Totally in agreement, even for unborn children in all cases except one. Unborn children do not take precedence over their mother's inherent bodily rights. Don't be ridiculous. Human beings butcher life everyday, all day, and have been since the first creature that could be called a "human" took it's first breath. Would you like to be more specific? Is it only human life that deserves your reverence?
Most women only have abortions for convenience reasons. The fetuss rights are obviously more important.
You are trying to make mammalian status into a factor. Just because a baby is dependent on the mother for room & board should not give her the right to evict him without due process. Some states & cities won't allow a landlord to evict a deadbeat tenant for 6 months or more. Let the baby gain a little more independence, then she can evict him. There are others who will take him in, if she does not want him around. But that is usually NOT the case, as the maternal instinct is strong, & only the bullying by MEN has blown abortion into the massive profit industry it is today. 1. Many people are dependent on others for their survival, yet retain protected status. You cannot kill someone just for being a dependent. 2. I am not appealing to emotions, but the subject is obviously emotional, & seems to degenerate into hysteria. Protecting the weak from the strong is one of the most basic duties of any governing body, unless they hold the place of the exploiter. 3. The OP was primarily a question: When does human life begin? The debate is on for that question.
Then just as if a parent on a sinking ship would save themselves and watch their children die in the accident, they are then cowards. See, you're starting to get it even though you probably don't realize it. So you're advocating taking the butchered children and making sandwiches out of them? Nothing from the bloodthirsty pro-baby-in-a-blender crowd shocks me anymore, I've come to expect it.
I would say that they are just big babies... But seriously, i have a followup for your earlier post, where you answered the question in the OP. You said 'at birth'. But i don't see much in the way of evidence for why it should be there. It is clear & unambiguous, but it has some issues. 1. why is the baby human at birth, but 10 minutes before it is not? Or 2 days, or 2 weeks, or 2 months? What quality does air provide to establish humanity? 2. Baby is still dependent on mother, but not physically connected. Why is mammal status a death warrant to an unborn human? Why should a physical connection disqualify someone from protection?
The point is that human life, or any life, has no "beginning." Life only comes from previous life, it doesn't just spring into being in an instant. The unborn are "human" (adjective), not "living human beings" (noun). And that's not "verbal muddying", it's actually verbal clarifying. . Always gotta slam women, they are "killing the unborn for whimsical reasons", as though women never give abortion a serious thought or consideration. Of course the woman involved in this unwanted pregnancy is just peripheral, LOL, really not important at all. Please remember that the unborn are NOT "individuals". You have also jumped ahead to assuming that the unborn are "persons", a debate which has not been settled. The "we" who clearly protect SOME humans are not capable of protecting unborn. Legislators have passed laws intended to prevent abortions and those laws failed pathetically in their intentions. ONLY a woman can protect her own unborn, certainly no law can do so. The woman who pays the high price of gestation, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially, is the only one who can determine "deserving." You are attempting to deflect from the issue with emotional melodrama, "blood on your hands" indeed. All those who are participants in criminalizing abortions are forcing women to seek illegal abortions, and therefore have "blood on their hands." There will be abortions, legal or illegal, the only question is whether they will be safe for women
It doesnt have the full genetic information that a zygote has. Thats why life begins at fertilization. The bible says that a soul exists at conception.
Perhaps you could provide a link which shows that the Bible says a soul exists at conception. Or perhaps not. http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=1087 The examples above give clear evidence that a majority of Christians in the modern world believe (or are supposed to believe) that human life begins at the moment that sperm and egg unite. But in the history of Christianity there has never been a united voice on this issue. In actuality, neither the Christian scriptures nor modern science provide sufficient data to enable us to draw indisputable conclusions regarding this topic. But much of our confusion may be attributed to our failure to distinguish between the concepts of life and ensoulment.......... First, we must teach in our churches and in our classrooms in such a way that the general public understands that the matter of ensoulment should never be viewed simplistically............ Second, in our discussions we should adopt a vocabulary that avoids hyperbole and unwarranted assumptions. Terminology that is brutal and accusatory, such as murderers and baby-killers, should be eliminated. If there is no incontrovertible revelational teaching regarding this issue, might we not essentially be violating a moral requirement that is incontrovertible (i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness) by misinforming the public concerning what God has said regarding these subjects? Why not focus our attention and resources on larger issues, such as the spiritual, sociological, psychological, and physiological tragedies that give rise to the very ethical issues we are discussing? After all, there are many reasons for objecting to elective abortions.
