Where do aborted babies go?

[marksman]

Actually - the reverse is true .. it is the anti aborts who make up all kinds of stories and falsehoods to hide the facts.

Few people think it is not a baby just prior to birth - and I agree these folks are dumb. A whole lot of anti aborts however claim that a single human cell is a baby .. and this is just as nonsensical.

A single human cell has no head - no arms, no brain .. and in fact .. at this stage - not a single human cell that will make up the structure of the human in the DNA blueprint exists.

So tell me- if not one single cell of Bob the Human exists .. does Bob exist ? Clearly the answer is no.

So what kind of mind bending self delusion does one have to engage in to think that a human can exist without a single human cell?

The claim that a fetal heartbeat exists at 18 days after conception .. is patent nonsense.

So you keep saying and I keep saying that I don't believe in fairy stories. I have had 40 years to study the subject so I should know what I am talking about don't you think? probably not as pro-aborts seem to think that they are the only ones that have any understanding of the subject.

 

[Heyzeus]

So you keep saying and I keep saying that I don't believe in fairy stories. I have had 40 years to study the subject so I should know what I am talking about don't you think? probably not as pro-aborts seem to think that they are the only ones that have any understanding of the subject.

You have said that how many times now .. 40 years .. well pal .. I only have 35 years .. but know way more than you do. You don't even know the main arguments on the other side .. you have spent 40 years in your own myopic perspective .. blind as a bat.

Claiming 18 Days after conception is wildly below kindergarten level - first off .. what you mean is "implantation" .. which happens a week or two after conception . Big difference when you are talking 18 days .. .. especially if implantation doesn't happen for the first 10 ..

But even so .. even claiming 18 days after implantation is simple ignorance of the issue... you can detect some pulses of energy perhaps but by no means is this a regular heart beat - and in no way have you claimed how having such a thing is significant .. you have a living thing being formed .. the energy of the collective increases with time .. that does not mean the soul has landed.

As a Research Scientist - Chemistry/Microbiology - I know a thing or two about how things work - and am not easily fooled .. so save your 40 years fallacy .. just as the above pud measurement is also "appeal to authority" fallacy - and put your cards on the table.

So I disagree with that claim that defacto - a soul exists -18 days after conception - or even after implantation - and certainly a "Person" can not be said to exist.

Around day 5 - the blastocyst has formed .. not sure how long it takes for the 300 or so cells to form the initial blastocyst off top of head but.. but prior to this point there is not a single human cell that will be part of the human structure under creation .. just a bunch of totipotent worker drones .. real special ones .. each an exact copy of the zygote - each able to create a new human.. So if the single cell - at conception folks are correct .. we have 300 new souls at this point..

Inside this sack the embryoblast forms ... then at a certain point the embryoblast has to take a dangerous journey - where the risk of failure is high .. en rout to implantation... its like 10 days roughly .. there is not much of anything on day 18 .. two weeks after day 18 .. OK .. your first pulses of energy - more as a function of growth than beating .. a little thump here and there..

So these 300 totipotent cells then start spitting out differentiated and specialized cells - these are the ones that make up the human structure .. the embryoblast. - hopefully this at least moves your bar from Conception .. to this point.

So these cells implant - then multiply .. but it is not until round week 22-24 that the actual wiring of the brain is complete - this fleshy home in which the soil will implant - then lights up like a xmas tree .. as that wiring completes and as the soul alites.

For prior to this time - -even if the soul did land .. it would be completely oblivious to anything - not having the wiring in place.

This is the majority position from a logical perspective but, from a political and religious perspective I think this is the most logical as well.

Clearly abortion will not be banned - not happening .. so from a political perspective this is a dead issue.. What does have a chance is getting some reasonable limits in place - so that we are not aborting babies while kicking and screaming.

Reasonable people can disagree - but still come to a reasonable consensus - "At conception" is not reasonable - not logically, not scientifically .. and not religiously either .. and you already lost the scriptural debate with me so don't bother .. abortion is what is being proscribed in numbers .. and "I knew you in the womb" is easily refuted.. via the progression of the soul conversation -

Sure God knew you prior to your soul entering the flesh .. but that does not mean your soul has entered the flesh at conception though .. now does it !? and further .. just because he knew the one soul - a soul for which he had a special purpose - does not mean he know's your soul.
So the second is not as good a refutation as the first - but still holds. The first refutation you can't touch. You don't know when the soul hits and saying "neither do you" does not help your case.

that said .. least I have a logical explanation for when I think the soul might alight. If your brain dead - your not much aware of this world ..

