classyladyhp, I haven’t been in this thread yet. Let me tell you where I’m coming from.
I’m a pretty devout Christian. I don’t like abortion, would never have had on myself, when I was in my childbearing years. I believe that life begins at conception.
But my belief about when life begins is based on my faith, not scientific evidence, so I can’t force my beliefs on others, either by legislation or harassment. My own religious beliefs should not govern those who don’t share them. Remember Who gave us that pesky free will?
So can you honestly show PROOF of your beliefs about life, how and when it begins? Can you document it? I’m sure we are all waiting.
It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent person. Abortion is the killing of an innocent person. Therefore abortion is wrong. The law should protect the innocent.
Human life begins at conception when the DNA code is complete. Abortion is the killing of an innocent life and the taking away of it’s future. There is nothing more to say.
I’ll argue against this. It is not always morally wrong to withdraw life support. Nor do I believe that suicide is always morally wrong. Not every action that results in the death of an innocent person is morally wrong. And that ignores the question of the definition of ‘innocent’.
That’s your assertion, but your definition of personhood is not agreed to by everybody. Rhetoric about ‘when life begins’ notwithstanding, this is the real crux issue.
Were the sperm and egg not alive? At what point did dead things come together to become a living thing?
Removal of a tumor is the killing of an innocent life and the taking away of it’s future, too.
You’re just rewording an assertion that hasn’t been shown to be true. Just rephrasing your belief doesn’t make it anything other than your personal opinion.
Okay, so what if we don’t kill it, we just gently remove it from the woman’s uterus and let it do its thing?
If that’s “killing it”, that makes “killing” equivalent to “letting it die by inaction” and we’re back to the kidney transplant–and we’re gonna have to rewrite the standards for duty-of-care.
As a general bit of advice, I’d say you’d do better by stepping back, actually thinking about your various axiomatic beliefs and the logical consequences thereof, and assembling a full list of what you actually believe about the topic. You’ve posted several things that are contradictory or lead to contradictory conclusions.
Whuh—wait?! Are you saying that you’d let others live their lives without your interference? Buh…buh…that sounds an awful lot like letting people do what they feel necessary!
Sitnam:
Previously:
It’s amazing to me how assholes like this are so determined to grant this lump of cells life status that they destroy the woman’s life. And when you call them on it they get all upset and tantrumy.
If sacred human life, worthy of protection and reverence exists from the very moment of conception, why do we not pay any tribute aat the signs of a purged, never-implanted blastocyst? There are signs, they aren’t always there but they can be quite obvious to some women. Why don’t you advocate paying attention to those signs? Why aren’t you upset that we as a culture treat those instances so cavalierly?
If those are all lives, not potential lives but actual unique human lives, all lost, why aren’t we hearing from you “conception = life” types that we’re being too lackadaisical about all these lost babies?
So a hydatidiform mole is a human life? It can have 46 chromosomes of human DNA.
Anyways, what about taking away the future of the woman? You keep referring to pregnancy as an ‘inconvenience’, but it is a hell of a lot more than that. Not only does it often have long-lasting physical, mental, and financial effects, but it can have serious consequences for the woman’s career or education. Many women who get abortions already have children and make the decision to abort in order to preserve the future of their actual, existing children. And let’s not forget that pregnancy has a higher fatality rate for the mother than abortion does.
So, you think it’s okay to ruin the future of a woman and her existing children, and possibly cause her death, just so that precious little clump’o’cells can live? What happened to the sanctity of their lives?
And the options should be carefully considered by the woman and her doctor, without interference from anyone else. One size does NOT fit all. One medical treatment does NOT offere the best outcome for all cases.
Oh, I’m sure that just about all scientists think that a zygote is alive. However, what’s in question here isn’t whether it’s alive, but whether it’s a human being yet. I just snipped off a skin tag earlier tonight. It was alive, it had human DNA, and now it’s dead, but still has human DNA. But it is not and never was a human life.
I see this “God doesn’t want you to have an abortion cause it’s a baaaaaaabbyyyyy” crap in my local paper frequently … slow news day, i suppose.
Men write more of these letters, and i don’t know why. I am over hearing what men and god want without stopping to consider that other people have needs and wants like the needs and wants of the woman, her immediate family, and work or education. Why does the zygote, the egg, and the fetus much more important than the 33 year old woman who must decide if she wants a baby or not.
It’s a bit more logical to call it a baby when it can survive outside the uterus. Also I read that there are many miscarriages that occur before the woman knows she’s pregnant.
I also support the right of people to physician assisted suicide or hospice, to legalization of marijuana, I recycle, I think that if you are of sound mind and you want to choose to die, than to be stuck in a nursing home, because of an illness, that is your right regardless of my feelings.
Law need to be based in facts and science, not squishy fuzzy feelings.
I was raised with a hefty dose of religion myself. Under those axioms of faith, human life begins at conception and I had the same obligation to oppose abortion as to oppose, say, infanticide. You’re not obligated to provide iron-clad logical proof of your position to vote your conscience.
There are no absolute rights if you live in the context of a society.
And there’s no fairy floating above the delivering mother that dusts the crowning fetus, magically transforming it into a baby.
My personal preference is for a society that supports a woman’s pregnancy with a full court press of every available resource to encourage the best possible outcome. Encourage full use of reproductive services so that pregnancy can be detected as early as possible to maximize the woman’s continuum of choices.
Appreciate your views. IMO, they are sensible. Not religious myself, but it seems to me that there are some issues that ought to be left up to God, if we don’t have any clear direction.
From purely a speculative theological view I’ve always wondered , Is it even possible to thwart God’s will and prevent a soul from being born into this world? Isn’t it possible, considering the history of medicine and the history of women terminating unwanted pregnancies, that this is part of the free will gift from God, and those trying to interfere with that free will, are actually the ones defying God’s plan?
I also appreciate those who act compassionately and work to offer practical alternatives to women in need , like financial aide etc.
There is no consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. I think all the attempts to legally prevent abortions and remove funding going on now are mean spirited. People out of work and prices going up, but they still want to force a woman to have another child to care for.
Medically speaking, there’s little doubt a zygote or embryo is human {genetically speaking} and alive, with it’s own unique DNA. No argument about that. Calling it a baby, or a human being , however, is just someone’s personal belief and IMO, that indicates it ought to be a personal choice.