CDZ POLL: An Abortion Kills a Child

[SassyIrishLass]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

And that’s how it’s intended to be: each individual decides for himself consistent with his own values, beliefs, and good conscience – not as dictated by the state.

I sincerely hope you didn't support Obamacare

Jones has left the building.

You're far too easy, but think yourself clever. You're not.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Topic Of Thread Diverted "

* Whose Fates Decide Whether Life Began Before Conception Or Whether Life Continues After Conception *

" I think therefore I am . " is not equivalent with " I am therefore I think . " .

Thinking is known to require sentience and the onset of sentience in hue mammon is fairly well established by science and a physical capacity for sentience is also a requisite condition for empathy to valid .

A rite to life is not equivalent with a wright to life .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

 

[Leo123]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

And that’s how it’s intended to be: each individual decides for himself consistent with his own values, beliefs, and good conscience – not as dictated by the state.

" Topic Of Thread Diverted "

* Whose Fates Decide Whether Life Began Before Conception Or Whether Life Continues After Conception *

" I think therefore I am . " is not equivalent with " I am therefore I think . " .

Thinking is known to require sentience and the onset of sentience in hue mammon is fairly well established by science and a physical capacity for sentience is also a requisite condition for empathy to valid .

A rite to life is not equivalent with a wright to life .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

What is "hue mammon?" is that a spell correct error?

 

[Chuz Life]

When I imagined what this CDZ thread would be like, I actually imagined a back and forth INFORMATIVE discussion. . . Where one person would post "I believe and abortion kills a child, BECAUSE. . . " Then, the other side might / would respond in kind.

I can not imagine why that is too much to ask.

Fetuses aren't viable. Therefore they are not children, as found in Roe v. Wade.

View attachment 342170

Talk about an appeal to authority.

For what it is worth, your denial (above) has already been defeated more than 130 Times, by the passing of State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

And that’s how it’s intended to be: each individual decides for himself consistent with his own values, beliefs, and good conscience – not as dictated by the state.

Children are CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It is not only the right of the government to recognize, define and establish the point at which a child's personhood begins, it is complicit in the denial of children's rights, if it does a half ass job of it, as the SCOTUS did with Roe.

 

[Chuz Life]

You were not expected to do that LUCY.

There are too many other posts to report (with only a phone and limited time.)

I thought that we could all have a civil, objective, informational and maybe (dare I say) adult conversation about the facts and the reasonings that both sides use to support their conclusions

However, we have little more than the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys trying to figure out how to unfuck a football.

I think the problem here is you want to couch the debate in terms favorable to you without bringing in any other factors or points of discussion. Real life doesn't work like that.

I am not couching the debate at all.

Both sides (all sides) have the same opportunity to make the case for why an abortion does or does not "kill a child."

But that and THAT alone is the topic of THIS thread.

Why is that so difficult for you?

For anyone?

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh good grief. Life begins at conception, you can spin it all day long but it's a scientific fact.

Snuffing that life out is wrong. It's murder

All you pro choice clowns? Learn personal responsibility

Wrong.

Murder is a matter of the law – and as a settled, accepted fact of law abortion is not ‘murder.’

Unless the laws that (for now) keep it legal are themselves contrary to the Constitution.

Funny how you always leave that part out.

 

[JoeB131]

Talk about an appeal to authority.

For what it is worth, your denial (above) has already been defeated more than 130 Times, by the passing of State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws.

Um, no, someone just put a "Don't hunt whales in Oklahoma" law on the books...

You guys have tried to use them to prosecute women for miscarriages and abortions, and have gotten slapped down.

I am not couching the debate at all.

Both sides (all sides) have the same opportunity to make the case for why an abortion does or does not "kill a child."

But that and THAT alone is the topic of THIS thread.

no, that's what you want it to be. Fetuses aren't children. Even before Roe v. Wade, we didn't convict people of "murder" for getting rid of Sally's little problem.

If they were, we'd treat every miscarriage as a homicide investigation. That would be nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Unless the laws that (for now) keep it legal are themselves contrary to the Constitution.

Funny how you always leave that part out.

Again, women will get abortions no matter what the constitution says or what the law is.

This is why the Justices won't overturn Roe.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Also, Catholics, Italian women in particular, will continue using contraceptives as much as they like, religious faith and doctrine notwithstanding.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I voted true. I can't see it as anything other than a human child.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I sincerely hope any viewing children as abortions has neither.

 

[jknowgood]

How do you justify no death penalty regardless of how many people a person has killed yet kill a baby or fetus?

And where is the scientific evidence of awareness?

Isn’t this really about a conversation about it’s all about me?
About using abortion as birth control?
About using abortion as birth control so we are not inconvenienced with dealing with adoption or a child?

Any thoughts?

I believe abortion is killing of a child.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you also for "no death penalty regardless of how many people a person has killed"?

I believe abortion is killing of a child.

Do you then also believe contraception use ("birth control") is "killing of a child"?
Is sex an icky thing best avoided altogether unless one is trying to have children?
Given the available technology I see abstinence as a silly choice that eschews life.

 

[jknowgood]

Are you also for "no death penalty regardless of how many people a person has killed"?

I believe abortion is killing of a child.

Do you then also believe contraception use ("birth control") is "killing of a child"?
Is sex an icky thing best avoided altogether unless one is trying to have children?
Given the available technology I see abstinence as a silly choice that eschews life.

No I don't think birth control is killing a child. I believe in the death penalty because if you get it you took another persons life.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thanks. So no "life begins at conception" for you and some cops in Minnesota should apparently be getting the death penalty. Good to know.

 

[jknowgood]

" Topic Of Thread Diverted "

* Whose Fates Decide Whether Life Began Before Conception Or Whether Life Continues After Conception *

" I think therefore I am . " is not equivalent with " I am therefore I think . " .

Thinking is known to require sentience and the onset of sentience in hue mammon is fairly well established by science and a physical capacity for sentience is also a requisite condition for empathy to valid .

A rite to life is not equivalent with a wright to life .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Yeah go grab an eagle egg and crack it open. Then the government will tell you when life begins.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Maybe if we waited until they are 18 before deciding to abort. That way we'll really weed them out accurately................j/k

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Care Filled With Those Eugenics "

* Alternative Introspection Of Gawd Creation Is Triviality *

Yeah go grab an eagle egg and crack it open. Then the government will tell you when life begins.

When extinction of hue mammon is in jeopardy , it follows from theories for individualism that an element of self ownership includes progeny to satisfy a strong anthropic principle .

Which natural good introspection have hue created mist tickle heir chimera genetic engineer ?

Which are creations of gawd that would gawd not wish to share an introspect ?

There go both streams of political parity practicing hue mammon gluttony .

* Jeering Ancient Astronaut Terrarium Dwellers *

To affirm a strong anthropic principle , which is a tautology , one must be present and able to assert that its self exists , else one is not present and able to assert that its self exists .

A means to satisfy a strong anthropic principle is by means of procreation , where both figuratively and literally , through offspring one remains present and able to assert that its self exists .

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Being male, and not ever having to pass a bowling ball through me, I have a question for women here. Gender confused included too.

What is easier. Taking a little pill? Or going through an emotional wrenching unnecessary somewhat risky surgical procedure. I'm looking at this through a risk reward scenario.