A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

@SPF

All right I'll give this a shot one more time because I enjoy the topic.

When it comes to defining "creation", When God created the heavens and the earth, he brought the heavens and the earth into existence from non-existence. When he created Adam, he brought the breath of life from beyond existence into existence as it entered into Adam's body. When the Lord revived the dead in the book of Ezekiel, The Lord breed life into the dead bodies and brought them back to life. And we can call this latter event "ensoulment" if you would like.

In contrast:
When I make a sandwich, I go to my refrigerator and I grab some ham cheese and bread and I put it together. In this process of making a sandwich, While it is true that the sandwich begins to exist, I am not bringing anything into existence from non-existence. When two people have sex and conceive, much like making a sandwich, this physical act between two people is not bringing an embryo into existence from non-existence. Remember the law of conservation of matter. Matter is not created nor destroyed (at least not by any man-made act in a laboratory or in a bedroom). Contrary to what science textbooks might suggest, Life has not been created and brought into existence by any human action in a laboratory. At best scientists are merely restructuring pre-existing matter that was created long before the laboratory even existed.

And it is also the same to say that before conception, our DNA had long since been developing and collecting and changing and reforming, long long before the moment of conception. So again the point here is to clarify on the fact that conception is not bringing anything into existence but rather is merely reforming that which already exists. in contrast with how God creates things in which he brings things into existence from non-existence.

So there's a clear difference between God's creation and the way that God creates, And the way that people create and simply rearrange pre-existing matter.

So when we talk about creation of a human being. Like me and you, conception and the act of two people having sex and conceiving, cannot be said to be the creation event that brought us, as individuals, into existence. Because if it were, then that would mean that people create life when they have sex.

Which on the surface might sound reasonable at first.

But if we consider the fact that when people die they go to heaven, We are soon reminded that our souls are wholly independent of our physical bodies. If there's a person named George, When George's body decays and rights away into nothing, George continues on to the afterlife. George as an independent creation of God is wholly independent of his physical form.

In the existence of George's soul, And the timing in which George's soul enters the physical body that George holds, are in no way dependent up on the physical act of sex and conception.

When two people have sex and conceive, We do not create a soul.

There is nothing stated by any scientist that clarifies on the moment in which ensoulment occurs. Because obviously science can't observe souls.

And as far as I'm aware, scripture doesn't clarify on the wind insolement occurs either aside from references to insultment of Adam in the book of Genesis.

And if neither science nor scripture can clarify on the moment in which George, as a soul, comes into existence, then it is purely baseless to claim that ensoulment occurs at conception.

And this is all really simple, It isn't complicated to understand nor is it convoluted. It is very simple and straightforward.

------------

And some might ask, "why is all of this important?"

It's important because our God is not a passive God that created life once at Adam and then decided to sit back and let us do the rest. That would be called deism. But rather our God is actively involved and is a personal God. Our God is involved in each individual creation of each individual person. our souls have not eternally existed but rather are created and then breathe into our physical form.

Our souls we're not past one from our parents, one half of the soul being in the sperm and one half of our soul being in the egg and then combining to form one individual soul. No this is not how it works. Would rather God brought ourselves into existence from non-existence. And this is not a physical event that can be explained or reconstructed in a scientific laboratory. No scientist or any statement that any scientist could ever make could explain this true creation event.

And at the end of the day, scientists cannot say anything about when this creation event and creation of each individual person, and ensoulment occurs. And simultaneously, Scripture does not say either.

So the bottom line is that this idea of conception being the beginning of human life (the beginning of a completed and ensouled body), Is baseless both from a scientific position and from a scriptural position.

 

[SPF]

When it comes to defining "creation", When God created the heavens and the earth, he brought the heavens and the earth into existence from non-existence. When he created Adam, he brought the breath of life from beyond existence into existence as it entered into Adam's body. When the Lord revived the dead in the book of Ezekiel, The Lord breed life into the dead bodies and brought them back to life. And we can call this latter event "ensoulment" if you would like.

I assume you actually mean former, and not latter. At least I hope you meant to. And yes, God is capable of creating ex-nihilo, we are not.

