Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[Bonzi]

The initial statement is are you killing a life (not, is an embryo human)

An argument can be made that sperm is "life" but, it doesn't develop unless it merges with an egg. So, there is a differentiation.
I always thought appealing to everyone that WE were once an embryo, a simple egg and sperm might make this more "real" or make people think about this a little bit. To me, human life is human life no matter what stage it is at. I realize it is legal, but legality doesn't always make it right. Just like the majority doesn't make it right....

 

[anotherlife]

The initial statement is are you killing a life (not, is an embryo human)

An argument can be made that sperm is "life" but, it doesn't develop unless it merges with an egg. So, there is a differentiation.
I always thought appealing to everyone that WE were once an embryo, a simple egg and sperm might make this more "real" or make people think about this a little bit. To me, human life is human life no matter what stage it is at. I realize it is legal, but legality doesn't always make it right. Just like the majority doesn't make it right....

Human life is what puts by far the most stress on this planet. Far worse than the worst virus ever. So, if you distinguish human life, I guess you are doing it in the negative sense. Also, in the 21st century, it is not a sperm or egg that starts your human existence, but some central government population engineering program, then social security credit forecasting, and other numerical statistics, that define every step of your life, from sperm all the way to prison and grave. So, why is abortion the hottest question? Do I sense a gigantic manipulation? None of this is biology or morality.

 

[Bonzi]

I'm making no issue of it really
Just having a discussion about what human life or life in general really is.
To me, it seems people care more about lives of animals than humans

 

[citizenal]

At conception, is the being in a woman's body "alive"?

Is it anything other than human?

A fetus is human life, but it is not a human being. It is only a potential human being. Surely from a logical and scientific point of view, a fertilized egg is not the same thing as you or I. Early on, it cannot think, talk, move, breathe, eat, or do anything that we associate with being a viable living person. Granted, as time goes on the fetus takes on more and more attributes of a human being, but it really does not fully become one until it is removed from the womb and begins its walk through life as an independent person. This being the case, it is very easy to understand why some people would hold that the termination of a pregnancy is not murder even though many other people believe otherwise. The facts are clear in this matter. Early on in a pregnancy, several hundred cells in the womb, even though they have the potential of growing into a human being, scientifically, are not much different from any other tumor or cancerous growth. Therefore, their removal is not murder. These are the facts and no amount of pompous posturing or references to the bible can change these facts.

Man is created in the image of God. The Christian God is three entities; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. A human being, similar to God, is also three things; mind, body, and soul. If you take away any of these three things, a person no longer exists. Therefore, the destruction of a body without a mind cannot be and is not murder. We substantiate this truth every time life support is withdrawn from a brain dead individual so as to allow them to die naturally. Using this same line of reasoning, the destruction of a fetus without a functioning brain cannot be murder either even though the cells that are terminated, if left alone, would eventually develop a functioning brain. The potential to have a brain is not the same as having one and it is wrong to convict someone of murder for stopping something that may eventually happen but hasn’t yet.

Similarly, if the soul is a necessary component of a human being as Christians believe, then from a Christian point of view, the termination of a living organism with no soul is not murder. Therefore, as Christians, the question that must be answered before we are justified in declaring that the destruction of a fetus is murder is at what point in the development of a fetus does God provide a fetus with a soul? No one knows the answer to this question and nowhere is this addressed in the Bible. A soul may be present at conception, but it is just as reasonable to believe that a soul enters the body at first breath. Fundamentalists choose to believe God gives a fetus a soul at conception, but there is no biblical or scientific basis for their belief and what they believe is simply a matter of personal choice.

Therefore, it should be clear that a good Christian can believe that abortion, while being morally wrong, is not murder and should not be against the law for this reason. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, without any rational or biblical support for what they believe, choose to believe that abortion is murder and far worse, are self-righteously and wrongfully trying to force their beliefs upon every one else through the power of the state. They have made a personal choice as to what they believe and having made this choice they want to deny the right to make this choice to everyone else. This is tyranny! The Fundamentalists call themselves pro-life. What they really are is “pro” making everyone else abide by their religious beliefs and having the state throw people in jail who do not.

 

[Chuz Life]

At conception, is the being in a woman's body "alive"?

Is it anything other than human?

A fetus is human life, but it is not a human being.

Not only is a human being in the fetal stage of their life "a human being" - your denials of that fact have already been legally defeated AT LEAST for the purpose of our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Biologically, a human being is the same organism (being) from conception until death.

It is only a potential human being.

Bullshit!

"Potential beings" can not already "physically" exist and fetal human beings most certainly do "physically" exist.

Surely from a logical and scientific point of view, a fertilized egg is not the same thing as you or I. Early on, it cannot think, talk, move, breathe, eat, or do anything that we associate with being a viable living person.

You omit, ignore or obviously are not aware of the definitions of human beings / organisms and how they incorporate the wording "Or can develop" into their meanings.

Example: "organism, being- a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

Granted, as time goes on the fetus takes on more and more attributes of a human being, but it really does not fully become one until it is removed from the womb and begins its walk through life as an independent person.

