Pastor Is Asked “Is Abortion Murder?”, His Response Gave Me Chills [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

08-17-2015, 07:29 AM

"Its sad that we live in a time when life is not valued"
Discuss and evaluate the difference when this phrase is applied to a foetus, and an immigrant.

immigrants lives (all human Life) is just as valuable. until they commit a murder or assault themselves.

no christian or conservative should be advocating the murder of anyone for their convenience.
or if a country doesn't want them or because they are a surprise and unwanted burden.
no atheist or liberal should be advocating the murder of anyone for their convenience.
or if a mother doesn't want them or because they are a surprise and unwanted burden.

do you think if it's made LEGAL to kill immigrants that we should lure immigrants in to kill as many as possible for cash and "donate" their body parts "for cost" to possibly buy a Lamborgini?

lets discuss that?

Noir

08-17-2015, 07:51 AM

immigrants lives (all human Life) is just as valuable. until they commit a murder or assault themselves.

no christian or conservative should be advocating the murder of anyone for their convenience.
or if a country doesn't want them or because they are a surprise and unwanted burden.
no atheist or liberal should be advocating the murder of anyone for their convenience.
or if a mother doesn't want them or because they are a surprise and unwanted burden.

and if someone discovers they are pregnant and has not means to support a child, they should be forced to birth them anyways?

do you think if it's made LEGAL to kill immigrants that we should lure immigrants in to kill as many as possible for cash and "donate" their body parts "for cost" to possibly buy a Lamborgini?

lets discuss that?

No, of course not.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 07:55 AM

and if someone discovers they are pregnant and has not means to support a child, they should be forced to birth them anyways?

Ever heard of ADOPTION, Noir ??

Or do you have a preference for abortion over adoption ? If you do, can you tell us why ?

Noir

08-17-2015, 08:02 AM

Ever heard of ADOPTION, Noir ??

Or do you have a preference for abortion over adoption ? If you do, can you tell us why ?

How many children are currently in care in the UK looking for adoption but haven't been adopted? Thousands.

I would imagine there is a similar problem in the USA...also, atleast here we have the NHS for support through pregnancy for atlas the physical aspects of pregnancy, as for the mental problems caused...

Gunny

08-17-2015, 08:10 AM

Except when it's not.

Except when killing a baby is always murder. Got one in my arms right now. Come try and fuck with her. I'm only half crippled. You don't want to meet the other half if you think killing babies is cool.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 08:17 AM

BTW ... that means I'm holding a baby, typing with one hand, and you STILL ain't got a chance to do anything but bleed.

Noir

08-17-2015, 08:20 AM

Except when killing a baby is always murder.

An embryo is not a baby.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 08:40 AM

An embryo is not a baby.

The Hell it ain't. How can you sell their parts if they aren't human? Y'all are a bunch of liars. And this ain't a subject you want to play with me on. I'd make 10 of you lying ass losers disappear to save one baby.

And you're stupid if you think they aren't children. Wonder how many murders have been committed while they keep people like you around.

Noir

08-17-2015, 08:45 AM

The Hell it ain't. How can you sell their parts if they aren't human?

I didn't say they were not human;
They are a human embryo, they are not a human baby.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 08:50 AM

I didn't say they were not human;
They are a human embryo, they are not a human baby.

That's a stupid comment. I got 5 brothers. One's alive. Maybe y'all goofs need to learn to respect a life.

Noir

08-17-2015, 08:51 AM

That's a stupid comment.

Its a factual comment.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 08:58 AM

Its a factual comment.

No, it's not. That's a human baby you think you can toss in the trash or sell like used car parts. THAT is a factual statement.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 09:09 AM

Its a factual comment.

You differentiate between an embryo and a baby, then.

OK, Noir ... I'd like, with PROOF provided, that an embryo 'becomes' a baby at a precise point in time, and isn't one until that time. When does that time arrive, exactly ? On what basis do you determine that ?

Noir

08-17-2015, 09:17 AM

You differentiate between an embryo and a baby, then.

OK, Noir ... I'd like, with PROOF provided, that an embryo 'becomes' a baby at a precise point in time, and isn't one until that time. When does that time arrive, exactly ? On what basis do you determine that ?

The process is one of continuous change, and so such a point is undefined, but to infer from that that there is no difference is a failure of reasoning.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 09:19 AM

revelarts

08-17-2015, 09:21 AM

and if someone discovers they are pregnant and has not means to support a child, they should be forced to birth them anyways?

