Life At The Moment of Conception

We can agree that taking a life is wrong, but the disagreement comes in when to define LIFE.

Some people out there will argue that life begins at the moment the sperm meets the egg. But I say, "no, life begins BEFORE that."

To understand what I mean, you'd need to understand what the phrase, "Life at the moment of conception" means. What does it mean "to conceive."

One commonly used, but WRONG definition of "to conceive" is "to become pregnant."

The bible stated that

Jeremiah 1:4-5 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart

Since for someone to KNOW you, you must exist. This suggests that life comes BEFORE the womb.

So this brings us to another definition of "to conceive," which mean "to think."

A LIFE HAS BEGUN AT THE MOMENT I THOUGHT OF HAVING A BABY WITH SHAKIRA. If she refused to proceed, than she has effectively ended a life.

I'm not talking about fantasies based on lust. But if a man conceive of having a baby with a certain woman, it would be murder for her to refuse.

Either Way You Look At It, The Surge Is a Success

Either way you look at it, the recent surge in Iraq is a great success.

If we see a decrease in overall attacks, then we know that our troops are doing their jobs to suppress the insurgency. The greater concentration of American troops limit the places where the terrorists can hide and operate, hence they're not able to carry out as many successful attacks.

If we see an increase in overall attacks, it is expected. The purpose of the surge is to start decisive military actions against the terrorists. The increase in the number of troops will allow the US to locate and engage the enemy. We're taking the fight to them. They'll fight back, but we'll win.

If we see a decrease in attacks on civilians and an increase in the attacks on the troops then it shows that our troops are effective in limiting the terrorists access to civilians. They're engaging the terrorist in battle before the terrorists can get to the civilian population.

If we see an increase in attacks on civilians and a decrease in the attacks on the troops it'll prove that the terrorists are fearful of our recent increase in troop levels. They'll resort to cowardly attacks on the defenseless because their relative strength compared to the US has just decreased.

If the level of attacks remain the same we'll know that the terrorists are not making any advances. Without the increase number of troops the terrorists might have carried out horrendous attacks that could kill tens of thousands, but this increase limited them to their measly pre-surge level of only about 85 per month. Not saying that 85 deaths isn't a sad thing, but when compared to tens of thousands, it's a miracle.

How can people still view the surge to be a bad thing when any way you look at it, it's a success.