Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

The DoI isn't a US legal document, sorry, it is a Colonial document and has as much to do with our Founding Principles

I find an important founding principle therein, "that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
For someone who despises inaccuracies, you have a few of your own.

as the Mayflower Compact. IE nothing. It contains none of our laws, government structure, lists no rights, nothing.

Except for that small thing about unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Christians merely like to quite said document because it mentions Deity, where our Founding Document, the US Constitution, does not and indeed strives to keep religion and government seperated.

That may be true about Christians, but you don't know that is true about me. . .ad hominem.

Q.E.D. - smokydot
"No! You!" Nice debate tactic.

No, you! You have failed to demonstrate your assertions in post #877 that
1) I fail,
2) that my presentation of natural revelation (posts #745, #724, #705) is in error within the parameter of the Bible,
and which I even explained how to refute within the parameter of the Bible (post #760, #763).
There is no Q.E.D. for you in the absence of demonstrating my error.

On the other hand,
I have demonstrated within the paramter of the Bible the nature of life at conception (posts #745, #724, #705), of which you have not demonstrated the error within the paramter of the Bible.
I have demonstrated, from actuality, logic, and the Declaration of Independence, my statement, "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect innocent human life," of which you have not demonstrated the error.

". . .to secure these rights (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness) Governments are instituted among Men." -- Declaration of Independence

So there is Q.E.D. for me, in your error of failure to demonstrate your assertions.

I despise innacuracies and misinformation, especially in such an important arguement as abortions, and your statments on the subject are highly innacurate and chock full of misinformation.

Regarding medical reasons, I agree. I do not keep up with them.
Regarding abnormalities in the development after conception, I agree. I do not keep up with them.
But then they are not relevant to the Biblical approach on the nature of life at conception.

Demonstration is also neccessary to validate one's statments, something you have lacking in spades. I have no reason to show "demonstration" to something you yourseldf have not shown to be true.

My statements have been validated.
My demonsration, within the parameter of the Bible, regarding the nature of life at conception, has yet to have any error demonstrated by you within the parameter of the Bible.
My demonstration of the statement, "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect innocent human life," has yet to have any error demonstrated by you.
Those are the demonstrations I have made, and until their error is demonstrated, they are not "lacking," in spades.

So you've made every attempt to "prove" life begins at conception, and that the "State is in the business of protecting human life" why?

Why my attempt to "prove" life begins at conception?
The only proof I have presented in that regard is of the import of the Scriptures on the nature of life at conception.
And that is in answer to the question posed for this thread, "Is there a Biblical basis for life beginning at conception?"
All objections presented to me, and to which I responded with demonstration, were in relation to the Scriptural import on life at conception.
I've said nothing about the Scriptural import on politics.

Why my attempt to "prove" that it is the responsibility of the State to protect innocent human life?
Because it was asserted that a mother has the exclusive right to decide what happens to her child.
I've said nothing about the import of that statement on abortion. I have spoken only to its application regarding the life of a child when it is endangered.

That I have an agenda is an assumption on your part, based in your view of Christians.

Your agenda is quite clear,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

and you're not half as clever as you think you are.
What was that about demonstration?

My comment regarding your post #877, "Assumes facts not in evidence," was in reference to your last statement in that post, about my "failed" presentation on the Biblical approach to life at conception.
I was not referring to your statements before that, on abortion. I was not saying your statements on abortion "assumed facts not in evidence," so that no demonstration of error by me exhibited inconsistency or a double standard on my part.
However, it still remains that the error of my presentation on the Biblical approach to life at conception has not been demonstrated within the parameter of the Bible, so there are no "facts in evidence" that my presentation "failed."

Very few doctors would risk their licence by conducting abortions prior to Roe v Wade. Abortions where conducted by people with little to no professional education, or certain aborifants kept in the household where used that sometimes proved jsut as fatal for the mother.

So indeed, abortion would return to backalleys and bathrooms where it was practiced prior to Roe vs Wade.

 

[AxisMundi]

smokydot...

Firstly, as noted, the DoI is not a Founding Document. It is a Colonial Document enumerating the list of reasons why the Colonies were seeking Independance from the British Empire and thus moving the responsibilities of the war onto the shoulders of the King.

