rat mothers

(conception is a process which ends at implantation at the earliest and quickening in my opinion)This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-16-2006 09:48 AM

Rats aren't the only animals that subscribe to "survival of the fittest" . Are we talking about the differences 'tween species here? Are humans to be compared to lower life forms? Is this intended to justify abortion?I'm not weighing in here to critize anyone and as regards the popular abortion issues of the day I will only state the following true story.When I was about 20 years old I related some childhood scenes that I had vivid memories of to my mother. The house we lived in, a car that I was in the back seat of and some mundane street scenes. I still have those memories now at 64.Well, the house was an apartment my parents lived in while waiting for an opening in Naval Housing in San Diego. The car was a 1935 Plymouth that they had borrowed only for a few days and so on.....The point of the story is that I had not yet been born. My mom told me that what I described was correct but at that time she was at about 7 months in her pregnancy with me.Having this experience I am quite sure that I at least have a spiritual body which is independent of the physical.After experiencing the madness of humanity I'm pretty sure I'd rather be somewhere else. At the same time I guess I'm glad my mom didn't flush me down the loo.Jman

Laissez faire economists also subscribe to that view. When you were young, you probably spent time browsing through the family photo album. These are memories from your childhood, not from before birth.

how's this for a discussion of issues...pro-lifers oppose abortion and use the falacy that fetuses feel pain to defend their position, but the christian variety often still support circumcision and defend it saying that the child won't remember the pain.so which is it?

Here's one I'm curious about. The opponents of abortion usually believe that life begins at conception and are often evangelical Christians.yet consider this: Evidently the Bible states that life is the blood, that there is no life without blood. Yet in a gesgating fetus there is no blood prior to 14 days (probably later), and the heart does not start beating until around 22 days. Doesn't this mean the fetus is not alive according to the Bible prior to 14 days? That life does not begin at conception according to the Bible?Doesn't this also mean any morning-after {or} abortion pill {used prior to the 14-22 day period after conception} is therefore OK according to the Bible?{Bracketed corrections in response to later posts}This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 03:54 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:21 PM

morning after pill is not an abortion. it's just like several birth control pills in one. it makes the uterus 'slippery', preventing implantation. which is half of what a standard birth control pill does. it prevents the uterus from building up a proper lining and, if strong enough, prevents ovulation. but not all women fail to ovulate on birth control. also, there is a progestin only pill that only prevents implantation. the morning after pill is intended for women whose primary method is a barrier method like condoms or a diaphragm. it can be in the progestin-only form or the progestin-estrogen combination. this will only work within 72 hours of unprotected sex.the ru486 pill is an abortion. it works by blocking progesterone which interupts the lining process and resumes the ordinary uterine contractions. together, these can cause a placenta to separate and thus abort the fetus. this will work within the first 7 weeks i believe.but. a baby does not have it's own blood, rather its mother's, until about a week after birth. so following your logic, it is inded part of the mother's body until that time.and don't forget about how man was not alive until god breathed into his lungs. there is a lot of mysticism in the bible about breath including the holy spirit and the rebirth of the apostles. so. again, the baby can only breathe after birth when, one might say, god has breathed his life into him.abe: added some technical info and fixed a typo.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-16-2006 05:00 PM

nwt NO you are incorrect in your assumption. My parents had only been in that apt for a coupla weeks. No pics exist. It was never mentioned until I brought the subject up.I don't mind responses but try to be more mental and less cavalier. Or how about: "judge not lest ye be judged" ?Jman

The difficulty with the Bible is that it seldom is explicit. When reference is made to life being in the blood the physical blood in not what is meant. From ancient times blood was considered sacred by most religions long before Christianity came in being. The origins of these beliefs were based upon the once known correspondences between physical blood as the conveyor or nutrients to the physical body it's equivalent spiritual blood which nourished the higher life of the spiritual form. It is this higher form which is of real importance because it is the eternal one whereas the physical is not. Reference to this is seen in the story of lion and the lamb co-existing in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God "is not of this Earth" according to Jesus. Correct! And in that place humans and animals are nourished in a entirely different manner since they do not have physical bodies with heavy digestive tracts.I have found that the stories in the Bible open up when we look behind what is written. So many of those authors had no clue but only repeated tradition without understanding the source. Am I right? Who cares. It doesn't make any difference. I guess we're all gonna get where we're going just the same. Just for good measure I believe that all is alive. Live is not limited to biologics alone. But maybe this is way too much for some folks...

Actually, a recent study implied that it doesn't even do that. Pretty much the prevention of ovulation is about the best the Plan B can be expected to do, at this point, according to my understanding of the research.But I'm with you, B. I don't know where people get this crazy idea that Plan B is an "abortion pill." Like, I don't know who's calling it that, or who is saying that Plan B actually is intended to abort a fetus. It simply doesn't do that.

Well, what do you want from us, exactly? I mean there's basically two possibilities:1) You recieved information about the apartment that you don't remember explicitly; they either talked about it, or you saw some pictures, or maybe you saw an apartment on TV or in a magazine or one of a hundred other entirely mundane sources of information about apartments. I mean, when you get right down to it, most people's apartments are more or less the same.2) You were able to "spiritually" observe something beyond the inside of your mother's uterus. Somehow, despite lacking any corporeal form, you were able to interact with photons in the universe so as to percieve visual information about the world outside your mother.So, what? We're just supposed to believe in the second conclusion over the first; we're supposed to accept the conclusion that turns 100 years of physics on its head over the conclusion that's consistent with 200 years of psychology, all based on your say-so?Does that really seem all that reasonable to you? Or rather, isn't the most "cavalier" response yours? From what we know about the universe we inhabit, your explanation of spiritual disembodyment is simply impossible. You did not exist at the time you claim to have made those observations; thus the best conclusion is that one of a hundred influences you don't remember and we can't control for informed you, to an apparently convincing degree of accuracy, about your parents former apartment. The other conclusion is simply not as reasonable.

I'll be right back folks. Someone put some photons in my wine...

You know brenna, you are likely the most close-minded and prejudiced person on this forum, with a seemingly endless supply of absurd, hateful, reactionary remarks and stereotypes.Whenever someone opposes one of your viewpoints, or even before they do, you immediately play the hyper-victim card, as in: I'm quite sure you're the only person that used either of those words in this thread (feel free to point out if someone actually called you either of those things...)It would seem you have a lot to learn - I suggest more closely examining opposing views and their proponents rather than believing whatever inflammatory propaganda you've read, or assumptions you've made, about them.As of now, "understanding" and "inclusivity" don't appear to be words in your vocabulary.

Here's a good example of the kind of reactionary response I mention above: RiverRat makes the suggestion that you should spend time getting to know someone before you have sex with him, that is, sufficient time to be comfortable that he won't become violent towards you. (Obviously this wouldn't be a guarantee).Your response make no sense given his suggestion, and you top it off by calling RiverRat a moron.To me, RiverRat's advice is quite sound, and you are the one left looking like a moron.

I stand corrected, didn't pay attention to making the distinction. I have corrected post 80 according to your and brennakimi's comments. Thanks for the clarification.Actually my main point is that a position of Biblical inerrancy and literalism can't be used to state the Bible backs the idea life begins at conception. Obviously, that does not mean the position that the Bible is subject to other than literal interpretation would do the same.This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:03 PMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-16-2006 09:25 PM

absolutely not, i agree with you. apparently the people on this board we are dealing with are non-religious moralists. i'd say even worse because there is no way to reason with them because what they have decided is in their own minds.