God walks with you as he does with me.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness are rights that mankind can exercise (when not controlled by violence).

These things are quantified only when the community also exercises the other side of the equation.

The Law that binds us one to the other.

So many can quote the rights listed in the United States Constitution but few can quote the central law that makes it all work.

The responsibility to live by a code of conduct that allows us to exercise those rights with reason.

The 'Sharia' of the United States...

The 10 commandments. (Without the arrogance of attempting to define the unknowable essence - God).

If you follow them and so do I then it become easy for us to each have the Life we want, the Liberty to live it within the community, and the ability to Pursure our individual passions without damaging each other.

It is actually quite easy then to have these rights.

God walks with each of us.

Once the fetus attaches to the mother it has 'won the race'. It is alive and human. From that point on it lives and grows, learns and thrives.

Does it not have the right to life from the moment of conception?

Jesus was not born a Man. He was conceived as men are. By the Womb of the Mother.

The Well of Life.

having carried 2 children, noone can tell me that they werent 'living' before it came out my womb,,,and therefore having the right to PURSUE that life in process,,,

I was answering a question about still born. (dead) babies or fetuses, not a living fetus.

A soul is eternal. It has not won the race until it enters the body and is born into the world with a physical body.

We are not the body, we are the eternal soul. We are consciousness experiencing being human. The body is our vehicle, designed for us so that we can function in this lower vibration of physical reality.

We are not humans. We are consciousness having a human experience.

~~

So while the fetus is alive it has the right to live but if it dies before it's born it doesn't? What kind of logic is that? So if I kill a man and he is now dead then he doesn't have the right to live?

If your questions are sincere, I'm happy to answer them. If you are just creating conflict, they don't deserve an answer.

But in the slim chance that your questions are sincere here goes the answers:

1. A soul is eternal. It has not won the race until it enters the body and is born into the world with a physical body. It has overcome the obstacles of birth. It now has a right to life.

2. A living human has a right to life. If you kill him, it is against his will. You do not have a right to kill him. If you do, you are guilty of the gravest crime, whereby both physical and spiritual law has been broken.

~~~From the high priestess

Yet those are base on your religious/ spiritual beliefs. Some people don't believe in souls while others believe the soul enters at conception. Others believe that taking a life forfeits your right to life. You cant hold society to your own personal beliefs.

I don't hold "society" to anything.

I think a soul could very possibly be attached to or assigned to a fetus at (or after) conception, but if that conception does not go to term and birth then occur, that soul is simply assigned or attached to another fetus.

In other words, it does not die. Souls are eternal. Souls don't die.

Birth is simply the manner in which consciousness (or the soul) enters into this reality.

For those who don't believe in souls or spirit consciousness, I can't blame them, but they have a right to believe or not in anything they want.

Birth into the physical occurs at the moment of conception. At that point the 'fetus' is alive in the physical world. It remains in the Womb for that time necessary for it to build a body. Yet it is alive and human.

It is the soul that choses to attach to the mother.

When a woman carries a child the spirit about her is doubled. If you see in that realm you know this to be a truth.

A pregnat woman has a stronger spirit because of that doubling.

The process of gestation and birth is the first Test of Striving. Souls that pass this test exit the Well of Life into life itself.

The body is still the body, it is not the soul.

The soul, while it may be attached to the fetus in the womb, is not yet born into the world.

It (the soul) I (believe) comes and goes from the fetus at its own will. If the fetus dies, the soul does NOT DIE.

Souls do not die.

But the most important point is that until it is living and breathing on its own, it is not "born."

The reason is that it is dependent on the body that is carrying it. That body (the mother) is alive, has been born, and has a right to live.

If a fetus threatens the life of the mother, the mother should always come first.

By giving a fetus the "right to live" over the mother, who has already been born and is living, you are disrespecting her right to life.

Child birth is a life threatening condition. The life of the mother has a right to life over and above the life of the fetus.

What about the motherly instinct when a child after birth will try and protect that child? Even animals do this.

Does this mean women do not have motherly instincts when a baby has not been born yet, so to get rid of it if she wants is a societies Right?

Off topic.

My point,is this:

The life of the mother has a right to life over and above the life of the fetus.

Society should never ever have the power to force a woman to give birth for any reason.

Your right.. Womens Special rights.. with the womens rights movement so strong in demanding whatever right they believe they shoulod have.. They have proven 1 thing..

That they are not equal with men

I dont understand the question

things that are dead have already LIVED And completed their life

by definition, to DIE is to stop LIVING,,,so a 'right' to live doesnt apply to what has lived and then DIED...



something that died has no life, so therefore to 'pursue' life is not an issue

thats like asking if a piece of paper has a right to pursue life when it has no life to begin with,,,

I agree. that does seem to be the inconsistent message

the point of debate being whether the unborn child is a seperate entity from the mere other 'parts' of a female body

and

whether the unborn child is equally the father and the mothers,,,or just the mothers to do with as she chooses,,,

Really? (So perhaps they are superior?)

You clearly are involved in the "battle of the sexes."

That is NOT what this is about, sorry. It is about the right to life of a living person.

This right to life has nothing to do with her being a "woman."

It is about forcing her or anyone (even a man) to risk their life for a fetus or even for another person.

A person, man or woman, has a right protect their own life above and beyond anyone elses.

They have a right to life.

they dont have the 'right' to create a life just to destroy it,, that goes beyond their right to their own life

their right to their own life exists in their choice whether to risk involving others,,,

It has nothing to do with a fetus being or not being a "separate entity." Neither is it considered a "part" of a female body.

That is not the point at hand.

Neither is the question about who "owns the fetus" being discussed.

Nobody "owns the fetus" (if you want to claim that fetus is a human person with the right to life.)

People don't own other people. People don't own their children either.

But if you want to claim "ownership" of a baby or a fetus then possession is 9 point of the law.

If a woman has a fetus in her womb, and if you want to claim "ownership," I think she is the one with the control.

Even if she gives birth, the man, if not married to her, might have to prove he is or is not the father with DNA testing.

But back on point:

No society should ever have the power to force a woman to give birth at the risk of her own life.

Her right to life is above and beyond the rights of an unborn fetus.

I don't understand your point above. Its too vague.

Please be more specific.