Comments for Biblical Worldview Academy http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org Equip followers of Jesus Christ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:11:10 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 16 by Steve http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1668/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-16/comment-page-1/#comment-967 Steve Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:11:10 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1668#comment-967 Tom, The issue has to do with whether or not a baby should be killed if a rape occurs. The goal of the morning after pill is to kill the innocent baby after a horrible crime has been committed. Do you think killing the baby helps the mother cope with a rape? Now the mother has to deal with two tragedies. I am going to post this week two articles on studies demonstrating the negative psychological effects of abortion on women. Science tells us at conception the fetus is 100% human. Here you are excluding the baby just because he or she is the size of a dot at the end of a sentence. Size is simply your arbitrary standard to eliminate a baby. Do you think the larger you are the more rights you should have? Should Shaquille O’Neil have more rights than you? If your answer is no, then size should not be factor for determining the life or death of a baby. I taught my daughter the value of all human life. Based on her upbringing and knowledge of the truth, she would not have wanted to kill her innocent baby. You say, “what about the poor unwanted baby?” So your solution for a possible unwanted baby is to kill him or her. And you say I have an “extreme position.” You are favor of killing the baby and I am for saving the life of an innocent unborn human. Who has the extreme position? The reason you position is not easy is because you support the killing of an innocent human baby. This is an extreme position. There are easy answers; you are not willing to consider them. The easy answer is to not kill a precious unborn baby because he may remind the mother of a terrible tragedy. Steve Tom,
The issue has to do with whether or not a baby should be killed if a rape occurs. The goal of the morning after pill is to kill the innocent baby after a horrible crime has been committed. Do you think killing the baby helps the mother cope with a rape? Now the mother has to deal with two tragedies. I am going to post this week two articles on studies demonstrating the negative psychological effects of abortion on women.

Science tells us at conception the fetus is 100% human. Here you are excluding the baby just because he or she is the size of a dot at the end of a sentence. Size is simply your arbitrary standard to eliminate a baby. Do you think the larger you are the more rights you should have? Should Shaquille O’Neil have more rights than you? If your answer is no, then size should not be factor for determining the life or death of a baby.

I taught my daughter the value of all human life. Based on her upbringing and knowledge of the truth, she would not have wanted to kill her innocent baby. You say, “what about the poor unwanted baby?” So your solution for a possible unwanted baby is to kill him or her. And you say I have an “extreme position.” You are favor of killing the baby and I am for saving the life of an innocent unborn human. Who has the extreme position?

The reason you position is not easy is because you support the killing of an innocent human baby. This is an extreme position. There are easy answers; you are not willing to consider them. The easy answer is to not kill a precious unborn baby because he may remind the mother of a terrible tragedy.

