Skip to comments.Administration: We Can Force You to Cooperate in Killing Your Grandchild
Posted on 03/26/2014 4:33:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
Question: Does the Obama administration claim the right to force Americans to cooperate in killing their own grandchildren? Answer: Yes.
On the face of it, this seems like an outrageous claim. But it is true. The outrage is what the government is demanding Americans do.
The Affordable Care Act -- aka Obamacare -- includes a "requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage." The main part of this "requirement" says: "An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."
The IRS has explained: "The provision applies to individuals of all ages, including children. The adult or married couple who can claim a child or another individual as a dependent for federal income tax purposes is responsible for making the [penalty] payment if the dependent does not have coverage or an exemption."
Bottom line: Parents "shall" buy health insurance for their dependent children.
The Affordable Care Act says: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for ... with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings ... as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration."
These comprehensive guidelines mandate copay free coverage for: "All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says women attain reproductive capacity between ages 12 and 13.
Bottom line: Parents must buy health insurance for their dependent children that, without copay, covers all FDA-approved "contraceptive methods" for all women who can conceive a child.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued its opinion in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, it said: "Four of the twenty [FDA-]approved methods -- two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella -- can function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg."
The court said in a footnote: "Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation."
When the Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the Hobby Lobby case, it said in its petition: "An IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a physician that ... 'may prevent the egg from attaching (implanting) in the womb (uterus).'"
"Plan B, an emergency contraceptive," the administration told the court, "is a pill that ... may also work ... by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus).'"
"Ella, another emergency contraceptive," the administration told the court, "'may also work by changing the lining of the womb (uterus) that may prevent attachment (implantation).'"
What is a "fertilized egg?"
The federal government's National Library of Medicine -- a part of the National Institutes of Health -- maintains a Web page entitled, "Fetal Health and Development." It links to a publication of The American Academy of Family Physicians, which is entitled, "Your Baby's Development: The First Trimester."
The first question on this fact sheet: "When does pregnancy begin?" The answer: "Pregnancy begins when a sperm fertilizes a woman's egg."
The second question: "What happens after the sperm fertilizes the egg?" The answer: "After conception, your baby begins a period of dramatic change known as the embryonic stage."
In 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued an opinion advocating IUD or hormonal implants for teenage girls.
"In 21 states, all teenagers can get contraceptives without parental permission, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks laws affecting women's health," said an Associated Press report on the ACOG opinion.
"The IUD and implant cost hundreds of dollars," said the report. "The new health reform law requires health insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments."
And it requires moms and dads to buy insurance for their own teenage children that will pay to kill a fertilized egg -- or, as The American Academy of Family Physicians calls it, a baby.
I really can’t take much more of this.
So if there was a limitation to this law, a way that it would NOT apply, wouldn’t that be worth the time and effort to learn about?
I am NOT SURPRISED.....DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL. ABORTION and GAY MARRIAGE are SACRAMENTS TO THEM!
Perhaps it “requires”, but it cannot force...
Unless it is too hard, then a person can simply take a hardship excuse and bail out.
But if they kill the kids then who will be left to vote for the democrats in the future? It never made any sense to me.
What else would you expect when even the head of The Regime likes the idea of killing his own grandchild ... lest his daughter be “punished with a baby”.
ALL the DEAD VOTE for DEMOCRATS!!! OMG...did you just fall from the sky??
“Perhaps it requires, but it cannot force...”
Like I said... Requiring is one thing, but if you are going to “force” it requires you to have some skin in the game. I don’t take to force easily. They would have to gamble that it meant more to them than it did to me. And if were talking about taking lives of grand children, the stakes are pretty high...
no reason to get hostile about it. shrug.
The regime can’t force much of anything. They can pass laws and try to enforce them but rely upon voluntary obedience for the most part.
In short the only person who makes slavery possible is the slave.
Well, I wouldn’t absolve the other side either; there’s plenty of G.children economic slavery from the ‘hands off *my* S.S./Medicare/I ‘paid’ for this’ crowd
No problem, the rule of law is now moot.
