CDZ Abortion: Moral or Immoral

[PredFan]

what facts?

The fact that abortion kills a human child.

What facts are there that say whether a fetus is a human?
It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human.

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

 

[Chuz Life]

It takes more than even a strong suspicion to warrant a MURDER charge for a failed pregnancy. Same as it is with any other MURDER charge. The burden of proof is very high.

I accept your surrender on your abortion is murder claim.

Wishful thinking much?

The burden of proof is very high.

Your words, correct?

"Burden of proof" is used in civil cases. In criminal cases, the accused must be found guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt". So that would apply in any criminal murder case...including a double homicide case when the accused is standing trial for killing a woman and her unborn baby.

Your post should be directed at Chuz Life. They are his words

They were / are agreeing with me and supporting my comment, fool.

Fwiw, the concept of "Burden of proof" is not unique to civil cases though. All persons are considered innocent until proven guilty. . .this places the burden of proof on the State in a criminal case.

 

[PredFan]

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Garbage. There isn't one single biologist or scientist who is involved in the human body in any way who will deny that if left alone, a human fetus will become a human being. Not one. They will confirm positively that a human fetus has human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside the mother for at least 28 weeks is irrelevant.

of course it will become a human being. I was referring to basic biology... I was referring to what i said.

It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human

Ok then what you are saying is irrelevant then. We are talking about the "fact" that if left alone, it will be a human.

If left alone, it will die.

If you are going to be anal, YOU be careful with your words.

Why would it die? We are talking about a fetus in utero. Don't be an idiot.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The fact that abortion kills a human child.

What facts are there that say whether a fetus is a human?
It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human.

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

I'm a biologist. The fetus becomes a child at 24 weeks, give or take. That is the point it can survive outside the womb with modern technology.

As for when life begins ~ it never ends. Sperm & egg ~ both alive.

 

[MarkDuffy]

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Garbage. There isn't one single biologist or scientist who is involved in the human body in any way who will deny that if left alone, a human fetus will become a human being. Not one. They will confirm positively that a human fetus has human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside the mother for at least 28 weeks is irrelevant.

of course it will become a human being. I was referring to basic biology... I was referring to what i said.

It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human

Ok then what you are saying is irrelevant then. We are talking about the "fact" that if left alone, it will be a human.

If left alone, it will die.

If you are going to be anal, YOU be careful with your words.

Why would it die? We are talking about a fetus in utero. Don't be an idiot.

When in utero, it is not ALONE

 

[Chuz Life]

What facts are there that say whether a fetus is a human?
It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human.

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

I'm a biologist. The fetus becomes a child at 24 weeks, give or take. That is the point it can survive outside the womb.

As for when life begins ~ it never ends. Sperm & egg ~ both alive.

A biologist that can not differentiate between the beginning of an individual organism's life and the beginning of LIFE in general..

Pretty sad.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I accept your surrender on your abortion is murder claim.

Wishful thinking much?

The burden of proof is very high.

Your words, correct?

"Burden of proof" is used in civil cases. In criminal cases, the accused must be found guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt". So that would apply in any criminal murder case...including a double homicide case when the accused is standing trial for killing a woman and her unborn baby.

Your post should be directed at Chuz Life. They are his words

They were / are agreeing with me and supporting my comment, fool.

Fwiw, the concept of "Burden of proof" is not unique to civil cases though. All persons are considered innocent until proven guilty. . .this places the burden of proof on the State in a criminal case.

So it is not murder until a jury sez it is.

I accept your surrender again

 

[MarkDuffy]

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

I'm a biologist. The fetus becomes a child at 24 weeks, give or take. That is the point it can survive outside the womb.

As for when life begins ~ it never ends. Sperm & egg ~ both alive.

A biologist that can not differentiate between the beginning of an individual organism's life and the beginning of LIFE in general..

Pretty sad.

Seriously you should quit while you are behind.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As always, IMO, the first, last and onlyl aspect of this issue is that its the woman's decision and no onee else has a right to control or force her to reproduce. But, the pro-birthers often talk about the bible, god, yadda yadda.

