Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[alang1216]

To claim the cells in your body are human beings TOO. . . You would have to manipulate them to mimic that which a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

Do you know for a fact that the zygote is not being similarly manipulated by external hormones from the mother? As in the invitro example, it is not relevant if such manipulation is natural or artificial.

 

[Chuz Life]

To claim the cells in your body are human beings TOO. . . You would have to manipulate them to mimic that which a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

Do you know for a fact that the zygote is not being similarly manipulated by external hormones from the mother? As in the invitro example, it is not relevant if such manipulation is natural or artificial.

It's hilarious how much you are having to stretch your imagination on this. You are obviously trying to make it out as though this issue is more complicated than it needs to be.

What is the purpose for HUMAN haploid gametes cells if they are not for HUMAN reproduction?

When they merge to begin a new HUMAN life - what more manipulation is needed for the life they just began to be what it already is?

 

[BreezeWood]

The question is "what should the consequences be" for making choices that violate the rights of others.

.
(were this to continue ...)


for making choices that violate the rights of others.

there is no "other" when the choice to have recreational sex "is" [sic] made, no rights were violated by or against anyone - the result of that choice is not a decision made but a consequence that has various remedies.

you allow to "Chuz" Life for yourself then blindly deny any other circumstantial reason otherwise to anyone else for the same decision, a decision made by over 58 million people since RvW and throughout history.

who are you to intervene against others when the will of the Almighty offers a solution one shown in nature as an example, the Seagull and the Terrapin.

.

 

[alang1216]

It's hilarious how much you are having to stretch your imagination on this. You are obviously trying to make it out as though this issue is more complicated than it needs to be.

Humanity is simple? For every complex question there a simple answer that is invariably wrong.

When they merge to begin a new HUMAN life - what more manipulation is needed for the life they just began to be what it already is?

If I put that zygote in a petri dish with plenty of nutrients would it develop into a child? If it can't develop on it's own it obviously requires something more than just time and a food supply. Do you know the answer?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's hilarious how much you are having to stretch your imagination on this. You are obviously trying to make it out as though this issue is more complicated than it needs to be.

Humanity is simple? For every complex question there a simple answer that is invariably wrong.

When they merge to begin a new HUMAN life - what more manipulation is needed for the life they just began to be what it already is?

If I put that zygote in a petri dish with plenty of nutrients would it develop into a child? If it can't develop on it's own it obviously requires something more than just time and a food supply. Do you know the answer?

Yes, humanity is simple. We humans show humanity to even the simplest of creatures when our empathy compels us to do so. . . And usually with little or no hesitation.

It's when we lack that empathy that that same level of humanity gets lost.

We have laws against the molestation of BUTTERFLIES for crying out loud. But little to no recognition of the rights of a human child in the womb? There is something not right about that.

Can a human zygote in a petri dish BECOME a child?

NO!

That's because it already is one.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Is it anything other than human?

The stork delivers babies. All that is is a lump of flesh.....that allows liberals to buy Lamborghinis.

 

[Bonzi]

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

Is it anything other than human?

The stork delivers babies. All that is is a lump of flesh.....that allows liberals to buy Lamborghinis.

I don't hear from you much m., but when I do it's always a winner!

 

[Bonzi]

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

Is it anything other than human?

The stork delivers babies. All that is is a lump of flesh.....that allows liberals to buy Lamborghinis.

I don't hear from you much m., but when I do it's always a winner!

 

[FaerieGodfather]

It's a "potential" life, up to the mother whether or not she wants to carry it to term.

Its an oddity to me, hard to understand the legal aspects of it. If a man was to murder a pregnant woman he will be charged with double homicide, but at what point of the pregnancy would he be charged with double homicide? If the woman was on her way to the abortion clinic to abort the child right before she was murdered, would the guy still be charged with double homicide? or should he? I know pretty abstract there, but just something I had thought about

It doesn't matter at what stage of the pregnancy the crime occurs at or whether or not the woman has already decided to abort-- if a criminal murders a pregnant woman or assaults her causing a miscarriage, he has violated her reproductive rights and should be subject to criminal penalties. I don't think this fits the criteria for a charge of "murder", but "manslaughter" is appropriate.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

 

[ChrisL]

A fertilized egg is not a baby no matter how you look at it, and it is not anyone else's decision to make except for the person who is taking the risks. I know I sound like a broken record, but this really isn't that difficult to understand. Some people would not make very good parents, and they know this, so they choose to abort. It is nobody else's business. IF people could learn to mind their OWN business and take care of their own "sins", then we wouldn't have nearly the problems that we have today.

Take care of your own house.

 

[ChrisL]

Women who DO see the embryo as their "baby" are not going to abort it.