Secondly, I have made absolutely no reference to your argument for a biblical reasoning behind the "life begins at conception". You, however, have moved your argument wella way from the biblical by attempting to 1. introduce "natural revalation" into the equation thus attempting to remove any purely biblical reasoning behind the opposition to the right of choice, and 2. attempted to claim that the State has some inherent responsibility to protect human life.

Not only ahve you continually failed to substantiate the diea that a fetus is "human life", your agenda has been quite clear from the onset of our debate, i.e. opposition to the Right of Choice.

Lastley, your continual reliance on biblical passages and circular reasoning, as well as the specific quotes you supplied from the DoI illustrate perfectly where your ideals sit, smack dab in the middle of Christian theosophy. Therefore my comments concerning yourself and your preference for the DoI are completely accurate, and not an ad hominem.

As I ntoed earlier, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

 

[smokydot]

smokydot...

Firstly, as noted, the DoI is not a Founding Document. It is a Colonial Document enumerating the list of reasons why the Colonies were seeking Independance from the British Empire and thus moving the responsibilities of the war onto the shoulders of the King.

<circling the bush one more time>

Stated by you, and addressed by me, in my latest post to you, #882, at my first response there.

Secondly, I have made absolutely no reference to your argument for a biblical reasoning behind the "life begins at conception".

Then what were you referring to in post #868, at your third point?

You, however, have moved your argument wella way from the biblical by attempting to 1. introduce "natural revalation" into the equation

"Natural revelation" is the Biblical argument. Check your theology manual for the term "natural revelation" to get up to speed on Christian doctrine regarding it. No wonder you don't understand the argument, you are uninformed regarding its terms.

thus attempting to remove any purely biblical reasoning behind the opposition to the right of choice, and

The authority of natural revelation is purely Biblical reasoning.

2. attempted to claim that the State has some inherent responsibility to protect human life.

My latest post to you, #882, at my seventh response there, shows the origin of this argument, and that it was not presented in relation to conception.

Not only ahve you continually failed to substantiate the diea that a fetus is "human life",

It is you who has failed to demonstrate within the parameter of the Bible that my presentation is in error. I have even explained exactly how to do it, in posts #760 and #763. Until you demonstrate my error, your claim regarding my presentation remains baseless.

your agenda has been quite clear from the onset of our debate, i.e. opposition to the Right of Choice.

Assumes facts not in evidence, and demonstrates your use of false assumptions.
It's hard to tell your MO from the MO of the Christians you complain about.

Lastley, your continual reliance on biblical passages and circular reasoning,

You aren't even informed regarding the terms of the argument (see my third response above). No wonder you think it is "circular reasoning."

as well as the specific quotes you supplied from the DoI illustrate perfectly where your ideals sit, smack dab in the middle of Christian theosophy.

Which does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I have an agenda. Lumping me with those who do is an ad hominem attempt to discredit my presentation on the question of this thread.

Therefore my comments concerning yourself and your preference for the DoI are completely accurate, and not an ad hominem.

They are ad hominem in asserting that just because other Christians have an agenda, I also must have one, which assertion is meant to discredit my presentation on the question of this thread.
You are also uninformed on the meaning of an ad hominem argument.

As I ntoed earlier, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Doth the lady protest too much?

Tired yet of going in circles? For one who complains of "circular reasoning," you sure do like to circle the same bush over and over.

uh-huh :guitar1:uh-huh

 

[AxisMundi]

Off tyo the ignore list with you, youngster. I cannot abid intellectual dishonesty.

 

[smokydot]

Off tyo the ignore list with you, youngster. I cannot abid intellectual dishonesty.

Nor can I. . .and there's another of your assertions without demonstration.

Q.E.D.

Would you view my posts differently if I were a
28-year-old lady, or
50-year-old man, or
72-year-old woman, or
94-year-old man?

 

[Sententia]

The bible has god killing King David's son because King David displeased him. And he killed the baby slowly so that the baby's suffering would hurt David all the more.

15And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

16David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

17And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.

18And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

19But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

OP

This particular god is a psychopathic spoiled being of hate. Not a great role model. He actually doesn't seem to like kids. He kills them a lot in the OT along with pregnant women, he Drowns them in floods, Kills the first born of every one , soddom and gommorrah etc etc. Remember in Exodus. Moses wants to leave and the Phaoah wont let him. How does god punish the Pharoah? He could have just smited him and been done with it... but no - he calls plague after plague onto all the people of Egypt. Starving and punishing them all. Are they not god's creations as well? In the end, of course, you already know my point he kills more kids. And not just the pharoahs kids... the maids, the laborers, the kitty cats kittens and the fishes baby first born fish...

