Monday, April 25, 2011

A few questions for Bart Ehrman

Riffing off of my last post and Bart Ehrman's recent appearance on the Unbelievable? radio show, I'd like to transcribe here something that Ehrman said, at minute 44:12.

This isn't the biggest argument against Jesus having been raised from the dead, but one always has to look at what kind of witnesses you have, and when you look at the Gospels of the New Testament, it's striking just how many differences there are in their accounts of the resurrection.  I have my students do an exercise, my undergrads; I have them simply do a careful study of what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all say about what happened on the morning of the resurrection, the alleged resurrection, and compare their notes, and they're struck at just how different they are. Who actually goes to the tomb that morning? Is it Mary Magdalene by herself or with other women? If with other women, how many other women? What are they named? It depends on which Gospel you read.  Was the stone rolled away before they got there or after they got there? It depends on which Gospel you read. 
So, given that, I have a few questions for Dr Ehrman.

Where in your writings, scholarly or popular, or your lectures, have you interacted with harmonisations of these 4 accounts proposed by others who are a bit better educated in Bible exposition and exegesis than undergraduate students at a secular university, and demonstrated that they are insufficient?

Do you commend the practice of having undergraduate students at a university that is not set up to appeal to the best and brightest of a given course of study perform a "careful study" of a topic as a decisive test for truth?
(After all, one would expect to find a much higher percentage of gifted and focused Bible exposition students in the PhD program at Reformed Theological Seminary or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, not in New Testament 101 at UNC Chapel Hill.)

Since you apparently do, would you accept as a definitive conclusion that "Darwinian evolution as described by modern science did not happen, and the Earth is ~6-8000 years old" if I were to have 19 year old Bible college students perform a "careful study" of it? Would you nod in agreement or shake your head in bemused "What were they thinking?" dissent if I were to take that conclusion to a worldwide podcast, in conversation with a PhD-holding, leading proponent of Darwinian evolution like Richard Dawkins?  Should anyone expect that Dawkins would take such an assertion seriously?

Thursday, April 21, 2011

I harmonised the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection

Some time ago, I shared two harmonisations of the four Gospels' resurrection accounts that I'd found elsewhere, but for one thing I find them a little bit hard to follow, especially the one from Answering Islam.
So as a bit of a personal devotional exercise, I decided to see if I could figure it out more or less on my own, and here's the result. If nothing else, it helps me make sense of the accounts since it's undeniable that these four different accounts with different foci can be sort of confusing.

Before we launch in, it's instructive to recall that "these four resurrection accounts are mutually contradictory" is still a popular objection to biblical Christianity. In last week's edition of the Unbelievable? radio show, Bart Ehrman mentioned that very thing a few times, specifically at minute 34 and again at minute 44. As I was listening to it yesterday, I found myself shaking my head and smiling - once again, Ehrman demonstrates he is very poorly versed in biblical exegesis, or is simply unwilling to put forth the effort or perhaps to allow for harmonisation at all, which is a sign of severe bias. 
For the charge of contradiction to stick, the skeptic would have to demonstrate there is no possible harmonisation of the texts, not merely that it's difficult or that you don't understand it. And as I show here, this charge has no teeth. Glory to Jesus Christ.

1)  Angel, earthquake, stone is rolled away, soldiers faint.
Matthew here provides a bit of background information before continuing with his story of the women, begun in verse 1.
Matthew 28:2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.

2)  Jesus exits tomb while soldiers are flattened.
Not specifically mentioned, but obvious deduction.

3)  Soldiers wake up, find tomb empty, scatter. 
Taken from later references, like:
Matthew 28:11Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 

4)  Still early in the morning, Mary M, other Mary, Joanna, Salome, and probably other women come to the tomb. 
Matthew 28:1Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
Mark 16:1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 
Luke 24:1But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
John 20:1a Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark...

5)  They find the stone rolled away.
Mark 16:4Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.
Luke 24:2And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
John 20:1b ...and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 

6)  Mary M at least runs to tell Peter and John that the stone is rolled away.
John 20:2So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

7)  Peter and John run to the tomb.
John 20:3So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.

8)  John gets there 1st and doesn't go in. Peter gets there 2nd and does go in, sees the cloths lying there.
Notice that they only see the stone rolled away and the gravecloths lying in a heap and do not see an angel or Jesus.
John 20:4The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

9)  John then goes in and believes but neither of them fully understand.
John 20:8So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 

10)  Peter and John return home.
John 20:10So the disciples went away again to their own homes.