"forced"?
Forced to let someone live? Forced to allow someone to continue to grow?
Forced NOT to Kill another human being. yes.
the child is alive at that point. So unless the woman's life in dire physical danger then she can't kill other people. sorry. It's called murder.
There are parents that lose their jobs, homes and health every week and still are "forced" to support their children. Should they have a right to kill the 1 to 14 year olds and not be force to carry them when they have no means any longer?

Should a nation be FORCED to support the illegal immigrants when it's bankrupt, in the hole by trillions of dollars? If there's no means for the gov't to support an immigrant should gov't should have "the right" to kill them?

as you said, of course not.

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth% 3Fid%3DJN.C6JoTr4Lbigbg42%252b9bkGLA%26pid%3D15.1% 26f%3D1&sp=84de69c44775fd771c813c877d05ac77

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.favim.com%2Forig%2F28%2Fabortio n-sad-Favim.com-235216.gif&f=1

Noir

08-17-2015, 09:28 AM

In my world, they're babies from conception.

Incredible, is that a spiritual belief (i.e. they have 'souls') or a biological one?

fj1200

08-17-2015, 09:30 AM

The process is one of continuous change, and so such a point is undefined, but to infer from that that there is no difference is a failure of reasoning.

If there is no defined point then how can you differentiate?

Noir

08-17-2015, 09:36 AM

If there is no defined point then how can you differentiate?

Consider the (crude but serviceable) analogy of turning a cake mix into a cake.

A bowl of cake mix is not a cake.
but put that cake mix into the oven and it will become a cake.
At what point is it cake and not cake mix?
A simple question without a simple answer.
And yet who would say if there is no defined point then how can you differentiate a cake from cake mix?

fj1200

08-17-2015, 09:41 AM

Consider the (crude but serviceable) analogy of turning a cake mix into a cake.

Cake mix will not become a cake without outside intervention. Outside intervention is not required in the case of human reproduction.

revelarts

08-17-2015, 09:42 AM

The process is one of continuous change, and so such a point is undefined, but to infer from that that there is no difference is a failure of reasoning.

From conception it's a human being.
the DNA has created a unique human person. This has been known scientifically for decades and is clear in the medical text. From conception on the young boy or girl is only growing.

a 3 month old is far different from a 5 year old, 30 year old and 90 year old.
To arbitrarily lay down a line were killing is acceptable is a failure of reason.

when planned parenthood is digging though body parts to sell they say, "here's a spinal cord", "here's a brain", "here's a liver". Human body parts. The buyers and sellers would be happy to get dead 2 month olds as well as as 20- 28 weeks, it's no question about "continuous change". it's a human liver .
the sales and use shows the horror and hypocrisy.

the same style of lame "difference" arguments were used to prop up slavery and many other instances of mass murders and genocides.
"they are not like us".

Noir

08-17-2015, 09:46 AM

Cake mix will not become a cake without outside intervention. Outside intervention is not required in the case of human reproduction.

So is your problem with
-the point at which a differentiation can be made
-outside intervention
-or both?

revelarts

08-17-2015, 09:52 AM

Consider the (crude but serviceable) analogy of turning a cake mix into a cake.

A bowl of cake mix is not a cake.
but put that cake mix into the oven and it will become a cake.
At what point is it cake and not cake mix?
A simple question without a simple answer.
And yet who would say if there is no defined point then how can you differentiate a cake from cake mix?

a new born won't survive without care either. should it be thrown in the trash at will?
and as the pastor outlined most abortions take place at a time now where the child could live outside of the womb with medical help.

And frankly Noir I find it strange that you as a vegetarian for moral reasons, --i believe you said because you were effected by the sight or knowledge of the the slaughter and pain of the animals-- that you can't see the moral issue here with humans.

Have you watched an abortion with ultrasound, or seen the dr's pulling the "fetus" apart pulling out pieces one by one and checking to see if they have all the body parts? Do you know when an unviable, unsupportable "fetus" can feel pain? Have you seen the latest videos of abortion workers picking though large piles of "fetus" body parts and discussing the values of nerve tissue, organs and brains or "intact" babies? it's far more horrific than any slaughter house images i've ever seen or heard of..

fj1200

08-17-2015, 09:55 AM

So is your problem with
-the point at which a differentiation can be made
-outside intervention
-or both?

