Should every fetus have a right to life?

[Lursa]

If you're going to pretend that you don't know the expression "in the last analysis," you might as well be ignored. Your level of desperation to be right (despite your claim that you don't care) puts you beyond help.

All you have to do is give me a post number. Doesnt sound too desperate, sounds reasonable.

You made a claim that you made your point. I never saw it.

Of course, if you didnt, then you cant do so.

You are in retreat, that's obvious. But dont try to make it look like I have not supported every single thing I have posted and am not willing to continue to do so.

It's too bad, you started out like you really had an ethical case of your own to make. Instead, you dismissed mine without addressing (most of it).

 

[cpwill]

The Bible teaches us that life begins at birth.

This is incorrect - in fact the Bible is pretty specific in saying that our lives begin in the womb, and that babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

 

[minnie616]

This is incorrect - in fact the Bible is pretty specific in saying that our lives begin in the womb, and that babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

My faith teaches ensoulment begins at birth.

From the following article:

How Evangelicals Decided That Life Begins at Conception

In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention agreed, in a joint resolution: "We call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."

Dallas Theological Seminary professors also supported the cause. Bruce Wakte, writing in Christianity Today, drew on Exodus 21:22-24 to argue that "God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed." His colleague Norman Geisler concurred: "The embryo is not fully human -- it is an undeveloped person."

And Robert P. Meye, currently a professor emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary, insisted in Christianity Today that evangelicals "must reckon with the fact that there are those within the Christian community who can see no final offense in abortion when entered into responsibly by a woman in consultation with a physician." ...

In 1980, Falwell used his unparalleled platform to change all that. Declaring that "[t]he Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception," he allied with like-minded evangelicals to disseminate that interpretation across America. Falwell's assertion that this position was the obvious one in Scripture necessarily implied that the host of intelligent, pious evangelicals who came before him just didn't read their Bibles closely enough.....

Why does it matter that what evangelical leaders say is "the biblical view on abortion" was not a widespread interpretation until about 30 years ago?

For one thing, it's harder to argue the Bible clearly teaches something when the overwhelming majority of its past interpreters didn't read the Bible that way. For another, it illustrates that evangelical leaders are happy to defend creative reinterpretations of the Bible when it fits with a socially conservative worldview -- even while objecting to new interpretations of the Bible on, say, homosexuality, precisely because they are new. And for another, by looking at the history of how today's "biblical view on abortion" arose, one can begin to see the worldview that made it possible. In the process, it becomes apparent it is that unacknowledged worldview, and not the Bible, that evangelical opponents of abortion are actually defending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...that-life-begins-at-conception_b_2072716.html

 

[RAMOSS]

This is incorrect - in fact the Bible is pretty specific in saying that our lives begin in the womb, and that babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

How about pulling out those quotes, and looking at it in context?? The Jewish scriptures indicate one becomes a living soul at birth. The hebrew word for Soul is the same word as the Hebrew word for Breath as a matter of fact.

 

[cpwill]

My faith teaches ensoulment begins at birth.

From the following article:

How Evangelicals Decided That Life Begins at Conception | Jonathan Dudley

So... you've got.... two articles in Christianity Today.....

Whatever your faith teaches, the Bible is clear: our lives begin in the womb, and babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

 

[minnie616]

So... you've got.... two articles in Christianity Today.....

Whatever your faith teaches, the Bible is clear: our lives begin in the womb, and babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

I disagree.


The religious view about the breath of life came from the Bible and has been a part of Christian belief for hundreds/thousands of years.


Job 33:4 ESV

The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.


Genesis 2:7 ESV

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

2 Timothy 3:16 ESV

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Job 27:3 ESV

As long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils,

John 20:22 ESV

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Ezekiel 37:9 ESV

Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”

Job 34:14-15 ESV

If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

Isaiah 42:5 ESV

Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Psalm 150:6 ESV

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!

John 20:19-23 ESV

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Isaiah 40:7 ESV

The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the Lord blows on it; surely the people are grass.

Psalm 104:29-30 ESV

When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.

Isaiah 2:22 ESV

Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?

 

[minnie616]

So... you've got.... two articles in Christianity Today.....