11)  Mary M at least is at the tomb weeping, and the other women may or may not be around.
John 20:11But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb

12)  The other women come back at some point it would seem, though, and they all look into the tomb. They see two angels inside and they ask why they're crying and announce the resurrection.
A few notes here:
--Where there's two angels, there's always one. 
--In biblical angelophanies, they virtually always appear as men.
--There is no good reason to think that all of the conversations noted here did not occur.
Matthew 28:5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6“He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7“Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”
Mark 16:5Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7“But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”
Luke 24:3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; 5and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6“He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” 8And they remembered His words.
John 20:12and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”

13)  Mary at least turns around, coming out of the tomb, conceivably drying her eyes, and encounters Jesus, Who talks to her.
A few notes:
--She doesn't understand right away that it's Jesus because she's been weeping hard this whole time and is still composing herself, and also she wasn't turned His direction when He first talked to her.
--There's also no indication of how far He was away, whether He was sort of calling to her from across a few dozen feet or behind a tree or bush or something.
--There's no indication of whether the other women are present. I think maybe they were, but John's account merely focuses on Mary M. Maybe He spoke to the other women too and it simply wasn't recorded.
John 20:14When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 

14)  Looks like many or all of the women run off first of all and are so blown away by the experience that they don't say anything for some time.
Matthew 28:8a And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy...
Mark 16:8They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

15)  They eventually recover and go to tell the disciples that Mary M at least (and maybe the others were there too, standing around or something) actually met and talked to Jesus. 
Matthew 28:8b ...and ran to report it to His disciples.
Luke 24:9and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
John 20:18Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her. 

14b) or 15b) Jesus greets them on the way and they worship Him.
It's unclear whether they were on their way to tell the disciples and then Jesus met them and that really overwhelmed them, or whether they were overwhelmed first and went to tell the disciples and then were met (again) by Jesus, or whether they were already overwhelmed and on their way to recover and Jesus met them then.
Matthew 28:9And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

16)  The disciples don't believe the women's report (presumably, the report of actually seeing and talking to the risen Jesus).
Luke 24:11But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. 

17)  Peter runs to the tomb and goes inside, sees the cloths.
Looks like this is his 2nd time to run to the tomb, probably b/c the 1st time he went, recorded in John, he'd only heard that the stone was rolled away and gone and seen only that and the cloths, but not Jesus Himself. Maybe he wanted to see if Jesus was still hanging around there, and though He wasn't, Peter still took another look into the tomb.
Luke 24:12But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened. 

Thursday, April 07, 2011

At least SOMEone will talk about CAIR

At the end of January, I heard that Senator Tom Coburn was going to meet with some CAIR representatives, which concerned me for reasons that should be obvious.

I wrote him and included a link to my semi-open letter to CAIR, written (fortuitously) not long before.  CAIR never got back to me on that letter, even though I emailed it to them and tweeted them about it at least twice. Not that their silence surprises me - they're liars and propaganda artists.

Anyway, in my email I asked Senator Coburn to reconsider meeting with CAIR.
I got his response today:


April 7, 2011
Dear Rhology,

Thank you for your message regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and thank you for sharing with me your blog article.

I have met with CAIR representatives from Oklahoma in the past; however I fully understand your desire for me to avoid contact with any group linked with terrorism.  Do know, I am certainly aware of their associations and situations.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, an organization affiliated with the terrorist group, Hamas.  In 2007, federal prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice identified CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, as "individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian Committee" and unindicted coconspirators in a terror fundraising case. The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted the case, and the defendants were found guilty of 108 counts.

CAIR has a history of advocating positions that many find troubling. For example, following the 9/11 attacks, while CAIR condemned the attacks, it was unwilling to reject Osama bin Laden. CAIR has also been known to accuse Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians, claim Jews have a destructive influence in the U.S., and praise the "epic heroism of the resistance fighters" of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.

In response to CAIR's involvement with terror fundraisers, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) decided to severe all official ties between CAIR and the FBI. In fact, Senator Kyl, Senator Schumer and I have sent a joint letter to Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, stating we are in full support of this decision. It is not appropriate for U.S. agencies to conduct U.S. policy with any organization associated with terror fundraising, anti-Semitism, or the glorification of terrorists or acts of terror. You can be sure I will continue to hold this position.

Again, thank you for writing. God bless you.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator

My thanks to Senator Coburn (or, more probably, the member of his staff who wrote me) for collecting together that information in one place. My friend natxlaw likes to say that CAIR should be known and identified as a terrorist organisation and those who affiliate with them be treated and considered accordingly.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

No comment necessary

Bruce said...

Let me help you get unstuck. I help my friend Billy Pilgrim get unstuck and look how he turned out.

The 'absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist' is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer. And using a question like 'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.
Why didn't they ask "If you saw a madman about to blow up a bus full of children, and you could stop him by shooting and killing him, would that be OK?"
Or, "Is it OK to steal food to keep your family alive?"
And the step 8 answer is just a lazy example of circular logic.

Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time.

The world is not black and white. Good or Evil. It's mostly grey.
I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time. Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city? Would society today condone such an action? No. but, it's the preferred modus operandi in the OT.

