I am not a proponent of the death penalty but if I was, this guy would be first on my list. Lock him and forget where the key is. This is so disturbing on so many levels I felt sick when I went to bed last night.
I posted the part of NY Law that was pertinent, here is more which applies to "after" 24 weeks:
Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion: ~ Within first 24 weeks or necessary to preserve mother's life; or in cases of severe fetal anomaly. if mother performs abortion it must be on the advice of M.D. within the first 24 weeks or to preserve her own life.
So in the case of preserving a mothers life or fetal anomaly, is an abortion after 24 week technically infantice? If the mother is told there are going to be major birth defects and the mother chooses to abort at 25 weeks what is that called? Is it the doctors approval that justifies the death of babies? Is the "legal" definition of murder and abortion subjective based on a doctors opinion?
So in the case of preserving a mothers life or fetal anomaly, is an abortion after 24 week technically infantice? If the mother is told there are going to be major birth defects and the mother chooses to abort at 25 weeks what is that called? Is it the doctors approval that justifies the death of babies? Is the "legal" definition of murder and abortion subjective based on a doctors opinion?
~CICERO"So in the case of preserving a mothers life or fetal anomaly, is an abortion after 24 week technically infantice?" No. It's called abortion.
~CICERO"If the mother is told there are going to be major birth defects and the mother chooses to abort at 25 weeks what is that called?"Again, it's called abortion.
~CICERO"Is it the doctors approval that justifies the death of babies?" A doctor cannot approve the death of a baby. The death of a baby is murder... that's why this doctor is charged with murder. If a doctor approves a 25 week abortion, it's called "abortion".
~CICERO" Is the "legal" definition of murder and abortion subjective based on a doctors opinion?" Once again. Murder is the killing of a human being. The reason that this doctor was arrested. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. They are two very different things (except for the Rabid Right) and NY State law describes them both. One is a felony, the other is a medical procedure.
Of course you know the difference. You know what is an abortion and what is murder. You just hope to use these murders to advance your political agenda.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
~CICERO" Is the "legal" definition of murder and abortion subjective based on a doctors opinion?" Once again. Murder is the killing of a human being. The reason that this doctor was arrested. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. They are two very different things (except for the Rabid Right) and NY State law describes them both. One is a felony, the other is a medical procedure.
What's a 25 week fetus then if it is not a human being - a cat? Box, can you even follow your own logic. All human fetuses are human beings, all life begins at conception. Those are biological FACTS. The debate and the Roe V Wade decision were to determine when the government recognizes the fetus (a living human being) as a PERSON, and is granted protection by the Constitution. Your comparison of a tumor mass and a fetus are not even close to being the same. A tumor will NEVER become a human being. A fertilized egg IS a human being.
Your left wing justification for baby killing is frightening illogical. Terminating a 25 week pregnancy in a hospital by a licensed doctor because the baby has a defect is legal "abortion" but a back alley abortion by an unlicensed person of a 25 week old fetus is murder. Gotcha.
What's a 25 week fetus then if it is not a human being - a cat? Box, can you even follow your own logic. All human fetuses are human beings, all life begins at conception. Those are biological FACTS. The debate and the Roe V Wade decision were to determine when the government recognizes the fetus (a living human being) as a PERSON, and is granted protection by the Constitution. Your comparison of a tumor mass and a fetus are not even close to being the same. A tumor will NEVER become a human being. A fertilized egg IS a human being.
Your left wing justification for baby killing is frightening illogical. Terminating a 25 week pregnancy in a hospital by a licensed doctor because the baby has a defect is legal "abortion" but a back alley abortion by an unlicensed person of a 25 week old fetus is murder. Gotcha.
Where to begin?
Since Cicero has his mind made up and nothing (not even facts) will change that... I will just tell Cicero to go into a diner and order an egg for breakfast. When the Waitress brings him a chicken... well you get the picture... Cicero will call the chicken, an egg of course. What WILL become a human being, is NOT a human being. It's human tissue, but then so is a fingernail.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
It's what may be a child, or may not (most fertilized human eggs do not produce a birth)
An EGG is not a CHICKEN, (Both MT & Cicero have no problem understanding the difference between an EGG and a CHICKEN) But, they lose that knowledge when their political agenda is involved.
A zygote is not a child, no matter how many times you say it is. By definition (even the bible) a pregnancy is NOT a child.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Since Cicero has his mind made up and nothing (not even facts) will change that... I will just tell Cicero to go into a diner and order an egg for breakfast. When the Waitress brings him a chicken... well you get the picture... Cicero will call the chicken, an egg of course. What WILL become a human being, is NOT a human being. It's human tissue, but then so is a fingernail.
So if a person eats a zygote is that considered cannibalism OR is it like a gross habit like biting your fingernails?
Glad to see you're back to comparing barnyard animals with humans. Or should I say barnyard tissue with human tissue?
Quoted from Box A Rox " By definition (even the bible) a pregnancy is NOT a child."
child –noun, plural chil·dren. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
pregnancy — n , pl -cies 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2. the period from conception to childbirth ********************************************** The Bible defines a human life to begin when at "first breath". No where in the bible does it say at conception.
~In several places the Bible defines life as breathing. Genesis 2:7 “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”. Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26. Since a fetus doesn't breathe, it isn't life and doesn't have a soul, according to biblical definition.
~Biblical evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband, while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21). Even an infant under the age of one month is considered to be worth a lot less than an adult (Leviticus 27:1-8, Numbers 3:15,28,34,39,40,43). Also, the god once punished David by killing his newborn son (II Samuel 12:14-19); so apparently the right-to-life of the infant was not important.
