Where do aborted babies go?

[kcnalp]

I believe the Bible.


You're the one who brought it up. I didn't. I simply asked you to back up your claims. You couldn't and so now, all of a sudden, you don't care about it anymore.

Don't make claims you cannot support because you can be sure I will.

Babies don't go to Hell regardless of your perverted theology that babies may go to Hell.

 

[Spurgeon's Girl]

1) Ad Hom is attacking the person rather than making a coherent argument .. you also engaged in Appeal to Authority fallacy on mass .. you started out with the "you don't know anything about biology" and subsequent gibberish.. then found out you are way down the food chain in comparison to my creds .... you asked for it .. and the cards fell where they did.

Yo

You don't show that you understand logic.

No, I said that I do not believe you. Your subsequent posts only strengthens my belief.

I make no appeal to authority, I demonstrated to all that there ARE legion of scientists who refute you.

2) nowhere in your biological cutting and pasting of basic definitions - is not an argument for a zygote being a human. Volume of gibberish does not make that gibberish any less gibberish. You have not stated why X makes the zygote a human .. stating XXXXXX is not an argument for anything .. argument contains 2 parts .. 1) statement of claim 2) reasons that prove or show why that claim is true.

A zygote is a human being. The arguments for size and length of development applies. You just don't want to admit you are wrong.

We all know a zygote has human DNA so does near every other human cell .. how does this make this the zygote a living human ... a Person.

You should really stop. You're way over your Head. Every human being is comprised of DNA from both the mother and the Father. It has all the information necessary for zygote to progress to birth and through every season of life.

You say "You showed Ignorance" .. ignorance of what .. ?? if you want to make call .. at least show where I showed ignorance. The reality is that this is Projection on your part ... Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person.

We all know the zygote is a stage in the creation of a human ... OK So how does the process being at this stage - mean that

No projection and yes ignorance. Make up your mind.

1) a living human exists - from a biological Perspective .. a Person from a Philosophical and bioethical perspective. You didn't even know that Philosophy was one of the subject matter domains .. and I am the ignorant one. Projection my dear.

2) that a soul has entered the fleshy cradle - from a religious perspective.

Still the same 2 questions .. and still without and explanation complete with the "Why"

There are 5 main scientific perspectives on "When human life Begins" - never mind when that life is a human.
Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological , Ecological only one puts the beginning of human life .. at conception .. and while popular with the uninformed crowd .. aka general public ..this one has fallen out of favor among scientists for various reasons .. such as the twining argument and other things.

First, whenever you post information from another source you must provide copyright.

Philosophy has nothing to do with zygotes.

For you do claim scientific consensus .. you must 1) show that the Genetic Perspective is correct .. which means you have to refute the other 4 perspectives .. and now that you have proven human life exists .. prove that a living human ... a Person .. exists.

Have fun.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to show anything to tell the truth regarding when life begins. The Bible tells us when life begins and commands us to choose life.

That's what the Bible says. My education level tells me what a zygote is. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm Your sources are refuted. You have soundly refuted.

I'm waiting on you to tell me where, when, why, and how a soul does whatever you claim it does.
I'll also be waiting on that copyright information.

 

[Spurgeon's Girl]

Babies don't go to Hell regardless of your perverted theology that babies may go to Hell.

When you can prove that from the Bible, I will listen. Otherwise, name calling only demonstrates that you know you have been refuted.

 

[Heyzeus]

Yo

You don't show that you understand logic.

No, I said that I do not believe you. Your subsequent posts only strengthens my belief.

I make no appeal to authority, I demonstrated to all that there ARE legion of scientists who refute you.



A zygote is a human being. The arguments for size and length of development applies. You just don't want to admit you are wrong.



You should really stop. You're way over your Head. Every human being is comprised of DNA from both the mother and the Father. It has all the information necessary for zygote to progress to birth and through every season of life.



No projection and yes ignorance. Make up your mind.



First, whenever you post information from another source you must provide copyright.

Philosophy has nothing to do with zygotes.

For you do claim scientific consensus .. you must 1) show that the Genetic Perspective is correct .. which means you have to refute the other 4 perspectives .. and now that you have proven human life exists .. prove that a living human ... a Person .. exists.

Have fun.

I don't have to show anything to tell the truth regarding when life begins. The Bible tells us when life begins and commands us to choose life.

That's what the Bible says. My education level tells me what a zygote is. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm Your sources are refuted. You have soundly refuted.

I'm waiting on you to tell me where, when, why, and how a soul does whatever you claim it does.
I'll also be waiting on that copyright information.[/QUOTE]

What a horrible post Full of name calling and doing nothing but repeating your premise over and over like a broken record.

