Hypocrites!

[blogger31]

Oy vey. I'm having another teenage angst-attack now. I think I'll go brood in a corner for a while. :2razz:

Still, you have to say CattyCarissa was being childish in deciding that Alex would be self-centred enough to bail on any hypothetical children, just because of his opinions.

let us know when your attack is over.

She might be, I am not discussing those posts, and besides you don't justify behavior by pointing to other behavior.

 

[Fantasea]

The Catholic church didn't even want the Bible read or taught by anyone other than an indoctrinated priest, and in fact did their best to stop it being translated into anything other than Latin. Keep the masses ignorant and you keep them under control...

The reason, of which you are apparently unaware, was quite simple.

Numerous charlatans, what we might call the TV "Evangelists for Money" of the day, were as easily able to exploit the ignorance of the masses then as those of today. It was popular for the Elmer Gantry types to stand on a tree stump, draw a crowd, and preach sermons based on their interpretations of scripture passages which resulted in a healthy collection when the hat was passed.

Is it any wonder that the Church became alarmed and took the only action possible when it's flock was being being subjected to heresy and being preyed upon by frauds and fakers?

Then, too, when well educated persons are able to disagree with each other on the meaning of scriptural passages, the Church correctly acts as the final arbiter in matters of faith or morals. The Church is not a democratic organization in which a show of hands by its members can change doctrine which has stood since the time of Christ.

Those who have had other ideas have often 'taken a hike', as it were.

Do you not agree that the reason for thousands of splinter religions and offshoots of the Catholic Church is differing opinions on doctrine?

 

[Fantasea]

Regarding pregnancy, everyone would agree that at least the life of a potential person is at risk.

I believe that a large part of the problem is the use of the word "potential".

A Merriam-Webster's definition is:

potential[1]
(adjective) 1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

The word potential guarantees that there may be different results if a situation is permitted to play out to its logical conclusion. This prompts the question, "What alternative can there be to a human child as the result of conception?"

There is absolutely nothing potential about the occupant of a womb. From the moment of conception, when the 23 chromosomes in the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes in the egg, a new, unique, distinct live human being, separate and distinct from the mother, is created. The attributes of this human are complete in every respect and nothing will ever be added right up to the moment of natural death many decades later.

The only requirements to sustain life, from the moment of conception to old age, are nourishment and protection from the elements.

This word, by its Merrian-Webster's definition, is the correct term.

actual
(adjective) 2 a : existing in act and not merely potentially; b : existing in fact or reality

A child in the womb is an actual human being. Left undisturbed, in its own time, the child would leave the womb and take its rightful place among us.

The objective of an abortion procedure is to prevent that by deliberately causing its death.

 

[Fantasea]

well of course, but I'll tell you what, you suggest that to my girlfriend and she'll bite your head off.

Is your girlfriend, and from reading your posts, I can imagine what that means, an expert on the subjects of biology, obstetrics, pediatrics, and genetics?

If not, then her position is based solely on emotion, isn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

But therein lies the problem, has the fetus chosen to remain in the women for self preservation? I virus infects another human being, injects its DNA into a host cell to reproduce. It 'chooses' self preservation but it is not alive.

True, all mammals depend on another form of life, but not the entire time, as a fetus does. Becuase a fetus is constantly dependant on its mother I cannot see it as independant, so I cannot see it as alive.

All people, even you, believe there are things which exist that they cannot see.

If you had a deeper understanding of the biological processes of conception and fetal development, your vision on this subject might be clarified. You might then see the situation for what it really is.

 

[Plain old me]

Okay then...what do I need to understand to change my perception? As far as I can see the fetus relies on its mother, she provides it with oxygen and everything it needs, its not until 11 to 12 weeks that it starts to breathe for itself. How then can it sustain itself outside of the womb before then? If it cannot sustain itself without the mother, and does not perform all the functions inherant to all life by itself, then I cannot term it as alive. Moreso, then I believe the mother should have the option of abortion.

 

[Fantasea]

Okay then...what do I need to understand to change my perception? As far as I can see the fetus relies on its mother, she provides it with oxygen and everything it needs, its not until 11 to 12 weeks that it starts to breathe for itself. How then can it sustain itself outside of the womb before then? If it cannot sustain itself without the mother, and does not perform all the functions inherant to all life by itself, then I cannot term it as alive. Moreso, then I believe the mother should have the option of abortion.

