When Does Life Begin ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
Of course I really cant be sure as this is up to God. There will be differing opinions and therefore consider this as an opinion. I'll take a guess and say when God breathes that first breath into you, that's when you become a living breathing Human being with all the trials and tribulations associated with being human. JMHO. We can get rediculous and start speculating on the sperm traveling to the egg and when it finally sticks its little head into the egg, now it's a human etc. It's all relative. I'll stick with the first breath. I mean, before we had all this modern medical equipment, the baby was just some movement inside the woman untill it was "Born". I'm sticking with Born. Explain "still born".
South Texas
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but it makes no difference when Human Life begins, when that life is completely worthless. Oh Yeah!, and the shit begins. From a rusty coat hanger to the Killing Fields, Life is completely worthless unless we value such. Some so-called Humans use other humans life as a stepping stone to be blessed with 1,000 Virgin Goats, and Water Buffaloes. Others, it greatly various, depending upon the pros & cons of Human nature. The US has debated & fought over this fucking issue for years on end, and,... here we go again.
Moral belief is basically worthless when it comes to the nut-cutting. It's what we have as the Law that Governors & clarifies all the cackling going on. In the Court, I've seen, basically, a trespassing legal defense issued to the Court for a Littering indictment. My question is,... "When does the conceived enter into the cover of Due Process?" When THAT question is finally decided within the Supreme Court, which has not been since the Rowe V Wade issue came up, then all will be settled. Thus far, they have been to cowardly to confront the issue.
Thus far, murdering Terrorist, and persons entering the Country without regards to our Laws has been extended the US protected Constitutional Right of Due Process, IE: A right to have prior written notice of the charge- in this issue- of State sanctioned Murder, the right to call witnesses, a right to have adequate Counsel, the right to question persons making the charge, a right to a fair & impartial hearing among his or her peers, a right to redress, etc.
The slaughtered Babies don't have this right, thus far, because they do not have a cheeking account with lots of money. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. They haven't formed vocal cords to scream for help, or call an Atty.
Why can't the Supreme Court at least rule when a womb is extended the Due Process Rights?
Until then, all our opinions are worthless. My worthless opinion is when some show of Life when the egg shows movement. And I want a 60 day wait & see time span to make sure. My dogs has far better treatment than what our babies receive.
Moral belief is basically worthless when it comes to the nut-cutting. It's what we have as the Law that Governors & clarifies all the cackling going on. In the Court, I've seen, basically, a trespassing legal defense issued to the Court for a Littering indictment. My question is,... "When does the conceived enter into the cover of Due Process?" When THAT question is finally decided within the Supreme Court, which has not been since the Rowe V Wade issue came up, then all will be settled. Thus far, they have been to cowardly to confront the issue.
Thus far, murdering Terrorist, and persons entering the Country without regards to our Laws has been extended the US protected Constitutional Right of Due Process, IE: A right to have prior written notice of the charge- in this issue- of State sanctioned Murder, the right to call witnesses, a right to have adequate Counsel, the right to question persons making the charge, a right to a fair & impartial hearing among his or her peers, a right to redress, etc.
The slaughtered Babies don't have this right, thus far, because they do not have a cheeking account with lots of money. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. They haven't formed vocal cords to scream for help, or call an Atty.
Why can't the Supreme Court at least rule when a womb is extended the Due Process Rights?
Until then, all our opinions are worthless. My worthless opinion is when some show of Life when the egg shows movement. And I want a 60 day wait & see time span to make sure. My dogs has far better treatment than what our babies receive.
Microdizzey
Well-Known Member
dude, the human species is amazing. what the hell are you talking about... being worthless. even though we're easily corrupted, we're still brilliant and superior creatures.
medicineman
New Member
It's that free will thing that gets us in trouble.
celorfiwyn
Well-Known Member
there are several thousands of people die every single day on this planet, and so few of those goes with natural causes, this should tell us something, i`d say we need to more focus to this problem before abortion
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
When the republicans stop lobbying for ya.
medicineman
New Member
Republican mantra: life is sacred untill you're born, then fuck you!
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
*Life* surely begins at conception. But who cares? Cows are alive, and we slaughter and eat them constantly. We end lives constantly, all the time. The question should really be, when can the little thing exhibit self-awareness? Before that point, it's just a clump of unthinking cells. You need a nervous system, and a fair amount of brainpower, to display self-awareness. It's not the 'one thing' that defines us as humans, but it is one of the things that defines a being as sentient. We're not the only species that exhibits self-awareness either -- I believe orcas and dolphins and elephants do as well.
Before it's a sentient being, I don't care what you do with it. After all, it's not sentient, it's got no ability to feel pain, it doesn't think, it doesn't know it even exists. It's basically a tiny Terry Schiavo, but with even less of a nervous system. Her family got to decide her fate, because of her lack of sentience. So too should a woman be able to decide the fate of her own fetusus, since they also lack the sentience to make the decisions for themselves.
