Life Begins at Conception

[McBell]

If not, why is it even being presented?

:slap:
You specifically ASKED for it to be presented.
:slap:

 

[smokydot]

:slap:
You specifically ASKED for it to be presented.
:slap:

True. . .that was a misunderstanding on my part, which I explained in post #821.

 

[McBell]

True. . .that was a misunderstanding on my part, which I explained in post #821.

Ah.
So it was.
Yes you did.
Good show.

 

[Luminous]

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

that was before...in the historical context
murder and human sacrafise were also supposedly contrary, yet he orders people to such things constantly. he also forbids you from eating shell-fish.

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

Again, intruding on the rights of others, in this case the child.

If the parent is incapable of providing basic requirements, that child is removed from that unsafe environment and palced in a safer one where their rights will be upheld.

Again, the State is not in the business of "protecting human life".

 

[AxisMundi]

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

Absolutely.

While this isn't the case for each abortion, unfortunatly, there are indeed many, many legitimate reasons to abort.

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.

Still waiting for examples of case law to support your hypothesis.

As I've noted often enough, such prohibitions are a result of the removal of another's rights.

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.

Case law, young'un. Case law.

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

It is not a human being, sorry. A collection of humanc ells, certainly, but not an individual human being.

No, you can Google it up.

Your argument, you're responsibility to provide evidence.

Why should I do you homework for you?

I am well aquainted with the term, an attempt at pure appeals to emotions dredged up out of the dark fantasies of rabid anti-choicers. It has been an AutoFail for the decade or so it's been in use by your side of the issue.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

Why couldn't this be only about demonstrating God as the creator? I can see how you are reaching your interpretation (though how much was that based on a pre-determined conclusion?) but I see no reason to state that is definitely what those quotes were intended to mean.

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.

There is no need for any part of the Bible to be interpreted in any specific way. The whole thing is wide open to all sorts of interpretation as the long history of hugely diverse Biblically-inspired religions demonstrates.

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.

Nothing in anything you have quoted from the Bible reads to me as saying the way one thing in the world works means all other similar things must work in the same way. As I described, the nature of plant seeds is also for loads to be spread out of which only a tiny number survive to become plants. That is not the nature of human fertilised eggs so your claim that the two natures are the same is fundamentally flawed. How can it be Biblical if it's wrong?

The seed is of the same life that it came from, corn seeds are the same life as are corn plants.

You're just throwing the word "life" in there because it fits your conclusion. What is the basis of your argument that plant seeds are alive in the same way as plants are alive? That is the first step in your claim and has nothing to do with the Bible. It's a simple assumption you've done absolutely nothing to back up.


I'm not saying it isn't the case (or, more realistically, isn't one of several valid viewpoints on this whole issue). The problem - and the reason you're getting such negative responses - is that you're making a whole series of assumptions and logically leaps to reach the conclusion you want to be true. Nothing we're talking about here - the Bible, nature, life or abortion - is anything like clear and simple enough to be able to treat in that way.

 

[smokydot]

Again, intruding on the rights of others, in this case the child.

If it is a violation of a guaranteed right, then take it to the Court for redress.

If the parent is incapable of providing basic requirements, that child is removed from that unsafe environment and palced in a safer one where their rights will be upheld.

Right. . .then what about the "violation" of the right of parents to decide what is best for their child?

Again, the State is not in the business of "protecting human life".

If the State is in the business of "protecting human rights," of which one is the right to life, then it logically follows that the State is in the business of "protecting human life". . .
as well as in the business of protecting free speech, free assembly, free exercise of religion, etc., etc., etc.

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

What is it you are not getting in this most basic form of reasoning?

 

[smokydot]

Absolutely.
While this isn't the case for each abortion, unfortunatly, there are indeed many, many legitimate reasons to abort.
Still waiting for examples of case law to support your hypothesis.

That would be cases where parents are ordered by the Court to provide a medical service, in which they do not believe, to protect the life of their child.

As I've noted often enough, such prohibitions are a result of the removal of another's rights.

If guaranteed rights are being denied, take it to the Court for redress.

Case law, young'un. Case law.

Provided above.

It is not a human being, sorry. A collection of humanc ells, certainly, but not an individual human being.

You and I are also "a collection of human cells," so that makes it a human being.

Your argument, you're responsibility to provide evidence.
Why should I do you homework for you?

I have presented no argument on that subject.

I am well aquainted with the term, an attempt at pure appeals to emotions dredged up out of the dark fantasies of rabid anti-choicers. It has been an AutoFail for the decade or so it's been in use by your side of the issue.

It's the term legislatures used in banning the practice.

 

[AxisMundi]

If it is a violation of a guaranteed right, then take it to the Court for redress.