I don't understand your reliance on viability as the measure of whether a human life can be 'snuffed'.

Even at the moment of birth, and for quite some time thereafter, a child is totally dependent upon its mother or a surrogate. The only difference is that it is able to breathe on its own.

At about three weeks after conception, even before the mother knows she is pregnant, a baby's heart is beating. A separate heartbeat, distinct from that of the mother is able to be detected. Is this not proof of the existence of life? At ten weeks, the structure of the baby's body is completely formed. Even to fingerprints and eyelashes.

Strong pro-abortion advocates often cave in the first time they are present at an ultra-sound scanning session which enables them to see the full color, real time antics of a baby cavorting in the womb.

Had that technology been available in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision would have gone the other way.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Strong pro-abortion advocates often cave in the first time they are present at an ultra-sound scanning session which enables them to see the full color, real time antics of a baby cavorting in the womb.

Had that technology been available in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision would have gone the other way.

Says who, besides you, exactly? Where are these cavers? What facts are you referring to? Isn't it really true that you're simply making it sound like an ultra-sound is the greatest tool anti-abortionists have? After all, you just wrote that it would have reversed Roe V. Wade. Of course, you wrote that without one teeny weeny piece of evidence as proof.

I'm a "strong pro-abortion advocate" with two children. We used ultra-sound for each pregnancy. It's great technology but it has no effect on my decision making re abortion....

 

[26 X World Champs]

My point was that you set yourself up for problems even if you do use protection. Since its not totally effective. I am not trying to insult you and if I have I'm sorry. All those reasons you listed are good reasons why you shouldn't be having sex. Not saying I know your parents or who they are but good minded parents tend to be right on saying what you should or should not do. Sometimes its worth listening to.

Wow....I'm always "blown away" when someone suggests that someone else besides themselves should not have sex. Let's see, some anti-choicers don't want you to have sex, they don't want you to have an abortion, they don't want you to use birth control, they don't want birth control dispensed in high schools....they're one and only solution always seems to be abstinence. Everybody should keep it zipped and life would be sweet.

How realistic is this? About as realistic as Rove getting elected to a third term...or about as realistic as the Cubs winning the world series this year....

 

[Fantasea]

Says who, besides you, exactly? Where are these cavers? What facts are you referring to? Isn't it really true that you're simply making it sound like an ultra-sound is the greatest tool anti-abortionists have? After all, you just wrote that it would have reversed Roe V. Wade. Of course, you wrote that without one teeny weeny piece of evidence as proof.

I'm a "strong pro-abortion advocate" with two children. We used ultra-sound for each pregnancy. It's great technology but it has no effect on my decision making re abortion....

Yes, yes, yes. We all understand that in light of your earlier admissions you are unable to accede now.

 

[Fantasea]

Says who, besides you, exactly? Where are these cavers? What facts are you referring to? Isn't it really true that you're simply making it sound like an ultra-sound is the greatest tool anti-abortionists have? After all, you just wrote that it would have reversed Roe V. Wade. Of course, you wrote that without one teeny weeny piece of evidence as proof.

Try Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, who became a multi-millionaire by emptying the contents of wombs into slop buckets.

He tells a fascinating story and confirms my statement regarding ultra-sound scans.

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

I can't wait to hear how you will attempt to shoot this exceptionally well credentialled messenger.

 

[Imudman]

I believe that a large part of the problem is the use of the word "potential".

A Merriam-Webster's definition is:

potential[1]
(adjective) 1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

The word potential guarantees that there may be different results if a situation is permitted to play out to its logical conclusion. This prompts the question, "What alternative can there be to a human child as the result of conception?"

There is absolutely nothing potential about the occupant of a womb. From the moment of conception, when the 23 chromosomes in the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes in the egg, a new, unique, distinct live human being, separate and distinct from the mother, is created. The attributes of this human are complete in every respect and nothing will ever be added right up to the moment of natural death many decades later.

The only requirements to sustain life, from the moment of conception to old age, are nourishment and protection from the elements.

This word, by its Merrian-Webster's definition, is the correct term.

actual
(adjective) 2 a : existing in act and not merely potentially; b : existing in fact or reality

A child in the womb is an actual human being. Left undisturbed, in its own time, the child would leave the womb and take its rightful place among us.

