Police action proves unborn babies are alive and worth protecting

[BADecker]

This kind of thing happens all over the place... where police and other people save unborn babies at times... even when the mother is still alive. So, now we see how evil the medical is, that they would promote abortions - baby killing - for profit, and as an excuse say that they are protecting the mother from the harm of quack abortions.


Police action proves unborn babies are alive and worth protecting

A pregnant mother was shot dead in Philadelphia the other day. And thanks to police officers who quickly arrived on the scene, her unborn baby – yes, baby, not fetus – was able to be saved.

Proving once again that an unborn child is, in fact, a child and not just a clump of cells, the saving of this precious life deserves attention as it completely destroys the false narrative of the abortion cultists.

According to reports, the mother, 19-year-old Matayah Haynes of Camden, N.J., was 34 weeks pregnant when she was shot in the head in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philly.

Police officers rushed her baby to Temple University Hospital after realizing that it was still alive, even without its mother, said the Philadelphia Police Department in a statement.

At the time, the baby was in critical condition but stable, officers confirmed.

The shooting happened in the early morning hours around 1 a.m. The shooter is believed to have been a man driving a black or blue Chevrolet Camaro or Dodge Charger.
A pregnant woman is TWO people, not just one

Further details about the case are irrelevant for the purposes of this article, other than to say that a pregnant woman – and yes, only a real biological woman can get pregnant – is not just one person but two.

...

[1714843966]

1714843966

[1714843966]

1714843966

[1714843966]

1714843966

[1714843966]

1714843966

[1714843966]

1714843966

[Findingnemo]

Well, what about the feminist reaction to this, if they agree that unborn child is worth to be saved then they are not deserved to be killed ( abortion ). Yeah this is what I want to ask among the women who carries my body my rights slogan.

Everyone deserved to be protected and if they are lucky then miracle will happen even at our birth.

[BADecker]

Is a fetus a child the day before it is born? How about the hour before it is born? It is a child all the way back to conception, because nobody has the ability or right to truly determine the dividing line between fetus (or other) and child. Actually, fetus is simply a stage in a person's life.

When a woman allows herself to be in a position of becoming pregnant, her body is no longer hers. She has accepted a sacred trust for the baby she bears. The man is the grantor. The woman is the trustee. The child is the beneficiary. And as long as the woman understands this, she will easily receive help from God to bear the child; this help is built into nature, and is there for believers and unbelievers alike... for the benefit of the child.


There are a lot of things that are wrong with this world, because of freedom and because of sin. Someone has said: "Might makes right." That's not true. Might or strength only makes what happens. Often it is very wrong. Pregnancy only makes the woman a trustee of the property being built inside her to be given to the child/beneficiary. Her body is no longer her own for 9 months.

This subject has been hashed around for a long time. Voluntary abortion, when there are no extenuating circumstances, is first degree murder, no matter what the laws or the courts say.

[Mometaskers]

To be fair it's about 8 mos old, they couldn't really use the "blood clot" argument against it. And even if it was and that there are debates whether when it becomes "life," (which I'd rather not get into) I prefer to base it on the accountability of the action.

Look, if a woman don't want the baby, she gets to aborts it coz it's a "body part" of her she can terminate. If she wants it, even if the guy don't, she gets to keep it coz it's her "child". It's either "not human" or "human," it can't be both. Its status shouldn't be based on just whatever happens to be convenient for the mother.

[BADecker]

To be fair it's about 8 mos old, they couldn't really use the "blood clot" argument against it. And even if it was and that there are debates whether when it becomes "life," (which I'd rather not get into) I prefer to base it on the accountability of the action.

Look, if a woman don't want the baby, she gets to aborts it coz it's a "body part" of her she can terminate. If she wants it, even if the guy don't, she gets to keep it coz it's her "child". It's either "not human" or "human," it can't be both. Its status shouldn't be based on just whatever happens to be convenient for the mother.

The body part happens to be another person. However, if we can't tell for sure, let's make the mistake on the side that is right... assume that abortion is murder. That way we won't be killing somebody accidentally.

There might be many women who don't have sex until they are married and have a home for the baby. But there are almost countless numbers of women, young and old, who are out there enticing guys all over the place to have sex with them. Stop this, so that they aren't enticed later to have an abortion, and maybe kill their own child.

