Saying the quiet part out loud

[Mark]

I suppose I'm directing this question at the anti-abortionists, but anyone can answer. When does life start for a bird? At conception or when the egg hatches? How do you feel about killing an egg?

[kevin]

imo, life never "starts." life started perhaps one time, 3 billion years ago. an egg is already alive, as are human eggs and spermatozoa.

what it does now is get transmitted between generations in a modified form.

the question really isnt about "life." its about at what stage in reproduction a living entity is considered to have rights.

as a vegetarian, i customarily dont eat eggs, because they are living animal tissue. but as you observe, the whole question is messy.

[meAgain]

*

[none]

I suppose I'm directing this question at the anti-abortionists, but anyone can answer. When does life start for a bird? At conception or when the egg hatches?

Seems most know and understand that even the bird egg itself is of value and indicates life.

there aren't enough birds is the difference

[meAgain]

*

[Kiahanie]

••••
Yep, just like Bill Maher said, "I know it's murder, but I don't care.  There are already too many people.  I won't miss you!"

Pro aborts at least ought to own it, instead they hide behind euphemisms like "reproductive rights".  They aren't fighting for reproductive rights.  Their position wants to stop reproduction.  They should be honest and say they are fighting for the right to murder.  Bill Maher nailed it.  He said, "I mean if you're "Pro Choice" that's what you are, right?"

Nope. That is a terribly subjective point of view. Which is ok, but not much of an argument.

[none]

I suppose I'm directing this question at the anti-abortionists, but anyone can answer. When does life start for a bird? At conception or when the egg hatches?

Seems most know and understand that even the bird egg itself is of value and indicates life.

there aren't enough birds is the difference

Yep, just like Bill Maher said, "I know it's murder, but I don't care.  There are already too many people.  I won't miss you!"

Pro aborts at least ought to own it, instead they hide behind euphemisms like "reproductive rights".  They aren't fighting for reproductive rights.  Their position wants to stop reproduction.  They should be honest and say they are fighting for the right to murder.  Bill Maher nailed it.  He said, "I mean if you're "Pro Choice" that's what you are, right?"

meh, you are right it gets over complicated with verbiage that people don't like
instead of abortion being legal lets force people to discuss the topic under the language that is available to drive a point home like: the vagina's sole purpose is to always kill the mother if it can be prevented
I should assume the distinction that I don't care about those attached to a vagina as whomever can f**k with it has priority, and a cyst is organic and the value of the mother of that cyst isn't worth the investment to save it, let them die and if they are not valued enough to save from death because they are pregnant why would they be kept from death being unpregnant; it is just too complicated to understand because letting people die is a natural law

[meAgain]

*

[none]

That is a terribly subjective point of view. Which is ok, but not much of an argument.

Sorry, but the point is it isn't subjective.  Abortion is the purposeful, specifically targeted, killing of an innocent human life.  There is nothing subjective about that -- that IS what it is. 

Own it. 

life begins at breath
I know it is tragic when something wanted is lost but it is not your body to dictate what is needed or wanted for its best function
if it is alive in the womb then it should live on its own and be forcefully treated to the outside untethered world because it is alive and given the same rights as the mother where we can all watch natural law take place and be happy that we witness yet another miracle of "gee it didn't live very long".
if it is alive at conception then double down on the fact that it should be rushed to a peitrie dish so you don't have to lament on how it was lost to natural causes if it was unwanted
natural law is when a man and women copulate and chose whether or not they want to keep the child and ultimately the male's consideration is secondary to that female's body's use

[Kiahanie]

That is a terribly subjective point of view. Which is ok, but not much of an argument.

Sorry, but the point is it isn't subjective.  Abortion is the purposeful, specifically targeted, killing of an innocent human life.  There is nothing subjective about that -- that IS what it is. 
••••

The subjective part is calling abortion murder. Jews do not generally have a problem with abortion, nor do many other cultures.

Life begins at first breath is a pretty common approach to the issue throughout the world.  Murder does not happen until after life starts.

