When Does Life Begin?

OK, so you used the word 'perhaps'

I stand corrected.

But why did you bother to bring up the topic if not to paint the pro life argument with your special brush?

I refer you to the title of this thread.

The whole (so-called) "moral question" can perhaps best be put into perspective by considering:

A simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores are trying to be applied to modern medical science.

By default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.

Quote:

Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or atheism and the decay of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism

. . . Don't be scarred to use the quote buttons! Mind you if you do quote me directly, in full and in context you'll loose a goodly portion of your straw man logical fallacies. I'm dubious that you have the courage. . .

I am not overly scarred, although I have a huge one on my right knee

And your use of the word dubious gives rise to much uncertainty about your rhetorical logic.

Your last post is nothing more than ridiculing the person making the argument, which is a form of the ad hominem fallacy. . .

More likely when and not if we can transplant pregnancies, and keeping the terms simplistic and to the point:

The (so-called) "moral question" might arise when the transplant-er cannot / will not bring the pregnancy to terms, and the transplant-ee refuses the (so-called) "moral obligation".

Bear in mind however that future reproductive technologies will likely include the fully artificial womb and/or biological surrogacy and/or cybernetic hybridized equivalent.

The (so-called) "moral question" might arise when the transplant-er cannot / will not bring the pregnancy to terms, and the transplant-ee is a great ape.

Pro-aborts consistently attack as a means of defense.

The unborn are genetically distinct from the moment of conception, which exposes the lie that pro-aborts most often repeat regarding the unborn as a 'part of the mother's body'.

How can the unborn be part of the mother's body if it has different DNA?

1. Experiencing doubt: doubtful, skeptical, uncertain, undecided, unsure. Idioms: in doubt. See certain/uncertain.
2. Not affording certainty: ambiguous, borderline, chancy, clouded, doubtful, dubitable, equivocal, inconclusive, indecisive, indeterminate, problematic, problematical, questionable, uncertain, unclear, unsure. Informal iffy. Idioms: at issue, in doubt, in question. See certain/uncertain, clear/unclear.

Definition: doubtful
Antonyms: certain, definite, doubtless, positive, reliable, sure, trustworthy, trusty, undoubtful

adj
Definition: vague, unclear
Antonyms: clear, decided, definite, unambiguous, unobscure

Causing or feeling doubt or uncertainty; questionable in value, quality or origin.

Jim was feeling dubious about his ability to pass the science exam.

State failing to inspect N.J. abortion clinics
7:37 PM EDT, August 19, 2007

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) _ Only one of six state-licensed abortion clinics has been inspected in the last two years despite a law requiring them to be inspected every other year, according to a published report.

A report in the Sunday edition of the Press of Atlantic City shows that complaints brought inspectors to two of the clinics _ the Alternatives clinic in Atlantic City and Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood _ and that they were promptly closed due to health violations that posed "immediate and serious risk of harm to patients."

Alternatives had not been inspected in six years and Metropolitan had not been inspected in five, according to the newspaper.

Inspections remain overdue at three other abortion centers. One, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey in Shrewsbury, has not been inspected in more than seven years......

Judge blocks enforcement of Missouri's new abortion law
By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City Star

A federal judge Monday barred the state of Missouri from enforcing a new law that would require abortion clinics in Columbia and Kansas City to upgrade their facilities.

In issuing the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith gave lawyers representing the state and Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri until Sept. 7 to file further briefs before a planned preliminary injunction hearing three days later.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood, said he was grateful for the restraining order. Otherwise, the clinics would have to close, he said.

"We're pleased that we'll be able to continue caring for Missouri women and not have a disruption in services," Brownlie said.

Kevin Theriot, a private lawyer representing the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, cautioned that the judge hadn't yet seen all the evidence.

"We're disappointed, but we're confident that once all the facts are in the judge will see that the law can be enforced in a constitutional manner," Theriot said.

The law, which was to have gone into effect today, would have required the clinics to meet the stricter standards for ambulatory surgical centers.

Opponents have argued that such standards should not apply to the Kansas City clinic, which performs only medication-induced abortions. They have also argued that the Columbia center, which performs surgical abortions, should be allowed to continue to operate because the new law should apply only to new, and not pre-existing, clinics[/u]

Italy Investigates Botched Abortion of Healthy Twin, Disabled Brother Lives

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 27, 2007


Rome, Italy (LifeNews.com) -- Officials in Italy are investigating a botched abortion done on twin brothers where the healthy brother became the victim of the abortion and the twin, who has Down syndrome, lived. The disabled brother was the target of the abortion procedure and the case is raising the ugly specter of abortions done to kill disabled people.
The abortion was done on a 38-year-old woman in June at a hospital in Milan, but news of the mistake only recently came to the public's attention.

Doctors at the San Paolo hospital told Italian media that the babies moved during the abortion procedure and changed position compared to their locations during a pre-abrotion examination.

According to the London Guardian, hospital officials have given the proper paperwork and information to authorities.

After doctors realized their mistake, they notified the woman in question. She returned to the hospital to have the disabled baby aborted as well and then reported the doctors to the police.

The case has caused some in the political scene to call for a review of the nation's abortion laws.