I’m getting a bit tired of this “contraception = abortion” nonsense. It is precisely this kind of foolishness that pro-aborts use to dismiss the pro-life position.
If Hobby Lobby does not want to pay for contraception, that’s fine. There are plenty of valid arguments to be made for contraception being an individual responsibility. But the nonsense that an undifferentiated fertilized egg is somehow exactly the same in form and function as a newborn baby is not one of them. If it happens to be one of the fewer than 10% of fertilized ova that are even capable of growing into a baby, it will not be physically capable of awareness for another 3-5 weeks, when the brain (and all other organ systems) forms.
When egg and sperm combined to a full set of DNA that is there start of life. I refuse to grant any government of organization the power to define it as anything else. To do otherwise is to give someone the power to decide who lives and who dies. As soon as you accede them at power you open the door on all sorts of evil including euthanasia and genocide. To pick any point between fertilization and the babies first breath is arbitrary and subject to change by human whim or the latest fad of science. Heartbeat, brainwaves, pain sense... all are to difficult to pin down to a specific day/week/trimester. Rather than grant someone the power to draw that line I believe it can only be drawn at the point where a person is created. The moment when they have a full set of DNA and begin to grow. At that moment someone is scientifically defined as a separate organism from the mother.
You are not pro-life, so I can see why you are more than willing to harvest the earliest stage of life for your utilitarian measures.
First, you make a self contradicting clause the basis for the rest of your lie: once fertilization happens, the 'thing' that is, is no longer an egg; people are not chickens.
Second, you want to float the popular leftist lie that even a mass of 150 or more cells of the new life in morulla stage descending the fallopian tube or inside the uterus but not implanted is 'undifferentiated. That lie is so smarmy I have addressed it twice for you on other threads, but still you try to use that lie here on this thread. You are a liar at heart is all I can discern about you from your continuing deceitful methodology.
Third, you want to blur the concept of form and function so that you can dismiss the earliest form and function of newly conceived living beings. You are a disgusting liar and it is likely we will witness on this thread the same sort of lying you've tried to push on other threads at FR.
You and your leftist ilk love to define the limits of forma nd function which you will allow to be acceptable for discussion. But it is a fact that you have to lie in order to try and float your leaky boats. You arbitrarily dismiss form and function occurring prior to the arbitrary point of magic personhood your evil ilk demand be the only perspective on gestational life. Freerepublic is a pro-life website. You are clearly not pro-life but you want to continue your charade. Why?
First of all, the notion that there is a "start point" for life is nonsensical. Life never arises from non-life. Sperm and ova are all alive and cannot combine to form a zygote unless they are alive.
Second, there has to be some defining factor that differentiates between a metabolically active mass of cells and an individual human being. Since the brain is the "central processor" that enables us to sense and respond to our environment in a way that transcends spontaneous reactions to chemical or physical signals, it makes sense to protect the embryo once its nervous system starts to form, about 3 weeks after conception. At that time, all of its organs, limbs, etc., are forming.
There is no way I will condemn women for using contraceptives.
The blastocyst IS a mass of undifferentiated cells. At the most, cells might be polarizing, meaning that development pathways are being determined based on their position within the blastocyst--an automatic process completely driven by chemical signals. Differentiated cells actually do not grow, and typically die within a set time after differentiating, depending on tissue type. The process of differentiation is multi-step and continues until death of the organism.
That brings up another point--every tissue within your body, with one exception, has been completely replaced many times through the process of differentiation of new cells to replace the countless cells that die every single day. These new cells come from undifferentiated stem cells present throughout the body. The only exception is the nervous system. The various brain and neural cells do not die and are not replaced by new cells. They are the same cells you were born with, the same cells that started to differentiate three weeks after conception. The only continuity within your body is within the nervous system. You could say that the only purpose of the early embryo is to produce a brain, and the only purpose of the non-nervous system tissues after that is to support the brain.
Here is the Wikipedia article on human fertilization. And here is a figure from that article. Do me a favor, will you, study it and point out or describe to me the physical features of that pre-implantation embryo that enable it to be fully aware of and responsive to its environment through any process more sophisticated than spontaneous chemical responses to chemical and physical signals?
