You mean you sought out information in order to make an informed decision as to your beliefs?

They are soooo gonna kick you out of the Wingnut club.

Thank you for the complement. Naturally, the ideas I used were not original. Two sources have guided me in this: 1) The Edge of Evolution, by Michael Behe; and, 2) Programming the Universe, by Seth Lloyd.
I recommend both very highly.

We seem to have been brought up in the same faith, but from the age of fifteen, my course veered off in many directions. Only after age 45 did I return to the fold. To my knowledge the bible is silent on the matter of concern here. My belief was sparked by the unfolding of the various cell phenomena connected with conception and growth. The creation of a human being is one continuous explosion of cells, guided by information contained in genes of many types. If it is so continuous and explosive, and if it is guided by the information content within cells, then incremental division between non-life and life, or non-human and human is simply not possible. It must be registered as starting with conception. Life begins at conception, in this view. If this isn’t so, then where is the real dividing line? Where is that point where life does not exist. Does someone have a meter that registers the lack of turn on of life in a fetus? Then too, why is it an issue? Why is it necessary to call one stage non-human-life and the very next stage human life? How does one find the precise point here in a maze of developing cells in the womb? Is it only because there are vested interests in having the option to abort? If so, that is not a particularly good reason–it is a horrible reason, in fact.

Of course I must grant that others believe differently. It is very difficult to understand why others believe that way, however, since we are talking about lives to be lived–or not. I vote for life, and in a real sense, I grieve for the some 14 million aborted lives in the last ten years. It must be so that others do not grieve, do not hurt. They may be the lucky ones:
it is not for me to judge them, either.

No blog spam, here. I just didn’t feel like writing everything all over again (if you notice, I haven’t had time to post there in a while).
As for your comments, you are incorrect. They are not interested in destroying families; they care only for what they want and are unwilling to take into consideration the detrimental effects that what they want has on our society, in particular on the children. And, besides, they don’t just want the same thing; they want special rights, and laws to state that nobody can even question them on it. Free speech only counts when you don’t speak against homosexuality. It’s okay to speak out against Christianity, or anything else, but it should be illegal to say anything against homosexuality according to them.

You are quite right. There are those who think abortion is simply a medical procedure with no negative aspects. However, I would venture that they are either not Christians, or they are Christians with weak principles–letting their desire not to be obligated to raise a child take precedence over their faith. In which case they make the very excuse you put forth: oh, it’s only protoplasm, not a person at all. This is exactly where my view differs. Abortion kills the objects, embedded procedures and mechanisms of life for a person.