The "context" section at the bottom of the video that youtube put up is wrong. It says "An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy". If that were true then a c-section would be an abortion. An abortion is actually a procedure to terminate an embryo/fetus, but the truth is more difficult to write, so they do not write it.
Well, it doesn't say "any procedure to end a pregnancy," but "a procedure to end a pregnancy," which implies there are others. A C-section is another "procedure to end a pregnancy." Unlike abortion, a C-section doesn't end the life of the unborn child, but technically, they're both procedures "to end a pregnancy."
TH-cam put that there; and, apparently, they got it from the 'National Library of Medicine'. Regardless, it's the position of many nominal Christians that it's a sin to destroy an embryo at any point after conception. And, Christians have the right to be politically/socially active against abortion; just as anti-responsibility hedonists and bleeding-heart "feminists" have the right to be politically/socially active for abortion.
As WLC said, abortion boils down to two questions: Do human beings have intrinsic worth, and is the unborn (i.e. zyote, embryo, fetus) a human being? If the answer to these two questions is "yes", then abortion is wrong for *any* reason (even rape or incest) other than to save the life of the mother (e.g., ectopic pregnancy).
God knows the infant way before He even formed the baby in its mother's womb according to Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” This issue is non-negotiable among Chrsitians. We should approach it as God sees it. There is no room for compromise
right, and even if our soul isn't put into our bodies at conception, at some point in the womb it does get put in, and we therefore should never abort because we don't have 100% certainty when our souls enter our bodies
There are three things that you should know about your book, if you don't already: - It's irrelevant to literally everyone that isn't in your religion (thus the vast majority of the population of Earth). - It has no place whatsoever in government. - Nobody has the right to force others to comply with it.
_"No room for compromise"_ he says 🤔 Hmm _"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them_ *But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child* _ox and sheep, camel and donkey"_ (1 Samuel 15 : 3 ) _"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us_ *He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks* (Psalms 137 : 8 ) _"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God_ *They will fall by the sword their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open* (Hosea 13 : 16 )
@@DriveInFreak Ok. So what? Are you saying we (Christians and quasi-Christians) have no right to use the Book to influence each other? Or are you saying we have no right to a voice in government? Look at the video: Whom do you think is the primary audience here? Are you trying to gag us with your petty criticism?
Just to clarify: the morning after pill is not the same as the abortion pill. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy from occurring - if pregnancy has already occurred before the morning after pill, the pill will have no effect. The abortion pill on the other hand does not prevent pregnancy, and in fact does end pregnancy after it has occurred.
Technically, you may be correct. That’s why the pill is usually taken in conjunction with another pill that causes the implanted embryo to miscarry. The missing part is that the pill does not prevent fertilization. So, in the sense that it kills a unique human being, it is the same as an abortion pill and is rightly classed as an abortifacient.
Actually the morning after pill *can* terminate a pregnancy after fertilization has occurred. You can research it. This is a popular rebuttal but it’s misinformed. I am a nurse.
The idea that the procedure is purely a "women's issue" is false. If more American women were given more support by the men of their lives in their moments of vulnerability, the demand for the terminations would be less common.
According to surveys, half of women who abort don’t want to but are pressured into it by partners and family. Legalized abortion, ironically, takes away their choice.
@@ricksonora6656 Lol is this a typical example of the dizzying heights your intellectual input attains or did I just catch you on a really really bad day? 🤭🤣🤣🤣😂
We will never be able to regulate sin out of existence, but we can and should strive for laws that reflect morality and ethics as far as is possible. I fully agree with both the legislative work and the work of persuading people of the truth. **Also, I think you accidentally used the description from a prior video about the fate of those who never hear of Jesus. **
Some of these drugs are used to help in miscarriage management which is a very different use of the drugs than an elective abortion. I think it's important to remember that the drugs themselves are not an issue. The use and access of the drugs are the key issues.
If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being how come people say we have two children and one on the way instead of we have three children?