When I make a sandwich, I go to my refrigerator and I grab some ham cheese and bread and I put it together. In this process of making a sandwich, While it is true that the sandwich begins to exist, I am not bringing anything into existence from non-existence.

This analogy is so bad I can't believe anyone with any education (even in geology) would attempt to use it. A sandwich and its parts are all inanimate. An embryo by contrast is a living and growing organism that self-directs its own growth and development. Congratulations on continuing to use a false analogy that can continue to be disregarded out of hand.

So again the point here is to clarify on the fact that conception is not bringing anything into existence but rather is merely reforming that which already exists.

Certainly nobody is attempting to say that new matter is created through the act of fertilization. Nobody is attempting to say that when a zygote "comes into existence" that it came into existence ex-nihilo. I've provided lots of resources to help you better understand how a zygote is created from fertilization. I think perhaps your problem is that you have some sort of mental block to the phrase "comes into existence" when we talk about our beginning at conception as if that somehow means people are saying a zygote comes into existence ex-nihilo. That's not what anyone has ever meant by that. Educate yourself.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

...the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

So when we talk about creation of a human being. Like me and you, conception and the act of two people having sex and conceiving, cannot be said to be the creation event that brought us, as individuals, into existence. Because if it were, then that would mean that people create life when they have sex.

Well, when we talk about how old a person is, we are referring to their age starting form the day they were born. When a pregnant woman talks about how long she's been pregnant, she talks about how long it's been since conception.

Conception was the ultimate beginning of your physical self. Conception is the ultimate beginning for all human beings since Adam and Eve. This is how God has chosen to grow the human race. God no longer creates human beings ex-nihilo. It is through sexual relations and conception that all human beings since Adam and Eve have begun their lives.

But if we consider the fact that when people die they go to heaven, We are soon reminded that our souls are wholly independent of our physical bodies. If there's a person named George, When George's body decays and rights away into nothing, George continues on to the afterlife. George as an independent creation of God is wholly independent of his physical form.

Correct, human beings are created as both physical and spiritual beings. It is capable for our spirit to live on once our physical bodies die. Eventually, when Christ returns, we will be given new and perfected bodies and will live on a redeemed and restored Earth, with Christ, for all eternity. But certainly nobody (Christian anyway) disagrees with the idea that human beings are both physical and spiritual beings.

In the existence of George's soul, And the timing in which George's soul enters the physical body that George holds, are in no way dependent up on the physical act of sex and conception.

When two people have sex and conceive, We do not create a soul. And as far as I'm aware, scripture doesn't clarify on the wind insolement occurs either aside from references to insultment of Adam in the book of Genesis.

And if neither science nor scripture can clarify on the moment in which George, as a soul, comes into existence, then it is purely baseless to claim that ensoulment occurs at conception.

It is certainly true that Scripture does not explicitly state when a human being receives their soul. I do think however, there are some things that Scripture does say which give us an idea of when it might be.

While I don't like using Adam's creation as an analogy because he was a one off, and isn't representative of how humans come to be since him, with regards to when we have a soul, there might be an indication there. Meaning, God first created Adam's body, and then God breathed life into Adam. I think most of us would agree that the moment in which Adam received a soul and the moment in which Adam became alive were simultaneous. That's consideration 1.

Consideration 2 would be that John the Baptist, while still in his mother's womb was indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Would anyone be prepared to argue that the growing baby in the womb, who was both indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and who experienced the emotion of joy, didn't have a soul? I don't think so. Thus, for consideration 2, we note that ensoulment does happen pre-birth.

For consideration 3, I would look at the words of King David who acknowledged that he was sinful from the moment of his conception. Here, we have an acknowledgment of our inherited sinful nature that is "bestowed" upon us from conception. That's interesting.

Finally, consideration 4 would be that there are no examples in Scripture anywhere of there ever existing a living human being without a soul. None.

So when we put those 4 things together, I don't see why the default position for ensoulment wouldn't be that it coincides with when we first are alive. And thanks to advancements in science, we know that a new and unique human being is created formed (sorry) out of the fertilization process.

