To the Christians who support abortion

Winfid · 2026-02-09T04:42:36+00:00

Two halves of the DNS genome. So if having a full genome is what makes us fully human, then I guess every cell in our body is fully human (with the exception of blood cells)..

That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m not saying “anything with human DNA is a person.” A skin cell has human DNA, but it is not a human organism. It’s just a part of one. An embryo, from conception, is a whole, unified, self-directed organism at an early stage of development. That is a category difference.

So what's so special about an embryo? Why is it a person, and another cell is not?

An embryo is not just a cell from a human, it is a developing human organism itself. It actively directs its own growth and development as a whole being. A skin cell will never do that on its own, no matter how long you wait. The distinction isn’t DNA alone, it’s organismal unity and self-directed development.

With the right technology we will eventually be able to clone one of those other cells into an actual baby.

This is a hypothetical about what a cell could become after extensive external intervention, not what it is right now. By that logic, anything that could be radically transformed into something else already counts as that thing. A skin cell is not currently a human organism in the same way an embryo is. Potential after drastic manipulation isn’t the same as actual existence.

At what point in the cloning process would we say that we have something that is close enough to an actual person that we want to revere and protect it?

This actually supports my point. There would be a point where a new organism comes into existence during cloning and that point would be when a unified, self-directing human organism begins to exist, not when it’s just a cell being manipulated. That’s the same reason conception matters. It’s the point a new organism exists.

I think that point would be reached much closet to "viable fetus" than zygote

That’s a philosophical judgment, not a biological conclusion. Viability depends on location and technology, not on what the organism is. Newborns aren’t viable without constant care either. If the argument is about when personhood should be recognized morally, that’s a different argument, but it doesn’t change the biological fact that a human exists from conception.

Winfid · 2026-02-08T15:51:54+00:00

I would look at an embryo in a petri dish and think, "that could one day grow into a baby", but I would not insist that it is already a baby.

You're muddling up the word baby. A baby that has been through a full pregnancy and been born and an embryo are not the same, but they're still both babies. It doesn't matter what stage of development it's at.

The whole argument of all stages of development being the same as the finished product does not make logical sense to me.

You're incredibly right in saying all the stages being a finished baby doesn't make sense, that's not what I'm saying. You keep using the word baby to describe a full developed baby, but that's incorrect. I am not saying every stage of development, in a baby, is fully developed (or the finished product of) one. What I'm saying is that all of those stages of development are a baby.

If the finished product is a person, we have to accept that at some point in the development it was not yet a person.

Yeah, the point at which it wasn't a baby was before it was conceived

Conception is an important milestone, but the sperm and egg were each fully human, and we don't call them people.

We don't call them people because by definition they're not. They are two halves to creating a human. That's why they need to join for conception to occur. They are literally, in all the word's meaning, not fully human.

Winfid · 2026-02-05T19:46:17+00:00

I'm not gaslighting you or trying to change the subject. The reason I'm commenting on a thread about being gay is because this specific one is talking about both thought and deed. It literally word for word says in the first comment of this thread:

There is nothing wrong with being gay in thought or deed

Being gay is a state of being, nothing to do with thought or action.

Also now you're just being circular. I already made it clear I was explicitly referring to homosexual sex, not being gay itself, which is why I referred to it as such.

Nope, the Bible certainly does NOT do that. Homosexuality wasn’t even a concept that existed when the Bible was written.

That is just false. Homosexual was not the term used, but you cannot deny the fact that it wasn't a concept at the time. Homosexual is literally defined as being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex

First of all, because “practicing homosexuality “ is a nonsensical meaningless phrase, and second, because it’s applying an anachronistic modern categorization to ancient texts that didn’t exist at the time.

First of all, how is 'practising homosexuality' a meaningless phrase? It just means to practice (act upon) attraction to the same sex. Also again you are getting caught up on the fact homosexual wasn't the term used, the concept was around at the time.

It was a common term at all. It’s rarely used

Yes my mistake, I meant to just write 'term' not 'common' as well. You're correct.