Once again, let me point out that I did not invent the events of early embryogenesis, I have merely described them. And providing accurate descriptions with the intent of educating people does *not* make me a liar or a leftist.
I suspect that we have one of two possibilities here: either you really do not know embryology, or you do know and deceitfully want to define things differently from the way the SCIENCE of Embryology defines things. That second methodology is typical of progressives who try to fashion reality to fit their demonic lusts for exploiting the earliest aged humans.
The blastocyst HAS TO HAVE DIFFERENTIATED ELSE THE CELLS TASKED WITH IMPLANTATION WOULD NOT BE, AS DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE CELLS WHEREIN THE BODY FOR LIFE IN THE AIR WORLD WILL BE BUILT. Even in the morulla stage, differentiation is occurring.
In either case, your assertion as I have quoted it is wrong. If you don't realize why it is wrong, you could study to show thyself approved, or if you do know it is wrong, you are indeed just a common rat liar.
The question of whether it has a spirit, a soul or a mind may not be possible to answer with science but science does answer, without equivocation, that it is an individual living human being from the moment of conception or at least very shortly after when the two half-strands of DNA combine.
No one has ever claimed that a zygote or embryo are the same in form and function. It is however a living human being, an individual organism distinct from any other living organism.
I have been consistently honest about the fact that I base my pro-life views on scientific criteria, not Catholic theology. And I have never claimed to be a Catholic.
Did you even look at this Wikipedia page that I linked earlier? Were you able to find any detail in which I am demonstrably incorrect? Calling me a liar and a leftist does not change the fact that the scientific facts that I have presented are accurate. It does, however make it quite clear that you cannot counter anything I have said factually. It is a typical immature leftist tactic to call people names when they cannot factually support their position--why are you behaving like a leftist? Insult me as you will, you still cannot change the fact that ~150 undifferentiated cells are not a living, feeling human being. Differentiated cells form muscle, lungs, skeleton, liver, kidneys, skin, etc.--where are all of those tissues in a blastocyst? A human being experiences his or her environment through central nervous system processing of impulses conducted through the nerves. Without that capacity to experience the environment, a human being cannot exist.
Let me reiterate: the nervous system does not begin to form until 3 weeks post conception when the neural tube starts to fold; by 5 weeks, there is a definite brain (and it is functional). These events all occur after implantation. Put simply, a woman using contraceptives is not killing anyone because no person exists.
Your criteria for defining a human being are so loose and broad that just about anything is a human being by your definition. I have mentioned several times that I have grown countless millions, maybe billions, of human cells for research. According to your definition, every one of those cells was a person, and I have committed mass murder and crimes against humanity by experimenting on them and then killing them.
In a previous post, I listed several situations that contradict the idea that a thinking, feeling human being springs into existence at the moment of conception. I notice that you provided no explanation of how any of those situations can be reconciled with the belief that a zygote or blastocyst is a complete human being, choosing instead to insult me in a most unchristian manner.
BTW, you might try perusing a real medical journal, like Reproductive Medicine Online. You won't find any articles claiming that blastocysts contain differentiated cells in there, or any of your other unscientific claims. You will find a lot of articles like this one discussing the fact that most blastocysts do not become babies.
The first question on this fact sheet: "When does pregnancy begin?" The answer: "Pregnancy begins when a sperm fertilizes a woman's egg."
The second question: "What happens after the sperm fertilizes the egg?" The answer: "After conception, your baby begins a period of dramatic change known as the embryonic stage."
... as The American Academy of Family Physicians calls it, a baby.
According to your criteria, these are living human beings in this youtube video: Fibroblasts - Human Dermal Fibroblasts | Cell Applications, Inc. They don't feel, they don't know they are alive, but that doesn't matter--you've made it abundantly clear that you don't think being conscious or being able to process information are necessary characteristics of a human being.
I wonder if this will affect the population of the “keep your kids on your plan until they’re 26” provision.
That was a truly pathetic attempt to mischaracterize my definition with an outright lie.
