SCOTUS steps in it

[Calbeck]

now how are children supposed to take it, that they're greateful for their mom not aborting them, or that mom is still a virgin even? i can see it now being taught in kindergarden or even head start or even in the stroller 'arn't you glad mom choose to have you?' Does a parent ever expect to controll that child when he/she's a teenager telling them that all of his/her life?

Actually, I for one am very very happy my mother chose not to abort me. I was put up for adoption instead.

I went on to live exactly the sort of crappy, violent, alcohol-soaked, vicious, unbalanced and terrifying childhood that abortion proponents often hold up to "justify" abortion "on behalf of the child". To all those people (not you, TSAO), F*** OFF. I WANNA LIVE.

[Gengar003]

So, there are people here who would gladly punish an unborn child for the sins of his father?

Why is the mother more deserving of punishment?

In my mind, if you abort early enough, before the fetus is an independent entity (But when does that happen? We haven't decided yet. I personally like the brainwave idea, but I'm not learned enough on the topic yet to form in informed opinion.), not only is it not "punishment," but you're prevening the mother from suffering through an unwanted pregnancy, a potentially unwanted child, and much financial/social difficulty.

If one would have rape victims give birth to their rape-concieved kids no matter what, then those people should be prepared to immediately adopt/foster the children, and shoulder the full financial (and otherwise) burden. That's what would be forced on the rape vicitm. (p)

[JakeWasHere]

In a past episode, CSI's main character mentions that the Bible recognizes life as being when blood passes through the heart, and that as such maybe a good compromise would be when the fetus begins to develop blood and a heart.

I concur with Lonewolf and Ralph here. Once you have the heart and the brain developed, you have a human being on your hands.

Of course, this won't shut up the leftists, especially the ones even more dedicated than my old buddy E. I will tell you this, if E called a fetus "parasitic" it would be in sarcasm, directed at all those women who view pregnancy as a nuisance. When the people quoted here call it a parasite, THEY AREN'T KIDDING, and that frightens me.

[T.s.a.o]

well yes it all boils down wither God exists-then you ask when he places a sould into a unborn child---which I think is at conception. But not to set up a huger debate, we can shift that focus over to http://www.baptistboard.com. Or if you arn't satisified with that great great site, I guess you could try http://www.christianforums.com, but I didn't get much out of it.

[Maxgoof]

Actually, even if you believe that the soul is imbued at birth does not mean that before birth you can treat the feotus any way you please.

Consider the trouble you would be in if you had a bunch of cats, refused to spay or neuter them, and took the kittens as soon as they were born and drowned them.

Does not an feotus deserve at least the same protection as those kittens?

[T.s.a.o]

well, animals and humans are different being man is made in God's image, and I've been meaning to ask RH about that HUGE innacuracy he has in the Questor series, so of course they deserve more rghts than kittens-though only a fool won't fix their pets if they don't want pups....secondly on when spirits come into the fetus

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Looking at other translations, some might argue this means something else, but I believe it shows that Bible says we were sinful since conception! If that is the case, then even the Bible tells us when we have a soul, because a soulless lifeform cannot be guilty of sin.

[Maxgoof]

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Looking at other translations, some might argue this means something else, but I believe it shows that Bible says we were sinful since conception! If that is the case, then even the Bible tells us when we have a soul, because a soulless lifeform cannot be guilty of sin.

It could be interpreted that way, but when one considered that the Original Sin is passed on from generation to generation, one could say that you were sinful before even your mother was conceived. You could say that you were sinful from the moment Adam and Eve fell.

[Gengar003]

Really, though, as a male, I am not the one who will have to live with the results of this law or similar laws. I don't actually have a vested interest in the outcome. It seems to me it would be selfish to influence legislation one way or another, when it's not legislation that will affect me -- my actions/vote would dillute the pool of votes/opinions from women whose lives might actually depend on/be hugely affected by the outcome, giving less voice to those whom the law aims to govern.

It's fine to discuss our opinions, but I don't think I'd support legislation either way on the issue -- What right have I, who will never be and can never (generally) be pregnant, to determine what people who can, might, and/or will become pregnant can or can't do?

Imagine if the U.S. Government was considering a law that drastically raised (state) sales taxes on days where the ambient temperature was over 95 farenheight, but only in states below 40 degrees latitude. Highly improbable if not impossible, I know, but pretend.