I don't believe any of the various gods exist but for those who do, he destroys most pregnancies and you worship him. The christian bible is downright schizzy on the subject.

 

[TNHarley]

What facts are there that say whether a fetus is a human?
It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human.

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Garbage. There isn't one single biologist or scientist who is involved in the human body in any way who will deny that if left alone, a human fetus will become a human being. Not one. They will confirm positively that a human fetus has human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside the mother for at least 28 weeks is irrelevant.

of course it will become a human being. I was referring to basic biology... I was referring to what i said.

It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human

Ok then what you are saying is irrelevant then. We are talking about the "fact" that if left alone, it will be a human.

So you didn't say it was a fa t abortions kill a human child? My bad. I must be tripping

 

[task0778]

Using standard definitions, socially 'moral' in the legal sense - personally immoral. It is a barbaric medical procedure that dehumanizes the 'victim', much as slavery did, a tactic used by most of the worlds cruelest tyrants to justify mass murder and genocide.

Pregnancy - easiest of all STD's to avoid.

What is barbaric is controlling our reproduction, what we allow to happen with our bodies. No one is saying you HAVE TO terminate an unwanted pregnancy if you don't believe in it. However, no one should be able to tell a woman that she MUST reproduce. The current relaxing of employers' duty to provide birth control coverage and the targeted attacks against Planned Parenthood are a double attack on women's right to choose.
Women know if they are ready, willing and able to commit to the enormous responsibility of being a parent. Each woman needs to be free to choose.

I gotta ask in all seriousness cuz I respect your opinion more than most: what about the unborn's right to life? How can you be so cavalier about terminating a life? What's different for that person after birth than before that means his/her life can be ended? The woman can carry the baby to term and give it up and go on with her life but the unborn life is DEAD. The circumstances of conception are certainly not the fault of the fetus/baby, and yet so many have no problem destroying him/her. Hard to understand.

I believe in quality of life and the right of a woman to choose. When I was faced with the question myself, I couldn't do it. It completely changed my life. I'm not complaining, but buster you better believe it is a life changer. How many women do you think are strong enough to bring a baby to term and give it away? There's hormones involved there. It is hell. I know women who have done it and NONE of them ever forgot it, just like they never forget the abortion. It's not easy stuff. But how do I justify terminating the potential life when it is an insensate finger sized mass? I think of the children who are unwanted in this world and what kind of life they are likely to live. Is it better to terminate that spark of potential before it begins or force it into a world where the child is likely to suffer in one way or another.
That's how I so cavalierly decide it is a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

I respect your view but I do have some disagreements with it and please do not see this as a personal attack. So, a woman that is not strong enough to bring it to term and give it away but strong enough to end that life? That sounds a lot like too much concern for yourself and none for your baby. Either way it's about as tough a decision as anyone can make, but to deny that new life the opportunity to live and the opportunity for someone else to parent him or her because you're not up to the job seems selfish to me. Who's to say that child would be unwanted or likely to suffer in some way, any differently from any other child? What's the difference if it is a finger-sized insensate mass or a larger fetus that can feel pain or an even larger fetus that is now a viable life or a baby 10 minutes away from birth? It's still a potential individual life that has done nothing to warrant it's own destruction. And you did not address my primary question, which is what about the unborn's right to life? You talk about the woman's right but what about the fetus' right to live, what's more basic than that? Assuming that the child will be unwanted or likely to suffer in one way or another, nobody can know that in advance. We all have to take our chances, some of us are or were unwanted and some of us did suffer, but choosing to deny that chance to someone else is to my mind immoral. There's no excuse for murder of a person after birth, and I see no reason to make an exception for those who haven't been born yet. Instead of aborting them we should be taking action to ensure their chances for a good life are no worse than anyone else's.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wishful thinking much?

The burden of proof is very high.

Your words, correct?

"Burden of proof" is used in civil cases. In criminal cases, the accused must be found guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt". So that would apply in any criminal murder case...including a double homicide case when the accused is standing trial for killing a woman and her unborn baby.