I think therefor I am -

 

[kcnalp]

The baby butchers and their supporters have ZERO credibility.

 

[Heyzeus]

The baby butchers and their supporters have ZERO credibility.

Nor do folks running around calling women who take the Pill "Baby Butchers"

 

[kcnalp]

Nor do folks running around calling women who take the Pill "Baby Butchers"

I was referring to abortion. You know, when they murder babies in the womb?

 

[marksman]

I was referring to abortion. You know, when they murder babies in the womb?

Typical response from him. They will distort, fudge, misconstrue, they are the experts and everyone else are dumbos, and invent fairy stories to legitimize their barbaric activity.

And it has not dawned on him yet that only about 5% like what he says.

 

[Giuliano]

From another thread:

BTW, @Giuliano I just want to make this clear.

God doesn't SEND anyone to hell! In His mercy, He gives each one a choice. He doesn't force anyone to go to heaven who doesn't want to go there.

Can you stay focused on the question?
The question was not about where God sends people. The question was if aborted fetuses go to heaven or hell.

What are you saying? Please clarify. Are you saying God asks aborted fetuses where they'd like to go?

 

[Giuliano]

Seems you're the one trying to manipulate me! I have answered your question. I believe that EVERY human soul has a choice about whether they will go to heaven or hell. Why would unborn babies be any different? They are human souls!

Of course, I pray that ALL people will repent of their sins and choose the ONLY way to heaven--Jesus Christ!

It's not God's desire that any should perish....

2 Peter 3:8-10--But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

What sins would the unborn have to repent of?

Do some babies go to heaven and others go to hell?

 

[Truman]

Ask Planned Parenthood.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

What sins would the unborn have to repent of?

Do some babies go to heaven and others go to hell?

It's not sin that sends a person to hell per se. It's unbelief. Jesus said that people are judged/condemned already because of unbelief.

John 3:16-18
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God....."

I know that unborn babies don't have the cognitive functioning to think as older humans can. But I believe that God gives every soul the understanding to choose Him or not. Otherwise, how would He be a fair and just God?

I know that some Christians will take issue with my beliefs about this, particularly Calvinists, but this is what I believe, and I have explained this before.
.

 

[Giuliano]

It's not sin that sends a person to hell per se. It's unbelief. Jesus said that people are judged/condemned already because of unbelief.

Earlier you were talking about repenting of sins, even putting all in all capital letters., "ALL people." Wouldn't that include the unborn? I thought you considered them people.

John 3:16-18
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God....."

I know that unborn babies don't have the cognitive functioning to think as older humans can. But I believe that God gives every soul the understanding to choose Him or not. Otherwise, how would He be a fair and just God?

I know that some Christians will take issue with my beliefs about this, particularly Calvinists, but this is what I believe, and I have explained this before.
.

I have to wonder why, if that is right, there is any need for churches or the Scriptures. Why the need to preach the Gospel?

How do your beliefs fit with -- I think Paul could have been clearer, but this is what he wrote:

Romans 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (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; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I have to wonder why, if that is right, there is any need for churches or the Scriptures. Why the need to preach the Gospel?

The gospel is the power of God to save those who choose to believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:16-17--For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “ BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

How do your beliefs fit with -- I think Paul could have been clearer, but this is what he wrote:

Romans 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (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; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

You realize you're opening a can of worms here. Do you really want a debate between the Calvinists and Arminians, lol?? There have already been so many such debates on this forum. I don't fall in either camp.

I believe in predestination AND free will! It's a dichotomy--2 sides of the same salvation coin. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). I believe this is because few choose the ONLY way of salvation through Jesus Christ, who said, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it."

But I believe that those who do choose Jesus Christ are predestined.... I know this thinking doesn't square with Calvinists. Years ago, I had a dear Presbyterian pastor that I went round and round with debating this. I never bought into the thinking that predestination means that people don't have a choice in the matter of salvation.