I dunno why people point to the bible as a source of morality. The idea that you are better suited to choose what a woman does with her baby and her body then she is ludicrous.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

I simply disagree with your reading of it and I don't think I'm alone in that. All I read in those passages related to nature implicitly demonstrating the existence of God followed by discussion of those who ignore this. I see absolutely nothing in it which suggests nature implicitly demonstrates things about other parts of nature.

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

You're saying that there isn't a wide variety of Biblical interpretation leading to an equally wide range of faiths, religions and personal beliefs based up on it? You may disagree with most of them (I do too ) but that doesn't make your interpretation unquestionably accurate.

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.

But you are claiming a general principal of "natural revelation" of which seeds is just a single example. If your principal were true, wouldn't it apply to everything?

You are misusing the word "nature."

Nature is an imprecise word in this context but I can accept your tighter definition.


I've read all of your posts (again) and my view of your argument has not changed and the following points I have been trying to get you to address remain (and stating that it's obvious isn't adressing);

1) I don't see how you get from Rom 1:18-32 alone to your principal of natural revelation (as explained above).

2) I see no support for the argument that because a seed of a given plant will only grow in to that type of plant means seeds must be considered alive in exactly the same way as a plant is alive. You can indentify a continuity of "life" in the process but that isn't automatically the same thing throughout.

3) I see no support to state that human "seeds" must be considered exactly the same as plant seeds. There could be an argument to make such a direct comparison but you've not made one - you just stated it as a premise. You've already stated that there isn't the same continuity of life since you don't consider sperm and (unfertilised) eggs as alive.

4) If the writers of the Bible (be they divinely inspired or not) wanted to say human life begins at conception, wouldn't they have made it at least a little clearer? Even if everything you've stated were true, it's a heck of an intellectual trek to get to a very simple statement.

 

[smokydot]

The bible has god killing King David's son because King David displeased him. And he killed the baby slowly so that the baby's suffering would hurt David all the more.

The Bible is filled with examples of divine retribution.

OP

This particular god is a psychopathic spoiled being of hate. Not a great role model. He actually doesn't seem to like kids. He kills them a lot in the OT along with pregnant women, he Drowns them in floods, Kills the first born of every one , soddom and gommorrah etc etc. Remember in Exodus. Moses wants to leave and the Phaoah wont let him. How does god punish the Pharoah? He could have just smited him and been done with it... but no - he calls plague after plague onto all the people of Egypt. Starving and punishing them all. Are they not god's creations as well? In the end, of course, you already know my point he kills more kids. And not just the pharoahs kids... the maids, the laborers, the kitty cats kittens and the fishes baby first born fish...

You are really going to be displeased with what goes down on the Day of Judgment.

I dunno why people point to the bible as a source of morality. The idea that you are better suited to choose what a woman does with her baby and her body then she is ludicrous.

People point to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount as a source of morality. Biblical events in themselves are not a source of morality.

 

[smokydot]

Statements in bold are new editions.

I simply disagree with your reading of it and I don't think I'm alone in that. All I read in those passages related to nature implicitly demonstrating the existence of God followed by discussion of those who ignore this. I see absolutely nothing in it which suggests nature implicitly demonstrates things about other parts of nature.

Divine principles are to be prosecuted.
The divine principle of natural revelation in creation doesn't end with knowlege of God's existence and of his eternal, divine and righteous nature.
See my post #892 for fuller development of this point.

You're saying that there isn't a wide variety of Biblical interpretation leading to an equally wide range of faiths, religions and personal beliefs based up on it? You may disagree with most of them (I do too ) but that doesn't make your interpretation unquestionably accurate.

Then you should demonstrate within the parameter of the Bible how it is not.

But you are claiming a general principal of "natural revelation" of which seeds is just a single example. If your principal were true, wouldn't it apply to everything?

Natural revelation applies to everything to which it is related.

Nature is an imprecise word in this context but I can accept your tighter definition.

I've read all of your posts (again).

