rat mothers

With the avaliability of adoption, why is infanticide necessary?

Infants don't need to co-opt someone else's uterus for survival, for one thing.I realize that women are invisible to you, so invisible that you can see right through them to the fetus, but come on. At least try to remember that fetuses don't gestate in space, ok?

No, I understood you. What about my post didn't you understand as an answer to your question?

You can put formula in a bottle. The research to artificially duplicate the function of the uterus was abandoned in the 70's under pressure from right-to-life groups.

Try to be clearer in your posts to me. This post, for instance, contained nothing that could be recognized as connected to the discussion at hand.I'm glad you helped build some hospitals, though.

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.