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?

[yonif]

I agree. All I was asking if pro-life activists found it inaccurate in saying that one's age is 0 when you are born, because it is inaccurate as it does not describe what your real "human clock" or "living clock" really is.

[biblewonk]

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.

That's a great way to make a thread. As a question on something on which you have no opion or could care less about. Why waste the bandwidth?

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[yonif]

That's a great way to make a thread. As a question on something on which you have no opion or could care less about. Why waste the bandwidth?

I meant I have no strong opinion on the issue I am rising, that is why I am asking it. I also said "I could care less" meaning, I could care less if the age of the individual being born stayed at 0 and was not changed to accurately depict the age the baby had when leaving the womb.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

And I was born nine months after New Year's Eve. Go figure. ;-)

[GovernmentShrinker]

The Talmud.