Why killing a fetus is fine.

Abortion has been determined as legal by the Supreme Court. You dont know what you are saying. Lifers must be so upset over the fact the constitution is on the pro-choice side.

 

But unlike you I do not resort to name calling to mask ignorance and I do know the difference between homicide and murder.

 

Human life is human life.

You can call a baby a fetus all day long, but s/he is still a person. Life begins at fertilization...even a 10th grade biology student can tell you this. Life starts when the egg is fertilized by the sperm.

This may not be popular, but God forms babies in their mother's womb and they do have a soul. The ONLY thing that comforts me when I think about the unspeakable horrors of abortion is the fact that all of these unwanted babies are in Heaven with God and His angels are attending to them.

 

Over 90% of abortions happen before the first 15 weeks; week 12 is when organogenesis and brain differentiation begin to occur. So, the vast majority of abortions occur before the brain is even in a state to form anything remotely resembling human personality.

And someone with a bit more biology education can tell you a fetus is a parasite on the mother that comes with significant health risks, up to and including death of the mother.

YHWH apparently loves killing babies, then; over 60% of fertilized eggs never reach birth due to natural phenomena such as failure to implant, genetic defects, and other assorted problems we're not quite sure of, but demonstrably happen.

They're unbaptized, they go directly to Limbo to live in a state of natural happiness, but in separation from YHWH. At least, according to traditional church teachings. If you're one of the "sola scriptura" types, then all the unbaptized go directly to the flames of Gehenna. So, YHWH apparently loves the sweet smell of the scorching souls of the dead children.

 

Really? Eggs and sperm are human life too. They are human and alive, doesn't that define "human life"?

You can call a fetus a baby all day long, but it doesn't change what it is or the significance of it to society or to the prospective parents. Life exists before fertilization, you've been reading the dumbed down version of biology books.

The popularity of your view is irrelevant. Our laws are not based on religious theory, but on how a particular action affects society. You are free to attempt to convince people of the rightness of your contention, but you are not free to legislate it.

 

Really? Eggs and sperm are human life too. They are human and alive, doesn't that define "human life"?

You can call a fetus a baby all day long, but it doesn't change what it is or the significance of it to society or to the prospective parents. Life exists before fertilization, you've been reading the dumbed down version of biology books.

The popularity of your view is irrelevant. Our laws are not based on religious theory, but on how a particular action affects society. You are free to attempt to convince people of the rightness of your contention, but you are not free to legislate it.

 

Do try to follow the thread Skippy, you drove off into a ditch here.

 

We have covered this repeatedly. They do not form a new distinct human being until fertilization!

 

Do try to follow the conversation. It was about "HUMAN LIFE." Oh, and BTW, a zygote is not "distinct" by any definition. We can talk about the "human being" part another time.

 

A zygote is actually BY DEFINITION distinct, You are mistaken badly. A NEW organism is distinct from its host organism.

You know full well that NOBODY is arguing that every human cell has human rights, it is every human being who has human rights. SO quit chasing your straw man.

 

Perhaps you could point out where a zygote fits into the definition of "distinct." Clearly a zygote has NO "human rights", so is a zygote NOT a human being, or is the term "human rights" faulty in itself?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinct

Definition of DISTINCT
1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete : separate <a distinct cultural group> <teaching as distinct from research>
2: presenting a clear unmistakable impression <a neat distinct handwriting>
3archaic : notably decorated
4a : notable <a distinct contribution to scholarship> b : readily and unmistakably apprehended <a distinct possibility of snow> <a distinct British accent>

 

You should read back through, I already have. Everyone knows that a "ZEF" is a distinct human being from the host mother.

 

LOLLOL, more of your "everyone knows" proclamations!! Quite frequently, as in this case, what "everyone knows" ain't so.

 

A Zygote becomes "human life" the moment a fetal homicide law says you can murder a Zygote. Which in many States they do.

 

A zygote is human life always, even sperm and eggs are "human life", but they are not "A human being life." Most of the fetal homicide laws that I have read say the fetus is considered a person for the purpose of that law only, now that doesn't change what the fetus is, and no law does change what the fetus is.

