When does life begin? Granite vs. reality

[2ephesians8]

...we would also disagree as to whether anything or anybody is murdered by the pill. I'd say no, you'd say yes, we'd be at loggerheads. I've been there and done that discussion several times on TOL.

I would question why anyone would be taking the pill. If you are having sex in the context of marriage there really should be no need for the pill.

 

[avatar382]

:down: :vomit:

I'm sorry if the truth offends you, 2ephesians8.

You need only observe your fellow man to see the truth behind those statements.

 

[skeptech]

Yeah, I choose 'Non-smoking'.

(Tell our Government that their laws are based on fairy-tales and see what kind of response you get. :kookoo: )

:rotfl:

Believe me, I'm under no illusion that our laws are based on the Bible. They are quite secular, intended for our mutual benefit during this life here on Earth. Just because some of those laws are so obvious that they're older than the hills, and somebody wrote a few of them in the Bible, doesn't mean that Christians get to lay claim to them.

Granted, as fads come and go various special-interest groups (like Christian fundamentalists) will succeed in getting preferential laws passed, but I think that time tends to work those kinks out.

 

[skeptech]

I would question why anyone would be taking the pill. If you are having sex in the context of marriage there really should be no need for the pill.

How about those who have sex because they enjoy it, but don't think that they're ready yet for the responsibility of parenthood?

Sure, they could abstain altogether, but why not take advantage of the options available and enjoy it?

 

[Granite]

I would question why anyone would be taking the pill. If you are having sex in the context of marriage there really should be no need for the pill.

:noway:

:shocked:

:rotfl:

:rotfl:

Whoa. Just...whoa.

Having been there and done that I could comment but I really don't wanna be crude.

 

[Poly]

Yes, of course, and to your second question, no. (I hate answering in a double negative!)

And I'm sure you'd say the same of a disabled person who was also non-responsive and in the same condition she was. And though a Toddler could fit some of those descriptions you gave, a newborn baby doesn't. So you cannot make the claim, as you have, that they are not at risk. According to argument and what you consider "personhood", you have no choice but to also claim that these others are at risk as well.

 

[Granite]

And I'm sure you'd say the same of a disabled person who was also non-responsive and in the same condition she was. And though a Toddler could fit some of those descriptions you gave, a newborn baby doesn't. So you cannot make the claim, as you have, that they are not at risk. According to argument and what you consider "personhood", you have no choice but to also claim that these others are at risk as well.

Maybe you misunderstood...I'd regard all these hypothetical folks as perfectly "human" with "personhood." I don't see based on what I've said why this wouldn't be the case.

 

[CRASH]

Maybe you misunderstood...I'd regard all these hypothetical folks as perfectly "human" with "personhood." I don't see based on what I've said why this wouldn't be the case.

Consider This

And Answer this

 

[CRASH]

College textbooks agree. Human Life begins at conception.

 

[CRASH]

A few more;

 

[keypurr]

:yawn:

Passages out of your Bible are hardly a convincing argument.

Excuse me, I thought this was a theology site.

 

[koban]

When life begins is a mystery, as far as I'm concerned.

Just as soon as I log off! :wave2:

 

[JoyfulRook]

College textbooks agree. Human Life begins at conception.

The Textbooks agree because Life does begin at conception.

 

[RobE]

Question from avatar382 to avatar382

Question from avatar382 to avatar382

40-70% of fertilized eggs, depending on which study you believe, naturally fail to implant in the uterine wall and are expelled by the body. According to your beliefs, every time this happens would qualify as "natural abortion". This makes mother nature a far more effective aborter than people ever have been or will be.

If God exists and meant for us to treat a fertilized but not yet implated egg as a full human being, why do so few "people" survive our first few hours of "life"?

Do you have a source for your so called fact of 40-70%. Reliable source that is.

Rob

 

[avatar382]

Do you have a source for your so called fact of 40-70%. Reliable source that is.

Rob

Sure do. From a pro-life site, no less.

One complicating factor for conferring personhood at conception is that a large number of fertilized eggs do not implant, says Hessel Bouma III, professor of biology at Calvin College and chairman of the bioethics commission of the American Scientific Affiliation. Estimates of the number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant run as high as 70 percent.

Conservative Christians have been reluctant to face this fact, Bouma says.

"It's something we've only become aware of in the last 30 years—the majority of fertilized eggs fail to develop," he says. "If we consider the fertilized egg as a person, then take all of the other causes of death and multiply them by three—that's the number of so-called persons who are dying before developing."

Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/007/7.24.html

Let me know if you want more.

 

[JoyfulRook]

Christianity Today isn't pro-life. They promoted a pro-abortion movie (Vera Drake). But the stat could still be true.

 

[avatar382]

Christianity Today isn't pro-life. They promoted a pro-abortion movie (Vera Drake). But the stat could still be true.

Perhaps not, (I really wouldn't know, I don't read the magazine) but the article is certainly written from a pro-life perspective.

As you suggested, It doesn't really matter, though. The stat is true whether a pro-life or pro-choice person says it.

 

[CRASH]

Perhaps not, (I really wouldn't know, I don't read the magazine) but the article is certainly written from a pro-life perspective.

As you suggested, It doesn't really matter, though. The stat is true whether a pro-life or pro-choice person says it.

The stat could be true, but what's the point?

 

[2ephesians8]

I'm sorry if the truth offends you, 2ephesians8.

You need only observe your fellow man to see the truth behind those statements.

If I was looking to my fellow man for truth, I would indeed be offended, and often.

Truth can not be found in my fellow man, my fellow man; therefore, I certainly won't be looking for it from you, as it is obvious that you indeed are far from it, It being found in God alone.

:wave: :comeout:

 

[2ephesians8]

:rotfl:

Believe me, I'm under no illusion that our laws are based on the Bible. They are quite secular, intended for our mutual benefit during this life here on Earth. Just because some of those laws are so obvious that they're older than the hills, and somebody wrote a few of them in the Bible, doesn't mean that Christians get to lay claim to them.

Granted, as fads come and go various special-interest groups (like Christian fundamentalists) will succeed in getting preferential laws passed, but I think that time tends to work those kinks out.

Get an education, then maybe we can talk. Right now, your ignorance is appauling, and you words betray you.