johnydon22:


Human being: 1. A member of the species Homo sapiens.

Not having any rights to inherit property is not the definition of a human or we would then say women are less human in fundamental African culture.

You conveniently left out the census part. Abi women aren't counted in census again? That's by the way sha

Legality does not make human, biological classification does.

Within the confines of the definition of murder which is a legal construct, you have to define a human being based on the law. So, if the law says muder is the killing of a human being, you have to find out what is legally defined as a human being. Is a fetus considered a human being under the law? The answer is no.

Now to my question: At what point did you become you? At birth or conception?

At what point did you begin to exist?

We become human when we breathe in air for the first time outside the confines of the womb. There's a process to get to being labeled a human being. You can't pick an arbitrary point during this process and term it a human being.


If that were so, all the embryo that that weren't implanted during assisted reproduction like IVF and are subsequently destroyed could be said to have been killed and the person destroying them charged with murder.
That's crazy

vaxx:
don't as if you understand everything.... Women with a fertilized can still mensurate that is my point here? I only correct your assumptions when you say fertilized woman can't mensurate

Oga, a woman carrying a zygote can't menstruate. It's either implantational bleed or miscarriage.

johnydon22:

murder
ˈməːdə/
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Fetus is human and living




Let us argue on it because I am pretty sure living and non-living cannot be mistaken...

So, what is the legal definition of a human being? At conception or at birth?
Do fetus have human rights? Do they have right to inherit property? Are they counted in a census etc?

johnydon22:


When murder becomes part of this method it becomes not OK.



I can bet my balls that we all know a fetus is alive.



An abortion is not murder as a fetus is not humankind. It's just as abhorable as a hen breaking it's own eggs.



Human laws can be derived from so many factors, religion one of this and if to your abortion is OK because some court of laws does not condemn it well others do even if its own religious basis it does not make it less valid. Law is law savy.



Personally I am pro preventive method in the first place use a condom, you dont go have raw sex and expect a laptop in return.



Pregnancy is avoidable in the first place. Nigeria is overpopulated doesn't justify the need to kill some

Well, this back and forth is based on the presupposition that abortion is murder. Murder is a clearly defined term and abortions don't fall under it.

As for the argument if a fetus is considered alive or not, that's an argument for another day.

johnydon22:


There are socioeconomic implications in Human over population that doesn't still make it OK to kill any of us

That's why government enact policies like the one child policy, free contraceptives, etc.
The idea is to prevent the humans from being born and abortions achieve exactly that.

On the other hand, whether a fetus is is considered alive or the fetus becomes alive is one debate that will continue till the end of time. Which is why the choice of having the baby should rest with the parents of the baby.


Abortion is not and can never be murder. No court of law has declared it so. All we have is subjective interpretations. Every single country that has banned abortion did so out of some religious belief.

Science and research have no legal basis for such laws.
So, it's all he said she said.

I personally, I'm pro choice. If you feel you can't give the barest minimum needed care to the infant and want to abort? I support you 100%

What's the use of having tons of children you can't cater for and they end up becoming a nuisance to the society at large?

johnydon22:
I want to present my argument with a story, listen to me and try to read meanings to my words.

On a very good Christmas i spent at the village about a decade ago, i was quite small and enjoyed christmases a lot. On the 24th of december mama made a pot of Ogbono soup, as i relished mine i noticed we had chicken in it which was unusual in a typical kpako Nigerian home.

The chicken is always reserved for the special occasion which was supposed to be the next day 25th december, you know christmas and all, a lot of swag came with that.

I was happy at the same time suspicious of the whole thing " does this mean we won't get to eat chicken tomorrow?"

I had to ask papa what was going on, why did we have chicken in our soup because i was very certain we only came back to the village with one huge white broiler from the town.

Papa laughed and explained.

"yes we will still eat Chicken tomorrow, the chicken we just ate is from a hen that breaks and drinks it's own eggs"

This story always comes to my mind when i am involved in arguments about abortions as people always bring the "fetus is not human argument" as absurd as i find that notion i will still argue even if this is the case doesn't still make it okay to kill it.

Now we can take eggs from a hen and eat, the eggs may be eaten by a snake or other predators or breaks by accident - these are naturally okay.

But when the mother hen by herself breaks her own eggs and drinks them, this is not okay, it was a disgusting sight for a hen to do this, this was exactly the reason why that hen had to be killed.