MeAgain, please do not bother me with your trivial bulls**t.

[meAgain]

*

[none]

murder of the unborn is a separate statute from murder
maybe if "to term" was legally defined as 10 weeks we both could rejoice
sadly you want to marginalize yet wont follow the basic notion that women shouldn't vote BECAUSE IT IS BIBLICALLY CONTRADICTORY and expect others to take you seriously because you either don't like the outcome or aren't pregnant enough
every stopped attempt at cloning should be challenged under the statute
the unborn child which is a clone in conception must not be stopped from being
wouldn't that be something that the evidence for the unborn child would be a single cell from any source presented in court
basically a litigant could sue the state for murdering a single cell by not funding it's continued life but of course it is just an unborn child

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

But that's not abortion, is it. They gotta be born first, then their lives can be extinguished against the rocks.

Nope. Yahweh apparently did not know about abortion. Or did not care.

I am not going to interpret this passage, but I will supply some facts.  Firstly, the word here translated "infants" actually means "children".  

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5768.htm

Secondly, Babylon itself is here referred to as a child although it's not. 

Lastly, "children" can refer to the residents of a nation like "the children of Israel". 

[Kiahanie]

That is a terribly subjective point of view. Which is ok, but not much of an argument.

Sorry, but the point is it isn't subjective.  Abortion is the purposeful, specifically targeted, killing of an innocent human life.  There is nothing subjective about that -- that IS what it is. 
••••

The subjective part is calling abortion murder.

Knox County DA charges man with murder in death of unborn child

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/26/knox-county-da-charges-man-murder-death-unborn-child/10153198002/
Man charged with murder of unborn child after Rowan Co. home invasion
https://www.wbtv.com/2023/11/28/man-charged-with-murder-unborn-child/

Like I said, it is subjective. Different people have different opinions. Your opinion is already clear. Some people agree with you. 85% of the population disagrees: they want accessible abortion. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx). Most if those do not believe it is "murder."

[Kiahanie]

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

But that's not abortion, is it. They gotta be born first, then their lives can be extinguished against the rocks.

Nope. Yahweh apparently did not know about abortion. Or did not care.

I am not going to interpret this passage, but I will supply some facts.  Firstly, the word here translated "infants" actually means "children". 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5768.htm

Secondly, Babylon itself is here referred to as a child although it's not.

Lastly, "children" can refer to the residents of a nation like "the children of Israel".

In all those cases, "children" are born human beings, not unborn. Traditionally Jews have never had a problem with abortion precisely because Yahweh said nothing about it.

Early Christianity had no problem because Jesus had nothing to say about it either, for the same reason.

Paul was more worried about heathen celebrations than the unborn.

Even the Catholic Church had no problem until relatively recently.

The Christian "religious" aspect of the forced-birth movement has been ginned up out of whole cloth.

[kevin]

it was a political ploy developed by the right not much farther back the 1960s, i think, because they didnt have anything else

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

But that's not abortion, is it. They gotta be born first, then their lives can be extinguished against the rocks.

Nope. Yahweh apparently did not know about abortion. Or did not care.

I am not going to interpret this passage, but I will supply some facts.  Firstly, the word here translated "infants" actually means "children". 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5768.htm

Secondly, Babylon itself is here referred to as a child although it's not.

Lastly, "children" can refer to the residents of a nation like "the children of Israel".

In all those cases, "children" are born human beings, not unborn. Traditionally Jews have never had a problem with abortion precisely because Yahweh said nothing about it.

Early Christianity had no problem because Jesus had nothing to say about it either, for the same reason.

Paul was more worried about heathen celebrations than the unborn.

Even the Catholic Church had no problem until relatively recently.

The Christian "religious" aspect of the forced-birth movement has been ginned up out of whole cloth.

It seems there has always been mixed reviews among Jews and Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

I could make a scriptural argument that a fetus is not a living soul until it has the "breath of life" which is another way of saying it's not a person until it's born and starts breathing.  I actually think this is true because "soul" means "breather".  A fetus also does not have life as a soul "person".  If I recall correctly, this supports your views and your arguments.