A "point of differentiation" is created for political expediency and SCOTUS decisions. Allowing outside intervention permits the deprivation of life. So to answer your question I would say the latter because that allows the former to become relevant.

At what point do you think we should allow the deprivation of life? And if you can define a point then why that point?

Noir

08-17-2015, 10:13 AM

a new born won't survive without care either. should it be thrown in the trash at will?
and as the pastor outlined most abortions take place at a time now where the child could live outside of the womb with medical help.

It would be interesting to see the numbers on what 'week' these 'most abortions' are taking place, as he clearly has access to these numbers.

And frankly Noir I find it strange that you as a vegetarian for moral reasons, --i believe you said because you were effected by the sight or knowledge of the the slaughter and pain of the animals-- that you can't see the moral issue here with humans.

Have you watch and abortion with ultrasound, or seen the dr's pulling the "fetus" apart pulling out pieces one by one and checking to see if they have all the body parts? Do you know when an unviable, unsupportable "fetus" can feel pain? Have you seen the latest videos of abortion workers picking though large piles of "fetus" body parts and discussing the values of nerve tissue, organs and brains or "intact" babies? it's far more horrific than any slaughter house images i've ever seen or heard of..

I'm a vegan, not a vegetarian.
Abortion as with most things needs to be considered and monitored critically, on a forum such as this however the discussion never really extends beyond 'its a baby at birth, zero choice tolerance' etc.

Noir

08-17-2015, 10:15 AM

A "point of differentiation" is created for political expediency and SCOTUS decisions. Allowing outside intervention permits the deprivation of life. So to answer your question I would say the latter because that allows the former to become relevant.

At what point do you think we should allow the deprivation of life? And if you can define a point then why that point?

That is a question that I can only defer to medical scientists.

Gunny

08-17-2015, 10:37 AM

That is a question that I can only defer to medical scientists.

Bullshit answer. Want to try again? Use your brain this time.

You can't deny the obvious.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 10:47 AM

The process is one of continuous change, and so such a point is undefined, but to infer from that that there is no difference is a failure of reasoning.

You ducked that one, Noir. I don't exactly blame you. Thing is .. that if YOU were right, then there'd have to come a point at which a foetus ceased to be 'just' that, and became definable as a baby. But, you CANNOT DESCRIBE THAT POINT, much less offer proof of what you've FAILED to define !

Try this one, then. Let me help you out.

A foetus IS A STAGE OF A BABY'S DEVELOPMENT.

... there y'go, Noir. You see, it's remarkably simple. Now, prove THAT wrong. You'll fail.

In failing, give thought to what that truly says about abortion. And whether you really want to give support for baby killing the time of day.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 10:53 AM

So is your problem with
-the point at which a differentiation can be made
-outside intervention
-or both?

... just wanted to say that I enjoyed your dialogue with FJ. Seeing FJ being out-'FJ'd' is a treat.

This practice of deconstruction of an argument, or 'nitpicking', without revealing one's own personal thinking in the process. Is there some standard Leftie manual available on doing all that ?

Can either of you recommend a good Leftie publication on the methodology involved ?

revelarts

08-17-2015, 11:14 AM

It would be interesting to see the numbers on what 'week' these 'most abortions' are taking place, as he clearly has access to these numbers.
the same Access as you or i suppose, I'll check the the pastors numbers as you can, he may be off.

I'm a vegan, not a vegetarian.
my mistake. the moral question still stands.

Abortion as with most things needs to be considered and monitored critically, on a forum such as this however the discussion never really extends beyond 'its a baby at birth, zero choice tolerance' etc.
If the facts and points presented with those statements stand unaddressed or skipped then why move beyond it? There has to be some relevant and valid counter argument to move beyond it.

'its a baby at birth." at conception even. yes it is, a baby human being.
The medical text make it clear. DNA makes it clear. The body parts make it clear. A woman who "wants" the child makes it clear by the way she speaks of the baby in her womb.
Is this false?
If it is false then i suppose we can start a conversation that "extends beyond" it.

But if it is a baby human being then when is it right to kill another human being?
Before or after birth is arbitrary. Even many pro-choice advocates understand this ethically and have written exactly that. So some would like to LEAP FROG the plain and clear ethical barrier here and take the discussion down a "pragmatic" or "economic" roads. But why should we leap the ethical concern? If the ethics of killing human life are real the justifications for killing must remain HIGH.

