Originally Posted by bluedog

There is quite a bit of difference between life and birth, but being "unborn" does not "preclude" one from being alive. Life is not measured in any cognation of knowledge, nor size, nor any projection of worth. Life is exampled in the physical world by the measure of energy consumed or entropy. But the most reliable definition of human life is found in the scriptures. The "life" of the flesh is found in the "blood" -- Lev.17:11, Genesis 9:5. Therefore if blood is circulating and providing life to the flesh of that child, it can only be considered ALIVE, and as I said, birth IS NOT a synonymic declaration of LIFE.

Does anyone deny the fact that any gestating human child has life giving blood flowing through it veins, or the very logical conclusion that any gestating child will become nothing less than human if left alone to live and grow? Life is nothing but a "semantical" game to liberals that falsely profess to be concerned about human rights, when in fact they are promoting nothing but fascism. As they first dehumanize a part of our population then claim the right of possession to even kill that portion of our population simply because it has not "semantically" been declared "alive" by some self professed liberal God (judge) and the sound of his/her gavel. Does this sound familiar? Has anyone read "MEIN KAMPF" ? Even the very same Federal Legal system that has declared a gestating human child as non-life, as inversely declared gestating animal life as an example of LIFE WITHIN THAT SPECIES. "The 1973 Endangered Species Act". And if you do not believe that, just try to destroy any gestating "egg" of some endangered bird. Can you say, jail time or fine, or possibly both? Holding Animal Life as Superior to Human Life. What idiocy. BD

Originally Posted by naturemomma

Rip the child from her body and see how long lives without her.... Case settled.