March for Life 2009
Today is the March for Life 2009. Throngs of pro-life activists will flood Washington, D.C.
You will barely hear about it in the MSM.
Go here for more info.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsNY Senator: Honor Mother’s Day by supporting pro-abortion group
May 12, 2012 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Obama Invites Self to Deliver Commencement Address at Women’s College
March 4, 2012 02:53 PM by Doug Powers
79 Comments
Sandra Fluke is not a “slut.” She’s a femme-agogue tool; DCCC, Emily’s list fund-raise off of Rush
March 2, 2012 12:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
322 Comments
Becket Fund victory: Federal judge upholds religious liberty in Washington state
February 23, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsOvernight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsQuote of the Day: DWS Decries Those Who Impose Their Values on Others
February 16, 2012 10:30 PM by Doug Powers
175 Comments
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 Comments
Categories: Abortion
Thank you Morgan; I refuse the foundation of their argument, so it seems I always come up with a different answer.
Explanation required.
Morgan:
Let me rephrase:
Do you consider aborting a fetus to be “murder?”
If so, what analogy would you be comfortable with the woman?
Is the getaway driver? A witless accomplice? An unwilling bystander?
I am just curious.
b-cat:
I may have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you have a problem with the courts overturning the “will of the people.”
I was making the point that (were it not for the courts) in the liberal NE (where I live) my 2nd amendment rights would be completely gone (as opposed to nearly gone).
Maybe I misunderstood your point.
zeroangel,
Yes, I consider aborting a fetus to be murder. As for an analogy, I would use either an unwitting accomplice or a willing accomplice.
Morgan:
..and punishment based on a determination on just how willing or unwitting the woman was.
OK, that’s fair, again you seem to be consistent.
Not true.
Under most circumstances, the limiting factor for human viability is not the development of neural connections but the maturation of the lungs. However, advances in medical science permit a premature fetus to breathe after only 25 weeks of gestation, a stage in its development prior to the complete formation of functioning lungs (Gilbert 2002). Legislation using the ecological/technological view of when human life begins includes degrees of when a fetus can legally be aborted, mandating that after a fetus is determined to be independent its life can no longer be terminated (Gilbert 2002).
Zero
The law IS being arbitrary.
FamilyMan:
Perhaps I should say it is currently defined, but that point depends on what state you live in?
FamilyMan:
No, the law is not being “arbitrary.” Law, by it’s very nature, can’t be arbitrary. A point has to be chosen and that point differs from state to state.
What is your point though? Are we going to segway into the “what do you think the point should be?” I already aanswered that.
I think liberals and the rest of the sheeple just aren’t smart enough to see abortion for what it is. They actually believe it is a choice with no consideration for the wonder of life.
At some point in time we all had our moment of enlightenment where we saw things for what they really are. We discovered conservatism because we saw that things are never as simple as they appear. Ignorance is bliss and they are basking in it.
False Dichotomy and just plain false.
Zero
My point is that arbitrary law is dangerous. Laws that are unjustly arbitrary should be overturned. The moment of conception is the only non arbitrary point.
Agreed.
However, that is so damned inconvenient for the situational ethics, moral relativism crowd.
Michelle, thanks for covering the March for Life. I’m sure the liberal media won’t.
Depanding on what you mean by “arbitrary” I am sure we agree. However, I am willing to bet that you don’t think a man that steals $5 should be treated the same as a man that steals $5000 (to borrow from an earlier example).
Yes, but you aren’t going to get a concensus on what exactly is “unjust.”
Except that that would mean killing a single cell is tanamount to murder. Which is patently absurd. You would have situations were one might imagine IUDs, IVFs, stem cell research, etc. being equal to murder…
..and a’round we go again.
and the bottom line of Planned Parenthood.
The March for Life is the longest running polical protest out there.
If you want the numbers on abortion, as well as percentages due to incest and rape vs. birth control, check out this site:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm
From a religious view, I believe life begins at conception.
From a legal view, I believe life begins at the earliest point that an unborn child can survive outside the womb. (like 22 to 24 weeks I believe)
From a moral/ethical view, I don’t think there’s a single reason for abortion that is not selfish, including to save the life of the mother, with ‘maybe’ the exception that there’s no way for the child to survive, and it’s possible for the mother to survive is the child is aborted.