The religious harp on about souls. It seems they believe that a sperm cell touching an egg cell spontaneously creates a soul. Any proof of that? What's the soul made of? Where is it located? Can it be frozen and thawed out later? Can you get a soul transplant? How about women who don't believe in these religions? Those religions still have a right to force the woman to term against her will, in effect raping her with their religion? Ummm...no.
Before it's a sentient being, I don't care what you do with it. After all, it's not sentient, it's got no ability to feel pain, it doesn't think, it doesn't know it even exists. It's basically a tiny Terry Schiavo, but with even less of a nervous system. Her family got to decide her fate, because of her lack of sentience. So too should a woman be able to decide the fate of her own fetusus, since they also lack the sentience to make the decisions for themselves.
The religious harp on about souls. It seems they believe that a sperm cell touching an egg cell spontaneously creates a soul. Any proof of that? What's the soul made of? Where is it located? Can it be frozen and thawed out later? Can you get a soul transplant? How about women who don't believe in these religions? Those religions still have a right to force the woman to term against her will, in effect raping her with their religion? Ummm...no.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
I'm going to rep you for this eloquent and enlightened post.
medicineman
New Member
~LOL~, how true. This is the republican belief. I think Vi has left the Bill Maher bandwagon, I'm still riding it high. I don't agree with everything he advocates but about 95%. I say he agrees with me about 95% of the time,~LOL~. In fact I just re-instated my HBO because he was coming back, (Hear that HBO). I'm definently a fan.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Actually The question isn't relevant, in the early 1970's abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court who's ruling was that a mother has the right to choose if she wants to carry a child or terminate the pregnancy. This makes it the law of the land. Sure, states can chip away at it but it is still that law, like it or not.
ROE v. WADE
ROE v. WADE
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Medman, I hate your views, but I wish you could get a good paying job, and have to pay the kind of taxes that I am stuck paying. I wish you could drive a vehicle like mine, and see why the gas taxes suck so badly. I wish you had as much invested in the market as I do (which isn't really that much) or even a lot more, so you could see that capital gains and corporate income tax suck. I wish that you were successful, so you wouldn't hate those that are so much.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
True, it is the law of the land. But if enough conservative religious people are put in the position of choosing our Supreme Court justices, who knows how long Roe v. Wade will stand? And if it falls, then we will repeat the horror of the past, but this time we'll do it knowing full well what lies ahead -- bloody hangers, back-alley abortions, imprisoned doctors, and dead young women. We've already been through all that, and you'd *think* we'd learn from the mistakes of the past, but the religious do not feel that those times *were* a mistake and would relish a return to what they probably feel were their 'glory days', but were, for women in general, 'gory days'.
I called my board of election commisioners this morning, to make absolutely sure my name is on the voter registration lists and that my vote will count in November. I will again, and as always, stand with and for the freedom of women to determine their own destiny, and I will fight as hard as I can against those who would revoke that freedom. I guess I'm just a pro-freedom kinda guy.
Oh, and rich folks always hate progressive taxation, while the poor always hate regressive taxation. Too bad for the rich that a poor person's vote counts as much as a rich person's vote. It's time to pay the bills, and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The poor and the middle class can't do much more, but the rich...they can. They might have to downgrade from a Mercedes to a Lexus. Boohoo. Better that than the poor having to downgrade from eating food to eating dirt.
I called my board of election commisioners this morning, to make absolutely sure my name is on the voter registration lists and that my vote will count in November. I will again, and as always, stand with and for the freedom of women to determine their own destiny, and I will fight as hard as I can against those who would revoke that freedom. I guess I'm just a pro-freedom kinda guy.
Oh, and rich folks always hate progressive taxation, while the poor always hate regressive taxation. Too bad for the rich that a poor person's vote counts as much as a rich person's vote. It's time to pay the bills, and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The poor and the middle class can't do much more, but the rich...they can. They might have to downgrade from a Mercedes to a Lexus. Boohoo. Better that than the poor having to downgrade from eating food to eating dirt.
Smirgen
Well-Known Member
I think the question is relevant since it really has nothing to do with mans law, Every body especially on this board knows that just because a small group of people creates a law does not make the law right.
I think all human life is valuable especially the innocent, and that it should be our duty as decent human beings to protect said innocent life, even more so for those who cant yet beg for their lives.
I dont feel this way because of any political party affiliation I feel this way because of something much more innate in my being.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Ok.....my sis in law, and her two sisters, have, between them, have had 11 children.My sister in law retains custody of my niece simply because she is with my brother, and the child is cared for.These girls are all pro life.Could never abide by an abortion.But neglecting children and getting them taken away poses no moral problems. What would have been the better option for the other ten children, one who I know was injured severely because of his mother's neglect?
Smirgen
Well-Known Member
Thats a sad story but the only thing sadder than that would be if none of those children were allowed to live, Children should not have to die simply because their mothers are irresponsible .
Those ten children should be asked when they reach the age of 30 if they wish they had been aborted, I wonder if their answer would be the same as all of ours would be.
By the way if those women have that many children taken away from them they should have their tubes tied since they are immature mentally.