"Revised" Bibles are usually just translating outdated language into modern language to make the content more understandable to modern readers. They are usually adding nothing to the text or changing the information in it. (There are a few revisions that actually do change the text to what the editor thinks the Bible should have said instead of what it did in fact say, but since these are all from a modern liberal point of view, some of you should appreciate that.)
To say there is no God or that it is irrational to believe on a presumption of a god is as unprovable as saying there is a God and that it is rationa; to believe in God. So that argument in this context is pretty much 100% moot and is completely off the subject.
The modern scientists in fact do point out that the ancient scientists were wrong and explain why. The modern theologians explain why the ancients believed and behaved as they did and define a very different belief system for the vast majority of modern Christians now.
Religion, after all, has been around a lot longer than anything from history that is identifiable as science.
The ancients were not people of science. They were imperfect people of faith.
Along with cultural descriptions long since abandoned, the Bible neverless contains brilliant literature that is timeless and helpful when the meaning is understood as written and as it pertains to modern Christians and Jews.
If you're going to condemn Christians, consider the whole, not the exception.
Well...it is my opinion that a human embryo or fetus is no more a "living human being" than an egg is a chicken. And the fact that there is movement (rudimentary heart beats or brain waves) does not change that one whit.
Wow. I'm still attempting to follow this entire forum. The topics frequently get jacked and I have a hard time following the topics from thread to thread. Not sure why that is - but it is.
Back to abortion (is this the abortion thread?), I will refer to the original post by Frank Apisa:
Quote:Well...it is my opinion that a human embryo or fetus is no more a "living human being" than an egg is a chicken. And the fact that there is movement (rudimentary heart beats or brain waves) does not change that one whit.
Concerning the human embryo or fetus (and come to think of it, the chicken and the egg as well): Have you ever met anyone who was not a human fetus at some point in their life? Have you ever heard of a human fetus becoming anything other than a human-being? Do you consider the fact that ALL human beings began life as a human fetus a coincidence? (And likewise - all chickens come from eggs.) The undeniable answer is: Certainly. All persons were a human fetus at some point in their life. Therefore, with only a slight amount of deductive reasoning - it is fair to say that to eliminate a human fetus is also to eliminate a human-being! This is science at its most basic. Even you, Mr. Apisa began your life as a human fetus that was not eliminated! :wink:
BD1
Yes...all humans at one point were fetuses.
But breaking an egg is not killing a chicken....and aborting a fetus is not killing a human being.
That is the only point I was making.
All that "deductive reasoning" does not impact on that one whit.
Quote:Yes...all humans at one point were fetuses.
But breaking an egg is not killing a chicken....and aborting a fetus is not killing a human being.
That is the only point I was making.
All that "deductive reasoning" does not impact on that one whit.
You're right! Breaking an egg may not kill a chicken - because all eggs are not fertilized.
However all fetuses have been fertilized! By the scientifically proven method of sperm meeting egg. There are no infertile fetuses. They do not exist! Therefore, fetuses are nearly the first step to every human life in existence.
This is an indisputable, scientifically proven fact!
Everyone is clearly entitled to their own opinion. :wink:
Scientifically speaking, no human can possibly exist w/o first being a fetus. On that we agree. This fact is enough evidence to believe that by killing a fetus, one is also killing the human being that the fetus was going to be.
Unless aborted, human-fetus = human-being, 100% of the time.)
I repeat...aborting a fetus is not killing a human being...nor is aborting a zygote.
You are absolutely positive that no...fetus has ever terminated other than through abortion before becoming a human being ?
Unless aborted, human-fetus = human-being, 100% of the time.
Quote:I repeat...aborting a fetus is not killing a human being...nor is aborting a zygote.
And I repeat...everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You have not reinforced your position with any scientific or otherwise data other than your own opinion - which is certainly OK for you to do.
However an absolute statement such as that above without compelling factual data will always be shallow at best in an open forum.
It is no different than me saying: "There is a God".
To be clear, your only position on this subject must be - that you have faith that aborting a fetus is not killing a human being... Just as I have faith that there is a God.
The zygote issue is complex, thus time-consuming and only partially related to a human fetus. I propose that we agree to shelve the zygote subject for another time and focus on the topic of this thread.
Quote:You are absolutely positive that no...fetus has ever terminated other than through abortion before becoming a human being ?
