I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

The only consistent, logical positions are that the baby is not fully human and not deserving of any rights until birth, or that the baby IS a human being and deserving of rights at the moment of conception. Anything else imposes your own arbitrary beliefs about when life begins.

I think there are gray areas on either side. I know many pro-life people who make an exception for cases of rape and incest. Which isn't logical, as has been pointed out on this thread those babies aren't any less human then others.

I agree, picking a place in time where abortion passed from "ok" to not isn't totally logical either.

Then God love'em, I still would not want to live that way!

So you would do what.....kill yourself?

I might. I have issues with personal space. :biggrin1: I think it would be VERY violated. Plus who wants to go thru life life. that. Maybe it would be different. But if it was me it may have ended in a murder suiceide.

I can say all this but i also realize i am not in the situation directly.

I think there are gray areas on either side. I know many pro-life people who make an exception for cases of rape and incest. Which isn't logical, as has been pointed out on this thread those babies aren't any less human then others.

I agree, picking a place in time where abortion passed from "ok" to not isn't totally logical either.

I agree that in cases of rape and incest nothing about the unborn baby is different from the cases of women who are just "inconvenienced" by being pregnant. That is why I am in support of no exceptions.

Here is the problem with gray areas. We should never, ever have to rely on another human being's judgment as to when we are or are not allowed to live. Otherwise, we open ourselves up to all sorts of judgment calls about the quality of our life. Quite frankly, it makes more sense socially and economically to kill the elderly rather than the young.

Nothing's gray for the baby. It's all pretty much black and white for him or her.

The woman's "choice" in today's legal system is to have a dead baby or a live baby. Better if she doesn't get pregnant, yes, but once she is those are her choices.

OK, so fetus = "unborn young". Therefore I choose to use the term "unborn baby" instead of the Latin, which so few people speak.

The word "fetus," while it originates with the Latin is an English word. And, to assume that the word means the same thing in the two languages is a common error.

For example, the word for "pregnant" in Spanish, sounds an awful lot like the word "embarassed" in English. They are not, however, interchangable. There are entire dictionaries devoted to these False Cognates.

My old Cassell's Latin-English dictionary tells us that the word fetus, in Latin, means "pregnant, fruitful or fertile" or even "newly delivered." It can also mean "the bearing, bringng forth or hatching of young." It likewise applies to plants.

To try to simplify things for others may be a kind gesture...but accuracy is helpful in these ventures.

In English, too, a fetus is a fetus...not any kind of baby except in the imagination of those who wish it to be.

...

I believe, and I think science supports my belief, that life begins at conception.

This is, by definition, an example of what is called a "faith claim." That is, you BELIEVE that this position is true. REAL science has to do with empirical data...NOT with what someone thinks.

My religious beliefs are not at issue, nor are yours, nor should they be.

Our religious beliefs "inform" our other beliefs and practices. That's why--for example--many Quakers are "conscientious objectors." It's why a Muslim physician in our old neighborhood wouldn't prescribe BC pills to unmarried women. It's why you won't find many Christian Scientist surgeons. What we believe--including our religious beliefs--strongly influences what ELSE we believe.

This is, by definition, an example of what is called a "faith claim." That is, you BELIEVE that this position is true. REAL science has to do with empirical data...NOT with what someone thinks.

Let's see. From the moment of conception, the baby has a separate circulatory system. By 8 weeks, the baby is fully formed with all major organs, only needing time and nutrition to mature. The baby has a separate brain, separate organs, a separate and often different blood type, and separate and distinct DNA.

Seems pretty scientific and empirical to me. How do YOU define human life? By cognition? What does that say about the disabled or the mentally retarded -- or, for that matter, newborns? By the place where the baby lives? Explain to me under what scientific method you can deny the baby is a human being separate from the mother?

Furthermore, doctors regularly operate on babies still in the womb to correct development issues. Who is the patient, if not the baby?

Gadgetlady,

I'm sorry that my point wasn't more clear. I was not challenging your right to choose to believe that life begins when Daddy gets that gleam in his eye...whatever. Believe what you choose to believe.

I was challenging several of the random things you mentioned...such as your belief that by using the word "fetus" you were speaking Latin and that by using the term "unborn child" you were translating from Latin. That was wrong.

And I was challenging your (implied) claim that your religion does not inform the rest of what you believe.

And I was challenging your claim that because YOU believe that life begins whenever you think it does, that it somehow makes it so.

AND I was challenging your claim that you think that YOUR (religion-based, like it or not) beliefs about when life begins somehow impart a responsibility on others to behave in a way that conforms with your beliefs.

You can carry on until the cows come home about what starts when...it matters not a whit to me. What matters is WHO DECIDES? And, with or without the permission of the religous right, I HAVE decided for myself and I will continue marching outside those clinics to keep them open for my daughter or any other woman who might need them to be open.

Furthermore, doctors regularly operate on babies still in the womb to correct development issues. Who is the patient, if not the baby?

