So is it or isn't it a human

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timbothefiveth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
Why do you think that the issues you have brought up here are important or profound?
Click to expand...
Look, this isn’t gong to get anywhere. Just keep saying your mantra if it keeps you happy:thumbsup:
You’re not looking for anything deep and profound.
 
twb1621 said:
Hello doc, there are those who debate issues to justify and defend their own position or beliefs and there are those who debate issues to learn what others believe and why.
I believe you are one of those fitting the second category above. If I am wrong, please correct me.
As far as anyone attempting to substantiate a division between initial conception and at what point an embryo becomes a human being, they must first prove human beings procreating within their own species have at some point in time produced off spring of other than human species. Man’s quest to substantiate such a division serves no purpose other than as an attempt to diminish the significance of the human embryonic life form establishing a point where it may be considered legally if not morally acceptable to terminate by individual discretion. But man has no control over the soul, can not contain the soul, has no ability to locate or identify a soul, and no ability to separate or join body and soul at his own discretion. Of course man can separate the soul from the body but only through the taking of a person’s life and even then man only causes the separation as a side effect but does not perform the division directly.

So until man can credibly prove human beings have procreated within their own species and produced offspring of an unrelated species, and until man develops the ability to locate, identify, capture, remove and replace the human soul by his own discretion, man can not in truth, justify the discretionary termination of a human pregnancy or any division between the initial point of conception and a specific point that an embryo may or may not be human possessing a soul. In other words, what belongs to God and is to God’s discretion can not be taken away from God and man belongs to God, not man. Abortion is the deliberate termination of human life, and as scripture tells us;
5 For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. …7 Be fertile, then, and multiply; abound on earth and subdue it."* (Genesis CH 9: v5 and v7)*

Now if God will demand an accounting from the animals of a human life, how serious must he take it when He demands an accounting of human life from man himself?

It is human when God intends its existence, not when man determines its viability.
Click to expand...
TWB1621, this is so well said that I hope you do not mind I will print and use as reference when debating on the subject with proabortion people.👍
 
Tamsulosin said:
TWB1621, this is so well said that I hope you do not mind I will print and use as reference when debating on the subject with proabortion people.👍
Click to expand...
Thank you, Tamsulosin, your welcome to it, anyone may feel free to anything I may offer at any time if they feel it helpful.

Peace
 
Doc_Keele said:
Look, this isn’t gong to get anywhere. Just keep saying your mantra if it keeps you happy:thumbsup:
You’re not looking for anything deep and profound.
Click to expand...
I was asking you seriously: why do you think the issues you have brought up are important, serious, profound, or whatever?
 
I think this is an absolutely unholy discussion. There should be no question regarding human or not. At time of conception, it is a gift from God, a child. Stop referring to babies as “fetus’s”
 
St_Francis said:
I was asking you seriously: why do you think the issues you have brought up are important, serious, profound, or whatever?
Click to expand...
I would like to reiterate this question: what (Doc) are you talking about? I don’t care whether or not it is profound but I would like your comment to be specific.

Ender
 
Sorry, but I’ve kind of given up repeating myself over and over again given the nastiness that has come out overnight from a few posters attacking me in a pretty spiteful way. This stuff always seems to get overlooked when it’s directed at the “right” targets 🤷
 
jmcrae said:
🤷

The answer to the original question is, “Yes, they are human.” 🙂
Click to expand...
The original question does not specify that we’re talking about a human fetus being a human. An ape fetus is not human. An avian fetus is not human.
They’re still fetuses.

The original poster probably had a human fetus in mind but I think the question needs to be worded better.

It seems like some posters even think that the term fetus is degrading and insulting. Its really not. I’m slightly surprised we haven’t seen fe*** or somesuch combination yet.
 
westchesterinstitute.net/…life_print.pdf

It’s very clear from this article that the zygote stage is the first stage of human development which follows a continuum all the way from there to old age and finally death.

All abortions are performed long after the zygote stage has begun.

By Maureen Condic: from the Westchester Institute article referenced above:

“From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely
ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development
that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.”

This passage perhaps best sums up the point of it. These facts are not in dispute within the medical community. Abortion kills a human being at the earliest stage of life. But since that human being cannot defend itself, and since the mother will not defend it, the law takes no interest in the matter; unless the child is killed as part of a double homicide of a pregnant woman, when suddenly for some inexplicable reason the baby in the womb merits the legal status of human being.
 
The law is very extrange.If the mother kills the baby in complicity with a dr.It is ok.
If it is other person that kills a baby in the womb(like in Lacy Peterson’s case it was the father of the baby).It is a double homicide.Go figure.:confused:
 
Doc_Keele said:
Sorry, but I’ve kind of given up repeating myself over and over again given the nastiness that has come out overnight from a few posters attacking me in a pretty spiteful way. This stuff always seems to get overlooked when it’s directed at the “right” targets 🤷
Click to expand...
You have not explained why you think the points that you brought up are profound, and if you were to do so, we might understand better why you bring them up. In the absence of such explanation, we react as we see the words, and all too often, we see those words in the mouths of those who are pushing abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top