Yeah. It's always better, when killing a baby, to have it not feel pain. "Hey mom. We killed our baby today, but not to worry. We anesthetized it first, just like you'd do a dog or cat." I guess you're OK with that. Sad.


You did not address this, so I'll leave it up.


Get raped and become pregnant. Be molested by your uncle and get pregnant. Get pregnant with your fourth child and watch your partner/husband leave you for someone else. Use three forms of birth control correctly but still end up pregnant. Now what?


In your world, you anesthetize and then kill the baby.

Pregnancies from rape/incest are very rare. Using three forms of birth control and becoming pregnant is very rare. As to the mom whose husband left her, would you be OK with killing the oldest child and then giving birth? That way, at least all of the children could enjoy a somewhat brief life. Are you OK with that? We could be sure to anesthetize the older child lest he/she feel any pain from being killed. For that matter, the mom could have all of the born children anesthetized and killed, and then she could give birth and have only one child. Sound reasonable? I mean, if we are OK with killing human beings, then what difference does it make how old they are?

So let me get this straight . A baby in the womb does not feel pain until birth ?

I sure hope you've been saving all these fetuses through adoption.


So let me get this straight . A baby in the womb does not feel pain until birth ?
That has not been said. Please read the link I posted. Since this thread has been abruptly moved and very poorly named, here, for your convenience, is that link again:

https://www.abortionclinics.com/abortion-facts/can-a-fetus-feel-pain-during-an-abortion/

nah will not bother IMO murder is murder whether the victim can feel the pain or not .

I sure hope you've been saving all these fetuses through adoption.Strange how the advocates for killing unborn babies want to shift the conversation elsewhere. Well, I guess I would as well if I held that position.


nah will not bother IMO murder is murder whether the victim can feel the pain or not .That's the unspeakably gruesome part of their position. First they argue that there is no pain, but then they argue that they very nobly anesthetize the unborn child PRIOR to killing it for the very reason of preventing a painful death. It sounds like Nazi propaganda. "We anesthetize our people before we put them in the ovens."

"We anesthetize our people before we put them in the ovens."
You apparently will refuse to be anesthetized.


Strange how the advocates for killing unborn babies want to shift the conversation elsewhere. Well, I guess I would as well if I held that position.
You didn't read the article I posted, did you.

As my response to your propaganda site (e.g. "Click here for tips to help you find a quality abortion clinic.") article clearly showed, I did read it. It was an opinion piece with no research to support it beyond the first trimester which was never in question to begin with.


You apparently will refuse to be anesthetized.
Since the death of unborn children is a joking matter for you, I'll leave it with you.

Since the death of unborn children is a joking matter for you, I'll leave it with you.
Since you don't give a rip about those children once they've taken their first breath, I'll find something more constructive to do with someone who has a heart.

Since you don't give a rip about those children once they've taken their first breath,I'm not the one who joked about the subject. That was you, so just go ahead, accept it, and stop copying, especially when you are just repeating liberal dem, shall we say, untruths.

I'm not the one who joked about the subject. That was you, so just go ahead, accept it, and stop copying, especially when you are just repeating liberal dem, shall we say, untruths.
Oh, there is lots of evidence. Don't get me started.

Oh, there is lots of evidence. Don't get me started.You have nothing.

You have nothing.
I have all the libraries of the world at my fingertips.

You have nothing.

You have nothing.
Na na!!!

See what I mean? You told a bald-faced lie ("Since you don't give a rip about those children once they've taken their first breath",) for which you have nothing. Shame on you.

Then please share. What do you do to help all those born children?

First you knew, but now you don’t know. See what I mean?

First you knew, but now you don’t know. See what I mean?
I asked YOU. You didn't supply any information. Apparently, once they're born, you turn your back on them. Typical righty.

And now you know again!! Pretty whacky. Prejudiced, too.

