That is not the argument, Rick. A 100 year old is not biologically dependant on any person, unlike a fetus. A day 1 conception is not a human being it is a potential human being. A 100 year old man is not a potential human being.RickD wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 2:55 pmNeo,neo-x wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:00 amIt is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.RickD wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 7:00 amThat seems strange to me, coming from someone that holds science in such high regard. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain, much less anyone as obviously intelligent as you, could see an unborn human as anything but human.Neo wrote:
I was talking about the general attitude towards abortion. It is becoming less of a taboo.
Yes, I don't see an issue with abortion because I don't consider it killing/murdering a human being.
An unborn baby is as fully human as a 100 year old man. It just puzzles me to hear you say that.I do think it is a matter of personal choice. That being said, I see the issue you have and empathize with the idea but I feel it's misplaced - to think that every human embryo and later fetus, is the same as a human baby come to term - is misleading at best. Is it potential human being? yes; but it is not a human being per se - the same as you and me.
Anyone who's has ever felt a baby move or kick, inside its mother, can clearly see that it's alive, and not "potential" life.
Are you asking me if one's belief, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or pro abortion, affects salvation?As for born-again Christians, do you see this as something that affects their salvation?
What are the spiritual side effects of abortion in your opinion?
No, of course you know I don't believe that. I don't even believe any doctor that murders the unborn can't be saved.
Spiritual effects of abortion? The same as spiritual effects of any sin, I guess.
Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.
I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?
What you addressed here, to me, is the entire discussion in a nutshell. If the unborn aren't human, than anything is permissible. But if they are human, then they have the inherent right to not be killed.
So, you said that the unborn aren't human beings until they come to full term. What do you base this on?
And to answer your questions...
An unborn and a 100 year old are both human beings, in different stages of life. They are the same in that they are both human. But different in that they are in different stages. But you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't human would you? What if that 100 year old couldn't survive on his own without help from somebody else? Isn't that the argument you used for the unborn?
Second question. If the baby is harming the mother, is aborting that baby murder? I would say that in the extremely rare cases that the baby is endangering the mother's life, then we would get into a discussion regarding situational ethics. But like I said, the cases where the unborn baby is a genuine threat to the mother, are rare. Doctors would try to save both lives, as best they could.
The link you cited to ed is Quite conservative. No one is saying that the nature of life of a zygote is not human. Of course it is. I said the same before. But it is not a human being. Cherry picking sources Rick?
I suppose your argument works logically. I can see that. However biologically it is not that simple. In that if taken to extreme then even a sperm is a human being. The bible makes this case as well. Especially in the epistle to Hebrews where paul the author proposes that levi, one of Abraham's descendants paid a tithe even though he had not been born yet and was still in his father.
7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the [a]spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Do you agree with this biblical perspective?
Imo, In that sense even Masturbating can be considered mass murder. After all, your descendants are in your body.
Infact the Bible doesn't mention levi coming from his father and mother but only from his father. Why do you think that is? This is just a side note?