advindicate

Open full view…

ASI Highlights — ADvindicate

Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:28:07 GMT

Ronald G. White
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:53:56 GMT

> @georgethe54th > This is a sentimental notion not found in scripture. Biologically it is a reshuffling of genes. Perhaps, before you try to tell us when life begins, you could try to define it for us. Are you a living soul, George, or just a bunch of reshuffled genes? How do you know that your answer to this question is right? The practice of ignoring the deeper and most pertinent questions, while insisting on conclusions which are based on nothing more than our own personal experiences and perceptions, has a not-so-very-nice name. I trust that you would not willingly engage in that!

collins
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:06:50 GMT

"This is a sentimental notion not found in scripture." -George Evans It is biologically true. That difference creates a moral difference. An embryo is more than an egg or a seed, alone. This is demonstrated in all manner of life on earth. The couple's actions are necessary, but are in no way independent of God's work and power. Is five months late term? Is four months? Four and a half? Who arbitrates this line, and for what purpose?

George Evans
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:27:07 GMT

Ron wrote, >Perhaps, before you try to tell us when life begins, you could try to define it for us. I am not interested in when life begins or it's definition with regard to the subject of abortion. The mole that used to be growing in my stomach was a living thing until the doctor removed it, then it died. What is needed is a definition of a human being. This is usually given in terms of four component aspects, physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. A newly fertilized ovum is only physically human. The last three aspects must be added in order to have a human being. These components cannot exist until there is a functioning brain. Therefore there cannot be a human being present until there is a functioning brain at about midterm. If you still consider this my "own personal experiences and perceptions," then maybe you could explain the mental, emotional and spiritual reality of an egg.

George Evans
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:29:41 GMT

collins wrote, >An embryo is more than an egg or a seed, alone. While this is true, it is no more compelling than saying a threaded fastener is more than a nut and a bolt. The sperm cell carries it's DNA to the egg and it is added to the nucleus of the egg. There is no flash of light or other supernatural manifestation accompanying the event. Biblically, the physical act of coitus is probably invested with more significance. If you are going to stubbornly hold to the pope's definition, you might as well take a stand against contraception, and to be honest you should encourage people to have as much coitus as possible. >Is five months late term? Is four months? Four and a half? Who arbitrates this line, and for what purpose? The Supreme Court already has painstakingly handled these questions and I believe they made a good decision. The brain of a fetus "comes online" around midterm. To be safe, the opinion in Roe v. Wade placed the line at the end of the first tr imester. I accept that line. Anyone can rest assured that a first trimester abortion does not, in any way, take the life of a human being.

defunct account
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:37:37 GMT

> @georgethe54th > A newly fertilized ovum is only physically human. The last three aspects must be added in order to have a human being. These components cannot exist until there is a functioning brain. Therefore there cannot be a human being present until there is a functioning brain at about midterm. George Darwin, I mean Evans, is working on his hotly anticipated book entitled "The Origin of Humanness." If you will all just wait patiently, all will be explained in this book.

collins
Thu, 28 Aug 2014 23:40:59 GMT

@George Evans: "While this is true, it is no more compelling than saying a threaded fastener is more than a nut and a bolt." Not really... Bad metaphor, I think. "There is no flash of light or other supernatural manifestation accompanying the event." Not that we can see, at least. The existence of matter and energy are supernatural phenomena. The intelligently designed interactions between and amongst these supernatural elements are also supernatural. "If you are going to stubbornly hold to the pope's definition, you might as well take a stand against contraception..." This comment makes me think you didn't actually read my comment---or, didn't comprehend it. :) "...and to be honest you should encourage people to have as much coitus as possible." I do. People married after the Biblical model. "The Supreme Court already has painstakingly handled these questions..." Not for me they haven't.

Doug Yowell
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:19:21 GMT

"The Supreme Court already has painstakingly handled these questions and I believe they made a good decision." The Supreme Court is the main culprit in duping Americans into thinking that the unborn is, in fact, not a human being (person) worth protecting (unless you want it to be. Contrary to what most of the ignorant and uninformed public believe, the Supreme court has declared, through the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, that abortion is legal during every stage of pregnancy, for any reason or no reason at all. Our current President is on record supporting the right of a woman to demand the death of her newly born infant if the late term abortion failed to do the intended job. So, while most of the American public continue to believe that abortion is Constitutionally allowed only through the first trimester, the reality is far different. So, at least George's arbitrary evolution of the human species, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court's, ends up with an unborn human being at some point of the evolutionary process. That's if they have survived until that point.

