Re:
Contrast vs 16 to:
The formed body happens ‘in the womb’ and God appointed this person as prophet to the nations, therefore this person is a person in the womb, as a prophet is a person.
If a baby isn’t a person until it is born then how come you get an extra count of murder for killing a pregnant woman?
Because the anti-abortionists have pushed for that as an attempt to wedge the idea that an unborn fetus is a person into the law. At present, they argue that killing a pregnant woman deserves an extra count of murder; eventually, they could potentially use that precedent to argue that a woman who gets an abortion should be charged with murder.
Actually, pro-choice that I am, I like the idea of killing a pregnant woman as 2 murders. If the woman chose to have that baby, there is a potential for a person in there, even if it is a person not yet able to fend much for himself. And if it is 3rd trimester, when that fetus is already viable and and an abortion is no longer an option, then it is already a person. For all this read person as “legal person” which is not what the thread was intended to discuss.
Continuing on this:
This shows it is possible to kill a person in the womb:
Also:
This is the Lord speaking to Adam. Where Adam has started and will return to. And Adam is defined as ‘dust’, not the flesh body.
Also Gen 3
The serpent, who is Satan (Rev 12:19), will eat of the dust, which is man. Sheol/Hell being underground (Jonah 2:6) is that place, where we start and unless saved will return, but we still exist.
In
and
The human body is just a tent, were our ‘essence’ is stored for a while.
Also along another line:
Elizabeth’s baby is John the Baptist (Luke 1:63), and John the Baptist is also Elijah, who existed earlier(Matt 11:14), showing the continuity of existance including the time in the womb.
To go into the issue of breath entering a person to come ‘alive’, it is a component of living, breath does enter via the umbilical cord (as Jer 20:17 shows one can be killed in the womb, so one must be alive at that time), but even without that, one still exists. In Ez 37
The lifeless but existent slain people are able to speak
Why yes, by all means. Do not let the fact that nobody replied stop you from continuing your preaching in a thread that specifically asked for no churchy shit.
You can’t achieve personhood without being born. It is legal to kill your unborn child but don’t kill anyone that is pregnant because that counts as two???
This is a list of famously, Great important people who were adopted and significantly contributed in influencing and changing the world. How devastated would the world be if these individuals would have never lived. Thank God their birth mothers did the right thing.
Andy Berlin
Anthony Williams
Aristotle
Art Linkletter
Bo Diddley
Buffy Sainte-Marie
Carl-Theodor Dreyer
Charlotte Anne Lopez
Christina Crawford
Clarissa Pinkola Estes
Crazy Horse
Dan O’Brien
Daunte Culpepper
Dave Thomas
Debbie Harry
D.M.C.
Edgar Allan Poe
Edward Albee
Eleanor Roosevelt
Eric Dickerson
Faith Daniels
Faith Hill
Freddie Bartholomew
George Washington Carver
Greg Louganis
James MacArthur
James Michener
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Jesse Jackson
JESUS
Going on with my above reply:
In Ez 37 life enters with wind or breath, also in Gen 2:7, and goes into the blood (see below quote), which allows the umbilical cord to deliver life to the baby:
Life is in the blood, so the first breath is not the beginning of life, but the delivery of life from the mother in the womb via the blood.
reported
If you are casting a net so wide that it catches Aristotle, Faith Hill and JESUS (the one with all caps, not to be confused with Jesus who sells tacos at 3rd and Broad) and you can only come up with 30 names, you are not making too strong a case for your side, whatever it is.
As for the world devastation that their abortion would have brought, I am going to need a cite.
You’re the one who jumped in the middle of an aside between **Sapo **and I and extended it.
Sap,
I will try and find one. I was off topic, sorry.
OK, I understand that after the third trimester the baby is considered to be viable, or to live. That is why they charge it as a double murder, but what if…
The baby would not have lived. What if the murdered woman’s baby died at birth? Of course we will never know that because the mother died. We are presuming that at the third trimester the baby will be born but what if the baby was born dead? Or dies of a defect shortly after being born.