Both questions are argument from authority. The first uses Law as the authority, whereas the second uses colloquial language as the authority. The legitimate authority here is the science of biology. Thus, your argument is a logical fallacy. The argument from fact and science says the pre-born are human beings at early stages of development. The claim that location changes a “fetus” into a baby depends on either magic or the religious idea that spirit enters the body through breathing. How hypocritical! Pro-aborts accuse people who use science of using religious arguments, even while basing pro-abortion arguments on religious beliefs!
1. A census is done for economic purposes. If a baby dies in the womb, it has no impact economically, so we wait to count him/her until they are born. 2. That is just terms of speech. We also say a woman is "with child" when they are pregnant.
@@ricksonora6656 Sorry cupcake but science makes no determination as to when a zygote becomes a "human being" _"Personhood"_ is a metaphysical philosophical concept and as such is subjective BY DEFINITION dear. However science can contribute to the discourse. The Missouri School Of Medicine lists these attributes as commonly associated criteria........... Rationality or logical reasoning ability Consciousness Self-consciousness (self-awareness) Use of language Ability to initiate action Moral agency and the ability to engage in moral judgments Intelligence I have seen several other similar criteria postulated by philosophers that could also play a part in the discourse. Which if these attributes do you think a zygote possess upon fertilisation ???? 🤔🤔 Simple questions dear, that may clarify what you think "personhood" is and just how "pro life" advocates determine it. Are humanan spermatozoa and ovum *"LIFE"* YES OR NO ?? Are they HUMAN BEINGS ?? Do they have "PERSONHOOD" ??? Many Christians will tap dance around the above questions often with rather verbose obfuscation and missdirection. If you are unwilling to address this then I must assume honesty and truth are secondary to maintaining the ideology you WANT to be true. In which case I accept your defeat our discourse is over and I bid you goodnight, the choice is yours.
Abortion is a genocide of the youth. While I applauded the repeal of Roe, it was done for the wrong reason. Slavery was permitted on the basis that the respective minority whom it wronged was deemed less than human, so infants are deemed not human. The reason to repeal should have been the humanity of the infant. Children deserve full inclusion under the human right to life.
A human spermatozoa is ALIVE its a unicellular human *life form* that can move independently, metabolise sugars to produce energy, and contains a complete and UNIQUE human genome. It has the "potential" to eventually become a "human being". Does this therefore mean that using a condom is an act of GENOCIDE ? I do not see you demanding h,**,, d jobs are criminalised or describing W, .3t dreams as attrocities. 🤣
Murder is a human concept and means unlawful killing in it's simplest concept. Murder only happens when a killing breaches such law and abortion is therefore not murder unless a foetus is given personhood status. All aspects of legislation have to be viewed based on legal definitions.
@@duncanbryson1167 The common sense definition of murder is the killing of an innocent human being. This has been the common sense definition for all of recorded history.
@@timsmith3377 Nope, a common interpretation of a word has no legal standing. If murder didn't exist as a crime in a given society, there would be no such thing as murder in that society IRRESPECTIVE of whatever coloquial interpretation people applied. Common sense has nothing to do with legislation if not enacted as a legal instrument.
@@duncanbryson1167 Are you saying that there is no such thing as murder in an objective sense? That it is not wrong to kill an innocent human being unless a given society makes it so?
@@timsmith3377 🙄 Right and wrong are subjective, people conflate right and wrong with legal and illegal. I can have my standards of right and wrong but AGAIN legal murder only exists when there's legislation covering it.
Talking about morality, On December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut became the unlikely scene of the second-deadliest school-based shooting massacre in US history. Twenty first-grade school children and six school staff were gunned down. I would take you more seriously if you faught as strongly for gun control to save children as you do for anti abortion. Aren't 20 First Graders Human beings?
Would you prefer people to not be able to protect themselves? Would you want to be responsible for taking the lives of all those who could have saved themselves with firearms?
@@zen6107 You honestly think giving firearms to first-graders is a good idea? If the attacker didn’t have a gun to begin with the carnage might not have happened.
@@nik0wat I'm talking about everyone else. School shootings are extremely rare. How many hundreds of thousands of students go through the education system perfectly fine? You never hear those statistics. And you want to ban guns for everyone? Are you going to use hand to hand combat if a 6 foot body builder breaks into your house?
