I mean, that's how it works in the game, telephone. Oh wait.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Life Begins At Conception
- Thread starter chipbennett
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I mean, that's how it works in the game, telephone. Oh wait.
Because this thread is full of eggshells. I think your bold name is intimidating some. It's rare to find a thread where nearly everyone is so formal and well-mannered.
Just answering as an observer of the thread... laughing at all the "don't want to offend..." and "I'm sorry, but I think..." and "
" strewn about to lighten the mood, heh.
Because this thread is full of eggshells. I think your bold name is intimidating some. It's rare to find a thread where nearly everyone is so formal and well-mannered.
Just answering as an observer of the thread... laughing at all the "don't want to offend..." and "I'm sorry, but I think..." and "
It's called diplomacy. And you know what "diplomacy" means, right? It's the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
... laughing at all the "don't want to offend..." and "I'm sorry, but I think..." and "
We can't all be so cool......
OutdoorDad
Master
See, you're doing it again. You know I didn't apologize. Although you almost read my mind. Cause I was thinking "I'm sorry Chip isn't being intellectually honest". So 50 points for getting it part right.
Let me break it down for you...
If life begins at conception, then life did not exist prior to conception.
You're claiming no metabolic activity, growth, reaction to stimuli from either the egg or sperm prior to their combining? That is ridiculous and you know better.
Life does not begin at conception. You ask how many biologist I would like you to cite? How about one. Just one. Because life was there before conception.
Otherwise, you've just stumbled on an amazing scientific discovery. Combining two dead things and creating life?
I noticed that you tried to reframe your assertion to life "existing" at inception rather than sticking with your original premise.
And now, take a look at the websites you linked... come on. You're telling on yourself...
Just the Facts dot org? Dedicated to important public policy issues?
The National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children?
The Lozier Institue clearly is a pro-life organization and their borrowed position paper is a discussion of "human" life. And the discussion of "complete" human v "part of" a human is clearly structured to support an anti abortion stance.
And while the Princeton dot edu link has an impressive web domain, its a bibliogrophy of when "human" life begins and is clearly again, a pro life stance.
Did you even read them?
Kind of makes it difficult to support your upthread assertions to PaulF that you weren't starting an anti abortion thread, don't they?
Chip, as the father of an adopted child, I can't tell you how happy I am that she came into my life and family. And if her biological parents had decided on a different route, my life would be entirely different. I believe God was looking out for everyone involved. I'm glad of the choices that were made.
But my belief in God and His will for me, is just that. A belief. Its between me and Him. If I want to expand the discussion to include others, I will. But I'll be honest about it.
If you want to witness, have at it. I think its allowed per the recent rule relaxation. But be honest about it.
Maybe some of the way it was written was difficult for the people of the day to understand, but I would say that such errors as the original Hebrew being imprecisely interpreted, as mentioned above, makes it such that it was better understood at an earlier date than when it was translated.
Just to clarify I was not apologizing for my belief's. My apology was for saying that the folks who believe other wise have arguments that they believe to be valid, and that they can not be convinced otherwise.
eldirector
Grandmaster
We seem to be using several differing meanings of "life begins" interchangeably, and it is causing a lot of confusion (and argument). I have seen three uses so far:
1) In the OP, I suspect "life begins" was referring to the first moments of life for a new human individual. Prior to that moment, that individual in no way existed. After that moment, at least on a identifiable genetic level, it was a new distinct individual.
2) We then had the concept that "all life" had begun long, long before. An extension of the chicken and egg? This "new life" came from existing life, so was not really all that new.
3) And finally, that the gametes were technically alive before joining. Similar to #2 above, but more specific.
Does that cover it? Did I miss one somewhere along the line? It would be useful, for me at least, if we could decide which we are debating.
I'll also add a citation in support of #1:
1) In the OP, I suspect "life begins" was referring to the first moments of life for a new human individual. Prior to that moment, that individual in no way existed. After that moment, at least on a identifiable genetic level, it was a new distinct individual.
2) We then had the concept that "all life" had begun long, long before. An extension of the chicken and egg? This "new life" came from existing life, so was not really all that new.
3) And finally, that the gametes were technically alive before joining. Similar to #2 above, but more specific.
