Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already produced it earlier in the thread for people like you who never got to middle-school. A basic scientific fact, of course you probably believe the Earth is 6000 years old also.
Yep, just like that post in the other thread claiming anyone who opposes Obama is a racist that you cannot produce.
We all know that's how scientists talk, speaking of "individual lives." You know, versus "group lives" or something. How could anyone ever think our right-wing friends are ignorant of science? "It's a baby, not a choice!"
Agreed. Too many zygotes do not even make it into the third week, much less the second trimester, if anyone believes life starts at conception, then purgatory is filled with billions upon billions of souls that never made it past the first few weeks of pregnancy. How could a just and compassionate God mean for that to happen?
This should be in the religious section. Why would any soul go to purgatory when they never sinned? I would say straight to heaven. God has the answers and I guess we need to ask Him someday if you even believe in Him.
Politics has nothing to do with the truths of natural science. We can deal with the scientific fact that life begins with conception anyway we choose. The emergence of the nanny state does not change scientific facts. We can give the life in the womb whatever rights we wish. I personally favor allowing fetuses to be killed at the mother's whim up into at least the third trimester.
The more unwanted babies killed before they are born the better off we are. This does not change the fact that human life is being killed.
However, this is exactly what I am addressing. If life begins at conception (in the sense that anti-choicers use it), then there are repercussions permeating every aspect of society. Laws can say whatever they want - even that pizza is a vegetable - but if we make laws that define a thing as something specific, then that definition MUST be applied throughout all applicable law. That also means that politics enter the arena...
This should be in the religious section. Why would any soul go to purgatory when they never sinned? I would say straight to heaven. God has the answers and I guess we need to ask Him someday if you even believe in Him.
So, what is so bad about going straight to heaven and skipping what many call this "hell on earth"?
Isn't that what religious people supposedly strive all of their lives for?
Why all of the boo-hooing at funerals? Why isn't there a grand celebration? Is the boo-hooing because you think your loved ones are going to hell?
However, this is exactly what I am addressing. If life begins at conception (in the sense that anti-choicers use it), then there are repercussions permeating every aspect of society. Laws can say whatever they want - even that pizza is a vegetable - but if we make laws that define a thing as something specific, then that definition MUST be applied throughout all applicable law. That also means that politics enter the arena...
We can make laws just as we do now. Human biology has not changed ever on this non-issue scientifically. The USSC has ruled that human life can be aborted and that states cannot interfere too greatly in the process. All human life does not have to be protected; the death penalty is constitutional.
Many of the anti-choice crowd believe that life begins at conception and not at birth. Let's say we take this premise as true - which brings up a few questions for me.
Does that mean that the child acquires citizenship at conception? After all, if life begins at conception rather than birth, shouldn't the "child" then be bestowed with all the normal rights that we currently bestow at birth?
Is citizenship bestowed based on the place of conception? Currently, some nations grant citizenship based on the location of the birth. If you are born in the US, then you are a US citizen. Since life now beings at conception, is citizenship a matter of the place of conception? Take my own daughter: I am a EU citizen, my wife is a US citizen, my daughter was born in Costa Rica. Consequently, my daughter has three citizenships (and passports): EU, US, and Costa Rican. However, she was conceived in Nicaragua - does that mean that she would also be entitled to a Nicaraguan passport?
If so, how do you prove that she was actually conceived in Nicaragua?
After the birth of a child, I can apply for a passport for the kid. In order to do so, I submit a passport photo - which is kind of pointless because the passport is valid for a number of years and frankly, by the time my
kid is three years old, she doesn't look anything like she did at the age of three months. Alas, passports, by
law, need to have a photo in them.
When I now apply for a passport for my unborn child, is is sufficient (or necessary) to submit a picture of the ultrasound?
Generally when something is growing, it is considered alive.
But I'm not arguing whether abortion is killing. That's too obvious. I'm saying it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. It is killing, but everyone will answer for their own sins. In particular those you approve it and teach others to do it will answer for it.
I would make it the law, no government can fund abortions or approve it and no law can be passed to force insurance companies to pay for it.
So, what is so bad about going straight to heaven and skipping what many call this "hell on earth"?
Isn't that what religious people supposedly strive all of their lives for?
Why all of the boo-hooing at funerals? Why isn't there a grand celebration? Is the boo-hooing because you think your loved ones are going to hell?
You have got to be kidding. Guess you never lost a loved one. But many funerals do celebrate people's lives and you will go to many that speak about the person and how they made their lives so happy etc. If one is a Christian we do celebrate the fact that the person is probably going to be with the Lord. Still does not make it any easier to lose a loved one.
Many of the anti-choice crowd believe that life begins at conception and not at birth. Let's say we take this premise as true - which brings up a few questions for me.
Does that mean that the child acquires citizenship at conception? After all, if life begins at conception rather than birth, shouldn't the "child" then be bestowed with all the normal rights that we currently bestow at birth?
Is citizenship bestowed based on the place of conception? Currently, some nations grant citizenship based on the location of the birth. If you are born in the US, then you are a US citizen. Since life now beings at conception, is citizenship a matter of the place of conception? Take my own daughter: I am a EU citizen, my wife is a US citizen, my daughter was born in Costa Rica. Consequently, my daughter has three citizenships (and passports): EU, US, and Costa Rican. However, she was conceived in Nicaragua - does that mean that she would also be entitled to a Nicaraguan passport?
If so, how do you prove that she was actually conceived in Nicaragua?
After the birth of a child, I can apply for a passport for the kid. In order to do so, I submit a passport photo - which is kind of pointless because the passport is valid for a number of years and frankly, by the time my kid is three years old, she doesn't look anything like she did at the age of three months. Alas, passports, by law, need to have a photo in them.
When I now apply for a passport for my unborn child, is is sufficient (or necessary) to submit a picture of the ultrasound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Life beginning at conception is a pretty dumb idea
So is the idea of life beginning at birth
The Supreme Court's decision to grant personhood at the point of viability was a political consideration and not a scientific one.
Since personhood was denied to children not yet able to live outside the womb for the sole purpose of creating a legal loop-hole by which abortion could be justified, revisiting the issue in such a way that the voice of the people is heard just makes sense.
I personally believe citizenship should be bestowed at birth since that is the point at which the child begins a biologically independent existence and perhaps may even go his or her own way.
During gestation, and until the actual birth, a child can have legally recognized personhood and share the mother's citizenship or have no citizenship at all.
After all, a person doesn't have to be a citizen to be a person.
Consider the case of a child born to a Mexican illegal immigrant in the US.
According to US law, the child is a US citizen because he or she was born here.
It would be silly to grant US citizenship to the child before that since the mother may return to Mexico or go to some other country to give birth.
After the child is born, the mother may leave the country, die or refuse to raise the child.
In such a case, the citizenship of the child becomes an important legal consideration, but this is not so before birth.
As for the other rights we normally bestow at birth, which of those rights, except the right to life, would a child in the womb need?
Speech?
Religion?
Due process?
Obviously a child not yet born needs only one right and that is to be allowed to live long enough to receive the rest.
Since the Founders had a limited understanding of pregnancy and no knowledge of microbiology, omitting a common sense personhood provision from the Bill of Rights for those in the womb is understandable.
For us, living in a day when the microbiology involved in conception is common knowledge, there is no excuse for not clarifying the status of a child in the womb with a carefully worded amendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of everyone involved.
If you want to say that life begins at conception, then why are the legal repercussions of such a distinction solely to be restricted to abortion rights? Clearly, that human life that you have now defined is deserving of other protections as well, right?
Why does life that begins at conception not deserve protection when expecting mothers drink alcohol, drive too fast, eat unhealthy foods, do really stupid stuff?
You see, right now if an expecting mother drinks alcohol, she is plain stupid and irresponsible. Once life legally begins at conception, that mother will be sent to jail and once the child is born he/she will be handed over to social services. Same can be said for smoking. Right now, if you smoke while pregnant, you are an idiot. If you make your infant smoke or force them to inhale smoke, you go to jail and will likely lose custody rights. In your vision of America, smoking pregnant women will go to jail right away and lose custody as well.
In order to keep track of all these egregious behaviors, you will need to have a true police state
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