A priest once told me that a good rule of thumb is that anything that is selfish is a sin, so I guess that would apply to pretty much every abortion.
And yes, Zeroangel, I think the mother should go to prison. (if it was illegal)
The bottom line of Planned Parenthood is $$$ plain and simple. Regardless of what your stand on abortion is: pro, con, or indifferent, Planned Parenthood’s primary goal is to abort every fetus they can get their hands on.
For Money.
There’s no altruism, there’s no “Caring about the poor misunderstood mother” that’s all Bull. The vast majority of abortions in this country are abortions of convenience and there’s money to be made by these slaughterhouses the left so passionately loves.
Rape? Incest? Life of the mother in danger? sure it happens, but these cases are so far in the minority as to be laughable. Just as long as your check clears (assuming Planned Parenthood takes checks) your womb is as good as empty. Alternatives to abortion are overlooked routinely as a course of business regardless of what the state requires.
Believe me – if Planned Parenthood were able to make as much money off of adoption as they are for abortion in the same amount of time an abortion takes there’d probably be no abortion on this planet outside of Communist China which continues to enforce non-voluntary abortions in the case of unlawful pregnancy (one too many children).
99.95% of the time abortion is not “life saving”, nor does it have anything to do with rape or incest except in the rarest of cases. In North Carolina the rate of abortion for cases of incest is 0.0005% of all abortions.
95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control for morons. At the coldest this means that the vast majority of aborted fetuses are victims of “Elective surgery” – basically a convince. Like breast implants, except a 14 year old needs their parents permission for breast implants. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need parental permission or even notification to scrape a 14 year old’s womb. A school nurse cannot give the same 14 year old an aspirin for a head ache thanks to our legal system.
Abortions cost $500 – $1000. Let’s say $750 average. Multiply that times 1,206,200 abortions a year you’re talking 904,650,000 – nearly a billion dollars a year.
No wonder why Planned Parenthood is working so hard to brain wash the easily influenced that abortion is their “right” – because it’s Planned Parenthood’s bread and butter.
MrVIBEMAN:
…and pretty much any capitalist society in the most general sense. I selfishly made a bunch of money at work today, and I am not going to share it!
If you use “selfishness” as the definition of sin; well then pretty much everything you do to stay alive is a sin.
Good post.
Yep, as I’ve said before, all the other worldview-holders have, and all they understand, are money, sex, and,…above all, power; which are, come to think of it, interconvertible things.
PKAmmoTroop:
Would you be more comfortable if abortions were controlled and conducted by the state?
Just asking, I don’t nessecerily disagree with your post.
I think he answered that with reference to China. Where it’s not voluntary and the state decides who lives and dies.
Ironically, most of the babies aborted in China and/or victims of infanticide are girls.
What about their choice?
englishqueen:
No, he didn’t answer it. He certainly aluded that he doesn’t like the way China does business (and I agree) but I wasn’t asking about China, I was asking about the US government.
Oh complete nonsense and more false dichotomy.
I personally care about the concerns of the woman as well as at what point does the unborn deserve similiar concern (this should be evidenced by my posts).
Any government has the capability of following the China model. There is no way the US government is beyond becoming an agent of death.
In fact, tax subsidies for Banned Parenthood/Planned Barrenhood are government condoning the murder of future generations.
Some 35 million abortion victims would be working, taxpaying citizens now. Why is it liberals worry about never having enough tax dollars, but don’t care about killing off droves of future taxpayers?
englishqueen:
Are you going to answer for him or are you going to let him answer for himself?
It doesn’t. Your opinion is the unborn have no rights because they’re not human. You don’t make any believable argument that you care about the unborn at all.
Funny…I thought this was a thread open to all registered members of the site.
I answered a question posed in an open forum. He can answer whenever he pleases, if he pleases.
No, AGAIN, it’s analog not digital.
How many times have I said I have serious problems with anything past the 1st trimester?
Then if you are going to answer it, answer it.
Would you be more or less comfortable with the US government then Planned Parenthood?
What does that even mean?
In your opinion.
Your dismissive remark is not in the least surprising.
Sad, but not surprising.