Does that cover it? Did I miss one somewhere along the line? It would be useful, for me at least, if we could decide which we are debating.
I'll also add a citation in support of #1:
Shull, A. Franklin. Principles in Animal Biology. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934. Print. Pg. 146.
Discussions of when life begins and abortion should remain theological and philosophical and out of the purview of any government entity. I don't believe anyone has inserted government into the thread specifically but I felt it should be stated.
The beginning of a new potential human life is indeed spectacular and can be described both scientifically and religiously. Only one's personal beliefs will determine which one is seen. I do believe that each side can see the other side regardless of which one they stand on. Admitting that you can see the other side should not be seen as a concession or win for the opposition, only acknowledgement that we live in a very complex world and that each of us is an individual. Thankfully in this country we can each have our own views.
Personally it boggles my mind that anyone could honestly stand up and claim to another human being "You must go through with this proven dangerous, traumatizing, life altering experience." no matter what the justification. It is a matter to be kept between the couple and whatever deity they want to believe in. That is part of the freedom that we live in. We don't have to agree with the decision, but we do have to respect it. For those standing on the pro-choice side anyone who would proclaim that abortion shouldn't happen or be allowed is taking freedom away from them. That, IMO, is wrong in a country that was founded on freedom. As I am a logical person I can't come up with any logical argument that says an abortion shouldn't happen/be allowed. All arguments I see against it are moral, theological, or emotional.
The beginning of a new potential human life is indeed spectacular and can be described both scientifically and religiously. Only one's personal beliefs will determine which one is seen. I do believe that each side can see the other side regardless of which one they stand on. Admitting that you can see the other side should not be seen as a concession or win for the opposition, only acknowledgement that we live in a very complex world and that each of us is an individual. Thankfully in this country we can each have our own views.
Personally it boggles my mind that anyone could honestly stand up and claim to another human being "You must go through with this proven dangerous, traumatizing, life altering experience." no matter what the justification. It is a matter to be kept between the couple and whatever deity they want to believe in. That is part of the freedom that we live in. We don't have to agree with the decision, but we do have to respect it. For those standing on the pro-choice side anyone who would proclaim that abortion shouldn't happen or be allowed is taking freedom away from them. That, IMO, is wrong in a country that was founded on freedom. As I am a logical person I can't come up with any logical argument that says an abortion shouldn't happen/be allowed. All arguments I see against it are moral, theological, or emotional.
I agree, the natural rights of a child are inherently different than the rights of an adult so it can't be boiled down to having the same rights we as adults do. Any right a fetus has is completely intertwined with the rights of the mother, not separate, and I don't see how those rights could ever be clearly separated and legislated. We all have the right to life and liberty, but how would those rights apply if our lives were completely dependent on another person who supposedly has autonomous rights to their own life.
spencer rifle
Grandmaster
Government has the responsibility to look after the rights of those who are unable to look after their own, such as pre-born babies, the most voiceless class of people (though that changes considerable after birth, as observed through many sleepless nights).
"In light of the fundamental nature of procreation, and the importance placed on it by the Supreme Court, safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest."
— Maryland Court of Appeals, Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al.
Actions have consequences. Don't want to be pregnant and have some fetus impose his/her rights on you? Don't have sex. It almost always works to prevent pregnancy. The problem with keeping it between the couple is that it is now no longer a couple - there is a third interested party, that the couple's actions introduced into the arrangement. And what about the freedom of the pre-born child to be born and get the life part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the first the rest are useless.
I hate compromising on this, but how about we use the same criteria to determining beginning of life as we use for the end - heartbeat and brain activity. That would put it at about 6 weeks?
"In light of the fundamental nature of procreation, and the importance placed on it by the Supreme Court, safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest."
— Maryland Court of Appeals, Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al.
Actions have consequences. Don't want to be pregnant and have some fetus impose his/her rights on you? Don't have sex. It almost always works to prevent pregnancy. The problem with keeping it between the couple is that it is now no longer a couple - there is a third interested party, that the couple's actions introduced into the arrangement. And what about the freedom of the pre-born child to be born and get the life part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the first the rest are useless.
I hate compromising on this, but how about we use the same criteria to determining beginning of life as we use for the end - heartbeat and brain activity. That would put it at about 6 weeks?