I utterly hate it when scientific concepts are so oversimplified for the layperson that they actually become incorrect. Pregnancy is the state of the woman's body after a blastocyst implants. The events that are necessary for her to become pregnant may have started with the union of sperm and egg, but unless a blastocyst implants, she won't become pregnant. And I'm sure that the whole statement about "After conception, your baby..." is a drastic oversimplification which is not intended to convey the idea that physicians universally consider a zygote and a newborn as being identical save for size. There is a real challenge in writing for laypeople and maintaining scientific accuracy.
For a more accurate and scientific view, try reading Reproductive Biomedicine Online. There is a common theme to those scientific articles: those who work in the area of reproductive medicine do not consider a pregnancy successfully established until they can detect the fetal heartbeat at gestational weeks 6 to 8. (I'm not sure how they count gestational weeks in the context of in vitro fertilization, but in normal pregnancy, that would be 4 to 6 weeks post-conception.) The fetal heart develops at the same time as the nervous system; many people consider initiation of heart beat as the beginning of a human being's life.
I hate it when Death Cult liberals spread their lies and arrogantly ignore it when their lies are thoroughly exposed.
Those cells are absolutely self-sustaining. All they need to continue to grow indefinitely are nutrients, CO2, and warmth. Furthermore, they contain in their DNA all of the information needed to grow into a human being indistinguishable in form and function from any other human being. The difference between them and the cells of an early pre-implantation blastocyst is the pattern of gene expression. With a chemical "reset" of the DNA, any of those fibroblasts could be induced to enter the embryogenic pathway. The process of inducing embryogenesis out of differentiated cells has been done many times in rodents and other animals (e.g. Dolly the sheep); researchers are attempting to do the same with primates. Once they figure out the process in primates, they will be able to do it with humans.
Oh, for the sake of completeness, I should mention that there are many populations of human embryonic cells maintained in exactly the same manner as those fibroblasts--and they do not form embryos since they have not received the chemical signals telling them to begin embryogenesis. Oh, BTW, here is a nice information piece that explains where thoughts take place and how consciousness is controlled in the brain, and here is another ("brain facts" link here) that illustrates (in very brief and simplified fashion) how thoughts occur. However, I did notice that *after* I had already listed a number of imaging techniques that allow researchers and physicians to record thought processes as they occur, you again challenged me to name one way in which thoughts can be seen as if I had never even listed the imaging modalities. Therefore, I don't hold high hopes of you actually learning anything from these web sites.
Oh, and while I was perusing youtube videos, I found this video which, frankly, makes me feel a bit nauseated. That's because, unlike you, I am very aware of how integral functional brain tissue is to personhood and perception, and I recognize that the brain they made *is* a person. The video shouldn't bother you one bit, however, given your odd view that the purpose of the brain is--I dunno, to keep the skull from collapsing? While you have adamantly denied that the brain's primary functions have anything to do with the brain, you've never really specified what, exactly, you think the brain does.
The fact that your new-age beliefs about human biology contradict what is actually known, and I insist on only communicating established scientific facts might make *someone* a liar, but it isn't me.
You are the filth that is now running this nation, a leftist, lying, twisting, deceiving any you can with the lies from your father, a murderer from the start. The assertion that you are basing your argument upon science is absolutely a lie and several have shown your lies for what they are. The use of 'undifferentiated', your dismissal of alive embryonic humans as merely clumps of cells ... yeah, you're a lying leftist bilge spittlist who wouldn't know truth if it slapped your ugly face. You are filth and I will not play with you any longer because you are too dishonest, too leftist, too alinskyesque to have an honest discussion. I am just surprised you have been tolerated at this conservative website for this long, you servant of the most low.
I never post anything that I have not vetted as to accuracy and reliability. As a professional, I often go to Wikipedia, because I know that there is a high chance that someone has already found the relevant references, saving me a lot of work. I like Wikipedia, because it generally is written so that laypeople can understand what are often very technical topics. I could link medical journals, but don't because they typically are written so that only subject matter experts can understand them.