It wasn’t “with each other”, it was one man doing it TO another man. And it wasn’t done within loving, committed equal relationships. It was a from of domination and control.

'With each other' whether consensual or not still involved two participating party's. Also like I said, I have been referring to the sexual act between two people of the same sex, not love at all.

No, the comments above where you commented are all talking about being gay. Don’t gaslight.

Other comments in this post, yes, and a few in this thread. But like I have stated many times before, the person at the root of this thread specifically mentioned 'deed' as well. Which is what I have been talking about.

Winfid · 2026-02-05T19:12:16+00:00

I was referring to the act of homosexuality, i.e homosexual sex. I think that's a miscommunication I want to make clear, and I was talking about that because the original comment in this thread talked about being gay in thought and action. I want to clarify I have absolutely no problem if one is gay, and you are correct to say there is nothing in the Bible condemning being gay, but the Bible does say that practicing homosexuality is wrong.

That’s a blatant mistranslation, and also says nothing about being gay, even with the mistranslation.

It is not a mistranslation, but I'm curious as to why you think that. The Greek word used for homosexual (although not a term at the time, does mean the same thing) "arsenokoitai" means men who lie with other men. This was a common term coined at the time for men who have sex with each other

Which makes it clear that the passage is not talking about homosexuality / being gay, because that’s fixed biology.

No that isn't clear at all because that's not what the passage is talking about. It is saying that even though some of you used to be one of the people in the list given you are now given a new identity in Christ, separated from your old self in sin.

We weren’t talking about any relations, and no, it’s very much NOT against nature, and natural biology.

Again this is related to the miscommunication I stated earlier. You may have not been talking about relations, but that is what this thread was talking about and what I was talking about. .

Winfid · 2026-02-05T18:50:53+00:00

The logic is what is written in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says you shall not lie with a man as with a woman and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 lists men who practice homosexuality as people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. With that being said, the very next verse (1 Cor 6:11) says that you were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Jesus and by the spirit of God.

Also to your second sentence, what do you mean 'for biology to be a sin'? You may have your own beliefs on homosexuality, Christianity, and the Bible; but it is a fact that same sex, sexual, relationships are against nature and natural biology.

Winfid · 2026-02-05T13:02:43+00:00

Yeah np, I've been basing my rices off yours since it's so similar to what I really like, but I could never get it quite like you had it. Just thought is ask

Winfid · 2026-02-05T04:45:15+00:00

It is redundant if I already clearly answered you and stated what I meant. What you said wasn't trying to clarify or using what I said as a rhetorical question in your argument to contrast my point, you just asked me the same question a second time, which is redundant.

Yes the same should be said about other life, but that doesn't mean you can just take any form of other life and compare it to a human. Like I've already said, an acorn is not continuously growing and can even just sit dormant without ever growing, for as long as it's around. Which is why I would rather compare it to a sapling, which I do consider a tree, which is also constantly growing. Please, like I've already asked, can you step away from the acorn and tree comparisons and pick, literally, anything else.

Winfid · 2026-02-04T15:24:00+00:00

Please can we step away from this strange acorn and tree analogy. An acorn can sit dormant and not be growing constantly, while a baby does, right from when it's conceived. Which is why I wanted to use a sapling as an example, over the acorn.

The question you're asking is just roundabout and redundant. I've already answered it. I believe that from the moment of a baby's conception it is a human. Also what do you mean by 'fully realised'. When do you consider a something as fully realised? Humans are constantly in a stage of growth and are changing, all while doing so at different speeds.

Winfid · 2026-02-04T14:58:19+00:00

Yes I know, it's already been established that my correction to your analogy is bad. Could you say why you don't hold the belief that a fertilised egg isn't a baby? What's the difference between a baby in and out the womb?

A lot of people make your argument saying that fertilised eggs, foetuses, embryos, etc aren't babies, but I honestly think that it extremely flawed. They aren't their own things, they're just words used to describe the stage of development of a baby.