And now you know again!! Pretty whacky. Prejudiced, too.
Just paying you back for all the prejudiced and inaccurate leftie putdowns.

Just paying you back for all the prejudiced and inaccurate leftie putdowns.By me? Show me one.

Incredibly, you have just admitted to lying. It's just unbelievable.

By me? Show me one.

Incredibly, you have just admitted to lying. It's just unbelievable.
Read back in this thread. Plus this post.

. Apparently, once they're born, you turn your back on them. Typical righty.

This is a red herring diversion .The question of the humanity of the baby isn't taken into account. Suppose a parent doesn't want the child that is already born . Would they be justified in wacking it and throwing it in a dumpster ? No . Murder is murder .


This charge of hypocrisy doesn't hold water . There are many more pro life crisis pregnancy centers than there are abortion mills ....funded with private funding (those damn uncaring righties ).They provide parenting classes, clothing and adoption services. Abortion mills provide the means to kill and dispose of babies.

How many adoptions should I do before I can not be labeled a hypocrite when I say murdering a baby is wrong ? To say that unless I'm willing to care for the baby then I have no right to say killing the baby is wrong is an absurd position to take. The answer is that there is no amount of donations I could make or children I could adopt that would change the view that we are not doing enough .

This is a red herring diversion .The question of the humanity of the baby isn't taken into account. Suppose a parent doesn't want the child that is already born . Would they be justified in wacking it and throwing it in a dumpster ? No . Murder is murder .Absolutely correct. It seems to be true that when a person talks him/herself into a corner, then lashing out at the other side is seen as some avenue of escape. A better alternative is to rethink your position.


Read back in this thread.Yes, read back in this thread, JL. There just has to be something somewhere!! I have no idea where it is, but it just MUST be there.

Absolutely true. It seems to be true that when a person talks him/herself into a corner, then lashing out at the other side is seen as some avenue of escape.
And you do that so smoothly. And cherry-picking the Bible and articles that I post.

And you do that so smoothly.Somewhere...somewhere...somewhere...somew here.

Sorry WG, but Tom and I have both seen it. You're busted.

Gov. Newsome in Cali is pushing this legislation that would allow for infant deaths up to 28 days after birth. I wonder if WG approves of this?


Newsom and his legislature do not stop with basic abortion. AB 2223 has been dubbed the “Baby Slayer” bill. According to legal experts, The Baby Slayer Bill will block the prosecution of mothers for any and all “pregnancy losses” they consent to, regardless of how the baby is “lost.”

Because the Baby Slayer Bill includes the term “perinatal,” it extends the time to kill babies past birth. Perinatal, by definition, means after birth. If there is no intent to extend protection for those who fail to assist babies that survive abortion, then why include the term “perinatal?”

California law states that the perinatal period goes from birth until at least the first 28 days of life or more. So long as the mom consents and so long as a doctor points to “causes that occurred in utero” for the death of a baby under a month old, AB 2223 will act to cover up why the baby died.

The sickness just continues.

Gov. Newsome in Cali is pushing this legislation that would allow for infant deaths up to 28 days after birth. I wonder if WG approves of this?
You want to shoot immigrants and refugees at the southern border. Grown-up babies.

The question of the humanity of the baby isn't taken into account.

What exactly is it about a zygote that makes you think it's a baby?

Because a babies life begins at conception . However ,the zygote phase lasts all of 4 days . Abortions happen to babies well after the zygote phase . The baby is past the zygote phase before implantation .

Correct. Abortion does not concern zygotes, though the zygote is fully human and only needs time to grow.

I can't get over the idea that people actually are embracing the idea that we can anesthetize the unborn child so that he/she feels no pain when being killed. It's difficult to describe how disgustingly bizarre it is to see a human being treated like a dog or cat that needs to be put down.

Because a babies life begins at conception . However ,the zygote phase lasts all of 4 days . Abortions happen to babies well after the zygote phase . The baby is past the zygote phase before implantation .

