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

[LeviR]

A baby has a right to life when a man and woman start humping.

 

[LeviR]

It used to be understood how a woman becomes pregnant. And it used to be that parents would teach their children this.They would inform their children that the consequences of having sex is parenthood.
But liberals are professionals at not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. They want their cake and eat it too.
They call this progressive.

 

[makesends]

Those supporting abortion will challenge the op's use of the word "baby" when referring to the fetus. I therefore recommend using the phrase "human life." A zygote (a fertilized egg) can be identified as human immediately upon creation (no religious connotation intended). A sperm permeates an ovum and fertilizes the egg and it becomes a zygote. When it's a human sperm and ovum then it is a human zygote, a human life. The question then becomes,

"At what point does the human life have a right to life?"

And that should be self-answering. The answer is, "From the moment of conception." But cries of question begging will ensue because it's impossible to have an intelligent, rational conversation with those who support killing babies . The fact is, under otherwise normal conditions that zygote will inevitably grow into a fully cognizant human being so what we're debating is at what point is it okay to prevent conceived human life from reaching its normal potential for human life?

I think one of the notions that is missing from consideration by most people is the notion that we are not even fully what God had in mind when he made us. The day is coming, when we see him as he is, that we will be complete, and that is not yet.

So we, particularly those who don't consider God, behave as though the line is birth, and not conception. And those who argue against them, to their credit, do all they can to show the humanity of the zygote.

 

[Josheb]

I think one of the notions that is missing from consideration by most people is the notion that we are not even fully what God had in mind when he made us. The day is coming, when we see him as he is, that we will be complete, and that is not yet.

While that is true, how is it relevant? Shall I abort the human life growing inside of me because I am not yet fully what God intends, or shall I keep the human life within me because I am not yet what God intends? How is that thought to be persuasive to the atheist or antitheist? Ican image that would be considered motivating fodder for the antitheist.

So we, particularly those who don't consider God, behave as though the line is birth, and not conception. And those who argue against them, to their credit, do all they can to show the humanity of the zygote.

A person does not have to consider God if they consider the fact of human life. That is why I employ the phrase. The non-theist values human life (at least most say they do). The common argument is "My life, my life is important; the way I am living my life will have to change if I have this baby," and they say this not realizing the ambiguity with which "life" is being used because they mean their quality of life will change if this human life's existence is not terminated. Existence gets subordinated to quality, not realizing there can be no quality of life for the human life growing inside them if there is no existence of life. The human life is life. Abortion ends that life. God's existence is not necessary to mention. Here in the US we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quality of life (pursuit of happiness) is elevated above..... the right to life. That can be triggering because of the political prejudices associated with that phrase due to the Right to Life movement. It's an immediate no-go for the politically rancorous and the fact a human life is growing inside becomes lost. Whether Christian, non-Christian, theist, non-theist, American, or Outer Glabovian, the awareness of human life gives pause to all the arguments. Even a strict Darwinian acknowledges the fact of human life when presented with that reality. It may not convince but it often does. Appeals to fetuses and babies and all the dissent around a "glob of cells" becomes unnecessary .

 

[makesends]

While that is true, how is it relevant? Shall I abort the human life growing inside of me because I am not yet fully what God intends, or shall I keep the human life within me because I am not yet what God intends? How is that thought to be persuasive to the atheist or antitheist? Ican image that would be considered motivating fodder for the antitheist.

A person does not have to consider God if they consider the fact of human life. That is why I employ the phrase. The non-theist values human life (at least most say they do). The common argument is "My life, my life is important; the way I am living my life will have to change if I have this baby," and they say this not realizing the ambiguity with which "life" is being used because they mean their quality of life will change if this human life's existence is not terminated. Existence gets subordinated to quality, not realizing there can be no quality of life for the human life growing inside them if there is no existence of life. The human life is life. Abortion ends that life. God's existence is not necessary to mention. Here in the US we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quality of life (pursuit of happiness) is elevated above..... the right to life. That can be triggering because of the political prejudices associated with that phrase due to the Right to Life movement. It's an immediate no-go for the politically rancorous and the fact a human life is growing inside becomes lost. Whether Christian, non-Christian, theist, non-theist, American, or Outer Glabovian, the awareness of human life gives pause to all the arguments. Even a strict Darwinian acknowledges the fact of human life when presented with that reality. It may not convince but it often does. Appeals to fetuses and babies and all the dissent around a "glob of cells" becomes unnecessary .

