When is a baby considered a living human being?

[Craig]

View attachment 26464

You have very nice teeth...

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Why do you need to correct her subject line to reflect your opinion?

to reflect reality.

 

[Queen Titania]

a fetus is not legally a human being until it's out of the womb and breathing.

It is never legally a person anyway - legality only pertains to the birth of the name of a person, so Citizen - the live person has Inherent Rights, the citizen has Legal Rights - It is the split jurisdiction which confuses.

 

[SW48]

We should strive for a world where everyone believes that human life begins at the moment of conception. We aren't there yet. Note that I don't assign much value to a world where everyone is coerced as a matter of civil law, to treat conception as the point where human life begins. The pro-lifers aren't helping at all, by insisting that their way of respecting human life (at the point of a sword) is the only righteous one.

I am not sure I understand this: "The pro-lifers aren't helping at all, by insisting that their way of respecting human life (at the point of a sword) is the only righteous one."

 

[oicu812]

View attachment 26464

nice pig.

 

[Queen Titania]

make no mistake,,while i am no fan of abortion [as if anyone can be a "fan" of an invasive medical procedure] i do understand the painful decision a woman has to make on her own..

i would not stop abortion..nor make it harder to obtain...a mother who does not want her child, for any reason, should not have that child..

when children become scarce,,the need for this may stop...
but its not my decision to make...
and im glad for that.



[my nic. "oicu812" came from a bill clinton $3.00 dollar bill..it was the serial number...joke bill]..

No one likes abortions - and this is where those who argue agin are mistaken in their arguments - they seem to think because they don't like it it should not exist - I more than anyone else on here dislike abortion, because I have suffered them - if asked my advice I would always advise against but ---------------- that is nothing to do with our or Govs rights to impose Legal Rights over riding Inherent Rights on a Free born woman.

 

[Queen Titania]

I am not sure I understand this: "The pro-lifers aren't helping at all, by insisting that their way of respecting human life (at the point of a sword) is the only righteous one."

It might be - but what has that to do with Inherent Rights?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

It's not a question of human or non human, it's a question of whether the fetus' life is paramount over the woman's life who is carrying it. I say no, the woman's life takes precedence. A woman should have the right to decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term up until the fetus can survive outside the womb. Women should not be considered de facto hosts to parasite fetuses, they should have the right to choose whether they want to perform that function and should be able to opt out of that role up until the fetus can survive (with help, yes, but not necessarily help from the woman). There are a whole list of reasons a woman may not be ready or able to raise a child (or even give birth) and society should not force her to do so against her will. Other animals abort their pregnancies, it is a natural way of dealing with a pregnancy that has come about at the wrong time for a variety of reasons.

If you are suggesting that any pregnant woman should carry a pregnancy to term in all cases, you are saying that women are either 1) forbidden from having sex except for procreative reasons, or 2) women are of subordinate value to their fetus. Are you saying either of those things?

I could be wrong, but I suspect you're going to be waiting forever for a reply from the top poster.

 

[LeilaniMP]

I believe life begins at conception and would never abort a child.

That being said, I would not stop another woman from doing so.

It is their choice.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

I believe life begins at conception and would never abort a child.

That being said, I would not stop another woman from doing so.

It is their choice.

welcome to the pro-choice side.

 

[fairsheet]

I am not sure I understand this: "The pro-lifers aren't helping at all, by insisting that their way of respecting human life (at the point of a sword) is the only righteous one."

What don't you understand? Is it "point of a sword"? "Point of a sword" is a euphemism for "by force" - in this case, "civil law".

 

[fairsheet]

We're not the side that uses the sharp instruments in a play to demonstrate their opinion on when human life begins.

Your response helps me make my point. Jesus teaches us to not be diverted by what "the other side" does or doesn't do.

 

[LeilaniMP]

welcome to the pro-choice side.

I am not pro-abortion

 

[Craig]

I am not pro-abortion

Your earlier statement means you are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.


I believe life begins at conception and would never abort a child.

That being said, I would not stop another woman from doing so.

It is their choice.

 

[Dawg]

I could be wrong, but I suspect you're going to be waiting forever for a reply from the top poster.

of course you have much experience at doing exactly what you say the top poster will do...................hypocrisy be jules

 

[JuliefromOhio]

I am not pro-abortion

and pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
you're pro-choice which means you respect women to make their own decisions. you can even be personally against abortion and still be pro-choice for all women.

 

[BobbyT]

All I did was use the facts and characters in the scenario you presented and offer just one possibility. Isn't it kind of funny that you can make up a story but when I continue with it, the fact that this particular story is made up renders it useless in the discussion. Sorry Bobby but I can sit here and tell you many a TRUE story about women that I have been lucky enough to know, who found alternatives to abortion and are quite happy about their children. With the help of their families and/or with the help of community in the pregnancy centers. And poverty? No one deserves to die because they're poor. No mother should dread an abortion but have one anyway because she's poor, like the mother in your story. I"ve mentioned before that my husband was born to a 17 year old. His father abandoned him. He and his mother were extremely poor. She adores him, always has. And he loves life. So if you're going to use the poverty angle to argue for abortion, sorry. You can't tell me anything I haven't heard or witnessed for myself. And that's not to mention the many stories of successful public figures who grew up dirt poor.

