Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[ChrisL]

Who is craig smith and what clever has he said?

The quote is true. That's all that matters.

 

[ChrisL]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Sorry, but a fertilized egg is not an actual "life." It is still a part of the mother's body. If you take it out of her body, it has no life of it's own.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not "pro abortion." I am pro choice. It is a "life" if the mother views it that way. I would probably never have an abortion, but nobody has the right to decide that for someone else.

An embryo only has value if the mother assigns it value.

So biology no longer exists, life is what ever a mother says a life is?

Welcome to chaos.




No civilization will ever concede that idea, all law, all civilization is predicated on such.

Jesus I am dealing with basic human premises here.

Maybe I need Elmo to come in and explain this shit?

It has no value on it's own. It is simply a fertilized egg. A zygote and still part of the mother's body. If she assigns it some value, that is what makes the difference. If it is not valuable to her, then how is it valuable to you??

 

[ChrisL]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Biologically speaking, a plant is a "life" as well. Do you eat vegetables?

 

[JW Frogen]

I am not "pro abortion."

An embryo only has value if the mother assigns it value.

Yes, killing life is hard.

And many, mothers included, do not have the human dignity or courage to admit what they are doing, even when it is morally justified.

But biology is biology, it is not defined by idiot PC feel good ideology. Life begins at conception of the life.

And if you can not honestly admit to yourself killing is what you are doing, the moral justification becomes ever more suspect.

You can not avoid the mirror in these life and death Karmic decisions, you just can not do it.

Sweet nice PC nothings just will not heal grave moral decisions in the long run.

 

[anotherlife]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Sorry, but a fertilized egg is not an actual "life." It is still a part of the mother's body. If you take it out of her body, it has no life of it's own.

The same is true to all embryos and premature births. So if it's human and doesn't recognize its mothers breasts for feeding then it is not human or not alive. Why do we spend taxpayer dollars on writing laws about this? Ridiculous.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not "pro abortion."

An embryo only has value if the mother assigns it value.

Yes, killing life is hard.

And many, mothers included, do not have the human dignity or courage to admit what they are doing, even when it is morally justified.

But biology is biology, it is not defined by idiot PC feel good ideology. Life begins at conception of the life.

And if you can not honestly admit to yourself killing is what you are doing, the moral justification becomes ever more suspect.

You can not avoid the mirror in these life and death Karmic decisions, you just can not do it.

Sweet nice PC nothings just will not heal grave moral decisions in the long run.

Why did you cut out some of my post? Like I said, I have never and probably would never have an abortion. I am not PRO abortion, I am pro choice, and your nutty ramblings don't change that.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not "pro abortion."

An embryo only has value if the mother assigns it value.

Yes, killing life is hard.

And many, mothers included, do not have the human dignity or courage to admit what they are doing, even when it is morally justified.

But biology is biology, it is not defined by idiot PC feel good ideology. Life begins at conception of the life.

And if you can not honestly admit to yourself killing is what you are doing, the moral justification becomes ever more suspect.

You can not avoid the mirror in these life and death Karmic decisions, you just can not do it.

Sweet nice PC nothings just will not heal grave moral decisions in the long run.

Many "mothers" are drug addicts, prostitutes, alcoholics, mentally disturbed, and the list goes on.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Biologically speaking, a plant is a "life" as well. Do you eat vegetables?

My broccoli is never going to tell me I love you Dad or Mom, it is never going to cure cancer or go to Mars.

I am not saying abortion should be banned, read what I wrote, indeed if you read what I wrote, understand it, fired up more than one reflexive neuron, you would know I am making the only morally justified pro choice argument that can be made, moral, justified, killing. Your sort of argument is so idiotically and moral facile it lends itself to the call to ban abortion.

You are exhibit A for the Christian prosecution and you have no clue that is what you are doing.

 

[ChrisL]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Sorry, but a fertilized egg is not an actual "life." It is still a part of the mother's body. If you take it out of her body, it has no life of it's own.

The same is true to all embryos and premature births. So if it's human and doesn't recognize its mothers breasts for feeding then it is not human or not alive. Why do we spend taxpayer dollars on writing laws about this? Ridiculous.

If it can survive outside the womb, then it could be considered a life all it's own. If not, then it is still a part of the woman's body. That is why I say that I wouldn't object to abortions being limited to the first trimester.

 

[ChrisL]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Biologically speaking, a plant is a "life" as well. Do you eat vegetables?

My broccoli is never going to tell me I love you Dad or Mom, it is never going to cure cancer or go to Mars.

I am not saying abortion should be banned, but this sort of argument is so idiotically and moral facile it lends itself to the call to ban it.

And neither is a zygote or an embryo. The mother determines the value of the zygote, not YOU or anyone else.

 

[ChrisL]

I am pro choice from a legal point of view..

But yes, abortion is taking a life.

When else does life begin other than conception?

All other definitions are arbitrary, political, fashion, not science.

Life begins at the conception of that life.


Not because the bible says so, but because that is just basic biology.

I am pro choice because I think there are ethical reasons to end life.

This too is basic biology. All life is fuelled on taking other life.

Though one does not have to premise it on basic biology. One can find a higher human ethical response to taking a life.

