It's Official: Life begins at conception

[uscitizen]

so welfare and foodstamps and such begin at conception?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure those who oppose Sharia Law in the Mosque threads will be by soon enough to tell us how a state making laws based on Christian religious beliefs is wrong.

Sorry Rob, this isn't religion, it's biology...you know...science.

the decision in roe v wade was based on when the governmental interest in protecting a pregnancy outweighed the interest of the woman in her OWN BODY.

That equation only changes if one assigns religious values.

Exactly. And there is no room for interjecting religious beliefs into social policy. Sometimes social policy will coincide with our religious beliefs and even be the basis for a social contract that drives the policy, but our religious beliefs cannot be the basis for the social policy without violating the rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs.

Roe v Wade did the best it could among competing social interests.

The first trimester is pretty much hands off so far as the state is concerned and the matter is left up to the woman and her doctor and whatever matters of conscience exist.

In the second trimester the state has an increasing interest and should be allowed to set some reasonable guidelines.

In the third trimester when the baby has become viable, the state has a great deal of interest and presumably should be able to ban abortion except in extenuating circumstances that could compromise the life of the mother if that is the way the people want the social contract to be.

Personally within the guidelines of Roe v Wade, I would much prefer that the state and local governments set the policy rather than this be assumed as a role for the Federal government.

 

[Missourian]

so welfare and foodstamps and such begin at conception?

Always have...never heard of W.I.C. ?

WIC Eligibility Requirements

 

[edthecynic]

At least that's what has been written into law in Missouri.




New Mo. abortion law counters some philosophy, theology

Actually the bible is quite clear as to when mankind becomes a living soul. Obviously nobody believes the bible no matter what they might say to the contrary!

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, the soul enters the human body AFTER it is formed, and AFTER it takes its first breath of life, as this passage implies???

That's what the bible says and that is what I was taught in Catholic school BEFORE abortion was politicized. I'm old enough to remember when childbirth was a very dangerous event. In my family there were 4 still births, 2 on my mother's side and 2 on my father's. We children were taught that the unbaptized babies were not condemned to hell because they they were not living souls until their first "Breath of Life."

Once abortion was politicized the "Breath of Life" was never mentioned again.

 

[uscitizen]

Why not? The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Branson I expect.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Actually the bible is quite clear as to when mankind becomes a living soul. Obviously nobody believes the bible no matter what they might say to the contrary!

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, the soul enters the human body AFTER it is formed, and AFTER it takes its first breath of life, as this passage implies???

That's what the bible says and that is what I was taught in Catholic school BEFORE abortion was politicized. I'm old enough to remember when childbirth was a very dangerous event. In my family there were 4 still births, 2 on my mother's side and 2 on my father's. We children were taught that the unbaptized babies were not condemned to hell because they they were not living souls until their first "Breath of Life."

Once abortion was politicized the "Breath of Life" was never mentioned again.

I remember that teaching too. In fact, I drove a young woman from Kentucky to NY state for an abortion in 1972 because I did not consider her fetus to have a living soul. Now I don't believe in a soul but I believe life begins at conception.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm looking for really hot gals..say mid 20's..to test out this theory with me.
It will be a sacrifice...but someone has to do it.

See, life can't begin at conception. Otherwise how could this guy have gotten so far without one?

 

[Missourian]

Why not? The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Branson I expect.

Independence, Missouri.


Adam-ondi-Ahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IMHO Missouri is still Eden.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know nothing of the midwest.

 

[Missourian]

I know nothing of the midwest.

You should come out and sit a spell.

 

[uscitizen]

Why not? The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Branson I expect.

Independence, Missouri.


Adam-ondi-Ahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IMHO Missouri is still Eden.

Yeah if they throw the sinners out.

 

[Missourian]

Why not? The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Branson I expect.

Independence, Missouri.


Adam-ondi-Ahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IMHO Missouri is still Eden.

Yeah if they throw the sinners out.

...Who would be left?...

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know nothing of the midwest.

You should come out and sit a spell.

I'd miss the ocean.

 

[jillian]

Sorry Rob, this isn't religion, it's biology...you know...science.

the decision in roe v wade was based on when the governmental interest in protecting a pregnancy outweighed the interest of the woman in her OWN BODY.

That equation only changes if one assigns religious values.

Exactly. And there is no room for interjecting religious beliefs into social policy. Sometimes social policy will coincide with our religious beliefs and even be the basis for a social contract that drives the policy, but our religious beliefs cannot be the basis for the social policy without violating the rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs.

Roe v Wade did the best it could among competing social interests.

The first trimester is pretty much hands off so far as the state is concerned and the matter is left up to the woman and her doctor and whatever matters of conscience exist.

