| Pale Rider - I liked your response and it sounded a lot more updated then my old bio class back in 1957. My resource for the "life process hoot" came from this article in a publication produced by the Institute For Creation Research (Impact).
If we start off as a totally new human being at the moment of conception then how can some people get red hair like their great grandmother's? Why would doctors claim that being overweight can be a problem handed down from our family tree? As I recall the DNA process has pre-programed much of what we will be way before we become individuals at birth, but individuals that seem to clone a lot of our race and historical background relative to our family. That would logically appear to me to be a on-going process that did not start at the moment of conception but as far back as we can trace life on earth (or some other planet in case we were transported here).
Now let's assume that the Creator used evolution as as means to create human beings, then as the Native Amercans teach we are brothers of the fish and other creatures that resulted from the first life form, so all animals are human? Clearly we have created names to seperate each type of indenty and so is everything human but just with different names, like some humans are called John, some are called Peter, and some are called Mary Ann.
I am putting this in the form of questions and not as an attack outright.
However you are also correct in saying that our personal mold is set once conception is completed and set into motion. I cannot logical disagree with that concept. The question I ask then is why don't they issue "certificates of conception" instead of "birth certificates"? Example: if some woman came from Mexico and had a child here that child would be an American (USA) and could claim ALL THE RIGHTS our consitution affords (and other laws) instead of just a few rights as it would have if the birth happened in Mexico. Here we see that the "country of conception" does not matter only the "country of birth" relative to many of our rights in the global sense.
As you pointed out this would not mean that Mexicans are not human just because they are not U.S. Americans, as our forefathers once throught about people from Africa and the Indians. However when you cross the boarder into another country you might not have the same legal rights in another country. A unborn basically has no country because that cannot be claimed until it is born. Just paper work, you say.
But all laws are paperwork and that is what we go by when we debate the abortion topic, it is the paperwork you would like to have changed is it not? According to the paperwork you cannot abort human life but you can do so before the birth takes place which means that our authorties do not view the pre-borns as human beings. Anything in the womb is still part of the woman's body just like the hair we grow or the organs we sometimes remove from our body for medical reasons. Now George Bush thinks that a stem cell is a human being, but I can tell you flat out that it cannot cast a vote in the next election. Presently the woman IS the creator of human life and while in that middleman role she has the highest authority over that matter in my opinon. What right do we have to tell our creators what they can or cannot do?
You noted that my biology information was too old, but not as old as the Bible I can assure you.
Next I will speak about how you can become more human as you grow older after being born. (in future posting)
Technosoul |