PRAISE GOD!
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
And even when it is "a clump of cells" (which is really only the first few days, afterwhich actual human form begins to take shape), it is fully human, because modern science shows that each species, and each member of that species, is uniquely defined by its DNA.
We know that, but some argue that its OK to abort a clump of cells. That's how they solve their conscience and absolve themselves of guilt. I believe that life begins the moment fertilisation occurs. Read that when that happens and electric charge of some sort occurs, I think its a divine spark that starts the life process.
Yes, the "clump of cells" argument became universally ridiculous about 30 years ago, when most people learned basic human biology. It still is occasionally thrown out there, but it seems pretty rare now. They like to talk about "viability" now as the threshold for whether an unborn child is worthy of life or not. I counter that by saying, "Well, if you are on an operating table under anesthesia, you are not viable without the care of the medical staff in attendance, does that mean your like can be taken then without recourse?", or "A one-year-old child is not viable without the care of responsible older people, does that mean that child does not deserve to live?". I can shoot down ANY argument they bring up :)
One big difference is that when you're on an operating table under anesthesia, you're not living inside the body of another person, using her oxygen, blood, energy, muscles, heart, other organs, and hormones for as you develop into a person capable of life outside her womb.
The biological cost to a mother to gestate a fetus into a full-term baby is enormous. Some women never fully recover their health and vitality after they give birth. Some women still die in childbirth or of postpartum hemorrhage.
A mother gives the gift of life to her child at her own expense. When she does this willingly, there is no greater gift for them both. When the government forces her to do so against her will, she is not a free person, but someone whose body the state has commandeered for the benefit of someone else, her child. The argument is not whether an unborn child is worthy of life, but whether a mother's body can be used against her will to gestate that child.
When you start comparing the life of the mother to the life of an unborn child, you are venturing into the same gray morality of leftists, who like to rank the value of various human beings. We are all precious in the eyes of God, and it doesn't matter what the age, sex, race, size, physical or mental capabilities, or location, a human is; thou shalt not murder.
Awesome!