Quote:Unless aborted, human-fetus = human-being, 100% of the time.
It depends on the semantics surrounding the word "abort". The definition I had in mind when making the statement is: "To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry". In that regard, yes, I stand behind my statement. In other words, a fetus may be "aborted" for a variety of reasons. Some naturally and some artificially.
This is not an opinion...it is simply a recitation of the facts.
If you want to debate the merits of the abortion question...let's do that. But don't try to pervert the language to suit your needs.
This is less about science...than about semantics. A fetus is a fetus...a zygote is a zygote...a living human being is a living human being. Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Only to someone whose mind is closed to the reality.
It is completely different from saying "There is a God." COMPLETELY!
One is an assertion made without adequate evidence...one is nothing more than defining words.
Absolute blather! There is no "believing" or "faith" involved. A fetus is not a living human being...and aborting a fetus is not killing a human being...any more than breaking eggs is killing chickens.
As for opinion: It is my considered opinion that any rights you folks want to impart to this fetus...do not in any way trump the rights of the living human being hosting it. And if that living human being decided to terminate the pregnancy...she should be allowed to do so.
That is my opinion....and I understand that you do not share it.
Quote:What facts? You've offered none.This is not an opinion...it is simply a recitation of the facts.
Recitation is nothing more than memorized opinion.
Quote:If you want to debate the merits of the abortion question...let's do that. But don't try to pervert the language to suit your needs.
Huh?
Quote:It is a closed view of the reality. If fetuses walked the earth, I would agree with you. And if you believe in "evolution", this is certainly your best example!This is less about science...than about semantics. A fetus is a fetus...a zygote is a zygote...a living human being is a living human being. Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Let's try it this way: When is the sex of a fetus determined? How about hair color? Personality? Brain activity? Heartbeat? Movement? Food intake? Limbs formed? Human responses?
Quote:Because it's a smokescreen to the scientific truth.Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Quote:Reality requires proof. You've produced no proof, only opinion - under several different guises. I have supplied proof. Scientific and biological proof.Only to someone whose mind is closed to the reality.
Quote:Again, you are under the wrong assumption that you've supplied proof. The two issues are completely analagous as both require faith and belief.It is completely different from saying "There is a God." COMPLETELY!
Quote:Exactly! I've provided the evidence, you've provided words of opinion.One is an assertion made without adequate evidence...one is nothing more than defining words.
Quote:Absolute blather! There is no "believing" or "faith" involved. A fetus is not a living human being...and aborting a fetus is not killing a human being...any more than breaking eggs is killing chickens.
Do you really expect me to believe something is factual - only because you say it is? Don't think so. Would you do the same? If not, why not?
Quote:As for opinion: It is my considered opinion that any rights you folks want to impart to this fetus...do not in any way trump the rights of the living human being hosting it. And if that living human being decided to terminate the pregnancy...she should be allowed to do so.
That is my opinion....and I understand that you do not share it.
Very well said sir!
Let's try it this way: When is the sex of a fetus determined? How about hair color? Personality? Brain activity? Heartbeat? Movement? Food intake? Limbs formed? Human responses?
Hi Baddog,
These are very important questions, and largely ignored by pro-abortion folks. But they point to the central question: when does a human life begin? I think that almost all, with a few radical exceptions, would acknowledge that as soon as a human life is present that it should not be ended.
Some may say "I do not know when life begins" or "We are not sure when human life truly is present or not." My question to you Baddog, do you think it reasonable, since sincere doubt may be present as to when human life begins, that we give the benefit of the doubt to life?
A fetus becomes a child when it is born.
Anyone arguing that the supposed rights of a fetus cause its host to lose her rights...really has to make a much, much better case than is being made here in this thread.
But anytime that you have a few free moments...I would like to see your "scientific proof" that a fetus is not a fetus.
I am not asking you to "believe" anything. I am asking you to understand that "a fetus is a fetus" is a fact. If I have to go through the proof...it means you are merely playing games. If you enjoy playing games...go for it. I like it when people enjoy themselves.
Quote:Hi Baddog,
These are very important questions, and largely ignored by pro-abortion folks. But they point to the central question: when does a human life begin? I think that almost all, with a few radical exceptions, would acknowledge that as soon as a human life is present that it should not be ended.