Thus, again for me and my contribution to the abortion forum - I like to tie all this back to the idea that given the fact that 98.5% of abortions are performed for convenience reasons is both tragic, and immoral.

Human beings are inherently morally valuable, and as our moral worth and value stems from being created in the Image of God and has nothing to do with our development, race, gender, location of residence, etc... that it is immoral for someone to intentionally and purposefully kill a human being for convenience reasons.

 

[Job 33:6]

"This analogy is so bad I can't believe anyone with any education (even in geology) would attempt to use it. A sandwich and its parts are all inanimate. An embryo by contrast is a living and growing organism that self-directs its own growth and development. Congratulations on continuing to use a false analogy that can continue to be disregarded out of hand."

It is irrelevant whether the sandwich is animated or inanimate. The point is that nothing is brought into existence in either case of the sandwich or the embryo.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Conception was the ultimate beginning of your physical self. Conception is the ultimate beginning for all human beings since Adam and Eve. This is how God has chosen to grow the human race. God no longer creates human beings ex-nihilo. It is through sexual relations and conception that all human beings since Adam and Eve have begun their lives."


I disagree. I believe that there is more to a human being, than physical matter. There is our soul. And a human is not human, until God has created the soul of that human.

When we go to heaven, our physical bodies die and decay, but the true "us", the true individual identity we have, continues on. And we as individuals exist independently of whether or not our physical bodies are growing or decaying or dust.

And with that said, I believe God does continue to create humans ex-nihilo.

 

[Job 33:6]

"While I don't like using Adam's creation as an analogy because he was a one off, and isn't representative of how humans come to be since him, with regards to when we have a soul, there might be an indication there. Meaning, God first created Adam's body, and then God breathed life into Adam. I think most of us would agree that the moment in which Adam received a soul and the moment in which Adam became alive were simultaneous. That's consideration 1."

Only if we mean "alive" spiritually. I wouldn't say that the physical form wasn't alive in the sense that it wasn't already animated.

This consideration is riddled with assumptions. Such as, if Adam was animated by the soul, then all future life on earth only becomes animated by the soul (including animals?). And it assumes that Adam was inanimate prior to receiving his soul.

 

[SPF]

I disagree. I believe that there is more to a human being, than physical matter. There is our soul. And a human is not human, until God has created the soul of that human.

I recall saying quite clearly that God created humans as both physical and spiritual beings. So I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with when you say that.

I would say that based upon all the Biblical evidence available to us that God imparts our soul the moment we become biologically alive. And the moment we become biologically alive is at conception.

When we go to heaven, our physical bodies die and decay, but the true "us", the true individual identity we have, continues on. And we as individuals exist independently of whether or not our physical bodies are growing or decaying or dust.

When we die, we go to "heaven" in a temporary sense. It is not our final resting place. We were not created to live as disembodied spirits. We were created as both physical and spiritual beings, and when Christ returns, we will be given new, perfected bodies and live out eternity on a restored earth as both physical and spiritual beings.

And with that said, I believe God does continue to create humans ex-nihilo.

Biologically speaking He doesn't. God created an amazing world where the living organisms in it are capable of reproducing on their own. I wouldn't be opposed to saying though that God creates all our souls/spirits ex-nihilo at the moment of conception though. I see no Biblical problem with that.

It is irrelevant whether the sandwich is animated or inanimate. The point is that nothing is brought into existence in either case of the sandwich or the embryo.

The point is that it's a false analogy and can be disregarded out of hand.

 

[Job 33:6]

"For consideration 3, I would look at the words of King David who acknowledged that he was sinful from the moment of his conception. Here, we have an acknowledgment of our inherited sinful nature that is "bestowed" upon us from conception. That's interesting."

I can appreciate the effort with this one. I would view this more as poetic than informative. To describe being in sin at the earliest fathomable time would be to simply say that one is conceived in sin, but what that literally means is debatable. Hebrew translations of course aren't going to be particularly specific (in heat, breeding, hot, etc.). And would the psalmist know when his soul had entered the world? At best I would say it simply implies that one can be in sin prior to birth. I wouldn't make the stretch of trying to correlate this with a sperm meeting an egg. The Psalmist's seems to be describing the moment in which he comes into being, but doesn't necessarily clarify on when that moment is, beyond it being within his mother.