If we are complete persons, but the unborn are not, then the debate is lost, in the mind of some, as to whether the born are of more value than the unborn. But, though the unborn are not complete, neither are we. It's a point-of-view thing.

My point is to appeal particularly to the believers, who consider the mother's life of more value than the baby's, or think according to other standards. My point is not to say that they are wrong, nor right, but what I was talking about should at least get them down off the fence and stop them from considering the boundaries and definitions of the secular debate as the language they should engage. We are not of much (if any) more value than a baby —and a fetus is no less human than we are. We don't even know what consciousness is yet, nor is our supposed sentience comparable to God's, so how are we to value the unborn as less than ourselves?

 

[ChristB4us]

Ha! No, I used my own fingers to search the difference out. And I see no substantive difference, unless when I try to interpret the KJV according to your mindset.

Seeing how you are denying the deity of Jesus Christ and missing a lot of verses to that truth in His words that He is the Lord Jehovah, it does make me wonder if you are only reading the Bible with whatever theology you are reading it with.

You have jumped a few logical steps. You said, "the KJV maintains that truth as the Holy Spirit cannot even utter His own groanings out loud.." But the KJV doesn't maintain that.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

That means what is not uttered is His groanings and that means silence. The ASV says the same thing.

Romans 8:26 And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; ASV

Whereas the other 3 Bible versions has it as wordless groans or groanings too deep for words which runs contrary to John 16:13 in that Bible version when the Holy Spirit cannot speak from Himself but speaks what he hears as in being the Spirit of Christ just as He serves as the spirit of the Father when Christ was on earth with His disciples.

Now I hear your logic that since "the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak from Himself but speaks what He hears... ...therefore He cannot utter His own groanings out loud." Maybe you can explain how that logic follows. I can't.

John 16:13 in ALL Bible versions testifies that the Holy Spirit cannot speak of Himself, speak from Himself, speak on His own initiative nor speak on His own authority. The words He speaks is what He hears and so He cannot utter anything from Himself like His groanings for whenever the believer is defiling the temple of God with works of the flesh and thereby grieving the Holy Spirit in us which we are warned not to do per Ephesians 4:30.

You go ahead and pick whatever Bible version you want and you explain to me what John 16:13 is actually saying if it is not that.

It doesn't say that he cannot speak from Himself, but it does say that he prays for us with "groanings which cannot be uttered".

John 16:13 testifies that He cannot speak from Himself in all Bible versions for why there are errant translations of Romans 8:26 as if His groanings are uttered our loud but it runs contrary to John 16:13 in that Bible version.

That could mean anything from, as one version puts it, "groanings that words cannot express", or, "groanings too deep for words", to, "groanings that WE are unable to express or understand". But your logic even goes worse than that, to claim that "all Bible versions in John 16:13 testifies that the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak from Himself". I can't say that I read them all, but I read a bunch of them, and none of those that I read said that he CANNOT speak from himself, but that he (variously) "will not" or "shall not". Thus, you are wrong that all Bible versions in John 16:13 testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak from Himself.

It cannot mean anything other than something is wrong with that Bible version when it implies that the holy Spirit can utter groanings from Himself and yet John 16:13 in that same Bible version will say He cannot speak or utter anything from Himself as if He can express Himself as the Spirit of the Spirit.

Your assumption seems to be that you can add your notions to Scripture to produce whatever you consider valid reasoning.

Well, when you deny the deity of Jesus Christ and use scriptures out of context for that "effect" in wrongly applying the word of truth, while ignoring scriptures that does testify to the deity of Jesus Christ, thereby proving you are not rightly dividing the word of truth, it will take a miracle from the Lord to deliver you from this mindset as His words did say that if you do not believe 'I am he" you will die in your sins.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[makesends]

Seeing how you are denying the deity of Jesus Christ and missing a lot of verses to that truth in His words that He is the Lord Jehovah, it does make me wonder if you are only reading the Bible with whatever theology you are reading it with.

