On behalf of my friend Ray Comfort I am excited and honored to be a part of today's giant launch of their brand new movie "180"! This is a documentary that I had the privilege of previewing before release and I can assure you that it is a shocking, absorbing, and God honoring 33 minutes of your time. See people recant their pro-abortion views within seconds as they are interviewed by Ray Comfort. Without any further delay, here is "180"! (Click on the four arrow icon in the bottom right hand corner of the video box to convert it to full screen display.)
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
4 hours ago
53 comments:
Powerful.
So glad I watched it Cam.
Well, congratulations to Ray Comfort and the approximately 2000 other "award winners" that got the shared 2. place in the fiercely non-competitive 2011 Telly Awards race! I'm sure he is proud enough to shell out the $170 the pretty bronze statuette will cost him:)
"Award winning" indeed...:D
Have you watched it Kristoffer? Because everyone who has spoken to me is blown away by this movie. Take a look at it and tell us where you stand.
I watched some of it, but weren't sufficiently blown away by either the logic, the "Reductio ad Hitlerum"-argument style or the rather...vacuous statements of the partcipants to waste an entire half hour watching it all. And as I am perfectly well aware of European history, there were not any surprises with respect to Hitler´s Germany and its actions either. -And I did notice that the movie interestingly didnt mention that writings about darwinism were on the Nazi naughty-list, as were books that ridiculed christianity...:)
Oh well, back to "movie"...it didnt really touch me or move me one bit with respect to abortion, as I do not agree with the premise that removing a fetus (or fertilized egg) constitutes "killing", which seems to be the basic logic premise of the whole film thingy. So for me, the film does a logic disconnect and therefore has no impact on me at all. The footage of the white-supremacist idiots scores a few cheap rhetorical shots as counterpoints to RC´s message, but I hope most people will be able to look right through that little trick:)
So, all in all, I am really not that impressed.
When does life begin Kristoffer?
That very much depends on how you define "life". The fertilized egg certainly does not constitute any kind of "human life" to me, and indeed it is spontaneously aborted more often than not. -This latter fact has serious implications about "Gods morality" and the callousness of nature, if you believe that a fertilized human egg shoud be bestowed the same qualities and rights as a fully human being and I hope you realize this.
More to the point could be the question "when does a human life start", although this question is also not easy to answer simply. -In my opinion, the one thing that sets human beings apart from animals is sentience; the perception of an "I" that is separate from the surrounding world and the ability to reflect on this fact.
Your question then becomes "when does a human life begin". To that question, my answer would then again be "certainly not at conception", after which we are all just a tiny, squishy blob of slowly dividing and differentiating cells. Somewhere between there and a happy little one-year old toddler, human life begins and it becomes a moral imperative to try to save that life.
So Kristoffer, you would be ok with killing a 6 month old child if it did not meet your criteria for human life?
Certainly not, what I am trying to convey to you is that it is a grey scale -- human life is not something that a (precursor to) a human body is suddenly imbued with.
So I would be absolutely, 100% not OK with killing a toddler or a 6 month old baby, and I have absolutely no problem with early abortions, spontaneous or provoked. Somewhere in between there is a grey zone, where the right course of action may depend om circumstances -- for instance, if the mother´s life is in grave danger, late abortions can be ok. The human rights of the fully conscious, sentient mother in this case outweighs the rights of the non-sentient fetus.
These are complicated moral issues, and it is a gross simplification to reduce then to black/white questions, in my opinion.
Well it is a black and white issue for the baby Kristoffer. So you'd better figure out where the line is exactly because there is a holocaust going on in your own backyard and you don't seem to care. When does life begin and why is it ok to kill a 6 month old baby in the womb but not a baby 6 months out of the womb? How can geography be the determining factor in this? And if you don't know where the line is then why not err on the side of caution and not murder?
It seems like you fail to grasp my central point: A bunch of cells in the womb is not a baby, nor is it a person with a full set of human rights like yours and mine. It starts out as bunch of undifferentiated cells that CERTAINLY has neither consciousness nor sentience nor rights, and gradually it evolves into a human being with full rights. It doesn't start out as one, certainly, any more than any one of my current, living cells.
I am not aware of how much research that has been done on the brain/mind states of infants and fetuses (are you?), but given the general development of the nervous system, I am comfortable that even fairly late abortions do not come close to constitute "killing", as you call it.
So, to use your term, geography doesnt enter into the equation at all, but the developmental stage of the fetus/baby/child/person is of crucial importance.
