Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
☭proletarian☭;1871688 said:The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this
FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.
Ugh.. I do make a lot of errors when I am typing. I meant "And", rather than "because".
I never took you seriously to begin with.Well... if that's your reasoning, we know to never take you seriously again
btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.
The actual text reads:
"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."
Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.
The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??
Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.
And PS-
Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.
Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again.can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct
The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)
Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.
These two are almost amusingThe actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??
Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.
And PS-
Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.
Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)
This is amazing.
If it wasn't alive, you wouldn't have to KILL it, would you.
It is alive.
It is human.
And everything about who he or she will be is mapped out at conception.
He or she already is a fact, the only thing that will stop it is death.
Wombs of death was not the Creator's intention.
Apparently, considering the science and the verses and orders from God himself, that is not altogether true.
.
I'm gonna parse this down some cause these are getting too long. If I cut out something you just gotta know, feel free.
So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also???
Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first.
I never defined when person hood begins , not 'to a T' anyway. If you need it cleared up for you yet again. I have simply stated that it is not logical to believe that someone attains person hood in some physiological sense immediately after conception. From that same physiological perspective, it is not logical to believe that a baby attains person hood, AGAIN from a physiological perspective, in the mere seconds of taking it's first breathe of O2.
Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ARGUING. How can you be so blind as to not see that? YOU are arguing that a baby developed to 8 months, 7 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes (that would be pre-birth) has less rights than a baby that is developed to 9 months and 1 minute. OF COURSE I get that there would be no perceptible difference between 29 weeks and 6 days and 30 weeks. that isn't how development works. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. And for god knows what reason you can't see that you are using the EXACT same argument you attribute to me as defense of abortion at a different specific point in time, that there is some measurable difference in physiology from one second to the next that makes abortion okay prior to that second, but not okay after it. YOU get the fucking grip and think for a damn second.
oh yes it could. You could still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If it were shown that you committed some gross negligence (i.e drive drunk, was speeding, driving recklessly, etc.) you most certainly would be open to prosecution. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, regardless of your intent, you most certainly will be tried and probably do time.
And now it is you that is maybe starting to get it. That's exactly why I can't tell you what the punishment would be. Follow the parallel; sure we may know someone had, a late term abortion/was in a car accident and the passenger was killed. We don't know why, we don't know whether it was intentional or not, we don't know the level of negligence on the part of the mother/driver. Every case is different.
You're really not comparing a decision about life and death and make the best possible decision in a bad scenario to making a decision based on what would be most convenient for you, are you?And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???
It is absolutely ridiculous!!!
Then take some fucking responsibility and DO something about it BEFORE it gets to the point where you would even have to entertain the notion of whether or not you're choosing to kill another human being. You have every opportunity in the world to keep that thing you don't want from being in you.
But at least you have cleared one thing up. I am safe in saying at this point it really doesn't matter to you whether it would a human life you are killing or not from a legal perspective, correct? That is even if you conceded that it was a human life that you were killing before it was born you would still say that a woman should not be prosecuted for that?
Further it would be fine with you if we continued this conversation with me referring to the child is a human life at some point pre-birth because again that is not an aspect you are concerned with legally where abortion is concerned. I want to be crystal clear on this because I have a suspicion and if it can be confirmed we can move on without going in circle
Considering you don't even know how to SPELL hypocrite, I will now LAUGH in your FACE.You kinda got real perturbed when you presumed that I was claiming to know the basis of your beliefs. Yet here you are doing the same to me. I try to refrain from name calling unless it's objectively accurate, so i feel safe in calling you a hypocrit.
Good fucking GOD. This again??? How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself you fucking moron?????I think we should just argue sentience for sentience sake rather than using it as a legal basis for abortion. I think that because unless I'm wrong in what I stated above whether the child is sentient or not pre-birth doesn't matter to you in terms of the legality of abortion. Agreed?
I don't see anything disagreeable there. What's your point?This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:
Discordant Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Expression and Activity in Neonatal Hyperoxic Lung -- Mamo et al. 170 (3): 313 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.
Perinatal development of N-acetyltransferase in hepatic and extrahepatic tissues of guinea pigs.
Ummm Guinea Pigs? Really? Your argument is on a house of cards, JD. Breathing seems to be one thing that actually does matter to you in terms when a child can be killed. But you see breathing, in of itself, doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were just breathing that mattered I could hold my breathe and it would then it be legal for someone to kill me. So there must be something else that you think breathing triggers that somehow makes abortion okay before that point, but not okay after. What would that be?
Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND AND AND AND AND AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!
