The New Pope Is The Same As The Old One.

Like those before him, the new Pope believes one group can arbitrarily take some part of human anatomy or some identifiable characteristic and use it theologically to suppress another group. At least that  is what he wrote as an Archbishop.

He wrote only women have the physical ability to bear babies.  For some reason this anatomy means, theologically, they are not to be clergy.  The anatomy of the other gender, which includes a male reproductive organ, apparently provides the ability to be clergy.

This arbitrary justification for male power means anyone to make up any reason to justify anything.  For example, we could have a theology of physical height.  Only people over 5 1/2 feet tall could hold positions of authority.

The theology of height (instead of gender) would be those who physically look down on others “by nature” dominate them.  The strange thing is many short people would agree it makes sense.  Many women agree with the male only clergy rule.

There is a similar arbitrary physical rule in abortion.  It used to be argued the “soul” entered at the moment of conception. It is more fashionable now to argue the fertilized egg has “unique DNA”.

The presence of this DNA suddenly gives government, especially men in government, power over the pregnant women.  This DNA argument is as arbitrary as rules about male clergy or physical height.

Popes come and go but domination of men over women in some branches of Christianity continues.

70 Responses

    1. entech

      Some one forgot to tell Napoleon 🙂
      Actually the story of Napoleon’s height is not quite correct, 5’2″ in french (royal feet) is about 5’61/2″ in modern Brit/American measurement, quite tall enough to be a leader.

      History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon,” Napoleon said when he was on St Helena with nothing to do but wait for death, perhaps at this time he was reading the Bible as history. 😉

      1. entech 3:08 Napoleon, History is a set of lies people have agreed on.

        It would be nice if there was some balance to the historical lies. Some Christians want creationism taught in public schools so “children can hear both sides”. They think evolution is a lie, but agreed it can be taught in public schools.

        Just for balance, it would be nice if they would have two Sunday School classes every Sunday morning. One promoting Christianity and one promoting nonbelief.

        1. entech

          Don’t even need to promote disbelief.
          Simply teach that there is more than one belief system without actually promoting one or the other.

          A true freedom of religion, of course too many would say that it was not true freedom without the freedom to suggest that only the one could be true and that you had the freedom to choose, choose wrongly gives you the freedom to choose hell.

        2. dan

          I never understood why creationism and evolution could not be considered inter-related. Evolution is defined as “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” Could not a higher power create through evolution? Since time is relative, an infinite amount of time could have evolved man in only a few short days. Einstein’s theory on relativity concludes that the earth bends space-time and since evolution is based on time, isn’t time directly proportional to evolution? Many attempt to debunk creationism due to carbon dating and by studying stars at the edge of the solar system. Scientist say that we can see back millions of years by doing so. But this is all relative based on our perception of space-time viewed from our tiny speck of bent space-time in the universe. There are a lot of unknowns and because of this, a person can not rule out the possibility of creationism through evolution.

          1. dan 2:52 “Could not a higher power create through evolution.”

            First, as I have mentioned many times here, I cannot say for certain there is not a higher power. I don’t see any evidence, that’s all I can say.

            The difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution can be tested, creationism cannot. For example, one can predict as climate changes, or, one moves from one climate to another, insects and other animals will change. Then, sceintists had observed this very thing happening. Thus, it happens whether there one believes there is a god or not.

            Creationism is believing there is a god. That is everyone’s right, but it is different than evolution. Anyway, your post was an example of good writing and I liked it.

          2. entech

            Jon, I am afraid that I must disagree with you totally on this one. your post was an example of good writing well written yes, but Dan’s post seems to read as if young earth creationism and evolution are compatible.

            The strange concept of relativity propounded states, Since time is relative, an infinite amount of time could have evolved man in only a few short days. is incomprehensible. Relativity does not mean flexibility, the bending of space-time is a description of gravity.

            the possibility of creationism through evolution. is flat out contradictory.
            The concept of an initial creation by God which changed from an initial “Big Bang” into the universe and world we know today is plausible and consistent with religious belief, see anything on YouTube by George Coyne (Chief Astronomer for the Vatican 1978 to 2006), especially “Children of a fertile universe, Chance, Destiny and a creator God”.
            “…in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis.”
            as opposed to;
            “Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.”