So where is the line?
And by the way, as a father I have seen ultrasound at 18 weeks on all of my children. That is a person in that womb and it is obvious. Have you seen an ultrasound? Why is it that planned parenthood are so determined that "prospective customers" don't see an ultrasound?
So where is the line? We are talking murder here so you'd better figure out where the line is!
And Kristoffer, be thankful that your mother did not share your perspective when she carried you for 9 months!
Cameron, I now that my mother shares my opinions on this point, and that abortion was legalized before my conception:)
And once again, you are insisting that there is a line, and again I must disagree with you -- there is in my opinion no line, but there is a gray-scale. At the one end there is the blob of cells with no rights, at the other end there is the human being with a full set of rights, including the right to life. Thus my insistence that developmental stages be taken into account when discussing abortion.
-Everything regarding this discussion would of course be much simpler if such a line existed, as many of you christians do, but I really dont think that there is any evidence for such a well-defined line.
Kristoffer, there is only one person who fails to grasp the central point here and it's not me! If there is this big gray scale you talk about and you decide to abort some time during that gray scale how can you be sure you are not committing murder? You need to answer this question.
Also, your mother may hold to the same stance as you but my point is that you are fortunate she did not act upon it when she carried you. Don't you see we are talking about lives here? I understand that a consistent evolutionary worldview means that murdering those weaker than yourself improves your chances of survival (until you get old) and that you have no basis for morality. But if you believe that murder is evil and wrong (and the conscience God gave you tells you that) then you need to have a line. I have a line and I know where that line is because my starting presupposition is that the Bible is 100% true. And your starting presupposition is that the Bible is just a book with no authority and hence you refuse to draw a specific line at where life starts - if you believe that murder is wrong and have no precise knowledge of when human life begins then the morally consistent position would be to oppose abortion . . . and the morally evil position would be to support abortion when you cannot be 100% sure that it is a human life. If you cannot see this then you are just shoving your head in the sand!
So here are your three options:
1. Admit that you have no problem with murdering people.
2. Oppose abortion.
3. know exactly where the line is for when human life begins.
Man up and take a number Kristoffer!
You´re still setting ud a false di(tri?)chotomy, and accordingly I choose to answer (4) :)
4) Acknowledge that there is no well-defined line but a gray scale with well-defined end points.
This is the point of view that is reflected in our current legislation. Up the 12th week of pregnancy, the medical experts advising these limits are so absolutely certain that the central nervous system is no-where near advanced enough to harbour something even remotely like a human being that abortion is an option in any and all cases.
After 12 weeks, things become more muddy but the legislation reflects the fact that the human being, that is, the nervous system, is still in such an undeveloped stage that the human rights of the mother may outweigh those of the unborn child. From 12-24 weeks is a regime of morally tough choices, but after 24 weeks things become simple again, as abortion is never allowed at this stage.
Mine or other people´s viewpoints on evolution do not enter into this issue at all. However, it is a refusal of the religious view that the "human life" or whatever is something god-given at the moment of conception. For non-religuous people like me, the inestimabely high value of a human life comes from the stuff between our ears, the fantastic and unique human mind that is a consequence of and resides in our highly developed nervous system.
Summing up, this has nothing to do with "manning up" as you so quaintly put it, but everything to do with acknowledging the huge worth of a human life, realizing what makes it unique (The mind, residing the nervous system) and acting accordingly.
Kristoffer, you are side-stepping the issue. You already know in your conscience that killing is wrong, so stop suppressing that truth and trying to argue your way out of it with silly arguments.
Kristoffer you are a total liar. Don't even try and suggest you place "huge worth on human life", especially when you support abortion during your "gray area" when you don't know if it is life or not. There is a video that I will never watch again because it is so horrific but maybe you need to see it. An ultrasound of an abortion where you can see the child fighting for it's life before it is murdered by the doctor.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. You are the one who openly mocked Ray Comfort's movie. If you want to come into this forum and espouse your evil views then at least be man enough to state where the line is when abortion becomes murder. So which one is it?
1. Admit that you have no problem with murdering people.
2. Oppose abortion.
3. know exactly where the line is for when human life begins.
Man up and take a number Kristoffer!