What I mean by that is exactly what I mean by dependence. A child has no say in the matter of who it's parents are. All it can do is hope that those parents do what is in their best interests. Your reaction to that proves my earlier point about you lack of objectivism. You claimed to be this rationale objective person. 'Fuck off's and 'asshole' are not the hallmarks of the objective. I told you before that I was the objective one and I proved it. The objective TRUTH can be more powerful than any 'fuck off' or 'asshole' that can be uttered. Being called names doesn't bother me because I know me and know they aren't a reflection of the truth.
A little more about me; I like to debate as you can see. I also like to be right. What I mean by right is on the side of the truth, which is different from a belief. That being the case there are all kinds of things in the course of conversation that do nothing to persuade people that your position is one of truth, and dear you have displayed an awful lot of those things.
-continuing to assert that someone's position is something other than what they have stated. Either call the person a liar and prove it or take their word for it. If you call them a liar and can't prove it you aren't any closer to showing your side is that of truth and you're probably further from it because from the perspective of everyone else you look childish and beaten.
- calling names and clear displays of emotion doesn't give one any credibility either. Yes I'm guilty of it too.
- an inabilityto objectively scrutinize one's own actions. This is the hardest one by far. People start throwing examples and scenarios around to bolster their argument then one of them hits a little too close to home. I don't believe what little I have stated about you and your situation has been inaccurate. If it has, believe me i want to know, because as I said above trying to argue things that aren't true or atriibute positions that don't exist is a waste of time. If they are factual, they simply are what they are. There shouldn't be any emotion attached to that.
I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.
The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?
Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.
Good luck. She lost me when with the link about guinea pigs and I guess it's proof that babies (which are not guinea pgs) have to consciously think about breathing when their born. This is all i could read out of the link.
My link was just as valid, if not MORE valid, as the link that Proletarian gave on slaughtered pigs, and their harvested embryos, during his little bullshit rant about how embryo transfers are possible.
You obviously did not even LOOK at the journal article. At least I read the bullshit you guys post. The fact that you don't read mine is Clue #1 at your own ignorance.
Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is.Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.
Can someone give me the laymans terms for hepatic, extrahepatic, p-amniobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltranferase and how exactly they derived from that that HUMAN babies have to think about taking their first breath? Wrong link maybe? Conclusion I just can't see coming in the part of the paper that you can read that I can't? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Then read the part in BOLD PRINT. As I explained before, those are all scientific terms. If you SIMPLY read the BOLD print, you will understand. You can also find another place, near that sentence, that says (I believe this was what you chose to skip over) all the stuff that I explained to you, as well.
And no I do not need to be a fucking doctor to get the jist of the study. Nobody here needs to understand all the complex enzymatic terms listed, or the medications listed, to understand the plain english that is in this article, that you are choosing to make yourself ignorant of.
Sentence #1:
The role of glucocorticoids in the regulation of vitamin K-dependent carboxylase activity was investigated in fetal and adult lung.
Jump down to results:
The ADX-induced effect on carboxylase activity was paralleled by an overall enhancement of lung growth in the absence of endogenous glucocorticoids; ADX alone led to a 15% increase in lung mass over 6 days (Table 1), but previous studies reported normal lung morphology (34). In contrast, ADX had no significant effect on liver carboxylase activity or liver growth (data not shown), a tissue noted for its synthesis of the coagulation-related Gla proteins. Absolute liver activity was10-fold higher than that found in lung, as has been previously described
(and a little further down, third paragraph of results)
specific Gla proteins produced by one cell population may influence growth and differentiation in the other cell type. Fetal type II cells isolated from embryonic day 19-20 embryonic lungs also responded to Dex with a 2.5-fold increase in activity
Then down, in the discussion section.. 4th paragraph..
The mechanism whereby dilation of conducting airway structures occurs with Dex treatment is unknown.
If MGP is important for normal branching morphogenesis and perhaps vasculogenesis, it is not clear why the MGP null mice are born with apparently functional lungs.
Does that help any?? I copied and pasted. No need to understand the study in full, to understand that it is an attempt at growing lung and liver tissue, and testing what elements need to be added to the equation for this to be plausible. Apparently, even though they can grow a whole HEART, they can't ever explain why the lungs function.
I realize that this is not specifically saying that God makes everyone breathe, and all that- but the evidence is very strongly in favor of it. Anyways, that is my belief, and my religion and scientific beliefs all go very much hand in hand. The two just cannot exist without each other.
I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.
The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?
Aw fuck I just saw this..
OK fine. The studies (there are other links you are ignoring also) show that a premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age, if you count gestational age as well. I guess you skipped over that part.
Babies born prematurely need extra components added to their air in order to antioxidate the air, and keep them alive, thereby avoiding death..
