Death Certificate for Abortions?

According to the Knox News:

Tennessee would collect death certificates for aborted fetuses under a bill introduced in the General Assembly by a Knoxville Republican. Rep. Stacey Campfield said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed in Tennessee. The measure would also likely create public records on which women are having abortions.

"All these people who say they are pro-life - at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," Campfield said.

The measure would give abortion providers 10 days following an "induced termination of a pregnancy" to file a death certificate with the state Office of Vital Records.

"Hopefully we'll be able to get a little information out of this," Campfield said.

Campfield acknowledged his bill might have a hard time making it through the Democratic-controlled House. But the Republican-controlled Senate "will probably pass it," he said.

I wonder if Campfield believes that miscarried fetuses deserve death certificates as well? Isn't the end result the same?

No votes yet

I guess next they will extend that death certificate requirement to cases of onanism and unfertilized ovulation just to cover all the bases.

And if a woman miscarries at home, in the toilet - does she also need a death certificate? Sounds like more Big Brother, paperwork, to fuel the pro-lifers. And will invade a woman's privacy something awful.

that they believe unborn babies are real people. I think mothers' kind of get that already.....

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

actual death certificates to make people realize its murder to abort a baby. American society has become a culture of convenience and death.

In the Bible...Jesus said,

[Mat 18:14] "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

[Mar 9:42] "And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

Leviticus 20:10 The man who commits adultery with another man

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

13 You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother's womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous-and how well I know it.
You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
You saw me before I was born.
Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed.

That's in the fathers' love letter.....

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Way too many God-fearing lemmings to touch this topic in a logical manner. Can't put faith in a Book of God written by man and interpreted and deciphered by Jesuits, who also happen to be men.

When we can force a license to fish, drive, get married, check pool chemicals, etc; yet allow breeding to run rampant without any kind of supervision which allows for outcomes like the conversation we're having, there's a problem running deeper than God interpretations.

Let's instead talk about gun rights and legalization of marijuwana.

picking and choosing bible verses out of context to prove our points. I like those verses to....they are true of course...but that they do not negate what the bible says about sin either...

...Brian Vero in Florida...based on your comments here and your comments on other topics on this site...I can only imagine you are one who thinks himself more intelligent than everyone else but is really a fool...

Here's the answer to all the abortion questions: when does life begin?

If life begins at conception then any abortion is equivalent to murder and should be illegal. If life begins at 27 weeks (as currently defined by the SCOTUS) then we can have all the abortions up to that point without any moral recourse whatsoever. If life begins at birth then we can abort any fetus up to that point without any moral qualms.

Rape and incest cases are distractions from the central idea of the debate. If a fetus is a baby, regardless of how it was conceived, that fetus has all the legal rights of a human walking down the street. If a fetus isn't a living being then why do we need any exceptions for rape or incest? If it's not a human then there's no reason not to abort.

So when thinking about abortion just ask yourself when life begins. If you say conception then you are morally obligated to oppose any abortion, the morning after pill, and embryonic stem cell research. If you say life begins at the SCOTUS-define 27 weeks then you can do anything you want with an fetus before that time.

Religion has every right to be in the middle of this discussion. Religion, for most Americans, provides the glasses through which the world is viewed. To say that religious people are "lemmings" for using the Bible is equivalent to saying humanists or atheists are lemmings for using their world-view in any moral or ethical decision.

What, because I don't believe in what your perception of God is you slag me?

What, because I am able to function in a hypocritical society without some guidance from a book or mythological figure that you're better than me enough to chastize me?

Heh, yeah, you want me to believe, and this is why I don't.

Ain't no Zealots where I am. Besides, this is my third post "on this site". How you're able to "figure me out" on three posts says alot about your rationale.

And HeyHey? Last time I checked, abortions are legal. You don't see a bunch of athiests and humanists thwarting a legal right by killing doctors and protesting clinics, let alone forcing their values down my throat and being called a fool because my view is different. L-E-M-M-I-N-G-S.

Your quote from above: "Religion has every right to be in the middle of this discussion. Religion, for most Americans, provides the glasses through which the world is viewed."

My glasses aren't "rose-colored".

