Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[hangover]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

If killing children with Abortions can be justified by saying it means less suffering for them in the long run. . . Why can't we justify the rounding up an killing of BORN children using that same justification too?

Ah, another nazi final solution. You can't defend the cons refusal to help homeless children, so you come up with this. Your ISIS ideology of forcing women to be the way you want them is undeniable.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

If killing children with Abortions can be justified by saying it means less suffering for them in the long run. . . Why can't we justify the rounding up an killing of BORN children using that same justification too?

Ah, another nazi final solution. You can't defend the cons refusal to help homeless children, so you come up with this. Your ISIS ideology of forcing women to be the way you want them is undeniable.

The question hit a little close to home didn't it.

I'm just the guy holding the mirror. If you don’t like what you see? That's on you.

 

[Bonzi]

To me, it's more about standing up for the life that didn't ask to be conceived vs. forcing women to do things they don't want to.

After pregnancy, a woman will have to endure some sort of emotional trauma. Living with the fact they ended the life of human conceived inside of them, which, is their own flesh and blood; or, having to endure 9 months or so of pregnancy, which, percentage-wise, will likely be uneventful, and they can either live with the responsibility of raising them or giving them up for adoption. Many people want children and can't have them.

Either way, a sacrifice will have to be made.

 

[hangover]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

Hi hangover - it's been a while (I actually could say that to myself since I quit drinking too!) anyway......

Nah, once the egg and sperm meet, it's life. Human life. If we stop giving money to other countries, we could take care of our own.
Problem solved.
Actually not, cause anything the Government sets aside a budget for "good" things, it gets squandered and misused. Corruption prevents any solution.
But that doesn't mean life is not worth living. If you do ONE thing that positively impacts another life, it's worth it.
As a believer in God, our purpose here is not for ourselves and our comfort. It's for Him.

With that being an irreconcilable different in belief, there is not "winning" of an argument like this.

Bernie said it perfectly last night, when he said that billions were given to Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild, but nothing is given to Americans to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
Your "if" doesn't feed the children or house the homeless. And your self-righteous religious beliefs, don't give you the right to force them on women. That's what ISIS does....this is America.

 

[hangover]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

If killing children with Abortions can be justified by saying it means less suffering for them in the long run. . . Why can't we justify the rounding up an killing of BORN children using that same justification too?

Ah, another nazi final solution. You can't defend the cons refusal to help homeless children, so you come up with this. Your ISIS ideology of forcing women to be the way you want them is undeniable.

The question hit a little close to home didn't it.

I'm just the guy holding the mirror. If you don’t like what you see? That's on you.

Yoohoo! The guy in the mirror that you are holding is you. You are the one trying to force your ideology on women like ISIS does. You don't take care of the children that are already born. You throw them out in the street, and refuse to even give them food stamps. Then try to pretend that you are righteous by making the problem worse. Your karma is to be given the same self-righteous judgement that you have given.

 

[Bonzi]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

Hi hangover - it's been a while (I actually could say that to myself since I quit drinking too!) anyway......

Nah, once the egg and sperm meet, it's life. Human life. If we stop giving money to other countries, we could take care of our own.
Problem solved.
Actually not, cause anything the Government sets aside a budget for "good" things, it gets squandered and misused. Corruption prevents any solution.
But that doesn't mean life is not worth living. If you do ONE thing that positively impacts another life, it's worth it.
As a believer in God, our purpose here is not for ourselves and our comfort. It's for Him.

With that being an irreconcilable different in belief, there is not "winning" of an argument like this.

Bernie said it perfectly last night, when he said that billions were given to Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild, but nothing is given to Americans to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
Your "if" doesn't feed the children or house the homeless. And your self-righteous religious beliefs, don't give you the right to force them on women. That's what ISIS does....this is America.

It's not self-righteous. Please tell me what I said was self-righteous.

 

[PK1]

If killing children with Abortions can be justified by saying it means less suffering for them in the long run. . . Why can't we justify the rounding up an killing of BORN children using that same justification too?

---
Why are you blind to the obvious, Chuz?
There's a H-U-G-E difference in the developmental status of the organism's biological system & psychological awareness (embryo or unviable fetus vs healthy BORN child).

Your "justification" analogy has no merit.
You say you're not religious, but some kind of "spiritual" crap must explain your unrealistic belief. Otherwise, try explaining why anyone should care about an embryo other than its relatives ... who want to nurture it to maturity?
.