If it has to be explained to you how monstrously arrogant those words are, you will never understand – never.
b-cat:
It means that “life” doesn’t begin at any one point. There is no point at which a fetus stops being a “clump of cells” and becomes “fully-human.”
Many here will insist on the point of conception, but, as I mentioned in #116, I disagree.
I am saddened that abortion is still legal and so prevalent in our society. It is America’s greatest moral failing, even worse than slavery. Slavery denies a person his/her humanity, but abortion does that and denies the most basic right of all, to exist.
I am hopeful that one day abortion will be outlawed (at least in most circumstances) in this great land. If this comes about, it will undoubtedly come about not at the hands of “humanists,” but from devout Christians.
Yes, there are some atheists who are pro-life, but they are few. For all the claims that you don’t have to be Christian to be moral, the burden will fall once again upon devout Christians to teach the world about basic right and wrong.
Christians brought an end to slavery (in their corner of the world), and I am hopeful they will do the same with abortion-on-demand. Lord, shine Your Light into this world of darkness!
granite:
It is a false dichotomy. In your own words either I agree with you or I only “understand, money, sex, and,…above all, power”
The viewpoint that human life can exist on a petri dish in the form of a single cell is (to say the least) a bit extreme, oh yes, in my opinion.
No, I mean the analog-digital thing.
A false dichotomy is when it appears there are only two choices, when in fact there are more options. Baby lives or baby dies. Please tell me what the other options are.
As far as just plain false, please tell me that these people know they are snuffing out a livng child and then maybe you can begin to understand why we find it is so offensive.
Can we include negatives? Because if you put it on a scale of 0-10, my comfort with Banned Parenthood/Planned Barrenhood is 0.
Can’t get much less comfortable than that.
We’ve all seen that the government can’t run what it’s already doing; you expect them to provide quality care to pregnant women?
Nope.
b-cat:
Digital means something is either yes/no, on/off, or in this case, “fully human”/”clump of cells.”
Analog means there are various shades of grey, yes…likely…maybe…unlikely…no,
on…half on/off…off,
you get the idea.
John Deaux:
But that wasn’t what you were talking about.
…implying that people either 1. care about life and want all abortions illegal or b. don’t care at all about the unborn and want all abortions legal.
As I have said, there are varying degrees and opinions. For example, I certainlly don’t consider a single fertilized cell to be a “child.”
But the viewpoint that it’s okay to rip apart that life is, oh yes, not extreme at all, is it?
FYI – Abortions aren’t performed on single-cells. Most pregnancies are discovered at 8 weeks or more gestation.
You know, when that “clump of cells” looks like this. At 8 weeks, this is the development:
A mere two weeks later, fetal development is this:
And abortion is legal upto and including when the unborn child looks like this.
He’s a human being. From conception. And everyone has the right to life.
Your saying that “it’s not human” makes no difference to fact.
englishqueen:
Where would the US govt fit on your scale in your opinion?
More or less than zero?
englishqueen:
…and I didn’t say what my opinion was on who would do a better job.
Less. With PP, there’s always the possibility, however remote, that it goes out of business.
You have no path of recourse with a government hell bent on destroying its citizens.
But if you’re trying to get me to admit that Planned Barrenhood is somehow better, it isn’t.
It is evil and the day it shuts the doors of its clinics I’m buying people a round at the local bar.
We will pay for treating the innocent unborn so cruelly.
englishqueen:
How many times to I have to restate that I am very uncomfortable with anything past the 1st trimester?
Do you honestly think I don’t know what a fetus looks like at any one point?
If you are going to have a conversation with me please address MY points and stop trying to paint me as some kind of lunactic that wants abortions on demand for 12 yr old girls in thier 3rd trimester. That isn’t my point at all, nor has it ever been.
No, I wasn’t. I was mainly interested in hearin PKAmmoTroop’s opinion because I liked what he had to say on the topic.
I didn’t really care what you had to say, but you felt a need to voice your opinion and completely miss the point of my question.
I learned some weeks or months ago on another thread here at MM that the government seized a whorehouse in Nevada (Mustang Ranch) in 1990, I believe..and they couldn’t even run that right!
Can’t run a whorehouse in Nevada?!
Words fail me!
Leave it alone and the child lives or abort it and the child dies. How are there varying degrees of that?
