When does life begin? Granite vs. reality

Status
Not open for further replies.

2ephesians8

New member
skeptech said:
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?


Are those who are 'having sex because they enjoy it" married? If not, then they are living, temporarily, outside of God's laws and will ultimately reap the rewards for such behavior. All actions have consequences. God knows what the consiquences for having sex outside of marraige are, and He has warned us that we won't like them by telling us that we shouldn't do it. Simple enough for ya?

The perceived 'need' for abortion is a direct consiquence of sex outside of marriage.

I will use myself as an example. As a teenager, first year collage student, I chose to have sex outside of marriage. I got pregnant. I had an abortion. IF I had followed God's rule about not having sex outside of marriage, I would have never had an abortion. IF I had been married, I would never have had an abortion. See how that works? It is not tough to understand.
 

2ephesians8

New member
Originally Posted by skeptech



"Passages out of your Bible are hardly a convincing argument. "

Reply by Keypurr"

"Excuse me, I thought this was a theology site."

Yeah, she's confused about his gender too... :rolleyes:
 

firechyld

New member
2ephesians8 said:
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.

Perhaps the woman not wanting to be a friggin' brood mare?
 

Sozo

New member
Every time I see the phrase, "the fertilized egg then implants in the uterus," I'm tempted to tear my hair out. I fully understand why pro-abortion people use this phraseology. But it is beyond my comprehension to understand why so many pro-life people repeat these words. I'm sure the pro-life people who do this mean well, but they must understand that they're helping the pro-abortion movement when they continue to repeat this kind of biologic nonsense.

First, let's review our physiology. Conception (fertilization) consists of the union of sperm and ovum. The penetration of the ovum by the sperm, the integration and finally the beginning of the first cell division encompasses approximately twenty-four hours. The medical name for this single cell stage is zygote. Then cell division occurs and, by the end of the first week, this tiny new human consists of several hundred cells. During that first week of life, this new human floats freely down the mother's tube and, when one week old, give or take a day or two, this new living human implants within the nutrient lining of the womb.

Understand what implants * not the single cell fertilized egg, but a blastocyst, a developing human that is several hundred cells at this stage. The fertilized egg does not implant. When it reaches the womb, it is not a single cell, and if it still was, it could not implant. Only a one-week-old living human embryo can implant.

Why does the pro-abortion industry continually speak of fertilized eggs implanting? They say it with something of a sneer. Whoever heard of a fertilized egg being a "full human"? The very words "fertilized egg" do not conjure up in anyone's mind the full human being that this new biologic entity in fact is. Rest assured, semantically speaking, they know exactly what they are doing when they continue to speak of fertilized eggs. It's much easier to kill, to obliterate, and to destroy a fertilized egg than a living human embryo. They will continue to use "fertilized egg." We have to stop using it.

What is the proper terminology for a pro-life person? The proper terminology should demonstrate and speak to what this new biologic entity is. The proper words are "living human embryo." Let's remember, it's easier to kill a fertilized egg than a one-week-old living human embryo.

Some speak of pre-embryos, but this is just a politically correct bit of jargon whose sole purpose is to dehumanize this living human in his or her first week of life. A pre-embryo consists of several million eager sperm swimming after one ovum, but when one of them connects and fertilizes the ovum, this is no longer a pre-embryo; this is now an embryo. And after the first cell stage, the proper term to use is "embryo." After fertilization, there is no such entity as a pre-embryo.

So let's make a New Year's resolution. Let's, please God, have every pro-life person immediately quit talking about fertilized eggs implanting. This is a biologic impossibility and, in fact, it is rather subtle pro-abortion propaganda. Let's use the proper word - "a one-week-old living human embryo."

J. C. Willke, M.D
 

On Fire

New member
On Fire said:
W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?
I addressed it, Granite. :thumb:
 

avatar382

New member
Sozo said:
Every time I see the phrase, "the fertilized egg then implants in the uterus," I'm tempted to tear my hair out. I fully understand why pro-abortion people use this phraseology. But it is beyond my comprehension to understand why so many pro-life people repeat these words. I'm sure the pro-life people who do this mean well, but they must understand that they're helping the pro-abortion movement when they continue to repeat this kind of biologic nonsense.