In insurance terms and under the law, quite unequivocally in these situations, the MOTHER is the patient. The baby can't make decisions or in any other way have any input into the treatment and absolutely is NOT considered a separate being.

I was not challenging your right to choose to believe that life begins when Daddy gets that gleam in his eye...whatever. Believe what you choose to believe.

I have backed my "belief" up with empirical data. Where's yours? Believing that life begins when "Daddy" (curious that you call him that - who is he a "Daddy" of if the baby hasn't passed through the birth canal yet?) gets that gleam in his eye is not scientific; there is no separate DNA at that point.

And I was challenging your (implied) claim that your religion does not inform the rest of what you believe.

Actually, I was pro-life before I was a Christian. I was pro-life the instant I thought about the issue, because it was quite obvious to me that the unborn baby is a separate human being. Research only strengthened my position.

And I was challenging your claim that because YOU believe that life begins whenever you think it does, that it somehow makes it so.

AND I was challenging your claim that you think that YOUR (religion-based, like it or not) beliefs about when life begins somehow impart a responsibility on others to behave in a way that conforms with your beliefs.

You can carry on until the cows come home about what starts when...it matters not a whit to me. What matters is WHO DECIDES? And, with or without the permission of the religous right, I HAVE decided for myself and I will continue marching outside those clinics to keep them open for my daughter or any other woman who might need them to be open.

You can't decide for yourself when someone else's life is at stake.

"If you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave." What's wrong with that statement? The slave is a human being, and by "owning" one you are denying him his right to life.

The law restricts us in all sorts of ways when what we're doing interferes with the life of another person. You can get drunk all you want in the privacy of your home, but if you CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of a car, you endanger others. You can own a gun in your own home, but if you CHOOSE to shoot that gun in the air on the 4th of July, you endanger others. In these situations, I'm sure you wouldn't say "WHO DECIDES". In these situations and many others, the law is set up to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You believe we should continue to arbitrarily exclude the unborn from protection because YOU BELIEVE they are not human beings.

I ask again -- WHERE is your empirical data?

In insurance terms and under the law, quite unequivocally in these situations, the MOTHER is the patient. The baby can't make decisions or in any other way have any input into the treatment and absolutely is NOT considered a separate being.

I have to sign for my children to have surgery because they can't make decisions of have input into the treatment.

If the doctors operating on the baby make a mistake and the baby ends up with a deformity as a result of their error, I could pretty much GUARANTEE in this day and age of sue-able offenses, the parents would sue on behalf of the child or the child would sue later on in life.

Ask a doctor who he's operating on. I have. He told me both mother and baby are patients, but because the mother is the one insured she is called the patient for insurance purposes.

So you would do what.....kill yourself?

That's a whole nother issue, that's not illegal yet, is it?.....So you mean to tell me these girls go on dates, dances, play sports, and are just having a great old time? Heck, kids are horrible if you're different at least 18 years ago when I was in high school! If you didn't have a certain kind of clothes, were overweight, etc. you were left out. Luckily I was neither popular or teased. Sometimes I think these documentaries make it look like life is just grand for the people the story's about, but don't show the behind the scenes reality. Once again, their mom had a CHOICE and she did with her body as she wanted......

Furthermore, doctors regularly operate on babies still in the womb to correct development issues. Who is the patient, if not the baby?

What does it say on the EOB form from the insurance company.....Patient: Sally Smith and fetus? I don't work for an insurance company, but I doubt it! Any folks working for an insurance company out there? Also, it is the mother's decision along with her doctor as if to have the operation. He can't force her can he, and If he can, we live in a worse society than I thought!

That's a whole nother issue, that's not illegal yet, is it?.....So you mean to tell me these girls go on dates, dances, play sports, and are just having a great old time? Heck, kids are horrible if you're different at least 18 years ago when I was in high school! If you didn't have a certain kind of clothes, were overweight, etc. you were left out. Sometimes I think these documentaries make it look like life is just grand for the people the story's about, but don't show the behind the scenes reality. Once again, their mom had a CHOICE and she did with her body as she wanted......

Actually, suicide is illegal. And, quite frankly, I don't believe it should be because it is YOUR LIFE and you have a right to do with it what you want. I don't particularly like the idea of suicide and the mess it leaves for others to clean up after you, but I do truly believe that people should have the right to do with their own bodies whatever they want, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I've always wondered -- if a woman goes into a doctor's office and asks them to remove her perfectly healthy arm because she doesn't want it anymore, after all it's HER BODY and HER RIGHT to decide, would they do it? Uh, yeah, NOT. So why when she's asking to remove the baby is it her right?

If you told an abortion-minded woman you could remove the unborn baby from her wombs and place it in an incubator and she would have no further contact or responsibility, do you think she'd allow it? In most cases, I sincerely doubt it. She doesn't want to just not be pregnant. She wants to make "the problem" go away. She wants the baby to be dead. If you were able to remove her responsibility and her contact with the baby, she would still have a biological baby "out there" and she'd know it. The only way, she thinks, to ease her mind is to "get rid of it". The problem is, what she's "getting rid of" is another human being. Just like OJ did.