Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[ChrisL]

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.

Women who want to be mothers keep their babies. Women who abort are not "mothers." The reality is that the zygote or embryo only has "value" if the woman assigns value to it.

 

[JW Frogen]

When you eat a hamburger, I am sure you have no conception what so ever, it was once a cow.

How could you?

That would be too human hard.

 

[JW Frogen]

If life only has value when a women assigns it value, only becomes life when the mother decides she wants it to be a life, then biology no longer exists.

Biology becomes nothing but sociology.

This is a cowardly position intellectually which reveals insecurity in the grave act to kill a conceived life.

The killing may be morally or ethically justified, but not if the killer has not the human honesty or courage to know that is what they are doing.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

You aren't "honest." Give it up. I'm not buying it. It is only a "life" if the mother views it as such. Some women would view it as a kind of "tumor" and a burden. You want to force those women to have babies?

 

[ChrisL]

When you eat a hamburger, I am sure you have no conception what so ever, it was once a cow.

How could you?

That would be too human hard.

Are you for real, or just another internet "warrior?" That was one of the most stupid comments EVA. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

If life only has value when a women assigns if value, then biology no longer exists.

Biology becomes nothing but sociology.

Biology still exists. Another silly comment. The fertilized egg is nothing more than a fertilized egg. It's not really more a "life" than a blade of grass at that point.

 

[ChrisL]

If life only has value when a women assigns it value, only becomes life when the mother decides she wants it to be a life, then biology no longer exists.

Biology becomes nothing but sociology.

This is a cowardly position intellectually which reveals insecurity in the grave act to kill a conceived life.

The killing may be morally or ethically justified, but not if the killer has not the human honesty or courage to know that is what they are doing.

I see you fail to answer my question, just as all the other pro lifers. What about in the instance of a rape? Does the fertilized egg become less of a "life" to you in that case?

 

[ChrisL]

If you are going to call it a "life," then it is a life no matter the circumstances of how it came to be. This is where your hypocrisy is going to come into play.

 

[JW Frogen]

OK.

You have made your point.

Some women are so dumb they really believe life begins when they need it to to pretend they are not taking life.

Hell the Greeks did that when they threw babies over cliffs.

So this is not new in history.

The Nazis did it with everyone not Nazi.

I know you will not get this point, but killing is some times morally justified, unless you can not admit that is what you are doing.

The second you no longer admit you are killing, you need to think long and hard about the reasons you are taking that life. Why you have to deny personally that is what you are doing?

Such denile is an emotional and intellectional admission you do not believe, in your core, what you are doing.

Once the killer says the killed was not really alive, we enter the territory of the sociopath in service to genocide.

 

[JW Frogen]

I you had an abortion, it may have been justified for your greater good.

Just have the human dignity to admit that, rather than attempt to re-write human biology and pretend you did nothing but take out the trash.

You killed.

You may have had to kill for your greater good.

Have the human dignity and honesty to admit that.

You will never totally move on until you do.

 

[ChrisL]

OK.

You have made your point.

Some women are so dumb they really believe life begins when they need it to to pretend they are not taking life.

Hell the Greeks did that when they threw babies over cliffs.

So this is not new in history.

The Nazis did it with everyone not Nazi.

I know you will not get this point, but killing is some times morally justified, unless you can not admit that is what you are doing.

The second you no longer admit you are killing, you need to think long and hard about the reasons you are taking that life. Why you have to deny personally that is what you are doing?

Such denile is an emotional and intellectional admission you do not believe, in your core, what you are doing.

Once the killer says the killed was not really alive, we enter the territory of the sociopath in service to genocide.

It's not a life of it's own until it can survive outside of the womb. Until then, it is still a part of the mother's body.

 

[ChrisL]

I you had an abortion, it may have been justified for your greater good.

Just have the human dignity to admit that, rather than attempt to re-write human biology and pretend you did nothing but take out the trash.

You killed.

You may have had to kill for your greater good.

Have the human dignity and honesty to admit that.

