Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
I typically approach the question from this proof by contradiction framework and so while you might not regard my remarks as evidence in the traditional sense my comments do form a framework from which I attempt to prove that an unborn is not a human being at conception. Some of my points on this front have been:
1. Twins (Two persons with the same DNA)
2. Genetic Chimerras (One person with two different sets of DNA)
3. Skin cells have human DNA but they are not human beings
4. When ensoulment happens and its relationship to twins and genetic chimerras.
5. Numbers 5 showing that forced loss of life for an unborn in the case of adultery was biblically acceptable.
I don't approach the question from the traditional front as much because the question of what properties make something a human being is not a question for which we have a consensus and so it's almost impossible to give traditional evidence that a fetus is a human being with this taken into consideration. My points on this front have been:
1. There are a number of defining moments in the early stages of development for an unborn any of which we could define that it begins to be a human being at that point.
I have also attacked many counter arguments you have proposed and that in itself is a another form of evidence. |
Sorry. This is not evidence. I do not consider "proof by contradiction framework " to be evidence. It is merely supposition on your part. And... attacking counter arguments in this form is not evidence either.
You don't have any evidence, which is why you chose to argue in this manner instead of giving credible evidence.
Your attempt to prove that an unborn is not a human being at conception is pathetic... at best. You consider a fetus to not be human either or at least gave that impression on this thread.
The fact that I did put forth evidence that a baby is human at any and all stages of development says much more than the straw man,"proof by contradiction framework "approach you give. This evidence was given by a medical doctor, who I would say has more education in this matter than you. You even refused to watch the evidence when it was given. What is the matter? Are you afraid that the evidence just might change your mind?
In regards to "Genetic Chimerras" (One person with two different sets of DNA)
and "Skin cells have human DNA but they are not human beings"...you only phrased this in a question and a statement by giving a short paragraph of what they were. You failed to mention that mainly these sort of happenings are the
result of human genetical engineering and testings. You gave no historical in-depth studies that our military and scientists has been experimenting on subjects for 100 years or more on many different issues. To give the impression that Chimeras are a result from a natural occurrence makes you deceptive.
Scientists have been inserting into DNA the genes of other species for decades and decades. That includes plants, their seeds and humans also.
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/section.php?id=112
I've discussed this before on the personhood amendment thread.
When soulment happens. This was another of your questions, instead of giving any scriptural or medical evidence to the rest of us when "soulment" actually does happen. Where is
your evidence? "Proof by contradiction" is not evidence. I can do the same by just contradicting you all year long and call it evidence.
In regards to..
Numbers 5 showing that forced loss of life for an unborn in the case of adultery was biblically acceptable. You are still deceptive because you took this verse out of the context from which it was written to make a moot point about abortion today. I would be very afraid of God for trying to teach to people that God accepts forced loss of life people using his Word out of contextual meaning. In fact, that is pretty low-down and a very looong stretch to try to make abortion more acceptable. Again, you insert supposition into these verses. You could take many verses in the Bible and say it pertains to abortion today...but you would likewise be wrong.
As for your question about euphemism, the KJV did not make the euphemism in their interpretation.
It was the translation that Aquila used that interpreted the euphemism "womb". The KJV used the word "thigh" coming from 3409. If the Strong's scholars thought that the chapter was pertaining to the womb, they most certainly would have used the word "womb".
But....what does this all have to do with the abortion on demand mindset that society has today?
Linear Mode