In the second trimester the state has an increasing interest and should be allowed to set some reasonable guidelines.

In the third trimester when the baby has become viable, the state has a great deal of interest and presumably should be able to ban abortion except in extenuating circumstances that could compromise the life of the mother if that is the way the people want the social contract to be.

Personally within the guidelines of Roe v Wade, I would much prefer that the state and local governments set the policy rather than this be assumed as a role for the Federal government.

well said. my points of disagreement are that i don't think 'the people' should vote on our rights. and i am distrustful of states. if something is a federally protected right as roe states, then a state can certainly give greater protections, which no one would quarrel with, but never lesser.

 

[Charles_Main]

So, the soul enters the human body AFTER it is formed, and AFTER it takes its first breath of life, as this passage implies???

A baby get oxygen through the umbilical cord. Thats the same as breathing. The intake of oxygen is the breath of life.

So I guess they are wrong again.

I think that is a pretty good try, but the passage mentions nostrils, as in breathing....even our doctors and nurses in labor and delivery do not pronounce the baby being born alive until the baby takes its FIRST BREATH....they slap the baby, looking for that first yelp from the child, because to take that yelp, that first cry out loud signals their first breath....

I guess, the Bible is still confusing for me in this respect, because there are also passages that speak about John the Baptist in womb, leaping for joy in Elizabeth, when she was in the presence of Mary, with Jesus in womb....which indicates the unborn child in Elizabeth was aware of the Messiah in Mary's womb, which only could be known imho, with the Soul being present...I think?

The breath of life through the nostrils happened AFTER humans were formed, NOT during formation, is what that original passage indicates, not through the umbilical cord....?

I suppose, as a faulty human, I still see contradiction between the 2 different scriptures....

It still does not negate that a new human life, scientifically begins with conception, as the first stage of that new life....

Look what you people are arguing about is self sustainable life. Clearly a brand new Embryo can not self sustain its life. However scientifically it is life. It is cells that are growing and expanding. You can not dispute that is alive.

You people are trying to paint this like it is based on religion when in fact there is very solid science behind it. Or are you going to deny that an embryo is living cells that are growing and dividing. Which is by scientific definition ALIVE!

 

[Foxfyre]

the decision in roe v wade was based on when the governmental interest in protecting a pregnancy outweighed the interest of the woman in her OWN BODY.

That equation only changes if one assigns religious values.

Exactly. And there is no room for interjecting religious beliefs into social policy. Sometimes social policy will coincide with our religious beliefs and even be the basis for a social contract that drives the policy, but our religious beliefs cannot be the basis for the social policy without violating the rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs.

Roe v Wade did the best it could among competing social interests.

The first trimester is pretty much hands off so far as the state is concerned and the matter is left up to the woman and her doctor and whatever matters of conscience exist.

In the second trimester the state has an increasing interest and should be allowed to set some reasonable guidelines.

In the third trimester when the baby has become viable, the state has a great deal of interest and presumably should be able to ban abortion except in extenuating circumstances that could compromise the life of the mother if that is the way the people want the social contract to be.

Personally within the guidelines of Roe v Wade, I would much prefer that the state and local governments set the policy rather than this be assumed as a role for the Federal government.

well said. my points of disagreement are that i don't think 'the people' should vote on our rights. and i am distrustful of states. if something is a federally protected right as roe states, then a state can certainly give greater protections, which no one would quarrel with, but never lesser.

I think Roe v Wade should be the standard for all yes. But within those guidelines, if you had say a strongly Roman Catholic or other staunchly pro life community that wanted a social contract without abortion on demand after the first trimester, I don't have a problem with that community making that the law for their community. Just their community. Not everybody else.

For me it is the logical compromise rather than have the federal government order either no restrictions on abortions that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro life or having the federal government order no abortions other than in very strict and limited cases (life of mother, rape, incest etc.) that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro choice.

In other words, within the guidelines set by Roe v Wade, let each community set its own social contract in that matter.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Exactly. And there is no room for interjecting religious beliefs into social policy. Sometimes social policy will coincide with our religious beliefs and even be the basis for a social contract that drives the policy, but our religious beliefs cannot be the basis for the social policy without violating the rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs.

Roe v Wade did the best it could among competing social interests.

The first trimester is pretty much hands off so far as the state is concerned and the matter is left up to the woman and her doctor and whatever matters of conscience exist.

In the second trimester the state has an increasing interest and should be allowed to set some reasonable guidelines.

In the third trimester when the baby has become viable, the state has a great deal of interest and presumably should be able to ban abortion except in extenuating circumstances that could compromise the life of the mother if that is the way the people want the social contract to be.