"Finally, consideration 4 would be that there are no examples in Scripture anywhere of there ever existing a living human being without a soul. None."

I don't think this implies that a soul is necessarily created at the moment sperm and egg meet. Just because people of scripture have souls, this says nothing about when the soul enters said human being.

"I don't see why the default position for ensoulment wouldn't be that it coincides with when we first are alive. "

I think you're making a leap. If all humans have souls, it doesn't follow that all souls enter when sperm meets egg. And there is no such thing as a default that is an affirmative position. The default is that scripture doesn't clarify (which you seem to agree). The default is not to say, well, no human exists without a soul, therefore conception is the answer.

"It is through sexual relations and conception that all human beings since Adam and Eve have begun their lives"

The way you're speaking, is as if human life can exist without a soul. As if people have sex and conceive and that this act and this physical action, is what makes life, regardless of any action by God.

I disagree.

 

[SPF]

I think you're making a leap. If all humans have souls, it doesn't follow that all souls enter when sperm meets egg.

The conclusion of the 4 consideration points was that since we know that physically and biologically a new human being comes to exist at conception, that it would make sense that it is at this moment when God gives us our soul. It's the process that He created.

The way you're speaking, is as if human life can exist without a soul. As if people have sex and conceive and that this act and this physical action, is what makes life.

I've never once said that. You're like the king of creating straw man arguments.

Interestingly, if you don't believe that a human being can exist without a soul, then since we know that scientifically that biologically and physically speaking a new human being comes into existence at conception, I would think you would be arguing that this is the most likely moment in which we receive our soul from God.

 

[Job 33:6]

The conclusion of the 4 consideration points was that since we know that physically and biologically a new human being comes to exist at conception, that it would make sense that it is at this moment when God gives us our soul. It's the process that He created.

That is your assumption. Your quotes of scripture do not offer any clarity.

I've never once said that. You're like the king of creating straw man arguments.

Interestingly, if you don't believe that a human being can exist without a soul, then since we know that scientifically that biologically and physically speaking a new human being comes into existence at conception, I would think you would be arguing that this is the most likely moment in which we receive our soul from God.

I believe that a human being can exist without a physical body. And, I believe that conjoining dna, can exist without a soul. But I wouldn't necessarily call such a connection of DNA "human".

Remember, and I've said this before, and you should try to understand this, the word "human" is nothing more than a word that we assign to a form of matter. Calling conjoining DNA "human", is a personal choice, moreso than it is a description of the DNA.

At the end of the day, not scripture, not science, offers an explanation for when the spirit enters the body.

And with that said, all the rest of these claims about life beginning at conception, are purely speculative.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Consideration 2 would be that John the Baptist, while still in his mother's womb was indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Would anyone be prepared to argue that the growing baby in the womb, who was both indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and who experienced the emotion of joy, didn't have a soul? I don't think so. Thus, for consideration 2, we note that ensoulment does happen pre-birth."

And just because an infant in the womb has a soul, this does not mean that the soul enters when the sperm meets the egg.

Considerations 1, 2 and 4 are practically meaningless. I think they make a case for a soul in the womb, but they don't give any clarity on when the soul enters (at conception, a few days later, a month later etc.)

Consideration 3 is ok, but we're in this position of pondering prose vs poetry and still left without context or clarity on the nature of the verse.

 

[NBB]

"Consideration 2 would be that John the Baptist, while still in his mother's womb was indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Would anyone be prepared to argue that the growing baby in the womb, who was both indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and who experienced the emotion of joy, didn't have a soul? I don't think so. Thus, for consideration 2, we note that ensoulment does happen pre-birth."

And just because an infant in the womb has a soul, this does not mean that the soul enters when the sperm meets the egg.

Considerations 1, 2 and 4 are practically meaningless. I think they make a case for a soul in the womb, but they don't give any clarity on when the soul enters (at conception, a few days later, a month later etc.)