[Gyfts]

Is a fetus a child the day before it is born? How about the hour before it is born? It is a child all the way back to conception, because nobody has the ability or right to truly determine the dividing line between fetus (or other) and child. Actually, fetus is simply a stage in a person's life.

Abortion works only if the fetus isn't identified as a person. A fetus becomes a person at some point, perhaps at heart beat or further along with brain development. Abortion activists don't identify a person at any stage of development -- the abortion is just removing "clump of cells."

Life begins at conception, personhood begins at some point in between conception and birth, and abortion for most is okay from conception to personhood.

Post-personhood abortion is killing a person, pure barbarism.

[BADecker]

Is a fetus a child the day before it is born? How about the hour before it is born? It is a child all the way back to conception, because nobody has the ability or right to truly determine the dividing line between fetus (or other) and child. Actually, fetus is simply a stage in a person's life.

Abortion works only if the fetus isn't identified as a person. A fetus becomes a person at some point, perhaps at heart beat or further along with brain development. Abortion activists don't identify a person at any stage of development -- the abortion is just removing "clump of cells."

Life begins at conception, personhood begins at some point in between conception and birth, and abortion for most is okay from conception to personhood.

Post-personhood abortion is killing a person, pure barbarism.

Life for everybody is in the promise of a tomorrow. Taking that promise away from the in-the-mother's-body person is murder, just like it would be like murder if you or I knew we were going to be executed tomorrow.

[Majestic-milf]

It's not about the police rescuing or picking babies from the dump who were left there by mothers who don't have the means to take care of them, it's about the government doing a little to support those who cannot fend for themselves.
 It's an anomaly for such situations like the above mentioned cases to be taken lightly as these babies lives matter too. Should a girl consider abortion? Not really, as the chances of survival are slim. In a case where the pregnancy is noticed early, it's still not safe to flush it out because there is the possibility that those meds taken can cause a long term damage to the womb.

[Cnut237]

Proving once again that an unborn child is, in fact, a child and not just a clump of cells

Yes, an unborn child is an unborn child.

But the image below doesn't show an unborn child. A 'child' emerges slowly, during the process. There is no child at the start, there is a child at the end.
But just because there is no definite instant of transition, we can't simply extrapolate backwards and say it's a child at the end, therefore it's a child all the way through... that would be as absurd as saying it's not a child at the beginning, therefore it's not a child at the end either.

[BADecker]

Proving once again that an unborn child is, in fact, a child and not just a clump of cells

Yes, an unborn child is an unborn child.

But the image below doesn't show an unborn child. A 'child' emerges slowly, during the process. There is no child at the start, there is a child at the end.
But just because there is no definite instant of transition, we can't simply extrapolate backwards and say it's a child at the end, therefore it's a child all the way through... that would be as absurd as saying it's not a child at the beginning, therefore it's not a child at the end either.

It's a stage in the life of a person. To say that it is not a person is a personal judgment call. Err on the side of safety for a person until we find out for a fact that it is not a person.

Note that, to find this out, we would have to contact God and get the answer as to when He injected the soul into that body. To do this, we only need look at the Bible to see that way back at the beginning, God:
1. commanded that people multiply on the earth;
2. set up laws that made killing a person in the tummy of a pregnant woman to be murder.

The soul is there from conception. Like the body, it may not be developed fully. But it is there in pattern form, at least; abortion is murder.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

its very sad that in a society where people are looking for baby, we still have others killing pregnant ladies all for the seek of money, which is too bad. But bravo to those police men for saving the life of the 35 weeks old baby in the womb (which is approximately 8months some weeks.
so because of this issue i had to make some research about when does a fetus in the womb begins and this is what i got.

What is a fetus?
The fetal stage begins at 10 weeks from the last period and lasts until birth (2). By the beginning of this stage, all the major organ systems have formed, but are immature (2). From this point on, the fetus will primarily be growing and tissues will be maturing.

There is no exact timing of fetal “viability” (or ability to survive outside the uterus), but a fetus that is at least 24 weeks may be viable if given intensive care after birth (2). Before 30 weeks gestational age, a fetus is less likely to survive than an older fetus because their lungs and brains are immature (2).