The objective of an abortion procedure is to prevent that by deliberately causing its death.

On this issue, we are in complete, total, and utter agreement. Well said...

 

[IndiConservative]

But therein lies the problem, has the fetus chosen to remain in the women for self preservation? I virus infects another human being, injects its DNA into a host cell to reproduce. It 'chooses' self preservation but it is not alive.

True, all mammals depend on another form of life, but not the entire time, as a fetus does. Becuase a fetus is constantly dependant on its mother I cannot see it as independant, so I cannot see it as alive.

I have to say virus's are extremely unusual. They are not cells and are not mammals. I will take my stand as it is and will agree to disagree.

So... I should wait until I do want to pro-create, then? Eurgh!

Ultimately I think that would be the wisest decision but if not then at least when you are ready to accept that you may get pregnant and have to raise an unexpected child.

Wow....I'm always "blown away" when someone suggests that someone else besides themselves should not have sex. Let's see, some anti-choicers don't want you to have sex, they don't want you to have an abortion, they don't want you to use birth control, they don't want birth control dispensed in high schools....they're one and only solution always seems to be abstinence. Everybody should keep it zipped and life would be sweet.

How realistic is this? About as realistic as Rove getting elected to a third term...or about as realistic as the Cubs winning the world series this year....

The facts in this particular case is that under U.S.A. law vergiss is considered a child. Her parents as she would suggest do not approve. There for birth control should not be freely given out at school for that reason and high school is not a health department. If you wish to have birth control you can just go to the public health department and get it there although I don't advocate it be given to children.

You can't just throw the baby out with the bath water because they are going to do it whether you like it or not. This is about social responsability. Possible outcomes of sex are nothing,desease and pregnancy. Fact's are that AID's is still spreding in the U.S. and casual sex does not help. Think how many boyfriends/girlfriends young people go through before they finally settle down. Then if just one has a desease and the protection fails. Is it then realistic for the government to support the medication of someone who got that desease through negligence of there own? Or to pay for an abortion because casual sex is there way of life?

What pro-abortion people fail to relize on the larger picture is that this is tied to decadence. Do you know that a decline in morals leads to an eventual destruction of a nation? It's been proven in history time and again. This is just one of the stepping stones. Too much freedom is a bad thing because people have not changed in the past 5000 years only technology has. So yes it is realistic unless you have no care for the future.

(I know vergiss does not live in the U.S.A. but i do not know Austrialian laws on legal adult age)

 

[Plain old me]

I don't understand your reliance on viability as the measure of whether a human life can be 'snuffed'.

Even at the moment of birth, and for quite some time thereafter, a child is totally dependent upon its mother or a surrogate. The only difference is that it is able to breathe on its own.

At about three weeks after conception, even before the mother knows she is pregnant, a baby's heart is beating. A separate heartbeat, distinct from that of the mother is able to be detected. Is this not proof of the existence of life? At ten weeks, the structure of the baby's body is completely formed. Even to fingerprints and eyelashes.

My arguments remain the same, before the fetus is viable it cannot possibly survive for any length of time on its own, therefore it is not an independant life and the mother should have the option of abortion. So what if the fetus' heart is beating? A beating heart is not sufficient to keep anything alive unless it has anything to transport, and it doesn't start breathing until 11 to 12 weeks.

And yes, exactly, the baby still relies on its mother, but not utterly. It can provide oxygen for itself, and be apart from her for at least a small length of time, and so it is an independant life, a pre-viable fetus is not.

 

[vergiss]

he facts in this particular case is that under U.S.A. law vergiss is considered a child. Her parents as she would suggest do not approve. There for birth control should not be freely given out at school for that reason and high school is not a health department. If you wish to have birth control you can just go to the public health department and get it there although I don't advocate it be given to children.

You can't just throw the baby out with the bath water because they are going to do it whether you like it or not. This is about social responsability. Possible outcomes of sex are nothing,desease and pregnancy. Fact's are that AID's is still spreding in the U.S. and casual sex does not help. Think how many boyfriends/girlfriends young people go through before they finally settle down. Then if just one has a desease and the protection fails. Is it then realistic for the government to support the medication of someone who got that desease through negligence of there own? Or to pay for an abortion because casual sex is there way of life?