 

[Dhara]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

 

[Dhara]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

Hey, I usually don't answer multiple questions like that. What is your reaction to my post?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

Hey, I usually don't answer multiple questions like that. What is your reaction to my post?

I already answered that...

"Your comments raised a lot of questions"

 

[Dhara]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

Hey, I usually don't answer multiple questions like that. What is your reaction to my post?

I already answered that...

"Your comments raised a lot of questions"

What statement would you like to make? Your questions are hiding your statement, which as near as I can tell are that the life of a zygote embryo or fetus is equal to that of a fully formed adult woman. Right?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

Hey, I usually don't answer multiple questions like that. What is your reaction to my post?

I already answered that...

"Your comments raised a lot of questions"

What statement would you like to make? Your questions are hiding your statement, which as near as I can tell are that the life of a zygote embryo or fetus is equal to that of a fully formed adult woman. Right?

If I wanted to make a statement, I would have simply made a statement.

Your comment (like I said) raised a few questions about how consistent you are with your views.

For example. . . you comment just now makes me wonder if you are aware that it is the Constitution (not me) where the idea of equal rights and the idea "all persons are equal" has been established.

So, I'm now wondering if you think a child has an equal right to their life that an adult does.

And I'm also wondering if you agree that a child's right to their life should begin when their life does.

Still wondering about that hypocrisy thing too.

 

[PK1]

"Your comments raised a lot of questions"

What statement would you like to make? Your questions are hiding your statement, which as near as I can tell are that the life of a zygote embryo or fetus is equal to that of a fully formed adult woman. Right?

---
Indeed, Chuz agrees with your summary statement; he believes that a zygote is "equal" to an adult woman. (actually, more equal), and he further believes the US Constitution considers a zygote a "person" with equal rights to adult citizens, although the unborn is not a citizen of any country.

Further, Chuz embellishes the developmental status of the zygote by calling it a "child", which has been commonly defined biologically & legally as "A person between birth and puberty.".
No doubt Chuz has a hidden belief system to justify his "logic" & preferred word usage, but he ain't explaining it for fear of ...?
.

 

[Dhara]

Is abortion the taking of human life?

Yes, of course it is.

I think the main reason abortion should remain a safe procedure for the woman and legal is that historically so many women die in unsafe procedures. The woman's life is equally important to the developing, zygote, embryo or fetus.

It's the woman's choice because it's her body hosting another life.

Your comment raises a lot of questions.

Do you claim to be a proponent for equal rights?

Do you oppose discrimination?

What about AGE discrimination?

What do you think about hypocrites?

Hey, I usually don't answer multiple questions like that. What is your reaction to my post?

I already answered that...

"Your comments raised a lot of questions"

What statement would you like to make? Your questions are hiding your statement, which as near as I can tell are that the life of a zygote embryo or fetus is equal to that of a fully formed adult woman. Right?

If I wanted to make a statement, I would have simply made a statement.

Your comment (like I said) raised a few questions about how consistent you are with your views.

For example. . . you comment just now makes me wonder if you are aware that it is the Constitution (not me) where the idea of equal rights and the idea "all persons are equal" has been established.

So, I'm now wondering if you think a child has an equal right to their life that an adult does.

And I'm also wondering if you agree that a child's right to their life should begin when their life does.

Still wondering about that hypocrisy thing too.

Ideally, the child would have an equal right to life. Increasingly, our society supports women who are single parents, or poor. (which often conservatives resent--welfare and aid to dependent children.

If the circumstances of the pregnancy are rape or incest, it seems to place quite a burden on the pregnant woman and the child to raise a child in those circumstances. IMO, the earlier the intervention the better. Morning after pill would be ideal as the fertilzed egg has not yet implanted in the uterus.

When a woman knows her fetus is seriously deformed and will likely endanger her life while possibly the fetus dying before being born, that is a circumstance of a potential compassionate termination.

Finally, the social circumstances of the woman's life may be so complex, (drug addicted and chaotic), that terminating the pregnancy may be less suffering than letting the child live with fetal alcohol syndrome or other severe brain impacted life.

If the mother is mentally ill , she may be completely incapable of taking care of a child.

Yes, ideally, the fetus survives and finds a home and the woman is able to bear the pregnancy.

I do not judge other people's personal decisions. It's between the woman, her mate if he's there, her family and her conscience.

 

[BreezeWood]

For example. . . you comment just now makes me wonder if you are aware that it is the Constitution (not me) where the idea of equal rights and the idea "all persons are equal" has been established.

you comment just now makes me wonder ...


