<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1163385161.020817.197320@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Juanjo wrote:

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1163287808.591476.65060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Al Klein wrote:

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:43:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:vni4l21avavo3gn7fgc65vpisagbad89fj@4ax.com...

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:50:35 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

You mean it takes meds to be against abortion on demand in law?

If you base it on the Bible it would take pure insanity, since the
Bible ADVOCATES abortion on demand.

It is a very limited case.

But it TOTALLY DESTROYS the claim that the Bible prohibits all
abortions.

Thou shall not kill.

If you are going to use the Old Testament as Christians call it then you
should know that an unborn child is not considered a human being until it
draws its first breath of air upon being born.

Chapter and verse please. Life, all life, begins at the moment of
conception. A child in its mothers womb is human life no matter what
some vile abortion mill operator says.

The idea that life begins at the moment of conception is a relatively
slippery concept. If you are talking of simple cell division then you might
have a point. Any cell is certainly alive but no one objects of a woman has
a tumor removed from her belly.

and misleading. Further that is not the criteria the Christian doctrine is
concerned with. The Christian doctrine is that an independent soul attaches
at the moment of conception and thus the gamete is considered a human being
for purposes of their religion. Thus the gamete is not just alive but
rather it is in the eyes of this religious doctrine an independent human
life with a soul of its own. This is a nice concept and it is not unusual.
And it is very different from what you are claiming when you simply state
that all life begins at conception. A fetus in its mother's womb is not a
human being but it is a potential human being. A myriad of things could
happen during gestation that would prevent it from being born alive, quite
without the mother taking any negative action towards it at all. You are as
it were "counting chickens before they hatch". A silly ideas when running a
chicken ranch and an utterly absurd thing to do when speaking of human
fetuses.

The distinction that exists and has existed since women first began giving
birth was when is that clump of cells entitled to all the privileges that an
already freely existing human has after he or she is born. If you read in
the Talmud, the rabbis state that it is when the baby is born and takes its
first breath of air.

in Genesis when their deity breathed air into Adam's nostrils and he came
alive. Interestingly enough, this is very similar to the rule in ancient
Celtic societies and descended to us into Anglo-Saxon Common Law about 1000
years ago. The reason was simple and these were practical people. A fetus
is fragile. In the first trimester especially women commonly miscarry, more
so back then than now to be sure. I have read that up to half of all
pregnancies end in miscarriage shortly after conception.

For our purposes the real issue is when does that clump of cells that should
it reach full gestation could become a complete and independent human being,
have superior rights over that of the pregnant woman.

religious views on that subject and most people do. Others who are not
religious might have a moral or ethical position on the subject. I have
heard nonreligious people express them. But I really do not give a fig
about what your religious belief on the subject is or the Pope's or an
atheist. The legal standards in the United States is set in Roe v. Wade.

It has performed that balancing act and done so fairly well. That's obvious
because both sides have criticized it from the onset. And strangely it
comports with some of the earliest case reports ever issued by the old
English Common Law some 900 years ago as well as what those rabbis had to
say. The closer to full gestation and full ability to live independent of
the womb, the greater the stake of the State in saying what happens to the
fetus.

I care nothing for souls. I do not believe in them nor do I believe in all
powerful deities. I am however a Buddhist and as such I believe that all
life in sacred and that killing sentient beings is wrongful conduct. In the
Pali Canon I believe, is a comment that the Buddha Nature enters the fetus
at conception and thus a fetus is a sentient being. I would have to go back
and look it up. The fetus is considered a human being according to that
standard or at the very least a potential human being who should not be
killed wrongfully. But the act of deciding whether to terminate that fetus'
life is a decision that a woman can make legally, at least through the first
trimester in this country. It is her decision to do so and if she does so
wrongfully then the karma for that act is upon her not me. It is not for me
to judge her or criticize her for doing so. It is an individual moral
decision she must make and she must live with. I whole heartedly support
her right to make that decision.

<Boedicia@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1163385161.020817.197320@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

If you are going to use the Old Testament as Christians call it then you
should know that an unborn child is not considered a human being until it
draws its first breath of air upon being born.

Chapter and verse please.

Life, all life, begins at the moment of conception.

A child in its mothers womb is human life no matter what
some vile abortion mill operator says.

The idea that life begins at the moment of conception is a relatively
slippery concept. If you are talking of simple cell division then you might
have a point. Any cell is certainly alive but no one objects of a woman has
a tumor removed from her belly. So simply using the term "life" is sloppy
and misleading. Further that is not the criteria the Christian doctrine is
concerned with. The Christian doctrine is that an independent soul attaches
at the moment of conception and thus the gamete is considered a human being
for purposes of their religion.

I have read that up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage shortly after conception.

I care nothing for souls. I do not believe in them nor do I believe in all
powerful deities. I am however a Buddhist and as such I believe that all
life in sacred and that killing sentient beings is wrongful conduct.

Boedicia@isp.com <Boedicia@isp.com> wrote:

Juanjo wrote:

If you are going to use the Old Testament as Christians call it then you
should know that an unborn child is not considered a human being until
it
draws its first breath of air upon being born.

Chapter and verse please. Life, all life, begins at the moment of
conception.

That's a stupid lie. Sperm and egg must be alive before conception in
order for it to occur.