rat mothers

Here's one I'm curious about. The opponents of abortion usually believe that life begins at conception and are often evangelical Christians.yet consider this: Evidently the Bible states that life is the blood, that there is no life without blood. Yet in a gesgating fetus there is no blood prior to 14 days (probably later), and the heart does not start beating until around 22 days. Doesn't this mean the fetus is not alive according to the Bible prior to 14 days? That life does not begin at conception according to the Bible?Doesn't this also mean any morning-after {or} abortion pill {used prior to the 14-22 day period after conception} is therefore OK according to the Bible?{Bracketed corrections in response to later posts}This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 03:54 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:21 PM

I stand corrected, didn't pay attention to making the distinction. I have corrected post 80 according to your and brennakimi's comments. Thanks for the clarification.Actually my main point is that a position of Biblical inerrancy and literalism can't be used to state the Bible backs the idea life begins at conception. Obviously, that does not mean the position that the Bible is subject to other than literal interpretation would do the same.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:03 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:25 PM

One of the great arguments for choice is that all women are born with approximately 50,000 eggs. Are all these eggs supposed to become fertilized? After all, each one is a potential life. Are all men supposed to save all of their ejaculations so that each one of those 50,000 eggs may have a chance to create a life?In other words, when, not if, the technology exists for each of those 50,000 eggs to be brought to term, would every woman be forced to have 50,000 children? I say let those who propound such beliefs be legally forced to care for and pay for each and every one of those 50,000 kids.

Better make it clear, as in artificial wombs.

So riverrat is against abortion and apparently arguing against sex for pleasure, and you are against smoking and drinking, even to the point where society is supposed to imprison everyone who disagrees and acts upon such disagreement.Well sitting here in Texas, with a whiskey sour in one hand and a Garcia Vega Miniature cigar in the other, all I can say is thank God I am not in one of your concentration camps.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-20-2006 12:01 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-20-2006 12:03 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-20-2006 12:06 AM