Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[Mudda]

How are you going to stop abortions? Got anything?

As I am a realist, I understand that there is no way to "stop" all abortions. After all, we have laws against all sorts of things like rape, molestation and abuse but those laws get broken every day.

Do we do away with other laws that deal with the violation of children's rights because THEY don't "stop" those crimes, either?

Of course we don't.

So, the want for laws against the violation of prenatal children's rights are no different from that.

Laws like these are based upon the child's right to not be murdered, abused or molested. They are not predicated on the thought that we can bring an end / stop to the violations with a law.

So you'd put women who've had an abortion in jail for murder?

Yes.

I expect consistency in our laws. If a total stranger can be sent to jail - charged with murder - for even accidentally killing her child while robbing a bank or driving while intoxicated.
. Why should the woman be held any LESS accountable when she INTENTIONALLY kills her child herself. . . Or pays Planned Parenthood to KILL it?

Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.

No worries.

I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.

If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?

I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.

 

[alang1216]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

On the contrary, you should have no problem answering. What do you do when two persons with equal rights, under our laws, are in conflict. Say one twin wants surgery to be separated while the other does not. Does one person have the right to jeopardize the health of the other by demanding surgery? Does one person have the right to force the other to be bound to it for their entire lives without the opportunity of a normal life?

 

[Chuz Life]

As I am a realist, I understand that there is no way to "stop" all abortions. After all, we have laws against all sorts of things like rape, molestation and abuse but those laws get broken every day.

Do we do away with other laws that deal with the violation of children's rights because THEY don't "stop" those crimes, either?

Of course we don't.

So, the want for laws against the violation of prenatal children's rights are no different from that.

Laws like these are based upon the child's right to not be murdered, abused or molested. They are not predicated on the thought that we can bring an end / stop to the violations with a law.

So you'd put women who've had an abortion in jail for murder?

Yes.

I expect consistency in our laws. If a total stranger can be sent to jail - charged with murder - for even accidentally killing her child while robbing a bank or driving while intoxicated.
. Why should the woman be held any LESS accountable when she INTENTIONALLY kills her child herself. . . Or pays Planned Parenthood to KILL it?

Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.

No worries.

I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.

If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?

I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.

Yeah. I'm neither religious nor a dictator. I simply believe differently from you in the way I think the children that you are in denial of are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

That "attack the messenger" tendency that you have. . . is that one of those liberal mindset "let's celebrate diversity" things?

 

[Chuz Life]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

On the contrary, you should have no problem answering. What do you do when two persons with equal rights, under our laws, are in conflict.

Constitutionally, we have no choice but to afford them each - the equal protections of our laws.

Say one twin wants surgery to be separated while the other does not. Does one person have the right to jeopardize the health of the other by demanding surgery?

I don't see how that would be Constitutional.

Does one person have the right to force the other to be bound to it for their entire lives without the opportunity of a normal life?

In a case where they are already "bound together" as conjoined twins are? I would say yes and I am confident that our laws would agree.

 

[BreezeWood]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

.
the question was, if a child is separated from its parent will it die ?

They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

the twins are an example the same as the "child", the embryo and the parent that chose the separation they are all three being afforded equal rights. the inevitable outcome for one not withstanding.

there is nothing fair about the Sea Gauls and the Terrapin hatchlings either, simply a fact of life.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

.
the question was, if a child is separated from its parent will it die ?

They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

the twins are an example the same as the "child", the embryo and the parent that chose the separation they are all three being afforded equal rights. the inevitable outcome for one not withstanding.

there is nothing fair about the Sea Gauls and the Terrapin hatchlings either, simply a fact of life.

.

Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .

Mmmmkay?

 

[BreezeWood]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

.
the question was, if a child is separated from its parent will it die ?

They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

the twins are an example the same as the "child", the embryo and the parent that chose the separation they are all three being afforded equal rights. the inevitable outcome for one not withstanding.

there is nothing fair about the Sea Gauls and the Terrapin hatchlings either, simply a fact of life.

.

Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .

Mmmmkay?

.

you simply evade the fact no one's constitutional protection is being violated. what happens after separation is biological and nothing more.

Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .

if your faux disdain were true you would be referring to the Terrapin's protection from the Seagulls - in nature rights being observed unlike Chuz are immune from being predetermined for a prescribed and meritless outcome.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

.
the question was, if a child is separated from its parent will it die ?

They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

the twins are an example the same as the "child", the embryo and the parent that chose the separation they are all three being afforded equal rights. the inevitable outcome for one not withstanding.

there is nothing fair about the Sea Gauls and the Terrapin hatchlings either, simply a fact of life.

.

Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .

Mmmmkay?

.

you simply evade the fact no one's constitutional protection is being violated. what happens after separation is biological and nothing more.

I'm not evading anything. And (again) I think it's funny that you think this issue has anything to do with me, personally.

Kind of flattering, really.

As for your claim that nobody's Constitutional rights are being violated? Try selling that denial to the courts who have convicted people of the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure those convicted would welcome your expertise on the matter.

Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .

if your faux disdain were true you would be referring to the Terrapin's protection from the Seagulls - in nature rights being observed unlike Chuz are immune from being predetermined for a prescribed and meritless outcome..

I have no disdain at all.

Let alone any "faux" disdain.

Your attempt is clearly to create a red herring / non sequitur or false dichotomy to divert attention away from the actual key principles to the debate.

Human beings (children included) have Constitutional rights.

Seagulls do not.

 

[Mudda]

So you'd put women who've had an abortion in jail for murder?