That is very thorough.

and my view of your argument has not changed and the following points I have been trying to get you to address remain (and stating that it's obvious isn't adressing);

1) I don't see how you get from Rom 1:18-32 alone to your principal of natural revelation (as explained above).

This is not my principle. It is centuries-old Christian doctrine.
See my post #892 for fuller discussion.

2) I see no support for the argument that because a seed of a given plant will only grow in to that type of plant means seeds must be considered alive in exactly the same way as a plant is alive. You can indentify a continuity of "life" in the process but that isn't automatically the same thing throughout.

Not "alive in the same kind of way," it's the same kind of life, the same kind of DNA.

3) I see no support to state that human "seeds" must be considered exactly the same as plant seeds. There could be an argument to make such a direct comparison but you've not made one - you just stated it as a premise.

That's a matter of biology. Check it out.
There is likewise no "support" for God's invisible eternal, divine, righteous nature being revealed in material creation, but the NT says it is.

You've already stated that there isn't the same continuity of life since you don't consider sperm and (unfertilised) eggs as alive.

There is the same continuity of the human life that produced each.

4) If the writers of the Bible (be they divinely inspired or not) wanted to say human life begins at conception, wouldn't they have made it at least a little clearer? Even if everything you've stated were true, it's a heck of an intellectual trek to get to a very simple statement.

Absence demonstrates nothing but absence. Not finding a demonstration there is evidence of nothing, regarding its untruth or truth.
It wasn't an issue in the apostolic era, as was the nature of Jesus, the abolition of the Levitical law, the relation of the new covenant to the old, the relation of Jews to the new covenant, the relation of Gentiles to the old covenant, etc., etc., etc. Those are the issues which they labored to clarify.

 

[HonestJoe]

The divine principle of natural revelation in creation doesn't end with knowlege of God's existence and of his eternal, divine and righteous nature.

So you say. My point is that the sections of the Bible you've quoted don't appear to support that extension of the principle. You might be able to provide futher evidence but you've not done so yet.

Then you should demonstrate within the parameter of the Bible how it is not.

I'm not claiming that you're certainly wrong, only that you're not certainly right. You are stating that what you are claiming unquestionably demonstrated by the sections of the Bible you're quoting. I'm only challenging that certainty.

My wider point is that I don't think it is legitimate to say pretty much anything was certainly intended by those writing (and compiling) the Bible. That's why religion includes faith after all. I think such claims of unquestionable certainty can be dangerous (such as leading to situations where abortion is denied in all cases without question, even where it might cause less suffering than not doing it).

This is not unique to me. It is centuries-old Christian doctrine.

The principal may well be but is it sourced from Rom 1:18-32 alone by all the people who believe it and do they all interpret it and it's consequences in exactly the same way you claim in so obvious and unquestionable? Can you demonstrate other people independently coming to the same conclusion as you?

Not "alive in the same kind of way," it's the same kind of life, the same kind of DNA.

But that moves the statement away from the question of when human life starts. Nobody is denying that human "seeds" are of the same "kind of thing" as human beings. That isn't the same as saying they should be considered alive in the same way a born human is, any more than sperm or unfertilised eggs are (nor that they shouldn't).

Then demonstrate that my premise is wrong.

It's difficult because you've presented zero evidence to support the premise that human "seeds" should be considered in exactly the same way as plant seeds - you've just said they are. I have pointed out ways in which the two are different which you would need to (yet haven't) address though.

There is likewise no "support" for God's invisible eternal, divine, righteous nature being revealed in material creation, but the NT says it is.

Isn't it theoretically possible that the NT is wrong? Isn't it theoretically possible that you are wrong? (to address the inevitable non-response, yes, I accept I could be wrong).

There is the same continuity of the human life that produced each.

Since you don't consider sperm and eggs alive, isn't it deliberately misleading to call it a "continuity of life"? It certainly means that your use of the word in this context doesn't do anything to support the claim that life begins at conception. A human egg fertilised by human sperm becomes a human fertilised egg but does it become alive in the same way you and I are?

Absence demonstrates nothing but absence.

I never said otherwise. My point stands though - why do you think this fundamental truth you say the Bible makes is so obscure and convoluted? Again, isn't it possible that you're wrong?

 

[smokydot]

HonestJoe:

This is a continuation of my post #890 to you, and is to present a fuller development of my first response there regarding Rom 1:19-21,32.

