WN: Rudy Giuliani Tells Pro-Life Advocates: Get Over Abortion Issue -

[Guest LadyC]

tubal, are you being intentionally obtuse? i don't care how many people debate when a baby can feel pain, it has been PROVEN over and over and documented in one scientific medical journal after another.

Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.

Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427

S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980

Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178

M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77

Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980

just to name a few.

now i'm gonna bow out of this thread for awhile. after going around in circles yet again for the fourth month in a row with sprint/nextel who won't reimburse us $300 for a phone we never recieved, the last thing i have any patience for is dealing with people who claim that murdering babies should be allowed because they aren't old enough to have a desire to live.

[Tubal-Cain]

You don't consider a defenseless baby being torn limb from limb murder? Then what IS????

If the fetus has desires then it is murder, if it does not have desires then it is not murder. My point is that merely appealing to a Bible verse that does not address abortion directly leaves questions. We're going to have think things out.

[Guest LadyC]

i lied. i just have to make one more comment to that ridiculous theory of yours.

so, let's say some heartbroken teenager who is wanting to commit suicide is shot by an intruder while he's rumaging through his mom's medicine cabinet looking for pills to off himself with. did the intruder murder the kid? after all, he didn't have a desire to live.

let's consider a person with terminal cancer who has been trying to find dr. kavorkian to administer euthenasia. but since she hasn't found the mercy killing physician yet, she has to go to the courthouse to try and convince a judge to write law from the bench allowing her to choose her own death.... along the way her car gets hijacked and she gets shot to death. i guess that wasn't murder either since she didn't have a desire to live.

both the killers in those scenarios should get a pat on the back instead of having to endure a trial that results in a conviction. right?

and fetuses still feel pain by 8 weeks gestation, long before most are aborted. yet you STILL defend the murder of babies because they "don't have any desires yet".

you astound me.

now i'm really shutting up before my blood pressure goes through the roof.

[Tubal-Cain]

LadyC, "my theory" says that one needs desires, not necessarily the desire to live, in order be given moral consideration. Hence both of your cases would be murder. If you have a better ethical theory then please present it.

[kat8585]

LadyC, "my theory" says that one needs desires, not necessarily the desire to live, in order be given moral consideration. Hence both of your cases would be murder. If you have a better ethical theory then please present it.

How can a just-conceived baby have desires? It can't even think yet!! Your theory gets weirder and weirder as it goes on.

[Guest LadyC]

there ya go tubal. right there. you can claim the baby is a "fetus", or has no desires, or whatever you want.... but you CAN NOT DENY that the baby's blood is innocent. (and the heart is beating, circulating the blood of life, by the fifth week of gestation)

[Oh Hamburgers!]

there ya go tubal. right there. you can claim the baby is a "fetus", or has no desires, or whatever you want.... but you CAN NOT DENY that the baby's blood is innocent. (and the heart is beating, circulating the blood of life, by the fifth week of gestation)

At the same time, you could use that exact same passage to oppose the death penalty and war. Both inevitably will shed innocent blood.

[kat8585]

there ya go tubal. right there. you can claim the baby is a "fetus", or has no desires, or whatever you want.... but you CAN NOT DENY that the baby's blood is innocent. (and the heart is beating, circulating the blood of life, by the fifth week of gestation)

What is your response to this, tubal?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

there ya go tubal. right there. you can claim the baby is a "fetus", or has no desires, or whatever you want.... but you CAN NOT DENY that the baby's blood is innocent. (and the heart is beating, circulating the blood of life, by the fifth week of gestation)

At the same time, you could use that exact same passage to oppose the death penalty and war. Both inevitably will shed innocent blood.

At the same time, there is no doubt that Numbers 35:30-34 prove that God never intended that laws against murder mean no death penalty. Both were mentioned in the same law. In addition, verse 33 proves that the death penalty was not given only to protect the masses because there were not adequate jails. It says "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." We also know that God never intended that laws against murder mean no military action, because he ordered his people in to numerous military battles throughout the Old Testament.

Amen to LadyC.

Those were just wars ordained by God Himself. Today, it is human beings who do the ordaining. And either way, it shouldn't matter. If we knowingly understand that innocent blood is shed by the death penalty every year, how can we agree with the current system and fall in line with God's wishes? It is impossible. Similarly, how can we justify OUR wars if we shed innocent blood, according to the passage? God doesn't make mistakes in his decisions, but we certaintly can.

I'm just trying to show there is a double standard going on here when people support certain actions this country takes while at the same time opposing all abortion. If you want to take the "don't shed innocent blood" verse by the letter of the law, then you had best be consistant!

[rtwo]

there ya go tubal. right there. you can claim the baby is a "fetus", or has no desires, or whatever you want.... but you CAN NOT DENY that the baby's blood is innocent. (and the heart is beating, circulating the blood of life, by the fifth week of gestation)

At the same time, you could use that exact same passage to oppose the death penalty and war. Both inevitably will shed innocent blood.

At the same time, there is no doubt that Numbers 35:30-34 prove that God never intended that laws against murder mean no death penalty. Both were mentioned in the same law. In addition, verse 33 proves that the death penalty was not given only to protect the masses because there were not adequate jails. It says "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." We also know that God never intended that laws against murder mean no military action, because he ordered his people in to numerous military battles throughout the Old Testament.

Amen to LadyC.

Those were just wars ordained by God Himself. Today, it is human beings who do the ordaining. And either way, it shouldn't matter. If we knowingly understand that innocent blood is shed by the death penalty every year, how can we agree with the current system and fall in line with God's wishes? It is impossible. Similarly, how can we justify OUR wars if we shed innocent blood, according to the passage? God doesn't make mistakes in his decisions, but we certaintly can.

I'm just trying to show there is a double standard going on here when people support certain actions this country takes while at the same time opposing all abortion. If you want to take the "don't shed innocent blood" verse by the letter of the law, then you had best be consistant!

So for the sake of "consistency", you're willing to sacrifice the lives of a few babies? I understand your perspective, I just think it's nonsense.