What pro-abortion people fail to relize on the larger picture is that this is tied to decadence. Do you know that a decline in morals leads to an eventual destruction of a nation? It's been proven in history time and again. This is just one of the stepping stones. Too much freedom is a bad thing because people have not changed in the past 5000 years only technology has. So yes it is realistic unless you have no care for the future.

(I know vergiss does not live in the U.S.A. but i do not know Austrialian laws on legal adult age)

Firstly, I am only months away from my 18th birthday and legal adulthood. Already, I am legally able to drive, have sex and make medical decisions about myself.

Secondly, it's not the sex so much that my mother (my father is not a part of my life, so the plural "parents" doesn't apply) would have a problem with, it'd be the pregnancy itself. To her, teenage pregnancy happens only to loose and poor, uneducated girls. I know I said she'd kill me if she knew I was having sex, but that was an exaggeration on my part that was more to do with the fact that I don't want her to know about it. Speaking about such things to her makes me more than a tad uncomfortable.

Third, I highly resent the implication that I am engaged in "casual sex". I have been dating my boyfriend for 11 months, so this is hardly some fling. What's more, I was a virgin when I had met him, so he is my first and only sexual partner. He didn't pressure me into it in the slightest - I took my time, and in the meanwhile insisted that he be checked for STDs. Obviously, he was clean.

Kids have sex, regardless if you like it or not. It doesn't take Einstein to see that if you really want to prevent pregnancy and disease, give them condoms. They'll do it either way, so would you rather continue to delude yourself that they'll remain celibate whilst they get knocked up and infected, or would you rather actually do something to prevent the problems you're ranting about?

People in Mediaeval European society presumably didn't have casual sex (at least, not the peasants). However, it's hardly an ideal society, is it?

Is your girlfriend, and from reading your posts, I can imagine what that means, an expert on the subjects of biology, obstetrics, pediatrics, and genetics?

If not, then her position is based solely on emotion, isn't it?

Are you?

And what are you implying about his girlfriend and "what that means"?

 

[Fantasea]

My arguments remain the same, before the fetus is viable it cannot possibly survive for any length of time on its own, therefore it is not an independant life and the mother should have the option of abortion. So what if the fetus' heart is beating? A beating heart is not sufficient to keep anything alive unless it has anything to transport, and it doesn't start breathing until 11 to 12 weeks.

And yes, exactly, the baby still relies on its mother, but not utterly. It can provide oxygen for itself, and be apart from her for at least a small length of time, and so it is an independant life, a pre-viable fetus is not.

How many weeks into a pregnancy does the baby become, as you say, 'viable'?

Certainly, you must understand that a beating heart is pumping oxygen laden blood through the circulatory system of the child, and it will continue to do so, without interruption, until natural death occurs many decades later.

If, for any natural reason, that heart stops beating, the child in the womb immediately dies and will be expelled from the womb in the process of miscarriage. Isn't that correct?

Therefore, how can a baby die if it wasn't alive to begin with?

Brainwaves can be measured as early as six weeks after conception.

Viability outside the womb is not the test for the presence of human life. In those already born, the test for the presence of life is a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves.

Why should this test not apply to children in the womb?

You use the word 'fetus'. Are you aware of the reason for its rise in popularity?

 

[Plain old me]

How many weeks into a pregnancy does the baby become, as you say, 'viable'?

For me, you've hit the nail on the head there. As I have said in previous threads, my issue with abortion is when is viability? It seems to me that all bodily functions including vocal chords etc can work by week 18, with a 15% chance of viabilty by week 23. Perhaps the cut off point should be week 18?

Certainly, you must understand that a beating heart is pumping oxygen laden blood through the circulatory system of the child, and it will continue to do so, without interruption, until natural death occurs many decades later.

It is beating oxygenated blood, blood which comes from the mother, until it can breathe for itself it has no way of carrying out respiration (one of the fundamental processes of life), except via the mothers assisstance.

If, for any natural reason, that heart stops beating, the child in the womb immediately dies and will be expelled from the womb in the process of miscarriage. Isn't that correct?

Therefore, how can a baby die if it wasn't alive to begin with?

If it is pre-viable, I wouldn't say it does die.

Brainwaves can be measured as early as six weeks after conception.