1)The NT clearly states that God's invisible qualities are clearly known from material creation:
". . .what may be known about God is plain. . .For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men (Gentiles) are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. . .Although they know God's righteous decree. . .they continue to do those very things. . ." (Rom 1:19-21,32)

2) Think on this point for a moment.
What in material creation would reveal God's invisible eternal, divine and righteous nature?
The NT offers nothing "to make it at least a little clearer" on this "heck of an intellectual trek." But there it is--natural revelation in material creation reveals the invisible qualities of God.

3) Let that sink in--the "trek" (extension) from the visible to the invisible,
what God's visible creation reveals about God's invisible qualities,
which is to be acknowledged (God is eternal, divine, righteous) and applied (honor God, thank God).

4) The NT gives a clear principle here whereby the divine mind, as it relates to God's righteous moral will, can be discerned apart from special revelation in the Scriptures--"Although they know God's righteous decree (clearly seen in material creation, not from Scripture). . .they continue to do these very things. . ." (Rom 1:32)
Let that sink in also--that what is revealed in material nature extends to a revelation of the divine mind (righteous moral will). . .WOW!

5) So securing our wigs again, now let's apply this principle. Let's extend, as the principle extended, natural (general) revelation to what is clearly seen in the natural order, an "intellectual trek" of much less magnitude than the one in Rom 1:19-21, from visible material creation to God's invisible eternal, divine and righteous nature. And when natural (general) revelation is extended to the natural order, the nature of all seeds is clearly seen; i.e.,
(a) their life originates from the union of two non-living entities produced by the plant,
(b) they have the same kind of life (DNA) as the plant which produced it,
(c) they have that same kind of life (DNA) from the moment of their origin,
(d) there is never a time in their transformation--into sprout, then into shoot, and on into mature plant--when their life is not the same kind of life (DNA) as the plant which produced it.
[I have not, and do not, maintain any "continuity of life" regarding anything.]

6) Now if visible material creation can extend to reveal invisible, non-material qualities of the divine mind (righteous moral will), which we are required to acknowldege (God's eternal, divine, righteous nature) and to apply (honor God, thank God),
then how much more can visible material creation extend to clearly reveal visible qualities that must be acknowledged [(a) -(d), above] and applied (to human seed, which though not invisible, is not readily visible).

7)The extension I see in the divine principle of Rom 1:19-21,32 (visible material creation extends to clearly reveal invisible, non-material qualities of the divine mind)
is the basis for my extension of the principle (natural, or general, revelation}
to the natural order, whereby what is cearly seen in nature is acknowledged (the characteristics of seeds)
and applied (to human seed, because of its common characteristics).
This to me seems to be an appropriate extension.

 

[McBell]

0+0=0

 

[smokydot]

0+0=0

Unblief + Unbelief = Immutability in rejection of the remedy.

 

[smokydot]

See post #892 for fuller discussion of my post #890.

So you say. My point is that the sections of the Bible you've quoted don't appear to support that extension of the principle. You might be able to provide futher evidence but you've not done so yet.

Agreed, the text does not refer to an extension of the principle. But I see extension in the principle when material creation reveals invisible, non-material realities--God's eternal, divine, righteous nature. We all expect creation to reveal things about the natural order, but to extend that natural (general) revelation to the super-natural order is an astounding extension. My extension of the natural characteristics of all seeds as naturally applying to human seed seems to me to be much less an extension than that extension clearly stated in Scripture.
However, it seems that biology could easily confirm if the natural characteristics of all seeds are the natural characteristics of human seed, as I have proposed.

I'm not claiming that you're certainly wrong, only that you're not certainly right. You are stating that what you are claiming unquestionably demonstrated by the sections of the Bible you're quoting. I'm only challenging that certainty.

The Christian Church for centuries has regarded the principle of natural (general) revelation to be stated in the first two chapters of Romans.
The extension of the principle is by me, based on the extension I see in the principle.

My wider point is that I don't think it is legitimate to say pretty much anything was certainly intended by those writing (and compiling) the Bible.

You and I have different premises. Mine is: the Bible is true.
That premise doesn't allow the conclusion that Scripture is unknowable (it's "not legitimate to say pretty much anything was certainly intended by the writers").
Because we have different premises, we cannot come to agreement on this point, and we will just have to leave it at that.

