janie48 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Supposition. You can only guess what "many" will have wished. No logic at all. Thats true i admit,i can only guess,having been around then,and having heard so much from the war generation...but not everything! It was just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If condoms hadn't been invented there would be a lot more people here. Your point is what exactly. That there would less of us around today.....possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If you are carrying a wanted child it becomes a real person at confirmation of pregnancy. You don't refer to it as an embryo or a foetus,you call it a baby. That could be depending on how you, your peers and medical science look on an embryo vs a foetus vs a baby. I wont get into that. This is still an ongoing dispute between the religious right and pro-abortion advocates This thread morphed from the original question of the legality of post birth infant genocide to the rights and wrongs of abortion What I've tried to point out is the silly belief by Francesca Minerva that a young baby is not a real person. That is still on thread subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 That could be depending on how you, your peers and medical science look on an embryo vs a foetus vs a baby. I wont get into that. This is still an ongoing dispute between the religious right and pro-abortion advocates This thread morphed from the original question of the legality of post birth infant genocide to the rights and wrongs of abortion What I've tried to point out is the silly belief by Francesca Minerva that a baby is not a real person. That is still on thread subject I agree the thread has moved on to abortion. i didn't steer it that way it took its own direction.Perhaps thats because Francesca Minerva is reported as saying that killing a baby a few days after birth is hardly any different to carrying out an abortion.Therefore i suppose its understandable that the subject of abortion would be referred to. Whatever the view one holds, its a debate, and though an immotive subject, its only right that any voice (for or against ) should have the right to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Wasn't baby killing after birth quite common a little more than a hundred years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Wasn't baby killing after birth quite common a little more than a hundred years ago? well in this country it would have been considered murder,and for many centuries before that,but i'm sure it happened and for understandable reasons considering what so many people had to endure and how in desperate circumstances they would be driven to that horrendous act. Though i don't think it would have been that common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Wasn't baby killing after birth quite common a little more than a hundred years ago? The infant mortality rate a hundred plus years ago was high enough already without intentional killing. If the average number of children in the 1880s was 8 then there was a good chance that 2-3 of those kids would never reach the age of ten. Intentional killing of babies was still a capital crime back then. One notorious Victorian baby killer was Phoebe Hogg who paid for it on the gallows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The infant mortality rate a hundred plus years ago was high enough already without intentional killing. If the average number of children in the 1880s was 8 then there was a good chance that 2-3 of those kids would never reach the age of ten. Intentional killing of babies was still a capital crime back then. One notorious Victorian baby killer was Phoebe Hogg who paid for it on the gallows. But there were intentional killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattricia Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I agree the thread has moved on to abortion. i didn't steer it that way it took its own direction.Perhaps thats because Francesca Minerva is reported as saying that killing a baby a few days after birth is hardly any different to carrying out an abortion.Therefore i suppose its understandable that the subject of abortion would be referred to. Whatever the view one holds, its a debate, and though an immotive subject, its only right that any voice (for or against ) should have the right to be heard. As a nurse I have attended at abortions. These foetuses breathe and cry, so I cannot agree with the woman who classes them as having no life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 As a nurse I have attended at abortions. These foetuses breathe and cry, so I cannot agree with the woman who classes them as having no life. What term abortions are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.