Name-calling and repetitive argumentation, this place is classy;)
-You, Cameron, repeating the same questions do not make it any more likely that I will adopt any of your three possible answers, as it is the very premise of the question that we argue about. You seem very entrenched in the opinion that there is such a magic line defining when the human life begins, I try to argue that this concept of a well-defined line is simply wrong. -Obviously I am not getting this point across to you, but at least I am trying:)
Assume, for the sake of argument, that I DID argue for this hypothetical line being at X weeks, and I backed this up with tons of neurological evidence that there is absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, going on in the brain of the fetus at this imaginary point in time. Would it make the slightest difference to you and your opinion on this issue? -I dont think it would, but please, prove me wrong:)
Anonymous, if you paid closer attention to the arguments being put forward, you would realize that I am very, very much against the wanton killing of human beings. The discussion is about what constitutes a human being. Btw, why are you not posting under your real name? Afraid to stand up for opinions? -Your call, of course, but I just feel that it heightens the level of discussion when people are not hiding their identity:)
How hard is this Kristoffer, your flurry of empty words do not hide your refusal to answer a very simple question. And your ad-hominem criticisms do not change the facts.
Fact 1 - you posted a comment here trashing Ray Comfort's movie
Fact 2 - I called on you to qualify your statements since you were openly mocking Ray's movie without backing up your criticisms
Fact 3 - you said you supported abortion
Fact 4 - you said you don't know exactly when life begins (ie your gray area where "it" may or may not be a life)
Fact 5 - you said direct quote "I am very very much against the wanton killing of human beings"
Fact 6 - you are making self refuting statements
Fact 7 - I don't need to know exactly where life begins since I am opposed to abortion thereby avoiding all possibility of murder as a result
Fact 8 - I am not saying you have to know when life begins but I am saying that you have to change your position on fact 3 or fact 4 or fact 5 in order to be consistent with your other statements.
Are you still confused Kristoffer?
Oh, and Kristoffer, calling you a liar is not "name calling" if it's true. I am not saying you have to agree with me. I am saying you have to stop contradicting yourself.
Actually, numbered lists usually leave me less confused, but this one didnt with its many irrelevant "fact"-points -- and I think you need to look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary...at least, I dont remember bringing up any possible personal failings or similar of yours to refute your arguments. My apologies if I did;)
Anyway, the issue still seems to be me not getting the following point across: Aborting a human fetus goes from "not wrong at all" to "very wrong indeed" through a (possibly very large) number of intermediate steps as the pregnancy progresses. There is, in my opinion, no magical line or threshold where it suddenly jumps from "OK" to "Absolutely not OK, are you crazy??!" and this lack of a line is simply something that we have to deal with from a moral point of view. I realize that this discussion is not easy at all and that there is a gray zone where it becomes very, very difficult to weigh the rights of the unborn child against those of the mother. But I am also firm in my conviction that early abortions do not pose any moral dilemma at all, as we are that point not dealing with a person but a blob of cells.
Life is complicated, and I can certainly see the attraction of the black/white morality imposed by religion, sometimes. I just dont think that is the correct way to approach this issue:)
To your last post, well, I am not a native English speaker like you, but last I checked, self-contradiction (even if I did, which I dont think I do) did not constitute lying, no?
Kristoffer, my apologies for the "ad hominem" remark. I misread something you said earlier and should not have said that - sorry! Perhaps straw man was more appropriate term as you were changing the parameters of the argument. Here is where some of the parameters have been changed:
For example you see this as a debate between someone who is religious (me) and someone who is not (you). You are religious and believe in the religion of evolution.
You say your evolutionary views have nothing to do with this but they do. These references to blobs without a soul are extensions of your evolutionary Worldview.
Thirdly, and most importantly, you keep making this into a debate about whether there is a black and white line which marks when a human life begins. That is NOT the debate Kristoffer. It never has been. What I have always said is that if you oppose murder and support abortion then you need to know where that line is - otherwise, according to your own views, you are risking murder every time an abortion is practiced during the "gray area" you are talking about.
I am not calling on you to adopt my position (I will probably do that later). What I am calling on you to do is stop contradicting your own position. Here are some things that would make your position consistent.
1. Admitting that murder is ok in your "gray area".
2. Admitting that abortion is wrong in your "gray area".
3. Stating where the precise line is between non-life and life so that you can argue when abortion is ok, and when it becomes murder.
I don't even fully agree with any of these positions. But at least they would be logically consistent. This is what I am talking about with "manning up". I totally oppose all that William Provine says in the earlier video but he does man up because he is logically consistent with his own Worldview. That is what I am calling on you to do and you seem to be too scared to do that because you don't like any of the options.
And one last thing, I called you a liar not as an act of name calling but because you said that you place a very high value on human life. That is a lie when you can be so flippant about aborting a baby when you are not even sure if it is a life or not.