Steve

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Steve http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-965 Steve Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:07:44 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-965 Tom, I will post a rejoinder Friday showing additional weaknesses of the "person" argument for disqualifying the human rights of a fetus. For those interested in the article Tom emailed to me go to: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_legal.htm?rd=1%22 First problem is Tom Head, the author of the article, simply says it is okay to kill the unborn because the baby is not a person. What human is not a person? 100% of all humans are persons; unless you are defined by Tom Head as a non-person. Who gives him that power? Do you? Second, he then comes up with his own arbitrary definition of a person as 22-24 weeks old, where the baby could survive outside the womb. Here he comes up with his own standard. Where in science did that come from? Where does science define persons? Again who gave him the power over life and death? He is disqualifying a human because he or she cannot survive outside the womb; the unborn needs the mother’s help. A toddler cannot survive without a mothers help; should we kill toddlers? As I wrote in my series, people disqualify the unborn for indefensible reasons. These arbitrary reasons are dismantled by the acrostic SLED (Defending unborn #10), which is a defense against killing a human baby because of Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. Tom Head says the baby at a certain point is not a person so we can kill him or her. Don't you see how ridiculous this position is? Dr. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, sets his arbitrary standard for killing a baby at 30 days after birth. Quoting Scott Klusendorf in the Christian Research Institute: “In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, ‘Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons’; therefore, ‘the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.’” Singer says pro-abortion advocates have to be willing to kill toddlers to be consistent. Are you okay with Singer’s definition of person? Why or why not? How do you judge who is right? Third, during the time of the civil war, whites in the south declared blacks to be non-persons and thus could be slaves. Are you comfortable with that standard? Fourth, Hitler declared Jews to be non-persons and thus they could be killed. Should groups that commit genocide get to declare who is a person or not? Why? You better watch out…some group is going to call rugby players non-persons and decide to kill you. Lastly Tom Head calling the fetus a non-person is a new strategy. The reason the pro-abortion came up with this defense is because science has shown the unborn is fully human and pro-abortion advocates needed a new way to eliminate the fetus. Do you see how bad this position is? Are you willing to admit killing the unborn because someone defines them expendable is bad thinking and dangerous? Where do you stop? Are you serious in comparing prohibition and abortion? One is a law against drinking alcohol and the other allows for the killing of a precious unborn human baby. Do you really think killing and drinking are equal? A much better comparison is corporate theft and prohibition. Lots of people steal from the employers. According to your logic let’s just get rid of theft laws because they do not stop people from stealing from their companies. Do you really believe we are better off without laws? Why do keep advocating no laws? Are you in favor of anarchy? There is no comparison between killing a baby and drinking alcohol. Steve Tom,
I will post a rejoinder Friday showing additional weaknesses of the “person” argument for disqualifying the human rights of a fetus. For those interested in the article Tom emailed to me go to: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_legal.htm?rd=1%22

First problem is Tom Head, the author of the article, simply says it is okay to kill the unborn because the baby is not a person. What human is not a person? 100% of all humans are persons; unless you are defined by Tom Head as a non-person. Who gives him that power? Do you? Second, he then comes up with his own arbitrary definition of a person as 22-24 weeks old, where the baby could survive outside the womb. Here he comes up with his own standard. Where in science did that come from? Where does science define persons? Again who gave him the power over life and death? He is disqualifying a human because he or she cannot survive outside the womb; the unborn needs the mother’s help. A toddler cannot survive without a mothers help; should we kill toddlers? As I wrote in my series, people disqualify the unborn for indefensible reasons. These arbitrary reasons are dismantled by the acrostic SLED (Defending unborn #10), which is a defense against killing a human baby because of Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. Tom Head says the baby at a certain point is not a person so we can kill him or her. Don’t you see how ridiculous this position is? Dr. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, sets his arbitrary standard for killing a baby at 30 days after birth. Quoting Scott Klusendorf in the Christian Research Institute: “In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, ‘Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons’; therefore, ‘the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.’” Singer says pro-abortion advocates have to be willing to kill toddlers to be consistent. Are you okay with Singer’s definition of person? Why or why not? How do you judge who is right?

Third, during the time of the civil war, whites in the south declared blacks to be non-persons and thus could be slaves. Are you comfortable with that standard? Fourth, Hitler declared Jews to be non-persons and thus they could be killed. Should groups that commit genocide get to declare who is a person or not? Why? You better watch out…some group is going to call rugby players non-persons and decide to kill you. Lastly Tom Head calling the fetus a non-person is a new strategy. The reason the pro-abortion came up with this defense is because science has shown the unborn is fully human and pro-abortion advocates needed a new way to eliminate the fetus. Do you see how bad this position is? Are you willing to admit killing the unborn because someone defines them expendable is bad thinking and dangerous? Where do you stop?

Are you serious in comparing prohibition and abortion? One is a law against drinking alcohol and the other allows for the killing of a precious unborn human baby. Do you really think killing and drinking are equal? A much better comparison is corporate theft and prohibition. Lots of people steal from the employers. According to your logic let’s just get rid of theft laws because they do not stop people from stealing from their companies. Do you really believe we are better off without laws? Why do keep advocating no laws? Are you in favor of anarchy? There is no comparison between killing a baby and drinking alcohol.