George Evans
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:19:43 GMT

Kenneth wrote, >George Darwin, I mean Evans, is working on his hotly anticipated book entitled “The Origin of Humanness.”If you will all just wait patiently......... The book will be out in about four and a half month. ;)

George Evans
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:20:22 GMT

Doug Yowell wrote, >Contrary to what most of the ignorant and uninformed public believe, the Supreme court has declared, through the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, that abortion is legal during every stage of pregnancy, for any reason or no reason at all. Doug and I are both wrong. Roe v. Wade said the tipping point was at the end of the second trimester not the first. It said states had the right to prohibit abortion after that point. >Our current President is on record supporting the right of a woman to demand the death of her newly born infant if the late term abortion failed to do the intended job. I stand with you in condemning his appalling position.

Doug Yowell
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:56:43 GMT

"Doug and I are both wrong. Roe v. Wade said the tipping point was at the end of the second trimester not the first. It said states had the right to prohibit abortion after that point." Again George demonstrates the typical ignorance, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that most Americans witness everyday, in regards to the legalized killing of the unborn. I'd wait for someone to summarize the twin of Roe, Doe v. Bolton and the plethora of court interpretations that spring from the twin decisions before suggesting that abortion is illegal at any point of the pregnancy. And Roe established a woman's right to "privacy" which pretty much sets the stage for whatever she chooses to do with her baby. Again, good for ASI for reminding Adventists of what church leadership has for decades been trying to make disappear.

George Evans
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:56:10 GMT

Doug Yowell keeps emphasizing the first part of Roe v. Wade, >Roe established a woman's right to “privacy” which pretty much sets the stage for whatever she chooses to do with her baby. But he keeps leaving out the balancing part which says that a woman's right "must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: *protecting* *prenatal* *life* and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Doug Yowell
Sat, 30 Aug 2014 04:03:10 GMT

And what did Doe v. Bolton indicate? If Roe restricted abortions to the first two trimesters why was George Tiller (or any other abortionist) not sent to prison? And why is it news that abortionists simply inject the near to term baby with a fatal drug in order to not violate the letter of the late term abortion ban? Even today's news noted that a Federal judge just struck down a Texas law which required abortion clinics to maintain sanitary standards on par with hospital requirements. So much for the state's "balancing" either protection of either the mother's health or prenatal life. But then "health" has been so broadly defined by the courts that it includes anything that disturbs the mother's will. Like the core of supportive WO arguments, "evidence" regarding abortion is dependent on cutting and pasting facts while leaving out those realities which are not convenient. At ASI, A. Duck probably addressed some of those realities when attempting to minister to the victims of their "choice". I hope the church finally gets moving on helping end this great sin.

George Evans
Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:16:17 GMT

Doug wrote, >I hope the church finally gets moving on helping end this great sin. I hope the church finally gets busy and figures out where the sin is in this issue. On this issue the truth surely does lie somewhere near the middle of a pregnancy.

collins
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:58:36 GMT

This sin is where its always been: in murder. Arbitrary and artificial lines drawn at varying times during pregnancy merely reflect human opinions and wishes, not truth.

George Evans
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:47:09 GMT

You can't murder a body that contains no functioning brain. When a family "pulls the plug" on a body that is brain dead, they are not guilty of murder. Likewise, an embryo that does not contain a brain cannot be murdered.

collins
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:47:01 GMT

I cannot equate "brain dead" with the status of an embryo, a baby in its natural stages of development. To be "brain dead" is to be dead and dying; to be an embryo is to be a growing, developing, living baby.

George Evans
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:43:18 GMT

I like babies, and I want to protect babies. My position is not motivated by a desire to solve overpopulation. I am driven only by the science of the situation, and reason. We must view this subject dispassionately for a moment. An embryo is no more a baby than the sculpture God crafted out of dust was Adam. In fact the sculpture had a brain in it that was not switched on yet, so it was closer to being Adam than an embryo is to being a baby.

Doug Yowell
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 01:20:12 GMT

"An embryo is no more a baby than the sculpture God crafted out of dust was Adam." Fortunately for Adam, it didn't take 9 months for God to "craft" him into a living, breathing, moving, soul. And corn is not really corn because it has yet produced an ear yet?? If someone destroyed the farmer's field of newly sprouted corn and then "reasoned" that, "scientifically", he hadn't really destroyed any corn do you think anyone would dispassionately agree with him?

George Evans
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:14:32 GMT

Doug is missing the whole point which is that there is no brain in an embryo. For that same reason corn is not a useful comparison for him. Kernels of corn are never like human beings at any stage.

Doug Yowell
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:34:22 GMT

Collins@ "to be an embryo is to be a growing, developing, living baby." Exactly!! "In Him we live, and move (grow), and have our being." If only our beloved church would act as if we believed that. ASI has taken a very positive step towards that belief.

next
last page