Major milestones during the fetal stage (2):

Weeks 10-13: the fetus is undergoing rapid growth, kidneys begin producing urine
Weeks 14-17: external genitalia has formed, coordinated limb movements, bones are hardening, eye movement begins
Weeks 18-21: eyebrows and head hair are visible, formation of the fetal uterus and vagina
Weeks 22-26: the fetus is gaining weight, fingernails are present
Weeks 27-30: lungs and brain are developed to the point that the fetus would likely survive if born at this point and given intensive care; eyelids are open, toenails are visible, the fetus is putting on fat

which means that a baby from 30weeks old pregnancy can survive if born.. and the lady shot dead had 35weeks old pregnancy

source
https://helloclue.com/articles/pregnancy-birth-and-postpartum/what-is-the-difference-between-an-embryo-a-fetus-and-a-baby#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20exact%20timing,brains%20are%20immature%20(2).

[Cnut237]

when He injected the soul into that body.

I can understand that religious people have a different viewpoint to those who follow science, and don't see any evidence for 'souls'. I disagree with you, but understand how you feel that way. However...

we only need look at the Bible to see that way back at the beginning, God:
1. commanded that people multiply on the earth;
2. set up laws that made killing a person in the tummy of a pregnant woman to be murder.

Back in the beginning, though, didn't God also endorse mass murder, rape and general mayhem? The OT is full of that stuff. I don't think this guy should be held up as a role model for ethical behaviour.

[BADecker]

when He injected the soul into that body.

I can understand that religious people have a different viewpoint to those who follow science, and don't see any evidence for 'souls'. I disagree with you, but understand how you feel that way. However...

If you take a container of saltwater, stick a couple of electrodes in it, and run an electric current through the saltwater, you get hydrolysis. Do it the same way every time, and you get the same results every time. But nobody really knows what the water, the salt, the electrodes, and the electricity really are basically.

There are theories about what they are. And there are theories about why they do what they do. And some of the theories might be very accurate. But they are still theories... science theories, if you will.

When anyone believes that a science theory is correct, he has a religion going for himself in that theory... because he doesn't really know it. It's still a theory, a strong educated guess. So we see that ultimately science is based on religion of what people believe, because nobody knows enough about the basics of everything to know what's really going on in science.

Further. The various religions all take lots of science for granted in how they are formed, in what makes up the religion. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Lots of science in that.

we only need look at the Bible to see that way back at the beginning, God:
1. commanded that people multiply on the earth;
2. set up laws that made killing a person in the tummy of a pregnant woman to be murder.

Back in the beginning, though, didn't God also endorse mass murder, rape and general mayhem? The OT is full of that stuff. I don't think this guy should be held up as a role model for ethical behaviour.

This would take a big explanation to do it right. To say it simply, God doesn't endorse "mass murder, rape and general mayhem." He allows it, because mankind have made it part of their lives, and God is using that stuff to save mankind from their own destruction.

We don't know how the final destruction of the universe will come about. Our science has nothing more than theories about that. In fact, science is so weak that scientists can barely find evidence of what the soul really is, and how it might remain alive after the life of the body has been terminated.

[Cnut237]

When anyone believes that a science theory is correct, he has a religion going for himself in that theory... because he doesn't really know it. It's still a theory, a strong educated guess. So we see that ultimately science is based on religion of what people believe, because nobody knows enough about the basics of everything to know what's really going on in science.

Science isn't religion. Consider science to be a synonym for reason and logic.

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Compare this with religion, which is basically: 'Hey guys, there's this book that some unknown people wrote a couple of thousand years ago, let's believe this instead of facts and stuff!'

nobody really knows what the water, the salt, the electrodes, and the electricity really are basically.

Science has a very detailed understanding of water, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
Whereas religion thinks that water is just wet stuff that you can drink, or if you're one particular special guy, you can sometimes walk on.

God created the Heavens and the Earth. Lots of science in that.

I can't see any. To me, it looks like an isolated assertion, unsupported by logic or evidence.

we only need look at the Bible to see that

...to see that people are willing to blindly follow their leaders and believe something that was written down a couple of thousand years ago, despite it having no factual basis, despite no evidence being found even though they've spent two thousand years trying. Religion is simply an ancient method of social control.

[Mometaskers]

To be fair it's about 8 mos old, they couldn't really use the "blood clot" argument against it. And even if it was and that there are debates whether when it becomes "life," (which I'd rather not get into) I prefer to base it on the accountability of the action.

Look, if a woman don't want the baby, she gets to aborts it coz it's a "body part" of her she can terminate. If she wants it, even if the guy don't, she gets to keep it coz it's her "child". It's either "not human" or "human," it can't be both. Its status shouldn't be based on just whatever happens to be convenient for the mother.