I know women who've gotten pregnant using every type of birth control there is - sometimes, they fail. God's will? Hogwash, more like "shit happens". My daughter won't bring a child into this world the way it is, I can't blame her. It'll be a world of no rights, prayer rugs, soldiers in the streets chopping heads off, owned & operated by China, overrun by illegals - all personal freedoms gone. It's started already with the smoking ban. Next is caffeine, alcohol (article in the Blade about how women aren't supposed to consume more than one drink because it causes cancer - how long will it be before a woman won't be legally allowed to order more than one drink? ) Trans-fat, no steaks larger than 6 oz. Abortion is legal - proved to be so by Roe v Wade. Many women don't even know they are pregnant till the 2nd or 3rd month (I didn't - went for a pap, was 2 1/2 months pregnant). Most damage done to the fetus by over the counter meds,alcohol, is done in the first trimester. One of the most common reasons for birth defects is over the counter cold medication - taken innocently if you don't know you're pregnant. And what of the women who learn the baby is going to be severely deformed? She's just supposed to suck it up & take on an enormous challenge, wipe her out financially, knowing this child won't ever have a future,much less grow up to see it's 5th birthday. Or to know she'll be taking care of a severely handicapped mentally an toddler person the rest of her life. Will the anti abortion people step up & take care of these children? Should a 12 yr old girl be forced into motherhood? Too many variables. And kooz - those bible scriptures/verses aren't TRUE, they are simply verses in a book. Just because that book is the Bible,does not mean you can prove they are true,or prove anything in the Bible to BE true. You cannot.

Starling - speak it! I'm a Christian, and I follow the teachings of a guy who did NOT like the 'religious' crowd. In his days they were the Pharisees :-) I don't care for the Bible thumping crowd either. 'Nuff said about that.

But my own personal opinion on abortion is that I couldn't even think of it. I think it's horrible. But I don't make decisions, (at least in my idea of right and wrong), for other people.

If people want to know what the Bible has to say about it - they can ask. I am glad I'm not in a position to respond to all the legislation people constantly bring about this topic. But if I had my way - when a woman got pregnant and did not want to be, she would have good counsel from a competent doctor, religious counselor and her family. Then the decision would ultimately be HER own private decision.

In my heart I feel that all life is sacred. From conception to grave. Every moment, every second. But I don't think that gives me a right to do anything other than offer support to a pregnant woman in crisis, and if she wishes, we can talk about the spiritual part of it.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

I know women who've had abortions - not to make their lives easier, but because they simply didn't have, or see any alternative. That does not mean they did it without psychological anguish about it (religious guilt had nothing to do with their choises). With a couple, they were very young, very poor, no real help with family - saw no way out. A baby will change your world - and not always in a good way if you're not in a place mentally or financially to deal with it. Too many young girls have babies & it puts skids on their lives, educations. And they live the rest of their lives in downward spirals. One was a rape victim - what do the anti abortion rights people think she should have done? Carry a rapists child & give it up for adoption? When there's so many children un-adopted as it is? If you think abortion is hard emotionally, try giving a baby up at birth - my sister did (back then, they wisked the pregnant teen away & adopted the child out so nobody would 'know'). My sister never got over that. Some religious people say babies are gifts of God, but some people should never have babies. Is it fair to these babies to be born to addicted or abusive or indifferent mothers? Is it God's will that these babies were born to mothers like this? If they make abortion illegal, it will only bring back illegal abortions, backroom deaths, dirty coathanger self abortions, and more babies dumped into dumpsters. I recommend the movie "If these walls could talk" - for a great insight to abortion. A couple of years ago, I took my daughter's friend to have an abortion. But I tried to talk her out of it; I explained the ugly parts of it; and how even if she thought she could handle it now, at some point, it can come back to haunt her. But it was her choise, her life. Realistically - she was not prepared in any way for parenthood. It would have been a child born into a sad, unfit life because the girl was too screwed up then, did too many drugs, booze, emotionally a train wreck. Now, that same girl is going to nursing school, building a life. Nobody has the right to judge another person's choise on this. Nobody has any idea of what another person's life is. I personally believe that abortion should remain legal - but only in the first trimester. That is 3 months to decide what to do. Katie said it well.