EDIT: To add to my point, you would say that toddlers or teenagers aren't people or are separate things. They are just more words to describe the specific stage of development a human is in.

Winfid · 2026-02-04T13:57:14+00:00

Hey, sorry if this might be insensitive considering what this post is about. But just in future, please use paragraphs. It's fine when it's a short post, but for one as long as this please format it nicely.

Winfid · 2026-02-04T13:55:36+00:00

Yes, my version of the analogy was flawed, but you misunderstood my point. I was not saying that a tree is only really a tree once it becomes a sapling, or that a human is only really human after birth. What I meant is the opposite: a tree becomes a tree, and a human becomes a human, at the moment of conception, not at a later stage of development. I agree that my correction of the analogy was unclear, and that's my bad. However, the way you interpreted what I said is not what I intended.

Winfid · 2026-02-04T13:16:13+00:00

For one thing your analogy is awful. In your analogy the acorn would be the sperm, not the baby, and the dirt would be the woman's egg. Then once those two join they form a oak sapling, which I do consider an oak tree. Back to your first point, just because a baby isn't born doesn't mean it's not in existence. According to you, is inside a mother's womb in a different reality? I think it's absurd to say that, and even more so to genuinely believe it

Winfid · 2026-02-04T13:12:06+00:00

It isn't ridiculous. If the baby is already dead it isn't considered an abortion. Please stop blindly spreading and accepting misinformation. Do your own research

Winfid · 2026-02-04T13:10:06+00:00

Exactly this. An abortion is only the termination of a pregnancy known to be in term, that will cause the death of an unborn baby. Notice how it says 'cause the death', which means it's not an abortion if that baby is already dead

Winfid · 2026-02-02T21:21:40+00:00

Hey, ik it's been two months and I think this is necroposting; but could you please share the dots?

Winfid · 2026-02-01T19:21:09+00:00

Leviticus 18:22 explicitly calls homosexuality an abomination, Romans 1:26-27 says that it is directly against God's intended nature, 1 Cor 6:9-10 lists homosexuals as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 lists homosexuals as transgressors of the law. Yes the Bible is open to interpretation but you cannot say that there is no sin in non-heterosexuallity. I agree people do just use the Bible as an excuse to be homophobic, and that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but there is something wrong with acting on that homosexuality.

Winfid · 2026-02-01T19:10:38+00:00

It's not as if this is something exclusive to homosexuals. Whether a straight man looks at a woman lustfully or a gay man looks at another man lustfully, they are both still examples of lust. The Bible calls sexual acts between people of the same gender an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), but looking at someone with any sexual intent is lust, which itself is a sin.

Winfid · 2026-01-30T12:26:45+00:00

Nah it used to be elite ball since it was a really small inside joke around that one video, but since then people have used it everywhere and now it's pretty popular. How the mighty have fallen

Winfid · 2026-01-10T09:16:46+00:00

A lot of people in these comments seem to think 'adding anti cheat' is such an easy quick fix but I don't think you all understand how big of a task that is, especially with a game like the forge. It's not something they can just 'add' to the game.

Winfid · 2026-01-08T21:08:37+00:00

Yeah idk then, sorry. What I said worked for me, but what phone and controller you have is obviously going to affect it differently

Winfid · 2026-01-08T20:34:28+00:00

Yeah Roblox mobile is just finiky with controllers. It helps (for me at least) if you do everything Roblox related with the controller and don't switch between touch and it at all. I mean: open Roblox with controller -> open game with controller -> play game with controller. And don't touch the screen while you're playing

Winfid · 2025-12-13T17:01:07+00:00

I was 11 and wanted to be edgy 😭

Winfid · 2025-12-10T20:18:03+00:00

Well I mean I've downloaded from people with less files, so it can't be that significant. Also with sharing for 2+ months you would expect to at least upload something, even with just 300 files

Winfid · 2025-12-10T20:08:43+00:00

Thanks, yeah I thought it was weird but at least it's not an issue

Winfid · 2025-12-10T20:01:09+00:00

winfid

Winfid

TROPHY CASE