@@zen6107 There were 51 school shootings in 2022 that resulted in injuries or deaths, the most in a single year. Doesn’t sound that rare to me, almost 1 a week. At least hand-to hand fighting wouldn’t result in mass murder.
I think a lot of the thinking on the other side is supportive of impulsiveness. To keep people wrapped up in the world and how they feel versus logical thinking about cuase and effect.
@@DRP3ck3r If the drug can be safely used either before or after implantation, then any fertile female can have some in reserve and take it either before or after. And no one need know whether she was pregnant or not, including her.
Morning after pills work by preventing implantation in the uterus after a human zygote has been created. That is technically still an abortion, as RU 486, or Mifepristone causes the living human to be expelled due to thinning of the uterus lining. Taking Progesterone is the only way to reverse this in case the mother changes her mind. #lilarose #sethgruber #abolitionistsrising
The "context" section at the bottom of the video that youtube put up is wrong. It says "An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy". If that were true then a c-section would be an abortion. An abortion is actually a procedure to terminate an embryo/fetus, but the truth is more difficult to write, so they do not write it.
Well, it doesn't say "any procedure to end a pregnancy," but "a procedure to end a pregnancy," which implies there are others. A C-section is another "procedure to end a pregnancy." Unlike abortion, a C-section doesn't end the life of the unborn child, but technically, they're both procedures "to end a pregnancy."
great point
#abolitionistsrising
TH-cam put that there; and, apparently, they got it from the 'National Library of Medicine'. Regardless, it's the position of many nominal Christians that it's a sin to destroy an embryo at any point after conception. And, Christians have the right to be politically/socially active against abortion; just as anti-responsibility hedonists and bleeding-heart "feminists" have the right to be politically/socially active for abortion.
@@christophekeating21and, technically, that definition is carefully used by activists who avoid clearly describing what’s actually happening .
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Euphemism and word games are their only arguments, aside from appeal to selfish self-interest.
As WLC said, abortion boils down to two questions: Do human beings have intrinsic worth, and is the unborn (i.e. zyote, embryo, fetus) a human being? If the answer to these two questions is "yes", then abortion is wrong for *any* reason (even rape or incest) other than to save the life of the mother (e.g., ectopic pregnancy).
It seems the description is mislead.
God knows the infant way before He even formed the baby in its mother's womb according to Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” This issue is non-negotiable among Chrsitians. We should approach it as God sees it. There is no room for compromise
right, and even if our soul isn't put into our bodies at conception, at some point in the womb it does get put in, and we therefore should never abort because we don't have 100% certainty when our souls enter our bodies
Everyone is a prophet to the nations? Or is this verse being extrapolated to include all humans?
There are three things that you should know about your book, if you don't already:
- It's irrelevant to literally everyone that isn't in your religion (thus the vast majority of the population of Earth).
- It has no place whatsoever in government.
- Nobody has the right to force others to comply with it.
_"No room for compromise"_ he says 🤔 Hmm
_"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them_ *But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child* _ox and sheep, camel and donkey"_ (1 Samuel 15 : 3 )
_"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us_ *He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks* (Psalms 137 : 8 )
_"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God_ *They will fall by the sword their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open* (Hosea 13 : 16 )
@@DriveInFreak Ok. So what? Are you saying we (Christians and quasi-Christians) have no right to use the Book to influence each other? Or are you saying we have no right to a voice in government? Look at the video: Whom do you think is the primary audience here? Are you trying to gag us with your petty criticism?
Just to clarify: the morning after pill is not the same as the abortion pill. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy from occurring - if pregnancy has already occurred before the morning after pill, the pill will have no effect. The abortion pill on the other hand does not prevent pregnancy, and in fact does end pregnancy after it has occurred.
Technically, you may be correct. That’s why the pill is usually taken in conjunction with another pill that causes the implanted embryo to miscarry.
The missing part is that the pill does not prevent fertilization. So, in the sense that it kills a unique human being, it is the same as an abortion pill and is rightly classed as an abortifacient.
Actually the morning after pill *can* terminate a pregnancy after fertilization has occurred. You can research it. This is a popular rebuttal but it’s misinformed. I am a nurse.