Do convenience, emotional distress and economics really justify murder?

If you want the discussion to go beyond the initial RAW scientistic and fundamental ethical concerns you have to give reasons, POWERFUL reasons, why they must be TRUMPED to begin discussing the smaller and 2ndary questions.

the question "SHOULD abortions take place at all?"
should lead before we get to questions of tolerance and choice of WHEN and HOW abortions will take place, don't you think?

fj1200

08-17-2015, 12:47 PM

That is a question that I can only defer to medical scientists.

You didn't see the need to defer to bakers when discussing cakes so it seems a bit strange to now defer to scientists and I'm pretty sure we don't need scientists to clarify stages at this point. But you are of the mind that society can decide that life can be deprived?

... without revealing one's own personal thinking in the process.

Do you prefer to live with your head in the sand? Is that better than choosing to think?

Noir

08-17-2015, 01:15 PM

You didn't see the need to defer to bakers when discussing cakes so it seems a bit strange to now defer to scientists and I'm pretty sure we don't need scientists to clarify stages at this point. But you are of the mind that society can decide that life can be deprived?

Well clearly a society can decide that life can be deprived, the question really is ought a society to do so. (while i'm sure that's what you meant anyways its better to have that clarified)

The question itself hinges on the context of the word life. Which i take to be a bluntly used as an expression for the conscious mind. This frames the question very differently.

However, setting that aside for simplification purposes, consider the following;
-Is it a moral act to carry out an abortion a day before birth is due, probably not.
-Is it an immoral act to carry out an abortion the day after conception, probably not.
If someone answers 'Yes' to either of the above, they are probably mad, religious, or both.

I claim by no means to be well versed in this discussion, but setting the frameworks does not require me to be so. So the kind of answer you were looking for with your question is not to be found form me.

fj1200

08-17-2015, 01:30 PM

Well clearly a society can decide that life can be deprived, the question really is ought a society to do so. (while i'm sure that's what you meant anyways its better to have that clarified)

The question itself hinges on the context of the word life. Which i take to be a bluntly used as an expression for the conscious mind. This frames the question very differently.

However, setting that aside for simplification purposes, consider the following;
-Is it a moral act to carry out an abortion a day before birth is due, probably not.
-Is it an immoral act to carry out an abortion the day after conception, probably not.
If someone answers 'Yes' to either of the above, they are probably mad, religious, or both.

I claim by no means to be well versed in this discussion, but setting the frameworks does not require me to be so. So the kind of answer you were looking for with your question is not to be found form me.

Yes, ought society do so? But I have to disagree, I don't think the question does hinge on the life. I think it hinges on convenience and privacy. Ought society force inconvenience on its citizens? I don't think society wants inconvenience. We've spent decades removing consequences from the people either by granting benefits like Social Security and Medicare or removing burdens like an "unwanted" child. Even the SCOTUS decision was rooted in a right to privacy but IMO it ultimately is based on the fetus as property and not on the fetus of someone deserving of life. Sadly.

Also, your characterizations of moral/immoral are suspect. Even the non-religious should have a problem with carrying out an abortion a day before the child's due date. One doesn't have to be religious to believe in the natural right of life.

Noir

08-17-2015, 01:40 PM

Also, your characterizations of moral/immoral are suspect. Even the non-religious should have a problem with carrying out an abortion a day before the child's due date. One doesn't have to be religious to believe in the natural right of life.

I think you've misread the two scenarios.
They are one of each extreme, where one is deemed moral, and one not.
This creates the frame for the discussion.

Jeff

08-17-2015, 01:48 PM

An embryo is not a baby.

Did you even watch the video Noir ? if the embryo has all its major organs working and can feel pain how in the hell isn't it a baby ?

Jeff

08-17-2015, 02:07 PM

It would be interesting to see the numbers on what 'week' these 'most abortions' are taking place, as he clearly has access to these numbers.

I'm a vegan, not a vegetarian.
Abortion as with most things needs to be considered and monitored critically, on a forum such as this however the discussion never really extends beyond 'its a baby at birth, zero choice tolerance' etc.