I vehemently disagree with that, it is not the government's place to ensure propagation.
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
So many of these 
I don't believe the government was granted or tasked with any such responsibility by the constitution. Granted, that is irrelevant to most. Historically the government has inserted itself into lots of places it was never intended to go.
There is no concern with the propagation of the human race at this time. One could potentially even argue the opposite is true and that would be an even bigger can of worms.
While this is true, it is also irrelevant. It's the typical what if game that can be played to eternity. "If you don't want x, don't do y."
Sadly, the entity growing inside the mother doesn't get a choice. This happens often in life. Life is cruel that way. I'll give you an example that happens all the time and no one blinks an eye, in vitro fertilization. There can be anywhere from 5 - 20 fertilized eggs that have divided several times over but only a small subset are implanted. What do you do with the rest? Are you aborting all the others? Should they too be given a chance at life?
Appreciate the attempt, but it's splitting hairs. Personally I would only abort if there was a danger to the mother or child. Potentially also if the child was going to have no chance at being self sufficient. I applaud the people who care for children who will never be independent but I don't understand it. To me life should be an adventure that you yourself decide the outcome. I don't believe that anyone should live their entire life dependent on another. Fortunately not everyone feels that way and I'm ok with that, just not when they would attempt to push their beliefs and feelings onto me. I don't believe anyone in this thread is attempting to do that though.
indiucky
Grandmaster
I feel it is my duty to help Atheists make their case better.....I feel, as a former non believer (probably more Agnostic like Dawkins, not an Atheist which is a faith based Faith) that the more knowledge one has the better able they are to understand the past as well as their own heart....
NO serious Atheist/Agnostic would ever use the "Telephone Game" comparison in a debate...None...Zip.....To do so would expose them to ridicule by any (even mediocre) scholar of ancient literature and culture...They will use it in lectures to 18-22 year old's because it's (the telephone game) something they are familiar with and is good for a chuckle from the "I am 22 and I know EVERYTHING!!!!" crowd that we were all a part of at one time...
I am just going to give you a quick synopsis of why one should not use that if they want to be taken seriously when debating topics such as this....Judaism, (and to a lesser extent Islam, which had a pretty good language going at it's birth so there was less a need for an oral tradition), along with numerous African, Asian and American Indian Tribes, etc....Had a rich oral tradition...In nearly every village there were a couple of people whose sole purpose was to memorize things EXACTLY....Even in the New Testament you see evidence of this in the works of Paul...In the original Aramaic (and to a lesser extent it carries over to English) there is a cadence to the basic creeds...Most folks in the first century hearing the Gospel could not read Greek (or any language) so certain basics that every Christian believes could be recounted easily....My brother, when he Baptized me last year in Oil Creek said the creed right before the dunking....And here it is...
Jesus was born a Jew
Jesus was betrayed
Jesus was crucified
Jesus rose again on the third day
"Do you believe this to be true?"
"Yes, with all my heart and mind.."
"Dunk, splash, light, hug, and a tear or two" (maybe, my face was wet...)
In Judaism (to this day) many young Jewish boys can recite the entire Torah and it's the same in Islam with the Quran.....In a recent doomsday film staring Denzel Washington "The Book of Eli", Denzel Washington plays a man who has the last Bible on Earth...*spoiler alert*...He is blind, no one can read the Bible he has but himself...The Bible is destroyed but there at the end a smoking hot Mila Kunis gets the dying Eli to Alcatraz where a library with all the world's literature is being held until such time as the world gets up and running again...You think the bible is gone but in the very last scene Denzel is laying on his back while a man with a pencil and a pad sits beside him...Denzel begins to speak and says, "Genesis, chapter one, verse one,. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.." and as the camera pans away you realize that God had made certain that Eli got to that place so the word would not be lost...A very beautiful film and Eli's 870 is awesome...
One more example..
Alex Haley wrote "Roots" (soon to be redone on History Channel)...I read the book as a young man and loved it...From the time he was a young man he had heard that his first ancestor to make it to America via the middle passage (and here is the cadence, in the series and the book you see every generation saying these words to the next generation) "There was a man named Kunte Kinta. He was to be married. He went into the forest to cut a tree to make a drum. He was captured by slave traders...."