So please don't come back until you can make a logically consistent argument. I don't mind anybody coming onto this blog and criticizing anything. But I do expect those people to substantiate their criticism with arguments that are not self-refuting.
Apology accepted, of course:)
-Incidentally, I think that on this subject, we come from two so wildly different starting points, that arguments from either side can easily be seen as moving the goal posts or setting up a straw man. Also without this ever being the intention.
With respect to my "evolutionary worldview" being a religion, this is something I would object strongly to for many reasons, but that is besides the point. -The point being, that you can find many self-identified devout Christians that firmly embrace evolution (possibly theistic evolution, but still..), AND who would be firmly on your side in this discussion. Which demonstrates that from a general point of view, the position on this issue is divorced from one's viewpoint on evolution, although there may be significant correlation beween the two, no doubt.
But back to the case at hand, where you again insist on me drawing a line that I insist does not exist. As a case for this, I do not think that it is difficult to come up with scenarios where aborting a week-18 fetus would be either morally right, or morally very, very wrong. In the former case, this rests on a realization that being a human being and having a full set of human rights is not a binary on/off function, but is a gradual thing -- there are cases where the well-being, indeed, the very survival, of the mother outweighs the rights of the unborn child.
-In such a case, and they exist, where you can either choose to abort the 18-week fetus and with 100% certainty save the mother OR you can allow the pregnancy to go on, at maybe a 90% risk of death to the mother, but survival of the baby - what is then the correct thing to do? I come down 100% on the side of saving the mother, as she has the "fuller" set of rights compared to the fetus, but I guess you would opt trying to save the fetus, as it is a fully human being with just as many rights as the mother?
-This also has bearing on the language we choose to use in this discussion -- you are obviously very fond of using the word "murder" for any kind of abortion, a use of this very emotionally laden word that I obejct to. -It is not murder unless you kill a human being and, as should be evident, I dont ascribe that particular attribute to any old blob of cells. -A provoked abortion _may_ be murder at some (quite late, imho) point, but again, there is not a well-defined line between murder and non-murder, it just gradually becomes morally more and more wrong.
There you go, now I have again tried to flesh out my position on this in the hope of getting the point of a morally consistent, but difficult, "gray scale" approach across, but again I fear that I may have failed...the chasm between us may easily be too wide to cover in a debate format as the present. As you, I am not sure that further debating this issue in this format would accomplish much af anything, alas. -I will even let you have the last word, if you so wish;)
Kristoffer, do you have a mental problem? Because I have asked the same question in about ten different ways and you still don't get it . . . Or you don't want to incriminate yourself. For the billionth time - I did not say you have to draw a line as to where life begins. I said that was one of three options for you to have any logical consistency. But you remain in the same place with no argument because you continue to refute yourself. I am told you teach in university and yet you seem to be oblivious to the law of non-contradiction, something my 7 year old daughter understands.
I would also ask if you have a conscience because you don't know where life begins but you still have no problem aborting a baby somewhere in that "gray area" you talk about. When you stop at a red light it does not mean that a car is coming in the other direction. It means a car might be coming in the other direction and you stop because you don't want to risk the possibility of injury or death. Yet when it comes to a situation where a life might be in the mothers womb you couldn't care less about the chance of a helpless person being killed. That is evil Kristoffer!
Also, Kristoffer, theistic evolution is incompatible with Christianiy so please don't put them in my camp. And I'll gladly back that up if you wish because unlike you I actually substantiate my arguments.
If you actually read what I wrote, instead of what you think I write, you would see that I actually DO have problem with abortions in the "gray area", and I would not say that is ever a thing to be lightly done. Quoting myself, my exact words were: "where aborting a week-18 fetus would be either morally right, OR MORALLY VERY, VERY WRONG". So please dont claim that I have "no problem" with such a scenario.
Kristoffer, so you are saying that murder is something that we should only do after careful consideration? Try telling that to the baby! If you really had a problem then you would oppose it, not give a cautious endorsement. You are the one who needs to read what you are saying. Why not take some time and learn the law of non-contradiction before you come on here again and contradict yourself instead of answering my very simple question. Pick a number between 1 and 3!
No, murder should of course never be done, and as should be evident for anyone reading this conversation, the question is whether an abortion constitutes murder and, if so, whether that is always the case or only at very late stages of pregnancy. -You subscribe (I think) to the former point of view, I find the second point of view the more correct one, with the further refinement that a wider set of circumstances be taken into consideration in the time frame where an abortion is neither immoral, nor trivial.
