Pro-life question

[Messy]

If the pro-life argument is that life begins at conception, why aren’t pro-lifers demonstrating outside of fertility clinics where thousands of viable embryos are discarded each year?

Now I know why. Emotion.
It's a similar question as why doesn't a vegan cry in the supermarket when there are fertilized eggs being sold?
Would I kill a chicken? No. Maybe if otherwise my kids would starve to death and there was no other option, but normally no. Would I kill a baby chick? Of course not. They're fluffy. Would I kill a half developed chicken in an egg? No of course not. Do I cry about having eaten eggs with a tiny red spot in the past and if I got one at a restaurant, would I eat it? Yes.
And what use would it be to demonstrate? You may not kill them. That's murder. Do you want to force them to carry them or give them to others who can't get pregnant? I don't.

 

[Messy]

Again, you're throwing out a lot of assertions with precious little to back anything.

It sounds like what you've got is little more than "I believe this, the end". Which is fine for making decisions that affect you but you don't get to impose it on anyone else without something a lot more solid.

If "the Life of the Flesh Is in the Blood," Is Conception When Life Begins? - Apologetics Press

Scripture indicates that babies are still human while they are in the womb, and therefore, abortion is premeditated murder.1 The Bible also indicates that conception (i.e., “fertilization”—the meeting of sperm and egg) marks the point at which a human is formed.2 On the other hand, Leviticus...

apologeticspress.org

Scientists now understand that at a certain point in the development of a child in the womb, he becomes too large to live without the life-sustaining nourishment provided by transported blood. The child is alive before that point—complete with living cells and DNA—but after 22 days, the child’s life must be sustained through blood being pumped through its body. The child was alive prior to that point, but blood becomes necessary afterwards to keep him alive, when his body has grown large enough to require its life-sustaining properties.

The Points of Proof for Life: Scientific - Human Coalition

This is part 1 of a 4 part series. See the rest of the Points...

www.humancoalition.org

And if this is still not convincing enough, noone can prove that the soul comes into the body at a later time than conception, so you can't risk that and discuss it for ages and meanwhile just kill kids and afterwards say oops sorry my bad.

 

[tango]

I really cannot accept that this is the actual meaning of that wording.

So what is the meaning of the wording? God created something that was man-sized and man-shaped but not yet alive.

That's true.

Yes, and that's the way the advocates for changing everything usually approach the issue. First, the most easily appreciated, if uncommon, reasons for change are made out to be central to the matter. THEN, after the laws get changed, the same people who had successfully argued on the original grounds switch to something less easily accepted.

And after that, they will raise the stakes again. So now, for just one stunning example, we have actual infanticide being advocated on the "pro-choice" side of the argument that still is supposedly about "abortion."

That stance would have been unthinkable only a few years earlier. Yet in this case, it's not just kooks or extremists who are carrying a torch that wasn't part of the situation earlier. The advocates of infanticide include some people who are in very high places of responsibility.

I don't dispute any of this. My issue is when people on either side act as if a complex matter is actually a simple matter.

In this thread alone we've seen Messy talking about a mother facing almost certain death from continuing a pregnancy simply asking the church to pray.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't like the idea of abortion. But to shift from "I wouldn't seek an abortion" to "you shouldn't seek an abortion" I need something more than my own personal convictions. Endlessly repeating assertions without backing them provides precisely nothing to justify an expectation that someone else will follow my convictions.

Would it be acceptable to apply the same standard to killing one's neighbor--for a good reason, of course? If not, why not?

If you can make an argument that your neighbor should not be considered "alive", sure. But of course if they aren't alive then the concept of killing isn't relevant.

 

[tango]

If "the Life of the Flesh Is in the Blood," Is Conception When Life Begins? - Apologetics Press

Scripture indicates that babies are still human while they are in the womb, and therefore, abortion is premeditated murder.1 The Bible also indicates that conception (i.e., “fertilization”—the meeting of sperm and egg) marks the point at which a human is formed.2 On the other hand, Leviticus...

apologeticspress.org

Scientists now understand that at a certain point in the development of a child in the womb, he becomes too large to live without the life-sustaining nourishment provided by transported blood. The child is alive before that point—complete with living cells and DNA—but after 22 days, the child’s life must be sustained through blood being pumped through its body. The child was alive prior to that point, but blood becomes necessary afterwards to keep him alive, when his body has grown large enough to require its life-sustaining properties.

Your link isn't a very well written article. It asserts that "The Bible says..." and the reference links to a different site rather than a Scriptural reference. If the Bible is as clear as the article would like to suggest it would be useful to quote chapter and verse.

Even here you have assertions "the child was alive prior to that point" with little to justify the assertion.

In any event, when talking about an overall restriction on abortion in a secular society you need to appeal to something more than one faith's holy text. The people who don't believe in God, or who don't believe the Bible is the word of God, are unlikely to be impressed by an appeal to Scripture.