Whatever your faith teaches, the Bible is clear: our lives begin in the womb, and babies in the womb are not only persons created by God, but are capable of interacting with the Holy Spirit.

A Jewish view of when life begins:

When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View

By: Rabbi Goldie Milgram

Most often in Jewish sacred literature, a fetus in the womb is considered a human life “under construction.”
The soul is usually described as arriving when the first breath of life is taken at birth.

The primary Jewish imagery for the beginning of life comes from Genesis 1:2, where breath hovers above the waters of earth before life emerges from that cosmic womb. Then, in Genesis 2:7, after the body of Adam is fashioned from the clay of the earth, God is described as breathing life into him.

These stories frame the basis for the Jewish view that the fetus gains full human rights and status only once the baby’s head has emerged from the birth canal [Ohalot 7:6].

http://reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view

 

[cpwill]

How about pulling out those quotes, and looking at it in context??

:shrug: a simple quick search of the word womb would do for you.

The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger. When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb.”

Two nations will come out of your womb? Nope. Two nations are already in your womb. Two boys are in her womb. Not "something that later became two boys were in the womb".

Not only are characteristics and futures of children discussed while they are A) recognized as children and B) in the womb, their status before God is as well:

You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb.

From birth? Nope. From the womb, Samson was dedicated to God.

Job carries, perhaps, the most explicit denial of the claim that we do not have personhood or souls, or exist as individuals in ancient Judaism prior to birth:

“Why then did you bring me out of the womb?
I wish I had died before any eye saw me.
19 If only I had never come into being,
or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!

As you can see, life that ends in the womb is an alternative to having never come into being. If our beings did not exist prior to us physically breathing air, then being carried straight from the womb to the grave would not have been an alternative to not coming into being. This is reinforced in Jeremiah:

For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever.

For how could you be killed if you aren't alive, or even yourself?

Job continues with a theme in the Jewish scriptures - God forms us in the womb. It is there that he makes us, us.

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

This is repeated several times:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Not only are we formed in the womb, the Jewish scriptures teach, we can interact with God there:

Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

This is what the Lord says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

[ The Servant of the Lord ] Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

The New Testament, too, bears evidence of the same claim: that we are individuals in the womb, capable of responding appropriately to the Christ:

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

The Jewish scriptures indicate one becomes a living soul at birth. The hebrew word for Soul is the same word as the Hebrew word for Breath as a matter of fact.

The Hebrew term ruach means Breath and Life and Spirit and comes with divine connotation - specifically when it talks about our souls it is tying them to the Breath of God, that in motion which makes all things. The New Testament carries this into the Greek with Pneuma in the discussion with Nicodemus (John 3). They are talking about divinity and the Spirit, not the physical act of sucking in oxygen to the lungs - nor do the Jewish scriptures indicate that one becomes a living being at birth. Quite the opposite (see above).

 

[minnie616]

The breath of life:

The Breath of Life

It is interesting to note that in the Genesis account of Adam’s creation it is said that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”–not into his body, mouth, or lungs, but the nose–“and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). “Nostrils…living soul” indicates that breath awareness at nosetip makes us conscious–aware of spirit. Three more times in Genesis (6:17; 7:15, 22) we find the expression “breath of life,” and in each instance breath is equated with life itself.

In seven further instances in the Bible, the life principle is referred to, not just as the breath, but as the breath in the nostrils (Genesis 7:22; II Samuel 22:16; Job 4:9; 27:3; Psalms 18:15; Isaiah 2:22; Lamentations 4:20). This cannot be without significance.

This verse, however, tells us more.

First, we learn that the breath comes directly from God, second, that through it “man became a living soul”–it is the breath that makes the psychic part of our makeup to live, just as it makes the body live.

From this it becomes evident that the breath and spirit are the same; that the breath of life is the spirit of life–and ultimately is Divinity Itself.

“The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job 33:4).

- See more at: The Jewish Tradition of Breath Meditation

 

[RAMOSS]

:shrug: a simple quick search of the word womb would do for you.



Two nations will come out of your womb? Nope. Two nations are already in your womb. Two boys are in her womb. Not "something that later became two boys were in the womb".

