lunamoth
Episcopalian
bob x said:
Excellent points bob x.
cheers,
lunamoth
When does a baby count as a living being?
- Thread starter iBrian
- Start date
Excellent points bob x.
cheers,
lunamoth
suanni
Confused
Congratulations Brian to both you and your partner. Hope all goes well
I go with from the quickening. Up until that point, the baby isn't viable outside the womb and although the foetus is unlikely to survive out of the womb at the commencement of the quickening, there is no doubting that there is a live baby growing within.
I go with from the quickening. Up until that point, the baby isn't viable outside the womb and although the foetus is unlikely to survive out of the womb at the commencement of the quickening, there is no doubting that there is a live baby growing within.
T
truthseeker
Guest
There is a spark just for the egg to be created. For it to evolve into a chicken (or a human, hence the conversation) requires additional elements.Quahom1 said:
Bob X raises an excellent point.
If I can respect my own ability to reproduce, not even considering the sperm that is needed to get the baby process rolling, then my production of a human life becomes so much more important and issues surrounding the consideration of when it actually is a living being sounds a bit numb. A plant is a living being though it is dependant upon soil and/or water. My skin is not only an organ but a living being, which shall soon die if I break off a piece. So once I discover what is important to me - what my values are - and where my 'self' lies, then whether I give birth to the child or not if I don't feel any value of self beit in me or that being, it shall not have life in my view. Maybe that is why it is so easy for us to eat meat.
truthseeker said:
You seem to forget the importance of a life coming from the woman, while the man "observers". And with few exceptions my friend, you can't create life without the male. And the male is ultimately the protector. Hence we go around the grid again. Men are not needed, women can do everything...
Guess so. But once a child is born, man can do anything and woman is not needed. Point is that the importance in the "perfect upbringing of a child". Mom and Dad are needed, and as far as kids are concerned, Mom and Dad in Love with eachother is "OPTIMUM".
Finally, only women can give birth to man. The moment woman considered man as an inconvenience, is the moment this world began to "check out". When a woman considers the life inside them as "inconvenient", then the end is near...and that is a natural fact.
America's time is short lived I'm afraid. China as well.
v/r
Q
T
truthseeker
Guest
If this comment is in retort to my comment, then you misunderstood what I was saying. Unless I misunderstood what Bob X was saying, then my comment was an afterthought of his post.Quahom1 said:
I agree.
suanni
Confused
Quahom1 said:
Agree with both male and female are necessary, not only for the production of human life but for the raising of the children. Male and female are a balance, a delicate harmony that nature (or God) created. However this status quo is not always possible, and nor has it been in the history of mankind
As for the male always being the protector...no, not always nor the provider.
Whilst the people posting on this subject may be responsible fathers and mothers, or intend to be so in the future, there are many men out there who do not take the responsibility of the possible outcome of their sexual gratification and many women are faced with the prospect of bearing and raising a child alone or... It takes two to make a baby but sometimes one is left with the responsibilty of the child. And in consideration of the treatment that some women receive from males it is hardly surprising that some women do view men as an inconvenience, certainly a thorn in their side.
I don't think any woman would consider a baby in-vitro 'an inconvenience', especially after the quickening is felt. And current legislation in the UK for abortion the maximum gestation period (with exception to exceptional circumstances) is shortly after the approximate timing of the quickening and I think the balance in this is just right. For most women to consider an abortion is a dreadful decision and not an easy one to make.
Yes, man can do anything. Man can take his pleasure and run, a woman is left with the consequences. Or man can stand by and assist in the raising of his child. No government on earth would require family courts to seek child support if man took on his responsibilities seriously.
Abortion has existed for almost as long as man has lived upon the planet. And I think in some cases it is preferably than a child slowly dying due to neglect or for that matter the mother dying because of the growing parasite inside and that is exactly what a baby could be termed in-vitro. Not a nice term but a very good descriptive one.
America and China dying? Civilisations prosper and die for no reason. You just gotta look to history for other examples.
truthseeker said:
LOL
I don't retort, I shut down threads- ask anybody...they'll tell you...I simply replied to your comment. And perhaps I did misunderstand your point. I don't care what Bob was saying (as in I'm not responding to Bob's comment), I was answering your's.
v/r
Q
And your point is, what suanni?...The question is when does a baby count as a living being? Not when do women become superior over men, or men throw away their responsibilities of family.
Typical retort...exactly where it does not belong. Take it to the politic's forum.
Q
Typical retort...exactly where it does not belong. Take it to the politic's forum.
Q
suanni
Confused
I think I merely answered your own post. Not intending to be political. No sex is superior to the other, they balance one another.
I did answer when does a baby count as a living being and that I counted from the quickening, which is about 15-20 weeks in gestation.
However, with contemplation on this, this is incorrect, for the baby really is counted as a living being by the mother who bears it, who can feel this living thing growing and those around her who share her joy. It isn't a viable life without her. And it is these considerations that come into the politican decisions with regard to abortion laws.
A baby counts as a living being when it is born.
