When does human life begin?

[alang1216]

That's for each state to decide.

That's for each state to decide.

So your only moral objection to abortion is that the States don't get to decide the rules. Noted.

 

[alang1216]

DNA is proof of a specific person.

No. DNA is, in part, the potential to become a person.

 

[alang1216]

Wanting a legal determination of when rights convey to a genetically distinct living human being in a womb based upon science and law is in no way denying responsibility.

I disagree. Relying on science to answer a question that science can't answer is irresponsible.

The irony of your civil rights argument is that it was some states that were denying human rights to humans. It was because some states wanted to continue treating humans as property - as less than human - like you want to do today.

Forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not want is treating her as less than human

 

[alang1216]

You misspelled human. You don't see a fertilized egg as a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every point along the continuum is fully human and has the characteristics appropriate for that stage of the human life cycle.

This is you treating human life as less than human. This is you treating human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. If that's not a civil rights violation, nothing is.

People have always balanced lives vs other things. In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken. Recently we have tried to balance lives lost to the pandemic against economic and political costs.

You are welcome to be all sanctimonious but in the real world, lives have a tangible value that can be balanced against other values.

 

[alang1216]

Abortion is not moral and for the overwhelming vast majority of abortions cannot be considered to be the lesser of two evils.

So in a few circumstances, abortion is justified?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

No. I am saying that the original ruling never examined any scientific evidence for when human life begins.

I know where you stand. I was making a point for the anti-lifers

 

[Carl in Michigan]

People have always balanced lives vs other things. In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken

So you agree the left is AT WAR with beginning human life

 

[alang1216]

That should be up to each state to decide.

Leaving moral questions to others? That is a cop out. I guess I should be talking with state officials, not you.

 

[alang1216]

So you agree the left is AT WAR with beginning human life

I don't speak for the left, I speak only for me. I'm not at war with human life, I place great value on it, and not just on it's beginning but the entire life.

 

[ding]

So your only moral objection to abortion is that the States don't get to decide the rules. Noted.

That's quite a leap in logic you just made, Evil Knievel.

So, no. Not noted.

 

[ding]

No. DNA is, in part, the potential to become a person.

Incorrect. At conception a potential person does not come into existence. A person with potential comes into existence. We use DNA to identify specific persons.

 

[ding]

I disagree. Relying on science to answer a question that science can't answer is irresponsible.

Dr Jerome LeJeune disagrees.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

 

[ding]

Forcing a woman to carry a baby she does not want is treating her as less than human

That will be up to each state to decide.

 

[ClaireH]

Incorrect. At conception a potential person does not come into existence. A person with potential comes into existence. We use DNA to identify specific persons.

Unless new life comes in contact with violence or death, the path is set to
survive and thrive.

 

[ding]

People have always balanced lives vs other things. In WWII we bombed cities, knowing innocent lives would be taken. Recently we have tried to balance lives lost to the pandemic against economic and political costs.

You are welcome to be all sanctimonious but in the real world, lives have a tangible value that can be balanced against other values.

I don't believe it is sanctimonious to recognize that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. It's just science.

Sanctimonious would be you believing that no one should ever be allowed to challenge the status quo because you think you know better.

 

[ding]

So in a few circumstances, abortion is justified?

Not to me it isn't but that's for each state to decide.

 

[ding]

Leaving moral questions to others? That is a cop out. I guess I should be talking with state officials, not you.

More like abiding with decisions I have no control over. But if you want to see that as a cop out and seek out state officials to talk to, I will abide those decisions too. I control the things I can control and leave the rest to God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know where you stand. I was making a point for the anti-lifers

No, you just regurgitated a stupid talking point of you anti choicers who think women are property.

 

[alang1216]

That will be up to each state to decide.

Do you have a moral issue if a state decides a mother must carry every fetus? Or decides a mother does not have to carry her fetus?

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. At conception a potential person does not come into existence. A person with potential comes into existence. We use DNA to identify specific persons.

Semantics.