It also says in another study that growing fetal tissue and adding components to a certain group is supposed to give the preemies or full term births the capacity to breathe, but that study still does not understand how the born organism is even CAPABLE of breathing, when they are missing certain components that had been previously shown to aid somehow in breathing.
There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.
There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.
If they can't explain how newborn babies BEGIN to breathe.. which is one of the oldest questions in the history of man, then maybe, just maybe- there is a greater being amongst us who does unbelievable things, like giving us life, and such. MAYBE.
The difference between the breathing studies and the fetal sentience studies is that with the fetal sentience studies, they cannot EVEN conclude that the fetus is making voluntary movements.
In the breathing studies, it is conclusive that in spite of the components that scientists know about that are supposed to aid in breathing NOT being present in the premature baby, or full term ones, they DO breathe anyways.
You cannot even BEGIN to compare studies that cannot even conclude that the fetus made a voluntary movement in the uterus (as if to be claiming sentience), to one that concludes that in spite of missing certain components that science requires for the baby to breathe, it breathes anyways, and I will explain why here:
IF the study does not even CONCLUDE that the fetus made voluntary movements, then there is no way of even beginning to determine how those movements were made, or WHY.
In the studies I posted, it IS conclusive that babies can breathe even when they lack certain necessary components to do so. Hence, MORE studies can be done on HOW that happened.. It can be ELABORATED on. They can FIGURE OUT how and why a fetus of the same age does not have the same level of response that a newborn has. They can figure out how a born baby who breathes does so like as if it were magic.
There is NOTHING in your study that can be elaborated on. Do you comprende????
.This is about breathing being the first signs of life.
you fucking ignorant dipshit!!!!! Christ!!!!
How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control
It is YOUR ilk attaching emotion to the debate..
premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age
Fetal lungs tell mom when to deliver baby. - Free Online LibraryOne of the central unresolved questions in mammalian biology is how a mother knows when to give birth. Scientists studying mice have now found evidence that the maturing lungs of a fetus release a protein that initiates the process.
If also true in women, the finding could provide insight into the causes of premature births and suggest ways of preventing them.
There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.
There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.
Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.
That is not true- All of those verses are interrelated.
I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.
Oops I guess YOU missed Hosea. I posted that one also. It is also present throughout Exodus, and don't try to say that this is the exception to the rule.. LOOK at this example of MANDATORY abortion, for women who cheat on their husbands...
Numbers 5:12-31 (see your Bible for the entire thing)
" . . . If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, . . . and she be defiled, . . . . Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, . . . . And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: . . . and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse . . . and say unto the woman, . . . . if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband . . . . And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. . . . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot . . . . And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed .
Furthermore, another primary bible based reason why many Christians believe that a fetus (or embryo) is alive, is because of this verse
. . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11
However, it says that the life of the flesh is IN the blood, not that it IS the ACTUAL blood. It took a long time to understand this verse, for many people, after the development of the microscope, to see that the blood carries oxygen and nutrients. There are two types of blood, but I would not think that this verse meant that "the life of the soul is in the type-A antibodies" or "the life of the flesh is because of the coagulating properties of blood".. Nooo, it is said THAT way, because blood carries AIR.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies. They have venom like the venom of a serpent. ... Let them vanish like water that runs away, like grass let them be trodden down and wither. Let them be like the snail which dissolves into slime, like the untimely birth that never sees the sun." (Psalms 58:3-8)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Exodus 21:22-25
Fetuses don't have teeth.. and never in history have.
Furthermore, God called for the MANDATORY killings of all of the FIRSTBORN BABIES..
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"And Moses said, 'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die; from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle.'" (Exodus 11:4-5)[/FONT]
In addition, here is another order from God
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:3. See also Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6; Joshua 10:28-40, 11:10-12, 14, 15, 20 and 21; and Judges 21:10-12.)
And finally, the worthlessness of babies less than a month old, by God:
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward..." (Numbers 3:40)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver." (Leviticus 27:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)[/FONT]
My dear, you are welcome to ignore the bible. It won't bother ME one bit. God, on the other hand, might not be too happy...
☭proletarian☭;1875783 said:The bible in all its versions is a piece of poorly written fiction with no place in intelligent discussion.
Even liberal English professors recognize the Bible as a great work of literature, quite complex and nuanced
In addition, as the basis for the beliefs, morals, and life decisions of millions of people all over the world, it has a rightful place in any discussion of human behavior and morality
Quick correction (er restatement of something I already said.....twice!). I haven't posted a single link/article/journal in this thread. There is no 'your study' where I'm concerned. Do YOU comprehend?