The body part happens to be another person. However, if we can't tell for sure, let's make the mistake on the side that is right... assume that abortion is murder. That way we won't be killing somebody accidentally.

There might be many women who don't have sex until they are married and have a home for the baby. But there are almost countless numbers of women, young and old, who are out there enticing guys all over the place to have sex with them. Stop this, so that they aren't enticed later to have an abortion, and maybe kill their own child.

I personally don't buy their argument that it is simply a body part of the woman - the embryo also consist of the father's genetic material. It's like a complete reversal of the ancient view that the baby is the man's and he only "plant" it in the woman to grow.

[merchantofzeny]

Glad to know that the baby survived though it'll be definitely be surreal for it later knowing how he was alive in a dead body. Had they both died it should have counted as double murder.

I understand that people like debating about whether a fetus is an entity separate from its mother but personally I lean towards it being a "living being" once it undergo cell division.

[suzanne5223]

I believe the police officers and the Doctors that attend to the issue are worth to be giving credit to. But people need to understand a fetus is not a cell because it is a human and they have to treat them like one.

I understand that people like debating about whether a fetus is an entity separate from its mother but personally I lean towards it being a "living being" once it undergo cell division.

Yes and thats because we all have different understanding until the truth comes to light.
Speaking of a baby separating from its mother, I am not a Doctor but based on my research and understanding as a parent. I believe the fetus is separate from its mother after the 4th month because the fingers, toes, eyelids, eyebrows, eyelashes, nails, hair, reproductive organs, gender, etc are all well-formed.

[OgNasty]

Common sense would dictate that if you would receive double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman, then maybe murdering just the fetus would be considered murder. 

I'm not pro-life or anything.  Quite the opposite actually.  I think they need to loosen the laws on justifiable murder.  However, I don't think we should be discriminating on the life of a fetus either.  So I'm torn on this entire situation.  I guess my main issue is that abortion tends to shift the responsibility of not getting pregnant away from the person who should not be getting pregnant.  If someone is raped or forced into carrying a child, sure, that's wrong.  If you're a prostitute who thinks abortions are cheaper than birth control, then that's a problem, as those people in my opinion are serial killers...  Maybe people should get a punch card of some sort.  You're only allowed to murder X amount of people (justifiably) and if women want to use that punch card on their own fetuses, so be it. 

[BADecker]

Common sense would dictate that if you would receive double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman, then maybe murdering just the fetus would be considered murder. 

I'm not pro-life or anything.  Quite the opposite actually.  I think they need to loosen the laws on justifiable murder.  However, I don't think we should be discriminating on the life of a fetus either.  So I'm torn on this entire situation.  I guess my main issue is that abortion tends to shift the responsibility of not getting pregnant away from the person who should not be getting pregnant.  If someone is raped or forced into carrying a child, sure, that's wrong.  If you're a prostitute who thinks abortions are cheaper than birth control, then that's a problem, as those people in my opinion are serial killers...  Maybe people should get a punch card of some sort.  You're only allowed to murder X amount of people (justifiably) and if women want to use that punch card on their own fetuses, so be it. 

Part of the issue is that there are exceptions. Every case is different. For example, if the mother was raped, and bearing the child puts her life in danger, difficult judgments have to be made. And you can think of all kinds of scenarios where killing the baby is justified... even though making the decision to do so is extremely difficult.

[dataispower]

Glad to know that the baby survived though it'll be definitely be surreal for it later knowing how he was alive in a dead body. Had they both died it should have counted as double murder.

I understand that people like debating about whether a fetus is an entity separate from its mother but personally I lean towards it being a "living being" once it undergo cell division.

The function and duty of policy is to protect the interest and life and property of citizens. Policy has served several lives of citizens in damage and some unborn babies which they born and dumped besides the way and road. Responding to you, my reaction towards what you narrated is that, it's only doctors who can tell with good explanation the separation of baby from the mother fetus. Because i know that is kind of abortions.

[franky1]

Proving once again that an unborn child is, in fact, a child and not just a clump of cells

Yes, an unborn child is an unborn child.

