Killing Babies no Different from Abortion, Experts Say

It's scientifically accurate. "Life begins at conception" is just something a pope said.

 

Just TWO people wrote that paper , just TWO, can you count??? It's just inflammatory hyperbole(plain old BS) and just plain Stupid to say all liberals agree with it.

And IF the fetus is given "person" status it has no more rights than the woman it's in.

It does NOT have the right to use her body or cause her bodily harm any more than any other person....so she has every right to end the harm, it's called self defense.

A pregnancy causes bodily harm to women and possibly even death. IF the fetus is given the status of "person" it has NO right to harm another person. It has the same restrictions other "people" have.

YOU want it to have more rights than other people (women).

 

Yeah, that's true, because the Pope and the Catholic Church believe in science. Not like the science deniers on the left and the atheists.

 

How about the science deniers who say the fetus isn't a fetus it's a baby.....

 

I try real hard to follow the convoluted logic of liberals but all I get is a bad headache.

Can I just point out to you that a baby doesn't choose to occupy his mother's womb.

My guess is, given the "choice", one would not choose a mother who is homicidal and wishes to kill her own children.

I think I made the exception for the life of the mother. That is common sense.

Any pregnancy which does harm to a mother, is not because of some sinister intent of the baby in the womb.

 

Please point out the scientific inaccuracies in this post:

 

From what I can see it's a logical argument, but not necessarily advocating for this to be done in practice. It's more an application of the moral and ethical reasoning behind the support for the killing of unborn fetuses to infants, as the same arguments would seem to apply.

This is something a debate can be built upon. The writers don't go so far as to consider practical alternatives, for instance, such as adoption. Again, it's simply an argument of basic ethics, i.e. of whether an infant is a person by definition and, consequently, whether an infant should be regarded the same way as an unborn fetus.

In any event, I doubt they're "deranged liberals." Settle down and try engaging your brain here, eh.

 

When a woman finds out she's pregnant, she call her mom or best friend and says what? We're gonna have a fetus?

 

Please point out the scientific inaccuracies? Why don't I just point out that you are intentionally
being obtuse and pedantic? The argument is not that conception is the point at which life sprang
into existence where there was no life prior to said phenomenon, it is the point at which each and
every individual is created by the union of the male and female of the species. I know that in these
confusing times of gay marriage and the changing fluid nature of language and meaning, but we'll
all have to agree on basic understandings of truth or we will lose all ability to communicate the way
God intended.

 

That was not my argument.

And my answer is that there is not one isolated point at which an individual is created. Components of the fertilized egg were created before conception. It's ridiculous to say that the sperm and egg are disposable, but at the moment they are joined, they (it) is sacred. The sperm and egg are an essential part of the creation.

Exactly why "pro-lifers" shouldn't say things like "life begins at conception," or "abortion kills a baby."

 

Yup YOUR definitions are correct! Did YOU read them ????


Yes, a woman would say "I AM GOING to have a baby"...she does not say she has a baby now. and even if she did, what a woman , or anyone else, calls a fetus doesn't make any difference... Calling my car "baby" doesn't make it a baby....

 

Like the fact & truth that life begins at conception? A fact of science that liberals deny?

I'll disagree. Babies come from their mothers' wombs. Talk about anti-science. Do you think that the stork delivers babies? You were the one insinuating that a fetus does not have a right to occupy the mother's womb. I don't think it has a choice!

The fetus doesn't have a choice as I just said. In my opinion, abortion is murder. How's that make your head feel?

Stepping outside your door carries the risk of death. We should all stay inside and not get pregnant. Then we can live forever. Why do you think a fetus would want to do harm to anyone? Especially it's mother upon whom it depends for life?

We prefer the term "Pro-Life", unless you prefer the terms "Pro-death" or "Pro-Abortion"? Maybe "Anti-Life" or "Anti-baby"?

One thing is for sure, a successful pregnancy will result in the birth of one or more individuals with God given rights to life.
A terminated pregnancy always ends in at least one death. Apparently in this country, pre-born babies do not have the
right to life.

 

That was your argument when you brought up my grandparents, no?

Yes, there is, the point at which an individual is created is at conception.