Not only are characteristics and futures of children discussed while they are A) recognized as children and B) in the womb, their status before God is as well:



From birth? Nope. From the womb, Samson was dedicated to God.

Job carries, perhaps, the most explicit denial of the claim that we do not have personhood or souls, or exist as individuals in ancient Judaism prior to birth:



As you can see, life that ends in the womb is an alternative to having never come into being. If our beings did not exist prior to us physically breathing air, then being carried straight from the womb to the grave would not have been an alternative to not coming into being. This is reinforced in Jeremiah:



For how could you be killed if you aren't alive, or even yourself?

Job continues with a theme in the Jewish scriptures - God forms us in the womb. It is there that he makes us, us.



This is repeated several times:



Not only are we formed in the womb, the Jewish scriptures teach, we can interact with God there:









The New Testament, too, bears evidence of the same claim: that we are individuals in the womb, capable of responding appropriately to the Christ:







The Hebrew term ruach means Breath and Life and Spirit and comes with divine connotation - specifically when it talks about our souls it is tying them to the Breath of God, that in motion which makes all things. The New Testament carries this into the Greek with Pneuma in the discussion with Nicodemus (John 3). They are talking about divinity and the Spirit, not the physical act of sucking in oxygen to the lungs - nor do the Jewish scriptures indicate that one becomes a living being at birth. Quite the opposite (see above).

Notice what all those had in common?? They were all talking about people with a destiny... and the psalmist was using that terminology to emphases a person's greatness as a literary device. Rauch does indeed mean breath/life/spirit .. and in more than 'divine connection' Adam became a living being with the 'breath of life'. Another word for the breath of life is neshamah. Live ends when 'rachi' .. the breath of life, returns to God.

 

[cpwill]

The breath of life:
- See more at: The Jewish Tradition of Breath Meditation

Again, you are confusing the physical sucking in and out of air with the Breath of Life the Breath of God in the scriptures. The Breath of the Almighty is what gives us understanding (Job 32:8), it is what spurs us to action (Acts 2:1-4, 2 Peter 1:20-21), it is what calls us to repentance and instructs and corrects us (2 Tim 3:16-17). It is the Holy Spirit, not the physical sucking in of oxygen and carbon dioxide.


And besides, this is a ridiculous standard that you would never apply honestly. I, for example, was born in a bit of danger - I was blue. Turned out, I wasn't breathing (some kind of issue with fluid). Some quick intervention by the doctors saved my life (my mom didn't know until afterwards). If, instead of expelling the water and then rushing me down the hall to ensure I was out of danger, the doctor had instead picked me up, shown me to my mother with my little arms waving frantically in panic, and then proceeded to smash my head against the wall, smearing blood and brains all over it, he would have been guilty only of bad decorating? If I walk up to someone who isn't breathing (say, they are choking), but are moving around, desperately signaling for help, I can assume that they have ceased to be human, and no longer have a soul? I don't think so.

 

[cpwill]

Notice what all those had in common?? They were all talking about people with a destiny...

So? We all have a destiny. Are you arguing that only those particular people uniquely were made by God in the womb? That only they uniquely began their interaction with the Divine and had their souls imparted to them there? Job 31:15 would directly contradict that claim - he is appealing to the fact that not only he but his slaves were made, individually, by God, in the womb.

13 “If I have denied justice to any of my servants,
whether male or female,
when they had a grievance against me,
14 what will I do when God confronts me?
What will I answer when called to account?
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

So, again, the Bible is clear - we are made by God inside of our mothers womb, and that is where our life begins.

and the psalmist was using that terminology to emphases a person's greatness as a literary device.

The psalmist was self-referring, thanking God. And (as demonstrated to you) the Bible on multiple occasions reinforces that message that life begins in the womb, that our interaction with God begins in the womb. In particular, the Psalmist points out that it is there to which we are imparted our soul:

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Rauch does indeed mean breath/life/spirit .. and in more than 'divine connection' Adam became a living being with the 'breath of life'. Another word for the breath of life is neshamah. Live ends when 'rachi' .. the breath of life, returns to God.

Precisely, and since that Breath of God is our spirit, not our ability to suck air in through our trachea, our life does indeed begin and end when God imparts and then we lose our spirit - our soul. Which, according to the scriptures, is a process that begins in the womb.