            I think religious belief and an acceptance of Evolution is compatible, but for creationists evolution is the enemy (preferably called Darwinisism).

          3. Henry

            entech:“but for creationists evolution is the enemy (preferably called Darwinisism).”

            An atheist black and white analysis.

          4. Henry

            entech:“none the less.”

            Actually there are a few different lines of creationists. Some of them do entertain macro-evolootion. Therefore, your previous quote is sometimes false.

          5. entech

            Henry @ 1:56. I confess to the sin of over generalisation, always a danger. It is true that not all creationists are cretinists and that some actually approach reality. On the other hand if you had read a bit instead of searching for something to attack you would have noticed that I had already made that distinction and was quite accepting of it.

            “…in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis.”
            as opposed to;
            “Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.”
            Father George Coyne S.J.

            So my comment re Darwinism does apply to the more fundamentalist young earth cretinist types. As you say there are other ways you can be a creationist but that would require a much wider definition, a more sensible one than yours, more like Father Coyne’s definition. Do read or watch him, I don’t accept his belief in God but his cosmology does not require belief, as he says it does enhance and confirm his own belief.

    2. Kevin 2:27 “That sounds good to me.”

      Maybe you could be the founder, Kevin’s Church of the Tall. I think my theology is sound, just as sound as what is used by many today, so everything is ready to go.

  1. Michael Ross

    ” Many women agree with the male only clergy rule.”

    Many women agree with the New Testament:

    *”Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”(Ephesians 5:22-24)
    *”Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (I Corinthians 14:34, this is in reference to women raising doctrinal issues in the assembly of the church)
    *”Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

    *In the New Testament the apostle Paul could not have made it clearer: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” (Titus 2:3-5). Want to know why Christ, His Church, and His Word are being mocked and laughed at? There you have it.

      1. Michael Ross

        Yes, the federal government is our Almighty Provider. We don’t need God or the family. That is what Gloria Stienim was saying .

  2. Wolfy32

    I agree with most of your sentiments today Jon. Heh, I see no reason, women should hold power / positions of power. Yesterday there was an article on the annual “slut walk” to bring awareness to rape victoms. I find it sad that victoms of rape have to demean themselves to mock men’s opinions of them “Oh you asked for it” or “you dressed too provocatively”. Really? So, in order to get attention for funding for help and raise awareness to other would be victoms the group has to result to mocking men and demeaning themselves by calling themselves sluts?

    For it being 2013 we seem to have a long way to go to accepting the gender that keeps the human race alive as being a dominant and worthy gender of position and title.

    And as to the old testament Biblical addages… Sorry, that’s medevil women are property not people rubbish. Why not sell all our women in the slave trade then?

    It saddens me that the battle of the genders has to be a battle at all. That said… I don’t think abortion has anything to do with a woman’s body. It has to do with who gets to live and who doesn’t. It’s not going to come out a turtle or a snake, there’s no random chance of a fertilized baby coming out a hippopotomous. There’s no roll of the dice and maybe this time a tiger will come out… Nope, as far as I know, it’s always human beings that come out of a woman’s womb… Please tell me if that’s not a true statement. So, that’s something I can’t negotiate or change on. If something is in the process of becoming a human, Abortion is snuffing out life…

    1. Wolfy 1:04 “I don’t think abortion has anything to do with a woman’s body.”

      That is a common view men have of the issue. It’s hard for men to understand how the issue is seen from women who do not want to be controlled by men. If laws are passed saying a human life begins at conception the control of women that could, and probably will, follow are so vast it’s hard to fathom.

