Evidence for God from Science

.
.
I guess one can argue that live begins at the first breath of air as was the case with Adam. There are problems with this too, I admit and this is not the basis of my position as pro choice, but is one aspect. As I've mentioned, I don't hold to pro choice after a certain amount of development. So this argument is almost moot, but still good in the sense that "life" must begin at some point and just cells prior to that. Where exactly God makes that line (if there is one) is not made known to us specifically. I think since God has given us brains, we can make educated guesses at what point this begins.

I would tell you not to kill that person, it's not a good idea. But the decision is yours and the consequences are yours. Pro Choice in regard to abortion is not that "we" say it's ok, but rather "it is your decision". Should the woman choose to go ahead with abortion, here is the legal, safe means to do so.

If God is responsible for most, if not all miscarriages, what does that say about the whole situation?

Life does begin at conception. I wont argue that as that is my belief also. The question is, when is that "life" a human that in aborting is murder?

I do understand the unpardonable sin and that abortion is not it.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is interesting you always seem to condone pro-abortion side Bav. Any reason for this?

What's interesting is that you quote my words of being pro choice and then label me pro abortion. Now that may be because you falsly equate the two, but they are not equal at all.

I am pro choice...that's not to say I am pro abortion. I believe it is a choice for the woman to make (along with the father if he's stuck around for the decision). Does this condone murder? To some degree one can argue so. However it is no different to allow that choice than God allows us all choices. There may not be immediate civil consequences with a pro choice "law", but that doesn't mean the woman lives life without consequences after the fact.

You're entitled to label yourself pro-choice. However, if someone was pro-choice on infanticide (i.e., I won't do, but by all means you make your own decision), then such sanctioning is pro-infanticide. Abortion is no different to me. I am entitled to my belief that pro-choice on abortion equates to pro-abortion.

I guess you're entitled then. The next time I feel entitled to label you or someone else, I'll feel free to do so.

A little over dramatic don't you think? I don't like your attempts to try and negatively frame me.

Sorry that I can't have my opinion without you feeling attacked. Other readers can decide whether my belief that pro-choice is ultimately pro-abortion is an attack on you.

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No doubt abortion still would exist, as does drunken violence, as does murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you. Would you have the law legalise infanticide, or if it were legal, would you care to try change such laws to provide greater protection to infants? Why or why not?

The better question is what are "we" doing about drunken violence, murder, rape, illicit drug use and what-have-you? Nothing? Anyone that drinks is happy that a law doesn't exist keeping you all from drinking because it allows you to drink and get drunk as long as you don't get violent.
By partaking of the drink and being part of the legalization of drinking, you are enabling drunken violence...and all the crime that results because of drinking. But you Christians that drink and every other "pro life" person that "legally" drinks is a hypocrite!

Jesus turned water into wine. I guess this makes Jesus a hypocrite too.

I don't believe Jesus turned water to wine as we know it today.
Wine in the Bible

Yes, I am aware to the idea the wine was just "juice". The context however indicates otherwise.

Does it make sense at a wedding banquet that everyone in merely drinking juice which the caterers (servants) panicked a little over having run out of? (John 2:3)

Does it makes sense that at everyone's wedding they bring out the "choice juice" and only "cheaper juice" once "the guests have had too much to drink"? (John 2:10 NIV) Does it make further sense that the one throwing the banquet makes mention of the servants saving the best "juice" until last.

An objective look without being slanted to any particular theology will tell you that it was wine (alcohol) that Jesus turned the water into.

Granted alcohol can be abused, and perhaps you suffered abuse from it on par with the unborn who are suctioned apart. However, a drink or two day in particular of red wine, also has many great health benefits.

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:At least if abortion were illegal (and it is to some degree is many states):

• women would not as easily deceived about the nature of the unborn
• the unborn would now legally be entitled to the human rights they deserve in virtue of their humanness.

Do you really believe they are decieved? Quite certainly there are those that don't think twice about the aborted after the fact, I won't deny that at all, but the vast majority know what they are doing and suffer long after for their actions. No, I don't buy that they're being decieved.

Quite a generalisation. Many women getting abortions think because it is legal that they are not killing human life. I know this, because I know some women who have had abortions.

You say, "Quite a generalization" to me and then in your next breath you say, "I know this, because I know some..." What's that saying about a pot and kettle?