Sorry, Bill clinton fuzzy logic that “depends on the definition” just doesn’t cut it here.
So how do you justify saying that anything before 12 weeks is okay, but not after?
Hate to break it to you, but the same reasoning you use to say 1st trimester is okay is used to explain away abortion up through the 3rd trimester.
And I have every right to voice my opinion. Especially on an issue as important as abortion.
It’s wrong, and will never be right. And I will never sit by and let people advocate for the murder of the unborn (not to mention the harm done to women, physically and emotionally) and consider it a hallmark of a great culture.
It isn’t.
FYI, I’m 8 weeks into my second pregnancy. Don’t you dare tell me that my baby isn’t a human being who I am obligated to protect from harm.
englishqueen01 said:
We will pay a price, but we are already making the down payment.
When we attempt to dehumanize others, we in fact dehumanize ourselves. There is a coarseness & depravity in our culture that I believe, in part, comes from our acceptance of this moral abomination.
John Deaux:
Are you against all forms of IUDs? Culling during IVF? Does it occur to you that God (as Sam Harris once said) may very well be the most prolific aborter as many “fertilized eggs” never take root and end up in the toilet?
They are knocking down the old ladies at the rally in Naples.
Congrats! Mrs. Deaux is expecting our second in June!
I use several grounds to make that arguement, and I think they should be obvious.
So? Slipperly slope arguements are still an informal falacy.
Yes, and I have every right to chastise you for completely misrepresenting my questions and trying to make the claim that I support govt control vs. planned parenthood based on my questions to PK.
My wife is 22 weeks pregnant and my opinion is still valild.
Congrats.
But I still don’t understand how you can have children and advocate that abortion is okay.
Our children are no more human because they’re planned or wanted than the an “unplanned” child or unexpected pregnancy.
…and get off your pulpit. Stop pretending that I am being a mean old brute because I said your baby isn’t a “human!”
I am not forcing you to get an abortion, all I am saying is that other women should have the option under certain circumstances.
englishqueen:
I have been very clear and very patient on this topic despite countless posts implying that I am immoral or evil, etc.
I don’t know how much more clear I can be:
I do not consider a single cell to be a human life. I do consider a (for example) 30 week old fetus to be as human as one can be.
An arbitrary point must be chosen otherwise we will end up in a bizarre situation where IVF, IUD, etc is illegal.
I choose around the end of the 1st trimester.
It is that simple.
My college-aged daughter is there, God Bless her! Can you tell your DC friends to be nice?
Please tell me that you’re not saying abortionists are doing God’s work.
A fertilized egg that adheres to the uterus will become a child if left alone. It’s as simple as that. Considering that we’re all God’s children, if He chooses to take us at the moment of conception by not allowing us to “take root” or at 90 due to old age, it’s His will.
IUDs are pregnancy prevention and given that they increase the risk of cancer, are a poor substiute for other methods that aren’t in the gray area of conception. Does anybody even use them any more?
The part I can’t figure out is how somebody can perform abortions. They know exactly what they’re doing, yet they express shock when something like the Caylee Anthony case comes on the news.
Arrogance that is even more staggering than before.
Wow!
Congrats to those who are expecting!
The best part of abortion threads is always Englishqueen01. Articulate, knowledgable, doesn’t back down and doesn’t pull any punches.
Big fan over here, Englishqueen!
Dont be ridiculous. I was making the point that a fertilized egg can hardly be considered human.
What about in the case of severe genetic deformities that will result in a miscarriage? Is a severly genetically malformed fetus human?
Yes. I saw an add on TV for a new one just yesterday. Are IUDs murder?
An arbitrary point is just that: arbitrary.
In other words, open to interpretation. You just happen to interpret it at 12 weeks. Others say 40 weeks is a good arbitrary point. And you cannot say that yours is any more accurate or valid because everyone has the right to define that abitrary point for him/herself.
If IUDs and IVF and the pill were outlawed tomorrow, that’d be fine by me. The contraceptive culture is what has allowed this culture of death to flourish. It has removed the onus of responsibility and passed the consequences of our actions onto people who are guilty of nothing except existing when it’s inconvenient for someone else.
The good news is the culture of life will one day overcome the culture of death and bury it in the ash heap of history. And I’ll sleep tonight knowing that I defending the right to life for all, not just those related to me.