      Let’s say a researcher somewhere finds women who are over 5 pounds overweight are statistcally more likely to have baby with a birth defect. Why wouldn’t it follow women who are more than 5 pounds overweight be tossed in jail and fed a restricted diet? Maybe someone finds women who go to church have healthier babies. Guess what the next law will be? We know there is a problem with women drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Does that mean a law against going into bars, or, having the bar require all females with an update certification from a doctor she is not pregnant like underage drinking? What about smokey rooms? Or, living by a street with polluted air? Or, how about regulating how late into pregnancy a woman can work at her job? I suspect there are Bible versuses to cover all these, and if past experience is any predictor or the future, every Bible verse will generate a law to enforce it.

      Equal rights for women and human life at conception are mutually exclusive.

      1. Wolfy32

        Wow. That’s taking things to extremes. Almost a similar arguement to Gay men are at much higher risk to be pedophiles than straight men.

        That’s extreme, and no one is proposing what you suggest. I’ve heard of no laws to do any of those things in any state. There is a such thing as neglect and abuse. Women have a responsability for the child they cary. That said, we haven’t gotten to the points you bring up and those are pretty extreme suggestions. Obviously I’m biased, but, this isn’t about men or women.. It would be just as big of an issue to me if I were female or if men could conceive. Either way, I would feel responsible for bringing a human life into existence.

        This has nothing to do with the bible. I value human life. Well, all life really, but human life at the top. I just keep thinking where we would be in science if Einstein had been aborted? How many Einsteins have we aborted? What if we’re aborting the very person right now that could cure all cancer in 20 years? And because that person never lives, we’re set back 40-100 years in cancer research?

        What if we abort the next president, or the next expert diplomat and a world war breaks out because of the lack of that diplomat or negotiator? What if an entire gene pool is obliterated because of an abortion and that gene pool could have led to the next evolution of mankind? The unlocking of our brains, or dna that we have never used before? Now because that genetic tree is destroyed, Human evolution is setback 1000 years?

        None of this has anything to do with anything biblical. It has to do with the repercussions of ending one human life and all the lives that human would touch and bring to life.. Genetics alone is advanced simply through reproduction. We don’t know when the right gene sequences will come together to create something new or some new aspect of human civilization. And when they do, it’s destroyed simply because of an abortion? Because a mom wanted the right to say who lives and who dies?

        1. You realize that nature takes about a third of “life” in a miscarriage. Why don’t you just propose that all human conception take place in a test tube so that every single fertilized egg can take it’s place among the living no matter how badly deformed, each egg can be kept alive and whatever monstrosity results can be cared for institutionally if need be. Then women are simply suppliers of eggs without the responsibility you clearly feel they don’t deserve. You would even improve on nature by bringing to life all those miscarriages. I believe that if a man doesn’t think abortion is moral, then they shouldn’t have one, but they shouldn’t have any say about whether a woman does.

        2. Wolfy “Women have a responsibility for the child they carry.”

          That statement, to me, implies there are certain standards the society at large needs to impose on women. If there is a “human being” they are carrying, then starting with the fertilized egg, legislators can start passing bills regulating how women conduct themselves. I’ll say it again, equality for women and designation of a human being at the time of sexual intercourse/preganancy are mutually exclusive.

          To say the restrictions I mentioned have not been brought up–of course they haven’t. The crew that will bring them up is just waiting.

    2. News flash. When demonstrating women call themselves “sluts” they are doing it in an ironic vein, not seriously proposing that they be considered sluts. Did that really not sink in for you?

      If men were to be the ones to have to give birth, abortion would be a routine procedure. For some women, giving birth is a life or death decision. Many women have been told they will suffer consequences if they give birth. Turning oneself into an incubation chamber has it’s inherent risks that some men will discount. Why does a women’s life count less than that of a few cells in her womb? It’s nobody’s business, actually. The decision to have a child is deeply personal and should not be administered by the government.

        1. Wolfy32

          I understood that, I actually have a few women friends that were deeply offended by the slogan. As a man I understood the “mocking nature” of the slogan / name and understood the irony, but, there’s some women actually feeling very hurt by the slogan despite the ironic / mocking twist the slogan speaks.