 

[JayDubya]

My faith teaches ensoulment begins at birth.

Your faith also apparently tells you that you can unrepentantly kill other human beings in aggression, as you say you have, and still feel confident of being in good standing with that faith / deity.

In this manner, we can scrutinize the value of such a faith when it comes to what is right and wrong. Regardless of what holy book you own (or misinterpret), killing in aggression is still evil. If a religion says it is justified to do so, that religion is evil.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

Re-quoted for the sake of truth

Law is not science.

Scientifically, a fetus is a human being.

Liberals always say Conservatives don't believe in science. Hah! On this issue, liberals SPIT on science.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is human life. That is science. That is fact. It cannot be disputed.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT, and judges & lawyers are not scientists or biologists. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder. And also, it is scientific fact that the child in the womb has a unique DNA, apart from the mother. So the babe is not part of the mother's body, but is an independent being.. . . . . . .

 

[RAMOSS]

Re-quoted for the sake of truth

Law is not science.

Scientifically, a fetus is a human being.

Liberals always say Conservatives don't believe in science. Hah! On this issue, liberals SPIT on science.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is human life. That is science. That is fact. It cannot be disputed.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT, and judges & lawyers are not scientists or biologists. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder. And also, it is scientific fact that the child in the womb has a unique DNA, apart from the mother. So the babe is not part of the mother's body, but is an independent being.. . . . . . .

You are making some mistakes.. you are conflating 'human' with 'human being'. "human being" is a legal/metaphysical designation, not a scientific one. "Human" is basically talking about the DNA.

All your misinformation flows from that.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

You are making some mistakes.. you are conflating 'human' with 'human being'. "human being" is a legal/metaphysical designation, not a scientific one. "Human" is basically talking about the DNA.

All your misinformation flows from that.

Semantics. That does not alter the substance of my argument.

 

[Peter King]

Semantics. That does not alter the substance of my argument.

But you do not have a substantive argument, your argument is purely based on your own religious/other views.

 

[RAMOSS]

Again, you are confusing the physical sucking in and out of air with the Breath of Life the Breath of God in the scriptures. The Breath of the Almighty is what gives us understanding (Job 32:8), it is what spurs us to action (Acts 2:1-4, 2 Peter 1:20-21), it is what calls us to repentance and instructs and corrects us (2 Tim 3:16-17). It is the Holy Spirit, not the physical sucking in of oxygen and carbon dioxide.


And besides, this is a ridiculous standard that you would never apply honestly. I, for example, was born in a bit of danger - I was blue. Turned out, I wasn't breathing (some kind of issue with fluid). Some quick intervention by the doctors saved my life (my mom didn't know until afterwards). If, instead of expelling the water and then rushing me down the hall to ensure I was out of danger, the doctor had instead picked me up, shown me to my mother with my little arms waving frantically in panic, and then proceeded to smash my head against the wall, smearing blood and brains all over it, he would have been guilty only of bad decorating? If I walk up to someone who isn't breathing (say, they are choking), but are moving around, desperately signaling for help, I can assume that they have ceased to be human, and no longer have a soul? I don't think so.

And, you are rejecting the Jewish tradition by yanking a few lines out of context.

 

[RAMOSS]

Semantics. That does not alter the substance of my argument.

Then say what you mean. I don't see any substance to your argument at all.

 

[cpwill]

And, you are rejecting the Jewish tradition by yanking a few lines out of context.

On the contrary - I have provided not only the lines, but in several instances gone back and demonstrated context. Feel free to demonstrate where the context changes any of the implied meaning to any of those verses.

 

[Lursa]

Semantics. That does not alter the substance of my argument.

'Human' has a clear meaning as a biological term. It means Homo sapiens.

'Human being,' as you've been told, conveys more attributes than mere species.

The unborn are human. They have the attributes of the species Homo sapiens.

The threshold for becoming a human being is a matter of opinion. So we stick to actual science and base the law on that:

Actual science: the unborn is human.

Here's the rest, which you have also been shown before:

1 U.S. Code § 8 -

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.



You will need to adjust 'your truth' to fit with reality.