You didn't answer the question. Let me ask it another way. What exactly is it about conception that makes you think the result is a baby at the moment of conception?

Silly question The answer is because it is a human life at the moment of conception. At any stage a zygote or a fetus can die naturally .Left alone that zygot or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo phrase applies becomes a human .

At what stage in a person's development is it ok to murder them ? Before birth at a specific day ? After birth ? Some doctors are saying after birth abortion is acceptable . (see Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in the 'Journal of Medical Ethics '


How about before that child becomes adolescent ? We know those teen years can sometimes be an inconvenient b*tch on parents .

How about before adulthood ? After all no child is truly free and independent deserving of rights while still in the care of adults .

How about the elderly . They can be an inconvenient burden . WACK THEM TOO !!!
Netherlands Forcible Euthanasia Case and the Slippery Slope - Charlotte Lozier Institute (https://lozierinstitute.org/netherlands-forcible-euthanasia-case-and-the-slippery-slope/)

How about the elderly . They can be an inconvenient burden . WACK THEM TOO !!!Is already marginally here, but I think that's the next big wave coming in addition to knocking off disabled infants. We've already seen a tremendous decline in the births of Down's syndrome children since the condition can be detected prenatally, and it is estimated that nearly 90% of unborn babies diagnosed with the condition are killed in abortion.

This is an excerpt from the story you linked. Thankfully, the wonderful, caring doctor was sensitive enough to anesthetize the woman so that killing her would cause her no discomfort.


The woman, who was suffering from dementia, had in the past expressed a willingness to seek euthanasia, which is legal in the Netherlands, but only when “the time was right.” She had been confined to a nursing home and was known to wander the halls there and to display signs of fear and anger.

The senior doctor at the nursing home concluded that she was in “intolerable suffering” and that her dementia had reached the point that she was no longer capable of determining when the “time was right” to request euthanasia.

So the doctor took it upon herself to make that determination.

yes the barn door has been opened . This all goes back to callus leaders who say take a pain killer instead of getting treatment .

Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y)

The answer is because it is a human life at the moment of conception.

That's not an answer. It's a statement of what you think. My questions is WHY do you think that. WHY do you think a human life is created at conception? WHY? This is my third attempt to understand your belief.

Are you avoiding answering? If you don't want to answer, that's ok. Just say so and I'll stop asking. I'm beginning to think you don't KNOW WHY.



For the rest below, you're way off on a wild tangent. It really seems like you're avoiding the issue I'm inquiring about. Like I said, just tell me you don't want to answer and I'll go away.


At what stage in a person's development is it ok to murder them ? Before birth at a specific day ? After birth ? Some doctors are saying after birth abortion is acceptable . (see Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in the 'Journal of Medical Ethics '
How about before that child becomes adolescent ? We know those teen years can sometimes be an inconvenient b*tch on parents .
How about before adulthood ? After all no child is truly free and independent deserving of rights while still in the care of adults .
How about the elderly . They can be an inconvenient burden . WACK THEM TOO !!!
Netherlands Forcible Euthanasia Case and the Slippery Slope - Charlotte Lozier Institute (https://lozierinstitute.org/netherlands-forcible-euthanasia-case-and-the-slippery-slope/)


Your link in post 35 doesn't imply anything like you're suggesting. You lose credibility by doing that.

Is this a question about when human life begins or when a human person begins ? The answer to the first question is a scientific fact . Life begins at conception. The answer to the second question is philosophical .


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

(.Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988)

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
( Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition.Carlson, Bruce M. Patte)

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell,I wonder which of the higher animals don't start in that manner?

The fat lady running for Senate in Georgia has hit on it. The answer for inflation is...get an abortion!!