Regarding your apparently well-loved "law of contradiction", let me first add that I truly find formal philosophy and the likes of it excruciatingly boring and often irrelevant...but with that said, may I point out to you you that this law is not as set in stone as, say Sokrates, would have us believe? -I am in good company (Heraclitus) when stating that this "law" does not pertain to systems undergoing change and even good ol'e Kant would agree with me, I think, when I say that for the Law of Contradiction to hold, we must first agree on the set of suppositions underlying the two truth-statements, which we don't. -At least, I suppose this is correct if I remember my philosophy correctly, it has been a good long while since I bothered reading up on it and I really haven't missed it;)
So again I have to choose option (4), which again says "there is no well-defined line" after which an abortion becomes morally wrong, or "murder", as you like to call it. For a given (late) state of development, it may easily depend on very nasty medical circumstances and in the most horrible cases, it may come down to deciding between the baby´s and the mother's life. I have an operational moral algebra that allows me to decide in such tragic situations, do you? -You have been silent on this issue, but am I correct in assuming that you hold every human life equally sacred and that you think human life begins at the moment of conception?
Kristoffer, what is your field of expertise? How to create a fog of big words so you can hide the fact that you're wrong?
I just can't believe we are still going over this. You are saying that murder is always wrong. You are also saying that there is a period of time when abortion and human life can overlap. That is a contradiction. Ronald Reagan was so much smarter than you. He realized that if there is any possibility of human life then you should not perform abortion - because that would be murder. You are breaking the law of non-contradiction every time you say that murder is always wrong but it may be ok under some circumstances - Heraclitus and Kant can't help you with that one. There is no option 4. Why not repent of your evil murderous views?
Well, my field of expertise is analysis of ultrafast x-ray scattering data, but that is hardly relevant here:) -However, we DO use big words in our work sometimes, as they tend to have very precise meaning and few ambiguities. But for your sake, I can try not to;)
As I hope has been made very clear in the posts above, the core of the argument is in my opinion when an act of abortion is morally wrong, or "murder" as I think you might want to call it. It appears that you are absolutely certain that a fetus either has a full set of human rights or it doesn't, and therefore an abortion is either murder or it isn't. Me, on the other hand, I think that a human being and having "human life" is something you grow into. Based on this, an abortion cannot be said to either be or not be "murder", it can be very, very wrong or not at all morally wrong and anything in between. -Murder is something you do to persons, "fully developed", whatever that may be construed to mean, human beings.
Let me try to explain my point of view once again...assume, for simplicity´s sake (it is of course much more complicated in real life), that we have a gray scale starting at 0% human life just after conception and ends at 100% human life at birth after nine months development and that it is linear in between these two points. Killing the newborn baby is thus 100% wrong (call it murder), aborting the newly fertilized egg is not wrong at all (and happens more often than not, without any intervention). In between, the fetus gradually acquires more and more "human rights", and the reasons for an abortion must accordingly have more and more moral weight for the abortion to be the morally best, or even morally acceptable, course of action. However, even in this simplified picture, it is still not "murder" as the fetus is not a fully human being with full human rights, including the right to life. -Put the limit of 100% human and 100% morally wrong at eight or seven months, and it doesnt change the basic argument at all. As it turns out, this is the kind of view that is implemented in our current legislation, putting the "100% wrong" at 24 weeks.
-By the way, the Ronald Reagan remark did sting a bit, I am just glad you didnt compare to me to G.W. Bush Junior, THAT would make me a bit sad;) -The "repent" remark had me smiling all morning, thanks, as it had such a nice, medieval "sulphur and brimstone" smell to it:)
Kristoffer, I did not compare you to George W because he is way above your league.
This sliding scale of life you talk about, try explaining that to the victim. You are out of your mind with this fantasy. What I have said all along still stands because you will always have this massive gray area where you are possibly committing a murder (according to your position, not mine). You know this Kristoffer! Go and have a look at an ultrasound . . . and an ultrasound of an abortion . . . I hesitate to say this because I am still traumatized by the images. Go and tell your views to Gianna Jessen who survived a "failed" abortion attempt but has lived her life afflicted with Cerebral Palsy because of the killing agents used in the procedure.
Also, are you 100% sure that you are right about this scale of life and humanity? Are you absolutely sure that your view carries no chance of murder? You really search your conscience before you answer this one. Because everything you say reveals why you need a Savior.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved (John 3:19-20).