What place does emotion or circumstances have in the abortion debate if we, as a society, determine that life begins at conception? I'm not saying we have decided that, but if we ever do then there is no reason (besides for the health of the mother) that would ethically allow abortion. When does life begin? That's where the discussion lies. To be honest, it doesn't matter what an unwanted child will do to a family. It doesn't matter if that child will be born into poverty or riches. It doesn't matter if the mother will have to drop out of college or high school and work at McDonalds the rest of her life.

If we define life as being at conception then that embryo or fetus is equivalent in every way to a baby on it's 1st birthday or a girl on her sweet 16. A life is a life; it's all or none. If we define life as being at conception and still allow abortion then we'd also have to argue that a one-week-old's life should be terminated if it interferes with the mother and father's life. We'd also say it should be terminated if it will grow up in a life of poverty.

On the flip side, if we define life as being at X number of weeks or birth, then you don't have to justify any abortion by using life circumstances if it happens before that time. If we use this definition of life then having an abortion is no different than exfoliating your skin or having your appendix removed. It may be a medical procedure but there are no ethical strings attached.

I point all of this out because there are some serious inconsistencies on both sides of the debate. For example, pro-choice individuals often point out that they want abortions to be few and far between. Assuming they consider life to begin at the SCOTUS-mandated 27 weeks, then why do they want them to be few and far between? They are, in essence, putting some sort of value on that fetus even though they don't consider it to be alive.

We, as a nation, need to determine where life begins through the legislative process or the states. If we do that then many of our troubles will be solved.

Does any of this make sense? Or are we on a competely different page?

I realize that this issue has already been legislated. I wish it hadn't been.

But wouldn't the point that 'Life' begins - be the determination of the mother? Or of the faith that she ascribes to, if she has one?

I just get awfully nervous anytime we discuss the government legislating value issues....very nervous indeed.

Someone recently pointed out to me, and rightfully so - that the SCOTUS decision which is such an integral part of this debate was intended to keep these decisions in the hands of the women. And to keep her privacy.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

I try not to bring religion into this matter because it is already prevalent and my own religion has a lot to say on it. Instead I'd like to express my opinion in the words of a man I don't always agree with.

It was Immanuel Kant, the noted moralist, who believed that belief in God was not only virtuous but based in reason. And added that even though there may not be a God we should "let our actions be that as if there is a God"

So despite the dogma of whatever religion you prescribe to or not one at all. We should all try to act as if there were a Supreme being over us. I think it's quite relevant in this case.



This issue hasn't been legislated at all. That's the problem that so many people on both sides of the issue see with RvW. RvW made this a constitutional issue and took the power out of the legislative branch, which is where I think it should be decided. Prior to Roe v. Wade it was a states' rights issue.

The integral piece of RvW was that SCOTUS determined life doesn't begin at conception but rather begins at "viability" or 27 weeks at the time. Incidentally "viability" has changed dramatically since then. Just recently a baby born just under 22 weeks has survived and will be released soon. So does the 27 weeks even still apply since premies are "viable" at such an earlier gestation period? Does SCOTUS need to take up the issue again and decide if they'll continue to use viability as their definition of life? Note that according to the SCOTUS ruling, a woman's privacy stops at the point the fetus becomes a person according to their definition. By continuing that line of thinking if society determines life as beginning at conception then the woman's privacy becomes a moot point. According to SCOTUS, her privacy is not more important than the baby's life.

You asked if it should be the mother's decision as to when life begins for whatever reason. I contend that it does not matter what the mother believes but rather society as a whole. Indeed, that's what SCOTUS ruled in RvW as I previously pointed out. What would you say to a mother/family/religious group who defined life as beginning at age 1? Should it then be their right to offer that child up as a sacrifice for religious purposes or terminate its life for convenience? Obviously you'll answer "no". Why do you answer that way? It's because society overall has determined that no matter what we currently believe as to when life begins pre-birth, once a baby has left the womb it becomes a life. Even though there may be groups of people that believe life begins at 10 days or 6 months or 1 year, we won't stand for them killing that child. Do you see that issue as an acceptable place for the government to legislate morality? You could look at that as being an infringement on those groups' rights, but I prefer to look at it as our society taking a strong ethical/moral position and sticking to it. Also remember that while the government does indeed make laws when looking at the issue short-term, in our system we the people have the ultimate ability to make laws through our voting.