Between the time of the quickening and the actual birth the foetus could perish, it may not even survive the birth.
I did answer when does a baby count as a living being and that I counted from the quickening, which is about 15-20 weeks in gestation.
However, with contemplation on this, this is incorrect, for the baby really is counted as a living being by the mother who bears it, who can feel this living thing growing and those around her who share her joy. It isn't a viable life without her. And it is these considerations that come into the politican decisions with regard to abortion laws.
A baby counts as a living being when it is born.
Between the time of the quickening and the actual birth the foetus could perish, it may not even survive the birth.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Hiya
Suanni, I agree 110% with your evaluation of this subject and the other issues you expand on. You do fail however to recognise that there are many 'good' fathers out there that are denied the rights of contact with their children due to selfishness and wickedness on the part of mothers. Men running from their responsibilities are now no more common than women that use their children as weapons against ex-partners. We live in an increasingly selfish age where a woman is as likely to terminate a relationship as a man and often for petty reasons.
Society as a whole gives little regard to the utter devastation a man can feel on losing the children he loves and cherishes above all else in life. In recent decades the polarity between the sexes has confusingly both dissapeared and widened. Many women now want it 'all', children, a career, independence and have absolutely no respect or regard for the feelings of the children(s) father, nor the rights and needs of the children to know their fathers. That said the majority of mothers are not like that but they are very rarely to be found condeming their selfish sisters. Until such times as genuinely 'good' mothers are as quick to shout out against this trend we will continue to see children raised with far less than half the love and support they need. And if the courts were to make a ruling that any mother using the legal system in an effort to deny access to a father for selfish reasons were to automaticly lose custody this also would go a long way to stemming the tide of injustice. After all a mother who denies her children their basic needs and rights through malice or selfishness has not got their best interests at heart.
Appologies for the digression
Regards
TE
Suanni, I agree 110% with your evaluation of this subject and the other issues you expand on. You do fail however to recognise that there are many 'good' fathers out there that are denied the rights of contact with their children due to selfishness and wickedness on the part of mothers. Men running from their responsibilities are now no more common than women that use their children as weapons against ex-partners. We live in an increasingly selfish age where a woman is as likely to terminate a relationship as a man and often for petty reasons.
Society as a whole gives little regard to the utter devastation a man can feel on losing the children he loves and cherishes above all else in life. In recent decades the polarity between the sexes has confusingly both dissapeared and widened. Many women now want it 'all', children, a career, independence and have absolutely no respect or regard for the feelings of the children(s) father, nor the rights and needs of the children to know their fathers. That said the majority of mothers are not like that but they are very rarely to be found condeming their selfish sisters. Until such times as genuinely 'good' mothers are as quick to shout out against this trend we will continue to see children raised with far less than half the love and support they need. And if the courts were to make a ruling that any mother using the legal system in an effort to deny access to a father for selfish reasons were to automaticly lose custody this also would go a long way to stemming the tide of injustice. After all a mother who denies her children their basic needs and rights through malice or selfishness has not got their best interests at heart.
Appologies for the digression
Regards
TE
suanni
Confused
Apologies Tao_Equus I didn't mean to omit the mention of the good men of society. There are good and bad in both sexes (once again the balance) and I am one of the many women who despise (and I shout about it) the actions of, shall I say the nastier end of my sexual grouping. I wouldn't call them sister.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Thank you Suanni ,
thankfully the bad apples of both sexes remain a smallish minority.
Regards
TE
,thankfully the bad apples of both sexes remain a smallish minority.
Regards
TE
bruceg
Well-Known Member
Tao_Equus said:Thank you Suanni
thankfully the bad apples of both sexes remain a smallish minority.
Regards
TE
Yea, but why can't they pair up with each other, instead of being inflicted on the good apples.
To heck with the gift card on-line swaps, how about ones for ex-spouses?
... Bruce
suanni
Confused
I've seen it happen brucegdc and its still on-going. My ex and my bitch of a sister. They are now making each others lives hell like they made mine and her ex for many years. You do see retribution occaisionallybrucegdc said:
T
truthseeker
Guest
Quahom1 said:LOL
I simply replied to your comment. And perhaps I did misunderstand your point. I don't care what Bob was saying (as in I'm not responding to Bob's comment), I was answering your's.
Of course you were responding to my comment. Please excuse me if I sounded on the defense - it wasn't meant to appear that way. And I will excuse you for what appears to be a bullying comment.
truthseeker said:Of course you were responding to my comment. Please excuse me if I sounded on the defense - it wasn't meant to appear that way. And I will excuse you for what appears to be a bullying comment.
Hmmm, the first part was not bullying, it was self-depreciation...but I have been accused of worse.
The second part was fact, as you gathered.
v/r
Q
bob x said:
Perhaps, but then that thought negates what God says, namely "I knew you before you were stitched together in the womb..."
To know someone implies they have some sort of character, history, background, personality...they are real and alive. That is unless you consider God describing us as we would a "ficticious" cartoon character, only in His mind...but here again, where does reality begin? Is it not in the mind?
v/r
Q