Abortion

[Princess Artemis]

Sure, if that's what we're talking about, considering all possible results of having sex would be responsible. Planning for potential outcomes, including considering abortion, adoption or keeping the baby should sex result in pregnancy, would be part of that. Revisiting your conclusion after the fact is also responsible. Hopefully the individuals in question would have factual information available to them in order to come to a well-informed decision.

 

Sounds about right!

 

If the persons involved are young or ill-informed, does it follow that every decision they make is irresponsible, no matter what consideration goes into it?  Is it inherently irresponsible to have sex without a clearly defined plan for every encounter?

 

No it does not. I would think it is inherently irresponsible to have sex without any clue about what one might do should nature take its course. If those things have been considered, good. If the person is responsible, they will take that consideration into account when they choose their course of action. If they choose "let's do it anyway, damn the consequences", that is irresponsible. If they choose, "let's not, we can't deal with it if anything happens", they've been responsible. If they choose "let's be careful, we can deal with it if anything happens", they've been responsible. If they say "let's not, we can't deal with--uh, uh...how did that happen?!", well...I'm given to understand that happens sometimes and I'm hard-pressed to call that irresponsible.

 

If they have been previously irresponsible and then figure out something responsible to do, that's responsible as well, just not as responsible as not being irresponsible in the first place.

[ShinyTomato]

Wait until you get older, and see how all of this you agree with now will affect the way you live, the money you make and how you raise your family.

 

Uh. last time I checked I was a twenty-something with two kids and a career in social services, and a moderate, due to my spits on issues.

[xhunter]

No, I do not want to pay for people having babies, there are enough on there already. Yes, if people can not be responsible, I guess we could do it for them. They get steralized ...EXACTLY,

 

What I can not abide by is stupidity from people having sex and have no regard to getting pregnant. If you are going to have sex, know what the heck you are doing. Abortion is not good for ones body nor ones mind.

 

For those that do not have abortions and have to have government assistance, you get pregnant a second time, you get your tubes tied, and if this is the males second baby, he gets sniped to.

 

I wanted more children but my hubby and I knew we could only really provide for the ones we had. I work, and I get sick of paying for those who are on government assistance because they are to lazy or do not care. People need to wake up and start being more responsible. Let me go and ask for government assistance and I would be told NO if I really needed it, not for things like abortion though.

i agree though you might only see that in other countrys, in USA they seemed more than determand to Break the country and make it more difficult. i am american so don't breath down my threat saying i don't know please. though the only problem is that sometimes sterilization is not reversible. Health care and all, as most knows, is not provided for you it has to be bought though most people can't afford it. it makes me mad when gov. agencys seem to reward those that don't try to get a job and support themselves when those in need can't get nothing.

 

as example my family around a year ago had this problem. we only have one person in my family that could get work, note that i tried everything i could to get a job even do what my mom did though no one around here whats to hire someone without experiences. it hurts to know that your not needed and useless, sometimes it makes me want to cry. we knew that my mom had something called a Fibroid cyst in her Uterus. well she had it for years and it kept getting bigger were we could not go walking or anything, the doctor told us not to let her eat anything with soybean because it made them bigger. i was very made when i figured out a wile back that the chilly sauce that she eats with hotdogs was nothing but soy. but finilly she got the money up to get it removed it and she needed money to get the house threw till she could go back to work, well when she went to places like Gleams and other places she could get no help. the people at Gleams in greenwood had a the nerve to say she was the wrong color, she is white. these people seem to only serve and help people based on sex or color.

 

though i too hate that people can't be responsible when it comes to having offspring. many people in the US can't get jobs and can't keep there home so why do they what to have a child that they probably would not have a chance to get a job, move out, or earn a living.

 

stupidity is very common when it come to that though most Teens, and some adults don't think about that they think of only the sex. abortion is not that dangerous to the body if its caught early though it does affect people on different levels, though it bothers less for a lot of people. its just the thought of what has to happen that gets most people.

 

the gov. can't step in to prevent a woman from getting pregnat though they probably can threaten to withdraw there support if she has more than two, i'm not shore though.