But the image below doesn't show an unborn child. A 'child' emerges slowly, during the process. There is no child at the start, there is a child at the end.
But just because there is no definite instant of transition, we can't simply extrapolate backwards and say it's a child at the end, therefore it's a child all the way through... that would be as absurd as saying it's not a child at the beginning, therefore it's not a child at the end either.

a fetus is not viable to survive on its own in the first 2 trimesters..
at the third trimester there is a chance the child can self sustain if it was prematurely birthed or removed via medical intervention..
but its this critical point of sustainable life that is crucial factor of the point where the "child" begins

personally i think abortion is the sole decision of the mother in the first 2 trimesters.
she is the sole controller, she has custody and authority.. .. it wont survive if delivered in the first 2 trimesters. so its not a "independent life"

its like someone in a coma.. if its been medically proved that at a certain time there is no chance of survivability should a ecmo/pacemaker machine be switched off.. it its life support be disconnected. its up to the next of kin to decide to continue with the hope that it may become viable of life later, or end it then due to certain reasons.

i understand badaecker has no kids and is a virgin and has no experience of relationships. .. but if he ever was to have a kid. i would love to see his little ferrel offspring run rampant because by his own perception of his natural laws, he has no custody of them and cannot tell them or control them.. under his own version of his mindless understanding of law he has no authority over his own kids.

but hey, if badecker wants to less abortions.. well then badecker, open your doors. start by adopting millions of unwanted babies already born. go on. house them all, feed them all. you want them to live so you feed and house them

[BADecker]

Proving once again that an unborn child is, in fact, a child and not just a clump of cells

Yes, an unborn child is an unborn child.

But the image below doesn't show an unborn child. A 'child' emerges slowly, during the process. There is no child at the start, there is a child at the end.
But just because there is no definite instant of transition, we can't simply extrapolate backwards and say it's a child at the end, therefore it's a child all the way through... that would be as absurd as saying it's not a child at the beginning, therefore it's not a child at the end either.

a fetus is not viable to survive on its own in the first 2 trimesters..
at the third trimester there is a chance the child can self sustain if it was prematurely birthed or removed via medical intervention..
but its this critical point of sustainable life that is crucial factor of the point where the "child" begins

personally i think abortion is the sole decision of the mother in the first 2 trimesters.
she is the sole controller, she has custody and authority.. .. it wont survive if delivered in the first 2 trimesters. so its not a "independent life"

its like someone in a coma.. if its been medically proved that at a certain time there is no chance of survivability should a ecmo/pacemaker machine be switched off.. it its life support be disconnected. its up to the next of kin to decide to continue with the hope that it may become viable of life later, or end it then due to certain reasons.

i understand badaecker has no kids and is a virgin and has no experience of relationships. .. but if he ever was to have a kid. i would love to see his little ferrel offspring run rampant because by his own perception of his natural laws, he has no custody of them and cannot tell them or control them.. under his own version of his mindless understanding of law he has no authority over his own kids.

but hey, if badecker wants to less abortions.. well then badecker, open your doors. start by adopting millions of unwanted babies already born. go on. house them all, feed them all. you want them to live so you feed and house them

As usual, you are missing it. Level the playing field. Nobody can survive on his or her own. Why not?

The fetus doesn't survive on his/her own? Nobody survives on his/her own.

Let's be generous in our talk. Let's give people the universe, the heavens and the earth. But take away the life support that all plants and animals (including birds, fish, and yeast) give, and mankind's life support would be gone. In fact, there wouldn't be any people without this continuing life support.

Mommy's tummy is simply life support for a person who, due to his or her weakness, needs an extra amount of life support.

The strength of the mother might determine what she does - might makes right style - but using it for aborting a child doesn't make it right. Except in a few cases like some rapes, the mother has taken on a solemn trust, the father being the grantor, and the new person being the beneficiary. Even if Mom and Dad did it in a careless way, the new person doesn't look at it like that. The new person is very serious about it. You can tell by how vigorously the new person attempts to grow in Mummy's tummy.

You jokers are such a mixture of good and evil that one is amazed at how you can even remain alive!