 

[joko104]

Again, you are confusing the physical sucking in and out of air with the Breath of Life the Breath of God in the scriptures. The Breath of the Almighty is what gives us understanding (Job 32:8), it is what spurs us to action (Acts 2:1-4, 2 Peter 1:20-21), it is what calls us to repentance and instructs and corrects us (2 Tim 3:16-17). It is the Holy Spirit, not the physical sucking in of oxygen and carbon dioxide.


And besides, this is a ridiculous standard that you would never apply honestly. I, for example, was born in a bit of danger - I was blue. Turned out, I wasn't breathing (some kind of issue with fluid). Some quick intervention by the doctors saved my life (my mom didn't know until afterwards). If, instead of expelling the water and then rushing me down the hall to ensure I was out of danger, the doctor had instead picked me up, shown me to my mother with my little arms waving frantically in panic, and then proceeded to smash my head against the wall, smearing blood and brains all over it, he would have been guilty only of bad decorating? If I walk up to someone who isn't breathing (say, they are choking), but are moving around, desperately signaling for help, I can assume that they have ceased to be human, and no longer have a soul? I don't think so.

If you are going to deny that breathing into the nostrils isn't literal and you have only a figurative interpretation that leads to conclusions that you want to reach, what's your point? That you are God yourself and thus can declare the correct figurative translation?

And then there is you repudiating the "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost," to say REALLY what it says is "Holy Metaphysical Breathe." Maybe YOU should write your interpretation of the Bible since apparently exactly everyone else had always gotten it wrong.

 

[joko104]

You are making some mistakes.. you are conflating 'human' with 'human being'. "human being" is a legal/metaphysical designation, not a scientific one. "Human" is basically talking about the DNA.

All your misinformation flows from that.

Even "human" is subjective. The term is homo sapien - or more precisely homo sapien sapien.

And then if you ask the question: Then isn't turning of life support on a person who no longer has any brain function also murder? And nearly all will declare no. YET that person has "human dna," not dog or cat dna. For which they then claim 1.) the person has no brain activity and/or 2.) has no destiny.

In doing so, they are repudiating any relevancy of "dna" and "species," to instead take the exact opposite that it is brain function and/or destiny that matters. Yet what is the brain function of a 1 month fetus? And who the hell knows the destiny of a fetus? There is a good chance it's destiny is to be miscarriaged.

Which is it to prolife? "DNA" - for which turning off life support on a person who is "brain dead," which is not accurate but rather no longer has brain activity is MURDERING a human! OR is it "brain function" - meaning then early abortion is NOT terminating "a human" for lack of brain activity OR it is about "denied destiny" - which means contraceptives and condoms are MURDER as much as is an abortion, ie "a destiny denied" (which is OLD Catholic doctrine.)

THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY for most prolife as they will take opposite stances depending on the point they claim they are proving.

 

[joko104]

Those who argue a Biblical basis for prolife are then also claiming that God is LESS powerful than humans. That it is humans, NOT God, who has the power to decide whether to bring a person into this world or not - and that GOD is POWERLESS to stop abortions being inferior to humans in power.

If their God is SO powerless as to have NO power over whether a person is born into the society of people or not, and rather it is HUMANS that are MORE powerful, what is the value of their God? That their God is more powerful than plants?

If "GOD" is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent," that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any mere human to prevent a person from being born into the society of humans to face the question of faith, the issue of selecting between good or evil, and the question of whether or not to be submissive (a believer) to God.

Why would they bother to worship a God they see as less powerful than they are themselves? Why not then worship dogs and cats as their God(s)?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

'Human' has a clear meaning as a biological term. It means Homo sapiens.

'Human being,' as you've been told, conveys more attributes than mere species.

The unborn are human. They have the attributes of the species Homo sapiens.

The threshold for becoming a human being is a matter of opinion. So we stick to actual science and base the law on that:

Actual science: the unborn is human.

Here's the rest, which you have also been shown before:

1 U.S. Code § 8 -

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.



You will need to adjust 'your truth' to fit with reality.

Why do you assume that everything the law might say is exactly what it should say?

By that 'logic,' no one should ever dare try to change any law.