Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather

[thanatos144]

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You are crazy. Crazy can be evil.

Therefore you are evil.

Nothing crazy about stating facts. You support infanticide and thus are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You want to redefine the legal definition. You cannot. Therefore your rants are meaningless.

Killing babies is infanticide and you support it . You are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Repeating yourself does not make it true. I do not support infanticide. You are crazy. However, there's help for you. Seek it.

It is true because you support abortion that is the killing of babies thus you support infanticide thus you are evil. Must suck to be you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

A zygote is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A fetus b4 viability is not a child. An egg is not a chicken just as an acorn is not an oak tree.

It is a child and denying this doesn't hide your evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

He must have missed the word "birth"

You miss the word baby

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[playtime]

You are crazy. Crazy can be evil.

Therefore you are evil.

Nothing crazy about stating facts. You support infanticide and thus are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You want to redefine the legal definition. You cannot. Therefore your rants are meaningless.

Killing babies is infanticide and you support it . You are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Repeating yourself does not make it true. I do not support infanticide. You are crazy. However, there's help for you. Seek it.

It is true because you support abortion that is the killing of babies thus you support infanticide thus you are evil. Must suck to be you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Actually I am quite content in my belief of what is a baby & what infanticide really means. It must suck that you are so redundant, yet the law is on my side.

 

[thanatos144]

Nothing crazy about stating facts. You support infanticide and thus are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You want to redefine the legal definition. You cannot. Therefore your rants are meaningless.

Killing babies is infanticide and you support it . You are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Repeating yourself does not make it true. I do not support infanticide. You are crazy. However, there's help for you. Seek it.

It is true because you support abortion that is the killing of babies thus you support infanticide thus you are evil. Must suck to be you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Actually I am quite content in my belief of what is a baby & what infanticide really means. It must suck that you are so redundant, yet the law is on my side.

You are evil. Abortion is evil and the law that made it legal is evil.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[playtime]

You want to redefine the legal definition. You cannot. Therefore your rants are meaningless.

Killing babies is infanticide and you support it . You are evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Repeating yourself does not make it true. I do not support infanticide. You are crazy. However, there's help for you. Seek it.

It is true because you support abortion that is the killing of babies thus you support infanticide thus you are evil. Must suck to be you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Actually I am quite content in my belief of what is a baby & what infanticide really means. It must suck that you are so redundant, yet the law is on my side.

You are evil. Abortion is evil and the law that made it legal is evil.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A zygote is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A fetus b4 viability is not a child. An egg is not a chicken just as an acorn is not an oak tree.

It is a child and denying this doesn't hide your evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

 

[thanatos144]

It is a child and denying this doesn't hide your evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

You support infanticide. That is fact . There is no grey area in the killing of innocent babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

You support infanticide. That is fact . There is no grey area in the killing of innocent babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's it!!?? That is your entire response to my lengthy post in which I tried to be respectful and thoughtful? This is a good example of why we can never resolve or reach a consensus on these issues. Your brand of moronic rhetoric and rigidity ensures that this will just go on and on. The only thing that I'm not sure of is if you are psychotic or just a fucking moron

 

[thanatos144]

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

You support infanticide. That is fact . There is no grey area in the killing of innocent babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's it!!?? That is your entire response to my lengthy post in which I tried to be respectful and thoughtful? This is a good example of why we can never resolve or reach a consensus on these issues. Your brand of moronic rhetoric and rigidity ensures that this will just go on and on. The only thing that I'm not sure of is if you are psychotic or just a fucking moron

No the moron is the person making a long post to try and change the fact that they support killing babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

You support infanticide. That is fact . There is no grey area in the killing of innocent babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's it!!?? That is your entire response to my lengthy post in which I tried to be respectful and thoughtful? This is a good example of why we can never resolve or reach a consensus on these issues. Your brand of moronic rhetoric and rigidity ensures that this will just go on and on. The only thing that I'm not sure of is if you are psychotic or just a fucking moron

No the moron is the person making a long post to try and change the fact that they support killing babies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

thank you for confirming what I already knew. There are some people who are too fucked up to have an intelligent and meaningful dialogue with. I mused about whether you were psychotic or just stupid . I'll go with stupid for now, with a significant underlying component of emotional disturbance. Obviously you do not have the intellectual capacity or maturity to deal with this complex and difficult subject. Your ridged and concrete thought pattern and your need to mindlessly hurl charges of baby killer is the hallmark of a MORON

 

[bornright]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

 

[playtime]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

 

[Faun]

A zygote is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A fetus b4 viability is not a child. An egg is not a chicken just as an acorn is not an oak tree.

It is a child and denying this doesn't hide your evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're fucking insane.

 

[Faun]

It is a child and denying this doesn't hide your evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Judge not, stone thrower.

Oh I am not judging I am stating fact. Supporting infanticide is evil and you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No I do not. You don't even know what that word means.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun noun: infanticide, plural noun: infanticides

• 1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth
• ▪ the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth
• 2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child

You support killing babies so you support infanticide and that is evil

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I have been sitting back and watching the rancor and animosity fly with some degree of astonishment. Abortion is a difficult and emotional issue, but sticking to ridged and dogmatic views is not going to help to resolve it. Let me try to put it into perspective.

