Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[Thor]

@ Fading W the child is an adult, the families name was so important then, if a grown child was ruining the family name by being rebellious then stoning was his/her fate if the parents persued that action.

Can you show me where the Bible clearly states that this is only intended for a GROWN child?

And even so, what would constitute "ruining the family name"? Having a child out of wedlock? Patronizing prostitutes? Taking a job washing dishes? And who would determine whether or not the family name had been "ruined"?

I must also point out that the family name is important today as well. How much embarrassment does a public figure suffer if one of their kids is caught using drugs, has a DWI, has a teenage pregnancy, shoplifts, etc...? Does this mean they should have the right to stone their kids to death? And please show me where the Bible says these absurd laws are no longer in effect.

Lev.17:11-14 these verses are penalty for eating blood and they explain why it's not to be eaten, "the life of the flesh is in the blood". So an unborn child has it's own blood (and the type may be different from the mothers) only a few weeks after conception so according to scripture this is when life begins.

So life begins "a few weeks after conception". Then you must be okay with the morning after pill. Or an abortion that takes place in the first month or so of pregnancy. Right?

Ha ha ha very funny you know that I meant that once a goal is established then one uses only facts to prove the point or reach the goal.

Yes, you cherry pick "facts" that support your preconceived notion. Science goes where the facts lead. YOU pick facts that lead to your conclusion. Huge difference.