Life: By What Standard?
Updated: Jun 27, 2020
Many pro-abortionists insist that life starts at “first breath” when a baby is born. Yet, they often admit that the “fetus” in the womb can “die,” though they don’t want to admit the fetus is a child. So by what standard do pro-abortionists define the concept of life? This is why I targeted their foundation: their worldview of humanism. I targeted their foundation in Parts 3 and 4 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate. The humanists attempted to target my biblical foundation. The foundational discussion continues here in Part 5 of the debate.
Below is Part 5 of 6 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate where humanist SL (See Part 2) jumps back into the debate, and humanist KM joins the thread. Note that transcript portions are not in exact consecutive order, but are in topical order for clarity. By the time I share Part 6 of 6, I will have shared the entire debate transcript. Names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity.
KH, Because, baby, you want laws to be based on your religious beliefs. You want to impose your beliefs on all people through legislation.
FYI, at least 20% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage) within the first 20 weeks because the fetus is not viable. The number is likely much higher, as most occur so early that the woman does not know that she is pregnant. So, no, every conception is not viable.
SL, Your comment about laws is a logical fallacy of sweeping generalization. If you want to be more specific, perhaps you are talking about pro-life-related laws? On the contrary, abortion barbarically “imposes”…it imposes death onto the most innocent people in our society.
Your comment that begins with “FYI, at least 20% of conceptions…” commits two major fallacies. First, you equate abortion with miscarriage. Abortion is the deliberate murder of a child in the womb—miscarriage is not—miscarriages are a tragic outcome of this sin-cursed fallen world that is filled with death and suffering. Secondly, whether or not a pregnancy is “viable” to reach birth is irrelevant from the fact that the baby in the womb is a living child. Ever since Genesis 3, all people on Earth are appointed to die, whether that happens at a couple weeks gestational age, or at 100+ years old. There is a strong biblical case that people who die as children are under God’s grace and go to heaven (2 Samuel 12:23, Matthew 19:14). Yet, for those who are accountable, the only way to get to heaven is to be forgiven of sin by repentance and faith in the person and work of God the Son: Jesus (John 3:16-20).
You can accuse me of trying to “impose” my religious beliefs, but all I’m doing in this thread is having a discussion—it is completely your prerogative as to whether you want to respond or ignore my comment.
CA, And first breath begins at birth not before or the fetus would die.
KH, Unless God told you that himself, you have no idea what a God wants. Quit trying to use that as your justification. It wouldn't and hasn't stood up in a court of law in......neve.
KH, You keep stating your religious beliefs as if they were fact. And you keep quoting you Bible as if it were fact. In both cases, you are wrong.
KM, you said “and the fetus would die,” if the child takes breath prematurely in the womb—do you admit that the child is “alive” then if it is able to “die”? In response to your most recent comment: actually, God did tell me, through His Word, and through His Holy Spirit. Assuming you are a humanist, then by what Ultimate Standard do you judge something to be right, wrong, truth, or lie, in your materialistic, evolutionary worldview? Your worldview cannot account for immaterial concepts such as “truth” or “lie” if the universe is just material, and if you and are I just chemicals reacting. Moreover, if your brain is the byproduct of random chemical processes, then how can you trust your own conclusions to ever be accurate?
SL, Assuming you are a humanist, by what Ultimate Standard do you make that judgment in your materialistic, evolutionary worldview? Your worldview cannot account for immaterial concepts such as “truth” or “lie” if the universe is just material, and if you and I are just chemicals reacting. Moreover, if your brain is the byproduct of random chemical processes, then how can you trust your own conclusions to ever be accurate?
I checked the thread up to six days later and did not see any more responses from SL and KM. Following up on what I shared in Parts 3 and 4 of the debate thread, CJ came back with more to say. I will share her comments and my responses in Part 6 of 6 of the debate to be shared in my next blog post.