Home - List All Discussions

i don't understand

why pro choicers can't see it is a baby

by: xnavy

i don't understand why pro choicers can not see that what is in the womb is a
living, breathing, moving baby with a heart beat and a brain wave as early as the 8th
week or abouts. i have given birth 3 times so i know what it feels like to feel a baby
move and kick. when the baby is wanted even the prochoicers say the person is having
a baby. i have seen the ultra sounds and seen the baby move and kick and suck the
finger or thumb.

reply from: AshMarie88

They know it's alive, they just don't want to admit it, because then they are afraid they would change their minds and ways and give into the pro-life lifestyle, therefore would be against the "woman's right to choose", against abortion, against something they KNOW is wrong but still, at the same time, think is okay.
You know...

reply from: yoda

The first thing they're going to say is that it isn't "breathing". Of course, they will be wrong when they say that:
(emphasis added)
Main Entry: breathe
Pronunciation: 'brE[th]
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): breathed; breath·ing
Etymology: Middle English brethen, from breth
intransitive senses
1 a : to draw air into and expel it from the lungs : RESPIRE; broadly : to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes
After that, they will try to come up with some other idiotic technicality that they will claim gives them the moral right to kill a baby. What we all realize is that they would galdly kill babies without any moral justification, simply because it's legal to do so.

reply from: danib

I don't understand it either. Their main argument seems to be that the baby is dependent on the mother and therefore she can kill it if she doesn't want this "guest". But they don't like to use terms that make it sounds as horrible as it is.

reply from: Alexandra

My nephew's 8-month-pregnant wife died in a car accident last year. The way it was told to me, her baby died because his umbilical cord was torn--he basically suffocated. I'm not sure what all injuries Caleb, the baby, had; I know he was bruised up.
My point is, unborn babies breathe differently. And they do hiccup in the womb too--I recall feeling my son's hiccups during my pregnancy!

reply from: Hereforareason

Why? Because they don't want to see it as such. They don't want to have to take care of something other than themselves. Because it's more money. Lots of reasons.
Amber

reply from: prolifejedi

because then they'd have to accept it as homicide or murder and they don't want to.
I remember feeling my niece,well actually hearing my niece, hiccup in the womb a month or so (maybe a few weeks) before she was born. It was SO cool.
Those 3D and 4D ultrasounds they have now are awesome, too.

reply from: Alexandra

When I was seven months pregnant with my son, I was visiting my mother, and my uncle was over there--he said he could see where my son was punching me! LOL
That's the same uncle who lost a child through abortion btw.

reply from: Tilly

To play devils advocate. (Wait, I don't need to. hah.)
I'll give you my own opinion on the matter, though I should stress that it's probably not the opinion held by the majority of 'pro-choicers', and I'll say up front that I'm an extremely callous individual for as far as this issue is concerned. Try and generalise my stance into that of all 'pro-choicers' though, and you'll be deserving of a kick up the rear end hard enough to rupture organs. That's my disclaimer.
To understand my particular view on the matter, you'll need to understand what I mean by what words. For the purposes of this explanation, 'baby' is the umbrella term for all stages of development before the age of 2 or 3 years. Zygote, Embryo and Foetus are the stages that I consider the most pivotal, I trust you all know to what stages of development these refer to. With me? Good.
To begin with, I'm certainly not going to say that a baby isn't alive, since if it weren't the case, it'd be a necrotizing lump in the womb; something that can't really happen unless there's a problem in the umbilical cord, but I can't digress. Nor is the baby not human, for it to be something else would be kinda worrying. However, the baby's status as both alive and human doesn't mean it's an individual that should be protected as such. My view on where that line should be drawn is that of sentience and/or consciousness. Until the baby has the mental capacity beyond that of say, a parrot (this can be measured by the level of complexity within the baby's developing brain and nervous system), it doesn't fall into the category of what I'd consider to be important.
This, however, doesn't mean that we should just abort our merry way through the pregnant population whenever a baby doesn't pass that little test, of course, I don't condone random killing (that is; killing without any justification beyond convenience or fun), but that's why it's only a cut off line. As I understand it, this stage is about early to mid-way through the third trimester, which, as I also understand is after the current abortion cut off line.
As to the current legal disposition, It seems that the baby isn't counted as a separate organism until it's breathing of its own accord. Despite this thread's concentration on that, you've all managed to miss the obvious; until the baby finishes its delivery, it hasn't "Breathed" once. Inhaling amniotic fluid doesn't count, no does running off circulated blood. Until the infant's lungs are processing oxygen on their own, it isn't its own being. Argue all you like about interpretations, that's the legal requisite.
Finally, as a sidenote, there is no such thing as "4D ultrasound", unless there's a new one that can affect timeflow in inconceivable ways. Just a minor niggle.
Gotta leave now, so this is really only half done. It'll live though, hopefully any questions can clear up things about stance and whatnot.