Right. . .then what about the "violation" of the right which you say parents have to know what should happen to their child?



If the State is in the business of "protecting human rights," of which one is the right to life, then it logically follows that the State is in the business of "protecting human life". . .
as well as in the business of protecting free speech, free assembly, free exercise of religion, etc., etc., etc.

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

What is it you are not getting in this most basic form of reasoning?

Your as usual un-connected statements do not provide for proof.

I specifically asked for case law.

Please provide some or be ignored.

 

[AxisMundi]

That would be cases where parents are ordered by the Court to provide a medical service, in which they do not believe, to protect the life of their child.



If guaranteed rights are being denied, take it to the Court for redress.



Provided above.



You and I are also "a collection of human cells," so that makes it a human being.



I have presented no argument on that subject.



It's the term legislatures used in banning the practice.

:case Law" means specific court cases, not imaginary ones liek you state above.

 

[smokydot]

Why couldn't this be only about demonstrating God as the creator? I can see how you are reaching your interpretation (though how much was that based on a pre-determined conclusion?) but I see no reason to state that is definitely what those quotes were intended to mean.

For the simple reason that the plain meaning of the words in the text (Rom 1:18-32) is otherwise.

There is no need for any part of the Bible to be interpreted in any specific way. The whole thing is wide open to all sorts of interpretation as the long history of hugely diverse Biblically-inspired religions demonstrates.

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid (reputed source of false notions).

Nothing in anything you have quoted from the Bible reads to me as saying the way one thing in the world works means all other similar things must work in the same way.

I didn't say the way "one thing in the world works." I said the way all seeds in the world work reveals the way one seed works.

As I described, the nature of plant seeds is also for loads to be spread out of which only a tiny number survive to become plants.

That is irrelevant to, and has no bearing on, the nature of seeds. Check out the meaning of nature in Webster's dictionary. See posts #724 and #705 for exposition of what the nature of seeds is.

That is not the nature of human fertilised eggs so your claim that the two natures are the same is fundamentally flawed.

You are misusing the word "nature."

How can it be Biblical if it's wrong?

You're just throwing the word "life" in there because it fits your concl0usion. What is the basis of your argument that plant seeds are alive in the same way as plants are alive? That is the first step in your claim and has nothing to do with the Bible. It's a simple assumption you've done absolutely nothing to back up.

You are not understanding the argument and, therefore, can form no valid conclusion about it. Review the argument in posts #724 and #705.

Then see posts #760 and #763 on specifically how to refute my argument, once you understand it from posts #724 and #705, so you can avoid being irrelevant to it.

I'm not saying it isn't the case (or, more realistically, isn't one of several valid viewpoints on this whole issue). The problem - and the reason you're getting such negative responses - is that you're making a whole series of assumptions and logically leaps to reach the conclusion you want to be true. Nothing we're talking about here - the Bible, nature, life or abortion - is anything like clear and simple enough to be able to treat in that way.

You are not understanding the argument and the relation of natural revelation to special revelation. Review posts #724 and #745 (yes, #745 rather than #705 here).
Then review posts #760 and #763 on specifically how to refute it.

 

[smokydot]

:case Law" means specific court cases, not imaginary ones liek you state above.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-105) and the prosecution of serial killers or criminals who attempt or commit murder are the State discharging its responsibiliiy to protect human life.

However, specifics are not required to support a logical conclusion.

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human life.

No specifics are required for the conclusion to be correct.
It is self-evident.

What part of basic logical reasoning are you not getting?

 

[smokydot]

Your as usual un-connected statements do not provide for proof.
I specifically asked for case law.
Please provide some or be ignored.

All the serial killers, murderers and those who attempt murder who have been prosecuted and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-105) are the State discharging its responsibiliy to protect human life.

It's also a matter of logic. No proof is needed for logic because it is self-evident..

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human life.

So what part of this very basic human reasoning are you not getting?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what part of this very basic human reasoning are you not getting?

You are being far too generous to yourself here.

 

[McBell]

You are being far too generous to yourself here.

That's an understatement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's an understatement.

I'm known for that.

 

[smokydot]

You are being far too generous to yourself here.

If you are referring to the syllogism presented: i.e.,

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

then a demonsration of how the syllogism is not self-evident and basic human reasoning would be in order.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you are referring to the syllogism presented: i.e.,

Syllogism:
Major Premise: It is the responsiblity of the State to protect human rights.
Minor Premise: Life is a human right.
Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

then a demonsration of how the syllogism is not self-evident and basic human reasoning would be in order.

What is the topic of the thread?

 

[smokydot]

What is the topic of the thread?

I'm responding to AxisMundi's questions on human life at conception and the responsibility of the State to protect human life.

(So who's not up to speed? )