And I'll ask again Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?

The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak. Condemning millions for the innocent act of a two.

BTW, please try to keep your response a little more civil if possible. I tend to quickly dismiss people who resort to insults and name calling as they show they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains.

Rhology said...

Hi Bruce,

is a cheap gimmick to force people into a desired answer

Is that true?



'Is it OK to molest children for fun' is picking an extreme example that no rational person would argue with.

What's wrong with that?
And is it OK to molest children for fun?
I guess I don't understand your reluctance to answer the question. I have zero doubt that you don't molest children, nor would you ever entertain such a notion, so I figure your reluctance stems from the notion that you know you're caught but don't want to admit it. If not, please explain why it's a bad question.


Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time. 

Is the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "Truth is a relative thing and it evolves over time" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?



I would argue that God's own rules have changed over time.

And that is because you are ignorant of the Bible or are unwilling to treat it fairly according to its own terms.



Would Jesus order the slaughter of every man, woman and child in a city?

1) Yes, b/c Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.
2) Wait a sec, though. I thought you just told me that truth evolves over time, and is relative. Please explain how you can say that and then say this. What happened to the relativistic ethic you were espousing?
If you use an argument from modernity, how do you know that modern is better? Is the truth that


Why is it OK for God to kill or order the killing of innocents just because it fits into his plan? Why is he exempt from his own rules?

B/c the rule is "don't kill ppl w/o justification". That's the definition of murder. Anytime God puts someone to death, it's justifiable.


The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak.

Is the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" a relative thing? Relative to what?
Does the truth of the statement "The original sin answer/excuse you provided is pretty weak" evolve over time? From what into what, and how do you know? And however you know, does THAT evolve over time and is it relative? If so, relative to what?


they would rather think with their emotions rather then their brains. 

I'm sorry to say that, coming from someone who refuses to think absolute truth exists, it's hard to take this kind of statement seriously.

Peace,
Rhology

Bruce said...

@Rhology,
Are you just pulling my leg? April Fools joke?

Rhology said...

Bruce,
Nope! Today's the 4th anyway. :-)
I'll look fwd to your reply.


OK, Last post on this for the day. The real world is calling.
@Rhology,
I apologize for being rude but I won't comment on your last posts right now other then to say that your logic and reasoning are extremely poor. I'll point it out later if I have the time and energy. Others may feel free to do so.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Conversation with a member of the Church of Christ, chapter 4

Jeremy replied:
Did you actually just say that I am buying too heavily into Peter's metaphor?  Are you listening to yourself?  This is all YOUR OPINION.  You have yet to PROVE anything.  Do you see a point in us continuing this?


I replied:

If it is all just my opinion, where is your biblical response?  Did the apostles of the Lord or the Lord Himself respond that way, or did they respond with "It is written..."?  



Jeremy, later:
I understand.  It is kind of what I believe, and I didn't take that wrong.  I appreciate you qualifying not to take it wrong.  Thank you.  I don't want you to take anything that I say wrong either.  I think we are coming from two very different beliefs my friend.  I believe that a man has to hear the word as it says in Romans 10:17 before they can believe and John 6:44-45 says this is how God calls us.  I don't believe that God zaps us with it (though I do believe He is all powerful and can do as He wishes).  I don't believe that he teaches us that he will zap us when he chooses.  But I do believe that through His providence that if one is seeking God he will find Him.  I don't know that we are going to come to a resolution on this.  I stand firm in what I believe.  I have reasons and I have eplained them.  I do feel that you are far more versed on mens theologies than I am and I will admit that.  I should have asked what you believe before I asserted it.  Thank you for discussing this with me.  I still hold firm that the Bible speaks of different works and that the works it speaks of in Ephesians 2 is meritorious works, or works of the old law.  I just don't see how we come into contact with the blood of Christ other than water baptism.  When they pierced His side blood and water came out, do you not see a coorelation in that?

And finally:


I must add, you need to read Hebrews chapter 6, it is PLAINLY possible for people to fall away.... The Bible plainly teaches time after time, that there is something required of man.  God has done his part by offering the perfect sacrifice.  You're teaching that we have no free will....
"1Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to (C)maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
 2of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
 3And this we will do, if God permits.
 4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
 7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
 8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

How do you get around that?



Friday, March 25, 2011

False certainty

The tweeter/blogger @KushielsMoon, the "Christian" pro-choicer, and I have been engaging via tweets on the topic of whether very young babies can think or feel. I confess - it's difficult to deal with these kinds of things via Twitter. The 140 character limit is constraining, to be sure.

Anyway, I'd like to flesh out why I've been pursuing this line of argumentation. First, some of the tweets.