 

sorry to hear about your hubby and your situation, i think that more than a few people feel the same if they have offspring of there own and don't want to pay for someone else little mistakes. no one should be forced to have no say when it come to these problems that affects others because most people can't pay or keep there own. my family is poor yes and i don't like that my mom is forced to try and support a house and support someone else. as is the only thing i wish for this Chirsmass is a job, though i might get one by trying seasonal work if i'm lucky.

[AngelKitty]

We have rules for reasons. I realize some on here are young and anything goes. I remember being very liberal to when I was young.

 

Wait until you get older, and see how all of this you agree with now will affect the way you live, the money you make and how you raise your family.

 

Like others have said, I'm more liberal now than I was when I was younger. Way more liberal. Trufax.

 

Like I said, I am sick for paying for the stupidity some exersize. If you are going to have SEX, know what you are doing and stop trying to play grown ups if you can not afford to pay your own bills and get off my shirt tail please.

 

You realize that it's currently illegal to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions outside of cases of rape or harm to the mother, right? Your taxpayer money DOES, however, go toward paying for welfare/medicaid/food stamps/etc. for poor parents who can't afford/can't get access to abortions, and thus have kids they can't afford to take care of. It also goes towards paying for foster care for kids that get dumped into the adoption system.

[hazeh]

You realize that it's currently illegal to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions outside of cases of rape or harm to the mother, right? Your taxpayer money DOES, however, go toward paying for welfare/medicaid/food stamps/etc. for poor parents who can't afford/can't get access to abortions, and thus have kids they can't afford to take care of. It also goes towards paying for foster care for kids that get dumped into the adoption system.

This is exactly what I've been thinking this entire discussion. That's why I'm baffled people are so upset over "paying" for something that they don't pay for at all. u_u;

 

Edit:

And just to add into the pile, I've been a steady liberal since I was a kid. Though I'm still young, there's no way I'm going to touch the conservative side. Nope. My beliefs and ideology has been set in stone as far as I'm concerned~

Edited November 30, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Brite]

Like I said, I am sick for paying for the stupidity some exersize. If you are going to have SEX, know what you are doing and stop trying to play grown ups if you can not afford to pay your own bills and get off my shirt tail please.

 

 

You know I hear this complaint from a lot of pro-birthers yet they insist to be..well pro-birth. Doesn't make much sense.

[philpot123]

I'm going to bring up a different subject again just to provide food for thought. In light of the argumentation about the fetus turning into a tumor or "mass"... Do any of you know that Tim Tebow was ruled a "tumor" and "mass of fetal tissue" by doctors, and his mother was told that the "only" way to save her life was to abort the child that was surely dead anyways?... Well, we see how that turned out. Doesn't seem like calling it a "tumor" takes away the fact that it might still be a living child, and become a living, breathing human being.

Edited November 30, 2011 by philpot123

[WereJace]

I'm going to bring up a different subject again just to provide food for thought. In light of the argumentation about the fetus turning into a tumor or "mass"... Do any of you know that Tim Tebow was ruled a "tumor" and "mass of fetal tissue" by doctors, and his mother was told that the "only" way to save her life was to abort the child that was surely dead anyways?... Well, we see how that turned out. Doesn't seem like calling it a "tumor" takes away the fact that it might still be a living child, and become a living, breathing human being.

Good thing she had the choice not to abort.

[philpot123]

Good thing she had the choice not to abort.

My point is that the argument that it can turn into a "tumor" therefore it is not human does not seem to make much sense in light of a recorded case where such a "tumor" WAS in fact still alive, and became just like any other person. Saying it can turn into a tumor is not reason enough to say the fetus is not a "person."

[CatCreature]

I'm going to bring up a different subject again just to provide food for thought. In light of the argumentation about the fetus turning into a tumor or "mass"... Do any of you know that Tim Tebow was ruled a "tumor" and "mass of fetal tissue" by doctors, and his mother was told that the "only" way to save her life was to abort the child that was surely dead anyways?... Well, we see how that turned out. Doesn't seem like calling it a "tumor" takes away the fact that it might still be a living child, and become a living, breathing human being.