12What the aborted, Gaza & Canaanite babies have in common Pincreek@@boezoboezo9145
@@boezoboezo9145
Okay, and 🤷♂️
The idea that the procedure is purely a "women's issue" is false. If more American women were given more support by the men of their lives in their moments of vulnerability, the demand for the terminations would be less common.
Lol if men became pregnant there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner dear. 😜
When someone says I have no say because I’m not a woman, I reply that women have no say because they have a conflict of interest.
According to surveys, half of women who abort don’t want to but are pressured into it by partners and family. Legalized abortion, ironically, takes away their choice.
@@ricksonora6656
Lol is this a typical example of the dizzying heights your intellectual input attains or did I just catch you on a really really bad day? 🤭🤣🤣🤣😂
@@ricksonora6656 Lol please present your citations or I'm going to think you just pulled that out of your backside dear
We will never be able to regulate sin out of existence, but we can and should strive for laws that reflect morality and ethics as far as is possible. I fully agree with both the legislative work and the work of persuading people of the truth.
**Also, I think you accidentally used the description from a prior video about the fate of those who never hear of Jesus. **
1What the aborted, Gaza & Canaanite babies have in common #williamlanecraig featuring Pincreek
Some of these drugs are used to help in miscarriage management which is a very different use of the drugs than an elective abortion. I think it's important to remember that the drugs themselves are not an issue. The use and access of the drugs are the key issues.
If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being how come people say we have two children and one on the way instead of we have three children?
Both questions are argument from authority. The first uses Law as the authority, whereas the second uses colloquial language as the authority. The legitimate authority here is the science of biology. Thus, your argument is a logical fallacy.
The argument from fact and science says the pre-born are human beings at early stages of development.
The claim that location changes a “fetus” into a baby depends on either magic or the religious idea that spirit enters the body through breathing.
How hypocritical! Pro-aborts accuse people who use science of using religious arguments, even while basing pro-abortion arguments on religious beliefs!
because people can be wrong
1. A census is done for economic purposes. If a baby dies in the womb, it has no impact economically, so we wait to count him/her until they are born. 2. That is just terms of speech. We also say a woman is "with child" when they are pregnant.
@@zen6107 Well said. Also, it’s only a recent development that we’ve been able to determine how many babies were in there.
@@ricksonora6656
Sorry cupcake but science makes no determination as to when a zygote becomes a "human being"
_"Personhood"_ is a metaphysical philosophical concept and as such is subjective BY DEFINITION dear.
However science can contribute to the discourse. The Missouri School Of Medicine lists these attributes as commonly associated criteria...........
Rationality or logical reasoning ability
Consciousness
Self-consciousness (self-awareness)
Use of language
Ability to initiate action
Moral agency and the ability to engage in moral judgments
Intelligence
I have seen several other similar criteria postulated by philosophers that could also play a part in the discourse.
Which if these attributes do you think a zygote possess upon fertilisation ???? 🤔🤔
Simple questions dear, that may clarify what you think "personhood" is and just how "pro life" advocates determine it.
Are humanan spermatozoa and ovum *"LIFE"* YES OR NO ??
Are they HUMAN BEINGS ??
Do they have "PERSONHOOD" ???
Many Christians will tap dance around the above questions often with rather verbose obfuscation and missdirection. If you are unwilling to address this then I must assume honesty and truth are secondary to maintaining the ideology you WANT to be true. In which case I accept your defeat our discourse is over and I bid you goodnight, the choice is yours.
You say a fetus is a potential person and should be treated as such.
A person is a potential cadaver, should we be treated as such?
A fetus IS a human life, no two ways about it. Ending the life of an innocent human is called murder.
A fetus and a cadaver are both human. One is on his/her way in, the other is out, but both are sensitively appreciated, respected and honored.
Not a potential,
Is a person
Uhhh a cadaver is not a person ... it's a lifeless corpse.
Craig's view is that fetuses are persons, not potential persons.
Abortion is a genocide of the youth.
While I applauded the repeal of Roe, it was done for the wrong reason. Slavery was permitted on the basis that the respective minority whom it wronged was deemed less than human, so infants are deemed not human. The reason to repeal should have been the humanity of the infant. Children deserve full inclusion under the human right to life.