And the fact you cannot tell the difference between a natural miscarriage and an abortion is telling. And rather pathetic, really.
Exactly.
Oh, yeah.
Extra-double exactly.
Every pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that I’ve heard stems from one of four things: 1) dependency, 2) development, 3) location, and 4) self-awareness.
Dependency: Should a person have the choice to kill a 4-year-old or an insulin-dependent person?
Development: A 2-month-old is not as developed as an 8-year-old or a 15-year-old. Should we, therefore, have the option of terminating the life of the 2-month-old?
Location: Does a person’s value change from one location to the next? From the store to the car to the workplace? Why then would we apply this standard here?
Self-awareness: Do we value a 25-year-old moreover an 8-year-old because the older is more self-aware?
zeroangel said:
I’ll agree that however we decide what is or isn’t “human,” that some degree of arbitrariness is unavoidable. But certainly we’ll agree that we ought to minimize as much as possible the degree to which our decision is arbitrary, no?
So then the question is, what is the least arbitrary beginning point of a human? Obviously not an egg or sperm (for an unfertilized egg that remains unfertilized, or a sperm left alone, never develops into a mature human), or anything prior to that.
When is our DNA created? At the point of conception. When does our continuum of life begin? At conception. You might could argue that the least arbitrary moment is when a fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the womb, or perhaps when a fertilized egg is placed in the Incubator 2000 (a hypothetical machine that could take a fertilized egg and keep it alive until viability) since a fertilized egg in a petri dish, left alone, never develops into a mature human. Maybe.
But placing the beginning of humanity at any other point after this is unnecessarily arbitrary, and thus, should be rejected, including your 12 week requirement.
Aborting a fertilized egg should be considered murder.
Is this your first. If not, have you witnessed a delivery firsthand?
Yep.
Yep again.
Yet again, yep.
A key word being “inconvenient”.
The opposite worldview does ferociously defend its enjoyment of casual, convenient, consequences-free sex, does it not?
For which we must all continue to pray.
Otherwise, how could we live with ourselves?
englishqueen:
Actually, YES, I can. the most simple arguement being the developed CNS.
At least you are consistent.
If you are suggesting that one say IUDs, IVF, and the pill will be a thing of the past, I sincerely doubt it.
Again, misrepresenting my point! I am trying to make the point that a fertilized egg is decidedly “less than a fully-formed human” on the ground that we don’t even know for a fact that any particular egg will grow into a human being (as many here keep asserting).
What is somewhat pathetic is that you keep trying to misrepresent my points. I would ask again kindaly that you please stop doing that.
I second that completely. Zero should know that EQ will ALWAYS win the abortion argument.
Trollman:
I agree with you here. But as I said to Englishqueen, the arguement that a fertilized egg will grow into a human isn’t always true.
Often times, a fertilized egg will not grow into a human.
Based upon what?
granite
YUP to all you said.
zeroangel said:
Anyone who finds abortion acceptable & defensible is morally bankrupt at best.
‘yo momma.
*smile*
zeroangel said:
This objection does not help your position, it only makes it worse.
If you are hunting and aren’t sure if it is a deer or another hunter, you don’t pull the trigger!
It is the same flaw that Obama made when he conceded that the determination of when something becomes a living thing is “above his paygrade.”
If you don’t know, then you don’t kill, you should always err on the side of caution and life.
The problem with zeroangel is that his position is logically untenable. It amounts to: The mother gets to decide whether it’s a human life or not, as long as its still in the womb (or mostly in the womb).
It provides the weaselly dodge of supporting abortion while pretending not to take a position by claiming the choice is someone else’s.
It’s akin to. “Personally, I wouldn’t be a serial killer myself, but if someone else decides that humans are cattle to be slaughtered for his own gratification, I’m not prepared to take a stand on whether that’s right or wrong.”
Exactly. It’s that simple. Err on the side of life, or err on the side of convenience.
What do you define as genetically malformed? Downs Syndrome? Family history of diseases? Certain races? Slippery slope, eh?
I disapprove of IUDs because they prevent a fertilized egg from adhering. However, you’ll notice that I said a planted fertilized egg if left alone… Personally, I prefer to not allow the fertilization process take place.