 Rhology 

@ 
@ that they can't think or feel. Prove they can't think or feel. Sheesh. Stupid  =
 Christian Prochoicer 

@ 
@ You need a brain and specified cells to think or feel. A blastocyst does not have a brain or the specified cells.
 Rhology 

@ 
@ Prove that u need a brain & specified cells 2 think/feel. U don't know, and u don't care that u don't know. MUST KILL BABIES!
 Christian Prochoicer 

@ 
@ SCIENCE. Individual cells don't think. Cells that aren't differentiated as brain cells don't let you think.
»
 Rhology 

@ 
@ LOL reasoning fail. Science can't tell u whether or not. That's why I asked. So, show me the scientific study proving it. Go.
 Christian Prochoicer 

@ 
@ Science can't tell us that cells don't think? Please, please, please tell me you're joking. 
 Rhology 

@ 
@ Still waiting for the study that PROVES very young babies don't think/feel. Duh, I know u ASSUME it.
 Christian Prochoicer 

@ 
@ I don't assume it. It's a scientific fact that cells don't think.  


Let's take a look at the first of those articles.  Kudos to @KM for coming up with the goods, at least through the first round, but if the first article can't keep up the goods and I conclude after reading the others that they're similar in (lack of) quality and relevance, I'm not going to bother with the others.

As we read through them, let's keep our eyes peeled for unargued-for assumptions.  @KM is telling us that brain functionality = mind.  This is physicalism, and it's hardly commendable for a so-called Christian to hold to such kind of things.
Does this "Christian" pro-choicer think that people have souls? If so, when do they get them and how does she know?  Will she appeal to scientific studies again to prove when people get souls?  What does it look like or smell like when a soul is received?  Does it increase, even a little bit, the mass of the person at that moment of ensoulment?  Does an imaging scan display different colors when the soul is in residence?
What about a mind capable of feeling?  How does @KM know for sure that brainwaves = thinking and feeling?
If she replies: We scan brains of adults and even children while they're thinking and feeling stuff, note how the scans look, and extrapolate backward.
...then how does she know for sure that such data is relevant for the very young?
And how does she know for sure that such is the only means by which thinking/feeling occurs and even can be detected? Does she remember back when she was a blastocyst?  Can she perform a mindmeld with blastocysts to see if there's any mind to access?

Answer: She doesn't know for sure.  She is perfectly willing, however, to kill that which she doesn't know isn't human.  Sadly, she doesn't seem to care.

Before we dive into the 1st article, the third one begins with this amazing sentence, which destroys @KM's argument.  The very first sentence!
--The evaluation of pain in the human fetus and neonate is difficult because pain is generally defined as a subjective phenomenon.
Not sure what else needs to be said here. Moving on.

When I quote excerpts, assume the emphasis is mine unless indicated otherwise.
The first one:
--Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity.
--the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality
How do they know the absence is there?  How can one prove a negative?  If they say that they haven't found any evidence of it, how do we know they're looking in the right place with the right tools and methods?


--It is rather obvious that the neonate is able to scream and cry and can even slightly lift the corners of the mouth as if smiling. However, these do not appear to be true emotions 
You know, I think I'll just apply the same reasoning to 19th-century Negro slaves.  They appear to experience pain when I lash them and hunger, fatigue, and nascent despair when I work them 24 hours without a break, but these do not appear to be true emotions. I know that b/c science says that they're not really human. How do the scientists know?  Just ask them!  Besides, you can ask one of my Negros.  See if you can understand the nonsense bababababaa that comes out of their mouths.  Pfff, Negros human.  Please.

--In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction 
The irony is delicious.  Why didn't they come to the conclusion that there might be more going on there than meets the eye or the imaging tool, that resides in the cells of the brain?  Because of their physicalist presuppositions, that's why.

--Given its exceedingly long and ancient evolutionary history, not surprisingly, many brainstem functions are present before birth and occur without the aid of thinking, reasoning, or even forebrain/neocortical participation 
See?  It's not argued for. It's just assumed, and you better believe them because they're scientists.

Now, let me explain the other side of this.  I'm not saying that I'm 100% confident that very young babies in the blastocyst phase can indeed think/feel.  In fact, I think it's sort of doubtful.  But I don't base my argument on "scientific evidence" fundamentally, even though I am convinced that properly understood scientific reasoning is on my side.
But @KM is basing her position strongly on the assumption that the very young baby is not human, and one reason for that is that she thinks the baby can't think/feel.  She doesn't know that, and so she assumes what she needs to prove.  Thus most of her argument rests on something she simply assumes.
If you don't know for sure whether something deserves to live or die, whether you have the right to take that life, if you don't know whether you're aiming at a person or a tree or something, do you pull the trigger?  Not me - I stop to wait and see what it is I'm aiming at. @KM fills it full of lead.

The problem is presuppositions, not facts.

Abolish human abortion.  This "Christian" pro-choicer is a lead member of the culture of death.