[franky1]

again you pretend that the man is the creator where the woman is just the vessel of the mans creation

you really have never spoke to a female in your life have you..
i am not talking about your own mother, as its obvious by your experience that she is just a servant to your dad's orders/whims..
im talking about real women. actual women that you do not think about. beyond your servant mother experience.

a man has no control or decision about a womans choices. he is not the life support system of a fetus. he has no valid claim over decisions of the womans body.

its the womans body.

a fetus is not sustained by a melon growing in the tropics of brazil.. i know you want to deflect the womans power and influence by trying to say that life is caused by the nature of plants and fruits growing. blah.. but no.. its actually the mother that is the one sustaining a fetus while its not viable to sustain itself nor able to pick its own fruit. so the mother is the one that has custody and makes the decisions.

the funny thing about you is this.. you pretend to be "anti-gov" but you actually want the government to regulate and intervene and violate a womans rights/privacy/liberty.
you would love the government to routinely inspect a woman and invasively examine a woman and arrest her if she does not maintain weight or nutrition. where by you think governments should imprison women if they become anaemic or forget their supplements.

other funny thing is you think its ok for a man to have a gun and kill someone

Let's be generous in our talk. Let's give people the universe, the heavens and the earth. But take away the life support that all plants and animals (including birds, fish, and yeast) give, and mankind's life support would be gone. In fact, there wouldn't be any people without this continuing life support.

lets be honest and factual
no one is saying stop growing plants or to kill all the birds..

what you find in the whole "cycle of life" is that we humans do not give anything to that cycle of life of nature..
without humans. birds will still feed off of insects, insects will stil feed off plants. plants will still feed off the fertiliser of animal excrement.

if you took humans out of the equation.. nature continues.
also as humans. we are outside of the natural cycle. we are the predator. we are the user but not the provider. no animals diet is naturally consisting of human. animals wont die if we are not around.

so humans are not the important thing to serve to keep nature cycling.

..
humans are separate from the 'natural law' you speak of about birds and fish.

but im guessing your next going to tell me that you are vegan this year and no one should kill birds or fish.

[BADecker]

again you pretend that the man is the creator where the woman is just the vessel of the mans creation

you really have never spoke to a female in your life have you..
i am not talking about your own mother, as its obvious by your experience that she is just a servant to your dad's orders/whims..
im talking about real women. actual women that you do not think about. beyond your servant mother experience.

a man has no control or decision about a womans choices. he is not the life support system of a fetus. he has no valid claim over decisions of the womans body.

its the womans body.

a fetus is not sustained by a melon growing in the tropics of brazil.. i know you want to deflect the womans power and influence by trying to say that life is caused by the nature of plants and fruits growing. blah.. but no.. its actually the mother that is the one sustaining a fetus while its not viable to sustain itself nor able to pick its own fruit. so the mother is the one that has custody and makes the decisions.

the funny thing about you is this.. you pretend to be "anti-gov" but you actually want the government to regulate and intervene and violate a womans rights/privacy/liberty.
you would love the government to routinely inspect a woman and invasively examine a woman and arrest her if she does not maintain weight or nutrition. where by you think governments should imprison women if they become anaemic or forget their supplements.

other funny thing is you think its ok for a man to have a gun and kill someone

Let's be generous in our talk. Let's give people the universe, the heavens and the earth. But take away the life support that all plants and animals (including birds, fish, and yeast) give, and mankind's life support would be gone. In fact, there wouldn't be any people without this continuing life support.

lets be honest and factual
no one is saying stop growing plants or to kill all the birds..

what you find in the whole "cycle of life" is that we humans do not give anything to that cycle of life of nature..
without humans. birds will still feed off of insects, insects will stil feed off plants. plants will still feed off the fertiliser of animal excrement.

if you took humans out of the equation.. nature continues.
also as humans. we are outside of the natural cycle. we are the predator. we are the user but not the provider. no animals diet is naturally consisting of human. animals wont die if we are not around.

so humans are not the important thing to serve to keep nature cycling.

..
humans are separate from the 'natural law' you speak of about birds and fish.

but im guessing your next going to tell me that you are vegan this year and no one should kill birds or fish.

When the man and the woman get together, it's a trust situation regarding the new life... man grantor, woman trustee, new life beneficiary. It might be fun having sex, but it is a contract if a new life is the result. Why? Because propagation of the race is the reason why sex is fun.

Nobody is taking away from the fact that most pregnancies are under the control of the woman to a great extent. Just like anybody can do wrong things, so can a woman by killing her new life. It doesn't have anything to do with a persons ability or control. It has to do with what is being done when the control is used.

If a woman goes downtown and applies for a job, and if she is hired, she has to do according to the terms under the condition of the hire. She gave up certain of her rights when accepting the job. She expects her pay, of course. But she better obey the terms and conditions.

