"My body, my choice," I believe we can say the same here!

Which means he is pro-murder of babies.

Let’s be precise in our language. I’m certain God will be precise at the judgement.

peace to you

 

I assume the situation previously described took place after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Among other things, the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Under the Constitution, citizenship and its protections begins at birth. The victim killed in the situation described was born, not unborn, and was protected under the Constitution.

Yes.

Laws don't necessarily make things right or wrong. They can sometimes be a guide to morality, but there are also unjust laws. However, morality and criminal prosecution are two different things. Lots of immoral things are not illegal.

 

Let's introduce some terminology:

Zygote - a single-celled organism resulting from a fertilized egg. The zygote divides to become a ball of cells that may eventually implants in the wall of the uterus. In the best of circumstances, anywhere from 25-50% of zygotes do not implant in the wall of the uterus and are expelled from the woman's body and die. If you believe "personhood begins at conception" (the official position of BaptistBoard), then more "babies" are lost naturally than ever intentionally aborted.

Embryo - the earliest stage of development from 4th-11th weeks of pregnancy. Most intentional abortions occur during this period. This is the crucial time when organs develop, as well as any birth defects.

Fetus - this is the period of growth of the developing baby. Women can begin to feel movement between the 16th and 20th weeks of development. Intentional abortions are somewhat rare during this period, and are often initiated because doctors have determined that something has gone wrong in the pregnancy.

So your assertion that "fetus" is used as a way to dehumanize the baby doesn't quite hold water. By the time a pregnancy advance to the fetal stage of development in a culture that allows abortion, the mother intends to have the baby.

 

False. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

My gall bladder, my appendix, and a pituitary tumor were all part of my human life, yet they were removed. But they were not persons.

 

That first section does not apply only to citizens but also to “any person.” While citizens have added benefits, all persons are to have “equal protection of the laws” especially regarding “life, liberty, or property.”

Many states legally recognize babies in the womb as persons when it comes to murder.

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

 

Comparing a baby to a tumor is another imprecise use of language that dehumanizes the baby helping supporters of baby murder to say “we don’t kill babies”

It it also disgusting, quite frankly, especially coming from a Christian

peace to you

 

I am saying that we are NOT affecting the earth cooling down or getting warmer, as those are natural cycles, and that evolution has NO scientific proof in regards to transistion between species, and how life originated here upon earth!

 

How does God view abortion is the ONLY question and answer to this issue!

 

Thought that the final decision should be left up to God, the Creator?

 

The new person in the womb has a soul from God!

 

Actually, it applies to persons who are "born" or naturalized in the United States. This is about citizenship, and I referred to it in regard to the possibly apocryphal situation where a man was convicted for murder of an African-American, even though he did not consider the victim a person. At the insistence of another poster (Alcott), I cited the 14th Amendment, specifically written to ensure that all natural-born persons (including former slaves) held citizenship on a federal level, overruling any contrary laws at the state level.

In terms of protection of life, human persons within the United States have protections under US law, even if they are not citizens. That's why so many people are concerned about the welfare of refugees who have presented themselves at our border. Again, the primary question of the abortion issue is whether or not an unborn child (whether zygote, embryo, or fetus) has personhood.

Yes, state laws and Roe v. Wade are quite inconsistent.

 

No, I was pointing out the difference between "life" and "personhood." Parts of my body that bear the full range of my unique DNA are/were part of my living human body, but they are not persons.

No, I am being extremely precise. You simply misunderstand it. That's partly my fault and partly yours.

Since I didn't actually make that comparison, this charge is irrelevant.

It would be, if I had done so.

 

"Has a soul"? Generally, the biblical perspective is either (1) one's body and spirit combined is a soul; or (2) the soul is the seat of rationality -- the seat of our will -- that is connected to our body (which includes emotions) and our spirit (what is made in the image of God).

Please explain your understand the nature of the soul in the womb, and when that is established.

 

You are playing word games, just like the baby murders.

Your spit has your DNA. That doesn’t make spit a human life.

And you most certainly did compare a baby to a tumor while playing the word games like the baby murders do and it was disgustingly inappropriate.

If baby murders or their supporters see your post they will say, “see, a Christian uses the same language as we do. All those who disagree are right wing haters”

peace to you

 

Should a president not be America first? Should he or she not place own citizens before other nations? And when did Trump order any LEGAL aliens be turned away?

 

The Baby is fully human while in the womb, does not become human when born, nor get the soul/spirit then!

 

Any difference to you in the status of illegal or legal alien?

 

Can unborn babies be "naturalized" in the USA? That might sound like a joke, but the definitions of naturalize are:

1: to confer the rights of a national on especially : to admit to citizenship
2 : to introduce into common use or into the vernacular
3 : to bring into conformity with nature
4 : to cause (something, such as a plant) to become established as if native
[ Definition of NATURALIZE ]

If a baby is still inside the womb, how can it be homicide in any sense if it is not a human being? ... for in some cases it is a homicide. Does that depend on whether the perpetrator considers it a human or not? Or only that the mother retains the option of considering it legally a human or not? That obviously means an expectant mother can carry legality as well as a baby.

I post on this topic being one opposed to abortion, but without strong emotionalism, because I think the baby in question may be done quite a favor by being aborted and not having to endure this loathsome world. Indeed, if you let the baby be born, you are subjecting the baby to the possibility of infinite danger of damnation-- IF aborted babies have a place in the New Earth, or else they are nonexistent, which is infinitely better than damnation. I believe the former. But would a parent leave a baby in a room with an unsafe heater going? It would seem they would rather not take a chance, even if conditions outside that room are not ideal. And if coupled with one of those traditional Baptist doctrines-- "once saved always saved"-- which I can't say I agree with entirely, then a mother who aborts, or anyone who is an accomplice, who is saved cannot be damned for that act, either.

Abortion is not a simple subjec,t morally or legally.

 

No, I'm being precise. I am habitually precise about my language. That's one of the reasons people around here tend to think I am arrogant. They interpret precision as "word games."

True. So does my epidermis. But epidermis was once dermis - living skin.

Only in an 'apple and oranges' type of comparison. You were supposed to find it absurd, but apparently you assume they are more similar than I do. That's a reflection of your viewpoint, not mine.

If a pro-choice person sees your rhetoric (for instance, the sentence quoted above), they will think that there is no rational opposition to abortion. It's all name-calling and venom. So you are perpetuating the problem.

I have to wonder.

I am pro-life, but the most vocal part of the pro-life movement does not seem to care about life. It seems to be a political movement to denigrate persons who are not in what passes for the Republican Party.

Do you ever speak one-on-one with a pro-choice person in a respectful way, explaining your concern for the unborn without using the term "baby murderer"?

I have a very long history of moving people to the pro-life cause (including against abortion) by demonstrating that I first respect the life of the one I am speaking with.

It's clear that many "pro-life" people here do not have even the concern to speak respectfully to a brother in Christ, much less an "enemy," in violation of Christ's command.

Unless you can do that, I have little respect for your position.