1. Sam, by that standard of "doesn't have full genetic information"....Jesus wasn't alive, if you believe he didn't have an "Earthly father". 2. The Bible does NOT say a soul exists at conception. TRY to prove that with Bible verses. (BTW, I know you'll fail...because the Catholic Church didn't believe that until 1869). - - - Updated - - - He won't. Unfortunately, young Sam has a tendency to CLAIM things.....clearly and provably false....and then he runs away or tries to change the subject but almost never admits that he was wrong. Sadly, it's a product of being brought up with dogmatism ....instead of critical thinking and honest debating skills.
Here's a question that I've asked dozens of times and not once, never has anyone in the baby killing crowd addressed it. Simple question, if I may inject common sense into what is a senseless debate - what happens virtually 100% of the time when human sperm meets human egg barring unnatural acts, accidents, etc., what is produced? a) a shoe b) a rabbit c) a human baby d) Nina Hartley's 10 DVD boxed collection called "Bangin' in the 80's" One of these answers is true. Anyone from the baby-in-a-blender crowd want to take a shot at it?
No, ALL of those answers are FALSE. Upon the contact of a human sperm cell and a human ovum, a fertilized egg is produced. Not a "baby".
No, actually the answer is "none of the above." A human zygote can be produced fairly quickly, but not instantly. Producing a human baby is a process requiring almost a year, and is certainly not a sure thing.
That base was already covered, granny - try again if you want, Trying to rephrase the question or answering another question that wasn't asked... BZZZT!! Wrong! In fairness to the petty, the question should state "what is ultimately produced".
Name one thing I claimed that is clearly and provably false, and show one example of how i try to change the subject. I do have critical thinking and honest debating skills with regards to politics. I'm not as "extreme" or "dogmatic" as you think. For example, despite the fact that I sometimes like listening to Mike Savage/rightwing radio, I also like to watch the Young Turks, a progressive liberal news show. I actually watch TYT (every day) more than I listen to Mike Savage, which I now only do occasionally. I do have critical thinking. My political views and media people I watch isnt as black and white as you may assume.
The only thing I see here that is obviously important is for you to gain even a basic understanding of women and pregnancy and why they choose abortion. I mean, seriously, you need the most basic of basic understandings. All you're doing is parroting all the other folks who've decided that they too know more about hundreds of thousands of women than those women themselves do. Can't you see the inherent stupidity of this? This is like if I started telling everyone about YOUR life and why you've made the choices that you have. No, actually not quite, because I've at least had communication with you. You don't know a single one of these women you claim are doing this only for convenience. You're doing what my grandmother would have called "talking out your arse".
But that situation has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. There is no child, there is no sinking ship. There is only the woman and her body and everything inside it. Wait a second, are YOU taking all the drugs in the world? I was just kidding when I said that about myself earlier. I can't say the same for you. Babies in sandwiches, pro-choicers are cowards. I'll give you this, you're creative. Stark raving mad, but creative.
If you ask Sam his definition of "convenience"....you'll get a definition so broad, that unless the woman is absolutely assure 100% of DYING from the pregnancy by a board of fifteen obstetricians/gynecologists......he'll claim it's "convenience". If you ask Sam to PROVE his claim with documented facts and data....you'll get nothing, except probably a link to a strident "pro-life" website, but even then it doesn't back up his claim.
Women conceive and bear children, I don't make the rules of nature, I just follow them. If we were "designed" to abort on demand women would have a little eject button somewhere that automatically did that.
We weren't designed to do anything. We have the ability to reproduce, but that doesn't mean we must. Human have the brain power to choose whether they want to or not instead of following blind innate instinct. And if we're going to talk about forbidding things we weren't "designed" to do, there's a whole lot more on the table than just abortion. Like, flying in an airplane, having a prosthetic, using technology to reveal things that our eyes can't see which has led to countless advancements in medicine among many many other things, etc.