You will never totally move on until you do.

Like I said, I've never had an abortion, but that is not my decision to make for another person, and it's not yours either. Know your place!

 

[ChrisL]

I you had an abortion, it may have been justified for your greater good.

Just have the human dignity to admit that, rather than attempt to re-write human biology and pretend you did nothing but take out the trash.

You killed.

You may have had to kill for your greater good.

Have the human dignity and honesty to admit that.

You will never totally move on until you do.

Why do you keep accusing ME of killing? Care to elaborate?

 

[ChrisL]

I you had an abortion, it may have been justified for your greater good.

Just have the human dignity to admit that, rather than attempt to re-write human biology and pretend you did nothing but take out the trash.

You killed.

You may have had to kill for your greater good.

Have the human dignity and honesty to admit that.

You will never totally move on until you do.

You are just another internet weirdo, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind, nutjob.

 

[ChrisL]

Everyone, take note of how the right wing nut jobs will NOT address the question in the case of rape or incest. This is quite telling of how it is suddenly "okay" to take this supposed "life."

So, you are a hypocrite.

 

[ChrisL]

And how many of you "pro lifers" are pro capital punishment? Hmm? Applying your "own morality" and societal idea of "morality" aren't you? Idiots.

 

[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.

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.

No, because it would need to be a chicken under this condition, and then it can survive on the egg white around it. With humans, I think we need to require that it recognizes its mother's breasts, which only full term babies can do. So, it seems logical, that all abortions are not murder, no matter the trimester.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No, because it would need to be a chicken under this condition, and then it can survive on the egg white around it. With humans, I think we need to require that it recognizes its mother's breasts, which only full term babies can do. So, it seems logical, that all abortions are not murder, no matter the trimester.

Well, personally, I would consider it taking a "life" once the life is able to survive outside of the womb. This has been known to occur as early as 18 weeks. So, that is why I say I wouldn't object to limiting abortion to the first trimester. Up until that point, it cannot survive outside of the womb and is still a part of the mother's body. So I would consider it a life of it's own after that point. I do object to things like partial birth abortion, etc.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

No, because it would need to be a chicken under this condition, and then it can survive on the egg white around it. With humans, I think we need to require that it recognizes its mother's breasts, which only full term babies can do. So, it seems logical, that all abortions are not murder, no matter the trimester.

Well, personally, I would consider it taking a "life" once the life is able to survive outside of the womb. This has been known to occur as early as 18 weeks. So, that is why I say I wouldn't object to limiting abortion to the first trimester. Up until that point, it cannot survive outside of the womb and is still a part of the mother's body. So I would consider it a life of it's own after that point. I do object to things like partial birth abortion, etc.

What is a partial birth abortion? I have never heard of such a thing. Also, can an 18 weeker recognize its mother's breast or suck on anything for milk? Being alive but not being able to do anything about maintaining it does not meet the criteria of being alive, so they are not yet alive.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No, because it would need to be a chicken under this condition, and then it can survive on the egg white around it. With humans, I think we need to require that it recognizes its mother's breasts, which only full term babies can do. So, it seems logical, that all abortions are not murder, no matter the trimester.

Well, personally, I would consider it taking a "life" once the life is able to survive outside of the womb. This has been known to occur as early as 18 weeks. So, that is why I say I wouldn't object to limiting abortion to the first trimester. Up until that point, it cannot survive outside of the womb and is still a part of the mother's body. So I would consider it a life of it's own after that point. I do object to things like partial birth abortion, etc.

What is a partial birth abortion? I have never heard of such a thing. Also, can an 18 weeker recognize its mother's breast or suck on anything for milk? Being alive but not being able to do anything about maintaining it does not meet the criteria of being alive, so they are not yet alive.

If it can survive as it's own entity outside of the mother's womb, then it is a life of it's own.

Would you kill all people who are mentally retarded too? WTF?? You are a nut just like the other guy but from the opposite end of the spectrum. Good grief!