          I think it’s clever and grabs attention, however, if women are offended by it, then who am I to say as a man to disagree or agree.

          As to abortions. I understand the complications of choosing ones life over the other, or if it’s a rape, or defect, but where do we draw the line?

          If aborting babies is o.k. then do we open up nursing homes to putting people out of their misery? After all all they’re doing is feeding greedy nursing home owners and draining the public health care system.. So, maybe we should have mercy and force nature along?

          Life is life no matter how we look at it. Government regulations aside, since most of those decisions are made by whatever group pays the most, so who cares what the government decides, what I’m wondering is from a sociological perspective, is it right to kill babies? ONce a baby is born, ethicly if the mother can’t take care of it, is it o.k. to take it out back and shoot it?

          Assuming the baby was naturally brought to term, we’re not talking deaths that occur through nature. We can’t control that. We’re talking man made deaths, do we as a human society execute our young?
          And what’s to stop us from executing our elderly?

          1. “It took me a while to discover this but the biggest mistake you can make is to follow your ideas to their logical conclusions. You can make a lot of other [mistakes], and every now and then you can be right. But when you follow your ideas to their logical conclusions you are always wrong.” –Murray Kempton

          2. Wolfy32

            Forgot to mention then, that that invalidates everyone’s ideas.. Means all ideas if followed to a logical conclusion are wrong… Who selects which ideas are right?

          3. Why does this argument always lead to executing the elderly? We”re all capable of understanding the difference between cells in a petrie dish that are frozen and discarded every day and people who are living breathing humans? There is a huge difference here that you choose to ignore.

          4. realist 8:43 “Why does this argument always lead to executing the elderly.”

            We’ve had several decades of legalized abortion. If it led to mass killing of the elderly it would be happening now.

          5. Wanna B Sure

            Because it’s been done before. Ref; “Life unworthy of life”. With the well publicized dramatic increase in ahleizeimers , related diseases, (not much different from those in sanitariums,) the high cost of maintenance coming, and the economical burden on society, it is not out of the realm of possibilities. I’m not a consperitoraal theorist, but with a change in leadership, an economic collapes, and a willing few, anything is possible. Negative Eugenics has the potential to be abused, and was. To “choose to ignore” history is to repeat it.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            PS; It could easlily be a seductive consideration to balance the budget. Eugenics originated in the USA. Both positive and negative.

  3. Brad

    “So, it is possible less abortion will lead to killing old people.”

    Actually, it is guaranteed to lead to harming and killing more people of all ages, especially with Republican policies that go against human life at all stages after birth. They are against the environment, against healthcare, against education, against everything that helps sustain life on this planet. They are pro-violence, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, everything that threatens and destroys life.

    Pro-life is probably the most misused and abused political phrase in human history.

    1. Brad 11:59 “that go against human life at all stages after birth.”

      Good observation. There are irrefutable facts pro life people refuse to acknowledge. The most important is the resources to support humans is finite, not infinite. When it comes to government services where some parts of the political class say no more taxes, children compete with adult, and possible most directly with older adults. One more one group grows, the less there is for the other. The balance changes with politics and demographics.

    2. Wanna B Sure

      Brad; You seem to conflate” pro choice ” with being exclusively a Democrat, and not only that, a radical progressive. Let me assure you that I know many politically active Democrats that are solidly “Pro Life”, (not in favor of abortion.). All the other issues you introduced, such as “environment, healthcare, education, pro violence, pro-war, pro-death penalty, Pro-gun, yada yada are entirely separate issues, and not related to “Pro Life”. I’m surprised you didn’t include radical feminism and other related issues. In the real world, there people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat scale that have pro-con preferences on each one of these (Other) issues you inserted. You are at odds with many people on both ends of the political spectrum. Your ASSumptions are unrealistic, unreasonable, and not very well thought out. But I guess you gotta be you.

      1. Brad

        You are wrong, these are not “entirely separate issues”. What sense does it make to force a child into the world if all we are going to do is harm or destroy that life once they are here? Wouldn’t it make more sense to either be against life at all stages, or protect it at all stages?