reply from: MapleGrovesMrRight

The reasons as I see them are that they are: lying to themselves, other people, or both.
Most of them in their "heart of hearts" KNOW that what is growing inside a mother is not: a tumor, a dog, a rat or even an extra kidney!In fact, there are two kidneys that are either developing or will eventually develope inside her womb. Of course, neither of these kidneys belong to the mother, but rather, belong to another human being which has an all together different DNA code from that of it's mother. This is elementary biology of course, which most truth-loving people will concede.
Some on the "pro-abortion/pro-babykilling/anti-truth/anti-consequence side" may argue that it is nothing more than a "blob of tissue" and until it has some arbitrary benchmark of human developement, it is not worthy of basic human rights. This in my perspective is a sad and warped view of human life based primarily on NARCISSISM.
Upon it's conception, (yes, even before it has fully implanted into it's mother's uterus) this tiny collection of cells has one intrinsic purpose and that is to grow and develope into a human being. This human being in turn will eventually be able to: walk, talk, and (unfortunetly) even use illogical reasoning about how it's smaller, lesser developed fellow humans are elligable for early elective death.
Another reason for why they are lying about it being a baby, is that they have too much invested into their positions. Whether these positions be: emotionally, politically, idealogically, or financially based. If they were to actually admit that that "blob of tissue/cells" growing inside a mother was actually a baby/person worthy of basic human rights, it would cause them to lose their particular investment on this matter.
In short they are either ignorant of obvious facts or are lying out of mere convenience.
(Note: I do not intend to offend other people with this post, but rather to bring clarity to how I see the "pro-choice" reasoning on xnavy's question. If you differ with my analysis please correct me, I am always willing re-evaluate my own reasoning!)
Jon

reply from: xnavy

thanks for your responses some have been interesting.

reply from: yoda

OH GOOD, you're opening up your private dictionary again! And you won't tolerate anyone using a REAL DICTIONARY, will you?
What? You're not going to give us your OWN PRIVATE DEFINITION of "individual"???? Why not???
Total rubish. "Breathing" is NOT mentioned in Roe or any subsequent court decision, and you well know it, I'm sure.
And you thus confirm my suspicions about your total ignorance. The fourth dimension is TIME....... as in moving picture time.....
GE 4D Ultrasound
Exclusive live-action (4D) technology brings the fourth dimension - time - to ultrasound, making the GE Voluson 730 4D Ultrasound System a revolution in prenatal care. It provides clear, moving three-dimensional pictures of your baby. That means a new dimension of information for you and your doctor. And fewer doubts.
Find out more about GE 4D Ultrasound
http://www.gehealthcare.com/rad/us/4d/index2.html

reply from: yoda

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Jon. Welcome to the forum, btw.

reply from: prolifejedi

4D ultrasound pictures are right on this site here: http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/

reply from: Tilly

firstly, that's a damn stupid name for a product, but interesting to know. (Hey, I can have a Yoda moment! Because, after all, that's not the dictionary definition of four dimensional!!!!!11111oneone)
now, onto Yoda's rantings (starting to consider making a separate thread for the whole dictionary thing, it's all over the damn place.)
Substantiate the last part, point out where I've expressed an intolerance to personal interpretations, at the least.

reply from: yoda

You're apparently skip-reading. I said "you won't tolerate anyone using a REAL DICTIONARY, will you?"

reply from: AshMarie88

So a preemie that was delivered and not breathing and having to be put in an incubator/machine, isn't its own being? It's not a seperate being?

reply from: yoda

He's just grasping at imaginary straws, AshMarie. "Breathing" is not used as a criteria for defining anything in a legal sense. He knows that, he's just throwing out a lot of bull hockey and hoping some of it will stick.

