toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at
TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In!Every day we will post a new topic and we want to get your comments on that topic. The topic could be about literally anything from the vague to the specific, important or trivial. The TOL membership can take that topic and run with it!
So it isn't possible to remove the baby without actively killing it first?
I don't know the reason, but I suspect the problem is they must remove the damaged falopian tube and the baby dies from lack of blood supply. The uterus wall with the hypertrophied endothelial cells is needed. The human placenta is different from many others and few if any women want to be a guinea pig. I doubt medicine can develop a weeks old placenta and the uterine response in a hour's surgical procedure.
I don't know the reason, but I suspect the problem is they must remove the damaged falopian tube and the baby dies from lack of blood supply. The uterus wall with the hypertrophied endothelial cells is needed. The human placenta is different from many others and few if any women want to be a guinea pig. I doubt medicine can develop a weeks old placenta and the uterine response in a hour's surgical procedure.
This we know. And as long as it's legal to kill the baby then what incentive is there fore medical science to move forward to where we can one day save that child.
This we know. And as long as it's legal to kill the baby then what incentive is there fore medical science to move forward to where we can one day save that child.
I don't think it is legal to murder the baby. Roe vs. Wade didn't annul any state's law against premeditated murder. It opined that abortion (the premature removal of a fetus from the maternal tissue) was legal. And it didn't make the words murder and abortion Legal synonyms.
I don't think it is legal to murder the baby. Roe vs. Wade didn't annul any state's law against premeditated murder. It opined that abortion (the premature removal of a fetus from the maternal tissue) was legal. And it didn't make the words murder and abortion Legal synonyms.
I missed the part where I used the legal term "murder."
What difference does that make since God will determine murder on whether it has a soul.
Are you saying it has a soul, or that it does not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coehling
You didn't. You used the term kill which according to my studies God never uses when referring to the malicious separation of a body and its soul.
So you're saying it is murder?
Well, if you are then you can clearly see that it is declared legal as there is no application of laws against murder to this act. The government has ignored and overstepped God's command of "Do not murder," and the authority He delegated to them in the application of His commands.
Does the mother have to wait til Judgement day to find out?
Absolutely not. She just has to read Psalm 51: 5, 6, or 7, depending on which translation you use. Also, we know the courts have given child support based on DNA. Ergo, the man was a father and she a mother of a human child at conception. Human being is a word which is can be used to further describe an age as in fetus, baby, minor, teenager, major, adult, etc.
Interesting read here. THis artilce strts off with this:
David Swindle objects to my uncompromising description of abortion as murder on the grounds that the term “murder” presupposes the mother’s intent to be causing the death of something she knows to be a person. At most, he says, “manslaughter” is a more appropriate description, because by pro-lifers’ (myself included) own admission, many women seeking abortions may not know that science unambiguously proves that human life begins with fertilization, making zygotes, embryos, and fetuses every cell as much a “human being” as David and me.
Interesting read here. THis artilce strts off with this:
David Swindle objects to my uncompromising description of abortion as murder on the grounds that the term “murder” presupposes the mother’s intent to be causing the death of something she knows to be a person. At most, he says, “manslaughter” is a more appropriate description, because by pro-lifers’ (myself included) own admission, many women seeking abortions may not know that science unambiguously proves that human life begins with fertilization, making zygotes, embryos, and fetuses every cell as much a “human being” as David and me.
You are so very right that the supreme court virtually ignores the science and expounds on the abortion. The persons who "may not know that a person's life begins with fertilization" are what Lenin called useful idiots, IMHO, and they are with us today. Those who do know are a god unto themselves.
I don't know the reason, but I suspect the problem is they must remove the damaged falopian tube and the baby dies from lack of blood supply. The uterus wall with the hypertrophied endothelial cells is needed. The human placenta is different from many others and few if any women want to be a guinea pig. I doubt medicine can develop a weeks old placenta and the uterine response in a hour's surgical procedure.
One way or another it's unavoidable. It's either this or also lose the mother.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
June 4th, 2012, 02:03 PM
Linear Mode