In a similar way, the woman accepted the trusteeship for the beneficiary. She did it by signing the contract, not with pen, paper, and ink, but with something way more foundational than pen, paper, and ink. She allowed or invited the man to take part in setting up the trust with her for the beneficiary.

In other words, the woman exercised her freedom by giving up some of it to gain something else in some other way, just like anybody freely gives something up by signing a contract. If she breaks her trust contract through killing the beneficiary, not only did she break the trust, but she was at least a party to the murder of the beneficiary.


The funny thing about this is, you would rather let the woman break the contract and kill the "kid," but you want the government to help her rather than uphold life and contracts.

Another funny thing is that you suggest that you know what's in my thinking, and suggest that I am in favor of killing, like you know it.


How in the world do you know that "no one is saying stop growing plants or to kill all the birds.." Do you know what everyone in the world is saying all the time?

What I was talking about was that all human life is on natural life support. Go back and re-read it. Different people are on different forms of natural life support at different times of their lives. A new life in Mummy's tummy is on tummy life support while Mummy is on natural life support provided by the rest of nature.

Or are you able to stay alive indefinitely without plants and animals being part of your nutrition, directly or indirectly?

[CryptocurencyKing]

To be fair it's about 8 mos old, they couldn't really use the "blood clot" argument against it. And even if it was and that there are debates whether when it becomes "life," (which I'd rather not get into) I prefer to base it on the accountability of the action.

Look, if a woman don't want the baby, she gets to aborts it coz it's a "body part" of her she can terminate. If she wants it, even if the guy don't, she gets to keep it coz it's her "child". It's either "not human" or "human," it can't be both. Its status shouldn't be based on just whatever happens to be convenient for the mother.

The body part happens to be another person. However, if we can't tell for sure, let's make the mistake on the side that is right... assume that abortion is murder. That way we won't be killing somebody accidentally.

There are so many things that cold be assumed all to get some level of comfort. It's entirely a thing of choice and that is, the choice of whom is carrying the burden on either to abort or allow the fertilised egg to develop into a baby and eventually delivers. Yeah, an 8 months plus pregnancy is a fully formed offspring and set to greet the world but, we can't say the same about a 3days old fertilised egg where all the vital organs have not yet formed.

In the line of assumptions, the fertilised egg or developing embryo could be regarded as a parasite and you know better what parasites are and how they are treated if need be. Anyway, what am stressing at is, its a matter of choice by the both supposedly parent on either to hold on to a pregnancy or not.

[BADecker]

To be fair it's about 8 mos old, they couldn't really use the "blood clot" argument against it. And even if it was and that there are debates whether when it becomes "life," (which I'd rather not get into) I prefer to base it on the accountability of the action.

Look, if a woman don't want the baby, she gets to aborts it coz it's a "body part" of her she can terminate. If she wants it, even if the guy don't, she gets to keep it coz it's her "child". It's either "not human" or "human," it can't be both. Its status shouldn't be based on just whatever happens to be convenient for the mother.

The body part happens to be another person. However, if we can't tell for sure, let's make the mistake on the side that is right... assume that abortion is murder. That way we won't be killing somebody accidentally.

There are so many things that cold be assumed all to get some level of comfort. It's entirely a thing of choice and that is, the choice of whom is carrying the burden on either to abort or allow the fertilised egg to develop into a baby and eventually delivers. Yeah, an 8 months plus pregnancy is a fully formed offspring and set to greet the world but, we can't say the same about a 3days old fertilised egg where all the vital organs have not yet formed.

In the line of assumptions, the fertilised egg or developing embryo could be regarded as a parasite and you know better what parasites are and how they are treated if need be. Anyway, what am stressing at is, its a matter of choice by the both supposedly parent on either to hold on to a pregnancy or not.

You are going way past the basics. Here's the basics you are missing.

- Woman does not want to become pregnant.
- Woman should not have sex.
- If woman is going to place herself into a position of making a new person, don't kill the new person through abortion. Rather, take responsibility for your stupidity of messing up and getting pregnant.
- Have the baby, and get him/her adopted if you really don't want him/her.

We all have the choice of doing right things and wrong things. Prisons are full of people who have made the wrong-thing choice. Just because we aren't to the point of execution for this wrong done by a woman, doesn't keep such a choice from being wrong. Almost all women and doctors who take part in abortions should be executed for cold-blooded murder.