That's why religion includes faith after all. I think such claims of unquestionable certainty can be dangerous (such as leading to situations where abortion is denied in all cases without question, even where it might cause less suffering than not doing it).

The principal may well be but is it sourced from Rom 1:18-32 alone by all the people who believe it

Yes, the prinicple of natural (general) revelation in creation is. All people who believe that prinicple source it from the first two chapters of Romans.
However, my extension of the principle is not known to others and, therefore, no one sources it.

and do they all interpret it and it's consequences in exactly the same way you claim in so obvious and unquestionable?

If you mean the consequences of divine wrath for rejecting natural (general) revelation in creation, It has been the exact interpretation of the Christian Church for centuries.
If you mean my extension of the principle, that is my own, based on the extension I see in the principle.
All who do not deny the plain meaning of Scriptural text understand the principle of natural (general) revelation in creation in the same way, while those who deny the plain meaning of Scriptural text do not.
But the extension of the principle is my own, based on the extension I see in the principle.

Can you demonstrate other people independently coming to the same conclusion as you?

The Christian Church for centuries has come to the same conclusion regarding the principle of natural (general) revelation in creation.
Currently, check out J. I. Packer, professor of historical and systematic theology at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, in one of his many books, God Has Spoken, pp.55-56.
I know of no one who has extended the principle as I have.

But that moves the statement away from the question of when human life starts. Nobody is denying that human "seeds" are of the same "kind of thing" as human beings. That isn't the same as saying they should be considered alive in the same way a born human is, any more than sperm or unfertilised eggs are (nor that they shouldn't).

"Alive" is alive. There aren't different kinds of "alive."
The chief characteristic of life is the ability to reproduce itself. Whatever can do that is as "alive" as any other life.
Sperm and egg cannot reproduce themselves, therefore, they are not alive. The union of sperm and egg can reproduce itself, therefore it is alive.
There are not different kinds of "alive." Human seed and plant seed are as alive (capable of reproducing themselves) as any other life.

It's difficult because you've presented zero evidence to support the premise that human "seeds" should be considered in exactly the same way as plant seeds - you''ve just said they are.

It's a matter of biology. They all have the same natural characteristics.

I have pointed out ways in which the two are different which you would need to (yet haven't) address though.

Would you please repeat those for me. I don't remember what they were. Thanks.

Isn't it theoretically possible that the NT is wrong?

My premise does not allow for that conclusion.

Isn't it theoretically possible that you are wrong?

I stand in the centuries-old doctrine of the Christian Church on the issue of natural (general) revelation in creation.
Yes, it is possible that I am wrong on my extension of the principle.

(to address the inevitable non-response, yes, I accept I could be wrong).

Since you don't consider sperm and eggs are alive, isn't it deliberately misleading to call it a "continuity of life"?

"Continuity of life" is not a term of mine, nor will I use it.
The sperm and egg are not alive, but their union is alive.
It is the union that is the same kind of life (human) as that life (human) which produced the sperm and the egg.

It certainly means that your use of the word in this context doesn't do anything to support the claim that life begins at conception. A human egg fertilised by human sperm becomes a human fertilised egg but does it become alive in the same way you and I are?

It becomes alive with characteristics of all life--the ability to reproduce itself, growth and change, metabolism, etc.
That is the only way we know anything is alive.

I never said otherwise. My point stands though - why do you think this fundamental truth you say the Bible makes is so obscure and convoluted?

Well, if you're referring to the principle of natural (general) revelation in creation, I find it no more convoluted, for example, than the fundamental truth of the sovereignty of God, or of the divinity of Jesus, or of the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit, or of the Trinity, none of which are just simple statements found in the Bible.
If you're referring to my extension of the principle, I find my extension more simple than the extension I see in the principle; i.e., natural (general) revelation in the visible material order extends to the invisible non-material order. I find that to be an astounding extension, far beyond any extending of natural (general) revelation to the natural order, as I propose.

Again, isn't it possible that you're wrong?

Then I stand wrong with the Christian Church as it has understood the principle of natural (general) revelation in creation for centuries.
If you're referring to my extension of that principle, yes, it's possible that I am wrong.

Thanks, HonestJoe.

 

[McBell]

The sperm and egg are not alive, but their union is alive.