Your post should be directed at Chuz Life. They are his words

They were / are agreeing with me and supporting my comment, fool.

Fwiw, the concept of "Burden of proof" is not unique to civil cases though. All persons are considered innocent until proven guilty. . .this places the burden of proof on the State in a criminal case.

So it is not murder until a jury sez it is.

I accept your surrender again

Did you get that from O.J.?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is moral as it makes sure a child isn't born into a world of poverty and starvation.

You damn well know that the republican party isn't going to be helping this child once it is born.

 

[Chuz Life]

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

I'm a biologist. The fetus becomes a child at 24 weeks, give or take. That is the point it can survive outside the womb.

As for when life begins ~ it never ends. Sperm & egg ~ both alive.

A biologist that can not differentiate between the beginning of an individual organism's life and the beginning of LIFE in general..

Pretty sad.

Seriously you should quit while you are behind.

Hey biolojester. . . When does an individual (mammal) organism's aging begin? Be specific.

 

[JoeMoma]

It is moral as it makes sure a child isn't born into a world of poverty and starvation.

You damn well know that the republican party isn't going to be helping this child once it is born.

So following that logic, wiping out people living in poverty would be doing a kindness to those people.

 

[PredFan]

What facts are there that say whether a fetus is a human?
It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human.

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Lots of people in the abortion debate are ignorant of basic biology terminology and science. Of course a fetus meets the criteria of life. The fetal stage is simply one stage of many for the human life cycle.

His point is the very basic scientific definition of life as opposed to something like a rock. It a ridiculous argument and cannot be applied in the case of a fetus if any kind.

I'm a biologist. The fetus becomes a child at 24 weeks, give or take. That is the point it can survive outside the womb with modern technology.

As for when life begins ~ it never ends. Sperm & egg ~ both alive.

Does a 15 week gestation fetus have human DNA? Is that DNA it's own or is it the mothers? I think you know the answer to that.

 

[PredFan]

Garbage. There isn't one single biologist or scientist who is involved in the human body in any way who will deny that if left alone, a human fetus will become a human being. Not one. They will confirm positively that a human fetus has human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside the mother for at least 28 weeks is irrelevant.

of course it will become a human being. I was referring to basic biology... I was referring to what i said.

It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human

Ok then what you are saying is irrelevant then. We are talking about the "fact" that if left alone, it will be a human.

If left alone, it will die.

If you are going to be anal, YOU be careful with your words.

Why would it die? We are talking about a fetus in utero. Don't be an idiot.

When in utero, it is not ALONE

I asked you not to be an idiot and you went full retard on me.

 

[PredFan]

Science says so. The fact that if left alone, a human being is born.

science says what? Pretty sure science says its both ways because its SUBJECTIVE. They can NOT agree on whether a fetus is a human "life" or not. Possibly because it doesnt meet criteria for life.

Garbage. There isn't one single biologist or scientist who is involved in the human body in any way who will deny that if left alone, a human fetus will become a human being. Not one. They will confirm positively that a human fetus has human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside the mother for at least 28 weeks is irrelevant.

of course it will become a human being. I was referring to basic biology... I was referring to what i said.

It doesnt meet the criteria for a living organism or human

Ok then what you are saying is irrelevant then. We are talking about the "fact" that if left alone, it will be a human.

So you didn't say it was a fa t abortions kill a human child? My bad. I must be tripping

I did say that, do you not understand the difference? Maybe you are tripping.

 

[2aguy]

It is moral as it makes sure a child isn't born into a world of poverty and starvation.

You damn well know that the republican party isn't going to be helping this child once it is born.

The conservatives in this country give more time and money, after taxes, to charity than left wingers do....that includes helping women and children in need....

You guys tell yourself this as a way to justify murdering babies....whatever you need to say to justify murder.......

 

[SSGT Bags]

Abortion is immoral at any stage.

It is murder, plain and simple. There is no argument.

There is always an argument with something subjective.

No, the point is that pro-abortionists (anti-life) rationalize their behavior by claiming that life begins at birth, when in fact life begins at conception.