An egg may not be entirely a chicken but an egg is still chicken kind.

let me know if you made anything out of this story

In this scenario you painted, the hen devours its eggs due to an irresistible urge to do so. If we have humans who just get pregnant and abort due to an irresistible urge to do so, I'm sure that the person would be sent to a mental home.

Now, on the other hand, induced abortion is procured when there are socioeconomic factors which make the option of choosing to have the child a poor decision.


They're apples and oranges in my view.

butterflyl1on:


I am already aware of that. However whenever spontaneous abortion is said it is referring to miscarriage and not "abortion" as it were.

In everyday English, yes, but in medical circles, if you say abortion, you have to be specific. Was it spontaneous or induced. Miscarriage is not accepted.

This post is in direct response to your "miscarriage is not abortion" post.

butterflyl1on:


Chai

A miscarriage is not an abortion. Spontaneous means sudden.

abortion
noun
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks


miscarriage
noun
the spontaneous or unplanned expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently.

Do you see the difference? Spontaneous is what shows that the termination was unplanned.

Abortion simply means TERMINATION. spontaneous termination is the word so I understand your ignorance due to the word ABORTION being used.

It's simply a lack of understanding on your part.

Spontaneous abortion is the medical name. A more accepted every day parlance is miscarriage. No go talk miscarriage for clinical meeting, they'll laugh you out of the room.

What you regularly call abortion in medical circles is called induced abortion or termination of pregnancy.

Cc Humanistme

adepeter2027:
C.atfishBilly Yaff landed also

Lol, I'll pass, bro.

Enjoy this one. We're all rooting for you

butterflyl1on:


If your claims are valid then why do we still have these today?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Humans+still+have+wisdom+teeth

There are over 21000 publications there about modern wisdom teeth. The operative word is modern. You claimed we have evolved to the point of not growing them at all.

Of course, the penetrance of the gene/mutation that removed wisdom teeth from humans vary wildly across populations reaching almost 100% in Mexicans. It's all in the link I posted.


Vestigiliaty is a thing in science.

butterflyl1on:
I also forgot to mention that we have not "evolved" to the point of not growing wisdom teeth at all. If we have, can you tell me when this happened because this would mean the evolutionary process does not take millions of years Afterall but happens in a hundred or 200 years because as far as I know people are being born today with wisdom teeth and for many who have had them pulled, they ended up growing back.

Feast your eyes then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458632/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165

butterflyl1on:


You claim the wisdom teeth are a remnant from days of chewing a different diet and I say they are not and are seen as useless because we do not chew the right diet meant for it. I guess we both agree that the problem is poor or wrong diet.

Claiming that we have vestigial organs simply because their functions have not been discovered in this day is extremely unscientific and a hypothesis at best.

We had a list of 180 vestigial organs prior to modern times and today what happened to the 180?

As animals evolve, their diet and lifestyle change. So, organs that do not support the new lifestyle are left behind. It's not a matter of wrong diet, it's a matter of useless, irrelevant diet. Why remain a herbivore when you already developed omnivorous capabilities?

There's nothing unscientific about vestigial organs. Things change, as much more knowledge becomes available, descriptions change. Pepsin was thought to be the cause of stomach ulcer at a point.

You're low-key using the "science has been wrong before" argument.

butterflyl1on:


Wisdom teeth are very useful, especially if other molars wear down or decay. (you can call it the back up tooth). Although we in todays culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential”.

Regarding the ear muscles, you can re-read the comment you responded to.

You said there's no such thing as vestigial organs, I'm just trying to correct that erroneous idea.

Wisdom teeth are not "back up", they are a remnant from our days off eating a different diet. They're a nuisance. Theyre so useless that we've evolved to the point of not developing wisdom teeth at all.

butterflyl1on:


There is no such thing as vestigial organs as this is not admissible in science. What was said to be "useless" today can be discovered to have a function tomorrow. We once had about 180 vestigial organ list and today we have about 4 or 5 and the list keeps shrinking as their functions are finally discovered.

This vestigial organ assumption uses as an assumption the claim that an organ has no function. There is no way in which this negative assertion can be arrived at in a scientific manner. What I mean is that one can't prove that something does not exist (in a case like this, a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it based on science.

So as it stands, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn’t identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

Vestigial organs is a well known entity in evolutionary biology. A common Google search will give you a list from pinnae/ear muscles to wisdom teeth.

OliviaPope:
Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

Ah, institute of creation research and creation blogs, why am I not surprised?

This thread can never make FP. Lai Lai.

When Lalasticlala, mynd44 and seun dey?

Butterflylion, come on, don't let this thread die!