Leftist Senator Paola Binetti wrote in the Corriere della Sera newspaper that, "The time has come to re-examine the abortion law' that dates back to 1978."

"What happened in this hospital was not a medical abortion but an abortion done for the purposes of eugenics," she said. "They wanted to kill the sick fetus and save the healthy one and what didn't work properly in this business was the selection."

Christian Democrat politician Luca Volonte also denounced the failed abortion as "infanticide arising from a contempt for human life."

But pro-abortion Health Minister Livia Turco defended the pro-abortion laws as "very wise" and said they should not be changed.

This is the second time that an abortion planned for a disabled baby has gone wrong.

In March, a baby boy died who became the victim of an abortion after doctors failed a disability test on him. Physicians advised his mother to have an abortion after they had misdiagnosed a physical deformity but the boy survived the procedure.

Doctors at the teaching hospital Careggi performed two ultrasounds on the boy and his mother and they said he had a defective esophagus. That's a disorder that surgery could have corrected after birth in some cases.

However, when they went to abort the baby boy, they discovered he was healthy and desperately tried to resuscitate him.

The boy was born healthy and lived for six days following the failed abortion, which was done at 22 weeks into the pregnancy.

Italy's abortion law allows abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy in certain cases but it also requires doctors to do all they can to save the life of a baby who survives a botched abortion attempt.

There are about 138,000 abortions that take place annually in the European nation

The most pro-life segment of society continues to be young people. I think they recognize that, themselves having narrowly escaped death by legalized abortion, puts them in a unique position to understand the evil.

There is actually a considerable amount of evidence for reincarnation in the Bible we are left with and generally speaking - people are unaware that there are definite references in the New Testament that unequivocally imply reincarnation. Not that the word itself is used; you have to dig a little. But once you understand what reincarnation is about, you can see quite a few references supporting the idea that after people die they will come back to this Earth if they are not ready to move on permanently to the heavenly realms.

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. IF THEY HAD BEEN THINKING OF THE COUNTRY THEY HAD LEFT, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN. Instead they were longing for a better country - a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. (Heb 11:13-16)

Orthodox and Conservative Christians are able to muster just one quote from the Bible to attempt to show there is no reincarnation: "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement..." (Heb 9:27)
This is often assumed, reasonably enough, to declare that each human being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces judgement. In fact, this verse could be applied to refuting modern Christianity's definition of resurrection. Reincarnation states that the spirit leaves the body at death, faces judgement, then can enter a new and different body at a later time In this way, Hebrews 9:27 can be interpreted as not refuting reincarnation because it is not the same body that dies again. It could imply one man/one death, which agrees with reincarnation, but totally disagrees with modern Christianity's definition of resurrection which holds that after a body dies and faces judgement, his physical body will rise from the grave at a later day to face possible death again and judgement. So Hebrews 9:27 could be seen not to refute reincarnation after all, but refute resurrection as modern Christianity defines it.

Furthermore, when this fragment of this sentence is read in its context - reading both the immediate verses around it, and that of the Paulian theology which runs through Hebrews - then it is not talking about physical death at all I believe, but about "dying to sin."

Police: Woman Gives Birth, Tries To Flush Newborn
Baby Boy Expected To Survive

POSTED: 11:57 am CDT August 28, 2007
UPDATED: 5:02 pm CDT August 28, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Kansas City police are investigating a 20-year-old woman who allegedly tried to flush her newborn son down the toilet at a McDonald's restaurant.

Both the baby and the mother, a Kansas City resident who works at the McDonald's, are at the hospital being treated after the Monday afternoon incident. Police said the child is expected to survive.

"Fortunately, the baby's fine," Capt. Rich Lockhart said Tuesday. "The baby's at the hospital getting treatment. The mother's at the hospital getting treatment. We're investigating it."

No charges had been filed as of late Tuesday morning. Lockhart said police have interviewed workers at the McDonald's and planned to talk to the mother once she's able to speak to them.

"She's being treated, and we haven't been able to talk to her to get her side of all of this," Lockhart said.

Police will then consult with prosecutors to determine what, if any, charges will be filed.

The incident occurred about 12:50 p.m. Monday. Lockhart said workers became concerned after the woman didn't return from the restroom. The workers quickly called paramedics after checking on the woman.

Lockhart said the woman allegedly told paramedics that she tried to flush the baby down the toilet several times. He said the child was still in the toilet and wasn't breathing when paramedics arrived. They administered CPR on the child to get him breathing again, Lockhart said.

The paramedics then rushed the baby and mother to the hospital. Police were notified about 2:30 p.m., Lockhart said.

"The mother told paramedics that she didn't know she was pregnant," he said.

Her co-workers told KCTV5 News that they didn't know the woman was pregnant.

The newborn has been placed in the temporary custody of children's services, Lockhart said. It was not clear whether the woman has other children, he said.

John Jelinek, who owns and operates the McDonald's restaurant, said he was "truly shocked by the unfortunate incident."

"The safety and well-being of my customers and employees is always my top priority," Jelinek said in a written statement Tuesday afternoon. "As this is a pending police matter, it would be inappropriate to discuss further."