Until you stop and look at the facts.
Dead sperm do not fertilize anything.
Dead eggs do not get fertilized.

So in order for there to be a conception both the sperm and the egg must be alive.

And you wonder why you are not being taken seriously?
Wow.

 

[smokydot]

Until you stop and look at the facts.
Dead sperm do not fertilize anything.
Dead eggs do not get fertilized.

So in order for there to be a conception both the sperm and the egg must be alive.

And you wonder why you are not being taken seriously?
Wow.

Can they reproduce themselves, one of the first characteristics of life?

 

[McBell]

Can they reproduce themselves, one of the first characteristics of life?

Nice red herring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And when human rights are violated, who is responsible for the redress?
It's the State, through the Court and prosecution of violators.

That's not an either/or, that's a both/and.

The State shall both not infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and
shall protect rights guraranteed by the Constitution,
of which right to life is one, as is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

Let me put it this way: say someone is murdered. The widow sues the state on the grounds that the state failed in its duty to protect her husband's right to life. Assuming that all the facts of the matter are clear, would the lawsuit be successful?

Why is this such an issue to you?
Are you not in favor of our Constitutional form of government?

Red herring. I'm very much in favour of the Constitutional form of government, but I recognize it for what it is, not for the misrepresentation you present.

 

[Smoke]

Nice red herring.

If smokydot believes that worker bees, mules, and postmenopausal women are not alive, it must be what God believes, too.

 

[smokydot]

This is a re-write of post #892 (which due to software, are now exactly the same).

HonestJoe:

This is a continuation of my post #890 to you, and is to present a fuller development of my first response there regarding Rom 1:19-21,32.

1)The NT clearly states that God's invisible qualities are clearly known from material creation:
". . .what may be known about God is plain. . .For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men (Gentiles) are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. . .Although they know God's righteous decree. . .they continue to do those very things. . ." (Rom 1:19-21,32)

2) Think on this point for a moment.
What in material creation would reveal God's invisible eternal, divine and righteous nature?
The NT offers nothing "to make it at least a little clearer" on this "heck of an intellectual trek." But there it is--natural revelation in material creation reveals the invisible qualities of God.

3) Let that sink in--the "trek" (extension) from the visible to the invisible,
what God's visible creation reveals about God's invisible qualities,
which is to be acknowledged (God is eternal, divine, righteous) and applied (honor God, thank God).

4) The NT gives a clear principle here whereby the divine mind, as it relates to God's righteous moral will, can be discerned apart from special revelation in the Scriptures--"Although they know God's righteous decree (clearly seen in material creation, not from Scripture). . .they continue to do these very things. . ." (Rom 1:32)
Let that sink in also--that what is revealed in material nature extends to a revelation of the divine mind (righteous moral will). . .WOW!

5) So securing our wigs again, let's apply this principle. Let's extend, as the principle extended, natural (general) revelation to what is clearly seen in the natural order, an "intellectual trek" of much less magnitude than the one in Rom 1:19-21, from visible material creation to God's invisible eternal, divine and righteous nature. And when natural (general) revelation is extended to the natural order, the nature of all seeds is clearly seen; i.e.,
(a) their life originates from the union of two non-living entities produced by the plant,
(b) they have the same kind of life (DNA) as the plant which produced it,
(c) they have that same kind of life (DNA) from the moment of their origin,
(d) there is never a time in their transformation--into sprout, then into shoot, and on into mature plant--when their life is not the same kind of life (DNA) as the plant which produced it.
[I have not, and do not, maintain any "continuity of life" regarding anything.]

6) Now if visible material creation can extend to reveal invisible, non-material qualities of the divine mind (righteous moral will), which we are required to acknowldege (God's eternal, divine, righteous nature) and to apply (honor God, thank God),
then how much more can visible material creation extend to clearly reveal visible qualities that must be acknowledged [(a) -(d), above] and applied (to human seed, which though not invisible, is not readily visible).

7)The extension I see in the divine principle of Rom 1:19-21,32 (visible material creation extends to clearly reveal invisible, non-material qualities of the divine mind)
is the basis for my extension of the principle (natural, or general, revelation}
to the natural order, whereby what is cearly seen in nature is acknowledged (the characteristics of seeds)
and applied (to human seed, because of its common characteristics).
This to me seems to be an appropriate extension.

Have at it, guys. . .