Since when did "many" = "all"?

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Bav wrote:The unborn have human rights? I don't think I would go THAT far.

Wouldn't go "THAT far". What, are they frogs and not humans?

Frogs? Did I mention frogs? I thought we were talking about rights of humans??? How did frogs come into this...oh, unless...oh nevermind.

Well, do the unborn deserve "animal rights" if not "human rights"?

What species would you have me believe the human fetus is, if not human so as to not be entitled to "human rights"?

Bav wrote:You tell me. Are rights afforded at conception, first, second, third trimester, or at birth? When should a SSN be issued? If the unborn have rights, then certainly the mother of the unborn can start collecting on those rights? Where exactly are those rights, who is giving those rights and then who pays for those rights? What rights? How many and what are these rights? Where were the rights of the ("innocent") children that God commanded be killed along with their parents in the OT days? What rights?

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology
"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

Human Embryology & Teratology
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

Based on medical embryology textbooks, you tell me when a human life begins. When a human life begins, then it makes sense such a life should be entitled to "human" rights.

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Bav wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And those who want abortion, as you have stated in your own words, could still seek out ways of having one. No doubt just as safely as visiting their local clinic (or underground pro-abortionist doctor). They would just be doing so illegally and could be charged with killing an innocent human life.

So what's the punishment for killing an "innocent" human life? What do you think they should get as a sentence?

I have my thoughts as to what is a just penalty for murder. Whether it can be justly applied is another question.

What I think is irrelevant however. Penalties are something for legislators in a country to decide.

All of a sudden we have thoughts about how difficult penalty for this is? I thought you and pro lifers had this all figured out? No? How can you be so sure of the crime, but "unsure" of the penalty? I would be very interested in your insight for the punishment, please share.

Have a read of the following article: Punishing Illegal Abortion: If abortion is murder, should aborting women be tried as murderers?

Bav wrote:All of a sudden we have democratic thinking that says, "leave that to the legislators..." You wash your hands of their punishment as long as there is punishment for their murderous acts? What if legislators and thus society deem it legal? All of a sudden you're not much for democracy. Or what if the punishment is probation? The punishment must fit the crime, yes? The woman is no danger to humans already born, just the unborn. Let's ban her from maternity wards for five years and she can't be within 50 yards of a pregnant female. Isn't that enough? What is your idea of punishment fitting the crime? I am interested.

Nice show Bav

Bav wrote:This thread has evolved to an Abortion thread...maybe someone should split or start a new topic?

I intend to split it once the abortion discussion dies down. I hope that is fine by you Bav?

I guess one can argue that live begins at the first breath of air as was the case with Adam.

One look at a sonogram of a pregnant woman throws that argument out the window.

As I've mentioned, I don't hold to pro choice after a certain amount of development. So this argument is almost moot, but still good in the sense that "life" must begin at some point and just cells prior to that.

What is your deciding factor of when you don't hold to pro choice? Lets pick a time. During the 3rd trimester? What happens if it's 1 day before the 3rd trimester? 1 week? Don't you see the problem with choosing a time other than conception? Life does begin at some point. CONCEPTION! Before that you have a sperm, and an egg. Two different cells. At conception, it is now a human being. It can't be anything but a human. A man and woman reproduce. They have human babies, nothing else.

Should the woman choose to go ahead with abortion, here is the legal, safe means to do so.

Listen to what you're saying here! Safe means to do so? How is any abortion safe? Someone dies every time an abortion is successful. One of God's children, that He formed in the womb, in His image, is killed. Nothing safe about that.

If God is responsible for most, if not all miscarriages, what does that say about the whole situation?

It says that God is God. He alone creates life. He alone should have the power to take away life. We shouldn't play God.

RickD wrote:It says that God is God. He alone creates life. He alone should have the power to take away life. We shouldn't play God.

This is true.

My line for pro choice...is very early. I'd say at a stab, it's within the first 8 weeks. After that, I lean pro life.

I suppose we disagree on much.
.
.

Do you really believe they are decieved?