Yet here you are advocating for making people incubation slaves.
A human spermatozoa is ALIVE its a unicellular human *life form* that can move independently, metabolise sugars to produce energy, and contains a complete and UNIQUE human genome. It has the "potential" to eventually become a "human being". Does this therefore mean that using a condom is an act of GENOCIDE ? I do not see you demanding h,**,, d jobs are criminalised or describing W, .3t dreams as attrocities. 🤣
1bWhat the aborted, Gaza & Canaanite babies have in common Pincreek
roof at the 'fact checking' saying abortion isnt murder in the least.
Murder is a human concept and means unlawful killing in it's simplest concept. Murder only happens when a killing breaches such law and abortion is therefore not murder unless a foetus is given personhood status. All aspects of legislation have to be viewed based on legal definitions.
@@duncanbryson1167 The common sense definition of murder is the killing of an innocent human being. This has been the common sense definition for all of recorded history.
@@timsmith3377
Nope, a common interpretation of a word has no legal standing. If murder didn't exist as a crime in a given society, there would be no such thing as murder in that society IRRESPECTIVE of whatever coloquial interpretation people applied.
Common sense has nothing to do with legislation if not enacted as a legal instrument.
@@duncanbryson1167 Are you saying that there is no such thing as murder in an objective sense? That it is not wrong to kill an innocent human being unless a given society makes it so?
@@timsmith3377
🙄 Right and wrong are subjective, people conflate right and wrong with legal and illegal. I can have my standards of right and wrong but AGAIN legal murder only exists when there's legislation covering it.
This is dangerous as well. A man could even slip them in the food or drink of his gf agaisnt her will. Neither side should support this.
abortion IS a Right!!
bWhat the aborted, Gaza & Canaanite babies have in common Pincreek@@briendoyle4680
@@briendoyle4680 False
Comment for traction
What the aborted, Gaza & Canaanite babies have in common #williamlanecraig featuring Pincreek
1st
… to waste an opportunity to say something significant.
2nd
Your mother must be so proud.
2nd = 1st loser.
Talking about morality,
On December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut became the unlikely scene of the second-deadliest school-based shooting massacre in US history. Twenty first-grade school children and six school staff were gunned down.
I would take you more seriously if you faught as strongly for gun control to save children as you do for anti abortion. Aren't 20 First Graders Human beings?
Would you prefer people to not be able to protect themselves? Would you want to be responsible for taking the lives of all those who could have saved themselves with firearms?
@@zen6107 You honestly think giving firearms to first-graders is a good idea? If the attacker didn’t have a gun to begin with the carnage might not have happened.
@@nik0wat I'm talking about everyone else. School shootings are extremely rare. How many hundreds of thousands of students go through the education system perfectly fine? You never hear those statistics. And you want to ban guns for everyone? Are you going to use hand to hand combat if a 6 foot body builder breaks into your house?
@@zen6107 There were 51 school shootings in 2022 that resulted in injuries or deaths, the most in a single year. Doesn’t sound that rare to me, almost 1 a week. At least hand-to hand fighting wouldn’t result in mass murder.
@@nik0wat There are 130,930 schools in the US. 51 percent of that is 0.0389%. So yes, it's extremely rare. Don't let the media focus fool you.
Can't they just take the drug a few days before they have intercourse to prevent pregnancy?
I think a lot of the thinking on the other side is supportive of impulsiveness. To keep people wrapped up in the world and how they feel versus logical thinking about cuase and effect.
@@DRP3ck3r
If the drug can be safely used either before or after implantation, then any fertile female can have some in reserve and take it either before or after. And no one need know whether she was pregnant or not, including her.
@@DRP3ck3rwhat a strawman
@@jakobdonskov Not in the least. And not the only example like the entire trans agenda
Morning after pills work by preventing implantation in the uterus after a human zygote has been created.
That is technically still an abortion, as RU 486, or Mifepristone causes the living human to be expelled due to thinning of the uterus lining.
Taking Progesterone is the only way to reverse this in case the mother changes her mind.
#lilarose
#sethgruber
#abolitionistsrising