Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As for why? Because it gets to the heart of what I've been wanting to know from you:

K. Of course its life. But it's potential at best. Can you take a 3 month baby out of the womb and treat it as a fully functional normal human being? Of course not because even though its life, it is not completely a person yet. Abortion is not killing a person. The life is human but only in genetics and its potential at best. An 8 week baby is nothing like a person at all. So it is not murder.

I can understand that a really late abortion is not good especially in the last month. Obviously the baby has almost or fully, formed. And that point I would Also think its killing a human baby.

However, such late cases are exceptions rather than norm.

When do we become a "person"?
Abortion IS killing a person.
Argue for abortion if you must but I really dont see how you can argue that a baby inutero isnt a person. If theyre not, when do they become one? Are they not given their souls at the point of conception? When do they have their souls, if not at conception? If they have a soul then they are a person.

You tell me when they are given a soul? You seem to know something no on else does.
My argument has nothing to do with a soul. Even an enemy soldier has a soul yet nothing seems wrong in killing him.

You've lost it and thrown logic out the window if that is your argument.

Having a soul isn't an issue. I am talking about cases where abortions are justified. It has nothing to be human or having a soul.

Of course having a soul is an issue! And of course being human is an issue!
You are clearly arguing from an atheist's/evolutionist's perspective which is why you are coming up against so many opposing opinions.

When are abortions justified again? I'm really keen to find out...

You seem pretty strong on stereotypes. Any argument should not be weighed on who said it rather on the merits of the argument itself.

Anyway Reread my post again on the last page.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As for why? Because it gets to the heart of what I've been wanting to know from you:

Kurieuo wrote:It isn't just waste of potential life, but rather waste of actual life. I think, if that clicked with you really, that a baby inutero was as real a human life as a baby born, that you'd not consider such evil a viable solution. For example, I'm assuming you wouldn't consider infanticide a viable solution to whatever issue you believe is the problem.

K. Of course its life. But it's potential at best. Can you take a 3 month baby out of the womb and treat it as a fully functional normal human being? Of course not because even though its life, it is not completely a person yet. Abortion is not killing a person. The life is human but only in genetics and its potential at best. An 8 week baby is nothing like a person at all. So it is not murder.

I can understand that a really late abortion is not good especially in the last month. Obviously the baby has almost or fully, formed. And that point I would Also think its killing a human baby.

However, such late cases are exceptions rather than norm.

Potential life? No, biology tells us from conception there exists human life, a 12 week old baby is just in an early stage of human development, as a child is too developing into an adult. These are just stages of human life that, you, and I, and other human beings have all gone through. Were you not after all once 1 week old in your mother's womb?

Tell me, you often like to go with science and facts, and yet I don't see you following biology here. You say it is life, human life even, but not a person. Well, what does science tell us about what or who is/isn't a "person"? It seems to me here you're introducing a meta-ontology of sorts to divide between that which science tells us is a human life versus some invisibile property that magically turns such a biological entity into a "person". Don't you see how unscientific that is?

Lastly, at what point would say is crossing the line too far? Certainly new born babies aren't fully developed, yet you wouldn't support infanticide it seems as a viable solution to certain woes you see in the world. So then, would you support allowing the lives of pre-borns to be killed right up until birth? Would you draw the line at 30 weeks? 20 weeks? 12 weeks like in many European states? At what point does a human life attain the status of a "person" to you, and why?

This argument really annoys me.
Because everyone cares, everyone is pro life. I’ve never met a person who doesn’t care. Who isn’t invested in life.
Women are at the forefront of this discussion and I think those voices should be heard. We get so lost in the semantics and I know how important the voiceless are but we are tackling and alienating the wrong demographic.
Step out of your comfort zone, look at where and how these situations arise......
The most vunerable, the poorest, the most neglected, forgotten, frowned upon, ridiculed, judged,
and alone. The abused, the preyed upon, the affected and the addicted.
We simultaneously want them to be better but offer nothing to encourage that situation other than judgment in return.
I don’t like abortion because it strips away the humanity of the woman in that position and because I care about life. I care empathetically about her and about her fetus.
But I won’t morally or religiously strip someone from their free will, I won’t dictate another’s actions and I won’t place my expectations upon another.
I’m not their moral compass nor would I pretend to be. Every person has their own compass to navigate. I may at times agree or disagree but I respect their choices to navigate through life with same autonomy of free will that I take for granted everyday.
It’s a very slippery slope when we advocate free will but only according to choices we deem permisable. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to chose when we think free will is a choice.
If we truly have that autonomy then there are consequences and we may not always like the outcome but that is the nature, beauty and struggle of choice.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

neo-x wrote:
K. Of course its life. But it's potential at best. Can you take a 3 month baby out of the womb and treat it as a fully functional normal human being? Of course not because even though its life, it is not completely a person yet. Abortion is not killing a person. The life is human but only in genetics and its potential at best. An 8 week baby is nothing like a person at all. So it is not murder.