Steve

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Tom Wright http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-961 Tom Wright Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:59:54 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-961 Steve; Re; The last paragraph may be answered by a website I sent to you via email. Google your first sentence in the last paragraph for other opinions....or facts. You have shown statistics that laws decrease the undesired action. Was this true for prohibition? Actually, this is a good comparison. The gov't attempted to control an undesired behavior by passing a law. The behavior was apparently deemed not morally wrong by the majority of Americans, so the law was reversed. Abortion is morally wrong in some cases, I believe, but like prohibition, the majority sees it as it as an unenforceable law. The Court reaches the same conclusion for different reasons (see website) Have a suggestion for your next topic, Steve; "Is homosexuality nature or nurture?" Steve;
Re; The last paragraph may be answered by a website I sent to you via email. Google your first sentence in the last paragraph for other opinions….or facts.
You have shown statistics that laws decrease the undesired action. Was this true for prohibition?
Actually, this is a good comparison. The gov’t attempted to control an undesired behavior by passing a law. The behavior was apparently deemed not morally wrong by the majority of Americans, so the law was reversed. Abortion is morally wrong in some cases, I believe, but like prohibition, the majority sees it as it as an unenforceable law. The Court reaches the same conclusion for different reasons (see website)

Have a suggestion for your next topic, Steve; “Is homosexuality nature or nurture?”

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 16 by Tom Wright http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1668/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-16/comment-page-1/#comment-960 Tom Wright Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:32:33 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1668#comment-960 Steve; I support the killing of an unborn baby if it is suspected by a doctor that it will harm the mother mentally or physically. RE; the Morning After Pill. Why not give it to the raped child? She may not be pregnant. If she is she would have no idea what happened. Remember, the rape happened less than 24hrs ago, and there is no "baby", or even a fetus. We're talking microscopic, Steve! "The guilt comes with the knowledge killing your baby in your womb." No baby is being killed with this pill, unless you're extending the term "baby" to a dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Steve, I hate to pull out the old "what if it happened to your daughter" question, but I think it is warranted because of your extreme position. You would be making a decision for her which would undoubtedly effect the rest of her life. What if she wanted an abortion? What about the poor unwanted baby? Either she would have to raise it, perhaps resenting it and its effect on her future, or give it up for adoption. The child would always know. It seems that anti-abortionists care more for the baby before it's born. And its "not easy" to support my position. This is a very complex topic with NO easy answers. Steve;
I support the killing of an unborn baby if it is suspected by a doctor that it will harm the mother mentally or physically.
RE; the Morning After Pill. Why not give it to the raped child? She may not be pregnant. If she is she would have no idea what happened. Remember, the rape happened less than 24hrs ago, and there is no “baby”, or even a fetus. We’re talking microscopic, Steve!

“The guilt comes with the knowledge killing your baby in your womb.”

No baby is being killed with this pill, unless you’re extending the term “baby” to a dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

Steve, I hate to pull out the old “what if it happened to your daughter” question, but I think it is warranted because of your extreme position. You would be making a decision for her which would undoubtedly effect the rest of her life. What if she wanted an abortion? What about the poor unwanted baby? Either she would have to raise it, perhaps resenting it and its effect on her future, or give it up for adoption. The child would always know.
It seems that anti-abortionists care more for the baby before it’s born.

And its “not easy” to support my position. This is a very complex topic with NO easy answers.

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Steve http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-959 Steve Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:07:37 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-959 Tom, I have already provided statistics on the effectiveness of law. I have shown laws reduce the incidence of evil behaviors. Do you want anarchy? Are you against laws? The raped child could put her baby up for adoption to a loving family. Don't you think that would be a better option than the memory you killed your baby? Also remember I have a friend whose mother was raped and choose to keep him. He is an ex-student of mine and is a pastor at Emmanuel Faith Community Church. I can invite him over to my house to meet you. You can ask him if his mother should have aborted him, so she wouldn't have bad memories. You asked why I support the killing of the baby if the mother's life is in danger. It is similar to finding two people in the ocean drowning. You quickly realize you can only save one. You'll have to let the other drown. Is that wrong? In the vast majority of cases the baby is doomed and the only one you can save is the mother. I will post an article by Steve Wagner that will go into more detail on this issue. (I have no idea how many people agree with me on this. Why does this matter?) Why was abortion legalized? I would say it had to do with the worldviews of the Supreme Court justices. If they had certain presuppositions that the unborn is not human, they would support a woman’s right to an abortion. I have already shown this view false as it goes against science and philosophy. Why do you think they ruled against unborn babies? Steve Tom,
I have already provided statistics on the effectiveness of law. I have shown laws reduce the incidence of evil behaviors. Do you want anarchy? Are you against laws?

