http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/abortion_restrictions

**I don’t carry on discussions with people who insist on basing their faulty logic in a lie. I made that clear.**

I’m sorry you feel that way. Declaring that I have faulty logic is not the same as proving that you don’t. Its interesting that you are the one who insulted and demeaned, yet strangely, are also the one who is so offended that you have chosen to ignore me. That speaks volumes. Take some lessons in civility from Mespo.

Mespo,

Interesting viewpoint. What if the premature child would be an “unnecessary financial burden” to the parents? Why would they not have any right to terminate the child’s life?

Catholics for choice.org has an interesting site and a magazine called ‘Choice’ where this 1996 article, linked below, appeared. It’s interesting to note that it’s only been since 1869, 100 years after Blackstone, that the Catholic Church established it’s ‘position’ on abortion as ‘a sin worthy of excommunication’
- as was murder. And divorce, for that matter! When locking horns with modern christians, I’d stick with quoting Popes and the Saints.

http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm

More historical background from ASU:
http://embryo.asu.edu/encyclopedia/concepts/?getObject=embryo:124810

Roman Catholic Church Quickening

…’ Many early Church leaders and publications, such as the Didache, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Basil the Great, and others, also indicated that quickening was not used to determine the value of life in the womb. Later Catholic theologians, leaning heavily on Greek philosophers like Aristotle, declared a distinction in the severity of the crime of procured abortion based on a particular point in development. Indeed, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both cited a point after conception, generally the point of quickening, as the moment at which the life in the womb becomes human, meaning ensouled with a rational human soul. For Augustine and Aquinas, intentional abortion was always an offense against God but after the point of ensoulment it was much more so. These and other Church theologians often declared that abortion after quickening was a highly immoral action, worthy of immediate excommunication and/or the legal penalty for homicide…’

I defer to you and Patty C. I believe the first stage of Embryogenesis is the zygote, then blastocyst which is about 100 or so cells,and finally the fetus, or at least that is what I recall from freshman biology.

mespo’s answer stands.

As for you, I told you I was done with you.

Was that too complicated?

This is the last time I’ll repeat myself. Address others if you have questions. Not that I expect you to do that. Zealots are as zealots do. Just don’t expect an answer, Biblical literalist. I don’t carry on discussions with people who insist on basing their faulty logic in a lie. I made that clear.

So then we have a debate about when a fertilized egg becomes a human. I don’t think there’s a simple answer, and I think the ideal is a graduated approach, like Roe V Wade sets forth.

Mespo,

Just a quick little quibble A Fertilized egg isn’t a fetus yet. Patty could clarify, but I think it’s after about 2 months (in humans) that something becomes a fetus.

“Should premature babies remain “unassisted”?”
**************

Not to answer for Buddha, but I suspect his answer will be “Of course, not.” Babies born prematurely are still “born” and entitled to all of our efforts to keep them alive. We’re talking about non-viable fetuses here. Even if we accept your Biblically-inspired world view, you must admit that the greatest abortionist of all is the creator of the universe who decrees that about 25%-50% of all pregnancies ends in spontaneous abortions depending on which study you accept.

“For the largest part of human history, it wasn’t a person until it could survive UNASSISTED outside the womb.”

Is that what you believe also? Should premature babies remain “unassisted”?

“The wrath of God shall know no bounds for sinners and blasphemers, the eye of the storm is at hand and all that enter be wary. Rise up you wrecthed cur so I can smite thee from above with lightning and sulphur. Lay no hand on those that rest peacefully in the womb or suffer as they do.”

**********
Wasn’t there something in your magic book about not judging lest you be judged; about the foolishness, pretentiousness, and insincerity of posturing about religion in public; about professing yourself wise only to become a fool. Maybe I mis-read it.

“Could the “person” occupying a woman’s womb be charged with trespassing?”

***********

LOL.

Right you are about the liability, inheritance, and criminal aspects of this foolish legislation.

And not for nothing, but your endorsement of my post equates to assenting to the argument that Blackstone’s words fail to contradict the notion that the common law did not recognize any fetus during the first trimester.

“Bobesq, you are a man of mature thought”

Sometimes I enjoy singing the lines “My name is Luca” over and over again just for the sheer schadenfreude of it all.

“and one of our own although not to the point of “I knew you before you were born” i see.”

Speaking of ‘seeing’, see C.G. Jung, “Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious” & “Aion” Collected Works Volume 9.

