Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[aris2chat]

It depends. If it has a heart beat then yes. It's murder

-Geaux

But outside the womb, it doesn't till minimally 27 weeks.

Inside the woman's womb, it part of her body and her choice, her control.

You don't control what tea she drinks or what activities she wants to do, like cliff jumping. You don't control if she drinks alcohol, or smokes, or uses drugs. You don't control what she consumes or what doctor she goes to. You don't even get to see her medical records to know if she is pregnant.

You don't get to control her life

 

[Igrok_]

It has it's constitution and declaration, which assure life

for women's kids too, i guess

 

[aris2chat]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

oh, even the us law is on the christian's side. Yet.

The law does not apply to the woman or her doctor in the case of abortion.
She has the right to choose.

 

[aris2chat]

It has it's constitution and declaration, which assure life

for women's kids too, i guess

after they are born

 

[Vigilante]

Liberal Compassion!

 

[Igrok_]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

oh, even the us law is on the christian's side. Yet.

The law does not apply to the woman or her doctor in the case of abortion.
She has the right to choose.

m, so you say in one case "child in utero" is a man, in others - like a tea?

 

[Vigilante]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

oh, even the us law is on the christian's side. Yet.

The law does not apply to the woman or her doctor in the case of abortion.
She has the right to choose.

BUT it does state WHEN LIFE BEGINS...We can't help that the SCOTUS fucked up, once again, with Roe v Wade!

 

[Geaux4it]

It depends. If it has a heart beat then yes. It's murder

-Geaux

But outside the womb, it doesn't till minimally 27 weeks.

Inside the woman's womb, it part of her body and her choice, her control.

You don't control what tea she drinks or what activities she wants to do, like cliff jumping. You don't control if she drinks alcohol, or smokes, or uses drugs. You don't control what she consumes or what doctor she goes to. You don't even get to see her medical records to know if she is pregnant.

You don't get to control her life

Wow. Project much?

-Geaux

 

[Dekster]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Yes abortion is taking a life. Can't say I really care though.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Yes.

Is it anything other than human?

No.


Done.

That was easy.

 

[aris2chat]

First trimester is an embryo
Second trimester it is a fetus
Till it can live outside the womb, it is not a baby

>>In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host. I’m not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent – if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. Fetal dependence on a woman’s body also refutes the common anti-choice assertion that fetuses are “innocent” and therefore deserving of protection. An unwanted fetus has no ill intent of course – like a parasite, it’s just doing what it naturally has to do – but the physical risks of pregnancy and its total disruption to a woman’s body and life means the fetus is not harmless, and therefore not innocent.<<

A woman should be freely willing to share her body, not forced to.

A child should be born in love, not because of an accident.

 

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

 

[ChrisL]

If you people are THIS obsessed with another person's embryo/fetus, whom you don't even know, then you have some serious mental issues and I would suggest therapy. Seriously. That is fucked up.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's use the following definition of "life" for discussion purposes:

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

That being said, is it your stance that a human embryo is life ?

If the mother wishes to carry on with the pregnancy, then yes. If she does not, then no.

 

[ChrisL]

The unborn embryo is not an entity of it's own, and therefore the only "value" it has is assigned by the woman who is carrying it. If she does not assign any value to it, then it really has no value. I know that sounds cold, but it is what it is. Abortion is quite rare anyways. Most women do choose to keep their babies.

 

[ChrisL]

I got pregnant and had my son at a young age. I thought about abortion, but after I thought long and hard, I decided that I would keep my son, carry on with the pregnancy to it's end and raise him and love him.

I am not in the position to make that decision for another woman, and neither are any of you. It is a very personal decision and none of your fucking business.

 

[ChrisL]

Another thing, for those of you who ONLY support a woman's right to "choose" in the cases of rape or incest are nothing but hypocrites. Are you saying that suddenly it is no longer "murder?" Murder is murder, right?

 

[ChrisL]

I voted yes before reading you post. Abortion is taking a life but abortions don't take place at conception. You need to move the age up to find out where people stand. Some would abort right before delivery and call it "choice".

And who, pray tell, are these people, and do you have a link?

 

[ChrisL]

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.