Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rammstein, Feb 14, 2007.
How can something that was never born have a death certificate?
It goes back to the argument of when life begins. I remember hearing that someone was tried for two murders when he killed his pregnant wife...yet the same wife could have an abortion legally. Tell me where it makes sense that it's murder in one instance and a "right" in another? Regardless of your political/moral/religious/etc. feelings, that's messed up law.
It's a person. Not a thing.
My son was delivered via c-section weighing less than 3 pounds. Very much alive, and not a "thing".
Tell me that this is a "thing".
Would I be correct in assuming that your son was delivered by cesarean section in either the second or third trimester?
He was delivered at about 28-30 weeks.
That ultrasound picture I provided depicts him at about 11-12 weeks gestation. The second picture is about 2 weeks after his birth.
At what point would you consider him a person instead of a "thing"?
Some "thing" can be unborn in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. Being in the womb doesn't preclude an individual from being alive, and a death certificate does nothing more than attest to the cessation of life. So it makes good sense for a baby who was killed before birth to have a death certificate.
Of course, what really makes sense is to incorporate a murder charge somehow, which, as pro2am pointed out, is often done, but with an absurd inconsistency.
Well, for those of you who profess some identification with Christ, this is a rather easy question to answer.
*Both quotes above from the Christian Courier.
New American Standard Version
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
44"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
Baby? My Lord?
Note that John The Baptizer and Jesus were not referred to as fetuses or any other term that would denote anything less than being human. The word in the Greek is the same that is used of children after birth. Therefore, any discussion of killing a human in the womb has to first accept what it is that is being done. Discussions of "something" and "fetal mass" do not aid in the determination of whether a thing should or should not be done. If it is a human, then recognize that. Then proceed to any discussion of whether to kill that human.
Thanks Malum. Personally I believe that life begins when the sperm penetrates the egg. It's all exponential multiplicity from there.
If the government wanted to end abortions, then they should make adoptions easier and make sure their employees are supportive.
My daughter's birth mother was hounded for 2 days by the Hospital Social Worker urging her to keep the baby. Her birth mother is an incredible woman and she put the dipshit social worker in her place. My daughter has a lot of her traits which is really cool.
The Hospital was Gwinnett Medical Center. I will never forget and never forgive.
I wonder how many adoptions have been killed by that hospital and its staff.
I believe this proposed legislation is ridiculous. I personally believe that a fetus is not a living human being until it is capable of surviving outside of the womb of its own devices. I don't wish to digress into a debate on the merits and cons of abortion. That is simply my belief, and it seems that there is a good basis of this view in current law as well.
If it is not considered a living human being, then it should not be assigned a death certificate.
Me thinks this could get very heated...
...go to your corners, remember the rules and come out respectfully.
Get your flamers ready.
Want to end abortions? End the unwanted pregnancies. Dump enough $ into research & develop a 100% reversible sterilization method(s) for males & females both. Then... everyone gets sterilized until such time as they can prove mentally & fiscally able to support a child. No more teen (or younger) preg. Eliminate children that have no clue how to be parents having children. That would come close to ending the problem with abortion and put a huge dent in crime & DFACS issues all in one shot.
Yeah I know the next question - who decides who is mentally & fiscally responsible? (Me! Just Kidding) It shouldn't be that difficult to do, it doesn't have to be too strenuous of a requirement. Just to prevent 15 year olds from having a kid and someone with zero income from bringing a child into a situation where it can't be cared for. (Toss out welfair while you are at it and maybe that would help reduce the folks that we currently have that want to have 8 children, live in a hovel, drive an Escalde and expect you & I to pay for it all.)
ok let em rip...
While I believe that abortion should not be used as easy retroactive birth control for the irresponsible, I still believe:
"Not your womb? Not your business."
(The male component of the equation should also have a say in the matter since it takes 2...)
I concur with what BergerBoy wrote.
I didn't intend for this to be a heated debate on the merits of abortion. Rather, the tactics used to enforce some peoples beliefs on others; AND the violation of privacy rights that the mother (I couldn't think of a better way to say that) is entitled to.
Tinkerhell, I disagree with the reversible sterilization idea. Every human (not just Americans) have the inherent right to reproduce.
Furthermore, I think that all Americans have to come to the realization that telling kids to not have sex is not a solution. It can and should be part of a larger plan to reduce pregnancies, but we must be realistic in that people are going to have sex and if they are they should have access to affordable (better yet free) contraceptives.
I've heard the argument that passing out condoms will encourage kids to have sex. Ya know what? They already are having sex regardless of if the parents know that or not. If they weren't then we wouldn't be talking about teen pregnancies. But I digress.
As for the overall argument here, I believe that the people on this site are reasonable and rational individuals. Knowing that, I believe that we can have a civil discourse.
Good point. In addition to what you said, it can also be added that what is arguably the oldest Christian document available to us today explicitly forbids abortion:
This makes it clear that the early Christians understood the Scriptures and teachings of the Lord to prohibit abortion.
That's one problem.
Not everyone that the "rule" would affect is Christian.
How can one justify forcing a Christian "moral" on a non-Christian individual in a country with a "freedom of religion"?
You mean like the prohibitions on murder and incest?
Where do you get that date? It's not even the correct century?
Some things are common sense. Not every right and wrong decision has a "religion-has-the-only-answer" basis.