Chuze simply adheres to their own view ignoring existing set Law, Roe vs Wade that addressed already their above disbelief, hypocritically incorporating new laws of personal refinement as being the better "idea".

or how their representation of a "person" child [sic] is unable to survive when removed from another person as their both being the same entity under law is not forced incarceration and refuses to acknowledge the distinction.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Indeed, Chuz agrees with your summary statement;

That shows how confused you really are.

he believes that a zygote is "equal" to an adult woman.

Are you being intentionally vague or are you really just that ignorant?

The recognition of the fact that a child in the zygote stage has just as much a right to the life that they are living that an adult woman has the right to the life she is living is NOT the same thing as saying that they are "equal" in every other way.

(actually, more equal),

LOL!

What the fuck is "more equal?"

Are you so desperate that you have to invent your own language and terms now?

he (Chuz) further believes the US Constitution considers a zygote a "person" with equal rights to adult citizens, although the unborn is not a citizen of any country.

The Constitution says that all persons have a right to their life, right to due process and the right to the equal protections of our laws. It is you who is distorting that which the Constitution says... because the Constitution does not say what you claim. It does not say that you have to be a "citizen" (person born) of ANY country to qualify for any of the rights of a person.

Further, Chuz embellishes the developmental status of the zygote by calling it a "child", which has been commonly defined biologically & legally as "A person between birth and puberty.".

Oh really. . . let's look some definitions up and post them and see which one of us is right.

Definition of child
plural chil·dren play\ˈchil-drən, -dərn\

1. a : an unborn or recently born person

____


Full Definition of Child
1 A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
Example sentencesSynonyms
1.1A son or daughter of any age.

____

Definition of Child
noun, plural children.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
books for children.
2. a son or daughter:
All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus. <--------
___


CHILD
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

No doubt Chuz has a hidden belief system to justify his "logic" & preferred word usage, but he ain't explaining it for fear of ...?.

My readers already know that I explain my views willingly and in great detail. As I just did (again) above.

 

[ChrisL]

I think the real hypocrites are the ones who would support the death penalty while being against abortion. They don't seem to care much at all about "innocent" lives that are taken by the death penalty, and those are fully functioning and coherent human beings who they want to kill.

 

[PK1]

I think the real hypocrites are the ones who would support the death penalty while being against abortion. They don't seem to care much at all about "innocent" lives that are taken by the death penalty, and those are fully functioning and coherent human beings who they want to kill.

---
I agree, if the lives taken by the death penalty were "innocent", but innocence can have varying viewpoints.

IMO, the real hypocrisies among anti-abortionists are:
1) spending time, energy, money on defeating Parenthood planning & pretending to be compassionate toward "human beings", yet ... ignoring the fates of those unfortunate "souls" born into impoverished families (or by single mothers) in dangerous neighborhoods or undeveloped countries.
2) the right-wingers want less government controls on our lives (esp pocketbooks!), yet they want gov to control family or individual decisions, whether it's abortion, drug use, right to end life, or good old prostitution.
.

 

[PK1]

(actually, more equal),

What the fuck is "more equal?"

The Constitution says that all persons have a right to their life, right to due process and the right to the equal protections of our laws. It is you who is distorting that which the Constitution says... because the Constitution does not say what you claim. It does not say that you have to be a "citizen" (person born) of ANY country to qualify for any of the rights of a person.

Further, Chuz embellishes the developmental status of the zygote by calling it a "child", which has been commonly defined biologically & legally as "A person between birth and puberty.".

Oh really. . . let's look some definitions up and post them and see which one of us is right. ...

---
You can cherry-pick the definitions you prefer, and i will do it too. It's a semantics battle.
You're willing to call a zygote a "child", i prefer to call it a "zygote", or a one-cell animal organism.
You prefer to call a zygote with human DNA a "human being", i call it a biological cell with 46 chromosomes reflective of the H.Sapien species.
Our opposing views reflect a philosophical discussion/debate on ethics, which this thread is about.

Regarding the US Constitution, instead of focusing on what it does not say, can you show us what is says about the unborn "person"? No? LOL!
In the Roe/Wade case, SCOTUS decided "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

The reason i say you believe the zygote has more than "EQUAL" rights in comparison to its pregnant incubator ... is because you don't allow her to make the final decision, essentially giving the embryo "more rights". If she cannot choose, she becomes the "minority" who cannot decide. No 50/50 in this case.
.