reply from: AshMarie88

He's just grasping at imaginary straws, AshMarie. "Breathing" is not used as a criteria for defining anything in a legal sense. He knows that, he's just throwing out a lot of bull hockey and hoping some of it will stick.
I agree.

reply from: prolifejedi

so a baby isn't "alive" and a "separate" being until its breathing on its own?
Don't much about fetal development I see.
The 4D images are more "up close and personal". They can actually show the baby moving in the womb. Sort of like a movie of the baby.
I wish my sister could have had that technology when she was pregnant with my oldest niece. It would have been awesome to view a much clearer picture of her (or him, since we didn't know she'd be a girl until the day she was born )

reply from: Alexandra

So according to Silly Tilly, what determines if someone is human/worthy of life has to do with how they exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.
That's the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard!

reply from: Sigma

I wouldn't say that too loudly, there are many religious people who believe the same.
From what I've read, the Jewish tradition considers the fetus a person at birth, when it is a nephesh, i.e., "a breathing creature," translated as "soul" in Genesis 2:7

reply from: AshMarie88

I wouldn't say that too loudly, there are many religious people who believe the same.
From what I've read, the Jewish tradition considers the fetus a person at birth, when it is a nephesh, i.e., "a breathing creature," translated as "soul" in Genesis 2:7
Unless of course, like I pointed out earlier, it can't breathe unless the baby is helped immediately after birth.

reply from: Tilly

Well, what do you know, I was wrong about a point (or at least, I can't prove that it's true, I'm being assured that it is, but that isn't enough.)
Care to respond to the bulk of the post anyone, or shall we continue this line of picking at a single point?

reply from: yoda

This is for the stupid people who post stupid things about "breathing":
Main Entry: breathe
Pronunciation: 'brE[th]
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): breathed; breath·ing
Etymology: Middle English brethen, from breth
intransitive senses
1 a : to draw air into and expel it from the lungs : RESPIRE; broadly : to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes
The placenta "breathes" for the baby, stupid people.

reply from: yoda

Fascinating. You start off with an admission that you "were wrong", and then try to back out of it (clumsily, I might add).
Whoever it is that is "assuring you" that you are right is obviously in conflict with the evidence you've seen with your own eyes, and yet you will not accept the obvious. Blinded by emotions, perhaps?
Always delighted to. Can you focus on a particular point or two (or three) you wish us to respond to?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I wouldn't say that too loudly, there are many religious people who believe the same.
From what I've read, the Jewish tradition considers the fetus a person at birth, when it is a nephesh, i.e., "a breathing creature," translated as "soul" in Genesis 2:7
All it says is that God breathed the breathed the Breath of Life into Adam when he was made from dust. Nothing about a fetus being a person when it comes out of its mother.

reply from: Sigma

I don't profess to be an expert, but I believe the point is that Adam was human in form but had no soul until God breathed it into him (through his nostrils). Thus the fetus has no soul, is not a person, until it has taken a breath and thus its soul into itself. No breathing in the womb means no soul, I suppose.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

The baby receives oxygen to the brain. Does it matter that badly if s/he uses his/her lungs? Does a person who only use one lung have only have half his/her rights?
I thought religion wasn't supposed to determine personhood...

reply from: Sigma

Not legally, no. But it is a criteria that requires breath.
Apparently so. That is the route the soul takes.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

So does my soul flow out of my nostrils when I die? What about my ears? Do you realize how proposterous that is...?

reply from: prolifejedi

There are amazing things that happen in the development of your life before you are born. There are pictures of babies in the womb that seem to be smiling, that seem to be crying.........its so amazing.........
They move and they have even been seen what seems to be like a gesture of waving their arms.
And you say that child isn't alive?

reply from: Sigma

As I said, I am not an expert. I have no idea the answers to those questions.
How does the soul leave the body in your religion?

reply from: yoda

I'm finding this quite amusing. How do you interpret the passages as saying that God was breathing air into Adam? Do you really think that an all powerful, eternal God would need to breath air? And if ordinary air is "the breath of life", why don't all rocks that absorb air come to life?