 

[Chuz Life]

a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

 

[FaerieGodfather]

a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

Because, like most people involved in this debate, they were too obsessed with the fetus to look at the argument from the perspective of the woman's rights. It's a common problem because your side does everything in its power to keep the debate focused on the fetus instead of on the pregnant woman.

 

[Chuz Life]

a human being in the zygote stage of their life "already IS"

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

Because, like most people involved in this debate, they were too obsessed with the fetus to look at the argument from the perspective of the woman's rights. It's a common problem because your side does everything in its power to keep the debate focused on the fetus instead of on the pregnant woman.

Yeah, it couldn't have been because they knew that once the child's personhood is established, they will be automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

Could it.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

and it is only as long as you enslave an unwilling parent to nourish it against their will, Hitler or when set on its own will assume its own fate as the same prescribed by the Almighty were it not.

its fate is not yours to render Chuz.

.

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

Because, like most people involved in this debate, they were too obsessed with the fetus to look at the argument from the perspective of the woman's rights. It's a common problem because your side does everything in its power to keep the debate focused on the fetus instead of on the pregnant woman.

Yeah, it couldn't have been because they knew that once the child's personhood is established, they will be automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

Could it.

Equal protection under the law wouldn't give the unborn child the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will, any more than it allows me to usurp the function of other peoples' internal organs for my own benefit. Even if the unborn child is a fully fledged person with all human and Constitutional rights, the pregnant woman still has the full moral and legal right to remove it from her uterus and prevent it from causing her any further damage.To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

When Roe v Wade was being argued, It was Supreme Court Justice "Potter Stewart" who said - "once a State establishes that a human fetus is a person. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"

In response, the pro-abortion attorney for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) Sarah Weddington agreed and added - she would have a TERRIBLY difficult case if that were to happen.

Their words did not fall on deaf ears.

Only if the Court also fails to acknowledge that women have basic rights to bodily autonomy and self-defense. "Person" or not, the fetus does not have the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will.

If it doesn't matter whether or not a child in the womb is recognized as a person. . . Why then did supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart say that "if a state were to establish that a human fetus is a person, the case FOR ABORTION becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

And, why did the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington AGREE with the justice when he said that?

Because, like most people involved in this debate, they were too obsessed with the fetus to look at the argument from the perspective of the woman's rights. It's a common problem because your side does everything in its power to keep the debate focused on the fetus instead of on the pregnant woman.

Yeah, it couldn't have been because they knew that once the child's personhood is established, they will be automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

Could it.

Equal protection under the law wouldn't give the unborn child the right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will, any more than it allows me to usurp the function of other peoples' internal organs for my own benefit. Even if the unborn child is a fully fledged person with all human and Constitutional rights, the pregnant woman still has the full moral and legal right to remove it from her uterus and prevent it from causing her any further damage.

I'll take that bet.

I'm pretty sure I already know what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart would have to say about that.

Specifically about the right to someone else's organs when they (the woman and her partner) are the ones who connected those organs to you (the child in the womb) in the first place.

To deny women the right to abortion is to deny that they are eligible for the most basic of human rights.

No one has the right to violate the rights of another person or persons.

 

[rcfieldz]

When skanks have to go to a clinic that does abortions exclusively then yes. When a woman has a complication during her pregnancy and is admitted into the hospital for care and her health and/or life is at risk to carry the fetus full term then no.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

Is it anything other than human?

The stork delivers babies. All that is is a lump of flesh.....that allows liberals to buy Lamborghinis.

I don't hear from you much m., but when I do it's always a winner!

.

FDA approves new mifepristone drug label in major defeat for abortion foes

FDA approves new mifepristone drug label in major defeat for abortion foes

In a move that could sharply undercut efforts to limit abortion by medication, the US Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday announced that it had approved new labeling for the country’s most widely used abortion drug, mifepristone, to better reflect what scientific research shows is the most effective way to use the drug.

The fervor with which abortion opponents have pursued restrictions on mifepristone appears to contrast with the drug’s safety record. In 2011, the FDA reported that 1.52 million women had used the drug since its approval, and only 612 experienced serious complications.

The fervor with which abortion opponents have pursued restrictions on mifepristone appears to contrast with the drug’s safety record. In 2011, the FDA reported that 1.52 million women had used the drug since its approval, and only 612 experienced serious complications.


Trolls for the Auto-Industry ... what difference does it really make, for them.

.

 

[PK1]

At conception, is the being in a woman's body "alive"?
Is it anything other than human?

---
At conception, "abortion" is a common occurrence; it's natural. Natural abortions are also called "miscarriages". Most pregnancies are aborted naturally!
Is that a big deal to anyone other than the potential mother?

The DNA in the fertilized human egg is "human". So what?
Is it "taking a life" if abortion is voluntary? That's a relative Q. Relative to a newborn, the obvious A is NO.

Ultimately, from the ethics perspective, it's only the business of the pregnant woman & her family. No one else's.
.