Vanity: Question for Pro-Life activists

1/27/2003 | me

[yonif]

Question for pro-life actvists. I am pro-life of course, but I got a question to those who make it their main issue of activism:

If we believe that the life of the person starts at the beginning of the process, that is, when the baby is conceived, wouldn't the age of the baby include the time it is spent in the mother's womb?

So, if a baby is born after 9 months in the womb of the mother, then it is 9 months old when it is born and not 0 as it is currenty accustomed.

Is setting the age of the baby at 0 when it is born correct in your opinion? Or should it be a more accurate in the way I described above?

What do you think?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I think historically, because of infant mortality rates, people never rejoiced about the baby, before it was born. I remember in my grandmother's day, people didn't mention pregnancy or babies until the mother was in the latter months of pregnancy, until the subject was unavoidable.

[Judith Anne]

If I recall correctly, orthodox Judaism considers the prenatal period as being the first year...I could be way off here, but that's in the back of my mind, way into the dusty parts...

[purple haze]

I suspect that 20-year olds would be in favor of this, and 39-year olds would be against.

[AppyPappy]

Because the data of conception is rarely known.

[gundog]

What part of birthday is giving you trouble?

[spunkets]

Ditto, and somewhere in there folks can freeze it, or go backwards.

[yonif]

According to Jewish religious tradition, life is concieved after 40 days of the fetus being in the womb.

[pettifogger]

The "data" of conception is pretty well known, the date is another thing. ;)

[GraniteStateConservative]

It's too inexact. Actual birth dates are more useful and more exact.

[yonif]

No trouble. I am asking about the age of the person. Should it be changed to be in the way of how pro-life individuals perceive when life is conceived.

[Prime Choice]

The reason why we mark the birthday is because it is a readily observable and independently verifiable event. Such is not true for the moment of conception.

Also, not every baby is carried the full 9 months. Some are preemies. Some are late arrivals. Thus the addition of 9 months to any given babies' age would lead to greater inaccuracy.

So we just stick with the traditional methods and mark our age based on the anniversary of our birth.

[Judith Anne]

Wouldn't bother me, and I still think I'm correct...;-D

[Pan_Yans Wife]

What about for premature births? Would you then allow that some babies are seven or eight months old at birth? Or, would the standard formula be nine months?

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Happy Conceptionday!!

[biblewonk]

Birthday = day of birth not conception.

[yonif]

I was just giving that 9 months as an example. I am fully aware that some leave the womb earlier and at times even later.

[workerbee]

I don't think it matters either way. The celebration of the birthday is a cultural tradition, like some cultures celebrate saint/namesake days. It doesn't have to represent that you think the person is "not alive" prior to that date.

[yonif]

I am well aware of what birthday means. What I am asking has to do with the age of the individual and whether it should be starting at 0 when you are born.....

I have no opinion on the issue, better yet, I could care less if it stayed as it was. As I noted in my post, it is a question to pro-life activists.

[DLfromthedesert]

Since we don't have the exact date that anyone was conceived, except when it's done medically, it's probably better to celebrate BIRTHdays than conceptiondays.