I can understand that a really late abortion is not good especially in the last month. Obviously the baby has almost or fully, formed. And that point I would Also think its killing a human baby.

However, such late cases are exceptions rather than norm.

When do we become a "person"?
Abortion IS killing a person.
Argue for abortion if you must but I really dont see how you can argue that a baby inutero isnt a person. If theyre not, when do they become one? Are they not given their souls at the point of conception? When do they have their souls, if not at conception? If they have a soul then they are a person.

You tell me when they are given a soul? You seem to know something no on else does.
My argument has nothing to do with a soul. Even an enemy soldier has a soul yet nothing seems wrong in killing him.

You've lost it and thrown logic out the window if that is your argument.

Having a soul isn't an issue. I am talking about cases where abortions are justified. It has nothing to be human or having a soul.

Of course having a soul is an issue! And of course being human is an issue!
You are clearly arguing from an atheist's/evolutionist's perspective which is why you are coming up against so many opposing opinions.

When are abortions justified again? I'm really keen to find out...

You seem pretty strong on stereotypes. Any argument should not be weighed on who said it rather on the merits of the argument itself.

Anyway Reread my post again on the last page.

So it's stereotypes now is it...
Generally if you are an evolutionist you won't consider abortions to be wrong, hence my statement.

All I could find was this:

5. The reason I said it's not murder is that it technically just isn't. If you have a justification to kill/end life if you consider the pros and cons, and I am using the same yardstick here Rick, the one you referred to about the Nuking post. That if you take all factors in, it just seems to me that, yes it is also justifiable to have an abortion.

So basically if you take the pros and cons in your life and then decide whether or not to have an abortion. The one problem is that your pros and cons are all subjective, so really people could come up with any reason under the sun and label it a con. Abortion good to go!

This makes sense if you are an atheist/evolutionist because your worldview allows for it. As a Christian, it's simple, the Bible doesn't allow you to just kill your unborn baby.

neo-x wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As for why? Because it gets to the heart of what I've been wanting to know from you:

Kurieuo wrote:It isn't just waste of potential life, but rather waste of actual life. I think, if that clicked with you really, that a baby inutero was as real a human life as a baby born, that you'd not consider such evil a viable solution. For example, I'm assuming you wouldn't consider infanticide a viable solution to whatever issue you believe is the problem.

K. Of course its life. But it's potential at best. Can you take a 3 month baby out of the womb and treat it as a fully functional normal human being? Of course not because even though its life, it is not completely a person yet. Abortion is not killing a person. The life is human but only in genetics and its potential at best. An 8 week baby is nothing like a person at all. So it is not murder.

I can understand that a really late abortion is not good especially in the last month. Obviously the baby has almost or fully, formed. And that point I would Also think its killing a human baby.

However, such late cases are exceptions rather than norm.

When do we become a "person"?
Abortion IS killing a person.
Argue for abortion if you must but I really dont see how you can argue that a baby inutero isnt a person. If theyre not, when do they become one? Are they not given their souls at the point of conception? When do they have their souls, if not at conception? If they have a soul then they are a person.

You tell me when they are given a soul? You seem to know something no on else does.
My argument has nothing to do with a soul. Even an enemy soldier has a soul yet nothing seems wrong in killing him. Having a soul isn't an issue. I am talking about cases where abortions are justified. It has nothing to be human or having a soul.

They are given a soul at the moment of conception.
You said in an earlier post that a 3 month old baby inutero isnt a "person", if it isnt a person then what is it and when does such life become a "person"?

melanie wrote:This argument really annoys me.
Because everyone cares, everyone is pro life. I’ve never met a person who doesn’t care. Who isn’t invested in life.
Women are at the forefront of this discussion and I think those voices should be heard. We get so lost in the semantics and I know how important the voiceless are but we are tackling and alienating the wrong demographic.
Step out of your comfort zone, look at where and how these situations arise......
The most vunerable, the poorest, the most neglected, forgotten, frowned upon, ridiculed, judged,
and alone. The abused, the preyed upon, the affected and the addicted.
We simultaneously want them to be better but offer nothing to encourage that situation other than judgment in return.
I don’t like abortion because it strips away the humanity of the woman in that position and because I care about life. I care empathetically about her and about her fetus.
But I won’t morally or religiously strip someone from their free will, I won’t dictate another’s actions and I won’t place my expectations upon another.
I’m not their moral compass nor would I pretend to be. Every person has their own compass to navigate. I may at times agree or disagree but I respect their choices to navigate through life with same automy of free will that I take for granted everyday.
It’s a very slippery slope when we advocate free will but only according to choices we deem permisable. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to chose when we think free will is a choice.
If we truly have that automy then there are consequences and we may not always like the outcome but that is the beauty and struggle of choice.

Sorry but it simply doesn't work like that.

Yes we have freewill, BUT God also set us LIMITATIONS that we must abide by. Freewill but only so far.

Freewill, yes, but thou shalt not:
Murder
Steal
etc, etc.

Abortions falls under no murder. As Kurieuo set out above quite nicely a baby in the womb is still considered human and you shall not kill/murder a human.

melanie wrote:This argument really annoys me.
Because everyone cares, everyone is pro life. I’ve never met a person who doesn’t care. Who isn’t invested in life.
Women are at the forefront of this discussion and I think those voices should be heard. We get so lost in the semantics and I know how important the voiceless are but we are tackling and alienating the wrong demographic.
Step out of your comfort zone, look at where and how these situations arise......
The most vunerable, the poorest, the most neglected, forgotten, frowned upon, ridiculed, judged,
and alone. The abused, the preyed upon, the affected and the addicted.
We simultaneously want them to be better but offer nothing to encourage that situation other than judgment in return.
I don’t like abortion because it strips away the humanity of the woman in that position and because I care about life. I care empathetically about her and about her fetus.
But I won’t morally or religiously strip someone from their free will, I won’t dictate another’s actions and I won’t place my expectations upon another.
I’m not their moral compass nor would I pretend to be. Every person has their own compass to navigate. I may at times agree or disagree but I respect their choices to navigate through life with same autonomy of free will that I take for granted everyday.
It’s a very slippery slope when we advocate free will but only according to choices we deem permisable. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to chose when we think free will is a choice.
If we truly have that automy then there are consequences and we may not always like the outcome but that is the beauty and struggle of choice.

I agree that we all have free will and I, personally, would respect someones decision but that doesnt mean i have to agree with it.

I’m not personally going to go into where my views lie either way but your example of thou shall not’s have very extreme variables.
Thou shall not murder but yet young and traumatised youths have been convicted of death in very questionable circumstances, especially in the US.
Thou shall not steal has many questionable situations as to when that falls into sinful actions.
Life isn’t black or white, I wish it was because things wouldn’t be so complicated but that’s not reality.
People lie, they steal and they kill not because they are evil but because they are desperate. Good people make awful choices and not so good great people make simple judgments.

Neo wrote:
5. The reason I said it's not murder is that it technically just isn't. If you have a justification to kill/end life if you consider the pros and cons, and I am using the same yardstick here Rick, the one you referred to about the Nuking post. That if you take all factors in, it just seems to me that, yes it is also justifiable to have an abortion.

Rick, Thank you for your candid thoughts. I was a bit surprised that you didn't spot the irony in what you said. You initially called me out in the inconsistency that I held nuking Japan, unjustified but not abortion and I believe your argument is that nuking Japan can be justified but abortion can't be. Do you see that abortion can too be justified, the same as the nuking? We're basically saying the same thing. You hold the nuking, justified and not abortion and me Vice versa. If there is an inconsistency then it is in both of our arguments. Or else you can agree with me that they are two very different issues.

Like I said before, I may be missing something. So please, before I can answer, I'd like to hear the reasoning you have to say that abortion is not only justified, but necessary.

Well guys. You don't agree. I can see that. My experience is my own, based on where I live and what I have seen and I have given my reasons for it. I think you are not addressing them and the real world implications of what you suggest. It is not black or white.

I don't know when does a person gets soul. And based on everyone's answer, no one does. Nor do I think that is relevant to my argument. I suppose when the brain is fully formed is where the baby becomes human in the true sense of the word. My point is that unless its a fully formed baby, killing it is not like murdering someone.

A 3 month baby in the womb is potential human life.

I maintain that its silly to call abortion murder. Just a lot of emotional hyperbole thrown around. I don't advocate abortion but I understand why it happens and sometimes there are plenty of justified reasons for it.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
5. The reason I said it's not murder is that it technically just isn't. If you have a justification to kill/end life if you consider the pros and cons, and I am using the same yardstick here Rick, the one you referred to about the Nuking post. That if you take all factors in, it just seems to me that, yes it is also justifiable to have an abortion.

Rick, Thank you for your candid thoughts. I was a bit surprised that you didn't spot the irony in what you said. You initially called me out in the inconsistency that I held nuking Japan, unjustified but not abortion and I believe your argument is that nuking Japan can be justified but abortion can't be. Do you see that abortion can too be justified, the same as the nuking? We're basically saying the same thing. You hold the nuking, justified and not abortion and me Vice versa. If there is an inconsistency then it is in both of our arguments. Or else you can agree with me that they are two very different issues.

Like I said before, I may be missing something. So please, before I can answer, I'd like to hear the reasoning you have to say that abortion is not only justified, but necessary.

It's necessary in conditions of extreme poverty, like I wrote in point 4 of my post. People don't get abortions because they like to. Desperation and poverty and a miserable life more so becomes the reason. Especially what happens to such a child in these conditions.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
5. The reason I said it's not murder is that it technically just isn't. If you have a justification to kill/end life if you consider the pros and cons, and I am using the same yardstick here Rick, the one you referred to about the Nuking post. That if you take all factors in, it just seems to me that, yes it is also justifiable to have an abortion.

Rick, Thank you for your candid thoughts. I was a bit surprised that you didn't spot the irony in what you said. You initially called me out in the inconsistency that I held nuking Japan, unjustified but not abortion and I believe your argument is that nuking Japan can be justified but abortion can't be. Do you see that abortion can too be justified, the same as the nuking? We're basically saying the same thing. You hold the nuking, justified and not abortion and me Vice versa. If there is an inconsistency then it is in both of our arguments. Or else you can agree with me that they are two very different issues.

Like I said before, I may be missing something. So please, before I can answer, I'd like to hear the reasoning you have to say that abortion is not only justified, but necessary.

It's necessary in conditions of extreme poverty, like I wrote in point 4 of my post. People don't get abortions because they like to. Desperation and poverty and a miserable life more so becomes the reason. Especially what happens to such a child in these conditions.

So, would you say that in those cases, abortion would be the least bad, option?

Maybe thought of as the least evil choice, among all available choices?

neo-x wrote:Well guys. You don't agree. I can see that. My experience is my own, based on where I live and what I have seen and I have given my reasons for it. I think you are not addressing them and the real world implications of what you suggest. It is not black or white.

I don't know when does a person gets soul. And based on everyone's answer, no one does. Nor do I think that is relevant to my argument. I suppose when the brain is fully formed is where the baby becomes human in the true sense of the word. My point is that unless its a fully formed baby, killing it is not like murdering someone.

A 3 month baby in the womb is potential human life.

I maintain that its silly to call abortion murder. Just a lot of emotional hyperbole thrown around. I don't advocate abortion but I understand why it happens and sometimes there are plenty of justified reasons for it.

Psalm 139
1 You have searched me, LORD, and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely. 5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Why is it not relevant as to when we have a soul? Is it not our soul that makes us who we are, made in His image?
I understand why abortion happens, I can even sympathise but that doesnt detract from the fact it is murder. It is intentionally ending a life.

melanie wrote:I’m not personally going to go into where my views lie either way but your example of thou shall not’s have very extreme variables.
Thou shall not murder but yet young and traumatised youths have been convicted of death in very questionable circumstances, especially in the US.
Thou shall not steal has many questionable situations as to when that falls into sinful actions.
Life isn’t black or white, I wish it was because things wouldn’t be so complicated but that’s not reality.
People lie, they steal and they kill not because they are evil but because they are desperate. Good people make awful choices and not so good great people make simple judgments.

Im not disputing anything you say mel and personally I dont agree with the death penalty either.
My point is that only God has the right to take a life.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
5. The reason I said it's not murder is that it technically just isn't. If you have a justification to kill/end life if you consider the pros and cons, and I am using the same yardstick here Rick, the one you referred to about the Nuking post. That if you take all factors in, it just seems to me that, yes it is also justifiable to have an abortion.

Rick, Thank you for your candid thoughts. I was a bit surprised that you didn't spot the irony in what you said. You initially called me out in the inconsistency that I held nuking Japan, unjustified but not abortion and I believe your argument is that nuking Japan can be justified but abortion can't be. Do you see that abortion can too be justified, the same as the nuking? We're basically saying the same thing. You hold the nuking, justified and not abortion and me Vice versa. If there is an inconsistency then it is in both of our arguments. Or else you can agree with me that they are two very different issues.

Like I said before, I may be missing something. So please, before I can answer, I'd like to hear the reasoning you have to say that abortion is not only justified, but necessary.

It's necessary in conditions of extreme poverty, like I wrote in point 4 of my post. People don't get abortions because they like to. Desperation and poverty and a miserable life more so becomes the reason. Especially what happens to such a child in these conditions.

So, would you say that in those cases, abortion would be the least bad, option?

Maybe thought of as the least evil choice, among all available choices?

Yes, I Can agree to that.