Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[Mudda]

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.

You want to control women and their reproductive rights through imprisonment. You obviously don't want to live in the land of the free, so maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia, you'd like it there I'm sure.

Adding you to my psycho ignore list now.

Your cluelessness is boring me.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Coyote]

There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.

The legal counter to that argument will be very easy to make in court using both the legal precedents set in our legal homicide laws and simple logic.

Unless the woman was raped, the only reason the child where it is and the only reason it is in that physical relationship with her. . . is because of the actions and risks that she took along with her partner to put it there.

The courts will agree that a child that is invited into that relationship - by the actions of his/her parents - has the legal right to be there.

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.

Agree.

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.

If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.

Call it anything else you want to.

So long as our laws recognize it as a human being - it is Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

Our laws say "person", not human being.

WRONG.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws do not use the word "person" to make the case for murder in a case where a child in the womb is killed in a criminal act. I wish they did.

They use the fact that the child is "a human being" instead - which according to legal definitions is the same thing anyway.

You were talking about the Constitution.

Hell, a tumor is a human being in the sense that it is human tissue, like an embryo.

So go ahead and make your case for why a human tumor should be a "person" if you want to.

Not my case to make. I'm not the one stretching the definition of person in order to expand rights.

Doing so or failing to do so would not mean that a human being in the embryonic stage of their life is NOT one.

It's not a person. All it is is a potential human life.

Furthermore, it would help your case quite a bit if you could cite a law that already makes the killing of a human "tumor" a crime of MURDER in any other situation. Wouldn't it?

I'll wait for you to connect the dots on that.

Killing a fetus is usually "feticide", not murder. In fact...it's hard to find any cases where a conviction of murder occurred. Case law seems to be a patchwork who's ultimate aim is to get around a woman's constitutional rights.

Feticide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

End game here - legally we have to abide by mans law.
Realistically, there is right wrong and it's very simple. Human life begins at conception. What more needs to be said?

Human life begins at viability. Until then, it's part of the mother's body.

 

[Gracie]

The survey is a direct question

My OP is just more follow up questions, so, they are separate

Really. A cyst is alive in your body. So is a tumor. So is bacteria. Is a fetus alive? Well fucking DUH.

Your question is what has been asked forever. Is aborting it taking a life? Yes. See above answer.
This is not a black and white matter. Lots of grays in there.

In short..troll thread.

 

[Bonzi]

End game here - legally we have to abide by mans law.
Realistically, there is right wrong and it's very simple. Human life begins at conception. What more needs to be said?

Human life begins at viability. Until then, it's part of the mother's body.

According to who? Congress? Webster's Dictionary? Some Scientist? Cite your "reliable" sources...

 

[Bonzi]

Keep telling yourself that people that have abortions are not killing off a living human being in the beginning stages of life that is part them and part someone else.

Good luck with that.

 

[Gracie]

Deep down, everyone knows it's wrong
All the arguments are rationalizations

Anyone that can tell me they have a 100% clear conscience if they go have an abortion is either a liar or a sociopath.

Yeah? Tell that to rape victims who have no intention of carrying a kid planted in them by force, and this includes incest victims.
You sicken me.

 

[Bonzi]

It sickens me people are so selfish

 

[Gracie]

It sickens me people are so selfish

And it sickens me that you would force someone to grow something in their bodies they didn't ask to be planted there in the first place.

 

[Coyote]

Bonzi is right in that it is not an easy or uncomplicated decision. It isn't.

But regardles no one - NO ONE - has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not wish for.

It's not "selfish".

Every woman's reason is different.

Perhaps those who think it's "selfish" should lline up to adopt unwanted fetus' or embryos or blastocysts.

 

[sealybobo]

It depends

The the fetus is viable outside the womb then yes

so an embryo is not a living thing? a life?

Isn't a spirm a living thing? I mean it's moving, right?

 

[Gracie]

Sometimes...selflessness is seen as selfish but in reality, its the other way around.

Reminds me of the story about the two women fighting over a baby and claiming to be the mother of it and King Solomon said "cut the baby in half. Each will have half a dead baby" which the fake mom agreed to and the REAL mother said "no..it is not my child after all. Please do not kill the baby. Let him go with her". And King Solomon said "I know who the mother is now".

THAT is selflessness.

Like I said...gray areas. And those who sit so quickly in judgement should just shut their assholelicking lips. But...she is wanting attention again, as usual.