        Maybe this is sadism? Forcing a child to be born just to take pleasure in seeing them suffer from inhumane policies?

        1. Matt

          “or protect it at all stages?”

          this my friend is exactly where our society falls very very short! there is no love… people fail to see that “pro-life” goes far beyond abortion. as a society we NEED to love life at ALL stages…from conception to natural death.

          1. Brad

            I mostly agree with what you are saying, although forcing women to have children they don’t want is not necessarily the most caring or sensible thing to do. I still think that decision should be kept out of the government’s hands.

            That said however, if you are going to force women to have children they don’t want, then at least be consistent and support that life after the delivery room.

    3. entech

      Never thought I’d see Brad and Matt on the same page, protect life at all stages.

      Matt, I would take your commentary further:
      Conception – we need a proper definition of what it is and when it begins.
      Under what circumstances a termination can be considered, the recent Irish case of allowing the mother to die needlessly is a case that no one should be able to argue against.
      The talk before the last election (yours not mine) had some saying that even in the case of incestuous rape it must be allowed to go full term, because it is God’s will. ‘seaofstories’ brought up an interesting quote, if you would take these extremists to a “logical conclusion”, every time a man “gets the urge” some woman must accommodate him and if she conceives it is god’s will and a child is born.

      The main point about conception is that the woman should become pregnant because she wants to be, preferably it should be a mutual decision because under ideal conditions the male will be there to offer help and support.
      Education is needed to ensure that the female can make a rational decision to start a new life. Education is needed to ensure the female only becomes pregnant as a result of that rational decision.
      Effective, safe, affordable means of prevention are required to allow an educated choice to be made. One problem I have noticed is that as soon as you talk about contraception some extremist equates and conflates and the discussion is back to abortion, effective contraception is the best way of limiting abortion. The foolish suggestion that abstinence is the only way can be highlighted by the number of religious people, preachers and even supposedly celibate priests get themselves into strife over sex. The only case of abstinence failing was about 2000 years ago and many people have doubts about that one myself included, in fact it is only an item of belief in Islam and most of Christianity.
      If every pregnancy was willingly started there would be no abortions except for medical emergencies.

      Natural death, with education all death could be viewed as natural, when the heart stops beating death occurs and that is natural. If a person makes an educated, rational choice about this there should be no reason to prevent them from causing their own heart to stop beating. The medical means are available and many people have taken the steps to obtain them, people go from Australia to Mexico to buy (whatever the drug is called) and bring it back for use when required.
      There was a case this year where an Australian woman took the drug and died , in the presence of a good friend (necessarily an anonymous friend), the woman wrote at length about her decision and her friend wrote of the experience. She was not suffering from anything in particular, just the normal ravages of time. At over eighty she had simply decided that she had had enough, enough of life. Although I have at least ten years to reach her stage I can imagine that one day I could come to the same decision, I would hope that I would have the courage to do it.
      There is a deep discussion about whether suicide can ever be a rational decision, but if the decision is reached and you are lucky enough to find a practitioner willing to assist I can see no reason why this should be prevented, as the drug of choice can also be used as a murder weapon there must be some careful control over its availability.

      The other stages of the “all” :
      I can see no argument that could be effective in opposing universal health care.
      Welfare seems to be a matter of love your neighbor as long as I don’t have to pay towards it. The benefits of a community but no taxes to pay for it.
      The environment is the place where everyone has to live, we owe it to ourselves and future generation to keep it in as good order as we can. Although libertarian in many ways, I cannot endorse the free market idea that “It is my land I will do what I want with it. If it means poisoning the water for others, bad luck.” and the other demands of “freedom” – we need the “no harm principle” to be foremost.
      It should be much more difficult to declare war. Defence requirements etc. complicate it, but I believe the decision to invade Iraq by your country and with the wholehearted support of both my countries (England and Australia) was decided a long time before the farcical end to weapons inspections and the attack. Our ex-leader of the time is still trying to defend the decision on the basis of “the best available knowledge at the time”, the best available knowledge was either rejected or distorted.