Two thoughts pop up in my mind.

1. What if she had aborted and carrying on with her life believing she just saved her life?

 

2. What are the odds of a healthy fetus being mistaken as a tumor?

[philpot123]

Two thoughts pop up in my mind.

1. What if she had aborted and carrying on with her life believing she just saved her life?

 

2. What are the odds of a healthy fetus being mistaken as a tumor?

Then the millions of Filipino kids impacted by the Tim Tebow Foundation would've been sorta left out in the cold, wouldn't they?

 

He wasn't a healthy fetus. He barely had any semblance of an umbilical cord for nutrients and it was a pretty miraculous survival. But the fact that a living fetus WAS mistaken for a tumor... Doesn't that speak for something?

[WereJace]

Then the millions of Filipino kids impacted by the Tim Tebow Foundation would've been sorta left out in the cold, wouldn't they?

 

He wasn't a healthy fetus. He barely had any semblance of an umbilical cord for nutrients and it was a pretty miraculous survival. But the fact that a living fetus WAS mistaken for a tumor... Doesn't that speak for something?

Getting a second opinion?

 

Does the existence of a misdiagnosis invalidate the diagnosis and resulting D&C of all other uterine tumors? In this case it was a fetus and thankfully for this charitable person, his mother chose not to have a D&C. What should the fetus vs. tumor cutoff point be and what treatment options should the woman have?

[AngelKitty]

But the fact that a living fetus WAS mistaken for a tumor... Doesn't that speak for something?

Just because one living fetus was mistaken for a tumor and turned out to be a good person doesn't mean all other tumors are potential lives that should be saved at the potential cost of a woman's life. Also, a fetus's potential to turn into a good person who does charitable work and helps the needy is not a good argument against abortion IMO. That fetus has just as much potential to turn into a serial killer or a rapist or any other type of criminal.

 

Tim Tebow was lucky in that 1. the tumor was misdiagnosed, and 2. his mother loved (what she considered, since she wanted him) her unborn child enough and wanted to bring him into the world badly enough to go through with something her doctors said was life-threatening. Let's say instead that Mr. Tebow's mother had been a rape victim who didn't want to carry her rapist's baby, or a woman who didn't want children and wanted an abortion because she knew she would be abusive, but was forced to give birth. How do you think Mr. Tebow would have turned out being raised by a mother who didn't want him? Or, growing up in the foster care system, being bounced from house to house and likely abused and neglected at some point? Yes, there's certainly a chance he'd be the same charitable, good man as he is today, but how high would that chance be if he hadn't been given a chance to grow up in a loving household?

 

(Edited for Clarification: not saying foster kids/abuse victims are necessarily going to turn out to be bad people. I realized it sounds that way but that's not how I meant it. >_>)

Edited November 30, 2011 by AngelKitty

[ShinyTomato]

I'm going to bring up a different subject again just to provide food for thought. In light of the argumentation about the fetus turning into a tumor or "mass"... Do any of you know that Tim Tebow was ruled a "tumor" and "mass of fetal tissue" by doctors, and his mother was told that the "only" way to save her life was to abort the child that was surely dead anyways?... Well, we see how that turned out. Doesn't seem like calling it a "tumor" takes away the fact that it might still be a living child, and become a living, breathing human being.

Since then, however, we have developed tests that change that. Medicine hasn't stood still for 25 years.

 

Had he been a tumor there was no way he could have been a human being.

 

His mother chose t go through with it. My mother chose to carry me despite my possible twin eventually killing her, it was her choice and something I hate her for at times. Not everyone would decide to carry.

Edited November 30, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[Brite]

Just because one living fetus was mistaken for a tumor and turned out to be a good person doesn't mean all other tumors are potential lives that should be saved at the potential cost of a woman's life. Also, a fetus's potential to turn into a good person who does charitable work and helps the needy is not a good argument against abortion IMO. That fetus has just as much potential to turn into a serial killer or a rapist or any other type of criminal.

