I guess you are one of the people who want a woman to have a lot of children she can’t afford, mentally ,physically, or financially, But want her and the rest of her family to suffer all their lives and like in some places die a slow death for lack of food or medical care. It is not yet a child as the law states now. And most so called pro -life people could care less once they are born and complain about paying taxes they then would rather have a lot of things which means more to them than the people they say should be born.
Every time a man ejaculates many potential human lives are killed because there is human life in a man’s sperm. Thousands die even if there is a conception.
Once a person is born it then becomes a citizen and has all the rights of any citizen. They are even protected after it can be recognized as a person, A person in a coma is a person in a deep sleep. That is a big difference. Only in a case that the mother’s life is in danger.
No, and no. This is so over the top that I don’t know why it is necessary to respond to it. Contraception is so painfully easy to get and use that there is no need to resort to abortion. The choice is not between legal abortion and families having 13 kids.
[Quote=monavis]
It is not yet a child as the law states now.
[/quote]
Yes, I know, but that is the debate here. Simply saying what is true now does not make your point. Suppose we were debating gay marriage in South Carolina, and my rejoinder to any argument you make was “The law simply does not recognize marriage as being between people of the same gender” as if that was an insta-win for me. Just like you would be arguing that the law should be changed, I am arguing the same thing.
[Quote=monavis]
Every time a man ejaculates many potential human lives are killed because there is human life in a man’s sperm. Thousands die even if there is a conception.
[/QUOTE]
I asked because Terr used that example expecting that people would take issue and I was under the impression that, while morally some may take exception, that it was legal to refuse or withdraw support. Was I incorrect in my impression?
And the Law says that if you kill that clump of cells, it’s murder - in 38 states. Do explain to me how one can murder “a clump of cells” and not a person?
A fertile egg is not a child, an embryo is not a child nor has it reached the stage that it can be seen as a child. After that the law does not allow an Abortion… A fertile egg is not a chicken, and of course no one can kill or murder a clump of cells. A woman has the right to protect herself. In a war thousands of innocent people re killed. They are already born Self defense is legal.
There is a big difference between a fertile egg and a child. The already born have rights. Like it or not!
You can’t say a clump of cells is a baby, and one cannot murder a clump of cells, Any ore than killing a Mosquito is murdering a mosquito You like to use the term Murder and even in some legal cases killing a person is not called murder, like in war or self defense.
A woman has the right to self defense.
A fetus, or an embryo, has essentially the same moral status as a born person, because they are a human person at a particularly early stage of development . in the same way that an acorn is an early developmental stage of an oak plant, and apple seed is an early developmental stage of an apple plant, etc. your tale about rescuing the frozen embryos from a burning bulding doesn’t mean much, because we make decisions all the time about choosing to rescue some human lives over others.
You still haven’t answered the question. “The Law” (I like how you capitalize it) says that if you kill that clump of cells, it’s murder - in 38 states. Do explain to me how one can murder “a clump of cells” if it is not a person?
There are actually many satisfactory explanations. Let’s look at a few.
Even if that were as unambiguously true as you claim (it’s not) the existence of stupid laws is a common phenomenon and isn’t an exoneration of any ethical principle. That’s why laws get overturned, repealed, and amended all the time.
Most of those states have a variety of conditions mitigating those laws, the most common one being that they don’t apply to abortions that are otherwise legal and performed with the woman’s consent, or specifying stages or symptoms of gestation. Not something you usually see in “murder” laws!
Now it’s your turn to explain why the other 12 states allow abortions in a wide variety of circumstances, or, perhaps more interestingly, why most first-world nations permit abortions at least during the first 12 to 16 weeks of gestation and in some cases longer or with no limits. You don’t find various states or other nations disagreeing about what “murder” is in the accepted meaning of the word, do you?
They are basicaly trumped up charges to pull at heart strings. We assume that the mother wanted the pregnancy. I have no problem with the hammer coming down on those that commit murder. We shouldn’t need the extra charge for this. It’s political pandering.
[QUOTE=Terr]
I already answered it. In post #522.
[/QUOTE]
No, no you didn’t. This is your post #522 -
[QUOTE=Terr]
It can be an inconvenience. It can be a wonderful experience. It can be a real drag. It can even be a life-threatening thing. But only in the last case it is justified to kill the kid. Even by rape. The kid does not carry the blame for the rape and does not deserve the death sentence because of it. H ell, even rapists do not get death sentences in our courts.
[/quote]
So. You think that a rape of a minor, even by a sibling that causes a pregnacy is an ‘inconvenience’. Or a real drag.
Let’s be clear here. You don’t think that abortion is reasonable when a minor is raped by a sibling? Correct?