The reason I keep bringing up Catholicism is that it is the only prominent faith I know about that proscribes the use of contraceptives. It is mind-boggling to me, given that preventing pregnancy is the best way to decrease the abortion rate, and Catholic official doctrine supposedly is against abortion. If there is another prominent faith (Christian or not) that proscribes the use of contraceptives, I will happily include it in these discussions.
What I am responding to here is the attempt to dishonestly twist science around so as to justify the philosophically driven proscription of contraceptives. If you want to say that you believe a human soul forms at conception, fine--but DON'T try to justify it with muddled science. There are some serious philosophical issues with that belief, but in general, I don't discuss philosophy since it is the art of making claims that can't be seen, touched, measured, or otherwise verified in a concrete manner.
The use of 'undifferentiated', your dismissal of alive embryonic humans as merely clumps of cells ...
Oh, my goodness. So I dismiss a formless clump of cells that have absolutely no physical structures associated with awareness or thought as being a clump of formless cells. Oh, horrors. How absolutely awful of me to promote the concept that legal protection should be extended to those who actually have human form and function, and then go on to explain when that form and function is actually observable.
BTW, did you spend any time perusing that journal, Reproductive Medicine Online, which is full of experts relating their hands-on everyday observations of early pre-implantation embryos, to see how *they* describe them? And when *they* consider pregnancy to start?
I'm afraid your attempts to insult me for doggedly sticking to scientifically verifiable facts are not going to turn me against the use of contraceptives. I will, as I always have done, stick strictly to the scientific facts and describe them. To do otherwise would be dishonest and untrue to myself.
Keep in mind that if God did want people like me to exist--literal, absolutely focused on the physical world, no patience with philosophical thought--we wouldn't exist.
That lie is as old as the Genesis story. It sifts down to saying that God must be responsible for Evil else it would not exist in the Universe He has created. You are a dead soul, a liar, and a servant of the father of dead souls ... and that is not God The Father Almighty.
And still you cannot define what consciousness actually is or how it comes to be in the gestating new human being, or even a gestating dog. Your mind is so twisted in worship of your little god science that you are unable to think clearly. And your continuing lie over the developing embryo, claiming it is an undifferentiated mass of cells until well after implantation, even as that new life seeks implantation to support its will to live, is evidence of your bankrupt soul. There are three distinct levels to human consciousness, but since you do not discuss philosophical issues, we can assume you would not read or acknowledge them if offered for your contemplation, so bye bye, enjoy your 'science driven life' as you lie your way into eternity. Wouldn't want to be you ...
Well start hollering up God again.
Vetted by who, Lucifer?
A formless clump of cells isn’t formless, for literal Christ’s sake.
It seems I forgot a “not” in there—if God did *not* want people like me to exist (...) we wouldn’t exist. And saying so is not presuming to speak for God—since God is the all-powerful creator of the universe, we can conclude that everything that exists in the universe is by His will. Thus, I am exactly the way God wanted me to be.
I guess you are unaware of the enormous body of work that has taken place in the field of neurobiology, demonstrating quite clearly how the brain functions. Shall I start linking to some of the imaging studies that map brain activity and show where specific kinds of thoughts occur? And which demonstrate that brain activity changes in specific ways in different consciousness states? If there is any group of cells in which such activity can occur within the pre- or even early post-implantation embryo, there would be some sort of imagery or study that demonstrates it. But the only thing that comes close, to my knowledge, is the observation that the neural tube starts to fold in week 3—the time that all of the organs and tissues start to differentiate.
The burden of proof that a clump of cells can be consciously aware of anything really is on you. The only reason I can think of for pushing a definition of human being that does not include actual human form and function is to provide a rationale to condemn women for using contraceptives. I’ve already said that no amount of childish name calling or insults (aka bullying) will change my opinion on that. I simply will not condemn contraceptive use. And I won’t start elevating every single cell or clump of cells to human being status, just because it could be induced into developing into an embryo through the application of the proper mixture of biochemicals.
