When Did You Become Human

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Most psychologist indicate that a child doesn't really become self-aware until they are around three or four years old. I think this kind of self-awareness is necessary for a person to truly be considered a human being, separate from a human animal running primarily on instinct.

many of those same dr.frauds will tell you that animals are not self aware at any point

a reply to: deadeyedick

define responsibility

Become the childs parent. You are deciding for that child to be brought into this world after all. So you should be responsible for that child financially , mentally, physically, and provide love.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: deadeyedick

define responsibility

Become the childs parent. You are deciding for that to be brought into this world after all. So you should be responsible for that child financially , mentally, physically, and provide love.

I thought I made it clear I am not deciding if a mother should have the right to kill her child or not but that she should not lie to herself and believe that a human is not in her tummy and killin humans is against the law

even if I took you up on the offer there would likely be several agencies and advocate groups that would stand in the way of my adoption

a reply to: Bennyzilla

well, I'm sorry but you can't drag her into an abortion clinic to get an abortion, nor can you tie her down to prevent her from having one without infringing on her basic rights, can you??

what you can do though is make sure you are careful where you drop your sperm, that the women is considerate of your feelings before you get her pregnant. and you can also sit down and discuss things rationally with her after the fact, assure her of your support, ect.
you could also help try to change the perception businesses have that a mother is of less value to a company because her interests will always put the child first and therefore she won't be so reliable by taking an active part in the children you have in the world. ya know instead of leaving the burden on the women pitch in and help out....take the kid to the next doctor's appointment instead of having her take time off work, ect.
you could also help establish some honor to motherhood instead of portraying those single mothers as being lazy leeches that are draining your pocketbooks. acknowledge that the job often times is more time consuming and energy demanding than many full time jobs...

but, no, the fact that you cannot force a women to have an abortion or prevent her from having one shouldn't negate the financial responsibility you have to the child once it is in the world.

a reply to: deadeyedick

she should not lie to herself and believe that a human is not in her tummy and killin humans is against the law

But you are wrong on both those points.

It is not factually considered to be human until a certain stage and abortion is not against the law.

originally posted by: interupt42
It is not factually considered to be human until a certain stage and abortion is not against the law.

Except when it is considered a human under the law... see the Violence Against the Unborn Act, which is federal law. The definition of "personage" seems to be one purely of convenience.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Only "asinine" to those that consider offspring as property, something that belongs to them by default.
The woman creates then nurtures the child in her womb then bears the child from her womb.
That is her decision to make.

Wow equating childbirth with paying taxes, could your argument be any stupider(sic).

K~

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Regardless of convenience , its not illegal.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

passed by republicans, signed into law by a republican....

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

en.wikipedia.org...

and now we have "personhood" laws that are being used to imprison women for having miscarriages. seems like those who opposed this bill back then were right.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I thought I made it clear I am not deciding if a mother should have the right to kill her child or not but that she should not lie to herself and believe that a human is not in her tummy and killin humans is against the law

There it is again, "A Human". A fertilized egg is not an autonomous person. Neither is an embryo or a fetus. You're trying to insert your insinuation as a fact. It isn't.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: deadeyedick

I thought I made it clear I am not deciding if a mother should have the right to kill her child or not but that she should not lie to herself and believe that a human is not in her tummy and killin humans is against the law

You're trying to insert your insinuation as a fact. It isn't.

I learned it from you

at some point between sex and birth one is a human,person,child,fetus,zygote living inside a womb.

spin the wording however you want in order to remove the guilt from the killers

you and your words are guilty and should be punished by the law

a reply to: deadeyedick

at some point between sex and birth one is a human,person,child,fetus,zygote living inside a womb.

That point is called birth. At that point that person takes their first breath on their own, hopefully, is given a name and a certificate of live birth.

you and your words are guilty and should be punished by the law

What law?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
many of those same dr.frauds will tell you that animals are not self aware at any point

I don't get your point.

a reply to: deadeyedick

hmmm.......
no consideration as to the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, they're all just murderers!!
okay....
now what we say should be punished by law, because some don't like what we say.....
so much for freedom of speech....guess we are still living in the age of "You're either with us or against us."

what is "murder" in your eyes is closer to be "self defense" on someone else's eyes. Or it might be an act of trying to preserve their ability to carry out what they see as their responsibilities to their loved ones, their living, growing, born children.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Only "asinine" to those that consider offspring as property, something that belongs to them by default.
The woman creates then nurtures the child in her womb then bears the child from her womb.
That is her decision to make.