Just reply AgentOfAllah and we'll continue from there.

God doesn't reside in hospitals. I've seen enough in my short time practicing to convince me.

God always shows up in ambiguous situations where it could go either way, just showing up to take all the glory like an asshole.


But when the chips are down and god is invoked to break the laws of nature for a patient? God fails every time.

Butterflylion, come back naa, I want to see the conclusion of this thread.

Amberon11:
very daft statement. Girl, fly out of my mentions. Cant risk losing IQ points.

It's only the dumb ones that keep on making noise about intelligence and "IQ points" that they clearly don't have.

If I ask her IQ points now and how they correlate with intelligence now, she'll start blabbing.

Worshipper of a failed, dead Jewish rebel

MizMyColi

Check this link out, it deals with this topic perfectly.
It generally agrees with Johnydon22.
https://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations

I faster for one fuckkking month. The thing I was fasting for came a year later after I went to meet influential people with hat in hand.


I gave dollars as offering when the con artist said anyone who wants blessings in foreign currency should sow foreign currency.

hahn:


And how did he come to that conclusion?

Did you go through my similar thread?

Here you go, bro

ayoku777:


How old a man is is relative to how long ago he came into existence. So Adam was a second old, a second after God created him and brought him to life. He was a day old, a day after God created him, and he was a year old, a year after God created him.

I believe what you meant to ask is how old did Adam look BODILY immediately after God created him and brought him to life?

There is no scripture that categorically answers that question. But I always answer that question by using the age of Jesus Christ when he rose from the dead, since Jesus is the last Adam.

According to the scriptures, Jesus is the last Adam and the firstborn of the new creation, just like Adam is the firstborn of the first creation.

1Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Jesus) was made a quickening spirit.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN among many brethren (new creation).

Jesus Christ is the last Adam and He was 33 years old when He rose from the dead and became the firstborn of the new creation. So I do relative comparison and conclude that the first Adam was also 33 years old (bodily) when God brought him to life and made him the first born of the first creation.

So my assumption is Adam was 33 years old in bodily form at the point of his creation. Same age as the last Adam (Jesus Christ) at the point of his resurrection.

Shalom

Yep, gone through your thread.

Amberon11:
This is the most silly thing I've heard all year. Your IQ is heading towards negative.

Says someone worshipping a failed dead Jewish rebel, a poor man's version of Nnamdi Kanu (cos that was what he was) and you're talking about IQ?
I can see you, you shining example of extraordinary intellectual capabilities.

Listener07:


I wrote everything I wanted to say in the OP and I only brought up extra details because you prompted me.


Lol. Your oedipus tale is ridiculously hilarious, and coming from you an atheist, I am not surprised.

It's hilarious because you have nothing to say as a rebuttal.


Your Sexton heard about the prophecy, started panicking and had an accident. Simple as ABC

hahn:


Don't forget rants and insults

Lol. Those ones sef dey.

Question still remains.
At least, someone said 33, we're making progress.

So, all we have for now is just conjectures and Philosophical opinions.

No consensus?

malvisguy212:
hey!!! do you command a little baby to go and multiply by given birth to babies ? after God created them, the next verse imply God was speaking to them, by blessing them, you don't have a conversation with new born baby, do you ? just a few verses later , he names the animal. this is nor something an infant can do. Adam and eve were to rule over the earth, an infant cannot do this. and in Genesis 2:24 eve is presented to Adam as a wife, and were commanded to multiply, for them to obey this commande, they must consummate there marriage . this is not a little children affairs.

Could be a little baby. God created them, it isn't implausible for him to also bequeath the super baby he created with super intelligence. Beside there was na time frame given for the events that happened from one verse to the other, so my question still stands.
How old was Adam?

Hier:


God created man in Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (inner man)

Then God having created spiritual adam, gave Adam shape and form in Gen2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(outward man)
The time inbetween, unknown

2 corinth 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

The outward man is what I'm interested in. The one he put on planet Earth.
How old was he when God placed him on planet Earth?
Was he a baby, a toddler, an adolescent, an adult?

peteregwu:


It was not disclosed or stated. He was created adult. But you need to stop bothering yourself about that lest you get a brain seizure.

How do you know he was created an adult?
What verses in the scriptures implied that?

How old was Adam when God created him?

A simple question.
Let's all have a civil discussion, please.

Baba either the first test you did was wrong or the 2nd one is wrong.

Try at least 3 different tertiary hospitals (teaching hospital and General Hospital) and reputable labs, then compare the results. You'll have your answer.