"But let’s be clear. Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs. For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child. And so these are — it’s important for us to have ‘both and’ conversations. We don’t have the luxury of reducing it or separating them out," Abrams said. I wonder how much longer it will be before she suggests that after we get rid of all of those budget-busting unborn children, maybe we should look at some of the ones who are here post-birth. After all, if we knock off a few million of them, then we would save all sorts of money. Fewer schools, less money spent on food, lower transportation costs, and lower clothing costs.

You can always count on those liberal dems to suggest something practical. And speaking of something practical, perhaps an alternative to the killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings would be for women who don't want to have a baby to not get pregnant? I mean, we're living in the golden age of birth control, so why not use it?

And yes, that is just one white man's opinion.

Is this a question about when human life begins or when a human person begins ? The answer to the first question is a scientific fact . Life begins at conception. The answer to the second question is philosophical .

You make no distinction between human life and life. I do. You believe human life begins at conception. I don't. You believe human life starting at conception is a scientific fact. No, it is not a scientific fact. You believe, more or less accurately, that the beginning of HUMAN life or personhood is a philosophical question. I could live with that, but you didn't answer that philosophical question.


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

(.Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988)

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

( Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition.Carlson, Bruce M. Patte)

I won't spend a lot of time on the science aspect, since there are just as many scientists who do not think human life begins at conception. Let's avoid dueling science quotes. In plain language, a fertilized egg does not look like a baby, does not smell like a baby, does not act like a baby or do any of the things associated with a baby. Oh, say the anti-abortion crowd, it has DNA so it is a baby. A severed arm has DNA also. Is a severed arm a baby?

Here's a good link discussing the topic of a baby at conception.
https://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/

(https://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/)Now, on to the philosophical approach. I will summarize the philosophy from the religious point of view which has determined the key issues in abortion.

In the 1869 document Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius IX declared the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Up to then Catholic teaching for 1,500 years was that no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”.

Earlier, Aristotle called it “quickening”, the time when the mother first felt movement in the womb occurring at approximately 24 weeks. The great Churchmen Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas all agreed.

Those saints never doubted that what they were dealing with from the moment of conception was life. What preoccupied them was when that life became a human person. They did not accept that a collection of biochemical elements with potential was a person. In those pre-scientific days they settled on quickening as the great indicator of personhood. If such a collection of biochemical elements is to be afforded the status of personhood, should this not also apply to limbs and organs removed through surgery, etc? Why no funeral rites for those? If a human person exists from conception, why are those who miscarry soon after conception not afforded baptism and funerals?

If the zygote has “potential” human life, it should also mean that every sperm and every ovum ought to be preserved due to its potential personhood given the right circumstances? What about all those potential “people” denied existence?

Current anti-abortion positions owe their belief to Catholic dogma, not to science.

In 1854 the same Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception a dogma of the church. It teaches that Mary, mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin, thus solving an age-old conundrum – how could the Son of God be born of a woman with original sin on her soul? It was decided she was born without original sin on her soul.

And when in 1854 Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception a dogma of the church, he stated that Mary had been free from sin “in the first instant of her conception”.

Fifteen years later, in 1869, he was being consistent with that teaching when he announced the penalty of excommunication for abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

Now, what is the point of all that history? Keep reading.

In the mid-to-late 19th century, on a parallel line, Protestant scholars began to examine the Bible with a view to modern techniques of analysis – textual criticism, language, etc. This excellent work was a threat to the evangelicals. Thus began the fundamentalism of the more extreme groups. In the 1920s, the Catholic Church became a target of the fundamentalists, calling it the “Whore of Babylon”.

When the fundamentalists evolved through the 20th century, abortion became a trigger issue since it was relatively easy to pick a position for or against. After all, it was murder, wasn't it? And God forbade killing. By 2016 it had become the key issue of the white evangelical fundamentalists - an issue for above any other. The great irony is that the anti-abortion belief they hold was created by the Catholic Church - that "Whore of Babylon".

Another historical irony is the opposition to abortion by the 19th century medical establishment. This was due to unwelcome competition from the midwives of the day. Today the medical profession has reversed itself, being primarily in support of abortion.

