Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

I don't know about science, but I can tell you what the Hebrew Bible and the Christian church believed up until just 100 or so years ago, and really didn't become an issue here in the US until 1970. Hell even when Roe was passed, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention praised the ruling in public. James Dobson in 73 said publicly that the Bible's silence on abortion could lead an evangelical to believe reasonably that an embryo was not a person.

The Christian Church until recently in our history believed that the fetus was not a full human being, or receiving "personhood", or having a soul, etc. until "The Quickening" or when the mother could start to feel movement in the womb around 20 weeks.

The Hebrew Bible actually went further and treats a fetus as property in the text without personhood.

.........

So regardless of what Science says, if you call yourself a Christian who follows the Bible, but believe that an Embryo is a person than you are going very very far beyond what your own Bible goes, and injecting your own personal bias on this argument. And that's just following the rules of the Biblical text. If you follow the laws of science then your bias is injected at a far more alarming rate.

Translation... you are a crank if you are someone who simply cannot either follow the rules of the religious text as well as the rules of science because your own personal political power hungry bias colors your decision making that much.

 

They are CHINOs.. CHristians In Name Only

 

Heh, I dont think el jeffe Trump loves the CHINOs

 

Science doesn't tackle religious/philosophical questions

 

You are using definition that classify species and genus and the overall definition of life in a different context - your making a semantic argument.

Science does not define the point at which a human being is a human being. But common sense tells us that if you were asked to draw examples of human beings - you'd draw adults, kids, even babies - but no one draws a glob of a few thousand cells.

 

I am using a scientific definition of life, yes.

I don't care what people will draw. If you were asked to draw a person, you would probably draw one with two arm and two legs, but that doesn't mean someone with only one arm is not a person. Science defines what life is. Science defines the species homo sapiens. A zygote is a life that is of the species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. The rest is people trying to justify abortion.

 

So you are using the same definition as what makes mold scientifically life. Congrats - you've proven a zygote is at the same level as a yeast cell.

Science does not definite a zygote as a person. You are deducing something based on something else to create a view to support your religious beliefs.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Yes, like mold, a zygote is alive. You are halfway there.

Science defines what species each organism is. A yeast cell is one of 1500 or so different fungus species. Humans are of the species homo sapiens, including in their zygote form. So we have a living organism of the species homo sapiens. What is that called informally? A human.

 

Informally - and that's where your "science" breaks down. You make a leap - that something that belongs to a genus and that fits the minimal definition of life must be a human being - a person.

The two are not the same thing.

You can take a skin cell - and create a human life from that. That does not make the skin cell a human being. It makes it of human origin. But that cell is not a human being - which includes organs, consciousness, emotions, and a full body. A zygote lacks many of those things.

 

You don’t remember getting your ass kicked on this topic?

Lmao

 

Under the definition you’re using your skin cells are alive and human so every time you exfoliate you’re committing murder.

 

Makes sense since you could conceivably clone someone from their organic matter.

Also, what’s the take on Portuguese Man-O-Wars, which are Siphonophores, meaning they’re a mass of different creatures glommed together? Ungodly? One creature under god?

Srs. Want to hear the finer apologetics on this one.

 

That isn't a break down. The science says life. The science says human. This is a human and alive. The terms human being and person are not scientific terms. The scientific term is homo sapiens. Yeast is the informal name of some 1500 species of fungus, it isn't a leap to call an organism from one of those species yeast. Human is the informal name of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a leap to call a member of the species homo sapiens human.

They are exactly the same thing.

A zygote is not a substructue of another entity, a skin cell is. A brick is not a house. If humans were made by adding billions of other zygotes to the original zygote and mixing in millions of other also human parts, that would be a good argument. They are not. The zygote is it's own individual organism. It divides and grows and the cells differentiate according to the blueprint of their DNA into skin and brain and hair and bone. When you exfoliate, you remove the outermost layers of skin cells and expose the underlying layers of skin cells which are constantly being generated by the living member of the species homo sapiens who continues to be a living member of the species homo sapiens. An arm is also alive and also human, but if you amputate the arm, it isn't murder, because the entity that is a living member of the species homo sapiens still remains (unless cutting off the person's arm happens to kill them).

No. I remember you arrogantly posting and me countering all of your ridiculous arguments that a zygote is the same as a cancer.

 

Zealots don't perceive L's at all. They frequently abandon such tilts, just to bring back their same talking points to the next fracas.

 

Neither he nor trump admit they are wrong. Funny, huh?

 

Aliens!

 

So that's the Jesus crowd take?

 

I'd like to thank @StupidMoniker for putting on this master class in apolgetics

 

I ****ing told you this would happen.

The Rs are not content with chasing off suburban women from their party. Now they want to drive out all of the bare back riding, extramarital sexing men. You know most guys in their 20-30s ... and ... most rich old white men.