I am pro-choice but sympathetic to those who fervently believe that human life begins at conception. That is not to say that I personally believe that human life begins at conception. However, amidst the renewed controversy over abortion stemming in large part from the Planned Parenthood controversy I found myself think more about the issue and what it is that I myself believe.

I have seen persuasive, scientific arguments for life beginning at conception. In fact, so persuasive that I am willing to concede that there are indeed all of the elements that are required to form a human being at conception. However, is the fact that it has the potential to become a human being, make it an actual human being at that point? There are a number of ways that we can approach that question.

The first approach is strictly secular and scientific. If a human being-or any being for that matter is sentient we have to ask ourselves- based on what we know from medical science-at what stage of development is the organism self-aware? Science tells us that it is fairly late in pregnancy:

The Road to Awareness
But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep. When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?/

The second approach delves into the realm of the spiritual, a place where I will be the first to admit that I am not comfortable. However, while I soundly reject religious dogma and religious doctrine, I am not a hard core secularist who rejects any notion of there being life beyond the confines of our bodies.

Now I have noticed that religious people will frequently make reference to eternal life. “Life everlasting” is a common refrain which I am decidedly not hostile to. The main difference between religious people and myself in that regard is that I am comfortable living with the uncertainty of what lies beyond life, while the religious are cock sure and rely on their scriptures to tell them what is truth and what they believe.

To come to my point and to relate it to the question of when life begins, it occurred to me that if there is no end to life, than there is no beginning either. Rather than linear-conception, birth, life, death- the concept of it being circular is more in keeping with the beliefs of many religious people, and not necessarily at odds with my own-or at least with what I can accept as a possibility. It would follow then, that what we call conception, birth and death are points of transition, and if one believes in the human soul, that soul will live on regardless of the physical state. It seems sometimes that religious people only believe that life begins at conception when it comes to the issue of abortion and that life is eternal when it comes to the end of physical life. I will stop short of saying that is hypocritical but perhaps it is something that needs to be reconciled.

A related question that religious people need to consider what is the relative importance of the physical being to that soul or spiritual self? I think that they would agree that we can kill the physical body but that we cannot kill the soul. Yes, to kill a physical body at whatever point we determine that it is in fact a human being is considered murder, as it should be. Killing a person at any point during life is to separate that person those who they love and who loves them. It changes the world for all who knew them. But does it make any sense to call the termination of a zygote before the dawn of awareness “murder” also? Are they really equivalent? Can religious people at least consider the possibility that to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages is actually providing an opportunity for that soul to come into the physical world later at a better time and place?

Also, when we speak of the rights of the unborn, whatever they are considered to be, we must consider them in relation to the rights of the fully formed and functioning human being who is carrying that organism. That is especially true when the pregnancy was no fault of the woman, or if the woman’s life is at risk.

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the issue of the soul was viewed historically

Is the Soul Infused at Conception? History of Church teaching on abortion
Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception. They may take it as an article of faith. In fact it is not. Vatican II deliberately left the issue aside and for a very good reason. For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.


From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being.

In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes.

On balance, I remain a pro choice advocate. While abortion is not a pleasant or desirable thing, it is necessary and should be available to all women. In addition, our laws and policies should support any and all means of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as providing comprehensive programs to assist women and families who choose to have a child . Altogether , that will be a lot more effective at reducing abortion than an outright ban on it.

Not for nothing but.... you're trying to rationalize to someone who has proven many times that he's completely batshit insane.

It's not that he disagrees with you. He cannot understand you. His Neanderthal brain is simply too deformed to comprehend anything beyond grunts. Case in point, even after being shown the term, "infanticide," is the killing of babies who are born, his underdeveloped brain can't comprehend that requires the babies to be born. Best to either ignore that one or just remind him how retarded he is.

 

[bornright]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

 

[playtime]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

By women voluntarily going to them to provide a legal service. Certainly not by force... & I repeat- it was a totally false equivalency.

 

[Faun]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

So? That's their choice? Now what the fuck does that have to do with Jews being forced at gunpoint to board trains to transport them to death camps?

 

[thanatos144]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

So? That's their choice? Now what the fuck does that have to do with Jews being forced at gunpoint to board trains to transport them to death camps?

What's the innocent babies choice? Evil is evil be it genocide or infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

So? That's their choice? Now what the fuck does that have to do with Jews being forced at gunpoint to board trains to transport them to death camps?

What's the innocent babies choice? Evil is evil be it genocide or infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You`re fucking insane. Babies in utero don't make choices.

 

[aris2chat]

Blacks praising Planned Parenthood is like Jews praising Hitler.

Jews had no choice about that train ride. Black women, just like white women, or Hispanic women, or any other ethnic group are not having their doors knocked down, rounded up & forced off to a clinic. That's a false equivalency.

They sure have kept the black population down.

So? That's their choice? Now what the fuck does that have to do with Jews being forced at gunpoint to board trains to transport them to death camps?

What's the innocent babies choice? Evil is evil be it genocide or infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Your mantra is not an argument or proof.
Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again is not going to make it true.

Legally and morally in this country rape victims and women have a right to choose what happens to their body and can terminate in the first trimester for any reason, and terminate later for medical reasons.
At least during the first trimester the body naturally is trying to reject the fetus, which is why most miscarriage happen during that time.

Why Doesn't a Pregnant Woman's Body Attack the Alien Fetus?

How does the mother's body know not to reject the fetus? - Conception Achieved (Pregnancy)

Erythroblastosis Fetalis

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150828091354.htm