In my opinion, the real sin is that society has turned a blessing into a curse.  The Jews saw children as a blessing from Jehovah and no woman wanted to be barren.   I'm pretty sure no one opted for an abortion that was not medically necessary and this seems to have been the practice of the Jews.  I'm pretty certain no abortions occurred so someone could further their career.  Exactly when did "career" take center stage?

[meAgain]

*

[none]

Even the Catholic Church had no problem until relatively recently.

Huh?  Explain.

yeah throughout history pregnant women were routinely killed and to some extent still are... in God' name of course...
the Catholic Church isn't Jesus it is people that need Jesus (rumor) because they are sinners and you want me to believe that these people don't routinely don't engage in the behavior that you think is a should or an ought and that IS THE Church.

[none]

maybe it is the maternal instinct but I think that that instinct goes beyond what is acceptable when it comes to women must have babies at all costs

[Kiahanie]

Even the Catholic Church had no problem until relatively recently.

Huh?  Explain.

Thought you were the expert on this stuff.

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development. In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.
--- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

As I said, subjective.

[Kiahanie]

••••

••••

••••

••••

It seems there has always been mixed reviews among Jews and Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

I could make a scriptural argument that a fetus is not a living soul until it has the "breath of life" which is another way of saying it's not a person until it's born and starts breathing.  I actually think this is true because "soul" means "breather".  A fetus also does not have life as a soul "person".  If I recall correctly, this supports your views and your arguments.

I am certainly sympathetic to that argument. And yes, I do believe life begins with breath. I am very conservative that way. And in other ways.

In my opinion, the real sin is that society has turned a blessing into a curse.  The Jews saw children as a blessing from Jehovah and no woman wanted to be barren.  I'm pretty sure no one opted for an abortion that was not medically necessary and this seems to have been the practice of the Jews.  I'm pretty certain no abortions occurred so someone could further their career.  Exactly when did "career" take center stage?

Cultures have always valued their own children. Not so much the children of other cultures.

Globally, "medically necessary" abortions were not particularly common -surgery without antibiotics killed as many as it saved.

What was common was the use of abortifacients in situations where children were a liability. Those conditions include war, famine, long treks (particularly if fleeing).

There is no reason to suppose the Hebrews were any different.

"Careers" took center stage when capitalism emphasized individual achievement over the betterment of the society as a whole, and particularly after capitalism demolished the extended family in many countries.

[meAgain]

*

[Kiahanie]

Even the Catholic Church had no problem until relatively recently.

Huh?  Explain.

Thought you were the expert on this stuff.

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development. In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.
--- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

As I said, subjective.

LOL!  It took me all of 3 seconds to do a Google search exposing your Fake News! Your anti-Catholic bigotry is embarrassing.
••••

Yeah. That is about how long it took me to Google it up. Your pro-catholic bigotry is amusing. Nothing in your screed contradicts the facts in the NIH article. 

[meAgain]

*

[Kiahanie]

Your pro-catholic bigotry is amusing. Nothing in your screed contradicts the facts in the NIH article.

Yes, it did.  You must not have read it.  Go back and try again. 

The interpretations may be contradictory, but I saw no contradicting facts.

Assuming you can tell the difference, what facts do you see as contradictory?

[meAgain]

*

[Kiahanie]

Your pro-catholic bigotry is amusing. Nothing in your screed contradicts the facts in the NIH article.

Yes, it did.  You must not have read it.  Go back and try again. 

The interpretations may be contradictory, but I saw no contradicting facts.

Assuming you can tell the difference, what facts do you see as contradictory?

LOL!  That someone thinks quoting something from someone claiming to speak for the Catholic Church, but who has been declared heretical by the Church, counts as fact is laughable. 
••••

Let us try again: what part of this quote do you find  to be nonfactual?

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development. In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.
--- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

[meAgain]

*

[Kiahanie]

^^^^^ Specify the factual statement(s) you think contradict your screed, and explain the contradiction.

We will go from there.