Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the rest of the time these "human beings" will get flushed down the toilet and nobody will ever know.
Yes, they human, but they certainly are not a PERSON, as in declaring fertilized egg PEOPLE. Hello? You going to issue death certificates for every woman who has a late period? Ok, and what will these new CONCEPTION Certificate say? John Smith was conceived on July 4, 2002 at 4 AM? Good luck with THAT one. Next question? If they are people at conception, are they citizens too? How do you propose proving that one? If you are a person at conception, that means you have to be conceived SOMEPLACE and a citizen of where that was.
Total absurdity declaring them PEOPLE at conception.
You are using "they" wrong. Is that ebonics? And, yes, it's RACIST. And yes, the mods will kill me. Just thought I'd give you a heads up, friend.
Your questions are interesting.
How can a baby in her mother's womb be human but not a person? I sometimes think I just dont get it. I'm not a horrid person, I'm kind of liberal, kind of conservative and I would like your answer.
Yeah, better to go ahead and kill two of the three right off the bat than to take the chance that all three might live.
It was her Doctors opinion, not mine. As much as it may tick you off there are times when it's deemed necessary. Brazil (where this situation occured) only allows abortion in the case of rape or when the mother is in iminent danger. As they allowed the procedure, in a hospital, by Doctors I understood that it was an iminent health case as the child's pelvis wasn't formed enough to support pregnancy.
the rest of the time these "human beings" will get flushed down the toilet and nobody will ever know.
Yes, they human, but they certainly are not a PERSON, as in declaring fertilized egg PEOPLE. Hello? You going to issue death certificates for every woman who has a late period? Ok, and what will these new CONCEPTION Certificate say? John Smith was conceived on July 4, 2002 at 4 AM? Good luck with THAT one. Next question? If they are people at conception, are they citizens too? How do you propose proving that one? If you are a person at conception, that means you have to be conceived SOMEPLACE and a citizen of where that was.
Total absurdity declaring them PEOPLE at conception.
My daughter was issued a fetal death certificate. It wasn't a vanity thing, rather the state likes to keep records of all births and deaths of its populace. My dd may have been classified as a fetus, but her death was still considered a death of a human.
Besides, saying that while human a zygote is not a person is like saying while human a baby is not an adult. Regardless of where they may be in developement at the time of their death please don't do the disservice of invalidating their essential human-ness.
I say it is murder. Or at the very least a decided upon execution.
However there are two peoples rights in the equation. The embryo, and the mother.
For me personally, abortion is killing, the snuffing of a life. So if I cause a conception, the responsibility to care for mother and child is on my shoulders. End of discussion for me.
However, I don't claim to have a Solomon like ability to properly split the hair between fetus rights and mother's rights. So I can't make a case for forcing my view on others without a heck of a lot more study and possibly providing alternatives like state provided care if the law became "no abortions except for rape victims or other extenuating circumstances".
Terminating a pregnancy can be construed as a murder, if you define murder as the taking of a human life, regardless of what stage that life is in. But to me, that's not the debate.
The debate is...when is murder justified?
The right to human life is not black or white, as pro-lifers exalt. There are shades of grey.
For instance, consider the death penalty. It's the taking of a human life; therefore, it can be construed as murder. And many people do indeed consider it murder and are staunchly against it. However, many people also believe that the death penalty is necessary, not only as a deterrant, but as a punishment to those who commit the most heinous of crimes.
Killing in self-defense is also murder. But most people would not debate the morality of killing in self-defense.
Soldiers who kill during wartime are committing murder. But I don't know of very many people who would condemn a soldier for killing the "enemy". This brings to mind a friend of mine who is a fanatical pro-lifer. Her son served in Desert Storm and killed several men. She thinks he is a hero, while a woman who would terminate a 6-week pregnancy is a murderer.
Currently the majority of Americans feel that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. Call it murder if you so choose, but regardless, certain circumstances warrant terminating a pregnancy. Again, it's those shades of gray in life that make right and wrong not so easy to define.
FormerCaliforniaGirl - True, when the mother's rights should trump the unborn's and visca versa is a tough question.
But the question of whether life begins at conception seems to be an open and shut case, to me. When you have a living complete set of human chromosomes, you have a human life.
So *for me* abortions of convenience are essentially executions.
Other cases I'd have to evaluate on their own merits.
However, in all cases, a human life is terminated.
Certainly we can argue about "what is murder exactly?". But I don't think there's any argument that abortion is an intentional killing.
The shades of grey are really just questions of one person's morality v. another's, and thus where the line between "justified killing" and "murder" are being drawn.
But the bottom line is the same. Someone dies by the will of another.
In a stunning development, NASA reported prematurely that the Phoenix Lander discovered what some scientists claim is proof of life on Mars. While performing routine analysis in an area believed to hold water, the Phoenix's on-board instrumentation detected the presence of an organism with amino acids, calcium, magnesium, and cytoplasms consistent with a human embryo. The organism, approximately 2cm in length was suspended in a vitreous solution just below the surface. Using the Lander's on-board microscope, scientists were able to discern what appeared to be an embryo floating loosely in an unknown substance. There excitement was quickly tempered, however, when President Obama's science adviser pointed out that an embryo is not in fact life. "It's obviously just a parasite", he stated. "Terminate it and move on." Stunned NASA scientists debated the significance of the find before deciding that it was not in fact proof of life. "I trust the President", said one unnamed staffer. "If Obama says its not life, it must not be."
For now, the search for life outside of earth continues.
Absolutely none but they keep at it! Posting like they think nobody ever thought of, or said, what they post ever before
Silly us, keep on talking about murder.
The left sure do believe in free speech.
Hint: If you don't care for the post, don't reply.
Bless that little heart of yours. (Recently learned in Macon, GA)
Oh, and your use of the little pictures is very meaningful! Do you carry around signage in your real life? People that deal with you might find it helpful.
Terminating a pregnancy can be construed as a murder, if you define murder as the taking of a human life, regardless of what stage that life is in. But to me, that's not the debate.
The debate is...when is murder justified?
The right to human life is not black or white, as pro-lifers exalt. There are shades of grey.
For instance, consider the death penalty. It's the taking of a human life; therefore, it can be construed as murder. And many people do indeed consider it murder and are staunchly against it. However, many people also believe that the death penalty is necessary, not only as a deterrant, but as a punishment to those who commit the most heinous of crimes.
Killing in self-defense is also murder. But most people would not debate the morality of killing in self-defense.
Soldiers who kill during wartime are committing murder. But I don't know of very many people who would condemn a soldier for killing the "enemy". This brings to mind a friend of mine who is a fanatical pro-lifer. Her son served in Desert Storm and killed several men. She thinks he is a hero, while a woman who would terminate a 6-week pregnancy is a murderer.
Currently the majority of Americans feel that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. Call it murder if you so choose, but regardless, certain circumstances warrant terminating a pregnancy. Again, it's those shades of gray in life that make right and wrong not so easy to define.
Have you read the Bible? Kill and murder are explained there.
If you don't care for the Bible...your post makes sense.
Not trying to be rude....I like your posts. Thoughtful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