Noir I look up Vegan and it says:

The term vegan was coined in 1944 by Donald Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Watson) when he co-founded the Vegan Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_Society) in England, at first to mean "non-dairy vegetarian" and later "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals."[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#cite_note-14) Interest in veganism increased in the 2010s. Vegan options became increasingly available in many countries, including in supermarkets and chain restaurants

Now that sounds to me like you value a animals life, but yet it's OK to kill a baby ? Doesn't make sense at all to me, but then again most anything you liberal do don't make any sense to many, I mean to be a liberal you just have to disagree with anything that is right, sick bunch of punks. I have to be honest with you Noir, although I think you are a bright young man I would love to meet you in person, any man that says it's OK to kill babies but wont eat meat because he should live without exploiting animals, well if we met lets just say it wouldn't be a happy reunion. Hell they are selling dead babies parts, tell me about exploiting. So much smarts , but you use them to try and out smart everyone else and really you are just out smarting yourself.

I felt terrible when Abbey posted about people making fun when talking of Vegan and/or vegetarians, but you are a fake a fraud, it's wrong to hurt a animal but hell kill babies, Abbey if you read this I apologize but from here on out when this twerp post about being a vegan I am going to make major fun of it, because he is a liar and a fraud, I hope those of you that are for real will forgive me, my cracks aren't aimed at all, just those like Noir, yea basically liberals.

revelarts

08-17-2015, 02:08 PM

.
However, setting that aside for simplification purposes, consider the following;
-Is it a moral act to carry out an abortion a day before birth is due, probably not.
-Is it an immoral act to carry out an abortion the day after conception, probably not.
If someone answers 'Yes' to either of the above, they are probably mad, religious, or both.

....

whoah ho.
well, thank you Doctor Pope Noir.
So please tell us how you came by this final moral clarity and authority on what's moral or immoral for all of mankind here Noir?
There were people just as sure of the obvious fact that blacks weren't really human 200 years ago. That women weren't human.
Aristotle (maybe Plato) didn't believe anyone but Greeks were really human.
So how have you become the clear arbiter of morality and humanity on this point?

But I suspect you'll skip and not reply.
Because maybe the sane and non-religious need not reply to those who don't have the privileged of that position.

secular pop culture faith at work.
sheesh.

revelarts

08-17-2015, 02:24 PM

Noir also,
lets take your personal universal moral standard for all of mankind on this issue at face value.
lets says you're EXACTLY correct.

"-Is it a moral act to carry out an abortion a day before birth is due, probably not.
-Is it an immoral act to carry out an abortion the day after conception, probably not."
thus sayth Noir

If your operating on the idea of probability, and you cannot be quite sure.
WHY NOT give the child -the day after the conception- the benefit of the doubt?
If you can't be sure if your killing a human being, why allow it as an option?
Why not ere on the side of never possibly committing an immoral act against a human being in this way?

fj1200

08-17-2015, 03:03 PM

I think you've misread the two scenarios.
They are one of each extreme, where one is deemed moral, and one not.
This creates the frame for the discussion.

Perhaps I've misread but you've created two scenarios and had to insert "probably." How about we start with a near universal axiom that an "abortion" a day after birth is immoral (because that is infanticide)? Once you start to discuss abortions prior to birth then we're back to the question that you didn't want to answer; At what point does it become immoral? Your insertion of "mad or religious" is not a logical discussion.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 07:31 PM

Noir I look up Vegan and it says:

Now that sounds to me like you value a animals life, but yet it's OK to kill a baby ? Doesn't make sense at all to me, but then again most anything you liberal do don't make any sense to many, I mean to be a liberal you just have to disagree with anything that is right, sick bunch of punks. I have to be honest with you Noir, although I think you are a bright young man I would love to meet you in person, any man that says it's OK to kill babies but wont eat meat because he should live without exploiting animals, well if we met lets just say it wouldn't be a happy reunion. Hell they are selling dead babies parts, tell me about exploiting. So much smarts , but you use them to try and out smart everyone else and really you are just out smarting yourself.

I felt terrible when Abbey posted about people making fun when talking of Vegan and/or vegetarians, but you are a fake a fraud, it's wrong to hurt a animal but hell kill babies, Abbey if you read this I apologize but from here on out when this twerp post about being a vegan I am going to make major fun of it, because he is a liar and a fraud, I hope those of you that are for real will forgive me, my cracks aren't aimed at all, just those like Noir, yea basically liberals.