ABSOLUTELY.
I dare you to watch this movie. This was made by an abortion doctor who had performed thousands of procedures. He admits, he himself was deceived.


http://www.silentscream.org/silentscream.html

Has anyone watched the link video that Jlay has posted? i want to watch it but I'm kinda scared its going to be too disturbing to handle.... how disturbing is it out of 10? ( 10 being highest )

humblesmurph wrote:

DannyM wrote:

humblesmurph wrote:Edit: Oh, I found it. You'd like to know how I'd react if you slapped my mother. I can't answer that for sure I really don't know. I assume I'd beat you until you died or I got tired, but you may be tougher than the average woman beater.

Yes, you wouldn't be too happy. But what if the 'law of the land' says I was perfectly entitled to smack your mother in the mouth and that you, sir, are not entitled to object?

It's nice to see you getting so emotional about the question.

Not emotional. Wouldn't require emotion to beat you up. It goes both ways. If you are perfectly entitled to smack my mother, I'm perfectly entitled to beat you like a rented mule.

Pure emotion, actually. Emotion is dripping from your post. I merely gave you an unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, and you have responded with unbridled emotion. I couldn't have asked for more. Thank you.

CeT-to

I won't lie, it is very disturbing. It's a 10. It is so disturbing that the pro-abortion crowd has spent years trying to convince everyone that the video is altered to make it more disturbing. Ironic isn't it.

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:It says that God is God. He alone creates life. He alone should have the power to take away life. We shouldn't play God.

This is true.

My line for pro choice...is very early. I'd say at a stab, it's within the first 8 weeks. After that, I lean pro life.

I suppose we disagree on much.
.
.

Bav, there's a problem with this line of reasoning. If one draws a line like you did, at whatever time, say the 8th week just for the sake of discussion. If, by your example, it's ok to have an abortion anytime before the 8th week, then that would mean it's ok to abort 1 day before the 8th week. So, now with that argument, the fetus is not human 1 day before the 8th week. But, only 1 day later on the 8th week, it becomes human? Tell me how this is logical. Whatever time one picks to draw the line, has to have a time before that it would be "OK" to have an abortion. It's just not a logical argument. Think about it Bav. The only logical way is to say that life physically begins at the moment of conception. Your argument says that an 8 week old fetus is too far developed(do not abort). A fetus 7 weeks and 6 days isn't too developed to be aborted. Or 7 weeks and 5 days. How can one logically draw the line like that? Bav, I've said it before. I'm a simple guy. Simple logical things make sense to me. One can't get much simpler and logical than this: Physical human life could only begin at the moment of conception. A sperm is a single cell. An egg is a single cell. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, it becomes a multi-cell human. It can't be anything else. God has designed reproduction this way. Humans reproduce humans. I don't understand why you can't understand this. The only logical explanation to defend your position of making an early stage abortion ok, is that you're trying to justify something that happened. If someone had an abortion, God will forgive him/her. As bad as abortion is, God doesn't lie when He says He will forgive our sins. 1 John 1:9.

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:It says that God is God. He alone creates life. He alone should have the power to take away life. We shouldn't play God.

This is true.

My line for pro choice...is very early. I'd say at a stab, it's within the first 8 weeks. After that, I lean pro life.

I suppose we disagree on much.
.
.

Bav, there's a problem with this line of reasoning. If one draws a line like you did, at whatever time, say the 8th week just for the sake of discussion. If, by your example, it's ok to have an abortion anytime before the 8th week, then that would mean it's ok to abort 1 day before the 8th week. So, now with that argument, the fetus is not human 1 day before the 8th week. But, only 1 day later on the 8th week, it becomes human? Tell me how this is logical. Whatever time one picks to draw the line, has to have a time before that it would be "OK" to have an abortion. It's just not a logical argument. Think about it Bav. The only logical way is to say that life physically begins at the moment of conception. Your argument says that an 8 week old fetus is too far developed(do not abort). A fetus 7 weeks and 6 days isn't too developed to be aborted. Or 7 weeks and 5 days. How can one logically draw the line like that? Bav, I've said it before. I'm a simple guy. Simple logical things make sense to me. One can't get much simpler and logical than this: Physical human life could only begin at the moment of conception. A sperm is a single cell. An egg is a single cell. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, it becomes a multi-cell human. It can't be anything else. God has designed reproduction this way. Humans reproduce humans. I don't understand why you can't understand this. The only logical explanation to defend your position of making an early stage abortion ok, is that you're trying to justify something that happened. If someone had an abortion, God will forgive him/her. As bad as abortion is, God doesn't lie when He says He will forgive our sins. 1 John 1:9.