The northern states, who would never experience that increase, could get all upset because it's unfair, unconstitutional, etc, and there might be some that supported it, but at the end of the day, it's not their opinion that matters. It's the warm southern states who will feel the effect; their voices/votes should comprise 100% of the pool of opinion that will determine the law's fate, and not be dilluted by the northern states' opinions.

[LoneWolf23k]

So, there are people here who would gladly punish an unborn child for the sins of his father?

Why is the mother more deserving of punishment?

In my mind, if you abort early enough, before the fetus is an independent entity (But when does that happen? We haven't decided yet. I personally like the brainwave idea, but I'm not learned enough on the topic yet to form in informed opinion.), not only is it not "punishment," but you're prevening the mother from suffering through an unwanted pregnancy, a potentially unwanted child, and much financial/social difficulty.

If one would have rape victims give birth to their rape-concieved kids no matter what, then those people should be prepared to immediately adopt/foster the children, and shoulder the full financial (and otherwise) burden. That's what would be forced on the rape vicitm. (p)

StrangeWulf is not saying rape is acceptable or that rape victims aren't people who were wronged in the worst way possible and thus truly some of the most deserving of justice...

...Just that What the dam rapist did is no reason for the poor victimized woman to take it out on the poor unborn child who never asked to be concieved.

...As for the child "ruining" the young victim's life, it really depends on numerous factors, including the woman's resolve and the support of her loved ones. I'm sure there's more then one story of a victimized woman who kept the resulting child and actually raised that child into a well-adjusted person successfully.

...Once again, I say this: don't punish the unborn child for the crimes of the father. Instead, give support to the victimized woman so she can get on with her life, and if need be give up the child for adoption.

[Sciguy]

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Looking at other translations, some might argue this means something else, but I believe it shows that Bible says we were sinful since conception! If that is the case, then even the Bible tells us when we have a soul, because a soulless lifeform cannot be guilty of sin.

It could be interpreted that way, but when one considered that the Original Sin is passed on from generation to generation, one could say that you were sinful before even your mother was conceived. You could say that you were sinful from the moment Adam and Eve fell.[/quote]


Bringing religon into the picture is probably a bad idea.

After all, then you get into the defanition of souls and sentiance.

The soul is undefineable.

Sentiance is a philisophical question, ranging from "I think therefore I am" To the requarince of an Id and Ego, to being aware of one's self.

There is no one concensious on this so now I find myself asking one question:

What else can define what time and circumstance is right for an abortion to take place?

[Maxgoof]

Here's another point to ponder:

However one defines the moment of death, one can still not do what one wishes with a corpse. Abuse of a corpse is a crime in most, if not all, states.

So, even if one defines life beginning at birth, does not the foetus deserve at *least* as much protection as a corpse?

[T.s.a.o]

I'm sorry if I started bringing religion into the issue, I don't mean to. I was only trying to bring out the truth .

I found out about the CSI thinigie:

In the episode titled "Secrets and Flies," which aired last November, Cat Willows (the principal female CSI) got into an argument with a doctor who headed an organization that "adopted" unused frozen embryos. This doctor was portrayed as a person of faith of an unspecified Christian denomination (though Cat seemed to assume she was a Roman Catholic).

When she explained this to her boss, Gil Grissom, he suggested that she should have cited Leviticus 17:11 as the last word on the subject: since "the life of the flesh is in the blood," a frozen embryo can't be considered alive since it does not have blood for 18 days after conception.

Obviously, Grissom (who is himself characteristically cryptic about exactly where he stands on the issue) - or, more accurately, Grissom's scriptwriters - have misappropriated the verse. It isn't talking about when life begins. Rather, it prohibits the eating of blood, because of the close linkage between blood and life. Of course, just because an embryo has not yet developed the capability to produce blood, does not mean it is not alive. (Are single-celled animals like amoebas and paramecia not alive?)

there was also a blog on it:http://mcclare.blogspot.com/2005/11/csi ... ience.html

[IronFox]

I'm sorry if I started bringing religion into the issue, I don't mean to. I was only trying to bring out the truth .

I found out about the CSI thinigie:

In the episode titled "Secrets and Flies," which aired last November, Cat Willows (the principal female CSI) got into an argument with a doctor who headed an organization that "adopted" unused frozen embryos. This doctor was portrayed as a person of faith of an unspecified Christian denomination (though Cat seemed to assume she was a Roman Catholic).

