Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Hardly hypocritical. My point is not that abortion, made legal, is right. Just because "common" murder is illegal doesn't stop the murders either, but obviously there is a difference in the type of murder since there is all this controversy. A controversy I happen to be at odds with some of you.

Nice justification. There was a difference with black slaves once upon a time too. Oh, people still make slaves of other people too.

I don't know how any Christian can get around the simple argument: All human life is intrinsically valuable and ought to be protected. After conception there exists human life. Therefore the unborn human life is valuable and ought to be protected.

Of course, you can choose follow foundations provided by secularised belief systems which logically leads to the self as being the centre of the universe. So if I can get away with taking a human life that might infringe on my own, and such be swept under the carpet with no consequences, so why not? Who is going to know any better. After all, this is the only life I'll live. So f we kill a human life which can't speak up and get away because I don't want it infringing upon my life, then why not?

Bav, I see it apparent that you like to speak a lot of words, Christian works and otherwise, but it seems to me your heart and Christ Himself even is missing. Maybe this is a reflection upon hardships in your own life while growing up, or a lack of understanding to do with God's grace offer through Christ which I see Jac rightly presses even if to an extreme. Who knows? But it is apparent to me nonetheless.

I've never claimed life, any life is not valuable. In fact if you go back and read the original abortion thread (or at least the prior one from this) you'll notice I consider ALL life equally important. (or it was the thread about marijuana and alcohol??)

I don't distinguish between the unborn life and the already living. All life is important and worth saving. That's why I found (and still find) it odd that any Christian would condone and use alcohol since it's abuse is a major cause of human lives unwillingly taken. That argument is over there in the other thread.

You have mentioned a few times that the unborn life is unable to protect itself and speak up. Which victim(s) of murder do you know had that chance? Which victim(s) of drunk drivers do you know were able to stop the moment before being killed, and plead their case for life? Which pedestrian strolling along the Blvd. and struck by a drunk driver with no warning was able to quickly plead their case?

I like to speak a lot of words? Interesting thought in light of my post count considering how long I've been here. I speak simply the words that convey my belief(s) as does everyone else. Christian works? Are you claiming I'm a legalist when I believe EXACTLY as you do that I am saved by grace, through Christ and not by my works, but by His? My claim is simply that the ONE commandment should be upheld in the same light as the others every other Christian upholds as worthy to follow. It's not about "works", but about simply doing God's will. If you believe my life is without Christ, that's your perogative to believe. Your assumptions do not make it truth in my life. Luckily it matters not what you think, but only what Christ knows.

Jac and I never disagreed on grace and salvation. Shows how much you've been paying attention. What Jac and I disagree on is simple. It's whether the 4th Commandment remains relevant in the life of the Christian. I say God wrote it, argued for it while He was on this earth, and reaffirmed it along with the rest of the Commandments in one word...LOVE. Jac may've pleaded for me to come out from under the law, but I've never said we're under law for salvation so it's not an argument I've made.

Jac says all were reaffirmed EXCEPT the 4th Commandment. Jac says it was nailed to the cross(along with the rest), but then brought back again ironically before being nailed to the cross. Jac says it's a law only for the Jews. Jac says a few other things, but I was never under the impression that we differed on Grace and Salvation through Christ and Christ alone. I don't mind that he got a bit flustered...I do also. The nature of discussing religion and politics is such that someone will get flustered and/or angry.

I'm sorry you feel I'm a lost cause. I sincerely hope that when the time comes and Christ returns to glorify these dying bodies, that we will all find each other somewhere up there and shake hands and be friends. It seems you may be unwilling to be so here with someone that has different views than you do. I've always considered you all "friends" and still do. I don't hold anything against you, Kurieuo, or Jac for differing with my views and I thought that was mirrored back to me, but maybe not.
.
.