~The sanctity of life, born or “unborn”, is denied in many places. Two examples: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling....” (I Samuel 15:3), “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)
~ An adulterous woman is to be killed (Lev.20:10); with no mention of an exception if she is pregnant. And “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth generation..” (Deut. 23:2).
~Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced throughout recorded human history.
~ The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
~And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
There are many more references that "life begins with the first breath" in the bible. I personally look at the Bible as a religious book, written by men, so for me it holds little weight except for historical purposes. But you asked so I posted the results.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I will just tell Cicero to go into a diner and order an egg for breakfast. When the Waitress brings him a chicken... well you get the picture... Cicero will call the chicken, an egg of course.
Now when I order the egg at the diner, is it a fertilized egg at the equivalent of 24 weeks of human gestation? If it is, I need more than a toothpick to get the feathers out of my teeth, and the phone number to the health department.
I can't imagine Dr. Gosnell's defense attorney even bringing up a debate regarding abortion. Fact of the matter is, this man killed many children. They were alive and took their first breath.
Now the issue is how the hell did he get away with this for thirty plus years and who helped with the cover up. I'm sure we will be hearing about more charges coming from this man's office and most likely other doctors like him (I'm sure there are many more like him).
Quoted from Box A Rox ********************************************** The Bible defines a human life to begin when at "first breath". No where in the bible does it say at conception.
~In several places the Bible defines life as breathing. Genesis 2:7 “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”.
From the moment of conception forward, the unborn child receives and transfers oxygen, though not through the lungs. What changes at birth is the mode of breathing: instead of receiving oxygen through the placenta, the child begins to breathe through its lungs.
If the ability to sustain oxygen through the lungs is what indeed makes one human, then all those dependent on ventilators and oxygen machines would have to be classed as non-human.
Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26. Since a fetus doesn't breathe, it isn't life and doesn't have a soul, according to biblical definition.
~Biblical evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband, while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21).
Even an infant under the age of one month is considered to be worth a lot less than an adult (Leviticus 27:1-8, Numbers 3:15,28,34,39,40,43). Also, the god once punished David by killing his newborn son (II Samuel 12:14-19); so apparently the right-to-life of the infant was not important.
Quoted Text
First, assuming the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e. that the unborn's death is treated differently than the mother's), it does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding passage presents a situation where a master unintentionally kills his slave and escapes with no penalty at all (the lack of intent being proven by the interval between the blow and the death.). Yet few liberals would argue that Scripture considers the slave to be less than human. Likewise, it does not follow that the unborn entity is non-human simply because the penalty for its death is less than that given were its mother to die. It might be argued that both the slave and the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, but it cannot be demonstrated from this that a lesser social status meant that one was less than fully human.
Second, even if abortion advocates are correct about this passage, it cannot be used to support abortion on demand. Liberals argue that any woman should be able to kill any baby at any point in the pregnancy for any reason or no reason. This passage, however, does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child without justification. At best, it only shows that there is a lesser penalty for accidentally killing her unborn offspring than there is for accidentally killing her. "To move from this truth to the conclusion that abortion-on-demand is justified is a non sequitur," writes Beckwith in Politically Correct Death. (p. 143)
Third, this single passage cannot be used to invalidate other Scriptures which confer full human status on the unborn. As mentioned earlier, passages such as Job 3:3,10-16, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Galatians 1:15, etc. all treat the unborn as persons. The abortion advocate must somehow reconcile his own interpretation of this passage with these other Scriptures which are clearly not supportive of his view.
Finally, the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage (that a person who kills an unborn child only incurs a fine) has come under heavy fire from many Biblical scholars. There is a great deal of discussion about the phrase, "no serious injury." "No serious injury to whom?" asks theologian R.C. Sproul. Liberals, of course, argue that the phrase only applies to the mother. But only a few translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, actually interpret the verse in this way. When read in the original Hebrew, the passage seems to suggest that both the mother and the child are covered by the lex talionis -- the law of retribution. The Hebrew term ason (harm/injury) is clearly indefinite in its reference, and the expression lah (to her), which would restrict the word "injury" only to the mother, is missing. Hence, the phrase, "no serious injury" seems to apply equally to both mother and child and if either is harmed the penalty is "life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand," etc. According to Hebrew scholar Dr. Gleason Archer, "There is no second class status attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother." (Cited in J. Ankerberg and J. Weldon, When Does Life Begin, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989 pp. 195-6. See also, Meredith Kline, "Lex Talionis & the Human Fetus," Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 [1985-1986] pp.73-89.)
~ The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
~And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
There are many more references that "life begins with the first breath" in the bible. I personally look at the Bible as a religious book, written by men, so for me it holds little weight except for historical purposes. But you asked so I posted the results.
Again, repeating yourself.
The Bible is a blueprint, it is not the full teachings of the church. Over 50% of it was written before Christ was born, the rest written many years after his death. It IS a historical document.
For you to place "little weight except for historical purposes" - do you place equal weight on the Constitution of the United States (which you swore to uphold before going in the Marine Corps?)? Do you place equal weight on the mortgage of your house? Do you place equal weight on your marriage vows? Those documents, after all, were also written by men.
You may want to pretend you can argue Theology ... but in fact, you're not a theological scholar. You're a bitter man, looking out your window, sipping kool-aid all day watching life go on around you. If you really want to argue Theology, I'll meet you in class on Thursday.
Logged