Consideration 3 is ok, but we're in this position of pondering prose vs poetry and still left without context or clarity on the nature of the verse.

So if you don't know when the soul enters, but you know babies in the mother womb have souls, then why kill them? you have more proof of them having souls than not having them.

Also David says: you eyes saw my embryo.

About extreme cases, well the vast majority of women who do abortions to themselves are not for those extreme reasons, so i don't think one thing should 'negate' the other.

Also, when a person is conveived soul entering or not, LISTEN: IT IS A PERSON, because it has assigned to it a soul should it enter immediately a week, or a month later, THE EMBRYO IS A PERSON, you are killing a human being!, why? because you are denying a PERSON its future on earth, and that is murder, soul immediately entering or not. UNDERSTAND?

 

[Job 33:6]

So if you don't know when the soul enters, but you know babies in the mother womb have souls, then why kill them? you have more proof of them having souls than not having them.

Also David says: you eyes saw my embryo.

About extreme cases, well the vast majority of women who do abortions to themselves are not for those extreme reasons, so i don't think one thing should 'negate' the other.

Also, when a person is conveived soul entering or not, LISTEN: IT IS A PERSON, because it has assigned to it a soul should it enter immediately a week, or a month later, THE EMBRYO IS A PERSON, you are killing a human being!, why? because you are denying a PERSON its future on earth, and that is murder, soul immediately entering or not. UNDERSTAND?

Huh? The question is, when does ensoulment occur?

I don't think anyone disputes the idea that 3rd trimester abortions are distasteful. But you're suggesting that ensoulment and a complete human, exist at the moment in which the sperm meets the egg and DNA of each contact one another.

I disagree with this idea.

There just isn't any evidence, scientifically or in scripture, that this is the case.

You appear to be letting your personal views and feelings of the topic drive your case, rather than anything objective.

From a purely materialistic stance, if we ignore the discussion of when ensoulment occurs, and only examine the combination and recombination of sets of DNA, then we are no different from the cattle and chickens we eat. So this is an important topic that shouldn't just be ignored.

 

[NBB]

Huh? The question is, when does ensoulment occur?

I don't think anyone disputes the idea that 3rd trimester abortions are distasteful. But you're suggesting that ensoulment and a complete human, exist at the moment in which the sperm meets the egg and DNA of each contact one another.

I disagree with this idea.

There just isn't any evidence, scientifically or in scripture, that this is the case.

You appear to be letting your personal views and feelings of the topic drive your case, rather than anything objective.

From a purely materialistic stance, if we ignore the discussion of when ensoulment occurs, and only examine the combination and recombination of sets of DNA, then we are no different from the cattle and chickens we eat. So this is an important topic that shouldn't just be ignored.

You are basically cutting a life from their whole future with an abortion, do you understand that even if they don't have a soul in an early stage, wich i doubt they don't have, they are getting it soon, we all were embryos once, would you have liked to someone to have killed you as it? its something of a 'paradox' but yes you are murdering a person soul or not.

Also you don't know if embryos don't have a soul, but you do know a person in the womb can have a soul and even cen be filled with the Holy spirit.
So basically i don't understand why you make excuses for abortion having this information.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are basically cutting a life from their whole future with an abortion, do you understand that even if they don't have a soul in an early stage, wich i doubt they don't have, they are getting it soon, we all were embryos once, would you have liked to someone to have killed you as it? its something of a 'paradox' but yes you are murdering a person soul or not.

Also you don't know if embryos don't have a soul, but you do know a person in the womb can have a soul and even cen be filled with the Holy spirit.
So basically i don't understand why you make excuses for abortion having this information.

If it is true that destroying a soulless embryo is tantamount to murder, I would simply say that pro life advocates should also take a moment to reflect on the millions of soulless life forms that are destroyed every day (to fill supermarkets), that don't get a moment of consideration.

Personally, I view both as having value.

 

[NBB]

If it is true that destroying a soulless embryo is tantamount to murder, I would simply say that pro life advocates should also take a moment to reflect on the millions of soulless life forms that are destroyed every day (to fill supermarkets), that don't get a moment of consideration.