Personally within the guidelines of Roe v Wade, I would much prefer that the state and local governments set the policy rather than this be assumed as a role for the Federal government.

well said. my points of disagreement are that i don't think 'the people' should vote on our rights. and i am distrustful of states. if something is a federally protected right as roe states, then a state can certainly give greater protections, which no one would quarrel with, but never lesser.

I think Roe v Wade should be the standard for all yes. But within those guidelines, if you had say a strongly Roman Catholic or other staunchly pro life community that wanted a social contract without abortion on demand after the first trimester, I don't have a problem with that community making that the law for their community. Just their community. Not everybody else.

For me it is the logical compromise rather than have the federal government order either no restrictions on abortions that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro life or having the federal government order no abortions other than in very strict and limited cases (life of mother, rape, incest etc.) that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro choice.

In other words, within the guidelines set by Roe v Wade, let each community set its own social contract in that matter.

That's not a bad idea if it would work, if faith communities could be trusted. I don't think these religous communities are content to make law just for themselves. The RCC is not content to just not marry gays and lesbians, for example. They seek to make civil law compliant with their faith beliefs.

 

[jillian]

Exactly. And there is no room for interjecting religious beliefs into social policy. Sometimes social policy will coincide with our religious beliefs and even be the basis for a social contract that drives the policy, but our religious beliefs cannot be the basis for the social policy without violating the rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs.

Roe v Wade did the best it could among competing social interests.

The first trimester is pretty much hands off so far as the state is concerned and the matter is left up to the woman and her doctor and whatever matters of conscience exist.

In the second trimester the state has an increasing interest and should be allowed to set some reasonable guidelines.

In the third trimester when the baby has become viable, the state has a great deal of interest and presumably should be able to ban abortion except in extenuating circumstances that could compromise the life of the mother if that is the way the people want the social contract to be.

Personally within the guidelines of Roe v Wade, I would much prefer that the state and local governments set the policy rather than this be assumed as a role for the Federal government.

well said. my points of disagreement are that i don't think 'the people' should vote on our rights. and i am distrustful of states. if something is a federally protected right as roe states, then a state can certainly give greater protections, which no one would quarrel with, but never lesser.

I think Roe v Wade should be the standard for all yes. But within those guidelines, if you had say a strongly Roman Catholic or other staunchly pro life community that wanted a social contract without abortion on demand after the first trimester, I don't have a problem with that community making that the law for their community. Just their community. Not everybody else.

For me it is the logical compromise rather than have the federal government order either no restrictions on abortions that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro life or having the federal government order no abortions other than in very strict and limited cases (life of mother, rape, incest etc.) that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro choice.

In other words, within the guidelines set by Roe v Wade, let each community set its own social contract in that matter.

i don't think any municipality should be mixed up with any social contract in the name of religion. in fact, i don't think any church, synagogue, mosque, or any other religious representative should have anything to do with governing any rights.

what people do within the context of their own religious beliefs and within their own chosen places of worship is certainly their business and they have every right to enter into whatever contract with their church that they want. (just not with the government).

 

[Foxfyre]

well said. my points of disagreement are that i don't think 'the people' should vote on our rights. and i am distrustful of states. if something is a federally protected right as roe states, then a state can certainly give greater protections, which no one would quarrel with, but never lesser.

I think Roe v Wade should be the standard for all yes. But within those guidelines, if you had say a strongly Roman Catholic or other staunchly pro life community that wanted a social contract without abortion on demand after the first trimester, I don't have a problem with that community making that the law for their community. Just their community. Not everybody else.

For me it is the logical compromise rather than have the federal government order either no restrictions on abortions that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro life or having the federal government order no abortions other than in very strict and limited cases (life of mother, rape, incest etc.) that would be extremely distressing to the large number of people who are pro choice.

In other words, within the guidelines set by Roe v Wade, let each community set its own social contract in that matter.

i don't think any municipality should be mixed up with any social contract in the name of religion. in fact, i don't think any church, synagogue, mosque, or any other religious representative should have anything to do with governing any rights.

what people do within the context of their own religious beliefs and within their own chosen places of worship is certainly their business and they have every right to enter into whatever contract with their church that they want. (just not with the government).

No, no, it would not be in the name of religion nor would be based on any religious doctrine. It would simply be like Roe v Wade and establish a way that people can recognize the existence of a human life and protect it if that is what they want via social contract. Different communities set different standards/ordinances for curfews, public drunkenness, gambling, drive up liquor windows, etc. etc. etc. that may or may not be driven by religious sensibilities or whatever. Reigious doctrine is not a basis for the ordinance however. Abortion policy need be no different.

 

[uscitizen]

Religious doctrine is a basis for ordinance.
Several ordinanances revolve around churches and their doctrine.
The remenants of the old Blue laws for Sunday closings and no liquer sales.