Since a human being appears to only become self aware by the age of eighteen to twenty-four months after exiting the water world into the air world, would you extend the utilitarian use of these not yet self conscious beings to about seventeen months from birth into the air world?
If the scale you magically apply is consciousness, what is the magic moment when the organism becomes conscious? And a corollary: are the not yet self aware/self-conscious children less valuable than the children who have achieved awareness of the self?
Are you aware that life is a growth in complexity, from the will, then emotive, then self awareness/self consciousness?
Since dead souls are happy to disenfranchise a living organism (not organ, you lying mudpile, organism, because an embryonic individual is an ORGANISM) as it exhibits the will to live, and as it builds a brain ORGAN capable of emotive living for its consciousness, what is the magic date of the level of life we less enlightened should endorse protecting?
Word to readers of this post and thread: the person, exDemMom, to whom this is posted is claiming to be a pro-life conservative. She/he/it is nothing of the sort, as evidenced by the dead-soul support of leftist/progressive talking points used to defend embryo harvesting for experimentation and cloning research.
Her/his/its continued assertion that only scientific perspective is her/his/its basis for truth must not be ignored and thus given credulity, for the verdicts of science are a sliding scale determined by the authorities of each epoch, thus unedited by God's Grace in Christ.
Amen, Come Lord Jesus!
For Pete’s sake, will you step back for a minute and look at your behavior? You aren’t acting very Christian. Furthermore, if you are truly pro-life—which I am beginning to doubt is your primary concern—you *must* be cognitive of the fact that the laws and attitudes towards abortion will never change based on someone’s religious opinion on what is a human *being*. You also won’t make much headway by calling people names and engaging in generally harassive behavior.
A major problem with using religious/philosophical criteria for trying to define a question best left to science is that there is no consistency in religious or philosophical views. Why should *your* opinion of the definition of a soul take precedence over the opinion of someone of a different religious faith? Assuming (which I don’t) that it is perfectly reasonable and valid to disregard actual observable and measurable physical characteristics, then why should *your* opinion of when a soul appears take precedence over the opinion of someone who believes that a soul does not appear until “quickening”, until the draw of the first breath, or until some other completely arbitrary point?
The beauty of science is that it is based on objective observation and is NOT subject to individual opinion. As I have already explained multiple times, the neural tube starts to fold during the 3rd week post-conception. Between weeks 3 and 5, the cells within that fold differentiate to form the brain and spinal cord. Since cells exhibit the behavior of their tissue-type as soon as they differentiate, it is reasonable to assume that these brain cells function as brain cells, communicating with each other and with the rest of the organism. We know, through a large body of research, that consciousness/the sense of self/personhood are manifested through brain activity, and that none of those exist in the absence of brain activity (hence, why thousands of people a day are declared dead on the basis of complete loss of brain function). We also know that of all the cell types that form the body, only the nervous system cells are permanent. Every other cell type dies and is replaced by newly differentiated cells originating from the body’s reservoirs of undifferentiated cells maintained for that purpose, on a regular basis. The durability of the nervous system tissues further supports the idea that a human life should be given legal protection once those tissues start to form, about 3 weeks after conception. While there is no reason to think that the level of awareness of a brain containing a handful of cells is anywhere close to that of a fetus of, e.g., 8 or 9 weeks, the consciousness continually grows in complexity and so there is no point at which one can say it is morally acceptable to snuff it out once it can be reasonably assumed to exist according to scientific objective criteria. Long story short, there is simply no basis for condemning the use of contraceptives, and your abusive behavior cannot change that fact.
I’ve already said this (and you did not even try to address it), but here it is again. Philosophically, there are many problems with the belief that conception—causes a soul to exist?—pulls a soul out of the ether? First, most fertilized ova don’t grow, don’t implant, or cease growing soon after implantation; only about 10 to 15% of them have the potential to form a fetus. Second, twins or even triplets can grow from a single fertilized ovum. Third, sometimes two zygotes fuse and go on to become one fetus with two genomes. Fourth, it is theoretically possible (and soon will be practicably possible) to induce embryogenesis from differentiated cells derived from a post-birth human. These facts all cause considerable difficulties for the “one conception one soul” paradigm. By that paradigm, you could ethically justify killing the “extras” for spare parts because they have no souls. Scientifically, there is no question about the personhood in any of these cases—one functional brain equals one person, regardless of the path embryogenesis took.