WHOA!!! Back uup, there, fella!!! I think you better take that back, and NOW! I do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ!!!!

I have no intentions of dealing with you any further until we get this resolved. If you have some kind of reason for saying that, please, immediately present it so it can be dealt with. Whether by my mistaken statements or your mistaken use of them, or by any other inference, I do NOT deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Josheb]

If we are complete persons, but the unborn are not, then the debate is lost....

No.

That is going to run smack into the inability to reach a consensus on what qualifies as a person and when, exactly, personhood begins. The reason that argument hasn't worked with anyone but ideologues the last 50+ years is because it's an irrational argument.

It's a point-of-view thing.

Exactly. That is why it is best to build the case on what is objective, not subjective. Human life is an objectively verifiable fact.

My point is to appeal particularly to the believers, who consider the mother's life of more value than the baby's, or think according to other standards. My point is not to say that they are wrong, nor right, but what I was talking about should at least get them down off the fence and stop them from considering the boundaries and definitions of the secular debate as the language they should engage. We are not of much (if any) more value than a baby —

"Value" is subjective. "Value" is what created this mess in the first place because a subjective view of "value" holds a pregnant woman's lifestyle or quality of life more valuable than the subjectively viewed non-person (human life) gestating inside her.

and a fetus is no less human than we are.

It's only a fetus.

We don't even know what consciousness is yet....

Which is why it's useless to leverage that idea.

nor is our supposed sentience comparable to God's....

Which is why it's useless to leverage that idea.

...so how are we to value the unborn as less than ourselves?

I answered that question in my op-reply. Human life is growing inside a human life, and abortion ends a human life.

 

[Rella]

Conception.

 

[ChristB4us]

WHOA!!! Back uup, there, fella!!! I think you better take that back, and NOW! I do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ!!!!

I have no intentions of dealing with you any further until we get this resolved. If you have some kind of reason for saying that, please, immediately present it so it can be dealt with. Whether by my mistaken statements or your mistaken use of them, or by any other inference, I do NOT deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

I apologize but I am not sure how this had happened.

I had thought I was talking to you in conversation but it was Mr. Glee that was denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

So I ask that you forgive me but again, I do not know how this had happened. Human error or.....?

 

[makesends]

I apologize but I am not sure how this had happened.

I had thought I was talking to you in conversation but it was Mr. Glee that was denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

So I ask that you forgive me but again, I do not know how this had happened. Human error or.....?

No problem. I still haven't gotten a straightforward answer from @Mr GLee to the question, "Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?", but then, I have to admit that his posts are difficult to get a cogent statement from. I really do not know what he thinks about that, except for the one constant theme: "dying flesh". He almost seems to think the Messiah was two people, Jesus the man, and Christ, the Son of God. Beats me what he means.

 

[Mr GLee]

No problem. I still haven't gotten a straightforward answer from @Mr GLee to the question, "Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?", but then, I have to admit that his posts are difficult to get a cogent statement from. I really do not know what he thinks about that, except for the one constant theme: "dying flesh". He almost seems to think the Messiah was two people, Jesus the man, and Christ, the Son of God. Beats me what he means.

Thanks for not throwing this slow learner under the bus

I should of paid more attention in English class. . it has come back to haunt . Sorry

For some reason or other many try to make Christ the one Faithful (let there be) Creator into a man a dying creation.

Death the dying appointment all men have

.Rather than prophecy it seems some follow a lying sign (God is a Jewish man)that some wonder after, hoping he is a Jewish man as King of kings . Satan's goal

I think one of the problem is how to use of the word Christ an immutable attribute of the one and only Holy teaching master.

The word Christ It has nothing to do with the dying flesh of mankind signified as sinful.

Flesh signified as sinful dying was needed to outwardly demonstrate the work of the power of invisible Holy father. . in order to do what the letter of the law. Death could not give new born again life.


