Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[BreezeWood]

That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

.
who's kidding who, this is the religion and ethics forum ...

as though your position does not encompass the feelings and religion of others and by your demands the context of their daily lives.

Chuz is a feeling, expression and what is your chuzed avatar then "not" [sic] conveying - Peace on Earth and otherwise what then is your motivation than a self styled social imperative ... ?

.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a child in the womb is not a person. . . not a human being. . . what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws?

---
If the pregnant woman looks forward to giving birth & creating her newborn legal person that she assumes responsibility for, and someone kills her fetus, then it's considered "murder" under the Federal law.

Great.

This is some progress.

Now, post the legal definition for "murder."

The pregnant woman, as an independent person in liberty-oriented USA, has freedom to choose if she wants to reproduce, and she is given that freedom until the 3rd trimester or "viability".

Your appeal to authority on this suggest that you are unaware that you just cited the very status quo that is being challenged.

I'm sure you know the Federal law, and you're trying to twist it toward your underlying authoritarian religious dogma.
.

Yes... just shows how wrong you are.

I aint religious.

I don't need "God" or a belief in God to know that an abortion kills a child or that a life begins biologically at conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

... That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

---
Your inane feelings are all over this debate!

If my "feelings" were silly or stupid. . . I doubt you would be concerned about them. Not that I know what feelings you are talking about. I'm simply making an observation about how your reactions betray your own choice of adjectives for my alleged "feelings."

Please explain logically why you want an extremely deformed infant, without a cerebral cortex, to be kept "alive"?

My "wants" have no place in this debate or discussion. A child's Constitutional rights are not based upon how much I or how much anyone else "wants" them to be protected.

The only thing I "want" is the equal rights and the EQUAL protections that are established, commanded by and protected by our Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

.
who's kidding who, this is the religion and ethics forum ...

What better thread to make the case that religion is not necessary in abortion debates? Or to make the case that religion in the debate only prolongs the debate - resulting in even more abortions?

as though your position does not encompass the feelings and religion of others and by your demands the context of their daily lives.

I hope others will note how you had to distort BOTH my views and those of the religious persuasion to make that claim.

Chuz is a feeling, expression and what is your chuzed avatar then "not" [sic] conveying - Peace on Earth and otherwise what then is your motivation than a self styled social imperative ... ?.

Egg morg miff squatermacher?

 

[ChrisL]

Even if abortion technically kills a fetus/baby whatever you want to call it, why should I care?

... That is why I do my best to keep feelings and religion out of the debate.

---
Your inane feelings are all over this debate!

If my "feelings" were silly or stupid. . . I doubt you would be concerned about them. Not that I know what feelings you are talking about. I'm simply making an observation about how your reactions betray your own choice of adjectives for my alleged "feelings."

Please explain logically why you want an extremely deformed infant, without a cerebral cortex, to be kept "alive"?

My "wants" have no place in this debate or discussion. A child's Constitutional rights are not based upon how much I or how much anyone else "wants" them to be protected.

The only thing I "want" is the equal rights and the EQUAL protections that are established, commanded by and protected by our Constitution.

An embryo is not a child. Lol.

 

[BreezeWood]

Do explain how a child in the womb that is only there because the mother and her partner put it there and 'connected' it to her body herself. . . is violating HER right to HER body.

I hope others will note how you had to distort BOTH my views and those of the religious persuasion to make that claim.

Chuz: I hope others will note how you had to distort BOTH my views - - - Chuz: and 'connected' it to her body herself ...


so, you do not distort recreational sex with deliberately becoming pregnant as you did above when in fact the opposite is the truth and that making the choice to have a baby is no different than choosing not to.

modern medicine has gives women a means to apply either choice equally, it is you, no longer nature, who is dictating how others must live their lives usurping their personal decisions (again).

What better thread to make the case that religion is not necessary in abortion debates? Or to make the case that religion in the debate only prolongs the debate - resulting in even more abortions?

with modern medicine women are given a choice in their bodily functions that is all RvW has acknowledged what other debate is there then when the Judicial authority SCOTUS has made its ruling than an appeal (Chuz) to something other than the law of the Land ...

.

 

[PK1]

an abortion kills a child or that a life begins biologically at conception.

---
Yes, we know our opinions differ. Feel free to have your opinions and keep them for yourself, but don't tread on me or others who have a right to liberty & privacy.

I agree that an abortion kills a fetus or embryo and that biological "life" begins at conception.
So what?