      Anyway as this topic as moved so far off topic, I thought I might throw in my 5 cents worth, and before anyone says it, I agree that that is about all it is worth. Still trying to work out how eugenics got into the act, but I would rather not hear a reason.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Don’t understand how eugenics got into the act? Consider the forced sterilizations in Europe. Consider the (quietly now, as this should not be talked about in polite society), the forced sterilizations required on “lower class” citizens who had too many children and were “on the county”. The counties didn’t want them to breed more beneficaries of that dependent culture. It was not that they were mentally deficient, although some were considered to be, but that was a judgement call on the part of political officials. (As late at the 50’s). I personally knew some of them.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          I will relay a true story, which I personally observed: While sitting at a bar having a beer, an old neighbor came in and sat down next to me. The bartender said “I hear your wife is knocked up again”. The fellow said;” Huh, it aint me, the county had me fixed five years ago.”.

        2. Wanna B Sure

          Some of those county officials that had them “fixed” probably didn’t even know about uegenics, but they knew the principal. There were also forced sterilizations of women after the birth of what was considered to be too many county dependant children. There was also talk of abortions performed, but I can’t verify. Bacause they were poor, or left handed, (another subject), does not mean they were lesser humans. Some of their children grew up to be successful, some didn’t. Much like other “beautiful people”.

      2. entech 12:47 re: We need a proper definition of when conception happens if we are going to use conception as the beginning a human life.

        Great post. Indeed, for all the talk of life at conception, there is no talk of implimenting this theory into a legal reality. We can’t have a gazillion court cases arguing when “conception” took place. Leaving aside the rights of the woman, inheritance, itself is a problem so big it’s impossible to figure out how it would work.

        One tiny corner of it is third generations. If a son dies, his wife does not inherit the son’s parents’ estate when there are children unless there is a will and the will expressly says she steps in before the children. The children “step up” ahead of the wife.

        So, a son and his wife have no children. They have have sex one night. He wrote that down, or, told someone immediately afterwards. He dies in the night. His will says she gets what they own. She is prenant. His parents have no will.

        Techinically, as I understand it, “conception” does not take place immediately. Does the estate go to the son and his will transfers it to the wife? Or, does the wife get bypassed and it all goes to the child? That’s the importance of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, an official, a doctor signs the time of birth.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          As per sterpes. It can get a lot more complicated than that without a will. Scenario –two children born. A boy and a girl. Each one marries. The son and his wife have no children and he dies in middle age. His sister continues to live with a daughter of her own. The parents of the two continue to live until late in life. No will specifing the surving wife of the son gets half of the farm, which he rented for his whole life. Parents die, and the widow of the son gets nothing, and is destitute. The daughter gets it all., wnd did not offer to help her sister in law. Eventually they all die except for the daughter of the sister, who also inherited her father’s estate. Get a will. If your kids get along well, don’t count on it. The sharp tools come out when there is money involved, and the kids won’t speak to the others forever, thus breaking up the family. You can also set up trusts for yet surviving unborn issue.

          1. Henry

            ” Get a will. If your kids get along well, don’t count on it.”

            I have seen “model” families dissolve that were best of friends before their ma and pa died. Once that authority figure passed on, all hell broke loose, and they do indeed do not speak to one another again.

            Just like any contract. A written contract that follows the verbal gentleman agreement is a must. Same with a will. It is not offensive and is cheap. Get a reputable lawyer to formalize and define what the understandings are.

          2. Wanna 6:07 The point of my story is not, “have a will”. The point is, when does the clock of life start ticking? Someone could have a will that said, “My estate goes to the grandchildren living at the time of my death.”

            If one of their children says, “We had sex ten minutes before Grandpa died,” is the child born nine months later one of the living grandchildren? The other grandchildren may claim the last one was conceived later and is not elgible.

            The only way to resolve all such matters is to have someone designated by government in the bedroom writing down the time of sex. The doctor now writes the time/day of birth on the birth certificate.