Personally, I view both as having value.

I don't know what you are talking about, an embryo has a future as a person if it doesn't have a soul, basically it is a person, just think about it, the future person with soul is killed, from this i think the soul gets in the baby at conception, because at conception a person is born because all embryos are going to get a soul... about other life forms, we kill them as adults too, cows plants whatever it has no comparison whatsoever! human life is valuable more than animals......!!

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know what you are talking about, an embryo has a future as a person if it doesn't have a soul, basically it is a person, just think about it, the future person with soul is killed, from this i think the soul gets in the baby at conception, because at conception a person is born because all embryos are going to get a soul... about other life forms, we kill them as adults too, cows plants whatever it has no comparison whatsoever! human life is valuable more than animals......!!

If not for a soul, there is nothing in this physical world that sets us above and beyond other species of animal. Indeed, for those who really believe what these biologists are saying about human life at conception, we should also be aware that these same scientists describe us as being just like them, indeed no different than other animals, before our evolution to become human beings.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 288593 [/ATTACH]

I just thought the picture was funny because people smash caterpillars and butterflies, and send pigs and cows through meat grinders every day without a second though.

 

[thelord's_pearl]

I used to be deceived and afraid of bees until I got the knowledge that they pollinate the flowers we eat and they only sting out of last resort in defense if they feel life-threatening endangerment and if they sting you that one time then they'll be dead. They can only sting once and then they'll die. I have gone to a farmer's market where they gave us free samples of apple cider to drink and the bee landed on the cup edge and started drinking, that was cute, even they're a valuable life God created for us not to kill. While I don't agree that animals who experience a lot of pain and have intelligence and it seems like they have souls too should be killed at all, God did say that we can only kill animals to eat in a nice way and what I think of flies is that they evolve when we're dirty but they seem to have intelligence too and the ability to experience pain so we shouldn't kill them either and I think they'll go away once you're clean.

Also to add, there was a scripture someone posted when an important person of God leaped in the womb for joy, that sounds like when the baby is formed enough to be able to feel it's movement so that's important to note. Nice debate KomatiiteBIF!

 

[SPF]

people... send pigs and cows through meat grinders every day without a second though.

Of course we do. Animals are not humans. Animals are not created in the Image of God. Animals do not possess the Imago Dei. God gave animals to us for food.

As human beings, we alone possess the Imago Dei out of all God's creation. Our inherent moral worth and value stem from the immutable and perfect character of God, that's why it is immoral and wrong to kill other human beings without just cause.

And again, tying this back to abortion - 98.5% of all abortions are performed for convenience reasons. As Christians, we ought to recognize these as immoral and wrong.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 9:1-3 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you


Acts 10:9-16 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course we do. Animals are not humans. Animals are not created in the Image of God. Animals do not possess the Imago Dei. God gave animals to us for food.

As human beings, we alone possess the Imago Dei out of all God's creation. Our inherent moral worth and value stem from the immutable and perfect character of God, that's why it is immoral and wrong to kill other human beings without just cause.

And again, tying this back to abortion - 98.5% of all abortions are performed for convenience reasons. As Christians, we ought to recognize these as immoral and wrong.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 9:1-3 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you


Acts 10:9-16 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

I think this is all intellectually lazy. First we find your argument strongly fighting in favor of the words of science, while simultaneously, none of those scientists actually clarify on when ensoulment and the full human creation begins. Now we have an argument in favor of the mass slaughter of millions of animals per day, as of less significance than the destruction of an embryo, on the basis of something in which science has 0 involvement.

There is no objective basis for this response. Nothing observable or tangible about it. It's merely a case of, well mass slaughter of sentient, pain and fear experiencing animals is more acceptable than destroying a non-sentient, non pain experiencing, non-fearful embryo, "because the Bible says so".

I think that, in light of an understanding that we evolved from species much like them that we eat, that we once were of a lower state of consciousness and lower awareness, and also with the understanding that they hypothetically could rise to our state of consciousness and awareness and intelligence, it seems completely unreasonable to consider their lives as any less valuable than that of a non-sentient, non-pain experiencing embryo.