You ask me to say when the soul begins .. when it is you who have claimed an exact point when the soul alights .. it is you who must prove your claim.

Where does the bible tell us when life begins .. you are full of falsehood.

 

[kcnalp]

When you can prove that from the Bible, I will listen. Otherwise, name calling only demonstrates that you know you have been refuted.

What a perverted Satanic point of view you have. You have no proof whatsoever that babies go to Hell! I don't have to prove that God doesn't burn babies in Hell. YOU have to prove that He does, and you CANNOT!

 

[Heyzeus]

When you can prove that from the Bible, I will listen. Otherwise, name calling only demonstrates that you know you have been refuted.

The poster was not name calling .. again you project your modus operandi onto others.

You can't prove Sola Fide in the Bible -

 

[Cooper]

I said only the elect are known by God in the womb. Think about Isaac. God planned for him to be born -- Isaac was elect. God knew who his parents would be. Think also of John the Baptist. His father was told about it before he was conceived.

That does not mean however that the spirit enters the fertilized egg. That could happen much later; but if God wants one of His elect born, the mother won't abort -- so it doesn't matter when the spirit enters the body.

Me? I can remember being born. I didn't think I was inventing memories; but I was born at home and my older sister was there so I asked her about things to see if my memories were accurate. They were. I can also remember looking at my "future" mother when she was pregnant -- because I wasn't in that body yet. I know that probably sounds so incredible you won't be able to believe it, but then you don't have my memories.

You might be amazed at what can be known. I knew my niece was pregnant before anyone told me. I also knew she'd have a daughter. It was strange because she wasn't married when she got pregnant. I also "knew" something about that girl.

The elect have their lives planned. It's the non-elect we need to worry about. I could not tell you when their spirits enter a fetus -- or if they had.

Election for a few is a nonsense, we are all God's children, Jesus died for the whole world, for the sins of human kind everywhere, including unborn babies, who later will make their own choices. It is those who reject God, like the disobedient Adam and Eve who actually knew God and spoke with him in the Garden but un-elected themselves by being disobedient, so no longer following Him. They were among the elect, until they turned to another. It is our choice whether we follow Christ, all the days of our life, or go the other way and turn to the things of the world.

 

[Giuliano]

Election for a few is a nonsense, we are all God's children, Jesus died for the whole world, for the sins of human kind everywhere, including unborn babies, who later will make their own choices. It is those who reject God, like the disobedient Adam and Eve who actually knew God and spoke with him in the Garden but un-elected themselves by being disobedient, so no longer following Him. They were among the elect, until they turned to another. It is our choice whether we follow Christ, or go the way of the world.

You leave several Scriptures unexplained.

 

[Cooper]

You leave several Scriptures unexplained.

I only gave a few examples, but I will just add another about Israel who were God's elect, none more so, until they turned away from him.

This is a subject that worries me greatly as does the belief in once saved always saved, and while it is true for the faithful, it is extremely worrying that those who commit apostasy (defect) still believe they are saved.

We are warned against falling away in scriptures like Hebrews 6:4 “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

There is always a caveat.

.

 

[marksman]

Why do you ask such a nonsense question - what difference does it make how abortions were done in the old days

Evidence for use of a "coathanger for an Abortion - get a grip. Is the first time hearing this ?

It is a habit of mine that I don't make claims that are not true. For that reason, I have a very firm grip on what I say. Using a throwaway line to try and sound as though you know what you are talking about is very disingenuous and not good when the truth is paramount.

And the difference it makes is that you claimed it was a fact. If it is not, then may I suggest you put the record straight and say it is what you think, not what you know. That way no one is led up the garden path thinking about something that is not true.

 

[marksman]

You are the one who can not handle the Truth - and are projecting your failings onto others.

There medical science/empirical evidence showing that the single human cell at conception is a "BABY' - you are in dreamland.

Your argument - which is not an argument - is rabid "Assumed Premise" fallacy. Twirling around crying "its a Baby - its a Baby" does not make it so.

You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim - and the Truth of the matter is that you can't.

I can't? Don't get me started. Having studied the fact of abortion for 40 years I can back up every claim that I make. One thing is sure, I have found that those who defend abortion never have any interest in the truth and I will illustrate it with a meeting I went to convened by a local politician who wanted abortion legalized which it wasn't at the time.

During here empassioned speech about making abortion legal, I raised my hand and asked if I could ask a question. She gave the OK. I held up a photograph of a perfectly formed baby that had been aborted. I asked the question "Is that a baby or not?" She had been trying to say that the baby in the womb was not a baby.

Her reply "It all depends." All depends on what? No answer except mumbo jumbo to extracate herself from the fact the photo WAS a baby. Logic and evidence played no part in her diatribe. As far as she was concerned, abortion should be legal regardless of the fact that they were killing a real baby.