Death is a fact of life.
Half of human conceptions are aborted naturally. Aww, do you feel bad about that?
Are you a vegetarian? If not, do you feel bad about killing non-human animals after they are born and aware/fearful of death? No empathy there? Why not?

Do you have more empathy for a human infant without a cerebral context than a fully conscious dog or pig?
Don't try your lame diversion to the US Constitution to answer that Q; use your logic on ethics.
This thread is about ethics!
.

 

[PK1]

The only thing I "want" is the equal rights and the EQUAL protections that are established, commanded by and protected by our Constitution.

---
You are so full of bullshit.
To "think" that an embryo or a woman's fetus that she does not want should have EQUAL legal protection to a normal newborn baby is ludicrous ... unless you have religious dogmatic beliefs.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do explain how a child in the womb that is only there because the mother and her partner put it there and 'connected' it to her body herself. . . is violating HER right to HER body.

I hope others will note how you had to distort BOTH my views and those of the religious persuasion to make that claim.

Chuz: I hope others will note how you had to distort BOTH my views - - - Chuz: and 'connected' it to her body herself ...


so, you do not distort recreational sex with deliberately becoming pregnant as you did above when in fact the opposite is the truth and that making the choice to have a baby is no different than choosing not to.

I would venture to say that the majority of the people walking around on the planet today were not planned.

They are all still people with just as many rights as any who was actually planned.

modern medicine has gives women a means to apply either choice equally, it is you, no longer nature, who is dictating how others must live their lives usurping their personal decisions (again).

No-one has the right to violate the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose. I am flattered that you think I originated that point of view of that all this is about me... but you are wrong about that.

What better thread to make the case that religion is not necessary in abortion debates? Or to make the case that religion in the debate only prolongs the debate - resulting in even more abortions?

with modern medicine women are given a choice in their bodily functions that is all RvW has acknowledged what other debate is there then when the Judicial authority SCOTUS has made its ruling than an appeal (Chuz) to something other than the law of the Land ....

That is completely unintelligible.

Want to try again?

 

[The Irish Ram]

It depends

The the fetus is viable outside the womb then yes

so an embryo is not a living thing? a life?

Not really

And yet you were one once and given the opportunity, look at what you turned into. If it has it's own DNA, it is a life.

 

[Chuz Life]

an abortion kills a child or that a life begins biologically at conception.

---
Yes, we know our opinions differ. Feel free to have your opinions and keep them for yourself, but don't tread on me or others who have a right to liberty & privacy.

I'm glad we both agree that neither of us have the right to violate the rights of others.

I agree that an abortion kills a fetus or embryo and that biological "life" begins at conception.So what?

So what WHAT?

So what if that life is a human being and as such is recognized as a person?

Is that what you mean?

I think that's the crux of the debate. Isn't it?

Death is a fact of life.
Half of human conceptions are aborted naturally. Aww, do you feel bad about that?

Again, my feelings are irrelevant.

As are yours.

Are you a vegetarian? If not, do you feel bad about killing non-human animals after they are born and aware/fearful of death? No empathy there? Why not?

Again, red herring.

Human rights and animals rights are not contingent upon how I feel (or you or anyone else) feel about them.

That's not to say that I don't have any empathy or that I discourage empathy. . . it's just not (objectively) what the facts and the debate is about.

Do you have more empathy for a human infant without a cerebral context than a fully conscious dog or pig?

My empathy or your lack there of is not germane to the debate.

Don't try your lame diversion to the US Constitution to answer that Q; use your logic on ethics. This thread is about ethics!
.

Diversion to the Constitution?

That's hilarious.

 

[Chuz Life]

The only thing I "want" is the equal rights and the EQUAL protections that are established, commanded by and protected by our Constitution.

---
You are so full of bullshit.

You are projecting.

To "think" that an embryo or a woman's fetus that she does not want should have EQUAL legal protection to a normal newborn baby is ludicrous ... unless you have religious dogmatic beliefs..

That Or, maybe just strong biological adherence and a strong appreciation for the ideals expressed in our Constitution about equal rights and all that other nonsense.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Women have rights. They can close their legs, they can take a pill before, they can take a pill after. Maybe you thought if you had sex without a condom or the pill that you would end up with a flat screen TV? Please. If you knowingly preform a function that creates life then expect life. Your choices end when it's life begins.

The "so what" part enters the picture when businesses realize they can capitalize on parts. That turns "choice" into supply and demand. That's why the vipers are in our classrooms convincing our children that abortion is no big deal.
It enters the picture when they develop a poison that can be injected into a the heart to kill the child and leave it's parts intact.
It enters the picture when we push the envelope and kill the children WHILE they are being born. It's called on demand abortion. In fact, killing them AFTER they are born is now being bandied about by the common cored.

