Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112
An example of even the best of us make mistakes.
I'm familiar with Dr. Ruckman's position on this from years ago. My question is which "breath" does the child take, through it's own lungs or its MOTHER'S?
I seem to remember somewhere a prophet was known by God before God formed him "...in the womb." Seems God would not know a disassociated blob of protein, but a PERSON.
My experience in biology did not stop with mortuary science. From the instant a male and female zygote are joined, the result is a living human being.
Doc Pete, we love ya, you blew it on this one.
Grace and peace
Tony
|
Well said Bro. Tony, I've got your back on this one.
By the way, if the administrator of this forum did not agree with you I would no longer stay here. (Yes, I feel that strongly about it).
You all know how I love Bro. Ruckman, but all you "breathers" will have to lick your wounds---THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNBORN HUMAN AND THE ONE WRITING THIS IN ALL CAPS. I feel the "breath of life thing" is a flawed application of Genesis 2:7. Adam was a special case (first man). These days human babies get their breath (oxygen) from their mother's umbilical cords, a distinctive physical feature Adam DID NOT HAVE. Regardless of how much the Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger eugenics crowd hates it, the unborn are fully alive in the womb in every way---same as you and me, not partially alive or sort of alive, etc. (Luke 1:15, Isaiah 49:1, Judges 13:7, Jeremiah 20:17).
Plenty of locked and burned threads here about that whole issue, let's not pour gas on the embers.
Okay, rant over... quietly sinking back into the leather sofa.
P.S. -- I mean no offense to the "breathers." you are my brothers in Christ. That makes you my "brother breathers."