Such as self preservation, which can be the case with abortion, mental or emotional self preservation.

That the health and life the born and established being known as the potential mother outweighs the unevolved foetus if the two come into conflict.

This too can be seen both in ethical and biological terms as an ethical imperative.

But saying it is not killing a life, does injustice to the ethical and utilitarian gravity of the decision to end that life.

Saying it is not a life, reveals a form of ethical cowardace before the gravity of having to take that life.

Such is almost a guilty plea before the woman's own conscience.

A "potential" life, all dependent upon the mother's personal decision.

There is no dignity in pretending biology does not exist because you do not have the courage of your convictions.

Biologically speaking, a plant is a "life" as well. Do you eat vegetables?

My broccoli is never going to tell me I love you Dad or Mom, it is never going to cure cancer or go to Mars.

I am not saying abortion should be banned, indeed if you read what I wrote, understand it, fired up more than one reflexive neuron, you would know I am making the only morally justified pro choice argument that can be made, moral, justified, killing. Your sort of argument is so idiotically and moral facile it lends itself to the call to ban it.

So??? Answer the question smarty pants . . . if the mother assigns NO value to the fertilized egg, why should you?

 

[JW Frogen]

I don't.

Biology and evolution does.

Life begins when it does.

Biologically at conception. What else is conceived? If not a human, then a hamster? Or a Hyundai Getz? Does the mother's imagination trump biology and decide that in service to her own neurosis concerning the grave decision to end that life?

What moral value we assign that life, and it is a life, is a societal question however.

And if you are making the argument every women can make her own determination on that value, then I tell you now you are consigning the idea that women can abort a life to oblivion in the long run.

You are writing an ethical suicide note to your own cause, because you do not have the ethical dignity or intellectual understanding or honesty of what you are asking society to concede in service to that individual need or cause.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not "pro abortion."

An embryo only has value if the mother assigns it value.

Yes, killing life is hard.

And many, mothers included, do not have the human dignity or courage to admit what they are doing, even when it is morally justified.

But biology is biology, it is not defined by idiot PC feel good ideology. Life begins at conception of the life.

And if you can not honestly admit to yourself killing is what you are doing, the moral justification becomes ever more suspect.

You can not avoid the mirror in these life and death Karmic decisions, you just can not do it.

Sweet nice PC nothings just will not heal grave moral decisions in the long run.

BTW, do NOT cut my posts short again. If you do it again, I shall report you. Understand??

 

[ChrisL]

I don't.

Biology and evolution does.

Life begins when it does.

What moral value we assign it is a societal question.

And if you are making the argument every women can make her own determination on that value, then I tell you now you are consigning the idea that women can abort a life to oblivion in the long run.

You are writing an ethical suicide note to your own cause, because you do not have the dignity or intellectual understanding of what you are asking society to concede in service to that cause.

They can and they do make that decision. That is why abortion is a legal medical procedure in the United States.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't.

Biology and evolution does.

Life begins when it does.

What moral value we assign it is a societal question.

And if you are making the argument every women can make her own determination on that value, then I tell you now you are consigning the idea that women can abort a life to oblivion in the long run.

You are writing an ethical suicide note to your own cause, because you do not have the dignity or intellectual understanding of what you are asking society to concede in service to that cause.

What about in cases of rape? Are you going to say it's okay for her to exterminate that "life" because she was raped. Is the zygote not a "life" in that instance?

 

[ChrisL]

Abortion is nothing NEW. It has been around since ancient times when women used herbal concoctions to induce a miscarriage.

 

[ChrisL]

History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The practice of abortion, the medical removal of a fetus, resulting in his or her death, has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacientherbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Abortion laws and their enforcement have fluctuated through various eras. In many western countries during the 20th century various women's rights groups, doctors, and social reformers were successful in having abortion bans repealed. While abortion remains legal in most of the West, this legality is regularly challenged by anti-abortion groups.

 

[JW Frogen]

Yes, people have killed since ancient times.

Go figure.

I have a prophecy for you, people will kill life, human life, real human beings, in the future too.

Welcome to the human condition.

Some of us are honest about it, others want to redefine what we are doing in service to our own fragile egos and pretend reality is not what it is.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't.

Biology and evolution does.

Life begins when it does.

Biologically at conception. What else is conceived? If not a human, then a hamster? Or a Hyundai Getz? Does the mother's imagination trump biology and decide that in service to her own neurosis concerning the grave decision to end that life?

What moral value we assign that life, and it is a life, is a societal question however.

And if you are making the argument every women can make her own determination on that value, then I tell you now you are consigning the idea that women can abort a life to oblivion in the long run.

You are writing an ethical suicide note to your own cause, because you do not have the ethical dignity or intellectual understanding or honesty of what you are asking society to concede in service to that individual need or cause.

What is "moral and ethical" to you doesn't play a role in another person's life or that person's life decisions. Like I said, I personally would not have an abortion. I would feel a connection to my unborn child. Other people do NOT, and you cannot force your idea of "morality" on that person. The embryo cannot survive without the mother's nourishment of it. Therefore, it is still a part of the mother's body until it is able to survive on it's own. Only THEN does it become it's own entity.