Lastly, I am in agreement that we can't use our religion to press other people in believing one way or the other. It's rather futile to argue that Christianity/Judaism/Islam abhors abortion if the counter argument is being made by a non-believer. Where religion does play a role is in the collective conciousness of society. Society is made of countless individuals; individuals that believe in Christ, Muhammed, Buddha, or nothing. Individuals use inumerable methods to arrive at their value set, but regardless of their methods each individual plays a role in society and sculpts society's collective conciousness (for anything, but in this case when life begins). In that regard religion does play an integral (and arguably the largest) role in society's eventual determination of when life begins.

Religion plays no part in any decision I make - I never bought into any of that.

Just want to clarify that states do indeed have existing legislation, state by state, that control abortion on the books now.

There is also a remarkable number of existing bills on the table in numberous State legislatures right now.

A google turned up over 3m hits:

To say that this matter is not legislated is incorrect.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

heyhey, this is where we are in complete opposition:

You say: "You asked if it should be the mother's decision as to when life begins for whatever reason. I contend that it does not matter what the mother believes but rather society as a whole"

I say that this is the mothers' natural right. I also state that this natural right transcends all man made law. I would also encourage any woman to make her own decision - and the hell with the legislature.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

mikey (and others) - I should clarify. When I made the statement that it didn't matter when life began, I meant that in terms of your comment that ethics & circumstance weren't relevant regardless - not that I meant that it didn't matter when life began (does that make sense?) I was overly tired when I posted it, and when I re-read it today, I realized how it sounded, not what I meant to say. If life begins at conception (and biologically it probably does) - it still doesn't alter my opinion that it is the woman's right to decide what to do with her body - within that first trimester. Abortions are safer in the first trimester. Kind of like a chicken egg - you wait too long to crack it & you have a chicken, not an egg. Simplistic, of course. Your comment about extreme situations & abortion - I think abortions are usually only done in extreme situations. Sure there are some women who use them for birth control - but that's more sloppy & lazy. Abortions are expensive & painful, and insurance doesn't cover them - so they aren't something that women would do just because they don't want to use birth control. Women don't just waltz into a clinic for an abortion blindly, casually. There's a lot of thought, pain,soul searching before she arrives at that conclusion. But believe me - women only get abortions when it IS an extreme situation - not simply because a baby would be an inconvenience. There are enough unwanted, unadopted kids out there as it is. Making abortion illegal is akin to prohibition - it doesn't work. Women have been dying from illegal abortions for centuries. Make abortions illegal, and it will happen again. I don't believe a man owns the right to dictate to a woman her options in this. He is not the one to carry the child, to raise the child. And like it or not, there ARE many situations that make carrying a child to full term a horrific possiblity. Too many women can't support the kids they have already. Too many men don't pay child support. Too many kids are born unwanted. There's also so many variables that can promise a child of extreme deformities, extreme handicaps - from simple cold remedys to fetal alcohol syndrome & drug abuse, rape, incest. Nobody owns the right to know what shoes the woman will be walking in, or has walked in. Your nose has no business in a woman's womb - the govt's nose has no business in her womb. And finally - that is a stupid leap to make that if it's ok to abort in the first trimester, then it must be ok to kill a 2 yr old child. The fetus is not viable in the first trimester - if it were born in the first trimester it would not survive. Babies have been known to survive being born in the second trimester. Kind of like the chicken egg example. You break that egg too late, you have a baby chicken. But if you break it when it's not a viable chicken, it's only an egg.

of sin cannot be controlled. If she were pregnant...that would have just been a consequence of the sin. We have a choice to do whats right...when we choose not to...we no longer control the outcome no matter how unfair it seems.

Also remember...the people of Old Testament days lived under The Law...before Christ...since Christ those after live under grace and not the law.