Not even the Roe v Wade decision comes close to supporting that claim.

If that (your claim) were even close to being a true statement, the opposition to things like our Fetal Homicide Laws would have had no problems at all in getting the MURDER charges under those laws - overturned.

Those laws remain intact and are being upheld and have been now for more than a decade.

This being the case, it is very easy to understand why some people would hold that the termination of a pregnancy is not murder even though many other people believe otherwise. The facts are clear in this matter. Early on in a pregnancy, several hundred cells in the womb, even though they have the potential of growing into a human being, scientifically, are not much different from any other tumor or cancerous growth. Therefore, their removal is not murder. These are the facts and no amount of pompous posturing or references to the bible can change these facts.

Your opinion is noted.

Your denials have already been defeated.

Religious pap deleted for brevity.

 

[alang1216]

Not even the Roe v Wade decision comes close to supporting that claim.

If that (your claim) were even close to being a true statement, the opposition to things like our Fetal Homicide Laws would have had not problems at all in getting the MURDER charges under those laws - overturned.

Those laws remain intact and are being upheld and have been now for more than a decade.

You place a lot of importance on these Fetal Homicide Laws. If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion? If not, you should not be surprised that the pro-choice side puts little stake in them.

 

[jillian]

I'm making no issue of it really
Just having a discussion about what human life or life in general really is.
To me, it seems people care more about lives of animals than humans

but why pick the most incendiary of issues for a "discussion"?

 

[Chuz Life]

Not even the Roe v Wade decision comes close to supporting that claim.

If that (your claim) were even close to being a true statement, the opposition to things like our Fetal Homicide Laws would have had not problems at all in getting the MURDER charges under those laws - overturned.

Those laws remain intact and are being upheld and have been now for more than a decade.

You place a lot of importance on these Fetal Homicide Laws. If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion? If not, you should not be surprised that the pro-choice side puts little stake in them.

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

As for the SCOTUS overturning those fetal homicide laws?

I wish that you and the rest of your ilk were trying harder to get the SCOTUS to do that.

We welcome the chance to further make the case before the court - that a child's life, rights and personhood begins at conception.

Bring it on!

 

[alang1216]

Not even the Roe v Wade decision comes close to supporting that claim.

If that (your claim) were even close to being a true statement, the opposition to things like our Fetal Homicide Laws would have had not problems at all in getting the MURDER charges under those laws - overturned.

Those laws remain intact and are being upheld and have been now for more than a decade.

You place a lot of importance on these Fetal Homicide Laws. If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion? If not, you should not be surprised that the pro-choice side puts little stake in them.

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

As for the SCOTUS overturning those fetal homicide laws?

I wish that you and the rest of your ilk were trying harder to get the SCOTUS to do that.

We welcome the chance to further make the case before the court - that a child's life, rights and personhood begins at conception.

Bring it on!

If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion?

 

[BreezeWood]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Not even the Roe v Wade decision comes close to supporting that claim.

If that (your claim) were even close to being a true statement, the opposition to things like our Fetal Homicide Laws would have had not problems at all in getting the MURDER charges under those laws - overturned.

Those laws remain intact and are being upheld and have been now for more than a decade.

You place a lot of importance on these Fetal Homicide Laws. If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion? If not, you should not be surprised that the pro-choice side puts little stake in them.

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

As for the SCOTUS overturning those fetal homicide laws?

I wish that you and the rest of your ilk were trying harder to get the SCOTUS to do that.

We welcome the chance to further make the case before the court - that a child's life, rights and personhood begins at conception.

Bring it on!

If they were all struck down in a future SCOTUS decision would that honestly have any impact on your feeling about abortion?

No. Not in the least. And that is because our fetal homicide laws are the RESULT of the views that I am espousing. They are not the SOURCE of them.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

 

[ChrisL]

At conception, is the being in a woman's body "alive"?

Is it anything other than human?

A fetus is human life, but it is not a human being. It is only a potential human being. Surely from a logical and scientific point of view, a fertilized egg is not the same thing as you or I. Early on, it cannot think, talk, move, breathe, eat, or do anything that we associate with being a viable living person. Granted, as time goes on the fetus takes on more and more attributes of a human being, but it really does not fully become one until it is removed from the womb and begins its walk through life as an independent person. This being the case, it is very easy to understand why some people would hold that the termination of a pregnancy is not murder even though many other people believe otherwise. The facts are clear in this matter. Early on in a pregnancy, several hundred cells in the womb, even though they have the potential of growing into a human being, scientifically, are not much different from any other tumor or cancerous growth. Therefore, their removal is not murder. These are the facts and no amount of pompous posturing or references to the bible can change these facts.