“But alas I can suffer the fool Buddha for men such as yourself.”

Oh Socrates, when will you ever learn that I make fools like Buddha look like Jiminy Cricket.

BTW, this hopeless case does in fact wear a St. Jude medal.

SIYOM,

Bob

No. Not really.

You make a valid point and I think the ones commenting so harshly need to do careful examination of their stances. The Pope has addressed this issue so there can be no discussion.

For your transgressors I recommend 5 hail Marys and an Our Father and I will consider them cleansed.

North Dakota’s own Safe Haven law appears to apply to children “under 1 year of age.”

Will that now apply to “children” occupying the womb?

Now THAT is an interesting avenue for legal exploration. Good show!

It has been my experience that Mike S. is always a gentleman.

I think Christian to the end needs to end it (all). Not one to promote suicide or euthenasia I might be able to make an exception in his case.

He must have been joking around, although I suppose he could be a lunatic.
I would hate to be one of his children, I think in that case I would probably thank God he could not reproduce and I was just adopted and not the “fruit of his loins”.

MikeS was a gentleman to just call him a fool.

Christian,
If you understood the teacher, teachings and his gospels that you purport to follow you might realize why the above is the statement of a fool. Have a nice day.

you are a man of mature thought and one of our own although not to the point of “I knew you before you were born” i see. But alas I can suffer the fool Buddha for men such as yourself.

Buddha:

I have adopted 3 and my wife and I are looking to adopt a 4th God willing. So my fat little savant I do indeed practice what I preach.

The wrath of God shall know no bounds for sinners and blasphemers, the eye of the storm is at hand and all that enter be wary. Rise up you wrecthed cur so I can smite thee from above with lightning and sulphur. Lay no hand on those that rest peacefully in the womb or suffer as they do.

“And so I say unto thee . . . Mary, Peter, look, I just don’t think this is working.”

“Come on, Big J! Give it a shot.”

“I don’t know, Peter, I’ve been teaching for quite awhile and . . . they aren’t very receptive. I’m not even sure they can hear.”

“Mary is right, Peter. And the way they just float there is creepy. No, Peter, I think I’m going over the hill there to that group of adults getting ready to eat that goat. They look ripe for teaching! Let’s try to make their lives better today instead of talking to this, this, well, this bunch of meat in stinky liquid. I’m thinking their ox cart has left the station so to speak.”

“Or perhaps not arrived yet.”

“Good point Mary. But you know what I mean, Peter. I’m about a better today for those already in Dad’s creation, not a might have been better today.”

“Ok, ok, but in thousands of years, this is going to be trouble.”

“The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemesnor.”
(William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:120–41)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIXs1.html

N.B. It is not until after the first trimester that a woman begins to feel any ‘stirring’ within the womb.

Mespo, you made my day!

Just out of curiosity, won’t that ND legislation open up a lot of grounds for liability? Every woman of childbearing years who dies of trauma could potentially be carrying an heir with full rights, including insurance payments?

Also, how will that effect the tax law. Wouldn’t that mean that a pregnant woman would be able to write claim the unborn child before he/she is born?

roflmao

ROFLMAO

Oh, I think I hurt myself.

Yeah, defending a differentiated cell mass at the cost of existing people’s well being is very Christian.

You want all the unwanted children of the world to care for and feed? The children of rape and incest? The children of mistake that the parent’s love is not in question but their ability to raise one is? Post your name and address so the orphanages and adoption agencies can place them. We’ll send them all to your house.

What’s that? You don’t? Too busy raising the next generation of myopic pseudo-Christians that came from your own polluted loins to care for some sinner’s kid? It’s not your responsibility? It’s just your responsibility to ruin others lives by forcing your BELIEF on them?

Yeah. That’s just what I thought. Because when it comes time to walk the walk, your lot is always just talk. Jesus lived in a time where infant mortality was sky high. Dead and stillborn babies were not a shock to them. They knew you weren’t alive until, duh, you were alive on your own. And I got a clue for you – Jesus wasn’t teaching zygotes, he was teaching full blown viable outside the womb humans. I’m thinking the actually living were more his realm of concern, not enforcing YOUR twisted dogma on others.

Thanks for providing another example of People Misusing Jesus’ Teaching Because They Are Stupid To The End.

In the end it is probably best left to the individual. But even here there is room for argument, has the individual gotten arguments and information from each side of the aisle and made a serious effort to understand all facets? In the final analysis I am glad I am not a women and will never have to make that choice.