When she explained this to her boss, Gil Grissom, he suggested that she should have cited Leviticus 17:11 as the last word on the subject: since "the life of the flesh is in the blood," a frozen embryo can't be considered alive since it does not have blood for 18 days after conception.

Obviously, Grissom (who is himself characteristically cryptic about exactly where he stands on the issue) - or, more accurately, Grissom's scriptwriters - have misappropriated the verse. It isn't talking about when life begins. Rather, it prohibits the eating of blood, because of the close linkage between blood and life. Of course, just because an embryo has not yet developed the capability to produce blood, does not mean it is not alive. (Are single-celled animals like amoebas and paramecia not alive?)

there was also a blog on it:http://mcclare.blogspot.com/2005/11/csi ... ience.html

Like I said, I wouldn't trust anything by Jerry Bruckheimer on social issues. Now, for stuff blowing up, that's an entirely different matter.

[Maxgoof]

Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire:

Abortion on demand is always touted as "a woman's right to choose".

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I am willing to wager that a good portion, if not most, abortions occur not because the woman wants it, but because her boyfriend does. And since she is financially dependant on him....

I don't know if any studies has been done on this, but a good place to start would be a women's shelter. Find out how many of them got an abortion because their boyfriends or husbands threatened to beat them up or kill them if they didn't.

[Sciguy]

If this problem is a matter of law, then religon can not have a place in such law, as stated by our own laws.

Asking if abortion is civilized is an act of futilaty because Civilization is defined by perception. And everyone has a diffrent perception.

So it goes to a matter of if the act of abortion is right or wrong, as seen by sociaty. Sociaty is a group of people, and the problem of perception rears it's ugly head.

So, by what standard are we to decide if Abortion should be legal or illegal?

[Gengar003]

We are going to have our scientists come up with some concrete, logical, demonstrable, answer for when life physiologically starts, and use that.

Until then, we'll keep buttin heads over perception and religion.

So, yeah. Sciguy, ya pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

I know that if I were a woman, I would want to be able to choose between aborting or not if I got pregnant. I think most women would want the choice to be there. I don't know this, though, as I'm not most women. I'm considering starting a poll, to the tune of

Male & pro-life
Male & pro-choice
Female, Never been pregnant, & pro-life
Female, Never been pregnant, & pro-choice
Female, been pregnant, & pro-life,
Female, been pregnant, & pro-choice.

I'm not sure if we need a topic like that, though...

[Maxgoof]

If this problem is a matter of law, then religon can not have a place in such law, as stated by our own laws.

Asking if abortion is civilized is an act of futilaty because Civilization is defined by perception. And everyone has a diffrent perception.

So it goes to a matter of if the act of abortion is right or wrong, as seen by sociaty. Sociaty is a group of people, and the problem of perception rears it's ugly head.

So, by what standard are we to decide if Abortion should be legal or illegal?

Religion goes to the very heart of right and wrong. You cannot talk about right and wrong without bringing up religion.

If religion has no place in law, then you have to strike down every law that deals with right and wrong.

[Maxgoof]

I know that if I were a woman, I would want to be able to choose between aborting or not if I got pregnant. I think most women would want the choice to be there. I don't know this, though, as I'm not most women. I'm considering starting a poll, to the tune of

I know that, as a man, I would want to be able to choose between supporting a child I conceived or not.

But I don't get that choice, do I?

[Scathach]

I'll go ahead and admit to being 'pro-choice'.

Before you jump all over me however...

I'm also of the opinion that making the choice to abort because you find a child would get in the way of your lifestyle makes you a terrible person and you deserve to be punched in the head repeatedly. Use adoption centers and condoms.

However, I'm forced to admit there are valid reasons to abort a fetus. I believe when the actual process of carrying the child to term would pose a direct threat to the well-being of the mother, we must protect the life that is already in this world. I also think that the 'morning after pill' should be easy to access.

[T.s.a.o]

don't worry, they'll all jump on me after this, but it is a fact a woman will a regret aboring a child to save her life rather than risking it to bring that life into the world, that goes for those who are unsaved as well. its the same scenario for those who go jumping off bridges-they'll always regret it the moment they jump, everyone the medics were able to recover say so.