(The above ideas were complied from Catholic, Protestant, secular, and scientific sources).
(https://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/)

A severed arm has DNA also. Is a severed arm a baby?This is a false equivalency. The question should be, is the severed arm a human ARM? It is human, of course as its DNA amply demonstrates. No sane person would ever see a severed arm and say, "Look! A clump of cells!" Nor would they say, "Look! A non-specific arm!" And so that answer is as obvious as the answer is for the fertilized egg. In an altogether inadvertent manner, you have contributed to the pro-life position.

It is hard to imagine a sane person seeing this photo and trying to make the case it is not human. This is at 14 weeks. Virtually every liberal dem would happily sanction its destruction. If you saw its severed arm or leg, which is how abortions at this point take place, you would identify them as human. 49419

If you saw its severed arm or leg, which is how abortions at this point take place, you would identify them as human.
That's not how the majority of abortions take place -- only at the end of the pregnancy IF NECESSARY.

Sorry, WG, but you don't know what you are talking about. As a five-minute search of the web would have told you, D&E's are routinely used in the second term. Fourteen weeks is in the second trimester. Abortions at the end of pregnancies are done in an even more grisly fashion.

It's just an example of what I dislike about liberals. It's not so much that you don't know the truth as that you don't CARE about the truth, or at least not enough to take the minimal effort it requires to discover it.

Dilation and evacuation - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation)

no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .

Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .

Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .
Innocent human life is not to be denied for issues of convenience and human fiat

The question is not if the fetus is a person. The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. I say yes. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .

The Declaration of Independence recognized it .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the fetus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation. Genocide has been committed using such logic . Once the state can decide who is a person then all bets are off.

Sorry, WG, but you don't know what you are talking about.
You are very incorrect. Please ask God to make you a woman in the next life. Never mind, I've already asked Him.

As far as research goes, I did all that long ago, more recently, and after I read your post. Crackerjack librarian here. And female to boot.


Once the state can decide who is a person then all bets are off.
What business is it of the state?

What business is it of the state?

If a person does not have a natural right to exist then who decides it ? The state is created to protect rights .

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If a person does not have a natural right to exist then who decides it ? The state is created to protect rights .
There is no "person" with rights until a fetus takes its first breath..."and man became a living soul."

no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .

You don't believe it, therefore it's a waste of time? You'll have to do better than that.


Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .

A zygote is hardly a person - it's a collection of biochemicals. Be careful about bringing the Judeo-Christian God into the discussion. That's how the issue became muddled in the first place. Anyway, appealing to God is a dead end. Whose God? Which of the many?


Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .

This fundamentalist position of the fertilized egg being human is denied by the great majority of people - scientists and otherwise. Your saying so does not make it so.


The question is not if the fetus is a person.

You couldn't be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the question!


The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .

The flaw is in your thinking - that the potential of a fetus to be a person is the same as the actuality of being a person. Potential is NEVER the actual. That is what the word potential means.


The Declaration of Independence recognized it .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

This argument is a sign of desperation - I'm surprised you came up with it. Jefferson was not referring to abortion. His "all" men did not include men of color nor, obviously, women.


Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the feus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person.

Blackmun was correct. The Christian religion decided that the fetus had no rights, not the state.


Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence

Judges may make law but not moral law. Haven't we seen enough of that in history? Bad law that had to be reversed?


or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation.

When you make up falsehoods you lose credibility. Abortion is about women's choice, not scientific experimentation. Gruesome pictures show the desperation of being against abortion. Rather than trying to understand human life, show gruesome pictures. Shameful!


Genocide has been committed using such logic .

No one but you is bringing up genocide.


You have not made any argument except to claim to know the mind of God. For 95% of Christian history, USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT, abortion was never considered murder.

As far as research goes, I did all that long ago, more recently, and after I read your post. Crackerjack librarian here. And female to boot.No one here believes that.