The Points of Proof for Life: Scientific - Human Coalition

This is part 1 of a 4 part series. See the rest of the Points...

www.humancoalition.org

And if this is still not convincing enough, noone can prove that the soul comes into the body at a later time than conception, so you can't risk that and discuss it for ages and meanwhile just kill kids and afterwards say oops sorry my bad.

Honestly, this site doesn't read like it's very well considered at all. It does make a fair point that scientists would hail the discovery of a single living cell on another planet as evidence of extraterrestrial life but the claim that a zygote can maintain homeostasis and respond to its environment seems like a stretch. If life truly begins at conception one might wonder about how the mother's body can flush a zygote that fails to implant out of her body as if it were nothing more than cellular waste. If that zygote were capable of maintaining homeostasis and the other six characteristics of life mentioned by this article we might expect it to survive regardless.

As far as taking a more defensive stance to avoid erring in ways you would prefer not to err you are absolutely free to do that. You just don't get to expect other people to do the same.

 

[tango]

I hear you. But the "problem" in practical terms is that the pro-abortion side will not hear of ANY restrictions on abortion, while the pro-life side has been willing to strike a compromise--a number of possible ones, in fact--even if those would conflict with these people's personal moral judgments. There's no denying this fact.

I think even this oversimplifies things.

Yes, there is a lot more howling coming from the pro-choice side. The trouble is that some on the pro-life side are willing to strike a compromise and acknowledge that sometimes life is just messy and none of the options are particularly desirable. Others expect an absolute ban - on this very site a while back we had a thread about a 10-year-old girl from (I think) Ohio who became pregnant after being raped and was not allowed to have an abortion.

 

[Messy]

Your link isn't a very well written article. It asserts that "The Bible says..." and the reference links to a different site rather than a Scriptural reference. If the Bible is as clear as the article would like to suggest it would be useful to quote chapter and verse.

Even here you have assertions "the child was alive prior to that point" with little to justify the assertion.

In any event, when talking about an overall restriction on abortion in a secular society you need to appeal to something more than one faith's holy text. The people who don't believe in God, or who don't believe the Bible is the word of God, are unlikely to be impressed by an appeal to Scripture.



Honestly, this site doesn't read like it's very well considered at all. It does make a fair point that scientists would hail the discovery of a single living cell on another planet as evidence of extraterrestrial life but the claim that a zygote can maintain homeostasis and respond to its environment seems like a stretch. If life truly begins at conception one might wonder about how the mother's body can flush a zygote that fails to implant out of her body as if it were nothing more than cellular waste. If that zygote were capable of maintaining homeostasis and the other six characteristics of life mentioned by this article we might expect it to survive regardless.

As far as taking a more defensive stance to avoid erring in ways you would prefer not to err you are absolutely free to do that. You just don't get to expect other people to do the same.

I don't expect them to do the same. They don't care, but amazingly some do listen. The majority decides and the majority is not christian.

 

[Albion]

So what is the meaning of the wording? God created something that was man-sized and man-shaped but not yet alive.

Do you seriously believe that God created a humanoid mannequin or something close to that and then after a while caused it, like Frankenstein's monster, to move, think, breathe and so on?? Obviously, that sequence of separate events is not what the wording is saying.

I don't dispute any of this.

Great. But I wasn't arguing with you. I merely took the occasion to offer some additional insights.

In this thread alone we've seen Messy talking about a mother facing almost certain death from continuing a pregnancy simply asking the church to pray.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't like the idea of abortion. But to shift from "I wouldn't seek an abortion" to "you shouldn't seek an abortion" I need something more than my own personal convictions.

Murder is wrong. If the other person is inconvenient, you still don't get to kill him or her.

Other than that, almost all of us here, on all sides of the issue, recognize that there's a difference when the pregnancy imperils the survival of the mother, so that's not an issue. And it certainly is not a valid excuse for a blanket approval of the tens of millions of abortions that are performed annually.

Yes, there is a lot more howling coming from the pro-choice side. The trouble is that some on the pro-life side are willing to strike a compromise and acknowledge that sometimes life is just messy and none of the options are particularly desirable.

I don't know what you are thinking of there or now it might address the point that you appear to have agreed with, to wit, that the pro-life side has been willing to compromise such, for instance, as allowing the termination of pregnancies depending on certain circumstances, such as doing it before there is a heartbeat...while the other side has consistently demanded that there be no restrictions, that the mother should make whatever choice she wants with respect to the existence of her child. Consistent with that mindset, some on that side dare to advocate that AFTER a live birth takes place, the physician and mother should have a talk and decide whether or not to murder the newborn child.

I think that's an important difference between the two sides--or at least between the two sides when it comes to the elected representatives who have the power to write the necessary legislation.