First, let's review our physiology. Conception (fertilization) consists of the union of sperm and ovum. The penetration of the ovum by the sperm, the integration and finally the beginning of the first cell division encompasses approximately twenty-four hours. The medical name for this single cell stage is zygote. Then cell division occurs and, by the end of the first week, this tiny new human consists of several hundred cells. During that first week of life, this new human floats freely down the mother's tube and, when one week old, give or take a day or two, this new living human implants within the nutrient lining of the womb.

Understand what implants * not the single cell fertilized egg, but a blastocyst, a developing human that is several hundred cells at this stage. The fertilized egg does not implant. When it reaches the womb, it is not a single cell, and if it still was, it could not implant. Only a one-week-old living human embryo can implant.

Why does the pro-abortion industry continually speak of fertilized eggs implanting? They say it with something of a sneer. Whoever heard of a fertilized egg being a "full human"? The very words "fertilized egg" do not conjure up in anyone's mind the full human being that this new biologic entity in fact is. Rest assured, semantically speaking, they know exactly what they are doing when they continue to speak of fertilized eggs. It's much easier to kill, to obliterate, and to destroy a fertilized egg than a living human embryo. They will continue to use "fertilized egg." We have to stop using it.

What is the proper terminology for a pro-life person? The proper terminology should demonstrate and speak to what this new biologic entity is. The proper words are "living human embryo." Let's remember, it's easier to kill a fertilized egg than a one-week-old living human embryo.

Some speak of pre-embryos, but this is just a politically correct bit of jargon whose sole purpose is to dehumanize this living human in his or her first week of life. A pre-embryo consists of several million eager sperm swimming after one ovum, but when one of them connects and fertilizes the ovum, this is no longer a pre-embryo; this is now an embryo. And after the first cell stage, the proper term to use is "embryo." After fertilization, there is no such entity as a pre-embryo.

So let's make a New Year's resolution. Let's, please God, have every pro-life person immediately quit talking about fertilized eggs implanting. This is a biologic impossibility and, in fact, it is rather subtle pro-abortion propaganda. Let's use the proper word - "a one-week-old living human embryo."

J. C. Willke, M.D

Fine. I'll call it a "a one-week-old living human embryo". Doesn't change the fact that as many as 70% of these "a one-week-old living human embryo" fail to implant and are naturally "aborted".

IF you believe there is a god, and IF you believe that this god designed pregnancy AND values "a one-week-old living human embryos" as much as born human beings, or even fetuses at say, 6 months gestation time then tell me:

Are these souls taken by accident, or by design? I'd like you to address the points I made in post 54. What about the possibility that maybe life at the "a one-week-old living human embryo" stage doesn't mean much?
 

avatar382

New member
2ephesians8 said:
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:

The truth in question is about your fellow man. You need only observe man to see just how valuable life is to man. (hint: typically, about as valuable as life is to an animal)

Sure, there are execptions... but the average person in actuality cares very little when someone they don't know dies. It's sad, but it seems that's the way we were wired. And, this tendency to not care about life has certainly borne itself out through history.

The point is, as skeptech stated earlier, that although we may assign great value to the concept of life (as many religions do), in truth, in our nature we generally only value life if we are dependant to it in some way.

If you choose not to see it, not my problem. I don't wish to derail this thread further.
 

On Fire

New member
avatar382 said:
You're missing my point.
You're not very good at making one.

avatar382 said:
I'm going out on a limb here
Now THAT'S an understatement!

avatar382 said:
-You believe that the life of a fertilized egg not yet implated in the uterus is identical in value to a full grown human.
Human life has only one value regardless of age, race, creed, gender, etc., etc.

avatar382 said:
-You believe that the process of human pregnancy and birth was designed by your god
-Both of these beliefs are supported by the Bible
:up:

avatar382 said:
Bringing to light the fact that 40-70% of fertalized eggs are "aborted" naturally -
which is these is true:
1.) These deaths are accidental, meaning that your god's design for pregancy is horribly flawed - as a 60%-30% survival rate is pretty atrocious!
2.) Your god is intentionally allowing "people" to die en masse for some reason
3.) Insert another reason here, I'd love to hear it.
Glad you asked. God's plan is perfect. We don't understand everything God does. Many of us are saving up questions for heaven (queue Chris RIce....).