reply from: Sigma

It was ordinary air, and the soul was borne upon that air. I wouldn't speculate on what an all powerful eternal God would be doing or why He would be doing it (otherwise I would wonder why an all powerful, universe spanning entity would be so deeply interested in my sex life). The Bible specifies that He did it.
Obviously the rock would not come to life. The soul was carried by the air, the air itself was not the "breath of life", as it appears. In the case of the fetus, I would suppose that as it breathes air for the first time God breathes its soul along with it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sigma's anti-morals and anti-Christian and he is talking about souls?!
No where does it say when the soul begins.
HOWEVER, I know you're against the Bible, but there's a passage in it that says when man dies, his soul dies (describing that man IS his soul, his life is his soul).
So that must mean that when life begins, there's a soul present.

reply from: Sigma

Excuse me, but I am neither of those things. That is insulting to say.
Well, Genesis does say that man "became a living soul" after God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
I thought the soul was eternal and dwelt with God upon death. I'm apparently very mistaken. Where does the afterlife come in if the soul dies?
From whence does this soul come, then, if it did not exist before conception? Did half exist in the oocyte and the other half in the sperm?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yep.
But at birth God doesn't "breathe into his nostrils the breath of life".
The Bible refers to God creating Adam from dirt, at that. Before Adam was created (from dirt) he wasn't alive.
But now, after all that, reproduction takes place, and life begins in the pregnancy process.
Many people don't believe in an afterlife. I don't.
When man dies, the soul (the life) dies. People who die are either cremated or put into the ground (usually).
The soul is present right at conception.
Like I keep saying, the soul is the "breath" of life. As soon as life begins, God has already "breathed" life into the life/human that's growing and developing.

reply from: Sigma

From the passage, God fashioned Adam into human form and then breathed a soul into him. It would appear, or can stand to reason, that Adam the body existed before he acquired a soul. For those who believe the soul is separate from body and a soul that exists after death, life can exist without and before a soul.
Why do you believe in a soul then? It wouldn't come from the Bible since the Bible speaks of paradise after death.
The breath of life was carried on air into Adams nostrils. Life in the Bible seems to exist separately from the soul.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I don't profess to be an expert, but I believe the point is that Adam was human in form but had no soul until God breathed it into him (through his nostrils). Thus the fetus has no soul, is not a person, until it has taken a breath and thus its soul into itself. No breathing in the womb means no soul, I suppose.
Bull. A baby breathes inside its mother's womb, it just doesn't breath air.

reply from: Sigma

And thus, the Breath of Life cannot enter its lungs. No Breath of Life, no soul. At least, according to that belief.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So people who can't breathe air on their own and have to be hooked up to a machine aren't people?
So a person's soul is in their lungs?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So people who can't breathe air on their own and have to be hooked up to a machine aren't people?
So a person's soul is in their lungs?

Obviously the rock would not come to life. The soul was carried by the air, the air itself was not the "breath of life", as it appears. In the case of the fetus, I would suppose that as it breathes air for the first time God breathes its soul along with it.
Can you prove that God breathes the breath of life with air? God works in many ways, He is a master of disguise. Adam had to have breathed air instead of amnotic fluids, his first moment of existence was not in a womb but out in the open.
What about this?
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).
Or this?
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;
Or this?
Rescue those being led away to death;
If this doesn't convince you that God is against abortion, I don't know what will.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Ash Marie is correct. The Bible says sinners are willfully ignornant. That is, they don't want to know on purpose. This way they can continue indulging in their desired activities without a nagging conscience or feeling they have to answer for their deeds.

reply from: jgalclassy

They don't care about an unborn fetus. Their lives are to miserable to worry about another human beings life.

reply from: Tilly

Eh? My life is awesome, thank you very much. The fact that your book says I'm willfully ignorant doesn't really phase me much, since the sentiment goes both ways.
You do realise that "Breathe" and "Respire" are different dictionary entries, right? I would have thought that you of all people would care the most about that, but apparently you can't practice what you preach. So your dictionary actually proves you wrong, old man. There's something ironic about that. (Don't bother counting this as pro-choicers waffling on about how only they're allowed to use "personal dictionaries" as you put it, as you're obviously not doing that, you're instead just using 'the real dictionary' to try and win an argument without the trouble of thinking. See the difference?)

reply from: yoda

What a total crock, and coming from a non-believer to boot.
There's nothing in that passage that claims the "breath of life" was plain air.

reply from: yoda

YOU do realize that the word "breathe" is DEFINIED by the word "respire", right? You did click on the link and check it out yourself, right?
I mean, such an academic person as yourself wouldn't have overlooked a detail like that, would you?