Wow equating childbirth with paying taxes, could your argument be any stupider(sic).

K~

Only if I was suggesting your opinion on prostate health doesn't mean anything unless you're a male.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: deadeyedick
many of those same dr.frauds will tell you that animals are not self aware at any point

I don't get your point.

yea that is not a hard feat with me

point was that imo dr. are all full of it

therapist = the rapist

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deadeyedick

hmmm.......
no consideration as to the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, they're all just murderers!!
okay....
now what we say should be punished by law, because some don't like what we say.....
so much for freedom of speech....guess we are still living in the age of "You're either with us or against us."

what is "murder" in your eyes is closer to be "self defense" on someone else's eyes. Or it might be an act of trying to preserve their ability to carry out what they see as their responsibilities to their loved ones, their living, growing, born children.

well of coarse I blow some of this out of proportion to prove a point but really speach that leeds to murder or violence is not free speech

originally posted by: muse7
I'm simply saying that a woman's life is more important than a zygote still in development.

I suspect that many of those who have spoken to these 'zygotes' face to face would probably disagree with you.

For example, a Russian woman who had an NDE during which she meets her own aborted child:

Ludmila had a near-death experience and came back to life. During the time that her spirit was out of body, she found herself suddenly in front of a ‘mountain-sized’pile of dismembered aborted babies! When she asked: “What is this?” God replied: “These are your ‘sins’”

She was in shock as she observed this genocide of so many unborn aborted babies. Her shock increased as she observed various human ‘pieces’ beginning to ‘come together’ and form ‘one’ baby. Immediately, this baby began to run directly towards her mother, Ludmila while screaming: “Mommy! Mommy!!!”

As the baby came within feet of her, the Ludmila realized she could not receive her child or help her because there was a ‘huge and solid but transparent wall’ between her and the baby. As a mother, she experienced sheer agony as she saw demonic spirits of abortion tearing away at her baby! The baby was screaming in pain! This scene was repeated several times in front of the totally helpless mother.

Ludmila cried out to God, then Jesus said: “I will help you save your baby, but you must help me. I want you to go to return to earth and tell everything you saw here.” Suddenly, Ludmila came back to life, never to be the same again!

“When She Died, She Came “Face to Face’ With Her Unborn Baby.”

In 2003, Earthquake Kelley died in his hospital bed, and visited Heaven. He describes aborted children he saw:

"Suddenly I felt as though I had separated from my body...I didn't hover around the ceiling very long. Angels that were so bright they were almost difficult to look at were waiting for me...I came upon a group of children of all different ages who were running, jumping and playing. Then another group of children caught my eye.

As I stood and watched these children, I heard a voice say, "You're wondering who those children are...These are children who died from diseases, wars, accidents, murders and other things that happen to children. Some were stillbirths and others died from miscarriages. These are all the children that I brought home to be with me. No harm can ever come to them again." Then the voice choked back tears as He pointed out another group of children and said, "See those children? I had a plan for their lives. I had things for them to do. But because of the selfishness of sin, and the hardness of peoples' hearts, these children were aborted and sent back to me."

He pointed out another group of children and, with the same trembling voice said, "I sent these children to the homes of so-called Christians. I sent these children for ministry. I sent them for exhortation. I sent them to help the world. But their parents listened to the ways of the world. They listened to wrong counsel. They thought they had financial problems and could not afford these children. They had secret abortions, thinking that no-one would find out. But nothing is hidden from Me." "

Is My Kid in Heaven?

a reply to: deadeyedick

........speach that leads to murder or violence is not free speech

Well, I guess that nicks religious doom porn then, doesn't it?

a reply to: dawnstar

let me ask you a question because i am interested to see how you answer, so please humor me.

Should the big bang, which is the furthest back we can see, in a chain of events that created all the known universe and life existing,should it have been aborted or the reactions negligible to sustain matter, because of all the pain and suffering that has resulted, and that could of been reasonably avoided?

The big bang being a non conscious entity, that is consequential to your very life. To say that a fetus should or should not be born based on consequential reasons, is the same as saying the big bang should or should not of happened, it is circular.

The meaning of life is established by potentials. Or it is determined, and fate made it this way. So you are in essence arguing for believers in religion and the magic man in the sky, when you say life should or should not exist beyond the potential that it has; because you are applying conscious action or 'knowing' action to the order of arbitrary consequence.

Life is either objectively equal, or it is not; your choice! Please answer my question posed thank you