ABORTION.......

snood wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

snood wrote:

So your point is that if an act is not condemned by name by "the God of the bible", that the act is sanctioned by it?

My point is not a point...it is a question:

Why, if the act is such an abomination...was it never condemned by the god of the Bible...by Jesus...or by Paul.

The all certainly condemned all sorts of things.

Snood...why do you suppose none of them condemned abortion...even though someone like Hippocrates, working on behalf of Apollo, thought it repugnant enough to condemn?

Just a little old harmless question that didn't mean nothin', huh? You wouldn't be trying to add support to your overall "position" - that the "God of the bible" is petty, cruel, vindictive, etc., etc., etc., ? The "God of the bible" doesn't condemn female genital mutilation either - should reasonable people draw some sort of halfass conclusion from that?

If you like drawing halfassed conclusions...by all means, Snood...continue to do so.

I prefer not to do that.

In the meantime...in case you missed my question:

Why, considering you folks think it is such an abomination....do you suppose your god....Jesus...nor Paul....ever condemned abortion?

Study Finds 29-Week Fetuses Probably Feel No Pain and Need No Abortion Anesthesia

Quote:

Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.

Their report, being published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus. article

Not all physicians agree. Dr. K. S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said, "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus."

For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet. "In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Dr. Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."

.......
Mr. Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus felt pain, only about when. "The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain."

He/they condemned blasphemy and you continue to be one of the foremost proponents of it.

If you do not accept what is written in the bible, why do you continually ask for evidence of things from it?

Is it possible that you are trying to find peace or forgiveness for your own involvements (you specifically told us that you were responsible for and involved in two abortions) and thus feel you must justify abortion for your own agenda?

Terry wrote:

Study Finds 29-Week Fetuses Probably Feel No Pain and Need No Abortion Anesthesia

Quote:

Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.

Their report, being published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus. article

You forgot to include this

Quote:

Not all physicians agree. Dr. K. S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said, "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus."

For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet. "In the first trimester there is very likely no pain perception," Dr. Anand said. "By the second trimester, all bets are off and I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt if we are going to call ourselves compassionate and humane physicians."

.......
Mr. Brownback said the new report did not raise questions about whether a fetus felt pain, only about when. "The child in the womb does experience pain," he said. "We knew there was a debate about at what age the child experiences pain."

A fetus is a fetus....a child is a child. A fetus becomes a child...when it becomes a child...when it is born.

The laws don't seem terribly consistent.

Let's see. Overpopulation? So you think that extermination is a good solution to that?

Or how about neglectful or abusive families? Yeah. The kid, if born, might be treated badly, so let's chop and dismember him.

You are not realistic.

For example if a man punches a woman in the stomach and the fetus dies, he will be charged with manslaughter and not just assault.

real life wrote:

Let's see. Overpopulation? So you think that extermination is a good solution to that?

I think abortion is the only solution, as opposed to a good solution. Nothing is perfect in this world.

Extermination? Gee I should be grateful you didn't quote me as saying "genocide."

real life wrote:

Or how about neglectful or abusive families? Yeah. The kid, if born, might be treated badly, so let's chop and dismember him.

Instead of misquoting me again, (I never said "chop and dismember" and I don't believe that is the only definition to abortion) why don't you offer some alternative solutions to:

- overpopulation
- abusive families
- STDs?

real life wrote:

You are not realistic.

You've said that to me twice now. Prove it, don't just say it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

A fetus is a fetus....a child is a child. A fetus becomes a child...when it becomes a child...when it is born.

I understand the distinction you are making here Frank, but why do you suppose some people are charged with murder/manslaughter when they kill a fetus ?

For example if a man punches a woman in the stomach and the fetus dies, he will be charged with manslaughter and not just assault.

Why are women charged with neglect if they are drug/alcohol users while pregenant if it is only a fetus? The laws don't seem terribly consistent.

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

Intrepid wrote:

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

It matters when the existance of a law is used as justification of a point of view.

mesquite wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

It matters when the existance of a law is used as justification of a point of view.

Have you never used the current legal status of abortion as justification for your view?

Intrepid wrote:

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

Of course it is. And your point is?????

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

It matters when the existance of a law is used as justification of a point of view.

Have you never used the current legal status of abortion as justification for your view?

Not to my knowledge. I go by the moral view rather than the law, in this case.

Intrepid wrote:

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Does it matter how a law came into being as long as it is the law?

It matters when the existance of a law is used as justification of a point of view.

Have you never used the current legal status of abortion as justification for your view?

Not to my knowledge. I go by the moral view rather than the law, in this case.

Hi Intrepid,

I am glad that you do. You have observed how often I have asked various parties how a woman can be supposed to have a "right" to abortion, whether it is legally recognized or not where she lives; yet an unborn child is said NOT to have a "right" to live simply because the law does not recognize it.

It is a glaring contradiction, and none of the pro-abortion folks have seriously addressed it. They simply want to refer back to the "legality" of abortion as justification for it. Yet when it was illegal, or where it is still illegal today, they will not grant that a woman has no "right" to an abortion.

Since you are in Canada (I think), I am curious, does the health care system there pay for all abortions? Do doctors and nurses , as employees of that system, have the right not to participate in abortions without negative consequences?