reply from: Tilly

Just as Baby is defined by Infant, which in turn is defined by Baby? Oddly enough, I found quite a few refferences that said "baby" was only applicable to children in the first year of life; the only point that I found that said when that first year began was one that said it only began after birth...
So does that mean that this whole time you've been ignoring dictionary definitions by using the term "pro-babykillers"?
(Yes, I did just change subjects after the first sentance, if you're wonding.)

reply from: yoda

No kidding? Did you notify the press? Are you going to hold a press conference to reveal your findings?
So, you've never heard of "multiple meanings" of words, right? And it comes as a shock to you that not all of the same meanings appear in every dictionary, right? Wonder of wonders, all dictionaries are not in total agreement on every word??
No, not at all. First, my preference is "probabykilling advocates", because I don't know which of you have aborted and which haven't.
Second, you are reversing the logical order of this debate. It is your side which has claimed that baby NEVER means "unborn human". The fact that some dictionaries do contain that definition exposes that lie.
And third, no dictionary makes exclusionary statements about words. They don't say, for example "Baby does not mean unborn human". Only probabykilling advocates say that. Dictionary editors report the definitions that they find in significant frequency in their surveys, they do not say that other dictionarys are wrong if they do find different ones! Dictionaries do not dispute the validity of other dictionaries, only probabykilling advocates do that!

reply from: sowerjr

Originally posted by: Tilly
However, the baby's status as both alive and human doesn't mean it's an individual that should be protected as such. My view on where that line should be drawn is that of sentience and/or consciousness. Until the baby has the mental capacity beyond that of say, a parrot (this can be measured by the level of complexity within the baby's developing brain and nervous system), it doesn't fall into the category of what I'd consider to be important.
This, however, doesn't mean that we should just abort our merry way through the pregnant population whenever a baby doesn't pass that little test, of course, I don't condone random killing (that is; killing without any justification beyond convenience or fun), but that's why it's only a cut off line. As I understand it, this stage is about early to mid-way through the third trimester, which, as I also understand is after the current abortion cut off line.q]

reply from: sowerjr

If you have a Bible, check out the whole passage. This whole bit about having a soul is a bit simplistic, I believe.
"The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man becamea living soul." (the New International Version translates this as "the man became a living being.") Genesis 2:7
Before God breathed life into Adam, he was just a blob of material; no more alive than a statue. Soul is not something you get, it's something you are. Life cannot exist without a soul.
That's why this analogy about "breathing" breaks down when trying to define the unborn as somehow subhuman. They are living human beings; human souls.

reply from: sowerjr

Sorry, I hit the wrong button, trying to respond to Tilly, whom I merely quoted with my last post.
Glad you acknowledge the unborn at all stages as living and as human.
However, YOU are assigning yourself the position of God here, giving yourself the right to decide if you consider this living human being to be important, which you do not - until it is born. Or at least until the middle of the last trimester.
I have to go back to the assertion that if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you, you would have died [a violent death, no less] whether you were 6 weeks, 3 months, 5 months, or 8 months past conception. You would be equally dead no matter what gestational age, and the world would have equally missed whatever gifts you were given to share with the rest of humanity. As well, you would have missed the joys and sorrows you have experienced in this life.
Yet you contend in the same post that we ought not go aborting ourselves merrily along, killing for any old reason.
Why not? If your assertion is correct, that this living human being is not important, then there is no reason for anyone to give the least concern to whether or not he/she lives or dies.
Methinks you are doing some serious mental gymnastics here; trying to justify killing, while at the same time realizing how crass and evil it is. . . .

reply from: yoda

I think that's the bottom line in this debate, and it renders moot all the arguments about consciousness, pain, heartbeat, and all the other developmental markers. It makes no difference what the status of the baby's organs are, it's still a real human being trying desperately to grow and develop into a mature human being, and experience all the complex interactions adults are capable of.
I like your style, too!

