Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2009-10-13T18:54:44Z

WPA:

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with a fertilized egg==

==Human Life begins with childbirth==
When it is born, a baby changes. Its white blood cells change, it uses its lungs for the first time and its blood takes a different route through its heart. It is at this point that human life begins. Before this, a foetus is just part of its mother's body, like an extra limb. When it is born, it becomes its own person and is no longer an extra bit of the mother.I personally believe that the baby's first breath is its soul being breathed into it, signifying the start of its life. Before the first breath, the baby is just a shell of a person or the potential to be a person, like a car without its engine. When the white blood cells change from those of a foetus to those of a baby, they change the blood from support blood into Life Blood, which no-one can live without. If a baby did not go through these changes, it would not survive. Pregnancy prepares a foetus for life, but does not create it. Childbirth creates life. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 12:54, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.

==Life Begins at Conception==
Two hundred years ago a one month premature fetus was not expected to live outside the womb. Today, with the advancement of medical knowledge and care, a one month premature human fetus is almost surely expected to be able to be brought to a fully independent and functional mature human being capable of sustaining life on it’s own. As medical abilities advance it seems entirely possible that a two month premature fetus could be expected to survive outside the womb and continue to maturity. It would seem that, one day future, medical advancements could also nurture a three month premature fetus with the same result. Logically, with great advancement in medicine, wouldn’t it seem possible that someday a fertilized egg could be nurtured to full maturity? An acorn planted in an appropriate environment and with adequate nurturing is expected to become a mighty oak. Just so, the fertilized human ovum, in the right environment, is expected become a fully functional baby. An acorn will never become a human nor a fertilized ovum an oak tree. In the bible, God speaks of the mystery of a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh. I think we can extrapolate this mystery to include a sperm being joined to an ovum and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh, as well. Life is in the acorn and life is also in the fertilized egg.
Life begins with conception. --[[User:WPA|WPA]] 14:52, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2009-10-13T18:52:26Z

WPA:

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with a fertilized egg==

==Human Life begins with childbirth==
When it is born, a baby changes. Its white blood cells change, it uses its lungs for the first time and its blood takes a different route through its heart. It is at this point that human life begins. Before this, a foetus is just part of its mother's body, like an extra limb. When it is born, it becomes its own person and is no longer an extra bit of the mother.I personally believe that the baby's first breath is its soul being breathed into it, signifying the start of its life. Before the first breath, the baby is just a shell of a person or the potential to be a person, like a car without its engine. When the white blood cells change from those of a foetus to those of a baby, they change the blood from support blood into Life Blood, which no-one can live without. If a baby did not go through these changes, it would not survive. Pregnancy prepares a foetus for life, but does not create it. Childbirth creates life. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 12:54, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.

Two hundred years ago a one month premature fetus was not expected to live outside the womb. Today, with the advancement of medical knowledge and care, a one month premature human fetus is almost surely expected to be able to be brought to a fully independent and functional mature human being capable of sustaining life on it’s own. As medical abilities advance it seems entirely possible that a two month premature fetus could be expected to survive outside the womb and continue to maturity. It would seem that, one day future, medical advancements could also nurture a three month premature fetus with the same result. Logically, with great advancement in medicine, wouldn’t it seem possible that someday a fertilized egg could be nurtured to full maturity? An acorn planted in an appropriate environment and with adequate nurturing is expected to become a mighty oak. Just so, the fertilized human ovum, in the right environment, is expected become a fully functional baby. An acorn will never become a human nor a fertilized ovum an oak tree. In the bible, God speaks of the mystery of a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh. I think we can extrapolate this mystery to include a sperm being joined to an ovum and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh, as well. Life is in the acorn and life is also in the fertilized egg.
Life begins with conception. --[[User:WPA|WPA]] 14:52, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2009-10-07T00:31:31Z

WPA:

== Matthew 28: 18,!9.'''Bold text''' ==
Absolutely,Yes, Jesus does make that claim:

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

This comes word for word from the King James version.

:Actually Mt 28:18, 19 does not support the claim that Jesus is God. As noted in verse 18, Jesus was given power in heaven and earth. Who ''gave'' him the authority? If Jesus is God, he would already have had that power. Same can be said with reference to the third of the Devil's temptations (Mt 4:8-10). Jesus rejected Satan's offer of world rulership by stating: "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (also word for word). If Jesus was God, he would have made it clearer that he was the one to be worshipped ... but that's not the case. [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 12:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Paul, the apostle, taught that Jesus is Lord, not God. In contrast to all the pagan deities, of the region of Corinth, Paul made it abundantly clear "Yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all thing, and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. However there is not in everyone that knowledge. 1Cor 8:5 By what I observe, I'm convinced this simple truth is in very few who would consider themselves followers of Christ. It seems that they prefer to follow traditional views of man's teaching over the clear revealed truth of scripture. I know of no scripture where Jesus makes any claim to be God. He is indeed the Son Of God. He is never referenced in scripture to be "god the son" a title the vast majority of christendom would force you to believe or suffer the eternal consequences of "hell". As for mt 28:19, by their own admission Catholics fess up this is a later addition to the text not the original wording. They tried to add to 1jn. 5:7 as well, but thankfully, the greek manuscripts we have predated this interpolation. Jesus is the "Image" of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Col 1:15.He is the IMAGE of God, not the God Himself. This God is Jesus's God and Father Eph. 1:3

== Did Jesus ever claim to be God ==

Paul, the apostle, taught that Jesus is Lord, not God. In contrast to all the pagan deities, of the region of Corinth, Paul made it abundantly clear "Yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all thing, and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. However there is not in everyone that knowledge. 1Cor 8:5 By what I observe, I'm convinced this simple truth is in very few who would consider themselves followers of Christ. It seems that they prefer to follow traditional views of man's teaching over the clear revealed truth of scripture. I know of no scripture where Jesus makes any claim to be God. He is indeed the Son Of God. He is never referenced in scripture to be "god the son" a title the vast majority of christendom would force you to believe or suffer the eternal consequences of "hell". As for mt 28:19, by their own admission Catholics fess up this is a later addition to the text not the original wording. They tried to add to 1jn. 5:7 as well, but thankfully, the greek manuscripts we have predated this interpolation. Jesus is the "Image" of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Col 1:15.He is the IMAGE of God, not the God Himself. This God is Jesus's God and Father Eph. 1:3

There is a biblical proof that Jesus is God which also includes a proof for the Trinity. It is based on the concept that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. That is, if it can be shown in the Bible that there is one God whose name is Jehovah and that the Father is called Jehovah, Jesus is called Jehovah and the Holy Spirit is called Jehovah then the three Persons are the one God. --[[User:WPA|WPA]] 20:31, 6 October 2009 (EDT)