Ouch, now THAT stung, the GWB-junior comparison;)
Cutting to the chase: Yes, I am 100% sure about this scale. Or, as mentioned, a scale-approach that is significantly more complicated, but essentially the same. And my conscience green-lights this approach, also after extensive searching.
-The Giana Jessen-story is an exceptionally tragic one, as are others like it. But as you very well know, it is the consequence of an attempted abortion in week 30, which is just plain crazy and, by the moral algebra outlined above, also very, very wrong. My deepest sympathies go out to her.
So in what week would it have been morally acceptable to perform an abortion on Gianna?
Also, how exactly are you 100% certain about this scale of yours?
Oh, and that green light of yours is not a green light - it is a bankrupt conscience!
So Kristoffer, would you have voted for Obama if you could at the last election?
As stated many times above, the morality of an abortion often depends on circumstances. However, I am quite in line with the Danish legislation on this point, and before week 12 the single circumstance of "I dont want this child" would be perfectly ok with me and my bankrupt conscience and bye-bye goes what eventually might have become Gianna.
In terms of the overall idea of a gray scale, I am absolutely (say, nine sigma;) certain that this is the correct approach. As to defining the exact time periods where a fetus may be beginning to have what might be called a more-or-less fully developed, human central nervous system capable of harbouring a personality, I will gladly defer the decision to medical specialists. It is my understanding that they put this limit somehwere very late in the second trimester or early in the third, again with no sharp and well-defined boundaries.
In terms of politics, I might have voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils. -Being a mainstream American politician, he is way too right-wing for my tender Scandinavian sensibilities, but certainly better than the republican alternative offered:)
As the "medical experts" give "no sharp and well-defined boundaries" wouldn't that leave the possibility of potential murder in that period of time? If so, why not err on the side of caution?
As to when life begins - have you ever seen an ultrasound? Are you a parent?
As to your politics - you come from a country where the political spectrum runs all the way from left to extreme left. I have never lived in such a backwards country in all my life. Danish law is so perverse and evil that they think a parent spanking their children is a criminal activity but murdering them in the womb is just fine! I realize that you have rolled off the production line of such an evil and perverse culture. But I am still staggered that you would even try and tell yourself that there is not a person there in the womb of an expectant mother!
As for Obama, could you vote for him in the knowledge that as Governor of Illinois he refused 4 times to pass legislation that would protect babies that survive abortions? These are children who cannot fend for themselves and a "doctor" is going in with the intent of performing unspeakable cruelty on that tiny person. I weep for the approx 40 million children who lose their lives in the womb each year. What happened to you that you can even think in such a way? You need a Savior
As you can read above, putting a strict 24-week no-go limit on abortions IS erring on the side of caution, especially as the effective limit is 18 weeks in all but the most extreme cases. Rest assured, by the way, that I have seen more than my share of ultrasounds (even 3D ones, neat stuff!), as many of my friends are reproducing all over the place at the moment. Some of the fetuses are cute, some are downright ugly and one of my friends was much surprised to realize that he would apparently be the proud father of an alien (he got cuter along the way!), but all of them have one thing in coming: they are not depictions of persons, as the sorry excuse for a nervous system they have at the time is no-where near capable of giving rise to a personality.
And yes, Denmark is indeed a sorry, backwards country...who would ever want to live in a country with free universal healtcare, democracy, free education, no persecution, a very high general standard of living and a fine-masked social security net? It sounds like an absolutely awful place! Nay, a PERVERTED place, as the parents cannot commit violence, even on their own children, PERVERTED, I say!