As to the rest of the above, I would probably agree with all of it. Sure I'd entertain the notion that that first breathe is god breathing life into the child. The problem with your postion is that if you believe that's what's happening you would have to admit that is pretty convenient to acknowledge the will of god at one point, but deny it prior to that point. You can have your opinion that nothing, even a human life, has a right to your body at any point, but do you seriously think that would be God's will?
The reason we go round in circles that cause you such frustration is because your arguments make it extremely difficult to define what parameters your argument falls under. I ask you yes or no questions and you reply with paragraph long diatribes.
Does sentience matter to you from a legal perspective matter to you?, is a yes or no question.
If nothing has the right to your body, 'nothing' would include sentient, concious, human beings, hell even beings that make voluntary actions (which I accept unborn babies probably don't). Yet you continue to argue when sentience does or doesn't begin as if it does matter to you.
When sentience begins, when a human being is a human being, all that I believe is a discussion for another time at this point. The only thing I am trying to make sense of is what is so signifcant to you about a first breath that makes killing before that point okay, but not after?
This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White
This is a very odd story indeed... However, it sounds like they just decided to have an abortion a month too late for legal standing.
If the autopsy comes back that the fetus had taken a breath of air, it will (and should) count as a homicide, because the fetus would have no longer been a fetus, but as of taking that first vital breath on its own, it automatically becomes a premature infant baby.
So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.
You support this in the first trimester...
You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you?
Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.
Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?? I have answered this for you a million times.
I have agreed that it is human. I would not ever concede that any woman should have to be a state sanctioned baby oven for 9 months, for any reason, much less the emotional hyperbole that you spew on here daily about some perceived sentience, which, in your own words, cannot be determined to a "T", before birth.
Personhood, by your own admission, even, cannot be established before birth, without subjectivity.
Ring around the fuckin rosey.
I could care less from a legal standpoint, as I have very clearly repeated to you a hundred fucking times already, whether it is sentient or not.
From a physiological perspective, it being a "life" should not be measured based on sentience, and it could just as easily be said that because (square fucking one again) it was growing since conception, then the "life" is just as easily perceived that way.
NEITHER indicated personhood, or some ability for it to survive without the woman being alive, and therefore the woman's personhood takes priority.
If you want to call it "an almost person" I can go along with that..
This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.
Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS.
You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy.. and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT.
You think whatever you want to think about us women and abortion. I will pray that God gives YOU a uterus, because if MEN HAD BABIES, things would be a LOT DIFFERENT. Paternity leave for 12 weeks, not just six.. Abortions galore... Same sex marriage would probably be ENCOURAGED, even. LOL!!!
But, in REALITY, Bernie, You got NO FUCKING CHOICE in the matter, and you NEVER REALLY WILL. Too fucking bad for you.. boo to the fucking hoo.
Absolutely!! I think that even God understands that a miscarried embryo is not a person. I think that bringing God's will into pregnancy arguments forces a person to step back and consider the sheer percentage of pregnancies that miscarry anyways. One should not say "It is not God's will that one CHOOSE to miscarry/ use ones body as they see fit" and at the same time expect someone to believe that the miscarriages experienced in 2/3 of all pregnancies should somehow have anything to do with Gods will. Especially when you refer to it as "killing". How one can say that abortion is killing something, and turn around and lay out in verse how God has this whole plan in store.never considering the miscarriages that happen regularly, is preposterous.
Do you think that in every pregnancy, if it is God's will to breathe life into the born infant, that the woman should go ahead and gestate to full term, in anticipation of seeing God's work be done? Because I say that this is a DUAL willingness issue, and not simply a one way command.
And this may be a completely opposing comment on everything said before, but:
I also CAN not believe or disbelieve that God causes miscarriages, or that God's will has any relevance in a pregnancy.. I don't care how many people say "Oh the miscarriage HE caused was for some good reason, of course!" and invariably dismiss the act of killing, the act that these very same people claim is murder. Whether it is his will that this happens or not, is entirely moot on both points. If he DID cause miscarriages, and it was "for good reason", then that frees the woman to also have "good reasons" to induce miscarriage herself. What would Jesus do? On the other side of it, if God has no will when it comes to miscarriages, then the entire issue of pregnancy being God's will is entirely moot, as this would mean that his will is not in effect until the child is born, anyways.
☭proletarian☭;1876055 said:Says the woman who posted this:This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White
This is a very odd story indeed... However, it sounds like they just decided to have an abortion a month too late for legal standing.
If the autopsy comes back that the fetus had taken a breath of air, it will (and should) count as a homicide, because the fetus would have no longer been a fetus, but as of taking that first vital breath on its own, it automatically becomes a premature infant baby.
