I don't think it's relevant when something you would define as "personhood" begins, since the point I've been arguing is that if you leave it alone at any stage it will inevitably become a person, barring the effect of abnormal processes.
Well faith, that "personhood" is not important to you, doesn't mean it is not important to other people. As I've said there are a plurality of views, not a single one.
And when 55% of zygotes fail to implant that is a perfectly normal, natural part of the process, and leaving them alone will not result in a living breathing human being.
I also have a problem based on this reasoning, with any abortifacient or contraceptive that interferes after egg and sperm have combined, because all the genetic material is there for the making of the human being. I might be forced to make an exception for it just because it's popular and not gruesome like abortion, but logically I'm against the exception.
That is your belief and you are welcome to it, other people have the same right to their beliefs on this issue. This again leads to a pluralist approach to let people decide how this applies to their lives.
And when that genetic material produces an empty sac with no embrio inside, that too is a perfectly normal, natural part of the process, and leaving them alone will not result in a living breathing human being. There is no person there because there is no there there.
I expect to meet my own child in heaven, the one that I aborted when I was twenty, which was done at the age of about seven weeks. If the fertilized ovum is also a child IN GOD'S EYES, then there are going to be a lot of children meeting their Christian parents in heaven. I don't know of course. There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that. I rather think if the genetic material is all there, then it's the person in the making already. BUT, again, since we can't know that, I suppose I have to make the exception for the earliest stages.
There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that.
The Levites had an app for that:
quote:Exodus 21:20-22 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"In God's eyes" the unborn child seems to be treated as the father's property.
Every day, people face important medical decisions. When tough choices arise, we consult with our health care providers about the pros and cons of different treatment options. We meditate on our goals and fears. Some of us will turn to family or friends for advice. Some of us will pray.
No one goes to the state capitol building to ask a politician their opinion.
Yet when it comes to a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, politicians feel entitled to insert themselves into the equation. We all agree that a woman seeking abortion care, like every other patient, should receive all medically appropriate information. But in dozens of states, legislators demand that a woman who has decided to have an abortion — unlike any other patient seeking any other form of medical care — delay her procedure by a certain amount of time (typically 24 hours or more) after receiving certain state-mandated information.
Fortunately, in a victory for Florida women and for common decency, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the state’s 24-hour mandatory abortion delay law from taking effect while the litigation proceeds. In upholding the preliminary injunction, the court also found that the law likely violates the Florida Constitution’s strong right of privacy.
As the court explained, “a woman can already take all of the time she needs to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy, both before she arrives at the clinic and after she receives the required counseling information.” Thus, in practice, “[t]he Mandatory Delay Law impacts only those women who have already made the choice to end their pregnancies.”
This is not about informed consent. To the contrary, the court observed that the law “turns informed consent on its head, placing the State squarely between a woman who has already made her decision to terminate her pregnancy and her doctor who has decided that the procedure is appropriate for his or her patient.”
Moreover, if this is really just about ensuring that patients are fully informed, then why is it, the court asked, that “[n]o other medical procedure, even those with greater health consequences, requires a twenty-four hour waiting period in the informed consent process”?
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision should serve as a wake-up call to politicians to stop passing laws that have no medical justification and do nothing but insult and burden women seeking abortion care.
Only a perverted legal system could call the murder of an unborn child a "choice" to be made, a "medical decision" when there is no medical issue involved, or a "right." But I guess when you believe that morality was evolved by natural processes you can justify any heinous crime.
No, murder isn't a crime in America any more, sad to say. But objecting to gay marriage is a crime. Pornography which is corrupting millions is protected as "free speech," in this current perversion of America. They're even trying to get the violent riots that are miscalled protests considered as free speech; illegal aliens are called "immigrants" and given rights that don't belong to them. Muslims are destroying Europe but nobody is allowed to call them Muslims or recognize what is really going on, and that's what the Left wants to happen here too. I don't know how much crazier and dangerous it can get before it all implodes and the barbarians take over.
Only a perverted legal system could call the murder of an unborn child ...
The term "unborn child" is a fiction of the extreme right, not reality.
There are fundamental differences between a fetus and a child. The first breath and subsequent use of lungs is one, and it is major when that does not happen because the fetus died. A second is closing an opening in the heart so that the heart pumps the child's blood instead of the umbilical blood, and a third is the change from (2α2γ) hemoglobin to hemoglobin (2α2β). See Message 4
An empty sac pregnancy is not an unborn child it doesn't even have any potential of ever becoming a child. It is a cluster of cells enclosing fluid, period. You can't "murder" a sac of fluid.
A lithopedion – also spelled lithopaedion or lithopædion – (Ancient Greek: λίθος = stone; Ancient Greek: παιδίον = small child, infant), or stone baby, is a rare phenomenon which occurs most commonly when a fetus dies during an abdominal pregnancy, is too large to be reabsorbed by the body, and calcifies on the outside as part of a maternal foreign body reaction, shielding the mother's body from the dead tissue of the fetus and preventing infection.
Lithopedia may occur from 14 weeks gestation to full term. It is not unusual for a stone baby to remain undiagnosed for decades, and it is often not until a patient is examined for other conditions or a proper examination is conducted that includes an X-ray, that a stone baby is found.
This is why our legal system does not use this term -- it is medically inaccurate and misleading. Our legal system embraces a plurality of opinions, not a religious dogma of opinion.
No one in the US has ever been charged with the crime of objecting to gay marriage.
Clear case of manipulating words to pretend what I said isn't true. When businesses are fined for refusing to cater a gay wedding the refusal is treated as a crime. Your nitpicking is reprehensible. And so are all your other ridiculous arguments. s
When businesses are fined for refusing to cater a gay wedding the refusal is treated as a crime.
Discrimination is a crime, regardless of the excuse used. Their excuse is no more a valid defense than any other excuse for breaking the law. It is not an issue of gay marriage but rather flagrant disregard of the law, common sense or basic courtesy.