Viability outside the womb is not the test for the presence of human life. In those already born, the test for the presence of life is a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves.

Why should this test not apply to children in the womb?

But all life carries out the numerous life processes, a pre-viable fetus cannot perform all these processes and so is not alive.

You use the word 'fetus'. Are you aware of the reason for its rise in popularity?

I assume, thought I am not sure, that the reason for its rise in popularity is those of us who are pro-choice do not agree that the fetus is alive, and so do not refer to it as a baby.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
How many weeks into a pregnancy does the baby become, as you say, 'viable'?

For me, you've hit the nail on the head there. As I have said in previous threads, my issue with abortion is when is viability? It seems to me that all bodily functions including vocal chords etc can work by week 18, with a 15% chance of viabilty by week 23. Perhaps the cut off point should be week 18?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Certainly, you must understand that a beating heart is pumping oxygen laden blood through the circulatory system of the child, and it will continue to do so, without interruption, until natural death occurs many decades later.

It is beating oxygenated blood, blood which comes from the mother, until it can breathe for itself it has no way of carrying out respiration (one of the fundamental processes of life), except via the mothers assisstance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If, for any natural reason, that heart stops beating, the child in the womb immediately dies and will be expelled from the womb in the process of miscarriage. Isn't that correct?

Therefore, how can a baby die if it wasn't alive to begin with?

If it is pre-viable, I wouldn't say it does die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Brainwaves can be measured as early as six weeks after conception.

Viability outside the womb is not the test for the presence of human life. In those already born, the test for the presence of life is a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves.

Why should this test not apply to children in the womb?

But all life carries out the numerous life processes, a pre-viable fetus cannot perform all these processes and so is not alive.

What is the basis for all of the responses you have made above?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You use the word 'fetus'. Are you aware of the reason for its rise in popularity?

I assume, thought I am not sure, that the reason for its rise in popularity is those of us who are pro-choice do not agree that the fetus is alive, and so do not refer to it as a baby.

Close, but no cigar.

Initially in the abortion argument, the words baby, as in "going to have a baby"; child, as in "she is with child", and espressions of that ilk were the only way to which occupants of the womb were referred. Fetus was a medical term that was all but unknown to the masses.

As the debates heated up, it quickly became apparent that references to aborting babies and killing children, as well as the expression 'pro-abortion' were too graphic; too explicit; and were driving away potential supporters.

What to do? What to do? Well, do the obvious. Take the emotion out of these expressions.

So, the sweet baby and the darling child became the clinical 'fetus'. And, pro-abortion became pro-choice.

No further references to a baby; no further references to a child; only references to 'a fetus'. No further references to abortion; only references to 'pro-choice' and 'a right to choose'.

The proponents of abortion knew that the common herd can always be hoodwinked with a euphemism. They simply capitalized on that knowledge.

Smart, wouldn't you say?

 

[Plain old me]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the basis? You mean evidence? That sort of thing?

I got the fetal devlopment stuff from googling fetal development breathing

I was taught that the fetus recieved nutrients, oygenated blood etc. from the mother via the placenta / umbilical chord.

Again, I was taught of seven processes that all life performs, does etc, and if it does not do these things it is not life.

Indeed, very smart. But I'm afraid as one of the common herd I do not believe a fetus is life, but a baby is, so I will continue to refer to it as the fetus.

 

[Fantasea]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the basis? You mean evidence? That sort of thing?

I got the fetal devlopment stuff from googling fetal development breathing

I was taught that the fetus recieved nutrients, oygenated blood etc. from the mother via the placenta / umbilical chord.

Again, I was taught of seven processes that all life performs, does etc, and if it does not do these things it is not life.

Indeed, very smart. But I'm afraid as one of the common herd I do not believe a fetus is life, but a baby is, so I will continue to refer to it as the fetus.

At eleven weeks, the baby's organ systems are complete and functioning; he or she breathes (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, feels pain. From this point on, the baby grows only in size.

And the baby will still recieve nutrients from the mother by suckling at her breast.

All of these processes are present in a child in the womb by the eleventh week.