Some may say "I do not know when life begins" or "We are not sure when human life truly is present or not." My question to you Baddog, do you think it reasonable, since sincere doubt may be present as to when human life begins, that we give the benefit of the doubt to life?
Hi real life: I realize that pro-abortionists ignore these questions and wanted to confirm that Mr. Apisa would as well. He did. As to your question: Absolutely!
The fact that any P.A. has no problem in killing a human fetus is troubling to me. It makes me wonder what happened in their lives for them to have such little regard for life. Unless of course they feel that human fetuses are actually dead until separated from a woman's body.
From: 7-26-05:Quote:A fetus becomes a child when it is born.
Quote:Anyone arguing that the supposed rights of a fetus cause its host to lose her rights...really has to make a much, much better case than is being made here in this thread.
So if an 8-1/2 month old "fetus" is aborted because Mom decides she doesn't want to deal with it, then by your clear words and beliefs, she has every right to do so and you see nothing at all wrong in doing this?
And would this 8-1/2 month old "fetus" simply be a victim of tough-luck! Wrong place - wrong time? Do you think this 8-1/2 month old "fetus" would feel pain during the abortion?
Quote:But anytime that you have a few free moments...I would like to see your "scientific proof" that a fetus is not a fetus.
I've never said a "fetus is not a fetus". I've always said that every human being was a fetus at some point. There are no human beings who were never a fetus. 1 + 1 = 2. And please don't turn the original request around. Go ahead and answer it, no more smoke-screening. You're the one with "all the facts - not opinions", so just answer the scientific question: When does a human-fetus not become a human-being? Only when it's aborted (naturally or artificially) is the only answer.
Quote:I am not asking you to "believe" anything. I am asking you to understand that "a fetus is a fetus" is a fact. If I have to go through the proof...it means you are merely playing games. If you enjoy playing games...go for it. I like it when people enjoy themselves.
More smoke-screens! Because you have not (and cannot because nobody can) produced an ounce of proof that any human was not a fetus.
Baddog,
If you go back through this extremely long thread, you will see that most, if not all of this has been covered before.
You will see that Frank considers a fetus a non-person even seconds before birth. He will only accept that the fetus must be fully emerged before he will consider it human. He considers abortion to be acceptable even at this point.
You will see that he is not alone in this belief.
Do you know what could help with the reduction of abortions? The over-the-counter sale of the "Day After Pill", or Plan B. Unfortnately, the anti-choice crowd and the followers of the Theory of Christianity are plotting AGAINST it. See article below:
I certainly have not said I have no problem with aborting a human fetus.
From the Christian perspective...even if there were a living individual there....(something there is not!)...but even if there were a living individual there....what is the cost to that idividual in being aborted?
So what is the problem? Where is the foul?
There is no "baby" involved. It is a fetus. It has the same "rights" as a cancerous tumor or a wart.
I have said that I consider it a decision the host has to make....and that I support whatever decision the host makes. That most assuredly does not mean that I have no problem with it....nor does it mean that I am some kind of monster advocating the killing of babies.
Quote:I certainly have not said I have no problem with aborting a human fetus.
Frank: While you may not have said those exact words, certainly your implications are clear:
Quote:From the Christian perspective...even if there were a living individual there....(something there is not!)...but even if there were a living individual there....what is the cost to that idividual in being aborted?
Quote:So what is the problem? Where is the foul?
Quote:There is no "baby" involved. It is a fetus. It has the same "rights" as a cancerous tumor or a wart.
Quote:I have said that I consider it a decision the host has to make....and that I support whatever decision the host makes. That most assuredly does not mean that I have no problem with it....nor does it mean that I am some kind of monster advocating the killing of babies.
To be honest; I was unsure whether you were "a monster..." as you described or not, so thanks for making this clear.
With that knowledge, "advocating" is my big issue here, and probably because of our non-accountable society. As you know, I believe that all living fetuses constitute "life". Therefore a human-fetus is a human-life.
And your strong belief is that a woman (host) has the undeniable right to end the human-fetus-life inside her body at any time, for any reason.
As a vocal and resolute advocate of this "right", do you feel that you may/could be/are influencing any woman to end the life of a normal, healthy human-fetus-life? In other words, is there a chance that you "enable" a woman to make this life-ending decision due to your strong position on "choice"?