John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words (living) that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So yes the Holy Spirit Christ did work in the flesh of the son of man. Some did know the invisible head .But only one outward three days and nights promise demonstration

Some would crucify the Son of man over and over exposing him to public shame as if one demonstration fell short of the glory of God.

2 Corihtinans 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Its where the confusion comes in when looking at the parable "drink blood, eat flesh" through the figurative tongue of parables which without Christ spoke not. . hiding the spiritual gospel understanding from those who look to signs to wonder after making prohecy to no effect.

While Catholiscim treats literal flesh and flesh as something to wonder after. Miraculously mixed with saliva turning into literal blood. (Cannibalisms reincarnation) Even understanding what ever goes into ones mouth comes out as draught it cannot enter the heart as if it was of Christ spiritual work .

The JW's also look to literal blood in some sort of hope . They follow that law the temporal things seen cannot enter ..

Refusing blood transfusion having the same value trusting in what the eyes see the temporal historical .

Not understanding that the life of the flesh (temporal things seen) is represented by the blood .

Flesh and blood . . without the powerful Spirit of Christ's life. . is dead . We miraculously look to the unseen eternal just a little digging as for silver or gold

Leviticus 17:11For the(Spirit) life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it (Spirit life) to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The companion parable or signified tongue as figure of speech I believe reveals a Gospel picture of Christ Pouring out His Holy Spirit life on dying flesh and blood mankind in jeapordy of his own Holy Spirit life .He freely gives us little of that power calling believers little faith ones.

Literal corrupted flesh and blood has no spirit life of its own. Same with water both can be exchanged or used together to represent the Holy Spirit

A living sacrifice. . blood poured out to show spirit life was given .Literal blood like water by itself has no redeeming value .His powerful Spirit does alone

Beautiful gospel parable witnessed twice . .filled with Drink blod eat flesh metaphors.

1. Chronicles 11:18-20King James VersionAnd the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord. And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest. And Abishai the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three: for lifting up his spear against three hundred, he slew them, and had a name among the three.

Bethlehem,.... city of bread (flesh)

Water ...by the living water by the gate Christ

Jeopardy .....Spirit of Christ who worked in the three men pouring out his own spirit

Three men, three denoting the end of a matter to represent flesh .

 

[makesends]

Thanks for not throwing this slow learner under the bus

I should of paid more attention in English class. . it has come back to haunt . Sorry

For some reason or other many try to make Christ the one Faithful (let there be) Creator into a man a dying creation.

Death the dying appointment all men have

.Rather than prophecy it seems some follow a lying sign (God is a Jewish man)that some wonder after, hoping he is a Jewish man as King of kings . Satan's goal

I think one of the problem is how to use of the word Christ an immutable attribute of the one and only Holy teaching master.

The word Christ It has nothing to do with the dying flesh of mankind signified as sinful.

Flesh signified as sinful dying was needed to outwardly demonstrate the work of the power of invisible Holy father. . in order to do what the letter of the law. Death could not give new born again life.


John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words (living) that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So yes the Holy Spirit Christ did work in the flesh of the son of man. Some did know the invisible head .But only one outward three days and nights promise demonstration

Some would crucify the Son of man over and over exposing him to public shame as if one demonstration fell short of the glory of God.

2 Corihtinans 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Its where the confusion comes in when looking at the parable "drink blood, eat flesh" through the figurative tongue of parables which without Christ spoke not. . hiding the spiritual gospel understanding from those who look to signs to wonder after making prohecy to no effect.

While Catholiscim treats literal flesh and flesh as something to wonder after. Miraculously mixed with saliva turning into literal blood. (Cannibalisms reincarnation) Even understanding what ever goes into ones mouth comes out as draught it cannot enter the heart as if it was of Christ spiritual work .

The JW's also look to literal blood in some sort of hope . They follow that law the temporal things seen cannot enter ..

Refusing blood transfusion having the same value trusting in what the eyes see the temporal historical .

Not understanding that the life of the flesh (temporal things seen) is represented by the blood .