There is no "person" with rights until a fetus takes its first breath..."and man became a living soul."A fantasy that has already been thoroughly discredited.

No one here believes that.
I am woman, hear me roar.
And career librarian for shore.
Wanna hear a little bit more?
Nah! t'would make your brain very sore.

A fantasy that has already been thoroughly discredited.
Nope. Read Athos' post #48 above. And why aren't miscarried fetuses baptized?

Appealing to Athos is, I think, a poor strategy, but as I figured, he said nothing about your theory that a fetus must breathe to be a living human. Not a word.

Why would a miscarried fetus be baptized?

Appealing to Athos is, I think, a poor strategy, but as I figured, he said nothing about your theory that a fetus must breathe to be a living human. Not a word.
Um, please reread his post.

Why would a miscarried fetus be baptized?
You say it's human. Post 31 -- "though the zygote is fully human and only needs time to grow."

But why would it be baptized? Are you in the habit of baptizing dead babies?

Athos had nothing to support you. Neither do you.

But why would it be baptized? Are you in the habit of baptizing dead babies?
Just because the mother miscarries doesn't mean the fetus is dead.

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.
YOU say the fetus ISN'T dead when aborted. So why is it dead when miscarried?

You don't baptize aborted babies either?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3885990#post3885990)
no I did not address the philosophical question . . I find it generally to be a waste of time . You have your beliefs and I have mine .



You don't believe it, therefore it's a waste of time? You'll have to do better than that.


Personhood is a natural right endowed by God .We are 'imago Dei' Either you believe we are made in God's image or you don't .


A zygote is hardly a person - it's a collection of biochemicals. Be careful about bringing the Judeo-Christian God into the discussion. That's how the issue became muddled in the first place. Anyway, appealing to God is a dead end. Whose God? Which of the many?


Except for the natural termination of that life ;the fertilized egg is human .


This fundamentalist position of the fertilized egg being human is denied by the great majority of people - scientists and otherwise. Your saying so does not make it so.


The question is not if the fetus is a person.


You couldn't be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the question!


The question is does the fetus have a right to be a person. The flaw in Roe is that it did not recognize that .


The flaw is in your thinking - that the potential of a fetus to be a person is the same as the actuality of being a person. Potential is NEVER the actual. That is what the word potential means.


The Declaration of Independence recognized it .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


This argument is a sign of desperation - I'm surprised you came up with it. Jefferson was not referring to abortion. His "all" men did not include men of color nor, obviously, women.


Justice Blackmun in Roe argued that the feus is not a person and therefore was not entitled to any rights at all. That the state could decide who and who is not a person.


Blackmun was correct. The Christian religion decided that the fetus had no rights, not the state.


Given that logic there is no legal or moral reason to not snuff it's existence


Judges may make law but not moral law. Haven't we seen enough of that in history? Bad law that had to be reversed?


or to dismember it in the name of scientific experimentation.


When you make up falsehoods you lose credibility. Abortion is about women's choice, not scientific experimentation. Gruesome pictures show the desperation of being against abortion. Rather than trying to understand human life, show gruesome pictures. Shameful!


Genocide has been committed using such logic .


No one but you is bringing up genocide.


You have not made any argument except to claim to know the mind of God. For 95% of Christian history, USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENT, abortion was never considered murder.










yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument and debate I've had for 50 years . Bottom line . The so called pro choice crowd thinks it is ok the murder babies . I don't

YOU say the fetus ISN'T dead when aborted. So why is it dead when miscarried?Who said the baby was always dead when miscarried?


You don't baptize aborted babies either?Doctors make certain babies are dead when aborted. That's the entire business of abortion, to kill an unborn baby. I would have thought you would have understood that long ago since it is the abortion reality that you solidly support.