The Seven Life Processes of Life​

Movement -- The ability to move all or part of the organism.
Reproduction -- The ability to produce more of its kind.
Sensitivity -- The ability of an organism to respond.
Nutrition -- The ability to take in food or raw materials to support other life processes.
Excretion -- The removal of waste materials which the cells have made and may be poisonous.
Respiration -- The ability to take in oxygen & give out carbon dioxide to make energy.
Growth -- The increase in size & complexity of an organism.

Is anything above incorrect? If not, how can one deny that a separate, distinct, human life is present in in the womb well before the end of the first trimester.

 

[clearview]

The reason, of which you are apparently unaware, was quite simple.

Numerous charlatans, what we might call the TV "Evangelists for Money" of the day, were as easily able to exploit the ignorance of the masses then as those of today. It was popular for the Elmer Gantry types to stand on a tree stump, draw a crowd, and preach sermons based on their interpretations of scripture passages which resulted in a healthy collection when the hat was passed.

Is it any wonder that the Church became alarmed and took the only action possible when it's flock was being being subjected to heresy and being preyed upon by frauds and fakers?

Then, too, when well educated persons are able to disagree with each other on the meaning of scriptural passages, the Church correctly acts as the final arbiter in matters of faith or morals. The Church is not a democratic organization in which a show of hands by its members can change doctrine which has stood since the time of Christ.

Those who have had other ideas have often 'taken a hike', as it were.

Do you not agree that the reason for thousands of splinter religions and offshoots of the Catholic Church is differing opinions on doctrine?

Greed and unethical behavior transcends time. I am not apparently unaware of the reason you stated. Charlatans were, and always will be, part of life. I find it very hard to believe when you look at the Catholic church, it's offshoots, and the parts played in guiding civilization throughout history, given how political it was then and is now, that their motives were always so pure. I do believe there were many individuals who served in the church whose faith and deeds were honorable and commendable, but those in power, be they "holy" or not, can be just as hungry for controlling the masses as anyone else, and the easiest way is ignorance.

Guide me, yes, but don't limit my knowledge because of your own fears. It's my right to make my own choices and my own mistakes. Not all were ignorant. There were many sophisticated and educated people throughout the ages, and I believe most were hungry for knowledge and independence. When learning to read, the first book was often the Bible. If it hadn't been translated, where would the church be today? Still, there are those who believe the church had a heavy hand in translating the scriptures to suit the political beliefs and attitudes of the time.

The church "correctly" acts as final arbiter? Long ago, priests told people not to bathe, or they risk letting demons in through the pores, and the church interfered with gaining knowledge of medicine and dentistry. That was also a good intention, but had very unhealthy consequences.

Yes, I do believe the splinter groups formed from different opinions regarding religion and the church. Henry VIII prompted one of them for reasons of his own. Not a good reason I think, but there you have it.

 

[Fantasea]

Greed and unethical behavior transcends time. I am not apparently unaware of the reason you stated. Charlatans were, and always will be, part of life. I find it very hard to believe when you look at the Catholic church, it's offshoots, and the parts played in guiding civilization throughout history, given how political it was then and is now, that their motives were always so pure. I do believe there were many individuals who served in the church whose faith and deeds were honorable and commendable, but those in power, be they "holy" or not, can be just as hungry for controlling the masses as anyone else, and the easiest way is ignorance.

Perfection does not exist on this earth populated by mortals. In temporal matters, there are those who have erred.

Guide me, yes, but don't limit my knowledge because of your own fears. It's my right to make my own choices and my own mistakes. Not all were ignorant. There were many sophisticated and educated people throughout the ages, and I believe most were hungry for knowledge and independence. When learning to read, the first book was often the Bible. If it hadn't been translated, where would the church be today? Still, there are those who believe the church had a heavy hand in translating the scriptures to suit the political beliefs and attitudes of the time.

The mission of the Catholic Church is to instruct in the teachings of Christ. Regardless of what detractors may believe, it remains true to that mission. The road to heresy is jammed with the traffic of those who decided to figure out things for themselves.

The church "correctly" acts as final arbiter? Long ago, priests told people not to bathe, or they risk letting demons in through the pores, and the church interfered with gaining knowledge of medicine and dentistry. That was also a good intention, but had very unhealthy consequences.

The Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith or morals. The Pope cannot err when he teaches a matter of faith or morals. Bathing and other secular situations do not fall within this realm.