I find it amusing you think I would have difficulty understanding that humans reproduce humans.

I think we both agree abortion is never "ok". However, I think in this society, the mother should have rights above the rights of the unborn. I don't know where that line is, I'm not an expert on gestational growth of a fetus, but if there is going to be a time, it should be very early.
.
.

I find it amusing you think I would have difficulty understanding that humans reproduce humans.

Bav, The reason I said that is because you said this:

My line for pro choice...is very early. I'd say at a stab, it's within the first 8 weeks. After that, I lean pro life.

My problem is that you seem to think that at some point after conception, you think that the fetus is not actually a human being from your saying this:

As I've mentioned, I don't hold to pro choice after a certain amount of development. So this argument is almost moot, but still good in the sense that "life" must begin at some point and just cells prior to that.

However, I think in this society, the mother should have rights above the rights of the unborn.

Again, you are saying that the mother's "rights" should come before the baby's "rights" to live? I just want to be clear on that. You, as a Christian believe that a mother's rights to live her life free from a distraction of having a baby, should override the rights of God, who formed that baby? God created the life. Only He should have the power to take the life. What is so hard to understand about this?

RickD wrote:

I find it amusing you think I would have difficulty understanding that humans reproduce humans.

Bav, The reason I said that is because you said this:

My line for pro choice...is very early. I'd say at a stab, it's within the first 8 weeks. After that, I lean pro life.

My problem is that you seem to think that at some point after conception, you think that the fetus is not actually a human being from your saying this:

As I've mentioned, I don't hold to pro choice after a certain amount of development. So this argument is almost moot, but still good in the sense that "life" must begin at some point and just cells prior to that.

However, I think in this society, the mother should have rights above the rights of the unborn.

Again, you are saying that the mother's "rights" should come before the baby's "rights" to live? I just want to be clear on that. You, as a Christian believe that a mother's rights to live her life free from a distraction of having a baby, should override the rights of God, who formed that baby? God created the life. Only He should have the power to take the life. What is so hard to understand about this?

It's not hard. The problem is you're assuming every mother is a Christian, God-fearing woman whose morals equal yours. You're assuming we live in a Christian society. You're assuming your (our) Christian morals on society when society (in some places) thinks the woman's right is above the unborn. I simply agree it so, in this society.

What's so hard to understand about that?
.
.

It's not hard. The problem is you're assuming every mother is a Christian, God-fearing woman whose morals equal yours. You're assuming we live in a Christian society. You're assuming your (our) Christian morals on society when society (in some places) thinks the woman's right is above the unborn. I simply agree it so, in this society.

What's so hard to understand about that?

1) I'm not assuming every mother is a Christian. I'm just stating that a fetus is human, and that killing that fetus is just as wrong as murdering a person who has been born. 2) I absolutely DON'T believe we live in a Christian society. see this thread I started:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 30&t=34142 3) I'm not assuming my, or anyone elses morals on society. I'm just trying to make the point that if the fetus is human, then it should be protected under our country's laws just like any "born" person. 4)The American "society" in the 1800's(especially in the south) thought it was legal to own a human being. The slaves "rights" to live free were deemed less important than the slave owners rights to selfishly own that slave. Just like in today's society the baby's right to live is deemed less important than the mother's right to selfishly kill that baby. Slavery was wrong. It was eventually not legal anymore. Abortion is wrong. It's still legal. Don't you see the problem?

What does Proverbs 6:16, 17 and Genesis 9:6 say?

What of Jeremiah 7:6 and Jeremiah 22:3 ?
-
-
-

It's not hard. The problem is you're assuming every mother is a Christian, God-fearing woman whose morals equal yours. You're assuming we live in a Christian society. You're assuming your (our) Christian morals on society when society (in some places) thinks the woman's right is above the unborn. I simply agree it so, in this society.

???
Why does one have to be a christian to understand personhood? WHy are the rights of the unborn only applicable to 'Christians.' I don't see that.

The woman may very well have more rights. But, what rights are we talking about? Please be specific. I mean we are talking about the termination of a life here.
Are we talking about the mother's right to live? That is a very specific right, and very few pregancies (less than 1%) in the developed world end in the death of the mother. People do not have the right to do anything they want to do. What right is being violated by not allowing a woman to destroy her unborn child? Being inconvenienced is not a violation of rights.