And I must say, I will not get into a lengthy debate about it here. Been there; done that! But the following is one passage I base my beliefs on.

Romans 8:28-30--And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

 

[Phoneman777]

You assume body and soul go together. No one is arguing that the physical resurrection has already taken place. Abraham's body may have returned to dust and ashes, but that does not mean his soul and spirit did.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

No, that doesn't mean their physical body will never die.

The Bible says the soul and body must go together, and if you understood Genesis 2:7, you'd cease to agree with popular but unBiblical doctrine, namely that the "soul" continues to exist after the death of a creature, and thus can travel to heaven, hell, the séance meeting, etc. Genesis 2:7 says plainly the "living Soul" comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, and therefore, naturally, consequentially, and logically ceases to exist at the disunion of the same:

"God formed man of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man BECAME a living soul."

"And so the dust shall return to the Earth as it was and the spirit (breath of life) shall return to God who gave it."​

No evidence the contrary.

• The Rich Man and and Lazarus is a parable. Plenty of reasons to show it cannot be a literal passage.
• "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is Paul cherishing that which he knows is not possible: the desire to skip the "naked" and "unclothed" intermediate state between wearing the mortal body and immortal body, which is lying in the grave dead without a body awaiting the resurrection, and go directly to heaven to be with the Lord...but he plainly says in verse 10 of the chapter this doesn't happen until "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" which happens not at death, but at the end of the world.
• Rachel's "departing soul" means nothing more than "departing life" from her body because the Hebrew "nephesh" for "soul" means "life". If the verse said, "...for her life was departing", no one would bat an eye, but because it says, "...for her SOUL was departing", everyone loses their minds. It's just not so.
• Job's "...for his flesh shall have pain and his soul shall mourn within him" is poetry from a very poetic book. If Job thought that souls continued to exist after death, then he never would have agreed with Solomon in Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV by writing this about a dead man in this same chapter:

"His sons come to honor and he knoweth it not; they are brought low and he perceiveth it not of them."
​

If you can think of any other "proof" texts, I'd like you to share them. Peace ​

 

[Giuliano]

The Bible says the soul and body must go together, and if you understood Genesis 2:7, you'd cease to agree with popular but unBiblical doctrine, namely that the "soul" continues to exist after the death of a creature, and thus can travel to heaven, hell, the séance meeting, etc. Genesis 2:7 says plainly the "living Soul" comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, and therefore, naturally, consequentially, and logically ceases to exist at the disunion of the same:

"God formed man of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man BECAME a living soul."

"And so the dust shall return to the Earth as it was and the spirit (breath of life) shall return to God who gave it."​

No evidence the contrary.

• The Rich Man and and Lazarus is a parable. Plenty of reasons to show it cannot be a literal passage.
• "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is Paul cherishing that which he knows is not possible: the desire to skip the "naked" and "unclothed" intermediate state between wearing the mortal body and immortal body, which is lying in the grave dead without a body awaiting the resurrection, and go directly to heaven to be with the Lord...but he plainly says in verse 10 of the chapter this doesn't happen until "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" which happens not at death, but at the end of the world.
• Rachel's "departing soul" means nothing more than "departing life" from her body because the Hebrew "nephesh" for "soul" means "life". If the verse said, "...for her life was departing", no one would bat an eye, but because it says, "...for her SOUL was departing", everyone loses their minds. It's just not so.
• Job's "...for his flesh shall have pain and his soul shall mourn within him" is poetry from a very poetic book. If Job thought that souls continued to exist after death, then he never would have agreed with Solomon in Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV by writing this about a dead man in this same chapter:

"His sons come to honor and he knoweth it not; they are brought low and he perceiveth it not of them."
​

If you can think of any other "proof" texts, I'd like you to share them. Peace ​

Here's one.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Phoneman777]

Here's one.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Yes, when the "living soul" which is the union of the body and the breath of life is cast into the lake of fire, the body will burn up into carbon, the spirit shall return to God Who gave it, and the soul will suffer death...eternal death...a death from which there will be no resurrection.

A 'soul" is the "I", the "ego", the "self", the "person", the "whole being". You are a soul, I am a soul. People are souls. Even ANIMALS are souls, if you read what happened in Genesis 7 and 8 and Revelation about the plagues.