Is it fair to charge someone with an assumption?
kanicbird et al, please take the religious discussion to another thread. You’ve made your point in this one.
I am sure that there are even more. But a list of random celebrities is hardly a case for the necessity of these people to the world. I am sure that the world would have survived the absence of these and many others. Would history have been different? Maybe but not the end of the world.
You say this as though it’s a bad thing.
I support there being a class of crime for the deliberate unpermitted termination of somebody else’s fetus, but I balk at calling it murder. In the case of pre-3rd trimester, you state there’s nothing but a “potential” there, and that’s obviously not the same thing as a person, and your post-3rd trimester is argument by assertion and begging the question, since the whole point of this thread is we don’t assume that 3rd-trimester = person.
To me deliberately killing a fetus is like deliberately crushing somebody’s partially-assembled diamond-studded car. Whether it’s assembled enough to run or not isn’t the point; the point is that it’s not yours, and the person who owns it values it very much and you can’t be going around smashing it. A person is allowed to smash their own diamond-studded car of course - or hire somebody to smash it.
Where smashing the car turns into murder is the point where there’s an actual person being killed (not a “potential person”). This clearly depends on the answer to the question of when a fetus qualifies as a person. Which isn’t something you can just assume, not in this thread anyway.
Nope. It’s not a bad thing. You are welcome to start a conversation about something, and then claim it as being beside the point all you want. 
I think the deliberate killing of the fetus by someone else should be classified as murder. Because it has the potential to be a human life, and if the Mother intends to bring it into being as such, she deserves to do so. Only the Mother should be able to take advantage of the legal loophole regarding the personhood of the fetus. A Mother sacrifices a great deal of herself to bring a fetus to term, and as such it this should be recognized. In terms of simplicity, I think the fetus should be regarded as a person, except when it conflicts with the rights of the Mother to biological sovereignty. If you are not the host to the fetus parasite, then you should have no legal claim to its rights of self-determination.
I wasn’t saying it was beside the point - I was saying you were wrong. But moving on to things of greater interest…
By this logic, if you steal a dollar from me, you should be charged with stealing ten dollars from me, because that dollar was potentially going to be invested in an interest-earning asset that would net me ten dollars over its lifetime.
Litigating on “potential” seems very problematic to me, in no small part because we don’t really do that elsewhere in law. I can’t bury a living person in the ground and then shrug it off as being okay because the person was a potential corpse. (Heck, I can’t even do that if the person was on their deathbed.)
This isn’t to say that it should be okay to go around punching pregnant women in the stomach - I just think that the crime you’re committing in that case is an attack on the woman’s property. Very valued property, to be sure, with an accordingly harsh punishment - make it as harsh as for murder if you like. But I think it’s valuable to distinguish between this and actual murder, since the crimes are different - as exhibited by the fact that if it’s a crime against property, then abortion isn’t a loophole.
Ok, we won’t get into your logical fallacy here. 
Fair enough.
No.
Because the point being we should accept a fetus as a person by default and make a loophole for Mothers, as opposed to defining personhood in such a way that fetuses are exempt. If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach you should be charged with murder.
I disagree. I think that the default should be the recognition of the fetus’s humanity. The idea of a fetus as property is morally repugnant.
Keep shoveling all you like; I’m sure you’re convincing somebody.
Well, with this reasoned and in-depth argument, I have no choice but to concede, then.
No, wait, the other thing. The one where your bald assertions that your position is right have no effect on me. That one.
What makes the “potential” outcome of fetal development different than all the rest of them?
Well, that’s a nice opinion you have there, sir, a real nice one. But in a thread about what the landmark should be for attaining personhood, I’d say that you have to do a little more than declare that conception should be the marking point. Especially when your argument for it is that “potential” nonsense.
Hate to tell you this but we treat kids as property until they turn eighteen. So I don’t envy you the wash of repugnancy you must be drowning in right now.
And fetuses aren’t humans. Look, I can assert too!