Fetus' have nerves and nerve endings just like us. If I ripped your leg off to sell it, would it hurt?
Abortions are a brutal way to die. If we were doing it to puppies the whole world would rise up in anger.....

 

[BreezeWood]

No-one has the right to violate the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose. I am flattered that you think I originated that point of view of that all this is about me... but you are wrong about that.

Chuz: No-one has the right to violate the rights of others.

were the embryo a person it would have no right to attach itself to another person against that persons will, - you know that (Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose) - the SCOTUS Roe v Wade decision made that assessment already, it is Chuz who portends red hearings to change set law.


Chuz: I am flattered that you think I originated that point of view of that all this is about me... but you are wrong about that.

please link to such allegations when you make them.

They can close their legs, they can take a pill before, they can take a pill after.

you have come a long way Ram, a little surprising.

.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Been right here the whole time Breezy, you just don't know me well enough to presume that you do. Nice to see you though.

 

[Dhara]

It's unfortunately that men can not carry children.
I human life should not have to pay the price. It has no choice. Someone needs to defend the life.

Sure they can. Maybe some of these pro-lifers should start concentrating on that instead of working so hard to deny women their reproductive rights or limit their access to birth control.

Uterus transplants could let men get pregnant — but there's a catch
Can A Man Really Get Pregnant? Sure, But It Might Kill Him

Fine with me.

Taking a human life, no matter what stage, it not our call to make. (be it man or woman)

It's kind of a complex issue, however, for many Christian's (but not all) because many (not all) Christian's believe we all have an appointed time to die.

That being said, in my eyes, choosing to abort a growing human being in your body is murder - regardless of definitions and laws. But, that is just my opinion. Which, I happen to believe is true and accurate. To me, it is no different than drowning your own child purposefully in the bathtub (morally).

An appointed time to die? What if that's true of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. Maybe some have the karma to be aborted?

 

[PK1]

So what if that life is a human being and as such is recognized as a person.
I think that's the crux of the debate.

Again, my feelings are irrelevant.
As are yours.
Human rights and animals rights are not contingent upon how I feel (or you or anyone else) feel about them.

---
I think i agree with you about the crux of our debate, but our feelings are embedded in our views.
You believe a zygote is a "human being" worthy of "personhood" with rights EQUAL to its pregnant mother.
I do not believe that.
We can play semantics with definitions and concepts of "life" & "person", but our cognitions will continue to differ, and both logic & emotion are components in our ethical opinions.

Half of human conceptions are aborted naturally. Unlike you, i don't feel/think those embryos "killed by nature" were a significant loss of life. My dog rates much higher on the "value of life" spectrum. You would be stupid to deny that affect (aka emotion) plays a major role in attribution of "value" to life.
Unlike you, i believe the value of human DNA depends on its developmental status, and its value can be compared to the "rights" and "value" of other animals.

Opinions about "rights" differ, and i appreciate a reasonable debate, until its clear our semantics about the "value of life" differs too. In my view, a baby born without a cerebral cortex has no right to life because its value is less than ZERO, or a hindrance to other human life. This is a thread on Ethics, and that's my ethical opinion.

For you, i will rephrase my bottom line statement (beyond ethics) ...
Feel free to have your ethical opinions and use them for your own private life, but don't tread on me or other US citizens who have a right to liberty & privacy.
.

 

[hangover]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

 

[Bonzi]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

Hi hangover - it's been a while (I actually could say that to myself since I quit drinking too!) anyway......

Nah, once the egg and sperm meet, it's life. Human life. If we stop giving money to other countries, we could take care of our own.
Problem solved.
Actually not, cause anything the Government sets aside a budget for "good" things, it gets squandered and misused. Corruption prevents any solution.
But that doesn't mean life is not worth living. If you do ONE thing that positively impacts another life, it's worth it.
As a believer in God, our purpose here is not for ourselves and our comfort. It's for Him.

With that being an irreconcilable different in belief, there is not "winning" of an argument like this.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Is it anything other than human?

Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?
It's not taking a life...it's preventing a life...a life of misery and poverty. There are literally millions of homeless, hungry, unwanted children in the U.S. today, that the self-righteous cons do NOTHING about. Yet they continue to try to make the problem worse.

If killing children with Abortions can be justified by saying it means less suffering for them in the long run. . . Why can't we justify the rounding up an killing of BORN children using that same justification too?