 

Tim Tebow was lucky in that 1. the tumor was misdiagnosed, and 2. his mother loved (what she considered, since she wanted him) her unborn child enough and wanted to bring him into the world badly enough to go through with something her doctors said was life-threatening. Let's say instead that Mr. Tebow's mother had been a rape victim who didn't want to carry her rapist's baby, or a woman who didn't want children and wanted an abortion because she knew she would be abusive, but was forced to give birth. How do you think Mr. Tebow would have turned out being raised by a mother who didn't want him? Or, growing up in the foster care system, being bounced from house to house and likely abused and neglected at some point? Yes, there's certainly a chance he'd be the same charitable, good man as he is today, but how high would that chance be if he hadn't been given a chance to grow up in a loving household?

 

(Edited for Clarification: not saying foster kids/abuse victims are necessarily going to turn out to be bad people. I realized it sounds that way but that's not how I meant it. >_>)

Agreed and I believe that was before medical treatment was good as it is now. It would be highly unlikely if the same mistake was made.

[philpot123]

Just because one living fetus was mistaken for a tumor and turned out to be a good person doesn't mean all other tumors are potential lives that should be saved at the potential cost of a woman's life. Also, a fetus's potential to turn into a good person who does charitable work and helps the needy is not a good argument against abortion IMO. That fetus has just as much potential to turn into a serial killer or a rapist or any other type of criminal.

 

Tim Tebow was lucky in that 1. the tumor was misdiagnosed, and 2. his mother loved (what she considered, since she wanted him) her unborn child enough and wanted to bring him into the world badly enough to go through with something her doctors said was life-threatening. Let's say instead that Mr. Tebow's mother had been a rape victim who didn't want to carry her rapist's baby, or a woman who didn't want children and wanted an abortion because she knew she would be abusive, but was forced to give birth. How do you think Mr. Tebow would have turned out being raised by a mother who didn't want him? Or, growing up in the foster care system, being bounced from house to house and likely abused and neglected at some point? Yes, there's certainly a chance he'd be the same charitable, good man as he is today, but how high would that chance be if he hadn't been given a chance to grow up in a loving household?

 

(Edited for Clarification: not saying foster kids/abuse victims are necessarily going to turn out to be bad people. I realized it sounds that way but that's not how I meant it. >_>)

I didn't use it as such, I was merely responding to the "what would have happened if she had aborted?" argument.

 

Well, I suppose that hypothetical is kind of moot in that instance. If you're going to say I cannot use an example of a someone who easily could have been aborted had she followed doctor's orders doing amazing things in the world as an argument against abortion, you can't use rapists as an argument FOR abortion can you? The fact remains that he was born into a wonderful, homeschool, Christian home and has touched millions of lives on TOP of being an amazing athlete

 

I agree with you as far as the adoption system goes. That's why many parents I know go out of their way to adopt. I know families in my little ol' east Tennessee homeschool group who has as many as 3 adopted children, and many many more who have at least one.

 

 

 

This wasn't really intended to be a "proof" of anything. It's just something to think about when making the blanket statement that a fetus could be medically ruled a "tumor" at some point as is therefore not a person in the womb. That argument on its own does not seem to have enough weight to say beyond the shadow of a doubt that a fetus is not deserving of personhood.

[ShinyTomato]

This wasn't really intended to be a "proof" of anything. It's just something to think about when making the blanket statement that a fetus could be medically ruled a "tumor" at some point as is therefore not a person in the womb. That argument on its own does not seem to have enough weight to say beyond the shadow of a doubt that a fetus is not deserving of personhood.

 

But if it is a tumor, which Tim Tebow was not, than it would not be a person and cannot have personhood, which is the point of the argument.

 

If a fetus becomes a tumor, it is not deserving of personhood because it cannot become a person.

 

There's also the point of that even if it was, no person has the right to use another person without their consent, even if they are given all the rights of a person.

 

 

[philpot123]

But if it is a tumor, which Tim Tebow was not, than it would not be a person and cannot have personhood, which is the point of the argument.

 

If a fetus becomes a tumor, it is not deserving of personhood because it cannot become a person.

 

There's also the point of that even if it was, no person has the right to use another person without their consent, even if they are given all the rights of a person.

