerations.

I still only see statements that a seed is of the same type as the thing it came from. I don't think anyone could disagree with that. What you've not demonstrated is that a seed is considered a life in the same way a grown plant is. Even within the scope of your definitions, a seed could be considered "potential plant life" in the same way a fertilised human egg could be considered "potential human life".

Show where the match between plant seeds and human seed fails.

There is huge variation in how plants fertilise and spread their seed but it typically involves spreading lots of seeds as far as possible on the principal that very few will actually reach the point of becoming a new plant and spreading it's own seed and propagating the species.

The fertilised human (indeed mammal) egg is a very different prospect. If anything, plant seed is more comparable to sperm. Of course, wouldn't your argument would see both sperm and unfertilsed eggs as life as they are part of the same continum of life you describe? Is (male) masturbation murder?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Response to your assertion that the mother knows what is best for her child, implying that the child does not need interference from the State.

The State disagrees.

How so?

 

[AxisMundi]

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

By the Gods, you really need to research these things yourself.

Anyone trying to change society in the manner you forward, ei making something illegal, really should educate themsevles fully on the subject.

Allergies to pregnancy hormones, anemia, diabetes, and blood pressure concerns are bu a small fraction of the health concerns that might motivate a woman and her doctor to choose the abortion option.

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

I know what you said. What you stated was wrong. BTW, still waiting for examples of law that would support your statements.

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.

As noted, the State prhibits these things becasue when one commits murder, theft, or rape, they are impinging on the rights of other people. This is what you ahve confused with "protection of human life".

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

Indeed. However, a fetus is not a human being.

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

Look it up, sparky. I tire of educating you on every little thing.

Not any longer, they are illegal.

There have never been anything termed "partial birth abortions". I asked you to cite a medical reference source to prove your statements. Do I have to wait much longer?

 

[smokydot]

That the wonders of creation demonstrate that God exists, that it demonstrates God as being worthy of appreciation and worship?

And what about that part on the authority of this natural revelation, and their failure to prosecute what is clearly seen in this revelation, for which they were culpable? (Rom 1:18,20)

I don't see any "need" for those quotes to be interpreted to say that specific processes in one aspect of nature automatically means similar (appearing) processes must work in the same manner.

Applying your principle to natural revelation, there is likewise no "need" for creation to be interpreted to say specifically that God exists, he is eternal, divine, righteous. (Rom 1:20,32)
Yet the NT says that is exactly how creation is to be interpreted.
I prosecute that same principle to say that natural revelation in the nature of seeds says specifically what is the nature of human seed.
Show how that is not Biblical.

Not directly but you are stating that this is divine revelation of how the world is, as God created it. In the context of a good God, wouldn't that imply that the way things are must be right?

"A good God. . .the way things are must be right. . .horrible things happen" is not the subject of this discussion on the nature of seeds, and, might I add, seems to be nothing more than a poorly conceived rabbit trail leading away from it.

I still only see statements that a seed is of the same type as the thing it came from. I don't think anyone could disagree with that. What you've not demonstrated is that a seed is considered a life in the same way a grown plant is. Even within the scope of your definitions, a seed could be considered "potential plant life" in the same way a fertilised human egg could be considered "potential human life".

The seed is of the same life that it came from, corn seeds are the same life as are corn plants.
The plant has multiple forms--sprout, shoot--but it is still a plant.
The seed is simply one of its forms.

There is huge variation in how plants fertilise and spread their seed but it typically involves spreading lots of seeds as far as possible on the principal that very few will actually reach the point of becoming a new plant and spreading it's own seed and propagating the species.

The fertilised human (indeed mammal) egg is a very different prospect. If anything, plant seed is more comparable to sperm. Of course, wouldn't your argument would see both sperm and unfertilsed eggs as life as they are part of the same continum of life you describe? Is (male) masturbation murder?

Neither the sperm nor the egg is life. Their union is life.
The primary characteristic of life is that it can reproduce itself.
Neither the sperm nor the egg can reproduce itself.
Likewise, living seed (capable of reproduction) is the result of a union of two non-living entities (not capable of reproduction).

 

[smokydot]

How so?

In all the manner of ways it legislates regarding the care of a child:
it regulates regarding neglect,
it provides alternative homes for those to whom the State deems necessary,
it requires education, etc.,etc., etc.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In all the manner of ways it legislates regarding the care of a child:
it regulates regarding neglect,
it provides alternative homes for those to whom the State deems necessary,
it requires education, etc.,etc., etc.

... and what about the unborn, particularly the inviable?

 

[smokydot]

By the Gods, you really need to research these things yourself.

Anyone trying to change society in the manner you forward, ei making something illegal, really should educate themsevles fully on the subject.