Yes, I do believe the splinter groups formed from different opinions regarding religion and the church. Henry VIII prompted one of them for reasons of his own. Not a good reason I think, but there you have it.

Matthew, in Chapter 16 writes:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do you think that, when Christ spoke those words to Peter, He envisioned thousands of different churches calling themselves Christian springing up like daisys?

 

[IndiConservative]

Firstly, I am only months away from my 18th birthday and legal adulthood. Already, I am legally able to drive, have sex and make medical decisions about myself.

Secondly, it's not the sex so much that my mother (my father is not a part of my life, so the plural "parents" doesn't apply) would have a problem with, it'd be the pregnancy itself. To her, teenage pregnancy happens only to loose and poor, uneducated girls. I know I said she'd kill me if she knew I was having sex, but that was an exaggeration on my part that was more to do with the fact that I don't want her to know about it. Speaking about such things to her makes me more than a tad uncomfortable.

Third, I highly resent the implication that I am engaged in "casual sex". I have been dating my boyfriend for 11 months, so this is hardly some fling. What's more, I was a virgin when I had met him, so he is my first and only sexual partner. He didn't pressure me into it in the slightest - I took my time, and in the meanwhile insisted that he be checked for STDs. Obviously, he was clean.

Kids have sex, regardless if you like it or not. It doesn't take Einstein to see that if you really want to prevent pregnancy and disease, give them condoms. They'll do it either way, so would you rather continue to delude yourself that they'll remain celibate whilst they get knocked up and infected, or would you rather actually do something to prevent the problems you're ranting about?

People in Mediaeval European society presumably didn't have casual sex (at least, not the peasants). However, it's hardly an ideal society, is it?

I did not imply that you where having casual sex the first paragraph only related to you in the fact that you are still a legal child.
Even if it is uncomfortable maybe you need to discuss it with your mother.
Who knows she may be able to give you good advice.


I know kids are having sex but why are they having more sex now than they did a few decades before. If something worked back then it should be able to work now.The fact still remains that disease is spreading and birth control is not fullproof. Should we as the people of the earth just roll over and accept it and continue to let it spread? I think kids should remain abstinent by all means. Kids are not adults in body and mind they are still kids.


It seems that instant gratification means more than wisdom and self respect. Medieval times are hardly a good representation of how things should be. The people at that time were not as free as we are today.
So that parallel can't be made. People are now free to make most of there own decisions but can't make responsible ones.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by vergiss
Firstly, I am only months away from my 18th birthday and legal adulthood. Already, I am legally able to drive, have sex and make medical decisions about myself.

Secondly, it's not the sex so much that my mother (my father is not a part of my life, so the plural "parents" doesn't apply) would have a problem with, it'd be the pregnancy itself. To her, teenage pregnancy happens only to loose and poor, uneducated girls. I know I said she'd kill me if she knew I was having sex, but that was an exaggeration on my part that was more to do with the fact that I don't want her to know about it. Speaking about such things to her makes me more than a tad uncomfortable.

Third, I highly resent the implication that I am engaged in "casual sex". I have been dating my boyfriend for 11 months, so this is hardly some fling. What's more, I was a virgin when I had met him, so he is my first and only sexual partner. He didn't pressure me into it in the slightest - I took my time, and in the meanwhile insisted that he be checked for STDs. Obviously, he was clean.

Kids have sex, regardless if you like it or not. It doesn't take Einstein to see that if you really want to prevent pregnancy and disease, give them condoms. They'll do it either way, so would you rather continue to delude yourself that they'll remain celibate whilst they get knocked up and infected, or would you rather actually do something to prevent the problems you're ranting about?

People in Mediaeval European society presumably didn't have casual sex (at least, not the peasants). However, it's hardly an ideal society, is it?

.We are, indeed, fortunate to be treated to a confessional expose' that reads like a novel featuring some tart sneaking around on her mother. The main character, the teen-aged product of a broken home, is fully aware that she is violating the trust her mother has placed in her and knows that her mother would be hurt it she knew of her daughter’s deceptive conduct. The daughter is aware that her mother believes that she possesses character traits which elevate her far above her peers. However, despite knowing all of this, rather than change her ways, the main character is determined to continue having sex whenever she likes, but will do all she can to keep her illicit sexual activity a secret.