Years later, as he is writing the book he visits the tribe where his ancestor Kunte Kinta was captured...They bring out an older gentleman who sits down and begins to recite the oral history of the tribe...He starts at the earliest history of the tribe, hours pass, Haley is hearing all these little tales...What's funny is there is no skipping ahead..The man has memorized the entire history and has to start from the beginning..(Think starting the alphabet from midway..Notice how one will stumble and sometime have to start at the beginning? Same concept..Cadence is important in an oral tradition)...After a couple of hours Haley hears "Kunte Kinta" and tears begin to flow from his eyes as the translator says "In his 30th year Kunte Kinta went into the forest to cut a tree to make a drum for his wedding...He was never seen again." and past and present came together in a beautiful spark...Alex Haley knew the story was true...And was able to take his family tree back to Africa...
So now you know why the "telephone game" comparison is a poor analogy when discussing ancient texts...We live in an internet age where information is available at our fingertips...It is sometimes hard for us to wrap our heads around the ancient world and what life was like for them..By better understanding how things were done in the past, we better understand the words we receive from the past....
Never end the search for the truth....
Pontius Pilate once said to a Jewish carpenter "What is truth?" That's the question for the ages is it not?
IMHO...Based on a twenty year search for the answers we all seek...Your results may very...
Good luck and may God Bless you and yours....
I think I am starting to see why Patience0830 once called me a "Thread killing historian" LOL....Lord I am boring when I am bored...
Last edited:
Not at all.I feel it is my duty to help Atheists make their case better.....I feel, as a former non believer (probably more Agnostic like Dawkins, not an Atheist which is a faith based Faith) that the more knowledge one has the better able they are to understand the past as well as their own heart....
NO serious Atheist/Agnostic would ever use the "Telephone Game" comparison in a debate...None...Zip.....To do so would expose them to ridicule by any (even mediocre) scholar of ancient literature and culture...They will use it in lectures to 18-22 year old's because it's (the telephone game) something they are familiar with and is good for a chuckle from the "I am 22 and I know EVERYTHING!!!!" crowd that we were all a part of at one time...
I am just going to give you a quick synopsis of why one should not use that if they want to be taken seriously when debating topics such as this....Judaism, (and to a lesser extent Islam, which had a pretty good language going at it's birth so there was less a need for an oral tradition), along with numerous African, Asian and American Indian Tribes, etc....Had a rich oral tradition...In nearly every village there were a couple of people whose sole purpose was to memorize things EXACTLY....Even in the New Testament you see evidence of this in the works of Paul...In the original Aramaic (and to a lesser extent it carries over to English) there is a cadence to the basic creeds...Most folks in the first century hearing the Gospel could not read Greek (or any language) so certain basics that every Christian believes could be recounted easily....My brother, when he Baptized me last year in Oil Creek said the creed right before the dunking....And here it is...
Jesus was born a Jew
Jesus was betrayed
Jesus was crucified
Jesus rose again on the third day
"Do you believe this to be true?"
"Yes, with all my heart and mind.."
"Dunk, splash, light, hug, and a tear or two" (maybe, my face was wet...)
In Judaism (to this day) many young Jewish boys can recite the entire Torah and it's the same in Islam with the Quran.....In a recent doomsday film staring Denzel Washington "The Book of Eli", Denzel Washington plays a man who has the last Bible on Earth...*spoiler alert*...He is blind, no one can read the Bible he has but himself...The Bible is destroyed but there at the end a smoking hot Mila Kunis gets the dying Eli to Alcatraz where a library with all the world's literature is being held until such time as the world gets up and running again...You think the bible is gone but in the very last scene Denzel is laying on his back while a man with a pencil and a pad sits beside him...Denzel begins to speak and says, "Genesis, chapter one, verse one,. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.." and as the camera pans away you realize that God had made certain that Eli got to that place so the word would not be lost...A very beautiful film and Eli's 870 is awesome...
One more example..
Alex Haley wrote "Roots" (soon to be redone on History Channel)...I read the book as a young man and loved it...From the time he was a young man he had heard that his first ancestor to make it to America via the middle passage (and here is the cadence, in the series and the book you see every generation saying these words to the next generation) "There was a man named Kunte Kinta. He was to be married. He went into the forest to cut a tree to make a drum. He was captured by slave traders...."