            There are decisions government makes involving billions of dollars, all based on birth certificates. Unless the theory of life a conception comes up with a court-proof way to establish the time of “birth”, life at conception will never work.

          3. Henry

            Jon:“The point is, when does the clock of life start ticking?”

            Conception, that is when the sperm and egg unite. To say that the clock of life has to start later when the doc pens the birth certificate in order to provide clarity for an estate to be properly disbursed is silly.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; your point is pointless. Any good lawyer, and it may well be in law that provisions are already present for a yet undelivered child.I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure an undelivered child would be automatically written out of a will due to timing of delivery. Check with a lawyer first before making assumptions.

          5. Wanna 11:31 “Check with a lawyer first before making assumptions.”

            That would do no good because we’re talking here about a Federal law not yet passed. Either a fertilized egg is a human being or its not.

            This issue illustrates the trouble with laws, they apply to everyone. Anti abortionists want it to apply only to women seeking abortions. In the end, it will have to apply to everyone.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; If a federal law is not yet passed, it is not a law. Consult an attorney. Once a law comes to reality, provisions can be made for any possibilities. Including the possibility of inheritence for the benefit of the unborn upon birth, with named guardians. Your unwillingness to do so is in large part the reason for many estate problems.

          7. Wanna 4:26 “provision can be made for any possibilities. Including the possibility of inheritance for the benefit of the unborn birth.”

            I try once more to explain this. The above statement is MY POINT. To establish when a person is born, there needs to be a document of proof. Today, that is a birth certificate. If it is decided a humans clock of life begins at conception, there would need to be something equivelent. There is not such a thing. What would it be? No one has ever said because, it seems to me, there could never be a why to do it. The supreme court has had some decades to change Roe, it has not done so because there is no solution to this problem.

          8. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; “As per Sterpes” “means as to branches” No one is necessarily named. All children, natural or adopted, falls into” branches”. The attorney at the time of death would know the situation, or pending situation, and it should take care of itself. Consult an attorney. Consult an attorney.

          9. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; your 12;44; Your point is pointless regarding life. The law of the land determines validation after the child is born. If one is judged guilty of murder of an unborn child, (and it has been so), that too is a validation of someone who had life, and was murdered. That child had no birth certificate. There are children born without birth certificates, Both here in the past, and world wide, yet they are still live persons. If a woman delivers all alone in a cabin in the woods, and is discovered by friends a week later, the Dr. who signs the birth certificate dates his signature a week later than the birth. That child certainly is a life for the week before the signature is applied to the birth certificate by the Dr. Give it up, and see an attorney in relation to your original concerns of inheritence. Your defense of “no life before birth” is tiresome, but we know why you choose to do so, in the defense of abortion. That is your sole point, and all else is gymnastics.

          10. Wanna 1:26 It’s really frustrating trying to debate with someone who does not think in a linear way. When you cannot select a time for the beginning of life and apply it uniformly, it is meaningless.

            One thing I think I understand about the U. S. version of law. It is to establish facts and establish their sources. If anti abortionists can’t establish a legal time for the beginning of life, at least different from what we now use, birth, there is no future to the life begins at conception.

          11. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; Thank you for validating my assesment of your fixation of a birth certificate for abortion purposes. An interesting read is to google the history of birth certificates.; Taxes&military registration–Compulsory in the UK 1837–1853. Prior to that the customary record keeping was in churches regarding birth and baptismal. So you can’t think out of the box, and are interested only in single issue politics. Boaring (spelling intended) gymnastics.

          12. Wanna B Sure

            Jon;@ 3;13; Last paragraph– If elective abortion via abortefacients from the start of conception through mechanical intrusion later are used, ” There is no future to the life begins at conception”. (Your words). Very true. No birth certificate needed.

        2. Wolfy32

          I think the issue comes down to how do we value human life? The issue here is human life required to be supported by another human life. Whether it’s Eugenics, Abortion, or anything in between.

          Where do we draw the line: life is valued, only if it’s convenient for us to support?

Comments are closed.