 

You must realize how stupid that sounds. You cannot claim that a fetus is a person for fetal homicide laws yet not have that same definition apply to abortions. Fetal homicide laws currently define when life begins as you cannot murder a "thing". Legally life begins where those fetal homicide laws say they do and the fact that it does not yet apply to abortion is silly. It is just one well thought out legal challenge away from opening a huge can of worms. You have two competing constitutionally protected rights to life in a lot of cases...who wins or loses? Who knows...all I ask is that the legal system be consistent for once.

 

It is asking too much that the legal system be consistent. Laws can be written to say anything, but it doesn't change what is. Fetal homicide laws do not define when life begins. Fetal homicide laws exactly claim that a fetus is a person for the purpose of that law, but nothing about the law is intended to apply to abortion. Get over it, legislators are not consistent, so you shouldn't expect consistency from the laws they write and pass.

 

Then you admit that it is one well thought out legal challenge away from turning Roe v Wade on its head. If a pro life group felt like challenging Roe v. Wade on the grounds that it is taking a life they could do it and probably win with fetal homicide laws helping them out. I don't care if fetal homicide laws only define life as it pertains to that law...it is legally defining life....legislators do not get to preclude abortion from that definition.....equal protection and all that jazz.

Some of those pro life groups have deep pockets.

 

Fetal Homicide Laws do NOT define life. Life exists before conception. Life exists after conception. Fetal homicide laws simply provide for extra punishment for those who attack pregnant women. The public doesn't want abortion to be illegal. Didn't you see the personhood amendment get soundly defeated in Mississippi?

 

Human life after the egg is fertilized. Life is not a clear process. Is a virus alive are you alive? (pun not intended but its warming!) Is a bacteria alive? However a Zygote is clearly human life and alive.

ABORTION - Is the unborn human less than human ...
www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html
Those who defend a decisive moment view argue that, although human life does begin at the moment of ... There is no doubt that the zygote is biologically alive. ...

Rev A

 

Fetal homicide laws define when a human beings life starts. You cannot murder something that is not a human being...so for the killing of a zygote/fetus to be murder it first must be defined as a human being. So yes...they do define life...that is self evident.

 

Many pro lifers take moralistic artistic license to call attention to the fact that positive law is wrong about abortion! As a comparison; Hitler never broke a German law eh? He did not see murdering the Jewish and undesirables as such and neither did the law. So when we claim abortion is murder, it is*! I think the future will vindicate the pro-lifers as right both morally and scientifically, ie abortion IS murder! Abortion is the second holocaust. Those that err in a reckless manner most likley will not be forgiven for their immoral and unethical mistakes* by man and maybe by God**.

As per natural* law ~

Notes (descriptive paragraph intentionally retained);

Natural Law Theories (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/
Jump to &#8220;Purely positive law&#8221;: determinationes and their legal-moral authority ...&#8206;: Natural law theory of law has its most distinctive ...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/

** James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is ...
bible.cc/james/4-12.htm
But there is only one such lawgiver and judge - God Almighty, who is able to save all those who obey him, and able to destroy all those who trample under feet .

Rev A

 

Human life BEFORE the egg is fertilized. Eggs and sperm are human and alive, and yet we toss them casually aside without a thought to killing.

OK?

Your article is in error in claiming the basis of the abortion debate rests on what the zef is. It is not what it is that matters, it is WHERE it is. It matters not if the zef is a tiny completely formed adult human being, it has no right to reside within the body of another without permission. Of course, it is fun to discuss at what point the zef acquires value.

 

You are being quite loose with the definition of human life. You know what people are referring to when human life is discussed, you just choose to split hairs to confuse the argument. Rather childish. Your argument is akin to saying "you pop your zits that are "human" and "alive" so that makes a case for abortion!!". Its idiotic and childish...knock it off.

It is not like it is there by any choice or actions of its own. The woman had a part in putting it inside her body. It is like inviting someone into your home and then killing them for being there. She gave it the right to reside in her body the moment she had sex and concieved a child. Yes, having sex is giving permission to any resulting child to be in your body.

 

Women who take birth control measures are not "inviting" a pregnancy, so your analogy fails. IAC, any invitation to one's home is not expected to be long term. A guest who remains and becomes a threat to the host should expect to be forcibly removed.