CDZ Abortion

[Blackrook]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in an internet forum, and I've seen a lot of stupid.

Actually -- this is the Clean Debate Zone.
"Clean" is self-explanatory but "Debate" means you're not allowed to post drive-by flames, especially with no address of the topic.

The ignorance of the statement, and basing it on the Bible, was just too much for me. I apologize for not being "clean" enough.

 

[Flopper]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And it also the law

 

[Blackrook]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And it also the law

It is the law because seven unelected Supreme Court justices say so.

 

[Mr. H.]

At least fighter pilots have ejection seats.
The Germanwings passengers did not.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ancient, barbaric societies used to sacrifice their children at various ages to 'gods'.
Modern, civilized ones do it for ideology and oil.
We make decisions about life already; it is hypocritical to call it into question just because it concerns a woman and control of her own body and destiny.

 

[Blackrook]

Ancient, barbaric societies used to sacrifice their children at various ages to 'gods'.
Modern, civilized ones do it for ideology and oil.
We make decisions about life already; it is hypocritical to call it into question just because it concerns a woman and control of her own body and destiny.

So what are you saying? Are you for or against murdering unborn babies?

 

[there4eyeM]

You mean, do I oppose bombing civilians?

 

[Bonzi]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

No human being has a right to the use of the body of another human being against their will.

Explain? Which human being are you talking about that has rights? The one in the womb, or the with the womb?

 

[Bonzi]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

At what point is it "viable"?

 

[Bonzi]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

You don't get to override her constitutional rights with your belief system.

A human being (even in the earliest of stages) has just as many rights as a human being walking around. If not more so, because it has the inability to defend itself.

 

[Bonzi]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

That doesn't change the fact that it is murder. Murder of the defenseless and voiceless

 

[there4eyeM]

So, it has the right to vote?

 

[Bonzi]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

so, unlucky for the human being growing inside her - and too bad for the father that may want the child.

that sounds reasonable (not)

 

[Bonzi]

So, it has the right to vote?

No, but a 3 year old can't vote, but has rights nonetheless

 

[there4eyeM]

Your definition of terms doesn't change the fact that it is your definition of terms.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, there are gradations of rights?

 

[Bonzi]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

If you mean spontaneous as a miscarriage? obviously that is nature, not someone making a choice to end a life. but making a decision to end a human life, that's murder.

 

[Bonzi]

So, there are gradations of rights?

If you are a human life, whether it's at conception or at 100 year of age, you have rights.
And those that can't and/or are unable to protect/defend themselves deserve the protection of those that can.

 

[Bonzi]

Your definition of terms doesn't change the fact that it is your definition of terms.

I know what the law says. Not sure what terms you are referring to... ?

 

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

At what point is it "viable"?

When it meets the definition.

Viable Define Viable at Dictionary.com

1. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.