This was posted earlier. Evidently, for some reason, I am not allowed to respond. At any rate, this was the comment.

Quote:

---

According to the Bible, that fetus isn't a living soul until it takes its first breath. And that living soul has TWO parents, a mother AND and father, both of whom are supposed to raise the child with love and to become a responsible human being.

---

Perhaps surprisingly, I would agree with the latter part, though it should be noted that the Bible just as clearly limits childbirth to married couples.

The first part, however, is questionable. It is pulled from Genesis where it states that God breathed the breath of life into the man and he became a living soul. But that particular man was not born, but rather created, and being made of the dust of the ground, was as dead as dirt until God breathed life into him. That is plainly not the case with with an unborn child. And there is a considerable body of text that shows God regarding the unborn child to be completely a living person. So to say, "according to the Bible," is really a stretch.

But even at that, the poster would have needed to take the Genesis account literally in order to use it as a prooftext, something the poster has never been willing to do.

Interesting thoughts, and without a full & clear legal definition to work with, about as good as it gets.
Therein lies a major stumbling block for both sides of the choice\pro-life argument.

good thing we also have established science .

"The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
(Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th ed. ......biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan,)
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception … and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life" (New York Times, April 26, 1981.....Harvard Medical School professor Micheline Matthews-Ross testifying in 1981 to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee)

I could give many other such quotes from the scientific community .

The question is not if a baby in the womb has a soul . The question is if the baby in the womb is a human life . That question has been conclusively answered by science .

The remaining question is a societal one . Is it ok to kill a baby that has not been born yet ?

Will you adopt it if it hasn't been aborted?

Irrelevant question. I said it was a societal question. I am individually not responsible for all human ills .

Just one baby????

And if the large percentage of society feels like you do? (and it does....)

Pro Lifer: Well the mother should just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby
Me: So who will adopt the baby?
PL: I don’t know there’s lots of couples who want to adopt
Me: Do you know any couple who is waiting to adopt?
PL: Um well not personally but like I know there’s lots of people waiting to adopt.
Me: Do you know what a domestic adoption costs?
PL: I don’t know. $15,000 maybe?
Me: The average cost of domestic adoption in the United States is $70,000 if you go through a private agency.
PL: Oh I didn’t realize it was that much
Me: Yep it’s really expensive. It can be more if you want a newborn straight from the hospital. Up to $120,000.
PL: Well, all life is precious.
Me: It really is. I’ve adopted through foster care and am currently a licensed foster parent. Would you be interested in becoming a foster parent yourself?
PL: Oh no, I couldn’t do it.
Me: Why not?
PL: It would just be too much for me right now.
Me: Why is that?
PL: It would be too hard to handle all the issues that came with it. I’ve heard horror stories.
Me: Yep it can be extremely difficult. But what if I told you that you were required by law to become a foster parent?
PL: what?
Me: what if you had to become a foster parent by law?
PL: they would never do that. That would never happen.
Me; Well, if a woman is forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, and she goes ahead and has that child, someone has to care for the child either through adoption or foster care. You have to do one of those two things.
PL: But I don’t want any more kids.
Me: So you don’t want someone forcing you to have a child in your home that you don’t want or aren’t able to care for?
PL: no, that’s not my job to raise someone else’s child.

ME: What’s that ? https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/e...1/16/1f649.png 

There it is, folks. Have the baby, but we don’t want anything to do with it afterwards.

We will never know the answer to your question if a baby is wacked before it is born. I have been also told by pro baby killing advocates that adoption is no substitute for abortion.

A rough estimate is that there are over 2 million infertile couples on America's adoption waiting lists . And there are more who would prefer to adopt over having a child of their own ,

Is there a shortage of people looking to adopt ? Absolutely not .There is a shortage of people who would rather have their baby adopted over killing it .

And then of course we could start expecting people to be responsible and stop having sex with anyone and everyone outside of marriage. It's amazing how many problems that would solve. It was actually done that way for many centuries and it worked well.

I've been reading in several places that men are flocking to their urologists to get vasectomies -- so they can have sex outside of marriage with anyone and everyone -- and with no responsibilities in nine months.

June 30, 2022 article headline --
More men are seeking vasectomies now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade

The Cleveland Clinic said it normally receives three to four requests per day for vasectomies, but between Friday and Wednesday, it got a total of 90.

Quote:

---

More men are seeking vasectomies now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade

---

And you can be certain that more women will exercise due care in the exercise of birth control. So as it turns out, responsible behaviors actually can be developed. Go figure!

Tom's post about adoption was a classic.

Joe Biden's view on abortion after Roe/Wade was decided.

Quote:

---

In 1974, Joe Biden gave a notably candid interview to the Washingtonian, a D.C-area monthly magazine. Excerpts from that profile, which painted the young U.S. senator as conservative Democrat, emerged in multiple contexts after became a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2019. Among the many topics covered in the Washingtonian profile was the senator’s views on abortion in general and the Roe v. Wade specifically. Speaking of that 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Biden did say that he felt it went too far: “I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

---

I like the old Joe much better than the new Joe.

His point would be more valid if the issue was ONLY a woman's body . There is also the innocent life of a human baby to consider .

A thought to ponder...
If abortion is banned, how does the morning after, or Plan B, pill stand in this framework, legally ?

That's a great question. It will now be subject to state laws, I imagine.

Plan B ;or the morning after pill is contraception. It prevents pregnancy. It does not affect an existing pregnancy.

Depends on how you look at it. Some of those pills work by delaying ovulation or by preventing fertilization, but sometimes the effect is to prevent a fertilized egg (new person) from implanting in the uterine wall.

No, that is not the "effect sometimes."

Why it's done

Morning-after pills can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — either because you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill, you were sexually assaulted or your method of birth control failed.

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. They work primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.

Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. This drug terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has begun to develop.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-pro...t/pac-20394730

Quote:

---

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.

---

Thank you for reinforcing what I said. The key expression is, "that has implanted". It is more plainly stated here.

Quote:

---

Emergency oral contraception works primarily by delaying ovulation. Hormone-based medications such as levonorgestrel pills may prevent pregnancy by temporarily blocking eggs from being released, by stopping fertilization, or by keeping a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus.

---

Rather plainly if the woman has already ovulated, then "delaying ovulation" is no longer an option.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...02%25%20chance

If it hasn't implanted, it's not a fetus.

No one said it was.

I kind of expected to read, "Oh well. I was wrong when I stated, "No, that is not the 'effect sometimes.'" But I can get over disappointment.

I do wish you would show me how to punctuate this sentence containing a quote within a quote within a quote.

"Oh well. I was wrong when I stated, "No, that is not the 'effect sometimes.'"