The raped child could put her baby up for adoption to a loving family. Don’t you think that would be a better option than the memory you killed your baby? Also remember I have a friend whose mother was raped and choose to keep him. He is an ex-student of mine and is a pastor at Emmanuel Faith Community Church. I can invite him over to my house to meet you. You can ask him if his mother should have aborted him, so she wouldn’t have bad memories.

You asked why I support the killing of the baby if the mother’s life is in danger. It is similar to finding two people in the ocean drowning. You quickly realize you can only save one. You’ll have to let the other drown. Is that wrong? In the vast majority of cases the baby is doomed and the only one you can save is the mother. I will post an article by Steve Wagner that will go into more detail on this issue. (I have no idea how many people agree with me on this. Why does this matter?)

Why was abortion legalized? I would say it had to do with the worldviews of the Supreme Court justices. If they had certain presuppositions that the unborn is not human, they would support a woman’s right to an abortion. I have already shown this view false as it goes against science and philosophy. Why do you think they ruled against unborn babies?

Steve

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 16 by Steve http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1668/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-16/comment-page-1/#comment-958 Steve Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:02:03 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1668#comment-958 Tom, You asked, "Do you have any studies indicating the willingness or non-willingness of a raped woman to carry the baby to term?" Do you have any studies on this issue? What does this have to do with whether or not a woman should have the right to kill her unborn baby? The issue is still the same. Do you approve of killing an precious unborn human because he or she is in the way or reminds the child about the rape? Now you want to kill the baby with a pill. What has changed? How do you know an eleven to twelve year wouldn't understand? This seems extremely far-fetched. The guilt comes with the knowledge killing your baby in your womb. Are you still in favor of two crimes? First the rape and second the killing of an innocent unborn human baby? In your replies you keep ignoring the baby. What did the baby do wrong? Why is so easy for you to support the killing of a baby? Steve Tom,
You asked, “Do you have any studies indicating the willingness or non-willingness of a raped woman to carry the baby to term?” Do you have any studies on this issue? What does this have to do with whether or not a woman should have the right to kill her unborn baby?

The issue is still the same. Do you approve of killing an precious unborn human because he or she is in the way or reminds the child about the rape? Now you want to kill the baby with a pill. What has changed? How do you know an eleven to twelve year wouldn’t understand? This seems extremely far-fetched. The guilt comes with the knowledge killing your baby in your womb. Are you still in favor of two crimes? First the rape and second the killing of an innocent unborn human baby? In your replies you keep ignoring the baby. What did the baby do wrong? Why is so easy for you to support the killing of a baby?

Steve

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 16 by Tom Wright http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1668/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-16/comment-page-1/#comment-952 Tom Wright Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:29:29 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1668#comment-952 Steve; Do you have any studies indicating the willingness or non-willingness of a raped woman to carry the baby to term? What if the child or woman took a "morning-after pill".....still abortion with all the alleged guilt? The child would never know.... Steve;
Do you have any studies indicating the willingness or non-willingness of a raped woman to carry the baby to term? What if the child or woman took a “morning-after pill”…..still abortion with all the alleged guilt? The child would never know….