Allergies to pregnancy hormones, anemia, diabetes, and blood pressure concerns are bu a small fraction of the health concerns that might motivate a woman and her doctor to choose the abortion option.

Are you saying the mother will die if the pregnancy is continued?

I know what you said. What you stated was wrong. BTW, still waiting for examples of law that would support your statements.

Show the error in: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human rights, one of which is the right to life; ergo: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human life--which is the statement I make.
This statement is supported by laws prohibiting murer, homicide, child endangerment, etc.

As noted, the State prhibits these things becasue when one commits murder, theft, or rape, they are impinging on the rights of other people. This is what you ahve confused with "protection of human life".

Agreed. Humans have the right to life. It is the responsibility of the State to protect that right. Ergo: it is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

Indeed. However, a fetus is not a human being.

Then what is the nature of that being?
All being has nature--human, animal, plant, mineral (non living).
Which is it?

Look it up, sparky. I tire of educating you on every little thing.
There have never been anything termed "partial birth abortions". I asked you to cite a medical reference source to prove your statements. Do I have to wait much longer?

No, you can Google it up.

 

[smokydot]

... and what about the unborn, particularly the inviable?

Currently, the State regulates only late-term arrest of life.

All life starts out as inviable, and has multiple forms.
That is one of its forms.
Currently, the State does not regulate the arrest of life in its inviable form, or zygot form, or fetus form, with the exception of late-term arrest of its life.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Currently, the State regulates only late-term arrest of life.

All life starts out as inviable, and has multiple forms.
That is one of its forms.
Currently, the State does not regulate the arrest of life in its inviable form, or zygot form, or fetus form, excepting late-term arrest of its life.

Are you sure about that?

 

[smokydot]

Are you sure about that?

Do you have info to offer? Then please do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have info to offer? Then please do.

Can you understand how frustrating it is for those of us who know something about this issue to see you constantly making unfounded declarative statements and pretending that it is an argument?

If you took the time to give substance to your argument instead of just pulling stuff out of your ***, we could have a much more meaningful conversation.

And yes, I'll spoon feed you some more.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Currently, the State regulates only late-term arrest of life.

All life starts out as inviable, and has multiple forms.
That is one of its forms.
Currently, the State does not regulate the arrest of life in its inviable form, or zygot form, or fetus form, with the exception of late-term arrest of its life.

Apparently, you are ignorant of the most recent tactics of the Pro-Life movement, which seeks to regulate early forms of abortion so that they are unavailable to most women.

They do this by forcing abortion clinics to adhere to the same regulations as hospitals or major surgical wards, force women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, and so on.

note: http://www.ortl.org/assets/Clinic%20Regulations%20Fact%20Sheet%20HB%203281.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305460.html
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/m...ews/Senate.passes.abortion.ultrasound.measure

 

[smokydot]

Apparently, you are ignorant of the most recent tactics of the Pro-Life movement, which seeks to regulate early forms of abortion so that they are unavailable to most women.

They do this by forcing abortion clinics to adhere to the same regulations as hospitals or major surgical wards, force women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, and so on.

note: http://www.ortl.org/assets/Clinic%20Regulations%20Fact%20Sheet%20HB%203281.pdf
Virginia can impose tougher abortion clinic oversight, AG Cuccinelli says
MICHIGAN: Senate passes abortion ultrasound measure (2010-09-30)

Thanks, again.
I can understand the frustation regarding my response to data which is presented to me.
But does any of it invalidate any argument I am making?
If not, why is it even being presented?
And why the pique because I am not up to speed on what does not refute my argument?

Nor do I need to be aware of whatever pro-lifers are up to in order to know that it has to be Constitutional, as defined by the Court, or it won't stand.

I'm not getting what this has to do with human life beginning at conception.

 

[smokydot]

Apparently, you are ignorant of the most recent tactics of the Pro-Life movement, which seeks to regulate early forms of abortion so that they are unavailable to most women.

They do this by forcing abortion clinics to adhere to the same regulations as hospitals or major surgical wards, force women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, and so on.

note: http://www.ortl.org/assets/Clinic%20Regulations%20Fact%20Sheet%20HB%203281.pdf
Virginia can impose tougher abortion clinic oversight, AG Cuccinelli says
MICHIGAN: Senate passes abortion ultrasound measure (2010-09-30)

I misunderstood your post. I thought your comment, "Are you sure about that?" referred to my statements, "All life starts out as inviable, and has multiple forms. That is one of its forms." (post #817),
rather than to my statement, "Currently, the State regulates only late-term arrest of life."
I was asking what info you had in mind on viability, I was not asking what info you had in mind on what the State regulates.
Sorry for the confusion, and your trouble in presenting info I was not seeking, and for which I didn't understand your reason in presenting (reflected in post #820).