So, no I am not in dreamland as I am one that finds out the facts and then stick with them as you will see in my thread about abortion. But then I guess you will not be interested in that as you might find out the truth and that is one thing that appears to be anathema to you.

 

[marksman]

Actually the question is well taken. Have you ever seen that happen? Have you seen a photograph of it? How about any medical journals, case files? If women don't want to be responsible for their own bodies, that's on them. If they compound it by trying kill their baby, that's on them. If they end up killing themselves, that's on them.

And of course, the coat hanger mythology lives on when pro-abortionists are fighting to stop abortion being illegal. They trot out the usual nonsense and say if you stop abortion being legal women will have to go to back yard abortionists and suffer the coat hanger abortion.

This is a total lie because the paid assassin who has to give up his practice of killing babies legally will just go and find somewhere they can offer abortions below the radar and they won't suddenly use coathangers because it is illegal. It will be business as usual except it will not be legal.

 

[marksman]

Why do you ask such a nonsense question - what difference does it make how abortions were done in the old days

Evidence for use of a "coathanger for an Abortion - get a grip. Is the first time hearing this ?

What difference does it make? Well, the fact is the coat hanger scenario was the main one used to get abortion made legal. They argued that it was better to have an abortion done legally and in clinical conditions than it was to go to a backyard abortionist who used a coat hanger and might cause the death of the mother.

It didn't bother them that it would cause the death of an innocent little baby who has done no wrong and does not deserve to be murdered.

Their righteous indignation was misplaced and hypocritical because they said let's make it legal to kill a little baby to keep selfish women happy who obviously refused to take control over their bodies despite their catchcry of my body my choice. They are making the choice too late and a little innocent baby has to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience.

 

[marksman]

Nope .. and don't care because the means of death is irrelevant.

Not according to the law. If a person walks out in front of a moving car and dies as a result, the driver is not charged with murder.

If a person deliberately shoots another person with a gun that person is charged with murder.

So the means of death is very relevant. Relevant to the point that it makes a difference whether you go scot-free; spend the rest of your life in jail or are sentenced to the electric chair.

Any more bright ideas you can conjure up to legitimise abortion? I would love to hear what you have to say then I can add it to all the other fairy stories pro-aborts invent.

 

[Cooper]

Take God out, as most do, and people do as they like.

 

[Giuliano]

I only gave a few examples, but I will just add another about Israel who were God's elect, none more so, until they turned away from him.

I think you need to explain why Jacob was elect and Esau wasn't. It is wrong to think Esau and all his descendants are meant to be damned since other passages show God cared about them. Jacob's job, as the elect one, was to help bring Esau and his descendants into a relationship with God.

This is a subject that worries me greatly as does the belief in once saved always saved, and while it is true for the faithful, it is extremely worrying that those who commit apostasy (defect) still believe they are saved.

We are warned against falling away in scriptures like Hebrews 6:4 “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

There is always a caveat.

.

I don't refer to myself as "saved" since I don't think it's safe to say that prematurely. He who endures to the end will be saved.

I also think people can become arrogant when they think of themselves as "elect" while looking at others as if they're inferior creatures. Israel went drastically wrong in Jesus' day. Israel was meant to act as a nation of priests --meant to share their knowledge of God with everyone else.

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

They were not supposed to look at themselves as superior.

 

[Cooper]

I think you need to explain why Jacob was elect and Esau wasn't. It is wrong to think Esau and all his descendants are meant to be damned since other passages show God cared about them. Jacob's job, as the elect one, was to help bring Esau and his descendants into a relationship with God.

I don't refer to myself as "saved" since I don't think it's safe to say that prematurely. He who endures to the end will be saved.

I also think people can become arrogant when they think of themselves as "elect" while looking at others as if they're inferior creatures. Israel went drastically wrong in Jesus' day. Israel was meant to act as a nation of priests --meant to share their knowledge of God with everyone else.

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

They were not supposed to look at themselves as superior.

This is going off topic and I did not mean for that to happen. In my own words, "The elect of God have been chosen or predestined to serve Him. People are not elected at the beginning of time for salvation, but rather to serve God by fulfilling His predestined plan and purpose."

In the words of Dr. Mark G. Cambron we have this:-

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." (Eph. 1:4)

The New Testament words "chosen, choose, and election" are the same. The Old Testament word is simply "chosen." From the above Scripture many have felt that God chooses some to be saved and some to be lost. Again I want to point out that predestination and election (choosing) have nothing to do with the lost, but are for the saved.

From the following Scriptures we learn what the choosing, or election, of God is about:'' For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, not of works, but of him that calleth); It was said unto her, THE ELDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Rom. 9:9-13).