Oh well, joking aside, was it 2008 and could I vote in the presidential election, then I wouldnt bat an eyelid voting for Obama, especially as he stands up for reproductive rights, apparently -- good on him:)
So, Cameron, for all I care you can keep on weeping your eyes out while I sleep soundly at night. What happened to me was that I grew up in an open society with a solid educational system, which I benefitted immensely from. I know that such a system is anathema to you and many Christians of your ilk, but find much comfort in the fact that you are a small and dwindling minority in the civilized parts of the world:)
Kristoffer, Denmark became an affluent and free country because of Christians. Why did the Vikings stop being Vikings? They were never defeated, they were evangelized. And then there was the reformation which took Denmark out of the dark ages and led to higher literacy, reduced mortality rates, faithful family units, advances in science, medical breakthroughs, free enterprise and a biblical Worldview. Now, because of people like you who love the benefits that the reformation brought but hate God and love sin, Denmark is literally dying out. Because of your "educated secular humanistic" Worldview, biblical truth is being abandoned for people who want a green light to pursue their perversions and pleasure. Because of abortion, a patronizing view of motherhood, and disdain for marriage the indigenous Danish people are dying out. The culture's only hope for survival is immigration and guess where most of that comes from? Murder is always wrong because it is based on the Sixth Commandment decreed by Almighty God. How deluded can you be if you can view a beating heart and say "hey it's not a life, just get rid of it". You can mock all you want and even sleep well at night but you have a stalker and he will eventually find you. His name is death and he is the ultimate statistic. On that day you will mock no more because you will tremble in fear before the One who you mock, the One Who gave you life and showered kindness upon you all your life. The day will come when you will bow your knee before God - either in humble repentance and confession of sin, or after your stalker has hunted you down and you bow your knee because it has been busted by the Judge's righteous rod of iron.
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:10-11)
I truly love the medieval qualities of your promises:"...you bow your knee because it has been busted by the Judge's righteous rod of iron."
That one goes straight to facebook :D
There is nothing "medievel" about eternity Kristoffer!
Kristoffer, how did you come up with your "9 sigma" certainty that life does not begin at conception? There is plenty of research stacked against you. For example "Langman’s Embryology", fifth edition (1993) p. 3 and "Human Embryology and Teratology" second edition pp. 8, 29.
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud wrote "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology p.2). Even Doctor Alan Guttmacher (a former Planned Parenthood President) wrote about this saying that “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge” (Life in the Making p.3).
Danish passed the truth of life beginning at conception into it's law in 1988 and, to the best of my knowledge, this has not been overturned. Ironically, abortion on demand has been fully legalized since 1973 (for the first 12 weeks - not 18) meaning that the "advanced civilized" mecca of Denmark has had legalized and state recognized murder since 1988.
Now admittedly Kristoffer, this has never been my field of expertise because I always thought it was a no-brainer that conception is the beginning of life. Because the tiny human you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there in totality at conception. All you needed to become the adult you now are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.
You, however, have no expertise in this field whatsoever. More proof that the Bible is right when God says "all those that hate me love death" (Prov 8:36).
Wow, you do go on...
Anyway, the "9 sigma" was a quip, since a "9 sigma" uncertainty estimate is so damn certain that me being proclaimed the next pope is just about more likely to happen than something falling outside a 9-sigma uncertainty interval:)
Your references are of course quite correct in stating that the zygote is a genetically distinct and unique entity and that a unique zygote is the starting point for each and every human being on this planet. But this does not make it a person. The person, which is what counts, resides in a highly advanced nervous system, not in the genes. And you are not correct in saying that the person I am now was determined at conception -- as many folks born by an alcoholic, chain smoking or drug addicted mothers can testify to, the environment in which you develop as a fetus has a huge influence, as have childhood influences. -But this is actually a side issue and besides the point, as the potential to become something does not mean that the fetus, or whatever else, IS that thing! This is a quite important distinction, that "potential to become" is not the same as "being".
-I have absolutely no idea what piece of Danish legislation from 1988 you are referring to, could you provide a reference?
Now, just as interesting side remark, you seem very keen on establishing conception as THE event where human life begins, if I am not mistaken? If so, you should be a very, very firm opponent of breastfeeding women having sex during their fertile period! The act of breastfeeding has an effect on the uterus lining which makes the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus wall a very unlikely event, in effect causing an abortion of the zygote/blastocyst. If you are interested in this not-so-widely-known fact, just let me know and I´ll be happy to provide references in addition to what you can find on wikipedia. I will have much fun thinking about you trying to convince women they shouldn´t breastfeed or else they´ll face the wrath of God or some such:D
Last week at church a friend of mine informed me that Danish law recognizes conception as the beginning of life so I went looking and found several articles talking about it. Here's one from a medical journal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375558/?tool=pubmed
Yes you're very certain for a guy with no proof! I don't know how anybody could be certain based on medical evidence. Remember, you're the guy who came on here bagging Ray Comfort's movie without substantiating your criticism. And the burden of proof is on you. I say abortion is wrong. Whether I am right or wrong about where life begins I am not taking the chance of killing someone. You are - so you need to be certain. A lot of hot air is not certainty but at least you can test it scientifically - unlike your fanciful speculations on where a blob transitions to personhood.