Thanks, Billy! I hadn't read that one before.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Then we face the risk of making medical decisions based upon moral judgments and not what is best for the patient. Often times patients with a history of alcohol abuse are given liver transplants that add years and quality to their lives. Heart disease is a major problem in this country due to obesity and techniques like angioplasty, stinting, and even heart transplants are common procedures used to correct problems caused by overconsumption. But does it not say in Proverbs 23:20, "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh"? If we let the bible be our guide for all of life's decisions, our country's life expectancy would surely drop.

And why must the bible only be applied to the medical field? Usury is forbidden in the Bible, so why not ban mortgages, savings accounts, and credit cards as well as abortion?

Do you see what I'm getting at? The decision that you make in following the teachings of Christ is just that: Your decision. If someone had an abortion or someone is administering abortions, that also is their decision to do so and they will have to answer to TISG. I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't want the government imposing his teachings on those who were not followers. That would be quite Romanesque if you ask me.

"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

But that works under the assumption that all people believe in the bible, religion.

Is this bible class?

Bravo! Too many people wanting to stick their noses in other people's lives - and defending it by quoting scripture. I've seen too many religious people sin repeatedly, and yet preach against the "sins" of others. I am not religious - but will respect those who are, as long as they treat their religion privately and not push it on others. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. And for every scripture you can find one that contradicts it. You're right - the bible was written (and re written, re written, etc.) by man - so basically it's hearsay at best. Expecting me to believe in God is like expecting me to believe in fairys.

Wow, that sounds more like a description of you,kooz. I see more religious bible beaters who come off as arrogant, smug asses than anybody else.

From BrianInVeroFL: Let's instead talk about gun rights and legalization of marijuwana.

Ok. I think that anyone should be able to carry firearms wherever they want, in a manner they as individuals find suitable to their situation. Any kind of firearm is fine by me. I

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I'm with Brian Vero in Florida on this one. Kooz, how dare you accuse people of picking and choosing for convenience when you're doing the exact same thing. Outrageous.

Well said KateB.

What he said. Ya done real good, Red.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

There's no ethical reason for abortion? What about rape or incest victims? What about a 12 yr old girl? Have you ever given a child up for adoption? Known somebody near & dear to you who has? Known the pain of that? Have you ever had to live a life in so much poverty you could barely afford to feed yourself much less a child? With no family to help, no child care so you could work or money to pay for it? Unless you've been in those situations, nobody has the right to judge or decide for another woman what her future will be, or if her choises are right. Only the mother can decide that - she has to live with that choise. I learned a long time ago to be very careful about judging people's decisions if I hadn't walked in their shoes - life has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass. Nobody will ever say abortion is a good thing - but sometimes, it is the only conclusion, short of watching your life & sanity go down the drain. Personally - I believe that the first trimester is the only acceptable time for an abortion - and only in extreme situations, or extremely life altering situations (I am not talking about convenience). And yes, to me, it's a medical procedure in the first trimester. After the first trimester - it's more of a viable life. In the first trimester a woman can miscarry in the toilet & not even know it. (I did).

What place does emotion & circumstance play if life begins at conception???? What the hell difference does it make WHEN life begins? Emotion & circumstance play an enormous place regardless of when conception takes place. Heyhey - are you male or female? You really need to clarify which sex you are here - because it sounds like youre a man who's never & won't ever, have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

Does anyone here understand my logic? Or is it only Starling that doesn't?

Did you even read the post I directed at Kate? All the answers to your questions are there. But I'll try to recap in different words.

First off, I never said religion played a part in your decision did I? In fact, I said for many people it doesn't play a role. For most it does, but not for you. That's fine.

BTW, I am a male, but that doesn't change the ethics of abortion in any way.

Play along with me for a while:

1. Assume life begins at conception meaning that a one minute-old-zygote is in every way equivalent to me or you (I realize you don't believe this, but try to think about someone else's position for a moment).
2. Assume a girl is in a horrible situation (you've thought of plenty).
3. Answer honestly: With your belief that life begins at conception and that an embryo is the moral equivalent of you or me (again, we're playing for a minute) is there any situation that would warrant killing that embryo or fetus?

If you would be so kind, please post your answer.

