I also oppose the "propaganda" as opposed to addressing the facts and issues. Personally I oppose federal health "insurance" completely but disregarding that issue there are a few considerations related to this regardless of whether it's public or private insurance. I don't believe many would oppose abortion if the woman's life or health were in serious jeaprody because of the pregnancy. It would take a cruel-hearted person to hold the position that a woman should die, along with the fetus, just because they have personal or religious beliefs. That point aside there are conflicting studies that birth control, Plan B pregnancy termination (which some call abortion but technically is not) and early first trimester abortions may actually save money. I haven't read anything definiative one way or the other but the fact is that the health care costs of pregnancy, infant heath care, and child health care are considerable. It may actually cost more to exclude these insurance benefits than to include them. Avoiding the subjective personal opinions related to abortion and contraception would a person be willing to pay more for public or private health insurance where contraception, Plan B, and first trimester abortions were excluded? Once again I haven't found anything definative from the insurance companies but the issue came up related to the "Obamacare" health insurance mandate and the Catholic Church on contraception in recent weeks. Would the Catholic Church be willing to pay more to exclude these insurance benefits (which 98% of Catholic women use) if it actually does cost more to exclude them? It is an interesting dichotomy with subjective morality on one hand and with the actual cost of benefits provided on the other.
As noted a zygote, embryo and/or fetus is not a "person" based upon a complete study of statutory laws, common law and social customs going back over 3000 year so when referring to "killing" it's basically the same as referring to "killing" cancer cells. Next is the false argument often presented that a woman "took responsibility" for the pregnancy when that is not the case related to abortions. Overwhelmingly most sexual relationships to not result in pregnancy. Even when they do in about 70% of all cases the zygote self "aborts" by miscarriage within the first two weeks normally without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. I would assume that in the cases where pregnancy is desired (i.e. the woman takes responsibility for the pregnancy) it is extremely rare for a woman to later seek an abortion. I could see it happening when the woman's life or health becomes jeaprodized but that would be about the only cases. In cases where the pregnancy was accidental then the case cannot be made that the woman was responsible or took responsibility for it. By analogy I drive a car and sometimes a seagull craps on it so I wash the car. It cannot be assumed that I take responsibility for the crap on the car merely because I drive it for pleasure nor should I be required to leave the crap on my car. It is an undesirable side effect of driving just like an unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted side effect of sexual relations. Once agian though this is an issue for the individual to decide upon based upon their personal and perhaps religious beliefs. If a woman becomes pregnant and believes she's responsible for the pregnancy then she should probably decide to not have an abortion. On the other hand if the woman doesn't believe that then she should have the right to make up her own mind and have an abortion if she so chooses. One personal subjective opinion does not take precedence over another personal subjective opinion.
I'm glad that you found a way to try and justify your beliefs. It is understandable. After you peel away all the nice sentences and words, we are after all discussing eliminating a human being. Those who support the free and open killing of the babies need academia, studies etc to try and find peace within themselves for the heinous act they support. There is life, and there is death, it's really not too complicated to understand; but, cheers to you for trying to find justification of your anti-life position.
Statutory laws are irrelevant when debating this issue. To say "a zygote is not a person because the law says it is not" is fallacious. To refer to "common law and social customs going back over 3000 years or so" is also fallacious. Take your pick from the appeal to authority, appeal to majority, and any other logical fallacy that argument falls under. To compare a zygote to a cancer cell is also fallacious, it would be the false analogy logical fallacy. A cancer cell is inherently negative and will inevitably lead to harm, danger, and perhaps death, if not acted upon. I'll assume you have some statistical backing for this argument--outside references if you please. I'd love to take your word for it, but this is a debate. Of course it can. The case is made all the time. The argument that the "case cannot be made" just doesn't make sense. The case can definitely be made, it just simply might be a case that you don't agree with. Male + female + sexual interaction = pregnancy is pretty much as true as saying 2+2=4. It's going to occur and both parties are aware that it will occur and it would not be possible without both parties engaging in sexual interaction. That is perhaps the most far-fetched analogy I have ever seen in my life. A seagull crapping on your car has absolutely nothing to do with this, not even by analogy. It's a false analogy. Also, the seagull's crap is biological waste, is not alive, and therefore does not successfully work as an analogy to an unborn life in the womb. That would be an incorrect statement. Personal subjective opinions drive legislation and laws all the time. It is your personal subjective opinion, perhaps, that they shouldn't, but they do regardless. The legal system will probably continue to legislate morals one way or another, and one way or another in this case, one of two sides' opinions will end up as law and the other side will feel their morals and subjective opinions trampled on. That's just the way things work. I still have yet to see any objective justification for abortion, however. Perhaps that's because there really isn't any.