I still want to know why you suggest we baptize dead infants (" And why aren't miscarried fetuses baptized?") That's really bizarre. Why are you afraid to answer that? I don't suggest we baptize ANY newborns, so my position is perfectly consistent.



Tom, Athos claimed, "Your saying so does not make it so." He should consider that the converse is also true.

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument and debate I've had for 50 years

You usually fail to engage when challenged. This has been no different. After 50 years, one would think you have finally realized that a zygote is not a baby. It's not easy to deal with such thick-headedness.


. Bottom line . The so called pro choice crowd thinks it is ok the murder babies . I don't

Bottom line - The so called pro life crowd thinks it's ok to abandon a baby after birth. I don't.

One stupidity calls for another stupidity.




I am woman, hear me roar.
And career librarian for shore.
Wanna hear a little bit more?
Nah! t'would make your brain very sore.

Lol. You're poetry in motion, WG!

You usually fail to engage when challenged.No one on this site avoids challenging questions more than Athos does.


The so called pro life crowd thinks it's ok to abandon a baby after birth. I don't.Complete nonsense. That's especially true considering it is democrat legislatures in Maryland and Cali that are considering the legality of allowing newborn infants to die from neglect at up to 28 days after birth. It is also liberal dems who allow babies aborted alive to die from withdrawal of care. So when Athos says, "I don't", I don't think he is being honest.

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument

Forgot to add this ------

Did you miss the fascinating connection between the Catholic Church declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception followed by the infallible teaching that human life/personhood begins at conception because of Mary?

The one followed the other and led to the current debate over abortion. Easy enough to connect the dots and see how the current debate on abortion stems directly from that infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Amen, sayeth the Preacher.

Another problem with your side is that you don't know the difference between a foetus and a baby. That's pretty basic stuff. More facts that prove your position is a religious one, not a scientific one.

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.
My pastor dad was on call by the local hospital and his parishioners to rush to the hospital when a woman miscarried in order to minister to her and to baptize the fetus if it was still alive.

To minister to the mom is a wonderful thing, though you might tell her that, after all, it was just a clump of cells and of no value at all, at least according to the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question. The bottom line is that I don't suggest we baptize miscarried children, who are usually dead anyway, because I don't advocate baptizing infants to begin with. And I have no idea how any of that would justify the killing of unborn children.

. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question.
And I thought you were a Christian.

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible. So, as Luther said, if you can convince me of my supposed error from the Bible, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I stand my ground. I don't care what your father believed, or for that matter what Luther believed, though I admire him greatly. The Bible is my standard.

I encourage you to do the same.

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible.
Matthew 28:19. Infants and children are part of "all nations".

Also, Matthew 19:14.

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?

How does your understanding of that text mesh with Acts 2:38 where we are told to repent and then be baptized?

Can you find a single NT specific reference to an infant being baptized? Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???

For someone so sensitive to "cherry picking", it's amazing you can't see it when you do it. Why shouldn't this be considered a textbook example of first making up your mind, and then looking for support for your preconceived notion? Didn't you come up with two verses, one of which never mentioned baptism, and the other which never mentioned children or infants? Did either one of them even reference "infant baptism" at all? Isn't that pretty weak?

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?
Two separate activities. Baptize all nations including babies and children, then teach them.

Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?

Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???
Jesus loves babies and children. Baptize them so the Spirit can begin working in their hearts through the love and attention of parents and other adults and until they are old enough to begin to understand God's love and Jesus' teachings.

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.
And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings. (I notice you refused to reply to my question about which denomination you belong to.)

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations. Besides, you didn't ask me what denomination I belonged to. You asked, "Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?" I consider both of those to be cults. Why? Because, like your belief about infant baptism, they are not in step with Biblical teaching. So obviously I would not be part of either one.


And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings.I doubt that. Still, your effort to show any Biblical underpinnings for your idea came up with a zero.

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations.
So what are you?

I'm a Christian. Or as I like to put it more recently, I'm a follower of Jesus.