I know what it's like to have to deal with fraudulent Lefties, Jeff. I fully sympathise ! Good luck to you.

tailfins

08-17-2015, 07:37 PM

I'm surprised this discussion is even happening. One has to be morally tone deaf to not realize that abortion is murder. The hard truth is that those who kill abortionists are saving lives. Remind me to contribute to the legal defense fund of the next person that kills an abortionist.

Drummond

08-17-2015, 07:40 PM

Do you prefer to live with your head in the sand? Is that better than choosing to think?

How is seeing through you, 'choosing to live with my head in the sand' .. ?

An example (one used before, and maybe I'll have to use it again):

You're 'The One True Thatcherite' ... YOU SAY.

If that's what you 'are', then you're saying that nobody ELSE is.

Why would any Thatcherite take it upon himself to denigrate all other Thatcherites out there, and then, just for the hell of it, totally unbidden ??

Answer -- no TRUE Thatcherite, WOULD. Therefore, logically, you cannot be what you claim to be. But what we DO know of you, is that you attack Conservatives at every opportunity.

Logically, you must be a fraud. From your behaviour, we also know you're a fraud. Now .. how is realising that, 'sticking my head in the sand' ?

Drummond

08-17-2015, 07:50 PM

Question: IS ABORTION MURDER ?

Yes, ought society do so? But I have to disagree, I don't think the question does hinge on the life. I think it hinges on convenience and privacy. Ought society force inconvenience on its citizens? I don't think society wants inconvenience. We've spent decades removing consequences from the people either by granting benefits like Social Security and Medicare or removing burdens like an "unwanted" child. Even the SCOTUS decision was rooted in a right to privacy but IMO it ultimately is based on the fetus as property and not on the fetus of someone deserving of life. Sadly.

Also, your characterizations of moral/immoral are suspect. Even the non-religious should have a problem with carrying out an abortion a day before the child's due date. One doesn't have to be religious to believe in the natural right of life.

Asking if abortion is murder, IS hinging the matter on the LIFE !!

But, YOU seek to divorce abortion from consideration of a life being taken .. which fits perfectly with the Leftie mindset which requires people to legitimise it all by doing precisely THAT.

You reduce the taking of life down to whether or not a perception of mere INCONVENIENCE, and, PARTICULARLY, CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY is involved in the decision taken !! Pure Leftie thinking at work !! It's how pro-abortionists want, and need, abortion to be seen. It's how the Leftie Movement prefers it to be seen.

FJ, as I've said, and as you'll increasingly prove, the more you reveal about your thinking, the more you reveal it to be LEFTIE in nature.

QED.

fj1200

08-18-2015, 08:56 AM

:blah:

Keep your mindless droning in other threads.

Question: IS ABORTION MURDER ?

:headinsand:

You should learn to read the whole quote.

Even the SCOTUS decision was rooted in a right to privacy but IMO it ultimately is based on the fetus as property and not on the fetus of someone deserving of life. Sadly.

One doesn't have to be religious to believe in the natural right of life.

You have to be a mindless drone to read things as wrongly as you.

bullypulpit

08-19-2015, 07:53 AM

fj1200

08-19-2015, 07:58 AM

Like every other anti-abortion zealot, this pastor equates a fetus with a born baby. It's not.

Perhaps you will provide us the point at which we can differentiate.

revelarts

08-19-2015, 09:30 AM

Like every other anti-abortion zealot, this pastor equates a fetus with a born baby. It's not. Perhaps he should read Leviticus or the book of Numbers...No value is placed upon a fetus or even children to 5 years of age, save as chattel. If you claim to be Christian and believe the Bible to be the actual and revealed word of God...You don't get to pick and choose what parts you want to pay attention to.
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/27.html#6)

Exodus 21: 22 -23
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,"

Luke 1:39-43
" At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea,40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth.41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

Judges 13:2-5
"There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.”

so among other passages i could sight about God knowing people when conceived and before, in the above we have:

•a woman attacked and giving birth prematurely. if the woman and child are alive there's a fine. If the woman or child die then the attacker gets the death penalty.

•then we see 2 pregnant woman and the biblical writer talking about the children in their wombs and what they will do and what they are doing.

•then we have an angel giving pre-natal dietary advise to a woman that's not even pregnant yet.

The idea of a child being a person, a human life, before birth is very clearly outlined in the bible.