Ask Me Help Desk - New Thread

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

A severed arm has DNA also. Is a severed arm a baby?

This is a false equivalency. The question should be, is the severed arm a human ARM? It is human, of course as its DNA amply demonstrates. No sane person would ever see a severed arm and say, "Look! A clump of cells!" Nor would they say, "Look! A non-specific arm!" And so that answer is as obvious as the answer is for the fertilized egg. In an altogether inadvertent manner, you have contributed to the pro-life position.

It is hard to imagine a sane person seeing this photo and trying to make the case it is not human. This is at 14 weeks. Virtually every liberal dem would happily sanction its destruction. If you saw its severed arm or leg, which is how abortions at this point take place, you would identify them as human. Attachment 49419

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you saw its severed arm or leg, which is how abortions at this point take place, you would identify them as human.

That's not how the majority of abortions take place -- only at the end of the pregnancy IF NECESSARY.

Sorry, WG, but you don't know what you are talking about. As a five-minute search of the web would have told you, D&E's are routinely used in the second term. Fourteen weeks is in the second trimester. Abortions at the end of pregnancies are done in an even more grisly fashion.

It's just an example of what I dislike about liberals. It's not so much that you don't know the truth as that you don't CARE about the truth, or at least not enough to take the minimal effort it requires to discover it.

Dilation and evacuation - Wikipedia

no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .

Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .

Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .
Innocent human life is not to be denied for issues of convenience and human fiat

The question is not if the fetus is a person. The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. I say yes. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .

The Declaration of Independence recognized it .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the fetus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation. Genocide has been committed using such logic . Once the state can decide who is a person then all bets are off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sorry, WG, but you don't know what you are talking about.

You are very incorrect. Please ask God to make you a woman in the next life. Never mind, I've already asked Him.

As far as research goes, I did all that long ago, more recently, and after I read your post. Crackerjack librarian here. And female to boot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Once the state can decide who is a person then all bets are off.

What business is it of the state?

Quote:

What business is it of the state?

If a person does not have a natural right to exist then who decides it ? The state is created to protect rights .

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

If a person does not have a natural right to exist then who decides it ? The state is created to protect rights .

There is no "person" with rights until a fetus takes its first breath..."and man became a living soul."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .

You don't believe it, therefore it's a waste of time? You'll have to do better than that.

Quote:

Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .

A zygote is hardly a person - it's a collection of biochemicals. Be careful about bringing the Judeo-Christian God into the discussion. That's how the issue became muddled in the first place. Anyway, appealing to God is a dead end. Whose God? Which of the many?

Quote:

Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .

This fundamentalist position of the fertilized egg being human is denied by the great majority of people - scientists and otherwise. Your saying so does not make it so.

Quote:

The question is not if the fetus is a person.

You couldn't be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the question!

Quote:

The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .

The flaw is in your thinking - that the potential of a fetus to be a person is the same as the actuality of being a person. Potential is NEVER the actual. That is what the word potential means.

Quote:

The Declaration of Independence recognized it .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

This argument is a sign of desperation - I'm surprised you came up with it. Jefferson was not referring to abortion. His "all" men did not include men of color nor, obviously, women.

Quote:

Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the feus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person.

Blackmun was correct. The Christian religion decided that the fetus had no rights, not the state.

Quote:

Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence

Judges may make law but not moral law. Haven't we seen enough of that in history? Bad law that had to be reversed?

Quote:

or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation.

When you make up falsehoods you lose credibility. Abortion is about women's choice, not scientific experimentation. Gruesome pictures show the desperation of being against abortion. Rather than trying to understand human life, show gruesome pictures. Shameful!

Quote:

Genocide has been committed using such logic .

No one but you is bringing up genocide.

You have not made any argument except to claim to know the mind of God. For 95% of Christian history, USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT, abortion was never considered murder.

Quote:

As far as research goes, I did all that long ago, more recently, and after I read your post. Crackerjack librarian here. And female to boot.

No one here believes that.

Quote:

There is no "person" with rights until a fetus takes its first breath..."and man became a living soul."

A fantasy that has already been thoroughly discredited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one here believes that.

I am woman, hear me roar.
And career librarian for shore.
Wanna hear a little bit more?
Nah! t'would make your brain very sore.

Quote:

A fantasy that has already been thoroughly discredited.

Nope. Read Athos' post #48 above. And why aren't miscarried fetuses baptized?

Appealing to Athos is, I think, a poor strategy, but as I figured, he said nothing about your theory that a fetus must breathe to be a living human. Not a word.

Why would a miscarried fetus be baptized?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Appealing to Athos is, I think, a poor strategy, but as I figured, he said nothing about your theory that a fetus must breathe to be a living human. Not a word.

Um, please reread his post.

Quote:

Why would a miscarried fetus be baptized?

You say it's human. Post 31 -- "though the zygote is fully human and only needs time to grow."

But why would it be baptized? Are you in the habit of baptizing dead babies?

Athos had nothing to support you. Neither do you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But why would it be baptized? Are you in the habit of baptizing dead babies?

Just because the mother miscarries doesn't mean the fetus is dead.

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.

YOU say the fetus ISN'T dead when aborted. So why is it dead when miscarried?

You don't baptize aborted babies either?

Quote:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.png
no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .

You don't believe it, therefore it's a waste of time? You'll have to do better than that.

Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .

A zygote is hardly a person - it's a collection of biochemicals. Be careful about bringing the Judeo-Christian God into the discussion. That's how the issue became muddled in the first place. Anyway, appealing to God is a dead end. Whose God? Which of the many?

Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .

This fundamentalist position of the fertilized egg being human is denied by the great majority of people - scientists and otherwise. Your saying so does not make it so.

The question is not if the fetus is a person.

You couldn't be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the question!

The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .

The flaw is in your thinking - that the potential of a fetus to be a person is the same as the actuality of being a person. Potential is NEVER the actual. That is what the word potential means.

The Declaration of Independence recognized it .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

This argument is a sign of desperation - I'm surprised you came up with it. Jefferson was not referring to abortion. His "all" men did not include men of color nor, obviously, women.

Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the feus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person.

Blackmun was correct. The Christian religion decided that the fetus had no rights, not the state.

Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence

Judges may make law but not moral law. Haven't we seen enough of that in history? Bad law that had to be reversed?

or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation.

When you make up falsehoods you lose credibility. Abortion is about women's choice, not scientific experimentation. Gruesome pictures show the desperation of being against abortion. Rather than trying to understand human life, show gruesome pictures. Shameful!

Genocide has been committed using such logic .

No one but you is bringing up genocide.

You have not made any argument except to claim to know the mind of God. For 95% of Christian history, USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT, abortion was never considered murder.

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument and debate I've had for 50 years . Bottom line . The so called pro choice crowd thinks it is ok the murder babies . I don't

Quote:

YOU say the fetus ISN'T dead when aborted. So why is it dead when miscarried?

Who said the baby was always dead when miscarried?

Quote:

You don't baptize aborted babies either?

Doctors make certain babies are dead when aborted. That's the entire business of abortion, to kill an unborn baby. I would have thought you would have understood that long ago since it is the abortion reality that you solidly support.

I still want to know why you suggest we baptize dead infants (" And why aren't miscarried fetuses baptized?") That's really bizarre. Why are you afraid to answer that? I don't suggest we baptize ANY newborns, so my position is perfectly consistent.

Tom, Athos claimed, "Your saying so does not make it so." He should consider that the converse is also true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument and debate I've had for 50 years

You usually fail to engage when challenged. This has been no different. After 50 years, one would think you have finally realized that a zygote is not a baby. It's not easy to deal with such thick-headedness.

Quote:

. Bottom line . The so called pro choice crowd thinks it is ok the murder babies . I don't

Bottom line - The so called pro life crowd thinks it's ok to abandon a baby after birth. I don't.

One stupidity calls for another stupidity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I am woman, hear me roar.
And career librarian for shore.
Wanna hear a little bit more?
Nah! t'would make your brain very sore.

Lol. You're poetry in motion, WG!

Quote:

You usually fail to engage when challenged.

No one on this site avoids challenging questions more than Athos does.

Quote:

The so called pro life crowd thinks it's ok to abandon a baby after birth. I don't.

Complete nonsense. That's especially true considering it is democrat legislatures in Maryland and Cali that are considering the legality of allowing newborn infants to die from neglect at up to 28 days after birth. It is also liberal dems who allow babies aborted alive to die from withdrawal of care. So when Athos says, "I don't", I don't think he is being honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument

Forgot to add this ------

Did you miss the fascinating connection between the Catholic Church declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception followed by the infallible teaching that human life/personhood begins at conception because of Mary?

The one followed the other and led to the current debate over abortion. Easy enough to connect the dots and see how the current debate on abortion stems directly from that infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Amen, sayeth the Preacher.

Another problem with your side is that you don't know the difference between a foetus and a baby. That's pretty basic stuff. More facts that prove your position is a religious one, not a scientific one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.

My pastor dad was on call by the local hospital and his parishioners to rush to the hospital when a woman miscarried in order to minister to her and to baptize the fetus if it was still alive.

To minister to the mom is a wonderful thing, though you might tell her that, after all, it was just a clump of cells and of no value at all, at least according to the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question. The bottom line is that I don't suggest we baptize miscarried children, who are usually dead anyway, because I don't advocate baptizing infants to begin with. And I have no idea how any of that would justify the killing of unborn children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question.

And I thought you were a Christian.

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible. So, as Luther said, if you can convince me of my supposed error from the Bible, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I stand my ground. I don't care what your father believed, or for that matter what Luther believed, though I admire him greatly. The Bible is my standard.

I encourage you to do the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible.

Matthew 28:19. Infants and children are part of "all nations".

Also, Matthew 19:14.

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?

How does your understanding of that text mesh with Acts 2:38 where we are told to repent and then be baptized?

Can you find a single NT specific reference to an infant being baptized? Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???

For someone so sensitive to "cherry picking", it's amazing you can't see it when you do it. Why shouldn't this be considered a textbook example of first making up your mind, and then looking for support for your preconceived notion? Didn't you come up with two verses, one of which never mentioned baptism, and the other which never mentioned children or infants? Did either one of them even reference "infant baptism" at all? Isn't that pretty weak?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?

Two separate activities. Baptize all nations including babies and children, then teach them.

Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???

Jesus loves babies and children. Baptize them so the Spirit can begin working in their hearts through the love and attention of parents and other adults and until they are old enough to begin to understand God's love and Jesus' teachings.

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.

And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings. (I notice you refused to reply to my question about which denomination you belong to.)

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations. Besides, you didn't ask me what denomination I belonged to. You asked, "Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?" I consider both of those to be cults. Why? Because, like your belief about infant baptism, they are not in step with Biblical teaching. So obviously I would not be part of either one.

Quote:

And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings.

I doubt that. Still, your effort to show any Biblical underpinnings for your idea came up with a zero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations.

So what are you?

I'm a Christian. Or as I like to put it more recently, I'm a follower of Jesus.