Years later, as he is writing the book he visits the tribe where his ancestor Kunte Kinta was captured...They bring out an older gentleman who sits down and begins to recite the oral history of the tribe...He starts at the earliest history of the tribe, hours pass, Haley is hearing all these little tales...What's funny is there is no skipping ahead..The man has memorized the entire history and has to start from the beginning..(Think starting the alphabet from midway..Notice how one will stumble and sometime have to start at the beginning? Same concept..Cadence is important in an oral tradition)...After a couple of hours Haley hears "Kunte Kinta" and tears begin to flow from his eyes as the translator says "In his 30th year Kunte Kinta went into the forest to cut a tree to make a drum for his wedding...He was never seen again." and past and present came together in a beautiful spark...Alex Haley knew the story was true...And was able to take his family tree back to Africa...
So now you know why the "telephone game" comparison is a poor analogy when discussing ancient texts...We live in an internet age where information is available at our fingertips...It is sometimes hard for us to wrap our heads around the ancient world and what life was like for them..By better understanding how things were done in the past, we better understand the words we receive from the past....
Never end the search for the truth....
Pontius Pilate once said to a Jewish carpenter "What is truth?" That's the question for the ages is it not?
IMHO...Based on a twenty year search for the answers we all seek...Your results may very...
Good luck and may God Bless you and yours....
I think I am starting to see why Patience0830 once called me a "Thread killing historian" LOL....Lord I am boring when I am bored...
"You must spread the rep around before giving it to Indiucky again".
Last edited:
I got him for you.
There should be a special Denny subcategory for a derailment-post from a former agnostic, in a minefield of a thread about conception and abortion, religion and science, that somehow captures an important concept that reasonable people can all agree on.
Golf Clap Denny or something.
Golf Clap Denny or something.
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
Can't rep ya indiucky. Fantastic post.
Indiucky - must spread the rep around. Thanks for the lesson.
My statement is akin to the point that the Bible has been derived in my understanding from the (I believe) dead sea scrolls. They were written in Aramaic and when they were found, the language was already considered a dead language or close to it, rendering it very hard to translate when the people that can still speak the language are few and far between. There were pieces missing so blanks had to be filled in and I think there were several characters that couldn't be translated or weren't known what they were causing more holes that had to be filled. I was not aware of the people that had to memorize the stories and pass them on. You learn something new every day. So, yes l, did use the telephone game reference. It may be a bit hasty and loose, but to me, it fits. Of course, if my knowledge of how it all came about is wrong, then the whole reference comes apart at the seams rather quickly. I do see where you are coming from though. I appreciate yours and everyone else's patience in this oh so delicate thread. It has been nice reading both sides without even so much as a warning being handed out.
My statement is akin to the point that the Bible has been derived in my understanding from the (I believe) dead sea scrolls. They were written in Aramaic and when they were found, the language was already considered a dead language or close to it, rendering it very hard to translate when the people that can still speak the language are few and far between. There were pieces missing so blanks had to be filled in and I think there were several characters that couldn't be translated or weren't known what they were causing more holes that had to be filled. I was not aware of the people that had to memorize the stories and pass them on. You learn something new every day. So, yes l, did use the telephone game reference. It may be a bit hasty and loose, but to me, it fits. Of course, if my knowledge of how it all came about is wrong, then the whole reference comes apart at the seams rather quickly. I do see where you are coming from though. I appreciate yours and everyone else's patience in this oh so delicate thread. It has been nice reading both sides without even so much as a warning being handed out.
Site Supporter
Members online
- squeals99
- snorko
- snapping turtle
- jocro
- racr28
- radar8756
- Devilpig
- HoosierHunter07
- morve80
- jsn_mooney
- Benjamin
- indyblue
- swamptick
- ComeJesuscome
- Creedmoor
- tmschuller
- 2tonic
- thunderchicken
- miguel
- SEIndSAM
- JimH
- bowhunter_1978
- BackFromDC
- gcfireman
- BR8818
- cbhausen
- ZachJ03
- Midwestjimbo
- Lumpy76
- FredMcIntire
- jtmiller951
- mike8170
- torque_and_recoil
- tv1217