Flesh and blood . . without the powerful Spirit of Christ's life. . is dead . We miraculously look to the unseen eternal just a little digging as for silver or gold

Leviticus 17:11For the(Spirit) life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it (Spirit life) to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The companion parable or signified tongue as figure of speech I believe reveals a Gospel picture of Christ Pouring out His Holy Spirit life on dying flesh and blood mankind in jeapordy of his own Holy Spirit life .He freely gives us little of that power calling believers little faith ones.

Literal corrupted flesh and blood has no spirit life of its own. Same with water both can be exchanged or used together to represent the Holy Spirit

A living sacrifice. . blood poured out to show spirit life was given .Literal blood like water by itself has no redeeming value .His powerful Spirit does alone

Beautiful gospel parable witnessed twice . .filled with Drink blod eat flesh metaphors.

1. Chronicles 11:18-20King James VersionAnd the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord. And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest. And Abishai the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three: for lifting up his spear against three hundred, he slew them, and had a name among the three.

Bethlehem,.... city of bread (flesh)

Water ...by the living water by the gate Christ

Jeopardy .....Spirit of Christ who worked in the three men pouring out his own spirit

Three men, three denoting the end of a matter to represent flesh .

Three things come to mind, ("nay, four"), reading your post.

1. The one before it is maybe the easiest to follow of all of yours that I've ever read.
2. You seem to assume that we (or most believers?) think that Christ Jesus' flesh would have lived forever if he had not taken our sins upon him.
3. You seem to not be able to help yourself, but must qualify what you say in answer, to mitigate anyone misunderstanding what you would mean, were you to admit that the Christ, and Jesus, are one and the same person, with two natures, and that Christ is come in the flesh.
4. Regardless of how you come across, or of what I'm guessing that you are trying to say, you still have not directly answered —at least, not that I've seen— this: "Do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?"

At this point, your reticence and equivocation, (I say this, because this is how what you DO say comes across—equivocation), has made what you will say, even if you DO agree to the words, "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh", suspect, to me —as in, "Now is he just agreeing, or does he mean it, and what is he going to say next to qualify it?" We've seen an atheist, on CF, come right out and say the words, and then say, "There, I've said it —does that mean my spirit is from God?", which to me obviously shows he was NOT saying that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh, but, rather, that he mocks the Word of God, attempting to nullify the notion that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

 

[ChristB4us]

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

If you are asking God, He knew us before we were formed in the womb and so that has to be at conception.

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!

There are prophesies about Cyrus in the Book of Isaiah and those prophesies were made about 150 years before Cyrus was born.

Cyrus the Great in the Bible

I really believe that to change sinners mind about God, believers has arrange a public trial to prove that the evolution theory is false and to prove that the Biblical global flood did happen.

Otherwise, that term, fetus, will always come across as just a lump of flesh rather than a child with a soul created by God that is unwanted.

 

[ChristB4us]

From the moment of conception.

Conception
DNA is unique and recognizable as an individual human.

By recognizing all life from the womb is from the Lord, then conception is from the Lord.

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

Would it behoove the world to know God knew us before we were even conceived 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!

There are prophesies about Cyrus in the Book of Isaiah and those prophesies were made about 150 years before Cyrus was born.

Cyrus the Great in the Bible

I really believe that to change sinners mind about God, believers has arrange a public trial to prove that the evolution theory is false and to prove that the Biblical global flood did happen.

Otherwise, that term, fetus, will always come across as just a lump of flesh rather than a child with a soul created by God that is unwanted.

 

[QVQ]

The Science: Forensic
It is possible to analyze a drop of blood and state Human. A single cell can be used to determine whether the cell is human or some other animal
The DNA when the two strands combine in the cell, at that moment, that one cell is identifiable as human.
Using "conscious" or "viable" is murky, unscientific and debatable.
Whose blood was found at the scene determines Who, not What was present at the time
A cell containing DNA of human is a Who, not a What.
To disarrange that cell or collection of those cells with intent to inflict bodily harm is an entire catalogue of crimes from assault to murder