Who is to say that is could not have personhood before it became a tumor? And who is to say mistakes could not be still made about what a "tumor" is or isn't?

 

 

Well, considering a child is a direct consequence of a sexual encounter, and the fetus is not exactly able to ask permission...

[Dr. Paine]

Who is to say that is could not have personhood before it became a tumor? And who is to say mistakes could not be still made about what a "tumor" is or isn't?

 

 

Well, considering a child is a direct consequence of a sexual encounter, and the fetus is not exactly able to ask permission...

One could argue the consent comes from whether or not the woman wants to keep the fetus.

 

Want to keep it: Permission granted.

 

Do not want: No permission.

[ShinyTomato]

Who is to say that is could not have personhood before it became a tumor?

 

If it had personhood before, if even possible, it cannot have personhood after, because there is nothing of a person in it. A tumor cannot live independent of a host. Of course, there is the biblical argument that says it is not ensouled, but in a scientific argument, the fact that the Bible says it's not a person doesn't really matter.

 

And who is to say mistakes could not be still made about what a "tumor" is or isn't?

 

Because we have advanced biopsies and tumor scans now -- there may be mistakes made in malignancy or benign, because that requires a physical sample, but we can see much more clearly now, what is and is not a tumor. We can now even differentiate a tumor from a parasitic mass -- something that was impossible twenty-five years ago.

 

(The wife works in cancer research, I know these things.)

 

Well, considering a child is a direct consequence of a sexual encounter, and the fetus is not exactly able to ask permission...

 

However, the fetus's consent is not necessary. Same as if someone were unconscious and hooked up to your kidneys -- their consent does not matter, they are using your kidneys, and it is only the host's consent that matters.

 

Correct. Neither can a fetus be consulted in whether it wishes to be born or not. If that were possible, I wouldn't be here.

[Rosedamai]

Who is to say that is could not have personhood before it became a tumor? And who is to say mistakes could not be still made about what a "tumor" is or isn't?

I think the definition of "personhood" is different for individuals, and as such terms are ambiguous the argument of whether a fetus has what can be called a personhood and the decision to treat it as a mini human or not be left to the nearest person who can decide-namely, the parents. A bit like how we treat brain-dead patients, I think.

 

Most fetuses are aborted at the first trimester and by that time the brains are just developing, which means that it does not have the full intellectual abilities as a baby would.

 

I personally think that those intellectual capabilities are what makes us human, and as such I think a brain in a jar, if fully functional and able to communicate, has more of what would constitute as personhood than a fetus, but that's just my two cents.

[philpot123]

If it had personhood before, if even possible, it cannot have personhood after, because there is nothing of a person in it. A tumor cannot live independent of a host. Of course, there is the biblical argument that says it is not ensouled, but in a scientific argument, the fact that the Bible says it's not a person doesn't really matter.

 

 

 

Because we have advanced biopsies and tumor scans now -- there may be mistakes made in malignancy or benign, because that requires a physical sample, but we can see much more clearly now, what is and is not a tumor. We can now even differentiate a tumor from a parasitic mass -- something that was impossible twenty-five years ago.

 

(The wife works in cancer research, I know these things.)

 

 

 

However, the fetus's consent is not necessary. Same as if someone were unconscious and hooked up to your kidneys -- their consent does not matter, they are using your kidneys, and it is only the host's consent that matters.

 

Correct. Neither can a fetus be consulted in whether it wishes to be born or not. If that were possible, I wouldn't be here.

I know you brought this up before, but could you please show me the biblical argument again? Thanks

 

 

 

Then it could amount to a tragic loss of life similar to a miscarriage and not exactly an abortion at that point I suppose?

 

 

I think the definition of "personhood" is different for individuals, and as such terms are ambiguous the argument of whether a fetus has what can be called a personhood and the decision to treat it as a mini human or not be left to the nearest person who can decide-namely, the parents. A bit like how we treat brain-dead patients, I think. Most fetuses are aborted at the first trimester and by that time the brains are just developing, which means that it does not have the full intellectual abilities as a baby would. I personally think that those intellectual capabilities are what makes us human, and as such I think a brain in a jar, if fully functional and able to communicate, has more of what would constitute as personhood than a fetus, but that's just my two cents.

