genuineoriginal
New member
The difference happened because science has advanced enough for us to know that the unborn baby is a new living human being from the moment of conception.
Stop living in the dark ages when it comes to pregnancy.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
Stop living in the dark ages when it comes to pregnancy.
glassjester
Well-known member
Pro-abortionists don't mind eating that. It's just an egg!
genuineoriginal
New member
Yep, it is still in the shell, so it can't be a chicken or a duck, right?
So you think you have an alternative on one verse? Why that's...not much, really, as rebuttals go.
You're interpreting. I'm quoting.
oly: But your error isn't laughable, it's tragic.
You're interpreting. I'm quoting.
My interpretation is well established. It's the actual meaning, if you care to look at the verse closely and realize it.
You all read that verse and just accepted whatever came to your mind first, according to your liking.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
No, but some evidence is. And history is certainly evidence.
There is no such science. This is part of you all's insanity
Stop living in new age conservative fantasy land when it comes to pregnancy.
Verses. Plural. Or is that the only one you could think of a way to try and negate. Because I can live with that...so can the unborn.
There's nothing in the Bible that supports your notions on abortion. You all don't really know what you are talking about, knowing little, really, about your own religion:
'Yahweh' is the name contributed to God because it is the sound of breathing in and out. If you pay close attention to the Bible and ancient history, He is seen as the wind- a spirit that moves upon the Earth. Moses was carrying a wind staff, you see, which is what caused the plagues and split the sea. Even in burning sacrifices, the Levites would see God's message in the smoke.
Now, in the beginning, when God made Adam, it wasn't until He breathed life into him that he became a living soul. That is, it wasn't UNTIL ADAM TOOK HIS FIRST BREATH.
Yeah, you see, it's called 'making sense', and you all make none
genuineoriginal
New member
Sure there is.
Adam did not become a living soul until his body began cellular respiration.
_____
FORMS OF RESPIRATION
Respiration can be defined as the process by which an organism takes in oxygen and releases carbon dioxide, one in which the circulating medium of the organism (e.g., the blood) comes into contact with air or dissolved gases. Either way, this means more or less the same thing as breathing. In some cases, this meaning of the term is extended to the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the bloodstream and, eventually, into cells or the release of carbon dioxide from cells into the bloodstream and thence to the lungs, from whence it is expelled to the environment. Sometimes a distinction is made between external respiration, or an exchange of gases with the external environment, and internal respiration, an exchange of gases between the body's cells and the blood, in which the blood itself "bathes" the cells with oxygen and receives carbon dioxide to transfer to the environment.
This is just one meaning—albeit a more familiar one—of the word respiration. Respiration also can mean cellular respiration, a series of chemical reactions within cells whereby food is "burned" in the presence of oxygen and converted into carbon dioxide and water. This type of respiration is the reverse of photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert dioxide and water, with the aid of solar energy, into complex organic compounds known as carbohydrates. (For more about carbohydrates and photosynthesis, see Carbohydrates.)
_____
FORMS OF RESPIRATION
Respiration can be defined as the process by which an organism takes in oxygen and releases carbon dioxide, one in which the circulating medium of the organism (e.g., the blood) comes into contact with air or dissolved gases. Either way, this means more or less the same thing as breathing. In some cases, this meaning of the term is extended to the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the bloodstream and, eventually, into cells or the release of carbon dioxide from cells into the bloodstream and thence to the lungs, from whence it is expelled to the environment. Sometimes a distinction is made between external respiration, or an exchange of gases with the external environment, and internal respiration, an exchange of gases between the body's cells and the blood, in which the blood itself "bathes" the cells with oxygen and receives carbon dioxide to transfer to the environment.
This is just one meaning—albeit a more familiar one—of the word respiration. Respiration also can mean cellular respiration, a series of chemical reactions within cells whereby food is "burned" in the presence of oxygen and converted into carbon dioxide and water. This type of respiration is the reverse of photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert dioxide and water, with the aid of solar energy, into complex organic compounds known as carbohydrates. (For more about carbohydrates and photosynthesis, see Carbohydrates.)
_____
Humans begin cellular respiration at conception, so they are a "living soul" at conception.
We learned about cellular respiration from science.
A declaration illustrating declarations. Normally you have to go to the circus to find this much clowning.There's nothing in the Bible that supports your notions on abortion. You all don't really know what you are talking about, knowing little, really, about your own religion:
Yeah, you see, it's called 'making sense', and you all make none
glassjester
Well-known member
What counts as evidence of personhood? What particular actions must a living human perform, in order for that life to be worth protecting?
Yes, except for the Facebook account
Good questions. I don't think talk of 'personhood' is the right way to attempt to justify abortion. And laws aren't even consistent. The determining factor appears to be whether or not the woman wants the baby. I think pro-choicers would be more honest if they simply said a woman has a right to control her body and if that means the baby dies then so be it. And that's the real place of debate. Not some attempt to determine when 'personhood' begins.
PureX
Well-known member
Well, it seems that we all have a somewhat different opinion about that. Which is at the heart of the controversy. We all have our opinions, but none of us has conclusive evidence to justify forcing their opinions on everyone else. Which is why the courts decided on a compromise.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
that would require them to acknowledge that it is a baby and not a "fetus" or a "blob of tissue"
GuySmiley
Well-known member
I am for personhood. But I don't believe it would end abortion. I have no doubt that if we amended the constitution that personhood began at conception, our courts would rule you could still kill a person before birth, and someday, some number of days after birth. People want abortion, period.
glassjester
Well-known member
That's a big problem, though - the "compromise." What is it that the courts have compromised? Human lives.
And it's hardly a compromise, at that.
Imagine my mother is trying to murder me. My neighbor overhears, and tells her she should not kill me.
So we go to court, and the judge decides to "compromise." She can kill me, but she better make it quick, before he changes his mind.
So she kills me. I'm dead.
No compromise. I'm not half dead and half alive, now.
I'm all-the-way dead.
There is no room for compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life stances.