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,
No, it would mean that people who have never taken air into their lungs have not received their soul. Whether they need mechanical assistance to do so is not something I can speculate on.
I would not speculate on this either, only that the belief is that the soul enters through the air passageways.
No. Can you prove that God does not? Even better, can you prove God exists?
It is a matter of belief, not proof.
Then nothing will. Without a passage or story that is specifically against an abortive practice, I would not say with any confidence that this is so. The quotes you provided say that God knew those in the womb (as he knows all without).
yodavater,
Have I said I do not believe in God? I do not have to believe in this theory to tell you what I know of it.
I did not suggest such; in fact I said the opposite. It was you who suggested such with your question about whether the rock would come to life.

reply from: Tilly

So in short, all that means 'I can pick whichever dictionary definition from whichever dictionary suits my purpose regardless of discrepancies, and present these definitions as fact in an argument without supporting evidence'? Good conduct, I think this line of discussion is over; if you can't understand why, then there was no point paying any attention to you to begin with.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

It means "dictionaries say the meaning of words, not pro-baby-killing advocates."

reply from: Sigma

The passage does not mention whether Adam was alive before he had a soul. It does mention, however, that the body was formed. In any case, Adam was not a "living soul" until he recieved the Breath of Life from God, apparently borne on actual air.

reply from: AshMarie88

The passage does not mention whether Adam was alive before he had a soul. It does mention, however, that the body was formed. In any case, Adam was not a "living soul" until he recieved the Breath of Life from God, apparently borne on actual air.
Do you even know how Adam was made? He was made from DIRT! The "breath of life" from God wasn't his breath, but was life given to Adam. After Adam was created, he was alive.
Similar to child development... once a human is created (conception), they're alive.
The "breath of life" is basically just a saying.

reply from: yoda

I did not suggest such; in fact I said the opposite. It was you who suggested such with your question about whether the rock would come to life.
Indeed you did, but no matter, I'm glad you've "seen the light".
So now maybe you will dispense with this nonsense about babies needing to breathe air to have a soul?

reply from: yoda

Are you being intentionally obtuse? (That was a rhetorical question).
When one claims that there is no definition for a gestating human that defines it as a "baby", then one need find ONLY ONE such definition to disprove that claim, do they not?
And WHAT discrepancies have you found in a dictonary? THERE ARE NONE! NO dictonary disputes or disagrees with another, do they? When dictionaries have different lists of definitions for the same word, they COMPLIMENT each other, they DO NOT dispute each other!
You really ought to take a course in logic.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88
Not quite. After he was created, he was given the Breath of Life. Ensoulment did not happen at creation, it happened after creation occurred.
So, then, the Bible is not literal truth?
yodavater
Why? It is a valid belief, as is the belief of a soul at conception or even a soul in general. The Breath of Life is not ordinary air, but it was borne by ordinary air or at least behaved somewhat like ordinary air.

reply from: yoda

And your basis for that claim is ........................ ?????????

reply from: Sigma

The passage in the Bible that describes it.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

The Bible doesn't go on a tangent about the Breath of Life not being ordinary air...it's metaphorical. Our soul isn't physically detected on this plane of the universe.

reply from: Sigma

There are many who consider the Bible to contain literal truth. For them, God literally breathed the Breath of Life into Adam's nostrils and Adam became a living soul. This is support for the belief that God breathes our soul into us on our first breath of air.

reply from: yoda

It doesn't say that Siggy, you're writing a new Bible to justify killing babies.
It DOES NOT SAY that God himself breathed "air" into Adam, does it?
WHY would a supernatural diety have NEED OF AIR????

reply from: Sigma

I see. What does it say then?
I did not say it did.

reply from: yoda

I did not say it did.
Then what IS your argument?

reply from: Sigma

I don't intend to repeat it all; others are able to grasp such so I know it is possible.

reply from: yoda

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: Sigma

Read what I have posted, yodavater. I know you can get it.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

What if a baby breathes through its nostrils in the womb?
And since when have you taken the Bible so literally? I suppose the "You called me in my mother's womb" and the "Can a mother show no compassion for the child in her womb" and "Before I was born, you knew me" is all just beautiful poetry and is nothing?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

A baby's nostrils are filled with mucus, and cannot breath actual air without choking.

reply from: yoda

I can, and I did, and that's why I got such a good laugh out of it.

reply from: Sigma

I did not say this is what I believe. I am explaining what I know of this belief. It is as valid as your belief of a soul at conception, and is a criteria that requires breathing.

reply from: yoda

You never say WHAT you believe nor WHAT you are. As far as we know, you are a cold, heartless computer program.
That would explain a lot.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics