Abortion - at what point does a baby have the right to life?

[DialecticSkeptic]

Healthcare!!!

Murder of human life in the womb is now healthcare????

Only if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

And there is a difference between terminating a pregnancy (healthcare) and abortion (murder). In situations like ectopic pregnancies or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, terminating the pregnancy may be necessary. The difference is whether the death of the child was intentional or unintentional.

Abortion is an intentional act to kill the fetus, whereas other medical procedures may unintentionally result in fetal death while attempting to save both lives. (This is why born alive laws are so important, such as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" that Tim Walz killed in Minnesota.)

 

[makesends]

It seems like you've put some thought into this.

I don't know that I agree... a plant or animal also has distinct DNA and a gender, but we typically wouldn't count that for much. For me the defining human trait is intelligence, and you need a functioning brain for that.

-Jarrod

Wait. Who are you to define humanity? God created, not you.

There are humans who are, to all intents and purposes, brainless, and, for all we know, lacking in most basic senses —certainly lacking in what we consider intelligence. What do we know of God's dealing with their spirit? Is it not possible they are all the more quick to love him than we, lacking the inhibitions and misapprehensions that frequent 'our kind'? Are you wise enough to say, "They are not humans; let's put them out of our misery."

Or, consider the angels. I have a feeling they would laugh at the notion we humans consider "intelligence".

 

[Alive]

Conception because scripture testifies to God knowing us before we were even formed in the womb.

Psalm 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

Well done!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Conception because scripture testifies to God knowing us before we were even formed in the womb.

Psalm 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

And now for the English version:

[13] Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother's womb. [14] I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; [15] my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence. [17] How difficult it is for me to fathom your thoughts about me, O God! How vast is their sum total!

– Psalms 139:13-17
​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Whether they label themselves pro-life or pro-choice, most people seem to agree that babies have a right to live, and that women have the right to choose their own healthcare. And most people agree that the right to live is the more important of the two.

The real disagreement is - at what point does the baby have that right? Is it at...

* Conception - the moment the egg is fertilized.

* Brain Activity (4-6 weeks) - an adult who is hospitalized is typically declared dead when they no longer have measurable brain activity. If that is so, then perhaps a person should be declared alive when they do have measurable brain activity.

* Viability (22-24 weeks) - viability is the point during pregnancy where the baby would likely survive if it were born, given reasonable medical care. In most places, abortions are prohibited after the point of viability.

* Birth - the point at which the baby draws its first breath.

So, where do you draw that line? I tend to go for the 2nd one.

-Jarrod

Conception for me. Because life has begun, no matter how you slice it (Pun Intended). Did you know the moment the egg is fertilized there's a flash of light.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Did you know the moment the egg is fertilized there's a flash of light?

I hate to be a buzzkill but as the resident skeptic I feel compelled to expose the truth.

There is no flash of light—at least, not really.

At the moment of fertilization, a surge of calcium is triggered within the egg, causing the release of billions of zinc ions. This secretory event—dubbed the "zinc spark"—is observable as a bright flash only because of specialized sensors that fluoresce when zinc ions bind to them. Without these sensors, there would be no visible flash.

More technically, these synthetic sensors (e.g., FluoZin-3) are equipped with specific chemical groups (moieties) that have a high affinity for zinc ions. When zinc binds to these moieties, it induces changes in the electronic environment of the sensor, which in turn alters the fluorescence emitted by the attached fluorophores. This makes these sensors a valuable tool for visualizing and measuring the release of zinc that occurs during fertilization.

Scientists have long recognized zinc's crucial roles in various biological processes, including enzyme function, gene expression, and neurotransmission. As understanding of zinc's importance in biology deepened, so did the need for methods to detect and measure zinc concentrations in living systems. Traditional methods like atomic absorption spectroscopy, while effective, were not suitable for real-time analysis in living cells.

So, researchers developed fluorescent probes specifically designed to detect zinc. Early zinc probes had limitations, such as low sensitivity or selectivity, but continuous advancements led to more sophisticated sensors like the ZincBY series. These probes were designed with zinc-binding moieties and fluorophores that respond to zinc binding by altering their fluorescence.

We didn't initially suspect a surge of zinc ions during fertilization. The probes were created to study zinc in biological systems more generally. The discovery of the zinc spark during fertilization was serendipitous.

Sorry, this is the flash of light, I'm afraid. It's not a soul being zapped into the zygote, it's our visualization tool lighting up to say, "Hey, a lot of zinc ions are being released here!" (Moreover, this zinc spark likely occurs in all vertebrates—it has even been observed in fish—so it's probably not a soul.)

 

[ChristB4us]

Well done!

I thank the Father in Jesus's name for showing me that truth in scripture. Amen.

Proverbs 16:1The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[ChristB4us]

And now for the English version:

​

[13] Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother's womb. [14] I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; [15] my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence. [17] How difficult it is for me to fathom your thoughts about me, O God! How vast is their sum total!​

​

– Psalms 139:13-17​

​

I fail to see why you were posting that as if it was contrary to the KJV for why I was referencing it.

I highlight this portion of your reference " All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence

If you were meaning to confirm it, I can see that the message in other verses has changed its meaning, but not that highlighted part.
There is also this:

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Notice how the Psalmist acknowledges his existence at conception?

Brings a whole new meaning to this verse;

Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I fail to see why you were posting that, as if it was contrary to the KJV for why I was referencing it. ... If you were meaning to confirm it, I can see that the message in other verses has changed its meaning, but not that highlighted part.

I posted it for no other reason than the fact that many people, including me, have a hard time reading the archaic English of 250 years ago (c. 1769, Benjamin Blayney revision). While I can understand the attraction people have to the traditional, sophisticated, and solemn language in the King James Version (KJV), it's really quite difficult to absorb.

So, I posted from the New English Translation, which is not only super accurate but also much easier to read. And it says exactly the same thing, but using language that people today can more easily understand and apprehend.

For example, the KJV translates Psalm 139:13a like this:

• "For thou hast possessed my reins ..."
​

Setting aside the archaic nature of the word "thou," why is the psalmist talking about horse tack here? Reins are long straps, usually made of leather, that are attached to a bridle and used to direct a horse for riding. So, how is that related to God covering David in his mother's womb? And what does covering mean, anyway?

But this is what we have to deal with when it comes to old Shakespearean English. Reins didn't refer to horse tack back then. It actually referred to the kidneys or, more broadly, the inner parts of the body (and was typically used figuratively to represent the seat of conscience and reflection, e.g., Rev 2:23, "I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts," KJV).

This is why the New King James Version (1982) translates it as,

• "You formed my inward parts ..."
​

And the New English Translation (2006) goes even more accurate and translates it as,

• "You made my mind and heart ..."
​

If you want to say that this translation "confirms" how the KJV translated it, I guess that's fine. Seems a bit weird, but whatever. To me, they both translated it exactly the same; the only difference is that one translated it into 18th-century English while the other translated it into 21st-century English. It certainly hasn't changed its meaning. They used different English words to say exactly the same thing (e.g., "reins" versus "mind and heart").

Notice how the psalmist acknowledges his existence at conception?

Yes, which is clear in the English of both the 18th and 21st centuries. As the NET puts it (Psalm 51:5-6),

"I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. Look, you desire integrity in the inner man; you want me to possess wisdom."
​

Again, the psalmist acknowledges his existence at conception.

 

[Soul]

Whether they label themselves pro-life or pro-choice, most people seem to agree that babies have a right to live, and that women have the right to choose their own healthcare. And most people agree that the right to live is the more important of the two.

The real disagreement is - at what point does the baby have that right? Is it at...

* Conception - the moment the egg is fertilized.

* Brain Activity (4-6 weeks) - an adult who is hospitalized is typically declared dead when they no longer have measurable brain activity. If that is so, then perhaps a person should be declared alive when they do have measurable brain activity.

* Viability (22-24 weeks) - viability is the point during pregnancy where the baby would likely survive if it were born, given reasonable medical care. In most places, abortions are prohibited after the point of viability.

* Birth - the point at which the baby draws its first breath.

So, where do you draw that line? I tend to go for the 2nd one.

-Jarrod

It's my understanding that every man has a soul (Gen. 2:7), and it's the thing that distinguishes men from animals, and that God the Father infuses the soul at the moment of conception. Furthermore, our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and not our own (1 Cor. 6:19). To kill a human within a temple of the Holy Spirit is desecration and disobeying God's following commandments: "You shall not kill" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." God didn't say "You shall not kill except when [...]" nor "Love your neighbor as yourself except when [...]"

 

[Mr GLee]

Sorry, this is the flash of light, I'm afraid. It's not a soul being zapped into the zygote, it's our visualization tool lighting up to say, "Hey, a lot of zinc ions are being released here!" (Moreover, this zinc spark likely occurs in all vertebrates—it has even been observed in fish—so it's probably not a soul.)

That flash light I am happy to say is the light of God. God is light and not that he can only create it temporally .

We cannot know Christ after the temporal thing seen .Not under a microscope or telescope or the philosophies of dying mankind

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It's my understanding that every man has a soul, and it's the thing that distinguishes men from animals, and that God the Father infuses the soul at the moment of conception.

What has informed this understanding? That is, from where have you learned this view?

 

[Soul]

What has informed this understanding? That is, from where have you learned this view?

Jesus, in my belief.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Jesus, to my belief.

He spoke to you in person?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That flash light I am happy to say is the light of God. God is light and not that he can only create it temporally .

We cannot know Christ after the temporal thing seen .Not under a microscope or telescope or the philosophies of dying mankind

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

That flash of light was a temporal thing seen under a microscope, sir. And we know what it was because we designed the thing that lit up.

You may call that God, if you like, but there is no changing the facts about the calcium surge, the billions of zinc ions, or the fluorophores lighting up as designed. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't call it God any more than I would say it's God when someone flipped a switch and a light bulb lit up, just as we designed.

Yes, it's God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," and he is "the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6; cf. Gen 1:3; Isa 9:2), but absolutely none of that refers to photons. Conversely, the light emitted by these fluorophores does consist of photons.

 

[Soul]

He spoke to you in person?

No, Jesus audibly spoke to Maria Valtorta, and at His request she took dictation from Him, so my understanding of this matter came from Him through her, in my belief.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

No, Jesus audibly spoke to Maria Valtorta, and at His request she took dictation from Him, so my understanding of this matter came from Him through her, to my belief.

Where did she write that (a) every man has a soul, (b) that it's the thing that distinguishes men from animals, and (c) that God the Father infuses the soul at the moment of conception? Is that all contained in controversial text The Poem of the Man-God?

 

[atpollard]

The question is backwards. The baby is a life at conception. It is a person known by God even before conception. Therefore, the question is “When does the mother have a right to kill that life/person?” and related “Is that killing, murder?”

 

[Soul]

Where did she write that (a) every man has a soul, (b) that it's the thing that distinguishes men from animals, and (c) that God the Father infuses the soul at the moment of conception? Is that all contained in controversial text The Poem of the Man-God?

In Scripture, we read that God wanted to give man His image and likeness, and when He formed the first man from the Earth, He then breathed into him "the breath of life" (the soul), and only into man, not animals, and thus that's what distinguishes the former from the latter (Gen. 1:26;2:7). Therefore, Scripture gives us the by whom, to whom, the why and when the soul is given. The Poem of the Man-God is the Gospel expanded, contaning dictations and visions of scenes from Jesus's life on Earth. In certain visions, as well as dictations from this and her other works, Jesus explained matters of the soul. All of this in my belief. If interested, see the links in my signature for a complete and thorough history of The Poem of the Man-God, which the Church deems permissible for publishing, reading, and promoting.

 

[makesends]

No, Jesus audibly spoke to Maria Valtorta, and at His request she took dictation from Him, so my understanding of this matter came from Him through her, to my belief.

In other words, adding to Scripture? Galatians 1:8