Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
A worthwhile list...except for numbers 3 and 8 where you went way off the rails.
You wrote:
“If you believe in an immortal soul, the soul existed BEFORE the cells combined to start a new life.”
You’re confusing immortal with eternal essentially. A baby’s soul is immortal, but it starts when the life of the baby starts (at conception). There is no sould before there is a physical body to house it (for lack of a better way to put it).
Disagree partly.
I agree with you on all but the science part.
Science can inform us on facts, but not on moral choices.
I intend to keep clouding the issue as long as people make claims that science makes moral choices for us.
I am a scientist and I dislike to see it misused.
He should get together with expert Nazi Pelosi and the Pope on that.
It was so refreshing to see the Pope himself... um... correct... HRH Pelosi when it came to her views on Christian doctrine. I hope more Christian leaders are inspired to do the same.
If you indeed wrote this, I have to disagree with your assertion that abortion is not murder.
We can disagree on whether a fertilized ovum that splits for the first time before being aborted is murder, but I want to hear it explained how a fully viable and formed human being at nine months development which is still in the mother and has a partial birth abortion performed on it is NOT murder.
You cannot make that argument. You might make a legal argument, but that simply will not fly.
You should have left that one out. It dragged the credibility of all the rest down with it.
The moral choice is then simple: "Is it right to kill innocent human beings?"
The founders of the American republic said "NO."
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law." - the U.S. Constitution
That is not a scientific fact. It cannot be, as the concept of "person" is a legal one, not a scientific one.
I believe we as a society have made a terrible mistake in allowing abortion on demand. But science cannot get us out of the hole we have dug.
It appears we must agree to disagree. I respect your sincerity and in general agree with your position. I must respectfully submit that you are in error in claiming that science tells us who is a person under the law.
The same person who created human life also has the ability to communicate with that life. It is known as the Word of God.
Volumes have been written regarding seminal vs creative origins of human life. Only an arrogant peanut brain would think the issue is as simple as appealing to a current political impression or a mere retort on a blog.
I have to concur with the author of the post in his assessment of the lie. (BTW, so did the Catholic Church prior to the 60s.)
The biggest lie of my lifetime is that obama is qualified to be president.
The embryo is indisputably human, individual and living...it moves and has a heartbeat.
If it wasn't life...you couldn't kill it.
You think the holocaust is not unique?
Please describe to me a genocidal event in history where people were systematically rounded up throughout an entire continent using modern communication and mechanization, shipped like commercial product to multiple centralized hubs to be processed as cattle in meat packing and slaughtered by the millions in a matter of a few short years.
My great grandparents came to the USA to escape the Armenian genocide, and even then, it doesn’t compare in any way. What happened in Armenia is NOT unique in history.
What happened in Cambodia was NOT unique.
What happened to Jews in the Nazi controlled empire WAS unique. This was the prediction by Winston Churchill in his famous “Finest Hour” speech as “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Even though the holocaust had been in full swing for at least four or five years at that point, it wasn’t generally understood for what it was.
You are DEAD wrong on this as well.
Who was asking ?
This guy talks like a Libertarian. It wasn’t Wicca or Islam that built this country; but they’re both very good at tearing it down.
If folks can't see what is as plain as the nose on their face, ie "self-evident," all debate is probably useless anyhow. You're arguing with a man born blind about the nature of color.
Good post.
Ex 21:22-25 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. NIV
It seems this God Breathed scripture shows life in the womb is to be protected.
Who is doing that here? Looking back over my posts, I've appealed to science and the fundamental moral premises of our form of government and our liberty. Nothing done politically or posted on this thread is going to change the fundamental reality of those things one iota. We may stupidly bash our brains out on the rocks of that reality, but that won't change it. The Truth is the Truth.
****Agreed. However, when you hold a decidedly minority view, a modest person would say something like, “I believe such and such to be Christian doctrine.”****
Tell that to Jesus who was in the minority view of him being savior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.