Quite an interesting little article, thank you for the reference. I had no idea that Kristeligt Folkeparti had actually bullied their fellow right-wing parties to include the statement "Life begins at conception" in this 1987 law, despite both their protests and, more importantly, the express protests of the Danish Medical Association. Interestingly, the proposal was only passed into law with votes from the parties on the far left, but I guess you guys will find whatever allies you can:)
Anyway, I am happy to see from retsinformation.dk that this nonsense has been excluded from current Danish legislation on this subject, and has apparently been so for a long time. Remember to inform your friend:)
Now that you are mentioning "proof"...what would you consider proof that a blob of cells was just a blob of cells and not a human being? -Me, I think I would go with a measurement of brain activity known to associated with thought processes like feelings, pain and such, but what about you? Could anything in the world convince you, or would you just be repeating your Bible verses again and again, no matter what kind of "proof" was offered?
Lack of brain activity may mean lack of brain activity. it is not proof that their is no life. It may also mean that science has not developed instruments advanced enough to detect it.
When death catches up with you Kristoffer it will be pronounced when the beating of your heart stops. And yet you are fine with killing an 8 week old baby with a detectable heartbeat (and that is only when their instruments can detect it - doesn't mean it does not appear earlier). Your pro-abortion view is more important to you than the possibility of killing someone.
When you say you place high value on human life you are a liar.
And as for Bible verses, the Bible is the most reliable document in antiquity. It has never been proven wrong. I'll take that over your opinion any day. Your disdain for the Bible stems from your love of sin and hatred of God, not an honest examination of it's reliability.
If the God of the Bible is true and you stand before Him on judgment day, what do you think He would say to you?
Well, actually if I were to die tomorrow, I sincerely hope that my heart would still be beating strongly after my brain died! Then everything that is ME is dead, and my organs can be used to save other people´s life:) -But maybe you dont hold with brain-death as death-criterion and the associated possibilities for organ donation?
-If your, not everyones, God of the bible was true and I did die tomorrow, I hope he would have a sense of humour too, so he might say: "HA, got you, didn´t I!? You humans are SO gullible, falling for the trick of making everything seem to have evolved...you even fell for the cosmic-expansion gimmick! Sheesh, some species are just too darn clever for their own good....". And then he would probably throw me into the lake of sulphur, brimstone and whatever other niceties you people come up with, for all eternity, yada, yada...:)
Does the prospect of eternal damnation have me worried in the least? No, not at all, because I dont believe in it. To me, this Christianity-mythology is all just made-up stuff, completely on par with Norse mythology, hinduism, islam, ...:)
So hell does not exist because you don't believe in it?
Does that theory work if I jump off a building because I don't believe in gravity?
You will find out you are wrong about hell. I pray it happens before your heart stops beating!
I would like to see you present some solid evidence for "hell" rather than just pointing at the Bible saying "But, but...it says so right here!"
In contrast, I have plenty of solid evidence for how gravity works, so I really wouldnt advice you jumping off a building, unless it is very low! But you never know, our theory of gravity is only a theory (an incomplete one, at that) and scientits have been wrong before. So maybe you could?
Why do you object to a document that has a 100% prophecy record, no errors, and never been proven wrong? A God Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever unlike the constant flux of change that is historical science. That God Who created all things walked on this earth and spoke and said things like:
"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!"
Jesus created all things including hell so I'll take His word for it. You, on the other hand will need to figure out how you got to be smarter than God.
Well, as to the "has never been proven wrong" I might raise a few objections. Especially two claims about our past are comparatively easy to refute:
1)The reality of a single human couple giving rise to all humanity about 6000 years ago.
-This claim is flat-out refuted by modern genetics, as the variation observed in the human genome is incompatible with such an origin. This observation is supported by the human artifacts discovered from this period of time, found over the entire world. Either observation alone strongly disputes the "biblical story" and together they make a very, very strong case against the Young Earth/Adam&Eve myth.
2) That at some time following the creation story above, all but a handfull of humans were killed in a worldwide flood covering all dry land.
This claim is, if possible, even "more wrong" that the one above. Again, the genetic, archaelogical and cultural evidence excludes such an event, let alone both of them. Further, each and every ice-core drilling, lakebed drilling, oceanbed sediment drilling and what have you ever undertaken says that such an event never took place. Such a momentous event would have left countless marks and traces in all kinds of natural records, traces which simply aren't there. No signs of this, whatsoever, have been found.
Well, I guess this post actually belongs in another thread, but I just wanted to comment on your supposed infallibility of the biblical account of our history:)
Post a Comment