As for the woman in Ireland and the priest that you mentioned, I guess you didn't hear what the pope just reiterated last week or so. OF course not. Since his trip to the Philipines, he's fast losing his appeal to the left and leftwing media is vascillating somewhere between villifying him and ignorng him. In short, he talked about how it is the duty of parents to be responsible when planning family size and the timing of births. Health of the wife and finances should be considered always. It's not a new teaching. But few in the leftwing media are carrying the story because in the same discussion he also reiterated the Church's opposition to artificial BC and reminded the faithful to choose the natural methods that are as effective as artificial means to delay or space out births. And no, these methods didn't come from the Church. They came from the same medical community you respect. Ironically, the woman the pope mentioned to make his point about irresponsible choices also had seven kids and was carrying an eighth. IT wasn't the fact that she was having an eighth child that was the issue, it was the threat to her wellbeing during each of her deliveries that illustrated the irresponsibility he was talking about. He specifically said "Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits."

Here's the story. Sorry to disappoint you.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-responsible-parenthood-doesnt-mean-birth-control

But of course, you found a story about a priest who gave not only some bad counsel, but counsel that was in direct opposition to the Church he belonged to. And from there you've taken it upon yourself to decide what our faith teaches about women and the value of our lives when they're in danger during pregnancy. And you got it terribly wrong. But it's not surprising when someone on your side of the issue tries that tack. Proabortion people have been pitting mothers against their children for decades now, and claiming that those of us who respect ALL life, really deep down prefer children over their mothers.

Fact is there are a million stories. I side with women who want to control their own lives, and I don't pursue reasons to punish women for having sex. The case in Ireland that I spoke of happened far, far before this current pope who understands birth control is necessary. Back in the 60's or 70's when the story I related took place, not only did her priest advise her that birth control and abortion were wrong, but also that denying her husband sex whenever he wanted it was wrong. Yes times have changed, but people are going to have sex and sex can result in children. If we want to responsibly control family size, birth control - not just timing intercourse - is necessary. And sometimes, so is abortion. I don't want women to go back to being slaves to their reproduction. Women are important too.

 

[gigi]

No one likes abortions - and this is where those who argue agin are mistaken in their arguments - they seem to think because they don't like it it should not exist - I more than anyone else on here dislike abortion, because I have suffered them - if asked my advice I would always advise against but ---------------- that is nothing to do with our or Govs rights to impose Legal Rights over riding Inherent Rights on a Free born woman.

That's where you're wrong. We "don't like abortion" because it is about the destruction of human life. Vulnerable, helpless, human life. We argue against it for that reason.

 

[gigi]

Fact is there are a million stories. I side with women who want to control their own lives, and I don't pursue reasons to punish women for having sex. The case in Ireland that I spoke of happened far, far before this current pope who understands birth control is necessary. Back in the 60's or 70's when the story I related took place, not only did her priest advise her that birth control and abortion were wrong, but also that denying her husband sex whenever he wanted it was wrong. Yes times have changed, but people are going to have sex and sex can result in children. If we want to responsibly control family size, birth control - not just timing intercourse - is necessary. And sometimes, so is abortion. I don't want women to go back to being slaves to their reproduction. Women are important too.

Obviously, you didn't read my post or his the link I gave you. I'll try again.
Pope Francis did not teach anything new or different than what the Church has taught. He also used the opportunity to ONCE AGAIN, repeat the teaching that artificial birth control is sinful in our faith, and why. I"m sorry, Bobby. I know the left is taking this one hard, but no, the pope doesn't share your views on BC and abortion. Leftist media and "progressive Catholics" started salivating the minute he was elected and at some point in those illinformed circles it just became a given-in their minds- that he would change teaching on these things, and the celebration kind of began early. It was the direct result of media sources lazily feeding off of each other instead of actually checking the quotes they found in each others' work. Now most are trying to backtrack, but some, like you, will keep repeating the same lie about our pope. Eventually, he'll be villified for not fulfilling the predictions these people made. And I'm sure they'll be some talk about "flip-flopping" to placate "conservative Catholics".

It has never been a teaching in our Church that A)a man should have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to if she didn't want to or B)that a wife should give in to sex whenever her husband wanted her to if she didn't want to. Quite the opposite is true. But for the sake of your argument you must keep assuming that. Doesn't make it true. I don't know what you do for a living. But surely, in your line of work, as in every vocation, there has been an incompetent boob who has made grave errors and poor judgements and stood behind them, like this priest in IReland that you're holding up. But incompetence doesn't make the mistake the truth. Some fool's error shouldn't be the teaching moment about your entire profession. You wouldn't stand for it. Yet you insist on that tack here, when the tack suits your talking points.

Funny thing that you say "women are important too", after you've made the case for why women should be stuffed with hormones and bits of plastic so that we can be 'sex-ready' everyday of the month. In our faith, women are too precious for that. And men are expected to respect the roles God bestowed on us, be grateful for us, wonderful to us, protective of us, and love us enough to be willing to make small sacrifices WITH us rather than medicate us into useful objects.

 

[gigi]

Your response helps me make my point. Jesus teaches us to not be diverted by what "the other side" does or doesn't do.

What teaching are you referring to?

While I wait for you to get back to me on that, I'll ask you. Isn't that what you did, though, when you made a judgment about how prolifers go about this issue? The fact that you didn't use the words "your side" or "the other side" doesn't change what you said.