 

[Bonzi]

That's like apples and oranges.

We can debate this forever.
Bottom line, I believe what I believe - and, no matter what analogies and rationalizations people make, that human life growing in you is a life that is part YOU!
From conception until "whenever".

That's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Unkotare]

It depends

The the fetus is viable outside the womb then yes

so an embryo is not a living thing? a life?

Isn't a spirm a living thing? I mean it's moving, right?

And bobomengele shows the depth of his intelligence again....

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not the one stretching the definition of person in order to expand rights.

The legal definition for a natural person is;

Natural person
Definition
1. A living human being.

As "a human being" in any stage of their life growth and development is "a human being" (and our Fetal Homicide Laws already define and recognize that fact) There is no need for me to stretch the definitions at all.

It's not a person.

Your denials have already been refuted and defeated on this.

All it is is a potential human life.

Logic is not your strongest suit, is it?

You see, logically speaking, mere "potential" human beings would not have REAL / Tangible bodies to be disposed off once they are killed and removed from their mother's womb.

Now, I guess you will try to accuse me of "stretching logic" too, I suppose.

Killing a fetus is usually "feticide", not murder. In fact...it's hard to find any cases where a conviction of murder occurred. Case law seems to be a patchwork who's ultimate aim is to get around a woman's constitutional rights.

Feticide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The federal law makes it clear enough for me.

(C)
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted Murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Chuz Life]

End game here - legally we have to abide by mans law.
Realistically, there is right wrong and it's very simple. Human life begins at conception. What more needs to be said?

Human life begins at viability. Until then, it's part of the mother's body.

"Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos." - Maureen L. Condic Senior Fellow Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine

 

[Coyote]

I'm not the one stretching the definition of person in order to expand rights.

The legal definition for a natural person is;

Natural person
Definition
1. A living human being.

As "a human being" in any stage of their life growth and development is "a human being" (and our Fetal Homicide Laws already define and recognize that fact) There is no need for me to stretch the definitions at all.

It's not a person.

Your denials have already been refuted and defeated on this.

Personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A person is recognized by law as such, not because they are human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to them.

All it is is a potential human life.

Logic is not your strongest suit, is it?
[/quote]
Is an acorn and oak tree?
Is an egg a chicken?

No, it may become one eventually, but it's only a potential.

You see, logically speaking, mere "potential" human beings would not have REAL / Tangible bodies to be disposed off once they are killed and removed from their mother's womb.

Now, I guess you will try to accuse me of "stretching logic" too, I suppose.

They represent potential life. Life. They are not an independent life until they are outside the woman's body.

Killing a fetus is usually "feticide", not murder. In fact...it's hard to find any cases where a conviction of murder occurred. Case law seems to be a patchwork who's ultimate aim is to get around a woman's constitutional rights.

Feticide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The federal law makes it clear enough for me.

(C)
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted Murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Evicting an unwanted lifeform from within your body is not "murder" no matter how you slice it or dice it until viability is attained. The arguments trying to make this murder are nothing more than attempting to force a woman to carry something she does not want, face the risks of pregnancy and childbirth against her will. That's all it's about. If it were about anything else you'd hear just as much outrage at surplus embryos at fertility clinics, but you don't.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

It is a living being from the moment of conception. It is a human being from the moment of conception. To argue otherwise is insanity, the deliberate disregard for words and their meanings.

However, as a living human being, it is still occupying another living human being's body-- and that living human being has rights, including the right to bodily autonomy and the right to self-defense and thus, ultimately, to remove unwanted living human beings from her body regardless of whether they will survive the process or not. A human being can not logically have rights until it is capable of independent existence and action.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Logic is not your strongest suit, is it?

You see, logically speaking, mere "potential" human beings would not have REAL / Tangible bodies to be disposed off once they are killed and removed from their mother's womb.

no one is killing anything, the embryo is simply detached from inside a parent at the parents request. you are welcome to play whatever role you would like from that point forward including scientific research for whatever purpose inspires your involvement.

Your denials have already been refuted and defeated on this.

your own words for the above.


recreational sex like any sport does not quit play over an occasional error.

.

 

[Steven_R]

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

Is it anything other than human?

At the moment of conception, it is a genetically unique human being at an early stage of development. It is human. Aborting it is artificially ending that human's life.

Abortion may be called "pro-choice" but it is the choice of destroying a human being.