 

So a person with severe mental deficiencies who spends their life in a wheelchair being cared for by others... they aren't a person by that argument? If intellectual capabilities make us human, the less intellectual capabilities you have, the less human you are?

[Brite]

I know you brought this up before, but could you please show me the biblical argument again? Thanks

 

 

 

Then it could amount to a tragic loss of life similar to a miscarriage and not exactly an abortion at that point I suppose?

 

 

 

 

So a person with severe mental deficiencies who spends their life in a wheelchair being cared for by others... they aren't a person by that argument? If intellectual capabilities make us human, the less intellectual capabilities you have, the less human you are?

From Noble:

 

 

Exodus 21:22-23

 

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit come forth (yasa), and yet no harm to her follow (ason), he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

But if any harm to her follow, then thou shalt give life for life...

 

The Numbers passage about abortions in the temple if paternity is doubted is: Numbers 5: 11-30 or so

 

 

See, for anything to be considered murder, it must be an animate human being or nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17, but a fetus is av nefesh hu, as in the Exodus verses.

 

The other bits I use are from the Talmud, not the Torah.

 

The fetus being as mere water until the 40th day is -- Yev. 69b

 

The bit that requires abortion if the life of the mother is in danger:

 

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth (ie: most of the infant has been delivered), one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another. mOholot 7:8

 

The fetus not being a person and being of doubtful viability is Niddah 44b.

 

The Talmud states that a fetus is considered "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo) and not a person on it's own. (Hullin 58a)

[ShinyTomato]

I know you brought this up before, but could you please show me the biblical argument again? Thanks tongue.gif

 

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [yasa lav nefesh hu, which means not yet a soul], and yet no harm to her follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [Exodus 21:22]

 

But if any harm to her follow [ason nefesh adam, which means evil to the souled as Adam], then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe [Exodus 21: 23-25]

 

We also see this in Numbers, where if a woman is suspected to be unfaithful, she is given a trial by ordeal, where if she has cheated, the herbs she takes from the floor of the temple, will be enough to case miscarriage, of the fetus, [the fruit as ubar yerekh 'imo, the appendage of the mother']

 

[Numbers 5]

 

Then it could amount to a tragic loss of life similar to a miscarriage and not exactly an abortion at that point I suppose?

 

But it isn't dead.

 

Ninja'ed by GC and the knowledge of my wife, haha.

Edited December 1, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[philpot123]

From Noble:

 

 

Exodus 21:22-23

 

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit come forth (yasa), and yet no harm to her follow (ason), he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

But if any harm to her follow, then thou shalt give life for life...

 

The Numbers passage about abortions in the temple if paternity is doubted is: Numbers 5: 11-30 or so

 

 

See, for anything to be considered murder, it must be an animate human being or nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17, but a fetus is av nefesh hu, as in the Exodus verses.

 

The other bits I use are from the Talmud, not the Torah.

 

The fetus being as mere water until the 40th day is -- Yev. 69b

 

The bit that requires abortion if the life of the mother is in danger:

 

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth (ie: most of the infant has been delivered), one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another. mOholot 7:8

 

The fetus not being a person and being of doubtful viability is Niddah 44b.

 

The Talmud states that a fetus is considered "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo) and not a person on it's own. (Hullin 58a)

Well, I don't hold the Talmud on level with scripture

 

 

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [yasa lav nefesh hu, which means not yet a soul], and yet no harm to her follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [Exodus 21:22] But if any harm to her follow [ason nefesh adam, which means evil to the souled as Adam], then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe [Exodus 21: 23-25] We also see this in Numbers, where if a woman is suspected to be unfaithful, she is given a trial by ordeal, where if she has cheated, the herbs she takes from the floor of the temple, will be enough to case miscarriage, of the fetus, [the fruit as ubar yerekh 'imo, the appendage of the mother'] [Numbers 5]

 

I'll ponder this for awhile

 

 

 

But it isn't dead. Ninja'ed by GC and the knowledge of my wife, haha.

 

curious, so what would happen upon birth?