 

[tango]

Do you seriously believe that God created a humanoid mannequin or something close to that and then after a while caused it, like Frankenstein's monster, to move, think, breathe and so on?? Obviously, that sequence of separate events is not what the wording is saying.

What does the text say? God formed the man out of the dust (X) and breathed life into him.

Take a pause at the (X) and you have something man-sized and man-shaped that God had not yet breathed life into. Is there any reason why God has to do everything at once?

If you think the wording means something different why not say what you think it means?

Murder is wrong. If the other person is inconvenient, you still don't get to kill him or her.

Red herring. A discussion is about when the fetus is considered alive doesn't require terms like "murder" because if the fetus is not considered alive it cannot be killed.

Whether the fetus is considered alive determines whether removing it is morally equivalent to murder or trimming your fingernails. Convenience isn't really an issue - if the fetus is not alive then removing it is not killing.

Other than that, almost all of us here, on all sides of the issue, recognize that there's a difference when the pregnancy imperils the survival of the mother, so that's not an issue. And it certainly is not a valid excuse for a blanket approval of the tens of millions of abortions that are performed annually.

Perhaps, but comments like "you should just ask the church to pray" and "why don't you get sterilized" really don't paint a picture of someone who is willing to consider shades of gray. To be clear, that was Messy speaking and not you, but in the context of the thread so it's a bit of a red herring to try and write off discussion of some of the less compromising stances on both sides.

I don't know what you are thinking of there or now it might address the point that you appear to have agreed with, to wit, that the pro-life side has been willing to compromise such, for instance, as allowing the termination of pregnancies depending on certain circumstances, such as doing it before there is a heartbeat...while the other side has consistently demanded that there be no restrictions, that the mother should make whatever choice she wants with respect to the existence of her child. Consistent with that mindset, some on that side dare to advocate that AFTER a live birth takes place, the physician and mother should have a talk and decide whether or not to murder the newborn child.

I think that's an important difference between the two sides--or at least between the two sides when it comes to the elected representatives who have the power to write the necessary legislation.

The trouble is the pro-life side isn't always willing to compromise, hence the comment I made about the 10-year-old who became pregnant as a result of being raped and was not allowed to have an abortion. That doesn't sound much like a compromise position to me.

I don't dispute that the most vocal among the pro-choice brigade demand abortion at any time and for any reason. But let's not pretend there aren't similar hard-liners among the pro-life brigade who would gladly see abortion outlawed without exceptions for child rape victims.

As with so much else, acting as if you pick a side and there are no nuances regarding level of agreement with your chosen side isn't helpful. From statistics someone here posted (I think it was Josiah, but could be wrong) it appears that a majority support abortion with limitations (e.g. when the mother's health is in danger, or during the first trimester for any reason) but, as with so much else, it's the ones who shout the loudest on both sides who draw the attention. It's not a great stance to assume that the nutjobs on my side are just the fringe while simultaneously assuming the nutjobs on the other side are representative of everybody.

 

[Messy]

Do you seriously believe that God created a humanoid mannequin or something close to that and then after a while caused it, like Frankenstein's monster, to move, think, breathe and so on?? Obviously, that sequence of separate events is not what the wording is saying.

Great. But I wasn't arguing with you. I merely took the occasion to offer some additional insights.



Murder is wrong. If the other person is inconvenient, you still don't get to kill him or her.

Other than that, almost all of us here, on all sides of the issue, recognize that there's a difference when the pregnancy imperils the survival of the mother, so that's not an issue. And it certainly is not a valid excuse for a blanket approval of the tens of millions of abortions that are performed annually.


I don't know what you are thinking of there or now it might address the point that you appear to have agreed with, to wit, that the pro-life side has been willing to compromise such, for instance, as allowing the termination of pregnancies depending on certain circumstances, such as doing it before there is a heartbeat...while the other side has consistently demanded that there be no restrictions, that the mother should make whatever choice she wants with respect to the existence of her child. Consistent with that mindset, some on that side dare to advocate that AFTER a live birth takes place, the physician and mother should have a talk and decide whether or not to murder the newborn child.

I think that's an important difference between the two sides--or at least between the two sides when it comes to the elected representatives who have the power to write the necessary legislation.

To be honest I always picture it like that, like Frankenstein, whoosh and he's alive. The text does say that. How else can you see it? That's also with Israel and the valley of dry bones.

 

[Albion]

What does the text say? God formed the man out of the dust (X) and breathed life into him.

Certainly, but the whole passage is strong on imagery and analogies, which is agreed to by most Bible commentators. The idea of God making a dummy that looks like us and then later on literally exhaled wind into the nostrils of that statue, which is how he gained an immortal soul, is not taken super-literally by very many theologians.

Red herring. A discussion is about when the fetus is considered alive doesn't require terms like "murder" because if the fetus is not considered alive it cannot be killed.

