Question: Does life start at birth or conception?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c4#/video/us/2013/01/26/erin-lah-catholic-hospital-fetus.cnn

Answer: Life starts at conception unless you attempt to sue for the wrongful death of your unborn children. The hypocrisy of our religious institutions and their influence on the minds of much of this country never cease to amaze me.

 

Count the number of "pro-lifers" who scream "Abortion is MURDER"....but press them to say they'd support life-in-prison or the death penalty for a woman who takes the "morning after" pill?

Suddenly they get "nuanced".

 

Doesn't matter when the life starts, the fact is that the process for turning a cell into a human begins the moment of conception.

There is no denying that abortion, at any stage, is preventing the life of a child from coming into this world.

 

Legally in this country it begins at birth, and it should remain that way.

 

But don't you find it interesting that a Catholic run hospital who adheres to the teaching of the church and that takes a smilar stance as yours argues in court that life starts at birth.

 

There is a heart beat detected weeks into pregnancy, I think that does mean a life exists. Abortion on demand for convenience should be prohibited, absolutely never deserves taxpayers money to pay for it!

 

And contraception also prevents life from being created.

 

So keep your feet out of the stirrups and if you find yourself having an abortion, pay for it. (which you will have to do anyway becasue tax dollars can never be used for abortion.)
Seems pretty simple to me why does the right have such a problem with it?

 

An unfertilized egg is not life? It's not dead.

 

Thats because it's not about 'life' or the 'child' it's always about the money.
Always.

 

I made a thread about this a few days ago.

 

No because the cells have not combined yet. Left alone there would be no child created. Once conception happens, if left alone a child WILL be created. Therefore abortion at any stage is not allowing a child to come into this world.

 

But is it "murder"?...or "something less"?

 

The morning after pill is legal.

It shouldn't be but it is.

That is a very difficult grey area but no, I don't want to throw lib women in jail just for taking the pill.

 

Sorry to bring back the same arguments, i just found it to be a very intersting article.

 

Then it's not "murder"....or you are sayinig you're "cool" with "murder". Pick one.

 

Why do the combination of cells matter?

I'm not disputing the biological definition of life when it comes to reproduction, but the legal definition should differ for the sake of practical concerns.

You'd have a pretty hard time enforcing the "life begins at conception legally" argument in terms of policy unless you plan on investigating every miscarriage.

 

How can it be murder if the fetus isn't considered a person? And if the Catholic church argues that the unborn don't have rights, who will?

 

I'm not sure about that.

At that stage of life the question is very iffy.

But certainly by the time the morning after pill is no longer viable we are dealing with a human being.

 

Life begins at birth plain and simple. To say otherwise is beyond idiotic.

 

Then the Catholic church is idotic.

 

The unfertilized egg is not life? Is it dead?

 

Doesn't matter what you call it. Your preventing a life either way.

The term is irrelevant.

 

Nonsense.

An unborn child is human.

It's certainly not a dog or bird.

 

That was my point. Get into rhetorical absolutes...."Abortion is murder"..."Life begins at conception"....you paint yourself into an embarassing corner, unless you accept "iffy".