Socky said:
That is perhaps the most succinct summary of our culture that I have ever seen.
Trollman:
Another poster tried to make that point at some past time this pointless debate came up.
The issue is, we DO know it’s neither a deer nor a hunter. In the case of a fertilized egg we are talking about a single cell that is no more “alive” then my skin cells.
Yes, it could possibly become a human being, under certain conditions. However, with current technology, so could my skin cell.
Wrong, that is not my position.
But YOU clearly cannot tell the difference between the fact that a fertilized egg – which is a human being – is miscarried for whatever natural reason is not an intentional taking of that life.
Abortion is. Because – once again – women often don’t even know they’re pregnant until well after fertilization.
Your question
is an attempt to get us to betray our pro-life principles.
Yes. A genetically malformed unborn child is still a human being. Just as a person who is severely burned in an accident, or who loses limbs from infection.
The intent of killing the child is not there in a natural miscarriage. It happens. That doesn’t mean God is pro-abortion or an abortionist.
The method of fertilizing multiple eggs, picking one, then destroying the rest is wrong. Now, if one egg is fertilized and that fertilized egg is not destroyed, then we’re good to go. This is also why I’m against birth control methods that potentially cause abortions by creating an environment in the uterus that prevents fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall (one of those little facts that doctors often fail to share with their patients before prescribing birth control pills).
Did anyone see the “Imagine the Potential” video? If not, here it is…. this should end all arguments with Liberals, since if they followed their own advice they would have sacrificed THE ONE.
We don’t know if he’s going to die from SIDS in the first year, either, but that doesn’t keep us from trying, does it?
John Deaux :
For the sake of my example let’s use Polyploidy.
John Deaux said:
zero, surely we’d agree that they are fully human, just “differently evolved” humans. What do you have against genetic mutations?
Aren’t you glad that when the monkey momma gave birth to what would be the first human, (even though she must have thought “this is one ugly monkey,”) she let him live?
Englishqueen:
No, it is not anymore human then a skin cell.
would you support carry a Polyploid to term?
Not at all correct.
Zero, I must point out that in other threads you bring up your contempt for (is that too strong a word?), and therefore lack of belief in, God because he has “killed innocent babies”, e.g., the Egyptians. In fact, you have used the same line about God killing babies over and over each time the debate gets heated. You seem to have a real problem with God killing babies, and yet…
You seem to be advocating the exact same thing in each abortion debate.
Yes, I know you will still insist that the issue is really “when life begins”. But how many people have asked your wife if she has felt her “fetus kick”? Or what you plan to name the “fetus”?
Just throwing this out as food for thought. You appear to be applying your logic differently based on ideology.
I am finding that I am going to have to respond to a group rather than one individual at a time.
That said:
My claim regarding severe genetic malformations is that there are cases where abortion is the only humane choice. (As opposed to allow a child to live months in agony and be faced with certain death)
Furthermore, my claim realtes to the idea that a fertilized egg won’t nessecerily become a human being and therefore is decidedly less than human.
The fact that it contains all the genetic information for what could become a human doesn’t make it equal to a 2 yr old.
There is a big difference between a fertilized egg and one of your skin cells. Both are, in fact, “alive”; however, both cells are vastly different in terms of structure and function.
The point you’re trying to make (correct me if I’m wrong), is that a fertilized egg is not human because it hasn’t gone through any developmental processes. Upon fertilization, the egg goes through rapid progression. The only difference between a newly fertilized egg and a 9-week-old fetus is development. But I ask, like what does a baseline human look? At two weeks, a fetus is further along in development. At one week… At 20 minutes… A baseline human being is at conception.
Yes. Even if a prenatal diagnosis indicated my child would die shortly after birth, I would carry him to term and allow him to die whole and surrounded by love, rather than ripped apart in the womb and thrown in the trash. Abortion is never a “humane” option. Do you know what the procedure entails?
Because that child is still a human being.
zeroangel said:
So to extend this line of reasoning, people who die before puberty are less human than those that live to sexual maturity?
zeroangel said:
Give it a couple of years, and let’s see. Notice that you assume in your premise that it isn’t already a human – the very point that is up for debate.
Oh, and 2 year olds are less human than 25 year olds, right?
A fertilized, single-celled fetus is on the continuum of life; your skin cell is not.