Using a term like "fetus" or "embryo" or "clump of cells" is popular among pro-abortion people, precisely because they do not want to admit to the meaning of one person deliberately killing another, in this case a pre-born human child.

Far from being evasive, calling this act a "murder," just as we'd use that word for the act of a person taking a shotgun and blasting his employer into eternity, is the most direct and appropriate word that could be used. I won't object to you using some pseudonym if that is your choice, but I see no reason for me to disguise what's meant when I am the one explaining an abortion.

Whether the fetus is considered alive determines whether removing it is morally equivalent to murder or trimming your fingernails.

Hmmm. When is the fetus in the womb not alive; and what rationale do you offer for opposing laws that prohibit abortions at other times?

Convenience isn't really an issue - if the fetus is not alive then removing it is not killing.

Most abortions are performed for the convenience of the mother; relatively few are performed because there is a medical threat to the mother if she carries it to term.

Perhaps, but comments like "you should just ask the church to pray" and "why don't you get sterilized" really don't paint a picture of someone who is willing to consider shades of gray.

To be clear, that was Messy speaking and not you, but in the context of the thread so it's a bit of a red herring to try and write off discussion of some of the less compromising stances on both sides.

In other words, it has nothing to do with me.

The trouble is the pro-life side isn't always willing to compromise, hence the comment I made about the 10-year-old who became pregnant as a result of being raped and was not allowed to have an abortion.

Isn't "always?" Well, there are many examples of the pro-life members of state legislatures and Congresspersons attempting to limit abortion while not demanding it be an absolute prohibition, and in each case that I know of, the pro-abortion/pro-choice legislators opposed any compromise whatsoever. Therefore, my point is valid. Some individuals may, of course, have their own standards that they'd want imposed, but that doesn't change the record when it comes to the people who have the opportunity to set the nation's (or state's) regulations.

I don't dispute that the most vocal among the pro-choice brigade demand abortion at any time and for any reason.

Good.

But let's not pretend there aren't similar hard-liners among the pro-life brigade who would gladly see abortion outlawed without exceptions for child rape victims.

See the above. And try to defend, it you wish, the attempt made in Congress only a few years ago that came close to banning ONLY "partial birth" abortions (think on that term for a moment!), a small percent of the total number that occur annually. The "pro-choice" legislators stood together to stop even such a reasonable change as that one contemplated.

 

[Albion]

To be honest I always picture it like that, like Frankenstein, whoosh and he's alive. The text does say that. How else can you see it?

I see it as accomplishing the same thing, but the idea of God using his hands (?) and a chisel or other tool to make soil, actually dust, hold together and form a statue, then blow air into the nostrils of the dummy, thus making that inanimate object have a soul, etc. is pointless of God and makes God Almighty into something like superhuman himself instead of being above his creation.

Anyway, all of that is surely imagery not to be taken literally. But at the same time, we can understand the point of the passage as God being the creator, and of him making Man from physical elements for reasons any theologian will explain, and endowing him with something that no lower life form was given--an immortal soul. This is to say that God gave Man a feature than is like that of God himself and which he'd previously endowed the angels with.

In sum, why would we insist upon seeing God's work of Creation in the LEAST miraculous and glorious way imaginable by insisting that he was really just a kind of expert workman who made a better-than-normal work of art when creating humans?

 

[Messy]

I see it as accomplishing the same thing, but the idea of God using his hands (?) and a chisel or other tool to make soil, actually dust, hold together and form a statue, then blow air into the nostrils of the dummy, thus making that inanimate object have a soul, etc. is pointless of God and makes God Almighty into something like superhuman himself instead of being above his creation.

Anyway, all of that is surely imagery not to be taken literally. But at the same time, we can understand the point of the passage as God being the creator, and of him making Man from physical elements for reasons any theologian will explain, and endowing him with something that no lower life form was given--an immortal soul. This is to say that God gave Man a feature than is like that of God himself and which he'd previously endowed the angels with.

In sum, why would we insist upon seeing God's work of Creation in the LEAST miraculous and glorious way imaginable by insisting that he was really just a kind of expert workman who made a better-than-normal work of art when creating humans?

https://i.postimg.cc/fbL1mCSp/humor018.jpg

 

[Messy]

Hey I found something.

Clay may have been birthplace of life on Earth, new study suggests

Clay -- a seemingly infertile blend of minerals -- might have been the birthplace of life on Earth. Or at least of the complex biochemicals that make life possible, biological engineers report.

www.sciencedaily.com

Clay may have been birthplace of life on Earth, new study suggests​

In simulated ancient seawater, clay forms a hydrogel -- a mass of microscopic spaces capable of soaking up liquids like a sponge. Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work. Clay hydrogels could have confined and protected those chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells developed.