Bible Passages About Fetus / Baby

[Kenny]

That only appears to say that she has been pregnant for six months.

Conceived a "son" is much more than just being pregnant. And, in today science, a 6th month pregnancy is a child that if born will live naturally.

 

[Kenny]

The point is that that is not evidence for either a soul or personhood.

It also isn't evidence that it is just a fetus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

And you are simply stating biological needs and realities just as there is a reality that a person on a ventilator need a lot more oxygen too. But you haven't established, other than your personal viewpoint, that it isn't a child

The sources have been supplied many times. Will you just deny them again? As to a person on a ventilator supposedly needing more oxygen you would have to support that. You may be confused since those people normally have lung problems so they need a higher concentration of oxygen in the air. That is not "needing more oxygen" in the same sense that I used it so your argument may be a red herring.

 

[Kenny]

The sources have been supplied many times. Will you just deny them again? As to a person on a ventilator supposedly needing more oxygen you would have to support that. You may be confused since those people normally have lung problems so they need a higher concentration of oxygen in the air. That is not "needing more oxygen" in the same sense that I used it so your argument may be a red herring.

Just as I thought...

pure unadulterated and unsupported opinions because validating what you wrote would have to make you admit that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Conceived a "son" is much more than just being pregnant. And, in today science, a 6th month pregnancy is a child that if born will live naturally.

It was actually an unjustified assumption. In those days until the baby was born there was no clue as to the sex. And yes, it is possible for a six month fetus to survive. But it is nowhere near a guaranteed event. If you go back to Exodus 21 22, the verse who's translation was changed in response to Roe v Wade to help to justify an immoral law a miscarriage at that time would have ended up with a dead fetus. Or even baby if one prefers.

And of course you are now focusing on the extreme cases. Abortions at this stage are almost never abortions because the mother does not want a baby, they are abortions due to medical necessity. Have you looked at when abortions occur?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as I thought...

pure unadulterated and unsupported opinions because validating what you wrote would have to make you admit that you were wrong.

No, that is not what I said or implied. You are not being honest in the response. I wanted to know if you would be honest if I provided that evidence again. If you will state that you will accept those articles I will have no problem in providing them. But I refuse to do so if you will just go into instant denial mode the way that most that oppose abortion do. It was your that made claims that do not appear to be able to be properly supported.

Will you accept those articles if I provide them? No running to liars for Jesus to get help with distorted scientific findings allowed... What I am asking is not unreasonable considering that those articles have been presented time and time again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It also isn't evidence that it is just a fetus.

And yet you are the one that wants to enslave women. That would put the burden of proof upon you. You lost the argument and you are not conceding that you failed at making your point so to try to turn it into a "So what?" argument. One that does not help you even if you were right.

 

[Kenny]

It was actually an unjustified assumption. In those days until the baby was born there was no clue as to the sex. And yes, it is possible for a six month fetus to survive. But it is nowhere near a guaranteed event. If you go back to Exodus 21 22, the verse who's translation was changed in response to Roe v Wade to help to justify an immoral law a miscarriage at that time would have ended up with a dead fetus. Or even baby if one prefers.

And of course you are now focusing on the extreme cases. Abortions at this stage are almost never abortions because the mother does not want a baby, they are abortions due to medical necessity. Have you looked at when abortions occur?

I think you lost the thread's point.

Put your pistol back into its holster, take a BIG breath, and read it again.

Not to mention you didn't invalidate what I said.

BUT,

A great goal post move.

 

[Kenny]

And yet you are the one that wants to enslave women. That would put the burden of proof upon you. You lost the argument and you are not conceding that you failed at making your point so to try to turn it into a "So what?" argument. One that does not help you even if you were right.

WOW!

Was THAT a strawman or what.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you lost the thread's point.

Put your pistol back into its holster, take a BIG breath, and read it again.

Not to mention you didn't invalidate what I said.

BUT,

A great goal post move.

You were the one that started this side track when your examples failed. I offered to support my claims if you would agree to a proper discussion. You would not. Why not just admit that the verse that you chose was not the best?

And what part of what you said was not invalidated? You diluted your claim so much that there was nothing left to oppose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

WOW!

Was THAT a strawman or what.

No, definitely not. You started a detour and now have jumped off of it after you would not agree to a proper discussion. Do you even know what a strawman argument is? I did not make one.

 

[Colt]

Where in the Bible does killing a fetus amount to murder?

I fetus is a human being in the early stage of development. Its all murder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fetus is a human being in the early stage of development. Its all murder.

That is your opinion. Others think that the status of being human is beyond just having the potential to be a person. How are you going to support that belief?

 

[Colt]

That is your opinion. Others think that the status of being human is beyond just having the potential to be a person. How are you going to support that belief?

Normal people know that a fetus is an early stage of the development of a human. Its common sense that doesn't require support.

If a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator would be charged with 2 counts of murder in many states. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."

 

[We Never Know]

Normal people know that a fetus is an early stage of the development of a human. Its common sense that doesn't require support.

If a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator would be charged with 2 counts of murder in many states. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim"

How can a law say a fetus is a victim if it isn't considered a human or child?

 

[Colt]

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim"

How can a law say a fetus is a victim if it isn't considered a human or child?

"The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Normal people know that a fetus is an early stage of the development of a human. Its common sense that doesn't require support.

If a pregnant woman is murdered the perpetrator would be charged with 2 counts of murder in many states. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."

It is in the early stage of being a human. Legally and morally it does not appear to qualify as such. And you are misinterpreting that law. Most people at the fetal state intend to take the pregnancy to term. Intent is often part of a law. Also later term abortions are rare and almost always due to medical need. They are not covered by insurance. Not a lot of doctors will do them. Those pregnancies would have ended even with most laws that make abortion illegal.

I know, having the burden of proof sucks when one cannot make one's argument. It is even worse when one's own holy books do not support that belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim"

How can a law say a fetus is a victim if it isn't considered a human or child?

Because intent matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

So what?

 

[Colt]

It is in the early stage of being a human. Legally and morally it does not appear to qualify as such. And you are misinterpreting that law. Most people at the fetal state intend to take the pregnancy to term. Intent is often part of a law. Also later term abortions are rare and almost always due to medical need. They are not covered by insurance. Not a lot of doctors will do them. Those pregnancies would have ended even with most laws that make abortion illegal.

I know, having the burden of proof sucks when one cannot make one's argument. It is even worse when one's own holy books do not support that belief.

For you winning an argument is more important than what's true. You may not want a fetus to be a human child but that doesn't make it so.