The correct answer is "no". If an embryo holds the same status as you or me then you can't ethically take its life. That's the point I'm making. Read through all of my posts in this thread and you'll never find me saying life begins at conception or 27 weeks or birth. Never. What you will find is that I've highlighted what ethics dictates if you believe life begins at conception, 27 weeks, or birth.

Life beginning equates to moral equivalency and worth of you or me. Therefore, if you think life begins at conception then there is no ethical reason to ever get an abortion. If you think life begins at the start of the 2nd trimester (which is evidently what you believe) then there is no ethical reason to have an abortion past that time. If you believe life begins at the beginning of the 3rd trimester then there is no ethical reason for you to get an abortion after that time. *The one exception I believe there is is saving the mother's life, but that's another discussion entirely.

My whole purpose of writing these comments is to get people to think critically about the ethics of abortion. Using emotional arguments like the ones you have used gets us nowhere in an ethical discussion and gets us nowhere closer to a resolution of this issue. Ethics doesn't respect what is the "easiest" thing for us, it only respects what is right. Sometimes the ethical thing to do will hurt, but does that mean we shouldn't do it?

I also contend you have an inconsistency in your argument when you say that only extreme circumstances warrant an abortion in the first trimester. You stated you don't believe an embryo/fetus in the first trimester is a life. If this is true then why do you demand there be an "extreme circumstance" in order for an abortion to be ethical? Does the status of life depend on the presence or absence of an extreme circumstance? According to you, it does. If life isn't a function of the mother or baby's circumstance, then why does it matter if you terminate the existence of a 3 week old fetus? It's not a life, right? Or are you giving that life some value? Say 20% life? Or 60% life?

You are right that states have legislated to an extent, but no state can legislate making abortion illegal earlier than 27 weeks. Ohio could decree that abortions are illegal tomorrow either through the legislature or referendum and abortion will nevertheless be legal in Ohio. The legislation currently on the books is largely back-door attempts to limit the number of abortions, but all of them can be circumvented.

That's fine that you believe that it's a woman's right to decide when life begins, but you must take that same reasoning and apply it equally in all circumstances. I'll return to the case of a family that doesn't consider life as beginning until, say, 6 months post-birth. Would you support that family's right to terminate the life of a 5-month-and-30-day-old infant? If so then you are consistent in your reasoning that it is individuals, and not society, that determines when life begins. If not, then you acknowledge society determines when life begins. So how would you answer?

And why would a woman who's raped or a victim of incest have to suffer the consequences of 'sin'? Or a 13 yr old girl who thought it was love? Good God. And, where is the consequence of sin for the MAN who contributed to the sinful act? The man who most likely won't be there, pay child support? Will all these anti abortion people be standing in line to adopt these unwanted babies? I doubt it. Very few women use abortion as birth control - most women who resort to abortion, it is an option of last resort - and they don't enter into that without a lot of pain & thought. "Till you walked in their shoes...."

rabid smoker-hater who supported issue 5 because it was convenient, as he hates the smell. A fine example of Jesus and the golden rule.


In World War 2 we fought (and defeated) the Axis. Today we're afraid of cellphones, smokers, and cheeseburgers. It's about at the end, people.


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

What the hell difference does it make WHEN life begins?

Because if you kill a human that's considered "alive" that's murder. It's simple as that. Are you telling me there are times when it's okay to murder someone because it's more convenient?

What if I have a kid but I can't afford to feed her or keeping her will make me drop out of school, is it okay for me to kill her? When you say it doesn't matter when life begins, you're saying it's 100% right to kill a child because it's more convenient for the mother or father.

When we determine when life begins is important. In every society regardless of location, race, or religion some value is put on life.

How much value varies from society to society. However just how much value tends to show a lot about that society.

In one society they could say life begins after the fetus has developed into a being resembling a human (after the first month when heart, lungs, eyes, and all the senses have been created) and that would say something about that society.

Another society could say that life begins when it can sustain itself. That means a child's life is least valued and things such as infanticide could take place because a child can't sustain itself without parental guidance. That would say other things about that society.



From Starling: And, where is the consequence of sin for the MAN who contributed to the sinful act?

Well, back in the bad old days they killed him as well. I don

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.