Man is created in the image of God. The Christian God is three entities; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. A human being, similar to God, is also three things; mind, body, and soul. If you take away any of these three things, a person no longer exists. Therefore, the destruction of a body without a mind cannot be and is not murder. We substantiate this truth every time life support is withdrawn from a brain dead individual so as to allow them to die naturally. Using this same line of reasoning, the destruction of a fetus without a functioning brain cannot be murder either even though the cells that are terminated, if left alone, would eventually develop a functioning brain. The potential to have a brain is not the same as having one and it is wrong to convict someone of murder for stopping something that may eventually happen but hasn’t yet.

Similarly, if the soul is a necessary component of a human being as Christians believe, then from a Christian point of view, the termination of a living organism with no soul is not murder. Therefore, as Christians, the question that must be answered before we are justified in declaring that the destruction of a fetus is murder is at what point in the development of a fetus does God provide a fetus with a soul? No one knows the answer to this question and nowhere is this addressed in the Bible. A soul may be present at conception, but it is just as reasonable to believe that a soul enters the body at first breath. Fundamentalists choose to believe God gives a fetus a soul at conception, but there is no biblical or scientific basis for their belief and what they believe is simply a matter of personal choice.

Therefore, it should be clear that a good Christian can believe that abortion, while being morally wrong, is not murder and should not be against the law for this reason. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, without any rational or biblical support for what they believe, choose to believe that abortion is murder and far worse, are self-righteously and wrongfully trying to force their beliefs upon every one else through the power of the state. They have made a personal choice as to what they believe and having made this choice they want to deny the right to make this choice to everyone else. This is tyranny! The Fundamentalists call themselves pro-life. What they really are is “pro” making everyone else abide by their religious beliefs and having the state throw people in jail who do not.

Great post!

 

[BreezeWood]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

Just wow.

"Disavowing viability can not produce a homicide?"

Is that even a sentence?

Is it English?

 

[BreezeWood]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

Just wow.

"Disavowing viability can not produce a homicide?"

Is that even a sentence?

Is it English?

.
Ch: Is it English?

yes, it's the law ...

that is if you can find more Scalia's to go with what you already have and deviously wait for their selection when you have more control over the gov't to have your make believe ruling to disavow Roe ... deceit is nothing new for the self righteous.

.

 

[Votto]

At conception, is the being in a woman's body "alive"?

Is it anything other than human?

Just because they always seem to come out human does not mean they are.

Hillary comes to mind.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's true. I think they (our Fetal Homicide Laws) are extremely important; as they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions to defend the rights of the children who are being violated by legalized abortion.

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

Just wow.

"Disavowing viability can not produce a homicide?"

Is that even a sentence?

Is it English?

.
Ch: Is it English?

yes, it's the law ...

that is if you can find more Scalia's to go with what you already have and deviously wait for their selection when you have more control over the gov't to have your make believe ruling to disavow Roe ... deceit is nothing new for the self righteous.

.

Yeah. . .

So far, you have completely failed to communicate your point on this in any way that connects with any of the previous posts.

Are you having a psychotic episode, maybe?

 

[BreezeWood]

they are a key part of the foundation that is being laid to overturn Roe and to re-criminalize abortions ...

misconstruing law does not change its intent ....

as pointed out to you before, removal is not what kills an embryo, the embryo dies because it can not sustain itself -

when a third person kills a parent the impact of their action is notable by fetal laws for the guilt of their actions not to construe the viability an embryo than what is already a known variable.

.

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

Just wow.

"Disavowing viability can not produce a homicide?"

Is that even a sentence?

Is it English?

.
Ch: Is it English?

yes, it's the law ...

that is if you can find more Scalia's to go with what you already have and deviously wait for their selection when you have more control over the gov't to have your make believe ruling to disavow Roe ... deceit is nothing new for the self righteous.

.

Yeah. . .

So far, you have completely failed to communicate your point on this in any way that connects with any of the previous posts.

Are you having a psychotic episode, maybe?

.

So far, you have completely failed to communicate your point on this in any way ...

that the embryo does not perish by being removed from its parent but by its inability to survive on its own - Roe vs Wade.

It is you who has fallen over the edge ... good luck if you ever reach the bottom.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are confusing my post with those of someone else. Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.

Ch: Viability is not even something that is factored into most of our fetal homicide laws.
.
disavowing viability can not produce a homicide ....

it is you and JW Frogen who are confused, the embryo does not die by being removed from its parent, the embryo perishes by being unable to sustain itself on its own.

.

Just wow.

"Disavowing viability can not produce a homicide?"

Is that even a sentence?

Is it English?

.
Ch: Is it English?

yes, it's the law ...

that is if you can find more Scalia's to go with what you already have and deviously wait for their selection when you have more control over the gov't to have your make believe ruling to disavow Roe ... deceit is nothing new for the self righteous.

.

Yeah. . .

So far, you have completely failed to communicate your point on this in any way that connects with any of the previous posts.

Are you having a psychotic episode, maybe?

.

So far, you have completely failed to communicate your point on this in any way ...

that the embryo does not perish by being removed from its parent but by its inability to survive on its own - Roe vs Wade.

It is you who has fallen over the edge ... good luck if you ever reach the bottom.

.

It's funny that you think the future of the abortion issue has anything to do personally with me.