Yes.

I expect consistency in our laws. If a total stranger can be sent to jail - charged with murder - for even accidentally killing her child while robbing a bank or driving while intoxicated.
. Why should the woman be held any LESS accountable when she INTENTIONALLY kills her child herself. . . Or pays Planned Parenthood to KILL it?

Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.

No worries.

I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.

If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?

I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.

Yeah. I'm neither religious nor a dictator. I simply believe differently from you in the way I think the children that you are in denial of are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

That "attack the messenger" tendency that you have. . . is that one of those liberal mindset "let's celebrate diversity" things?

At least you didn't deny that you want to control women, and that's not attacking the messenger, that's attacking the misogynist. You'd make a good mooslim. Now go kiss a carpet.

 

[Bonzi]

It's unfortunately that men can not carry children.
I human life should not have to pay the price. It has no choice. Someone needs to defend the life.

 

[Coyote]

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.

Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.

Isn't it?

So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.

Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.

A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.

It's not murder. It's eviction.

No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)

You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.

It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.

 

[Coyote]

It's unfortunately that men can not carry children.
I human life should not have to pay the price. It has no choice. Someone needs to defend the life.

Sure they can. Maybe some of these pro-lifers should start concentrating on that instead of working so hard to deny women their reproductive rights or limit their access to birth control.

Uterus transplants could let men get pregnant — but there's a catch
Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him

 

[Bonzi]

It's unfortunately that men can not carry children.
I human life should not have to pay the price. It has no choice. Someone needs to defend the life.

Sure they can. Maybe some of these pro-lifers should start concentrating on that instead of working so hard to deny women their reproductive rights or limit their access to birth control.

Uterus transplants could let men get pregnant — but there's a catch
Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him

Fine with me.

Taking a human life, no matter what stage, it not our call to make. (be it man or woman)

It's kind of a complex issue, however, for many Christian's (but not all) because many (not all) Christian's believe we all have an appointed time to die.

That being said, in my eyes, choosing to abort a growing human being in your body is murder - regardless of definitions and laws. But, that is just my opinion. Which, I happen to believe is true and accurate. To me, it is no different than drowning your own child purposefully in the bathtub (morally).

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes.

I expect consistency in our laws. If a total stranger can be sent to jail - charged with murder - for even accidentally killing her child while robbing a bank or driving while intoxicated.
. Why should the woman be held any LESS accountable when she INTENTIONALLY kills her child herself. . . Or pays Planned Parenthood to KILL it?

Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.

No worries.

I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.

If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?

I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.

Yeah. I'm neither religious nor a dictator. I simply believe differently from you in the way I think the children that you are in denial of are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

That "attack the messenger" tendency that you have. . . is that one of those liberal mindset "let's celebrate diversity" things?

At least you didn't deny that you want to control women, and that's not attacking the messenger, that's attacking the misogynist. You'd make a good mooslim. Now go kiss a carpet.

Yeah. . . I'm a controlling woman hater all right. Please don't tell my loving female family members or any of the women family members like my Grandmother or my Step Mother who I was a care provider for, okay? And do ignore the fact that they shared my views on abortion.

That wouldn't be very supportive of your allegations against me.

Most of all don't tell any of the non family women who have known me for decades who are loved by me - despite their views or political beliefs.

If you run into any of them. . . just tell them you know me better because of your perceptive powers on the internet.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's unfortunately that men can not carry children.
I human life should not have to pay the price. It has no choice. Someone needs to defend the life.

Sure they can. Maybe some of these pro-lifers should start concentrating on that instead of working so hard to deny women their reproductive rights or limit their access to birth control.

Uterus transplants could let men get pregnant — but there's a catch
Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him

Fine with me.

Taking a human life, no matter what stage, it not our call to make. (be it man or woman)

It's kind of a complex issue, however, for many Christian's (but not all) because many (not all) Christian's believe we all have an appointed time to die.

That being said, in my eyes, choosing to abort a growing human being in your body is murder - regardless of definitions and laws. But, that is just my opinion. Which, I happen to believe is true and accurate. To me, it is no different than drowning your own child purposefully in the bathtub (morally).

Woman Hater.

 

[Likkmee]

Is eating pussy cannibalism ?

 

[BreezeWood]

That being said, in my eyes, choosing to abort a growing human being in your body is murder - regardless of definitions and laws.

.
do you disagree the parents decision to separate itself from the embryo is not why the embryo dies -

the embryo dies because it is not able to support its own self.


no constitutional rights are being denied anyone.

rights denied would be to refuse the parents right to separate themselves as a choice from an unwanted embryo.

.

 

[Bonzi]

That being said, in my eyes, choosing to abort a growing human being in your body is murder - regardless of definitions and laws.

.
do you disagree the parents decision to separate itself from the embryo is not why the embryo dies -

the embryo dies because it is not able to support its own self.


no constitutional rights are being denied anyone.

rights denied would be to refuse the parents right to separate themselves as a choice from an unwanted embryo.

.

just operating by mans laws. not morality.
men are imperfect.
majority rules are not always the right rules.
I'm not denying what the laws say or even human definitions.

I'm talking about bottom line right and wrong. What you can't not know.

 

[Chuz Life]

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.

Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.

Isn't it?

So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.

Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.

A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.

It's not murder. It's eviction.

No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)

You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.

It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.

If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.

You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.

So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.

As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.

If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.

 

[HenryBHough]

Feelings about abortion change when you recognize that a fetus is a parasite.

In the case of liberals and their pregnancies....well, that IS a point that should be carefully considered.