She's been screwing this guy for nearly a year but thinks that she's not a slut or a tramp because thus far, she's a one guy gal. She belligerently fends off accusations to that effect. It is obvious that she is weak on word definitions. However, she does claim to be the aggressor, for whatever that's worth. While the author doesn't provide a physical description of the character, one is given the impression that because she is the aggressor and forced the male, identified only as "my boyfriend", to undergo a medical examination to determine whether he was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease, that he is an untrustworthy person whose protestations that he was 'clean' could not be taken at face value, that she may be a dominatrix.

That impression is further reinforced by the fact that he is made to appear reluctant to initiate the sexcapade and, therefore, was most likely the weakling victim of a seduction. This also causes reader to speculate on the physical attributes of the main character. After all, if this untrustworthy boyfriend character is in no hurry to 'get it on' with the main character, can it be that she is a 'dog' who simply happens to be in heat? Readers are left to their own devices on this point, but the question remains.

The author makes it obvious that the main character is uncomfortable about the affair and has feelings of guilt. This is shown by the dialogue in which the main character tries to assuage her guilt by claiming that other kids do it; the implication being that if others do it, then it must be acceptable conduct. It is, of course, with other sexually active teen-agers; although not with their parents, or her mother.

In any event, as faulty as the logic may be, it seems to provide a bit of solace because she next launches into a tirade about delusions of celibacy, the pros and cons of various methods of birth control and the consequences of the lack thereof, which she states unequivocally, will not deter determined teen-agers from fornicating all over the place, infecting each other while, although not specified, only the teen-aged girls will be impregnated.

There is some confusion at this point because the main character next makes reference to the late genius, Professor Albert Einstein. Why she introduces a man with dual expertise in the fields of mathematics and physics is a mystery, unless it's a deliberate ploy to engender a Freudian notion that Einstein is a surrogate for the boyfriend and the significance of double fields of endeavor is intended to subtly hint at the possibility that the boyfriend is a switch-hitter, or bi-sexual. This possibility is buttressed by the earlier revelation of the hesitance of the boyfriend to bed her.

The reader is left with the feeling that the story is somewhat incomplete.

Are we to believe that the poor mother is such a fool that she’s oblivious to what her daughter is up to? Should we think that the mother, a teen-ager once, herself, did not have sexual thoughts and impulses? Should we not think that the mother was better able to exercise self-control and harbored thoughts of saving her virginity for marriage rather than casting it away on the likes of ‘the boyfriend’. Or is the daughter simply one of those apples that didn't fall far from the tree? Unanswered questions abound.

Mothers have an instinct where their children are concerned. Every mother knows what a lying daughter is up to. Just because a mother does not confront and accuse does not mean that she doesn’t cry herself to sleep at night, filled with worry and concern.

Hinted at because of an allegorical mention at the end, are the repressed sexual proclivities of Mediaeval European peasantry and the extant societal difficulties to which they were subjected.

Maybe a sequel is in the offing. Perhaps it will be set in another place and time. Authors often use this literary trick to ‘recycle’ popular characters in their fictional works.

 

[Plain old me]

At eleven weeks, the baby's organ systems are complete and functioning; he or she breathes (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, feels pain. From this point on, the baby grows only in size.

And the baby will still recieve nutrients from the mother by suckling at her breast.

All of these processes are present in a child in the womb by the eleventh week.

The Seven Life Processes of Life​

Movement -- The ability to move all or part of the organism.
Reproduction -- The ability to produce more of its kind.
Sensitivity -- The ability of an organism to respond.
Nutrition -- The ability to take in food or raw materials to support other life processes.
Excretion -- The removal of waste materials which the cells have made and may be poisonous.
Respiration -- The ability to take in oxygen & give out carbon dioxide to make energy.
Growth -- The increase in size & complexity of an organism.

Is anything above incorrect? If not, how can one deny that a separate, distinct, human life is present in in the womb well before the end of the first trimester.

Not necessarily, breathing does not constitute respiration, the breathing at week 11 is sporadic, the alveoli required for respiration do not form until week 24, developed enough to perform gas exchange by week 25, so it is still reliant on the mother for its respiration and excretion needs until that point. So it is still not independant. It can theoretically survive outside the womb at this point, as I mentioned, 15% viability apparently at week 23, perhaps week 23 should be the cut off point.