 

[bukka]

So would that mean an abortion doctor was responsible for thousands of souls going to Heaven?

Yes, Giuliano. In answer to your question, I do not believe that God sends babies into hell.

Well, maybe the following doesn't apply since the unborn aren't sinners -- but he wouldn't get a reward for saving their souls from death?

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

I agree.

It's stopping them from becoming sinners -- then they don't need converting.

That is a logical consequence if we accept the belief that God does not condemn infants to an eternity in hell. If one appeals to predestination, one can escape that logical dilemma. The problem with that answer is that it somehow makes God into a cosmic child abuser.

 

[Giuliano]

Yes, when the "living soul" which is the union of the body and the breath of life is cast into the lake of fire, the body will burn up into carbon, the spirit shall return to God Who gave it, and the soul will suffer death...eternal death...a death from which there will be no resurrection.

A 'soul" is the "I", the "ego", the "self", the "person", the "whole being". You are a soul, I am a soul. People are souls. Even ANIMALS are souls, if you read what happened in Genesis 7 and 8 and Revelation about the plagues.

So that would be after the resurrection when new bodies are given? That would mean the soul was existing somehow without the body. Men can kill the body -- but they can't kill the soul. The two don't necessarily go together.

 

[Giuliano]

Yes, Giuliano. In answer to your question, I do not believe that God sends babies into hell.



I agree.



That is a logical consequence if we accept the belief that God does not condemn infants to an eternity in hell. If one appeals to predestination, one can escape that logical dilemma. The problem with that answer is that it somehow makes God into a cosmic child abuser.

If aborted babies all go to heaven, then the abortion doctor could be seen as helping get there. Can that be right?

 

[bukka]

If aborted babies all go to heaven, then the abortion doctor could be seen as helping get there. Can that be right?

Logically considered, the answer is yes. This, of course, is if the moral action of abortion is to be considered with the focus entirely upon the aborted fetus and not the persons surrounding it. This was, politically, the problem with the pro-life movement. How do you focus upon the malice of the act of abortion on the fetus when, supernaturally, a good turn is being done to it?

Look at the converse of this. If the aborted babies simply perish or go to hell, then the abortion doctor could simply be seen as being very harmful, sending infants to a hell that they didn't want at the hands of a God indifferent for their salvation. Can that be right? If abortion is an act of malice, does this mean that those that are pro-life are truly not believing in eternal life for the aborted fetus?

If the morality of the act of abortion has more to do with the persons surrounding it, that is another question, and that is outside the OP.

 

[Phoneman777]

So that would be after the resurrection when new bodies are given? That would mean the soul was existing somehow without the body. Men can kill the body -- but they can't kill the soul. The two don't necessarily go together.

What Jesus is saying is don't be afraid of anyone who can kill you temporarily, but not permanently...rather be afraid of Him Who can destroy us, the whole being, in hellfire.

We must divorce ourselves from this lie that was known to be such by great men of old like Luther and Calvin and Tyndale and many many others...that the "soul" is an immortal entity trapped in a body shell and which flies off somewhere when death cracks this shell and releases it. It is unadulterated PAGANISM.

The Bible is clear that the soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, just as assuredly as light comes into existence when electric current is combined with a bulb filament...and as such, in the same way the light CEASES TO EXIST once the current is removed from the light bulb, so the soul ceases to exist at death when the Breath of Life returns to God Who gave it and the Body begins to decay back into dust. If Paul thought the dead saints were in heaven, he would have said for us to comfort one another at funerals with words like, "Oh, Aunt Betty is in heaven walking the streets of gold and singing with the angelic choir..."-------- oh wait, that's what we DO hear, don't we? But, did Paul direct us to do that? NO! Paul said to "comfort one another with these words" of the RESURRECTION in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 KJV. It is only THEN when our dearly departed saints will live again...they are NOT alive now, but are dead, just as Peter said David is dead and buried and NOT ascended into heaven...if anybody's gonna be there, it's David, but he's awaiting the Resurrection of the Just.

"The living know that they shall die, but the dead KNOW NOT ANYTHING." -- Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 KJV