Sperm and eggs are disposable. They cannot in and of themselves become a human being. I agree, the sperm and egg are an essential part of the creation, and I would further day and indispensable part of creation. The moment at which they are joined, it the very first step in the pregnancy.

I can say "life begins at conception" and "abortion kills a baby" and be comfortable that I am being 100% factually accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

We live in a free country and you are free to go on denying science. I don't think I will ever disabuse you of that notion.

 

A zef is not an individual. The definition of "individual" means "separate", so at no point is a zef an individual. The point when an individual is created is birth, that is the point when it is "separate."

The first step in a pregnancy is implantation.

You shouldn't be so comfortable because both statements are wrong. Life exists before conception and babies don't exist until after birth.

 

Abortion takes life. Murder takes life. Prove me wrong.

 

No. If not for your grandparents, YOU, an individual, would not exist.

That is only your opinion with no scientific or logical reasoning to back it.

It makes no sense to say the sperm and eggs are disposable, and in the next sentence to say they are indispensable. According to medical professionals, a pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches to the lining of the uterus. There is no pregnancy before that, and the majority of fertilized eggs are flushed away during menstruation.

Not if you are serious about truth and communication "as God intended."

 

We live in a free country and you are free to go on denying science. I don't think I will ever disabuse you of that notion.

YOU deny science when it calls a fetus a fetus, YOU argue and say no, it's a baby. YOU are in denial.

YOU claim a fetus can think and choose and science says no, it can't. YOU are in denial.

YOU deny science......did you know the earth is round? Or will you deny science and insist it's flat?

- - - Updated - - -

You're wrong.


Abortion ends the life of a fetus. Murder ends the life of a person.

 

War takes life. Murder takes life. War=murder???

 

Scientists have determined that life begins at conception. Science deniers need to come to grips with that fact. When we say the words "life begins" meaning each individual life, not when life began on this planet. Scientists don't even know that.

I would not compare the utilization of the uterus for the purpose for which it was intended as giving in the same sense as donating an organ.

I have not made the argument that pregnancy does not cause harm. If you fear harm due to pregnancy, the best choice you can make is to avoid it. I am pro-choice when it comes to women deciding if or when they should become impregnated.

Well, it is a long held philosophical belief by we Americans that we do in fact have God given rights. Which is not to say that you are required to believe in God or any religion, but is recognized by the FACT that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were if fact written because of this basic understanding of the Enlightenment and the Glory of the Almighty. It is for this reason that we Americans have God given rights; for if it were not so, we would only have rights delegated to us by man, which would subjugate ourselves to the malevolence of an imperfect being(s), a despot or tyrannical person or persons.

The woman was 34 weeks pregnant. The prosecutor said there was no evidence according to the coroner that the child had live for any "significant time" outside the womb. The term "significant time" is undefined in Colorado law.

 

Let us not be confusing legal terms with actual science. A unique individual human being is created upon conception.

The first step is conception, otherwise, there is nothing to be implanted.

Nobody is arguing life did not exist before conception, only that a new life is created upon conception.

Birth is not a magic trick. The baby is incubated in the womb. This is basic biology people. Not that hard to comprehend.

 

Which was never a contention and thus pointless to point out.

This is all well known to science. I don't know why people refuse to accept settled science except that their
political views cause them to become science deniers.

Not all eggs are fertilized, not all sperm are merged with an egg. All others are as disposable as dead skin cells.

This may be true, that not all pregnancies are successful. But the process of the pregnancy cannot begin unless the egg is fertilized.

That which suits your hard fought beliefs is what you will accept and nothing else. If the facts do not comport with
your ideology, then they are dismissed as non-facts. Once again I recognize that there are limits to my abilities to
disabuse people of the truths they hold dear out of empathy and not reason.

 

The point is "life's cycle" and no person that has ever existed has missed that first stage. On this thread, I'm not arguing "Women's Right", but that if one excuse for ending the cycle is acceptable, why not any other.

1- Yes and if the embryo or fetus, can't handle the biological functions to maintain life, it will die...it's called a miscarriage. Some States have laws protecting the unborn, from the mothers habit's or life style, although rarely enforced.

2- If "it" cannot cause harm to anyone, what's the problem?

3- Self defense, only if imminent can anyone justify doing harm...and that's law. I'll add the fetus has done nothing, using your own argument.