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Tom Wright http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-951 Tom Wright Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:13:42 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-951 Steve; If abortion was illegal, do you think a mere law would prevent the parents of a pre-teen making the decision to abort after rape? Keeping the baby, even if the child understood what had happened to her, would change the rest of her life, if the act itself already hadn't, and the lives of her family, and not for the better. You say you would permit an abortion if the mother's life was in danger. The rest of the child's life IS likely "in danger" from a mental health standpoint. And why make an exception for the mother's life? The unborn is still killed. How many Americans believe as you do on this? Today I read that Santorum is in favor of banning contraceptives; another notion completely out of step with the vast majority of Americans. You say abortion is murder. If so, why was it legalized? Steve;
If abortion was illegal, do you think a mere law would prevent the parents of a pre-teen making the decision to abort after rape? Keeping the baby, even if the child understood what had happened to her, would change the rest of her life, if the act itself already hadn’t, and the lives of her family, and not for the better. You say you would permit an abortion if the mother’s life was in danger. The rest of the child’s life IS likely “in danger” from a mental health standpoint. And why make an exception for the mother’s life? The unborn is still killed.
How many Americans believe as you do on this?
Today I read that Santorum is in favor of banning contraceptives; another notion completely out of step with the vast majority of Americans.
You say abortion is murder. If so, why was it legalized?

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Steve http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-949 Steve Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:06:48 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-949 Tom, I will begin with the last question you asked. Would I change my opinion if the rape victim was an 11-12 year old child? The man who forced himself on this child is a monster. A horrible crime has been committed. Does it help to kill the unborn because the mother is young? Are you in favor of taking the life of a precious unborn human person because the child is young? I don't believe in double crimes. Rape and murder will not make things right. However, if the young birthing mother's life is in danger when delivering the baby then you save the mother. Otherwise the young child has the baby. Are you going to console this child when she recalls the horrors of the rape and she thinks about how she had her unborn baby killed? This is reality! Women all over the world are in counseling for having abortions. They can no longer suppress the truth, they had their baby killed. Enforcement is an entirely new argument and has nothing to do with whether or not you find it acceptable to kill an innocent unborn human. Our laws say it is legal to kill an unborn at any stage of development. Do you support those laws? I will take on the enforcement laws. Doctors would definitely be prosecuted for killing the unborn human. Do you think doctors should get away with murder? How the mother would be prosecuted would be similar to what we do when mothers kill and trash their newborns. Do you think mothers should be prosecuted for killing their newborns? If you say yes, then what is the difference between killing a newborn and killing an unborn human person? Steve Tom,
I will begin with the last question you asked. Would I change my opinion if the rape victim was an 11-12 year old child? The man who forced himself on this child is a monster. A horrible crime has been committed. Does it help to kill the unborn because the mother is young? Are you in favor of taking the life of a precious unborn human person because the child is young? I don’t believe in double crimes. Rape and murder will not make things right. However, if the young birthing mother’s life is in danger when delivering the baby then you save the mother. Otherwise the young child has the baby. Are you going to console this child when she recalls the horrors of the rape and she thinks about how she had her unborn baby killed? This is reality! Women all over the world are in counseling for having abortions. They can no longer suppress the truth, they had their baby killed.

Enforcement is an entirely new argument and has nothing to do with whether or not you find it acceptable to kill an innocent unborn human. Our laws say it is legal to kill an unborn at any stage of development. Do you support those laws?

I will take on the enforcement laws. Doctors would definitely be prosecuted for killing the unborn human. Do you think doctors should get away with murder? How the mother would be prosecuted would be similar to what we do when mothers kill and trash their newborns. Do you think mothers should be prosecuted for killing their newborns? If you say yes, then what is the difference between killing a newborn and killing an unborn human person?

Steve

]]> Comment on Defending the Life of the Unborn Part 5 by Tom Wright http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/1592/defending-the-life-of-the-unborn-part-5/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Tom Wright Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:44:09 +0000 http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/?p=1592#comment-948 Steve; You give a spirited and learned defense. In my mind, this argument can be reduced to this: Are you in favor of forcing a woman to deliver a child she doesn't want, regardless of the circumstances? How would the anti-abortion law be enforced? Would doctors and women be charged and prosecuted? You didn't answer my question about: "Would you change your opinion if it was a 11-12 year old child?" Tom Steve;
You give a spirited and learned defense.
In my mind, this argument can be reduced to this:
Are you in favor of forcing a woman to deliver a child she doesn’t want, regardless of the circumstances? How would the anti-abortion law be enforced? Would doctors and women be charged and prosecuted?
You didn’t answer my question about:
“Would you change your opinion if it was a 11-12 year old child?”
Tom

]]>