At once we point out that election, or choosing, has to do with service; THE ELDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER. It does not say, "The younger shall be saved, and the elder shall be lost." No, but simply, "the elder shall SERVE the younger." Thus choosing, or election, has to do with service. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" wasn't said of these two men before they were born, but hundreds of years after they died.
God hated the descendants of Esau because of their unbelief, and loved the descendants of Jacob because of their faith.

In the 15th chapter of John's Gospel, the Lord Jesus said that He had chosen (elected) them disciples. For salvation? No, for service. Even Judas was chosen! For damnation? No, but like Pharoh, who was a fit vessel unto wrath - after being given many chances to believe, refused, and thus was used for God's purpose.

The prophet Isaiah says that Israel is God's chosen people (Isaiah 41:8). Does this mean that all Jews are saved? No. It simply means that God has chosen Israel for a service. And we know what that service was: to give us the Word of God and to give us the Lord Jesus Christ!

The same prophet, Isaiah, says that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Chosen Servant of God (Isaiah 42:1). Does this mean that God chose the Lord Jesus to be saved? Of course not! For He is the SAVIOUR! But God did choose His Son for a service - and that service was to be the Lamb of God who would die for the sins of the world. And He was the obedient Servant, being obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross!

Now back to the original text, as found in Ephesians 1:4. What has God elected or chosen us for? Not salvation; but He has chosen us even before the foundation of the world for service - "that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."

Thus, we conclude that God does not predestinate or elect men to be saved or lost, but that salvation is on the basis of "WHOSOEVER WILL!"- "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth, say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17).

by Dr. Mark G. Cambron,
Seaside Mission,
North Miami Beach, Florida

 

[Heyzeus]

It is a habit of mine that I don't make claims that are not true. For that reason, I have a very firm grip on what I say. Using a throwaway line to try and sound as though you know what you are talking about is very disingenuous and not good when the truth is paramount.

And the difference it makes is that you claimed it was a fact. If it is not, then may I suggest you put the record straight and say it is what you think, not what you know. That way no one is led up the garden path thinking about something that is not true.

I did not make a claim that wasn't true .. and no one was led down the garden path.

 

[Heyzeus]

I can't? Don't get me started. Having studied the fact of abortion for 40 years I can back up every claim that I make. One thing is sure, I have found that those who defend abortion never have any interest in the truth and I will illustrate it with a meeting I went to convened by a local politician who wanted abortion legalized which it wasn't at the time.

During here empassioned speech about making abortion legal, I raised my hand and asked if I could ask a question. She gave the OK. I held up a photograph of a perfectly formed baby that had been aborted. I asked the question "Is that a baby or not?" She had been trying to say that the baby in the womb was not a baby.

Her reply "It all depends." All depends on what? No answer except mumbo jumbo to extracate herself from the fact the photo WAS a baby. Logic and evidence played no part in her diatribe. As far as she was concerned, abortion should be legal regardless of the fact that they were killing a real baby.

So, no I am not in dreamland as I am one that finds out the facts and then stick with them as you will see in my thread about abortion. But then I guess you will not be interested in that as you might find out the truth and that is one thing that appears to be anathema to you.

If you can back up your claims - then now would be a good time to start. You are not the only one who has been debating this issue for 40 years .. My question to you is have you done this with any Academic Rigor ?

In any case .. you say you can back up claims

1) How is the zygote significantly different than other human cells - such that a zygote is a living human "a Baby" and the others are not.
2) How can a baby exist when not one cell from the body of that baby has been created.
3) When does the soul alight .. and if the soul has not alighted yet - is it wrong to abort the process of human creation.

 

[Heyzeus]

What difference does it make? Well, the fact is the coat hanger scenario was the main one used to get abortion made legal. They argued that it was better to have an abortion done legally and in clinical conditions than it was to go to a backyard abortionist who used a coat hanger and might cause the death of the mother.

It didn't bother them that it would cause the death of an innocent little baby who has done no wrong and does not deserve to be murdered.

Their righteous indignation was misplaced and hypocritical because they said let's make it legal to kill a little baby to keep selfish women happy who obviously refused to take control over their bodies despite their catchcry of my body my choice. They are making the choice too late and a little innocent baby has to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience.

Remember what I said about "Academic Rigor" ? This would involve argument that are valid- and not fallacy.

Claiming that a living human exists "an innocent little baby" when you have not proves this claim is an "Assumed Premise Fallacy.

Standing up at the podium - in a debate over whether or not a human exists at the zygote stage - and repeating " Its a baby .. its a baby" over and over - is not an argument for anything .. and in fact is not an argument at all.