avatar382 said:
Option 2 is interesting. If you take a conservative Christian view on salvation, these "people" that are naturally aborted because they naturally fail to implant into the uterine wall go to heaven. Then, from a Christian point of view, being "aborted' naturally is actually a fantastic gift from god because one is created and then taken straight to heaven without the trials of a regular mortal life, or the possibility of being tempted into sin and hell. It's like a getting a "Go straight to heaven, do not pass go, do not collect $200" card.
Interesting take. Sounds divine to me!

avatar382 said:
So, why do Christians not celebrate the fact that so many souls are going straight to heaven?
If the couple is aware that pregnancy has been achieved, I believe they do. Privately. They mourn the loss and celebrate God's perfect plan.

Now, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NATURE TAKING ITS COURSE IS A LICENSE TO KILL?
 

avatar382

New member
On Fire said:
Patiently waiting....

Since you insist on being spoken to like a 12 year old, I'll oblige you.

You posted:

On Fire said:
W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?

This thread is about the "a one-week-old living human embryo" stage. Before implantation into the uterus. Any other stage of human development is outside this discussion.

Human life at this point doesn't seem to have much value for several reasons, but the one reason I am championing in this thread is the fact that as many as 70% of these embryos die naturally.

From the point of view of your own worldview, god either designed the process so that up to 70% do not survive on purpose, or god designed a flawed process. Either way, the implication is that god himself does not value life at this stage. So, why should we?
 

avatar382

New member
Glad you asked. God's plan is perfect. We don't understand everything God does. Many of us are saving up questions for heaven (queue Chris RIce....).

:patrol: Here it is folks!!!!!! :patrol:

On Fire just gave the typical Christian cop out when you ask the hard questions.

"...we don't understand god..."
"...we don't know why god..."
"...god works in mysterious ways..."
:blabla:

:darwinsm:

On Fire, et. al. : When you say stuff like "we don't understand why god does x", it's like throwing in the towel. You basically admit that your views have no rational basis.

In the words of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon:

Thank you, come again!
 

On Fire

New member
That wasn't a towel and YOU still haven't answered my question:

W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?
 

avatar382

New member
On Fire said:
That wasn't a towel and YOU still haven't answered my question:

W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?

Your question was answered in post 54 and again in post 94.

The closest you came to a rebuttal was in your post 93 by saying "...we don't know why god..." to which I responded in post 95.
 

CRASH

TOL Subscriber
avatar382 said:
Please read post #54 for the reason I keep bringing this point up. :sozo:

Just because babies are dying naturally doesn't mean you can kill more! God doesn't plan everything that happens, there are consequences to sin and bad things happen naturally in the world. That is not a good argument to say the baby is not alive and a new life and worthy of protection. Your logic is flawed.
 

On Fire

New member
Unaware that he has been smacked by truth, avatar382 wanders the Earth in search of more cherry Hi-C while encouraging young girls to go ahead and abort. "The life you carry inside is worth much less than you or I", he proclaims. But the price tag dangling from his protective helmet clips him in the eyes causing blindness. He dwells in complete darkness now.

And he likes it.
 

avatar382

New member
CRASH said:
Just because babies are dying naturally doesn't mean you can kill more! God doesn't plan everything that happens, there are consequences to sin and bad things happen naturally in the world. That is not a good argument to say the baby is not alive and a new life and worthy of protection. Your logic is flawed.

Sozo made a big deal about terminology and I am going to do the same.

We are not talking about "babies", a term that is used professionally to suggest a newborn or colloqually to suggest a born child or one as young as a fetus at advanced stage of gestation.

This discussion is about "one-week-old living human embryos" i.e., the collection of cells (note: at this point, they are generic cells, they have not specialized into any organs yet) post fertalization, but before implatation.

Now, it seems that you are taking the point of view that the up tp 70% death rate of these "a one-week-old living human embryos" is NOT your gods design - a different take than On Fire took who suggested that the loss is part of "gods perfect plan."

Could you elaborate on your implication that this ludicrously high death rate is "a consequence of sin?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top