As noted the US Supreme Court in an extensive study found no historical foundation for a zygote, embryo or fetus being considered to be a "child" which is a person. If there are arguments against the Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision then an example of any statutory laws, common laws or even social customs over the last 3000 years that establish personhood prior to birth should be provided. As I've noted in these discussions that doesn't imply that "personhood" prior to birth cannot be established in the United States today but that requires a Constitutional amendment. If anti-abortionists want to establish personhood prior to birth then the legal and appropriate pathway to accomplish that is available. I have no argument with Americans using the correct process under the US Constitution for addressing this matter. I do see a lot of problems with establishing personhood prior to birth but that is only a consideration related to ratification of such an amendment.
and I applaud how you try and justify the elimination of life. If I held the same reprehensible position I too would look for ways to try and justify my position. i really do understand why ypou do it. Again, it's as simple as killing or not killing the baby. It's really not a complicated topic to comprehend. I am against killing the babies, you are for it.
A zygote, embryo and/or fetus is not a baby dispite much confusion related to the term in common speech. A fetus becomes a baby at birth and they are two completely different terms with a clearly different meanings. I am also against killing babies and don't advocate any abortions in the third trimester except when the woman's life or heath is in danger. During the first trimester there should be no restrictions whatsoever under the law related to abortion. There is no relationship between a zygote or embryo and a baby.
hmm, so what magical thing happens to the baby in the 3rd trimester that it deserves your protection?
Viability. Can the fetus live outside of the womb becoming a baby at that point. That is also why the Supreme Court afforded limited protections to a fetus in the third trimester. At viability the fetus could, at least in theory, be a baby (i.e. a "person") which would establish the inalienable Right to Life. It isn't magical, it's physical. A zygote and/or embryo cannot be removed from the womb and live on it's own and will never be able to live on it's own outside of the womb.
No relationship? Try having your baby without first having a zygote or embryo. Go ahead... try. The reality is that. that zygot or embryo is a preborn baby.
you will see that theme permeates throughout the abortionists. To face the reality of killing a baby is not pleasing. Thus they use cute terms and words to mask the reality of killing a child.
Try feeding formula to your zygote or embryo. Try putting a diaper on it. Try cuddling or bathing it. Go ahead...try. The reality is, the zygote or embryo is not a baby.
but thank God your mommy didn't kill the "zygote" because otherwise you would not be here to make such eloquent posts to those who support abortion I always ask, why not try it on yourself and let us know how it is. Let us know if it is the killing of life.
And what if...what if my mommy had feigned a headache? "Not tonight, Dear, I have a headache." I guess those pesky sperm and eggs are actually life? If your daddy had masturbated instead of having sex, you wouldn't be here, either! Masturbation is the killing of life, then!
Try having your baby without first having a sperm or egg. Go ahead... try. The reality is that. that sperm and egg is a preborn baby.
Viability begins at conception Shiva, not at some point after. Nice try though. If a baby is not viable, it will die of natural causes at some point after conception. The whole fact, that conception occurred, means the baby is viable. Shiva, can a 1 year old survive outside the womb by himself? What about a 6 month old?
I understand I'm not Shiva however in response to your question; no they can't and thus they should be aborted
Yes, fail. Sperm +egg doesn't equal "baby." Again, if she hadn't, I wouldn't be here to regret it, would I?
In most cases "egg + sperm = nothing definate" It is estimated that natural miscarriages occur about 50% of the time with 75% of those occurring within the first two weeks before the woman even knows she's pregnant. This assumes that the fetalized egg first attaches to the womb and that is more rare than the miscarriage rate. All-in-all mathmatically a fertilized egg has a less than a 50:50 chance of becoming a baby than it does of being discarged from the woman's body by natural processes.
Yes and yes. They can breath, ingest food, digest food and excrete waste all on their own without being dependent upon another person's physical body to sustain their life. They are not infringing upon the Rights of any other person.
So you are for abortion? You just shot yourself in the foot. If she doesn't know she is pregnant then that stage of pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion considering that she not knowing would mean that she would be unable to have an abortion or know to have one.