BTW, nice straw man you threw in about the utilitarian stuff.
As you have seen, I am one Christian who will not tolerate your lies and deceptions, so accuse all you want, liar. And there are lots of Christians just like me at FR who have not commented on your lies and deceptions because little old me has exposed you sufficiently.
Im getting a bit tired of this contraception = abortion nonsense
35 years ago when IUDs were in vogue as the #1 form of contraception” after the Pill, it was known then that women could still get pregnant and that the IUD caused abortion of the fertilized egg AKA a baby...
but maybe youre not old enough to have known that...
or maybe you were such a Democrat then that you denied the obvious...
but when my youngest child was born in 1979 I was offered an IUD and I declined..knowing what it could do..
You arent acting very Christian
Kid even the pagan Greeks were against abortion...
there is that pesky little item in the Hippocratic Oath about promising to never give anything to a woman that would cause her to lose her unborn child...
The beauty of science is that it is based on objective observation and is NOT subject to individual opinion.
and yet without knowing any modern science King David gave us his “individual opinion 3,000 years ago when he said “when I was knitted together in secret in my mother’s womb.. Psalm 139:15
IOW before his mother ever knew she was pregnant, before she realized she had “missed” a period, God knew David was a baby with a beating heart and was formed into a living human..regardless of the stage..
human from the moment of conception, living from the moment the sperm penetrated the egg..a living creation of God..
But well that would have to be just David’s vivid imagination ...what would an uneducated shepherd boy know..
Now if David had been “using religious/philosophical criteria for trying to define a question best left to science” as you claim..
how on Earth did he guess what science would have to wait 3,000 years to tell us ???
and he did it without a microscope ...
If you are soldiering against God, you are allied with the left in their war against us. Do not mock God or Christian belief or Christian FReepers.
Life begins at inception. Life is a gift from God. Our liberty is granted by God. This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we defend those pinciples to the hilt.
If you cannot live with that, then please avoid all such “debate” whjile on FR. Our belief in God, Life, Liberty is non-negotiable and not subject to debate.
BTW this was one of my arguments back in the 70s with you anti-lifers ...
I was an active pro-lifer before being pro-life was cool..
David knew that the baby was a baby...
and mentioned that fact in Psalms etc..
its well documented that modern science was not needed to know the baby was a living sole from conception..
take Elizabeth and Mary...Luke 1:26-44
Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant with her son, John ..
Mary just newly pregnant with her son, Jesus..she had “hurried” to see Elizabeth right after the angel told her she would be pregnant and that Elizabeth was pregnant..
it was the same day or the next day or the same week...Jesus was still a secret..Mary hadn’t “missed” a period as yet...
Both John and Jesus already had spirits and a way of communication in the Spirit..
John heard the voice of Mary speaking to Elizabeth and he leaped for joy..and Elizabeth was filled with Holy Spirit
In the Spirit Elizabeth knew why the unborn-as-yet John leaped..
She said it was because Mary was pregnant with Jesus her Lord...
Oh dear..unborn babies have spirits just like born humans..
bang goes that unBiblical theory of pagan Mormons and others that human babies do not get a spirit until birth so go ahead and abort them..
just what was that all about ???
Im sure you will apprise igit us with some so called scientific goody to refute the superstitions of the uneducated Elizabeth and Mary...
after all they lived 2,000 years ago...
2 millennium before your scientists..
I am a strong pro-lifer and I have consistently argued the pro-life position from a scientific—that is, evidentiary—viewpoint.
Never before have I been attacked for accurately describing the events of early embryogenesis—at least by someone claiming to be pro-life. In fact, *most* pro-lifers seem to appreciate the scientific validation of their view.
I do not mock Christians or Christian belief, and avoid bringing religion into scientific discussions. However, I do sometimes respond when someone tries to make a scientific discussion into a religious one, which is what happened here.