This is not aimed at one particular person nor was it triggered by the most recent post. As I've not been involved in this thread and hopefully can do so without my motives being questioned, might I be so bold as to remind all those on this thread of the Discussion Guidelines and in particular:

Mannerism
Within discussions, please be civil and courteous and do not resort to personal attacks. If you feel inappropriately attacked, please bring such cases privately to a moderator who can then intervene as necessary. While these instructions are likely unnecessary for the vast majority of participants, here is some biblical advice to help serve as a guide for conversations:


Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - "in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12).
"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)
"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6)
"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8)


Constructive Discussions
To have a constructive discussion, there are at least four main requirements:

At Least Two People: This point should be obvious.
A Specific Topic: All conversations should have one specific topic, and as such should remain on that topic. Any new topic that forks out and is too far removed, should be started as a new thread or brought to a moderator's attention.
Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.
Self-control: Chances are you will disagree with someone, and it is at this point discussions can turn nasty. Please remember to be respectful to others and keep to the topic rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Disagreement is fine. Passion is fine. Let's try collectively to keep these things in mind.

blessings,

bart

Bav wrote:Which victim(s) of murder do you know had that chance? Which victim(s) of drunk drivers do you know were able to stop the moment before being killed, and plead their case for life? Which pedestrian strolling along the Blvd. and struck by a drunk driver with no warning was able to quickly plead their case?

Absolutely, Bav, now you see why we view abortion with such abhorence, we equate with that murder! Drunk driver *are* prosecuted!! Murder/manslaughter/negligent homocide,etc all have consequences in our society. Why, then are you willing to let an act against the most helpless in society go simply because the murderer might get injured?

There is nobody forcing women to go *get* an abortion. She doesn't *have* to go get one. She *Can* give it up for adoption. She can darn well carry it for 9 months and then give it up for adoption.

What is scary is that life has been so devalued in an attempt to relieve the guilt from this act.

Kurieuo wrote:I don't know how any Christian can get around the simple argument: All human life is intrinsically valuable and ought to be protected. After conception there exists human life. Therefore the unborn human life is valuable and ought to be protected.

[DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT]
At some point between conception and birth, a fertilized egg undergoes a transformation from being a part of the mother to being an individual person in it's own right. After this transition, abortion is considered murder; before the transition, abortion is a medical procedure much like having a cyst or mole excised. There is disagreement about exactly when this transition takes place - generally, the more religious you are, the more likely you are to perceive the transitioning as occurring at or very near conception.
[/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT]
Does the Bible (or whatever) give any basis for where God considers this transition occurring?

It seems to me that the case might be better made if we could make it along a line of reasoning similar to this.

THe fertilized is never parat of the mother, it has it's own DNA, it's own immune patterns....what do you mean by "part of"?

Do you that it relies on the mother?

waynepii wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I don't know how any Christian can get around the simple argument: All human life is intrinsically valuable and ought to be protected. After conception there exists human life. Therefore the unborn human life is valuable and ought to be protected.

[DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT]
At some point between conception and birth, a fertilized egg undergoes a transformation from being a part of the mother to being an individual person in it's own right. After this transition, abortion is considered murder; before the transition, abortion is a medical procedure much like having a cyst or mole excised. There is disagreement about exactly when this transition takes place - generally, the more religious you are, the more likely you are to perceive the transitioning as occurring at or very near conception.
[/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT]

The Devil has enough advocates.

wayne wrote:Does the Bible (or whatever) give any basis for where God considers this transition occurring?

It endorses the inherent value of human life because of the imago dei. So we can turn to biology for a response.

wayne wrote:1) An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

In addition to zoegirl's words...

1) An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2) In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3) In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

4) As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

5) It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

6) When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.

7) It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

8 ) When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.

9) Sir Albert Lilley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.... It is the embryo who stops his mother's periods and makes her womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He regulates his own amniotic fluid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And finally, it is the fetus, not the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated.

To put it simply, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

http://www.abort73.com/?/abortion/prena ... hers_body/